Talk:Mark Hudson (musician)

message: As we appear to be heading for an edit war here, I'd like to start a debate on the information added to the article from Los Angeles Times. I believe that this information shouldn't be included here as there is no exact citing of sources; Journalist Chuck Philips wrote in a Mar 17, 1995 article published in the Los Angeles Times is not good enough as I see it when the information basically accuses the subject of sexual harassment. Also, the information submitted is basically one large excerpt/quote from LA Times, and should therefore be rewritten to conform with Wikipedia policies on neutrality and verifiability. The article mentions a book published by Begnery Publishing, written by Peter Schweizer called "Disney: The Mouse Betrayed", ISBN: 0895263874. Is this a trivial fact, or is it properly sourced in the book? As it stands today, I believe the information should be removed. Bjelleklang  -  talk Bug Me 12:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is properly sourced in the reference pages of the book.  The LA times article can be sourced from the back issues of the newspaper. All sources are true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canderel (talk • contribs) 18:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Allegations in article

message: This is the text I've removed: Bjelleklang  -  talk Bug Me 12:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Text removed from article

message: I have re-removed that text from the article for the following reasons: 
I read the entire section, and the thing that bothers me is that it was published in the LA Times (supposedly). However, I did a fairly lengthy search for that article, and searched for any articles with his name connected to Danielle's name, searched for articles relating to Disney and him, and came up empty. What bugs me is that someone added that section without citing any sources, so yes I see your point and I believe it is valid. However, IF someone does manage to find the article, prove it, or cite it from a reputable source, then there is no argument that it will be put on the page if someone decided to.
Second, I received a request to remove it from someone who said they are family, and while we cannot prove that, Wikipedia's policy is to give "good faith", and I believe it is genuine after discussing the issue with the poster. 
Until that section can be verified, and cited with references, it should (in my opinion) not be part of the article, as it is defamatory. Please feel free to discuss the issue here, but please do not add that section back without having verifiable sources. Thank you! :) Ariel♥Gold 10:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-removal of above text 

message: Unless you can validate and cite the source of the information, it should remain out of the article, according to WP:NPOV. That section is defamatory, and unsourced, and hours of research were unable to come up with a single reference or item to validate it. User talk:Yenandzen has put the information back into the article, to which I left a note regarding why it was removed on their talk page. 
If this continues, it will be taken to the Arbitration committee. Thank you. Ariel♥Gold 06:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again,  please do not re-include UNsourced, defamatory information 

message: You can go on Amazon.com and look at excerpts from the book and see it in black and white for yourself. Also, you can pay to back order issues of the Los Angeles Times and download the article from the Los Angeles Times for yourself. If the information in those articles are untrue, why didn't Mr. Hudson do anything about it when it came out TWELVE YEARS AGO!! Therefore, the information seems to be valid. Just because his daughter would like to rewrite history so it is convenient for her, doesn't mean she can or should. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yenandzen (talk • contribs) 02:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The information was added to the article, with proper URL references, in a small paragraph (see Elonka's note above) and yet it is still being removed. Users should not remove information that is presented in a neutral voice simply because they wish it were not there. If there are proper, valid sources, and if it is properly cited, the information is public, as is this encyclopedia. I have asked for assistance with this ongoing issue on the WP:BLP board, and it is my hope that someone will step in and deal with this issue, as I don't feel I've gotten anywhere by trying to explain the reasoning to both sides. Initially, the information was uncited (just because someone says "go look it up" doesn't mean that's a citation ;) It needed to be put in proper form with footnotes.) But once the references were added, and the section re-written (again see Elonka's note above), there seems to be no reason to continue removing the information. Please avoid getting into edit wars, as it is not constructive, and hopefully someone who knows the BLP policy better than I will step in and take care of the issue. My apologies to both sides that I was unable to assist in your dispute. Ariel♥Gold 10:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: July 29, 2007

message: Thank you Elonka, and
Ariel♥Gold for stepping in and getting this biography written in an informative manner.  I have been asked by Mark Hudson to monitor this page for vandalism and will endevour to show neutrality in the way the biography develops. I will be updating from time to time, and since I don't know every aspect of writing in wiki format would be happy if you could help me with formatting links and references etc. Killerheels 18:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Myself and several others regularly monitor this page, so any references you need added, or comments, etc., you'd like feedback on prior to their inclusion in the article, feel free to drop them here, and one of us will most definitely get back to you quickly. And thank you for your understanding. Ariel♥Gold 21:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Aug 12, 2007

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 07:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Regarding the Beatles documentary Good Ol' Freda, is the "Mark" who appears in the Q&A feature on the DVD Mark Hudson?99.247.1.157 (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Good Ol' Freda'' 

message: uncited material, marketing copy, unsourced quotes, personal recollections, will be removed.
please cite properly before re-adding.
:Saintstephen000 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:50, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  problematic article