Talk:Joe Francis

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]

Contents 1 Recent Interview 2 Removing of unpleasant facts 3 Attack 4 Category changes 5 Prosecutor's comment on criminal verdict

[edit] Recent Interview

In a recent interview, on the Adam carolla show, he said that the trial, the one with the guy and the gun and the tape, was well over.

[edit] Removing of unpleasant facts

The part below was removed as well as the charges against him in the article (numerous times). What's with the agenda? - Ouzo 02:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attack

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Girls_Gone_Wild&diff=32247750&oldid=32220143 has info in the GGW article about the attack, and it had more info than there is in this page, it should probably be combined into this article, I just don't know the sources and stuff so I'm not the person who should rewrite Francis' article. Atari2600tim 16:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

um

So what's up with this sycophantic bs? I'm not saying someone should write that he's a shameless and sleazy women-exploiting jackass or anything, but seriously, how can you just shrug off the moral aspect of what he's doing?

This is the exact bio he has on the girls gone wild web site (see link at the bottom of the article) not objective at all, very pro-joe (hollywood knocking on his door..) Should mention his legal troubles with underage girls to be fare, though still am impressed at how much dough he has been able to make by taking MTV material and going nude with it. The foolish american consumer, eh?

I agree that this article sounds extremely one-sided, especially considering how controversial his business is. Blinutne 05:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category changes

I see that there is a dispute over whether Joe Francis is Jewish. So far in my research, I have found a few references to him being Jewish, but not in any source that is credible, and the references were ambiguous at best.

If you can find a reliable source that has that kind of detail in it, please add the detail to the artcle and add the source in the references, or mention it here in on this talk page and I will add the detail cite to the article if it does seem relevant, reliable, and credible. That goes for any biographic details. Relevant well cited facts are welcome, but keep NPOV very much in mind. This is a biography of a living person and so extra care in using reliable sources should be taken.Lkinkade 16:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prosecutor's comment on criminal verdict

I thought its hypocrisy was self-evident, but presented NPOV. So I was surprised that anyone thought it POV in the other direction. In any case, no biggie. Ribonucleic 15:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It read to me like a campaign statement for the prosecutor, which does not belong in this article. Nor did it contain anything factually relevant to Francis. This is a biography of a living person, and so we should limit what is presented to well sited relevant facts. I wish we had more information about the subject himself, but I can't seem to find much to site other than reports of his interactions with the law.Lkinkade 16:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, the last thing I had in mind was furthering her political career. :-) I thought that it was a way of putting this particular witch-hunt in its political context. But again, the removal is fine with me. Ribonucleic 17:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If all you're finding are reports of his interactions with the law (which probably reflect him in a negative light, yes) then that's probably what should be used. If all information points to him being a (WP:BLP violation removed), then that's what should be said here. 71.90.25.14 06:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)