Talk:Reid Stowe/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Same old, same old, ad nauseam

Stowe's overdue child support (subsequently paid) and his conviction on a marijuana charge roughly 20 years ago, have been the subject of extensive discussions in at least 3 sections of the archived page, [[1]] [[2]] [[3]] and again, exactly the same material has been dredged up by Regatta Dog ad nauseam here on this page.

Child support "subsequently paid"? Can you provide a source for that? If not, you can't claim it. I know it is true, but without a source, it can't be claimed here. How do you know it was paid? Did any other reliable source confirm your assertion? Neutral editors, like your self, should not make unsubstantiated claims. Neutral editor that you are, I'm sure you can find, via Google, a link with the State of NY. Link it.............if that's now acceptableRegatta dog (talk) 01:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

For the record, a total of 5 out of 7 (sorry, 4 out of 6 )editors opposed inclusion of any reference to the marijuana conviction citing Presumption in favor of privacy - Avoid victimization. [[4]] However, on May 7, 2010 Regatta Dog added marijuana related material to the article ignoring consensus. [[5]]

Here's the real story updated:

Feb 22, 2008 Regatta Dog is named as a contributor to a tabloid piece by journalist Adam Nichols. Nichols actually names Regatta Dog as a source in the article. [6]

March 2, 2008 Regatta Dog takes highly critical material from the tabloid article to which he contributed and inserts it into the Wikipedia article. He attempts to cover his tracks with a misleading, unlinked citation. [7]

May have incorrectly inserted the cite, but not for the reason you suggest. I was citing directly from the hard copy NYDN before the article was available on line. Regatta dog (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

March 1, 2008 Regatta Dog publishes, "Reid Stowe is a Deadbeat Dad" on his blog.

March 10, 2008 Regatta Dog updates his blog with reference to the next Adam Nichols tabloid article. The tabloid headline quotes Regatta Dog's blog referring to Stowe as a "Deadbeat Dad." Could Regatta Dog's influence over journalist Adam Nichols be any more obvious?

Nichols' "Deadbeat Dad" article is almost certainly actionable. In fact, the "state" made no such claim about Stowe. The article is, therefore, defamatory. If I were Stowe, I'd be looking for a good lawyer.

Wikipedia is not the place to rehash hyperbolic, tabloid bunkum. Regatta Dog's unethical actions have rendered those articles unusable as sources in any case. We have been through this before. Enough is enough!--Zanthorp (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Here we have an editor of Wikipedia making a statement that a reputable reporter with a reputable media outlet, claiming that an article written about the subject is "almost certainly actionable"? Your credentials to make that claim? A member of his own shore team was quoted in the article all but admitting the claim made by the paper. Perhaps he should be served at the same time as Nichols and the NY Daily News.

If you truly think that the author and his newspaper are "tabloid bunkum", I look forward to your discussion topic regarding the New York Daily News and removing each and every reference; or perhaps I should challenge them myself based on your very own arguments. The article would be cut by a third. Regatta dog (talk) 04:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Well-spoken, Zanthorp! As you said, we have no need to rehash the debate, as the majority view is clear, on these issues. As for the article, "This page is currently protected from editing until June 25, 2010 or until disputes have been resolved." I suppose that the disputes might never be resolved, given the stubbornness of certain editors to reinsert defamatory material, so the article may have to be submitted for mediation at the administrative level, before June 25. Skol fir (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The majority view consists of two staunch supporters of the subject of the BLP and one editor that drops in and provides them encouragement from time to time. I am a staunch supporter of the integrity of Wikipedia, and there are a couple other editors that chime in who don't want this article to be another marketing tool for the subject and his marketeers. There are a whole 5 or 6 people involved in this discussion? The majority view is not clear.

I understand that Mr. Stowe will be arriving before the 25, but as impartial editors, what is the rush to have this resolved? Impartial implies you're more interested in the truth than rushing to make changes and get them on the web, right?

By the way - I have never gone into so much depth about the subject's prison time or child support issues. The information you presented as facts, but are not confirmable by a reliable outside source may be true, but as your source appears to be either personal knowledge or a blog, they do not belong here. Please try and refrain from that in future, and please don't try and have this discussion archived to hide your "defamatory" statements about a subject of a BLP.

I look forward to discussing this at an administrative level. Regatta dog (talk) 04:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, your last edits to the article again resulted in the article being fully protected and you appear to have a clear citable conflict of interest and have inserted external media into the article that you were involved in so it imo is better if you refrain from again editing the article. It would also be better if you could stop repeating and posting here on the talkpage issues that have been repeatedly discussed and rejected for inclusion in the article, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 09:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

IMO, Regatta Dog's being interviewed by NYDN is no different than Stowe's team sending out "press releases" and then using the resulting articles as a reference. If those are removed as well, not much of an entry of this subject would remain at all. Aloha27 (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Members of Stowe's team, if there are any then they shouldn't edit the article either. Press releases, well we need perhaps an update but independent reports are what we want, lets have a look at the article if you think there is promotional content then we can look to remove it. What are the promotional citations and content? Off2riorob (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Adam Nichols, as a reporter for the NY Daily News, with an editorial board, is a reliable source.

If the article in the NYDN about the subject's back child support is "tabloid" journalism, then all cites to the NYDN should be killed. Simple - - One cannot challenge a source's situational credibility. Regatta dog (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Aloha27, I am getting tired of having to repeat myself, since you obviously choose to ignore or have not read my previous submissions here. May I repeat this for your benefit, since you seem to have missed my statement about subjects writing about themselves and using their own blogs. Furthermore, some of the information on Reid Stowe's official site is "second-party", since other people have written about him, and even "third-party", written by sources not connected to Reid Stowe. So for your benefit... grab yourself a cup of coffee and relax... here it is again...

Interesting that the links to "Expedition News" disappeared. Regatta dog (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

On that point, and for your information, I quote from various sections of Wikipedia Policies:

All self-published sources, whether experts or not, are considered reliable as sources on themselves, especially in articles about themselves, subject to certain criteria, though no article should be based primarily on such sources (see below)

-from the article on Verifiability (WP:V)

the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all.

Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP

Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, or tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below)..."Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources.[4]

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion.

Wikipedia contains biographical material on people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, focusing on high quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution; see above. Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many countries repeating defamatory claims is actionable, and there is additional protection for people who are not public figures.

-from the article on BLPs (WP:BLP)

Skol fir (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter - As long as it is well sourced (unlike your claims above), the burden falls on the source. If there's a link to a reputable source -- like the NYDN, Wikipedia is fine. Regatta dog (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

And this is the Wikipedia Policy which troubles me the most. (Underline mine)

"Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion." Aloha27 (talk) 01:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The definition of "Questionable sources" that you quoted above is an expanded part of another section in the WP:BLP page, which you also need to read:

Questionable sources and external links

Material available solely in questionable sources should not be used anywhere in the article, including in "Further reading" or "External links" sections. External links about living persons in BLPs and elsewhere are judged by a stricter standard than for other articles."

This is one reason for banning sites such as "Reid Stowe...Reality Check" and "1000 Days of Hell" from a BLP. This rule only applies to sources that are not written or published by the subject, as the subject obviously concurs with information published on his behalf. This rule does not apply to web sites supporting or promoting the subject, as these are exempted by the first rule I listed above, "All self-published sources, whether experts or not, are considered reliable as sources on themselves, especially in articles about themselves, subject to certain criteria, though no article should be based primarily on such sources."

Sorry. Didn't realize Wikipedia was a place where anyone can post an autobiography. Regatta dog (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

So, as long as other sources are also referenced to describe the subject of this biography, there is nothing in the Rules for a BLP that prohibits using self-promoting sites as such. See this section of the WP:BLP...

Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:

1. it is not unduly self-serving;

2. it does not involve claims about third parties;

3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Self serving? Yes. Doubts as to authenticity - gosh yes. Article based on such sources - heck yeah.

Three out of five ain't bad. The article should be scrapped. Regatta dog (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The website for "1000 Days at Sea" meets all of these requirements. For example, for #1, it is impossible to be unduly self-serving, when the site is created and managed by a "second party" (not the subject). For # 2, no claims are made about third parties on this site. It is solely created to describe only one of the many endeavors of Reid Stowe, and does not claim anything new about other parties not related to this project. The last three points are self-evident.

Skol fir (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

A second party? Like a fan club where Justin Bieber just dumps his website onto Wiki? Sorry, Skol fir. I don't buy that concept. It may be great for Justin, but it doesn't work for Wiki. I have read the rules about BLP's, and I appreciate your efforts. Regatta dog (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest: COI can be difficult to substantiate. Last year, a very experienced administrator filed a COI claim against an editor who was working on the same article that I was attempting to edit. The claim failed. However, in this case, I agree with Off2riorob's comments above, and all things considered, I think a COI submission would probably be worthwhile. --Zanthorp (talk) 07:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest, quite simply, that there are a few editors here who are either on the subject's shore team or part of his new PR firm. Simple math -- this Wiki page doesn't get a lot of hits. Probably even less than the Subject's own web page. For "neutral" wiki editor to spend as much time and effort.... well ...I have my doubts.

We Wiki editors do not appreciate you using Wikipedia as a promotional tool. Buy an add from Google. Regatta dog (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Simple math~~ look at the graph~~ Wikipedia article traffic statistics for Reid Stowe. You can see that there were 5.7k hits at the Wikipedia website for Reid Stowe on June 18, 2010. That is much more than the subject's own website for over two years, since Tuesday, 11 March 2008, when the hits at 1000Days.net reached 6,249. Secondly, I am only an editor at this Reid Stowe article because it is a challenge that I enjoy, and I am learning more about Wikipedia every day. If that is not your reason for being here, that explains why you would not understand.

I have other interests here at Wikipedia, as you can see from my contributions, although this site has taken a lot of my time in the last 2 months due to your obstinance. Finally, I have to say that the Reid Stowe article is far from a promotional tool. It was started by Gosgood at 13:42, 12 May 2007- see Reid Stowe Beginning. Note his comment early on in the discussion for this article: "I've found few sources critical of Stowe; this causes me to raise one eyebrow. Good strong print references are presently hard to come by; Mr. Stowe is a bit of a media darling, and available material reflects that. Gosgood 22:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)."

The only promotion that has been going on in this article is a promotion of hatred and disrespect for the subject by certain editors who are still involved in a smear campaign against him. Those same disruptive editors, hiding behind a pretense of revealing the truth, have instead distorted the truth in order to denigrate the subject and thereby have lost all credibility in the eyes of Wikipedia. Skol fir (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Skol fir. You are making some serious accusations about another editor. Cite please? Hatred? No. Disrespect - sure. Distorted the truth? Absolutely false accusation. Back it up Skol fir, or have it posted to the 1000 days website so it can be simply accepted as fact. Perhaps the subject of this article has more to do with his own problems than the media who have reported the facts. So - where has the truth been distorted, except withing this article that has become nothing more than an on-line marketing piece for the subject? Regatta dog (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Non Working and Inappropriate Reference Links

The following links report "Page not found" and should be removed along with the information in the article they support --

Link # 7 - Schlosser, Jim (April 30, 2007), "Couple set sail for 1,000 days" (archived article; need subscription to view at Greensboro, North Carolina–News & Record), Greensboro, North Carolina News-Record

Link # 19 - ^ Captain Reid Ocean Odyssey part two: The Voyages, August 2, 2004, http://www.theoceans.net/story/stories/CaptainReidOceanOdysseyparttwotheVoyagesAug22004.shtml, retrieved 2007-05-13

Link #35 - (Dobnick, Verena (April 21, 2007), "Couple sets sail for 1,000-day, heart-shaped cruise", Phillyburbs.com (Associated Press), http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/104-04212007-1334327.html, retrieved 2007-09-02)

Link # 43 - ^ Kappelle, Liza. "Yacht rescue for sick American woman sailor". Perth Now (The Sunday Times) (Australian Associated Press). http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,23257535-2761,00.html.

The following links are to forums/blogs, and therefore are not acceptable references and should be removed along with the information in the article they support --

Link # 18 - Sail Net Sailing Forum -- ^ Tantra construction, steel & glass. Posted on SailNet, Dec. 11, 2007. Retrieved 4 May 2010.

Link # 33 - Latitude 38 - A reputable source of information contained within editorial, but the link is to a quote from a blog response by a member of the subject's support team and is therefore inadmissible - ^ From a letter by Eric Hunter Slater to the editors of Latitude 38. Slater, Eric Hunter (July, 2007), "He's a Fish And I Am Not", Latitude 38, http://www.latitude38.com/letters/200707.html, retrieved 2008-02-24

Link # 39 - MarineBuzz.com -- A personal blog that "accepts forms of cash advertising, sponsorship, , paid insertions, or other forms of compensation" -- ^ Soanya Ahmad Abandons 1000 Days at Sea Expedition After 306 Days. Posted on Feb. 23, 2008. Retrieved 2 May 2010.

Link # 51 - Gadling - a Travel Blog -- ^ Sailor spends 1000 days at sea. Retrieved 30 April 2010.

New York Daily News

It has been argued by a number of editors that the NY Daily News is a tabloid and not a reliable source. I disagree strongly with this, but if the NY Daily News is to be challenged as a reliable source for negative coverage of the subject of the article, the same argument about lack of credibility must be applied to all references to the NY Daily News. Either the article outlining Mr. Stowe's back child support is legitimate, or none of the references to the NY Daily News are acceptable and should be removed. Wiki Editors should not make decisions about the credibility of a source based on whether or not they approve of the content of one article over another. Does the child support issue stay in or does all NY Daily News information in the article get deleted? Regatta dog (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The content you repeatedly an tediously keep going on about on the talkpage has been rejected on BLP grounds as you well know, please stop your repeated discussion of it here, you have a conflict of interest in a negative manner as regards this living person and I for one am tired of your circular going on about it here, so what if he owed some child support, no one is bothered apart from you, it is not notable at all. Off2riorob (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The NY Daily News felt it was important enough to dedicate an entire article to it. Because a couple wiki editors don't think it is important, doesn't mean that Wiki readers wouldn't find it an important aspect of his life. I say put it up and let readers decide on its level of importance.

Please read previous discussions on the topic. The article has been rejected based on the source, not the content. If the NY Daily news is an unacceptable source, then apply that decision across the board. Simple logic, really. Regatta dog (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The topic is not notable and has been rejected on multiple occasions by mutliple independant experienced editors and is not interesting to anyone but you, as I said here and on your talkpage , your WP:COI is getting extremely tiresome indeed. Off2riorob (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

So which is it? Is it not notable or is it the credibility of the source? If it is the source - all Daily News articles suffer the same credibility and need to go. If it is not notable, that is a personal opinion and has no place here at Wiki. The NY Daily News found it interesting enough to publish a story on it. There was enough interest in the article that people left 25 comments about it on the NY Daily News web site. I would suggest that there are plenty of editors here with a conflict of interest. Regatta dog (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You are the only editor here that has the kind of negative conflict of interest that is any kind of problrem, you have only ever edited this article , your only interest here is to attempt to add content that reflects badly on this living person, wikipedia is not here for that. Off2riorob (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to provide a place for free advertising and self promotion either. Wikipedia rules require balance. Regatta dog (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You POV is the only issue with this article. It is a nice simple harmless article about a boat ride, that is all that is interesting here. Off2riorob (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not an article about a boat ride. It is an article about a person - a biography. As such, important parts of his life should be included. I, and many others, would argue that owing back child support for years is pertinent. Regatta dog (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No one cares but you, child support is irrelevant to wikipedia and to anyone else, get over it it is meaninless and actually common to not pay child support, it is not a notable issue. Actually it is a personal private issue between a man and a woman, please stop repeatedly discussing it on this talkpage, it is becoming a BLP issue to continually repeatedly comment about content that has been rejected as a possible inclusion in the article, stop discussing t here. Off2riorob (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It is relevant to Wikipedia (See wiki article on Deadbeat Parents "[Parent]"). You have still not addressed the main point here. Is the NY Daily news a reputable source or not? I believe it is, but am getting mixed messages from other editors. Can you please address the question directly? Thanks Regatta dog (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I have addressed the main point here which is 'you and your editing here at wikipedia as regards this living person. Off2riorob (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The main point here is the validity of the NY Daily News as a reliable source. If you do not want to participate that is your choice, but trying to change the subject is not productive to this discussion. Regatta dog (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The main point here and the only point, is your citable Conflict of interest and negative point of view of this person and your editing at this article, that is the only problem here. Off2riorob (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

And your thoughts on the NY Daily News as a reliable source? Regatta dog (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I care only about your problematic contributions here. Off2riorob (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

One more time - is the NY Daily News a reliable source? Regatta dog (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe this to be a valid question and deserves a straight answer. Aloha27 (talk) 01:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

While there are arguments leveled against and editor, I'm not seeing much in the way of discrediting the NY Daily News as a reliable source. Therefore, it looks like there's general agreement that the NY Daily News is a reliable source? Regatta dog (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Update

Reid stepped off the Anne yesterday, so I think it's time to update the article. See http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/17/nyregion/17voyage.html?emc=eta1 John Link (talk) 04:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree the article should be updated, but would suggest an article that covered the event after he hit shore. The NY Times article was written prior. The Guardian has a nice article - http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/jun/17/sailor-reid-stowe-record-voyage.

{{editprotected}}

I suggest a new sub-head replacing "Mission Status" with "Arrival in New York" with the text - "On June 17, 2010, Reid Stowe, accompanied by a flotilla up the Hudson River, docked the schooner Anne in New York and set foot on land for the first time in 1,152 days, claiming a record for the longest continuous sea voyage. He was greeted at the dock by family, friends and supporters and met his son, Darshen, for the first time. Stowe, his girlfriend Soanya Ahmad, and their son plan on living on the schooner as a family." Regatta dog (talk) 06:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there consensus for this addition? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Not from me, the child naming and the editorial style comment are not what I like to see in articles. Also in the citation is reference to the general disruption we have going on here the web site IOO0 days blog that has been attached to a user here. this content is the reference.. One blog, called 1,000 Days of Hell, depicted him as Don Quixote with his boat tilting for a windmill. "Reid is a hazard to navigation," wrote one commentator on the Sailing Anarchy website. "He dead yet?" asked another. .. so no, I don't support the addition or the citation. User Regatta dog is also affiliated to the Sailing anarchy organization. Off2riorob (talk) 08:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't really understand the concerns you have here. They certainly don't seem substantive. I don't see any problems with citing the Guardian article either. I would ask you to be more constructive, if possible, and say how the proposed addition could be improved. I have disabled the request until we have comments from other editors. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

"Darshen" has already been named in just about every news article and TV, it's common knowledge, and already in the article. A second proposal:

On June 17, 2010, Reid Stowe sailed the schooner Anne up the Hudson river and docked in New York. The total voyage time was 1,152 days, a record for the longest continuous sea voyage. He was greeted by the press, his girlfriend Soanya Ahmad and their infant son.

ok? This can be sourced to [8] It could be added as the last sentence in the lead section at a minimum. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Basically, that sounds fine, except for some changes I propose:

1) 2nd sentence: add "a record for the longest continuous sea voyage, without resupply or landing at a port."

2) 3rd sentence: change to "Upon landing at Pier 81 in Manhattan, he was met by family and friends, by his girlfriend Soanya Ahmad and their infant son, and by the press."

I am not sure if "greet" is the right word here, especially since the infant son probably just stared at him!

3) Since the NY Times reference you give was written the day before the landing, I would suggest two additional references written after the arrival, one from aol.com News and the other from the Associated Press (hosted by google.com).

a) NYC man returns from 3-year sea voyage

b) Man Credits 'Love' in Record 3-Year Trip at Sea

I agree with placing the text at the end of the intro, with the full text as follows:

On June 17, 2010, Reid Stowe sailed the schooner Anne up the Hudson river and docked in New York. The total voyage time was 1,152 days, a record for the longest continuous sea voyage, without resupply or landing at a port. Upon landing at Pier 81 in Manhattan, he was met by family and friends, by his girlfriend Soanya Ahmad and their infant son, and by the press.^[1]^[2]^[3]

^ "NYC man returns from 3-year sea voyage". Associated Press-via Google. Retrieved June 22, 2010.
^ "Man Credits 'Love' in Record 3-Year Trip at Sea". AOL News. June 18, 2010. Retrieved June 22, 2010.
^ "A Record-Smashing Sea Journey, and Not for Its Speed". The New York Times. June 16, 2010. Retrieved June 22, 2010.

How is that? --Skol fir (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Much better. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes great. Keep it short for the lead section, expand on later in the body when the article opens. Green Cardamom (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I have not problem with the text except that saying "a record" is not really accurate, as the articles point out. It should read "for which Reid claims a record", which is more accurate at this point. I think it is important to make clear to readers that it is a claim at this point - many articles have done so and Wikipedia shouldn't be a place that makes the ultimate call.

I also don't think there needs to be 3 sites when all of the information is available in a single article. It seems a bit self serving and is not the norm in Wiki articles. Leave the link to the single AP story. I am resigned to the fact that Reid's impartial, neutral, no-association-with-the-man-or-his-mission editors would never accept a link to an article that points out he has detractors or an article with comment sections where non-sailors have lambasted him.

Acceptable compromise? Regatta dog (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No one has yet denied that the Anne was the longest time at sea without resupply or landing at a port. Are you about to deny it? What is your proof? Until then, we can safely say that everything points to a record. All three references above are needed because they each add different information that covers a pivotal moment in the voyage. There is nothing against using more than one reference in Wikipedia. In fact, it helps to support any statements, rather than limiting it to one person's opinion. The more references, the better. Don't tell me I avoid articles with comment sections. I am responsible for inserting a link to an article from the public radio program "Weekend America" with tons of comments, some negative, some positive. Your objections, Regatta Dog, are baseless. --Skol fir (talk) -forgot to add time check=23:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no proof that Reid was not visited by Jesus and Buddha. Please look closely at all the articles from reliable sources. Most say he claims the record without endorsing it as fact. Find me one quote from a reliable news source that gives him a record without qualifying it as a claimed record, and I'll post two others that don't go so far as to be the arbitrator of the man's claims. Should Wikipedia make the determination that a record has been set because no one has denied it? Sorry. That doesn't cut it.

Citing articles? You have a problem with the article in The Guardian, even though the same article is linked from the subject's own website. Hey - it's on the 1000 days website, so it must be true. Seems a bit hypocritical. Hopefully, by pointing this out, Reid's team won't make a change to the website to better serve their marketing objectives. They've done it many times in the past, apparently to maintain their level of trustworthiness when claims of fact became absolutely absurd. Regatta dog (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Number of days

Please add the exact number of days that the voyage lasted for. Important information that's missing from the article. (it's 1152) Esn (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. This matter is already being resolved in the above talk section Update. Due to the article being under full lock, we needed to put in a special request. --Skol fir (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Be careful here with the number. Stowe anchored prior to making port in New York. I would think that being "on the hook" would, by definition, end a continuous sailing venture. Aloha27 (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

What's to be careful about? Instead of quibbling over a number, go and check it yourself at Date Difference Calculator, where you will find that Day 1152 of the voyage falls on June 16, 2010, the day the Anne was anchored off Sandy Hook. The day of arrival in Manhattan (June 17) was actually Day 1153, which is never mentioned, as far as I know.

From 4/21/2007 (m/d/y) to 6/16/2010 (m/d/y) is: 1152 days, or 164 weeks and 4 days.

That seems right to me. There is no need to change the number of days. --Skol fir (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Further extension?

I'm wondering if it would be a good idea to further extend the lockdown? Stowe is getting positively hammered on Yahoo and many other blogs/forums at the present time. Aloha27 (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I will ask that the article is dropped to semi protection and if further disruprtion occurs the full protection can be replaced. Off2riorob (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that a couple editors here are "disruprting" Wikipedia by using it as a marketing tool. Please see above discussion about link references and the NY Daily News. Regatta dog (talk) 03:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Reid's been home for a few days and you folks are so busy trying to toss an editor under the bus that no one is backing my suggested update about Reid coming home. Maybe it is too neutral for you? Not "Go Reid" enough? Regatta dog (talk) 03:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Aloha27 and Off2riorob. Semi-protection will stop fly-by edits by IPs. Thanks guys. --Zanthorp (talk) 07:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with putting the article under "Semi-protective" status. The article needs to be opened up again to legitimate edits, that follow the rules for a BLP. --Skol fir (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible way forward? NYDN articles have been very problematic, either fluff pieces, "tainted" as one editor put it, or defamatory. There are far better sources available now that Stowe has completed his voyage. The NY Times, for example, has a high standard of journalism. The NYDN, however, is at the bottom of the scale in terms of reliability. How about deleting anything sourced to the NYDN, and rewriting the article section by section using better quality sources. What do you think? We already have general agreement on paraphrasing quotes. --Zanthorp (talk) 07:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I count 7 NYDN citations. Not a major job to find different sources, if they exist, a good test of reliability anyway. Green Cardamom (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed also. That is a good idea, since the NYDN never did add anything substantive to this article. Skol fir (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok I've excised the NYDN citations. A new version of the article is here. The diff between the original and new is here. As you can see some citations could be deleted entirely since they were double anyway, some could be replaced with other citations, and some material had to be deleted because NYDN is the only source for it. Green Cardamom (talk) 17:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I could support that change. I have seen at other articles very POV opinion reporting from the NYDN. Off2riorob (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, Green Cardamon. I agree with the results of your editing out the NYDN. I checked the difference, and it looks fine to me, in the new version. Skol fir (talk) 08:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll buy into removing all references to the NYDN. I would ask, however, if the NYDN has more of a POV opinion than the subject's own web site? POV/COI is rampant there. Can we remove all references to the subject's website unless they are presented as opinions within the article? Regatta dog (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself to someone who seems to have selective reading habits, I reiterate that using the subject's own website as a source has no limitations as long as it provides new information useful to the biography, that may or may not be confirmed elsewhere. This is a special immunity granted to the subject of the article, no matter who is running his website. You already saw the 5 conditions for using self-published material from the subject's own website. As far as I am concerned—already argued in Same old, same old, ad nauseam, the website 1000 Days at Sea meets all 5 conditions and anyone saying otherwise has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the information is fictitious. Until then, Wikipedia allows the use of a subject's own website to provide some, not all, the information in the article. Anyone who tries to argue otherwise must have an axe to grind, and that goes counter to the rules of an editor's role in Wikipedia. --Skol fir (talk) 00:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of proving my point, I would suggest that there was no more significant event than when Jesus and Buddha sat with Reid after a long day. From his log on his website --

"I watch the sparkling sea day and night and even invited Buddha and Jesus to sit with me.....My arms are feeling much better now and I didn't want Buddha and Jesus to feel obliged to work on me. I just wanted them to come have a seat and get comfortable with the angle and bound of the schooner and do nothing but enjoy the light of the sun and the moon and the infinite expanse. Spiritual sailing, they are old hands at it." http://1000days.net/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=675&Itemid=70

It was on his web site, so it must be true, and I cannot think of a more significant event in the past 1000 years, let alone the past 1000 days. Can we get that into the article? I would like you to point out where the rules of Wikipedia state that there are no limitations to using "facts" from the subject's own website. You won't find it. Looking forward to the Jesus/Buddha mention with a link. Regatta dog (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It is a waste of time arguing with a cretin. Have you ever heard of "poetic license"?

poetic license

n. The liberty taken by an artist or a writer in deviating from conventional form or fact to achieve a desired effect.

That is the privilege accorded a writer when he uses his imagination. Take a look at the poem by Samuel Taylor Coleridge, called "Kubla Khan", in which he asks the reader to engage in a "suspension of disbelief." Who set you up as a judge of someone's personal thoughts put to paper, while in isolation from humanity! You were not meant to take all his words literally, for goodness' sake. Your ridiculous nit-picking here is not appreciated. Skol fir (talk) 02:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. I wouldn't be surprised if we are witnessing a deliberate attempt to derail genuine progress. Best to totally ignore any future attempts at time wasting disruption, otherwise we will never get anywhere with the article. --Zanthorp (talk) 06:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Good advice, Zanthorp. We need to move on with some constructive editing and ignore the distractions.--Skol fir (talk) 07:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Excellent work, Green Cardamom. Could we use that page you have set up as a working page once we have general agreement on edits? Here are 2 recent articles, one from the NY Times, the other from the Guardian. [9] [10] --Zanthorp (talk) 06:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it can serve as a working document for agreed on changes. Add it to your watchlist if you like also. I'll include the recent update the admin made in the lead section so it's up to date, a parallel copy. That way the the entire thing can be cut and paste in when ready without loosing anything. Green Cardamom (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a couple of minor corrections in the header information (changes in bold)...1) replace text with "Reid Stowe sailed the schooner Anne up the Hudson River..." ; 2) in the first sentence, replace with "an American artist and mariner, was recently involved with an ocean voyage called 1000 Days at Sea: The Mars Ocean Odyssey, a one thousand-day voyage which commenced..." ; 3) first sentence, second paragraph, replace text with "which Stowe was sailing on the voyage." ; 4) replace "She departed the vessel near Perth, Australia on February 22, 2008, after a call was made to the Royal Perth Yacht Club seeking assistance for the "gravely ill" Ahmad." with start> "Ostensibly suffering from seasickness, Ahmad left the schooner near Perth, Australia on February 22, 2008, assisted by members of the Royal Perth Yacht Club." <end This change was already discussed at Consensus on minor changes- Part 2.

Let's see what everyone thinks of these proposed changes.

I also propose that we start a new section in this Talk Page called "Green Cardamom/Reid Stowe article in progress" to allow renewed discussion on improving the article for the time being, until the lock-down is lifted.

--Skol fir (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Done I decided to leave Green Cardamom out of the name to avoid confusion :) Skol fir (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW, Zanthorp, that reference from the NY Times has already been inserted into the article, as an admin has accepted the text for the update we were working on above (see the green check mark by TheDJ in the Update section). As for the Guardian article, if you read Off2riorob's comments above, in the same "Update" section, you might have second thoughts about including it. We don't need more disruptive material, as you pointed out, and the Guardian article is just the one that Regatta Dog would have preferred (and already suggested) to promote his disruption. Two of the sites that were blocked from the article as external links are mentioned (SA and 1000 Days of Hell) and one is even quoted, which I think is going too far. You can read it and see what you think. Skol fir (talk) 07:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't know how I missed those links etc above. The Guardian article? I only read the first couple of paragraphs. The NY times article was good and I carefully read 2 articles by Charles Doane. One of them in particular very enlightening. Anyway, will make some suggestions for improvement in the next day or so. --Zanthorp (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Calling me a cretin? You completely crossed the line with that one, Skol fir. For someone who claims neutrality, I'm sensing some very personal emotion here. Please try and keep the discussion civil. I find the communications between Skol Fir and Zanthrop troubling. It is almost as if they are sitting in cubicles next to one another and talking over the wall as they type.

As for the article in the Guardian, NY Daily News, the article by Doane and any other article that does not place Reid in the best light, what's the big deal? Not everyone on the planet thinks this guy's the bees knees. Why not let the readers decide. Sanitizing this article is completely unacceptable. Wikipedia requires balance and these two editors are hell bent preventing it.

As for an attempt to delay progress with the article, you'll note that it was I who suggested adding information about his arrival, so that argument is not valid. I would further suggest that as he has completed the voyage and that is included in the article, the article doesn't need any more information added. It is complete until the subject does something else that is worthy of note, and press appearances and a speaking tour are not worthy of note. Regatta dog (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Once again, ANOTHER personal attack on another editor by Skol fir. I concur with Regatta Dog on this one, this is hardly behavior exhibited by a "neutral" contributor to this Wiki. On another note, check around the web. Stowe is a hot topic on many forums including (but not limited to) Australia, New Zealand and Europe. Fully 90% of comments that I have read responding to the story of Stowe's homecoming are highly critical of the "mission" not to mention the man himself. I think it'd be wise here to put the binders on wholesale editing for the time being. I'm sure that more verifiable information can be gleaned from sources other than the subject's website. After all, as most of the information available has come from that site in addition to "press releases" which were sent out by MC to other less-than-stellar sources, the entry is rapidly (in my opinion) becoming very, very close to an autobiography. Regards Aloha27 (talk) 12:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Look at my response to Regatta Dog, at the beginning of this talk page, starting with "Simple math~~ look at the graph," and it will enlighten you as to why I decided to get involved with the "Reid Stowe" article and what my motivations are. I have no personal involvement with Reid Stowe, live in Canada (while Zanthorp lives in Japan), and I am here to learn about Wikipedia and how it works, while contributing what I can to improve the quality of the articles. Incisive comments towards another editor do not reflect emotion but rather insight, and an attempt to educate. They are one way to get someone's attention, especially when dealing with someone who has an annoying habit of grasping at straws in order to advance a futile cause.

I am Canadian, but I thought that Americans were supposed to believe in "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Like any other American, Reid Stowe is entitled to all of that, and you and your clan are trying to take that away from him, without any basis. Whatever rocks a person's boat is that person's privilege, and brushes with the law notwithstanding, to pursue happiness is a right, inherent to all Americans. Look at the words of the "Pledge of Allegiance": "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Where is the liberty of a man who is hounded by the likes of you Regatta Dog, and where is the justice in condemning a man to misery for a few youthful indiscretions? I say that you should maybe relearn the meaning of your own Pledge of Allegiance, and then rethink your actions here and elsewhere.

--Skol fir (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Please, Skol fir, drop the patriotic bunting on this article which is already akin to a Reid Stowe float in a parade. We also take pride in the fact that "we are a nation of laws and not men", something the subject of this article has not been held accountable for. That is from John Adams. While I admit that I have said the pledge at school, I can also claim to have read the biographies of every one of the founding fathers. The two volume biography about John Adams by Page Smith was particularly insightful. It was, alas, a biography and not an autobiography, like this article.

OK, Regatta Dog, I will, since "patriotic bunting" belongs on buildings, such as the St. Louis Courthouse. I still stand on my assertion that liberty and justice are a person's right, after he has served time and paid for any outstanding debts to society. Agreed? --Skol fir (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

"Youthful indiscretions"? You've got to be kidding me. He was busted for involvement in smuggling 30,000 pounds of pot and owed over $10,000 in back child support which by any rational measure are not "indiscretions". He was in his 40's for the first and his 50's for the second - so there was nothing "youthful" about it. Please try again or have it posted on his website so it becomes "fact". Regatta dog (talk) 01:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree. To attempt to blow these off as "youthful indiscretions" won't wash. Aloha27 (talk) 01:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

COI notice

I have placed a COI notice on the COI notice board concerning Regatta dog. [[11]] I've been extremely busy with work and other commitments lately. Otherwise, I would have done so earlier. --Zanthorp (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you point to a particular COI rule that has been violated? I read the section and couldn't find anything. I did, however find this --

Conflict of interest in point of view disputes

Another case can arise in disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. When conflicts exist, invite the conflicted editor to contribute to the article talk page, and give their views fair consideration.

I think that may be what's going on here. Regatta dog (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems you somehow overlooked the most important bits.

"COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests...." In this case, the press articles that you contributed to and influenced. In order to circumvent the no original research policy you managed to get a tabloid journalist to publish your OR and opinions so that you could then insert them into this article.

"Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest."

The outside interest that you have been attempting to advance again and again and again is your campaign against Stowe. If you were left to your own devices, this article would become an extension of your blog, liberally sprinkled with "Deadbeat Dad" and conflicting claims about smuggling marijuana. In fact, that's pretty much what I found when I first encountered this article --Zanthorp (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That's quite an accusation you made there. An article appears about Reid's back child support and you make the leap and accuse me of getting "a tabloid journalist to publish your OR and opinions so that you could then insert them into this article." That's a great deal of speculation on your part. Also, you may want to read the article more carefully. The reporter did all of his own research.

If I was let to my own devices, I would make sure that the article was well sourced and balanced. If you look at the article history, you will note that my edits regarding his legal problems were only a couple sentences. Your exaggeration and unfounded assumptions are not very impartial, IMO.

I am assuming, based on your comments, that the NY Daily News is a "tabloid" and therefore an unreliable source. Is that correct? If so, this article will need some additional editing. Regatta dog (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

NYDN is not the issue. You are the issue, and have been ever since a couple of editors got wind of what you are up to here at the "Reid Stowe" article. The fact that you repeatedly inserted controversial edits, with their only sources being two articles, that you obviously had a hand in creating—that is what is at issue here. Conflict of Interest means that you have an agenda, and are trying to promote that agenda through underhanded means. You have been told many times to cease inserting that defamatory material which is not backed up by the truth, which you so callously distorted in the first place, just to hurt Reid Stowe as much as possible.

Your Conflict of Interest is that you have a single-minded purpose to deface the article and that you were directly tied to the references you used to accomplish that. That is as plain as I can tell it, unless I stoop to language directed at a two-year old. Skol fir (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Your personal insults are really not appropriate here, and again your assumptions are baseless. I was interviewed for one article, yes, but did not reference my own comments in that article. That particular article, BTW, had nothing to do with his drug conviction or back child support. It was an article about Soanya leaving the boat. To assume I "obviously had a hand in creating" any article about his legal problems is absurd. Perhaps you should ask yourself how many articles his support team obviously had a hand in creating. As I read the COI rules, it is apparent to me that they were developed first and foremost to protect an article from self promotion.

You seem to be suggesting above that information about the subject that only appears in two articles is not noteworthy? Perhaps I'm wrong in my assumption and you can clarify what you meant by your statement. I would suggest that a source such as the NY Daily News is far more reliable than many of the other sources for the article, including the subject's own promotional website.

Are you then in agreement that the NY Daily News is a reputable source? Will you please answer the question directly?

My only agenda here is the truth. I have nothing to gain personally or financially. My only desire is to make sure that people interested in the subject get the whole story and not just what his handlers and PR agency want them to see as a packaged product. Regatta dog (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Then speak the truth. The Conflict of Interest Noticeboard is for use in instances where a particular editor has shown a bias towards the subject of an article AND repeatedly adds contentious information to an article over a longer period of time. I quote from the noticeboard intro: "such as disputes with tendentious editors and cases where editors are repeatedly adding problematic material over a longer period of time." Look up Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. It might help to make you see how your behavior fits that description. Skol fir (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I have been speaking the truth, but unfortunately there are editors who aren't interested in the whole truth, but rather just what they want the public to see. I would suggest that I am not the only editor here with what you would consider a COI. In an internet world of anonymity, at least I am consistent using my moniker across all internet sites. A couple editors here who claim no connection to the subject have, through their discussion posts, shown intimate knowledge of the subject not available to the general public and been strong proponents of poorly sourced information in an apparent attempt to create a positive image for public consumption. I could have created a secondary anonymous identity for Wikipedia so that I could have been as stealth as the other editors here who, IMO, are closely associated with the subject and his mission. I did not.

You, Skol fir, referred to well sourced information as "trumped up allegations" and accused me of having a hand in creating them without a bit of evidence to support that claim. I am not referring to the article in the NYDN about Soanya leaving the boat, in which I expressed relief that she was off the boat and that Reid was negligent in taking her for 1000 days without knowing if she was prone to sea sickness. I am talking about well sourced articles about his child support and drug conviction problems. I would suggest that you and a few other editors have shown a great deal of bias toward the subject. I feel obliged to provide the balance to keep this article from becoming nothing more than a self serving, promotional brochure.

I would also add that contentious edits are a double edged sword. I find the attempts to exclude anything about his child support and drug conviction without any logical rationale to be very contentious. Regatta dog (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong. You state, "I am talking about well sourced articles about his child support and drug conviction problems." The headline of the NYDN child support article by Adam Nichols was lifted from your blog. The state did not say that Stowe was a "Deadbeat Dad." The headline is defamatory because it is false and highly derogatory, and that becomes obvious to anyone who takes the time to read past the headline. The article was very poorly sourced: it quotes you directly from your blog. An article published 10 days earlier by the same journalist quotes you and names you as a source. We have been through all of this numerous times. You cannot worm your way out of this. Denial is not a river in Egypt.

Unlike the NYDN, The NY Times IS a reliable source. I see that they have published recent articles about Stowe that we can use, and BTW, they have not published any of your claims. --Zanthorp (talk) 05:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Did a little search and found this article from www.boatingonthehudson.com. (Page six) It certainly would meet the requirements of a reputable source. http://www.boatingonthehudson.com/March_low.pdf Shortcut to the article itself is here. http://www.boatingonthehudson.com/1000%20Days%20at%20Sea.html Aloha27 (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If I had a copyright on "deadbeat dad" and got a nickle for every time it was used, I'd be a very wealthy man. To suggest that a reporter from the NY Daily News stole my term for his headline about the subject's back child support is ludicrous. I suggest you Google the term and look at the number of hits.

I question if you have actually read beyond the headline. The article does not quote me or any blog at all! The article quotes Michael Hayes of New York's Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, which manages child support collections. The article also quotes Jim Benedict, a member of Mr. Stowe's support team -- "By the time this thing is over, hopefully some cash would have come in," said Benedict. "Enough for Reid to pay what he owes."

So are you really trying to claim that the NY Daily News made up an interview with a named Gov't official charged with collecting back child support, and that further, the NY Daily News invented a quote from a member of the subject's own support team acknowledging the back child support claim? On top of that you claim that it quotes me from a blog? Seriously, Zanthrop, I'm trying to work with you here, but it appears we are not reading from the same sheet music. For your convenience, here's a link to the article being debated - http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2008/03/10/2008-03-10_1000day_sailor_a_deadbeat_dad_who_could_.html. Please read it again and lets discuss.

Again - based on your challenging, yet again, the NY Daily News as a source, I look forward to your removing all text in the article based on that "tabloid's" reporting. I'll help you identify them if you'd like, but you seem more concerned about the NY Daily News' credibility as a source than I do. Let me know if you want some help.

BTW - Charles Doane published an article yesterday (the same Charles Doane that is cited as a reliable source in the article as well as being linked at the subject's home page) that confirms the drug conviction and the back child support using the unambiguous term "true". He did interview me via e-mail for the article, but he uses no OR on my part. Is Charles Doane now a tabloid journalist? Without Doane and the NY Daily News, this BLP is going to need a major rewrite. Regatta dog (talk) 06:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is certain specific claims are defamatory. Those types of claims, of a personal and negative nature, require a higher level of verification, they have special treatment per BLP. If you can provide more and better sources for the defamatory claims, beyond the NYDN, that unambiguously do not involve a COI, such as primary source copies of court documents, that might be enough to add the information to the article - assuming it's even important enough - personally, I don't see child support as being encyclopedic, but that's another discussion. FYI many states make court records freely available online for searching, I don't know what state is involved here. Green Cardamom (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI I did a cursory search for NY court records online and they don't appear to be digital like some states, requires going in person. But it's a complex system in NY and maybe some divisions have it, I can't decipher it all, perhaps someone would have better luck. It's also worth noting the NYDN article is from 2008, nearly two years ago, and the amount in discussion is only around $10,000 - for a daughter who is now 32 years old! Calling him a "dead beat dad" is pure tabloid journalism and makes the rest of the article suspect. He may not be paying it because he contests that he owes it, and he may be right, who pays child support for a 32 year old daughter! There really needs to be a lot more investigation done before it's added to the article. Green Cardamom (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

When an editor contributes (via interview) to a press article, then adds material from that article to the related Wikipedia article and cites the press article as a source, they are, in effect, citing themselves. In this case, after citing themselves (in effect) the same editor used these talk pages (see archives) to promote the original press article, and a related article by the same journalist. Clearly, a conflict of interest has been demonstrated.

In response to Regatta dog, we are not discussing Charles Doane; the topic here is your COI. And I must say, its truly a miraculous series of coincidences that you have described! 9 days after you begin an anti-Stowe blog post with the heading, "Deadbeat Dad" a NYDN article by the same journalist that quoted you as a source just happens to coincidentally include the same words covering the same topic that you posted about on your blog. Incredible! What are the odds of that happening. And to top it off, on the very same day that the NYDN Deadbeat Dad article appears, you quote from it and use it to update your blog. Maybe you and that journalist are psychically linked, or maybe its all just a miraculous coincidence, as you seem to imply. If you haven't already bought a lottery ticket, you should. --Zanthorp (talk) 05:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Your personal jabs at editors who don't toe the Reid Stowe line are getting, as you might put it, tiring. Your amazement that anyone could possibly have used the term "deadbeat dad" without getting that term from a blog is remarkable, suggesting perhaps that I invented the term. Citing the NYDN article to the blog is no more than effective sourcing, which is more than can be said for much of the pro-subject content that appears in this article.

It is interesting to go back through these discussion pages and follow the arguments for not including information about the subject's problems with the law:

1) it was argued by editors inserting personal opinions that he paid his time, and that he "obviously regretted his mistakes". No sourcing whatever. Making an unfounded assumption or perhaps an editor who has an intimate knowledge of the subject?

2) It was also argued that it happened a long time ago and therefore was not pertinent to the present voyage. That argument was somewhat put to rest with the reminder that this is a biography and not an article about an event.

3) the sources of articles supporting the facts are called into question with the NYDN being discredited as a reliable source. This was doen selectively - only with regard to the back child support article, even though the BLP relies heavily on the NYDN for much of the positive information contained within it. See the discussion about the NYDN above, and you will note that no editor is willing to commit to a position that the NYDN is not a reliable source, but that for this single, well investigated article about child support the reporter is a tabloid journalist. That's effectively shot down as an argument, so the next logical approach to keep this important information out of the BLP is to -

4) Shoot the messenger by claiming COI and that anything I attempt to do to balance the article is to be discounted out of hand. This is similar to the attack on Adam Nichols who investigated and then reported on the child support issue. He's a fine reporter and reliable source when he produces fluff pieces based exclusively on interviews with the subject's support team, but he's a "tabloid journalist" when he actually does some investigative reporting that sheds a less than favorable light on the subject.

I have a feeling that the response to this post will be that this particular discussion is not about the content dispute, but about me and a COI. This would be yet another tactic employed to protect the subject of the BLP from the exposure of his own past transgressions -

6) Change the subject.

BTW, Zanthrop, your intimate knowledge of the subject and the events are well documented in these discussion pages. Maybe you and the subject are physically linked, or maybe its all just a miraculous coincidence. Regatta dog (talk) 10:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

For the record, after considerable discussion, 4 out of 6 editors decided to invoke Presumption in favor of privacy, Avoid victimization[[12]] For that reason allegations concerning marijuana were left out of the article. That was the main reason. The 4 editors were Gosgood, Skol fir, Off2riorob, and myself. At first I had been in favor of including mention of the marijuana / child support issues, but decided against it after rereading BLP policy, and because the sources were so problematic - the hypobolic, defamatory "Deadbeat Dad sez state" NYDN article for example.

I have an "intimate knowledge of the subject" according to you. Pat yourself on the back. You've been a good teacher. And according to you, "Maybe you and the subject are physically linked..." Thanks for the laugh. FYI, I live on the other side of the planet, Japan actually. I had never heard of Stowe until earlier this year. I have no links or association with anyone who knows him or with any member of his support team.

Again I put it to you, When an editor contributes (via interview) to a press article, then adds material from that article to the related Wikipedia article and cites the press article as a source, they are, in effect, citing themselves. In this case, after citing themselves (in effect) the same editor (you) used these talk pages (see archives) to promote the original press article, and a related article by the same journalist. Clearly, a conflict of interest has been demonstrated. This is the issue at hand. FACE IT! --Zanthorp (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Regatta dog, I have no connection or interest in Reid Stowe, I just heard about him for the first time yesterday since he just completed his trip, came here and saw this dispute. If you can provide sources for the claims made in the NYDN article such as primary source court documents... that should solve any COI concerns. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a minute, Green Cardamon. We are talking about a BLP. According to WP:ORIG, "Wikipedia does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources." Please, let's keep to the rules. The reason that Regatta Dog cannot use the original documents that he or other members of Sailing Anarchy were able to procure, is that this constitutes "original research," which is not allowed in Wikipedia. If you want the original documents relating to this issue of defamation, go to the blog that I mention in the COI Noticeboard called "Reality Check" and you can see what is actually involved here. I cannot give you the exact link to the blog because it has been blocked from Wikipedia for not complying with rules for a BLP with respect to "Questionable Sources." Regatta Dog reinterpreted what those documents actually say, and that is the source of defamation.

Also, see Primary, secondary and tertiary sources-- "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." ...and of course, the secondary source must be reliable, which in this case it is clearly not.

Skol fir (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reviewed the links and prior discussions. Good catch Skol fir and Zanthorp, excellent investigation. Green Cardamom (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Green Cardamon, thank you for taking the time to go over the material. We have certainly covered a lot of ground in the last two months, investigating this issue related to BLP violations. The more veteran editors that weigh in on this matter, the better. A subject does not deserve to be vilified for the rest of his life. That is why we have the rules in the first place. Skol fir (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

"The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources." Sounds like the 1000 days web site is a questionable source? Regatta dog (talk) 03:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

[voyage-1] "NYC man returns from 3-year sea voyage". Associated Press-via Google. Retrieved June 22, 2010.

[record-2] "Man Credits 'Love' in Record 3-Year Trip at Sea". AOL News. June 18, 2010. Retrieved June 22, 2010.

[smashing-3] "A Record-Smashing Sea Journey, and Not for Its Speed". The New York Times. June 16, 2010. Retrieved June 22, 2010.

[1]

[2]

[3]

Category