Talk:Boze Hadleigh

message: I have removed the following passage from the article to the talk page as it seems to be a personal opinion of the editor:
*In the film Love! Valour! Compassion! a group of gay men are reading a book and laughing about the improbable people the book outs as "gay". This is likely an discreet commentary on Hadleigh's books.  
There are several books by other authors dealing with homosexual celebrities. Onefortyone 10:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For publishers notes on Hadleigh, see  and . Onefortyone 23:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Midwest Book Reviews are written by volunteers whose credentials are not made public and they do not provide Literary criticism.  Literary magazines do not quote Midwest Reviews. They specialze in small press or self-published authors who can't get a review by the authorative professional sources. Major publishing houses do not submit their books to Midwest, but a "volunteer" reviewer who likes a book can review any book on the market they please. As such, Hadleigh's book was reviewed by an unknown volunteer. Since Jim cox made a financial arrangement a few years ago with Gale Research Company, Midwest no longer charges for a book review. However, in 1987 when Hadleigh's book was published, they did charge. It is a good idea to know what you are talking about in an encyclopedia - not a quick cut-and-paste of selected information from the Internet to suit a purpose. - Ted Wilkes 16:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Ted, the book reviewed by Midwest Book Reviews was the reprint of Hadleigh's book, published in 2002 under the new title, Celluloid Gaze. See  Onefortyone 19:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: For publishers notes on Hadleigh, see  and . Onefortyone 22:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I do not understand why you removed the link to this website. It includes excerpts from a book by Hadleigh. Onefortyone 22:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No it isn't, as this website includes excerpts from a book by Hadleigh. Onefortyone 14:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This website is still an important source. Would you please provide evidence that the excerpts from Hadleigh's book, Conversations With My Elders, presented on this page are fabricated. Onefortyone 02:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you, Ted. I didn't know that there is such an Amazon source. So the year of Hadleigh's birth may be included. However, is the source reliable? Who has provided the alleged year of birth? According to the Library Journal, Hadleigh had been an "entertainment journalist since the 1960s" who "conducted volumes of off-the-record interviews with celebrities reputed to be gay or bisexual..." If it is true that he already worked as a journalist during the 60s, he cannot be born in 1954. Thus, it is more likely that he has been born in 1934. It could well be that the entry from Contemporary Authors is a misprint. Further, I am not satisfied with Ted Wilkes's latest edits. They seem to be personal research. I have now removed some passages, as the year of Hadleigh's birth is still uncertain (two sources contradict each other) and the claims included by Wilkes were based on the fact that Hadleigh was actually born in 1954. Onefortyone 16:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well done, Ted. You may be astonished, but I am accepting your line of reasoning. Hadleigh's own account of his first meeting with actor Sal Mineo in his book, Conversations with my Elders, certainly supports the view that he was born in 1954. However, I am still of the opinion that your text partly includes some personal research and interpretation. Therefore, I have now revised and tightened up the text in order to make it more neutral. I hope this is satisfactory to all. Onefortyone 18:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled comments 

message: The section on "Questions regarding the authenticity of his writings" challenges his work primarily based on his age, as if being young somehow invalidates what he says. In fact, the interviewees frequently comment on his youth, and show surprise that someone so young should know so much about film and Hollywood history. I read the entire entry as editorially biased against Mr. Hadleigh, with the only "evidence" offered being the above challenge based solely on his age at the time of some of the interviews. The entire entry should be rewritten in a less biased form, with the controversy over the authenticity of some of the interviews relegated to a section that deals with specific charges that are based on verifiable information. 
:Done. Onefortyone 21:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: This person should be removed! Period!--Jslasher 08:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Boze Hadleigh 

message: :Image:Diss&TellBookcover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Diss&TellBookcover.jpg

message: As it stands, the article has nothing by way o the above.  Please supply some.  Cordially, --Drieux 07:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requesting Citations and Documentation

message: Regarding today's deletion of an entire section calling into question the veracity of Hadleigh's work, due to a request by Hadleigh himself -- Question regarding protocol:  The article discusses the writings of an author and within that article are a variety of cited sources bringing into public doubt (i.e., in other venues, books, news articles and reviews, not merely WP) the veracity of the material almost solely responsible for the subject's notability.  A complaint by the subject to WP results in the deletion of an entire section dealing with that rather extensive public doubt as to the truth of the subject's main body of work.  The question, then, being:  is this SOP for WP, that the wishes of a public figure supersede the right of the public to know that a large and well-sourced volume of doubt exists about the truthfulness of the subject in his public statements and publications?  I have an opinion, obviously, but I want to be very clear on WP guidelines.  So I am asking.  To me this sounds like the entire camel's hump under the tent, as far as allowing subjects to dictate what is and isn't available to readers.  Will a request from Hugo Chavez result in elimination of claims of human rights abuses cited in his article?  Will a request from Ben Affleck result in elimination of any mention of his famous and near-disastrous career slump of a few years ago?  Is WP now merely an extension of the will of the subject of an article?  I'm seriously interested in knowing the specific guidelines for editors in such cases, even if they turn out to differ from what I wish or heretofore believed.  Thank you. Monkeyzpop (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've explained this before. The subject's work was the only work cited in this section. This is original research because it is making assumptions based on the original text. Hence why it was removed entirely. Your claim that this was well source is unfounded. Best,  PeterSymonds (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually looking back, there were about three other sources. Feel free to add these back, but do not cite the author's own work. Best,  PeterSymonds (talk) 
14:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent deletion of "controversial" material at the request of subject

message: I have reverted the entry related to the Library Journal excerpt, per OTRS #2009061510054628. The subject has been in correspondence with the author of that article, and the author has acknowledged and apologised for the error. The email was included in the ticket. So, please, do not add this back, because it is proven false. Thank you.  PeterSymonds (talk) 14:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Library journal 

message: I have removed the Ref Improve header tag since there is little to no way to know when such a tag has been fulfilled.  A tag of that sort is therefore completely unhelpful imho.  Any particular sentence or section that a reader/editor feels is insufficiently cited, they can tag that particular part.  Tagging the whole article just adds a level of mystification on exactly what is wanted. Wjhonson (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: RefImprove

message: I did two rounds of deletion and cleanup. In general, if anyone presents information in Wikipedia, that information should be backed with a citation to a reliable published source.
I deleted two of the claims in the disputes section in which someone had posted obituaries seemingly to dispute that Hadleigh had interviewed certain people. Wikipedia does not get involved in original research  of this sort; anyone is free to summarize and cite a dispute but the discussion does not start here.
I deleted all the problem templates and much of the content which was not backed with citations. Citations are useful because they demonstrate what reputable sources have seen fit to present and they also confirm the quality of the content. For this or any biography, ideally someone could identify a biography published elsewhere then summarize and cite it here.
Thanks.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup  Dec 2017 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Boze Hadleigh. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924093740/http://www.salmineo.com/news/inter_hadleigh.html to http://www.salmineo.com/news/inter_hadleigh.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: * What I think should be changed (include citations):
1) First line of entry - (x should be y) Boze Hadleigh (born May 15, 1943), sometimes writing as George Hadley-Garcia, is an author.  should be:  Boze Hadleigh is an author.
2)  Second line of entry - (x should be y)  books cover LGBT culture, popular culture, and show business.  should be:  books cover popular culture, show business, and LGBT culture. 
* Why it should be changed:
1)  Wiki can drop the familial pseudonym GH-G, as I haven't used it since 1990; it was my byline on many late 1970s-'80s magazine and newspaper articles.
2)  Of my 30 books by yearend 2023, only seven were on LGBT culture; I've been typed as a gay-themed author partly due to this emphasis on my lgbt books in the Wiki page--nothing on t, so speak of.
    This is a legal issue, as previously noted, and at present just trying out the first two changes. In the Disputable claims section, it's a question of my adding explanatory material to provide context, rather than changing material. Look forward to your response, Boze (rhymes with shows) on Feb. 10,2023
204.102.74.237 (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the "Contestable claims" section.  It still has the same issues with original research and sourcing that have been noted over the years on this talk page and that resulted in it being removed previously.  The Rock Hudson material could ultimately merit inclusion, but it needs more of a basis than a 36-year-old interview that quotes what we consider an unreliable source quoting other people.  I'll leave the other requested changes to someone else. —Emufarmers(T/C) 01:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Partly done:  I have implemented the requested edit as good as possible. The fact that you have used a pseudonym can hardly be omitted; I have thus described that you have used the pseudonym until the 1990s. I hope this is acceptable. Best regards, -- Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit request