Talk:Richard Benjamin Harrison

"License" Spelled Wrong

Under the Military section of Career, license is spelled wrong(as licence)in the second paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.72.169 (talk) 00:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request - year store opened

The Gold & Silver Pawn Shop was opened in 1989, not 1988, as the article incorrectly states two times in the article - in the lead and in the "Business and reality television" section. That's wrong. Actually, Rick Harrison (not Richard) received a license to pawn in April 1988, but the store did not actually open for business until 1989. Please correct the year in both places. Also, I would recommend changing the word "founded" to "opened" in both places. Here is the source to verify this information, which is used in the Pawn Stars article:

<ref name="Las Vegas Weeky 2010">{{cite news|last=Katsilometes|first=John|title=Pawn shop boys|url=http://www.lasvegasweekly.com/news/2010/apr/08/pawn-shop-boys/|accessdate=June 14, 2013|newspaper=Las Vegas Weekly|date=April 8, 2010}}</ref>

You can just paste the full cite above right next to the year in the first usage, and just use <ref name="Las Vegas Weeky 2010"/> next to the year in the second usage.

Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 04:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and you're welcome. However, the "Business and reality television" section still needs corrected. Where it says, "When the lease expired in 1988, Harrison and his son Rick founded what would become the World Famous Gold & Silver Pawn Shop at 713 Las Vegas Boulevard South", it should instead say, "After the lease expired, Harrison and his son Rick opened what would become the World Famous Gold & Silver Pawn Shop in 1989 at 713 Las Vegas Boulevard South". And attach the new, abbreviated version of the cite (<ref name=LasVegasWeekly/>} right next to "1989". And the lead should say "opened" instead of "founded", too. Also, edit requests should be closed by using the the {{edit semi-protected|answered=yes}} template instead of just removing the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Thanks, again! --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks again. :-) Nightscream (talk) 03:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi NS. Sorry, but you did not make the changes I requested. I said that part of the sentence should be: "After the lease expired, Harrison and his son Rick opened what would become the World Famous Gold & Silver Pawn Shop in 1989 at 713 Las Vegas Boulevard South" and the new source (<ref name=LasVegasWeekly/>) should be attached right next to "1989" in that sentence, not at the end of the sentence. And the word "founded" should be changed to "opened" in the lead. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 04:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

What's wrong with placing the citation at the end of the sentence? Nightscream (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Because there's already another cite there, which is verifying the other content in the sentence. The Las Vegas Weekly cite is being used solely to verify the year the store was opened. So if you could please revise the sentence as I requested, for proper accuracy and context, I'd really appreciate it. I also made a small, follow-up request at Rick Harrison. Thanks for your help on this. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Cites can indeed be placed in the middle of a sentence to support a specific portion of it, and at times, multiple cites have been placed all at the end. I've done both, depending on the way a sentence is worded. In the second passage in question, it says, "When the lease expired in 1989, Harrison and his son Rick opened what would become the World Famous Gold & Silver Pawn Shop at 713 Las Vegas Boulevard South, located less than two miles from the Las Vegas Strip." The problem here is that 1989 is not the spot where the material ends that is supported by the Las Vegas Weekly story. At best it might be the word "opened". That's why I put it at the end with the other cite, which supports both the 1989 store opening date and the rest of the material in the sentence after that. Doing so does not make the article inaccurate; it just means that a reader has to read the two citations to see which ones support which material. Nightscream (talk) 23:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi NS. I think there's some confusion here. Their prior lease did not expire in 1989. It had said 1988, which was correct, but for some reason you changed it to 1989, which is not what I had requested. When their prior lease expired (1988) and when the new store opened (1989) are two different issues and two different years. That's why I changed the wording to, "After the lease expired, Harrison and his son Rick opened what would become the World Famous Gold & Silver Pawn Shop in 1989 at 713 Las Vegas Boulevard South". An alternate way of saying it, for more specificity and clarity, would be: "The lease expired in 1988 and Harrison and his son Rick then opened what would become the World Famous Gold & Silver Pawn Shop in 1989 at 713 Las Vegas Boulevard South". The cite that was already there verifies the content that had been there, but it does not verify the year the new store opened. Therefore, that's why I asked that the Las Vegas Weekly cite be attached to the year (1989) only. That's exactly how it's done in the Pawn Stars article. Thanks for your patience in this matter. :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why don't you sign up for a username account and fix these things yourself? You seem to have a pretty good handle on the material, and a good eye for detail. The community could sure use good editors like yourself, and a username account makes it easier for people to address you and get to know you as an individual. Just a thought.

I fixed the article. And just so you know, I'm planing to eventually add more details to the Pawn Stars article and Harrison and Chumlee articles, based on Harrison's autobiography, including the specific page numbers. I read it last year, and took copious notes, but unfortunately, the document with the notes was accidentally deleted from my Desktop (ARRRGGGH!!!). Eventually, I'll rewrite that document in order to beef up the articles, and that includes details on the history of the Harrisons' various businesses. Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello again, Mr. Scream. ;) Thanks for the nice comments. For the answer to your question about why I don't have a registered account, you can read this thread on my talk page. I'm glad to hear that you'll be expanding those articles. Sounds good. Btw, there's a stray "p" at the top of the article that you accidentally typed when you made this edit. Thanks, again. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Richard Benjamin Harrison/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: PrairieKid (talk · contribs) 16:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

First things first... Why isn't Chumlee getting the nomination first. I'm disappointed, Bonkers.

Cos' I didn't write that one. Chumlee is cooler though hehe

I'll review this GAN. I should be able to start with some initial thoughts soon. PrairieKid (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Initial Thoughts

This is the section where I complain...

Lead

• Lots of citations in the lead

-Citations don't need to be in the lead, and they're a little crowded there. (So begins my nitpickiness...)

No other complaints. Seems good so far.

• In the infobox "Other names", I don't believe "nickname" is necessary for one unless it's used for all three, as they're all nicknames. Also, the infobox says Harrison was born in Danville, Virginia: if this is accurate, it also belongs in the Early Life section with appropriate sourcing; if not, then it shouldn't be here. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I think they are all nicknames, and should be included. However, I do think the (Nickname) thing should be removed from "Old Man" though, as the comment in the lead addresses that. PrairieKid (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks like we agree on the nicknames; what about Danville? BlueMoonset (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Early Life

No complaints. Well-written. Could go more in depth about him dropping out, but I'll take it as it is.

• I think this is problematic. The timeline—that he enlisted in the navy in October 1958 (he was only 17 at the time)—would seem to indicate an enlistment while still in high school. Also, some sources (FN13 and FN14) seem to indicate that he finished his junior year, not that he left during it. If this can't be reconciled, a note should be added pointing out the potential discrepancy. This would seem to fit, as the enlistment was related to the auto theft, which likely (though we can't count on it) occurred during the summer. The FN15 source (Harrison's son's book) should be checked to see if it can supply the missing info. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I thinkt he timeline is like this: (If) He graduated from junior year, it was in June '58. He didn't though. I think what he says (that he didn't) is better than what some other sources say. Then, he stole he car some time after that. (He didn't have to steal it during the summer.) Then, he joined the navy. PrairieKid (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Career

Military

Informative and well-written. Again, no complaints

• I see a number of issues:

• In the first paragraph of this section, the fourth sentence is problematic in two ways: first, the comma after "Sherry" is wrong, and second, the wording "was born ... soon after their marriage" gives the impression that the pregnancy might have predated the marriage. As this is a BLP, unless there is clear evidence (that is, the date of birth was only a few months after the marriage), then this needs rephrasing. Also, somewhere in the article there needs to be something that indicates that Richard Kevin Harrison (son number two) is Rick Harrison, the son who's his partner in the business and is on the show.

Removed the comma. PrairieKid (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• The second paragraph has "20–21", which is simply unacceptable. Again, if you have conflicting sources (and you do: FN1 says 20 years and a late 1970s discharge, while FN17 has Harrison himself saying 21), then you need to add a note about the discrepancy, or use a less exact wording. You also need to look at the other information here: October 1958 – February 1962 for first enlistment, April 1963 (fourteen months later) through the late 1970s for the rest. 3 years 4 months for the first time would require at least 16 years 8 months for the rest of the 20 years, which from April 1963 would be December 1979 (which is as late in the 70s as you can go). Note that 20 years would have given full retirement benefits. He could have had 21 years from first enlistment to final discharge, yet only have served 20 years.

A note would be nice, but I think it was probably over 20. As in, 20 year, 8 months. (Which is an odd term of service.) Otherwise, I think some source count part of his retirement...? PrairieKid (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• The real estate section needs expansion. It mentions that his wife got her real estate license and opened an office, which he worked at. I had assumed this meant she was a broker. FN1 seems to indicate that the couple bought and sold their own properties, which is how they managed to lose so much money. The article's claim that it was "declining real estate sales" (another apparent indication that she was a broker) that caused the problem is inaccurate if the source is correct.

These all need to be fixed. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I see that as a personal preference. If you want to switch the word to broker, go on ahead. I don't feel there is a need. PrairieKid (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I don't want to switch to "broker", as I'm not sure it would be accurate. The issue here is with the phrase "declining real estate sales", since it doesn't seem to accurately reflect the source information; if I'm reading FN1 right, they seem to have lost the million bucks on real estate speculation, since as FN1 notes they were buying and selling for themselves. The wording can't go any further than FN1 allows, of course. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Business and reality television

• A little short

- This is what he is most known for, so I don't think it should overshadow everything else, but, at the same time, I'd like a little more on the struggle to get on TV, the first episode they did for another show (can't remember when/where/ what TV but the Pawn Stars article should have it. I'd also like a little more on Old Man's opinion of the show. I know he doesn't exactly adore being there.

• There's some overlinking here: Rick was linked earlier, and Chumlee is linked again later. More important is to consistently use names. Standard is to give the last name, which you do for Harrison; Rick needs to be Rick because he's also a Harrison (and because "Richard" would be confusing), and the same for Corey (and ditto). But Chumlee's last name is Russell, so I'd frankly go with that. If you decide not to, then "Chumlee" should have quotes the first time only in the article's body, and not thereafter. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

People can be linked more than once in the article, if it helps the reader. They just shouldn't be linked every time they're mentioned. I don't see problems with the names, as they are now. It seems that was already corrected. PrairieKid (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Awards and Recognition

(Note: I fixed a minor grammar error here too, so ya know.) No complaints here.

• A few issues:

• The first paragraph has no context for "alongside the other main characters": need to either give the show name or some other show context.
• The third paragraph should give the state that Lexington's in.
• The fourth paragraph, second sentence, is a run-on sentence; it should be recast and possibly split.
• The fifth paragraph has an inappropriate comma (this is the sort of thing that a prose check should turn up), a bad wikilink (which should be to the Time 100 article, not to the magazine's article), "Time" should be in italics, and this sentence neglects to note that they were not ultimately chosen for the list, which should be made clear. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

These have already been addressed. PrairieKid (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Only the first paragraph has been taken care of; the rest still need to be worked on. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Other Appearances

Pretty simple. Good to go.

Legal Issues

Daniel Callahan

Looks good.

• Actually, I found this quite confusing. The use of "defended" right after talking about a lawsuit made me think that Corey was a lawyer. The article on the show seems to indicate that grandson Corey is the one who manages the business; it also says that he has a 5% share in it, which would make him a part owner. But equally important, the "never in direct contact" wording here can be read as if they were in the room with Callahan but weren't the ones who tossed him out, when they weren't there at all. (They might have been in a back room, or not on the premises at all—the source doesn't make that clear.) There's also the use of "born 1950" to describe Callahan, which isn't supported by the source either. It just says Callahan was 62; he could have been born in 1949 for all we know. We also don't know when the incident took place: did Callahan sue right away, or months after the event? BlueMoonset (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the confusion. "Defended" isn't a legal term. I have no problem with the rest of the wording. PrairieKid (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Interference with Business Practices

• Doesn't relate to Old Man

-Seems to be about the shop and his business, but it could provide more relating to Harrison's reaction and role in the lawsuit.

• The final, very long sentence is quite confusingly written, and is thus not of the prose standard necessary in a GA-quality article. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Personal Life

Cite 54 could be written better.

• I would recommend making this section at least two sentences: one place the split could occur is after "all types of cars". BlueMoonset (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Overall, this article is only a few minor steps away from reaching GA-level. I checked all the cites as I was going, and they all seemed good (except 54, as noted above). All there is to do now is move some cites from the lead (the lead could be more generalized if need be, but all of it is mentioned later in the article), add a little more about the business and lawsuits (info pertaining to Harrison) and Old Man will be a GA! I'll do the rubric soon, although it's pretty obvious what that'll look like. PrairieKid (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have to respectfully disagree with this assessment. There are significant gaps, inaccuracies that need to be addressed, prose issues, and I think the review needs to examine the available sources further to see what other discrepancies might be involved. The article needs a good deal of attention—not merely minor steps—before it meets the good article standards. It's certainly doable, but shouldn't be understated. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Wait a second, who's reviewing this? Prairie or Blue? I don't mean there's anything wrong with a second person commenting, but these conflicting statements on article's eligibility sure make it kinda convoluted. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 07:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm the reviewer. I think I'm going to respond to some of Blue's comments, as I don't completely agree with him on a lot of it. PrairieKid (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I still feel the article is pretty close to GA level. I also want to add that Blue and I are having a discussion on his TP, if you're interested. PrairieKid (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

We may differ in what we consider to be "close to GA level". I think the article is clearly within striking distance of being a GA, and an hour or two of solid editing could get it there, but there are (as I've noted) several things that need to be corrected or adjusted, and some extra details that would help—especially if they are available in an existing source—in the coverage expected for a good article. To me this is more than "minor steps". Rather than being constructive, as was my intention, my comments appear to have been taken as rude and an invasion of Prairie Kid's review. The original reviewer always has final say, but additional commenters are always encouraged at GAN, assuming they are cogent. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Rubric

This is the section where I tell you the results of my complaining.

Final thoughts from closer

It has been a month since the most recent comments here. In that time, the nominator, Bonkers The Clown, has not edited the article at all: not to address any issues raised by Prairie Kid, and not to address any made by me. Bonkers has been quite active in that time: well over 500 edits elsewhere on Wikipedia. I did ping his talk page a week ago, asking about this nomination, but there was no response.

As such, I see no point in this remaining open. As Prairie Kid has not returned here in that month, I'm taking it upon myself to close the nomination as not listed. Once the issues raised here have been addressed in the article, it can be nominated again, though I suggest Bonkers be ready to devote the necessary attention to timely editing of the article in response to reviewer comments. The quality and breadth of a Good Article is an order of magnitude above that expected for a minimal DYK. If you look at the article's talk page, this is rated as a C-class article, and lacking two qualities required for B-class. Since GA is the next level above B, this has a ways to go yet, but it is within reach if the necessary work is done. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Run-on sentence

"In October 2012, A&E Network and The History Channel, as well as Harrison and the rest of the cast members from the show, were sued in Clark County District Court in Las Vegas for interference with business practices by Wayne F. Jefferies,[42] a Las Vegas promoter[43] and the Harrisons' manager, who represented them and "Chumlee" Russell in their television business dealings"

This has got to be the longest and most confusing run-on sentence I have ever read.

That is not a run-on sentence.

Also, new sections, like new posts, go at the bottom, not at the top. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

How about something like...

"In October 2012, Wayne F. Jefferies sued A&E Networks, The History Channel, Gold & Silver Pawn Shop Inc. and the stars of the show: Rick Harrison, Corey Harrison, Richard Benjamin Harrison and Austin "Chumlee" Russell. Jeffries, a Las Vegas promoter, filed a civil lawsuit in Clark County District Court in Las Vegas seeking unspecified monetary damages on allegations of breach of oral contract and interference.

The lawsuit alleges Jefferies was hired in 2007 as a consultant, manager and adviser to pitch the "Pawn Stars" concept to networks. The lawsuit alleges Jefferies negotiated oral contracts in May 2009 to represent the three Harrisons and in June 2009 to represent Russell. Jefferies accused the pawnshop stars and network officials of improperly firing him and failing to pay promised fees and shares of merchandising deals."

I got that from 42 & 43 above. The next source was a dead link and I edited the article to mark it as such. I didn't look at at any further sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.248.73.207 (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Net Worth

I added two "rs" ("unreliable source?") tags to this article, and one each to the articles Rick Harrison and Corey Harrison.

This article says "Harrison's net worth has been estimated to be $5 million USD" but also says "Net worth Increase $8 million" in the infobox, with an up arrow for the "Increase". The $5 million one is used as a source on the other articles but doesn't seem reliable. The source for $8 million doesn't seem reliable and I'm not sure why an "Increase" graphic is there. The infoboxes on the other articles have the "Increase" up arrow also...

These sources don't cite their sources. They don't give any information as to how they arrived at those figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.248.73.207 (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Richard Benjamin Harrison. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20130215025615/http://www.zimbio.com:80/Las+Vegas+Sun/articles/88nzFirmNzV/Goodman+set+role+TV+judge to http://www.zimbio.com/Las+Vegas+Sun/articles/88nzFirmNzV/Goodman+set+role+TV+judge
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131224120738/http://www.zimbio.com/Las+Vegas+Sun/articles/kw0frO9lksA/Garrett+exit+Trop+MGM+Grand to http://www.zimbio.com/Las+Vegas+Sun/articles/kw0frO9lksA/Garrett+exit+Trop+MGM+Grand

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

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) 22:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Minot doubt

I have seen pictures and comments posted in response to said pictures that imply that the old man has died recently. Can someone confirm this? so as to put it in the main article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumerwritter (talk • contribs) 04:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

If you Google his name(as least as I did yesterday) several hoaxes about his death come up. If he has died, it hasn't been in a RS yet. 331dot (talk) 08:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Death

Apart from saying on their website they would be closed for a few hours, nothing has been updated about the old man's death. They just did a tribute show where even his best friend talked. He has recently died. At the end of the show, the put his photo up with his name and it says 1941-2018. The power Nazis that control this page think I'm lying, maybe they should watch the show and let the fans actually do the editing. Kiwidave666 (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that there's no mention on the show's website, and you weren't able to find a mention in the news, nor an obituary link? Even a name of an episode? I did search, and nothing comes up other than rumors from 2016 that have been long debunked. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

It is not a question of "power", or "Nazism", or "lying", it's merely the fact that Wikipedia has policies and guidelines that govern the inclusion of material. These policies require that material added to its articles be accompanied by an inline citation of a reliable, published source, generally a secondary one. It is only because of a poor attitude on your part that you deem anything you don't like to hear with the word "Nazi", as if requiring a verified source for material added to an encyclopedia is somehow equivalent to murdering 17 million people. Nightscream (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I would add to Kiwidave that it is not up to us to prove your claims; it is up to you. Please don't make personal attacks or grossly improper comparisons and simply provide a reliable source. 331dot (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Daniel Callahan - bought or brought

"In May 2012, Daniel Callahan filed a lawsuit in the District Court in Las Vegas claiming that Harrison and his son Rick failed to provide "reasonable and necessary" security at their store, seeking around $20,000 for injuries he allegedly suffered from being "dragged out of the pawn shop and tossed onto the sidewalk" after an argument over a rifle he had brought"

Did Callahan buy the gun from the store (in which case it should be 'bought'), or did he bring the gun to the store hoping they would buy it (in which case 'brought' is correct)?Robbmonster (talk) 10:04, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

ref name=License9-11;90-91

This reference (used five times) is only explained as "Harrison (2011)". This is not enough to determine the actual source.

If it refers to Rick's "License to Pawn: Deals, Steals, and My Life at the Gold & Silver. Hyperion. 2011." then this needs to be made more clear. In fact, that reference should be used. (This goes for reference #11 as well) CapnZapp (talk) 12:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Irish heritage

The book referenced in the link doesn't mention any Irish heritage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.147.162 (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Length of military service and duration on board USS Chowanoc

If Mr. Harrison's final five years out of 20 in the Navy ended in 1976, he would have had to enlist at age 15. Also, the linked page for the USS Chowanoc indicates the ship was decommissioned in October 1971, rendering it impossible for his final five years of service to aboard that ship. Could it be that his years of service were exaggerated? Stigmatasaurus (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)stigmatasaurus

Today's editing from this non-logging regular

Per Jimbo's design, I don't log to edit (as allowed). But I have many thousands of edits, so here goes about today's.

This article's references to the Harrison books are improved, but three still cite no page nos.; moreover, there is an overreliance on citations of article episodes—13 times—thus presenting two further problems:

1. These create near to unverifiable original observations, as none of these "cite episode" provide url's, and none give time in program where supposed information appears, making verification improbable.
2. They create a significant element of {{original research}} in the article, as these clustered cases (not thoughout the article, but overly supporting certain sections) draw on Wikipedia editor experience and memory, rather than statements from published sources that can be verified.

Hence, on the whole, the article, in these sections, violates the policies/guidelines in WP:OR and WP:VERIFY. Note, the scale of this is as follows—13 of the 62 references are to episode primary sources (21%; 13 of the total of 77 inline citations). And there are 10 citations of the Harrison book (3 sans page numbers), all of which are non-third party sourced statements; these should be considered as issues, even though not tagged. This brings the number of untraceable/primary/non-independent references to 23 of 77 citations (30%).

These observations, and attempts to move the article toward being encyclopedic—so that it might one day be a GA—are the bulk of what I did today (alongside completing and standardizing references, splitting a section, calling for expansion, etc.). Note, I did not add the "page numbers improve" or the many other possible article and section tags, because that is worrying after a sneeze when the patient has a couple localized tumors. (The real issues are the OR and repeated appearance of unverifiable statements.) Cheers. 2601:246:C700:9B0:258D:AF9C:CCA9:24A4 (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

The passages in question are neither "unverifiable" nor "original research" simply because they cite epsiodes, nor because they lack urls. Material violates WP:V when it can't be verified -- that is to say, when the source is not given. Original research is material that comes not from sources, but from the personal knowledge of the editor adding it. None of the material in question came from an editor's personal knowledge, experience or "memory". They come directly from the episodes themselves. How is it "memory" if the editor reviews the episode as he is adding the material to the article? What does experience have to do with it?

Your complaint about urls and timestamps seems to be more of a complaint about the work involved in obtaining viewing copies of the episodes in question and in reviewing them than it does about policy. You can probably rent or download the episodes online, or watch them when they air. Editors are not required to include urls nor timestamps. While those things are certainly useful, the former would exclude all non-Web-based sources. As for the latter, the episodes are only 20 minutes or so long without commercials, and they tend to go by briskly, so finding the dialogue or text that includes the information is relatively easy.

I would agree, however that page numbers out of a book are probably warranted, and since you posted your message above, I added page citations to Citation #2, which had been missing them. However, there is nothing wrong with using primary sources, as long as doing so adheres to WP:PSTS. Nightscream (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Legal cases from 2012

Two law suits from 2012 are hanging in the air. Both must be settled by now, but no outcome is reported. In any case two ten year old and obscure court cases are of no significance in the life of Harrison. Hence I am removing the text. Creuzbourg (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

You stated as your rationale in your edit summary:

"Wikipedia shall at least not give half information, insinuatiing wrongdoing. If you want to keep it, report the outcome of suits!"

No, that is not the standard, and never has been. Wikipedia does not censor relevant, citation-supported content simply because with respect to legal proceedings, the outcome is not known. Wikipedia is a constant work in progress with no deadline, which means editors can constantly add, improve, or update it. This is impossible if we remove information from articles that is still in an incomplete stage. If you care that much about this point, then fix it! Do the research, and update those sections. Bottom line: Wikipedia does not blank content simply because it's incomplete. That's not constructive, and hardly in the spirit of the "teamwork" denoted by the barnstar on your user page. Nightscream (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)