Talk:Mark Lester

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mark Lester article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mark Lester. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110604015514/http://www.mercurynews.com/celebrities/ci_13022554 to http://www.mercurynews.com/celebrities/ci_13022554

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

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail and sperm donations

This edit removed a Daily Mail source with the edit summary "daily mail not a reliable source". I'm not the biggest fan of that newspaper, and I'd fully agree that other, more reliable, sources should be used wherever possible, as per WP:DAILYMAIL. But I don't see how the Daily Mail could have fabricated that exclusive interview. Whether or not re-hashing claims made over nine years ago to the excessively trashy News of the Screws (RIP) actually constitutes anything notable, is another question, of course. Maybe the notable aspect is that Lester at first thought it was a joke. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Undue

@Deisenbe: You've now reverted at least two editors, myself and Awardmaniac, who have expressed concern that the content you are adding is undue. Rather than edit-warring, could you please discuss the matter here? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see the value in restoring complete duplication. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not adding things. What I've added is small. All I've done is undo @Awardmaniac's unexplained deletions. Perhaps he or she might explain them. deisenbe (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your earlier duplication. But do you think it's ok to use the Daily Mail as a source? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given the overall length of the article, I wouldn't consider adding a new top-level heading and an additional paragraph to be insignificant. I support the removal of both as undue weight. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No objection. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just my two cents: I've seen edits elsewhere on Wikipedia noting that citing the Daily Mail as an unreliable source; I know some of their "exclusive interviews" are actually rehashed material from other publications, giving rise to speculation that their claims to exclusivity may not be entirely accurate. Might I suggest that where the given source is the Mail, an alternative source for corroborative purposes be sought? Sophoife (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this latest was another if its claimed exclusives. If you can find any other source, that doesn't attribute them, I'd be pleased and also very surprised. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The whole sperm donor thing is a bit dubious, because it relies on a mixture of WP:PRIMARY and the tabloids. We may never know the truth here, but the claim that he might be the father of Paris Jackson is in WP:EXCEPTIONAL territory, and the sourcing is not exceptional.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're still allowed to post links to the DM, if only to ridicule them? But anyway, here's the video clip from December last year. It would hardly be usable in a court of law, would it. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second marriage?

The infobox just says 'Lisa (2006–2012)'. Was it death or divorce? Valetude (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]