Talk:Axl Rose

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Axl Rose has been listed as one of the Music 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
Date Process Result
November 29, 2007 Peer review Reviewed
December 24, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Musicians (Rated GA-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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Rock music (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States / Indiana (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Indiana (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Guns N' Roses    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This article was within the scope of WikiProject Guns N' Roses, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
 
WikiProject Metal (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Christianity / Charismatic (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity.
 

Overweight Axl[edit]

AyaK recently inserted a large section into the article about Rose being overweight and various memes and litigation stemming from it. I removed it, saying it's irrelevant to Rose's notability and not encyclopedic. They have decided to disregard WP:BRD and insert the information again, so I'm asking for discussion and consensus here. I do not believe this information belongs in an encyclopedia article. As with the closed RFC above, we are not a tabloid here to report on personal issues. --Laser brain (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I was delayed in posting; my comments are below. The fact that Rose is overweight in the pictures is irrelevant to the article but totally relevant to Rose's issuance of the takedown notices. In fact, I'd agree that the "overweight Axl" part of the story wouldn't have any reason to be posted if Rose himself hadn't made it an issue. But he did, by taking a legal action related to it that was widely reported by reputable sites. Thus, it belongs in the article, as I discuss below. - AyaK (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
@Laser Brain: I am just trying to point out that ground breaking news was not deemed relevant but it was about his career.

[1] I had discussed this on AyaK's page. I will move comments to suggested talk here.

How is a bad picture a news story that isn't tabloid journalism? How does this belong in his biography if Beyonce's page here also doesn't mention her actions to take down a picture that was used to bully her? It simply isn't noteworthy when a celebrity is forced to defend themselves from slander. Barbara Streisand actually sued.

Upon doing a search for that concert, it was revealed that this 6 year old picture did not represent how he looked overall that night. Axl didn't look overweight in the other photos in 2010 and the 2010 tour of Guns N' Roses and his shirt was open in some of the pictures. [2] [3][4] A bad picture can exist but to make it seem like it was reality is another thing, it should not be passed for a true representation of how he looked because it isn't accurate and was due to the widening of the face of a cameras lenses. There are plenty of stories that show a telephoto lens makes one's face wider. [5]

Also AyaK claiming he is a "frequent litigant" falls under opinion. I see AyaK has a discussion on his talk page about "frequent litigant" but I don't think it applies here or certainly not in this news story. This is an opinion and this story is not about a lawsuit nor deserving of a whole dissertation. A person has a right to project their true image especially if the picture was not his look at the time.

@Laser brain: AyaK had changed back the edit altho I did address it on his talk page with no response. [6] This is not a notable story to his career just because it was repeated. It's not interesting or relevant to anything important.

In recent years, Axl has been in the news for inspiring a fashion collection shown in a fashion show and also when famous people have dressed as him on Halloween. These topics are not relevant either. If he bid on an apartment and didn't get it because he was a musician and that makes news, would we put that in at all especially the section of what he is working on? No, we would not. I have to argue that just because a story gets pickup that does not mean it is relevant and anything can make the news.

The same writer and news source that ran the story with the unflattering photos just ran a story about singer Robbie Williams sampling his wife's breast milk. Is this tabloid journalism belong in his wikipedia? No. [7]

It was big news when Angus Young joined Axl Rose on stage at Coachella and my edit about that event was removed. If even that is not relevant then the page is going for more notable events and career moments. [8] surprised fans when he took the stage with Axl and Guns N' Roses at Coachella 2016.] [9] Itsaperfectday (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

News stories about Rose[edit]

I added a section to the Axl Rose article yesterday arising from news stories that I saw in Time, Billboard and Yahoo about DMCA copyright letters resulting from a seemingly frivolous copyright claim filed on behalf of Rose. Today, that section was deleted, and I received a note from an editor named "Laser brain" that read as follows:

"Hello, consensus at Talk:Axl Rose has consistently been against including "tabloid" journalism about Rose that doesn't relate to his career or notability. Please discuss there and gain consensus if you want to include such information. --Laser brain (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)"

Since cites in publications such as Time and Billboard are unquestionably relevant to Rose's notability and are not about tabloid matters such as Rose's alleged sexual relationships, I reverted the edit. However, I do agree with this editor that this is a topic to discuss on the Talk page. From reading through the article, it seems that Rose has an extensive litigation history. Is there something about Rose that makes such litigiousness NOT notable? If not, should there be a separate section of the article that discusses Rose's continual legal issues, because these seem notable in their own right. - AyaK (talk) 00:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I think a section on his overall litigiousness would be appropriate if it is over and above that of a typical celebrity. That's not my reading of the sources you provide, though. I get the impression that most celebrities are lawsuit-happy when it comes to their public image. I didn't mean to imply that your sources are tabloids, only that this is the kind of coverage I'd expect to see in a tabloid. We should be focused on his musicianship. --Laser brain (talk) 00:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't agree, but the two of us have made our positions clear. As I've said, my opinion is that if a celebrity's legal actions are notable enough to be widely covered by the mainstream media, they're notable enough to be in Wikipedia. As you've said, you disagree. What do others think? - AyaK (talk) 01:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I see no one else has responded. Basically, my position is that we're not covering this story because it deals with Axl Rose as a person instead of as a musician, and I simply don't think that's a sufficient objection to omit a notable story. Maybe we should do the same edits removing personal life issues to the articles about, say, Woody Allen and Alan Turing. After all, Allen is a significant writer and director, and Turing was a significant mathematician and computer scientist. Shouldn't we be focusing on their achievements instead of their personal lives? However, perhaps I'm oversimplifying the view from that side, which is why I'd like to hear from other editors. In the meantime, here are some of the articles on other reputable sites taking note of this action by Rose: CNN; People; Washington Post; The Guardian; Rolling Stone. To me, this is a perfect example of the "Streisand effect" -- drawing attention to something not notable in itself by taking legal action against it. The question in this article can be reduced to whether we want to make personal life events off-limits on Wiki, as legal notices cannot be conflated with gossip. - AyaK (talk) 06:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
It's usually best to allow a few days, as not everyone stops by Wikipedia daily. I'm coming around to seeing your point, though, owing to the sheer number of incidents and secondary sources about them. I still don't care for having separate sections about personal life incidents—a section about the overweight photo seems like undue detail. I'd rather work relevant incidents into the normal flow of prose as appropriate. A good exemplar of how we should treat musician articles, in my opinion, is Steve Lukather, a Featured article (meaning it has been through a thorough content vetting process). You'll note that his career and musical style are thoroughly covered, but we don't include undue detail about his personal life and there is no "Personal life" section. --Laser brain (talk) 11:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
This IMHO is a tricky one. All the above articles are based upon this article on TorrentFreak. We need to look into the reliability of that source and see if other publications have done their own investigation. For the sake of balance it needs a comment from Rose representatives (not Web Sheriff). Karst (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
The DCMA takedown notices are easy enough to verify; look at the Lumen database and you'll find 11 notices at the top. The reaction from the Winnipeg Free Press, which published the article that the pictures come from, is included in the Billboard article and may be in others, but I haven't searched for it. However, I do agree with Laser brain's current position that these events should be included in the article instead of being set out in a separate section; all of the rest of Rose's litigation is included in the article, and this really isn't any different. In addition, I dropped the "frequent litigant" sentence that I'd put in the blurb; although there is support for that, and I look upon Rose as a continual litigant, that's still a statement of opinion. The article provides enough information for people to either reach that conclusion or disagree with it. So that sentence has gone. But I disagree that we need a comment from Rose's representatives; the actions speak for themselves. If they make a comment, we can include it then. Anyway, I reworked the discussion, including a later-published discussion of the Streisand effect resulting from these actions, and reposted it in the article as described herein. See what you think now.- AyaK (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok, the Billboard article is good. They have at least done some of their own research. This is more 'cease and desist' than actual litigation, and US based. They're obviously not touching Canadian copyright law. Any journalist worth their salt would phone the artist representatives. For balance it needs a comment there, unless the Websheriff people went rogue on this one. Karst (talk) 09:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not happy about editors deciding to continue edit warring about this while the conversation is going. @Itsaperfectday: You are expected to join the discussion instead of continuing to undo other people's edits. Edit warring is poor form, even if you think you're right. --Laser brain (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I responded above as this topic seems to be in two sections. AyaK claiming he is a "frequent litigant" falls under opinion. I see AyaK has a discussion on his talk page about "frequent litigant" but I don't think it applies here or certainly not in this news story. This is an opinion and this story is not about a lawsuit nor deserving of a whole dissertation. A person has a right to project their true image especially if the picture was not his look at the time. Beyonce did same and her story is not on her Wikipedia page. It was her right to protect her true image when she played the half-time show at 2013 Super Bowl.

Upon doing a search for that concert, it was revealed that this 6 year old picture did not represent how he looked overall that night. Axl didn't look overweight in the other photos in 2010 and the 2010 tour of Guns N' Roses and his shirt was open in some of the pictures. [10] [11][12] A bad picture can exist but to make it seem like it was reality is another thing, it should not be passed for a true representation of how he looked because it isn't accurate and was due to the widening of the face of a cameras lenses. There are plenty of stories that show a telephoto lens makes one's face wider. [13]

There is quite a difference between what makes news in online versions of magazines and in their print versions. Anyone can attach their name to a celebrity online or add an agenda. A celebrity protecting their image is behind the scenes business that might get leaked but in no way belongs in their biography under what they are working on and their artistic accomplishments. If we include all these tabloid stories then these pages would be full of trivia that would get equal space with their accomplishments. Itsaperfectday (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no real interest in Axl Rose; although I know who the guy is, I couldn't recognize a photo of him (which shows how long ago I worked in the music business). However, this debate seems to have devolved into fanboyism. Unlike the commenter above, I have no interest in whether the picture in the Winnipeg Free Press actually captured how he looked that night; what I care about is the fact is that he doesn't own the copyright to the photo and yet (through his reps) he falsely claimed he did in an effort to remove the photo from the Internet. The rest of you can decide whether you want to continue to sanitize that story from his Wiki page. I have nothing more to contribute, so I'm done. - AyaK (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)