Talk:Ioan Gruffudd/Archive: IoanOnline.com controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

"IoanOnline controversy": Should it remain in the article?

I note that references to the so-called "IoanOnline controversy" were first added to the article some days ago, then deleted, but have recently been added again. Personally, I'm doubtful about the relevance of the section to the article. I realize that some of Gruffudd's fans are upset about the closing down of IoanOnline and the reasons for that, but Wikipedia is not really the right forum for views on the matter to be aired. At best the information is of marginal interest as it does not relate at all to Gruffudd's work and achievements. I suggest that a straw poll be held to decide whether references to the controversy should remain in the article or be deleted. Do indicate "Keep" or "Remove" below and your brief reasons for your view, and sign your post with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks. Cheers, Jacklee 14:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Remove - For the reasons stated above, I think the section should be removed. Jacklee 14:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Remove - agree with the reasons given above, it's very peripheral and inconsequential to Ioan's career. -- Arwel (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP - Wikipedia is not giving its personal view, it is basically stating a fact. Yes it may not relate to Gruffudd's work and achievements, but does in someway relate to private life and career. All the other actors fansites have the good, the bad and the Ugly including many scandulous events, that i bet the actors would love to be removed, but why should Gruffudd be any different!. It is because this time fans where involved and Gruffudd was in the wrong. So stay true to the fans, stay true to the public, keep it THERE!! anon

I see that another editor has taken the initiative to remove the "IoanOnline controversy" subsection. I would probably have let the above poll go on for a bit longer, but anyway there seems to be a consensus on removal. Cheers, Jacklee 12:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

  • KEEP - It has been much documented recently, more so than many other things in his page, including his work, and as such I believe it should stay there. It's objective, concise, and in itself not controversial. Also there is nothing in the brief statement there that isn't supported by a press release from his PR people.203.54.74.238 17:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP Jacklee you should not take it upon yourself to remove facts from an Encyclopedia. I know you are a fan and therefore want certain facts that make your 'hero' look bad to be censored, but Wikipedia is not a fansite nor place for press releases from publicists. Also, this is not about 'consensus of opinion' as you seem to think - if something well-documented happened - it's a fact.Truthwilloutliveyou 17:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't regard myself as a fan, just a conscientious editor. I wasn't the person who originally deleted the information, although I did initiate this straw poll to see whether there was a consensus on keeping or deleting the information. At the time when the information was first deleted, there was a consensus on deleting it. Now it seems that more people feel the information should be kept. That's entirely fine; it's not for me to decide what should or should not remain in the article, provided it's not defamatory or otherwise offends Wikipedia policy. However, I think the matter should have been discussed here on the Talk page first and a consensus reached before the information was repeatedly reinserted. For the record, I'm still of the view that the information is quite marginal to the article. If I were to consult an encyclopedia to find out about Gruffudd, would it matter to me to know that he had ceased funding a fansite? I don't think so, and for that reason I think the information should be omitted. But that's just my view. Cheers, Jacklee 08:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok Jacklee, that's your view, but if IG was willing to fund this site then it was obviously important to him, and therefore not that marginal. He also posted on the site regarding the comments about Evans. It makes the article more comprehensive if it is included.Truthwilloutliveyou 17:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Jacklee: Not only is this section only of interest to a very small group, it’s inaccurate and defamatory. The section right now contains this sentence: “Later that night Gruffudd sent an email that started with "Dear All", and went on to call all the fans (even though only a handful had made the comments about Evans) "despicable" for having said awful things about his fiancée.” Here’s the complete text of Gruffudd’s letter as originally posted on Ioanonline.com in March 2007 (Since Ioanonline no longer exists, it’s hard to prove the accuracy of this letter, but that's the problem with this entire section) The emphasis is added:

Dear all,

It is with a heavy heart that I write this letter. I was utterly aghast and in a state of shock when I discovered the unpleasant and sometimes vitriolic comments that were being leveled at my fiancée Alice when I recently observed the community forum on 'ioanonline'. I find it hard to believe that people who have supported me so ardently over the years would behave in such a despicable manner.

I have never been happier since meeting and falling in love with Alice and I am overwhelmed with excitement about getting married to the woman of my dreams.

I am aware that it is always a small minority that gives the majority a bad name.

I wish to thank those of you who continually support everything I do in such a positive and passionate manner, and I implore the few of you that sullies the good name of the majority to put an end to this practice that has brought such heartache to me personally.

Regards, Ioan

Gruffudd does not call anyone “despicable”, and he very clearly emphasizes that not all the fans are responsible for this behavior. Whether the misinterpretation of Gruffudd’s statements in the entry is accidental or deliberate, it’s defamatory, and it makes me doubt the veracity of the rest of this section. The section should be removed. Thank you.Ted gluck 15:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)TedGluck

Hi, TedGluck, thanks for your comments. I agree with you, but as I mentioned in the section below entitled "Ioanonline controversy again: Claims about Alice Evans", there are editors who feel strongly that the information in question deserves to remain. If you feel strongly about the matter and wish to remove the information, then by all means go ahead and do so. However, based on past experience your edit is likely to be reverted. As I've also mentioned before, I have no desire to get into an edit war, so I just try to make sure that the language used remains moderate and that facts are supported by references as far as possible. I've therefore included the full text of Gruffudd's message as provided by you in a footnote, and modified the wording of the article accordingly. Cheers, Jacklee 11:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Jacklee: Thank you for your attention to this, and thank you for the modification. I'd just as soon avoid an edit war as well. It does bother me that the sentence, "In March 2007, Evans claimed that a moderator from Ioanonline was sending her death threats, although there does not seem to be any evidence to support her claim" is unsupported by citation. This appears to be just hearsay. Gruffudd's letter to Ioanonline makes no reference to death threats, and neither Alice Evans nor the former site operator of Ioanonline has ever made any kind of public statement on the matter. Neither of the provided links, to the IMDB message board threatd and to the icWales article, make any reference to death threats. I would argue that if this statement cannot be verified, it should be removed. Thank you. Ted gluck 15:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Ted_Gluck

Hi, TedGluck. Well, give it a few days. If no one provides a reference for the statement, then go ahead and delete it in accordance with "Wikipedia:Citing sources#Unsourced material", which states: "All unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed from articles and talk pages immediately. It should not be tagged. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Libel" (bold emphasis in original). Cheers, Jacklee 15:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Will do, Jacklee. Thank you. Ted gluck 16:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Ted_Gluck

Leave well enough alone

Is it right that people criticize Ioan's fiance when they don't even know her? I mean, for all we know she could be a cheery Mary Poppins lass. 'I beleive if they love eachother, leave it be.'

Matholwch 05:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  • How is this relevant to this article? There's no critism of Alice Evans in it. 203.54.74.139 12:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It's stating a fact in general, not just about the article. No, there is no criticism of Ms. Evans, and there shouldn't be. I agree with Matholwch though. People should accept the fact that they love each other. (Yes, this is a discussion, which is what this page is for). —The preceding comment is by 209.142.144.140 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC): Please sign your posts!
  • I think you missed this at the top of the page: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ioan Gruffudd article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." 144.139.163.234 10:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I think you previous poster missed the article about the ""IoanOnline controversy": Should it remain in the article?". How is this any different? It is stating that they love eachother and there has been critizism in the past about thier love on Ioan's fansite. BTW, The Ioan Controversy is important, and so is his fiance. So, maybe other users should consider the facts before they post thier irrelevant opinions about posted articles on the discussion page. Now, back on the subject at hand...I hope Ioan and Alice have a lovely life together. Is it true that they over-booked their wedding and as a result have to un-invite some people? —The preceding comment is by 209.142.144.24 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC): Please sign your posts!
  • It's different because the "IoanOnline controversy" discussion was about whether something should be in the article, it was not a discussion of the controversy, it was about the reasons it should or should not be included in the article. This is a discussion about the subject and his fiancee, which is not relevant to the article and as such should not be discussed here. If the person who started this discussion had put their views in the article, then this discussion might belong here. As it is, it would be more appropriate to discuss such things on IMDb or a Ioan fan site. Your question does not belong here either. This is not a forum, it is a place to discuss the article. I will post it again. "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ioan Gruffudd article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." Please make yourself aware of such guidelines. 144.139.163.54 14:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User:209.142.144.104 deleted this whole section on the ground that they contained "rude comments". I have reverted the deletion. It's generally considered vandalism to delete the comments of other users unless those comments themselves constitute vandalism of some sort: "Discussion page vandalism – Blanking the posts of other users from talk pages other than your own, Wikipedia space, and other discussions, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc., is generally considered vandalism." If you wish to change your own comments, the accepted way is to strike out the unwanted comments by placing <s> and </s> at their beginning and end, and typing in updated comments (don't forget to sign them with "~~~~"). Cheers, Jacklee 12:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ioanonline controversy again: Claims about Alice Evans

An editor has amended the article to state that Alice Evans "falsely claimed that a moderator from Ioanonline was sending her death threats, although there is no evidence to support her claim". I am going to edit this to "claimed that a moderator from Ioanonline was sending her death threats, although there does not seem to be any evidence to support her claim", for the following reasons:

  1. The suggestion that Evans made her claim "falsely" is potentially defamatory because it suggests that she made the claim knowing it was not true, and there is nothing to indicate that this was so.
  2. The suggestion that there was "no evidence" that Evans was receiving death threats is not backed up by any references.

If you have any different views, do discuss them here.

Cheers, Jacklee 22:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I have this article on my watchlist after disambiguating something trivial a while ago. Nearly every time I log in I see changes, so I have sat down and read the history and the talk now. I know who Ioan Gruffudd is and vaguely what he's been in, but don't particularly follow his career. And I have to say that I am at a complete loss to understand why any of this "pulled plug on bulletin board" stuff is remotely encyclopedic. A big deal for people who used the bulletin board, perhaps, but for anyone else? Nearly every incarnation of that section involves "s/he said", "it is claimed" or "apparently", and however carefully people word it, it continually seems to suggest that Alice Evans is at fault somehow, for something, just because her name is mentioned in connection with it. (I apologise to the people who have tried to restrain the language used for saying that, but I hope they see what I mean.) I realise that WP:LIVING is for article subjects, but the points about being conservative and understated presumably apply to mentions of others too. Given the size of the article, even by mentioning this at all, it is giving a lot of weight to it. (WP:NPOV#Undue_weight) Is there a reason to keep any of it in? Telsa (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely. I think the matter is of marginal interest and unencyclopedic. However, as you will see from the discussion in the section '"IoanOnline controversy": Should it remain in the article?' above, a number of editors feel that this matter is worth alluding to in the article and take pains to ensure that it remains there. I have no interest in getting into an edit war with anyone, so I just try to make sure that the language used remains moderate and that facts are supported by references as far as possible. If you have any suggestions as to what other steps might be appropriate (consulting an administrator on the matter?), let me know. Cheers, Jacklee 20:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)