Talk:Barry Golson

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one external links on Barry Golson. 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/20110715112215/http://www.preretirementlife.com/expo/products/Gringos-in-Paradise-14-117.cfm to http://www.preretirementlife.com/expo/products/Gringos-in-Paradise-14-117.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110614000122/http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/35/search/?sc=Barry%20Golson&sf=Author&cookieCheck=1 to http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/35/search/?sc=Barry%20Golson&sf=Author&cookieCheck=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101117002646/http://www.frommers.biz:80/case-studies/forbestraveler/ to http://www.frommers.biz/case-studies/forbestraveler/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101203195814/http://blogs.consumerreports.org/money/2010/02/retiring-abroad-barry-golson-retirement-without-borders.html to http://blogs.consumerreports.org/money/2010/02/retiring-abroad-barry-golson-retirement-without-borders.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101123223159/http://radioprimetime.org/radioprograms.htm to http://radioprimetime.org/radioprograms.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101208183420/http://staging.forbestraveler.com:80/ to http://staging.forbestraveler.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed edits
I have declared my COI above, and would like to propose edits to the page, to bring it up to speed and clean it up to remove the flags at the top of the page. I've brought in stronger sources, removed extraneous external links, and revised it to make it neutral, factual and encyclopedic. See my sandbox for my proposed edits. I realize I am proposing a lot of changes, but the page needs it. Thank you for taking a look.--Bernie44 (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅ Additional information not meeting WP:RS omitted.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   01:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 *  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  , can I ask why you reduced the page to basically nothing, leaving out a lot of information with reliable sources, like New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc., while leaving in poor sources like the Simon & Schuster website? And you left on a tag saying a major contributor has a close connection to the subject? As you have revised it there is basically nothing in the article, so it certainly should not be tagged the way it is. The page now does not include critical information about Golson, all of which has strong sources. I'll propose adding information back in soon.--Bernie44 (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I've brought the article more in line with the standards which govern WP:BLP pages in general, and WP:COI in particular. Those changes, I hope, will allow for the removal of the COI template tags from the page. As a courtesy, I've notified the editor who added them to garner their input, and if they still feel that the templates are necessary, they are free to re-add them to the page. In the meantime, you are free to continue with as many edit requests to the article as you wish. We're here to help. Regards,  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   00:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm still not sure why almost everything was removed and none of the strong sources I attempted to introduce were added, but I will make smaller edit requests here and hopefully those will be implemented. Thanks.--Bernie44 (talk) 01:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The article is certainly greatly improved – nice work, ! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:27, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And, yes, it seems appropriate for those clean-up tags to be removed now that it has been cleaned up. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

New edit request
I propose the following edits to the section currently named Background, which should be renamed Career. Here I'm bringing in strong sources and adding in some key information that has been removed. Thanks.--Bernie44 (talk) 00:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Golson has served as editor-in-chief for World Press Review; executive editor for TV Guide; editor-in-chief of TV Guide Online, an electronic version of the magazine's television listings; and editor of Yahoo! Internet Life, a monthly magazine covering Internet-related topics. For 12 years, he was executive editor for Playboy Magazine. During his time at Playboy he edited The Playboy Interviews with John Lennon and Yoko Ono and The Playboy Interview, both originally published in 1981.
 * Career

In later years, he authored Gringos in Paradise, a 2006 book detailing his and his wife's attempted retirement to Mexico, and Retirement Without Borders, a 2008 guide book detailing the pros and cons of retiring to exotic locales.

✅ I switched the order of editorships, as TV Guide came after Playboy, it should come after it in the text. I wasn't sure where to place the time at WPR, as that isn't stated (or referenced I might add). As WPR was founded in 1974 it conceivably could have been before or after the time at Playboy. If not acceptable where I've placed it now, please advise.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   01:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think he was with WPR prior to Playboy, that would make the most sense since after Playboy he went to Men's Life then TV Guide, etc. But I'm fine with WPR being where it is since it reads well this way. The only decent reference I can find to him having been with WPR is this article in Arizona Republic, but it doesn't give a sense of when he was at WPR, all it says is "Golson, whose experience spanned from Playboy to World Press Review..." I know this isn't a good source, but in this bio he is referred to as a former editor of WPR, so even though it's not a good source I imagine it is true.--Bernie44 (talk) 01:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Also is there a reason you didn't include the Wall Street Journal review of Retirement Without Borders, instead leaving it unsourced? If you need to see the text of the review let me know and I'll paste it here.--Bernie44 (talk) 01:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Since both of those links (the Arizona Republic and the WSJ) are behind paywalls, what you'll need to do is fill out as much of the references as you can manually, including the authors, dates, titles of the articles, names of the publications, and any page numbers (from print editions,if that's given). At the top of your text editor you should see a dropdown box that says Templates, click on it and choose cite news which will bring up a box for you to fill in the information. The first box you should fill in is the URL of the article. Paste in the URL and click the magnifying glass to search. Some of the boxes may autofill with the information. Others that don't, you'll have to fill in yourself. You wont need to fill in every box, just the ones I mentioned. When you've finished, click Preview to make sure it looks alright, then click Insert. Publish the text here on the talk page, then I can add it to the article.   Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   07:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip, here you go:


 * WSJ:
 * Arizona Republic:

--Bernie44 (talk) 16:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅ Do you have the author for the Wall Street Journal article? Please advise.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   22:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No author is credited, or at least no author is shown online. It's one of those best-of-in-a-variety-of-fields pieces, with Golson's book Retirement Without Borders the recommendation under Lifestyles. This is the text: "A new book, 'Retirement Without Borders,' is the single best guide we've seen to retiring abroad. Written by Barry Golson, a longtime journalist who has lived in six different counties, the book begins with a balanced look at the advantages, and possible pitfalls, of life as an expatriate. Mr. Golson then focuses on what it's like to retire in Mexico, Central America and Europe (with brief stops elsewhere). Overall, a highly enjoyable, and valuable, read."--Bernie44 (talk) 23:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

✅ Request completed   Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   00:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Yet another... edit request
I propose that the Published Works section be made its own section rather than a subsection and be renamed Bibliography. And I think we should add in the publishers and ISBN numbers, which is pretty standard, as well as a book he wrote under a pen name, Love's Reckless Rash - I've added a ref for that one.


 * The Playboy Interview (1981, Putnam, ISBN 978-0872236684) - editor
 * The Playboy Interviews with John Lennon and Yoko Ono (1981, Putnam, ISBN 978-0872237056) - editor
 * The Playboy Interview Volume II (1983, Putnam, ISBN 978-0399507694) - editor
 * Love's Reckless Rash (1984, St. Martin's Press, ISBN 978-0312499716) - as Rosemary Cartwheel; with John Blumenthal
 * Gringos in Paradise (2006, Scribner's, ISBN 978-0743276351)
 * Retirement Without Borders (2008, Scribner's, ISBN 978-0743297011) - with Thia Golson

Already implemented The ISBN's are already listed in the references, along with the OCLC's. The book written under a nom de plum is declined — the two books already listed which are unconnected in any way to Playboy are already pushing the boundary, per: WP:NOTCATALOGUE  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   22:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hadn't notice about ISBN's in refs, no prob about that. But how are books he has written that were published by major publishers pushing the boundary to be listed in his bibliography on a Wikipedia page about him? I don't get that, and I don't see how WP:NOTCATALOGUE applies in this situation.--Bernie44 (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We may be able to verify that this book was published, but verification alone does not guarantee inclusion, per WP:ONUS. That states the burden for inclusion in certain cases is on the person who wishes to include the material in the article. Thus, it's not for me to say why it isn't included, but it's for you to say why it should be included. What is the relevance for including this book in the article? Are there reliable, accessible, third party sources which speak to its relevance on the subject? It seems your only criteria for inclusion is that he wrote these books, but Wikipedia isn't a catalogue for people to come and learn about the books he's written, unless these books are relevant to the reason why this page exists, a reason which was placed in the lead of the article: his work as an editor at Playboy. There needs to be an additional reason why they belong in this article. For instance, do these books describe his past work as an editor? Please advise.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   23:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't really agree with your premise here. When I go to an author's Wikipedia page I do want to see what books they've written, not a selection of books based on someone's idea of which ones are noteworthy. Take for example John Fante. His page lists all his books, whether or not the book is considered to be a major work. I don't really see this as an egregious use of lists. His page doesn't exists because he wrote The Brotherhood of the Grape, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be in his bibliography. As for Golson, I would hardly say Love's Reckless Rash is a major work, but I do think it should be included because Golson wrote it, and it's not like it was self-published - it was published by St. Martin's Press. All this being said, I realize my argument is unlikely to convince you, since we apparently don't see eye-to-eye on this matter, and so I'll acquiesce to your decision.--Bernie44 (talk) 23:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The difference in your example of John Fante is that he is known primarily as a novelist. It is through his written body of work, including essays, novels and novellas, that the article on him exists. His New York Times obit puts it succintly in the first 3 words "John Fante—Writer.." So it is understandable that a listing of his works would be given on his Wikipedia page.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   02:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Even if he is best known as an editor, Golson is also a writer, so the books he has written are relevant to his page. Bill Maher, for instance, is not primarily known as a writer, and yet he has a bibliography on his page. It just seems to me that it is unduly strict to deny an editor and writer such as Golson a book he has written. There is a source, which I provided, and the fact that it is behind a paywall has more to do with it being from 1984 than anything else. We could add the following sentence about the book at the beginning of the Career section's second paragraph: "Under the pseudonym Rosemary Cartwheel, Golson co-wrote the 1984 romance novel parody Love's Reckless Rash." Also I'm still not understanding why his books are under the heading "Published works" rather than "Bibliography", as is standard.--Bernie44 (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

You are free to seek additional opinions through WP:DRR/3, but remember in BLP cases, the WP:ONUS is on you to justify why it should be included. The fact that he wrote part of it is not enough. WP:SPIP states:"Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, autobiography, product placement and most paid material are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." If you're able to say all of that about this book, then I'd say you're on the path towards inclusion.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   17:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to pursue it further because it's not really worth it. I just think you're setting the bar very high in this particular instance. He didn't write "part of" the book, he is the co-author. It's not promotional to include a 33 year-old book, there's nothing to promote. It's just factual. I've given my justification to why it should be included, and you don't see it the same way, so it's fine, it can just be left off.--Bernie44 (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit request
I'd like to request the following edits, to clarify and give some context to the article: Barry Golson is an American editor and author. He was executive editor of Playboy magazine for twelve years, and of TV Guide for five. Golson was executive editor of Playboy magazine from 1977 to 1989. During that time he edited The Playboy Interviews with John Lennon and Yoko Ono and The Playboy Interview, both originally published in 1981, as well as The Playboy Interview Volume II, published in 1983, featuring annotated compilations of interviews from the magazine's first two decades. Golson also served as editor-in-chief for World Press Review, executive editor for TV Guide, editor-in-chief of TV Guide Online (an electronic version of the magazine's television listings), ForbesTraveler.com, and spent seven years as editor of Yahoo! Internet Life, a monthly magazine covering Internet-related topics. He has written for publications including The New York Times, Los Angeles Times and Salon. Thank you. --Bernie44 (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In the opening, it should be at least implied that he did more than just edit Playboy. Also the magazine is called Playboy, not Playboy Magazine. So I would change the first sentence so it reads:
 * In the first paragraph of the Career section, I'm adding a little clarification (with supporting refs) - that he edited The Playboy Interview Volume II, and that he was editor of Yahoo! Internet Life for seven years, a significant time. And adding that he was editor of ForbesTraveler.com, as well as names of a few notable publications he has written for, to better establish him as a writer:
 * Change name of header Published works to the more standard Bibliography, which should be its own section rather than a subsection of the Career section.

Reply 29-MAR-2018
✅      Spintendo       11:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you.--Bernie44 (talk) 13:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Small edit request
Can Yale University be added to the infobox under Education? Here is a ref from the 1966 Yale yearbook: Thank you.--Bernie44 (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Reply 29-MAR-2018
✅ Yearbook.com is not the best source to use. The yearbook itself is the better citation, so I've placed 1966's Banner & Potpourri in the references along with the claim in the infobox under its Online Computer Library Center number, shown below.      Spintendo       17:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, your ref is definitely better than mine, thank you.--Bernie44 (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Maintenance tags
I happened to look at this page, which I have not done for a while (every time I see "B... Golson" on my watchlist I think "oh, let's see what's been written about this wonderful musician, composer of "Whisper Not", one of my all-time favourite pieces"; then reality kicks in). Two things stood out: the page uses the kind of wholly unacceptable source that we expect of COI editors with a POV to push, but not of good-faith volunteers (I'm thinking particularly of PRNewswire, a classic non-WP:RS); and that while there's quite a lot of talk here, there doesn't seem to any of the kind of substantial in-depth coverage in solid mainstream reliable sources that would firmly establish the notability of the subject. So I've restored the COI tag and added a notability one. I see now that I agreed to the removal of the COI tag last year; I apologise for the inconsistency between that and my edit today. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand the disappointment you feel when you come to this page initially thinking you're going to learn something new about Benny Golson, as I definitely am disappointed whenever I expect to see Dermot Mulroney in a film only to discover it's Dylan McDermott. That being said, I don't know that Barry Golson should be penalized for having a name similar to a sax great. It does seem to me that Barry Golson's page is being excessively branded in a way that feels over the top and indefinite. Regarding the COI tag, I declared my COI and edits to improve the page were made through an objective third party. I don't see how the page reads as if it's got a COI. The page is very pared down as it is. With my suggested edits, I tried to improve the page, to bring it in line while leaving in what makes him notable. Over the course of some 30 years, the guy was the editor of Playboy, TV Guide, Yahoo! Internet Life and other publications. He has also written books published by Scribner, a large publisher. That certainly makes him notable, and there is press in strong sources like NY Times. True there are two press releases in the references, being used to show his roles at certain publications. If those are such an issue I would just say they should be removed, along with the info they source. Spintendo perhaps you can weigh in on this.--Bernie44 (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

New edit request
The page was recently tagged for not being neutral. However it has been incredibly pared down and is entirely factual, not reading like there is a conflict, so I request that the tag be removed. There are two press releases being used as sources, so I would suggest removing those as well, if that is the issue that could be making this page appear to not be neutral:
 * I propose removing the COI tag and changing the third sentence of the Career section as follows: Golson also served as editor-in-chief for World Press Review, executive editor for TV Guide, editor-in-chief of TV Guide Online (an electronic version of the magazine's television listings), and spent seven years as editor of Yahoo! Internet Life, a monthly magazine covering Internet-related topics.
 * I also propose removing the notability tag, as the page clearly meets WP:GNG, with coverage in the NY Times and elsewhere. Thank you.--Bernie44 (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Reply 10-APR-2018
I would suggest speaking with the editor who placed those templates, in this case,, to find out specifically what their concerns are regarding this. The other information in your request already exists in the article. This includes: If there are any additional positions that we've missed, please let us know. Regards, 0.82em 00:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) editor-in-chief for World Press Review
 * 2) executive editor for TV Guide
 * 3) seven years as editor for Yahoo! Internet Life
 * 4) editor-in-chief for TV Guide Online