Talk:Stedman Pearson

Cottaging scandal

What, no details??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.101.199 (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Somebody keeps removing these details, even though it is adequately sourced and was one of the things Stedman Pearson was most known for. If this continues, I am going to have the page blocked from editing. 89.168.119.97 (talk) 02:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

'Controversies' section

The section with the indecency charge keeps being reverted by IPs who do not participate here on the talk page. The article has been semiprotected until a consensus can be found. The section has sources, but are they good enough? The editors here should have a discussion about it and make a decision. (Or, you could take it to WP:RSN). The only source currently in the article that is readable online is http://www.nme.com/artists/five-star#biography. NME looks like a reasonable source but it is not a newspaper. Newspaper sources for the controversial event would surely exist if the matter was widely discussed. Edit warring on this topic has previously been reported at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, both of the items in the controversies section are adequately sourced and meet WP:RS. The issue about Stedman Pearson arrested in a public toilet was big news in 1990 when it happened (and was even covered on the television news), but bear in mind that this was almost 20 years ago which was pre-internet days so there aren't going to be a lot of online newspaper sources for it. The NME is not a newspaper but it is a major, well established, and highly respected British periodical. It is also coupled with the published book "Rock Movers and Shakers" written by two highly published music historians, which may not be available as an online source, but not all sources have to be online. As for the second item in the controversy section (regarding Pearson being threatened by his father), it is sourced from two major British national newspapers (The Guardian in particular is a high-end publication). 80.41.94.201 (talk) 06:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have moved this citation away from the toilet story as it does not support it at all. Off2riorob (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact although the ip claim that this toilet story was a major story in the 1990's there it little evidence for it, personally I want to remove it as not of any value, like so what? a small charge and a fine, unless you are bothered about it, what does it actually add of any value at all to the biography. As we also only have this one book citation and are unable to read the story, claim of it being big news are a bit far fetched. Off2riorob (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That's because the NME source has now been changed so it no longer includes an in-depth bio of the group. At the time it was added to the article, it provided adequate details about the incident for it to be used as a cite. However, the story is still detailed in the Rock Movers and Shakers book which is also given as a valid source. Not all sources have to be available on the internet, but even so, there are various other sources online that can be used. You may have your own personal reasons for trying to sweep a cottaging incident under the carpet, but it was a newsworthy story and is probably the thing Stedman Pearson was most famous for (apart from being in Five Star that is). If something was newsworthy - good or bad - it should be included in an article. Wikipedia isn't about showing only the good things the way that fan sites are. 80.47.55.228 (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but that is twaddle, The cottage issue is a irrelevant personal detail, I imagine it is important to you, right now it is weakly cited, I want to remove it as it imo adds nothing of encyclopedic value, feel free to present some more citations to support it. Off2riorob (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not "twaddle", it is fact. And just because you personally don't like it is not particularly relevant. George Michael, Peter Wyngarde, and Peter Dudley...all of these people have gained press coverage for similar incidents. Even Ted Heath did it (though it was hushed up at the time due to his political career). Scandalous as it may be perceived, it is relevant to their public personas and is totally encyclopedic. In Peter Dudley's case, it cost him his career and arguably his life. In George Michael's case, it could be argued that his incident gave his career a boost because he turned it around and used it to his advantage. Stedman Pearson was a minor celebrity in comparison to any of the other people (even when he was in Five Star he was little more than a backing dancer) and therefore it may not have caused quite the media frenzy that the others endured, but it was still news at the time and is still (perhaps unfortunately) a part of his public history. it also occured during the same period as Five Star were losing their fame and fortune and was even considered to be one of the final nails in the coffin. It's relevant and belongs in the article. I have also just found an article from The Guardian in which his sister Deniece (the lead singer of the group) talks about the incident, so it is no longer weakly cited. 80.47.55.228 (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

we'll see, imo the comment that he was charged with the public indecency and found guilty and fined 100 pounds in the malvern location is only cited to this book citation, those details are only claimed to be in the book citation, which for claims of guilt and claims of location and the size of the fine..this is still weak...also the virgin site is imo of no value and should be removed. Off2riorob (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Apart from this book, do you have any more citations that support these three claims? Off2riorob (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The incident already has three valid sources, all of which are sufficient. The Virgin Media source, whilst short, is still a valid, separate source that corroborates the other sources. By itself it may be deemed as insubstantial, but along with two other sources, it is appropriate. If you want to clarify the details of the case as written in the Rock Movers and Shakers book, then I suggest you get yourself a copy. All we have to do here is cite the source. 80.47.55.228 (talk) 00:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The details of the exact charge and the exact result and the punishment are only claimed to be in this book, personally I find that weak and I would like to see stronger details to apportion actual conviction, clearly the situation occurred but the citation and support for conviction, actual charge and actual fine are very weak in my opinion and if you can find stronger citations then good but as it stands I am looking for the removal of these details. Off2riorob (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because you don't have a copy of the book yourself does not make the source weak. As has already been stated several times above, not every source has to be available online (in fact, not all sources can be online). You should familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's policies on appropriate sources. If you want to confirm the details in the book for yourself, then buy the book. 80.47.55.228 (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

ec..The virgin citation in a BLP is possibly not reliable but I will ask tomorrow, moving around a weak citation is not going to support the detail that are not in the citation no matter how many times it is moved. The actual specific of the charge as being, indecent exposure and the guilty verdict and the level of the fine as being 100 pounds and all only cited to this book, do you have any other support for these claims? Off2riorob (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to hunt around the internet looking for further sources when the item is already adequately sourced. Feel free to do it yourself though if you have nothing else to occupy your time and fill the dark, lonely hours with. Personally, I feel your time would be better spent learning about Wikipedia's policies. Now, since you have attempted to nit-pick this particular detail to death and have yet again failed to justify its removal, I suggest you call it a night. 80.47.55.228 (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Please, keep the comments and discussion on the topic, I have discussed the content and there is only this book supporting the points I have said, as I said imo that is weak and I will see if that is an issue.Off2riorob (talk) 00:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkpage contributions

IP contributions on this talkpage, there are comments from four IP accounts here

79.66.101.199

89.168.119.97

80.41.94.201

80.47.55.228

They are all from the same area of London and they are all tiscali. Off2riorob (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

And? 80.47.55.228 (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Please Note: IP addresses in UK do not specify the location of the user - WHOIS will show the location of the ISP - Tiscali is in London.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Controversies (again)

Re: the edit summary today from IP user 82.29.16.209 that is persistently removing the details of Stedman Pearson's 1990 arrest, and of the 2007 incident with his father, please take note of the following. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. Public figures have no right to have factual information about them censored. Also, please note that editing directly on behalf of another person or a company is contrary to Wikipedia policy and I strongly urge you not to edit any more articles in that capacity. If you are indeed somebody who knows Stedman Pearson (or is even Stedman Pearson himself), then I'm afraid there is a conflict of interest in your editing of this article page (please see WP:COI for further details about this). And for the last time, please desist from removing sourced information from this or any article on Wikipedia as any further breaches will result in your IP address from being blocked, possibly permanantly. 80.47.120.155 (talk) 12:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This content is of little value, a minor afair and is being given excessive publication here though wikipedia, the subject does have a point, I agree with them it should be removed. Off2riorob (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Although negative, the incident is referenced and I think the length and positive focus of the remainder of the article is strong enough to allow for the information to remain as a single neutrally worded sentence or two explaining the arrest and plea. I'm not sure how much value the quote from the sister adds though? --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 19:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ponyo. The content is of relevance to the subject's life, it is impeccably sourced, so some mention should be made of it. It could stand to be cut down a little, however. Ray^Talk 23:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that it is relevant to the subjects life, it is a very minor conviction, ask yourself, would it be in an encyclopedia, I don't think it would, I think it is also not valuable at all to anyone who should come by here looking for decent content, as a passer by you would that it was titillating, its not informative at all, the subject wants it removed also, are we to publicize that moment in this persons life as though it is fantastic content? because its not. I personally feel embarrassed for the wikipedia when content like this is considered to be valuable content to put in a person bio.Off2riorob (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Off2rirorob, it's a question of context. If the subject were a scholarly figure, or a military officer known for deeds in wartime, or something of that sort, then I would agree that such information is titillating but utterly irrelevant to their significance. However, the context here is that the subject is a minor entertainment celebrity, and coverage of misbehavior in that genre is much more common and acceptable, just as it would be for a politician. Ray^Talk 00:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this detail in the article. It is well sourced (including a book and a leading UK broadsheet newspaper, as well as an online source) and is highly relevant to the subject's public persona (a singer from the ultra squeaky clean Five Star gets arrested). It's not quite as high profile as George Michael's 1998 arrest for the exact same thing, but that's because Stedman Pearson is not George Michael (and the press attention on this was probably about the same as Richard Madeley being arrested for shoplifting in 1994). However, he is still a public figure and we do not obscure newsworthy details about public figures (can you imagine how empty the Michael Jackson or Britney Spears articles would be if we did). Even Deniece Pearson's comment in The Guardian is relevant because as well as being a valuable well-respected source (his own sister and lead singer of the band talking about it in a respected UK broadsheet) it also helps to clarify the "incident". Considering the details only take up three and a half lines and it is probably the most prominent thing Stedman Pearson is known for outside of being in Five Star from the era the band were still widely known, there is no need to edit it down. If any work needs to be done to the article, it should be that the rest of Pearson's life could be expanded upon (though admitedly, there isn't much that's notable other than what's already there). 80.47.33.53 (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

To the IP removing content

• Hi, if you are the subject of this BLP and if you have problems regarding content in a biography that you claim to be yours you need to contact the OTRS team, if you visit this page Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem you will find an explanation of the process, with a direct link for contacting people able to assist with biographical issues like this one. I know they are open to consider requests from living people to remove content that may be damaging or demeaning to that person. Since you have expressed a very high level of concern, I think this would be a good route for you to take, and may well get you more satisfaction than attempts to edit the article or discussion here, regards, feel free to comment further here or on my talkpage if you have any other questions regarding this that I can perhaps help you with. Off2riorob (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The IP address in question (82.29.16.209) is located in Northamption and already had an ISP identification on their talk page. Unsurprisingly, Stedman Pearson himself is currently based in Northampton, where he teaches dance at a local gym. I don't think it's going to take anyone more than a millisecond to join the dots here and see what a WP:COI violation this is. 80.47.2.138 (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

WP has a process for addressing such issues specifically for BLPs. If the subject of this article doesn't know about the process, he needs to be told.--Jarhed (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Invalid references for arrest

Reference 1 does not mention the subject, and a search on reference 2 in Google Books does not return a single hit on the subject. I have no problem with the arrest info being in this article, but it must be cited to reliable sources.--Jarhed (talk) 10:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The first ref address had changed slightly but I am pleased to tell you I have just updated it so it now works again. As for the second ref, it is not necessary for sourcing purposes anyway but I had no problem finding the Rock Movers & Shakers book listed on Google Books ([1]). They do not list the correct page (its page 172 not 1972), but there is a sample of the entry. Nice try though. 80.47.75.120 (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice try? What do you mean by that?--Jarhed (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I have posted a request for discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_Virgin_Media.--Jarhed (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The content is controversial and as such should be cited to as reliable citations as possible, the fact that this content is extremely difficult to cite shows me that wikipedia should not be including it this BLP, wikipedia should not be the propagator of obscure information that is not widely reported or widely published,that is not what wiki is here for.Insisting that it is available on one line in one book in the whole world and so we have to include it in his biography is excessive POV to say the least.Off2riorob (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

All you are doing is repeating yourself. And vandalising the article as you did last night is just going to get you blocked. You can only remove details from an article in that manner when it is considered to be obvious vandalism or unsourced controversial material that would create an obvious BLP violation. For all other details that may require a source, you tag them. However you decided to remove virtually all of the article - including the general, non-controversial details about the subject, rather than tagging them - and all because you are fighting a losing battle. Given your vast history of edit-warring and disruption on Wikipedia, this is blatant vandalism and for that you are going to be reported yet again. 80.47.2.138 (talk) 08:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

All unsourced content can be removed from a BLP, actually ponyo said it was actually also as well as uncited it was a copyright violation. Please can I have a link to your threatened report as I can't see it anywhere? Also if your going to add comments about how well you understand policy and accuse me of this and that you should at least be decent enough to log into your account. Off2riorob (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been following this disagreement recently, but there is surely no problem with the content being unsourced, is there? Sources have been provided, and if the URL of a source becomes out of date, surely the first thing to do is Talk and try to resolve it? Boing! said Zebedee 13:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Rob isn't interested in talking, Boing, he's only interesting in edit-warring, telling lies to get what he wants, and acting like a petulant child. His editing history is filled with such behaviour. There is no problem with the sourcing for the controversies in this article (especially now, because they are iron-clad), but what Rob did on 29 Jan 2010 was remove virtually all of the other content from the article, all of which was non-contentious material such as Stedman Pearson's television appearances in recent years and his role in the group Five Star. Rob claimed in his edit summaries that this was because it was uncited and therefore a BLP violation, but that is not a reason to delete non-contentious material. He did it solely to be disruptive because he couldn't have his own way, and this is nothing more than a child throwing his toys around in a tantrum. If Rob was genuinely concerned for the article, he could have added sources for this non-contentious material himself as they are extremely easy to find, or simply added a "citation needed" tag. But no, he chose to vandalise the article instead. Rob's editing history shows that he is something of an obsessive Wikipedia editor who spends most of his time on here. Like most people who tend to use Wikipedia as an emotional crutch in lieu of a real life, he obviously thinks this permits him to flout Wikipedia rules and behave in any way he likes in order to get his own way. However, Rob will not be getting his own way here and will just have to learn to accept that, because we do not rewrite Wikipedia policy to accomodate his whims or permit antisocial behaviour as an outlet for his frustrations. As it stands now, I am merely giving him enough rope to hang himself with. 80.47.7.134 (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you back off a bit, everything is good, the article has been improved and enlarged and the content is now not got as much weight as previously, so its all good. I would prefer it as I said if you logged into your account to attack me, anyway as I said the article is a lot better now so I for one shall be taking it off my watchlist. Off2riorob (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi 80.47.7.134. While I might not agree with Off2riorob's actions in this case, I really don't think there's any call for a personal attack (especially not anonymously). Whatever we think of another Wikipedian or their actions, WP:NPA should be paramount. Best regards, Boing! said Zebedee 04:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid Rob feels that WP:NPA doesn't apply to him after he made this homophobic remark towards another editor who did not agree with him about this article or his dishonest tactics. However, now that he has agreed to pack up his toys and go elsewhere, I see no reason to waste any further time discussing him. 80.47.47.117 (talk) 10:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

While I do agree with some of your concerns, "But the other guy did it too" is never an excuse for violating WP:NPA in my book (nor in Wikipedia's book, as far as I can see). Still, you're right that this particular issue looks to be sorted now. Best regards, Boing! said Zebedee 12:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I posted the following at RSN:

• I believe there may still be a BLP concern there. The cited source says that he "admit[ted] public indecency and agree[d] to be bound over for a year for £100 at Kingston court, after an incident at a public lavatory". In our article, this has become "He later pleaded guilty to the charges and was fined £100 and agreed to be bound over for a period of one year." The source nowhere states he "pled guilty". As far as I understand, being "bound over" is not a conviction, nor does it imply any wrongdoing. "Being bound over for x amount of money" does not mean that the person was fined x amount of money, it means that the person will be fined if they violate the terms agreed, or that the money acts as a surety. Is there anyone with more legal clue than me who can clarify this?

• Beyond that, given that being bound over does not mean being convicted, I question the judgment of including this in an encyclopedia article. We are telling our BLP subjects that they can expect encyclopedic coverage from us, not journalism. Have we made good that claim here? I doubt any reputable encyclopedia would include such a thing.

At the very least I believe that the wording needs to be adjusted. I would be in favour of removing the section altogether, as this was not a criminal matter. --JN466 20:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Note also that by adding the comparison to George Michael, we are making this sound like it was some kind of homosexual encounter. According to Virgin, the guy was accused of "pleasuring himself". There is no mention of any other party being involved. Please, guys, what kind of a show are we running here? --JN466 20:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed. Please note that I will report anyone who reinserts anything that is not in scrupulous and fastidious compliance with WP:BLP and WP:V at WP:ANI, and will be asking that any such user or IP be blocked from editing any BLP whatsoever in Wikipedia. --JN466 20:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Explanation of binding over: [2] It is not a fine, but a sum of money that will be forfeited if the related promise is broken. --JN466 21:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the removal for the reasons you cite. Every edit I made on this article has been reverted without discussion, which indicates to me that one or more editors on this article are willing to edit war over it.--Jarhed 02:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Controversies section

As per the discussions above, I am not entirely sure why these details have been removed from the article. It seems that the sentencing aspect of the court case is the only real source of contention (was he bound over or was he fined), in which case, the details about the sentencing only should have been removed until it could be clarified. The fact remains that the actual arrest itself is too well sourced not to be included (Pearson himself even discussed it in a BBC documentary in 2003). As for the George Michael comparison, it seems that comparison was actually made by his sister in an interview with the Guardian and does not state (or even imply) that any homosexual activity was taking place at the time of Pearson's arrest (though I imagine readers will draw their own conclusions since he was arrested in a men's toilet). As for the details about the death threats from his father in 2007, this was never anything to do with the above matter (it happened 17 years later) and it was properly sourced so should never have been deleted at all. Soultruck (talk) 02:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolution on sources for this article

I am still concerned about the sources on this article. It is clear that the incident in question happened, so I am not sure why it is so difficult to get a reliable source for it. I would appreciate it if the people making contentious edits on this article would do so.--Jarhed (talk) 09:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No, but what I will do Jarhed is report you for being antagonistic and childish, and provide links to show the administrators that you have been abusive towards other users and are attempting to perpetuate this matter for your own amusement. Before that though, you may also want to read this article. 80.47.8.103 (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Please be my guest to report me to anybody you wish, have a great day.--Jarhed (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)