Talk:Al Lutz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if 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
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

This article was nominated for deletion on October 18, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents 1 MousePlanet 2 Is Al in the Soarin' Over California video? 3 Pronunciation of Al's last name 4 Deletion 5 Reinstated 6 Recommend for deletion 7 Too many unsourced claims 8 Ye Olde Radical Rewrite 9 What should be in a Wikipedia Page (re Tom Sawyer Island section) 9.1 Third opinion 10 Amateur 11 Revision war 12 Preservation of deleted section 12.1 Tom Sawyer Island

[edit] MousePlanet

Are you sure Al left MousePlanet? I thought he was fired. --Evanwohrman 00:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fired!? I thought he was pissed off with something or other and that is why he left to create MiceAge. Wow, it will be interesting if he was fired.--Speedway 18:19, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

I am a friend of Al who was actually at his house when he broke the news to the MousePlanet staff that he was leaving (much to their surprise). --Chernabog 00:00, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is Al in the Soarin' Over California video?

I'd heard a rumor to the effect that Al is in the little pre-boarding video shown at Soarin' Over California -- specifically, that he's the guest who removes the Mickey Mouse hat and stows it under his seat. Having met Al a few times (my wife used to work with him), I can see a resemblance, but it's been a long time since I met him and I can't be sure. Can anyone confirm whether that's true or not?

Not true. The actor in that video is most definitely not Al. --Chernabog 00:00 April 26, 2006

[edit] Pronunciation of Al's last name

As long as I'm bringing up obscure issues, I wonder about the edit a while back that asserted his name was pronounced "loots". As I mentioned before, my wife worked with him at a small company for some time, and I've frequently heard her pronounce his name -- always to rhyme with "nuts". If it's actually supposed to be pronounced "loots", it seems odd that she'd have been using a mistaken pronunciation for so long, and that he never would have corrected her.

Just wondering. --John Callender 05:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It's the same o as loser...

[edit] Deletion

I feel that this page should be deleted because it is a Vanity page, this is a bias, one sided article about a man with a lot of controversy sorrounding him. Whenever some one types something negative about him, it is taken as POV. This article is only good for boosting his self esteem.

I disagree. Recently, Al Lutz has been quoted by major news media including a couple of stories picked up on the AP wire. I vote to keep the page. It's not just an ego boosting page. --Hastin (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reinstated

This article was deleted by someone who said it was "nonsense vanity", with "no assertion of notability." I have resurrected the article, and as proof of notability, submit these two newspaper articles, which not only quote Lutz but also use his reporting as their basis:

• [1]
• [2]--Plainsong 19:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

So, does the fact that it was deleted mean that we've lost the edit history of the original article? That's kind of lame, if true. -- John Callender 04:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

However, neither of these articles say anything more than the fact that he is a blogger, if every blogger submits his own page, or if everyone ever quoted by a news paper get heir own page, what is the point? Wikipedia shoulonly contain valid information. --Ybahotshot200 04:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Now that the article has been rewriten, i retract my request for deletion. The way it is now complies wih wikipedia standards and contains a neutral attitude, however, i would like an Admin to follow this article, if possible, as it is a hot issue with many people. --Ybahotshot200 05:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recommend for deletion

I don't think Al Lutz deserves an encyclopedia article just because he was quoted on a few newspaper articles and blogs about Disney. He's just a blogger, if Al Lutz deserves a Wikipedia article then so does any other average joe out there that writes a blog and has been quoted in some newspapers. I recommend this article for deletion, Al Lutz is not relevant and does not deserve an article on Wikipedia. 67.34.102.46 00:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Concur. While I enjoy his website and like his articles, this is not worthy of a page. If he gets a page, many, many other bloggers who have been in the newspaper a few times deserve one, too. Not encyclopedia worthy. Marionbutts (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

In the last few weeks, two stories (Small World weight issues, and the spreading of Ashes at DIsneyland) that Al Lutz wrote over at MiceAge has been in the International Media and has been covered by National Newspapers and TV News, such as the New Yotk Times, the Los Angeles Times and ABC News. I think the page should be kept. He is well known and is worthy of a Wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.181.42 (talk) 22:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me add one more thing, the USC Annenberg Online Journalism Review interviewed Al Lutz in October of 2007, and had this to say. http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/071022niles/ "I've been covering theme parks, online and off, for more than a decade. But Lutz is the dean of theme park reporters on the Internet. A former music recording producer, Lutz started writing about Disneyland on USENET, then on a series of websites. For fans used to ever-positive coverage about Disney and its theme parks in the traditional press, Lutz provided a bracing splash of reality. His reports detailed an ugly side at the so-called Happiest Place on Earth, from chipped paint and burned-out lights to maintenance cutbacks that other critics charged endangered the public safety. Two fatal accidents at the park, later blamed on park personnel and mainentance failures, brought more attention to Lutz's critical work. "

This helps to show that this page should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.181.42 (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

He had his unsourced comments published in newspapers a couple of times. Good for him. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is NOT a compendium of internet celebrities. As I mentioned before, I enjoy the guy's website, but does writing a couple of unsourced and unconfirmed rumors that are picked up by some newspapers make you worthy of such an article. At the very least, the article has several ridiculously biased statements that need to be edited down. Marionbutts (talk) 04:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the call for deletion. Al Lutz does not need his own Wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.35.112 (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with the call for deletion.Wrcousert (talk) 09:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, the USC Annenberg article and his original information being used by International Media makes him more than "a simple blogger", and since I disagree, I am removing the template as per the instructions, and bring the discussion back here to the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.181.42 (talk) 04:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is not eligible for CSD or PROD deletion because it has already been discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Lutz. If someone wishes to nominate it for deletion again, they would need to create a new, second AfD discussion. — Satori Son 17:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Too many unsourced claims

There are far too many unsourced claims for this to be a serious encyclopedic article. In addition, there are far too many biased statements. Marionbutts (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added a few FACT tags on various hyperbolic statements. Also, and I feel this is a larger item, the entire article appears to be about pieces that have appeared on MiceAge, not about Mr. Lutz himself. This article should probably be stripped of (practically all) MiceAge items, and those items should be moved to a new page... if one is deemed appropriate for WP... for MiceAge itself. As a biography page, this seems to be more about reactions to various articles rather than who Mr Lutz is or why he is viewed the way he is (positively or negatively). SpikeJones (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ye Olde Radical Rewrite

Completely cut out useless information. Deleted two dead links- this article now completely lacks sources. Added fact tags to statements lacking citation. Eliminated biased language. Do not return this article to its previous crapulent state! If the article continues to lack any kind of source material, I will nominate it for deletion. Marionbutts (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, you didn't just delete "two dead links", you removed both references in their entirety! Please read WP:REF#What to do when a reference link "goes dead". We don't remove solid references just because that particular URL is no longer active.

Since you believe this article should be deleted, I would strongly suggest that you go ahead nominate it for AfD again. That way, we can once again determine community consensus on the issue. Thank you. — Satori Son 20:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright, alright. I am no wikigenius. Patience. The links have been dead for a year. Thanks for the fix. And I think the article should be deleted IF it continues to have a complete lack of sourced material as well as hearsay and biased information. Also, fancy username font. Marionbutts (talk) 05:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What should be in a Wikipedia Page (re Tom Sawyer Island section)

The main poilcy of information contained on Wikipedia is verifiable information.

The Tom Sawyer Island section has many references and is totally verifiable.

For some reason, one or more people think it should be removed.

But it is part of why Al Lutz is well known and what he does, and the Impact he has on the Walt Disney Company.

The information is not biased or inaccurate, and doesn't need to be deleted.

I do feel that the information is being remioved due to a personal grudge, and will be asking the Wikipedia Adminstrators for help with the dispute, and will request Editor assistance.

76.168.181.42 (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)76.168.181.42

Good. I hope that this happens so this dispute can be laid to rest once and for all. Until this happens, though. people will find it prudent to remove that, as it simply doesn't fit Wikipedia standards.65.103.3.173 (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

What "standard" doesn't it meet? It has been up for over a year, and we might as well leave it up until a decision is made. 76.168.181.42 (talk) 01:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)76.168.181.42

Why it doesn't belong: first of all, there is no clear-cut connection between Mr. Lutz blogging about this change and Disney making their decision. This is completely hearsay, and there is no possible way to verify it. Links are old and outdated. Further, it is merely a summary of a past posting of his, and doesn't really demonstrate who he is or why he blogs on Wikipedia. There have been absolutely no strong reasons as to why this should remain. The whole Lindsey Lohan-Disneyland party thing he blogged about might be better for this page, but even that is rather dubious for the Wikipedia.

Please provide some STRONG evidence as to why Tom Sawyer should stay, because in its current form it really doesn't belong. 151.151.21.101 (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

The Tom Sawyer Island section demonstrates with a real example the assertions made earlier in the article regarding the influential and controversial nature of Lutz' blogging. The section consists of a series of factual statements supported by valid and reliable citations some of which need to be updated to repair outdated links. I think the Tom Sawyer Island section gives the necessary heft that makes the article a useful addition to Wikipedia. The references should be updated and the section should remain. If consensus is not forthcoming in the discussion here, I would recommend seeking further assistance from dispute resolution. Mmyotis (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The connections made in this section are impossible to prove. The information is also outdated. The article can certainly be cleaned up a bit more and expanded, but not in this manner. Fails WP:Bio and WP:ONEEVENT. 151.151.73.171 (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Note, a request has been placed for mediation, as noted at the top of this page, please quit removing information until the dispute has been settled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeKelsey (talk • contribs) 18:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Also note: "News reports. Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.) Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews." Therefore, this also fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. 151.151.21.100 (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

But this is NOT an "Single Event", the USC Annenberg article brings out the fast that Al Lutz has been reporting on the Walt Disney Company for over a decade, and is known as the "dean of theme park reporters". —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeKelsey (talk • contribs) 19:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's not a single event, then why do you continue to defend this section's existence which is reporting a single event? 151.151.73.171 (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amateur

The use of the word amateur is innappropriate for describing the kind of reporter Lutz is as it carries the non-neutral connotation of lacking the skills of a professional. It is also innapropriate because as publisher and reporter for MiceAge he spends a significant amount of time supporting the site and makes money from his efforts. Professional might be a better choice of adjective, however, I don't see a need for any adjective to describe what kind of a reporter Lutz is in the lead section of this article. The facts of the article should tell the story. Mmyotis (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revision war

Revision war is getting ridiculous. My "third opinion" in the matter: current version removes outdated information which breaks standards set forth by wikipedia (Tom Sawyer Island). Current version removed POV title (now Reporting on Disney rather than Impact on Disney). Current version removes abbreviations non-Disney aficionados wouldn't understand (such as WDW). Many explanations have been provided by the one making the changes, and at this point GeorgeKelsey simply appears to be reverting the article in a manner which would constitute vandalism. Toring (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not true. The Tom Sawyer Island section has a long history here and this only became an issue when the unregistered user 151.151.73.171 came along and deleted the entire section that this problem started.

It looks suspiciously like editor Toring, who has never previously contributed to this page, has some sort of prior relationship with unregistered user 151.151.73.171 and does not have a neutral point of view here.

Both editors have performed multiple reversions of this section and thus both have violated the three revert rule and it appears now that a the mediation cabal coordinator is complicit in the removal of disputed content when the proper way of dealing with the disputed material (which was a long-standing part of the article) is to leave the content and work on mediate a solution to the dispute.

So where is the discussion on this talk page which is supposed to lead to a resolution of the problem? Mmyotis (talk) 09:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

GeorgeKelsey does not appear to be interested in resolving the dispute, nor appear to be listening to anyone other than those who agree with him. Everytime the article is updated to be more relevant, and less biased he continually reverts it back. He continually opens new mediation cases, which are promptly closed. Please tell us WHY you are continually placing biased, unprovable information which is NOT verifiable! Wordstock (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The "Tom Sawyer Island" paragraph has multiple references to major news reports and press releases, and is clearly valuable, as commented by the one "Third Opinion" that we have had placed here. I have asked for "Editor Assistance", a "Third Opinion" and for informal Mediation (which someone keeps removing from the top of the page, which is against Wikipedia standards, as the dispute is clearly not settled). If someone is being biased, it is using terms like "Amateur Reporter", which has been disputed by a Third Party here on this discussion page. GeorgeKelsey (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"Impact on Disney" is biased language - "Reporting on Disney" is not. While the Tom Sawyer Island has links, the reason it keeps getting removed is because it is fallacious - you are making a "Post Hoc Ergo Proctor Hoc" argument, and the references don't support what you are trying to claim - that it was Al Lutz which caused Disney to make the theme "Pirate's Lair on Tom Sawyer Island". Wikipedia is not a place for original research, and you have no direct sources which can definitively prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Al had some sort of impact on the decision. This breaks multiple Wikipedia standards which have been posted above. Mediation box keeps getting removed because they keep closing your cases. Third opinion is exactly that - a "third opinion" and you only seem to care about others who share your opinion, and not about those who seek to keep the article bound by Wikipedia standards. At this point, your revisions are now clearly vandalizing the page, and you are further propagating unverifiable claims. 151.151.73.171 (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion that "Impact on Disney" should be changed to "Reporting on Disney"

But I don't see any "Post Hoc Ergo Proctor Hoc argument" in the Tom Saywer Island section, because the section never claims that "Al Lutz caused Disney to make the theme "Pirate's Lair on Tom Sawyer Island". The section provides a fully referenced series of facts that demonstrate the contention that Lutz is an important and influencial Disney commentator as the article asserts.

If you believe otherwise, please demonstrate it.

Failing that demonstration, or any other reasonable argument for deletion, I believe the section should remain a part of the Al Lutz article. Mmyotis (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"The story prompted . This is a fallacious claim. Again, this specific sentence is not verifiable. If you can find a source which states this, I would be happy to take a look at it. However, even without the fallacious claims, Wikipedia is not a repository of information, and just by including this section and others which are basically summaries of past articles, Wikipedia standards are being violated. 151.151.73.170 (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence as written might imply a direct connection for which there is no evidence. I suggest the following re-wording to eliminate the false implication: "Following Lutz's report on Disney's intention to eliminate Tom Saywer Island, the Times editorial board plead in their opinion section to keep the island's original theme of a playground based on the classic American literary work The Adventures of Tom Sawyer." Mmyotis (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with the "Reporting" issue, if I have made "edits/undo's" it has to bring back the Tom Sawyer Paragraph, and not to reflect the other change. I have no problem with the change to "Reporting" compared to Impact GeorgeKelsey (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there any objection to the section as amended? Mmyotis (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

While at least it appears to be less biased, it still really oesn't justify it's own section of this article more than a brief mention as is already done. I think there are other things Lutz has blogged on which are much more notable and may possibly be deserving of their own section here - "it's a small world" really is a much larger, more impactful story than the Tom Sawyer one, and I could see that as having its own section. 151.151.73.163 (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who user 65.103.3.173 is, but they should join the discussion here if wish to see some portion of the article removed. The section in dispute has been around for quite some time and should remain on the page until there is some consensus that it should not. Mmyotis (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Admin locked the article with the Tom Sawyer Island section removed and to encourage resolution, and then preceeded to make additional changes to the article. Placing the article back to the way it was pre-lock doesn't mean that the issue is resolved. Therefore, I am reverting it. The stronger argument thus far is for delete, and the folks who want to keep it haven't justified their position other than rewording it to make it less biased. It also seems prudent to note to GeorgeKelsey that someone's "third opinion" is not some sort of administrative, official, or final decision. A third opinion is simply an opinion. 65.103.3.173 (talk) 01:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have seen no argument for why it should be deleted. I've only seen some statements about it's not being important. Perhaps you could contribute. Mmyotis (talk) 01:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Arguments have been made, including specific links to Wikipedia policies it is breaking. The only argument for keeping it around is that "it has been around here for a long time" and that "it demonstrates what he does". In case I am missing something, The entire article states out quite clearly what Al does. Someone PLEASE make a case for keeping this around other than one based on length of post or as evidence of what he does. Wikipedia is not a respository of information, and this simply isn't notable enough to merit its own section, and it doesn't fit within the guidelines which have been listed here repeatedly. 151.151.73.166 (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are the Wikipedia policies the Tom Sawyer section fails: WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:BIO, WP:ONEEVENT. Please do not say that you have not seen any argument for it to be deleted, this has been made repeatedly in this discussion page. Please read through the entire discussion. 151.151.21.100 (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Preservation of deleted section

Since the section in question keeps getting deleted I have included it here for the purpose of discussion.

[edit] Tom Sawyer Island

- On October 3, 2006, Al Lutz published a column revealing plans within Walt Disney Pictures in Burbank to transform Disneyland's Tom Sawyer Island into a playground area based on Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, which made its debut in the park as a ride in 1967^[1]. The story was picked up quickly by national media, such as the Los Angeles Times^[2], which has frequently turned to Lutz as a source for Disneyland related news, and the local Orange County Register^[3] Following Lutz's report on Disney's intention to eliminate Tom Saywer Island, the Times editorial board plead in their opinion section to keep the island's original theme of a playground based on the classic American literary work The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. ^[4]. On January 26th, 2007 Disney did announce "Pirate's Lair at Tom Sawyer Island." which opened on May 25th, 2007. ^[5]

- ^[6]

Mmyotis (talk) 13:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mmyotis, I gather there is concern relating to the paragraph implying the decision by Disney on January 26, 2007 was caused by Al Lutz's column of October 3, 2006. PhilKnight (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Phil. My understanding is that there is an agreement on the wording at this point, but that there is a disagreement on whether or not the section merits inclusion in the article at all. Mmyotis (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, one editor believes the Tom Saywer Island section merits inclusion because it demonstrates the impact of Lutz' reporting. I believe the argument for removal is that some other item might be more notable, however, I havn't heard any alternate suggestions at this point. Mmyotis (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)