Talk:Randy Spears

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

Untitled[edit]

How can his birth name be "Tony's Dad", when in the mainstream section it says: Spears also was seen in three mainstream films under his real name, Gregory Patrick; which would be his birth name?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.83.57 (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Demi[edit]

On Demi's new reality show, it lists him as her ex?! -BuddyOfHolly (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Penis Length[edit]

So you know his penis length?? what from? cause he said so? Guess Pornstars always tell the truth - especially about that topic - everyone´s more that 20cm... You should delete that or post whrer you got it from...

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Randy Spears. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claim of false rape allegation[edit]

I've "hidden" some text here because it recounts a claim by Spears that a former partner made a false rape allegation against him. I think this is a BLP violation as to the former partner. There's no source save for the claim of Spears in an interview. A false rape accusation is a very serious thing. The partner should not be tarred with it, absent ironclad sourcing. His say-so is simply not enough. David in DC (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The text makes it fairly clear it is his perception and recollections and that he is stating them publicly in an interview from a reliable source. Not accepting them on Samantha Strong's page is one thing, but they are valid as far as Randy Spears' is concerned.Holanthony (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, an uncorroborated rape allegation sourced only to an interview of the person claiming to have been falsely accused is a serious BLP violation, no matter which article the content appears in. BLP policy applies everywhere, not just in a specific biography. The source is primary and uncorroborated, and should be excluded from article space. Wikipedia is not a scandal rag. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, that the false rape allegation is not "uncorroborated". In fact, it is supported by at least one more account.[1] That means the story is secondary sourced and corroborated and thus it should be BLP compliant, no?Holanthony (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. This sort of allegation needs far better sourcing than an interview with the accuser and gossip from a blog on a site called AdultFYI, whose banner promises "Your Source for News, Gossip, Reviews and More!" This site has none of the indicia of a reliable source. And it's not clear from the article how the reporter can possibly know what he's saying in this first-person account of his dealings with the the actress who made the rape allegation. Here's the relevant paragraph, in its entirety

Had I gone to the room that night, I would have walked into a brawl involving Spears, Strong, a thrown telephone, hotel security and rape charges made against Spears who was handcuffed and taken to jail. That’s the kind of woman Strong was. Trouble.

This is second-hand gossip and opinion. Not the sort of source we rely on for derogatory information about living people. WP:BLP.
Another point: There's absolutely nothing in this thread that suggests anything like a consensus, and yet the contested material has been re-inserted. WP:BRD dictates that it should not have been re-inserted. Please revert. David in DC (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
why you do that?
We want to see it all 41.115.125.104 (talk) 12:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I clearly wrote, the info "reinserted" had omitted info about the person accused, therefore it should not be considered defamatory as per WP:BLP. It is not slander if no one is identified.Holanthony (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You write clearly. Despite that, there's no consensus on this thread to reinsert the material. Once I delete derogatory information about a living person, no one can reinsert it without achieving a consensus on the matter, on the talk page. There's no consensus to reinsert here. Indeed, re-inserting the material has the support of only a single editor here. Perhaps other BLP-savvy editors will come here and support reinsertion. Until then, please abide by WP:BRD. David in DC (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The text in question had been heavily rewritten and was as such not really a "reinsertion" per se. But ok, then I propose that the new, revised text, as was previously removed, be reinserted as it now adheres to BLP. Spears has provided a personal account of what happend to him. No other name mentioned, no one slandered. That alright? Please advise.Holanthony (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. It isn't about libel or slander. The law is not our standard. Our standard is more restrictive than just what's legal to say. We restrict derogatory.information about living people. Whether the wikivoice states the name of Spears' nemesis or not. She's still a living person. The material is still derogatory. The. sources are still insufficient. David in DC (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose adding this content from poor quality sources about alleged criminal misconduct. No one has been convicted and the content violates our BLP policy. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the relevant BLP policy language: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For subjects who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. Generally, a conviction is secured through court or magisterial proceedings. Allegations, accusations, investigations, and arrests on suspicion of involvement are not a conviction." Policy dictates that this must be kept out of the article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point in question is that it was Spears who was accused of a crime, not Strong (she was, as far as I can tell, never even charged as Spears likely never pressed any charges). Thus the BLP concerning possible criminal conduct can only call Spears into question since he was accused and arrested, and he was clearly not guilty. Spears has addressed the matter himself, and as such the text in its latest form does not concern any other party, thus it should still be permissible.Holanthony (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect on this matter. A false accusation of a crime which results in an arrest is also a crime. Sources which interview the people involved are primary sources, and cannot be used as references for contentious material. Sources that admit they publish gossip are inherently unreliable. This is highly contentious and does not belong here. You have no consensus to add it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.adultfyi.com/samantha-strong-tries-to-set-me-up-with-her-mother/

Prohibited original research[edit]

The edit and accompanying edit summary here is the clearest acknowledgement of an editor ignoring the rules against original research that I ever expect to see. In my view, every fact that's sourced to the interview on YouTube needs to be excised unless and until legitimate sources can be found for it. The edit summary also raises serious questions as to competence. David in DC (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC) David in DC (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source?[edit]

A lot of material that is poorly sourced was deleted here and rapidly reinserted here. I agree with the deletion and am taking up the re-inserting editor's edit summary request to take this to the talk page. The material is almost entirely "sourced" to Youtube which is against WP:COPYVIO, Imdb which is not a WP:RS, and two WP:GOSSIP sites - adultfyi.com. and nextshark.com.
In my view, everything referenced to these "sources" should be re-deleted,per the initial edit, and not re-inserted without genuine sources that comply with our rules.
Pinging User:Cullen328,Holanthony and User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz for replies. David in DC (talk) 15:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

adultfyi.com and nextshark.com are still considered a legit sources for interviews (they are not blacklisted by Wikipedia). I disagree that the Youtube interview uis a copyright violation and I am not sure what you are basing this on? It material that has been made freely available on a public channel. As per previous Wiki discussions, [1] IMDb is a reliable source when discussing film credits, which this one does. The entry is furthermore supported by an additional source (avclub). I think the material is well-sourced and should stay. Holanthony (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Youtube - It is not obvious at all that the creator of this piece is the one who uploaded it. If you watch all the way to the end, the piece is credited to a website whose name is different from the channel. Also, if you watch the piece through to the end, you are then shown another vid, from a talk show that is quite clearly a copyright violation. This Youtube channel is simply not one where we can have any confidence that it's videos are in the public domain.
ImDB - The archived discussion does not stand for the proposition for which you cite it. It's a little hard to see, in good faith, how it could be interpreted that way.
As noted in the thread above this one, the adultfyi site is emblazoned on the top of the page with the legend "Your Source for News, Gossip, Reviews and More". And if one goes to the main page of the nextshark site and does not conclude that it's the archetype of a click-bait site we should avoid, then competence becomes an issue.
The suggestion that a site's absence from our blacklist means that it's a reliable source is little short of wacky. Again, it suggests a competence issue. David in DC (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, just because adultfyi.com presents itself as "gossip", it does not mean that the interviews they do are not legit. It had been a different matter if it were them reporting about an incident, but we are now talking about a one-to-one interview that they have conducted. Not sure what you are referring to regarding the video, it clearly states at the end of the video (06:23) that "Fightthenewdrug.org" is behind the video. The same channel that uploaded the video. [2] Also, I never stated that "a site's absence from blacklist" the tantamount to being valid, only that if used in the correct way, information gleaned from there COULD be valid. In this case it is an interview and not interpretations by the journalist. Also, the avclub source corroborates the IMDb info piece. Holanthony (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wrong about the YOUTUBE video's author and have struck that part. I mistook a hashtag for the name of the creator (#PORNKILLSLOVE instead of "FightTheNewDrug"). I apologize. David in DC (talk) 17:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
David in DC is generally correct about the unreliability of the sourcing here. There is no sign that these dubious sources have been factchecked, as is required for BLP sources; for example, the subject's statement in an interview or interviews that he had a year-long role on Ryan's Hope is not corroborated by INDB or, apparently, any source meeting RS requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The statement is no longer valid as David in DC has now retracted his opposition to the Youtube source. Besides, several new interviews have since been added (such as Ruby Wax, themaleroomtv, avclub etc) where the points are corroborated. Interesting that you now seem to think "INDB" [Sic!] is a "reliable source"!! Just a moment ago you would have said otherwise.Holanthony (talk) 08:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't put incorrect words in other editors' mouths. Self-published youtube channels fail RS by a country light-year, and your aqsserting they do simple reinforces your lack of competence here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Incorrect"? I even inserted the [sic] to make it 100 % accurate! So which way do you want it? If a Youtube channel is the owner of the video clip you'll cite "self-publication", if they're not the owners of the clip, you'll cite "copyright violation", is that correct? The reason being that there are several different Uoutube sources supporting the claims made and you can't have it both ways.Holanthony (talk) 10:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a horrid argument, underscoring your lack of competence. The fact that mpst Youtube posts fail RS and BLP requirements is not a justification for disregarding RS and BLP requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe you haven't understood the essence of WP:INTERVIEW? At any rate, this is now a matter for: {{BLP noticeboard}}.Holanthony (talk) 12:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, when consensus runs against you, you take your incompetence and go forum shopping. If you actually read WP:INTERVIEW, you'd know it clearly doesn't support your position. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus? As far as I see it, you have none! Forum shopping?? In the habit of calling the kettle black these days? ;) If YOU read WP:INTERVIEW, you'd understand that it does. It clearly states that he said what he said is reliable. Also, the fact that "Fightthenewdrug" exercise editorial control over their videos makes it reliable.Holanthony (talk) 12:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed assertions based on the maleroomtv interviews. I don't believe biographies should be based on YouTube videos uploaded by producers who have no reputation for reliability. It's just inappropriate and invites unnecessary parsing and interpretation by the editors. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Randy Spears. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 15:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Randy_Spears&oldid=1210419056"