Jump to content

Talk:Edward Furlong

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


Donations for liver transplant on Twitter

[edit]

Can this be true? It looks like a hoax. Currently there is one, rather poor, source. If it was an impersonator, I guess it might still be notable, if there was wider media coverage. But we have no source for an impersonator. So perhaps it's safer to just remove it. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is Furlong's official Twitter account. He used to sell memorabilia via the site. (165.120.240.74 (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]
I see. Any source to support that claim? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC) Purely by coincidence I see that another BT account locating to Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk was blocked for a week, at 18.31 tonight, by User:Favonian, as being an IP sock of banned User:HarveyCarter. Odd that, isn't it? [reply]
@Martinevans123: Indeed. Though we should be grateful that he gives Churchill, Ike et al. a break, I have chosen to invoke WP:BMB. Favonian (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Adminship can be such a trial at times, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the good old days! Favonian (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can never remember Leonard Sachs being quite so devious? Amazing what you can find rambling around Bury St. Eds. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]

"the reductionists"

[edit]

let's talk about all the sourced, relevant, FACTUAL material being CONSISTENTLY & PERSISTENTLY being removed from this blp, by certain editors?

once i've got the diffs all listed, i'll even make it an rfc, so we can all discuss it properly :)

Lx 121 (talk) 07:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

here's a start, but it is going to be very long list, going back a number of years

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=743960807&oldid=740538364

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=708485281&oldid=708480520

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=708446573&oldid=708437379

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=703972914&oldid=703955371

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=703953274&oldid=703952572

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=703952056&oldid=703951382

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=703950794&oldid=703950316

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=702239465&oldid=702239139

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=702239139&oldid=702236221

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=702236221&oldid=702235833

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=702235833&oldid=702235785

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=702235785&oldid=697048947

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=691826610&oldid=691826553

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=691826553&oldid=691808663

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=691800891&oldid=691800749

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=691800699&oldid=691800679

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=691800679&oldid=691800239

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=691569990&oldid=691569527

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=691569527&oldid=691569433

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=691569433&oldid=691569286

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=691569286&oldid=691569227

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=691569227&oldid=691569194

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=691569194&oldid=691569121

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=691569121&oldid=691568939

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=691568939&oldid=691499872

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=690754445&oldid=690719930

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=690458279&oldid=690457534

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=690457534&oldid=690456717

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=690456717&oldid=690456170

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=690455212&oldid=690400409

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=690358183&oldid=690331324

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=687808644&oldid=685739446

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=682154035&oldid=682153662

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=682153662&oldid=682153028

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=682153028&oldid=682152877

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=682152877&oldid=681717283

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=669116159&oldid=669115896

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=627070879&oldid=626932645

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=626433033&oldid=626379041

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=585793886&oldid=585793225

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=585793225&oldid=585792077

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=585791822&oldid=585791619

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=585674193&oldid=585341119

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=569841805&oldid=568183977

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=567953502&oldid=567937875

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=565702556&oldid=565701830

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=564798536&oldid=564797304

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=564792932&oldid=564792506

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=564780822&oldid=564779288

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=564739584&oldid=564668944

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=564248962&oldid=564248420

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=564248420&oldid=564059551

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=561367679&oldid=561267654

that's going back to mid 2013; done for now, outof time, but will follow the page history all the way back.

basically, the bulk of these "removals" have been by a handful of editors; mainly 2 that are currently active, & who have been "tag-teaming" to win disputes & run out the clock on 3r for any one user opposing them.

& nearly all of the material being repeatedly removed by them "just so happens to be" unflattering to the subject of the biography.

& just to be clear:

NONE OF THESE ITEMS ARE IN SERIOUS "FACTUAL DISPUTE"

all of these are things that are on the public record, & were widely reported in relevant media sources @ the time; & would be well-know to ANYONE moderately well-informed about the public history of the subject-person.

the arguements being used by these editors on "validity of sources" are specious & INCONSISTENT; most items were reported in multiple sources, & the "judgements" being made on the validity of those sources, by these editors, are not based on wp or any sort of valid & consistent reasoning. endless "rs" disputes are being used as a tactic, to justify removing "undesirable" material; & the claims being made in those disputes are both inconstistent & sometimes contradictory.

busy now, will deal with the rfc & the rest of the diffs, the next time i am back on here.

Lx 121 (talk) 08:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a BLP. WP:BLP "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[b] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material".
Actors careers have ups and downs and often tail off as they get middle aged, and his BLP cannot say Furlong has not kept appearing in "significant roles" or in big budget or high profile movies (a level most actors never get close to even once) because of substance abuse and legal troubles. We don't know that is true, so we cannot state it as such in a BLP. Overagainst (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Edward Furlong. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 02:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sloppy Reverting

[edit]

A user who apparently has a long history of trigger-happy reverting on their record, erased (literally) a month's work by multiple editors [[1]] claiming: 'Restored revision 1232359107 by BilledMammal (talk): Rv... Block evasion by User:HarveyCarter. undo Tags: Twinkle Undo'. They did so without providing any further information, and then only bothered to restore one minor sentence-fix out of all the lost material. The majority of the edits erased by the revert were non-controversial minor fixes and have since been restored by a number of editors. If the reverting-user wants to claim that certain edits were by this blocked user, then fine. Specify the edits in question, provide the reasons for this suspicion, then remove only those edits. Do not mass-revert all the work done on the article since the suspected block evasion edit(s), that is WP:Disruptive Editing. It is also very disrespectful of the work of the other editors and other people then have to go back and fix it all over again, which is a huge waste of time and talent. (It is probably also worth considering whether such an effort at damnatio memoriae is really good wiki-editing; especially for trivial edits and when the revert is more disruptive than the edits being reverted.)

As for myself, I am not User:HarveyCarter and you are welcome to investigate and confirm that. I am not block-evading and I am not familiar with the case or why the reverting user thinks that some of the reverted edits were by this person. I came here back in July to read the article and made a minor edit to fix the math and sloppy phrasing on a statement in the 'Early life' section, then added the well-documented maiden name of his mother and made a very non-controversial punctuation fix on my own work, and left. I came back a couple of months later to find it all undone. I have now restored my previous work and some of the other non-controversial edits that were lost (as stated above, other editors had already restored some of the lost work). I did not blindly restore everything, or over-write all the work done on the article since the revert; unlike the actions of the reverting editor. There was one change I chose not to restore, and I attempted some compromise wording on one item and also fixed the wording for clarity in a couple of other sentences. Now I'm done, and it would be nice if it was not all erased all over again.

172.97.193.180 (talk) 06:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


And here we go again. This time the guy got a buddy of his to do it for him, which I think violates WP:Canvassing or something? But WP:AGF, so ok:

The reverting editor has claimed disruptive editing. Please identify exactly which of the edits reverted are disruptive, controversial, or violate BLP? And which are not in dispute? Because every single item in the text they have reverted is supported in the cited material for the article or it's common knowledge from multiple sources including direct quotes by the subject; or is the editor disputing the math?

This by the way is exactly why I do not volunteer my time at Wikipedia, & why Wikipedia loses so many good editors.

172.97.186.44 (talk) 21:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the changes arent really an improvement, and some is unsourced --FMSky (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and thank-you for responding on the talk page. Every single factual statement added is already in the cited sources. If you go and read the sources you will see that. The only partial exception would be mother's maiden name which is implied with 'Torres' as her ex-husband's surname, which she kept. If you like, I can post links to her public Facebook and Instagram accounts, online genealogy, etc. which include high-school era material where her (pre-marital) surname is clearly stated as 'Tafoya', like her full-blood sister and her biological father. There is also an interview video where EF talks about his family and their surnames. Every other point of fact is explicitly mentioned in the sources already being used for cites. There are also multiple new and old sources for Furlong stating that he never met his biological father, and at least 3 recent videos on YouTube where he tells the story of how he got fired from T3 after OD-ing at a nightclub when celebrating his big new contract for that movie. Two sit-down interviews and one video from a convention Q&A. That story has become a standard part of his autobiographical repertoire.
Please clarify which of the copy edits you feel are 'not an improvement'? How is 'about three years old' better, clearer or more precise than 'two years old and his father died in June 1980'? Last time I checked the WP:MoS it does not favor using traditional Chinese-style age-dates where you approximate a person's age to the calendar year they were born in (even South Korea famously switched to western-style dating recently). Or which other particular text changes did you object to?
The wording on his "cougar" relationship with Domac is an attempt at compromise. If you look carefully through the revision history of the article, you will see that there has been a running argument going on literally for years over what age he was when they started. Sources vary (from 13 or 14 to 16) and even Binkster has flipflopped on that one. There is a recent interview where Furlong talks about 'getting his dick sucked' by her when he was 15, if you prefer to use that source? Otherwise, saying 'they were openly or publicly in a relationship when he was 16' is a true and verifiable non-controversial statement of the facts supported by cited sources and multiple others, and it resolves the endless edit warring over that point.
Also why instead of taking the time to fix the specific parts you objected to, did you decide to revert the whole article to a 3-month-old version of the page erasing the work of multiple editors and in support of Binkster's questionable actions and claims? Especially since this is only the second time you have done anything on this article in the last 500 edits (2018-2024; your only other edit was 1x revert in May 2024). The only actual improvements in the version you prefer are the 2 lines in the infobox and a misplaced quote-mark, both of which I admit I missed when editing and I am in favor of keeping those changes.
And you claimed that my actions where 'Disruptive Editing'. Please explain and clarify how you think my actions qualify for that statement?
172.97.144.220 (talk) 20:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored your edits --FMSky (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edward_Furlong&oldid=1250162259"