Talk:Joe Francis/Archive 1

Recent Interview
In a recent interview, on the Adam carolla show, he said that the trial, the one with the guy and the gun and the tape, was well over.

Joe Francis - I'm just like Jesus
Joe Francis got a lot of flack for comparing himself to Jesus. Although He was born and raised Catholic, he was kicked out of Catholic school. He says his thinks about Jesus every day.

This is a legitimate section. Joe Francis says he thinks about Jesus every day and make comparisons to him. He is obliviously conflicted as both a Christian and a producer of naked films. This is also very ironic.

Attack
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Girls_Gone_Wild&diff=32247750&oldid=32220143 has info in the GGW article about the attack, and it had more info than there is in this page, it should probably be combined into this article, I just don't know the sources and stuff so I'm not the person who should rewrite Francis' article. Atari2600tim 16:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * um

So what's up with this sycophantic bs? I'm not saying someone should write that he's a shameless and sleazy women-exploiting jackass or anything, but seriously, how can you just shrug off the moral aspect of what he's doing?

I agree with above statement. Joe went to prison for his disgusting acts yet there is no mention of them on his Bio? The Bio makes it seem like he did nothing wrong, this entire entry is very wrong and misleading.

This is the exact bio he has on the girls gone wild web site (see link at the bottom of the article) not objective at all, very pro-joe (hollywood knocking on his door..) Should mention his legal troubles with underage girls to be fare, though still am impressed at how much dough he has been able to make by taking MTV material and going nude with it. The foolish american consumer, eh?
 * I agree that this article sounds extremely one-sided, especially considering how controversial his business is. Blinutne 05:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing of unpleasant facts
The part below was removed as well as the charges against him in the article (numerous times). What's with the agenda? - Ouzo 02:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Prosecutor's comment on criminal verdict
I thought its hypocrisy was self-evident, but presented NPOV. So I was surprised that anyone thought it POV in the other direction. In any case, no biggie. Ribonucleic 15:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It read to me like a campaign statement for the prosecutor, which does not belong in this article. Nor did it contain anything factually relevant to Francis. This is a biography of a living person, and so we should limit what is presented to well sited relevant facts. I wish we had more information about the subject himself, but I can't seem to find much to site other than reports of his interactions with the law.Lkinkade 16:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Believe me, the last thing I had in mind was furthering her political career. :-) I thought that it was a way of putting this particular witch-hunt in its political context. But again, the removal is fine with me. Ribonucleic 17:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If all you're finding are reports of his interactions with the law (which probably reflect him in a negative light, yes) then that's probably what should be used. If all information points to him being a (WP:BLP violation removed), then that's what should be said here. 71.90.25.14 06:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Request to add info
Requesting a registered user to add the info in this link to the main page. http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/business/la-fi-francis6apr06,1,7028851.story?coll=la-headlines-business-enter&ctrack=1&cset=true 130.156.30.59 16:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Federal income tax problems
I have added a section on this individual's latest legal problems. I have a copy of the indictment, and I've added just some highlights to the article. Now, aren't this individual's tax problems a lot more interesting that reading about shows featuring a bunch of wild, bare-breasted women? Famspear 04:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, this has not been the best week for this guy. Now I've added information on charges against him for bribery, drug possession, etc., while in jail in Florida on the contempt of court matter. Famspear 05:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Creating page just for Francis Legal matters
Seems that this is not a Wikipedia bio, but a slam article by people with agendas. The legal matters should be on their own page Joe Francis Legal History and his bio should reference it. Jaydon Farrely 16:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear JFseekingtruth/Jaydon Farrely: It's unclear why you believe that "legal matters" should be in a separate article in this particular case. Please explain.


 * Also, the statement that this is a "slam article by people with agendas" is probably not a sufficient explanation. I would suggest making specific comments about what language in the article you consider to be non-neutral, or working to make non-neutral language more neutral.


 * On your comment about "subjectivity" -- there is no Wikipedia rule against "subjectivity" per se. There is a rule about Verifiability. That is, statements in articles should not be merely the opinions of Wikipedia editors, but should be supported by specific citations to reliable, third party sources. There is no requirement, however, that the material presented by the third party sources be unbiased.


 * One possible approach: Take a particular paragraph, say one or two at a time, and provide your own edits, using the rules of Verifiabilty, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research, to improve the article.


 * Simply deleting the material you don't like and moving it to your own user space is probably not going to be considered appropriate. Your own user space does not constitute a "Wikipedia article." Yours, Famspear 16:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Famspear, Thank you for the suggestions. The one comment I have is that Wikipedia is not merely about provable statements, but its about accurate and fair information. Take a look at the Barak Obama pages. Many people post reputable and easily referenced materials, but editors say it is not "pertinent" to his bio, so it is removed. In that light, Francis' bio ought to say he has legal matters and those should be on a new article. His bio should have a neutral POV that talks about his life, his goods and bads, but not detail everyone that has ever written or said anything against the man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JFseekingtruth (talk • contribs) 16:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear JFseekingtruth: OK, I see that you have now created a separate article.


 * Normally, on something like this, the usual procedure would be to improve the existing article, not to create a new article and then move the supposedly "objectionable" material to the new article (although I have seen your method done at least one other time in Wikipedia). I don't have a strong opinion, as I don't follow this article very much I think the main thing I had added to the article (some time back) was material about his tax-related legal problems.


 * One thing you may want to consider is: If you believe the material is somehow objectionable when it's found in the main article on Joe Francis, then why wouldn't it also be objectionable in the separate article on his legal problems?


 * And, exactly what is it that you believe is objectionable, and on what specific ground? It sounds like your concern might be mainly over non-neutral point of view -- but you haven't identified any specific verbiage that represents non-neutral point of view.


 * Merely including negative material about an individual in an article, even overwhelmingly negative material, does not necessarily in and of itself constitute a non-neutral presentation. Yes, it may well be that the material needs editing to improve neutral POV. Any specific suggestions you have may be helpful.


 * I cannot predict how other Wikipedia editors will view your creation of a new, separate article just for the "legal problems" stuff. Thus, I cannot guarantee that other editors will not simply move the material back to this article, and ask that you provide a more specific explanation. Yours, Famspear 17:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Famspear

Thank you again. The problem with Wikipedia is that it becomes time consuming once you get involved. I am going though it to make your points more clear. It will be posted within the hour I hope. Jaydon Farrely 17:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Tax trial postponed
I guess I haven't been monitoring this article very closely. I just checked, and back in September the tax trial for Joe Francis was postponed until April of 2008. I have updated the article accordingly. Yours, Famspear 16:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Controversies section
A sentence in the controversies section is incomplete: "Recurring allegations include that women engaged in sexual activity were used without the consent of the women...." I assume it is meant to say "Recurring allegations include that videos of women...." I don't know what sources were being used to justify the statement, so I don't feel comfortable with editing it on the assumption above. 69.134.79.254 (talk) 09:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

accidentally marked vandalism
I didn't mean to mark this edit as vandalism, but it's a properly sourced piece of info that is worth adding to the controversies about him. -Mike Payne (T • C) 19:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah - apology accepted. I was wondering. Sorry about the snippy talk message, in that case. I can see a phrasing that would make that edit useful, but I'm unconvinced by the current phrasing, which is poorly written and reads like a bit of a hatchet job slam. Being a BLP we have to be particularly attentive to this. I encourage you to flesh the section out a bit more and better explain its significance to the overall subject, and then reinsert it or, better, propose it here to be discussed more widely. This is something we have to be very careful on. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is hardly NPOV, I wouldn't be against rewriting it to make it more neutral, I'll look at it and try and do that later. What is a BLP? -Mike Payne (T &bull; C) 19:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:BLP. They're articles on living people - basically, on such articles, because being sloppy or wrong can do real harm to real people, we take extra care about accuracy and about appropriate use of material that could be viewed as critical. Thus where, in another article, something with a midlly unclear significance to the larger topic might need cleaning up, in a BLP it should probably be removed and fixed on the talk page instead of left up for a while in a bad form. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 10:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Meet Joe" :

World Daily Net link replaced with direct source
I replaced a link to a posting on WorldNetDaily with a link to the transcript of the interview it referenced on Fox News. The transcript does not support the claims made on the WND posting. Here is the extended quote: "And then I remember this one time walking down I fell, and they picked me up, and I had this little towel, and it sometimes came off, and they would walk me — this is walking me to the shower down the hall. And the inmates were mocking me on both sides and scream at me. They were not in these conditions.

And I would be crying, and fell again. And they came and they picked me up. And it was the chaplain, he had been walking the hallway. And he looks at me, the chaplain of the thing, and he says, son, have you thought about Jesus Christ.

And I crying, and I look at him, and I go, every day, because this is what they did to him.

And the guy looked back at me, and I knew he knew then that this was wrong. I was in a civil lawsuit."

I see nothing that directly indicates Francis is comparing himself to Jesus, and the WND link does not seem to meet the strict sourcing/linking policy at WP:BLP. Flowanda | Talk 03:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the content and link to the nn WND link. Here is the fox news transcript link for future reference, if needed: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303545,00.html . Flowanda | Talk 23:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Joe Francis Wikipedia Page
Original: "In 1997, at the age of 24, Francis founded Mantra Films, Inc.[4] Building on Francis' discovery that he could film college-age women "going wild," including baring their breasts for the cameras at spring breaks and other locales, Mantra has become a company with over 30 employees and has recorded sales in excess of $10 million per year.[2][5][not in citation given] Mantra also spun off the Guys Gone Wild DVD series."


 * We would like to omit the statement stricken due to that fact that the company is ever-changing and for that reason it is inaccurate.

Original: "Claire Hoffman reported in an article in the Los Angeles Times that Francis had pinned her against a car and twisted her arm when he was reenacting an incident he had with police in Panama City. Police had to separate Francis from Hoffman. [7]"


 * We would like to omit the statement stricken because this did not occur.

Original: "Other controversies include allegations of conspiracy to use minors in sexual performances. A 2006 Los Angeles Times interview mentions accusations of aggression toward women including repeated harassment and referring to them by epithets for the female genitalia, a death threat, and a rape accusation that Francis contested.[7] "


 * We would like to omit the statement stricken because it is bias, slanderous and inaccurate.

Original: "In January 2004 Francis was kidnapped from his Bel Air home by a would-be blackmailer, Darnell Riley. Riley first put a revolver up to Francis's head and duct-taped his hands behind his back. He was first videotaped, lying on a bed with his shirt off and a vibrating dildo at the crest of buttocks, repeating "My name is Joe Francis, I'm from Boys Gone Wild and I like it in the [buttock]." The assailant later attempted to extort $500,000 from Francis and he Darnell Riley received a 10-year sentence. [9][10]"


 * We would like to insert "Darnell Riley" in place of "he" in order to limit confusion in this sentence. He can suggest Joe Francis so we would like to make it more definitive and put Darnell Riley.

Original: " Mantra Films has come under legal scrutiny on a number of occasions. Recurring allegations include that footage of women engaged in sexual activity was used without the consent of the women, that Mantra Films engaged in sexual exploitation of minors, and that incomplete records were kept of participants in GGW videos.[11][12] "


 * We would like to omit the entire statement above due to the fact that it pertains more to Mantra Films and NOT Joe Francis.

Original:"Early in the morning on August 28, 2009 outside L.A. nightclub Guys & Dolls, Joe Francis was involved in an altercation with Jayde Nicole. According to Los Angeles County District Attorney documents, Jayde Nicole "appears to have acted without immediate provocation in her assault" against Joe Francis. According to the District Attorney, Jayde "appears to have poured a drink onto the neck/back of an acquaintance, Suspect/Victim Francis". Joe Francis then "responded by grabbing Suspect/Victim Gelette's hair from the back and pulling her down. Patrons/Personnel at the nightclub assisted in breaking up the altercation and escorted Suspect/Victim Francis away from the bar area. Suspect Jenner then reportedly assaulted Suspect/Victim Francis, striking him once in the head." The District Attorney has dropped all charges in the interest of justice.[13]"


 * We would like to omit the statement "Dropped all changes" and replace it with "never pressed charges" because it is more accurate

Original: "On April 12, 2007, Francis was accused of bribery, possession of a controlled substance, and introducing contraband (cash and drugs) into the Panama City, Florida jail. The Associated Press reported that Francis (in jail for contempt of court) offered a guard one hundred and then five hundred dollars for a bottled water. Jailers allegedly found drugs including Lunesta and lorazepam in the jail cell. Francis reportedly faced up to five years in prison if convicted on these charges.[20][21]. A psychiatrist hired by Francis' defense team stated in his report that Francis demonstrated "significant psychiatric issues" and did "express a potential for suicidal activity if his incarceration is prolonged."[22]  On March 12, 2008 Francis was convicted on child abuse and prostitution charges after pleading no contest in a plea bargain. He also pleaded guilty to charges related to having contraband in his cell during the time he was held in jail. He was sentenced to time served (339 days) and more than $60,000 in fines and costs.[23] According to court documents, the contraband found in Joe's jail cell was a bottle of water"


 * We would like to strike the statement 'A psychiatrist hired by Francis' defense team stated in his report that Francis demonstrated "significant psychiatric issues" and did "express a potential for suicidal activity if his incarceration is prolonged."[22]' because it is inaccurate and misleading. In addition we would like to add "According to court documents, the contraband found in Joe's jail cell was a bottle of water" because it provides clarity to the items involved in the contraband.

Original: " Francis attended a deposition in connection with the lawsuit and tried to take the fifth amendment with respect to almost all questions asked, including whether or not he owned a cell phone. During the deposition Francis repeatedly took out his cell phone and appeared to answer emails, and at one point took a call. Steve Wynn's attorneys reported that Francis repeatedly passed gas during the deposition. “As the court will see from reviewing the video clips of Francis’ deposition, his utter contempt for the judicial system is apparent, including his repeated attempts to disrupt the deposition with flatulence,” the lawyers wrote. Ultimately, the judge in the case ruled that Francis was liable for the entire $2 million, calling Francis’ conduct “the most ridiculous exercise of the Fifth Amendment I think I’ve ever seen.” Francis is expected to appeal the judge's ruling.[26] "


 * We would like to omit the entire statement above regarding the Wynn matter because everything written above was written by opposing counsel (it says "lawyers wrote")and it is bias and defamatory.

Original: "On February 2, 2009, Francis was arrested for failing to attend his court hearing. The following day, he was released to home detention and electronic monitoring on the grounds that he was too sick to attend the hearing.[35] His doctor had visited him the night before and told him not to leave his bed"


 * We would like to add the statement: "His doctor had visited him the night before and told him not to leave his bed" because it provides reasoning as to why Joe was unable to attend the hearing

If you could please take these revisions into consideration, we would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. Mantrafilms (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Provide reliable sources for your changes and it we will see where we go from there. Falcon8765 (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

HI Falcon,

I would like to please remove the following quote because when I clicked on the source the CNN page says "Page Not Found". If the article is not there for support it cannot be considered a reliable source.

"In 2002, Becky Lynn Gritzke discovered that she had been covertly filmed flashing her breasts at a Mardi Gras festival and that the image had been used without her permission on billboards advertising Girls Gone Wild videos and on the cover of a video. She sued Mantra Films and settled for an undisclosed sum under an agreement according to which GGW agreed to cease distributing all material bearing Gritzke's image.[14]"

Thank you. Mantrafilms (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

In addition I would like to dispute the following statement listed on Joe's wikipedia page: "A psychiatrist hired by Francis' defense team stated in his report that Francis demonstrated "significant psychiatric issues" and did "express a potential for suicidal activity if his incarceration is prolonged."[21]"

If you click on the link and read the article it clearly states that Joe is "clinically stable" and the statement on the page is misleading. Please consider my edit. Thank you. Mantrafilms (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I made an edit to the following in order to make the statement more clear and concise:

"Other controversies include allegations of conspiracy to use minors in sexual performances. A 2006 Los Angeles Times interview mentions accusations of aggression toward women including repeated harassment and referring to them by epithets for the female genitalia, a death threat, and a rape accusation that Francis contested and is unwarranted."

I added "and is unwarranted" because there is no record of a rape charge brought forward against Francis in this matter.AEB1275 (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

In addition, I made a slight modification to the following statement: "In January 2004 Francis was kidnapped from his Bel Air home by a would-be blackmailer, Darnell Riley. Riley first put a revolver up to Francis's head and duct-taped his hands behind his back. He then videotaped Francis, lying on a bed with his shirt off and a vibrating dildo at the crest of buttocks, repeating, "My name is Joe Francis, I'm from Boys Gone Wild and I like it in the [buttock]." Riley later attempted to extort $500,000 from Francis. Daren Riley was tried in 2006, convicted, and sentenced to 10 years in prison.[9][10]"

In place of the pronoun "he" I wrote Darn Riley in order to be more clear as to who was tried, convicted and sentenced to 10 years in prison. AEB1275 (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, I added this folloing statement under the Florida chargers section:  "This is despite the fact that Francis had disclosed the medication upon his incarceration; the medications were necessary to his health, and his possession of them was otherwise entirely lawful.[20]"

This is in order so that the public is aware that Joe had a Rx for the medication he possessed. AEB1275 (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Major imbalance in the article
Yes, I removed a large chunk of text from the article and I really think some discussion needs to happen instead of someone just putting it back. As it was, the article spent more than half of its space detailing a laundry list of legal issues and allegations, many of which probably don't have any lasting significance. The article would need to have some serious expansion before those details deserve more than a brief note. Shell   babelfish 23:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We probably didn't need to go into the depth that we did at this point on the various legal issues, but I do think that pulling it all out wholesale as you did does push things too far in the opposite direction. We could probably collapse a couple of sections down together - for instance, the old Civil and the Arrest for Contempt could probably go together (the Contempt charge came out of the Civil suit IIRC)...  Tabercil (talk) 03:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have any problem with something condensed, but it would have to be more than just slapping a few of the sections together - this needs to be in balance with the rest of the article, which means at this point, there really isn't much space to devote to it. Many of those items were reported once and dropped or simply "alleged", which doesn't lend much weight to the idea that they should be in an encyclopedia article to begin with.  The current section on controversies covers a lot of the issues in a little space, perhaps something more should be included there if any of the legal details are of lasting note.  Shell    babelfish 03:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with the rationale for the removal of the legal material -- at least, the federal criminal tax material. His apparently extensive legal problems don't have "lasting significance"? If, as is apparently the case, the guy was already "famous" to some limited degree, how can we say that the federal tax charges are somehow not significant? I had never even heard of this guy until his current federal criminal tax charges came in. For that matter, I had only barely heard of "Girls Gone Wild" (and I have still never seen the show).

Sure, I do assume that "Girls Gone Wild", and not his federal criminal tax problem, is probably the main factor in his notability. And I had a similar situation with the article on Kent Hovind -- someone I had never heard of until I ran across his tax problems. To most other people he was famous (and notable) for something entirely different.

But I would argue that the U.S. federal tax allegations against this guy (and at this point he has not been convicted) are significant. In the USA, a nation of over 300 million people, roughly 3,000 people per year (or even less) are convicted of federal tax offenses. So, when a "famous" person is even charged with a federal tax crime, it's a relatively big deal -- virtually all federal tax prosecution decisions are made in Washington DC, not in the local U.S. Attorney's office.

And no, not everyone charged with a federal tax crime is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. But his federal tax problems are definitely a significant part of his picture, in my view. Famspear (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning, but I do agree that the tax charges section had good references from multiple high quality sources, which is usually the standard for inclusion in a WP:BLP. I've taken a really hard look at the sections and the sources used and have put several back.  I did trim some of the detail out -- for example, I'm not sure why we need to go in to the exact deductions that the Government is claiming were fradulent, people can look at the references if they want that kind of information.
 * I left out the section "LA Times allegations of violence against women" since it was a piece by one reporter from a Sunday magazine and had several areas that were unreferenced; I looked but didn't see any other media that picked story this up. I left out "Administrative proceedings before the FTC" because the entire section was based on primary sources; if we can resource this with secondary sources, I wouldn't have an objection to using it.  I left out "Arrest for contempt" because the entire three paragraph section was based on a single news article and a rebuttal article published by a legal expert.  Maybe there's better sources for this, or since it seems tied to the 2003 event, maybe some statement should be put in that section?
 * It would still seem like the controversies and legal problems are seriously out-weighing the rest of the article. What do you think?  I know that finding more positive information about the subject is difficult since he's essentially very private about most things - is there a way to condense the negative information or something else that could be done to expand our other information about him?  Shell    babelfish 15:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear editor Shell Kinney: For starters, since I think I may have written most of the "federal tax" section anyway, and he hasn't been convicted or even tried yet, maybe I can shorten it. The basic information can be there, and just not be as long. I guess once his criminal tax trial starts, the "tax" section could be expanded if needed. Famspear (talk) 04:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear editor Shell Kinney: OK, I've shortened some more of the material.

On the "Administrative proceedings before the FTC" section -- although I know that Wikipedia generally discourages the heavy use of primary sources (in particular because of the danger of violating the NOR rule), I would argue that there are specific exceptions where heavy use of primary sources would not necessarily violate the rule. In fact, I think the Wikipedia rule on avoiding overuse of primary sources used to specifically state that the legal area (or at least case law as a primary source) could be an exception. However, if I recall the primary sources here did not consist of case law.

So, I partially agree with your deletion on the "FTC" section anyway -- just for a different reason: the length of the section (which I guess gets back to your main point about the legal stuff being too long in relation to the rest of the material in the article). I think some of it could be added back, but per your comments I should at least first make an attempt to look for some secondary sources. Famspear (talk) 05:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of millionaire porno filmmakers. I would say that Joe Francis is relevant because of his controversies. Imagine we had none of those to write about. Would pass muster as relevant? Dioxinfreak (talk) 02:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Born with a different name?
There is an rumor that he had a different birth name. There are no credible sources for this. Also, any of the criminal trials and civil lawsuits never mention any other names, aliases, "now known as", etc. His fathers name is Raymond Francis and his mothers name is Maria Francis. http://www.meetjoefrancis.com/mystory/ He has three sisters; Babette Francis, two years older; Caroline Francis, a year and a half younger; and Christina Francis, 10 years younger

Probably just stems from the fact that "Francis" is a fairly uncommon surname. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.56.24 (talk) 11:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Changes
Inserted under the description of Mantra Films "owns" and "distributes" because they do not only participate in the production aspect, but also the ownership and distribution.

Also changed "GGW and GuysGW DVD Series" to "GGW and GuysGW Brands" the brand encompasses DVDs, apparel, a magazine, etc.

Also added "Hoffman alleges in her article" in front of "Police had to separate Francis from Hoffman" because these are sheer accusations and there was no police or incident report file to prove that this event actually took place. AEB1275 (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Made slight edits for clarity and removal of irrelevant comments apparently designed to disparage Mr. Francis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamwire (talk • contribs) 23:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Revised title "Owner of Mantra Films" to "Founder of Girls Gone Wild" because Mantra Films does not exist as a corporate identity. Francis is the founder of Girls Gone Wild but his "ownership" of the company remains to be documented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamwire (talk • contribs) 07:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Removed dead links, and revised copy slightly for clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamwire (talk • contribs) 13:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Made minor edits for clarity and the removal of clearly biased comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamwire (talk • contribs) 22:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of Joe Francis having been married? In a Huffington Post article dated 2/15/12 David Arquette talks about his new girlfriend, Christina McLarty, and in the article it mentions that she is Joe Francis' ex-wife. Shouldn't this information be in the article about him?Mylittlezach (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Great Job!
I love the article. It does a good job of showing us how this guy is clearly a saint of the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.13.112.252 (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Controversies, etc.
Please be aware that unflattering content is not in itself a violation of the Biographies of Living Persons policy. Relating controversy and criticism is permitted if it's accompanied by reliable sources and is not given undue weight. From WP:BLPSTYLE: ''Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all.''

If these sections are continually removed wholesale, it's considered vandalism and the page could be protected from editing by anonymous users. ... disco spinster   talk  02:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected
And I've now protected it. Anonymous IPs can request an edit to the article by placing here on the talk page along with a description of the requested edit. ... disco spinster   talk  03:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment
I have started a Request for Comment entry at Requests for comment/Request board. The request might be moved to a more appropriate page, in which case I will update the link. ... disco spinster   talk  04:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It appears that the offending party has been temporarily blocked by an administrator. It appears that the offending party is trying to remove any text containing materials that are "negative" about the person who is the subject of the article. That kind of wholesale removal of properly sourced, neutrally presented text is not appropriate, even in an article on a living person. I believe the materials are reasonably well-sourced and presented in a neutral manner. As is sometimes said, neutral point of view in Wikipedia does not mean "no point of view." Famspear (talk) 13:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Neutral point of view means a commitment to present what the available sources say in a neutral tone, with due weight; it doesn't mean we don't present information that might reflect badly on the subject. Further, since he's held many press conferences, and sought publicity, the subject here is a public figure rather than a low-profile individual, so he doesn't get that exemption, either. I personally think our biography of living persons policies need some overhaul to preserve the privacy of public figures who aren't exactly household names, but our current polices clearly mean that the disputed content stays in, so there it is: The ancient Chinese curse, "May you have an interesting life" might well be updated for modern times as, "May you have a Wikipedia article about you." –  OhioStandard  (talk) 03:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Advice for persons associated with the subject
On further review − see my comment in the preceding section − I'll also add my opinion that while persons associated with the subject should not be editing this article, due to a conflict of interest, the talk page behaviour of the Mantrafilms and AEB1275 accounts shown in earlier edits to this talk page was everything we could wish for from someone with a conflict of interest, exemplary, actually. I would strongly encourage such persons to return to that mode of attempting to influence this article, disclosing that conflict of interest here, as in this example, and refraining from editing the actual article. If requests for change languish here, the person could post a request to the help desk for an editor to evaluate and complete the particular edit he'd like to see accomplished. But continuing to edit the article directly will likely backfire, resulting in blocks, or full protection of the article, so no one but an administrator here can edit it, based on requests made here on its talk page. – OhioStandard  (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Home invasion?
Why no mention of the home invasion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.242.245.227 (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Seems to be a pretty important event in the subjects life. That's probably information people want to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.55.206.114 (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

unsourced or poorly sourced claims
PUFF about charities needs a non SPS source. Ditto PUFF about his "inspirations" or whatever. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Report on TMZ that Steve Wynn is trying to but GGW out of bankruptcy
There is report on TMZ that Steve Wynn is trying to but GGW out of bankruptcy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andhisteam (talk • contribs) 10:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Joe's ex-wife is having baby with David Arquette
Christina McLarty is going to have a baby boy with her movie star boyfriend David Arquette. She was briefly married to Joe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andhisteam (talk • contribs) 10:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Merge with Girls Gone Wild?
Should this page be merged with Girls Gone Wild?--Andhisteam (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * To put it softly, no. Legal issues being reported on by reliable sources push him over notability just for the company and remember, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to merge. GuzzyG (talk) 09:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)