Jump to content

Talk:John Barrowman

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John (talk | contribs) at 05:54, 18 September 2014 (→Discussion: tch). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleJohn Barrowman has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 7, 2010Good article nomineeListed

References

The article references are numerous and it is better to devide them in two or three columns. 132.208.68.173 (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subject to the lowest common denominator of what is supported by the major browsers; some still do not cope easily with three columns, so I'd regard two as being the maximum for now. Rodhullandemu 00:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Desperate Housewives

Added new information that John Barrowman has been confirmed for a minimum of five episodes for Desperate Housewives later this season. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.103.189 (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acting style?

It occurs to me that we don't have very much on his approach to the craft, his style, and likes and dislikes. For me at least, this kind of information would greatly improve the article. Viriditas (talk) 13:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overly detailed

This article seems overly detailed with superfluous information, i.e. "On 27 February 2008, Barrowman and Gill adopted another dog, a Jack Russell, whom they named Captain Jack." among numerous other instances. --Kathimcgraw (talk) 11:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is a problem, but we disagree on the type of problem and where it resides. For me, the main issue is with the massive amounts of data in the acting career section and subsections. Lesser roles and minor appearances should be moved into a table/list with the prose focused on major career moves supported by critical commentary. As for the name of his dog, thats relevant because it's ironic that he named the dog after his major role. and dogs are an important part of his personal life. Viriditas (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with this subsequent removal, as the importance of "Captain Jack" in Barrowman's life is discussed in I Am What I Am (2009) and in other sources. I'm sure it can be rewritten, but it's not trivia. Dogs and dog rescue is an important part of Barrowman's life. There's no good reason for removal. Viriditas (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The text that was removed is trivia, pure and simple. It makes no mention of any involvement in animal rescue, nor does it add any unique details about him. All it tells us is that he had two dogs, one of them died, and he subsequently got another dog. Oh, and that he named some of the dogs after characters from Doctor Who. That doesn't really qualify as information that gives the reader a deep understanding of Mr. Barrowman. --Ckatzchatspy 22:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you are mistaken, pure and simple. For the record, I am not the author of the material. Rather, I am someone who looked into this topic when I chose to help improve the article after seeing it listed for GA review. When I was about to remove the material as trivia like yourself, I found that it was an essential part of his character. While I'm sure it could be rewritten, the material certainly does give the reader an understanding of the importance of dogs in his life, and both his autobiography and secondary sources support this in spades. This is the personal life section after all, and Barrowman's personal pets and rescued dogs are a huge part of his life. I realize that this may not be apparent to the uninterested reader, so I recommend a rewrite. However, considering this was already under discussion at the time you removed it, I think your unilateral deletion without contributing to the discussion was not helpful in the slightest. Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply giving ONE EXAMPLE of overly detailed, superfluous information - ergo the i.e. Kathimcgraw (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality in lead

Being a dual citizen of UK and America, is British-American correct, or is there a different variation since he was born in Scotland?TIA--Threeafterthree (talk) 03:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted my attempt to add nationality to the lead. This is one of those tricky ones :) --Threeafterthree (talk) 04:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Scottish-American" implies he was born in the USA and has Scottish and American parents. He was not born in the USA, he was born in Glasgow and both of his parents are Scottish with UK citizenship. Suggest you read this: http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html before writing that he has dual citizenship. Do you really KNOW that he does? Roan Art (talk) 12:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no legal basis to say that someone's citizenship is Scottish - from the UK were are all British although people may well characterise themselves as being English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh etc. Someone born in the UK before 1.1.83 was automatically a Citizen of the UK and Colonies with the Right of Abode unless one of their parents was a diplomat as that disbars acquiring nationality by place of birth under one of Vienna conventions that the UK is a signatory to. Under the BNA 1981 everyone who was a CUKC with ROA became a British Citizen on 1.1.83. Barrowman would therefore have been born British. Whether he subsequently renounced his nationality when he became American is something we can only speculate on unless there is a source for this but there is no US or UK law prohibiting dual nationality. Spartaz Humbug! 13:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prose needs to be laid out differently

It may be oh-so-very pedantic of me but as it stands, the article appears to be a bit clunky, in my opinion. By "clunky", I mean the prose seems very disjointed. Although it's nice to order his theatrical, TV, feature film (etc...) work, it seems like all that's happening is this: label this; label that; mention this; tap on that. But in all, it doesn't seem cohesive and nicely-flowing. I think it'd work better chronologically like most biography articles do. I'm gonna have a crack at it on my space and see what I can do. Watch this space! :) Stephenjamesx (talk) 20:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Good luck. Viriditas (talk) 23:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it doesn't look like much has changed. I suggest some very serious pruning, and sticking only to the most important aspects of a biographical article. Viriditas (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's far too much useless trivia, as many people have pointed out. The man has a vast career, some of his lesser parts and awards can surely be omitted, especially since they're noted in lists later. Many of the characters he plays come with a second sentence describing the story's plot and his character-- unless this is a major part, it's unnecessary. For a guy with this many accomplishments, we need to be parsimonious.
On another note, while the note on his accent is probably acceptable considering the attention the British press give it, to American ears it's very clearly fake (and probably made worse by the dialogue he's given, at least on Doctor Who). It's on par with the typical, atrocious American attempts at a British accent. Kenneth Branagh has an excellent American accent, John Barrowman does not. He's a great actor, and I'm not saying change it-- the British press fall all over themselves to talk about it so there are plenty of Reliable Sources-- but it had to be said by someone. 131.96.13.213 (talk) 14:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to disagree with you about the accent. I've followed much of his work, and his American accent is excellent. Its classification as "Mid-Atlantic English" is exactly correct. When you say "to American ears it's very clearly fake", I'm curious who exactly you are referring to here. I don't see anything phoney about it at all. Are you aware of just how many regional accents we have in the states? It might surprise you. Viriditas (talk) 00:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly well-versed on the subject. I'm also from the mid-atlantic region. His accent is clearly fake-- not "from a different part of the United States", just clearly someone from Britain trying to do an American accent. Like I said, he is a wonderful actor and I can understand the urge to defend him, but it doesn't fly in this case. Especially when there are other British actors who really can do convincing American accents. This doesn't affect his Doctor Who/Torchwood character, of course, since the character isn't from America and can have whatever accent he wants. 76.111.60.167 (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're just being a dick. He sounds American. Good for you being "fairly well-versed" YOU POMPOUS ASS. Do you have Aspergers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.57.22 (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Mid-Atlantic" Accent

John Barrowman himself says, "I've been told that I speak with a mid-Atlantic accent. The midwest upbringing and the British background come together, so I sound like I'm from Providence, Rhode Island."

The link goes to the wiki article on "mid-Atlantic", but in the sense of "middle of the Atlantic": an accent combining features of American and British RP cultivated before WWII as "stage English" in the US and by certain public figures when speaking in a higher register. This is not the type of English Barrowman speaks when he speaks General American English.

Barrowman is using the term "mid-Atlantic" to refer to the "mid-Atlantic" states, that is, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey,and Delaware. Rhode Island, however, is New England, and Barrowman doesn't sound like he comes from Providence either. He is correct in that the British influence — and his obvious stage training — pull his accent further east than downstate Illinois, but to my ears, he only makes it to Ohio. Unlike his sister, who teaches in Wisconsin, his English bears no traces of the Northern Cities Vowel Shift.

My main point, however, is that the link to the "middle of the Atlantic" accent is a false one, as that can't possibly be what Barrowman meant. --Janko (talk) 11:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever reason, the British press and Barrowman's fans are deeply invested in his accent being spot-on authentic to a particular region. As you point out, even Barrowman doesn't claim that. I'd put him with someone like Stana Katic, whose accent is very good but does slip from time to time. He's an excellent actor, but the accent in particular is mediocre so I don't understand the fixation on it. Notice the vitriol in the IP comment above-- people take this one aspect of this one actor very personally. Other actors like Kenneth Branagh or Yvonne Strahovski do a far better job imitating Americans.
The whole point is rendered somewhat moot since the character he's best known for isn't even from America. 131.96.47.17 (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Views on gay marriage/unions

I know that before, he would say he didn't like using the word "marriage" for gay unions, but recently may have changed his mind. from his verified Twitter account: https://twitter.com/Team_Barrowman/status/200365421457702913 "Well done President Obama for affirming you stand on Gay Marriage. Our government didn't have the balls today. jb " and he retweeted this: https://twitter.com/BevB66x/status/200370733594058752 '@Team_Barrowman John I'm now a little confused, because I always thought you were against the use of the word "marriage"? ' and replied: https://twitter.com/Team_Barrowman/status/200372374909104128 "My mind was changed by the vile reactions of people from some quarters when the issue came up for debate Its simply a matter of equality jb " 173.30.127.166 (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is Scott Gill his husband or his wife? Can such terms be used of homosexual "marriages" between men?101.98.175.68 (talk) 04:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Filmography

Is it just me or is his filmography of films and television too busy? like having a "medium" column when things like that normally go in "notes" on a filmography; and then in "notes", the episodes of doctor who, usually in a table it just has the number of episodes, not breaking it down into which season and all the episode titles. If anyone is against me simplifying that, you can revert my edit and explain to me why it should be that way. Lady Lotus (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPSOURCES

Just as a reminder, policy dictates that we cannot use tabloid journalism to source articles on living people, which this article is. --John (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I took out references to the Daily Record, Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, Metro, The Sun, YouTube and Hello magazine. None of these are remotely suitable for supporting claims on a BLP. Two innocuous claims early in the article I left in with {{cn}} tags; the others I removed. Other editors are of course at liberty to find better sources for these claims, but they should not be restored without this. --John (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
John, let's begin this discussion by focussing on those "innocuous" claims, since that is the reason I reverted you. For some guidance on the reasons behind this reversion, it may be instructive for you to to compare the version you edited with the the old version of the good article I worked on that is linked up above in the header. Viriditas (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Viriditas, I began the discussion already just above. These sources are not appropriate for a BLP. The best thing for you to do, if you want that material to remain, is to find better sourcing for it. If the material belongs on Wikipedia, this will be quite easy. If you cannot find it, it is best that it stay removed. I don't really have anything to add to that. --John (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
John, there appears to be a communication problem on your end. I am directly addressing your addition of citation needed templates, as you discussed above, in this thread. That was the reason you were reverted, and it was the reason you were asked to discuss you edits on the talk page and to make incremental edits to the article. The innocuous claims you tagged are already sourced, but your edits make it seem like they are not. I asked you to look at the GA version linked in the header to see your mistake. This discussion is about your edits. Will you be removing the citation needed tag now that you have been corrected on this point? A "discussion" begins when two editors are talking. Again, the reason for my revert has nothing whatsoever to do with your claims about BLP and poor sources. It has to do with the other edits you made, and you've acknowledged those edits in this thread. Please focus on that problem first. Saying that you will not discuss a problem you caused is highly problematic, especially with your recent edit warring. Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no communication problem at my end. Those relatively innocuous claims were sourced to the Daily Mail, and we cannot use this as a source on BLPs. As the claims were relatively innocuous I left them in place and tagged for proper sources. I see these sources slipped through the GA process; they are nevertheless unacceptable. As I said, the best bet for you is to get better sources for the material you want to keep or restore. --John (talk) 22:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, you are mistaken. The claims in question are reliably sourced to Playbill, which was evident before you erroneously altered the article,[1] which is why you were reverted. Viriditas (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, this was not evident to me; the article definitely cited the Daily Mail before I edited it. I don't want to insult your intelligence or reading ability, so I am sure there must be some innocent explanation of why you believe this to be true. The easiest way out for you at this point is to point out which of the challenged material can be sourced to reliable sources, so we can adjust the article. Reverting bad sources back into a BLP wholesale wasn't a smart thing to do and I am really glad you didn't do it again. --John (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you must have me confused with someone else. I am not looking for a way out of anything. Since you don't understand the point I just made, I'll set it aside and come back to it. Can you now explain how a one on one interview with a journalist is not a reliable source? Your blanket removal of the DM isn't supported. Take your time explaining as I will be away for the next hour or more. I've reviewed the RS/N discussions and there is no consensus that the DM is automatically unreliable, especially when it is in conversation with the source itself. Viriditas (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm. Well, at least you have let go of your Playbill claim. I've done what you ought to have done and found a decent source for one of the tagged statements. If you read WP:BLPSOURCES you'll see what I mean about using tabloid sourcing on BLPs. I think we are done here now; please feel free to ping me if you need any more help. --John (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
John, I haven't "let go" of anything here. Your continuing edits to this article appear highly problematic. I asked you to look at the GA version because it would have resolved some of your concerns, but you failed to do that. Instead you keep removing content already sourced in the article. For example, you just removed a statement sourced directly to the Times Educational Supplement,[2] but you claimed that it was unsourced because another editor had previously removed the citation in a spate of vandalism.[3] If you had simply started a discussion on the talk page like I originally asked you to do, we wouldn't be having this continuing conflict. Furthermore, I specifically asked you to explain how the DM source written by the famous celebrity interviewer Jenny Johnston is unreliable. Your removal of it boggles the imagination. Johnston did a one on one interview with Barrowman; there is nothing unreliable about the article nor does it violate any policy or guideline. You still have not explained how a celebrity interview by Johnston could possibly be unreliable. Of course, it isn't. Meanwhile, you aren't discussing your edits on this page as I asked you to do. I was really hoping that I wouldn't have to bring yet another admin up for review at the admin's board, but it is certainly looking that way. Viriditas (talk) 03:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Times Educational Supplement

Daily Mail

  • The celebrity interview of John Barrowman by notable interviewer Jenny Johnston is a reliable source for this article.[8] User:John has been repeatedly asked to explain why he thinks otherwise, but has refused to do so. According to our policies and guidelines on BLP sources and the use of such sources, Johnston is a notable, authoritative celebrity interviewer and as such, the source is acceptable for Wikipedia. Most importantly, the content in question is neither controversial nor negative, and documents mundane biographical information that is neither disputed by the subject nor in contention by any other source. Content such as "Barrowman lived in Glasgow for the first eight years of his life...Barrowman recalls his family as loving, but strict and mindful of etiquette: always polite and respectful towards others...Comparing the two countries where he was raised, Barrowman concludes: "Scotland gave us, as a family, closeness; America gave us the get-up-and-go" is not subject to debate, especially when the information comes directly from Barrowman in a one on one interview. It will be added back into this article this section linked in the edit summary. Viriditas (talk) 10:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Daily Mail source indicating the uncontroversial and undisputed fact that Barrowman hosted Tonight's the Night on BBC in April 2009 is perfectly acceptable as a reliable source for this article. It will be added back and this section linked in the edit summary. Viriditas (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Daily Mail source about the beginning of his acting career and the advice he got from his manager cites his autobiography and is a valid secondary source for these claims. It will be added back and this section linked in the edit summary. Viriditas (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Mirror

  • The Mirror source that was removed is a simple news story that reports the uncontroversial and undisputed fact that Barrowman presented ITV's morning talk show. It is perfectly reliable for this purpose and there is no reason it was removed. It will be added back into this article with this section linked in the edit summary. Viriditas (talk) 10:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Metro

YouTube

  • While it was probably a copyright violation for an editor to link to the YouTube video of The Wright Stuff, featuring an interview with Barrowman, it is an acceptable source in plain, formatted text for the material that was removed. Instead of a link to YouTube, a properly formatted citation to The Wright Stuff will be added back if I can verify it, with this section linked in the edit summary. Viriditas (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Sun


Discussion

I take a slightly less hardline view than John, but nevertheless I understand his point of view. There have been too many complaints from real, living people about what goes on Wikipedia, and I think we lose sight of that some times. Anyway, I generally dislike the use of The Sun and The Daily Mail, but sometimes celebrities do "exclusive" interviews where they reveal facts or insights that cannot be documented elsewhere. Where they reveal basic facts, such as forthcoming notable TV or radio appearances, books, or other aspects of their professional life, I am happy to listen to reasoned argument. Where they deal with personal life, I am less in favour. Based on that premise, of the changes in this revert I would keep the parts that mention his TV appearances, but remove the content about his homosexuality. He's openly gay, and it's reasonably well documented, but it's not his principal claim to notability, and is quite rightly out of the lead aside from what can be inferred from his partner's name. The blocking threats are unhelpful, and I feel it would be unwise for John to block Viriditas in this instance as he would be considered involved. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, User:Ritchie333. Per our policies on BLP and RS, and the consensus established at BLP/N and RS/N, celebrity interviews, provided they are not controversial or unusual, are acceptable reliable sources. Let's look at one example John removed, an arranged, celebrity interview by Jenny Johnston that took place at the office of Barrowman's manager while he was eating lunch. While the interview discusses quite a lot, one could speculate based on the information in the article, that the interview was arranged to promote his new single and album. So this is essentially a professional interview with a notable interviewer arranged by a celebrity.[9] The interview was used to source the following uncontroversial facts in this article:
  1. Barrowman lived in Glasgow for the first eight years of his life
  2. Barrowman recalls his family as loving, but strict and mindful of etiquette: always polite and respectful towards others.
  3. Comparing the two countries where he was raised, Barrowman concludes: "Scotland gave us, as a family, closeness; America gave us the get-up-and-go."
John did not review the context of this source (celebrity interview) nor its content (uncontroversial biographical facts). He simply removed it because he personally does not like the Daily Mail. The community corrected John's misunderstanding of the BLP policy on the matter of celebrity interviews last year.[10] Unfortunately, John has not listened to the community, and continues to delete sources he doesn't personally like, without regard to their context or content. Is there any good reason I should not add this source (and corresponding content) back into the article? Johh claimed it would be a BLP violation to do so, but we now see that not only is he wrong on this point, he was corrected by the community directly on this point but refuses to recognize community consensus. My preference at this time is to restore this material. Are there any objections? If possible, I would like to hear from User:Jusdafax and User:Flyer22 as well. Viriditas (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed your discussion at User talk:Ritchie333 and thought I would come back here to see how you were getting on. As long as we still have WP:BLPSOURCES saying "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources" it would be most unwise for anyone to add or restore material sourced only to tabloids onto this (or any other) BLP. On the other hand, the idea of opening a wider discussion, if such is needed, to help you to understand why we cannot use tabloids in this way, is a good one. The best solution of all, of course, would be to find better sources for material you wish to use on this article. --John (talk) 11:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, John, the community has corrected you multiple times on your misinterpretation of BLPSOURCES, so there's no need for a wider discussion. As you've been informed by the "wider" community on this exact topic, a celebrity interview arranged by a celebrity with a notable interviewer is not "tabloid journalism". It's acceptable as a reliable source. Now, perhaps you should take your bizarre, unsupported interpretations of policy to the noticeboard of your choice once again. You will receive the same answer as you did before. I notice that you have ignored that answer and you have continued to disrupt the encyclopedia. Is it time for you to be blocked, John? I ask because consensus on the noticeboard (linked above) is explicitly in favor of adding this source and consensus on this page is in favor as well. That leaves you, John, and your threat to act as an involved admin in a content dispute while ignoring both community and local consensus. Isn't that grounds for removing your admin tools? Combine that with your use of a personal source blacklist against policy, and it seems you have very unclean hands on this topic. How's that user space diatribe against the Daily Mail going? Viriditas (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have to agree with Viriditas in every particular. John's actions are troubling and questionable, in my view. Jusdafax 11:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please note how John did not address a single point raised at 03:53, 1 February 2014 up above. He won't because he holds a view of policy that does not exist on Wikipedia. Can you imagine what would happen if a non-admin composed a personal blacklist of sources he didn't like and then proceeded to remove each source on that list from any article against the consensus of the community? That's what's going on here. If this was any other non-admin, they would be indefinitely blocked on sight. Yet, John is allowed to get away with this. It's really unbelievable. John says "it would be most unwise for anyone to add or restore material sourced only to tabloids onto this (or any other) BLP" which means he is once against threatening to block anyone who restores this material as an involved admin. But the community has told John that the source under discussion is perfectly acceptable.[11] When asked to explain why his opinion differs from the community, John does not respond. There is consensus to add the celebrity interview from the Daily Mail to this article. There was consensus to use the source when it was passed as a Good Article,[12] there was consensus when the question of using celebrity interviews in the Daily Mail was brought up on the noticeboards,[13], and there is consensus to add the material here on this talk page. The only objection to using this source is John, who has threatened to block me as an involved admin because he claims it is a BLP violation. Yet, he cannot show how it is BLP violation except to claim than a celebrity, one on one interview arranged by the celebrity itself to promote his work, is "tabloid journalism". This point was raised on the noticeboards, and it was explicitly rejected by the community, therefore, I will be adding this material back in per WP:SELFSOURCE. There is no way, shape, or form that a celebrity like John Barrowman, can call a notable celebrity interviewer like Jenny Johnston, arrange an interview in his manager's office during lunch, and then have this interview described as "tabloid journalism". Again, that's John's own personal, bizarre interpretation of reality, and it isn't supported by anyone anywhere. One is almost forced to wonder if John has a conflict of interest on this matter. Viriditas (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hmmm. You seem upset. Let's focus on one of your claims. You state above that there is consensus here to use the Daily Mail source. Perhaps I am being stupid but I cannot see any mention at all of the Daily Mail in User:HJ Mitchell's 2009 review. Are you mixing this up with something else? Au contraire, here is a more recent central discussion which shows precious little support for using the Daily Mail in this way. Furthermore, there is more than just the Mail at issue here. Are you also maintaining that The Daily Mirror and The Metro are not tabloids, but are reliable sources? You have also restored these sources to this BLP. Why don't you suggest a proper RfC on the Daily Mail sources, on which you may have a chance of getting the result you seem so desperately to want? I advise you not to mention the Mirror or the Sun as I think you will be laughed out of the room. A talk page discussion where two of your friends support you won't do it! And well done, at least you are discussing (after a fashion) rather than restoring poor sources to a BLP. --John (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • John, I'm not upset. I'm just very concerned with your behavior, which appears highly disruptive and damaging to the encyclopedia. I am not discussing The Daily Mirror nor The Metro here. I specifically said in this discussion, let's look at one example John removed and I highlighted the celebrity interview by Jenny Johnston as published in the Daily Mail. This is one of the sources you removed, a source you neither looked at or evaluated. This source is fully acceptable according to best practices (WP:SELFSOURCE) and according to community consensus.[14] That link shows this has already been discussed and you have already been corrected on this point. It also shows that your personal interpreation of BLPSOURCES is at odds with the community, and that you subscribe to a unique interpretation of how we use sources that is not shared by the community. The discussion you linked to above has nothing to do with the reliability of this source for celebrity interviews, and frankly, has nothing to do with this discussion whatsoever. Again, on what basis have you removed this information from this article: 1) Barrowman lived in Glasgow for the first eight years of his life; 2) Barrowman recalls his family as loving, but strict and mindful of etiquette: always polite and respectful towards others; and 3) Comparing the two countries where he was raised, Barrowman concludes: "Scotland gave us, as a family, closeness; America gave us the get-up-and-go." This information was published by the Daily Mail from an interview given by John Barrowman to celebrity interviewer Jenny Johnston in his manager's office. It is a reliable source for a Wikipedia article about John Barrowman and does not represent a BLP violation of any kind. Your continuing false claims that the use of this source in this article is a BLP violation is not supported by any evidence of any kind, neither policy nor guideline, or any consensus anywhere. Consensus on Wikipedia is that celebrity interviews published by the Daily Mail may be used. And you do not have consensus to create a personal "blacklist" of sources you personally dislike. There is nothing wrong with this source, you have shown nothing wrong with this source, and you are unable to cite a single policy or guideline that disallows it. Therefore, it will be restored. And it was stable in this article for four years, so your removal of it represents not just POV pushing, but an attempt to destabilize a GA. Sorry, John, but your entire argument fails to address the problem under discussion. Arguing "I don't like the source" isn't acceptable. Get consensus for your changes, because you certainly don't have them here or on any BLP or RS noticeboard, that's for sure. All of our current policies and guidelines support using this source. The very fact that you have been purposefully removing sources without reading the content is plenty of justification for an indefinite block and removal of your tools. You cannot create a personal blacklist of sources you dislike and remove them without evaluating their use. You should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia, let alone be an administrator. That you are still allowed to edit is absolutely incredible. The evidence is clear. Viriditas (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Although I am not infrequently in agreement with Viriditas, he will be the first to agree that I have admonished him from time to time. So I am not sure about John's definition of me as a "friend" though I have awarded Viriditas with a barnstar or two. Certainly I have never talked with him off-wiki, and was only alerted to this discussion because I have Viriditas' Talk page watchlisted and asked him outright what was going on. So the seeming attempt to diminish the weight of my agreement here with Viriditas by dismissively refering to me as a "friend" can be seen as a questionable tactic by an involved admin to indimidate. In the above discussion, as Viriditas ably points out, John exhibits flawed reasoning that he then refuses to back up with solid reasoning or indeed any reasoning at all. That an involved admin should do this is disturbing enough, but using the threat to misuse his admin tools with an involved block of Viriditas is outright alarming, and merits a discussion of remedial action. Jusdafax 23:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • I see that John has brought this to the BLP noticeboard. But Viriditas has correctly reported how the previous discussion went, and I am glad to see that John has so far failed to get consensus despite his warning that Viriditas could be blocked for making what looks like a reasonable argument in good faith. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Which previous discussion would that be? --John (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                    • [15] Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Ah yes, the one which concluded by finding a better source for the material. I'm afraid Viriditas has said so much that is wrong and confused on this subject that I have no intention of refuting that end of the argument. Let's restate for the credulous that I did not threaten to block him for "making what looks like a reasonable argument in good faith" but for edit-warring bad sources including the Sun and the Mirror onto the article. It's probably better for everybody that we move on from that episode as I don't think he is going to repeat the mistake, and talk about improving the John Barrowman article, which is what this page is for. --John (talk) 06:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the above discussion I have removed the quotes sourced to the Daily Mail. Please do not restore them as this is a WP:BLP matter. I advise anyone who thinks these quotes are vital to the article to find a better source for them. I advise anyone unhappy with my interpretation of BLPSOURCES to raise it centrally. Thanks. --John (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is completely false and is tendentious behavior on the part of John. Consensus was found to include these sources up above and in the noticeboard discussion.[16] To quote another editor up above, "John has so far failed to get consensus". I'm therefore reverting back to the consensus version. Viriditas (talk) 05:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh dear. I really didn't want it to come to this. I have blocked Viriditas for returning this material to the article. Please see my statement above for recommendations on how to proceed. --John (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New entry under Television presenter

would someone please add this http://www.playbill.com/news/article/191722-Sing-Your-Face-Off-Hosted-by-John-Barrowman-Debuts-on-ABC-Tonight thanks. 68.231.25.212 (talk) 04:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Barrowman&oldid=626045411"