Talk:Mo Foster

Assessment

Approaching a B-class, has multiple subheadings with good content, and a useful image. However it is very short of references, and the image is fair use, not completely free, when the person is alive and not a recluse. Have you tried sending him an email and asking if he would be willing to contribute a free image? User:Videmus Omnia/Requesting free content is a great guide on that. Thorough references would make it a B-class, a free image isn't completely required, but would help. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

B-class. As per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment I don't do GA evaluation, as Wikipedia:Good article nominations is a different project, and requires more work to evaluate properly (while Stub/Start/B is a fairly quick evaluation), but just as a brief starting comment, a lot of the sections are very listy. They say: "Mo Foster has also worked with (long list of names)" or "Mo Foster has also worked on (long list of titles)" or similar. That's all right for B-class, which mostly requires that most of the content for a good article be there, not as much style; but I suspect GA or higher reviewers might have issues with the quality of the prose. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

1. (cur) (last) 16:17, September 27, 2007 Reswobslc (Talk | contribs | block) (14,511 bytes) (Third revert of this same content. Read WP:BLP.) (rollback | undo)
2. (cur) (last) 16:14, September 27, 2007 WebHamster (Talk | contribs | block) (15,183 bytes) (Undid revision 160742640 by Reswobslc (talk) rv bad faith vandalism) (undo)

Folks, you both mean well. May I suggest there is room for compromise here? It is true that unsourced controversial information about living persons should be removed immediately, per Wikipedia:Biography of living persons. That said, saying that someone is a vegetarian and loves humor is not likely to be grounds for a libel suit. Is there, maybe, an interview with Foster that says that that this information can be sourced to? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Reswobslc is currently engaged in a bad faith exercise due to a recent article of his being submitted to AfD by myself and ultimately being deleted. The current edits to this article demonstrate this. All the information in the "personal section" of the Mo Foster page have been gleaned from his book, his website and his work. User:Reswobslc is currently attempting to use wiki-lawyering to disguise his attempts at childish revenge. ---- WebHamster 20:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly no one will sue over what he likes to eat and laugh at, but comments like him being a "die hard New Scientist subscriber" and liking "toilet humor" are closer to the edge. It becomes even murkier when the person alleging a "die hard" subscription to New Scientist is also posting references to New Scientist elsewhere in Wikipedia, like here and here just for a couple recent examples in the last 24 hours. One would suspect it's User:WebHamster, not Mo Foster, that's the die-hard subscriber - especially when he protests the removal of these references. While the addition of sources (despite my inability to verify them) is enough for me to not continue deleting the text, it's fair to point out that this edit deserved special scrutiny. Reswobslc 21:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

What planet are you on? ---- WebHamster 23:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like during your current bout of wiki-lawyering you seem to have conveniently forgotten all about "assume good faith". Your latest vendetta seems to be going awry somewhat. The fact of the matter is that I don't read New Scientist at all. It's too boring for me, but, and you don't seem to have considered this possibility, Mo sent me those articles as he thought I'd be interested in them. I really think you are scraping the barrel in your pursuit of vengeance. In over 5000 edits I've added to 2 articles based on NS articles (in less than half a dozen edits I guess), not the nefarious NS advertiser you appear to be making me out to be. I'd recommend quitting now before you get yourself into wiki-trouble. Your contrib list is already giving me all the evidence I need to make a complaint of stalking. I haven't done so so far, but if you persist I will. ---- WebHamster 01:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to make a mountain out of a Mo hill here. If you really have this book, and Mo himself said everything you said, your references and additions would be rock solid if you simply attributed them to Mo himself, and indicate that he published him in (place, page number, etc.) of his own autobiography (if that is indeed so). Your choice to insert this content unsourced into the article multiple times when the rules clearly say not to, is no reflection of my "wiki-behavior". It is not "wiki-lawyering" to insist that you cite your sources when you make statements about living people. Nevertheless, as you can see I have requested an outside opinion, as you clearly consider mine biased. Reswobslc 07:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion request

I am requesting a third opinion as to whether the newly added Mo Foster#Personal life section is sufficiently sourced. Edit history and the previous section will show a little bit of an edit war - where I and its author repeatedly reverted one another, and its author sees my actions as being in bad faith. As objectively as I can tell, both rationales (WP:BLP requires everything about living persons to be strongly sourced, versus some of these items are likely uncontroversial) have merit.

Although the section's author has "sourced" them, he has done so by pasting the same "reference" five times into the section, none of them being anything more than a generic reference to the title of a nearly 400 page book. Even if the statements are true, I am not sure how one can make a statement that somebody is a "die hard" subscriber of any magazine or ideology on Wikipedia without it being original research, or without at least attributing it to someone who made and published such a statement (i.e. "In his autobiography (ref), Foster describes himself as a "die-hard" subscriber" if that is indeed the case.). It is not as though the author doesn't know how to cite sources (see this example of his excellent job providing sources for the gay lifestyle article Glory hole). My concern is that the sourcing is likely to be bogus and overly broad (after all, if he really has access to this book, why isn't he adding something more specific when he certainly knows he could and should?). If people everywhere started to write comments about living people and broadly sourced them with nothing more than the name of a book, Jimbo would be jumping all over it. Overshadowing my concern (and the reason for the third party request) is the possibility that these items may be uncontroversial enough that WP:BLP doesn't matter here, or at least matters less, taking note that while WP:BLP is still a very important rule, that it's still possible to go ridiculously overboard with it, and the line has to be drawn somewhere. Reswobslc 06:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

With reference to the Glory hole article, as per usual your accuracy is flawed. If you'd read the article history instead of my contrib list you would have seen that I didn't supply any of those references. In that article all I did was clean it up and format the reference coding properly. ---- WebHamster 12:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

As you went to great lengths to make sure that I sourced every single sentence in the "Personal info" and deleted everything that wasn't, and I explained that the details in that section were gleaned from his book. You left me very little choice but to do as I have done. Perhaps if you spent less time assuming bad faith and indulging in paranoia about my motives you will allow me to continue to contribute to Wikipedia instead of having to clean up behind your trail of wiki-stalking. As for using the same reference 5 times, I did so using the correct formatting for a "multi-reference". Now unless you have managed to impart something useful to the article, instead of demonstrating chagrin because your attempts to be disruptive are being thwarted, may I suggest that you go edit another article that you have at least some semblance of knowledge about. It's totally apparent you have nothing useful to add to Mo Foster's article because. Alternatively may I suggest you go buy his book so you can appease your paranoia and check that the sources are accurate. To help you though, and to explain partly why I haven't been specific in the references, there are 2 British editions of the book (each considerably different to each other) and 2 US-specific editions which again are different to each other and different to the UK versions. Additionally there is a rewrite in progress for a 3rd edition which is different again from all the other editions. As a good faith tip from one editor to another, in the main I steer clear of articles on, say, Nuclear fission because I have no knowledge of the subject, perhaps you should to? ---- WebHamster 09:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion. First, some observations:

• In looking at the edit history, I see that 3RR was violated on September 27th by WebHamster. That is a considerable offense - one that can get you blocked from Wikipedia. Please be careful of this.
• The current tone of that section is unacceptable. I looked at the reference that is used there, and I see nothing on there that shows that he "loves scatological humor" - or that would make his "enjoyment of the Viz comic a given." Moreover, that source is unacceptable, as it is an order page and does not actually speak to the information that the section claims. Perhaps you meant to reference the book itself; if you did, there are templates to help you with that.
• The sourcing in the section is a bit much, but I think the section needs an overhaul anyway, so that would probably be rectified.
• WebHamster, your tone in your last comment is antagonistic, and I would remind you of WP:CIVIL.
• I'm not really sure why the music sample is in the Personal Life section; should it not be in a section that talks about the music?

Having said that, I think the best solution is for both authors to come together and attempt a rewrite of the section. Perhaps a good place to start is to change the current section so it sounds more encyclopedic and less POV. I would be happy to check over the rewrites, if you want. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 13:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've used the above suggestions to rewrite the section. I've reduced the effect of POV and used more neutral terms, though given that this is information on Mo's enjoyments/interests it can never be totally NPOV as I am attempting to portray Mo's POV on certain things. To answer your question about the music sample. I take it you didn't listen to it? If you had you would have realised that it's a reference to the comment about toilet humour. As regards the alleged 3RR infringement. I disagree. They were reversions of vandalism. Reswobslc did not just delete what he considered to be violations of WP:BLP, he deleted everything including valid and non-controversial information. In my view that is out-and-out vandalism. He may assert that it was BLP, but my answer to that is WP:HORSE. ---- WebHamster 14:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism thing is getting to be a bit of a WP:DEADHORSE. There's no merit to it, there never was. Let me help you say what you want to say, and keep it within the guidelines. It is OK to insert points of view as long as you attribute them to a source. That means, the article factually describes them as somebody else's viewpoint, rather than appearing to assert the viewpoint itself. Compare "Mo likes jazz music" to "Mo states in his autobiography that he likes jazz music". The first is an opinion - the second is an undisputable fact. You don't even need to go overboard with "Mo states..." - if you were to start your section with an introduction that clearly indicated you were commenting on his personal life based on details from his autobiography, and kept it in a neutral tone (such as avoiding "die hard" unless Mo used this term himself) and free of conclusions (he loved "this" therefore he did "that", or that his love for "that" is a given) the text would be bulletproof. The "which edition of the book" issue is not a problem - just simply cite it from which edition you have, and what part of the book - and make sure the cite mentions which edition you are using. (There's no rule that you can only cite the most recent edition of a book. As long as they are all from him, you may cite ANY edition and it's fine). If the audio file proves he likes scatological humor, posting it is unnecessary if that's the only point of posting it. Simply attributing the opinion to someone who's made it (or his autobiography as well, if he's stated this himself) is acceptable. If nobody has said it, and the conclusion is yours and is supposed to be obvious from listening to the audio, then unfortunately that's WP:OR (original research) and can't stick in the article per the rules. Reswobslc 14:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's get a few things straight, firstly do not delete my comments, secondly do not attempt to tell me what it is I want to say. The vandalism thing is not a dead horse. You deleted information that did not correspond with your lame excuse. None of what you deleted was libellous or offensive. You could have equally used citation needed tags. You chose the option that in your view would cause most upset. As far as I am concerned that is vandalism. You still haven't explained why you deleted the other material. ---- WebHamster 19:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." -Jimbo Wales (as cited at WP:BLP) Reswobslc 22:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

1) Jimbo is not always right. 2) You still deleted material after I told where it was sourced from. So this quote does not hold sway. If you wish to revere Jimbo as a messiah then please do so, just don't do it to me. Citation tags, as per custom and practice, are the de facto standard for bringing notice to unsourced information. If you delete them then it's not going to get sourced from other editors now is it? The fact that I am aware of the deletion is neither here nor there. Another editor who could have sourced it would not know to do so due to the deletion. So in this instance, Jimbo is out an out wrong. There was no offensive or libellous comment, there was no infringement of BLP, there was merely your interpretation of unsourced material to which you over-reacted for the benefits of pissing me off. You know it, I know it. That isn't going to change. Now quit following me around Wikipedia. You will notice that although I could have done the same to you I haven't. I have seen edits you have done which could be wiki-lawyered into the bit bucket, I haven't done so. The AfD that started this was correctly carried out, the consensus went against you. Live with it and move on. ---- WebHamster 22:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Your argument against 3RR does not apply. If it really was vandalism, you should have stopped before the third reversion, and instead gone to the administrators to request a block. Read Reswobslc's comment, particularly the section about comparing how to state things; he is correct. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 14:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and edited the references. If you want to cite the same reference multiple times, once the first one is named (e.g. <ref name="xyz">{{ref}}</ref>), for all the others, you just have to write <ref name="xyz" />. See WP:FOOT for more. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 15:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, but I already knew that. I didn't change the others due to laziness, as if you notice in the WP:References article it states that it's unimportant what goes in the subsequent reference tags. The end result is the same. I was only interested in the end result., but thanks anyway. As regards the 3RR, I lost count as I was having to follow the guy all over WP correcting the results of his wiki-stalking. ---- WebHamster 19:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Attempted rewrite

Okay, I'm going to take a shot at redoing the Personal Life section. Here's what I've done:

• In "The University Years," it says that he was enrolled for physics and "maths"; because this is stated here, it does not need to be reiterated in the personal section.
• The line about listening to all manner of music and always being a "Jazz lover" is excessive and does not contribute to anything.
• I changed the general tone to be a bit more encyclopedic - "he states" vs. "Mo is."
• Rather than marking each sentence with a <ref> tag, I marked only the last sentence, with the understanding that it carries for the entire section.

Let me know what you all think. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 22:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have a major problem with any of it, but perhaps if I gave you the reasoning behind firstly why I introduced a personal section in the first place and secondly why I grouped the info as I did. Although the references to science could be construed as duplication, it was there to demonstrate why he finds the New Scientist so interesting and not just sate that he is. This leads onto why the section is there. Mo is far more than just a musician and a scientist and as the article is about him, encyclopadic or not it shouldn't be about dry facts and figures. It should be about what motivates him etc. It is my intention to get this article rated as highly as possibly and that can't be done with just dry facts. None of the top ranked bio articles contain he did this, he did that. All the best ones explain why the subject did this and what motivated them to do that. This is why I attempted to show though POV (Mo's POV, not mine) his motives. He isn't just interested in Jazz, he loves it with a passion. He isn't just interested in humour he is absolutely fascinated by it and he finds it to be a sort of desert island he can disappear to to hide from the stresses of his job. The rewrite conveys none of that and as such I think it's lacking in demonstrating that. Mo, although very logical and scientific, is also very passionate about the things that interest him. He is a perfectionist and talented at lots of things. These things, which are extremely important, all come together to make Mo the man he is. This is what I've been trying to convey. Again the rewrite although factual is dry and gets none of that across and as such it isn't commensurate with what is in fact a biography rather than just another encyclopaedia article about a non-living thing.

So far in the article I've been concentrating on the straight forward facts and figures whilst referencing what I can. This is why it currently only has a start rating. If I'm limited to what you want to do I rather doubt it will ever go beyond that. The article needs an element of humanity, as all the best bio articles have. ---- WebHamster 23:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, and yes, the previous version was more friendly, but we need to maintain an encyclopedic tone. If people want that more casual version, they can read his book. In terms of explaining his motivation, I don't think that's appropriate for Wiki, and it may fall under WP:OR. We need to stick to the facts, unfortunately. Actually, I'm pretty sure that we may be violating BLP by using Mo Foster's writing as a source. It's certainly debatable whether or not the text is "unduly self-serving," but I think it's okay, so long as it does not get out of hand. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 00:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is were I disagree. This article is part of the WikiBiography project, therefore it's not just an encyclopaedic article. May I suggest you read some of the higher rated Bio articles such as Bob Marley to see what I mean about giving more in-depth information rather than just dry facts and figures. As regards violating BLP I fail to see how using Mo's own words as a source is problematic. Yes I agree if it's making claims then yes they should be verified and sourced, but when it comes to stating interests etc then there can be no more reliable source surely? I've used the book as a source primarily for things relating directly to him. Though there are a couple of references to anecdotes of other people in the book. I am well aware of WP:COI and went to great trouble to make sure that it wasn't a press release or advertising copy. I've minimised the details on the book when I could most probably make it a separate article. I have enough references to assure it's notability. Likewise I've kept the information on the albums to a minimum. I'm not really sure how you consider the article to be self-serving. Rather than alluding to it I'd be grateful if you point out where and why, I can then address it and/or change it. ---- WebHamster 01:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"Mo Foster is a respected British session musician," respected by who - his mother?!! i've just asked 10 people at random - one of whom is DJ - and nobody has ever heard of him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.76.143 (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"He is also an in-demand and highly-regarded music producer" who is he in demand by - the inland revenue? the police? highly regarded by who - no one outside your small circle of friends has ever heard of him —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.76.143 (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Respected by the half dozen magazines that have done articles about him, listed in the references section, by the publishing houses that have published his book, by the major film and television studios and record companies that have recorded his music. That's called Wikipedia:Notability, and is a somewhat more representative sample than the 10 people you have asked at random. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Page semi-protected. The reasons for notability have been clearly spelled out in the article, discussed here and on the IP's talk page. I know little about UK guitar music, but this article clearly meets Wikipedia:Notability, and deleting chunks out of it is just vandalism. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You have removed big chunks of what is a noraml and valid discussion. The IMDB reference is worthless - i can edit my own and in fact according to them i directed star wars! As for the magazines i repeat what specific page?

I am not vandalising i am trying to remove blatant crap and advertising from WP.

Based on what guidelines? Don't forget to sign your posts, it's not difficult. ---- WebHamster 14:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

As for the magazines i repeat what specific page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.76.143 (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The articles are linked to, on line at Foster's web site, with reference to specific issue and author. That is sufficient for most reference purposes. If you are suggesting that they are falsified, could you please give your reasons why? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I urge you to look again at them. Most link to the users own web-site and are not actual magazine articles but quotes allegedly taken from those magazines. Indeed all but a handful of them still exist and for those that do if you search their databases for 'Mo Foster' you will get a not found message. Check out the link to ^ Mick Ronson fansite - see what i mean? All i asked for was specific dates/edition numbers and page numbers of those magazine quotes however my qeustions were rapidly deleted. Without that information there is no way of verifying the validity of those quotes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.76.143 (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

What you request is not required per WP:RS and frankly it's not worth the effort finding the specific page numbers just to appease an obvious troll, the issues, dates and authors are there should you wish to contact the magazines directly. Additionally the fan site you mention is not a reliable source per WP:RS. Though if you really do want to look up the details you can try this Google cached page about Ronson, Van Morrison and Mo Foster on the Dutch Wonderland tour. If you scroll down about a third of the way you'll see not just the details of the event but a video of part of the performance. Lo and behold there's Mo playing bass just across from Ronson on guitar, with Peter Van Hooke on drums and Van Morrison on vocals. Yet again I fail to see what your point is other than to waste my time. Please read WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC to understand that the articles meet the criteria for all of them. Your own personal criteria for notability is immaterial and irrelevant. ---- WebHamster 18:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if anybody else is gettin' what's going on with this page...

But I think I am.

Still needs moderate editing

Setting aside a dearth of proper sources to back up statements, this article very much needs a reduction of chattiness and chaff. Wikipedia is (in theory at least) an encyclopedia. It is NOT the place for essays or critical studies. It's really not for "fun facts" trivia — for that, fans may go to a musician's personal website. And it is not WP's place to be "human" or any other warm/fuzzy sentiment.

There is a crying need for updating. Despite the present-tense persistence, the most recent fact in the body is dated 2012; aside from that, the story appears to stop dead in 2007.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mo Foster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20021231035614/http://www.mickronson.com/MickRonson/mickwith%20others.htm to http://www.mickronson.com/MickRonson/mickwith%20others.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

No died today 3 July x

Mo died today 3/7/2023 2A02:C7C:DCED:C00:2002:CC28:81E2:DF1 (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)