Talk:James Palumbo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unsourced and contentious[edit]

Quite a lot of the material in the article is contentious and/or implausible as well as being quite unsourced. A.B.C.Hawkes (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


August 16th 2011 - Reliable references to souce material have now been added to the James Palumbo Wikipedia page...

How do we go about having the notice requesting reliable sources removed from the top of the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.244.189.244 (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear[edit]

It is not clear which novel the remarks refer to, not that it matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.67.11 (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After studying Palumbo's web-site, it is still not clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.67.11 (talk) 15:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They might refer to both novels at once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.67.11 (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move/Rename James Palumbo Wikipedia page[edit]

James Palumbo has recently been elevated to the House of Lords and given a Life Peerage...subsequently I need to Move or Rename his page with the appropriate new title information on his behalf.

Seeing as I am not a regular Wiki user or editor how would I go about this? My user account is not 'autoconfimred' as I don't make changes to others' Wikipedia pages

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxitech03 (talk • contribs) 11:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave this reply here and on your talk page. I have searched the London Gazette (see here - http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/all=Palumbo;sort=newest/start=1 ) and cannot find the title he has been conferred. Until the title of his peerage is confirmed, the article cannot be moved or renamed doktorb wordsdeeds 15:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply Doktorbuk, his peerage title was announced in the press a couple of months ago but will be made official this Wednesday (02-10-13) https://www.gov.uk/government/news/working-peerages-announced

Once his title has been conferred how would I go about moving or renaming the article please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.244.189.244 (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may not be able to as an IP, so if I can get on line tomorrow when it happens (or if someone else does) it shouldn't be too difficult to move. (CURSE) doktorb wordsdeeds 23:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I will post here once his peerage has been confirmed today. I have a Wikipedia user account but I'm not able to Move/Rename an article as my account hasn't been 'autoconfirmed'. Appreciate your offer of help with this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.244.189.244 (talk) 07:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for updating the title of James' article so promptly Doktorbuk, but his full official title is "James Palumbo, Baron Palumbo of Southwark" would you mind amending this please so that it is inline with other Lords/Peers (Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Lane_Fox,_Baroness_Lane-Fox_of_Soho) - many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.244.189.244 (talk) 11:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey IP. I'm using WP:TITLE and WP:LEAD as my reasoning here. His full title is the first thing in the article, and the most common way to search for him will be the full name or part of the title. doktorb wordsdeeds 19:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but his Father is also 'Lord Palumbo' so having his full peerage title as the article title should help to remove any confusion between the two public figures. If you could please change the title it would be really helpful and much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.244.189.244 (talk) 07:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Conflict of Interest editing[edit]

It should be noted that 62.244.189.244 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) resolves to MSHK Ltd, one of the Ministry of Sound companies owned by James Palumbo. I have removed a selection of "puff quotes" about his novel which this IP inserted to the article - they read like advertising, and were referenced solely to James Palumbo's own website. The IP has also been editing the MoS page. I have placed a Conflict of Interest warning on the IP's talk page, and shall be keeping an eye on things. DuncanHill (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DuncanHill, all taken on board. I am an employee of Ministry of Sound Ltd, working in the IT Department for a number of years. I originally removed offensive material added to James Palumbo’s page but subsequently have made several edits from IP Address 62.244.189.244 to ‘improve the article’. With hindsight I was naïve in my understanding of the rules and ethos of Wikipedia. I’ve reviewed the recent edits made by DuncanHill and Drumies to improve the article and bring it in line with Wikipedia’s rules. I would like to apologise for any issues my edits have caused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.244.189.244 (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2014‎

Thanks - in future you MUST declare your interest in any article you are linked with, and really it would be far better not to edit the article directly but to make suggestions on this talk page, so that other editors can review them. Also, please make sure you sign your posts here with ~~~~ - this helps everyone see who said what and when! DuncanHill (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
62.244.189.244 (talk) 08:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)Mike Yes certainly will do that in future Duncan. I'd like to propose some changes to the page today, including removing some further info from which is very difficult to properly reference. Do I simply start a new section here on the Talk page and use the {{Requeted edit}} tags? Thanks for your help with this[reply]

Referencing[edit]

I have placed a "refimprove" template on the article. References to the subject's own website, or the sites of his companies, are unlikely to be sufficiently independent for encyclopaedic purpose. Some of the press pieces referenced are rather promotional in tone. Also, some refs link only to a front page of a website, and not to the actual content relied upon. DuncanHill (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DuncanHill could you please specify which of the ref links need improving please so new or more reliable references can be found if necessary.

I've also undone most of the changes made my Drimies as large chunks of the article were removed last night which seems unnecessary while steps are being taken to improve this article, as you've suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.116.207 (talk) 07:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any reference based on his own website or those of his companies for starters. Also, interviews, while ok for reporting his views, won't be acceptable for things he's done (unless phrased something like "he claims to have..."). Have a read of WP:SOURCE to get a better idea of what Wikipedia needs. In the meantime, I have to say I think User:Drmies was pretty much right to make the edits they did, so I am restoring them. DuncanHill (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you DuncanHill. Yes. The tone and the referencing were simply not OK, and claims like "Ministry of Sound has been at the vanguard of the digital music revolution with over 50% of its global sales now coming through digital platforms including Apple’s iTunes" is not logically consistent: that some percentage of their sales is digital doesn't mean (at all) that they're at the vanguard of anything, and the link to the iTunes catalog verifies neither the 50% nor any vanguardian status. But that was only one of many problems in the content I removed, the main problem being, as DuncanHill points out, the lack of reliable sourcing. If basic statements are sourced to the company that's already problematic enough, but if that information basically serves to paint a glorious picture of the company we have a prime reason for removal, and simply reverting is not a fruitful response. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as all but a fraction of this article has now been removed, leaving only well sourced/referenced statements and material, can you please explain why the notices/infoboxes need to stay on the page? If it's not appropriate for the COI editor to remove them, then who should be responsible for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.244.189.244 (talk) 09:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have left a note on your talk page. The article still needs improved references, and the COI notice should stay there until there is a consensus here to remove them. It would also be appropriate for you to declare your connexion with the subject of the article. DuncanHill (talk) 09:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help with COI Page editing[edit]

DuncanHill I would like to engage the help of either yourself or other editors to make further edits to James Palumbo’s page, whilst in keeping with the rules and ethos of Wikipedia. These include removing the Randolph Fields line under the Early Career section as this is not easy to reference and adding a line or two about the books he has written and published, including both positive and negative reviews. Can you please advise on the best way to do this as I’m conscious of ensuring that all further edits are done in the correct way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.244.189.244 (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed addition of Writing section[edit]

62.244.189.244 (talk) 10:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)Mike[reply]

I would like to propose adding the following paragraph, which details a book James wrote and published in 2009 called ‘Tomas’

Section Heading: Writing

His debut novel Tomas about corruption in the modern world was published in 2009 receiving both criticism and plaudits. [1] ‘

Is Palumbo’s novel a clever joke?’ Sam Jordison, the Guardian.

‘Absolutely amazing,’ Stephen Fry. [2]

==

I'm not sure if this is exactly how you go about requesting an edit if you are a person with COI, if there is a better way of doing this please let me know.

I would also like to suggest removing the line two lines following 'On leaving Eaton in 1981' which mentions the English Butler Service and Randolph Fields as, although these are factually correct, they're difficult to verify with proper references so it's probably better if they're removed. This will hopefully bring the article more in line with Wikipedia’s guidelines.

Thank you. Someone had already remove the two lines, but I've added mention of Tomas. - Bilby (talk) 00:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

62.244.189.244 (talk) 08:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Mike Thanks for making the edit Bilby. Was there a reason you didn't also add the reviews? I've noticed there are many other Wikipedia pages which include reviews and have only asked for two to be added, one positive and one not so positive. Would it be OK to add these?[reply]

References

  1. ^ Quartet Books
  2. ^ Quartet Books

Removal of notices[edit]

62.244.189.244 (talk) 09:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Mike[reply]

Now that the conflict of interest has been declared steps taken through the proper channels to improve the article, would it be OK to request the removal of the 'COI' and 'BLP Sources' notices at the top of the page?

Further improvements to article[edit]

As part of a continued effort to improve this article, could I request that the line "In 1991 he co-founded the Ministry of Sound, the London nightclub" be removed as it is repeated further down in the Ministry of Sound section.

Also "with school friend Humphrey Waterhouse and DJ Justin Berkmann. The club, modelled on the Paradise Garage in New York had a 24 hour license" under the Ministry of Sound section should be removed as this is not well referenced and a bit unnecessary.

As a further suggestion, could we remove the line "Palumbo stepped down as chief executive of the group in 2008 and was succeeded by Lohan Presencer. Palumbo remains as chairman of the group." from the end of the Ministry of Sound section.

62.244.189.244 (talk) 16:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Mike[reply]

As with previous request, would like to suggest removing some of the unnecessary text in the Legal Case section to keep this as simple and to-the-point as possible.

So after the edit the section would read (with all necessary REF's of course):

In 1994 he launched legal proceedings against his father, claiming mismanagement of the family trust. His father resigned as a trustee. In 2010 new proceedings were launched relating to another family trust. In 2012 his father resigned from this trust and paid legal fees.

62.244.189.244 (talk) 09:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)Mike[reply]

Subject himself already made the changes months ago. I'm closing the COI edit requests. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Novel[edit]

The second novel seems to have disappeared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.110.58 (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some proposed changes[edit]

Removal of section: Family disputes These proceedings were settled on the basis of a confidentiality provision pursuant to which the parties were bound not to disclose any details or the fact of the case. Dionyusu (talk) 21:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That section of our article is reliably sourced to readily available newspapers. There is no reason not to include it. DuncanHill (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dionyusu you should also make clear your relationship to the subject(s) of the article when making such requests. DuncanHill (talk) 21:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 April 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 05:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


James Palumbo, Baron Palumbo of Southwark → James Palumbo – Only article on Wikipedia named James Palumbo Jax 0677 (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. This appears to be a subject who was independently notable and happened to be granted a life peerage, not somebody whose notability is intricately tied up with their title. SnowFire (talk) 04:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

House of Lords[edit]

He has rarely attended lately and is now on leave of absence. Any reasons known?84.167.81.194 (talk) 13:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Palumbo&oldid=1206987622"