Talk:Dale Bozzio/Archive 1

Archive 1

June 3, 2012 edits

I have revised the June 3, 2012 edits made to Dale Bozzio's maiden name and her being referred to by her last name for the following reasons: 1. Dale Bozzio is not commonly known or referred to as Dale Frances Bozzio. 2. It may be standard practice to refer to an article subject by her last name; however, in this case, use of the last name can cause confusion when she and Terry Bozzio are discussed together. Also, Dale has referred to herself as "Dale" in her solo career. Reference the Riot in English album cover as an example. Doc2234 (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, somebody needs to change all the "Dale"s in the article to "Bozzio"s to conform to MOS. Any takers? Thanks, --Mollskman (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I added sourced information from three separate reliable sources, which Doc2234 removed, claiming the information was "unsourced", which is a blatant lie. He also removed changing "Dale"s to "Bozzio"s and other stylistic edits, such as overlinking. I look forward to Doc's response. 58.7.94.82 (talk) 05:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Ironically, Doc also clumsily removed a citation needed tag from an unsourced statement. 58.7.94.82 (talk) 06:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC) Edit: I have removed that statement from the article, as I feel it is irrelevant. 58.7.94.82 (talk) 06:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Tags

I have added maintenance tags to this article. It contains a number of unverified, uncited claims, needs additional references, contains much detail about unnotable events (her solo career and her former employment as a Playboy bunny are undistinguished fluff). Indeed the only real claim to notability is that she once worked with Frank Zappa and was in a one-hit wonder band in the 1980s). I suspect much of the Zappa stuff may also be puffed up to make her appear more important than she was, and so that is somewhat dubious. The undue tag is also in relation to the discussion above, and can be removed if consensus determines the animal cruelty coverage should not be included, or if it is included. The Master (talk) 03:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Tag bombing. Sorry, The Master, but this is silly. The Bunny stuff appears to be well verified (unless you can prove otherwise, you have to accept the reference in good faith), and the Zappa section is far from fluffy: it's very, very short for a five-year tenure (if I read it correctly) with one of the most demanding and important US musicians of the twentieth century. And it seems to be properly verified. You can take issue with the "solo" part, but those statements are already tagged. I'm going to ask someone to have a look at the RfC, and in the meantime I am removing the tags: there's too many of them with too little validity. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a BLP that contains unreferenced claims, so why was the BLP sources tag removed? The Master (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In 2009, the article subject was arrested and convicted of animal cruelty. The case was covered in a number of reliable sources, including the St. Petersburg Times, the San Diego Reader, Hollywood Reporter, and the Boston Phoenix [1]. Should this be mentioned in the article? The Master (talk) 04:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• Do not include Given the weak sourcing and low level of coverage, I don't believe it merits inclusion here. a13ean (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Include due to coverage in the following reliable sources: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. That's plenty of reliable sources. Qualms about the writing or tone should be resolved by editing, not deleting. The Master (talk) 04:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Do not include — I've voiced my opinion and mentioned consensus at WP:BLPN here. I believe inclusion would be WP:UNDUE given the relevance to the subject's notability and to any enduring biographical significance, details of which you'd expect to find in an encyclopedic biography about a living person. That aside, the sources probably don't measure up to BLP/WP:RS calibre anyway. JFHJr (㊟) 06:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Include, Wikipedia is not censorship, we have enough reliable sources about the question so there is no reason not to include the information. Cavarrone (talk) 06:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Would WP:NOTNEWSPAPER bear at all on your reasoning, in particularly, the part about enduring notability of events? JFHJr (㊟) 00:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Do not include. Poor quality sources - Sources prominently available from a search are tabloid quality, including the Phoenix. Sources that may be considered reliable present ongoing material during the course of the trial or just after sentencing. No sources identify the ultimate outcome of this three year old case. One source that an editor has promoted as being reliable, the Tampa Bay Times, has its material content derived from an unacceptable source, TMZ. If some of the sources would be generally considered to be of reliable quality, their specific coverage of this case must be put to the test. For example, the Phoenix articles either include or link to State’s Evidence photos, used by the prosecution during the trial. Those photos were intended for courtroom use. All but one of the counts that those photos were used for as evidence were dismissed. Major reliable sources that I have searched through have either never covered the case, or if they did cover it, they have retired the report from view. It did not register as significant with broad countrywide coverage. It was covered by certain tabloids and in areas where she was particularly well known.

Undue weight - I think that undue weight should take precedence over censorship in this case. There is no prior history of the promotion of or engaging in animal abuse by the article subject or any of the article subject’s bandmates, associates, or relatives. There is identification in one source that the article subject entrusted a sitter (who did not show up) with the responsibility of taking care of the house; that the article subject was not present during the situation that resulted in the conviction, and that the article subject had no intention that the situation should unfold as it did or had any direct involvement with the crime. The conviction in this case was based upon the article subject’s being ultimately responsible for the events. When this information was initially uploaded, the page included 19 lines of text that explained the article subject’s notability and 10 lines of text devoted to the case. Dale Bozzio’s professional music career had extended over 30 years at that time with significant vocal work with Frank Zappa, the founding of and role as lead singer of Missing Persons, the design and fabrication of creative stage attire, the continuation of Missing Persons under her own name, and a solo career that included working with Prince. Those aspects of Dale Bozzio’s career define her from an encyclopedic standpoint. The cat incident does not factor into that.

Past reporting of this event on Wikipedia – Past insertions of material related to this case have been uploaded primarily through IP addresses. References actually used in the past have included the Phoenix, State’s Evidence photos through the Phoenix, True Crime Report, TMZ, and WMUR (local NH TV station). Not only has the information been uploaded to the Dale Bozzio page, it has also, at times, been uploaded to the Missing Persons (band) page; and the band members had no involvement at all.

It is my understanding that the lack of severity of this case may make this case eligible for being expunged from the record in the State of New Hampshire in the very near future, if not already. The sentence was for 30 days and it is my understanding that less time was served. I am not sure how Wikipedia treats that type of issue, however, if the record is expunged that could be a factor to be considered when determining whether or not to cover information about the case in Wikipedia.Doc2234 (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• The sources are not tabloid quality, no matter how many times you repeat it. And thanks for the additional WP:RS in the form of WMUR, a TV station that apparently reported the incident. The status of the article before it was expanded to its current length is of no consequence to the current start of the article, which goes into quite a bit of detail regarding her career. Past "reporting" of this case on Wikipedia, whether by IP addresses or not? Totally irrelevant. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, anon IP addresses included, and in any case, their contributions have no bearing whatsoever on this discussion. Finally, speculations regarding whether the case could be expunged are just that: speculations, not to mention WP:OR. We deal in facts, written from NPOV and reliable sourced. The content I added states what the sources said. If you feel something was not factually paraphrased, then that can be edited to match the source. Otherwise, I don't see much of a rationale here for keeping this content out. What I do see above is you attempting to make excuses for the article subject (she hired a sitter, she was away, etc.) and puffery about her career. What does any of this have to do with the article? The article already covers her musical career. In fact, until I and another person deleted it, it contained a number of unreferenced claims, statements sourced to blogs, self-published sources, etc. I note you didn't seem to have any problems with those. These attempts to keep all negative content out of this article strike me more and more as whitewashing, given the past history of sourcing puffery to blogs and self-published documents. The Master (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I'll weigh in as well; as you can see in the section above, I have considered administrative action here in the past but now I'm speaking strictly as an editor and will leave administrative decisions that pertain to this particular area to others. Anyway, while I do not wish to argue that the sources are unreliable per se, in my opinion their local (and partly alternative) character does not establish that the incident is important enough to warrant inclusion. WP:UNDUE is probably not exactly applicable here (this isn't about "viewpoints"), but the spirit of it is: do these events rise to the level of encyclopedic notability? Do they have anything to do with her career at all? Do the events define her now, one way or another? I think the answer is no, or we would have read about it in bigger publications than the ones cited.

  Directly relevant, in my opinion, is WP:BLPGOSSIP--not that I want to equate those newspaper reports with gossip--which asks whether material to be included "is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject". In this case, I think the answer is no. First of all, why does it matter to an article about a musician? She played with Zappa and a bunch of others--that's relevant. Remember, she's notable as a musician, not as an animal keeper (trying to be neutral here). Second, what is it supposed to accomplish? "OMG she killed cats!" or something like that?

  In response to some other comments here, and I'll try to be brief, I think the accusation that one editor is not editing this neutrally is overblown and not relevant to this particular discussion. At the same time, I agree with these edits, and I think that the article needs a. more references and b. more pruning. But the cats should be out: do not include. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Include - Of course we should include this information. It's a notable event, given the numerous sources that have covered it. Although Bozzio is not well known for this particular incident, it's notable enough to at least mention. We don't have to write a whole paragraph about it, simply one or two sentences, probably in the Personal Life section. Something like "In May 2009, Dale Bozzio was sentenced to 30 days in jail for animal cruelty after a dozen malnourished cats were discovered on her property..." And then one more concluding sentence probably, and then that would be plenty. I don't think we understand the term "tabloid" the same way if this Phoenix article is being called such. That article has a lot of detail and is very impartial. I wish I could say as much about the Undercover article, but we need not use that one. The second Phoenix article is a pretty thorough exposé of the whole thing, and they talk about the subject quite favorably. Consider these quotes from the supposedly "tabloid" article:

According to Antonelli, Bozzio hired a caretaker — unnamed in court records — to stay at her West Ossipee home and feed her cats during a fall 2008 tour. The caretaker never came.

...

[T]here is evidence that Bozzio did try to care for the cats — at least at one point. Strewn among the feces there are toys, plentiful food and water bowls and litter boxes, and several scratching posts.

...

Clearly, Bozzio is no Michael Vick. But the photos show that someone neglected those cats for a seemingly significant length of time, and in the eyes of the state of New Hampshire, the aging rocker is ultimately responsible.

They are giving her the benefit of the doubt, casting her as a sincerely concerned carer of animals who apparently took on a little more than she could handle.

Information like this is definitely going to end up in this article one way or another because the nature of the incident is sure to catch many peoples' attention. It's not slander. It's not libel. It's not gossip. It's unflattering, but noteworthy info, particularly given that Bozzio has described herself as something of an animal rights advocate and humanitarian in general. Again, two sentences tops, and then we've mentioned it. Doing so will immediately cut down on all the anonymous attempts to include this info in a far less neutral way. Ender and Peter 20:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Understand that I have thought about the relevance and appropriateness for inclusion of this information in Wikipedia based upon Wikipedia’s own guidelines since this information was first posted on the page. My opinion concerning whether this information should be included has changed over time; and from that, my opinion reflects a degree of maturity that the first time viewer or potential user of this information may not yet possess.

When I describe the Phoenix article as tabloid quality, I am referring to its sensationalistic content, and the word, “sensationalistic” is key. The Phoenix not only continues to include and/or prominently link to the State’s Evidence photos (the prosecution’s side of the case presented before judgments) that were described in the article with sensationalistic adjectives, they also published a slideshow of the photos as a separate entity and then also subsequently featured the slideshow in December 2009, well after the case had been presented and judgments had been made concerning all counts. I have never seen a source that would handle this type of sensitive and damaging information in that manner being judged as a quality source for use in Wikipedia.

The extent of coverage of this case in the Phoenix does not necessarily qualify the case as notable when any comparison is made concerning extent of coverage in high quality sources, the age of the one-time event and the lack of reoccurrence of the infraction, the article subject’s profession, and what the article subject has stood for,.

I agree with you that the potential for this subject matter to be reinserted is high. That is the primary concern relative to its use in Wikipedia. However, I disagree that a brief mention of it will deter others from seeing fit to expand the coverage. My view is that the brief coverage would actually encourage the so-inclined editor to expand upon the subject, and likely in a manner that is not neutral. Past revision history is in this case likely the best indicator of continued future activity unless changes are made. And I still maintain that, for my above reasons, the information does not qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia. Doc2234 (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• ...And it's clearly not a "notable event." See WP:1E and WP:BLP1E. If this person weren't already famous, the event would not merit its own article. JFHJr (㊟) 21:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• 1E and BLP1E both discuss whether a subject merits an article based on a single event, they have nothing whatsoever to do with adding information to an article about an already established notable person. The Master (talk) 02:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• WP:SENSATION, tabloid and yellow journalism being common as an element in the references, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, all references date prior to her release and none covered her release with no subsequent follow-up articles, and WP:DIVERSE, with a lack of significant diverse sources, apply in addition to WP:UNDUE and WP:TABLOID to support a determination that the information should not be included in my view. Doc2234 (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• None of those are accurate descriptions about the sources. If you think the sources do not satisfy WP:RS then bring them to the reliable sources noticeboard. Otherwise, releatedly claiming they are "tabloid" or "sensational" is just speculative opinion. The Master (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Include - it's there. use it. keep it short. Soosim (talk) 07:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Use it because it's there? That sounds like it runs afoul of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. JFHJr (㊟) 16:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Right. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Include - Actions of individuals, especially those of notoriety, often define who they are and can become relevant biographical information. Considering all of the discussion on this page there is obviously a peaked interest in this topic therefore making it a worthwhile addition to the article. Cheers!RichardMills65 (talk) 19:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "Considering all of the discussion on this page there is obviously a peaked interest in this topic"--I don't see any evidence of that, and besides, what kind of interest? From editors on the talk page? Even if so, that's not a reason to include. Are you seriously going to argue that this one single event defines who Dale Bozzio is? Fo shizzle? Drmies (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Even though WP:ITEXISTS refers to AfDs, I think it's a good analog here. It appears to have happened, but that's not sufficient to imply that that it should be included. Phở shizzle. a13ean (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Do not include - It seems that this event lacks significant reliable sources. If more can be found, I'd be willing to change my !vote. ⋘HueSatLum ? ❢⋙ 22:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Shouldn't 8 be enough? The Master (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Unless I missed something, I only count 7 sources. Some of the sources might not be considered reliable, especially for a BLP. Also, Bozzio is notable for singing, not animal cruelty. ⋘HueSatLum ? ❢⋙ 22:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• I have done some more research on this and by far the most important applicable Wikipedia policy to be considered by us as editors at this point is WP:LIBEL. Also read Defamation.

My focus right now is on us, the Wikipedia editors. We – yes WE – are directly responsible for accurately reporting information concerning a legal case such as this one. If WE make an error and an article subject or even subjects associated with the article subject perceive that they have been defamed, WE are the ones who will be subjects to a lawsuit. WE will have to use our own money to hire attorneys to defend ourselves. WP:LIBEL is written as a Wikipedia policy to protect US. If we fail to follow the advice, we are on our own without help from Wikimedia because Jimmy Wales and the Wikimedia Foundation told us to be extremely careful when handling material of this nature.

Concerning reporting this case on Wikipedia, at this point the reporting of and referencing of the goings-on at the trial, and the reporting of and referencing of the presented evidence could be viewed as defamatory, because most of that, as the references tell us, was excluded in the final judgment. Also, the incorrect paraphrasing of any information that was in references could be defamatory. It is a fact that we do not know the ultimate outcome of the case. The actual time served and disposition of the other referenced judgments was never reported; and, from the perspective of shielding oneself from possible legal action, that lack of information is crucial when determining whether or not to report this issue on Wikipedia. The media coverage of the case ended at the point that the article subject began to serve the sentence. Since that point in time, the media has chosen not to provide any additional details about this case that ended over three years ago.

So there are no references upon which to base the reporting of this case without creating a considerable potential of risk at this point; and we editors really need to consider that risk and how the liability falls squarely upon our own shoulders. In addition to the policies and guidelines I identified above, WP:LIBEL supports a determination to not include this information in Wikipedia. Doc2234 (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Do not include Reading the sources, it appears the person was, at most, indirectly culpable, and the incident is therefore of trivial significance to what is supposed to be a biography. Collect (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Include The subject was sent to jail, that is a significant event in anyone's life. The sourcing is not a problem. It is absolutely clear that the event occurred and we are reporting a fact not a comment on it. Even the worst tabloids would never claim that a person had been sentenced to jail if this were not the case, it would be a clear cut libel case. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• But what encyclopedic relevance and value is there in reporting that the article subject was sent to jail with no further explanation or comment concerning the parameters? And please bear with me, but the sourcing is a problem with conflicting sentences reported among the references and no report of a final outcome. The facts presented among the references are not consistent; and original research, which would be needed to discern what actually happened, is not a part of our scope of tasking as Wikipedia editors ( WP:NOR ). Concerning what would constitute a clear cut libel case, there is one reference - that was actually recently used in the article and promoted as a good reference - which states that the article subject’s attorney was disbarred in relation to the case. The fact is that he wasn’t disbarred. Just how close to clear cut libel are we willing to chance with this? Doc2234 (talk) 12:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not quite follow you. We have several sources confirming that Bozzio was charged with 13 animal-cruelty charges and sentenced to 90 days in jail with 60 days deferred for two years. Are you suggesting that there is some doubt about these facts? They are certainly significant facts about a person which should be in this article, although I agree with others that we should not make too much of it. Just a sentence or two. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, there is doubt about the facts, both because the facts vary among the available references, and also because no references identify the sentence that was actually served. There are a few issues:

1. One does not know which source an editor will select as a reference and depending upon which source the editor uses, the sentence that is stated can vary. Also, there are editors who come across the case and who paraphrase what is in the available sources incorrectly; and that is problematic both from the standpoints of Wikipedia guidelines and in a courtroom defense against defamation.

2. Following is a breakdown of how the facts vary among the references. (see above sources from The Master) – References 7, and 8 The Phoenix articles report that she was sentenced to 90 days in jail with 60 days deferred for two years along with the $2,700.00 fine and the 250 hours of community service. Reference 5 the Carroll County Independent article also reports that sentence. Reference 2 Undercover identifies that she was sentenced to 90 days in jail, with no mention of 60 days deferred, along with the $2,700.00 fine and the 250 hours of community service. Reference 3 The St. Petersburg Times draws its information from TMZ which again reports only the 90 days along with the fine and community service. (Note that Rich Farmbrough, having identified the TMZ reference as an unreliable source, had removed that reference from the article.) Reference 4 The Broward Palm Beach New Times article reports only the 90 day sentence. Reference 6 the Seacoast Online article only reports the start of the case. The WMUR report again only reports the start of the case. The State’s Evidence photographs present the prosecution’s information and in that are one-sided and also depict information for which she was found not guilty. All of The Phoenix articles either depict and/or link to the State's Evidence photos. The True Crime Report article identifies that she was sentenced to 90 days with no mention of the deferral or the other conditions; it also identifies that her attorney was disbarred, and he was not disbarred. All of the above sources have been promoted as being good references in this discussion, and the facts vary among them.

3. Ultimately, what must be reported is the actual sentence served, which I think was less than 30 days (and less than what is reported in the references), however, no sources reported that. Also, the two years time for the deferred sentence has passed and there has been no report about the status of that. So we don’t know the ultimate outcome. In a defamation case, it is my understanding that the real facts are weighed against what is written. Anything reported that is worse than what actually occurred could be included as justification for a defamation lawsuit. Due to the conflicting information in references that are available and the lack of any information concerning the sentence that was actually ultimately served, there is a degree of risk involved in our reporting this case on Wikipedia at this point. We Wikipedia editors do not have the quality references and complete information that would be needed to withstand a defamation lawsuit; and we can’t perform original research to determine the actual sentence served (WP:NOR and WP:BLPPRIMARY). BLP guidelines tell us that if we do not have good information concerning a sensitive issue such as this, it should not be reported. WP:NOTRS and WP:BLPSOURCES apply to this. WP:BLPPRIMARY also applies to the State's Evidence photos included in and/or linked to in all The Phoenix articles. Doc2234 (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I do understand the strict requirements of WP:BLP but in this case I think we would be justified in adding one or two carefully worded sentences about the subject's prison sentence. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Given the past history of editing this, I think that there is too much risk in adding a brief; and the probability exists that whatever wording that would be initially pasted up could be changed. Please remember that in this particular case, we are not only dealing with Wikipedia guidelines, but we are also dealing with potential legal issues outside of Wikipedia. Doc2234 (talk) 16:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

What are the issues outside Wikipedia? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The potential for a libel suit against an editor who uploads information that is considered defamatory. The editor pays for his/her own defense with his/her own funds. Wikimedia Foundation does not help the editor and is likely not a party to the lawsuit. The rules that govern are the rules of the judicial system where the case is tried. Doc2234 (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Taking that risk is up to the editor who adds the material but please answer this simple question. Is there any doubt whatsoever that Dale was given a prison sentence for animal cruelty? Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Include but with attention to WP:DUE. There's enough coverage to justify a few short sentences. FurrySings (talk) 08:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Given the poor quality of and conflicting reports in available sources (see above) and the lack of any sources that provide what is really needed, the ultimate outcome of this case; adherence to WP:DUE identifies that the case should not be covered in Wikipedia. No reliable sources – no weight given. Doc2234 (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Garbage

This article is basically a hagiography of a former singer in a one-hit-wonder band written by a bunch of guys who had crushes on her after seeing her in the "Words" video. The Master (talk) 03:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

No, this is a hagiography. This article seems pretty reasonable at the moment, but if you have any specific concerns we can try to address them. a13ean (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree with my deletions of the unsourced claims. I concur that it is much better now. The Master (talk) 07:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Following up on this, I have removed this page from my watchlist. Do as you like with it. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 03:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Good. It is better, but no thanks to you. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

puffery

"Bozzio stormed onto the scene with her unique vocalization and performance style that set her apart from most artists. She pioneered many of the performance traits seen as standards today in popular music. She created and refined her unique sense of fashion and poetry along the way."

This is clearly puffery and is not supported by any citations. "Stormed onto the scene", "unique vocalization", "set her apart" - these are not neutral descriptions. A singer's wikipedia page should not sound like it was written by her manager. Please don't continue to edit war over this, or I will escalate the matter. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Due to persistent disruptive editing by an IP editor I have requested semi-protection for the article. MaxBrowne (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

BLP and cats

I'm removing the entire animal hoarding section. It is highly, highly questionable that this event warrants inclusion in our article considering the requirements in WP:BLP, especially those concerning due weight and reliable sourcing. Even if all this stuff is true, it's not of the kind of scope that warrants inclusion (really, it's tabloid stuff). Moreover, the sourcing is piss-poor--one of the sources cited, True Crime Report, is clearly sub-par: note such gems in their article such as "He was later disbarred for talking bullshit beneath the American Bar Association's standards for talking out if your ass." You could try and make a case for inclusion at the BLP noticeboard, WP:BLPN, but as far as I'm concerned this is a violation of the BLP policy which needs clear consensus from uninvolved editors. If it's reinstated without such consensus I will protect the article. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

One more thing: being charged with possession is nothing, and I'm cutting that as well. Drmies (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is the link to the photo's of all of the cats she hoarded, along with tons of animal feces and dead cat bones because they starved to death.204.99.118.9 (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC) http://blog.thephoenix.com/blogs/photos/news/category10135/picture305663.aspx

The lead single "Simon Simon" was a Billboard top 40 Dance hit.

a dance top 40 entry is not a HIT !

I removed it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:191:5FA0:4C50:38DB:A3A:BA14 (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

References