Talk:Joseph Minion

Plagiarism and law suit claims

User:Chowbok, fifty thousand edits and more then a fifteen years of experience and you try something like this: reintroducing claims about alleged plagiarism and subsequent law suit based on: one blog entry by Andrew Hearst, who says this in intro:"(t)he bare details have been mentioned online, but only in passing, and as far as I know the scandal has never been officially reported anywhere.", whose claim is recycled by another blog used here and/or in our film's article, then Gawker unsigned short entry based on these hearsay blog claims and on our article (WP:CIRC & WP:SELFPUB!?), further on Salon article which says nothing about the claims, and book refed as page=151-154, which only points to a chapter titled Joseph Minion, without specific page where the claims are suppose to be affirmed. These edits are in violation of our guidelines on WP:BLP - read it now, if you somehow missed it in your 15 wiki-years and 50 thousands edits, and don't revert unless you can find WP:RS.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 09:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I find the sources reliable, and your tone insulting. Books published by major publishers are RS (even if you don't want to read four pages to find the reference), as is Gawker (even if the piece is unsigned). Also the Salon thespool article (which I assume you meant) did mention the claims, read it more carefully. I'm reverting. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from such condescension in the future.—Chowbok ☠ 15:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Usually we seek WP:Consensus here on TP, and since I don't agree with your view on what is reliable source in this case, we have no consensus on these sources, which means other channels should be explored, like various proposed by Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (good places to start are Request for comment (RfC), Wikipedia:Third opinion, Biographies of living persons noticeboard, Reliable sources noticeboard). Meanwhile, you should refrain from forcing them into BLP article until we reach some resolution, because BLP's are really touchy subject, and always a place where editors should act with utmost care.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

By the way, you haven't responded to any of my points regarding sources, except that you find them reliable, so please, here I hope you'll indulge me on that.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Sources such as these:

1. unsigned article on gawker, website generally deemed unreliable in our project;
2. Andrew Hearst on his blog says "(t)he bare details have been mentioned online, but only in passing, and as far as I know the scandal has never been officially reported anywhere";
3. self-published website spool.net, with article signed by Peter Sobczynski who base (and links) his mention on allegations put forward by Andrew Hearst at his blog, mostly recycling hearsay, as A.Hearst himself admittedly explains at the beginning of his own text in a manner we can read in bold quote from above;
4. Salon does not say anything on the case;
5. book is refed with page range that encompasses entire chapter titled "Joseph Minion" and does not point to a specific claims, which can't be found in the chapter anyway;

these sources and their introduction on very controversial claims put forth in this article are all very concerning development, and needs to be addressed before any repeated revert.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

{{BLP noticeboard}}