User talk:75.4.227.89

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Re: Matthew Marsden

What exactly is your problem with listing his ex-girlfriends? Just because he no longer dates them does not mean that we cant say he did in the article. Especially as sources are provided for all of them. It is a biography which includes his history. It's not just about the here and now. By your logic we would remove all his old film credits once the films were completed. Plus, those women were notable for being in the public eye and it's of interest to readers. You seem to have a problem with certain women, particularly that girl from the Honeyz. You leave some, remove others. So what's your logic? This is just a case of "you dont like".

The stuff about his boxing training etc is not suitable for a "personal life" section unless it can be shown that he continues to box. Put it in his career section next to the film cresits if you really want, but make sure it's all sourced. What has Liam Neeson got to do with anything? If Matthew Marsden is a trained boxer, who continues to do boxing a s a hobby then it's relevant. If he learnt a few moves for a film, it's not suitable for a personal life section.Gungadin 19:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You might want to look at the policy Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Of particular interest to you should be Wikipedia:No original research, which says "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought", and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". You saying that "there is nothing to suggest that he is NOT still boxing as that is something that he is likely to continue as he is still playing parts in action movies", is original research. Nothing you included was referenced. It all could be true, but you havent proved that it is, and if you want your stuff to stay in Biography articles, then you have to add references. If it's an interview on television, cite the television show using cite episode template. If it's from an online newspaper, link to the interview. If you read it in an offline publication, then cite an offline reference with date, page etc. If you have problems doing that, ask me and I will help.
As I was saying, If he continus to train in boxing, then cite a source to say so. Otherwise, site a source to say that he trained (Past tense) for over a year for the film Shiner and add it as prose in his career section. If you learn a specific skill for a job, then that's part of your career, no? Unless you continue to box as a sport/hobby, and if he does then a source should back that up, which you can include and there will be no problem here. Just so you know, I really dont have an aversion to that info being included. If you find a source for these things, then you can say almost anything you want. I'm no fan of this actor. I added most of the sourced info there, not because I follow his career, but because I saw that the article was a mess of original research and unverifiable facts. So I rewrote and sourced, just as I do with any article I might happen to stumble accross.
You removing sourced information is hardly being "balanced and consistent". You have a clear dislike for listing some of those women especially that Heavenli woman, and that is about what suits your taste, not what's best for the article. I, on the other hand, dont have a problem with you including any information, the only thing I ask (well Wikipedia policy asks for this actually), is that you source it, which you didnt do. I'm not removing that information for any other reason. If people write derogatory things on that page and I havent removed it, that's because I hadnt noticed it. This is nothing personal. I just happened to check the page after your edits. It has a long history of someone removing sourced information, but i'm sure you know all about that... Gungadin 11:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)