This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
It is hard to find info on Bernie, so if anyone has a good source, feel free to add to this page or leave a link here on the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Backvoods ( talk • contribs) 10:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the controversy section because it was a) not sourced, and b) not at all controversial. He had an opinion on the Rams QB situation, and he blocks people on a forum. Neither of those things are controversial or notable in the slightest, as far as I can tell. Dayewalker ( talk) 06:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
So the standard here is you have the right to remove information, completely within the rules of Wikipedia, which meet all the evidence requirements of Wiki? Just because you don't agree that Miklasz's opinion is controversial doesn't mean others share that opinion. In fact, again I've linked to several references showing the controversy. Sure, no one is guaranteed freedom of expression, but pointing out that a journalist is engaged in censorship behavior merits public scrutiny, no? Or is there a rule here that you can only post things that will be looked upon favorably by the subject? If so, I'll need to redact most of the George W. Bush entry Sdiver68 ( talk) 18:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Self published material is a reliable source for the person in question if its written by the person who published it. Period. End of Story. No more discussion. Any further undos will be reported. Feel free to edit toward the truth, however, as you see fit. Sdiver68 ( talk) 04:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
And neither do you, consider yourself reported not only for the edit war but for not understanding reliable source rules. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Dayewalker_and_Omarcheeseboro_reported_by_sdiver68_.28Result:_.29 Sdiver68 ( talk) 04:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Forum posts are not reliable sources. What is the source that's being used to indicate Miklasz was involved in a controversy? -- NeilN talk to me 04:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Also, per WP:PRIMARY: "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Otherwise, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source" -- NeilN talk to me 04:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
{unindent) Can you please give the source where the Warner-Miklasz controversy is described? -- NeilN talk to me 05:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Controversies Bernie supported the removal of Kurt Warner in favor of Mark Bulger.
References:
http://www.mombu.com/sports/st-louis-rams/t-bernie-miklasz-article-on-bulger-1532831.html http://bbs.buccaneers.com/showthread.php?t=59761 http://www.clanram.com/forums/f11/bunch-bernie-posts-3370/
Controversies section is back, addressing all editor complaints of relevance and reliable sources Sdiver68 ( talk) 01:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
(OD) I did follow the links, while I don't doubt that any of them say what you indicate, none of them show that it's a controversy.
Let me try and simplify this, let's look at one of the proposed additions as an example. I know that choosing Marc Bulger over Kurt Warner was something that was a big deal at the time in St. Louis (and the NFL). However now seven years later, why is this still a notable event? NFL teams swap out quarterbacks all the time. I'm sure there are sports writers in Arizona that supported benching Warner a few years ago in favor of Matt Leinart, we don't include that in their bios.
Sports writers write, and give their opinion. Just because the opinions are wrong sometimes doesn't make them notable, and just changing quarterbacks doesn't make it a controversy. Dayewalker ( talk) 02:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
(OD) I've removed this material yet again, as there is no consensus to add this, and BLPs have a high standard for inclusion. It seems like we've reached an impasse on this one. I agree with Rd232 above, and would suggest the next step be an request for comment. That will bring in other editors to consider both sides of the discussion.
I'll be happy to start an RFC if you'd prefer, but I thought I'd offer you the chance to make it out yourself and give your side first. Dayewalker ( talk) 18:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Is the controversies section of the linked revision appropriate for this article? See above for discussion and revision history. The latest revision (WITH Controversies section) addressing all prior editor criticisms is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bernie_Miklasz&diff=338748928&oldid=338666707 Sdiver68 ( talk) 00:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
It is hard to find info on Bernie, so if anyone has a good source, feel free to add to this page or leave a link here on the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Backvoods ( talk • contribs) 10:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the controversy section because it was a) not sourced, and b) not at all controversial. He had an opinion on the Rams QB situation, and he blocks people on a forum. Neither of those things are controversial or notable in the slightest, as far as I can tell. Dayewalker ( talk) 06:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
So the standard here is you have the right to remove information, completely within the rules of Wikipedia, which meet all the evidence requirements of Wiki? Just because you don't agree that Miklasz's opinion is controversial doesn't mean others share that opinion. In fact, again I've linked to several references showing the controversy. Sure, no one is guaranteed freedom of expression, but pointing out that a journalist is engaged in censorship behavior merits public scrutiny, no? Or is there a rule here that you can only post things that will be looked upon favorably by the subject? If so, I'll need to redact most of the George W. Bush entry Sdiver68 ( talk) 18:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Self published material is a reliable source for the person in question if its written by the person who published it. Period. End of Story. No more discussion. Any further undos will be reported. Feel free to edit toward the truth, however, as you see fit. Sdiver68 ( talk) 04:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
And neither do you, consider yourself reported not only for the edit war but for not understanding reliable source rules. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Dayewalker_and_Omarcheeseboro_reported_by_sdiver68_.28Result:_.29 Sdiver68 ( talk) 04:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Forum posts are not reliable sources. What is the source that's being used to indicate Miklasz was involved in a controversy? -- NeilN talk to me 04:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Also, per WP:PRIMARY: "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Otherwise, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source" -- NeilN talk to me 04:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
{unindent) Can you please give the source where the Warner-Miklasz controversy is described? -- NeilN talk to me 05:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Controversies Bernie supported the removal of Kurt Warner in favor of Mark Bulger.
References:
http://www.mombu.com/sports/st-louis-rams/t-bernie-miklasz-article-on-bulger-1532831.html http://bbs.buccaneers.com/showthread.php?t=59761 http://www.clanram.com/forums/f11/bunch-bernie-posts-3370/
Controversies section is back, addressing all editor complaints of relevance and reliable sources Sdiver68 ( talk) 01:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
(OD) I did follow the links, while I don't doubt that any of them say what you indicate, none of them show that it's a controversy.
Let me try and simplify this, let's look at one of the proposed additions as an example. I know that choosing Marc Bulger over Kurt Warner was something that was a big deal at the time in St. Louis (and the NFL). However now seven years later, why is this still a notable event? NFL teams swap out quarterbacks all the time. I'm sure there are sports writers in Arizona that supported benching Warner a few years ago in favor of Matt Leinart, we don't include that in their bios.
Sports writers write, and give their opinion. Just because the opinions are wrong sometimes doesn't make them notable, and just changing quarterbacks doesn't make it a controversy. Dayewalker ( talk) 02:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
(OD) I've removed this material yet again, as there is no consensus to add this, and BLPs have a high standard for inclusion. It seems like we've reached an impasse on this one. I agree with Rd232 above, and would suggest the next step be an request for comment. That will bring in other editors to consider both sides of the discussion.
I'll be happy to start an RFC if you'd prefer, but I thought I'd offer you the chance to make it out yourself and give your side first. Dayewalker ( talk) 18:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Is the controversies section of the linked revision appropriate for this article? See above for discussion and revision history. The latest revision (WITH Controversies section) addressing all prior editor criticisms is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bernie_Miklasz&diff=338748928&oldid=338666707 Sdiver68 ( talk) 00:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)