Talk:Peter Lemongello

message: By the end of his television campaign, Lemongello had sold a staggering 1.8 million copies of "Love 76". https://www.sun-sentinel.com/sfl-mtblog-2012-06-peter_lemongello_35_years_afte-story.html https://www.peterlemongello.com/bio He appeared on every major television show including The Tonight Show, The Merv Griffin Show, The Dinah Shore Show & The Mike Douglas Show, among others, and was featured in every major publication in the United States and Europe.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6A30:31B0:1CB2:A9F1:F825:6A31 (talk) 07:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It is by no means a "perfectly sourced" paragraph. The only source for "every major television show" and "every major publication" is his own website, which is not independent. It is also an overblown and promotional claim - exactly the kind of thing someone would say about themselves on their own website, and completely unacceptable in a neutrally written encyclopedia article. Melcous (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I Don't think you have a right to say that. It is his life and his story and it's a source. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's not true. Everybody's story that is on this site stems from interviews given from the subjects themselves. But it is clearly obvious that every major TV Show of the time he was on. There was no more Sullivan, but Mike Douglas, Merv Griffin, Dinah Shore, Tonight Show, Today Show, etc... That is every major show of the time. The news publications speak for themselves. I'm going to have to argue that you are bias against this subject and should not be involved if this is how you plan to handle it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6A30:31B0:1CB2:A9F1:F825:6A31 (talk) 07:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not my opinion, it is wikipedia's guideline. Read WP:RS - sources need to be reliable, secondary, and independent (i.e. not written by/derived from their subject). Melcous (talk) 07:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is another source which states 1.8 MILLION record sales NOT 43,000 (that's the second source by the way and plenty more where that comes) https://www.palmbeachpost.com/article/20091106/ENTERTAINMENT/812030852
It also states many of the notable television appearances headlined concerts at MSG & Carnegie Hall etc....
And that he was a household name! This wiki page has been sabotaged to make it look like this guy was nobody, but it that was the case, how come he had a page in the first place!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6A30:31B0:1CB2:A9F1:F825:6A31 (talk) 07:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

text: I have made a couple of changes. Regarding the number of albums sold, as far as I can see all those that say 1.8 million are interviews with Lemongello himself. That means it is acceptable to say that is what he says he sold, but as the sources are not independent from the subject, they cannot be used to make that statement in wikipedia's "voice"; particularly as there are also other sources (include Time magazine) say that is an exaggeration, and so the article should also say that. This is what being neutral means. In terms of whether he was "dropped" or "released" from the label, from the sources provided that seems unclear, so I have reworded it to the more neutral term "left" the label. If there are other specific things you think are wrong with the article, please try to concisely explain them here, and again provide sources. But do note that sources that are interviews with the subject are not considered independent. Thank you Melcous (talk) 08:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, note that sources such as "info celebs" and blogs are not considered reliable - see WP:UGC. Sources like the New York Times and Palm Beach Post are much more useful. Melcous (talk) 08:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There is much more that needs to be fixed and believe me you are being WAY TOO HARD on this subject, I can point out probably thousands of articles on here with no sources, wrong unreliable sources, etc... But Most importantly and this is where I poke the wholes in your sources. http://bsnpubs.com/nyc/privatestock/privatestock.html This site is about Private Stock and had nothing to do with Love '76 & sites it's source as Time.
Time on the other hand was completely talking out of their ass since Lemongello had his own label and ran everything independently, there was no way for anyone outside of the Lemongello team to know how many were sold. So like it or not, your information is wrong and you have to go with Lemongello's figure.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6A30:31B0:ADDE:AD87:3310:B634 (talk) 13:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  HERE IS A PERFECTLY SOURCED PARAGRAPH THAT IS CONTINULY DELETED! WHY? 

message: I believe there is no longer a reason to have a COI message. Please argue why it should remain and let's make the changes if necessary to remove it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6A30:31B0:1CB2:A9F1:F825:6A31 (talk) 07:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: First, if you are proposing the template be removed, the onus is on you to explain why. It is here because this article has a history of editing by someone acknowledged to be its subject. The kind of content you have sought to now include is exactly the same - promotionally worded, improperly sourced, and the removal of anything even slightly negative. That is actually a pretty good reason for it to stay. Melcous (talk) 07:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if that is true at all. And can you prove it to be? More importantly, I just want it to be factual and accurate and a majority of this article is not factual and inaccurate or loosely based on facts.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6A30:31B0:1CB2:A9F1:F825:6A31 (talk) 07:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is linked above on this page. If there is content in the article that is not factual, then please point out here how it is inaccurate, providing reliable, independent, secondary sources to verify what you are suggesting should be changed. And please learn to sign your posts in talk page discussions. Melcous (talk) 07:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

text:  The content you added was copied from another website, and thus was a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Please don't add copyright material to Wikipedia. — Diannaa (talk) 12:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There is really no way to prove that the person you are referring to had any connection to the subject at all. I don't see how you can believe anyone who makes a statement like that. What about all of the people who claim to be Elvis, are you going to take them seriously too? Anyway the case you are referring to appears to be several years ago and furthermore, you people removed everything he tried to add anyway. So it is completely ridiculous to have a big disclaimer at the top of the page which states "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." They are NOT a major contributor because you people removed everything they added. I MOVE FOR THIS COI TO BE REMOVED! Thank you!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6A30:31B0:A537:CCC6:A66B:281D (talk) 21:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI REMOVAL