Talk:Jason Gann

CC of post at User talk:86.182.125.185

 * Nuvola apps important.svg For a second time within a 24-hour period, you have removed material at Jason Gann that was properly cited to a reliable source, namely The Sydney Morning Herald, a large and respected newspaper, and Australia's oldest. If you continue to edit war and to vandalize Wikipedia by removing such properly and reliably sourced content, an admin will be asked to block or ban this IP address. If you have legitimate concerns about the sourcing, discuss them on the article's talk page. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

This page is wildly lacking information...
Such a bizarrely, blatantly biased article... Even the comments on here, a mixture of humorous but also concerning... "Melbourne Incident", not "Assault Charge"? Or "Controversy", as is typically used? I think one of his stalkers may be over-moderating and censoring this page...24.4.156.15 (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Bravo!
My kudos to the new editor who added all this new, well-cited material today. Excellent work. I've independenly removed the tags, since they're now obsolete. One small point: We need a better image in the infobox. This is angled image with part of his face covered, and it's always best, for encyclopedic identification purposes, to have a plain, clear, straight-ahead shot. Otherwise, my very sincere compliments on a job well-done! --Tenebrae (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You got banned xD 24.4.156.15 (talk) 03:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Let's Tell The Truth
As I just wrote on my talk page:

Oh wow! My bad! Yes, it is not allegedly! Good call! I'm unsure as to what exactly he plead to and what that means (what with plea bargain deals/Aussie stuff) though I will look into it. For the meantime, I am 100% with you that the word "allegedly" does not belong there! Though, in reading this story, not just for Jason, for whom I am a fan, but also for (the population of the US's overcrowded prisons) I do think it's important to point out the actual circumstances. For real, thank you for the sincere criticism. There's nothing worse than having things changed around for reasons you don't understand.

As news progresses, stories are updated. It is best practice not to keep every reincarnation of a story. For example: if there were a story about The Titanic. One wouldn't want to keep updates about how at that specific point the stern has been submerged in the water. One would simply dictate the outcome or go by time reference point. As currently written, Mr,. Gann's article, in the Titanic metaphor, would be akin to "We hit the iceberg and the water is flooding in."

Hosny's sentence or two is not irrelevant. To understand why Mr. Gann was accused and plead guilty to such heinous misdemeanors, one must understand the source of such allegations. The sentence, "He hit me" has a completely different meaning when my niece says it versus The Boy Who Cried Wolf, for example. Of course, a section should not be designated to Hosny i this case, but a sentence explaining why Mr. Gann is currently somewhat exonerated of this malice due to this man's fraudulent claims is more than appropriate, it is a necessity.It is crucial in how one understands Mr. Gann himself.

Yes, "alleged" is most likely inappropriate. which is why Wikipedia is beautiful and has editors and is one of if not the single the best website period. But the current status of Mr. Gann's page needs to be reverted to the truth. The truth is, of course, a virtue of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsashaunparty (talk • contribs) 20:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I got heated and forgot to sign.

I would like to revert to my previous edit sans the word "allegedly" now. Complaints? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsashaunparty (talk • contribs) 20:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, Sean. I'm back from toiling in the journo mines....!


 * OK, let's take it a step at a time. I saw you found a cite for the birth of Gann's child, which the article needed. That was great. Now, what you like to work on first? The Hosny background would actually violate a policy called Original-research synthesis, which states in part, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." In other words, we can only cite Hosny material that is directly connected to the the specific incident. We can't bring up stuff about Hosny's life other than to relate the incident and the legal aftermath of the incident. Take a read of that linked part of the policy and you'll see what it says.


 * The way you rewrote one sentence is less neutral than the way it was originally written:


 * ORIGINAL: Gann's legal counsel advised him to plead guilty in an effort to minimize the possibility of a criminal conviction which would bar Gann from producing Wilfred in the United States.


 * YOUR VERSION: The Herald Sun reports that though Gann maintained his innocence, his legal council advised him to plead guilty rather than fight the allegations as a tougher sentence could threaten the production of Wilfred in the United States.


 * We also can't have the subhead "Allegations", since there was a conviction. It just seems to me that the long-stable version lays out the facts neutrally, without taking sides.


 * The second word in a subhead isn't capped, unless it's a proper noun. So, "Personal Life" should be "Personal life". I guess "Family and charity" could be a next-level subhead, although then we'd need a separate next-level subhead for the conviction, and I'm not sure it's fair to Gann to have "Conviction" be its own section and giving undue weight to one incident that didn't even lead to jail time.


 * I dunno. What do you think of all this? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Y'know, the "Early career" and "Awards and nominations" sections have a couple of cite requests that need filling, if that's of interest.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Just came back to this after some time away. For reasons noted at 23:22, 5 November 2014, Hosny's actions have no bearing on whether Gann repeatedly punched him in the face, to which Gann pleaded guilty. I'm not even sure we can say Gann is "reassessing his legal options" since anyone can reassess anything they like, but until they do something concrete about, then nothing, factually, has occurred. In the interest of compromise, I'm leaving it in, along with the citations. But bringing it Hosny's outside actions is violation of WP:BIO for the "reportedly" (i.e., unproven, speculative) part, and original-research synthesis designed to criticize Hosny's character. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jason Gann. 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/20141011030537/http://www.straycatalliance.org/news/endorsements to http://www.straycatalliance.org/news/endorsements

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) 18:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)