Talk:Joe Francis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]


Contents

[edit] Recent Interview

In a recent interview, on the Adam carolla show, he said that the trial, the one with the guy and the gun and the tape, was well over.

[edit] Removing of unpleasant facts

The part below was removed as well as the charges against him in the article (numerous times). What's with the agenda? - Ouzo 02:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attack

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Girls_Gone_Wild&diff=32247750&oldid=32220143 has info in the GGW article about the attack, and it had more info than there is in this page, it should probably be combined into this article, I just don't know the sources and stuff so I'm not the person who should rewrite Francis' article. Atari2600tim 16:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


um

So what's up with this sycophantic bs? I'm not saying someone should write that he's a shameless and sleazy women-exploiting jackass or anything, but seriously, how can you just shrug off the moral aspect of what he's doing?


This is the exact bio he has on the girls gone wild web site (see link at the bottom of the article) not objective at all, very pro-joe (hollywood knocking on his door..) Should mention his legal troubles with underage girls to be fare, though still am impressed at how much dough he has been able to make by taking MTV material and going nude with it. The foolish american consumer, eh?

I agree that this article sounds extremely one-sided, especially considering how controversial his business is. Blinutne 05:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category changes

I see that there is a dispute over whether Joe Francis is Jewish. So far in my research, I have found a few references to him being Jewish, but not in any source that is credible, and the references were ambiguous at best.

If you can find a reliable source that has that kind of detail in it, please add the detail to the artcle and add the source in the references, or mention it here in on this talk page and I will add the detail cite to the article if it does seem relevant, reliable, and credible. That goes for any biographic details. Relevant well cited facts are welcome, but keep NPOV very much in mind. This is a biography of a living person and so extra care in using reliable sources should be taken.Lkinkade 16:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Is Francis Jewish - No he is not. This was a rumor started by an anti-semitic website. There are no credible sources for this anywhere. Francis attended Our Lady Queen of Angels Catholic School. http://www.meetjoefrancis.com/mystory - Page 3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.84.126.167 (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prosecutor's comment on criminal verdict

I thought its hypocrisy was self-evident, but presented NPOV. So I was surprised that anyone thought it POV in the other direction. In any case, no biggie. Ribonucleic 15:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It read to me like a campaign statement for the prosecutor, which does not belong in this article. Nor did it contain anything factually relevant to Francis. This is a biography of a living person, and so we should limit what is presented to well sited relevant facts. I wish we had more information about the subject himself, but I can't seem to find much to site other than reports of his interactions with the law.Lkinkade 16:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Believe me, the last thing I had in mind was furthering her political career. :-) I thought that it was a way of putting this particular witch-hunt in its political context. But again, the removal is fine with me. Ribonucleic 17:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
If all you're finding are reports of his interactions with the law (which probably reflect him in a negative light, yes) then that's probably what should be used. If all information points to him being a (WP:BLP violation removed), then that's what should be said here. 71.90.25.14 06:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish?

Is Francis Jewish - No he is not. This was a rumor started by an anti-semitic website. There are no credible sources for this anywhere. Francis attended Our Lady Queen of Angels Catholic School. http://www.meetjoefrancis.com/mystory - Page 3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.84.126.167 (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Born with a different name?

There is an rumor that he had a different birth name. There are no credible sources for this. Also, any of the criminal trials and civil lawsuits never mention any other names, aliases, "now known as", etc. His fathers name is Raymond Francis and his mothers name is Maria Francis. http://www.meetjoefrancis.com/mystory/ He has three sisters; Babette Francis, two years older; Caroline Francis, a year and a half younger; and Christina Francis, 10 years younger [1]

[edit] Request to add info

Requesting a registered user to add the info in this link to the main page. http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/business/la-fi-francis6apr06,1,7028851.story?coll=la-headlines-business-enter&ctrack=1&cset=true 130.156.30.59 16:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Federal income tax problems

I have added a section on this individual's latest legal problems. I have a copy of the indictment, and I've added just some highlights to the article. Now, aren't this individual's tax problems a lot more interesting that reading about shows featuring a bunch of wild, bare-breasted women? Famspear 04:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, this has not been the best week for this guy. Now I've added information on charges against him for bribery, drug possession, etc., while in jail in Florida on the contempt of court matter. Famspear 05:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creating page just for Francis Legal matters

Seems that this is not a Wikipedia bio, but a slam article by people with agendas. The legal matters should be on their own page Joe Francis Legal History and his bio should reference it. Jaydon Farrely 16:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear JFseekingtruth/Jaydon Farrely: It's unclear why you believe that "legal matters" should be in a separate article in this particular case. Please explain.
Also, the statement that this is a "slam article by people with agendas" is probably not a sufficient explanation. I would suggest making specific comments about what language in the article you consider to be non-neutral, or working to make non-neutral language more neutral.
On your comment about "subjectivity" -- there is no Wikipedia rule against "subjectivity" per se. There is a rule about Verifiability. That is, statements in articles should not be merely the opinions of Wikipedia editors, but should be supported by specific citations to reliable, third party sources. There is no requirement, however, that the material presented by the third party sources be unbiased.
One possible approach: Take a particular paragraph, say one or two at a time, and provide your own edits, using the rules of Verifiabilty, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research, to improve the article.
Simply deleting the material you don't like and moving it to your own user space is probably not going to be considered appropriate. Your own user space does not constitute a "Wikipedia article." Yours, Famspear 16:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Famspear, Thank you for the suggestions. The one comment I have is that Wikipedia is not merely about provable statements, but its about accurate and fair information. Take a look at the Barak Obama pages. Many people post reputable and easily referenced materials, but editors say it is not "pertinent" to his bio, so it is removed. In that light, Francis' bio ought to say he has legal matters and those should be on a new article. His bio should have a neutral POV that talks about his life, his goods and bads, but not detail everyone that has ever written or said anything against the man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JFseekingtruth (talk • contribs) 16:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear JFseekingtruth: OK, I see that you have now created a separate article.
Normally, on something like this, the usual procedure would be to improve the existing article, not to create a new article and then move the supposedly "objectionable" material to the new article (although I have seen your method done at least one other time in Wikipedia). I don't have a strong opinion, as I don't follow this article very much I think the main thing I had added to the article (some time back) was material about his tax-related legal problems.
One thing you may want to consider is: If you believe the material is somehow objectionable when it's found in the main article on Joe Francis, then why wouldn't it also be objectionable in the separate article on his legal problems?
And, exactly what is it that you believe is objectionable, and on what specific ground? It sounds like your concern might be mainly over non-neutral point of view -- but you haven't identified any specific verbiage that represents non-neutral point of view.
Merely including negative material about an individual in an article, even overwhelmingly negative material, does not necessarily in and of itself constitute a non-neutral presentation. Yes, it may well be that the material needs editing to improve neutral POV. Any specific suggestions you have may be helpful.
I cannot predict how other Wikipedia editors will view your creation of a new, separate article just for the "legal problems" stuff. Thus, I cannot guarantee that other editors will not simply move the material back to this article, and ask that you provide a more specific explanation. Yours, Famspear 17:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear Famspear

Thank you again. The problem with Wikipedia is that it becomes time consuming once you get involved. I am going though it to make your points more clear. It will be posted within the hour I hope. Jaydon Farrely 17:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tax trial postponed

I guess I haven't been monitoring this article very closely. I just checked, and back in September the tax trial for Joe Francis was postponed until April of 2008. I have updated the article accordingly. Yours, Famspear 16:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversies section

A sentence in the controversies section is incomplete: "Recurring allegations include that women engaged in sexual activity were used without the consent of the women...." I assume it is meant to say "Recurring allegations include that videos of women...." I don't know what sources were being used to justify the statement, so I don't feel comfortable with editing it on the assumption above. 69.134.79.254 (talk) 09:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Joe Francis - I'm just like Jesus

Joe Francis got a lot of flack for comparing himself to Jesus. Although He was born and raised Catholic, he was kicked out of Catholic school. He says his thinks about Jesus every day. [2] [3]


This is a legitimate section. Joe Francis says he thinks about Jesus every day and make comparisons to him. He is obliviously conflicted as both a Christian and a producer of naked films. This is also very ironic.

[edit] accidentally marked vandalism

I didn't mean to mark this edit as vandalism, but it's a properly sourced piece of info that is worth adding to the controversies about him. -Mike Payne (T • C) 19:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah - apology accepted. I was wondering. Sorry about the snippy talk message, in that case. I can see a phrasing that would make that edit useful, but I'm unconvinced by the current phrasing, which is poorly written and reads like a bit of a hatchet job slam. Being a BLP we have to be particularly attentive to this. I encourage you to flesh the section out a bit more and better explain its significance to the overall subject, and then reinsert it or, better, propose it here to be discussed more widely. This is something we have to be very careful on. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it is hardly NPOV, I wouldn't be against rewriting it to make it more neutral, I'll look at it and try and do that later. What is a BLP? -Mike Payne (T • C) 19:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:BLP. They're articles on living people - basically, on such articles, because being sloppy or wrong can do real harm to real people, we take extra care about accuracy and about appropriate use of material that could be viewed as critical. Thus where, in another article, something with a midlly unclear significance to the larger topic might need cleaning up, in a BLP it should probably be removed and fixed on the talk page instead of left up for a while in a bad form. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Major imbalance in the article

Yes, I removed a large chunk of text from the article and I really think some discussion needs to happen instead of someone just putting it back. As it was, the article spent more than half of its space detailing a laundry list of legal issues and allegations, many of which probably don't have any lasting significance. The article would need to have some serious expansion before those details deserve more than a brief note. Shell babelfish 23:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

  • We probably didn't need to go into the depth that we did at this point on the various legal issues, but I do think that pulling it all out wholesale as you did does push things too far in the opposite direction. We could probably collapse a couple of sections down together - for instance, the old Civil and the Arrest for Contempt could probably go together (the Contempt charge came out of the Civil suit IIRC)... Tabercil (talk) 03:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't have any problem with something condensed, but it would have to be more than just slapping a few of the sections together - this needs to be in balance with the rest of the article, which means at this point, there really isn't much space to devote to it. Many of those items were reported once and dropped or simply "alleged", which doesn't lend much weight to the idea that they should be in an encyclopedia article to begin with. The current section on controversies covers a lot of the issues in a little space, perhaps something more should be included there if any of the legal details are of lasting note. Shell babelfish 03:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with the rationale for the removal of the legal material -- at least, the federal criminal tax material. His apparently extensive legal problems don't have "lasting significance"? If, as is apparently the case, the guy was already "famous" to some limited degree, how can we say that the federal tax charges are somehow not significant? I had never even heard of this guy until his current federal criminal tax charges came in. For that matter, I had only barely heard of "Girls Gone Wild" (and I have still never seen the show).

Sure, I do assume that "Girls Gone Wild", and not his federal criminal tax problem, is probably the main factor in his notability. And I had a similar situation with the article on Kent Hovind -- someone I had never heard of until I ran across his tax problems. To most other people he was famous (and notable) for something entirely different.

But I would argue that the U.S. federal tax allegations against this guy (and at this point he has not been convicted) are significant. In the USA, a nation of over 300 million people, roughly 3,000 people per year (or even less) are convicted of federal tax offenses. So, when a "famous" person is even charged with a federal tax crime, it's a relatively big deal -- virtually all federal tax prosecution decisions are made in Washington DC, not in the local U.S. Attorney's office.

And no, not everyone charged with a federal tax crime is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. But his federal tax problems are definitely a significant part of his picture, in my view. Famspear (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning, but I do agree that the tax charges section had good references from multiple high quality sources, which is usually the standard for inclusion in a WP:BLP. I've taken a really hard look at the sections and the sources used and have put several back. I did trim some of the detail out -- for example, I'm not sure why we need to go in to the exact deductions that the Government is claiming were fradulent, people can look at the references if they want that kind of information.
I left out the section "LA Times allegations of violence against women" since it was a piece by one reporter from a Sunday magazine and had several areas that were unreferenced; I looked but didn't see any other media that picked story this up. I left out "Administrative proceedings before the FTC" because the entire section was based on primary sources; if we can resource this with secondary sources, I wouldn't have an objection to using it. I left out "Arrest for contempt" because the entire three paragraph section was based on a single news article and a rebuttal article published by a legal expert. Maybe there's better sources for this, or since it seems tied to the 2003 event, maybe some statement should be put in that section?
It would still seem like the controversies and legal problems are seriously out-weighing the rest of the article. What do you think? I know that finding more positive information about the subject is difficult since he's essentially very private about most things - is there a way to condense the negative information or something else that could be done to expand our other information about him? Shell babelfish 15:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear editor Shell Kinney: For starters, since I think I may have written most of the "federal tax" section anyway, and he hasn't been convicted or even tried yet, maybe I can shorten it. The basic information can be there, and just not be as long. I guess once his criminal tax trial starts, the "tax" section could be expanded if needed. Famspear (talk) 04:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear editor Shell Kinney: OK, I've shortened some more of the material.

On the "Administrative proceedings before the FTC" section -- although I know that Wikipedia generally discourages the heavy use of primary sources (in particular because of the danger of violating the NOR rule), I would argue that there are specific exceptions where heavy use of primary sources would not necessarily violate the rule. In fact, I think the Wikipedia rule on avoiding overuse of primary sources used to specifically state that the legal area (or at least case law as a primary source) could be an exception. However, if I recall the primary sources here did not consist of case law.

So, I partially agree with your deletion on the "FTC" section anyway -- just for a different reason: the length of the section (which I guess gets back to your main point about the legal stuff being too long in relation to the rest of the material in the article). I think some of it could be added back, but per your comments I should at least first make an attempt to look for some secondary sources. Famspear (talk) 05:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)