Talk:Axl Rose

Unfitting to put legal issues in a bio

Reviewing old talk pages, it was decided that his personal relationships and such were not part of a bio. I see the story of Kurt Cobain’s death isn’t even in his bio here. I don’t see all the performances listed when Rose et al had guest singers or when he has been a guest singer or invited speaker. I’m not we need this info, but this is about the singer as an entertainer. The personal issues do not belong in his story here. Demsuz (talk) 05:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

"This is about the singer as an entertainer. the personal issues do not belong in his story here" You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding on what Wikipedia is and it's scope. And what are you talking about re: Cobain, there's an entire Suicide of Kurt Cobain article and his lead mentions his death too. RF23 (talk) 23:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you look more carefully at Kurt Cobain’s biography. It does not mention how he died and simply calls the note he left a suicide note. No one is discussing his life a tabloid. It’s completely unbiased unlike the way Axl is being dissected here. Demsuz (talk) 06:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

It says "On April 8, 1994, he was found dead in the greenhouse of his Seattle home at the age of 27, with police concluding that he had died around three days earlier from a self-inflicted shotgun wound to the head" Nil Einne (talk) 10:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Where is that quote? Under “Death” on Kurt Cobain, the only paragraph about his death is, “On April 8, Cobain's body was discovered at his Lake Washington Boulevard home by an electrician, who had arrived to install a security system. A suicide note was found, addressed to Cobain's childhood imaginary friend Boddah, that stated that Cobain had not "felt the excitement of listening to as well as creating music, along with really writing ... for too many years now". Cobain's body had been there for days; the coroner's report estimated he died on April 5, 1994, at the age of 27.” Demsuz (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I read the excerpts from Mick Wall’s book in his own article on Medium and in no where does he say Slash and Axl were arrested nor is the girl’s name mentioned. Walls mentions there’s a rumor the charges were dropped because Axl slept with the mother. I don’t think anyone buys that or knows why the family didn’t pursue the case. In the end, this is an accusation without any evidence. The band had no money to offer a settlement if anyone if thinking along those lines. 2601:589:4400:477:2D78:3D04:A609:7850 (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

They were not arrested; they were charged then went on the run to avoid arrest then charges were dropped due to lack of evidence. This is all in the source. RF23 (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The claim was withdrawn. You are using information from tabloid sources.

Instead of warring editing, explain why you think this belongs in his biography.

Mick Walls is sensationalist and even Jimmy Page called his writing “distorted and inaccurate”. It’s mudding the waters to mix a credible source like Slash’s biography with tabloid fodder and it borders on libelous.

Ask yourself why is it so important to give so much detail when there was no criminal record?

Are you enjoying trying to harm these men’s lives by insisting a 39 year old run in with the law be synonymous with their place in music history?

A biography isn’t a critical essay. Focus on their place in history and not your personal feelings about them Demsuz (talk) Demsuz (talk) 05:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Biography:"A biography, or simply bio, is a detailed description of a person's life.", "an account of someone's life written by someone else.", "a written account of another person's life".

Hagiography:"a biography that idealizes its subject.", "idealizing or idolizing biography an account that smacks of hagiography", "a very admiring book about someone or a description of someone that represents the person as perfect or much better than they really are,"

This article is a biography, an account of Mr. Rose's life, including - as the saying goes - "warts and all". Legal troubles, relationship issues, breakups and makeups with band members and partners, awards, the highs, the lows, the bad and the good...all of it. To leave legal issues out of this article, issues that are reported on by multiple reliable sources would not be encyclopedic, would be against Wikipedia's mission, and would turn this biography into a hagiography.

Also, the eay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is pertinent in this case...the content of individual Wikipedia articles is written and decided upon with editorial consensus on an article by article basis. Just because some type of content might exist or even doesn't exist in another article has little to no bearing on other articles. And this talk page is for discussion of improvements to *this* article. The legal issues should stay. - Shearonink (talk) 13:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

What’s the opposite of a hagiography? In some parts, Axl’s biography is written like a tabloid.

Herein he is assumed to not have a side or get any benefit of the doubt in any of these issues.

Why is an alleged event

-that took place over 39 years ago and 3 years before the band was known to the public-

need a detailed paragraph?

His involvement in throwing a girl out of his studio (at minimum) has no named witnesses yet people were said to be there. A woman, who claimed she was this girl, came forward in 2019 from what I see and at the same time was publicly stating she was destitute on Facebook. That isn’t a judgment. I do question if the man who took her virginity was an adult and if she pursued any other men.

She claims she saw Axl sleeping with another women moments before she was assaulted. Who was that woman? There was no description. Why was a 15 year old allowed to go out at night and choose to be around musicians using drugs and alcohol at night? She was seen before so her parents let her be out at night apparently.

If a lawyer wouldn’t take her case, you have to wonder why. Slash’s book confirmed details and clearly she was humiliated. Is there only evidence there was an assault by speculation?

Kurt Cobain’s biography doesn’t discuss his marital, band issues, legal issues, or lawsuits. Axl’s legal issues, law suits, and accusations should get a separate page. It’s well-documented he was a terribly abused child for a long period. Let’s not abuse him here. Demsuz (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Demsuz - From the various responses here and from your own posts here it seems clear to me that you should probably open a formal WP:Requests for comment on this content and consensus from the editorial community regarding Axl Rose's legal issues staying in or being excised from this WP:BLP article can then be established. - Shearonink (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I question why the legal issues and lawsuit sections aren’t condensed and a credible sources were used. My edits were reverted when I tried to. Take a look at the sources used and they are almost all music tabloids.

“Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors.”

The story of a girl claiming abuse in 2019 wasn’t picked up by any “Reliable Sources” here. I see no reason to lump an accusation made in 2019 of a 1985 encounter with a legal issue. The bio says he was arrested multiple times without all the details. Why do we need every detail on an accusation when there was no arrest?

Why aren’t Axl Rose’s abusers being excoriated in the same tone in this biography? There’s a narrative here by some constant editors like RF23 to minimize his activism and charity and to expand his tanglings with the law or estranged parties. Demsuz (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

RF23 Please state your case here. You keep reverting edits without discussion above. This alleged 1985 incident doesn’t belong in the bio. Why hasn’t any investigative reporter investigated these claims especially when the accuser is easily reached? Mick Wall has books to sell and sensationalism sells. I don’t even see how the female who came forward in 2019 has a similar account to any other version especially Wall’s version in his 2017 book. I see nothing that states his interviewed her. If no one can make sense of this story, why is it of interest? What’s your goal here? Demsuz (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I don’t argue with editors who don’t understand what the scope of this site is, or what reliable sources are. There isn’t a point in “stating my case” because you are already ignoring what’s being said and not being civil (stating a veteran editor has "an agenda" isn't helping you). Please educate yourself, the editor who responded below has linked to pages that can help you. RF23 (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I had a veteran editor tell me they agree with me on the bulletin board. I never claimed anyone has “an agenda”, you are not quoting me and I’m not sure where you came up that.

You are referencing Mick Wall’s book. Can you show me the direct quotes from his book? We can see above you misquoted me so please only provide direct quotes.

Let’s discuss how to make the bio better and not what you think of me. Demsuz (talk) 05:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Here’s a helpful response I received asking for help in biographies regarding this page. A retired editor archived it so I’m moving it here so it can seen:

“I think a lot of people come here with a mistaken idea of what an encyclopedia is, and what one is for. an encyclopedia is not the place for excessive detail. Space there a quick reference is designed to give the reader the basic gist of the story without having to read the whole damn story. Their brief summaries, and summarizing --by definition--means cutting out trivial details and boiling everything down to the nitty gritty, focusing on the most significant aspects of the subject. Weight and balance is how we keep most trivia out of celebrity articles. What weight and balance means is we take all the sources that exist about a subject and divide up the info like a pie chart. Things that get the most coverage are the most significant and deserve the most space in the article. The main policy we have to mitigate this sort of thing is WP:NOPV, and in particular WP:Due weight and WP:Balance. I'd suggest reading those policies very carefully. Outside of Wikipedia, "notable" means people are interested in it; that is, it's noteworthy. To avoid confusion between this and Wikipedia's definition, I'll use the synonym "significant" to mean this definition. If something is significant or noteworthy, people will write about it in reliable sources, because that's what they do. I think a lot of people come here with a mistaken idea of what an encyclopedia is, and what one is for. An encyclopedia is not a place for excessive detail. They're quick references designed to give the reader the basic gist of the story without having to read the whole damn story. They're brief summaries, and summarizing --by definition-- means cutting out trivial details and boiling everything down to the nitty gritty, focusing on the most significant aspects of the subject. Weight and balance is how we keep most trivia out of celebrity articles. What weight and balance means is we take all the sources that exist about a subject and divide up the info like a pie chart. Things that get the most coverage are the most significant and deserve the most space in the article. Things that are less significant get less space, and those with the lowest significance doesn't deserve any. It all depends on the amount of public interest in whatever that thing is, which we can measure fairly accurately this way. Balance in addition can refer to how the info is arranged in the article. It's like, if you load all the heavy cargo in the back of the boat it will likely sink, but if you evenly disperse the weight the boat will be better balanced. Similarly, putting all the bad stuff in a section titled "legal issues" is like putting all the heavy stuff in the back of the boat. Better would be to work these things into the timeline of events so it's more balanced throughout the article. Weight and balance are best determined by those who edit the article regularly and are familiar with all the sources, so it's best to take this to the talk page and work it out there. If nothing else, throw down some good arguments for others to read, because once you do that, if you still can't come to a resolution, then you can try our dispute resolution process, such as WP:NPOVN, WP:RFC, or WP:DRN. I hope that helps, and good luck.”Zaereth Hope it’s obvious I moved this quote. Demsuz (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The legal and lawsuits sections don’t belong in this bio

The legal and lawsuits sections don’t belong in this bio if not reliable sources. Even reliable magazines such as Rolling Stone and Spin might publish online articles that are not in their print magazine. Those often have click bait headlines or are opinion pieces. This bio seems to focus on too much minutiae in these sections. One editor named Ringfan23 will not engage on the topic of why they keep putting in the story of one accusation. In researching this story, no reliable news agencies picked it up and the woman’s case was not accepted by a prominent lawyer she met with. It was a lawyer who notably handles such cases. There’s some truth known about this incident in 1985. Slash’s bio mentioned it. Mick Wall’s, also biased, mentioned it in 2016. In 2019, a woman came forward and said she was the girl running down the street and added was also sexually assaulted. I cannot find one eyewitness or ear witness that collaborates her 2019 version of the alleged assault in front of witnesses. A accusation should be put in the bio just because people on social media are discussing it.

The alleged event happened 39 years ago in 1985. The band was signed in 1986 and became internationally known in 1988. What’s the relevance to his bio of an accusation in 2019? We know Slash and Axl were running from the law in 1985 with the accusation of statutory rape. Since the family withdrew the charges, where’s the explanation as to why? The woman’s mom could have been interviewed in 2019. Why is the public expected to navigate the truth with so little details? Why shouldn’t we be critical of the girl’s parents who let her roam the streets at night at 15 and be familiar to hard partying individuals at a rehearsal space? Do we know that the men she encountered knew her age? I would guess some did not. That would have mattered to a judge. What if Ringerfan23 decides to put every negative encounter Axl Rose had in his bio? Certainly, there’s not a word of his eulogy and singing at Lisa Marie Presley’s 2023 funeral which a significant event in his life and it was covered by reliable sources. This bio needs to be more neutral and balanced. Demsuz (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

No discussion on noticeboard posted. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

It is there. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#c-NatGertler-20241017221700-Demsuz-20241017212600 Demsuz (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Demsuz: Oh, you posted it was @ Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion - FlightTime (open channel) 23:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I posted a notice here too. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard Demsuz (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The legal section (and its lawsuit subsection) are laden with top-notch sources, like the Associated Press, Washington Post, Deseret News, and L.A. Times. Rolling Stone is considered a reliable source for non-political matters, and we accord websites in general with the same level of reliability as their print publications. There may be reasons to trim individual items from this section, but there is no basis for the elimination of the entire section. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Rolling Stone has hard hitting investigative reporting then it has sections of subculture such as gaming, food, and commentary. A lot of hearsay is in the bio. Take a look at all the tabloids and unreliable sources used such as blogs and music fan websites. Why is this allowed?

The “Legal Issues” section has this order of references:

Ultimate Classic Rock

Deseret News

Loudwire

L.A. Times

Ultimate Classic Rock

The New York Times

MTV.com

Billboard

The “Law Suit” section has this order of references:

Associated Press

The Buffalo News

Meaww.com

Los Angeles Times

Spin

Blabbermouth

Blabbermouth

Entertainment Weekly

NY Times blog

Ultimate Classic Rock

Blabbermouth

Los Angeles Times

Hollywood Reporter

Metal Sludge

The Washington Post

TMX.com

ABC News

People

Demsuz (talk) 01:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

As I said, there's a lot of high-quality references in there. And trying to put down Rolling Stone's cultural coverage overlooks that their cultural coverage is specifically what they've been found reliable on (see WP:ROLLINGSTONE.) If you want to address individual items in the Legal section, fine, but claiming that there are some sources are weak and thus the whole thing has to go is not how we work here. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

My comment wasn’t a put down. Rolling Stone wasn’t even a reference used in those sections. The relevant legal issues should be throughout the bio, not at the bottom. Are you interested in helping improve the article? Why not take the tabloid trivial matters out? Demsuz (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

mindless self indulgence

The band was started by jimmy urine in the 1800 bc it inspired many young children to live love and laugh 2601:2C1:9080:3F40:5808:8CFF:FE87:FBCC (talk) 23:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)