Talk:Charles Laquidara

Stubify and let re-grow
The subject of the article has expressed concern about the "COI" tag on the article in multiple places: here and here for example.

While much of the content appears to be sourced to reliable sources, much of it also appears to be non-encyclopedic. (So he sold his house to Oprah??? - talk about WP:IINFO.)

Is there any opposition to stubifing the article to the current lede paragraph, removing the banner, and letting the article grow (if it does) without the need for the COI banner? -- The Red Pen of Doom  16:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the article can be edited down and cleaned up without removing virtually all of the content. As for content like the sale of the house to Oprah, while not notable enough for its own article, it was a transaction that drew coverage from multiple major publications independent of Charles Laquidara and adds several interesting facets to his biography.  Stubification would be an overreaction when a bit of careful editing would serve the primary purpose. - Dravecky (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it could be cleaned up and no I don't think there is any need to stubify it, how about making a quick list here of the points that are not felt to be notable enough, are inappropriate and/or too poorly referenced for a BLP, we can then have a quick look over it, get a consensus and then do it all at once without removing anything that believes should remain in and losing too much content as a result. I'll start... Mfield (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) "Voted most artistic in his class" - uncited peacockery
 * 2) He spent about eight years on the West Coast trying to get work as an actor in television and films. His successes in the acting field were limited to several stage roles and one appearance on The Dating Game. (He lost, but was awarded a tape recorder as a consolation prize)" non enc/notable - should be trimmed to a brief mention of Dating Game appearance.
 * 3) "He denounced Honeywell anti-personal munitions, which brought on a lawsuit" - needs a cite
 * 4) "Laquidara had a profane alter ego, Duane Ingalls Glasscock, who had a vulgar catchphrase. When he was told not to utter the phrase on the air any more, he "cleaned it up" into the similar-sounding "Have you even been phoned in Upton, Mass. for being a lucky wise guy?" Duane would begin his broadcasts with the phrase "Hello, Rangoon!" - needs rewriting with a cite


 * Agreed. There was way too much minutia in this article.  It's been stripped down to the most basic biographical stuff and is now ready for rewrite.  Details need to be rewritten in a more biographical fashion with less of the unimportant stuff.--Rtphokie (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry but your agreement is not a reason to end this process unilaterally. I have reverted your stubification - we only just began this discussion and so far more than one editor has expressed that going back to a stub is unnecessarily heavy handed. The point of this discussion was to prune the article back via consensus. At the very least this discussion should remain open for at least 24 hours. Mfield (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * i added the honeywell verbiage, when you go to reference 6, the more you watch the less you know, it's there, tends to go to an anti-war consistancy. i agree with the trivia in the intro, but edit that out if you wish. pohick (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the above, I would also delete the selling the house to Oprah, and the mentions of acting auditions that were awarded to other people.

And when would it be appropriate to remove the "edited by a closely involved person" tag from the article? -- The Red Pen of Doom  18:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the tag from the article should go as soon as the items being discussed are removed and the  tag on this talk page should remain indefinitely, that is what it is for and it isn't like the subject was trying to maintain anonymity with the username Laquidara after all. Mfield (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the Oprah thing should stay if and only if the sale was mentioned by a reliable third party source, i.e. not Oprah's blog or any one of her affiliated organizations. Mfield (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The sale of the house to Oprah is also referenced to The Boston Globe which is not, to my knowledge, affiliated in any substantial way with Oprah Winfrey. - Dravecky (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * yes it is referenced, but so what. people buy and sell real estate all the time. the sale tells us nothing about Laquidara. maybe it tells us a little bit about oprah (that she will spend $milllions on a 'fixer-upper') but this is not oprah's article. -- The Red Pen of Doom  00:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * well you could elaborate on the 'retirement' to hawaii from boston, and then acting as informal real estate agent (which is in some of the papers), i am sympathetic, how much celebrity stuff is notable, although when you go to a Nobility page they sure do dwell on all the castles. pohick (talk) 01:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add anything back that you think is not fluff and is well referenced. Give that this is an article on a living person and that person saw problems with it and was requesting assistance from editors (the right thing to do), stripping it down is and adding to it with some care is appropriate.--Rtphokie (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As I have expressed objections on my talk page, I feel the need to express them here. Stubbification is not necessary until and unless the subject expresses specific and valid objections to the content in question; as he seems to be willing to agree to this, there is no reason to perform radical actions on this page at this time. If Mr. Laguidara does continue to complain about the contents of the article, then a stubbification would be appropriate until the disputed content is verified and sourced.--Aervanath (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly, hence the entire discussion about which bits should be removed. Since the subject originally complained, much more of the article is now sourced than was the case at the time in as part of an effort to clarify what was inaccurate and what the subject would just rather was not in the article. The point right now is to clear out any remaining fluff and POV that was causing the COI tag to remain in place. The remainder of the article seems to be pretty on point and verifiable. Stubification at this point is going to throw away more content than it needs to given the number of references. Mfield (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * well i added some references, since they were in back issues of the boston papers, that you can google. i would remove the tag and let stand.  it dosn't strike me as more soliphsistic, than the average media personality article. pohick (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that Mr. Laquidara's concern is actually just (or at least primarily) the template box on top of the article page that suggests he may have edited the article and from which some people may imply that he is juicing up his article. At what point can we consider the article third party reviewed enough that nothing that Mr. Laquidara may have added could be considered to have unduely influenced the article and so the tag can be removed from the article page? (although I agree that it should probably remain on this talk page.)-- The Red Pen of Doom  02:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed COI tag
As Mr. Laquidara seems to have stopped editing the article, and there are now several of us here pruning it, I'm removing the COI tag from the article. If he starts editing it again, we can put it back on. The talk page notice should probably stay.--Aervanath (talk) 07:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Charles Laquidara. 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/20090217155222/http://www.wbcn.com:80/pages/3033477 to http://www.wbcn.com/pages/3033477
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070820210415/http://openvault.wgbh.org:80/ton/MLA000598/index.html to http://openvault.wgbh.org/ton/MLA000598/index.html

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) 04:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Charles Laquidara. 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/20100405055534/http://www.massbroadcastershof.org/hof_charles_laquidara.htm to http://www.massbroadcastershof.org/hof_charles_laquidara.htm
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20080427184340/http://www.wbcn.com/pages/2023606.php to http://www.wbcn.com/pages/2023606.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090223195131/http://440.com/namesl.html to http://440.com/namesl.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)