Talk:Coyote Shivers

Untitled

Please do not continue reverting this article back and forth; it is not a productive way to write encyclopedia articles. The simplest way to fix the problem is to provide sources for your information -- "According to his website, his birthdate is XXXX," or something similar. If there's a dispute over the date, document it in the article. "Shivers says X (in source Q), while Someone Else claims Y (in source P)." Thanks for your interest in the article, and happy editing! — Catherine\^talk 02:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Problems With The X's

Here's an interesting story.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216205,00.html

Jake b 03:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• I read the Fox news story very carefully. It is clear that Perette has filed a complaint and has a longstanding legal action including restraining order against Shivers. However, the two exwives have apparently not filed formal complaints, only talked to the reporter. This puts it in a slightly different category, as they are not under oath for example, and have not testified in any of Perrette's court preceedings. So I am willing to leave Buell out but not Perette. The other girlfriend has filed a formal complaint, which puts her in legal jeopardy if she lies, so I think that stays in too. Thatcher131 04:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Further edits to this article

Warning: If any further edits to this article include personal attacks in the edit summary (such as the words liar or stalker) I will immediately block the offending user without warning. (This applies to ALL editors of this article.) It's bad enough to have edit war over the contents, but every time personal attacks are inserted in the summary, I have to go through a very tedious process of deleting them. You have been warned. Thatcher131 03:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Further edits to this article

Personally, I have no strong views on whether the Fox news report should be included or not. The fact that a police report has been made is a fact; however a police report is a one-sided allegation and is much less useful as a reliable source than a judgement (or a restraining order resulting from the report, for example). Likewise the two ex-wives told tales to a reporter; this is a fact. However the tales have not been specifically verified in the way that other statements reported as "news" generally are.

However, edit warring and blanket reverting is not a valid editing method and editors may be blocked for violating the three revert rule. If you have a dispute about the content there are various methods of resolution, including negotiation, mediation, third opinion, and request for outside comment, available through the dispute resolution process. The article should include only verifiable statements but it does not neccessarily need to include every verifiable statement about a person. This should be the subject of discussion and negotiation. The reversions have also left the article in a less than tidy state; for example should it list each individual track of his CDs, or would the names and some brief info (label, release year, general tone or theme) be more in line with similar articles. In any case, edit warring through blanket reverting is not a valid editing method and may result in blocking. Thank you. Thatcher131 03:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry; since I was the one who made the revert, I will attempt to fix the CD track listings. Ckessler 03:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Revert War

WhyohWhy, we're obviously not going to reach any consensus by continuing the revert war, so I'm going to try and engage you in discussion on the issue. Your objection seems to be that the article is not based on facts, but gossip, per WP:RS, but that is not correct. As long as the information comes from a reputable news source, it is acceptable. What is considered a reputable, reliable source is outlined in WP:RS. As I interpret it, it is assumed that the facts have been properly researched, because it comes from a reliable source. For example, Ms. Perrette did indeed file a restraining order, etc. No claims are made about the truthfulness of her claims, only that she filed. Unless you can prove that she didn't file, leave it. Ckessler 04:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, the article calls ITSELF "Gossip", read the top of the page. And again I quote from WP:RS "We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia." This is stipulated as specifically meant to address exactly such a situation in which "living persons are involved." Also, for the record FoxNews.COM is not the same as Fox News, although one could be forgiven for not intially understanding the difference. Furthermore, the self-admitted GOSSIP article, is written by the best friend of an extremely biased party (and I say this as politely as possible and even leave out certain FACTS which apparently are considered "attacks" even though they are simply facts.) Any dispute would quickly become an out of control flame war of wild accusations, gossip, and allegations, filling pages and pages of nothing but arguing if one begins to allow unsubstantiated gossip and rumors to be included. Therefore, stick to FACTS and facts ONLY, otherwise one can only imagine what would become of this place. One can imagine for example Richard Gere's page and the rumors that would be posted, with the supporting argument that "it's a fact that that it is a rumor, therefore we should include these rumors in the encyclopedia." In an instance like this, court papers will soon show exactly what the facts are, and we all look forward to those facts being included. 69.230.87.101 11:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Whyohwhy

Without regard to the revert war, certain statements which you may regard as facts are, of course, even less well supported by reliable sources than the disputed content. Using such language in edit summaries is more troublesome than placing it in the article, because any editor can remove them from the article but only an adminnistrator can remove them from the page history. My point above is really that the edit summaries should not say anything that wouldn't be allowed in the article itself. Thatcher131 17:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

WIkipedia is not a battleground

It is not in my nature to "lay down the law" but this situation is getting out of hand. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and it is certainly not a place for settling old scores either way. For example, this article, largely written from Coyote's point of view, says he left his two most recent wives. I found a profile of Bebe that says she left him; and of course we have the Fox story; so the best thing to do is use neutral language. "they separated" "they divorced" etc. Similarly, and especially with regard to the Fox story, it is imperative to print only verifiable facts but it is not necessary to print every verifiable fact. The WP:BLP policy expects that controversial negative information about a living person will meet strict standards, and I think there is enough ambiguity surrounding the events reports (a police report filed 2 years late, ex-wives telling tales that have not been tested in court) that it can be fairly left out without compromising Wikipedia's principles. I strongly discourage interested parties from adding it back in until (and unless) additional verification becomes available. On the other hand, person's desiring to remove such information if it is added are advised to leave a polite edit summary and a note on this talk page, rather than using possibly defamatory language. Thatcher131 00:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty clear most of the editing os going on by Mr. Shivers himself, and people associated with his exwives... It doesn't surprise me that this article is slanted since it has bee speculated that Mr. Shivers wrote it, and he has been described as quite the narcissist... What a mess. Jake b 07:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)