Talk:Mike Lester

Untitled

I don't understand why I'm being warned over my edit. The problem with the citation regarding Lester's arrest was that the URL to the original news story appears to have become dead. So I cited a different source. Does "Editor and Publisher" not count as a valid source? Did you even look to see that I had changed the reference? Does any one dispute that Lester was arrested for assault? That fact doesn't change just because the original online article is no longer available.

Please review WP:BLP. Adding material about an arrest is not appropriate. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a fact that it happened and it's one of the most notable things about Mr. Lester. I can't find where that link says that discussion of an arrest is "inappropriate." It does, however, discourage subjects from editing articles about themselves, which Mr. Lester appears to have succeeded in doing, despite sourced information.

Countless Wikipedia articles mention the fact that their subjects have been arrested. The page on another living cartoonist, Bruce_Tinsley, notes his arrest for a DUI. The consensus on that discussion page seems to be that the arrest is notable, but shouldn't take up half of the article. I'm not asking to do that. I only want to include a single sentence of relevant information, cited to a reliable source about the publishing industry. Why is Tinsley's arrest appropriate and Lester's not? I'm not trying to cause problems, I just don't understand the distinction.Hardrivepolio (talk) 05:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The relevant policy is really WP:UNDUE. Currently, the prose portion of the article is two sentences. With the arrest mentioned, a full 1/3 of the article is devoted to describing his arrest. That's giving undue weight to the topic, which is especially important to avoid in this case as this is a biography of a living person, and we must be careful to strictly adhere to the verifiability policy to avoid defaming the subject. The issue has nothing to do with Mike Lester's feelings (I've never heard of him before), but everything to do with core Wikipedia policies. Certainly other articles mention people who have been arrested, but this is done in the appropriate context of their life, to avoid giving undue weight to the statement.

For an example, you could see Ron White (I found that article randomly as the first hit of a google search for "site:en.wikipedia.org biography arrested"). There, his arrest is briefly mentioned within the context of a broader section of his personal biography with links to numerous reliable sources, and an interview he gave on the subject is also cited, ensuring his point of view is included. Zachlipton (talk) 05:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In fact, you hit the nail on the head when you discuss Tinsley. In his article, consensus was that it was notable but shouldn't take up half the article. That article is far longer than this one. Here, it shouldn't take up a third of the article either. Finally, I'd say as a rule of thumb that convictions and/or guilty pleas are more likely to be included than mere arrests, as they imply a greater weight should be given to the matter. Zachlipton (talk) 06:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be similar to the issue faced by the article about Bruce Tinsley. Lester is only known for two things: his political cartoons and his arrest. There is a lot more depth of media coverage regarding Ron White than about either Tinsley or Lester. Nonetheless, it is one of the only two notable things about him and removing it creates an article that focuses exclusively on his positive attributes, which seems to be what he was aiming for if you see his repeated attempts to edit out the page. Also, the information is verifiable in reliable sources, as opposed to the minority "moon doesn't revolve around the earth" views discussed in that link.

I would be happy to contribute more information about Mike Lester. There just doesn't seem to be much available. (Sorry about the repeated edits. I'm new to this and keep getting my post slightly wrong.) Hardrivepolio (talk) 05:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Then perhaps Tinsley isn't really notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article? Our general guideline is that it is better to provide no information than biased information. It's simply biased to devote 1/3 of a biography to a relatively minor part of someone's life. The issue here isn't whether the information is factually correct (I have no reason to doubt that it is), but rather that including it in this article at this time gives it undue weight.

(edit conflict)no worries. Welcome to Wikipedia! Zachlipton (talk) 06:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Can someone remind me how much positive information has to be provided about Mr. Lester before we can provide even a single, fleeting mention of his other claim to notoriety? We have five positive sentences. Wouldn't it make more sense for the article to reflect an accurate NPOV account of what makes Lester notable, rather than an arbitrary balance between good and bad facts? Whatever. Hardrivepolio (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Before posting again, I strongly suggest you read WP:BLPCRIME. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)