Talk:Bob Brozman

"ref does not speculate as to reason or cause of death"[edit]

From the cited article: In 1980 Brozman was involved in a serious car crash and, according to Thomas, "suffered severe pain in his spine and his extremities ever since". A year and a half ago, Brozman told him he was unable to play Hawaiian guitar. "He said 'My hand won't do it' ... and he was the greatest Hawaiian player since Tau Moe." While recording his last album, Fire in the Mind, "there were times when he just had to stop, and it was incredibly painful for him". According to Thomas, Brozman "took his own life. He said he was dissolving before his own eyes, and he was devastated by the loss. He struggled to imagine his life without an instrument in his hands." 69.89.111.229 (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but that's not good enough. The obit does not say he committed suicide for that reason, you are drawing an inference that that was the reason. I will revert.--ukexpat (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The relationship is clear to any reasonable person. But you're determined to be that kind of person, so you win. Hooray for you! But it does say he took his own life. I will re-insert that. 69.89.111.229 (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am just applying policy. We cannot infer anything that is not explicit in a source, especially where BLP applies as it does here (recently dead person).--ukexpat (talk) 02:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are creating a synthesis of what you're reading in the source. That's the problem. It's up to the reader to make that association or reach that conclusion, not to us. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guys, the obit does indeed say he took his life. It's near the bottom. (I don't know if the paper itself it considered reliable, but what the IP is saying is correct, the article says he did take his life, it's not inferred or synth'ed, but rather stated plainly. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 16:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not whether the source says he took his life, of course it does. The issue was with the previous wording, which was drawing conclusions from what is in the article as to why. So your wording is actually perfect, since it's completely neutral. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the article said that even before User:KoshVorlon's edit.--ukexpat (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Post-death allegations[edit]

This sentence has been removed several times. I have replaced it as it is properly cited. 173.206.86.241 (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. A link to a single blog article, which itself references nothing, does not count as "properly cited". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.99.120.145 (talk) 08:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The given citation clearly states that allegations have emerged. This article makes no claims about the accuracy of the allegations, it merely states they exist. As they do. 98.243.194.93 (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I hope for your sake that, when you die, some clown with a blog doesn't accuse you of abusing minors. Your family would love to see that as the highlight of your wikipedia article, I'm sure.

At the very least can you mention in the article how completely unsubstantiated these allegations are? The way it stands, a casual reader may actually take them seriously, instead of understanding that this is the rant of one single blogger out there in bloggerland who has no evidence or anything but may very well have a grudge or an axe to grind for all we know.

So I suggest the following wording : "After his death, one blogger made an unsubstantiated allegation that that he had been accused of sexual abuse of minors, including the daughter of one of his managers"

The article has been locked otherwise I would fix it myself. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.99.111.45 (talk) 12:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a comment by "one blogger", his former manager Gary Atkinson has made specific allegations, and Duck Baker (who knew Brozman for many years and lived in the same area) has written accounts of his personal communication after Bob's death with 3 different families whose children are alleged to be victims of Brozman. This is in addition to whatever has been written by bloggers or web forum posters (I'm not necessarily saying the ones I'm mentioning are a complete list of specific accusations made by people under their real names, they are simply two that I know about, which suffice to debunk the above claim.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.129.100.249 (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Death Allegations Again[edit]

There have been recent edits about allegations of child sexual abuse. Per WP:BDP, this does not seem appropriate. Moreover, because they are simply allegations, we must strongly consider not including them at all. The sources given for the allegations are not strong and given the gravity of the allegations, I personally would err on the side of caution. If larger, more reputable and reliable sources (e.g., AP, BBC, NYT) discussed the allegations, I would be more inclined to include them. For example, Woody Allen's alleged crimes are covered, but only because they were covered in the mainstream media. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this kind of approach dooms any allegations against minor figures from appearing in Wikipedia. The accusation is significant because of the people making the accusations - his former manager and ex-wife, i.e. people close to him. It is not some rumors generated in a minor blog as the person who removed it alleged. Wikipedia is in danger becoming a repository of hagiography where fans delete negative entries they don't like and only the positive facts may be included (I come across these all the time). Woody Allen is also quite alive, that is the most important distinction as far as Wikipedia goes. Hzh (talk) 00:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:BLPCRIME, which states "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.". I think he is relatively unknown, so what amounts to simply an allegation doesn't need to be reported here, no matter who made the allegation and no matter how well sourced. If an investigation is opened then you might have something but I don't think they can do a posthumous conviction.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He has been dead for over a year. If you insist on extending the rules for a living person, then can we assume that EvergreenFir's and your objection has a time limitation and that it would be OK by next year? Hzh (talk) 08:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lack of response, I would assume then that EvergreenFir and Obiwankenobi accept that their objections are base only on the extension of the Wikpedia policy on biography of a living person, which would no longer be considered applicable once a reasonable period has expired from the time of death (2 years at the most according to the guidlines). I don't see there can be any reasonable objection once that the period is over some time in 2015 bar the usual standard required for any wikipedia article such as reliable sources (the original source is entirely acceptable, it is not acceptable to dismiss it as a minor blog, see the publication here. Hzh (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing you said that is based on any Wikipedia guidelines outside of WP:BLP. Hzh (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you likely have noticed already since I pinged you in it, I've started a discussion on the issue of adding allegations to dead people's pages in general over at the Crime and Criminal Biography Project. Let's take the discussion there for now since not enough people knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies on the issue are commenting here. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like there is much of a response there. Perhaps there will be some response latter, but as far as I can see you have no ground for objecting to the edit apart from WP:BLP which has a time limit after death. The issue with sources would be just the same as any any other wiki pages, and we'll wait and see if someone can find further reliable sources, it can be just a matter of putting more effort into locating more sources, or perhaps more sources may turn up later. On other pages people have deleted content claiming no source, but when I took time to look into those, I found plenty of sources. I'm content to simply let those interested in editing this page know that the 2 year limit guideline so far has not been challenged, and that they are free to edit the page according to standard guidelines on any non-BLP article once that time has expired some time in 2015. Hzh (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bob Brozman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]