Talk:Stedman Pearson

message: What, no details???  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.101.199 (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody keeps removing these details, even though it is adequately sourced and was one of the things Stedman Pearson was most known for. If this continues, I am going to have the page blocked from editing. 89.168.119.97 (talk) 02:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cottaging scandal

message: The section with the indecency charge keeps being reverted by IPs who do not participate here on the talk page. The article has been semiprotected until a consensus can be found. The section has sources, but are they good enough? The editors here should have a discussion about it and make a decision. (Or, you could take it to WP:RSN). The only source currently in the article that is readable online is http://www.nme.com/artists/five-star#biography. NME looks like a reasonable source but it is not a newspaper. Newspaper sources for the controversial event would surely exist if the matter was widely discussed. Edit warring on this topic has previously been reported at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I'm concerned, both of the items in the controversies section are adequately sourced and meet WP:RS. The issue about Stedman Pearson arrested in a public toilet was big news in 1990 when it happened (and was even covered on the television news), but bear in mind that this was almost 20 years ago which was pre-internet days so there aren't going to be a lot of online newspaper sources for it. The NME is not a newspaper but it is a major, well established, and highly respected British periodical. It is also coupled with the published book "Rock Movers and Shakers" written by two highly published music historians, which may not be available as an online source, but not all sources have to be online. As for the second item in the controversy section (regarding Pearson being threatened by his father), it is sourced from two major British national newspapers (The Guardian in particular is a high-end publication). 80.41.94.201 (talk) 06:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because the NME source has now been changed so it no longer includes an in-depth bio of the group. At the time it was added to the article, it provided adequate details about the incident for it to be used as a cite. However, the story is still detailed in the Rock Movers and Shakers book which is also given as a valid source. Not all sources have to be available on the internet, but even so, there are various other sources online that can be used. You may have your own personal reasons for trying to sweep a cottaging incident under the carpet, but it was a newsworthy story and is probably the thing Stedman Pearson was most famous for (apart from being in Five Star that is). If something was newsworthy - good or bad - it should be included in an article. Wikipedia isn't about showing only the good things the way that fan sites are. 80.47.55.228 (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but that is twaddle, The cottage issue is a irrelevant personal detail, I imagine it is important to you, right now it is weakly cited, I want to remove it as it imo adds nothing of encyclopedic value, feel free to present some more citations to support it. Off2riorob (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not "twaddle", it is fact. And just because you personally don't like it is not particularly relevant. George Michael, Peter Wyngarde, and Peter Dudley...all of these people have gained press coverage for similar incidents. Even Ted Heath did it (though it was hushed up at the time due to his political career). Scandalous as it may be perceived, it is relevant to their public personas and is totally encyclopedic. In Peter Dudley's case, it cost him his career and arguably his life. In George Michael's case, it could be argued that his incident gave his career a boost because he turned it around and used it to his advantage. Stedman Pearson was a minor celebrity in comparison to any of the other people (even when he was in Five Star he was little more than a backing dancer) and therefore it may not have caused quite the media frenzy that the others endured, but it was still news at the time and is still (perhaps unfortunately) a part of his public history. it also occured during the same period as Five Star were losing their fame and fortune and was even considered to be one of the final nails in the coffin. It's relevant and belongs in the article. I have also just found an article from The Guardian in which his sister Deniece (the lead singer of the group) talks about the incident, so it is no longer weakly cited. 80.47.55.228 (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

text: we'll see, imo the comment that he was charged with the public indecency and found guilty and fined 100 pounds in the malvern location is only cited to this book citation, those details are only claimed to be in the book citation, which for claims of guilt and claims of location and the size of the fine..this is still weak...also the virgin site is imo of no value and should be removed. Off2riorob (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Apart from this book, do you have any more citations that support these three claims? Off2riorob (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The incident already has three valid sources, all of which are sufficient. The Virgin Media source, whilst short, is still a valid, separate source that corroborates the other sources. By itself it may be deemed as insubstantial, but along with two other sources, it is appropriate. If you want to clarify the details of the case as written in the Rock Movers and Shakers book, then I suggest you get yourself a copy. All we have to do here is cite the source. 80.47.55.228 (talk) 00:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The details of the exact charge and the exact result and the punishment are only claimed to be in this book, personally I find that weak and I would like to see stronger details to apportion actual conviction, clearly the situation occurred but the citation and support for conviction, actual charge and actual fine are very weak in my opinion and if you can find stronger citations then good but as it stands I am looking for the removal of these details. Off2riorob (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because you don't have a copy of the book yourself does not make the source weak. As has already been stated several times above, not every source has to be available online (in fact, not all sources can be online). You should familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's policies on appropriate sources. If you want to confirm the details in the book for yourself, then buy the book. 80.47.55.228 (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ec..The virgin citation in a BLP is possibly not reliable but I will ask tomorrow, moving around a weak citation is not going to support the detail that are not in the citation no matter how many times it is moved. The actual specific of the charge as being, indecent exposure and the guilty verdict and the level of the fine as being 100 pounds and all only cited to this book, do you have any other support for these claims? Off2riorob (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I am not going to hunt around the internet looking for further sources when the item is already adequately sourced. Feel free to do it yourself though if you have nothing else to occupy your time and fill the dark, lonely hours with. Personally, I feel your time would be better spent learning about Wikipedia's policies. Now, since you have attempted to nit-pick this particular detail to death and have yet again failed to justify its removal, I suggest you call it a night. 80.47.55.228 (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, keep the comments and discussion on the topic, I have discussed the content and there is only this book supporting the points I have said, as I said imo that is weak and I will see if that is an issue.Off2riorob (talk) 00:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Controversies' section 

message: IP contributions on this talkpage, there are comments from four IP accounts here
:79.66.101.199
:89.168.119.97
:80.41.94.201 
:80.47.55.228 
:They are all from the same area of London and they are all tiscali. Off2riorob (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And? 80.47.55.228 (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please Note: IP addresses in UK do not specify the location of the user - WHOIS will show the location of the ISP - Tiscali is in London.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talkpage contributions 

message: Re: the edit summary today from IP user 82.29.16.209 that is persistently removing the details of Stedman Pearson's 1990 arrest, and of the 2007 incident with his father, please take note of the following. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. Public figures have no right to have factual information about them censored. Also, please note that editing directly on behalf of another person or a company is contrary to Wikipedia policy and I strongly urge you not to edit any more articles in that capacity. If you are indeed somebody who knows Stedman Pearson (or is even Stedman Pearson himself), then I'm afraid there is a conflict of interest in your editing of this article page (please see WP:COI for further details about this). And for the last time, please desist from removing sourced information from this or any article on Wikipedia as any further breaches will result in your IP address from being blocked, possibly permanantly. 80.47.120.155 (talk) 12:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This content is of little value, a minor afair and is being given excessive publication here though wikipedia, the subject does have a point, I agree with them it should be removed. Off2riorob (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Although negative, the incident is referenced and I think the length and positive focus of the remainder of the article is strong enough to allow for the information to remain as a single neutrally worded sentence or two explaining the arrest and plea. I'm not sure how much value the quote from the sister adds though? --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 19:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Ponyo. The content is of relevance to the subject's life, it is impeccably sourced, so some mention should be made of it. It could stand to be cut down a little, however. RayTalk 23:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

text: I don't see that it is relevant to the subjects life, it is a very minor conviction, ask yourself, would it be in an encyclopedia, I don't think it would, I think it is also not valuable at all to anyone who should come by here looking for decent content, as a passer by you would that it was titillating, its not informative at all, the subject wants it removed also, are we to publicize that moment in this persons life as though it is fantastic content? because its not. I personally feel embarrassed for the wikipedia when content like this is considered to be valuable content to put in a person bio.Off2riorob (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Off2rirorob, it's a question of context. If the subject were a scholarly figure, or a military officer known for deeds in wartime, or something of that sort, then I would agree that such information is titillating but utterly irrelevant to their significance. However, the context here is that the subject is a minor entertainment celebrity, and coverage of misbehavior in that genre is much more common and acceptable, just as it would be for a politician. RayTalk 00:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversies (again)

message: *Hi, if you are the subject of this BLP and if you have problems regarding content in a biography that you claim to be yours you need to contact the OTRS team, if you visit this page Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem you will find an explanation of the process, with a direct link for contacting people able to assist with biographical issues like this one. I know they are open to consider requests from living people to remove content that may be damaging or demeaning to that person. Since you have expressed a very high level of concern, I think this would be a good route for you to take, and may well get you more satisfaction than attempts to edit the article or discussion here, regards, feel free to comment further here or on my talkpage if you have any other questions regarding this that I can perhaps help you with. Off2riorob (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP address in question (82.29.16.209) is located in Northamption and already had an ISP identification on their talk page. Unsurprisingly, Stedman Pearson himself is currently based in Northampton, where he teaches dance at a local gym. I don't think it's going to take anyone more than a millisecond to join the dots here and see what a WP:COI violation this is. 80.47.2.138 (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: WP has a process for addressing such issues specifically for BLPs.  If the subject of this article doesn't know about the process, he needs to be told.--Jarhed (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  To the IP removing content 

message: As per the discussions above, I am not entirely sure why these details have been removed from the article. It seems that the sentencing aspect of the court case is the only real source of contention (was he bound over or was he fined), in which case, the details about the sentencing only should have been removed until it could be clarified. The fact remains that the actual arrest itself is too well sourced not to be included (Pearson himself even discussed it in a BBC documentary in 2003). As for the George Michael comparison, it seems that comparison was actually made by his sister in an interview with the Guardian and does not state (or even imply) that any homosexual activity was taking place at the time of Pearson's arrest (though I imagine readers will draw their own conclusions since he was arrested in a men's toilet). As for the details about the death threats from his father in 2007, this was never anything to do with the above matter (it happened 17 years later) and it was properly sourced so should never have been deleted at all. Soultruck (talk) 02:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversies section

message: I am still concerned about the sources on this article.  It is clear that the incident in question happened, so I am not sure why it is so difficult to get a reliable source for it.  I would appreciate it if the people making contentious edits on this article would do so.--Jarhed (talk) 09:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but what I will do Jarhed is report you for being antagonistic and childish, and provide links to show the administrators that you have been abusive towards other users and are attempting to perpetuate this matter for your own amusement. Before that though, you may also want to read this article. 80.47.8.103 (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be my guest to report me to anybody you wish, have a great day.--Jarhed (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resolution on sources for this article