Talk:Mitch Gaylord

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

Article reverts[edit]

I've reverted the changes made by an IP that implies in its edit summary it is or represents Mitch Gaylord. The reason used was WP:COI, however, the edits by the anon also removed cited material as well as inserting marketing/advertising and un-cited and possible non-notable content on his wife (secondary biography content).

It should also be noted that this article has been discussed at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Mitch Gaylord. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite attempts to communicate to the anon, it appears that they are using a dynamic IP, making it difficult to talk to them directly - and the edits continue reverting it back to the COI version (as evidenced by the edit summaries) that removes appropriate references and adding marketing and non-notable content. Some of the edits involved: [1], [2], [3], [4]. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation loop[edit]

The citation to his 1st wife was to a website that cited an uncited wikpedia article on his 1st wife. I removed the mention of the 1st wife and reference to that website.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google search turns up several sources to confirm the first wife, the first three I found:
Per WP:BLPNAME, "The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject."
So the question isn't if the information is verifiable or not (it is verifiable), but if the relationship is relevant to a reader's understanding of the subject. --71.231.75.104 (talk) 03:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems obvious to me that a marriage to a Playboy centerfold would be relevant and notable. Gaylord's first marriage produced three children and was certainly an important milestone in his life. Ebikeguy (talk) 03:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now that reliable sources for the information have been found it should be returned to the article. WP does not pander to the likes and preferences of the subjects of articles, any relevant reliably sourced material can and should be included in articles. Roger (talk) 07:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the IMDB a Reliable Source?[edit]

I see that two of the citations in this article are to the Internet Movie Database (IMDB). There has been quite a bit of discussion on Wikipedia as to whether IMDB should be considered an RS, without any conclusive decisions. Shall we all agree that IMDB will be considered a reliable source for this article? Ebikeguy (talk) 02:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is never a reliable source for BLPs, outside of an external link for non-contentious role information. In this case it appears it is only being used for basic information regarding a couple of roles, and as the information is not contested I see no reason why the links need to be removed. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 02:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article protected[edit]

I have protected the article to prevent the current edit-warring.

Anyone wishing to make edits will need to request them here, where they can be discussed.

Please note there is already a discussion above regarding Mr Gaylord's ex-wife and whether she should be included in the article. --Dweller (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would humbly suggest that Gaylord's first wife's status as a Playboy centerfold, noted in the reference given about his first marriage, should be noted in the article. Being a Playboy centerfold is a notable achievement, and the fact that Gaylord was married to one does give us some valuable insight into his past. Of course, this matter is not urgent, and insertion of such language can wait until the page is unprotected. I'd like to see what editor consensus says on the matter at this point. Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 13:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would have said it was a neutral statement and worth mentioning just as information, but in light of your comment I'm not so sure. What insight into his past do you think we get from noting his ex-wife's profession? I wouldn't say we are able to draw any conclusions about Gaylord from this information, but if the intention and effect of including it is that people make inferences beyond the mere facts then perhaps it is superfluous and unnecessary. AJCham 14:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is trivial and sourced to...a highschool reunion type blog? That falls far short of the quality of sources required when you want to include contentious information in a BLP. Unless the information has been covered in a reputable source known for its fact checking, I see no reason why it needs to be included here. Even if a solid source for her name could be found, here past occupation is relevant to her notability, but plays no factor in his notability. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 14:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is necessary to point out that she was a Playboy model in this article. Just the fact that Gaylord was married to her and they have three children is sufficient. He has never denied that he was married to her, he seems to be merely embarrassed by the fact that it is mentioned here. Subjects of articles do not have the right to not be embarrassed - if that were the case we could never have articles about for example criminals or politicians involved in scandals. Roger (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I have found two citations from Playboy.com (one was listed by another editor, above) that can be used to show that Gaylord was married to Driggs, and that Playboy is well known for its fact-checking. At this point, consensus seems to be that the Playboy connection should be left out. Fine by me, either way. Ebikeguy (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My first article was a BLP. I gave the courtesy of emailing a friend of his to contact him about the article's creation. I couldn't find an email for him. I agree there should be a balance between sensitivity and providing information. Such as not including extra info on past partners. If a past partner had been a shoplifter that would have about the same insight as being a Playboy model, but in more negative way.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that her profession need not be mentioned here - I would also suggest that even her name need not be mentioned in this article. We can state that he was previously married and had three children from that marriage; the sources mentioned in the above section "Citation loop" can be used as refs - and if the reader wants additional details, they can follow those references. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the first wife is notable, then there is a clear reason to name her and the reason for her notability. If not, then her profession should be omitted as trivial (whatever the profession might be), but her name should not. I'm, erm, not entirely familiar with notability guidelines for centrefolds... does anyone know if the ex Mrs Gaylord notable? --Dweller (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Driggs is not a redlink, it is a redirect to a section about her in List of Playboy Playmates of 1990, so she is notable. The WP:NPOV policy does not allow us to pander to the likes and dislikes of subjects of articles. Subjects do not have the right to not be embarrassed. We even have articles about criminals. Ideally a BLP subject should not be allowed to influence the content of an article about them - except in the case of defamatory material, which is in any case forbidden. As Gaylord married Driggs after she had already been playmate of the month that information cannot be considered defamatory towards Gaylord. Roger (talk)
If she's notable, it would be POV to omit her name and the reason for her notability, as it would equally be if she was some kind of heroine of social justice. --Dweller (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Following up on the discussion started in the above section ... per WP:BLPNAME, "The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject."
Is the information relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject? Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion; does the first wife's name and career in any way change our understanding of the relationship beyond instead simply stating that there was an earlier marriage from which he had three children?
Note: I have no strong opinion either way at this point - I ask these questions to get a better understanding of how others interpret how listing the name applies under WP:BLPNAME. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the subject's ex-wife or mother of his children is notable, omitting it means we do not have a complete understanding. Here, she's both. And, it would seem from below, possibly notable twice over. Omitting it would be bonkers and definitely POV. If she was notable for curing some disease we wouldn't be discussing it. --Dweller (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I would have the same questions regardless of the profession. If she cured a disease, landed on the moon, invented the ultimate gadget, or was an actress/centerfold - all are important mentions if they are about the subject of the article ... but that's not the case, we're talking about the achievements of someone connected to the subject of the article, not the subject himself.
I can see your argument for mentioning the person by name - but still not seeing how mentioning a profession of an ex-spouse helps us understand Mitch Gaylord himself. Was her profession influential to his own achievements, or change the value of those achievements? I don't see how, so don't see how mentioning it "is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject". --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMBD shows her as an actress before and after being a Playboy model. Could we just list her as an actress then? She may also be notable enough to have her own article with a link to the Playboy month article? Btw Roger good use of a proper double negative.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to say anything more about her in this article than her name and that she and Gaylord have three children. A wikilink would take care of further curiosity. What "double negative"? Roger (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Wikilink would make information available, if the reader were interested. Ebikeguy (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So it looks like we have consensus. The current text is adequate; all it needs is a wikilink on her name and a better cite, which is dead easy to find. Roger (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus reached?[edit]

Wikilink only is fine with me. Subjects do not have the right to not be embarrassed. was the double negative you used earlier. A postitive would read as subjects have the right to be embarrassed, which would not convey the point correctly.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we have consensus. (I refactored the heading as a subheading and as a question to invite comment from others agreeing or disagreeing.) Roger (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Here are links to suitable RS citations: Cite 1 and Cite 2.Ebikeguy (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I have done the agreed edits. Roger (talk) 10:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revisit: Sequence in the wording?[edit]

Currently, the material is worded as:

"From 1992 to 2003 he was married to Deborah Driggs with whom he has three children. Gaylord is currently married to Valentina Agius and has two children with her."

I think it would be better to lead off with the current relationship, as well as dropping the date range which I think places a higher weight on that material (given as the date the second marriage began is not mention - leaving off the years places the material on more equal footing). I think it would read better as:

"Gaylord is currently married to Valentina Agius and has two children with her. He was previously married to Deborah Driggs with whom he has three children."

Opinions on this change? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Current information should be first. Ebikeguy (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support because it makes sense. Roger (talk) 06:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, no dates are needed for basic reader information. Although I still feel there should be no hints about the Playboy connection. Wikilink is fine if they wish to read more on her. I still feel it is bias and pejoritive to insist the connection be made on this page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, denying the reason why Driggs is notable is in fact pejorative. This page does not actually say Driggs is was a Playboy model. We are not allowed to worry about the feelings of subjects - as long as our material is backed up with solid sources. If we accept your argument we will be forced to delete all articles about criminals amongst others. There is no right to not be embarrassed. In any case we don't know that Driggs may in fact be very proud of her achievement as a model. Roger (talk) 07:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't that belong only in her section then? Criminals have their own articles, and a wikilink here is all the reader may need to show her as notable, which some may still question.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where in THIS article does it say she is a Playboy model? The entire sentence mentioning her is: "From 1992 to 2003 he was married to Deborah Driggs with whom he has three children." Roger (talk) 07:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor keeps on insisting on reverting the cite to the 1st marriage to a Playboy one, when two other refs show the same information. The IMBD ref could actually cite the entire sentence and even save a few bytes that way.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So the cite says she was a Playboy model, not this article itself, one actually has to read the page at playboy.com to know she was a model. IMDB's use as a source on WP is deprecated - see WP:IMDB and WP:IMDB/RS.
What puzzles me is why you are suddenly so interested in hiding the simple facts - even to the extent of removing a reference that mentions Driggs was a centrefold model? You seem to have completely reveresed from your original support for this consensus as well as your earlier agreement that a subject does not have the right not to be embarrassed. Roger (talk) 13:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Roger. IMDB biographies, especially, are not considered reliable sources because they are not fact-checked and can be written anonymously. See this discussion, which contains a list with links to many other discussions on IMDB's reliability. Playboy, on the other hand, is recognized as a reliable source. Ebikeguy (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems relevant to me that the section you just referenced contains the following language, Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is this important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out, or stick to the facts: "John Doe divorced Jane Doe." It seems to me that we have all agreed to follow this advice to the letter, in merely stating that the marriage occurred without giving any details other than a wikilink to the notable person Gaylord divorce. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the wording per the suggestion mentioned above. The added text is entirely factual, and does not mention any secondary information about the ex-wife other than her name - and the source used (Playboy) is clearly a reliable source. As mentioned by others, IMDB is not a reliable source; nor is the high-school reunion website that was previously used in the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Due to the dead link, I've updated the cite to use the archived page using the Wayback Machine (aka Internet Archive). I've restored and updated to use the working archived page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I smell a rat! It looks like someone has convinced playboy.com to kill that page, it was working perfectly just 2 days ago. Roger (talk) 07:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It ended up nicely though, finding out about Wayback Machine was worth the trouble, as far as I am concerned. Ebikeguy (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is ok now. I aplogize to all for being so anal about it. I was most concerned about the legal aspects of information in a BLP that wasn't properly cited, especially when the person is involved. I felt speedy delete of info is the best CYA legally. There are further details that may have started all of this, but I won't mention it here. It is too bad wikipedia can't use the wayback machine resources, they must have huge data storage.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking only for myself, I would like to thank you for your efforts to make sure this article meets Wikipedia's requirements. I know that there are forces at work that do not want certain information to appear in this article. We must make sure that everything is correct and proper. Ebikeguy (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection[edit]

I am about to unprotect the article. A resumption of edit warring against consensus will see blocks being freely given out. --Dweller (talk) 10:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dweller for your help in stabilizing the situation. Roger (talk) 10:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mitch Gaylord. 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: 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) 03:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mitch Gaylord. 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: 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) 17:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IJSHF Induction[edit]

The International Jewish Sports Hall of Fame website says that he was inducted in 1988. IMDb says the same. And yet the linked reference is from 2009, and Jerusalem Post agrees. So there's definitely some confusion here...would the IJSHF be the dominant answer here? It seems strange that he would be inducted in 1988 and not have a ceremony until 2009. -Etoile ✩ (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mitch_Gaylord&oldid=1212567671"