Talk:Mark Lund

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-01-10. The result of the discussion was keep.
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Mark Lund, has edited Wikipedia as
MarkAshtonLund (talk · contribs).
This user's editing has included this article.

Readers are encouraged to review Wikipedia:Autobiography for information concerning autobiographical articles on Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Delete it

You aren't exactly unbiased in this matter LoisElfman, seeing that you are Mark Lund's media rep:

http://www.marklundtv.com/contact.htm

Also, the first reference in this article refers to an imdb bio that Mark Lund wrote himself. I vote for deletion in accordance with WP:AB. annaklara 09:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This page should not be deleted

This page was created months ago from factual material. Fact, Mark Lund founded and published an internationally renown skating magazine, International Figure Skating, for 10 years. Fact, Mark Lund has made over 300 media appearances related to the sport of figure skating over the past 13 years.

On Sunday, Jan. 7, 2007, Mark Lund appeared on a televised show. Several people saw it and did not like what he said. They are entitled to their opinions, but they are not entitled to take malicious action. They have vandalized this page repeatedly -- putting in bogus names, inserting unrelated links and writing nasty messages.

There was nothing factually inaccurate, libelous or inappropriate prior to Jan. 7, 2007. There is no reason for deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LoisElfman (talk • contribs) 02:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Lois Elfman is Mark Lund's PAID PUBLICIST. It is completely inappropriate for her to be writing and editing his Wikipedia page! That is the same as Lund doing it himself. She is OBVIOUSLY biased and presenting biased material with only POS POV. Please DELETE the page again.

I have no objection to the page in its present state. The points as written are factual. I don't think contributors should be given free reign to put in profanity, false information and unrelated links (not that the asshat lexicon wasn't so illuminating). It is fact that Mark Lund founded International Figure Skating magazine. It is fact that with him as publisher it grew to be the largest skating magazine in the world with more than 50,000 subscribers. It is fact that he has made more than 300 media appearances related to the sport of figure skating in the past 13 years.

  • WHO wrote the paragraph above touting Lund? Was it Lund himself again, or his publicist, Lois Elfman? Why is it unsigned? 70.16.74.58 00:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You may wish to read WP:AB fully and it affects the deletion nomination process.

WP:AB speaks volumes about self-publishing and why it should not be done. This article was nominated solely on that basis. Ronbo76 02:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Complete rewrite

I have completely rewritten the article from scratch, deleting all of the problematical autobiographical and unsourced material. I agree that Lund is notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia entry, but he must let other people write the article from information in published sources rather than providing the content himself, per WP:AB.

Regarding the supposed controversy over Lund's recent remarks about Johnny Weir, I have not found any published, third-party sources that indicate that this is in any way considered a notable event, suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I understand that some fans found Lund's remarks offensive.... but unless/until some major news outlet picks up the story, the grumblings of fans in online forums are not, in themselves, considered notable, nor is your own POV about Lund or his remarks appropriate to insert in a Wikipedia article. Dr.frog 14:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Frog doesn't like any mention of controversy related to Johnny in any Wikipedia article, particularly any that might hint toward anyone not loving Johnny. He works very, very hard at making sure any mention of any controversy is deleted and insists, despite all evidence to the contrary, that notable controversies are nothing of the kind, referring to them as mere "grumblings".

But since you want a "third-party" source, Dr. Frog, check out the OutSports article at http://outsports.com/news/20070111weir.htm Also note that Lund himself felt it necessary to issue an extensive official statement today in response to the controversy, defending himself and again attacking Johnny repeatedly, making it probably noteworthy enough to add to Lund's own page. 198.182.163.102 23:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

As well as this: http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/01/11/130124.php And this: http://afterelton.logo-blogs.com/2007/01/10/mark-lund-outs-verbally-attacks-ice-skating-champ-johnny-weir/ And this: http://afterelton.logo-blogs.com/2007/01/11/mark-lund-responds-regarding-johnny-weir-comments/ Even the EXECUTIVE PRODUCER of the show commented with this:

"To Interested Parties:

We understand that Mark Lund's comments on Reflections Off the Ice: Countdown to the National Skating Championships have caused quite a reaction. Anyone that knows Mark knows that he is not mean-spirited nor prone to personal attacks. In fact, as a former skater himself, founder of International Figure Skating Magazine and a regular commentator on the world of skating, Mark has a history of promoting and protecting the sport and its participants. If Mark's comments regarding Johnny Weir have offended anybody we sincerely apologize. Nancy made this known publicly on CN8's "Your Morning" show on Thursday, January 11. In case there is any doubt, we all think very highly of Johnny and had actually hoped he would join us on the show to help us preview the Nationals (he was not available). Johnny Weir is and has been a great and entertaining US Champion and we wish him all the best in the upcoming US Nationals. Finally, we want to thank you for taking the time to let us know your feelings. It is our intent to report on figure skating and promote the sport through a variety of means. We have no interest in deliberately causing controversy or raising issues that are not in the best interests of the sport. We agree that in this instance, Mark's comments may have crossed the line. We hope you accept this apology in the spirit that it is given and hope you will enjoy future shows that try to bring you behind the scenes and on the ice.

Sincerely, Jerry Solomon, Executive Producer, on behalf of Nancy Kerrigan and the cast and crew of Nancy Kerrigan's World of Skating."

  • While you may or may not choose to consider blogs and their responding comments when determining whether or not a controversy has reached the level of "notable" (and is more than the mere "grumblings of fans" that Dr. Frog likes to insist any controversy involving Johnny Weir is), you cannot deny that the fact that both Lund himself and the producer of the television show felt compelled to issue official statements on the matter in response to complaints they received should bear some weight. Or that OutSports.com, the largest sports news media outlet for the gay community, is a genuine news source that picked up the story. Like it or not, the controversy meets the definition of "notable". 70.16.74.58 19:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with OutSports.com, so I can't really make a judgement on that as a source and I'm also not making any statement one way or another as to whether or not this incident should be in the article (I simply don't know enough about it to make a statement at this time). What I'm saying is simply that blogs, and responding comments, in no way constitute a reliable source on which to base any sort of addition to an article (and I mean any article, not just this one). Whether this is notable or not is a separate issue. If someone is going to add this to the article though, it should be framed in the context of the reliable source that is reporting it (i.e. "According to OustSports... etc.) and it should not be sourced to the blogs above, including the statement from the Executive Producer if that is from those sources. They simply can't be considered a reliable source.--Isotope23 19:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Isotope, you are misunderstanding the discussion at hand. Pay attention. The person who posted the URLs for the blogs did so in response to Dr. Frog's statement that the controversy consisted only of the "grumblings" of a few fans on figure skating web sites, and that this therefore kept it from being a "notable" controversy. The poster was saying that in fact the upset over the incident had also been expressed on numerous blogs and resulting comments, outside of the skating sites. He/she didn't saying anything about them being a "reliable" source, and neither did I. The debate was whether or not the controversy was minor or notable. Your responses are irrelevant. 70.16.74.58 00:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • No... I completely understand the discussion at hand. A series of blog posts neither proves nor disproves the concept that this is somehow a notable incident. In fact the only thing that really establishes notability, and the only thing that should be used for a source, is if it has been mentioned in reliable third party sources... which blogs are not. The blog mentions are irrelevant, but the Outsports.com mention may be enough to include a mention in the article.--Isotope23 02:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The After Elton blog is a blog yes, but it's a blog for an online magazine, as is the blogcritics post. And After Elton is an online news magazine owned by MTV/Viacom. So it's not just some random blogger sitting in his basement eating chips. Even the OutSports mention alone is enough to be notable. And apparently the Executive Producer of the show felt it was notable enough to write a response.
  • I disagree about the blogs being reliable sources, but after looking at the Outsports article I am inclined to agree that would be enough to add it to the article. It should however be accompanied by a citation to that source.--Isotope23 14:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, I did the rewrite and made the comment about fan grumblings not being evidence of notability before the Outsports.com article was published. Dr.frog 17:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify the truth, Dr. Frog, NO you didn't. The Outsports.com article was published on January 10, and you 'did the rewrite and made the comment about fan comments not being evidence of notability' on January 11. Take a look at the dates.70.16.74.58 03:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)