Talk:Mel Gussow

Slow-motion edit war

Going back to January, several people have edited this article to change the subject's name and the names of his parents back and forth between their formal and informal forms. Some of these editors appear to be single-purpose accounts, and/or have a conflict of interest that means they should not be editing this article. I have changed the Gussow family member names back to their formal forms. Unless you can provide a reliable soource to support a change, please leave them that way. --CliffC (talk) 04:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of cited material

Recently verified, cited material was removed twice from this article by someone wanting to make a point (or remove a point}, but who may not understand how to edit, so they simply revert to an older version and lose all the intervening edits, including links to online copies of Mr. Gussow's work. In one case the reversion was made with the notation "latest MG family verified version". I don't want to appear insensitive to family wishes, but there is no such thing at Wikipedia as a "family verified version". Please see article ownership. Cited material may not be removed from the encyclopedia without good reason and without discussion first on the talk page. I want to restore that cited material and make some other needed corrections of fact, so am listing here the planned edits so that each will be understood.

1. Remove the non-existent, redlinked category "Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism alumni"
2. Add the existing category "Columbia University alumni"
3. Link Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism in article text
4. Restore, or add, online links to all Times sources and other references where such links exist, so they can be read online
5. Format links in a consistent, standard style
6. Restore link to the Wikipedia Greenwich Village townhouse explosion article
7. Restore the mention of Charles McGrath, with a citation to the online copy of the subject obituary showing both names in the byline
8. Replace "...according to Gussow, enough explosives that potentially could have leveled everything on both sides of West 11th Street and West 10th Street", which doesn't sound like anything Mr. Gussow ever wrote, with the exact FBI statement reported in his article
9. Add an online link to that article as well
10. Remove the statement "At the time of Gussow's death, he and his wife and son lived on West 10th Street" because it's irrelevant, and because the linked source shows the family's exact street address.

Thanks for your cooperation. --CliffC (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The above is now complete, and also:

11. Provided a requested citation for Jesse McKinley quote

12. Added a detail on his Times career – wrote over 4000 articles and reviews.

--CliffC (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Religion

This is mentioned in the edit summaries but they're easy to lose track of; and seeing as this has been a point of contention it bears stating here: Gussow's religion is certainly relevant to this biographical article, but it appears that different editors have made different claims about his religion during the preceding few weeks. Accordingly the article should say nothing about it until someone provides reliably sourced information to establish it. (I am speaking by the way of his own religion - the insistent references to his "interfaith marriage" smack of POV and, barring some indication that that fact is both true and that it has some particular biographical significance, it has no place here.) JohnInDC (talk) 11:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

From his family

I'm Mel Gussow's son and I'm aware of most of the conventions of Wikipedia and almost all of the changes I've made are to correct factual errors. The worst being the completely bizarre lie that he was a real estate agent. At the moment, it is looking good and I'll refrain from even making minor changes. For the record however, my grandfather arrived in America from Lithuania and took the name Don, not Donald, Don. Also, I would just as soon not have my middle name in there and my mother feels the same but I'll leave that to you. Egussow (talk) 04:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion and comments

Yeah at the moment I don't see any big problems. I'd say definitely delete the part about survivors, as this clearly isn't an obituary, although I suppose it's based on one. If I'm wrong, then please include name of funeral home and calling hours, if any...

In fact, I think I'll delete that stuff for the reasons stated (Sorry guy). The names of these people can be more appropriately worked in elsewhere within the article by somebody else, if they care to. As "survivors" they all could die tomorrow and sources and editors might never be available to provide accurate updates. I guess they'd still be survivors to Mel Gussow, but... I think my point is legit.

Potentially the part about ancestors is too much detail, as would certainly be details of any ancillary financial activities, personal investments, social security income, or whatever, even if accurately sourced. Not relevant to what makes the guy notable, and/or, the guy's not notable enough to make it relevant.

I'd also say that strictly speaking, family members have a COI in bio articles, though in this case I think it's an extremely minor quibble at most.

Also, a direct link to NYT obit would be appropriate.Calamitybrook (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit war, redux

This has grown entirely out of hand and so I've asked that the page be semi-protected here. JohnInDC (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

One of the Anon users complained in an edit summary that a couple of the editors here are "reluctant to add facts". I thought it was pretty well explained here on the Talk page, but I will repeat it in the hope of achieving a bit of peace. First, facts aren't "facts" unless they're sourced, particularly where there is disagreement or uncertainty. Melvin or Melvyn? Grandfather Don or Donald? No one offers reliable sources for any of it. (Adding that he was commonly called "Mel" is just clutter given that the *name of the article* is "Mel" Gussow.) Second, some of the edits seem to carry an agenda. This whole back and forth about his religion - first it was Jewish, with the stray (and slightly snarky) addition that he had an "interfaith marriage". Later the edit was amended to say that he was Jewish but then converted after the marriage. No sources for any of these changing facts - better, then, left out. Third, the matter of survivors is marginally appropriate in the first instance. As other editors have observed, this is a biography, not an obituary. Even if the information were sourced - which it isn't - there is no reason at all to include personal information like the whereabouts of those survivors. And even survivor information were appropriate, and personal information were pared away, the age of (one of) the survivors shouldn't be included. Forty-one as of when? Who's going to change it after his next birthday? A birthdate would be better - but that too is a collateral point about a collateral person in a biography of Mel Gussow. So I suggest to the anonymous editor(s) who keep insistently adding this material to the page - find some reliable sources. Knock off the contentious phrasing and stop including inappropriate personal information. I would be much less "reluctant" in that case. JohnInDC (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oddly, details seem to be removed from this article, and others only make it by force, for instance, even though there are numerous references to Mr. Gussow's common name as Mel, it appeared that after the first addition, several more edits were required before such a change became accepted as undos were common from several of the regular contributors. Also, I noted above a casualness about factual details like the man's name. Melvin or Melvyn - yes, that is a fact. And there are verifiable references to his name being Melvyn, why in the world would that be irrelevant? Same goes for his family and religion which are excluded lately. Additionally, I did make a notation in my revision comments that with all the edits, the regular editors here have done nothing to add sources to significant statements in this article, including the people referenced as subjects for Mr. Gussow's writings. Links to Wikipaedia pages haven't been added by all of these falsely vigilant editors. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.14.38.133 (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out some of the missing references, but now you got me spelling Wikipedia wrong in my edits with an a before the e! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.125.137.42 (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"Melvin or Melvyn" is not a fact, it's two. Which *one* is it? If there are verifiable references to "Melvyn", then provide them, please. If it was in fact both, give a source for *that*. Likewise religion. I agree that it's an important biographical item but here too the various claims are not supported - and that little bit about the "interfaith marriage" sounds like someone's got an axe to grind. What would work, if it were properly sourced, would be "Jewish, subsequently converted to [whatever]." There you have *his* religion without the tone of approbation that accompanies "interfaith marriage" *and* you have eliminated the implicit (and again unsourced) claim that his conversion was due to the marriage. Perhaps it was the other way around - without a reliable source for it, who knows? Finally, as to surviving family members - I've edited the entry to remove the problems of subsequent developments in *their* lives; but anything that describes where they once lived is too much about them. And saying where they live *today* is inappropriate altogether. JohnInDC (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well said, JohnInDC. Mr. Gussow complains that "the regular editors here have done nothing to add sources to significant statements in this article, including the people referenced as subjects for Mr. Gussow's writings", yet he expects to add unsourced information as to the article subject's religion and marriage. Many statements in Wikipedia are unsourced; if someone challenges them by adding a "citation needed" {{cn}} tag, they can be removed after allowing a reasonable time for other editors to locate and add a source. Contentious statements can be removed on sight; the author can re-add them when a reliable source is found. As to the single misspelling of his name as "Melvyn", in the citation of the NYT staff obituary, that's called a "typo", a trivial mistake that's easily corrected, not some sinister plot against Truth.

Speaking just for myself, you'll find "regular editors" here reluctant to add sources or otherwise improve the article because of the likelihood of some fresh anonymous editor appearing and destroying their work by reverting the article to a version from months earlier. I appreciate your coming to this talk page to explain yourself a bit; please visit again in the future to cite sources and propose changes to be discussed, for family members have a de facto conflict of interest and are discouraged from editing articles about family members, for obvious reasons. --CliffC (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Mr. JohnInDC, you've got some odd interest in this. You say, ""Melvin or Melvyn" is not a fact, it's two. Which *one* is it? If there are verifiable references to "Melvyn", then provide them, please." Well, there are many sources, mostly from the New York Times where he worked for many years. How can that be in dispute. This seriously raises an issue of your credibility and seems odd that your colleague CliffC believes it is better to take your edits than that of family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.2.61.121 (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's really not hard. His full name has rendered here as both "Melvin" and "Melvyn". Other editors don't know and, for lack of reliable sources, can't tell which is correct. *Both* could be correct - sometimes people aren't fussy about things like that and actually spell their names two different ways. If as you say there are many sources for one, or the other, or even both, then it should be a trivial matter *just to provide one or two* to resolve the uncertainty. That's all it will take. JohnInDC (talk) 01:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A brief notice posted by the Times refers to "Melvyn". There is no item found for "Melvin Gussow" in the NYTimes archive. Alansohn (talk) 01:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's a Paid Notice, which says whatever the purchaser wants it to. A Google search on both "Melvyn" and "Melvin" turns up both in about equal numbers (I didn't bother digging to figure out how many wind up being sourced from the same place). It's not a critical point and I suppose if they're about equally used then one is as good as the other. Really, the article just ought to say "Melvyn or Melvin" and be done with it! JohnInDC (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have made some very basic corrections to my father's page.

Look, I get that there could be cases where family are not objective enough but I'm sorry my father's full name was Melvyn Howard Gussow and he was Jewish, he did not convert to Presbyterianism. My personal preference would be to eliminate the mention of religion but if it's going to be there, it should be correct. These are simple facts, not subject to interpretation and I would think unless someone else wants to offer proof to the contrary the word of his son should be accepted.

As far as my grandfather's name, when he emigrated to America, he took the name 'Don' not 'Donald'. Again, I'm sorry - unless someone offers proof to the contrary why wouldn't the family's word been taken for basic information such as this?

Thanks,

Ethan Gussow-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egussow (talk • contribs) 05:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You would have better success in getting your edits to stick if you were to provide a reference to a reliable source that indicated your father's full name and religious history. Wikipedia isn't based on what individuals know, but on what has been reliably reported or described about people, things, etc. -- this is a basic principle of how the encyclopedia works. See WP:Reliable and WP:Original research for starters. That is the answer to your rhetorical question, why the family's word wouldn't be taken for something. That being said, I haven't seen any source for his parents full and accurate names, nor for the subject's religious history. Since the issues are unsourced, in dispute, and collateral to the main article anyhow, I've taken them out. Unsourced and disputed information has no place here. When someone provides a reliable source on either score, they can go back in. (And anyone who wants to change them thereafter needs to source *that*.) JohnInDC (talk) 11:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we're arguing over the middle initial "H". Whether it's Howard or Hayes, it's still H - but, as has been pointed out, neither has a source so perhaps it's best just to leave it out altogether. I've made that edit. It is likewise best - indeed imperative - to leave out contentious information about his religion, in particular the alleged conversion to Christianity, so long as those facts remain unsourced. Let's stick with what can be referenced. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll make it clear for the anon editor who keeps inserting unsourced information, in particular the bit about the conversion. These are contentious issues, and there is no reliable source for any telling of them. His middle initial, his parents' full names, his religion - at birth or at death. In prior discussions I defended the status quo against changes but after a good deal more Wikipedia experience I see that where disputed facts like this have no source, they have no place here and simply should be left out. So please stop reintroducing unsourced information about this fellow, his family, or his life. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous edits re religion (as well as middle name and parents' names)

I pretty well covered this in the foregoing section but for the sake of perfect clarity I'll restate the issues here.

The article has for many months been ping-ponging between one version declaring that Gussow was Jewish, and another that he was born Jewish but converted to Christianity late in life. Neither version is sourced. On several occasions in trying to sort out the dispute, I've looked and not been able to find anything one way or the other. The claim of conversion raises the hackles of some of Gussow's surviving family. No one seems to dispute that he was born Jewish but being unable to find anything on the subject at all, it made the most sense simply to remove all references to Gussow's religion, so I did. The lesser issues of Gussow's middle name (Howard or Hayes) and his father's name (Don or Donald) follow the same pattern: Two sets of editors, each unshakably wedded to their version of the facts, each persistently inserting their preferred versions, neither providing anything reliable or verifiable in support of their edits. I was tired of the back and forth, saw no end to it, and so I took out those references too.

An anonymous editor has recently been reverting to an earlier version of the page, one that may have remained in place (despite lack of any sourcing) at some earlier stage for a period of time. I've have been reverting the edits as unsourced and contentious - particularly the one about the conversion, which could be pure invention for all I know - which has met with objections on the ground that the article stood that way for a good long while and removing the information now is unwarranted. Which is of course beside the point. Again: If it has no source it has no place, particularly where the edits are contentious.

I invite *either* set of editors to provide reliable, verifiable source material on any of these issues. In the meantime the only solution is to omit references to the disputed material altogether. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I reiterate. I don't care one way or the other about his religion, his middle name or his father's full name. But some people *do*, they disagree on the facts, and they keep editing this article to reflect what they believe (but fail to demonstrate) to be true. So until one side or the other is supported here by a reliable or verifiable source, then neither side should appear. (And, to be explicit about it, neither "family knowledge" nor "facts that were here for a long time" qualifies an assertion as reliably sourced.) JohnInDC (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

2011 byline for Eliz. Taylor obit

It's been added and removed a few times now. I don't expect Gussow will garner too many more byline credits, given his increasingly distant demise, so i don't see much of a problem in leaving it in. I don't feel too strongly one way or the other about it, but given the activity on the point it seemed to make sense to raise it here. JohnInDC (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not inappropriate to mention Gussow's last-written work, given that he worked until a few weeks before his death. The Taylor obit isn't his last-written work, however! Obituary writers write many prewritten obituaries for celebrities for their employers—the Times has 1,200—so what happened with the Taylor one isn't uncommon. The WSJ piece mentions the paper's Bob Hope obit as an example, and the same thing happened with the Times' Gerald Ford obit in 2006; I remember it being mentioned at the time. Debbie Reynolds, Mickey Rooney, Kirk Douglas, and Leslie Caron are still alive, and it's entirely possible Gussow wrote their obituaries years ago. Are we going to update this article every time his byline appears on some venerable Golden Age of Hollywood actor's death notice in the next 20 years? Of course not. I'll wait a bit, both for responses here and to avoid WP:3RR, but as it stands mentioning the Taylor obit here violates WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENT, and WP:UNDUE. Ylee (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can't claim any broad perspective on this but it struck me as a interesting and amusing fact. It drew the attention - passing attention, but attention nevertheless - of the WSJ media blogger, which suggests that the three other editors who added it here, plus me, are not the only ones to have found it worth noting. As for future Gussow obits, and future updates - yeah, it would get messy, and finally, silly to clutter up the article with a laundry list of posthumous pieces, but in the 6 years since Gussow died this is the first and only one for him, and if it becomes a problem up the road we can easily deal with it then. In the meantime it's one extra (reliably sourced) sentence in an article that hasn't seen substantive change in probably years. There's very little danger of it getting out of hand. JohnInDC (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I, also, found the circumstance interesting, but I added a mention (before I visited this article, mind you; doing so is what led me here, actually) in the right place, obituary. It works there as an *example* of what is, as the WSJ blogger acknowledges, not a unique occurrence. If the Taylor obit were the only example of such a byline from beyond the grave, I agree it would be encyclopedic for Gussow's article. But a phenomenon that has happened *at least* three times in the past decade at the Times alone, and quite possibly happens many times each year at other newspapers that also prewrite obits but don't have the Times' prominence? Not encyclopedic, and editors who insist on rushing to Wikipedia without reading edit histories or Talk pages don't help. That's why, as things stand, the paragraph violates WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENT, and WP:UNDUE. Ylee (talk) 20:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

All true. But - the Times is prominent, Elizabeth Taylor was prominent, and (within his own orbit) so was Gussow. It's a sentence in an existing article, not a new article. Prewritten obits are of course commonplace; obits that survive their authors - and then run - surely less so; and I'd wager that this 6-year span is one of the longer stretches between death and publication. (All of this is surmise of course - but really you and I have come down to, I think, duelling surmises on this discussion!) The upshot of all of that is that, to my editorial eye, the inclusion of this small fact does not so clearly fly in the face of Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards or tone that it needs to be undone on sight, and indeed could be left in without harm. That's all. If you feel strongly, take it out and I won't reinsert it. On the whole, though, I'd prefer it stay in. JohnInDC (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The obit's venue isn't what was notable about it, but the circumstances behind the byline, and as we've established the circumstances are neither unique nor especially unusual. That's why it deserves being mentioned in obituary (and as an example of such a case because that article didn't already discuss such cases, not as example #5 of a pointless list of such cases), not in each author of such a byline. There's nothing about a six-year gap that makes this case inherently more notable than, say, the three-year gap between the author of the Times' Bob Hope obit's 2000 death and the obit's 2003's usage. This is especially true with obits on those with professions such as acting or sports, where it's common for 95% of the notable instances of a person's life to have been accomplished decades before the person's death. I'd not be surprised if Mike Schmidt's obit weren't prewritten years ago, and the odds are it will be publishable with very little editing needed when Schmidt likely dies sometime within the next two decades. (PS - I can't find a source at the moment, but I recall reading that the Times' Ford obit was originally written something like 20 years before Ford's 2004 death. (Actually I'm surprised it wasn't written as soon as he became Vice President.)) Ylee (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mel Gussow. 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/20080206135510/http://www.playbill.com/news/article/114595.html to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/114595.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)