![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Approaching a B-class, has multiple subheadings with good content, and a useful image. However it is very short of references, and the image is fair use, not completely free, when the person is alive and not a recluse. Have you tried sending him an email and asking if he would be willing to contribute a free image? User:Videmus Omnia/Requesting free content is a great guide on that. Thorough references would make it a B-class, a free image isn't completely required, but would help. -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Folks, you both mean well. May I suggest there is room for compromise here? It is true that unsourced controversial information about living persons should be removed immediately, per Wikipedia:Biography of living persons. That said, saying that someone is a vegetarian and loves humor is not likely to be grounds for a libel suit. Is there, maybe, an interview with Foster that says that that this information can be sourced to? -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I am requesting a third opinion as to whether the newly added Mo Foster#Personal life section is sufficiently sourced. Edit history and the previous section will show a little bit of an edit war - where I and its author repeatedly reverted one another, and its author sees my actions as being in bad faith. As objectively as I can tell, both rationales ( WP:BLP requires everything about living persons to be strongly sourced, versus some of these items are likely uncontroversial) have merit.
Although the section's author has "sourced" them, he has done so by pasting the same "reference" five times into the section, none of them being anything more than a generic reference to the title of a nearly 400 page book. Even if the statements are true, I am not sure how one can make a statement that somebody is a "die hard" subscriber of any magazine or ideology on Wikipedia without it being original research, or without at least attributing it to someone who made and published such a statement (i.e. "In his autobiography (ref), Foster describes himself as a "die-hard" subscriber" if that is indeed the case.). It is not as though the author doesn't know how to cite sources (see this example of his excellent job providing sources for the gay lifestyle article Glory hole). My concern is that the sourcing is likely to be bogus and overly broad (after all, if he really has access to this book, why isn't he adding something more specific when he certainly knows he could and should?). If people everywhere started to write comments about living people and broadly sourced them with nothing more than the name of a book, Jimbo would be jumping all over it. Overshadowing my concern (and the reason for the third party request) is the possibility that these items may be uncontroversial enough that WP:BLP doesn't matter here, or at least matters less, taking note that while WP:BLP is still a very important rule, that it's citation needed still citation needed possible citation needed to go ridiculously citation needed overboard citation needed with it, and the line has to be drawn somewhere. Reswobslc 06:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Third opinion. First, some observations:
Having said that, I think the best solution is for both authors to come together and attempt a rewrite of the section. Perhaps a good place to start is to change the current section so it sounds more encyclopedic and less POV. I would be happy to check over the rewrites, if you want. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 13:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and edited the references. If you want to cite the same reference multiple times, once the first one is named (e.g. <ref name="xyz">{{ref}}</ref>), for all the others, you just have to write <ref name="xyz" />. See WP:FOOT for more. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 15:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to take a shot at redoing the Personal Life section. Here's what I've done:
Let me know what you all think. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 22:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
"Mo Foster is a respected British session musician," respected by who - his mother?!! i've just asked 10 people at random - one of whom is DJ - and nobody has ever heard of him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.76.143 ( talk) 14:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
"He is also an in-demand and highly-regarded music producer" who is he in demand by - the inland revenue? the police? highly regarded by who - no one outside your small circle of friends has ever heard of him —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.76.143 ( talk) 14:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
You have removed big chunks of what is a noraml and valid discussion.
The IMDB reference is worthless - i can edit my own and in fact according to them i directed star wars!
As for the magazines i repeat what specific page?
I am not vandalising i am trying to remove blatant crap and advertising from WP.
As for the magazines i repeat what specific page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.76.143 ( talk) 15:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I urge you to look again at them. Most link to the users own web-site and are not actual magazine articles but quotes allegedly taken from those magazines. Indeed all but a handful of them still exist and for those that do if you search their databases for 'Mo Foster' you will get a not found message. Check out the link to ^ Mick Ronson fansite - see what i mean? All i asked for was specific dates/edition numbers and page numbers of those magazine quotes however my qeustions were rapidly deleted. Without that information there is no way of verifying the validity of those quotes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.76.143 ( talk) 17:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
But I think I am.
Setting aside a dearth of proper sources to back up statements, this article very much needs a reduction of chattiness and chaff. Wikipedia is (in theory at least) an encyclopedia. It is NOT the place for essays or critical studies. It's really not for "fun facts" trivia — for that, fans may go to a musician's personal website. And it is not WP's place to be "human" or any other warm/fuzzy sentiment.
There is a crying need for updating. Despite the present-tense persistence, the most recent fact in the body is dated 2012; aside from that, the story appears to stop dead in 2007.
Weeb Dingle (
talk)
21:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mo Foster. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Mo died today 3/7/2023 2A02:C7C:DCED:C00:2002:CC28:81E2:DF1 ( talk) 17:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Approaching a B-class, has multiple subheadings with good content, and a useful image. However it is very short of references, and the image is fair use, not completely free, when the person is alive and not a recluse. Have you tried sending him an email and asking if he would be willing to contribute a free image? User:Videmus Omnia/Requesting free content is a great guide on that. Thorough references would make it a B-class, a free image isn't completely required, but would help. -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Folks, you both mean well. May I suggest there is room for compromise here? It is true that unsourced controversial information about living persons should be removed immediately, per Wikipedia:Biography of living persons. That said, saying that someone is a vegetarian and loves humor is not likely to be grounds for a libel suit. Is there, maybe, an interview with Foster that says that that this information can be sourced to? -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I am requesting a third opinion as to whether the newly added Mo Foster#Personal life section is sufficiently sourced. Edit history and the previous section will show a little bit of an edit war - where I and its author repeatedly reverted one another, and its author sees my actions as being in bad faith. As objectively as I can tell, both rationales ( WP:BLP requires everything about living persons to be strongly sourced, versus some of these items are likely uncontroversial) have merit.
Although the section's author has "sourced" them, he has done so by pasting the same "reference" five times into the section, none of them being anything more than a generic reference to the title of a nearly 400 page book. Even if the statements are true, I am not sure how one can make a statement that somebody is a "die hard" subscriber of any magazine or ideology on Wikipedia without it being original research, or without at least attributing it to someone who made and published such a statement (i.e. "In his autobiography (ref), Foster describes himself as a "die-hard" subscriber" if that is indeed the case.). It is not as though the author doesn't know how to cite sources (see this example of his excellent job providing sources for the gay lifestyle article Glory hole). My concern is that the sourcing is likely to be bogus and overly broad (after all, if he really has access to this book, why isn't he adding something more specific when he certainly knows he could and should?). If people everywhere started to write comments about living people and broadly sourced them with nothing more than the name of a book, Jimbo would be jumping all over it. Overshadowing my concern (and the reason for the third party request) is the possibility that these items may be uncontroversial enough that WP:BLP doesn't matter here, or at least matters less, taking note that while WP:BLP is still a very important rule, that it's citation needed still citation needed possible citation needed to go ridiculously citation needed overboard citation needed with it, and the line has to be drawn somewhere. Reswobslc 06:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Third opinion. First, some observations:
Having said that, I think the best solution is for both authors to come together and attempt a rewrite of the section. Perhaps a good place to start is to change the current section so it sounds more encyclopedic and less POV. I would be happy to check over the rewrites, if you want. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 13:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and edited the references. If you want to cite the same reference multiple times, once the first one is named (e.g. <ref name="xyz">{{ref}}</ref>), for all the others, you just have to write <ref name="xyz" />. See WP:FOOT for more. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 15:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to take a shot at redoing the Personal Life section. Here's what I've done:
Let me know what you all think. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 22:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
"Mo Foster is a respected British session musician," respected by who - his mother?!! i've just asked 10 people at random - one of whom is DJ - and nobody has ever heard of him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.76.143 ( talk) 14:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
"He is also an in-demand and highly-regarded music producer" who is he in demand by - the inland revenue? the police? highly regarded by who - no one outside your small circle of friends has ever heard of him —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.76.143 ( talk) 14:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
You have removed big chunks of what is a noraml and valid discussion.
The IMDB reference is worthless - i can edit my own and in fact according to them i directed star wars!
As for the magazines i repeat what specific page?
I am not vandalising i am trying to remove blatant crap and advertising from WP.
As for the magazines i repeat what specific page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.76.143 ( talk) 15:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I urge you to look again at them. Most link to the users own web-site and are not actual magazine articles but quotes allegedly taken from those magazines. Indeed all but a handful of them still exist and for those that do if you search their databases for 'Mo Foster' you will get a not found message. Check out the link to ^ Mick Ronson fansite - see what i mean? All i asked for was specific dates/edition numbers and page numbers of those magazine quotes however my qeustions were rapidly deleted. Without that information there is no way of verifying the validity of those quotes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.76.143 ( talk) 17:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
But I think I am.
Setting aside a dearth of proper sources to back up statements, this article very much needs a reduction of chattiness and chaff. Wikipedia is (in theory at least) an encyclopedia. It is NOT the place for essays or critical studies. It's really not for "fun facts" trivia — for that, fans may go to a musician's personal website. And it is not WP's place to be "human" or any other warm/fuzzy sentiment.
There is a crying need for updating. Despite the present-tense persistence, the most recent fact in the body is dated 2012; aside from that, the story appears to stop dead in 2007.
Weeb Dingle (
talk)
21:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mo Foster. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Mo died today 3/7/2023 2A02:C7C:DCED:C00:2002:CC28:81E2:DF1 ( talk) 17:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)