Talk:Desert Blue

Trivia

The trivia section does appear to be a little irrelevant IMO. If we did have a BLP for this actor it should be included but to include this with this movie when it doesn't actually appear to be notable actor or a notable incident. Scalhotrod am I missing a big connector here? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source literally describes Moore's role as "essentially the third FBI agent from the left" - he's of no relevance to the film, and the death of Ward even less so. Two of the references for the trivia section don't even mention this film, and the remaining one is IMDb, hardly a good source. It's one big WP:NPOV and WP:COATRACK violation, with BLP issues thrown in for good measure. Thus I'll remove that trivia section. Huon (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hell in a bucket- the "connector" IMO is that scalhotrod wants desperately to "win." Or make a WP:POINT. He argued to "KEEP" the two bio articles which were decided by an overwhelming majority consensus to "DELETE." (Nate Moore actor and Dave oren Ward). Then scalhotrod helped coauthor a third article called "the killing of dave oren ward." Subsequently this article was subject to AFD, and the community- editors and Admins such as RGloucester Fylbecatulous Risker Nyttend Carcharoth Govindaharihari JohnCD Fluffernutter Crystallizedcarbon- again reached an overwhelming consensus to "DELETE", all agreeing at various AFDs that this negative BLP content about two not noteworthy persons was poorly sourced.

Which brings us to scalhotrod, who fought to "keep" all three articles during AFD. The consensus was to "delete" all three articles. Scalhotrod didn't ask for a deletion review. Nor did he ask for "delete and redirect". No, scalhotrod just recreated the deleted articles "Nate Moore (actor)" and "dave oren ward" and redirected both to the article about a film "pariah (1998)". Scalhotrod Then edited the contentious and poorly sourced material into pariah, using a defintely non-neutral description based on the previously discussed poor source, an article the admins described as a tabloid piece. Subsequently i pointed out that if there is going to be a "Nate Moore (actor)" redirect, it ought to actually redirect to somethjng that Nate Moore appeared in, however briefly, as an actor. So I edited the redirect to "Desert Blue". Scalhotrod then reverted my edit back to a pariah redirect. I edited it back to the film Moore actually appeared in, and so scalhotrod immediately edited the unrelated incident into the trivia section of desert blue (maybe this is the "connector", or the story behind why We are having this discussion on this talk page....) I'm Not sure of the relevance this information had to an article about "pariah" (the ward film,) but I'm QUITE certain it's not only irrelevant to this film, but seems to put undue weight with negative BLP, singling out someone who seems to have a bit part in this movie. I think Moore is listed as 18nth in the credits... For example, lets look at Casey Affleck, a top billed name on this feature who has been sued by two former employees for sexual harassment after this film came out. Should we include that "trivia" here as well? No. And at least in that scenario, Casey Affleck is someone already found to be "noteworthy", unlike Moore and Ward who the community literally just had three AFDs about, all three resulting in a consensus that neither party nor the incident are /were" noteworthy".

Please see the following:

[1]

[2]

[3]

So now we have the WP:COATRACK attempt here at Desert Blue. And over at Pariah. It's a pretty desperate attempt to be "right" or to "win." Or to "make a point". Im fairly confident that if this airs out and is discussed a 4th and 5th time that the wiki community would agree. I would like to apologize for any mistakes i may have made thus far. I assumed that the BLP exception applied to both "unsourced" and "poorly sourced" material, and my understanding was that the consensus in a all three previous AFDS found that this BLP is poorly sourced (see AFDs above).🐍 07:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Much of Shark says is true, what lead me to the article is the redirect that Shark310 switched the Nate Moore (actor) [4] to stating "More relevant redirect, as a film the actor appeared in, as opposed to previous listing which the actor did NOT appear in". The trivia section was already here with 2 unsourced factoids. I added a reference to one and deleted the other. I then added the content about Moore with sources. As Shark notes, originally I had pointed the Nate Moore redirect at the Pariah (1998 film) article which has a direct mention about actor Dave Ward's death who starred in Pariah. I did add a source that states that Moore killed Ward. There was a reviewer who made direct reference to Ward's death, but now were straying into a discussion that belong on the Pariah Talk page. For the record, I do not consider Nate Moore killing Dave Ward "trivial", but contextually it was the only section in this article that made sense. That said, I added sourced content about a cast member.

As for the rest of the claims about the other articles, Shark seems to misunderstand the that an article being AfD'd does not meant that all of its content and sources are somehow "off limits" for inclusion on the site. Those topics are simply not notable by WP standards and I accepted that. What I don't accept is Shark trying to censor sourced factual content or adding unsourced content as is being done in the Pariah article. I'm not sure how Shark's WP:CANVASSing helps this situation, but a simple check of their edit history (along with several of their Socks [5][6][7][8]) demonstrates a pattern of editing exclusively focused on Nate Moore. This isn't the place to make a case of WP:NOTHERE, but WP:DUCK seems to apply. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 08:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

nobodys "canvassing" anybody...here we have another baseless attack. please stop with the attacks. im transparent. hotrod wanted this on a talk page, and so he emailed hell in a bucket. i have no problem with that. i assume good faith there. im not accusing him of "canvassing." I actually tried to talk to scalhotrod after the AFDs but he was extremely uncivil and told me to stay off of his talk page. Thus I asked other parties for input. Hotrod basically bit my head off when i tried to talk to him. He actually told me to stay off Wikipedia and leave it to "those who wish to build an encyclopedia."

I believe that this isn't the relevant page for this poorly sourced material. And i asked for input from the community. I dont think that is improper.

hotrod keeps throwing in the word "sourced", like the guardian article is written in stone and that its the "truth". I'm not attempting to "censor" anything. I am simply stating that the tabloid article is a poor source for BLP material, and if the material is to be kept, it ought to be kept in the most neutral POV possible, disregarding the extremely non-neutral language of the tabloid. For example, hotrod wishes to make a case on the Pariah Page that A.) the incident should somehow be included in the article about the film he was in; and B.) the language used in describing this incident ought to quote from the poorly sourced tabloid article which he uses as his source. (ie. using inflammatory descriptors such as "moore stabbed ward in road rage".) Hotrod accuses me of adding unsourced content when I attempt to edit a neutral tone; I disagree. The article, as biased as it is, describes four participants engaging in a fight.Policy regarding NPOV is pretty clear on this.

From where I stand, its deceitful to accuse someone of "censorship" for simply expressing BLP concerns. But then, I'm not the only person hotrod has accused of censorship during these debates, for simply disagreeing with his "inclusionism."

I never said the content was "off limits." (although i certainly think it would require a neutralized tone, to adhere to wiki BLP policy.) For example, if Moore were to become "noteworthy" perhaps this discussion would occur on his Bio page. There was a Bio page, but that was deleted per AFD, against hotrods wishes. (But then, if Moore did become "noteworthy" perhaps there would be more coverage given to this event, allowing for more than one tabloid article's extremely biased account of events.)

Hotrod basically admits to WP:COATRACK here.(..."it was the only section in this article that made sense...") He says Wards death wasn't trivial. Nobody is saying that it was. But "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances..." And even if it were, I don't think any reasonable person would concur that this film article is the place to do it. Pariah, maybe. And even there, NPOV should still be observed. But that's a discussion for that talk page.🐍 09:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shark310 (talk 09:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)🐍[reply]