Talk:George Maharis

message: Okay, based on WP:BLP, the references to Maharis being arrested need to be either sourced or removed.  My preliminary Google search comes up with an eBay item, an old magazine (Gay Scene: Intellectual Homophile Monthly, Volume 5 #7, December 1974) that mentions the 1974 arrest.  The eBay listing itself doesn't sound like a reliable source to me, but the magazine itself could probably be used. The eBay listing does have a picture of the article, so the article does exist.  Whether that magazine is itself reliable is not something I'm qualified to judge. For now, I'm going to remove both arrests as unsourced.  If someone has a good citation (e.g. has seen an actual article) and wants to put the info back in with proper attribution, that's fine with me.  Frankly, this article was largely negative in tone in early edits, with lots of words about failures, arrests, and alleged misbehavior, and relatively few words about his accomplishments.  I've tried to rectify this a bit, but I understand that the negatives can legitimately appear here - if well sourced. Karen | Talk | contribs 00:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi.  A bot reverted your edit, and I'm guessing that tinyurl.com is the reason; it may be on a list of problematic sources or something.  To be honest, I haven't the expertise to evaluate the reliability of the sources provided, so I'm going to try to get some help figuring this out. The idea here isn't to whitewash the article or deny what happened, but to conform to WP:BLP and make sure any negatives are properly sourced and all that. I do stand by my earlier statement that at one time, the article almost completely ignored Maharis's career accomplishments (and his side of the story on his leaving Route 66), instead focusing almost exclusively on the "bad boy" aspects of his life. It's better now, and if the arrest information can be put back in in a careful and responsible way, it won't unbalance the article at this point. --Karen | Talk | contribs 08:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BLP sasy that extraordinary claims which extraordinary sources. Gay Scene (NYC) appears to be a tabloid-style magazine, a type not known for reliability. Further, since the subject was not convicted of the initial arrest charge, it appears to have even less value. If this was mentioned in a better source, then it would be usable. On the while, this is a bit like reporting drunk driving charges or other misdemeanors.   ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If memory serves, all links to tinyurl.com are blacklisted. A visual scan of an article from a publication whose track record is unknown to us shouldn't be accepted for a claim that would be considered negative under BLP. EdJohnston 20:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It's been in there for a while now. Someone found usable sources for both incidents. --Karen | Talk | contribs 21:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can reliable sources be added to the arrest section. Is this materal even worthy of inclusion? --68.9.119.69 (talk) 04:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with this material being omitted under WP:BLP, for all the reasons given. Karen | Talk | contribs 01:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Arrest (2006)

message: I just reverted the following addition:
:It is not widely discussed, but Maharis has worn a toupee from the days of Route 66. 
Under the WP:BLP guidelines, this sort of thing probably should not be added without a reliable source.  If you can find a news article or published interview that mentions this, please provide the citation. To be honest, I find it a bit dubious. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 21:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toupee 

message: This article was automatically  assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 16:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: This article has been mentioned on the WP:BLPN board. --68.9.119.69 (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article has been mentioned at the BLPN board 

message: A reliable source has been located and the info posted, with proper references. Associated Press ran at least two wire stories about Maharis's arrest, one about the arrest itself and a follow-up recounting his posting bail. These reports were published widely in American newspapers and can be accessed easily on Newspaper Archive or Google News, in which the pages of the newspapers have been fully scanned. The arrest was also documented in two articles in The Advocate at the time. Given the sources and the wide dissemination of the incident at the time, I see no reason why it should not be included in the article.Kitchawan (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless, Maharis made a private interview with one of Wikipedian editors in the past about his past crimes and sexuality. However, he omitted these things to the public press, so I'm afraid the only reliable source is an official source by Maharis himself, like an autobiography. --George Ho (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, a person gets arrested, for whatever crime. That arrest is published in national newspapers, via Associated Press, with verification by the relevant police department and followed up, once more by AP, and published in national newspapers. How are these reports not considered reliable sources?Kitchawan (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Another question, George Ho, ie "the only reliable source is an official source by Maraharis himself, like an autobiography." What about a biography, in which the relevant documents are examined, sourced, and otherwise discussed? Would this still be out of bounds? Or is Mr Maharis receiving a special privilege from Wikipedia that is not extended to other subjects?Kitchawan (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no biography about him. (One Wikipedia editor tried it long ago, but it became halted.) I'm still unsure about re-adding it, but I have recently made notifications about it. --George Ho (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Please note that I am not trying to be difficult but merely to have this situation explained clearly and fully. From one article to the next, Wiki's editors and administrators can be inconsistent in applying/interpreting the rules.Kitchawan (talk) 22:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  One person has replied about such content, so it will be watched for a few days. --George Ho (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Kitchawan, I don't doubt your good-faith efforts here, and I appreciate that you found this sourced in AP (what could be a more reliable source, right?), but my interpretation of the situation is that simply stating the charge (as it was phrased) constitutes a titillation.  While the arrest is documented in a reliable source, the phrasing of the charges tells us just enough for readers to interpret that as whatever sort of "perversion" they can imagine.  I think this fails WP:BLPGOSSIP (whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources.), and then there is the problem of presumption of innocence in the absence of a reliably sourced conviction, per WP:BLPCRIME.  If the arrest itself was the subject of a notable and widespread controversy (like the Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy) then the charges are relevant and explained in a context that clearly conveys that the arrest itself was controversial, but I don't see that here.  There may be a way of including the arrest and charges if that was the case and reliable secondary sources show that the arrest itself was controversial, but otherwise, if the charges were dropped, it probably fails WP:DUE and WP:BLPCRIME.  Thank you for your work in finding a source, even though I disagree that the source's content is appropriate for inclusion here. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 05:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arrest (2012) 

message: I'm going through the discussions here and there seems to be disagreement as to whether or not it is appropriate to include a paragraph about this person's arrest back in the 70s. An IP user came to WP:BLP/N asking for guidance about this, and I replied that I didn't see a problem with adding it, so long as it didn't violate WP:UNDUE and was worded neutrally. Now I see the addition has been reverted. I'm trying to understand the rationale for this. Whether he was convicted or not, the issue is the arrest itself. As far as I can see there are plenty of newspaper sources that repeat the same AP story. What is non-reliable about AP? What was inappropriate about the wording that I suggested to the IP? §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: George Maharis didn't make public about his own arrest. Even reliable sources don't make information well-justified to be included. It's just a low-profile arrest, that's all. You haven't seen past discussions here. --George Ho (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but maybe I'm not understanding this. What does the user being 'public' about his arrest have to do with anything? And no, I've not seen past discussions here, but it doesn't really matter - I don't see a problem with this being included in the bio, and I'm trying to understand why you do not. Preferably, use some kind of policy or guideline-based rationalization. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:BLPCRIME, I hope. --George Ho (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Associated Press is not a tabloid or a purveyor of gossip, and the person's arrest on specific charges and subsequent plea deal are a matter of public record, so neither of those apply here. The response you received at BLP/N is correct - but only as far as how that source worded the event. That is precisely why I recommended a specific wording to the IP, keeping in mind that things were much different in 1974. There is a difference between maintaining a balance in a BLP and simply omitting information because you don't like it. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

text: I've removed it entirely. An arrest in 1974 and guilty plea for "trespassing" is not worthy of inclusion in the section entitled "Later career", and probably not anywhere else in the article unless the biographical part of this BLP is significantly fleshed out. This is giving undue weight to what amounted to a minor incident. As far as I can tell, the only reason for including it is to hint at Maharis' sexuality. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Difference is profile level of every crime. Maharis's arrest is very low-profile. Also, giving hints about his sexuality is disgraceful. However, when he's dead, then re-add it. --George Ho (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BLP applies to living and "recently deceased" people, despite the obvious contradiction with the name of the policy. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

text: As is there are very few sources for the page, so it's tough to qualify the weight given as undue.Dreambeaver(talk) 20:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Closer should note that the consensus is for, at the very most, a brief non-specific mention of the arrest and the fact that he was found guilty of trespassing only.  There is no consensus for inclusing any mention of sex at all here, and per WP:BLP lack of consensus for inclusion of a contentious claim is sufficient to bar it. Collect (talk) 11:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Consensus is to add that someone was found guilty of trespassing? Sorry, but that is ridiculous. Policy trumps talk page consensus and I will happily be removing it should it be added. You know where to complain. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have relisted the RFC based on above comments. --George Ho (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not being an expert on the specifics of the factual dispute, I am not in a position to comment further. It appeared to me that consensus was in favor of mentioning the arrest; it was unclear to me that there is a secondary issue on what the arrest was for. You will have to carry on without my assistance. Chutznik (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Consensus is to add information on an arrest and plea bargain that was widely reported at the time and that many have negatively affected his career, in light of the fact that similar arrests are included in the bios of other celebrities. What is Wikipedia policy for resolving this? 50.75.234.202 (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If we have reliable sources documenting how his career was negatively affected by the arrest, we can include that.  Per WP:BLPCRIME, we can include the crime(s) of which he was found guilty.  What we do NOT want to include, however, are titillating allegations or speculations about someone's sexuality or alleged (but not proved in a court of law) sexual behavior.  For instance, if another celebrity was accused of sexual assault and sodomy of a minor but convicted of a lesser offense, we do write into their BLP that they assaulted and sodomized a minor and got off on a lesser offense.  The concern is not the comfort of the article's subject, but the potential liability of the project.  Libel is something we need to take very seriously, hence WP:BLP policy. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 20:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The conviction was for trespassing. The arrest was for "indecency."  We can include the arrest charge and conviction caharge.  And we would not write into a BLP that a person committed a crime for which they were not convicted -- your example is errant per policy.  Collect (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to get off topic with hypothetical examples.  I agree with your position, Collect.  We can include the charges but should avoid titillating implications. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 22:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

text: This would seem to present the widely reported facts, simply and clearly: On November 21, 1974 Maharis was arrested in a West Los Angeles public restroom and charged with indecency. He pleaded no contest to trespassing and the indecency charge was dismissed.50.75.234.202 (talk) 17:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that suggestion.  I would say that satisfies all BLP policy requirements.  Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 04:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The "restroom" tidbit is not needed -- all the reader needs here is the cite and the fact the charge was "indecency."  Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And so we arrive at: On November 21, 1974 Maharis was arrested in West Los Angeles and charged with indecency. He pleaded no contest to trespassing and the indecency charge was dismissed. I'm usually the one pulling these things out of articles (see my comments above from when this came up last year), but I would fully support this phrasing as compliant with WP:BLP policy. DC, care to comment? Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 14:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arrest - what is the issue? 

message: There are concerns about re-adding an arrest of George Maharis, a former star of Route 66. There are two versions that may or may not violate WP:UNDUE: one that omits too much detail and other that infers his sexuality. Should either version be preferred, or no versions? --George Ho (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As is there are very few sources for the page, so it's tough to qualify the weight given as undue.Dreambeaver(talk) 20:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-add "arrest"? 

message: I came here from WP:AN. Consensus clearly favors mentioning the arrest in some form. I leave the execution of this closure to someone else, i.e. the regular editors of this article who will know the correct sources to cite. Chutznik (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Closer should note that the consensus is for, at the very most, a brief non-specific mention of the arrest and the fact that he was found guilty of trespassing only.  There is no consensus for inclusing any mention of sex at all here, and per WP:BLP lack of consensus for inclusion of a contentious claim is sufficient to bar it. Collect (talk) 11:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Consensus is to add that someone was found guilty of trespassing? Sorry, but that is ridiculous. Policy trumps talk page consensus and I will happily be removing it should it be added. You know where to complain. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have relisted the RFC based on above comments. --George Ho (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not being an expert on the specifics of the factual dispute, I am not in a position to comment further. It appeared to me that consensus was in favor of mentioning the arrest; it was unclear to me that there is a secondary issue on what the arrest was for. You will have to carry on without my assistance. Chutznik (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Consensus is to add information on an arrest and plea bargain that was widely reported at the time and that many have negatively affected his career, in light of the fact that similar arrests are included in the bios of other celebrities. What is Wikipedia policy for resolving this? 50.75.234.202 (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If we have reliable sources documenting how his career was negatively affected by the arrest, we can include that.  Per WP:BLPCRIME, we can include the crime(s) of which he was found guilty.  What we do NOT want to include, however, are titillating allegations or speculations about someone's sexuality or alleged (but not proved in a court of law) sexual behavior.  For instance, if another celebrity was accused of sexual assault and sodomy of a minor but convicted of a lesser offense, we do write into their BLP that they assaulted and sodomized a minor and got off on a lesser offense.  The concern is not the comfort of the article's subject, but the potential liability of the project.  Libel is something we need to take very seriously, hence WP:BLP policy. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 20:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The conviction was for trespassing. The arrest was for "indecency."  We can include the arrest charge and conviction caharge.  And we would not write into a BLP that a person committed a crime for which they were not convicted -- your example is errant per policy.  Collect (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to get off topic with hypothetical examples.  I agree with your position, Collect.  We can include the charges but should avoid titillating implications. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 22:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

text: This would seem to present the widely reported facts, simply and clearly: On November 21, 1974 Maharis was arrested in a West Los Angeles public restroom and charged with indecency. He pleaded no contest to trespassing and the indecency charge was dismissed.50.75.234.202 (talk) 17:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that suggestion.  I would say that satisfies all BLP policy requirements.  Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 04:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The "restroom" tidbit is not needed -- all the reader needs here is the cite and the fact the charge was "indecency."  Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And so we arrive at: On November 21, 1974 Maharis was arrested in West Los Angeles and charged with indecency. He pleaded no contest to trespassing and the indecency charge was dismissed. I'm usually the one pulling these things out of articles (see my comments above from when this came up last year), but I would fully support this phrasing as compliant with WP:BLP policy. DC, care to comment? Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 14:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Closing (and relisting)

message: The consensus above agreed to have the arrest incident added again. However, others, like Delicious carbuncle and Cirt, believe that it violates WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE and that it implies this person's sexuality. Two versions come in mind: one about restroom; other that omits it. Probably we need a clearer consensus, and we need different people from above to vote either in favor of or against addition of such content. As for the subject, he is known for appearing on Route 66, along with Martin Milner. --George Ho (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-add "arrest" again?

message: I don't want to reignite any flame war or anything, but . . . I'd never heard of George Maharis, until he was reference in Arrested Development. George Michael Bluth wants to dissociate himself from the notoriety of the famous George Michael, so he changes his name to George Maharis, not knowing that his new namesake had a similar history. I wouldn't know that either, if I had only read Maharis's Wikipedia entry, and not the talk page also. ~JC.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.3.51.233 (talk) 12:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There's been a persistent campaign to suppress this information, and I'm disappointed that editors with such a clear POV-pushing agenda (e.g. calling any implication that Maheris had sex with a man "defamation" and "disgraceful") have prevailed. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi, Jason. Yes, spreading implications is very tempting, but consensus said no. I suggest waiting until... we'll see what happens to Maharis. You can do another RFC if you want, but I wouldn't recommend doing it now. --George Ho (talk) 06:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Facts aren't "implications". Nor are they "defamation". And "disgraceful" is just a POV. For the record, the "consensus" was not as clear as you seem to imagine. But it's been over four months since my comment, so it should be obvious that I wasn't opening another RFC then, and I'm not doing it now. I was just commenting on the sadly judgmental mindset behind the arguments for suppression. There was no need for you to refresh them with more of it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  At least, Jason, I added the DS banner on top of the page. Would that be enough? George Ho (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

text: This article came up on the list of pending changes awaiting acceptance when I was going through it. I checked the source quite carefully (I think it was a list of several old news pieces) and found it supported the text, so accepted it. I didn't look at Talk. Pol098 (talk) 09:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  All right, Pol098. I'll accept your excuse. However, the info is subject to WP:BLP policy, even when such papers published such stories. The last discussion ended with the info suppressed, but both sides were divided and presented valid points. Meanwhile, I removed the addition. --George Ho (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not an excuse, it's plain fact. Kindly don't condescend to me, and find out what you're talking about first. Reviewers do not take responsibility for the correctness of edits they accept. A reviewer only ensures that the changes introduced to the article are broadly acceptable for viewing by a casual reader. In fact I often do a little checking (as I did in this case), but that is not required. Later editors removing or changing accepted revisions for any reason is perfectly acceptable. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I mostly struck out what's considered "condescend[ing]", Pol098. My apologies for that. I know you mean well did your best, but I should have treated you well with good faith and compliments, but... Well, I concentrated more on suppressing gossip and all that without considering other editors' feelings and all that. I'll be careful on what to say to reviewers next time. Meanwhile, I'll contact that IP address responsible for that edit. --George Ho (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I just saw Maharis on a '70s show last night, and looked up his bio today. As part of the generation who considered him a huge hunk, as someone who had all of his albums, and as a neighbor, I need to throw in my two cents. I can't believe how incomplete this bio is. I guess Wikipedia has changed its policy, which may be for the best. But those arrests were huge news when they occurred, and he himself said that the casting agents stopped calling. I remember thinking it was a sad thing because his talent deserved better.Chandler75 (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arrest (2014) 

message: I just added this item as an edit and saw it had been reverted immediately and came here to see this. I think it should be added. It's not about slandering an obscure actor from the past, it's a piece of pop culture trivia and to be frank it's probably the only thing people born after 1990 would know about Maharis. The only reason I came to this page myself is from the reference in Arrested Development. If the source given and the NNDB are unreliable, can't that be noted? If he was found not guilty, that should definitely be said too. An obscure arrest itself isn't the point of interest here - the fact that it was widely discussed at the time, and that to this day it is referenced and fodder for jokes (i.e. Arrested Development) is... I really don't understand why we are hiding this.Sxygrl2k1 (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an editor who seeks to prevent any reference to this being included in the article. He apparently believes that a discussion 8 years ago that came to no clear conclusion establishes a permanent "consensus" for him to enforce. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  There was a clear consensus to omit the arrest; see #Arrest. --George Ho (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  When you read everyone's opinions in all the "arrest" sections on this page, it doesn't seem like a clear consensus in my opinion. What we end up with, is an obscure actor from decades ago who most people today are only familiar with because of references to this arrest, and who himself said the arrest basically ended his TV/film career, and who wasn't even really found "guilty" of anything - which can be said in the article - doesn't even have this included in his article. It's a glaring omission and seems bizarre to me, as the reasoning is unclear. Is it simply because the sex was homosexual? Have similar arrests not been included in other public figures' articles?Sxygrl2k1 (talk) 22:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would there be an admin or moderator willing to rule on this matter?--46.193.65.116 (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arrest (2021)