Talk:Menudo (band)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Puerto Rico
Puerto Rico Portal
Menudo (band) is part of WikiProject Puerto Rico, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the people, history, language, and culture of Puerto Rico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help with the tasks listed below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Please do not substitute this template.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Puerto Rico To-do:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Menudo Sex and Drug Scandal

The section claims reports from Entertainment Tonight, CNN, etc. I cannot find any online corroboration for this. As such, I am removing it for now. A fan site isn't a reliable source and that is all there is for now. If new sourced can be found, it can be reinstated. IrishGuy talk 00:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The NY Times link [1] is a valid link and corroborates that two members were arrested with drugs and subsequently released from the band. The PDFs from the fan site aren't reliable. The scan from The Globe doesn't show a date or even that it is from The Globe. IrishGuy talk 00:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

All information was sourced documents and is not a fan site. The articles are original sourced articles. The external link is information on the Menudo scandal. Just because this is negative does not mean history gets changed. This is fact not fiction. Any removal of the information will mean a telephone call to to Mr. Wales to block this vandalism. --Blue5864 (talk) 02:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Threats aren't a good idea. When many administrators discuss the issue (as per here this thread) and one of said administrators removed the content it isn't vandalism. IrishGuy talk 03:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph absolutely does not belong. Tabloids are not reliable sources. A tabloid, referenced on a personal website, is about as far from reliable as it is possible to get. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested edit

Can an admin again please remove the External link at the bottom of the page that says: History of Menudo Gay Sex Scandal" as this is an unsubstantiated and misleading link to a fansite (www.menudo.biz) which eventually leads to a 17-year-old tabloid alleged report.

Thank you. Christopher R (talk) 10:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher R (talk • contribs) 09:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

According to Dreaded Walrus, this was done prior but somehow was allowed to be reinserted. Christopher R (talk) 10:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I removed the link earlier today (as well as a link that redirects to the same page as another link), but it was reverted by a now-blocked user, and User:Irishguy just removed the section in question. I didn't notice the links were still in the article until Christopher R requested the links be removed again on his talk page.
So yes, I would like to second this request for an edit to a protected page. --Dreaded Walrus t c 15:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Removed. IrishGuy talk 16:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks muchly. :) --Dreaded Walrus t c 16:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats vandal and you know it. I sent email to Jimbo and called and left a message and I hope he fixes this unethical conduct you guys.--Blue5864 (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Blue5864, it is not unethical and I doubt that Jimbo will side with you Alexfusco5 16:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm with Alexfusco5 on this one. The very first time I interacted with you was to suggest that referring to other people's edits (including those of administrators) as vandalism just because you disagree with them is not what we do here, and you just get back from the block and do the same thing. The link that was removed does not fit in with our external links policy. Dreaded Walrus t c 16:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cookie

Can't we all just get along.--Blue5864 (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC) --Blue5864 (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we certainly can. What you really need to do is read our policies on sourcing (WP:CITE, WP:BLP). If you can source your statements to, say, CNN, the New York Times, and mainstream publications, rather than a personal website, then you'll have an easier time. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I will sand box a revision with more sourced and see if the archives have any thing from the news they did on the scandal I am sure its there just have to dig for it. Anywho read the new tread by Chen below. Thanks--Blue5864 (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I wanted to stay calm but...

Could we be a bit more inclusive in this dispute? I've been in contact with Blue5864 and overseeing the changes here since the dispute started about a week ago. As far as I could tell, none of us here are more of an expert to the matter than the few major participants in here - Blue5864, Christopher R and (probably) Dreaded Walrus.

Although Wikipedia has strict guidelines on external links, which favours "mainstream" media, specialists websites and references in the relevant field should be given (sometimes even disproportionate) attention. From the layout and contents of menudo.biz I couldn't see anywhere of it looking like a "personal website" - rather it's like a specialist site dedicating to the matter. And these are important (primary or secondary) sources concerning controversies of a subject.

An analogy is from scientific articles - mainstream media usually has low credibility in these fields. More often than not a research website set up by high school students should be given more credibility than probably a newspaper. The same applies here.

Wikipedia is to be neutral. Being neutral doesn't mean being safe and following the mainstream. Rather, it is taking into account all the major views and drawing a balance between them. No one knows (at least most editors up here) if the scandal is true; but if someone said so, why on earth would we reject the claim entirely saying that there are no place for such (extraterrestrial) claims?

A more appropriate (IMO) approach to the matter could be including the idea of the paragraph and rephrasing as "xxx alleged that... CNN reported that... and etc. etc."

And to Blue5864 - if said in that website about third-party sources (eg. CNN) are all claims that have been made, produce some evidence. That will give credibility to the whole case. If not, then I might probably also dismiss menudo.biz as another unreliable source. Sorry for being long-winded. --Deryck C. 17:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you whole heartedly and will sandbox the paragraph with even more sourced than already is. Thank you for the comments. --Blue5864 (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

First off, I wish to thank all of you admins and editors for keeping a clear and cool head throughout this episode, especially in my case  :) Open discussion and communication is key here. Second, the following paragraph (located as the last paragraph under the 2000s heading) was recently added and is nothing more than an advertisement. I believe that it was added for no reason other than McGilliss's (Blue5864) personal gain and request that it also be removed.

"Released 2007, on McGillis Records is the release of Triple Threat DVD/CD Combo [1]. The box set includes the MENUDO film The Making of Dancin Movin Shakin for the first time on DVD. Also included is Volume One of the Music CD "Latin Teen Stars" featuring hit songs by Menudo, ex-menudo members Angelo Garcia and Ruben Gomez, The Cover Girls, Explosion, and Joel. The last CD included in the 3 disc set is Dance Music All Night Long containing dance mixes of the hottest traxs by Menudo and ex-menudo members mixed by the famed American music producers: Bad Boy Bill, Lewis A. Martinee of Expose fame and New Yorks very own Mickey Garcia."

Thank you 76.108.146.149 (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

that is nothing more than the new record company of menudo trying to dominate the Menudo company rights--Blue5864 (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No Darrin, you are incorrect. That section that you are trying to post in is reserved for HISTORY, and if you'll read the page, does not have any PRODUCT advertisements in it from any companies whatsoever, except for the one you keep reposting. Admins, please remove it as previously requested. Thank you Christopher R (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I would consider a rewrite but I won't remove it completely - it's common practice for band-related articles to have a section about their products. --Deryck C. 18:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Deryck, I will get a paragraph rewrite finished ASAP.

In the meantime - Some very interesting information has come to light about Mr Darrin McGillis (Blue5864) and we will share it with the rest of the world on Monday (12/10/07) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher R (talk • contribs) 19:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If you've something big to share, do it now. Nobody wants to wait for something that doesn't take time to cook up. --Deryck C. 22:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Just as a general note, no one editor has to be considered an "expert" on an article to edit it, or to see that certain paragraphs violate BLP, CITE and V. If those are violated, any editor has free roam to remove the offending passages or seek additional guidance, as was done here. Per this statement, "A more appropriate (IMO) approach to the matter could be including the idea of the paragraph and rephrasing as "xxx alleged that... CNN reported that... and etc. etc," that would be an incorrect assumption on how to deal with the issue. Doing so would violate BLP, and would introduce citations that are not verifiable at best. It's best to exercise caution in controversial topics, such as this, even if it means that some information is sacrificed. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Now that we're dealing with a band with regular change of members (read the article), I don't think the rules for BLP apply - they apply for description of living people, not organisations composed of living people. --Deryck C. 19:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A sincere apology

I just want to say I sincerely apologize for my behavior yesterday. While there is no excuse for bullying tactics of any sort, I was at wits-end and having no prior knowlege of the Wiki protocol necessary to evoke change, was in somewhat of a panic. I'm pretty sure my frustration was quite evident, so I won't continue to elaborate. Now that I have calmed down and understand the process, I completely see my errors. Through the help of yourself, Dreaded Walrus, and Antandrus, the situation is now somewhat contained and we can now move forward with damage control.

The launching of a Boy-Band is a carefully orchestrated process, especially one with worldwide auditions, pre-auditions, not one but two MTV shows, trademark clearances, etc. All in all it is pretty daunting... in and of itself.

Jose, Monti, Chris, Emmanuel, and Carlos have worked exceptionally hard to make it through the process to this point. Incredibly long-hours, crazy travel schedules, rehearsals, more rehearsals, and little sleep. But having stuff like this individual suddenly smearing irrelevant, 17 year-old, tabloid headlines: "DRUGS and GAY SEX SCANDAL" all over the internet has truly tested my mettle.

Again, I apologize for my lack of knowlege, patience, and protocol yesterday and look forward to being a harmonious cog in the great Wiki wheel.

Christopher R (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I will strike your warnings Alexfusco5 19:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Christopher I needed the above to prove who I was actually dealing with and now you have provided it. I can assure you that your calling me "NUTSO" and intentional tort is actionable to say the least. I again thank you for confirming who you are and who you are working for we will be in touch soon.--Blue5864 (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
the above shows conflict and Christopher R should be prohibited from posting here as he is employed with the Menudo group we do not delete sourced docs because its scandalous we delete only if its unsourced. In his own words he has a conflict--Blue5864 (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I suppose you're taking it too much - indeed Wikipedia asks those in conflicts of interest to refrain from editing related articles, but not prohibiting them to do so, and definitely not from discussing relevant changes on talk pages. In certain cases like Daniel Brandt (see Public_Information_Research) the subject of concern was totally banned from the site, but this is not the general rule. The discussion page is meant to be a melting pot. Cheers for calming down and pulling things together. --Deryck C. 22:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you.--Blue5864 (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's pull things together...

I think it's time to pull things together into what the rewritten article should look like. As far as I can see, the following changes should be done to the article:

  1. Rewrite and combine sections 2000s and 2007 to conform with manual of style and flow of prose from sections above;
  2. Include a section, newly written, concerning the alleged scandal;
  3. Reinclude previously removed links to restore the breadth of perspective of the article's sourcing.

Feel free to correct me or add more items if you feel otherwise. Minor indisputable changes to the article could be done straight away when the protection is over tomorrow. --Deryck C. 22:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


Deryck - I would ask that you and all other admins please wait until Monday to remove the locked status of the Menudo band page. Because McGillis (blue5864) has already threatened legal action upon myself, Sony Music Corp, and the current owners of the Menudo brand, Menudo Entertainment LLC, we feel we would like to seek legal counsel on Monday as we take his threat quite seriously. McGillis does have quite a history of courtroom drama, in fact, as a Miami New Times article written by Lissette Corsa and Published on July 27, 2000 clearly states: “He's (McGillis) sued six different people and entities, racked up about twenty out-of-court settlements concerning civil disputes, and has threatened to sue on at least thirty occasions. He seems to thrive on legal battles and courtroom drama.” [2]

Make no mistake that we do not wish to rewrite history, there definitely was an improper sex allegation made against Menudo which was proved false in 1991 and it is relevant. However, McGillis has repeatedly posted a new headline under the 2007 History portion of the page stating "GAY SEX SCANDAL" implying that this is current information. When in fact, it is already mentioned on the page under the 1990's heading, paragraph 4. There it clearly states:

Also in 1991, New York Photographer Bolivar Arellano, was arrested and later convicted in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Arellano was ordered jailed by the San Juan Court until he provided the Judge with proof that he had placed a Half Page advertisement in a San Juan Newspaper stating the accusations he himself made were false. He had made accusations that Menudo members were being sexually abused.

What motivation would McGillis have for attempting to disparage and implicate the new Menudo with alleged, tabloid reported journalism dating back 17 years, attempting to make it look current and relevent today? Why does he suddenly register a website at the domain: WWW.MENUDO.BIZ on December 4th, 2007, under his company name McGillis Music and build a website to report 17 year old allegations that already were proven to be false? And why try to make these allegations look current and up-to-date, even though two of the current members of Menudo would not even be born yet until two years after his report was written? Why would he even go so far as to suddenly start editing the Wikipedia listing for Menudo to add in all of his as yet, unsourced speculation - 17 years after the fact?

One must doubt the motivation of McGillis who makes his living exploiting a few older works of Menudo (please see [3] and then repeatedly insists on casting suspicion with sex and drug references to the current incarnation of the band of which he is NOT involved with.

I don't wish to belabor the point or give Mr McGillis any more of my time than he has already consumed. I only ask that the Wiki admins continue to keep the page locked and un editable until Monday, at which time we will be able to consult with our legal counsel and take appropriate action to sort this misunderstanding out.

Thank you. Christopher R (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have extended the protection another 48 hours since it appears that a day willnot be enough to end this content dispute. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary Article Ban

Evidence strongly suggests that both Christopher R and Blue5864 have some outside conflict of interest regarding the content of this article, and this conflict of interest has led them into a dispute here about the content of the article. As such, for a period of one month from now, both are banned from editing this article and any related article, with "related article" to be interpreted quite broadly (up to and including all articles about the music industry), and with the ban to apply to the individuals and organizations associated with these accounts in any way.

In the meantime, good editors who have no particular axe to grind in this care are invited to bring this article up to the highest possible quality standards. The conflict here appears to center around an alleged "gay sex scandal," and it should go without saying that such accusations fall squarely within the sensitive area that WP:BLP is designed to help us deal with thoughtfully.

Be very careful about trusting the "menudo.biz" site, for a few reasons, which I will cover in some detail now.

The "menudo.biz" site portrays itself as "Menudo Official Web Site" when it is clearly instead the work of a critic who claims to have compiled evidence. This should be enough, on the face of it, to give rise to red flags in our mind. There are multiple questions that a good editor should ask, including but not limited to, "Are the claims presented here true? Are the claims presented in context, or pulled out of context? Are the claims presented a form of 'undue weight'?" There is a real danger in allowing one's research efforts to be driven by a critical website.

Furthermore, the menudo.biz website is apparently controlled by one of the parties to the internal Wikipedia dispute. It is not ok to work to create a negative biography at wikipedia by simply creating an attack site and then getting Wikipedians to use it as a source.

At the same time, and this should go without saying: NPOV is non-negotiable. If it is actually true that some kind of "gay sex scandal" is an important part of the Menudo history (and I personally have absolutely no idea at this moment if this is true or not) then naturally we must cover it. The test here is not whether a critic can dig up some tabloid reports, but whether solid mainstream sources (New York Times? books published by reputable publishers? Rolling Stone?) reported on these events not just in passing but as an actual scandal. Tabloids often have breathless reports of "gay" rumors, and should be summarily ignored for the most part. The key to balanced biographical writing is to work with a sense of proportion and a love for the simple truth.

As one small example, and I speaking here the opinion of one editor, not making a decree or anything: There is a report in the New York Times of band members being arrested for possession of personal-use amounts of marijuana. Now, this might or might not even merit a passing mention in the article, but given the nature of the charge (personal use marijuana possession) and the nature of the subjects (young rock stars), this hardly amounts to a scandal. It might be instructive to review how we handle similar charges for similar subjects, so as to ensure that the combat in this particular article has not caused us to view this too strongly in one direction or the other.

Admins are recommended to be quite firm about not letting the two sides of this fight carry on their fight within Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place for external fights to be re-enacted. We are writing an encyclopedia. This is our project, not a free speech zone for people to engage in public spats.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion we should try to have the website added to the blacklist since its probable that the website was created for the sole purpouse of sourcing potentially libelous material, I proposed this on AN/I already but might as well do so here again as further input may be required. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to blacklist it. I mean, WP:BADSITES is not policy, nor should it be. Blacklisting should be reserved only for sites who are trying to spam us, sites which present a strong danger of malware attacks on innocent people who click on them, etc. There is a huge difference, in my view, between a site which should not generally be used as a source, and a site which deserves to actually be in the blacklist. In this case, for example, I have linked to it as a point of discussion, along with my own comments which clearly do not endorse the site.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for asking this (probably inappropriate) question at this moment. Where are the legal threats that led to the block of Christopher R and Blue5864? And why is the former unblocked while the latter is still blocked? --Deryck C. 20:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The threats by Blue5864 are here and here. Earlier threats were here and here. IrishGuy talk 20:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Frankly IMO the new ones don't look like "legal threats", though the earlier definitely are. How about C.R.'s? --Deryck C. 20:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually both accounts were blocked initially for this motive but Christopher R retracted the legal threats (most notably this one) and the blocking admin unblocked his account, Blue was also unblocked but was re-blocked shortly after for making a comment that was somewhat ambiguous and perceived as going back on his position, this is more detailed on the AN/I thread. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
(after edit conflicts)Christopher R was blocked for this legal threat, then unblocked after this comment.
Blue5864 was blocked for this and, to a lesser extent, this. He was then unblocked for retracting those threats. He was then blocked again for this, then claimed that he would "NEVER threaten suit", reiterated again here, with "I have never had any intentions to file any legal action", "I have no legal threats of any kind", and "[I have made] no threats if [there were] any they are withdrawn". But then 50 minutes after that he posted this, which appears to be a legal threat, while still blocked. The email he referenced, from Jimmy Wales, can be found in the user talk page history. He then used incivility ("yea right do you kiss your mom with that mouth"), more claims of no legal threats and retractions, saying that his latest legal threat was "a quote from Jimbo, not a threat" (again, the email being referred to can be found in the page's history), and once again insinuating that there were "no legal threats". His page was then blanked and then protected, to prevent more legal threats. --Dreaded Walrus t c 20:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Menudo & MDO

Currently MDO is a different band than the old Menudo. I think a separate article for MDO should be created. Moreover, the article needs organization to follow the standards of other articles about musical bands. I think I'll work on it the following days. Thief12 (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to give it a go! :) I looked over your contribution and it's all good in my eyes. Feel free to create an MDO (band) or something along those lines if it is a different band. I removed the wikilink to MDO only because it goes to a disambig page that just links back here. Dreaded Walrus t c 03:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
...Haha. It turns out we already have an article at MDO (band)! I suppose you don't have to create an article for it from scratch now. I'll link the intro to that, and I'll modify the disambig page to link there rather than here. :) Dreaded Walrus t c 03:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll work around that article and try to improve it. Thief12 (talk) 10:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Organization and Removal of Proseline

I tried to edit the article and improve its organization by better defined sections. I also tried to remove the proseline. I plan on adding a section of former Members, and improve the discography section. Thief12 (talk) 03:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice work, I would love to see this article reach good article standards soon but its better if somebody familiar with the group's real impact does the article justice, keep it up. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Include list of band members?

Suggest that we include a list of all members of the band in chronological order. (Presumably it would be logical to note also the albums that each member worked on). (Yes I see that the article does mention the members of the band in various places, but I think that an actual list would be helpful.) -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on one. Will add it soon. Thief12 (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)