Talk:Geoffrey Giuliano/Archive 1

NPOV

The earliest version of this article was critical of subject, while the most recent versions look like they've been copied and pasted from a bio on the subject's website (I don't know for sure, but it reads that way). Compare: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geoffrey_Giuliano&diff=24006007&oldid=16596761

I'm working off of the most recent version as far as the clean up is concerned, but I hope to avoid a POV issue. If anyone has any input on this, please discuss it here to help with clean up. Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"} — Preceding undated comment added 18:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Clean Up

This article needs a ton of work if it is to be taken seriously.

1. The tone needs to be placed into NPOV
2. Needs more sources
3. General clean up, organization and wikification

Right now this reads like a webpage bio or bad advert text.Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"} 15:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Ugh. What a load of self-congratulating crap. Who is this has-been? Do we really need this on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.171.1.5 (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Albion, New York

This article states Giuliano was (partially) raised in Albion, New York. Do we know if this was the village of Albion in Orleans County, the town of Albion in Orleans County, or the town of Albion in Oswego County? Powers ^T 19:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

PR sheet

This is an awful page. It reads like a PR sheet. If I get the chance I'll rewrite it. For a start, any cursory glance through his book reviews reveals that they are anything but "critically acclaimed". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.227.17.118 (talk • contribs).

Yeh, I don't know about "critically acclaimed," although the books can be found on nearly any online bookstore. this Google search digs up tons of them; if someone cares to go through them to find any that "critically acclaim" the books, feel free to add the references. V-Man737 00:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Notinsane

Seems we have our old friend back after the block was removed. Now he's got 'is own handle, "Notinsane" Maybe he's "just a human, a VICTIM of the insane." Anyway, I'm sure he'll continue to vandalize, so what needs to be done to apply some instant karma to him? HMMMMM?--Oh, by the way, he's even edited the discussion page a bit--must really think it's "clean up time"Lennonsghost 04:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Lennon's Ghost P.S.,

To repeat a lible IS a libel and several of the references cited in earlier versions do just that. Lible aint WIKI so out they go in the interest of turh and solvency! We are on patrol for the truth 24/7/365.

"We?" V-Man737 09:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes "WE" the fans of Giuliano's work. Look there is no way Giuliano or Wiki will allow these false and actionable accounts to continue. This is a TRUTHFUL version of this man's life, it is 100% acurrate, edited and verifable via geoffreygiuliano.com WHERE EVERYTHING IS SOURCED!!! This can go on as long as it needs to.Notinsane 10:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC) NOTINSANE

After all that good advice on a wikipedia entry this has gone right back to ONE SENTENCE with 0 references--125.25.129.244 04:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Nahhh. It looks like a few more than one to me. (Also, your shouting is a bit overboard.) V-Man737 05:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This IS Geoffrey Giuliano. How can you say in the history section that the article you all love is UNBIASED? I have had hundreds of reviews (see my website author indes/reviews) and you only print the few BAD ONES. That does not seem odd to you? Read this NEW article. It FULL of mistakes. I SHOULD know how my wife's name is spelled no matter WHAT some other article says! It is 100% biased by this Lennonsghost guy (Hi Bobby...how's Toronto?) This IS devisive editing and it is immoral. The version that we have put together IS accurate. It will continue to reasppear. What I would like is to not be any part of this Wiki thing but if you are going to publish things about me then I will continue to submitt accurate material. My acting is COMPLETELY ignored and I STAR in a new film (BANGKOK ADRENALINE) starting TOMMORROW! Why? Bias! And my nationally syndicated radio show (rootsofrock.net) IGNORED! why? Bias. Look play fair... Lennonsghost has a HUGE agenda. You don't like my article FINE use THE FACTS from it at least. RE-EDIT THAT VERSION. Why would I MISPELL my wife's name? VRNDA DEVI NOT VRINDA RANI. Nor are we Hindu. It's all WRONG. Gotta fight for the truth... IF IT WAS YOU SO WOULD YOU. GEOFFREY GIULIANO, SOI 7, BANGKOK, THAILAND —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notinsane (talk • contribs) 22:41, 16 February 2007

All your points have been answered several times, by me and by other editors. Until you read WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS, you are wasting your time here. The version you have put together will continue to be reverted. Lose the all caps and the slams at other editors (and add WP:NPA to the policies you shoudl read), provide some hard information here with supporting references, and the editors who aren't subjects of the article can consider whether to include that information. Your reiteration of unsupported assertions will accomplish nothing. JamesMLane t c 23:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You are slandering Giuliano. Since when is EVERYTHING online true? And is this a FAIR article it is now just Oldsmoble putting in bad stuff every few minutes cant you see that?

Notinsane blocked

User Notinsane been blocked for 24 hours for a violation of the three revert rule. --Goochelaar 17:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Response to AfD comments by Notinsane

I said on the AfD page that I would answer the anonymous comments (now identified as those of User:Notinsane). Because of computer problems, I'm only just getting around to it. The comments are in the original ALL CAPS, with my responses following.

THE INFORMATION NOW IS WRONG. HIS WIFE IS VRNDA DEVI NOT VRINDA RANI. HE DID NOT POSE AS RONALD HE "PLAYED" RONALD. NOR WAS HE THE SECOND RONALD!!! LOOK YOU MAY NOT LIKE THE VERSION WE FEEL SHOULD BE UP AND ARE FIGHTING FOR BUT IT IS 100% ACCURATE. EVERY NAME IS CORRECT. TRUE DATES. ALL OF IT. NOW IT IS JUST PLAIN WRONG.

In accordance with WP:CITE, a page to which I earnestly direct your attention, the information I added about his wife's name is cited as coming from the Hinduism Today article. If you have a citation to support your contrary opinion, please provide it. I agree that "pose" was a bad word. That's why I changed it, some hours before your comment.

HE DID NOT GRADUATE IN 1976 NOR ARE HIS CHILDREN HINDU!!! HE HAS FIVE CHILDREN NOT FOUR. YOU ARE TAKING THINGS FROM THE INTERNET WHICH ARE THEMSELVES WRONG AND REPEATING THE MISTAKES. THIS IS A BETTER WAY TO GO??? USE THE OLD VERSION AS YOUR STRUCTURE FOR THE NEW ONE. GIULIANO DID SUE AND WIN AGAINST EYE MAGAZINE WHETHER YOU CAN FIND IT OR NOT. YOU SHOULD LISTEN TO PEOPLE WHO KNOW THIS MANS LIFE AND WORK. THE STUB SAYS HE'S AN ACTOR BUT WHILE THE OLD VERSION IS CORRECT HERE YOU MAKE NO MENTION OF IT. GIULIANO'S WEBSITE IS THE BEST SOURCE. GO TO THE AUTHOR PAGE AND ALL HIS SOURCED REVIEWS ARE THERE WITH DATES ETC. GIULIANO I AM SURE WILL TAKE ACTION WHEN HE SEES THIS. WHO WOULD NOT AS IT IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. YOU SAY YOU WANT TRUTH WELL GIULIANO'S WEBSITE HAS TONS OF HARD SOURCING. ALSO WHY THIS OBSESSION WITH THE EYE ARTICLE ... GIULIANO HAS DOZENS OF ARTICLES ABOUT HIM ON HIS SITE INCLUDING THE LONDON TIMES!!! YOU ARE SCREWING THIS UP. ITS ALL WRONG. WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS?

His graduation date is based on the SUNY Brockport website, a source cited in the article. (Do you begin to see a pattern here?) Please feel free to add information about his acting career, the alleged lawsuit, and anything else you like, provided that your additions comply with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:CITE. Those are policies of general applicability that have been adopted for the purpose of creating a reliable encyclopedia. That's why we're doing this. It's not a conspiracy to attack Giuliano.

Notinsane, I told you a while back that you could work within our policies or you could keep beating your head against the wall. I've seen this matchup before: one fervent participant, usually editing only one article, proclaiming loudly that "truth will prevail" and ignoring all Wikipedia policies, versus the Wikipedia community, in the form of several editors who want to ensure that the article is properly encyclopedic. The lone fervent editor loses every time. Do not believe that you can outlast us. If you continue on your present course, you are likely to be blocked indefinitely, and you will lose all chance of improving the article. JamesMLane t c 01:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

;_; the shouting, the shouting! Make it stop. ;_; V-Man737 02:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to quote the comments exactly, and the original version was in all caps. Sorry about your ears. JamesMLane t c 21:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand, and thanks for your sympathy. My, uh, mind's ears are feeling better. ;-) V-Man737 01:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Geez, how will you keep this guy from deleting the current article and pasting his long sentence of self glorification? From what I read it looks like this subject is infamous, with a lot to hide, but that is still notable. Can you "lock" the current article? Otherwise better keep a copy because you'll be needing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.25.152.117 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 14 February 2007

We automatically keep a publicly available copy of all versions of all articles unless the article is deleted or a particular version is deleted by an administrator (for copyright violation or some such). You can see every previous version by clicking on the "Page history" link. As for Mr. Giuliano, if he keeps deleting the consensus text and substituting his preferred version, he will probably be banned indefinitely. JamesMLane t c 22:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

100% SLANDER / GIULIANO NEVER EVER OWNED SOMETHING FISHY PRODUCTIONS

You BETTER KEEP THIS OUT OR HE WILL SUE 10000%

Okay, I have removed that. Thank you. Oldsmobile 17:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Giuliano moved to Thailand in 2000. Prior to the move, he resided in Lockport, New York, where he was cited for numerous housing violations, and unpaid taxes, water and sewer bills. [14] Something Fishy Productions, a Giuliano corporation, pleaded guilty to a felony larceny charge involving nearly $22,000 in unpaid utility bills.[15]

Rebuttal to accusation of libel

There was an accusation of libel made against me. I removed the contested passage and made a note of the libel accusation on the new entry, and also responded on the talk page to the anonymous complaint. I had a chance to do some further research tonight, and I discovered that a second article (ironically, one that I had already referenced earlier) in a different newspaper mentions exactly the same fact regarding a felony larceny charge that a Giuliano corporation pled guilty to. As a matter of fact, there is also a follow-up to the article in which Giuliano protests certain things in this article, but makes no mention at all of the felony larceny charge that this paper said was laid on Something Fishy, an outfit the paper described as "one of his (referring to Giuliano) corporations." Since libel is a heavy accusation to receive with your morning coffee, I'm going to include the link for everyone here to examine carefully. I believe this shows the accuracy of my original entry, and plan to re-post it, after calling the whole affair to the attention of others in the wiki community. I will also include the link to the follow-up replies in the same paper by Giuliano...

Second article (not the one I originally cited that was alleged to be libel) mentioning larceny by Giuliano company: http://oea.shu.ru/millennium/news/00_may/28_buffalonews_1025088.htm

Follow-up article in which Giuliano makes his reply: http://oea.shu.ru/millennium/news/00_jun/01_buffalonews_1037535.htm

The original supporting reference for the passage (shown above) that the anon objected to can be found at:

[http://www.lockportjournal.com/local/local_story_196021641.html

I will of course include the article with Giuliano's rebuttal when I add this new source back into the entry along with the one that I included previously.

I can only say that anyone who does not see a pattern at this point has very poor spatial awareness.Oldsmobile 03:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Nilsson and Lennon

Just casually wondering exactly how relevant this edit is, keeping in mind that the article is about GG rather than Lennon. V-Man737 01:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Good question, V-Man, and I am not sure that my current version does make that clear enough, but here's the explanation. In the Giuliano book referred to in that passage, Giuliano claimed to be drawing information from the "Lost Lennon Diaries." In point of fact, Lennon's diaries or journals have never been "lost," as far as we know, but they were at one point stolen by a man named Fred Seaman who worked for Lennon. That's another story, however, and if you want the background on that, the wiki entry on an author named Robert Rosen has a link to an interview with Rosen that gives good background on it. There is also considerable information about Yoko Ono's suit against Seaman on the Court TV website. But--returning to Giuliano--he said that Nilsson gave him transcripts of Lennon's diaries. Of course, Nilsson was dead by then, and couldn't confirm or deny it. With Harry gone, all we can do at this point is examine the record. In the first part of the passage, I mentioned Lennon comments that he made shortly before his own death that appear to show that he was distancing himself from Harry Nilsson, and was concerned about Nilsson's welfare due to his drinking. Would Lennon have given Nilsson the transcripts and allowed him to keep them? We know what Lennon said his thoughts were about Nilsson shortly before he died. Aside from Giuliano's claim, Lennon's opinion of Nilsson and his personal stability might be a basis for considering that question. We also know, of course, that people close to Nilsson don't believe that Harry had the transcripts. Now--the second part of the question is, assuming that Nilsson did have the transcripts, would he have given them to Giuliano, as Giuliano claims? A familiar axiom of psychology is that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. In the past, Harry had avoided giving information about Lennon to Albert Goldman. Goldman became one of the most successful of the "show biz expose" authors. Now-one might make the argument that (going to Lennon's interview comment), Nilsson was loyal to Lennon, but that he handed over the diary transcripts during a bout of drinking. However, Harry's account of his meeting with Goldman was that he was drinking heavily while talking to Goldman, yet he still gave Goldman absolutey no information. Harry's contention that he gave nothing at all to Goldman seems credible, as Goldman later made it a point to dedicate an entire chapter of his Lennon book to an unflattering portrayal of Nilsson, while entirely omitting facts about the dubious backgrounds of those who did give him information. In the passage you refer to, V-Man, I am trying to let the facts speak for themselves, out of fairness for all parties involved, to let people draw their own conclusions. There is danger of being so conservative that parts of the entry are seen as oblique and irrelevant. Tbis is, after all, a section about "controversy." Harry Nilsson is dead, but I think, with regard to the second part of the entry you refer to, that inferrences can be drawn from Harry's past actions when he was in a similar situation. Giulaino based a large part of his book on the assertion that a dead man gave him the information. As the dead can't speak, we are essentially asked to take large portions of the book (and it's not entirely clear which portions) on faith. The idea that the book was based on the Lennon diary transcripts was a major selling point for the book, so that is not a small point. Lennonsghost 14:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Lennon's Ghost

Unfortunately, one of the key policies of Wikipedia is verfiability. The source you provided is a newsgroup post which falls far under our standard for sources. Since the post appears to be a copyright violation pulled from Rolling Stone Magazine, you might want to properly cite the magazine article itself, which is a great deal more credible. Even then, "drawing inferrences" is strictly forbidden by Wikipedia policy - if the source itself doesn't make the statement, we don't write it. We can report Harry's past actions as stated by the article, but statements like "Nilsson appears to have remained loyal to Lennon" are our own opinion and cannot be included.

I think its also important to note that your choice of username was rather unfortunate if you intend to edit articles dealing with John Lennon. Shell ^babelfish 19:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The username was chosen in haste, and I apologize for any offense that it caused. Thank you for your prompt answer to my request and your guidance on the wikipedia policies.Oldsmobile 04:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Oldsmobile (I picked that as it's not being used anymore)

It's all good and fine, provided the article flows with that kind of cognizance. Maybe wikify the entry a bit, to allow for users to click to Mr. Rosen if they don't know about him; also, putting the connection from Giuliano to Lennon and Nilsson in the article would clarify the reason for mentioning them. I've no objection to the addition, as long as it is relevant to Giuliano (and, as Shell pointed out, verifiable and cited). V-Man737 03:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, V-Man. The Rosen comments were an aside--for now, I'll leave it to others to integrate that if they think it is appropriate. I have taken another run at it based on the guidance that Shell gave, and I am going to stand back for a bit and watch the river flow. I did drop the one "Lennon on Nilsson" reference that you commented on--I agree, it had more to do with Nilsson.Oldsmobile 04:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Oldsmobile

I'm wondering now if the part of the entry referring to Giuliano's wife is accurate, or maybe just not current. A posting on the Thailand forum by someone claiming to be Giuliano (username "American Actor) says that he is divorced, and also refers to a marriage to a Thai woman named "Ping." Can't find a source to verify divorce or other marriages, but I also saw a posting in a Beatles newsgroup in which someone claiming to be Giuliano said that he had divorced and moved to Thailand. The Thailand Forum postings can be seen at: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=93074&st=0&#entry988138 Oldsmobile 05:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

More (Not)Insane talk

Sirs This IS Geoffrey Giuliano. I can get a notarized letter from the US Department of State if you like and Fed Ex it ANYWHERE at my cost. This article is FULL of mistakes. Why do you think the internet can't be WRONG? I KNOW my EX wife's name...VRNDA DEVI. Check out her book COMPASSIONATE CUISINE. Look I am available to HELP get this right. We are NOT Hindus... what you wrote is SO wrong. I am ready to PROVE I am Geoffrey Giuliano. I am claiming nothning. PLEASE TAKE YOUR BASIC FACTS FROM THE ARTICLE UP THERE NOW> THEY ARE ALL 100% CORRECT. I can go to a police station YOU NAME IT...TELL ME HOW YOU WANT ME TO PROVE WHO I AM! Look WHY would some crap on the net me more reliable than ME!!!!

Okay, why aren't you paying attention to what is being said to you? It should make perfect sense that we aren't just going to believe the first person that comes along and says "hey, I'm Geoffrey Giuliano." If you are willing to go through the trouble of getting a notarized letter from the US Department of State, be my guest. There's a 50 percent chance it'll do what you hope it will. Also, I'mma ask you again to quit it with the all caps. It is very unprofessional and unbecoming of a person who is trying to look like a 54-year-old SUNY graduate, not to mention the fact that it makes me want to look over my shoulder to see if there is a mastodon charging at me.

Next part. This is Wikipedia. Even if you really are Geoffrey Giuliano, nobody cares. Of course you'd want an article about you to look really pretty! Unfortunately, if a pretty article fails WP:NPOV and WP:RS, which I dearly wish you would invest some time in reading, it does not belong in Wikipedia. eBay might accept it; in fact, that's another reason we are all so leery about the text you are pushing.

Until you become willing to work the way Wikipedia works, you will constantly be frustrated. Wikipedia is not Myspace. If you really think you're Giuliano, make a Myspace account. You can put whatever the heck you want in that. But Wikipedia doesn't allow anyone to just come in and say stuff that has no checkable sources. Even if you are the person in question. Especially if you're the person in question!

If you can't bring yourself to read and comply with those articles, you have no business on Wikipedia. I am sorry that I can't find a more polite way to put it, but that is simply how things are. When you're ready to contribute properly (i.e., in a calm manner), my suggestion would be to search Google for sources that back up what you are saying and post them here on the talk page so that editors can use them in the article. That's how the article is going to say what you want it to say - if there are reliable sources agreeing with you. Please take in what we're saying, it is all very important in order for Wikipedia to get articles straight. I hope you'll become a significant contributor in the future. V-Man737 11:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Why would I research myself on the internet? Besides all the info required is at geoffreygiuliano.com.

You do not even try to read what people write you, do you? --Goochelaar 14:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to give Notinsane a hint of what is contained in those Wikipedia policy pages he is not interested in reading, he might consider these sentences (from WP:ATT): "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments." --Goochelaar 14:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude...EVERYTHING in the article is 100% true! Thats my whole point. Just edit from that article and all is well. To verify go to geoffrey giuliano.com. It is WELL sourced. I AM THE AUTHOR OF 40 plus books, 100 cds etc. I know how to do research. What IS the problem using the article that is TRUE and correct? If you don't like something change it but the info is correct and yours is not. MY WIFE'S NAME IS VRNDA DEVI NOT VRINDA RANI. WE ARE NOT HINDUS. I mean should I let that go? WOULD YOU?

MY ANSWERS IN CAPS (NOT YELLING BE SERIOUS)

The problem with all this is that you could be someone who is not Giuliano. What then? Would you expect us to just believe someone other than you who claims to be Geoffrey Giuliano? How would we tell who is telling the truth?

YOU TELL ME! I WILL GLADLY REPORT TO A LAWYER, POLICE, THE GOVERMENT. WHAT WILL SATISY YOU? I CAN PRODUCE A PASSPORT, ID WHATEVER IS REQUIRED. I AM MR. GIULIANO HOW CAN WE GET THIS OUT OF THE WAY?

Once that is out of the way, the question is, why should we believe someone who is personally affected by the information in the article? Of course Giuliano would want the Giuliano article to say pleasant things about him.

IS IT ME WANTING A "PLEASANT" ARTICLE FOR ME TO INSIST UPON: 1.) MY EX WIFE'S NAME IS CORRECTLY SPELLED. 2.) I AM NOT HINDU. 3.) I AM A WELL KNOWN FILM ACTOR AND THIS IS NOT MENTIONED BUT IT MAKES ME "NOTABLE". 4.) ALL OF THE FACTS OF MY LIFE ARE 100% CORRECTLY INCLUDED IN THE ARTICLE. WHY NOT USE THEM?

I suppose everyone would want that. The fact remains that there are multiple sides to peoples' lives.

THEN SHOW BOTH SIDES NOT ONLY THE BAD. WHERE ARE MY GOOD REVIEWS? THEY ARE ALL ON MY WEBSITE...BUT YOU CHOOSE NOT TO INCLUDE THEM. WHY?

For those sides to be hidden while the favorable sides are polished and publicized is ridiculous.

I AGREE. HOW ABOUT SOME WORD ON MY RADIO SHOW, MOVIES ETC.

It would make a hero out of Hitler and a martyr out of Mussolini. The point of view would prevent people from knowing things as they really are. Again I urge you to read up on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and make your contributions in places that you aren't so vehemently conerned with. V-Man737 00:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

IF YOU THINK I AM GOING TO EVER EVER LET THIS GO YOU ARE VERY WRONG. I WILL NOT ALLOW MY FAMILY TO BE HURT AND THE PUBLIC MISINFORMED WITH YOU INCORRECT, NEGATIVE ONE SIDED VIEW.

LOOK MY WIFES NAME IS VRNDA DEVI NOT VRINDA RANI. ON THIS ALONE I WILL FIGHT FOREVER UNTIL YOU CORRECT IT. I AINT STOPPING THIS IS WRONG AND IT WILL BE PUT RIGHT. AM I EMOTIONAL...YOU BET. I HAVE WORKED HARD AND I WILL NOT BE THE SUBJECT OF AN INNACURATE BNIASED ARTICLE. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH USING THE BASIC FACTS IN THE CORRECTED ARTICLE?

I AM NOT ASKING FOR A FAVORABLE ARTICLE BUT I INSIST UPON AN ACCURATE ONE. VERY SOON I SHALL GO MY LAWYERS AND FILE SUIT AGAINST WIKI. I AM NOT PLAYING PAL.

First and foremost, Wikipedia does not take to legal threats very well. I would seriously advise against it.

To address the concern about positive reviews: I am quite sure they exist. get some links to them and they can be included in the article.

On being incorrect and one-sided: Perhaps the article might be one-sided right now. That is unfortunate, don't mistake me. The problem is that you are going for this all-or-nothing warfare that completely undermines Wikipedia's method of progression. That's what Wikipedia does: it progresses! This is not a static encyclopedia. That is why we have some really crappy articles right now - we expect that they can gradually be improved. The problem with including your text is that it is conventionally a poor alternative to what there is right now. It seems to be copied word-for-word from a source that we are already using in the article. Text should never be copied word-for-word onto Wikipedia, that defeats the purpose.

IT IS NOT COPIED! IT WAS WRITTEN FOR WIKI LIKE EVERY OTHER ARTICLE.

Hm, okay, I was sure I'd seen it on an eBay biography. Seeing as I can't find it now, I'll drop that concern.

The way you are going to solve this is by beating Wikipedia at its own game. If what you claim is true, the information is going to be out there somewhere, whether published in a newspaper or online. If you can show us those sources, we will use them. Editors themselves are never a good source. That is called original research.

I CAN POST MY WIFES PHONE NUMBER IF YOU LIKE. THEN YOU MAY CALL HER AND ASK HER HOW TO SPELL HER NAME. DO YOU WANT IT? DO YOU WANT MINE?

What do you suppose that would accomplish? I wouldn't worry about that if I were you.

(sources being moved to Talk:Geoffrey Giuliano/sources)

Now you're talking! Those are plentiful and useful. I'll start checking and using them tomorrow. V-Man737 07:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Now it clearly Oldsmoble having his agenda as an attack on Giuliano. Now they are saying he is A CRIMINAL! He will sue I am telling you. You better take that stuff down as Giuliano NEVER OWNED Something Fishy Productions!!! You are defaming him and it will not fly. BAN OLDSMOBLE NOW!

Edits

Notinsane seems to be gingerly testing the waters by whittling out some things he does not like. For example, his legal name change, which was properly referenced with a newspaper article, has been removed. He's also taken out the stuff about Hinduism. While Giuliano may now reside in a predominantly Buddhist country, I can provide other references about his past involvement in the Krishna movement. What is the proper way to handle this sort of thing in line with wiki policy? I like that he has joined in, but I don't want to have him gradually disassemble what is there already simply because he doesn't like it or because he is gradually trying to devolve back to his personal version. Thanks Oldsmobile 18:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Look this Oldmoble guy (Bobby Wengle) WAS Lennon's Ghost and is INTENT on putting up biased bad stuff on GG. Look how he KEEPS putting the dumb Lennon (NON ISSUE / BAD REVIEW) stuff back. EVERY SINGLE WORD OF THIS CONTROVERSY SECTION IS SLANTED AGAINST GIULIANO. You don't like our version because you say it's unfairly TOO GOOD well Oldsmoble's is TOO BAD. Fair is fair. READ IT! Why does he keep putting it back? Because it is ALL negative. IS THIS WIKI?

Hmm. Good point. V-Man737 00:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Taking a close look at the sources, I don't suppose you have the ISBNs for the books you've listed? That would make this go a lot faster. I'd like to stick the "controversy" section near the end of the article and have a section on "books" at the beginning so we get a clear idea of GG's work. V-Man737 01:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Notinsane has stated that he is Giuliano. As the article subject, he shouldn't be editing it at all. See WP:COI (to which he's been previously referred). I can't do much on this article right now, but reverting all his edits to the article would be a reasonable course. Let him provide information here so that uninvolved editors can decide what to do.

As for the alleged negativity of the article, Wikipedia policy is that we do not delete valid, referenced information just because it's negative or because the article overemphasizes the negative. Instead, the way to correct such an overemphasis is to add in the positive information that would balance it out. In the special case of an editor who's the article subject, the procedure is, as I noted above, for the editor to provide the information on the talk page, not to edit the article. I'm glad he's provided some reviews that can now be pursued (although a Wikipedia article about an author is a biography, not a collection of reviews).

Finally, on a couple other topics: A notarized letter or a phone number is absolutely worthless to establish anything. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. JamesMLane t c 01:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh sorry did you get the impression I was this Giuliano guy? That was figuritivly NOT literally. I like his books so I will be editing. LOVE to meet him one day though. I am just an old DRAMA QUEEN I quess...tee hee.

:-P V-Man737 05:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Correct birthdate is 1953 or 1957?

Do we have a source that verifies Giuliano's birthdate? His year of birth is listed in the entry as 1953. I notice that his Internet Movie Database resume states that he was born in 1957.Oldsmobile 03:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The two sources I found (plus Notinsane's text) all say '53, I wonder where IMDB is getting '57? V-Man737 03:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

In the September 10, 1999 Vaishnava News article (http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET9909/ET10-4697.html)he said that he was 46. So it looks like the IMDB resume shaves a few years off of him. Oldsmobile 13:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ronald McDonald

I don't think it's accurate to say that Giuliano was "one of the first persons" to portray Ronald McDonald. Giuliano's resume on IMDB says he did commercials for McDonalds, but in an interview (http://www.johnrussell.name/recipes/ronald.htm) he said that he made 50 grand a year--and that was Canadian money! That isn't nearly enough cash if he was a "principal" Ronald McDonald making commercials for them.

Also, everything he describes in interviews sounds like the "personal appearances" Ronald, not the "TV commercials" Ronald. As a personal appearances Ronald, he would not only not be one of the first to portray Ronald, but he would be just one of MANY to simultaneously portray Ronald at any given time. As detailed in a recent Wall Street Journal article, McDonalds has an army of Ronalds going out to public places like schools and hospitals.

Furthermore, David Green, who worked for McDonalds in various marketing posts beginning in 1972, and who was U.S. Senior Vice President of Marketing for McDonalds at the time of the McLibel trial in England (Giuliano submitted a statement for the trial) testified that he didn't know of an actor named Geoffrey Giuliano playing the role of a "principal" Ronald McDonald. The url for that is http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/trial/verdict/verdict_jud2b.html.

I'd like to revise the "Ronald" section to say that he portrayed Ronald McDonald in personal appearances during a period of a year and a half, which is what he says in the interview mentioned above. Anything else is just speculation. Tattooconnection 03:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the current wording implies that he was on TV. As for David Green's statement, the decision says that Green worked in the U.S., but Giuliano seems to have appeared mainly in Canada (see [1]). I think we have enough other sources substantiating Giuliano's account that we can continue to say that he portrayed Ronald McDonald, even if Green conveniently didn't recognize the name. JamesMLane t c 20:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I become aware that in the Ronald McDonald article it is said just this, that G.G. was in his time the "primary" Ronald in the TV commercials (he is mentioned together with the other ones covering this role before and after). I must confess I have not the patience to sort through the edits to that article in search for whomever this detail. The fact is not sourced though. --Goochelaar 22:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Right--sorry I didn't make it clearer why the "television commercials" vs. "personal appearances" distinction is relevant to determining if he was "one of the first persons to portray" Ronald McDonald. I think the Wall Street Journal article at the following link does help to clarify the point I was trying to make: http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-ronald060203,0,184908.story?coll=bal-business-indepth

As the article says, "McDonald's keeps a roster of about 250 Ronalds worldwide, according to marketing experts familiar with the program, and franchisees, with some support from the company, pay for Ronalds as an advertising expense. Each major market in the U.S. has at least one Ronald, with large cities employing several."

By the way, the salary figures quoted in that Wall Street Journal article (40,000 to 100,000 yearly, depending on the number of appearances made) for a "personal appearances" Ronald are consistent with the salary Giuliano said he made in the interview referenced on his wiki entry, but the salary figure he named was well below what a TV commercials Ronald would make. In the case of the "TV commercials" Ronald, it may well be accurate to say that someone who entered the game as late as '79 or '80 was "one of the first" to portray Ronald McDonald, but there is no way that could be true of someone who started as a "personal appearances" Ronald at that time, because by then the ranks of the "personal appearance" Ronalds were legion.

It's really the "one of the first to portray" phrase that I think is inaccurate, not the assertion that he portrayed Ronald. I think that he did portray Ronald McDonald, but that the "one of the first to portray" phrase should be droppped. Tattooconnection 02:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The first line of the "Ronald McDonald" section is very confusing: "Giuliano has been a very vocal advocate of animal rights since the early 1980s for his renunciation of the fast-food giant McDonald's after portraying their promotional personality, Ronald McDonald, for some two years in Toronto, Canada, out of Vickers and Benson advertising." I think that has to be amended, as it simply doesn't make sense. In addition, Giulino said in the interview that is referenced elsewhere in the article that he had the position for "about a year and a half," not "for some two years."

An interesting aspect of the story that Giuliano told in the (One Off) interview is that he was paid $5000 Canadian dollars when he quit the job. I am aware of terminated employees being paid a severance, but it seems unusual for someone who quits voluntarily, and who is told at that time that he is "not McDonalised enough" to be given a "golden handshake" as Giuliano described it.

I believe the section is inaccurate in stating that Giuliano testified in the McLibel case in London. A press release type statement of his was read in open court, but he is not on the witness list for the McLibel Website. The statement can be seen here: http://www.mcspotlight.org/people/witnesses/advertising/guiliano_geoff.html It is referred to there as a "statement read out in open court." Tattooconnection 20:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Source question from 124.120.185.66

So what do you Wiki guys do if a source is WRONG or something is a lible that a source has put on the internet. Since WHEN is the internet in any way legally truthful. ANYONE CAN POST ANYTHING AT ANY TIME so if you REPEAT a falsehood (or worse a libel) JUST BECAUSE it is "SOURCED" on line then you are way offbase and open up this Wiki CULT to problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.185.66 (talk • contribs)

If the source is incorrect, provide one that is not. If you cannot find a source that contradicts the one currently being used, contact the Wikimedia Foundation. I'm sorry, but there is absolutely no reason that we should just take an editor's word over what is considered a reliable source.

Also, please put new comments at the bottom of the talk page, use headers, and try not to dump 50+ paragraphs of poorly formatted text ALL IN CAPS. It's annoying and very difficult to read. If you want people to make use of your "positive" sources, you could at least format it into something useable. --Onorem 02:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Trying to cooperate

User 124.120..., or anyone else who'd like to help out here. Please look at the following and explain, using sources where necessary, what you feel is wrong with the first section of the article. --Onorem 02:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Geoffrey Giuliano (born September 11,1953) in Rochester, New York is an American author and film actor, best known for his biographies of The Beatles members John Lennon, Paul McCartney, and George Harrison, and of musician Pete Townshend. Giuliano legally changed his name to Jagannatha Dasa, but continues to use the name Geoffrey Giuliano for business purposes. Prior to 1997, his legal name was Jeffrey Juliana. He graduated from SUNY Brockport in 1976..

Size Of Role In Mysterious Island

Giuliano was a supporting actor in this film NOT MINOR. The producers can be contacted at livingfilms.com (ask for producer Chris Lowenstein) and they will acknowledge this. GG was on screen with lines and the stars for 22 minutes THAT IS NOT A MINOR ROLE. Supporting is the word. We can FED EX a copy to confirm this upon request. If you are so WIKI the play fair lads! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.185.66 (talk • contribs) 22 March 2007

Contacts with the producers and FedExing materials to someone are not acceptable procedures. See WP:NOR. Our policy is found at WP:ATT; we believe that fairness results from the uniform application of that policy. JamesMLane t c 02:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

INTENT ON CREATING A WHOLLY NEGATIVE ARTICLE

The intent of the online editors is obvious. I have sent a MOUTAIN of WELL SOURCED GOOD REVIEWS OF GIULIANO'S BOOKS and NO ONE has put ANY of them in!!! ONLY THE BAD ONES! Is that unbiased? Here they are AGAIN!! Now if you REALLY want to be FAIR, AND NOT ATTACK THIS GUY here are sourced reviews to quote. READ THE CURRENT ARTICLE ONLY THE BAD ONES ARE USED. WHY?

REVIEWS / LITERARY WORKS GEOFFREY GIULIANO, VRNDA DEVI & AVALON GIULIANO

["mountain" of undigested text snipped]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Geoffrey_Giuliano/sources" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.185.66 (talk • contribs) 22 March 2007

You are repeatedly abusing the talk page. I've removed your "mountain" of material on the assumption that there's nothing that isn't already found at the subpage you posted. Please observe these guidelines:

1. New threads go at the bottom of the page.

2. Begin a new thread with a heading, preceded and followed by two equals signs (==New heading==).

By the way, if you start a new thread by clicking on "Post a comment", it will provide you with a field for the heading, so you won't need to use the equals signs, and it will automatically position the thread properly.

3. Sign each of your posts by appending four tildes at the end (~~~~).

4. Stop dumping a mountain of material here. If you think there's something that should be added to the article based on a reliable source, you can either add it yourself, including in the article a citation to the source (and wording it neutrally), or you can post a specific suggestion here, with the supporting reference.

Also, your credibility is not helped when you delete properly sourced material just because it's uncomplimentary to you. A Wikipedia bio article includes both praise and criticism of the subject, provided they are properly sourced and attributed to notable spokespersons. JamesMLane t c 02:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Date of birth

Someone added "September 11" as his birthdate. This additon was picked up in a Wikipedia mirror. Thereafter, I think someone took the mirror to be a reliable source, which it isn't. I haven't seen any independent verification of the birthdate, so I'm removing it until a source can be provided. JamesMLane t c 02:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Addendum: An anon's assertion to me on my talk page that he is Giuliano and that the date is correct doesn't satisfy WP:ATT. I'm removing the date until a published source is provided. JamesMLane t c 06:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Further addendum: An anon (presumably Giuliano himself) has re-added the September 11 date, asserting that it's on the article subject's website. That would be an acceptable source, but I can't find it there (I have great difficulty using that site). The editor didn't provide a specific link that could be checked. I'm removing the date until either a proper link is provided or some disinterested editor confirms finding the date on the website. JamesMLane t c 05:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Headings

According to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, section headings are to be in sentence case. Mr. Giuliano, please stop reverting the correction of this error. This is one minor illustration of how you need to develop much more respect for Wikipedia's established policies, instead of just making the article about you look the way you want it to. JamesMLane t c 04:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Kill The Messenger

Until today ALL of the reviews chosen for incluision in this article have been wholly negative. It is the assertion of many that this article is merely a shallow pretense at casting Giuliano in a negative light. It is largely biased, incorrect and mean spirited. Many of the sources too are questionable like Beatle fan net chat sites. Read through it. Giuliano is said to be a liar, a theif, a poor writer etc. Even his correct birthdate has been refused inclusion. Wiki has a fatal flaw in quoting information from the internet which is well known to be very questionable. Newspaper articles too can be wrong. The height of this Wiki Cult thinking is one editors REFUSAL to recieve a CERTIFIED COPY of Giuliano's birth certificate to prove his birthdate of SEPTEMBER 11, 1953. When Wiki worships the internet as THE source for it's articles it's credibility falls. Curious too is the non understanding that TO REPEAT A LIBEL IS A LIBEL. Thus, Giuliano is said herein to be a THEIF! This, despite Wiki's warning to please remove actionable or libelious material. Someday some punter will sue the ass off Wiki and one can sure this sloppy policy will cease. Wiki is kind of pot smokers fantasy. A global manifest to be edited by...ANYONE! Nice pipe dream but a dubious reality. If and when a big lawsuit ever lands on their Florida doorstep let's hope it wakes the Wiki folks out of their fog! A DOOMED CONCEPT NOT IN TOUCH WITH THE LITIGIOUS REALITY OF MODERN LIFE! And NO...this is NOT a THREAT OF LITIGATION but rather COMMENTARY on this article and the Wiki Mind embraced so readily by people with no girlfriends and too much time on their hands. GEEK ALERT! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.120.183.199 (talk) 23:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

You write, "When Wiki worships the internet as THE source for it's [sic] articles it's [sic] credibility falls." Straw man! More than one of us has told you what Wikipedia's actual policy is -- that information must have been published somewhere (in print or online). I assure you that that policy was not crafted as part of a conspiracy to defame you. On that basis, your deletion of the incident of stealing from Pete Townshend -- a statement that is fully sourced in accordance with Wikipedia policy -- is unjustified. If the quotation in Eye Weekly is inaccurate, demand that Eye Weekly publish a retraction; if you don't get satisfaction, sue them. Under U.S. law, you are clearly a public figure (at least a limited-purpose public figure), so your defamation suit against the Wikimedia Foundation would fail unless you could show that we published with knowledge of the statement's falsity or in reckless disregard thereof. Our reliance on published sources (even if they turn out to be false) means we win the lawsuit.

This latest instance of vandalism on your part has convinced me that we need to go back to semi-protection. You should not be editing your own article. You can't get around this rule by claiming that you're actually Giuliano's uncle, or a fan who's a big drama queen, or some other story. JamesMLane t c 03:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

STONED movie credits went to three authors

The current entry credits one of Giuliano's books as the basis for the movie STONED. According to an article in Salon.com (link below), the movie's credits show that it was actually "based on and inspired by" two other books as well, Terry Robbins' "Who Killed Christopher Robin" and Anna Wohlin's "The Murder of Brian Jones." As these are the official sources according to the movie's producer, I think these other authors should be mentioned as well if the Giuliano credit is mentioned. It seems only fair to give them credit for their work. Here is the link that I referred to: http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2006/03/24/stoned/index1.html Tattooconnection 02:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection?

Giuliano continues to edit this article, incessantly removing unfavorable passages, and adding complimentary ones with no citation of the source. His ongoing misconduct has convinced me that we need to go back to semi-protection. He is violating WP:COI among other policies. I was inclined to allow him to continue, in the hope that his participation would improve the article, but that hope has been dashed. He appears to be unwilling or unable even to read and understand Wikipedia policies, let alone follow them.

If the article is semi-protected, he will have to register an account to edit, and we can seek to have the account blocked if he continues this pattern of abuse. Before I make the request, though, I'm soliciting the opinions of other editors. (That means other editors who have registered accounts and who have enough of a history to make it clear that they aren't Giuliano.) Comments? JamesMLane t c 03:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. --Goochelaar 07:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Firstly Geoffrey Giuliano resides in an ashram in Bangalore India and is not the person who has been editing the article. Second, it is clear that this article has become a personal vendetta for several editors who purposefully ignore the vast body of Giuliano's favorable WELL SOURCED reviews etc (included herein) and instead choose ONLY unfavorable material to include. When anyone challenges their agenda they seek to have them blocked from editing! Wherein is the fairness and dispassion there? Again, I reassert that anyone can see a pattern of abuse aimed at Mr. Giuliano. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.183.199 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 6 April 2007

Semi-protection will prevent those malicious editors from conducting their vile conspiracy behind a cloak of anonymity. They will have to perpetrate their vandalism under their registered account names. The accumulated evidence of their horrific misdeeds can then be presented to the Arbitration Committee so that they can receive the punishment they so richly deserve.

Now, disabling the sarcasm mode, I'll add that someone has edited the article and claimed, more than once, to be Giuliano, desisting only when advised that the WP:COI policy means that Giuliano shouldn't edit this article. We've seen article edits and talk-page comments from Notinsane and a variety of anons, all with a common pattern: ardently pro-Giuliano, disdaining Wikipedia policies, ignoring helpful comments from experienced editors, and using all caps frequently. It is my personal opinion that all these edits are from the same person, and that person is Giuliano. At any rate, semi-protection means only that "you" (his uncle or his fan or his gardener or whatever today's story is) will have to register an account and use that account to edit. That shouldn't be much of an imposition.

By the way, I for one think the article could be improved by the additon of some suitably encyclopedic pro-Giuliano material (conforming to WP:NPOV and WP:ATT). It's hard to find either the time or the motivation to do that, however, when I have to keep cleaning up the messes you make. If you would try taking a break from editing the article, and confine yourself to suggestions made here (specific suggestions, with citations, not yet another dump of your collection of favorable reviews rendered in all caps), you would probably have a better chance of seeing an article that you could live with. Frankly, you've demonstrated that you're temperamentally unsuited to collaborative editing. JamesMLane t c 09:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that semi-protection for a while might be a good idea. I'm guessing it would encourage the use of the talk page, which should be a good thing. Multiple editors have tried to work with the anonymous editor, but it doesn't seem to be doing much good. I do also agree that the article has a negative slant to it, and I'd love to see a more balanced view. That balanced view shouldn't happen because the subject just deletes stuff he doesn't like though. --Onorem 10:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I tend to doubt the "ashram in Bangalore" story. Here is a link that shows two pictures of Giuliano on the set of "Thailand Adrenaline," a production that an anonymous contributor here recently claimed had just begun filming. http://www.conanstevens.com/acting-movies-tv-film/tall-actor-blog/bangkok-adrenaline---mansion-bad-guys-and-kidnappers-and-how-i-almost-quit.html Tattooconnection 12:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That is "Bangkok Adrenaline". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.185.120 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 6 April 2007

References

The reference sections is screwed up can someone please fix it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.185.120 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 7 April 2007

What's the alleged screwup? Citation format isn't uniform but that's because Wikipedia has more than one permitted format, and different editors use different templates.

And will you please start signing your comments? You simply type four tildes at the end, like so: ~~~~ to sign and time-stamp your comment. Then everyone will love you. Or at least dislike you a little less. JamesMLane t c 01:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"Citation needed" and semi-protection

The anon added extensive unsourced material. I tagged several points as needing citation. Since then, the page has since been semi-protected., so the anon can't add references without creating an account, which he seems loath to do.

Nevertheless, the semi-protection doesn't provide an exemption from basic Wikipedia policies. Any anon or new accountholder who can't directly edit the article should provide the information here, so that one of the registered editors can add it. As per Wikipedia policy, material that's tagged and that isn't bolstered with a citation will be removed, regardless of the semi-protection. JamesMLane t c 01:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Collaborations?

There may be some quality content that can be added based on the "collaborations" that are mentioned in the "Literary Works" section, but that whole section needs to be improved by adding the specific details of what those "collaborations" were.

The reason I say this is that in the "Films and Media" section, it is claimed that Giuliano has "written for, and or recorded with" George Harrison. How one accomplishes such a feat given Harrison's statement that he met Giuliano for a total of thirty minutes is hard to imagine, but in that section, it IS duly imagined.

The full explanation of Giulano's "collaboration" with Harrison on a song called Mandalay is given on Giuliano's website. It would be just a little too mind-bending for me to repeat it here, so I'll just give the link. I think reading it will persuade editors of the need to investigate, elaborate, and generally tighten up any references anywhere in the article to "collaborations." It seems likely that, even if the story happened exactly as described, Harrison was never consciously aware that he "collaborated" with Giuliano. Or maybe he was--could that be the reason the only quality recording of the song was later sold as "used tape"? http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:7lemAhI_4hwJ:www.geoffreygiuliano.com/New/music.htm+geoffrey+giuliano+mandalay+geoffreygiuliano.com/&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us Tattooconnection 02:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The basis for the claim of a "collaboration" with Dr. Timothy Leary is apparently the fact that Leary wrote the afterword for a book of interviews that Giuliano and his wife compiled. The afterword is on a list of Leary's writings that's included in the Timothy Leary wiki entry. Here's the reference itself: The Lost Beatles Interviews Leary, Timothy (Afterword) and Geoffrey Giuliano, Brenda Giuliano. Unless Giuliano and Leary wrote the afterword together, I don't see this as a collaboration. The late Dr. Leary wrote it, and he should be given the credit. If there's another Giuliano-Leary "collaboration" out there somewhere, I'd like to hear about it and see a source reference.Tattooconnection 19:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's another interesting collaboration. The positive review for the cookbook from Deborah Lynn Black. That's the same research associate of Giuliano's who wrote to the EYE to defend him. I will amend that part soon to reflect that relationship, which is of course mentioned earlier in the article. I think that fleshes out the context a bit and makes the article start to really hang together coherently. By the way, I am very encouraged, it is becoming much more positive. If some citations can be filled in, it will have really made some progress towards balance.Tattooconnection 22:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Given that the Black review isn't from an independent source, I don't see any reason to mention it in the article. I'd favor deleting it rather than amending it. As for the overall article, don't get too encouraged until we see what happens when "Bangkokbasher" can edit the article, which will be any day now. My prediction is that the holder of this new account will try to remove passages that reflect negatively on Giuliano; will add pro-Giuliano material, without citations and probably with some spelling errors; will in other ways display a lack of understanding of Wikipedia policies; and will either claim to be Giuliano or deny it, whichever seems more advantageous at the time. JamesMLane t c 10:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right. I've looked on the Cooks.com website and I see no reference to the other review mentioned either. Back to the more direct meaning of "collaboration"--the "written for and/or recorded with" reference in the case of Ben E. King (Films and Other Media section) seems to be that he "recorded" with Ben E. King by interviewing him about John Lennon for an audio recording called "John Lennon Forever." Ben E. King's interview track is entitled "Singer Ben E. King compliments Lennon on his great work." This can be found at http://www.artistdirect.com/nad/store/artist/album/0,,258038,00.html I think that the idea that he "recorded" with Ben E. King is a little bit of a grandiose expression of the apparent fact that he interviewed him, and recorded the interview. If we want to include somewhere that he interviewed Ben E. King, I think that would be accurate. However, I don't think this qualifies as a lively arts collaboration of any kind, and that it should be removed in this context to avoid implying that. Tattooconnection 15:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The claimed collaboration with Steve Holly in the "Literary Works" section appears also to have been an interview, identical to the Ben E. King situation. It's contained on a CD called "The Beatles--In Their Own Words." The CD can be seen at: http://www.palleyd.com/closeouts.html Again, I don't see this as anything other than an interview, it doesn't show that he "recorded" with him. I suppose a phone call could be recorded, anything could be recorded, but when you're talking about music artists, saying that you recorded with someone has a meaning that is commonly understood in our society, and this doesn't fulfill that meaning.Tattooconnection 19:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've searched extensively and can find no reference at all to a collaboration of any kind between Giuliano and Richie Havens. As it isn't sourced, I'm going to remove it. If anyone knows of any collaboration between them, please let me know.

Giuliano did co-author a book with Julia Baird, John Lennon's half sister, but I don't think I'd describe her as a "pop luminary," and that intro needs to be reworded somehow. She has said some unfavorable things about Giuliano, and I'm trying to sort out where that discontent came into the picture.

As for the "Legs" Larry Smith reference as a collaboration, I think that is related to the same "Mandalay" track I discussed above that was used to include a claim that George Harrison "collaborated" with Giuliano. In this case, Smith sang the lead vocal. The track was not released, and although a copy of it exists, the original recording was sold as used tape. I don't consider this notable as a collaboration, and think it should be removed. However, if others believe that the convoluted tale of Mandalay, which is included in its entirety on Giuliano's website, needs to be included in the article, I have an open mind about it. Let me know your thoughts.Tattooconnection 13:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I will see if there is any clarification added to the "collaboration" with Pete Townshend. Apparently Giuliano worked for him in a street theatre troupe when Townshend was trying to do something based on his interest in the guru Meher Baba. This would probably be more interesting if presented in a more straightforward manner--here it serves only as grasping for another "collaboration" credit to add to the list.Tattooconnection 13:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Rule Breakers

Hey guys you broke your precious Wiki Cult rules here! Here's the proof from your own rules:

Semi-protection should not be used:

In a content dispute between registered users and anonymous users, with the intention to lock out the anonymous users. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bangkokbasher (talk • contribs) 02:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

Repeated vandalism, and the defense against the vandalism, don't constitute a bona fide content dispute. Still, it's encouraging to see that you're actually capable of reading Wikipedia policies when it suits your purpose. Now have a gander at WP:NPOV and WP:ATT. You have a few days to absorb the ideas of those policies before you can edit here. If, when you can edit, you again persist in ignoring Wikipedia policies, your new account will be blocked, just as your old one was. On the other hand, if you ever decide to start playing by our rules, you might find that you'll accomplish something. JamesMLane t c 04:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Charity Claims

Unsourced material in the current article refers to charities founded by Giuliano, including the Spriritual Realization Institute and another one for Widows and Children. I would like to solicit suggestions about how to examine the truth (in the broad sense) of that section. In the case of the Spiritual Realization Institute, there are some very angry accusations on the internet about the true purpose of the charity.

I know that there are reports available for purchase to show the money collected, how much was used for administrative purposes, how it was disbursed, etc. Has any such report ever been referred to on Wikipedia? Or are there other sources of information that could be tapped?

This seems to be a genuine area of controversy, but it must be addressed fairly and factually. Would it be legitimate to identify the accusations and their source if they are clearly identified as allegations or accusations? Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Thanks-- Tattooconnection 13:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Guidestar.org, a site that provides information about non-profits, shows a record for the Spiritual Realization Institute, but no record at all for Vrndavana Widows & Children's Trust. As all of the information about the charities is unsourced, I am removing the Vrndavana reference, at least until more information is provided about its charter, etc., that would show its existence. Tattooconnection 16:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The article currently states that: "According to the official website of SRI (srilotus.com) in the late 1990s Giuliano founded the umbrella charity, SRI/The Spiritual Realization Institute (and later Sri Radhe International Inc.) which manifested as a free veggie food pantry (Dasa Food For All) in Lockport, New York, as well as an animal sanctuary, Devotional Yoga center, spiritual retreat and not-for-profit publishing house."

However, there is no site whatsoever at www.srilotus.com, and a Google search does not indicate that there is a site either. I think this passage needs to be changed or removed. Apparently this non-profit was established at some point, but I think it is potentially misleading to source information given about it with a website that does not exist. If there is an existing website, the correct url should be provided. Tattooconnection 15:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Quotations

The following reference to Library Journal was added to the article:

"Non-fans may be put off by this image of Lennon as a drug addict and paranoiac. This account is for vouyers and fans with deconstructive tendincies and is one of the best, most detailed books available on this subject."

I checked the Library Journal website, and the passage in question actually reads:

"Non-fans will be put off by this image of Lennon as cad, drug addict, and paranoiac; this often sensationalized account is for voyeurs and fans with deconstructive tendencies and is one of the best, most detailed books available on this subject."

I am changing the quotation in the article to relect what Library Journal actually said. I am also changing the reviewer's name--it is Carlson, not Carson. I am also removing the "prestigious" adjective for Library Journal. If a publication is prestigious, that descriptor is superfluous. Finally, I am correcting the spelling errors in that passage. Tattooconnection 12:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

So the editor who is or isn't Giuliano doctored the quotation to delete the reference to his work as "often sensationalized". Not exactly a surprise, given this editor's history. Good catch! JamesMLane t c 02:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

More Unfair Biased Editing

Revolver WAS NOT published by Indigo Editions. It was published by John Blake London (check Amazon.com) I removed the error.

The libel about SRI on the internet is beyond words. It is brazen and outragious. Why is it Giuliano's website MAY NOT be quoted and EVERYONE ELSE CAN? That anti Giuliano / SRI website was put up by crazy ex-hare krsnas and is the subject of a lawsuit. Please have the decency NOT to repeat this garbage. SRI has done a lot of good work.

Now here's PROOF of Giuliano's LEGAL name at birth and the date. Will you please include it? If you want the FACTS look at Giuliano's website ok? Here's the URL for the birth details. PLEASE AMEND:

http://www.geoffreygiuliano.com/New/G2timline.htm

And why is the cooks.com GOOD review when a Beatles CHAT site with a BAD review MAY BE USED? Play fair come on! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bangkokbasher (talk • contribs) 07:03, 19 April 2007

Publisher of Revolver: This point is raised with regard to a paragraph about somebody apparently disseminating emails falsely reporting that Giuliano had died. All that tells us is that someone had a grudge against him and was an adolescent (in mental age, at least). It doesn't seem very informative about Giuliano himself. I'm removing the whole paragraph.

SRI: If there is a published source for information about the alleged lawsuit, please provide the citation. Also, please stop making assertions here without this kind of information. You have been told a dozen times about Wikipedia policies in this regard. As for the alleged libel about SRI, is the passage you object to still in the article? In a quick skim, I didn't find it. Please specify what you think should be changed or removed.

Name: Your website is an acceptable published source embodying your contention that "Giuliano" was your birth name, so I've included it. I've also included the contrary information from another acceptable source, the newspaper articles. Before you offer to resolve the inconsistency for us, please read WP:NOR. Please. Pretty please with sugar on top.

Review on cooks.com: Tattooconnection, in removing the mention, noted that it was unsourced. It had been tagged "citation needed" but there was no citation. There are other assertions in the current version of the article that are also so tagged and will be removed if they aren't soon backed up with acceptable sources. JamesMLane t c 09:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I checked Cooks.com and saw no reviews. Their content is supplied by the gathering of recipes from those who stumble onto the site. Tattooconnection 12:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

La La Land

Why use Giuliano's correct birth name from his website but ignore the birthdate? If you use one use both. I added it.

Also re: his correct name. One newspaper got it wrong a long time ago. Published it and ANOTHER repeated the mistake. That happens all the time. Should not the author know his own name? Why would he lie about it? If HIS website says it why would that not be enough? When OTHER websites say somewthing you don't qualify it with other info. Must we repeat everything someone says about someone? How is that constructive? Fair? You have the most unimpeacable source from his website. Run with it.

If a review is sourced with the article (EXAMPLE "the New York Times said....") why isn't that good enough? If you want it sourced another way then do it please. I gave you the info but I am RETARDED re: computers. Can you please do it?

Also I gave you ALL the good reviews from Giuliano's website. They are saved on your site. WHY only use the bad ones? Please go into the ones I sent and use some of them. ONLY FAIR. They are ALL sourced.

And hey thew cooks.com was NOT made up man. They just CHANGED the site.

More later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bangkokbasher (talk • contribs) 23:37, 19 April 2007

Selective Reporting

If you except ONE element from Giuliano's website as a source why not other information? His date of birth is right there! Also you ask for a source for details of his family life, children's birth and marriage etc and it's all there on the same timeline page. Why are you doing this? It is wrong. Please either bow out or include ALL of the sourced facts from his website. How can you pick and choose. And STOP hiding behind this silly pot smokers Wiki policy nonsense. You KNOW you have the ultimate Giuliano source right here. It's one thing to question self promotion but another to get into a pissing match over birth dates and childrens names etc. Don't you think Mr. Giuliano is aware of these MUNDANE facts? PLEASE stop hurting innocent people's lives and let's finish this article together and lock it up. Mr. Giuliano will fly ANYWHERE in the world to meet with you and bring FULL documentation with him for you review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bangkokbasher (talk • contribs) 09:32, 20 April 2007

(End of anon talk, new editor starts talking below)

There are many sources of information, some more authoritative than others.

For example, the name "Jeffrey Juliana" has been removed from the article countlesss times by anons, editors claiming to be Giuliano, and editors claiming they are not Giuliano. However, I believe that "Jeffrey Joseph Juliana" is Giuliano's birth name. He married Brenda Lee Black under that name on August 6, 1977, in Hillsborough County, Florida.

Because the article currently states that he was married in 1976, that also needs to be changed.

You can find all of this through a search for "Jeffrey Juliana" at Ancestry.com.

Editors should continue to check all facts using all reputable sources available.

Tattooconnection 19:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Why Only Bad Reviews?

Here's the BIG point. WHY ONLY BAD REVIEWS? You have ALL the good ones we sent you. Seems ODD you only publish the BAD ones and DELETE the MANY good ones. WIKI THAT!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bangkokbasher (talk • contribs) 05:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Tattoo Is Biased

Hey bro...why only BAD reviews? Whats up with that. There are like a dozen BAD ones over GG's career and a hundred good ones. And you got them all. Why don't you use them blood? You got a problem with Giuliano? Doesn't seem very WIKI to me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bangkokbasher (talk • contribs)

I discovered that the Library Journal review that was included in the article had been edited, apparently to make it appear more positive. While restoring the words that were omitted, I resolved not to add any reviews. It is possible that I will do so in the future if I have the opportunity to examine reviews in their entirety in the publications in which they orginally appeared. Tattooconnection 16:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

In general, a Wikipedia article about an author doesn't include a section of excerpts from reviews. In this article, that section needs substantial trimming -- not because the selection of reviews is supposed to track mathematically the favorable/unfavorable ratio of all reviews, but because there's no need to have a selection of reviews at all.

A general point that's made in several reviews of Giuliano's work is that he often writes negatively about his subject. That fact can be stated, along with the observation that some critics consider his work a welcome relief from the hagiographic tendencies of biographers, while others criticize him for scandalmongering or sensationalism or whatever. JamesMLane t c 01:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That might be a fair way of looking at it, although I think that observation mainly applies to the celebrity biographies of McCartney, Harrison, and Townshend, all of which involved some original research or "wheedling his way into situations" as described in the Harrison quote. The Lennon book could also be included in that category, with the controversy over the source material and the broad brush techniques and "artistic license" of its writing representing its apex.

Another category that he has specialized in is "found material" such as compilations of interviews involving little original writing.

A third category is "potboiler celebrity bios" that summarize other work but contain very little original content.

In terms of reviews, it seems that the first category is the only one that has been reviewed to any significant degree, although there are a few reviews for the second category. The third category is for the most part ignored by reviewers. It is probably perceived by them as something that is for a niche market of fans who will buy anything pertaining to that celebrity. Tattooconnection 15:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There was a more liberal environment in the 1960's and '70's, and celebrities spoke openly about their personal conflicts, sexuality, drug use, etc. However, as a conservative outlook came to the U.S. in the 1980's, biographies began to be written that presented what had been common knowledge in a sensational and moralistic context.

For example, the idea that John Lennon was a drug user--shocking and scandalous! But in the late '60's, he released a song about the experience of heroin withdrawal. In the 1970's, he told Jann Wenner in a Rolling Stone interview that he had taken LSD countless times. In a 1980 Playboy interview, he spoke openly about the fact that he still smoked marijuana and used magic mushrooms occasionally.

The WASHINGTON POST review that is included in the current version of the article makes an important point when it states that "Giuliano reveals the not-so-shocking news that Lennon was not an altogether happy man." To integrate the review section, I think that the quote should be preserved along with a mention of the historical context of these types of biographies. Tattooconnection 14:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

James rocks!

You are soooooooo right James! NO REVIEWS IN WIKI!!! I TOOK EM OUT K?

Bangkok Basher...

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bangkokbasher (talk • contribs) 07:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

If you reread my comment more carefully, you'll see that I didn't favor the complete elimination of the information, which is what you've done. Even more important is the context: I didn't issue an edict in my capacity as a Big Editor Dude, but rather began a discussion on the talk page before making a major change. That's how collaborative editing generally works.

Regardless of what we do about reviews, the information from Eye about you and Pete Townshend isn't a review. It should certainly stay in. As for the rest, I don't favor the complete elimination, so I'm reverting to allow more time for discussion on the talk page to result in a consensus. JamesMLane t c 09:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You should RUN THE WORLD bwana! I LOVE YOU! NOT Geoffrey —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bangkokbasher (talk • contribs) 09:19, 27 April 2007 JamesMLane t c 14:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

In your edit summaries, your references to me grossly misstate my views. Please stop it. JamesMLane t c 17:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

ALL REVIEWS SHOULD BE TAKEN OUT UNTIL THIS IS WORKED OUT. TO LEAVE ONLY BAD ONES UP IS UN FAIR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bangkokbasher (talk • contribs) 10:25, 11 May 2007

If you want to contribute constructively to working it out, I suggest that you write a passage that distills the information from the reviews, summarizing/characterizing both the positive and the negative, and that you post that proposed passage here for other editors' comments. JamesMLane t c 16:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

sure. just leave out all reviews util we all agree. look tatto digs up a yoko quote i will counter with ten complimentary ones from very big people. of course ono hates giuliano...he took her on and won. do we really need to play this all out? if you want to ok. i am in for the duration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bangkokbasher (talk • contribs) 17:20, 11 May 2007

You're not in for the next 24 hours, at least. Props to Goochelaar for doing the scutwork to assemble the record of your violations.

You apparently hope to wear us down. You won't. We have a lot of patience.

Our patience isn't infinite, though. If you continue your defiance of Wikipedia policies, and continue to ignore all the advice you've been given, you'll find yourself repeatedly blocked. Eventually you'll discover what happens if you actually succeed in exhausting our patience.

You might usefully spend your enforced vacation reading Wikipedia:Disruptive editing to see if it rings any bells. JamesMLane t c 05:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the props. I have not yet lost hope to see the day when Bangkokbasher (or whoever-else-will-continue-his-crusade) understands some basic Wikipedia principles... Goochelaar 09:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

He seems to have learned nothing from his block, a failure that undermines that hope. At this point, my money is on perma-ban, followed by sockpuppetry to evade the ban. I hope I'm wrong, though. JamesMLane t c 07:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

ALTHOUGH GIULIANO LOATHES ONO AND IS PROUD TO HAVE HER HATE HIM TATOOCONNECTION IS REPEATEDLY VANDALIZING ARTICLE. ALL REVIEWS TO BE LEFT OUT UNTIL THIS MATTER RESOLVED ON TALK PAGE. PLEASE MOVE TO BAN TATTOO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bangkokbasher (talk • contribs) 20:36, 11 May 2007

9/11

Is it true he faked his own death after 9/11 or is that just disgruntled Beatle people?70.29.78.2 (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This was reported at the time (citing sources at Giuliano's own company) on Steve Mariucci's reputable "Beatle News" page, and was later retracted once the truth came out. Mariucci does not archive his old news items, but a copy of this particular entry was pasted and posted here: http://bomplist.xnet2.com/0109/msg01805.html 71.190.30.89 (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone is putting statements in here that his children are drug addicts and other libelous statements. Wiki people should watch for this and remove them as per Wiki Policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.183.26.17 (talk) 11:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You are correct about the "Beatle News" story, but I don't think it's possible to verify it, because - as I recall - that was based on an email that was received by Mariucci. I hadn't noticed anything about the kids being drug addicts. I think that may stem from an arrest story that was reported in the Lockport newspaper. I've never seen anything in any reputable source that indicated any of them are drug addicts. Oldsmobile (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Geoffrey Giuliano/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I found this to be an extreamly accurate, honest and unbiased account of a talented, multi-facted, compassionate man.

Last edited at 10:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 14:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)