Talk:Ilchi Lee: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Added listas to WPBiography (used DEFAULTSORT from article), applied fixes to WPBiography template. Did I get it wrong? |
|||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
I am questioning the relevance of all of the statements in the Controversy section. If a case was dismissed by the court then the claims in the complaint are moot. Also, in this section Footnote 70 is placed at the end of a statement about the contents of the coroner's report. Where's the coroner's report? You have to wade through a 4 page Village Voice article to find a brief reference to a postmortem report. Also, I would be surprised if a coroner's report would name the location where she became dehydrated. I am planning on changing the article to address these points. [[User:Draongsun|Draongsun]] ([[User talk:Draongsun|talk]]) 15:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC) |
I am questioning the relevance of all of the statements in the Controversy section. If a case was dismissed by the court then the claims in the complaint are moot. Also, in this section Footnote 70 is placed at the end of a statement about the contents of the coroner's report. Where's the coroner's report? You have to wade through a 4 page Village Voice article to find a brief reference to a postmortem report. Also, I would be surprised if a coroner's report would name the location where she became dehydrated. I am planning on changing the article to address these points. [[User:Draongsun|Draongsun]] ([[User talk:Draongsun|talk]]) 15:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
:Hello, Draongsun. I agree that the cases' dismissal affects the presentation of facts about this case in this article. However, I don't think it is proper to simply erase the content since the case was covered in several news outlets. I think it needs to be revised with Wikipedia's policies regarding the biographies of living people in mind. Wikipedia policy states clearly that controversial information should be handled very carefully and as neutrally as possible. The facts of this case can never be fully established since the case was dismissed, thus it is inappropriate to include details from the the complaint, which only represent the prosocution's point of view. It is especially problematic to include unsubstantiated, inflammatory statements, such as the "cult" and "drugged and killed" statements, in a bio of a living person, especially when they are quoted from documents related to a dismissed court case. Basic information about the nature of the case should stand, but it should be revised to reflect established fact and a neutral view point. [[User:Nicola Cola|Nicola Cola]] ([[User talk:Nicola Cola|talk]]) 01:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC) |
:Hello, Draongsun. I agree that the cases' dismissal affects the presentation of facts about this case in this article. However, I don't think it is proper to simply erase the content since the case was covered in several news outlets. I think it needs to be revised with Wikipedia's policies regarding the biographies of living people in mind. Wikipedia policy states clearly that controversial information should be handled very carefully and as neutrally as possible. The facts of this case can never be fully established since the case was dismissed, thus it is inappropriate to include details from the the complaint, which only represent the prosocution's point of view. It is especially problematic to include unsubstantiated, inflammatory statements, such as the "cult" and "drugged and killed" statements, in a bio of a living person, especially when they are quoted from documents related to a dismissed court case. Basic information about the nature of the case should stand, but it should be revised to reflect established fact and a neutral view point. [[User:Nicola Cola|Nicola Cola]] ([[User talk:Nicola Cola|talk]]) 01:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
::I don't agree that details of a deceased case must be excluded. Such a rule would prohibit detailed discussion of the OJ Simpson murder case from his article, for example. In fact, if the details of a case were covered in the media as an important controversy regarding an individual, it should be covered in their article. Wikipedia should not 'scrub' their history of the case; we just record notable facts. [[User:Locke9k|Locke9k]] ([[User talk:Locke9k|talk]]) 05:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 05:43, 28 December 2009
 | Biography B‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
New References Added
I just noticed the recent additions by Itshappyday, although the English needs some tweaking :) It's not your first language, is it? I tried to find URLs for the new references you added (for convenience), but those sources don't seem to believe in making all their articles web-available. I guess that's probably why you just added the old-fashioned reference information, huh? Thanks for adding new information, and I'll see what I can do to integrate it more smoothly. Forestgarden (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for my English. Thank you for the effort to correct it. I appreciate your edits. As you might have known from my personal page Itshappyday, my first language is not English. As for the references I used yesterday were the Sedona Red Rock News. It has its website redrocknews.com, but not all of its articles are available online. In this case, how can I provide the reference? --Itshappyday (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I remember your userpage now :) I did see the home page for that newspaper, but I also was unable to find online copies of those specific articles. It's a shame, but your citation style seems fine to me. Remember, "back in the day" before newspaper articles were commonly online, that's how all references were. Take a look at the Wikipedia page on citing sources for more detailed information on Wiki citation styles. Forestgarden (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Itshappyday, I just asked Nicola Cola to give a second look over your additions, since they were the original editor of the page, and might like to weigh in. Maybe they'll have some suggestions for how to rearrange material so it flows better, since the flurry of edits back in February left the overall structure something of a mess :) I've been reluctant to tackle it, but it's really muddled right now. Do you have any suggestions? Forestgarden (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I remember your userpage now :) I did see the home page for that newspaper, but I also was unable to find online copies of those specific articles. It's a shame, but your citation style seems fine to me. Remember, "back in the day" before newspaper articles were commonly online, that's how all references were. Take a look at the Wikipedia page on citing sources for more detailed information on Wiki citation styles. Forestgarden (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Old Discussions Archived
Also, the talk page had gotten a little unwieldy, and has been quiet for months, so I archived the old discussions to make it easier to work with the page. Forestgarden (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Controversy Relevancy
I am questioning the relevance of all of the statements in the Controversy section. If a case was dismissed by the court then the claims in the complaint are moot. Also, in this section Footnote 70 is placed at the end of a statement about the contents of the coroner's report. Where's the coroner's report? You have to wade through a 4 page Village Voice article to find a brief reference to a postmortem report. Also, I would be surprised if a coroner's report would name the location where she became dehydrated. I am planning on changing the article to address these points. Draongsun (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hello, Draongsun. I agree that the cases' dismissal affects the presentation of facts about this case in this article. However, I don't think it is proper to simply erase the content since the case was covered in several news outlets. I think it needs to be revised with Wikipedia's policies regarding the biographies of living people in mind. Wikipedia policy states clearly that controversial information should be handled very carefully and as neutrally as possible. The facts of this case can never be fully established since the case was dismissed, thus it is inappropriate to include details from the the complaint, which only represent the prosocution's point of view. It is especially problematic to include unsubstantiated, inflammatory statements, such as the "cult" and "drugged and killed" statements, in a bio of a living person, especially when they are quoted from documents related to a dismissed court case. Basic information about the nature of the case should stand, but it should be revised to reflect established fact and a neutral view point. Nicola Cola (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't agree that details of a deceased case must be excluded. Such a rule would prohibit detailed discussion of the OJ Simpson murder case from his article, for example. In fact, if the details of a case were covered in the media as an important controversy regarding an individual, it should be covered in their article. Wikipedia should not 'scrub' their history of the case; we just record notable facts. Locke9k (talk) 05:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)