Talk:Dan Mathews

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group.
 
WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Animal rights (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Let us upgrade[edit]

For the year 2006-07, let us concentrate on upgrading the contents of this page as decided: Wales to upgrade quality of Wiki. Thanks. --Bhadani 00:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed POV comment from article[edit]

'''He is also known for critizing a dead-man,"no shock at all that Steve Irwin should die provoking a dangerous animals". His outlandish comments against such a great man were ignornant and made him look like a total asswhole infront of the world.''' [1][2] [3])

Besides spelling and grammar mistakes, this unsigned comment doesn't criticize Irwin but expresses a lack of surprise at his demise. Bob98133 15:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, right! Did you read the context? The line is almost an implied threat except that he's not promising he'll precipitate the action, but you can't really be saying that Dan wasn't making a shock comment about how Steve Irwin deserved it. --68.47.137.29 (talk) 12:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I could agree with you had he said this while Irwin was still alive, however Mathews was using a perfect aspect to describe a logical conclusion, as in "it should come as no surprise if someone who plays with fire gets burned." There is no implied threat since Irwin was already dead when he made this remark. Whether or not this was said for some shock value is impossible to determine with any certainty, nor is it relevant to the fact that he made the comment. Bob98133 (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually using this guy's name and his statement and Steve Irwin's name in the same paragraph or article is derogatory to Steve Irwin. Steve Irwin was a million times more "manly" than this gay loser, which attacks him after he's dead. Come to think of it Steve Irwin was more "man" than the entire PETA put together. Also did more to benefit animals than all the animal NGOs i've ever heard of. Choice777 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC).

Should this have references?[edit]

But when asked by the magazine who he considered influential, he joked, spree killer “Andrew Cunanan, because he got Gianni Versace to stop using fur,” a quip for which he was widely criticized.

I bet he was criticized for this but shouldn't this have references to note who criticized him? Also "widely" seems like it's POV. Maybe it should be changed to something like: a quip for which he was criticized.(with references)? Bob98133 15:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Several changes/updates[edit]

- added "senior" to vice president in article and photo caption as this is his title according to PETA

- removed "Gary Glitter" and replaced with "Morrissey" - I could find no reference to Mathews ever working with Glitter but he is known to have worked with Morrissey/The Smiths

- added "in Italy" which is where he did modeling and acting

- added link to Genre Magazine and indicated that it is a gay lifestyle mag which makes Mathews comment about Versace a bit more clear

- removed link to Activist Cash page of quotes by Mathews since quotes weren't relevent to link

- added Further Reading section and added Mathews book "Committed"

- removed "widely" criticized per above comment

Does Mathews condemn illegal activities of animal rights activists?[edit]

-provided reference and link to newspaper interview where Mathews says that he does not condemn animal rights activists who commit illegal acts. Other folks, apparently trying to hide this documented fact, keep trying to change the focus to avoid admitting Mathews explicitly says he does not condemn people for breaking the law. This is, of course, an important ethical point that is worth having out i the open (unless Mathews has since repudiated that position). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.249.153 (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read the reference you have quoted. The word illegal does not appear in it. Mathews is quoted as saying "Peta goes about things in a totally law-abiding way, but we understand the emotions that are involved in this issue and we completely understand why people are driven to extremes, even though it's not the way we choose to do it. So as a result we don't condemn them either." If you wanted to say that PETA does not condemn extreme actions, you might be justified, although this would be the wrong article to do it in, since Mathews was speaking as a spokesperson for a non-profit. You cannot interpret Mathews words above to mean "illegal acts" as that is OR. Bob98133 (talk) 13:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's the entire paragraph, complete (not the splice job you made to cover things up: I wonder if he is angered by fringe elements of the movement who squander public sympathy by sending death threats and breaking the law. His blue eyes flash indignantly."I can't control it at all. But I will say that I've always been drawn to extremes. And I understand them and sympathise with them. Peta goes about things in a totally law-abiding way, but we understand the emotions that are involved in this issue and we completely understand why people are driven to extremes, even though it's not the way we choose to do it. So as a result we don't condemn them either."

He is asked about people "breaking the law" and gives that answer. Please stop trying to cover up this simple point. If Mathews in fact condemns animal activists who "break the law", you are free to find that quote and/or he is free to say so. In the meantime, please respect the integrity of the quote he willingly gave to a question that was posed to him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.249.153 (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Please find a reference for whatever it is you are trying to convey and stop vandalizing the article. If Mathews supports illegal activity find a reference that supports that. There is no need to add some reference that he does not support illegal activity. The reference you cite say nothing of the sort. He says that he is drawn to extremes. He then says that PETA does not act outside the law. You can't just insert your own words into his quote or draw conclusions not based on the reference. If you insist on future reversions without supplying refs or continued vandalism, I will request IP editor blocking of this page. Thanks. Bob98133 (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The reference is given and the entire paragraph quoted verbatim above. He is asked about people who "squander public sympathy by sending death threats and breaking the law", and answers that he does not condemn them. Please do show the IP editor this discussion. If that person can read, it's clear that my addition is referenced and a very objective report of his reply. Posting references of a subject's printed quotes is not vandalism, it is scholarship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.10.159.70 (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, now I've simply put the question and posted the entire paragraph of Mathews' reply as a quote. If you think I've summarized the reporter's question improperly ("I wonder if he is angered by fringe elements of the movement who squander public sympathy by sending death threats and breaking the law. "), improve it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.10.159.70 (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting that Bob98133 does not want Mathew's direct quotes to be known on Wikipedia... Perhaps Mr. Mathews should have gotten Bob98133's permission before doing an interview with the Guardian? 35.10.159.70 (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Enough snark, the current form summarizes it well and doesn't go into unecessary detail. Soxwon (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Editor ThuranX's revised version strikes a good balance between extremes and is supported by the reference. Bob98133 (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)