Talk:Robert Young Pelton/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Rewrite

Article needs a complete rewrite to remove the linkfarm (5 or so links establishing WP:BIO are more than sufficient) and so it doesn't read like a fluff piece. Encyclopedic coverage is OK, but right now this is far from that and it reads like a fan piece.--Isotope23 01:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Pelton

I reverted your changes. It was I who edited the article... not User:Lotsofissues and if it survived the current AfD, I will edit it further. The wholesale reprint of reviews of your book is not an appropriate use of Wikipedia's resources. Please read WP:VAIN and WP:AUTO guidelines. The current version of this article seem to be very much in violation of these guidelines. Please don't take this personally, my only interest here is to see this article meet the current standards that Wikipedia has for a biographical article on a living person, which it currently does not.--Isotope23 18:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I've done some more edits to remove some of the least neutral wording in the article and the massive amount of links. Really, a couple of references and sources are fine, but linking to every article written is excessive and not in line with other biographical articles here. There are 2 quotes I would like to see sourced with links. It is entirely possible that I wiped out the links that had these quotes and if someone can post them here I will correctly add them to the article as references.--Isotope23 19:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

per a conversation with RYP, I've restored just the Nat Geo links as he has expressed an interest in having them in the article, and I have no objection to that... I just don't want to see 71 links there.--Isotope23 20:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced 'RYP' is Robert Young Pelton, so I wrote the author an email via his website asking him to confirm either way. Alcarillo 21:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: Still no response.Alcarillo 18:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: User:RYP did answer my request, and yes, it is Pelton. My Internet experience has bred an overly cautious nature, I suppose... Alcarillo 22:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved from AFD page

We'll pick up the discussion here. - Richfife 04:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

(Moved from the AFD page)

• Comment - I had to a little Wikisearching from "Feces" to "Paris Hilton" and I am baffled as to why my bio and work is somehow self promotional and Ms Hilton's staggering body of work is almost three pages long. I think the editor needs to address the measure by which relevance, citation and worthiness are applied. Particularily after this entire episode was triggered by a single vandal.

I would like to see each link be reviewed as being an outside non biased source. The reason? To prevent against arbitrary editing, deletions and spamming. You asked for citations, you got them along with many original links that detail the events in the list above.

For example why was the link to my photograph removed? Is that hype? Biased? Unfair? Self Promotional?

Why would in depth and free articles about travel safety and discussions about the war on terror be deleted if the idea is to present alternative and non mainstream information? Doesn't make sense. Why would you delete links to someones work, the entire CNN transcript of John Walker Lindh, The first hand reports and photographs from Qali Jangi, the hunt for bin laden etc etc all free on Nat Geo (never heard of them?) sites.

Its either censorship or arrogance. Long live packaged hype and Paris Hilton, free media and Wiki are dead. (Humor)

RYP (signed)

Comment I'm all in favor of having all trace of Paris Hilton removed from the planet and never being spoke of again. However, sometimes you just have to let the train pass and then go in afterwards and restore balance. I'll look at the links and take a stab at this whole thing when I have more time (tonight, hopefully). - Richfife 21:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Richfife,

Thanks... so together, with your help we can make Wikipedia Paris Hilton free...May I suggest you create "IckyPedia", a place where Charo, Zsa Zsa, Paris, Britney, and informercial hosts can post as much and as long as they want?

RYP

(FYI: If you sign your comments with a 4 tildes instead of RYP, Wikipedia will automatically flesh it out to a signature like so: Richfife 04:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC) Neat, huh?)

You really should add an entry for your discovery series to the Internet Movie Database here: [1]. I'm surprised it's not listed. They're usually pretty comprehensive.

OK, let's see here. Paragraph the first. Changing "does" to "produces". Sounds more, well, you know.

Moving on... "His upcoming books range from...". This kind of gets into Crystal Ball territory (although not all the way) and can very easily run afoul of No Ads. Wikipedians, with very good reason, are very touchy about anything that looks like it might lead down a slippery slope to the big pit of Advertising Everywhere. People placing ads on Wikipedia often point at other ad like content to justify their behavior, so if it even slightly feels adish, it's gotta go. I'll try and rework this paragraph. What's a neutral version of the word "Adventurer"? Gah.

Meh. I'm going to pull this out for now:

His upcoming books range from his time inside private military contractors (Licensed to Kill, Hired Guns in the War on Terror - Crown), to his experiences with US Special Forces in the opening weeks in the war on terror (The Regulators), and even a fictional book (Raven- Penguin) based on his early years. He is currently working on the updated version of his best known book (DP- Professional Strength - Harper Collins).

They should go back in as they're published.

I pulled some more stuff that I need to find a place for (don't worry, nothing is ever lost in Wikipedia). I'm going to mull over how to handle it, but my first instinct is that a comprehensive list of everywhere you've been isn't going to fit anywhere. Going to bed now. - Richfife 17:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I find the comments by Isotope to be a little insulting. Who else but fans would spend the time to type in a Wikipedia entry? What else supports the work of a person other than the actual works (or links to it?) I have pointed out that Wikipedia has inane and completely fluffy entries that are not supported by a two decade body of work and massive online content. Also at the risk of sounding like a broken record, this whole thing was triggered by a single malicious event, so the overreaction of culling content and links seems to be a waste of energy.

As I mentioned before I added the links because of the vicariousness of the Wikipedia information that can range from accurate, to libelous to childish to just plain wrong. So since Wikipedia is among the top hits when journalists and readers research me, I have to now take an active role in making sure it is accurate and comprehensive. Upcoming CONTRACTED projects are no different that current projects in that they are newsworthy and true. License to Kill is in stores in five days and available for sale online so I don't agree with deleting the book.

Finally I want to thank the editors for taking the time to restructure and smooth out the content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RYP (talk • contribs)

- I apologize for having a large body of work and for having vast amounts of free original thought provoking content on the internet that is of direct benefit to a large audience. There is no need for me to host large number of links of my site since my site is promotional and commercial. I would have thought that this site strives to add balance to the control and commercialization of content on the net.

It is not only common for authors and filmmakers even of the most dubious and shallow reputation to have lengthy listings, book, DVD or album covers, extensive links and coming projects but the obsessive need to trim relevant newsworthy and useful content baffles me.

What isotope and the original poster said ("Go sell your book somewhere else") is starting to simply sound vindictive since it appears that even a random and cursory search of listings like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashlee_simpson

or

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milli_Vanilli

are more revealing of where energy is spent and runs absolute counter to what I am about and what this site should be about.

Thanks for Richfife's efforts and technical advice but it frankly until you start to ADD relevant and reliable content and DELETE fluff and press releases...then this conversation is a joke.

RYP (signed)

(Walks away) - Richfife 21:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Can I at least nuke Milli? I will leave Vanilli up.... :)) Sorry if my observations and lame humor pissed you off. For now I will stick to the commercial side of the web. THanks for you help in organized the page.

RYP

Image resize

Anyone know how to resize that image? It is a bit overbearing...--Isotope23 15:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Much better... thanks to the anon who fixed it.--Isotope23 03:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Revisions

I've been paring down the promotional language -- the article was still full of more florid passages that are usually evidence of a PR flack's input. The next step is a good list of references. Alcarillo 18:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Film and print projects section

The 2nd half of this section doesn't quite mesh with the 1st half. Were they different sections at one point? Should they be? Some of the information presents what I take to be regarding Pelton's kidnapping in Darien; that should be moved and woven into the existing 'Kidnapped' section. (on a related note, does this article need a separate section on the kidnapping??) Alcarillo 21:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Robert Young Pelton/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Excellent marks. Good citations and links. Ths should be the model for other Wikpedia entries. My only qualm is with mentioning the author as moderator of a forum on the world wide web where he is named as moderator. While this verges towards categorization as self-promotion, the entry should state the author as owner to eliminate confusion in readers minds.

Last edited at 17:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 22:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2