Talk:Phil Driscoll

Rewrite

I think this article needs to be rewritten. Buyable 20:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree! This article is basically a big attack on Driscoll because of this little tax issue, because he's a Christian artist. We don't need half of the stuff on here. Scorpionman 02:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It's an all-around mess. WAVY 10 17:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

So begin writing already!!!! "I agree", "I agree".... Won't help much this way... I am not English, but will try :) User:Fc_turner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.60.61.224 (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2007‎ (UTC)

I am a Christian and I don't think it is an attack on Phil. It tells the true story - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.244.255.189 (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It was at the time. It's been cleaned up somewhat. WAVY 10 Fan 23:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

As I've surfed around Wikedpedia, I've seen that attacking Christians is the standard of "journalism" in this place. The exceptions seem to be the few that the God-haters just simply haven't had time to rip apart.

But I have confidence in Wikedpedia, that they will eventually get time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.121.212 (talk) 22:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Made an initial attempt at a rewrite

I made an initial attempt at a rewrite. As a long-time listener of Phil's music, I might be biased in the positive direction, but I don't believe that I added any content that isn't factual. Please feel free, all, to continue to revise, or even do another rewrite if what I've done still isn't up to par. Trothwell (talk) 04:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Legal tax issues

I don't think that the tax court decision is a reversal of the criminal conviction. Peter Reilly (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

POV concerns

The section "Tax evasion and conspiracy", as it is currently stands in its comparative size and emphasis, right now seems to transgress, or border on transgressing, some Wikipedia policies such as WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. I'd like to point out that a similar section in the article on Jim Bakker seems more neutral. Can we bring this section in this Phil Driscoll article more in line with Wikipedia policies? Softlavender (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, I made some tweaks to remove some extraneous information that seemed to be a bit gratuitous. Softlavender (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Facebook

Hi, here are my thoughts on why the Facebook link belongs as an External Link to the article. The Phil Driscoll Official Facebook page is an Official link, as defined by Wikipedia. Moreover, it provides the reader with significant unique content, and is not prominently linked from other official websites. In addition, Driscoll's personal site (http://www.phildriscoll.com) is completely void of content except for a few videos, and his MightyHorn site has been stripped nearly bare except for a short bio, testimony, and a few tiny pages. There is no news or updates on either site, and the only official record of what Driscoll has been doing for the past five years is the Official Facebook site. For all of those reasons, it belongs as an External Link, because it is a WP:Official Link. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 08:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Normally we would follow what it says at WP:ELNO (#10), but it does say, "normally to be avoided", and from what you have said, I would agree that it could be allowed. But, I would suggest putting a hidden message saying to see discussion, if someone else tries to remove it. --Musdan77 (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that's necessary, because the first line of WP:ELNO says "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject", which this clearly is. Softlavender (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. It's a complete violation of WP:ELNO. If he had no official website it would be a different matter. He should either link the two or abandon the "official one".

And a {{official website}} should be used. Deleting is a childish move. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Please read the entire discussion above. I can repeat it here if you like. Softlavender (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

No need. I read it and I understand it. What you don't understand is that it should be avoided and since we can avoid it, we should. I'm not opposed to removing the link to Driscol's site in favour of the Facebook page since it's more up-to-date, but both is daft. I get that not all artists have a PR staff and budget to maintain multiple locations. I trust that you have both the subject's and Wikipedia's best interest in mind and can make the decision without further input. In short, both are not required and only one should be listed. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The Phil Driscoll Official Facebook page is an Official link, as defined by Wikipedia. Moreover, it provides the reader with significant unique content, and is not prominently linked from other official websites. In addition, Driscoll's personal site (http://www.phildriscoll.com) is currently void of content except for a few videos, and his MightyHorn site has been stripped nearly bare except for a short bio, testimony, and a few tiny pages. There is no news or updates on either site, and the only official record of what Driscoll has been doing for the past five years is the Official Facebook site. For all of those reasons, it belongs as an External Link, because it is a WP:Official Link. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

So if his Facebook page is the official website, remove the other site altogether. It's not as complicated as that. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

As with many highly notable people, he has more than one official website, including MightyHorn.com. Softlavender (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

On 7 March 2015, you wrote that http://www.phildriscoll.com "is currently void of content". So if it's an official site, why is not maintained? If he has more than one official site are any of them maintained? I love his music, but don't use WP:PEACOCK terms to make your case after you've made statements to the contrary earlier in the discussion ("As with many highly notable people"). Domains are cheap to get and run so it has little to do with notability. The trick is that websites are only useful to readers if they're maintained. In short, I think that if you want to make his Facebook page the EL, that would be fine. If you want to have both, you have a problem and should probably ask for input either through finding a Wikipedia:Third opinion, a noticeboard, taking it to a project for input or other form of dispute resolution. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

He is very notable, and has had a 45-year multi-award-winning instrumental/singing/ministerial career. His sites used to have content but he apparently took them down a few years ago, and apparently has prioritized other things other than filling in his brand-new sites. Until that happens, the official Facebook site is by far the most informative official site, so until his sites become fleshed out with content, the Facebook page becomes an official site. It's not a social-networking site -- you can't "Friend" him or vice versa -- it's the official Facebook site of a public figure. Softlavender (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. So do you intend to remove his domain and add his Facebook page or will we continue to walk around this issue for a while longer?

BTW, might horn should probably be removed since it's been under construction for as long as we've had this discussion. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion there's no reason to remove PhilDriscoll.com or the official Facebook page. MightyHorn.com was operational as of mid 2014; I don't know why it is now back under construction, however I agree if there's nothing at all there it should be removed until there is. Softlavender (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

No reason to remove either? So are you reversing your earlier statement that http://www.phildriscoll.com "is currently void of content"? For me, that's a pretty good reason to remove it. If that's the case, how do we know that you won't change your mind on this statement at some future point as well? So now we have a dilemma: can anything you write be trusted? That's not a personal attack but an attempt to point out your error in logic.

In short, the guideline you're relying on is designed to keep an official website linked to this article. The assumption there is that social media pages are not usually official and are usually linked to the official website. This subject's official site does not fit that bill and I agree that the Facebook page is regularly updated making it the subject's de facto official website while the domain bearing his name no longer serves the purpose any reader would expect it to serve. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

PhilDriscoll.com does have more content than it did when I wrote that in August 2013 (it has content on at least three pages), so it should stay. Upon careful perusal I see now that it also actually links to the Facebook page -- although that is very hard to detect since the icon-link is the same color as the webpage and very hard to see. So theoretically it would be acceptable not to list the Facebook page. Softlavender (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Personal Life section

Hi, Personal Life sections are for listing spouse, partner, marriage, children, family, and home location. Prison terms and writing producing and starring in films are not Personal Life items, so that paragraph needs to go elsewhere. Since both are career related (the prison term was a conviction of using his ministry to fail to pay taxes; the film is clearly a professional and career activity), I am moving the paragraph back to the Career section. Softlavender (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

1970's drug bust?

I think that needs to be in there. Wasn't it a big thing? There was even a name for the group that got busted. What was it? I forget. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.182.131 (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one picked up on this earlier. It made the papers and was a significant part of Driscoll's personal life, as it seems to have been the catalyst for his religious conversion and marked his transition from a rock musician to a gospel musician. I have added a new block of text to the personal section of the bio.

In January 1978, Driscoll was one of 32 people indicted by a Texas federal grand jury on charges of being part of a cocaine trafficking conspiracy. Also indicted was actress Linda Blair. Driscoll was arrested after nineteen federal agents surrounded his home during a sting operation stemming from a government wiretap. Following the indictment, Driscoll wrote a letter to the court stating that he had “found God” about three weeks before his arrest, on Christmas Day 1977. Driscoll was charged with three felony counts of conspiracy to distribute cocaine, but was eventually allowed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of cocaine possession. He was placed on probation and his criminal record later expunged. In a 1986 newspaper interview, Driscoll said that he was "doing a lot of drugs" prior to his religious conversion and subsequent arrest.

Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Whitewash of Tax Evasion Conviction

Noticed that the details on Driscoll's high profile tax evasion conviction/prison term was expunged from the article with no justification, despite the fact that it was covered by several high profile sources. It has now been restored again, and as requested by the expunger, I am providing notification here. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

A call-out section violates WP:UNDUE. The lengthy recital of non-relevant and/or unproven accusations violates WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Per WP:BRD, you need to leave the NPOV version of this article as is, until or unless you establish consensus on this Talk page to change it. Therefore I am going to restore the NPOV version, per Wikipedia policy. Please carefully read and follow WP:BRD. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

That's complete and utter nonsense. The tax evasion case was widely covered by reputable third party media sources and it is deletion of this material that violates NPOV. You also did not have consensus to remove it in the first place. It is a flat out falsity for you to state that this was an "unproven accusation" -- Drsicoll was convicted and sent to prison as a result!!! There is ample precedent for including such information. Look at Martha Stewart's article for example [[1]]. Your continued attempts at whitewashing this material and your offering up of lame excuses for doing so suggests that you're perhaps a little bit too close to the subject of this biography -- please see WP:COI. Kinldy refrian from whitewashing again. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that tax evasion conviction and prison sentence was highly notable and covered by numerous reliable sources, I'll add that there is ample precedent for including a section on this based on a cursory glance at other WP bios about celebrities that were similarly convicted for tax evasion.

Martha Stewart[2]

Wesley Snipes[3]

Luciano Pavarotti[4]

Pete Rose[5]

Joe Francis[6]

Ingmar Bergman[7]

Willie Nelson[8]

Al Sharpton[9]

These examples are so numerous, and the precedent so well-established, that any further attempts to expunge this information from the article may well lead to a block for WP:DE. Don't make the mistake of trying to whitewash this again. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

[hmm strange. I wrote the following last night, but evidently forgot to "save page" before shutting down] Rhode Island Red, I concur with Softlavender. You have been in violation of BRD, CONSENSUS, UNDUE, etc. (I don't think I need to link them for you). Enough is enough. No need to overdo it. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't just throw out random policy names. BRD makes it clear that the editorial process requires actual discussion and justification, not just saying "me too" or WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Neither you nor Softlavendar has made a valid case for expunging this material from the article. It is reliably sourced; a well publicized event; NPOV dictates that all such material, positive or negative, merits inclusion; and there is precedent based on identical content in the 8 article examples I provided above. The tax evasion section had been in a stable version of the article for roughly 2 years until Softavendar decided arbitrarily to delete it. Edit warring is unwarranted given that there is no justification case for deleting the material. It is WP:TE. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing random about them. You need to read them and follow them because have violated all three. You don't have consensus and you obviously are biased against the subject, and trying to push a non-neutral view. Now, I personally am not against a separate section, but it just needs the basic facts. As for what you added to the lead (which you haven't discussed at all): You talk about the list of other articles above, but have you really looked at them? Number 1 doesn't mention tax evasion at all. Two, three and four have sections but no mention in the lead. Number 5 does briefly mention it in lead, which I would say it's because he's more known for his criminal activity. And the last three are the same as the previous three. So, of course, it should be the same for this one. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

It is absurd to suggest that including information in the body text about Driscoll’s tax evasion conviction and subsequent jail sentence is a POV violation, and you provided no rationale to support such a charge. The information is factual and was widely reported by the numerous reliable secondary sources cited in the article. Rather, it is the removal of this information that constitutes the POV violation (and a violation of 3RR/edit warring). It is similarly absurd to suggest that I am “obviously biased against the subject” merely because I restored this information after it was inappropriately whitewashed from the article. You have provided no justification for you most recent blanket revert. You claim that the other articles I cited above, as examples of WP bios that discuss tax evasion convictions, do not mention the issues in their respective leads, and yet you removed the information from Driscoll’s article not only from the lead but also from the body text, which is clearly inappropriate given that you have provided no justification for doing so. As for the lead, WP:LEAD clearly states:

“The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.”

Clearly, it is appropriate to include the tax evasion conviction jail sentence in the lead, as is the case in several of the articles I provided above as examples. Edit warring over this is WP:TE, so please stop. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? (You seem to have trouble reading things, including MOS.) I said that I did not have a problem with adding a section for it. So, if you wanted you could add something - as long as it's not overdone and just the main facts. As for the lead section issue, as I said, out of the list of articles you gave, only one mentions it in the lead, and they have a section on the subject. So, why would this one, that doesn't have a section, have something in the lead? That in itself makes no sense! And you keep repeating the same MOSes, but ignore the more important ones (BRD, CONSENSUS), especially WP:CONSENSUS, which can trump the others. And, let's look at what you quoted: The lead should be a "concise overview" of what's found in the main body. And it should "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". Meaning that if it's not a big part of what the person is notable for then it doesn't belong in the lead. And finally, take a look at my edit count (on my user page) and look at yours, and realize that because I have much more experience than you that I may know a little more about editing than you. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

You say now that you aren't against including the details in a separate section, and yet you purged them (along with all the reliable secondary media sources) from the article nonetheless -- TWICE!!!---[10][11] and continued to make off-base accusations about POV violation, BRD etc. (basically throwing every policy/guideline bu the kitchen sink without making a valid point). Your argument about expunging this from the lead has no validity. As I pointed out, WP:LEAD states unambiguously: “The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." What part of that is it that you find so elusive to grasp? He went to prison for crying out loud. How is that not a "prominent controversy"? Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Since the article is now protected we should use this opportunity wisely.

(1) You can begin by concisely stating your rationale for expunging the original section about the tax evasion conviction and jail sentence from the article (i.e., a version that was stable for two years[12] prior to the whitewashing job that you and Softlavendar did[13][14]). The original version contained a cursory description of details as outlined in the half dozen or so reliable sources that covered the event.[15] The sources establish notability and there is no reason why the key details should be omitted, as they were in your inexplicably sanitized version of the article,[16] which not only left out all the details but also cut out several of the sources cited that reported on the event.

(2) The precedent for including the tax evasion conviction jail sentence as a stand alone section was well established based on the examples I provided earlier in this thread,[17] and you seem to agree based on your reply above (i.e., "I did not have a problem with adding a section for it").[18] We should therefore be able to agree that this should be restored.

(3) WP:LEAD clearly states that "any prominent controversies" should be included. A tax evasion conviction and prison sentence are clearly both "controversial" and "prominent", and the media coverage of the event clearly confirms it. Inclusion is warranted based on policy and logic; your stubbornness in continually removing this from the lead is however is inexplicable and indefensible. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

What is wrong with you?? You insist on ignoring my warnings and just do whatever you want, not following WP policy and guidelines. You talk about 3RR? when, if there's anyone who's come close to violating, it's you. Two veteran experienced editors have tried to correct you on your actions, but you just want to war. WP is a collaborative effort. And consensus means working together to come to an acceptable result. This includes compromise (give and take), something you have refused to do. I said that you could add a section for it as long as it's neutral, balanced and concise. And I thought I clearly explained about the lead section. I quoted it myself (you quoting it back in bold doesn't help anything). Look up the word "prominent". And why do you think that this article should be different from those that you yourself used for examples? As I said, only one has it in the lead and that's because of notability (learn that word too). --Musdan77 (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

"Two veteran experienced editors have tried to correct you on your actions". Resorting to argument from authority now? I'm a veteran editor too (as indicated by my veteran editor badge), and to boot, I've been on WP longer than both you and Softlavendar. You didn't try to "correct me"; you tried to whitewash the article while abandoning reason and respect for straightforward policy/guideline issues. If we can't come to an agreement here, which appears to be the case, then what form of dispute resolution would you like to mutually participate in? I can predict with a high degree of confidence how this will turn out (reversion back to the orignal non-whitewashed version), so how would you like to proceed? Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Once again you give a link to a page that doesn't apply. It's not how long you've been registered; it's the edit count. The more edits, the more experience, the more experience, the more knowledge of how to and how not to edit. I know that you have 5,000 main article edits, while I have nearly 20,000. But, probably even if I had 100 times as much as you, it wouldn't make any difference to you. (But, you do have the experience having to do with blocking. I see that you have been blocked at least twice.) If you can't (or refuse to) follow the basic rules (and won't listen to reason), and no one else decides to get involved, then there's nothing else I can say. --Musdan77 (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

P.S. OK one more thing: You keep bringing up "whitewash", but anyone who reads my previous post (or even the one before that) can see that that is not even close to what I've been trying to do here. --Musdan77 (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Note to Rhode Island Red: Per WP:BRD, you need to establish consensus on this talk page before re-reverting the status quo ante. Please read WP:BRD. The status quo ante is this version of the article. It is neutral and does not violate WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP. The consensus is either to keep it is it was there, or to have a bit more but that states simply the main facts, without all the unprovable innuendo. The consensus is also that this does not belong in the lede. Softlavender (talk) 05:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Neither of you are responding to the core issues at hand, so it's clear we are at an impasse. Musdan just wants to argue about who has the biggest edit count and Softlavendar keeps shouting about BRD but has failed to respond to the 3 issues I raised above, essentially stonewalling the BRD process by saying "my version or nothing." It's clear that the two of you whitewashed key details about the tax evasion case and prison sentence, and its clear that the two of you are now stonewalling the BRD process, POV pushing, falsely claiming a consensus where none exists, and failing to respond to the very clear cut and logical editorial and policy issues raised. This will be evident to any uninvolved editors who look into the situation, which I'm afraid will be necessary as the next step to prevent further edit warring. It's a shame that it has to come to this but we can all agree that we're unable to reach a solution here and go the next step to dispute resolution. Agreed? Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Rhode Island Red, I have been off-wiki for three days. Can you please re-state the 3 issues you would like responded to? Please also keep in mind GB's requests: [19]. Softlavender (talk) 03:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I have stated my case and negated your editorial arguments in each of the last three threads, including this one (6 posts up). You could have picked any one of them for your long overdue response. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Fully Protected

I have fully protected the page for one to stop the edit war. If consensus is reached before then any admin can remove the protection without consulting me. -- GB fan 18:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Rhode Island Red, Softlavender, and Musdan77:. Here are my observations, the three of you need to start discussing the issues. Stop talking about motives for edits. Stop talking about who is a veteran editor and who isn't and what constitutes a veteran editor. Stop talking about the other editor. Stop talking at the other editor. Start talking to the other editor. Start talking about the content and the reasons why it should or should not be included. Start talking about how you think the information could be included. Do we reduce it or does it not belong at all? I would nuke the whole section above and start over without any accusations with a discussion of the issues. -- GB fan 15:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I attempted to initiate a constructive editorially-focused dialog when I posted this comment.[20] I'm at a loss as to why the other two editors involved in this dispute chose to ignore it. Anyhow, it outlines the issues at hand as I see them, so perhaps we can start there. Thanks for the page protection and trying to get this dialog refocused. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@GB fan: Per the notice you posted at the top of the article, I would like to make a non-controversial edit request supported by consensus. There is consensus that mention of the tax evasion charges and imprisonment does not belong in the lede. It is not supported by importance in the text of the article and was never in the lede until September 4. I would like to request, per current consensus and long-term status quo ante, that that sentence be removed from the lede while the page is under protection. In terms of these discussions, I totally agree that name calling, aspersions, assigning motivations, and characterizing edits or editors is counterproductive; nowhere have I done any of that, and as I have always in the past I am attempting only to cite and follow policy and seek consensus and understanding from other editors via policy. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I will not make that edit. That is the basis of the dispute, it is a controversial edit. You can use {{edit fully-protected}} to ask another admin if they will make that change. -- GB fan 00:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to correct a few of Softlavender's statements above, for the record: (1) the edit is not even remotely "supported by consensus" as described in WP:CONSENSUS; (2) as GB pointed out is is not "non-controversial"; (3) according to WP:LEAD, the statement does belong in the lead (i.e., "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies"); and (4) it's not true that "it was never in the lead until September 4" -- in fact it was in the lead since 2011[21] and stayed that way for over 2 years until Softlavendar removed it[22] and Musdan purged it from the body text.[23] It's a bit surprising that Softlavendar can't remember the history of his own editorial involvement with the article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Still waiting for Softlavendar and Musdan to make their case. I made mine, but not a peep heard in response. Odd given that they were complaining about bypassing WP:BRD. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Since there has been no discussion on how resolving this dispute, I have extended the full protection another week. Please start discussing so this dispute can be resolved. -- GB fan 16:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I figured that would be necessary given that we are still awaiting a response from the other two parties involved. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• I think what needs to happen is that the discussion needs to restart in a neutrally titled thread, focusing calmly and neutrally on policy rather than on editors. I will start a neutrally worded thread. Softlavender (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

I would like to request the removal of the sentence in the lede about tax evasion and imprisonment. It is POV, UNDUE, and not backed up by adequate importance in the body text. The sentence was placed there on September 4, and was not there for the previous two years (the WP:WRONG version that got fully protected just missed a deletion of the sentence per policy). It violates UNDUE; WP:LEAD reads "Do not violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section." Especially true since this is a WP:BLP. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree vehemently that it is POV or UNDUE. Instead of just making these charges, can you explain the exact basis for them? The statement in the lead is no longer backed up in the body text anymore because you and Musdan removed it from the body text![24], despite the fact that about half a dozen reliable secondary sources were cited in support of the information. The sentence was in the article for over two years -- since 2011[25] -- until, again, you and Musdan removed it.[26][27] WP:LEAD states: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." That sure makes it pretty clear that the text in question does not violate WP:LEAD.

For what it's worth, numerous articles on minor celebrities who have faced similar tax convictions an/or prison sentences like Driscoll have stand-alone sections covering the events (e.g., Martha Stewart, Wesley Snipes, Luciano Pavarotti, Pete Rose, Joe Francis, Ingmar Bergman, Willie Nelson, Al Sharpton, etc.). In Driscoll's case, it was not a "less important controversy" as Softlavendar claims. He was charged with using his Christian ministry as an illegal tax dodge, was convicted of tax evasion AND conspiracy, and served a year in jail. The event was so high profile that Driscoll even made an autobiographical movie about it.[28][29] That fact alone kills any argument that the event was not significant.

Aside from that, Driscolls case, conviction, and prison sentence received wide in-depth coverage.[30][31][32][33][34][35][36] The argument for not expunging this information from the article is so cut-and-dried that I'm amazed anyone would try to argue the contrary. It would be a POV violation to not include it. I suspect the editors might be too close to the bio subject (e.g., maybe because Musdan is also a self-described Christian gospel musician)[37] to see the situation objectively -- an NPOV issue. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Tax evasion and conviction/imprisonment

This section is to discuss the wording and placement of information on Driscoll's conviction and imprisonment for tax evasion.

My opinion is that the wording that has been in the article for two years:

In 2006 Driscoll was found guilty of failing to pay between $30,000 and $80,000 of income tax in the late 1990s, and served a one-year sentence ending in 2008. Following his release, Driscoll wrote and co-produced an autobiographical film about his experiences, starring Danny Glover and Brian Dennehy.

... in the section on his Career satisfies WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, and avoids WP:UNDUE. My opinion is also that mention does not belong in the lede, per WP:LEAD: "Do not violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section", particularly since this is a WP:BLP. Softlavender (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

References

You seem to be talking around me and rehashing arguments that have already shown to be lacking in validity. I addressed all of these issues already but you are ignoring what was said. I already pointed out that WP:LEAD contradicts your core argument, as it says: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Why do you continue to ignore this?

Your seem to be implying that including actual details about the conviction and jail sentence (in contrast with the single-sentence threadbare version you are proposing) somehow violates WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE, but you're provided no rational basis for this assertion. Including the details does not violate WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, or WP:UNDUE, and in fact, the more detailed version was in the article for two years[38] until you and Musdan arbitrarily removed it.[39][40]

I cited numerous examples where identical tax evasion cases were covered in-depth (i.e. multiple sentences in a separate section), and yet you have failed to comment on this as well (i.e., the articles on (e.g., Martha Stewart, Wesley Snipes, Luciano Pavarotti, Pete Rose, Joe Francis, Ingmar Bergman, Willie Nelson, Al Sharpton, etc.). The discussion will get us nowhere if you keep making soliloquies instead of acknowledging and responding to the counterarguments that have been raised against your assertions.

You also seem to be characterizing this as a "less important controversy", but it is clearly a highly important and significant controversy, as indicated by the fact that Driscoll served a prison sentence as a result of his tax evasion/conspiracy conviction; the event was covered by multiple reliable sources;[41][42][43][44][45][46][47] and Drsicoll even made a movie about his time in prison.[48][49] You really must stop trying to trivialize the event as unimportant because that's obviously not the case. Inclusion of your sanitized single-sentence version with no mention in the lead would be a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Please focus on the policy issues raised, and respond to them, rather than commenting about editors or their behavior. Softlavender (talk) 05:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

That comment is baseless and inappropriate. I laid out a very clear rebuttal to your editorial arguments. The onus is on you to reply. If you choose not to, so be it, but don't make a mockery of the discussion process. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Next step

After two weeks of full protection there was no productive discussion of the issues on the article talk page. I let the protection expire to see what happened. The edit warring started back up. I have been asked to fully protect the page again. I do not want to protect the article from all editing so I have decided to try a different tactic. First I am going to restore the article to the version that I had protected, I know, it is the wrong version. Now, everyone is warned that if anything is edited in the article concerning the tax evasion conviction without first getting a consensus on the talk page, I will block block the editor. I recommend trying some form of Dispute resolution. If you question my actions you can discuss them at the Administrators' noticeboard. -- GB fan 11:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the intervention. I laid out a detailed and airtight case (multiple times),[50][51] tried to get a discussion going, and even proposed DR -- twice.[52][53][54] I got completely ignored[55][56][57] in favor of a resumption of edit warring.[58][59] The situation is straining WP:AGF to say the least. What do you suggest? Give the edit warriors the chance to agree to a mutual/voluntary WP:DR request? User conduct report? Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you go to WP:DR and try to a dispute resolution avenue. WP:3O might be a good option as lately there have only been the two of you involved. You could also try a posting at WP:BLPN and ask your question. -- GB fan 20:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I am proposing to add text describing Driscoll's tax evasion/conspiracy conviction, jail sentence, and his subsequent film about the events to the Personal section of the article. It had been moved a while back into the Career section but it doesn't belong there because it is related to his religious ministry and has nothing to do with his musical career. Wanted to ensure that there would be no administrator objections. Thanks in advance. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Since there has been no discussion here and there is no consensus to add that I have a problem with you adding it. If you add it without getting consensus I will block you. -- GB fan 20:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, I have made every attempt possible to discuss it. It has been one-sided and it's impossible to develop consensus when the opposing side chooses not to participate; acknowledgement of that fact would be nice to hear. Nonetheless, I will heed your advice. Thank you. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

You have not made every attempt possible to discuss it. You have not used any dispute resolution methods. I pointed out a couple above that you could use. -- GB fan 23:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have clarified by adding the word "here" since that was what you were referring to in your previous comments (i.e., you said "there has been no discussion here"). Yes, it looks like DR is the next step. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I take it that the information that was being edit warred over is not that important one way or the other to anyone. Here we are over three weeks into this and still no one has really tried to discuss this and try to get a consensus. Is anyone going to do anything to bring in outside editors to try to get this resolved? -- GB fan 00:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I personally see a majority of 75% in favor of replacing the article as it was, stably, for two years (until September 2015). I personally don't see, despite repeated requests, neutral and non–editor-focused policy-based discussions to the contrary. Softlavender (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

First, the article was stable for longer prior to your deletion of the material about the tax evasion conviction than it was after. But regardless, stability isn't much of a concern with this article given that there are very few editors working on it. "Unnoticed" would be a more apt term than "stable".

Second, what we're discussing is the tax evasion information, not a wholesale reversion back to some early version of the article that you prefer. An entirely new section has now been added on the drug abuse/conviction angle, which was suggested for inclusion by another editor some time ago, and is based on numerous WP:RS. Not a single objection was raised about it on the talk page.[60]

Third, what you said above is not at all reflective of WP:CONSENSUS, and it's not a reasonable rationale given everything I've stated so far, and to which you have yet to respond. Evoking "two against one" and WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't cut it. It's completely ignoring the "D" part of WP:BRD. The logical next step seems to be WP:DR, which I have suggested repeatedly. Are you game to use this resource for resolving your grievance, since the Talk page doesn't seem to be working? I'd be more than happy to go to DR so that we can finally put an end to this quibbling. Rhode Island Red (talk) 07:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Phil Driscoll. 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/20131002102623/http://www.tyso.org/files/about.html to http://www.tyso.org/files/about.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130819002332/http://www.cinderent.com/artists/phil-driscoll to http://www.cinderent.com/artists/phil-driscoll
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100608171925/http://amygrant.offramp.org/info/articles/sep/28.html to http://amygrant.offramp.org/info/articles/sep/28.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130714180208/http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=44533 to http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=44533
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201183520/http://www.allabouttrumpet.com/pdf/ST-PDF/SoundTheTrumpet-free.pdf to http://www.allabouttrumpet.com/pdf/ST-PDF/SoundTheTrumpet-free.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130819002332/http://www.cinderent.com/artists/phil-driscoll to http://www.cinderent.com/artists/phil-driscoll

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 12:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Phil Driscoll. 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/20131029192854/http://www.mightyhornstore.com/about-us.aspx to http://www.mightyhornstore.com/about-us.aspx

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 12:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)