Talk:Ian Levine

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

Forum Link[edit]

Hey, I was spelunking through the history of this page, and I noticed an edit war over the link to Ian's forum. Why? It seems like the kind of link that might be of interest to people interested in him, considering it gives people a way to get in contact with him... Is there a rule against linking to forums? Jm307 03:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No there isn't. Just one anon IP who keeps removing the link for unspecified reasons and we keep putting it back. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comics collection[edit]

I'm a bit concerned that the information about Ian Levine's comic collection may not be verifiable. It currently reads as if it might have been added by Levine himself or a friend of his. Unless there's been some media coverage of Levine's comic book collection which could be cited to support the statements in the article, I think it may have to be deleted — even though I do think the idea of a complete collection of DC comics is noteworthy, we have to restrict ourselves to verifiable information. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is true, but I cannot find a source online to verify it. He has discussed it on several forums recently though.- Reverend Malibu
Generally, forum postings aren't considered a reliable source, but I'll let someone else make the judgment in this case. It would be much better if we could have coverage from some media source. It doesn't need to be online (although that, of course, is easiest) — if Levene's collection has been discussed or covered in a comics publication like Comic Buyers' Guide or Wizard that would do.
It would also be good if we could have a source for Levene's claim to have written Attack of the Cybermen, just for the sake of the verifiability policy. (I don't doubt that he's said it, but we should be able to back it up, especially since it's a potentially contentious issue.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check it when I get back home - there's an old, old (well, we're all old now) DWB interview, I think, where he says this. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The writer and comic book expert Paul Sassienie began cataloging, grading and certificating 'The Ian Levine' collection in May 2011."
Shouldn't he have finished by now? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Levine Picture[edit]

Forgive my amatuerness, but how do I get this picture approved for permanent usage on the website. It's a pretty common picture- Reverend Malibu

The question that has to be answered is what its copyright status is. Do you know where it was originally published? (That is, where TVCream got it from?) In order to stay on Wikipedia, it'll need to have some sort of image copyright tag. I'm not very sure about these myself, as most such photos need a fair use claim, which I'm not sure would apply in this case. Perhaps someone at the help desk might be able to assist you more. Good luck! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the subject of images, does anybody else think the one currently on the page is a bit unfortunate? It looks like one of those photos you see in a newspaper of a criminal who's been surprised while walking outside his home. Angmering 06:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the same - it looks like he's about to enter court for some heinous crime. --Deadly∀ssassin 12:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cancellation protest[edit]

Is this worth mentioning in the article, and if so, how? I'd think that it would be appropriate, especially if we can also find a reliable source commenting on how many Doctor Who fans were (or are now, in hindsight) a bit embarassed about that particular stunt... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You see, I think something like that is worth mentioning, though I can see the arguement against-- no one likes having their dirty laundry aired in public and all that jazz. Still, it seems odd to have an article on Ian Levine without mention of that, or any of the DWB articles, or even the Missing Episode segment of Doctor Who and the Daleks: it's beyond petty parts of fan circles; these are big events that happened in a far wider arena than just an Internet forum. So, yes, I think it should be mentioned, because without it you're only getting one side of the story; just as all the positive parts in this article should stay, so this should appear: you shouldn't have one without the other or else it makes things look biased, which is an accusation I wouldn't like to see levelled at this article any time time soon.

82.153.26.144 18:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abzorbaloff[edit]

Is it really necessary for Wikipedia to feature a bitchy rumour about Levine in relation to the supposed resembelance between him and the character played by Peter Kay? A remark of this nature might just about me justifiable in the description of the episode, but what relevance does it have to Levine personally? Rob 20:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly wouldn't weep if it was removed; it may be cited as speculation by some people, but it's still speculation. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's notable. There's 'a long-standing fan myth' in there as well, after all. Jim 04:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How can there be any deliberate resemblance between Levine and the Abzorbaloff when the latter was the result of a design-a-monster competition in a children's TV show? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.19.57.170 (talk) 13:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The purported resemblance is not in the monster's appearance, but in the role the Abzorbaloff plays in the episode. See the essay here for one perspective on Levine and the Abzorbaloff. It might be more accurate to say that the resemblance isn't to the Abzorbaloff monster per se, but to Victor Kennedy, the man who takes charge of the "fan" group and takes the fun out of it. (Please note that I'm not saying Levine did anything of the sort in Doctor Who fandom, but there are people who apparently think he did.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed section per WP:BLP[edit]

I've removed this paragraph, because without citations it violates WP:BLP. Frankly, I'm not sure that it would be particularly encyclopedic even if citations were provided, but in the absence of citations there's really no justification for its inclusion.

As mentioned above, Levine is sometimes viewed as a controversial member of fandom, with critics citing his temper and attitude as unfavourable. However, others claim that he simply loves the show and that his behaviour, whilst arguably erratic and sometimes forceful, is but a sign of his dedication, and frustration that sometimes things go badly wrong with it.
Of late, various public arguments have occured in relation to a rumour concerning the cancellation of the new series of Doctor Who, and in relation to projects concerning the recolourisation of The Ambassadors of Death and more recently with plans to reanimate missing episodes of the series, in the style of the DVD release of The Invasion, an idea that was eventually shelved, for now at least.

With the latter, Levine felt that plans publically announced were a personal slight against him, and a conspiracy was underway to ridicule him and undermine his own personal actions in regard to animating the episodes. However, this has been denied by all involved with the announcment, and many who heard the news regarded it as a positive step forward for Levine's project as opposed to a hindrance.

Has any of this been discussed in reliable sources? (That is, somewhere outside of internet fora?) I know that Doctor Who Magazine made a passing and oblique satirical reference to Levine's meltdown last year over the possible cancellation of Doctor Who after the 2008 series, but has it been explicitly mentioned anywhere else? What about the tempest-in-a-teapot over the colourisation of The Ambassadors of Death or the collapse of the animation plans? If they've only been discussed on internet fora like Outpost Gallifrey's forum, the Restoration Team forum, or Levine's own forum, they're not notable enough for Wikipedia's purposes. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


RESPONSE

This is certainly true; however I would argue that Levine's online persona is very much part of both who he is, and how people know him to be, so it seems a tad odd to totally remove all reference to recent events, especially with being so prominent in the eyes of fandom. I totally agree in principal about online forums not being valid sources, but in this instance its absence seems odd. Added to this, I felt the wording was generally considerate and far from the vile outburst it could so easily have been (Levine has his detractors in bucket loads for certain, and I half-expected to see vandalism of this section.)

Darren Gregory[edit]

Maybe I'm misremembering but I seem to recall that Gregory was a notorious 'missing episode' hoaxer, so probably not really a friend of Levine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.6.159 (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Having said all this, I completely understand why it's been removed and why it shouldn't be there: please do not feel I'm trying to anger, poke fun at, or question your actions, as I really am not-- I think you were right to do what you did. I'm just curious-- honestly not trying to provoke or anything-- about your views on the area in general: should more mention be made to avoid an accusation of being biased, and if so, how should anyone go about it?[reply]

82.153.26.144 23:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think there are enough reliable published sources around to go into this sort of thing. Nor, really, should Wikipedia be bothering itself with the details of some sci-fi shows fandom wranglings. Angmering 17:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citations needed for "Attack" writing stories[edit]

We really should have citations for Eric Saward and Paula Woolsey's versions of the writing of Attack of the Cybermen. Does anyone know what issue of Doctor Who Magazine it was in? I might be able to find it and add the citation, but I'd like to have an idea of when it was. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Records Produced[edit]

It would be extremely useful to have a complete list of the records Ian Levine has produced here, or, at least, a representative sample of them, to show the diversity of his work. RomanSpa (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add a source: his Discogs page. Discogs reveals a lot more, some "facts" in the article are not true, which I'll prove too. 83.85.143.141 (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BLP cleanup[edit]

I just removed a completely uncited attack paragraph (an assertion of "oh, everyone in fandom knows" isn't Wikipedia-quality) and removed every claim that was fact-tagged. I haven't checked every reference, but it probably needs that too. Flagged on WP:BLPN - David Gerard (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article still contains unjust claims though. 83.85.143.141 (talk) 10:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

", and was involved in stopping the destruction of further serials after he learnt that they were being discarded."[edit]

What is the source for this? AFAIK the only source for this is the subject of the article himself. This story has been repeated verbatim as if it were fact, but I don't see any other source for this. Can anyone provide one? If not, I'll remove that sentence. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 08:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. This article's had enough problems with uncited assertions that I've removed it pending an actual source - David Gerard (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a possible source (also useful for other claims in the article, such as the DC Comics collection). About the destruction, the American Conservative article says:
Levine talked his way into the BBC in 1978 only to happen upon employees preparing to trash episodes of his favorite program. Levine recalled to a fanzine that he “threw an absolute fit.” He convinced the BBC to halt the company-wide junking.
Obviously, the quotation ultimately derives from Levine himself, but I think that for our purposes the surrounding text qualifies as a reliable source. However, I'll wait to see what others think before adding it to the article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That article is weird and terrible - an opinion piece trying to build a case against state-funded television, using anything it can grab as material. I see little evidence they fact-checked; it reads like it got its factual content wholesale from somewhere else. Note even the comments detailing the ways in which it's talking rubbish. I wonder if its original info source is traceable ... - David Gerard (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for some items formerly in the article; but are they noteworthy?[edit]

This article from 2012 mentions two things which used to be in this article but were removed because they were uncited: Levine's mammoth family reunion and Blackpool class reunion. The relevant text is:

Ian Levine’s manias extend to collecting every D.C. Comics release, organizing his matrilineal side into the largest family reunion of all time, and—here’s where things get straitjacket strange—staging, according to Simon Reynolds’s Retromania, “a bizarre re-enactment of his childhood, reuniting all thirty of his classmates from Blackpool’s Arnold School, along with the original teachers, garbing them in authentic sixties uniforms and recreating a typical school day complete with morning assembly, gym lessons and a game of rugby.”

If we wanted, we could restore those to the article. But should we? Are they worthy of inclusion? I honestly have no idea.

The Retromania reference takes us to that book by Simon Reynolds, which contains a three-page sidebar about Levine (pp. 219–221). That itself could probably be a useful source for the article. It mentions the family reunion as "the largest family reunion of all time" — a pretty remarkable claim. If we feel that Retromania is a sufficiently reliable source, that probably should be added. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ian Levine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Record Shack Records' false claim of success[edit]

I removed the claim which stated the label had scored a No. 1 hit single in every West-European country. The three artists applicable to this claim - Boys Town Gang, Village People and Evelyn Thomas - released indeed records achieving those successes, but only the latter did that via Record Shack Records and above all did not score a top notch record in all of West-Europe. Of those number one records, Boys Town Gang's "Can't Take My Eyes Off You" was a 1982 release by Dutch Ramshorn Records, and Village People's "Y.M.C.A." and "In the Navy" were Casablanca Records releases. 83.85.143.141 (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ian Levine. 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:

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) 23:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ian Levine. 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:

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) 21:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ian Levine. 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:

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) 16:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source reliability question:[edit]

I note that the DMC World Interview is sourced several times in the article. This is an interview with the subject in which the subject is claiming credit for several things. Several of those claims are untrue according to other wikipedia articles, and elsewhere. For example, his claim to have written the first three of Take That's singles. The Wikipedia articles on those singles show other writers, and the article for their first album show the subject as co-writer only of three tracks. Looking into the claim to have compiled the Solid Soul Sensations LP, this is refuted by Amazon's "Compiled by Label Boss Dave Mcleer with the Help of Blackpool Mecca Main Man Ian Levine." Looking at his claim to have produced The Exciters' Reaching For The Best, the record label shows that the track was produced by Herb Rooney and Ian Levine (and Rooney's Wikipedia article also shows this a joint credit).

I would suggest that claims from the subject are often exaggerated at best, and in some cases simply untrue, and therefore any sources which rely on the subject's claims are to be considered unreliable. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ian_Levine&oldid=1208157354"