Talk:John Clark (actor)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Ongoing discussion has been archived[edit]

This page is not empty. Ongoing discussion has been archived. You can click on it. JohnClarknew (talk) 01:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe there was any ongoing discussion, that's why it was archived. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales comment[edit]

Controversy has been attached to this article, on the basis that the subject has written and contributed to the editing of the article, contrary to current WP rules concerning Biographies of Living Persons (BLP). The subject has joined in a discussion taking place on Jimbo's talk page User_talk:Jimbo wales#No right of reply?, as a result of which he placed the following on John Clark's talk page:

== Thank you ==

Thank you for bringing your case to my attention, as it sounds like exactly the sort of case that can illustrate very well why some policies need to grow and change.

As for me, I'm very opposed to putting the "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" on the main article page of any biography. It does serve a useful purpose (and not all or always negative!) on the discussion page, which editors will see. But it looks absurdly accusatory to me in the article itself. I shall work on changing this practice.

I have not studied your case deeply enough to know what it is all about, so I offer no opinion on the validity of your edits. But I did appreciate very much what you were saying about the complex problem of bad or sloppy media who may very well be, at this late date, entirely uninterested in doing proper research.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

It appears that original information which John Clark attempted to put into the article to counteract damaging misinformation contained in gossip-inflected newspaper articles goes to the heart of the matter. Some users believe he should be disabled from doing this. Yes, the newspaper articles were legitimate external references. No, they were wrong. JohnClarknew (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

John, as a explained at the time, our policies mean you are directly "disabled" from doing it, at least without as RS to verify the information. But that is not to say you cannot correct misinformation! Particularly damaging stuff; we take BLP issues very seriously. The problem is two fold; because anything you enter that is not "vetted" in a reliable source (i.e. with editorial control) has the risk of containing your personal view or opinion (i.e. the problem of being a primary and self-published source), which obviously poses something of a problem. This is why WP:OTRS exists, it allows you an avenue to address these concerns. I know I have mentioned this before, but just mentioning it again so you know :) --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 14:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia should be very thankful to have the subject of an article editing it — but there are sometimes problems because there are some unique issues of verifiability involved, and often people who come to edit their own articles are unfamiliar with a rather elaborate bureaucracy of local policies.
In this case, I think the relevant policy is buried in WP:BLP:
"Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if—
  1. it is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
These provisions do not apply to autobiographies published by reliable third-party publishing houses, because they are not self-published."
I really don't understand what the dispute is in this case. But in general, policies like this are amenable to change, if flaws can be found (and they may well be: for example, I can't see any impartial way to evaluate #1 above). Wnt (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Good comments. Regarding #1, I think that is usually understood to mean that it's OK to use an SPS to say that one lived in a city, or held a particular job, etc. But claims of winning awards or accomplishing remarkable achievements and the like require independent sources for confirmation. Regarding the dispute here, I think it partly involves a wish to include "claims about third parties". That's a big problem when dealing with views of a scandal, as it'd be hard to say much without referring to the other parties and to the news organizations which reported on it. However I doubt that the Wikipedia community would be willing to allow one BLP's SPS to be used as a source for negative comments about another BLP.   Will Beback  talk  22:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The meat of this problem stems from conversations back in August, now in the archive for this page. Essentially, Mr Clark has been advocating to be allowed to eliminate the middleman and publish his own observations right here on Wikipedia instead of publishing them elsewhere and allowing their review by other Wikipedia editors who are not personally involved before they are used as a source here. It can be quite helpful to be able to speak directly with the subject of an article, but we can't allow them to add details or statements about others that cannot be properly verified. Otherwise they could make up any old thing they wanted with the claim "I was there and I know what happened." I'm not suggesting that Mr. Clark would make things up, but rather that we would have no way of knowing if he had or not. If the content was published elsewhere first, it can be properly attributed and any contradiction between his version of events and other sources can be duly noted. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to add to this discussion the following, copied from Jimbo's talk page. No right of reply? (cont'd) I would like to debunk the idea that the Los Angeles Times is a reliable source. What better way than to demonstrate with the empirical experience of a BLP notable? This is from the site Showbusiness Meets the Law, a public service free of advertising. Here's the entry with facts about biased reporting by the LA Times examined forensically: Redgrave vs. John Clark. ( A side question - are sworn declarations from the court record considered legitimate references to articles?) JohnClarknew (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
This goes to the heart of the matter, the question of how users' biased and selective editing of BLP articles can be dealt with. JohnClarknew (talk) 07:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm told that, back in the days of yore before GPS, sailors who depended on their compasses would carry three. They couldn't be sure one would be correct. Two are no better because if they disagreed there'd no way of telling which one was wrong. Three was the minimum number to be sure of getting one reliable reading. Unfortunately, news stories are more complicated than compasses.
Regarding the affidavits and other court documents, they are not reliable sources. Can you imagine what celebrity biographies would look like if we allowed documents from divorce cases? Appellate and Supreme Court opinions are allowed, but I doubt that's an issue here.   Will Beback  talk  08:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
"We"? Will Beback, are you suggesting joint ownership of Wikipedia? I suggest you step back and consult the rules, which you quote from so well. I realize WP is democratic, but I recognize only one "leader", and that is Jimbo Wales. Meanwhile, you haven't answered my question, which is whether you consider the Los Angeles Times to be a reliable source where celebrities are concerned. If your answer is no, which I have proved if you consulted the above entry, then you must accept that there should be a revision of the rules, which currently prevent living notables from having the same access to pages as others referencing their lives. I am probably the only notable willing to forego privacy in order to right this wrong. Use it! As for your allegory, your old compasses (rules) are outmoded. Consider me the GPS!. JohnClarknew (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
No, we is correct. WP is a community. It is not democratic, it works on consensus built policy and rules. Jimbo carries a lot of weight in the community; but he will only intervene to make a decision in extreme circumstances, and even then it can be rejected and overturned. The LA Times is a reliable source. The problem that exists is that you are on one side of a dispute/event and, as such, are entirely biased in your view of it. This is simply what happens. Now, such things are useful for your opinion on matters, but for facts we can only stick to sources with editorial oversight etc. (i.e. reliable). Were your story to be published in a reliable source then that would carry weight applicable to the article. My job has taught me one thing; the matter of "truth" depends entirely on the perspective of the person affected by it. Which is why we have verifiable content not truth. there should be a revision of the rules, which currently prevent living notables from having the same access to pages as others referencing their lives; this is nonsense I am afraid. You have identical rights to edit this page - it is discouraged by policy because it is very hard to write neutrally about oneself. Anything you add to this page is worth the same scrutiny as everything I add to this page. The content you added before, if added by any other editor, would have been modified/removed in much the same way. I see this same thing happen over and over at numerous BLP's - when the subject or a fan turns up and is unimpressed by criticism, or perceived inaccuracy or some other injustice. Do not imagine you are the first to feel this way. The first time I was publicly attacked in academic media felt horrible, and in anger I wrote a similar nasty response. But this achieves very little, and in the venom was some deep truths about my professional life. A process I now find beneficial. I'm not saying this is the approach you should take; but I am saying that you need to consider some wider perspective on the whole issue. And again I reiterate; if you feel there is an issue with the text that you can only fix via your own personal perspective OTRS exists as a medium to raise those issues. I encourage you to make use of it. In this respect you have more "rights" on this article than we do - because you can fix innacuracies using OTRS in a way we can never do. :) --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 17:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
My gosh, your fingers fly faster than your brain - you cannot have ingested and considered what I have supplied, which is the means to show that I wish to set the record straight regarding my life. It is not self-serving opinion-based, but FACT-based (did you open up the pdf on their newspaper report?) I show proof that the L.A. Times did not report on the facts of what happened in court, and actually covered up fraud and corruption. As for OTRS as a form of appeal, sorry, I've spent months and months waiting on the Appeals Court, and the California Supreme Court, only to find that they are there to shoot the wounded. Been there, done that, bet you can't say the same. Also, it is interesting to me that the same select group of about 13 male users appear to be the only ones commenting on this subject. Wikipedia is an entity, a legal person if you like, and much as a corporation is also a community, so is Wikipedia. Isn't it a 501(c)3? And you 13 guys act as though you are elected to be on the board of directors. Well, you're not. You are acting more like a coven, fitting for today's Halloween, I guess. :) JohnClarknew (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

─────────────────────────If you won't give OTRS a shot you are becoming a lost cause, sorry John. They are an extremely helpful bunch - and if you have a serious complaint they will sort you out. Wikipedia is not a legal entity; I assume you have a basic grounding in law. Wikimedia foundation is the legal entity - and Wikipedia is one of their projects/assets. Even that is irrelevant to the point we were discussing; Jimbo is certainly influential in the foundation and here in the Wiki community. But that does not make his word law :) I'm sad to say you come across as a typical blinkered individual going on about the conspiracy here on Wikipedia (I have to confess coven is relatively original, only ever seen it called that once before, admittedly by a self-proclaimed Wizard). But believe me, there is no conspiracy here to make you look bad. Our aims are broader; and if individual inaccuracies exist this is not the place to correct them. I read your PDF, which was enlightening, but still based strongly on your views, interpretations and evidence. And there lies the problem; who is telling the truth? Hence: WP:TRUTH. In terms of the courts? I could expound on them for hours in a different venue, indeed, the UK court system is one I am intimately aware of and the legal game that gets played there is.. well... point is; never assume anything about people here. I expect you view most of use as spotty teens with nothing better to do (I recall you even said that once). This is, interestingly, not true (I won't go on the pointless willy waving of telling you my accomplishments). Get some perspective man! You are a celebrity worthy of a WP article, and have, in your time, given enjoyment to people watching your work. Kudos. But many people here far eclipse what even you and I combined can give to humanity. While it might be fun to insult us in various ways it is not helping me to view you as a constructive contributor to this article... chill out, try and empathise with other contributors and see what you can bring to the table. Now, the situation as I see it is this; you feel attacked and belittled by the media and courts. In part I agree with you, the media is a fickle and disruptive beast and fail to consider the impact they can have in the character assassination of an individual. In another forum I support your crusade! On the other hand we can only do our best to report what is verified - and the media are one of the best sources for that, based on the fact that the rough truth will emerge across the scope of it. You believe your divorce was misreported globally (and indeed this would not be the first time; look at the myth and idiocy revolving around the reporting of the Wright flyer!). Fine; but this is not the place to correct those wrongs. If the truth is different it can only be presented in another forum - we are not a reliable source, because we do not have the efficient editorial oversight that, for example, a publisher has. And that is why we cannot accept your first hand opinion and evidence. -Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 19:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's entirely possible that the judge and the reporters for several major news media were biased against this person, because he's not a celebrity, because he's a pro se litigant in a system that is not ashamed to say that it doesn't treat them fairly, and above all because of an apparent difference in available funds, which we all know can pay many professionals who manipulate such things for a living. The problem is, this is an encyclopedia — we don't make the news. You can be a physicist with the most astounding and beautiful theory of antigravity, which any open-minded scientist should see the truth of, and we don't publish it. Not until you get it published somewhere else; then we're happy to report it.
After seeing two webpages full of generalities, I finally get to a document like [1] that expresses specifics, but it's mostly proof of the sort where she says this, he says that. (It strikes me that Clark might have better success with pro se actions if he would make more effort to find and showcase independently verifiable evidence as opposed to his own comments...) Now specifics are still a lot better than no specifics, and I think we can say something along the line that "Mr. Clark disputed the newspaper accounts, which he criticized as following only his ex-wife's version of events..." We can say something like "Mr. Clark wrote that he was thrown in jail immediately after the court proceeding, and during that night his court papers were gone through and the manuscript of a screenplay was taken from his home". We can't address who did those actions according to the policy above, unless there's another source out there. A primary self-published source about a person is a lot better than nothing, but it's not as good as a published newspaper article or verdict, and I would implore Mr. Clark to wrack his brains to think of any reporter or other news source he can name here to present his side of the story as a published source.
I should note that here we're reprobing a core philosophical issue with Wikipedia that is often ignored — that a "neutral point of view" is typically taken to mean what is considered neutral by various authorities. But what about when all authorities may be biased? So I think it's an important test of Wikipedia to see that John Clark's perspective is represented to the proper extent in the article, whatever that turns out to be. Wnt (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Wnt, a new voice. The problem with what you bring up is that my only proofs are contained in the transcripts at the trial, recorded by the court stenographer under oath, including my questioning of Lynn on the stand. Not useable here. Can I note that she has erased all mention of me on her website? The problem with the coven's POV is that they are lost in the thickets and trees, and fail to see the wood. The central theme and point is that there is common agreement that there is such a thing as biased editing, and that this user, a BLP, should not be prevented from participating. How? I subscribe to the rather expensive search engine HighBeam Research. You will see that I have access to thousands of articles in newspapers and other publications, including many about me and my ex-wife over our 33 years together. But, according to one of the noisiest of the coven, an administrator yet, I should not be allowed to participate, and I should also be prevented from writing articles in which I have a strong emotional investment, because of inherent COI, and NPOV. This was his disabling intimidation of me on my talk page: you agree to disengage from directly editing articles about yourself and your family? Will Beback talk 20:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC). Editing includes adding external and internal references, and he feels I should be banned from doing this. Well, I don't think so, and I don't think Jimbo thinks so, nor a whole lot of other users, from whom I would like to hear. If this can be cleared up, perhaps the discussion could end on a foot-in-the-door positive note for the next step, which is ABLP. And BTW, I wrote the following 2 articles on subjects about which I have a "strong emotional investment": I have a strong emotional investment in flying and anything to do with planes. Here's the article Grand Central Airport (United States) I wrote. Judge for yourself, is it riddled with COI and NPOV violations? And another article I wrote, brought about by my emotional investment in my love of the sea. I served on the Silverwalnut, a ship in the line of the Silver Line, during the Korean War for 3 years. So I wrote up this article: Silver Line (shipping company). Like I said, let's hear from others, especially a few women. It's core philosophical stuff. JohnClarknew (talk) 05:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

─────────────────────────@wnt; actually those examples are the entire reason for WP:V and WP:TRUTH, we can report facts, but they may not be factual occurences and it is not for us to judge either way. However, if that got reported in a reliable medium - for example a news report, then we have something to work with because someone with editorial oversight is standing by the statements. This is the basis for all our content. @John: r.e. Highbeam, it's a useful resource. But sometimes can be US-centric and has a (relatively speaking) fairly limited library. Many of use subscribe to Athens which gives us access to a number of such databases (Nexis, for example). Editing includes adding external and internal references, and he feels I should be banned from doing this; nonsense. He is advising you that your editing on topics of strong emotional attachment has been problematic and not within the rules of the wiki. His advice was just to leave those topics; and as was explained to you by numerous people, he means topics such as this where you feel wronged by the media and by your divorce (i.e. a strong emotional attachment). This was made clear and no amount of smoke and mirrors and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT with other articles will change this. :) Feel free to add content to the article; I've never personally denied you that. But make sure you keep to the damned guidelines!! That is the only rule and the core of the problem. You act like the wronged person here, but really you are just a typical disgruntled BLP subject... this might appear hurtful, but it is only the truth. Remember; we are here to build a wiki, so why not go and write some more articles! Or contribute to this one. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 10:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that the user urging you to "disengage" went beyond what policy requires, and beyond what can reasonably be expected considering that your first desire here is to have your fair say. But it is true that policy requires the subject of an article to be extra careful in editing. Beyond that, there are things like threatening legal action or making what are perceived as personal attacks that can quickly get editors banned, and which I hope you'll steer well clear of - I've seen editors like User:James dalton bell end up being treated very unfairly, in my opinion, based on such things (though in that case the user suffered from prejudices you wouldn't be subject to).
The primary court transcript could be used, with caution, to document your own point of view. I think that in Wikipedia parlance it would count as a "primary source" rather than a self-published source; the difference being not so much the oath as that it's published by an impartial (one hopes) third party. But primary sources are still limited by a wide-ranging Wikipedia policy on "original synthesis": for example, if you pointed out that your ex-wife said something in one proceeding and something else that seemed contradictory in another, you still couldn't include that, because it's not Wikipedia's role to make such deductions on its own. Remember, it's actually a motto here to say "Verifiability, not truth"!
One possibility that tantalizes me is Wikinews - in theory, you could be interviewed for a Wikinews article and the article could be cited like any newspaper article. But I don't know very much about how they do things there. I'm not sure how to make such an article 'newsworthy', or what lengths editors would be required to go to to contact other parties to get their side of the story. Wnt (talk) 12:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
The problem with the court transcripts is that it is still a direct source from John. So it is still only applicable for his opinion (not his version of the facts, for example). Will made a good faith effort to try and resolve a conflict. The issue is; this is not really the place for John to have his "fair say" (whatever that might be). It is the place to document his biography based on reliable sources; it is unfortunate that this falls negatively on him and contains what he feels are inaccuracies. I would love to fix those! But we can only work with reliable sources - John's primary account is not reliable when published on his site or in court documents. Sadly, while Wikinews was a good idea it is an unreliable source for the same reasons WP is an unreliable source. Think of it this way; the Redgrave made counter claims to John, what if she were here too presenting her own views and content hosted on here site, which is the right source and right account to use? That is why anything contentious must come from reliable third party sources. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 12:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I have a solution, which will let every Wikiuser relax. What if I fake my death? Then I can sign on with an anonymous name like everyone else, and can edit away at this article. I'd no longer be a BLP but a BDP (is there such a category?) And the coven can disperse, or disappear in a puff of smoke, for other hunting grounds. JohnClarknew (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that, because in a disagreement sarcasm is always the best way forward. Actually it's not a bad question as it gives the opportunity to point out to you that this isn't about you, despite the page being about you. The edits would still be unacceptable because they would still not be verified. It does not matter who adds unverifiable information to an article, it's the content itself that is the problem and it would still be removed. And please stop with the accusations of a coven. You are the one who has posted on various pages trying to get attention focused on this article. When the persons who responded turned out not to agree with you, all the sudden we were a coven of evildoers. Halloween is over sir, there are no witches and warlocks after you, just some Wikipedia editors who have tried again and again to reason with you to no avail. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Why don't you read before you write? Is it all one way? Somewhere above, I wrote The central theme and point is that there is common agreement that there is such a thing as biased editing, and that this user, a BLP, should not be prevented from participating. While waiting for WP to take the giant step, which it will - you'll see - I'm suggesting that the subject should be able to also add VERIFIED information. And please say you are a woman... JohnClarknew (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Once again you feel compelled to start each statement you make with a condescending insult. Look, you haven't presented any verified information. You have been told again and agin that if you manage to do that it can be used in the article. Since you like movie and television quotes so much here's one for you: where's the beef? This conversation is all bun and no meat, you don't seem to actually have any verified content to add. We could quit discussing this in hypotheticals if you could actually cough up some verified content you would like added to the article. And why are you asking me to say I am a woman? I don't understand why you think women would automatically take your side in this matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is like a merry-go-round of musical chairs. You refuse to consider what I wrote, and instead accuse me of condescension because you don't wish to deal with the subject of biased editing? I HAVE made verified references to John Clark (actor/director) which were deleted by Memphisto who then added obituaries which don't belong there. And I notice that noone has removed his biased work. And neither did I, for the reason that I did not want to be accused of NPOV violations. Look at the history of the article. As for your identity, it's a fair question. Beeblebrox suggests a character out of a Dickens novel. If it's a first name, then it could go either way. It's well known that woman are far better at thinking laterally. We men tend to think vertically. That's why I'd like to hear from a female voice. Go figure. JohnClarknew (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I should acknowledge that the use of Wikinews as a reliable source is controversial,[2] but so far as I can tell the debate was never resolved — which really is inexcusable, considering. Also note that the word "coven" is non-standard; it's actually WP:CABAL. Oh, and Zaphod Beeblebrox is a man, or two. And faking your own death wouldn't work — they'd just stop calling your new account a "sockpuppet" and start calling it a "meatpuppet" (I don't know if you want to know, it's truly sad) Though there are times I've seen it, I don't think what's happening here is really cabalism — it's more that it's hard to deal with general statements; even a mention of "verified references" above requires someone to go into the history and guess which verified references, and by and large people aren't going to do it. Making major changes to a Wikipedia article can be a hard slog - you have to go fact by fact, often facing the most unreasonable opposition, and that's for people without inexperience or a personal stake in the article. Wnt (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
To follow up, I found the situation you described, and I agree that Memphisto's removal of the source [3] by Lucy Komisar was inappropriate.[4] The reason he gives, that you are the one who made the edit, is an intolerable ad hominem argument we should always steer well clear of. But with your next edit [5] you're starting what could be a very bad habit by reverting everything he wrote, dismissing it likewise as "POV editing". What we want is to see each change considered separately, based on its merits, not who made it, discussed here in new sections on the talk page if need be. In other words, de-escalation of a potential "edit war" by separating it into little bits, rather than editors potentially turning the dispute into a personal conflict. I see that Jimbo Wales himself reversed one of Memphisto's changes, so you have as good an ally as can be found on Wikipedia. I know you're just starting to learn how things are done here - I just want you to learn the right way and not the wrong. Wnt (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, that's the first bit of good news I've heard in a long while. Birthday present? If you look at Shakespeare for My Father, I wrote the article which was about how the play came to be. I let her copyright the play as her writing, and stayed in the background for her to enjoy the plaudits alone. But I co-wrote the play. That fact and how it began I then put in the discussion page. Memphisto deleted it immediately, and so an edit war began (see my talk page). The London Times obituary of Lynn's death was written by the author and actor Simon Callow, whom I have never met. He references me as the "co-writer" of our play. But the Times, Mr. Murdoch that is, won't allow links on his newspaper without payment. It's important to me that people know that we wrote the play together. Can one pay to access the obit, and then link to it? What's the policy here? JohnClarknew (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I've made some comments about this at Talk:Shakespeare for My Father. I should also say that by removing a source here and removing talk page discussion there, Memphisto's edits about this issue are becoming problematic in their own right. Memphisto, please be faster to discuss, slower to revert. Wnt (talk) 00:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Huh? AGF please; that edit summary actually refers to another source that was removed, and it refers to the source being written by John, not the edit. In terms of SfMF, Memphisto was somewhat correct in his actions, though it would have been better just to leave it for a bit. The talk page is not the place to leave an "alternative" version of the article, especially as the stated aim from John is Thank God for the discussion page, where readers and researchers can get factual information often supplied by participants appearing in an article, but denied an appearance there - i.e. "here is some OR". :) --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 09:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The Komisar Scoop[edit]

The Komisar Scoop appears to be a self-published source. If so, it wouldn not be usable as a source for this article. Does anyone know differently?   Will Beback  talk  23:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It appears that Lucy Komisar wrote most of her own WP article, adding a long list of her published articles in May 2006.[6] The article was edited to prune the list in August 2006 [7]. The last edit to any article by User:Lkomisar(talk) was in September 2006. An IP with only one other edit (adding Ms. Komisar to the notable alumni list at a high school) [8] added the list of articles back from December 2007 through March 2008 [9]. The IP seems to be for an NYC area account, but I don't know how to find out more about it.
Ms. Komisar's review of Nightingale includes no references except for a mention of a documentary about Michael Redgrave and the related book written by Corin Redgrave. To the extent that she mentions Mr. Clark beyond what is in the play, it seems that she must have either used his site or the media coverage that he says is biased and unreliable.[10] The Komisar Scoop identifies many of its news articles as blog posts on its fromt page. [11] It does not identify any other employees or any editorial function other than Ms. Komisar. [12] The Komisar Scoop gets only one hit in Google News Archive (from Benzinga), and no MSM coverage in the first 100 or so web search results. It seems to have received less than ten comments in the past month. (Mr. Clark posted the only reply to the Nightingale review.} Ms. Komisar shows up a lot on Google, and is clearly WP:N, but it is not clear to me that her current outlet is WP:RS.--Hjal (talk) 05:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
It isn't really relevant, but this edit makes me question her journalist objectivity.[13] Note the edit summary.   Will Beback  talk  06:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd deleted the source due to this discussion. It was restored today. Why?   Will Beback  talk  09:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Legal cases[edit]

I searched for any news coverage of libel or defamation cases, and this is all I could find:

  • Clark recently filed a defamation lawsuit against CNN and presenter Larry King over an interview with Redgrave in which she lambasted him for his 'lies'. Clark claims his wife regularly cheated on him and knew of his affair with Nicolette, whose marriage to their son was a Green Card scam.
    • Zachary,the Redgrave outcast ; The anguish of 'grandson' actress cut from her life is revealed CAROLINE GRAHAM. Mail on Sunday. London (UK): Oct 17, 2004. pg. 40

I suppose we could add a sentence about it.   Will Beback  talk  00:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

In the case of John Clark v. Larry King (No. 05-56399) dated 08 December 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled case dismissed [14], a non-event. memphisto 01:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
If the case was dismissed before discovery, and received almost no attention in the media (despite the prominence of the litigants), then it's probably not a significant detail worth including in a short biography. It might be interesting to say that he's represented himself in court in several lawsuits if we can find more sources to support it, but the individual cases don't seem to be noteworthy.   Will Beback  talk  08:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Here we go again, the triumvirate is back, with its discriminating and biased editing against certain targeted BLP'ers! I have restored the page to where it was before Memphisto returned, October 27, where he deleted credits which are amply recorded in the Internet Broadway Database. I have also restored Lucy Komisar's review of Nightingale. She is a respected and established member of the New York Theatre critics community. Really, this behavior will strangle the life out of the foundation called Wikipedia. I urge this editing team to study the aims of this fine site, contained in the five pillars. I'm having difficulty assuming good faith edits from these particular users. If these members want an edit war, then that is their choice, not mine. JohnClarknew (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Sadly the five pillars may support this; the source is definitely dubiously reliable. And please do not threaten an edit war, it will not help... and quit calling peoples editing biased, it's silly and getting annoying. Present a policy or sourced based argument instead --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 09:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Zachary,the Redgrave outcast ; The anguish of 'grandson' actress cut from her life is revealed CAROLINE GRAHAM. Mail on Sunday. London (UK): Oct 17, 2004. pg. 40
With regard to the complaint to the Press Complaints Commission about the Mail on Sunday piece, no details are recorded on their website [15] (which has a database of all investigated complaints since 1996). So I would imagine that either the complaint did not fall within the PCC’s remit, or that it was rejected because it was made after the PCC’s complaints deadline (two months after the date of publication/end of direct correspondence between the complainant and the newspaper editor). memphisto 10:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:DR time[edit]

Gentlemen, I believe we are at an impasse. When that happens on Wikipedia what we do is not edit warring. And I warn all parties that edit warring will lead to blocks. There is no such thing as right or wrong in an edit war, anyone who participates in one is automatically wrong. What we can do is seek some form of dispute resolution to settle these matters. I suggest we pursue a request for comment where Mr. Clark, Mephisto, and all other interested parties can present their view on what the article should say and the wider community is invited to participate so that a consensus can be formed. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The main issue here is User:JohnClarknew’s refusal to accept the Wikipedia:Autobiography guidelines - and the dispute is a prime example of the reason why the community created the guidelines in the first place. memphisto 13:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Be that as it may, edit warring is not going to help. An RFC can be a useful tool for clarifying consensus on a particular issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


I think you need to start separate talk sections for specific details in the hope of resolving points individually. To start, let's consider this edit about "name-dropping".[16] To me, it seems unreasonable to remove such detail simply because it is favorable to the subject — God knows there are enough articles at Wikipedia that are slavishly favorable to their subjects, and this is just a helpful set of Wikilinks and basic information. Now, I don't know how well sourced all those names are, but dismissing them as "name-dropping" says to me that their veracity is not at issue. There's no policy against "name-dropping", and shouldn't be. Wnt (talk) 21:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, so long as we can source them. However that list doesn't match the Broadway Database.[17]   Will Beback  talk  22:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Technically, we don't have to take out an unsourced fact as long as we don't have any reason to be skeptical of it. The database has one of these, Hostile Witness[18] in which Ray Milland plays Simon Crawford. As a person far, far outside of his area of expertise here, I should say I would never have picked out that name or that fact as being important, yet if John Clark thinks it's worth mentioning then I think it must be. I would say that I'm about 99.994% sure that "MacBird", "An Inspector Calls", and "A View From the Bridge" all existed, and that this "Internet Broadway Database" just isn't very complete. This is exactly the sort of situation where having the subject of an article contributing is going to improve Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
It could be that some of those productions were not on Broadway.   Will Beback  talk  23:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your common sense, Wnt. I worked closely with ONLY these people as a young actor, sourced at the Broadway Internet Database, the Off-Broadway database, and as for Luther Adler, that was in Toronto in 1956 in A View from the Bridge, and in Philadelphia in "An Inspector Calls with Sir Cedric Hardwicke in 1963. I recount training details on my website. I also worked with Lee Strasberg, personally. Sorry, Mr. "splitting-hairs" Will Beback. You remind me of Alan on 2 1/2 Men with his anal mind - (that's not an insult, he's very lovable, just anal). I remember back in 2007 I spent hours and hours trying to convince your fellow editors that the Booth family was, in fact, a notable family of actors. And finally succeeded in making that point, over objections that the Booth gin people were more famous. I need to understand the motivation behind certain editors, always the same ones, continuously editing this page, instead of going after several more-famous-than-me BLPers with their glaring vanity entries. I pointed them in their direction on my talk page. They are building a history which will come back to bite them, not bite me. I am offering myself up for discussion as to whether there is such a thing as biased editing. One of them (and I know which one) put this rubbish in: The marriage ended in 2000 after Clark revealed to Redgrave that he had fathered a child with her personal assistant, who later married (and subsequently divorced) their son Benjamin. The divorce proceedings were acrimonious and public, and were front page news for months. And deleted the fact that this lady was a disfellowshipped Jehovah's Witness, and what that means, and that the marriage was a fake green card scam marriage where money changed hands. What this says is that editors should exercise responsibility where private gossipy family matters are concerned, just leave it alone, especially where one of the partners does not have a voice. I do have a voice, and only because of my childhood background before I ever met my wife, and I exercise it. And I leave the rubbish in, because I do not wish to fall afoul of the NPOV issue, which I heartily believe in. And I leave those obits in too, although I did not put them there. This page and its history will be Exhibit #1. And I have a feeling that Jimbo will be in my corner. And tell salivating memphisto there are 4 tildes, not 3, to include at the end of his attacks contributions. JohnClarknew (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
John, I'm going to step out of my role as a participant in this conversation and put on my administrator hat for a moment here. I've already spoken to you about the nastiness of your remarks towards your fellow editors, and another user has advised you not to nitpick over simple typing errors. I am warning you that if you keep up with these nasty personal attacks there will be consequences. I won't use my admin tools myself in this case since I have been involved in this discussion, but if you are unwilling or unable to restrain yourself from making these type of remarks I will go and find an uninvolved administrator and ask that they block you. I don't actually want that to happen, but you have been given sufficient leeway in this area already. Stop making personal attacks and condescending insults at your fellow editors. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

And where exactly did I fail to sign my edit properly? memphisto 01:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not realize, Beeblebrox, that you have the power to threaten. Will Beback, another admin, says that you administrators are armed with tools, but do not wear some sort of senior "hats", as you put it, giving them special powers. Are you "pulling rank?" Your avoidance of discussion is becoming exasperating. I suggest you deal with the subject of POV editing which I put to you, and stop hiding behind false claims of being insulted with "nasty personal attacks." As for Memphisto, it is normal to be able to click on your name and talk page here in this discussion. JohnClarknew (talk) 05:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless working with those people is particularly significant it does seem a lot like "welly wanging", it's not good biography. But it doesn't seem worth fighting over. @John; admins are here to stop people being disruptive. Like you consistently are. I need to understand the motivation behind certain editors, always the same ones, continuously editing this page, instead of going after several more-famous-than-me BLPers with their glaring vanity entries. I pointed them in their direction on my talk page why are we here? Because you are here, trying to disrupt the wiki. And all that happens is you look silly. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 09:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge John has never discussed or tried to add "according to People Magazine" - at least, it has not been an issue he has raised before... just saying. Most of his contribution to his BLP has been, well, POV - attempting to put his side of his divorce story w/o being able to provide a reliable source. This included some pretty severe allegations against his deceased ex-wife and other (living) persons. Most of this stemmed from the fact we wouldn't let him put the allegations into the article. Again; just saying --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 09:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The above post is at at Jimbo's page. Look, I have never tried to "put my side of the story". I'd just like to put, in the body of the bio, words such as "Clark contests the stories that appeared in several headlines at the time of the divorce. I did that ages ago, and Memphisto deleted those words. So you do it. Then I'd be happy. And we can all go home and get some sleep. JohnClarknew (talk) 09:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed the name-dropping because John Clark only played minor roles in two of the plays, and no references could be found for the others:
Hostile Witness: Played Prison Officer and understudy to Percy.
MacBird!: Played the Earl of Warren (dropped out of the play around a month after it opened).
An Inspector Calls : Only reference is to performance on Broadway 1947-1948!
A View from the Bridge: Some mention of a travelling production starring and/or directed? by Luther Adler. No mention of John Clark. memphisto 11:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I missed User:JohnClarknew's edit above "and as for Luther Adler, that was in Toronto in 1956 in A View from the Bridge". So why did he state in John Clark (actor) that it was a performance on the American Stage after he moved to New York in 1960? [preceding sentence was by Memphisto[19] Wnt (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)]

He is calling me a liar now. The page traces the path of John Clark from child star to association with the Redgrave family. The Luther Adler company was a traveling American touring company production which played Toronto. I consider that memphisto should place his remarks on this page if he so wishes, but should not be editing it, and should sign with a clickable signature. His POV is anything but neutral, as far as this page is concerned, where he displays a COI while running a smear campaign against me. I already corrected his faulty research on the date of the British TV show, which is readily available at IMDb. It was December 1966, but he reversed the correction. There was no relationship with Redgrave until she came to New York. JohnClarknew (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I want all sides here to focus on figuring out what the facts are and putting them into the article, not addressing one another ad hominem. If an edit is wrong, cite the edit and show why the edit is wrong, not the editor. This goes especially for you, John Clark, because this is one of those situations like a fistfight with a hooker, where no matter who wins, you lose. In a year no one knows or cares who "Memphisto" was or what he was up to, but the edits in your name still represent you. I know that it's not fair to have people quoting and misquoting (but most often haphazardly waving) policy against you, telling you that your contributions about your own autobiography are worse than useless even when they get the facts wrong, trusting more or less an internet search engine over the experience of the person who knows. I should also add that despite the comment above that your "POV is anything but neutral", the fact is, it's the article that needs to be NPOV, not the editor, by incorporating all the facts we can justify incorporating. Articles are best made by people from widely opposing viewpoints who can agree to keep an inclusionist spirit and argue with one another not by criticizing one another, but by finding more and more sources that criticize each other's point of view, until the full debate has been recorded in encyclopedic form. Now both sides here seem to agree that John Clark was involved in several of these plays, working with specific people; we just need to get the details written down for those of us who don't know how this all works. Whose understudy? What does that involve? What was it like?
I also would like to say that I hope John Clark will consider putting materials on Wikimedia Commons and/or Wikisource. It has to be stuff that you hold copyright over that you're willing to freely license to the world. Maybe old photographs of yourself with other actors, programs, memorabilia, props, anything you think might be interesting. It is possible that some of this material might document things that you're saying here, though I should warn that even having a scanned copy of an official document doesn't mean you'll get people to admit it exists here. I should add that those other projects are almost uninfested by deletionists, so posting things there shouldn't be nearly the headache involved in editing this article, provided there is no ambiguity about third party copyrights. Wnt (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, whilst there is not a lot of harm in the unsourced play history it would be nice to have a source. Technically they are being challenged so WP:V comes into play --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 22:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Removed "and studied with Lee Strasberg" - No references found. Was John Clark a member of the Actors Studio or was he some other form of student? memphisto 12:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Memphisto be back! If he is to challenge everything mentioned in the article, I have no choice but to magnify the mention with a reference. Maybe he should be my publicist! Anyway, the article will therefore get longer. I studied with Lee Strasberg in his private classes for several years in the early 60's which he held at his personal studio at Carnegie Hall - preferred by many to the Actors' Studio experience. Cindy Adams, who was a friend (still is) mentioned my letter to him in her book, of which I would have to retrieve a copy to find the exact page number. JohnClarknew (talk) 19:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

───────────────────────── If he is to challenge everything mentioned in the article, I have no choice but to magnify the mention with a reference., umm, that is the whole point. You need to remove the Komisar source though (and quit adding it back w/o consensus!) because it is not reliable for a number of reasons --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 19:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

...because it is not reliable for a number of reasons. Errant, are you a weasel? JohnClarknew (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what your point is there - the reasons have been explicitly mentioned about twice. However; if that is not clear then please say and I will list them again. Of course, you could comment on content and not on editors... but that would be easy right? You won't get a rise out of me John, but feel free to keep trying ;) --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 17:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


User:JohnClarknew added the citizenship info on 8 December 2007:

It was subsequently amended by an anonymous IP User: on 31 January 2011:

The anonymous IP's edits seem mainly to be questionable edits to nationalities in biographies, so in this instance I have reverted this fairly uncontroversal information back to the original by User:JohnClarknew (John Clark). memphisto 12:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Memphisto, at it again[edit]

I see you sneakily (i.e. without prior discussion where I would rigorously object) removed the reference that John Clark "co-wrote the play Shakespeare for my Father", even though you are aware of a reference in the London Times that he did in fact co-write it. A look at the history of that page referring to the play reveals that a year ago, you and Will Beback together took the guts out of the page. I shall be putting a lot of it back. Also, to say that it was directed by her "ex" husband is a dead giveaway. It was directed by her husband! Well, Will won't Be Back any time soon as you are aware. List of Banned Users. I suggest you read the above contents of this discussion page. That ship has sailed. It's over. Meanwhile, I suggest you stay away from John Clark (actor), and the Lynn Redgrave and Shakespeare For My Father pages. You and Will must have together made several scores of edits on those pages. You are compulsively involved. JohnClarknew (talk) 00:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC) (talk) 00:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The same goes for this gentleman. I suggest he stays away from John Clark too. Onorem Talk page JohnClarknew (talk) 13:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It is funny that you speak in the third person and talk about how other people are "compulsively involved". In any case, this talk page is for discussion on how to improve this article, it's not for you to take passing shots at editors you don't like. --OnoremDil 14:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
It has been pointed out to me in the past that it is not "my" page. It is a page appearing in Wikipedia given the name John Clark (actor), although "I" would prefer it be called, as it was originally,"John Clark (actor, producer, writer)". I seldom act these days.
Anyway, it is the John Clark page, and I care that it is truthful, because I care about the biased referencing about me that I see here. Notability creates obituaries sourced from this site, because it is free for the use of non NPOV journalists (TMZ, National Inquirer, People) without copyright concerns. When you reach my age, you, I hope, will care about your reputation. In your case, maybe not. I don't disturb the "bad" refs, but I reverse the removal of the "good" refs which is there for balance. I too am a contributor to this fine site, and have written original articles. Perhaps I'm an unusual "celebrity". You might like to take a glance at my website to see where I'm coming from [20].
JohnClarknew (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
It's not your page. Congrats on realizing that. I hope it is truthful. I'd never hope for anything less. I hope that I won't reach your age. I hope that my time on this earth will be done well before then. Again though, what you think of me or other editors has no reason to grace this talk page. This page is for discussion on how to improve this article. --OnoremDil 16:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Disclaimer[edit]

This site is used by millions all over the world. This may be a good place, because I have a legal mind, to show that there is a disclaimer attached to it as follows, and may serve to show why some BLPers are concerned about the ability of some posters to play with their lives. I know this is an ongoing concern of our founders. Wikipedia General Disclaimer JohnClarknew (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Does this have something to do with this article? --OnoremDil 16:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes. JohnClarknew (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
My name is not Orem. --OnoremDil 16:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
What does this have to do with how to improve this article? --OnoremDil 16:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Please disengage JohnClarknew (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Right back at you. --OnoremDil 18:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Donating to Wikipedia[edit]

Does this particular post help improve the page? I think it does. And I think a similar entry would not be out of place on ALL talk pages. Here's why: I link to the site frequently for my advertisement-free website, which I insist must stay independent too. It saves me time and energy, and I don't have to worry about copyright, (usually), or censorship, and I know that the content has been carefully and objectively researched, added to, and edited by thousands of decent well-meaning people, and is on the whole dependable, despite what the above Disclaimer says.

So I am happy to pay in to it what I can, me, around 50 bucks a year. I think that's fair, I can't afford more, and it makes me feel good. And I think that if all of us volunteer contributors and editors paid in at least 5 bucks a year - the price of a Starbucks while we use their free internet - the site will live forever. It has to, because there's nothing else like it. To hear from Mr. Wales that because of high costs and unreliable income, the site's existence would be threatened if income fell below a certain threshhold, well, that's why this post belongs here and on every page.

Am I being a kiss-ass sycophant? Not really. I've never met or spoken to Mr. Wales. But I think of him as our leader, our dreamer, and hold him in high esteem. I think he should take charge a little more, and if he deletes this BLP page with my name on it tomorrow because I, the subject, helped edit it while observing the rules, that would be my tough luck. In England he would be knighted, and he'd be less criticized.

So what do you have to say, you guys out there and up there, I mean the cocky harassers, and sockpuppeteers who give cause to outsiders to view us all with suspicion? I believe street language should be kept out, and a certain dignity should be attempted, because we need to think of our image in the outside world. And we need to remember that quantity does not guarantee quality. JohnClarknew (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I found a source for the heart attack and pacemaker.[edit]

At the end of this article there is a citation needed tag about John Clark's heart attack and pacemaker. I found a a source which states-‘I lay there in the pouring rain. I could feel a pain in my chest, right where my pacemaker is installed from my heart attack two years ago — and then I passed out,’ I'm not sure how to add a source,ref or link, I usually just add small things or fix grammatical errors,but here is the link or ref is someone can add it. --BeckiGreen (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Ivan dropped with U.S. Citizenship[edit]

When I took out citizenship papers in 1965, I was told it was a free chance to change my name. I chose to drop the "Ivan" as it was the height of the cold war, and in typical workplace fashion, the supervisor at the bank where I was working nights would yell out at me "Hey, Oiv . . !" JohnClarknew (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I changed the following.[edit]

I changed the following-In 1993-4 Clark earned significant critical acclaim for his production with Redgrave of Shakespeare for My Father. I did not see a source for the significant critical acclaim in the first blurb about the play. Later in this article about the play I did see the sources and when I when went to the Wikipedia page Shakespeare for My Father, all the sources for the significant critical acclaim for Shakespeare for My Father seem to go to Redgrave,not John Clarke. They read as follows- New York magazine described Shakespeare for my Father as "a one-woman show by Lynn Redgrave in which she reminisces about life with her father, Sir Michael Redgrave, with full scenes from Shakespeare's works", and stated that Redgrave's "sense of humor makes it a pleasure and privilege to watch".[3] Patti Hartigan of The Boston Globe described the play as a "triumph",[4] and Lloyd Rose of The Washington Post said of Redgrave's performance, "Particularly when she is not speaking, her face can seem to hold an impossible number of emotions simultaneously, yet such fullness of feeling is mysteriously unreadable. At such moments you glance up to Sir Michael's picture, which dominates the stage, and find the same."[5] Variety described Redgrave's performance as "brilliant and extremely moving" and said, "At the end, Lynn gestures to that photograph, sharing her well-deserved applause with the man who could never acknowledge her talent. It’s a simple gesture that contains layers of emotional complexity and as such, an appropriate way to end this brutally honest but forgiveness-filled show."[6]. If anyone does not agree with my change we can discuss it here on the talk page if anyone thinks I was incorrect at removing the info.--BeckiGreen (talk) 03:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)