Talk:Roy Maloy

Sourcing links

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 06:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Uncited information

Any contentious claims in this article must be cited to a reliable independent source. Uncited claims will be removed. The article must be written from the neutral point of view. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Removed opening paragraph of "Career" as information has never been sourced. There is a section "Early Life" which is similarly unsourced and have tagged as unreferenced section FlatOut 03:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

How is his birthdate a 'contentious claim' and 'require citation'? Is a jpeg of birth cerificate required for every living person on wiki? Come on, this is clearly a case of one persons bitterness toward Maloy and frankly the harrassment is ridiculous. Unbiased&fair (talk) 05:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

When you don't agree with an edit just discuss it and make your point without resorting to insults. Edits are not to be taken personally but rather to improve the standard of the document. Challenging un-referenced material and hyperbole led to the improvement of the article. If you disagree then make the edit and give your reasons for doing so. Flatoitlikealizarddrinking (talk) 11:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Your blatant pursuance and constant editing of a referenced article pertaining to one person and his achievements (as can be clearly seen by your 'revision history') IS harassment. Every edit, even if it is correctly referenced, is undone by you and your cronies. The fact remains that Maloy is a well known Australian Circus identity and is deserving of a wiki page - despite your bitterness. Stating facts is not 'resorting to insults'. Unbiased&fair (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Stop the uncivil remarks now and assume good faith of other editors. Everything in this article must be properly referenced. Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's behavioral norms, please, and understand that this article WILL be shaped by consensus. Every editor has an equal right to participate, and disagreement is not harassment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

My apologies to you, Cullen - unfortunately some others do not observe societal behavioural norms and it is difficult to stay neutral in the face of that. Unbiased&fair (talk) 21:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on consensus rather than the views of any single editor. As I have explained in my edit summaries, here on the article talk page, and also on your talk page, you need to discuss changes where consensus currently exists. If you make a change without discussing it first you are far more likely to have the change edited. This happens to all of us and we learn to use the Talk page to put a case for the edit. Not only does the article need to be referenced but the references need to be neutral and verifiable and used to enhance a Neutral Point of View. There is no debate from anyone that the subject is notable or "deserves" a page, just that the standard of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons must be adhered to. FlatOut Let's discuss it 10:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Stunt Performer

I dont believe that stunt performer is warranted. Stunt performers generally perform stunts for TV/movies and is the modern term for stuntman. Flatoitlikealizarddrinking (talk) 02:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

You are thinking of a stunt double. It's not really the same thing.--Auric talk 03:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

im not thinking of a stunt double. A stunt performer aka stuntman perform at a higher level http://www.careercentre.dtwd.wa.gov.au/occupations/Pages/stunt-performer.aspx Flatoitlikealizarddrinking (talk) 04:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, then I'd say he is a daredevil.--Auric talk 04:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

fire breathing, stilt walking, bed of nails are all circus/sideshow acts, not acts of a stunt performer or daredevil, but I give up. Flatoitlikealizarddrinking (talk) 04:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Definition: stunt (stnt) n. 1. A feat displaying unusual strength, skill, or daring. 2. Something done to attract attention or publicity. intr.v. stunt·ed, stunt·ing, stunts To perform stunts or a stunt. Ref DICTIONARY definition, not 'opinion'. Maloy definitively qualifies as a stunt performer, or as he is male, a STUNT MAN. Nitpicking terms without facts is called harrassment. Unbiased&fair (talk) 06:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

You appear to be confused about discussing issues in Talk. It is not "nitpicking or harassment" to discuss a definition. Flatoitlikealizarddrinking (talk) 11:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. You seem to have missed the point. I cited a factual, dictionary definition rather than opinion - which is what you did. Perhaps you are the one confused. Unbiased&fair (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Take some time to understand the connection between page history and talk history. I made an edit which Auric undid. Instead of undoing his edit I brought the issue here for discussion and it was resolved the same day. This is the best way to avoid edit wars on the article. This also applies to your edits regarding use of the term "Australian Circus King" which is discussed below under Career. FlatOut 05:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Career

"Australian Circus King" has moved from Honorary Ttitles section into thje Career section, and the reference provided is simply reporting a self-title. The same article describes the subject as world-famous which is clearly not the case. Should be removed.Flatoitlikealizarddrinking (talk) 02:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Why? World-famous or not, that is still the title.--Auric talk 03:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

because Maloy is self-titled "Australian Circus King," Doug Ashton is widely regarded as the King of Australian Circus, Maloy is not. Flatoitlikealizarddrinking (talk) 03:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

So? The two titles are clearly different. (and I meant title of the news article, not Maloy)--Auric talk 04:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

My point is that the news article is reporting a self-title, not conferring the title and as such is a self-promotion and previously removed by Cullen328 Flatoitlikealizarddrinking (talk) 04:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)Flatoitlikealizarddrinking (talk) 04:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Funny, that was my point too. But the use of the term self-promotion implies that he was quoted in the article as using the term. He is not, leading me to think this is a case of hyperbole.--Auric talk 04:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hyperbole. Agreed.Flatoitlikealizarddrinking (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

If a reliable source uses such a clearly promotional title, then it should not be given undue weight in the article and reported in Wikipedia's voice. Not "Roy Maloy's is the greatest whatever", but rather, "Australian provincial newspaper XXX said that Roy Maloy is 'Australia's best known stilt walker" or whatever. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Given the subject is in various media types - tv, magazine, newspaper, online articles - and named 'Australias Circus King', the title stands. It is not self promotion when so many sources are naming the subject as such of their own accord. The subject has indeed travelled and performed worldwide and sources can be cited. His extraordinary claims do have extraordinary sources, including his 6 registered world records, honorary medals presented to him by various mayors etc and through performing in various circus' as the headlining act throughout regional Australia. It is no different to someone referring to themselves as 'The Worlds Biggest Strongman' or 'Big Chief Little Wolf' - it is the established reference which the subject is entitled to, having earned it. Unbiased&fair (talk) 05:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Currently there is one reference to support use of the title. In terms 'self-promotion' there is no reliable verifiable source that suggest the title has been conferred on the subject, and the current reference is not as 'extraordinary' as the claim (see Cullen's point above). Neutral Point Of View is important when editing so that you aren't just writing what you know but rather what you can verify. The title is included -in context- in the body of the article, placing it in the infobox removes that context. FlatOut 06:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

1975-2008

There is nothing covering this period since unsourced material was removed, if anyone has verifiable sources on early life, schooling, can attempt to expand article. FlatOut 08:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Hardy Record

Previously the article stated that Maloy broke Hardy's record, however they are different records and Hardy's still stands as a Guinness World Record. Now that this has been corrected, the Hardy reference is irrelevant to this BLP and User:Cullen328 has rightfully deleted it. FlatOut 11:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Perhaps that should have been supplied as the reason originally rather than it being made out the record was false. Unbiased&fair (talk) 12:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The reason was given correctly by User:Cullen328 in the edit summary when the edit was made " remove someone else's record, which is not relevant to Roy Maloy." FlatOut 12:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Reliable Sources Noticeboard

This is to inform all interested editors that there is a discussion underway at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Roy Maloy and the Record Holders Republic regarding one of the references in the article. Input from all interested editors is invited. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Please refer to the consensus reached at WP:RSN as per above before re-instating unsourced, POV and dubious claims.Flat Out let's discuss it 01:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Roy Maloy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.abc.net.au/rural/telegraph/content/2011/s3244345.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)