Talk:James Rosemond

With the content dispute here apparently ongoing, I thought it might be helpful to list some specific sources and discuss their validity and weight within the article. Content needs to adhere to our policy regarding biographies of living persons. It's also noted that the subject's publicist has rightly called for media coverage to not affect the conduct of a fair hearing. I'll have surely missed some sources here, so please add any further ones to the list, as appropriate. In this case, the numbering will be affected, so I think specific pieces should be identified otherwise during the discussion, e.g. by author/publisher/date. (Please of course also feel free to amend the table layout, etc.) Do editors here think that this procedure could be helpful? Thanks. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 11:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

"...I thought it might be helpful to list some specific sources and discuss their validity and weight within the article." Will this be helpful? Yes. I find tables cumbersome and easy to break (and prone to edit conflicts) so how about adding a new section called "Sources" and then each source could be a third-level subsection beneath it, starting with a link to the source and what article content is proposed? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that level 3 subsections would be an easier way to deal with this. Perhaps it would be better to devote one subsection to each proposed addition (rather than to each source) because then, even if the source were deemed deficient it leaves us with a place to discuss potential other sources for the proposed content.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure that a mass "examination of sources" will be productive, particularly noting the mass of ill formatted links below. Looking at specific (existing or suggested) article content and the source(s) supporting the content would seem to be the way to actually make progress on the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

and note that many of the "sources below" are the same as the "sources above" that have been recently reviewed and found inappropriate to source the article content to which they were assigned. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

This is the version that was restored which includes information deleted by Dianna https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Rosemond&oldid=592182401.

It was resolved by Dennis Brown in this thread:

User talk:Scholarlyarticles I'm very sure that the Village Voice is fine as a source. I've explained in detail on SA's talk page. They have been around over 50 years. They aren't a "blog", they just use blog style software, everything is vetted and written by professionals. Quite respectable and award winning outfit, actually. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Okay. -- Dianna (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The issue was temporarily , but incorrectly, allowed to remain with hearsay from a blog by the same man whose article in the LA Times had to be retracted and apologized for. That temporary error has been fixed and the inappropriate hearsay, and people reporting on that hearsay has been removed and will remain out of the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Red, I understand which version you prefer because you have deleted this article multiple times since the day Henchman was convicted. It was resolved once. In that A|FD it was determined that the AHH version said that Dexter Isaac confessed to shooting on orders of Henchman. The confession of Henchman to that PAC shooting sourced to the VV was resolved by Dennis Brown above, Both came after the LAT retraction. The PAC issues have been amply discussed and resolved. You simply have to look at the edit summaries. You also have to look at the edit summaries to determine how many times you have requested to delete this page. Trevj is looking at the content issues originally raised by Dianna, perhaps you should let Trevj resolve it. Canvassing to block editors who do not agree with your and her version is not a good way of proceeding. It could be construed as trying to chase editors away from the page. All the bestScholarlyarticles (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you think you could try making specific comments about actual article content? Like if there's something you want to put in about Dexter Isaac, you could say e.g. "Let's say 'blah blah blah' about Dexter Isaac" using [a source] and [another source]" and then we could all discuss whether it's a good idea or not? That is what article talk pages are for, and we might make some progress. In any case, it would be a lot more effective than your insisting on a wholesale revert to a previous version supported by a bunch of weirdly vague accusations about who's doing what and why.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

No need to provide any help. ThanksScholarlyarticles (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Err, OK. I'm not quite sure which discussion you're referring to, and it's not obvious from your edit history either. But fine. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 12:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Misssarta can you please explain why you classed this content as defamatory? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I've been following this case and the current entry mischaracterizes and defames the LA Times and Chuck Philips. Also, Philips should not be included as part of Rosemond's personal life. Misssarta (talk) 17

17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Your handwaving does not matter. Please explicitly state how the current entry defames the LA Times and Chuck Philips. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)