Talk:Paul Roundhill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have removed the bit about him producing the For Lovers video seeing as he didn't produce it at all. Douglas Hart did. 78.145.43.166 (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on February 16, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.
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]
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.

It is faintly ludicrous that the article omits the main source of what little fame this unsavoury character enjoys; namely his involvement in the death of Mark Blanco; and secondly that of being outed as a drug dealer and described as 'pondlife' by Boy George in his autobiography Take It Like A Man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.223.202 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 20 February 2007

People are removing useful stuff like this: He also produced the music video for the top ten single, and Ivor Novello Award nominee, For Lovers, a collaboration between Doherty and the poet-songwriter Wolfman, whose career Roundhill manages jointly with Andy Lee. Adding a citation needed tag is helpful, as it pinpoints where additions are needed. Deleting highly relevant material about managing Wolfman is destructive of information. OneVeryBadMan 22:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Libel and NPOV

Whomever I might or might not know, I take Wikipedia's policies very seriously, and I'm dedicated to writing unbiased and factually accurate articles on all subjects. If I've left certain things out, it's partially because I don't have unlimited time to write and cite everything. It's also because many of the articles in the tabloid press about the Blanco incident are libelous and riddled with sensational inaccuracies. If you see something missing, add it.
However, sentences like this are a problem: 'Fiona Russell-Powell of ABC who said that he "likes to think he is some kind of bohemian writer or poet but he’s just a junkie."' That just sounds like a general insult that doesn't add anything to an encyclopedia. I think that constitutes a violation of NPOV. OneVeryBadMan 22:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've also removed this: In the past he has also been associated with Boy George who subsequently referred to him as "a pond-life dealer and junkie." This is because the comment in question does not refer to Roundhill at all. If you were unfortunate enough to own a copy of Boy George's book, you might notice that his name appears nowhere in there. OneVeryBadMan 23:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

He is referred to as "Paul Cod" in Boy George's book. Very snide of you to try to justify the exclusion on the basis that "his name appears nowherein there".

Here's another example: His relationship with Doherty led Roundhill to introduce him to the extended possibilities of heroin, ketamine, crack cocaine and burglary. This is libelous, unsourced, untrue, and completely inappropriate. In fact, it's pretty much vandalism. OneVeryBadMan 23:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It is vandalism and should be treated as such, hilarious as it is. Reubensutton 19:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
It is unacceptable to remove useful, properly sourced information, and replace it with mayhem. I reverted the change to the introduction which described him as "an East London-based drug-dealer." Please try to comply with Wikipedia policies, especially in relation to living people and libel. There is no evidence that Roundhill is now, or ever has been, a drug-dealer. Such a claim is libelous, and even if that claim were repeated in a tabloid, it must still be carefully scrutinized to determine its credibility, because of the seriousness of the allegation. This is Wikipedia policy. OneVeryBadMan 23:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Please reveal your interest in this article. There is plenty of evidence that Paul Roundhill is a drug dealer; indeed in a citation used elsewhere in the article "Roundhill is Doherty’s best friend and soulmate, a modern-day Fagin who is known to locals as a small-time drug dealer and user."

I cleaned the article up again. I removed the Boy George quote, which does not refer to Roundhill. To my knowledge, he has never been known as "Paul Cod," and there is no evidence that the name refers to him. Additionally, the Fiona Russell-Powell quote, on the same grounds as previously. If someone honestly thinks they can justify its inclusion, it should be discussed here.

Other additions included grammatically inappropriate quotes around "writer." Quotation marks belong around quotes. I can't see why they belong around an ordinary statement of fact.

Drug-dealing is a very serious accusation. Being "known to locals" as something doesn't mean it is so, as local reputations are usually based on rumour and hearsay. Mentioning that dubious reputation in a tabloid doesn't make it any truer. That's why I have concerns about the rules on potentially libelous statements.

My interest in this article is to ensure that it is accurate, neutral, and compliant with Wikipedia policies, even if the subject is unpopular among Babyshambles fans. OneVeryBadMan 23:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Then why do you remove properly cited statements? Reubensutton 19:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I have not removed any properly cited statements. I have removed statements which are either inappropriate, or which are supported only by weak citations, which are not adequate to justify claims of such gravity. OneVeryBadMan 22:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
A link from the Guardian is not a weak citation.

Fiona Russell Powell had a sexual relationship with Paul Roundhill which turned sour. Her comments arise from bitterness.--ElizabethQ 15:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

What is the source of this claim of yours? 193.82.16.50 17:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Themselves and those that knew them in the 1980's. It's no secret.ElizabethQ 20:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

==


[1] "Roundhill, a drug user and ex-dealer who supplied Boy George" - now try and justify the exclusion of the fact that Roundhill is (or at the very least was) a drug dealer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.82.16.50 (talk) 12:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC).


There is no evidence Paul Roundhill is a drug dealer. Paul Roundhill is not a drug dealer.--ElizabethQ 15:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

There is, and a reliable source is cited.193.82.16.50 17:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


Above user - please state your reliable sourceElizabethQ 20:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The Guardian. Oh, and knowing teenage girls he has sold drugs to. I suspect you are Roundhill or one of his cronies.

Above user, my interest lies in maintaining Wikipedia as an authoritative and heavyweight publication - an Encyclopedia. To make such a serious allegation as drug dealing about persons entered in Wikipedia simply has to be backed by hard evidence = otherwise Wikipedia is reduced to a gossip column/tabloid. I strongly feel that such an allegation as this must be back by a criminal conviction. 'Knowing teenage girls he has sold drugs to' just isn't good enough. At the very least you should state their names and the circumstances plus you should sign in - and citate the Guardian article. Your statement ' i suspect you are Roundhill or one of his cronies' - what kind of argument is that in terms of what should or shouldn't be admissible in Wikipedia? (Sorry to disappoint , but I am neither!). Look, it's a very well known fact among those over 21 that Fiona Russell Powell has a deep grudge against Paul Roundhill and wrote those comments to get at him. And it looks like you are someone with a grudge against Paul Roundhill. There are numerous forums to put forward your views but Wikipedia is not one of them; it's an Encyclopedia! ElizabethQ 20:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

"my interest lies in maintaining Wikipedia as an authoritative and heavyweight publication" - rubbish. Stop removing verifiable information. It does not violate any Wikipedia policy. If it does - show me which one. To omit the information would not be ensuring NPOV.
"I strongly feel that such an allegation as this must be back by a criminal conviction" what you stongly feel is neither here nor there. Again, point me towards a Wikipedia policy that the information violates.
"and citate the Guardian article" - I have cited it. I have also cited this article [2], an interview with one of Roundhill's close associates which states:
"The singer and hangers-on were at one of the regular cocaine and crack parties hosted by the owner of the one-bedroom flat, Doherty's self-styled "literary agent" Paul Roundhill, who charges his guests for space on his sofa to take drugs and commune with the other druggies there.
Visitors either bring their own drugs or ask him to order some over the phone and give him a little "thank you" in return, usually in the form of drugs."
With regards to your repeated bleating about Fiona Russell Powell - cite a source.217.43.195.139 21:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
My justification is this: the Guardian description of him as an "ex-dealer who supplied Boy George" seems to be based on the same grudge-based mis-identification promoted by Russell-Powell. It's wrong, and it is not supported within the article by any evidence or fact. This is a third-hand story briefly repeated, and lack of evidence or fact makes it unreliable. The most you could possibly justify is a statement that he has been characterized as a former drug-dealer based on a 20 year-old book, in which he is never mentioned by name, and ghost-written by someone who has never met Roundhill .OneVeryBadMan 22:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
There is no evidence that it is based on any other source. You should not be so presumptuous. I note your extensive editing of Doherty articles and others. Are you some sort of fanboy? Have you ever been associated with Roundhill?

I have again removed the sentence: "His £800 watch and gold cufflinks were missing". I am the main witness in the case and spent nine hours with the police discussing it. The watch was handed to the police in front of my eyes and I can categorically state he was not wearing cufflinks. This is a good example that what is written in tabloid newspapers is not necessarily reliable or true. I do not think citations in Wikipedia should be taken from tabloid newspapers because they are unreliable. It reduces Wikipedia's credibilityElizabethQ 20:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Another change I made: Doherty did not take Laura Sugars's blood against her will. She lied in her newspaper article, months later, because she was paid, and they demanded a sensational story of an innocent girl wronged by a monster. There was a police investigation at the time, and six witnesses, including Laura confirmed that it was entirely consensual, hence the fact that he wasn't prosecuted. The police concluded that no crime was committed, and sticking a syringe into someone without their permission is wounding, an offence under the Offenses Against the Person Act. She claimed she shouted and objected in surprise horror in the article, yet it is plain to see from the picture in question that she was lying prone and relaxed with the needle in her arm. Not only was her story false, it is obviously false with photographic evidence to prove it. She was just out to get paid, and her lie made her story more valuable. 81.79.216.222 05:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Babyshambles gig

He infamously once sold tickets to a Babyshambles gig which did not, in fact exist. I find the use of the word "infamously" very dodgy. It's a loaded, pejorative word that makes a value judgement in violation of NPOV policy. Also, I'm not sure what it means to say that a gig "doesn't exist." Peter often fails to turn up for gigs, and this sounds like just another example. If someone is making a serious claim of fraud, it certainly needs a citation, as that is otherwise libelous. OneVeryBadMan 22:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with the above comments made by user OneVeryBadMan. Using Wikipedia as a sounding board for personal and malicious vendettas reduces it's credibility. ElizabethQ

He organized a gig, peter didn't show and he refused to refund the money for tickets. Reubensutton 19:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, it was a straightforward no-show. Koko, the Astoria, and a dozen other places and promoters have done the same thing. The venue and support acts still have to be paid, so none of those places gave refunds either. In fact, he didn't turn up to a gig just the other week, on 9 February, at a place in Euston; nobody got a refund. It has been previously established by consensus on the [[Pete Doherty}} page that no-shows, because of the sheer number that have happened, are not notable. OneVeryBadMan 00:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No. It was not straightforward. Roundhill sold the tickets knowing full well that Babyshambles were recording (in Wales I believe) and would not show up. He also billed Chineapples who knew absolutely nothing about the event. No fans got refunds, no alternative dates were arranged - which would have been the case if it was "a straightforward no-show". Oh actually 'refunds' of a sort were offered - he tried to get rid of some teenage girls by throwing Class A drugs at them.
Looking at user contributions, I suspect that ElizabethQ is a sockpuppet.193.82.16.50 17:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I suspect this too. Reubensutton 19:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


ElizabethQ is not a sockpuppet. I deeply resent the accusation of sockpuppetry, because I don't need one. I'm not a new user, and I realise that Wikipedia is not a democracy, so having an extra "vote" is pointless. A comment is either unreliable or libelous, or it is not, no matter how many people support it. On the subject, I wish whomever is contributing to this page would log in and sign their comments, as I have been operating under the impression that unsigned comments, or contributions linked only to IP addresses, are all coming from the same single person who has not logged in.

I do agree with her points that simple repetition of a claim in a tabloid does not make the claim itself any more reliable. When you are dealing with a serious accusation, it needs to have evidence behind it, and a mere claim in a sensational tabloid that a person has "a reputation among local people" for something is just that, a claim that a person has a reputation (which may or may not be well-founded). It does not serve as proof of the underlying allegation, in the way that an investigative report, or a mention of a fact like a conviction would. Hence, my concern about violating the laws and policies on libel in relation to this point. OneVeryBadMan 22:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reliability of Sources

You only have to look at the Pete Doherty article to see dozens of examples of articles in very reliable, gold-standard sources, such as the BBC, the Guardian, the Independent, and the Times, which are just plain wrong. For example, he was identified as an Oxford dropout in some, a UCL student in another, as someone who never attended university in others, and as a QMW dropout in others. Many distinguished sources were wrong on easily verified facts. Hence, the need to use caution in dealing with claims from much less trustworthy tabloids, especially when those claims are not supported by fact or evidence, and where getting it wrong means committing libel and breaking Wikipedia policy. OneVeryBadMan 22:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Tosh. Please state exactly which Wikipedia policy is breached. The Guardian is not a "less trustworthy tabloid".—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.153.46.223 (talk) 14:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC).
I think we could attribute the lack of consistency in Pete Doherty's sources to him frequently making facts up and changing his story, merely because he dislikes the media. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.13.81.97 (talk) 02:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

For whatever reason the person that wrote this article seems to have an unconditional love of Paul Roundhill. At some point you have to question why Babyshambles fans hate him. Why pretty much everyone acknowledges he is a drug dealer if he is not. If you can't take the Guardian/BBC to be reliable sources there isn't much you can take. To my knowledge Paul Roundhill has never challanged these allegations. I would suspect your were Paul Roundhill but his writing has a notable overwrought chessy, tabloidness to it.