Talk:Gareth Gates
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
 |
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group. | ||
I thought Gareth Gates was a supporter of Leeds United F.C--Victoria Eleanor 15:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I thought that was suspect as well, I don't suppose you can find a reference? It's the sort of thing that might have been mentioned in an interview somewhere. the best i can find is [1] MGSpiller 19:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Got it interview MGSpiller 19:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Why have all the pictures been removed as unlicensed when they are still there for many other artists (see for example Emma Bunton, Will Youngs discography etc)?
- The uploader probably forgot to tag the images with the correct licences and fair-use rationales. Album covers can be uploaded again, and with the correct information, they should be kept. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
God knows where this guy disappeared though...
[edit] Pointless, playground level gossip
Would the person who is keen to list all the playground level gossip please try to remember that Wikipedia is not a gossip website, but is intended to be an online encyclopedia. Please try to keep additions relevant, and note that tabloid reporting of hearsay is not a quality, verifiable source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.240.131.19 (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC).
Gates' relationship with Price was a major news event and after Pop Idol the most famous event in his life. The sourced information comes straight from her autobiography and the newspaper articles are referenced so that it can verified online. Removing this information is a clear case of censorship. It will remain as part of the entry and any vandalism will be reversed. 213.122.86.27 00:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The relationship is covered adequately by the one paragraph. The detail from Price's book is uneccessary. 86.27.93.252 06:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia guidance states "We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia" and there should be a "clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." Further, it also clearly explains "Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers that print gossip much of which is false. While such information may be titillating, that does not mean it has a place here. Before repeating such gossip, ask yourself if the information is presented as being true, if the source is reliable, and if the information, even if true, is relevant to an encyclopaedic article on that subject." Further, information gleaned from autobiographies and publications by partisan writers should only be used "about the subject only and not about third parties or events not directly related to the subject". (unsigned comment)
If you are including quotes by someone from a clearly authorized autobiography then it is obviously verifiable. The newspapers in question have merely reproduced snippets from the book, referenced here for ease. But they can be easily found in the book if you care to check. As for their validity, if you take awya the Jordan scandal there really isn't that much of interest to say about Mr Gates - his fame is a direct consequence of Pop Ido and the Katie Price scanda and I see no-one removing references to Pop Idol. If you don't like it that's tough - but it's relevant and it's staying. 213.122.84.79 15:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The information is not relevant, and should not be reintroduced. You would do well to read the guidance. 62.136.14.24 13:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Gareth became famous in the UK because of Pop Idol, and internationally as a singer. Someone decided to cash in on that fame by doing a kiss and tell, and made a lot of money out of it, which is more relevant to her career, than his. There is a link to her Wiki page if people are that interested, but all of her claims fall under the description of tabloid tittle-tattle, and are not verifiable (her book was a commercial venture, not an academic study), nor relevant. As other users have explained, the undisputed paragraph is sufficient and in keeping with guidance. 84.71.233.78 19:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
It is entirely reasonable to have the relationship mentioned, but the sort of additional elements you continue to add are hearsay and gossip (ie Prices view only) and not at all relevant. A paragraph mentioning the relationship is sufficient. By constantly reverting, you are also taking out other relevant links and information that have to be added back in which is a nuisance. 82.2.62.171 17:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you add information, and not remove it, and then there will be no cause for a revert. 213.122.9.27 17:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I am adding informtation, moving information to make it read better (for example the qualifications as a speech coach should be under personal life not career, as well as taking out irrelevancies (as explained) which allow for a succinct and accurate article. Other editors have done the same. Your constant reversions take out these changes plus some external links. This is a nuisance as they then need to be added back in.82.2.62.171 17:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
If you check my reverts you will see that I have not removed information from 'personal life' - indeed I have often restored the whole section. I suggest you check your facts before accusing people. 213.122.9.27 18:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
But you have just removed stuff from there - information about the speech coach. Your church information is innaccurate - Gareth still attends there and presented awards there recently (sometime last year - well after the so called fall out), so requires to be amended as I had done. I maintain that your comments taken from Prices book are irrelevant to the integrity of the article. The relationship should be mentioned, but there is no need for the sort of detail you add. 82.2.62.171 18:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
You've got you facts wrong again - the church information is not mine. I did not write that. However it gets restored along with everything else. I am not going to waste my time sifting thorugh edits. If you remove information you are in no position to complain about your edits being undone. 81.131.18.168 20:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Whenever you have been restoring "your version" you invariably add that information, and remove other information added in good faith, so you need to take responsibility for all of that. The guidance is explicit about not restoring previous versions to protect your own additions at the expense of other edits. Instead, you should carefully compare versions, and re-introduce any material that you feel is important. However, it also says a lot on why the information you insist on re-introducing is not appropriate, and also encouraging editors to explain their actions in here and try to reach a consensus. Your "tough if you don't like it, I want it in" approach, is entirely contradictory to that. (84.71.215.106 11:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC))
Please would the person(s) who continue(s) to add unsuitable and irrelevant copy by doing a full revert at least have the courtesy to respect the work of other editors (as per guidance) and edit sections individually. 82.20.7.98 22:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit warring
Please stop reverting each other's edits. If you continue and are in violation of the three revert rule, you may be blocked from editing and the page may be protected. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. The indiscriminate reverting without any attention to the discussion here is particularly contrary to what Wikipedia is about. Even if someone disagrees with one particular aspect of the page, and wishes to change it in good faith, they should never simply revert back to their last version, ignoring the work, also added in good faith, by interim edits.(81.77.90.32 08:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC))
If you remove someone else's contribution then you cannot really complain if they remove yours - you have brought it upon yourself! 81.131.109.137 20:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
This is a public, online encyclopaedia, not your own private soap-box. Responsible editors are obliged to remove content which contradicts the guidance. 90.240.245.24 21:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I really think that if a contribution states inaccurate facts as one or two of them do, then its only right that they should be removed.80.235.133.112 22:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Please, please, please will the person who keeps reverting to their own edit which includes the inaccuracies and irrelevencies (discussed ad nauseum on here), and removes other edits done in good faith stop doing so. It shows great disrespect for the guidance, for other responsible editors and for the integrity of this site. 82.3.76.134 22:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Have any of you considered creating an account? Of course you don't have to, but I honestly have no idea who is who in this discussion! — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
In what way are they irrelevant - maybe if they were about Frank Sinatra, or Elvis, or Elton John or Karen Carpenter, people who became famous for their talents. Gareth Gates is someone who is famous for Pop Idol and his affair with Jordan. These are the things that make him famous so they are not irrelevant within context. What Kate Price has to say about him is part of his fame. 213.122.85.5 00:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I have an account, although to be honest, I prefer to do any editing “anonymously” as I feel it should always be about the content, or in the case of discussion pages, the debate, and not the names. However, I can see the benefit in this instance, as it has become quite confusing.
Nevertheless, I believe the case has been made perfectly clearly against indiscriminate reverting, and the paragraph that one particular editor wants to keep in. The guidance is available for all of us to read, but they’ve already explained they can’t be bothered checking edits, so I don’t think I’m going out on a limb to assume they couldn’t be bothered to read it properly, if at all. Further, I would go so far as to say they haven’t even bothered to read the rest of the main article page properly or know much about his career if they believe that he wouldn’t have one if it wasn’t for Jordan going to the papers.
However, to summarise, after Pop Idol (a singing competition), Gareth had three UK number one singles, had a song featured on a number one film, had a number one selling book of his own, plus a couple of entries in the Guinness Book of Records, all before that happened. The reason the story was of interest to the tabloids was because Gareth was already very famous and already regularly featured. After she went to the papers (although granted she did go on and on and on about it), Gareth had a further 4 top 5 UK hits, including another number one. Remembering that this is an international website, Gareth has charted and become famous in dozens of countries, and most people wouldn’t have a clue who Jordan is unless they were first reading about Gareth.
If Gareth worked in the sex industry, then information about his sex life might become relevant, but he doesn’t. The fact that he was under 18 at the time makes all the more distasteful, but that’s tabloid culture for you. Stokinger 10:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The argument against reverting to a very old edit which contains information that has been agreed on this page to be gossip and not relevant has been well made. It is also unfair to other editors who have edited in good faith. Nerodavola 09:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] External Links
The reason I took out the external links can be seen on the Darren Hayes page. Only official links are allowed apparently. I also removed the mention of Will Young as an associate as that was five years ago and he isn't associated with Will now. They are on different labels.
