Talk:Mark Owen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit war-vs-discussion[edit]

The point of protecting the page was to stimulate discussion as opposed to the edit warring that has been going on. So, who wants to step up and present their side? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have never edited this article. Yesterday, Owen admitted one affair lasting from 2004-2009, and around ten one-night stands during the same period. It is relevant to his life, and therefore should be included in his biography. It was The Sun he told, therefore they are the source of the story, hence its article I'm a love-cheat, a drunk... and a complete idiot should be included. The story has been reported by other national UK newspapers, including The Telegraph,Take That's Mark Owen admits affairs who are a reliable, high-quality broadsheet. Jim Michael (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with above statement. Post it!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.51.170 (talk) 14:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This news has turned out to be massive and is potentially going to have an impact on his marriage and his future as a member of Take That. I think it's of enough importance to be included in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brommyefc (talk • contribs) 03:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMO it is not worth inclusion, also the citation offered at the time was the Sun, what did we have, rock star sleeps with girls....not very special is it, we could add that to every rock stars start bio. I imagine he was going to be outed with a kiss and tell and he got in there first, but that is just my opinion. What is perhaps better to include as perhaps notable is the checking into rehab with an alchohol problem,a nd there is a BBC citation have a look. It should be remembered that this is not a celebrity magazine but the biography of a living person at wikipedia and we report notable things that relate to subjects notability not kiss and tell stories, mark said in 2010 that he slept with some other girls b4 he got married, yawn. Off2riorob (talk) 12:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Sun ref should be added as it is the source of the story; The Telegraph ref as well, due to its reliability. Although Owen has only been married to Ferguson since November, he was in a relationship with her continuously since 2004; their son was born in 2006, their daughter in 2008. That he had an affair with Neva Handley from 2004-2009 is certainly relevant to his personal life, and since it being revealed in national newspapers and discussed on national TV, it is relevant to his public life. Whilst pop stars are not typically monogamous, Owen was widely believed / assumed to be. Sexual / infidelity details are typically stated on Wikipedia biographies when the info is reliably sourced. Owen has admitted the affair and the one-night stands, as well as having a drink problem. Hence the info should be included. If we write the info in a neutral way, stick to what the sources say and cite them, there are no neutrality / BLP vios or libel issues; he is a public figure who has chosen how to live his life and has then sold his story to the press. It appears that Handley was about to sell her story and he pre-empted that, although I can't find a reliable source that states that to be the case. Jim Michael (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are not required to add the source of the story and in this case the Sun is the primary source for the content and we are looking for high quality third party reports. Anyway, ask yourself this, imagine in ten years will this be notable valuable detail worthy of remembering, no of course it won't. But, none the less,(against my better judgment)the edit I have prepared for possible inclusion is below, neutrally written in a non tabloid , non titillating way, in line with policy. Off2riorob (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst adding the source is not required, I think it would be preferable. The five-year affair with Handley is certainly relevant to Owen's bio, and will remain so for the rest of his life and for a long time after his death; it should be included. A mere vague mention of infidelity is underplaying it. Obviously, we should avoid tabloidish terms and not be judgemental, but we should not censor things either. Jim Michael (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a titillating tabloid citation is never desirable or required. Also there is nothing being censored at all, all the major details have been included. Your claim that this indiscretion previous to marriage will be notable about him for long time is not really true at all, he will be notable long time for his singing not his kiss and tell. The claimed length of affairs and the number of claimed affairs is of little or no value to the addition. I am unsure as to your position regarding my offered addition but if you disagree that my addition is not ok then please offer your desired addition here and we can ask for opinions as to which is the preferable addition. Off2riorob (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of the major details are included in the suggestion below; it fails to mention he had a five-year affair with Handley, which is an major part of his life. A bio is about the subject's whole life, not only his career. I never said or suggested that Owen is notable for his sex life. However, a person's verfied, reliably sourced sexual relationships, especially those of substantial duration, are routinely included in biographies on Wikipedia and elsewhere as they are relevant to the subject's life. In addition, the duration of his relationship with Ferguson (2004-present) should be stated, as should when they became engaged (2006), and when they moved in together. 'Two children' is nowhere near enough, it should be son (born 2006) and daughter (born 2008). Jim Michael (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dates of children's births are of no value, and naming of a not notable person that it is claimed have a five year affair with, the name adds nothing as does the length of the affair, how is their relationship notable, did he write songs about her, did he perhaps buy her a love nest what please present your desired addition here and we can request opinions as to the most correct within policy, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't claim that Owen is notable for his sex life. His five-year affair is relevant to his life, and hence his bio. Names of a subject's long-term sexual partners (notable or not) are routinely added to bios on WP and elsewhere. Thousands of WP bios, including Gordon Brown and Barack Obama, state their children's names, genders and years of birth. I'm not saying Owen's children's dates of birth should be stated, but the years should be. Jim Michael (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I could compromise on the years of his children's birth, your other point about what is and is not routinely added to wikipedia is not my concern, I can and am only dealing with this one issue, if you want content added apart from my desired addition below then please place your exact desired addition here for compare as this discussion is not going anywhere, thanks. As a sign of my good faith I will add the birth years of his children. After looking it is not in the citation, but this is... The singer added: "I'd like to ask the media to please respect the privacy of my wife and children during this difficult time." Off2riorob (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have refs for his children's birth years. Owen chose to talk to the Sun; Ferguson chose to receive attention from the media and public; she knew that was part of having a relationship with a famous person. It is not for you and I alone to decide on the wording, hence I am not suggesting what it should be. What I am saying is that a verified five-year affair is relevant to Owen's life and hence should be included on his bio. I would like to read other people's input, so that we can try to get consensus on this matter. Jim Michael (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, post what you want to add with your supporting citations and anyone can have a look at what you want to add. Off2riorob (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see why you didn't offer your addition here for comparison as discussed? Why is that? Off2riorob (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You said to add what I wanted to, with supporting citations, which I was in the process of doing. The Telegraph is a reliable source. I didn't choose the wording until I entered the text; I was hoping for other people to enter the discussion here. Most of the people who have commented on this talk page want the affair mentioned, so I did so. If someone does not like the wording, they could alter it, but there are no laws, policies or guidelines broken by the edit of mine that you reverted. Jim Michael (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you did not understand that we are in discussion, I meant and requested multiple times that you add your desired addition here for comparison on the talkpage and when you do I will request wider community comment. If you need a further pointer, the naming of the person he is alleged to have had an affair with adds nothing to the article as she is not a notable person, so although she has been named, we do not need to add her name and the readers get nothing from the adding of such a not notable name.Off2riorob (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure of the wording to use, I was waiting for more comments here on the matter, but when the full protection expired without that happening, I chose to add it simply and neutrally, so that if anyone objected, there would be a WP:BRD process. I believe my addition was correct; I don't see any WP policy or guideline that says that a subject's long-term lover's name should not be stated in his bio. Names of non-notable lovers are stated on thousands of bios, on WP and elsewhere. Her name is stated in mainstream, national newspapers. Jim Michael (talk) 21:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any benefit to our readers in including the name. Off2riorob (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why it should be excluded, when no law or policy says we should. As names are routinely stated in bios, I don't see why this article should be any different. At the moment, the article just says he was unfaithful. What justification is there to exclude the length of the affair, even if the one-night stands are thought too trivial to mention? The reader should have a good idea of the subject's life. I don't really have an opinion of Owen; I only want to improve articles; this one is incomplete. Jim Michael (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any benefit to our readers in including the name. We have added all the specifics of the issue, he has been unfaithful, but not since he got married and he has a drinking problem and he has checked into rehab clinic, the excessive personal details can be enjoyed at celebrity on line. The content and main issues is complete. Off2riorob (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Not all the specifics are not stated. A vague 'unfaithful' is not stating that he had an affair that lasted from 2004-2009. A five-year sexual relationship undoubtedly has significance to a person's life; why exclude it? Jim Michael (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life[edit]

  • On 8th November 2009, Mark married his girlfriend, Emma Ferguson in Cawdor, Scotland. They have two children.[1] In March 2010 Owen revealed that before he married Ferguson he had been unfaithful to her but said that he had been faithful since his marriage, he also revealed that his drinking had become a problem and checked into a private clinic for rehabilitation. [2]

Refs[edit]

  1. ^ "Take That star Mark Owen shows off his ring after fairytale wedding to Emma Ferguson". The Daily Mail. November 8, 2009. Retrieved March 14, 2010.
  2. ^ "Take That star Mark Owen checks into rehab". The BBC. March 13, 2010. Retrieved March 14, 2010.

Orphaned references in Mark Owen[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Mark Owen's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "bpi.co.uk":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mark_Owen&oldid=1206543250"