This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As we appear to be heading for an edit war here, I'd like to start a debate on the information added to the article from Los Angeles Times. I believe that this information shouldn't be included here as there is no exact citing of sources; Journalist Chuck Philips wrote in a Mar 17, 1995 article published in the Los Angeles Times is not good enough as I see it when the information basically accuses the subject of sexual harassment. Also, the information submitted is basically one large excerpt/quote from LA Times, and should therefore be rewritten to conform with Wikipedia policies on neutrality and verifiability. The article mentions a book published by Begnery Publishing, written by Peter Schweizer called "Disney: The Mouse Betrayed", ISBN: 0895263874. Is this a trivial fact, or is it properly sourced in the book? As it stands today, I believe the information should be removed. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 12:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
This is the text I've removed: Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 12:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Journalist Chuck Philips wrote in a Mar 17, 1995 article published in the Los Angeles Times:
"Walt Disney Co. executives said Thursday that the company has fired the top staff producer of its rock music division, Hollywood Records, following complaints from female employees that he sexually harassed them.
The alleged incidents-the first such allegations of sexual harassment at a record company since a scandal rocked the music industry in 1991. They involve Mark Hudson, a Los Angeles songwriter and producer who over the last 20 years has worked on records for such pop stars as Alice Cooper and Aerosmith."
Philips continues:
"At Burbank-based Hollywood Records, women began complaining to senior managers last summer about Hudson's behavior, alleging that he verbally harassed them with lewd remarks and pressured them repeatedly to date him. Hollywood Records executives interviewed Hudson regarding the complaints and subsequently required him to visit a Disney-recommended specialist for counseling, sources said. Although Hollywood Records transferred two women employees to other departments, several other women continued to lodge complaints against Hudson as recently as last October.
It wasn't until last Thursday however, that Hollywood Records executives decided to take action-two days after Seconds magazine, a trade publication focusing on rock 'n' roll culture, published an interview with a former actress who appeared in the Broadway play "Annie" and who is now a recording artist with Sony's Epic Records. In an interview in the magazine, the recording artist related an incident of alleged harassment involving Hudson."
The artist he is referring to in that article is Danielle Brisebois.
There is also mention of this in a book published by Begnery Publishing and written by Peter Schweizer called "Disney: The Mouse Betrayed", ISBN: 0895263874 The reference is on page 20.
The excerpt follows:
"....But from the start, his association with the company caused problems. Female employees repeatedly complained of sexual harassment; they alleged that he made lewd comments and pressured them into dates.
As complaints piled up, Disney executives did nothing, except to ask that he visit a counselor. Two of the women who complained about his behavior were transferred to other jobs.
Disney's attempts to conceal the problem failed when singer Danielle Brisebois went public with exactly what Hudson had done to her when she was only 17 years old and still a minor. "I played him a song of mine," she told Seconds magazine. "While I'm playing him my tape, I look up and he's masturbating." Brisebois says she told him to stop, but Hudson responded with an anatomical reference. She fled the studio in disgust.
Stung by the public embarrassment, Disney let Hudson go in March of 1995..."
I have re-removed that text from the article for the following reasons:
I read the entire section, and the thing that bothers me is that it was published in the LA Times (supposedly). However, I did a fairly lengthy search for that article, and searched for any articles with his name connected to Danielle's name, searched for articles relating to Disney and him, and came up empty. What bugs me is that someone added that section without citing any sources, so yes I see your point and I believe it is valid. However, IF someone does manage to find the article, prove it, or cite it from a reputable source, then there is no argument that it will be put on the page if someone decided to.
Second, I received a request to remove it from someone who said they are family, and while we cannot prove that, Wikipedia's policy is to give "good faith", and I believe it is genuine after discussing the issue with the poster.
Until that section can be verified, and cited with references, it should (in my opinion) not be part of the article, as it is defamatory. Please feel free to discuss the issue here, but please do not add that section back without having verifiable sources. Thank you! :) Ariel♥Gold 10:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Unless you can validate and cite the source of the information, it should remain out of the article, according to WP:NPOV. That section is defamatory, and unsourced, and hours of research were unable to come up with a single reference or item to validate it. User talk:Yenandzen has put the information back into the article, to which I left a note regarding why it was removed on their talk page.
If this continues, it will be taken to the Arbitration committee. Thank you. Ariel♥Gold 06:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Please refer to the WP:BLP for reasons why undocumented, unproven, unreferenced material that is defamatory should not be included in Wikipedia articles. Please do NOT add the section above to the article unless you can cite sources that prove it is true. Ariel♥Gold 18:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
You can go on Amazon.com and look at excerpts from the book and see it in black and white for yourself. Also, you can pay to back order issues of the Los Angeles Times and download the article from the Los Angeles Times for yourself. If the information in those articles are untrue, why didn't Mr. Hudson do anything about it when it came out TWELVE YEARS AGO!! Therefore, the information seems to be valid. Just because his daughter would like to rewrite history so it is convenient for her, doesn't mean she can or should. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yenandzen (talk • contribs) 02:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Elonka, and Ariel♥Gold for stepping in and getting this biography written in an informative manner. I have been asked by Mark Hudson to monitor this page for vandalism and will endevour to show neutrality in the way the biography develops. I will be updating from time to time, and since I don't know every aspect of writing in wiki format would be happy if you could help me with formatting links and references etc. Killerheels 18:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 07:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the Beatles documentary Good Ol' Freda, is the "Mark" who appears in the Q&A feature on the DVD Mark Hudson?
99.247.1.157 (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
uncited material, marketing copy, unsourced quotes, personal recollections, will be removed. please cite properly before re-adding.