Talk:Imre Vallyon

Child Abuse section

Before an edit war begins, it is best that this topic be brought here for further discussion, debate over reliable sources and consensus for inclusion or reversion. I have removed the challenged content for this WP:BLP, since it seems to be in violation presently, as the charge is not sufficient to rely on one source. Furthermore, this accusation / supposed conviction is not what made the subject notable for inclusion on WP and the placement of the section seems to be non-neutral in its motives. Please state your opinions here for discussion. DO NOT revert the challenged content until the matter is resolved here first. Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. In the actual article citation the subject acknowledges the existence of the conviction on camera (check out the video); why would more sources be needed in this particular case? Actual names, such as the judge that signed off on the release of the documents to SST are included in the article. The Sunday Star Times, together with Stuff, are the biggest news outlet in New Zealand, it's a realiable source, which has brought forward new information (albeit not very positive) on Vallyon. Perhaps wording could be rephrased to a more neutral tone of voice?

Also, I can't help to notice that other references included in the original wiki are to self publicatied material, since Sounding Light Publications is owned by the subjects organization. I hope you and others can discuss this further. Thanks. marley_1f (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I completely understand where you are coming from in this matter; and that is why I wanted you to have this opportunity through a forum that would allow you backed consensus. In a matter that is only 2 days old, where a simple engine search on the name alone "Imre Vallyon" does not pull up immediate hits regarding the matter at hand as the lead topic on this subject; it is not a question of whether these sources are "factual" or even "reliable" but whether or not this is notable for inclusion. Thus the editor's reversion based on "Tabloid-style" writing. WP is not a tabloid; and unless you can find that this topic is more notable than what / why the subject is included -- or -- if more reliable sources cover the story to the point that it becomes notable; it is at present seen as being just that: non-notable. This is a common occurrence on WP; and many aspects of notable subjects are left out of articles -- even though editors feel strongly that certain elements of that subject's life should be included. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. I hope that helps a little. RE: self-publication -- I will take a closer look at this article and scrub any WP:COI. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

marley_1f This being said, if more news coverage comes to light on the matter, and reliable sources cover the event, please bring them to this talk page. Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I feel, since this is an exclusive report with signed off conviction details by judges that worked together with the journalists that investigated this case, this is certainly a very reliable source. Did you read the article and see the video? I don't want to get into an argument but I feel this is certainly NOT a tabloid but New Zealand's biggest news outlet (part of Fairfax Media). No gossip but but factual information that is backed by judges. Although the reason for including Vallyon into Wikipedia might have a different one, I feel that this information is adding to the truthfullness of the wiki. Please do check the STT article (and video) as to inform yourself on the subject. I am interested in other editors thoughts too. Thank you for taking the time to look into this! marley_1f (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

And and final thought, I can't find in the BLP regulations that more than one reliable source should have to be included. Am I missing something? And, is evidence of Vallyon himself admitting the conviction on camera not enough to mention it? marley_1f (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see why it can't be included. The source is fine -- no reason to doubt it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Continued blanking of article

As happened before, again an anonymous user with IP 61.216.123.128 has been re-editing the article in order to blank out information on Vallyon's convinction. I have reverted the edits, since cult members of this group have a history of trying to delete information on the abuse all over the internet. Could this article be protected? User:Maineartists User:Nomoskedasticity marley_1f (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, too. You can certainly bring your request / concerns to: Request for Page Protection. The article does seem to warrant attention due to the subject's recent conviction / controversy. Maineartists (talk) 13:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added an anonblock template to the article first, I'll look into page protection as soon as it happens again. Thanks again for your swift help! :) marley_1f (talk) 13:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ma.atken, I stumbled upon this talk page since you undid a typo fix I made using the semi-automated editing tool AWB) in order to revert the unconstructive additions by that IP. I just wanted to let you know that I reverted your later addition of the {{anonblock}} template. The reason is because the template is not supposed to be used on articles, rather on IP addresses talk pages after they have been blocked by an administrator. If your intentions are to minimalise unconstructive edits by IPs, you should request the page be protected at this link as quoted above. Best — Iambic Pentameter _{(talk / contribs)} 14:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Iambic Pentameter, thanks. I wasn't aware of that. I'm going to ask for temporary article protection since I expect the article will be vandalided again otherwise. marley_1f (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Not to worry, you're here in good intentions and that's all that that counts. Thanks for taking the time to improve on the project — Iambic Pentameter _{(talk / contribs)} 14:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• I think it's time this page is protected. It's clear that edit warring will accomplish nothing. IMHO Maineartists (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, I asked for temporary protection yesterday but it was declined. How do we block that anonymous user? marley_1f (talk) 06:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ma.atken: It is possible to report the IP to WP:AIV, but I'm not sure to what extent this can be classified as vandalism, requests over there only usually get approved when the user has been template warned over four times, see this example. Pages can usually be protected also for persitant "Violations of the biographies of living persons policy" (like in this protection log example) rather than vandalism which would seem (to me at least) more appropriate in this situation. I think for now it would be best to warn/explain to the IP on their talk page again exactly why it is their efforts are being reverted and ask for them to talk about it here if they wish to pursue the change they are making. Consequently, if they don't stop/comply, then add this code: {{subst:Uw-ew}} to their talk page which adds a strong warning about edit warring, and then take it down the administrator route if they don't stop. I don't feel that an admin would do anything yet until they could see that the IP was made totally aware of what they were doing and why it is problematic. Hope this helps — Iambic Pentameter _{(talk / contribs)} 15:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Removed talk page / article tags

Recently, a talk page discussion and relevant tags for this article were removed. There are statements and content within this article that need reliable sources and citations to back up specific claims. No editor has the authority to remove an entire discussion on a talk by other editors; this is not a private user talk page. Do not remove the citation tag on the article until reliable sources have been cited. Maineartists (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this was unintentional; thanks for reverting. Still I wonder what kind of better source you need for this article. The source is part the biggest news media organization of Australia/NZ - it's not some online blog that mentions abuse, it's a serious newspaper that was published. Reading the better source page' I cannot find reasons why this isn't a reliable source. The problem with these kind of cults is that investigation into it is very difficult, and the source mentions the actual sentencing reports. marley_1f (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

marley_1f It's not a question of the reliable source cited now; but more so that for a subject that is not a highly notable figure for WP inclusion, and AfD is questionable, the most outstanding claim on his page currently is this conviction that is placed in the lede but not covered within the article (something that is discouraged at WP). His notability for inclusion was originally as a writer; to now include this very strong addition to this subject enough to say this too is why he is notable, more sources should (and needs to) be cited; especially for a BLP. It actually should be removed from the lede and placed within Biography or a section all its own. However, with only one source, it would be difficult to warrant a section all its own. I hope this clears things up. Maineartists (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Maineartists I moved the info to the Biography section. Better? Thanks for your help, BTW. I'm learning fast :) marley_1f (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Some revising!

Hello to all who have been working on the page - I’m going to look into additional information to add to this article. I think the subject is most notable for being an author, and the page right now is headlining the conviction more than anything else, and I’m not entirely convinced of the reliability of the source connected to the language about his charges/jail time. Possibly changing the language about the conviction to be a little more objective would help, as well as adding onto the page. By keeping the information about the conviction but also adding on information relevant to Vallyon’s career, I can hopefully put to rest the back-and-forth editing war that seems to be happening! Rtt11^talk 15:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Controversy

Hi @Skywatcher68 I noticed you separated the subject's legal content to its own section which I think is perfect. However, I'm not sure the heading Controversy is the correct term since the content is not "controversial" but a matter of actual legal matters resulting in a trial, conviction and imprisonment. In keeping with other subjects such as Roman Polanski, Mark Walhberg, Danny Masterson, Bill Cosby, Sean Penn, etc all have similar content but are titled: Legal Issues or Sexual assault and criminal trial. I think this applies to Vallyon as well. Maineartists (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

You make a good argument. I mainly see "Controversy" sections for politicians.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)