Talk:Andrew Keegan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Actors and Filmmakers (Rated Stub-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.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers.
 
Note icon
It is requested that a photograph or picture of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.
Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo (for example, during a public appearance), or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead. The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Ethnicity?[edit]

He is listed as a Hispanic or Latino American actor but I don't see anything in this article or his IMDb profile that even mentions his heritage. What is his background? I'm just wondering whether he belongs in this category. Liz Read! Talk! 15:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Self Promotion[edit]

There has been a sudden flurry of activity from account and a few ips adding highly promotional and exaggerated claims about Keegans career and recent "community" activities. None of these addition have been properly sourced, probably because amny of the sources that discuss him are to say the least not flattering. Ridernyc (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

IPs and obvious sockpupeetes with a clear promotional conflict of interest continue editing this article. Ridernyc (talk) 10:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Revisions related to this article are properly sourced and contain only facts that have been reported by media outlets. J 6:52 17 March 2015

Again yet another IP, Signing with J similar to other accounts. We clearly have a sock-puppet issue here. I dispute that they are properly sourced and they are far from neutral. I also find it odd that so many IPs and nearly identical user names have taken interest in this article and only seem to be interested in painting the subject in the most positive light possible. I will not argue that the article is skewed to the negative, I will argue that removing all negative connotations and sourcing things to the subjects own websites and interviews is taking things to the absolute and totally inappropriate opposite side of the spectrum. If you are truly interested in improving the article I have the following suggestions. Register an account and use one account. Disclose any connection to the subject. Make actual neutral revisions to the article, do not cherry pick sources and cherry pick info from those sources. It is clear there is one person or a team of people editing this article with an agenda. Until there is some transparency and neutrality here this will go nowhere. Ridernyc (talk) 09:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
So since this has not hit the point where I feel comfortable crossing a line and reveling your identity I will just say this, J, It was trivially easy to find your connection to the subject and I encourage you to come clean. Continued POV pushing without reveling your easy to find connection to the subject will force me to bring this to administrative attention. Ridernyc (talk) 09:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Since I came back this morning to find that IP had blanked this entire section of the talk page I have now started a conversation at the Conflict of Interest Noticed Board. [1] Ridernyc (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

page protection[edit]

I'm seeking page protection here .Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Protection[edit]

I've added full protection for three days following a request for semi-protection at RfPP. There are claims of COI connected to the IP edits, but Ridernyc is restoring material based on a tabloid source, [2] which may be a BLP violation, so semi-protection isn't appropriate. The way forward is to find high-quality sources for that section. Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree... the issues here are complicated and it is going to take some time to work through them; WP:ADVOCACY and WP:COI each damage WP. Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit Request[edit]

I would like to see the following restored to the end of the paragraph about full circle.

"The Daily Mail describes the new religion as one that "utilises healing crystals and colon cleanses to 'expand consciousness' and create a spiritual and social revolution."[1][2][3]"

References

  1. ^ "Healing crystals, synchronicity, and gang violence: How 90s heartthrob Andrew Keegan became the founder of a new religion". Daily Mail. 15 August 2014. Retrieved 17 August 2014. 
  2. ^ Webber, Stephanie (16 August 2014). "Andrew Keegan, 10 Things I Hate About You Star, Starts Own Religion: Details". US Weekly. Retrieved 17 August 2014. 
  3. ^ Hater, Hilton. "Andrew Keegan Starts New Religion: What is Full Circle?". The Hollywood Gossip. Retrieved 17 August 2014. 

This section is constantly being removed by editors who appear to have a COI despite the fact that it has numerous sources. It is even mentioned in The Vice article which Jdilts seems to like to cite, alot of cherry picking of information happening here. [3] Ridernyc (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

would you please explain what is wrong with the version currently in the article? thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually reading it over again I have little issue with how it stands now and it is better than the whitewashed and promotional version of the article that was here a week ago. I would still like to see mention of the practices of his "religion", "movement", "spiritual group" or what it's description is at the moment. I think some of the history of the group which Keegan has talked about publicly is also missing and should at some point be added. There is a weird disconnect here, because they use all these articles to promote themselves, but appear to not want them in the article here for some reason. The article as it stands now though is nicely balanced, and there is no longer any promotion of Keegans future appearances. My main contention has been that yes there are issues with both versions of the articles and that discussion and consensus and honesty about COI needed to be established to move forward. This was always met with no real discussion and a flurry of edits. Ridernyc (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I am glad you are mostly OK with it now. your first two sources point to the same link btw... and both sources are pretty tabloid-y, as slim virgin pointed out above. if you can live with the article as it stands, we can just hold it steady against more baloney. i have it watchlisted now, and will also watch for edits by the j-person. Jytdog (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)