Talk:Howie Gordon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

The Big Brother WikiProject aims to improve articles relating to Big Brother, and Howie Gordon has been identified as one of these articles. Anybody can help the WikiProject by trying to improve existing articles. Please add your name to the list of participants, if you are committed to helping out.

[edit] remove Favorites?

I suggest removing the Favorites section. This really tells us nothing signficant. --Rob 05:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This entire article reads like it was taken out of "Teen Bop" magazine off the back of a fold-out poster. I am going to heavily clean/edit it right now. Pacian 04:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the Big Brother 6 section. Per WP:LIVING such potentially (not actually, but potentially) defaming comments need to have reliable independent sources. That means that what you include must be written about in source independent from the show, and be reliable (not just some blog). If the NY Times cares, we care. If a Big Brother fan site cares, we don't necessarily. It has to be shown what your talking about is signficant. Saying "A notable webcast moment (not aired on television) found Gordon masturbating " is quite wrong, unless a notable publication actually said something like (if so cite the sources). Also, everything in the article (especially potentionally defaming items) must be verifiable by people who don't watch the show. It's critical non-fans can review the article, and remove unverified stuff, without watch a tape of the show. I didn't revert your removal of the trivia (e.g. "Favorites"), as I thought that was a good change (we're not a fan site). Also, I'm not pretending the wording I put back is great. It's not, and improvement is welcome. I rigoriously follow WP:LIVING which states "Potentially libellous or defamatory statements not cited and sourced to verifiable sources should be removed.". --Rob 04:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Rob: There is a line wherein sourcing needs to happen and when it does not. There is no debating that calling a woman "busto" repeatedly, often screaming it at her (and eventually making her cry,) is an misogynistic act. You don't have to like the phrasing, but it doesn't make it factually inaccurate. To ask someone to source this is asking someone to go beyond the call of duty in sourcing. I watched the show devotedly, and Gordon did this in every episode. A cursory google search of "big brother" and "busto" will bring up over 300 various sources referencing contestant April as "busto" because of Gordon's actions. Furthermore, I have also seen the live video footage of Gordon masturbating under the covers in bed with my own two eyes. Independant news sources don't report on masturbating television reality show contestants, but another cursory google search brings up plenty of independant confirmations of the existance of this footage. I appreciate your rigerous following of those rules, but where does the sourcing madness end? It's going to get to the point where one will have to source the statement "The sky is blue." Now I'm on the hunt to actually find someone currently hosting the Howie masturbation footage so I can link to it to appease the situation. Pacian 06:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Update - I have found a link that takes you to a download of the Howie masturbation clip and I will change the citation accordingly. Pacian 06:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:V is core policy, and is non-negotiable. After recent controversies, Wales and Wikipedia, have become *extremely* cautious about biographies of living people. This is a *major* concern, which has actually resulted in the deletion (sometimes unilaterally from above) of articles. It's not enough something is true. You must demonstrate something has been written about in mainstream reliable, respected sources. We're only as good as our sources. Reliable sources don't just prove truthfullness, they also demonstrate something is a legitimate topic to write about. Oh, and don't forget about WP:NOR, as you're suggesting I do original research. Also, even if you get the sources, you need to demonstrate that this information conforms to WP:LIVING. Please read it carefully, which makes clear, that even if something is verifiable, its not always encyclopedic. We shouldn't be writing about everybody who masturbates. "The sky is blue" is not the same as calling somebody names. Also, even if we do write about this, it must be done in an neutral manner. Also, if you don't like me editing the article, keep in mind that many have dealt with this problem simply by deleting the Big Brother bio articles with similiar content (which I have opposed). Key point: this is an encyclopedia. --Rob 06:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It is entirely notable for a celebrity, however insignifigant he or she may be in the grand scheme of fame, was videotaped masturbating. It is akin to having a sex tape released. It is also integral to the establishment of Gordon's character to mention that he behaved cruelly towards women on the television program on which he appeared. If anything the only part of my changes which were relatively unnotable were the comments on the light sabers; but as they were many viewer's favourite part of the show, I included the mention. I've been using wikipedia for nearly 3 years, I'm not a newbie. I know the difference between what is notable and worthy of inclusion, and what is not. This whole desperate citation kick is new to me, and I am growing more accustomed, but I find it very hard to predict what people are going to feel needs citation, and what does not. It seems to be entirely arbitrary, despite the rules that have been laid down. Pacian 06:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the whole sourcing things, you still haven't addressed WP:LIVING. Please read it, and tell me your opinion if this meets that test. Also look at Wikipedia:Pages for deletion/Ivette Corredero and Jennifer Vasquez (AfD discussion). Also check the deletion logs for Big Brother contestant bios. Some individual bios have been deleted numerous times. Repeatedly these articles have been deleted, because the community find the kind stuff unacceptable. The kinds of problems of those articles is quite similiar to what your putting in here. I've tried modestly to make Big Brother articles more encyclopedic. And I want that to built on, not reversed. --Rob 06:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I have read over WP:LIVING. I feel the content I have added, at least at this current point, meets that criteron. It does not express a point of view. It is relevant. It is verifiable. Whether or not the big brother contestant bios are worthy of being here at all is not my battle. My battle is whether or not the content I have added is relevant, encyclopedic, and beneficial to the article - and whether it meets the LIVING test. I say yes to all of these. Pacian 06:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality Dispute

Please explain WHAT you find about this article to be potentialy non-NPOV. Please be SPECIFIC. Pacian 07:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The neutrality dispute has been closed. Pacian 07:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

This heavily bias version has been progressively improved. It was improved somewhat (before I even got to put the tag). The last big POV problem was taken out with this edit of mine to make it good enough, that the "cleanup" tag is sufficient. As long as it doesn't go back to where it was, the POV tag won't be needed anymore. --Rob 07:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

But while we're talking neutrality, perhaps we should also examine of my choice of the word "typical" when describing Gordon's childhood? I condensed that section because it was blathering on and on about him playing with frogs and going to the beach and so forth, but obviously what is a "typical" childhood to me would not be "typical" to someone else... This is the trouble with this increasingly ludicrous demand on neutrality on wikipedia. Ultimately anything that is described with an adjective can be challenged by someone who disagrees with the description. So naturally anyone with half a brain would agree that a man SCREAMING the word "BUSTO! BUSTO!" into a woman's face to the point where she begins to weep is an act of misogyny, but we have to keep the point of v. iew neutral. Where does it end? I think I may have finally had my fill of Wikipedia after 3 years. Pacian 07:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)