Talk:Al Besselink

Probable death
For the record: There was a discussion about his probable death at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Golf/Archive 10 but no firm conclusion was reached as to how to proceed. Nigej (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to war with another user on this because I can follow additional paths like creating a ticket on the Commons in order to get this okies (like I had to do some years ago for Patricia Laffan to get permission to use her death certificate as proof of her death), but I'd rather not waste my time or yours. Sorry for the lengthy response. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes I remember that talk page discussion. Find a Grave fails WP:RS and the database entry isn't confirmation it is the golfer. I could email my golf writer friend Craig Dolch or call the PGA Tour and see if they would like to follow up on whether Besselink is alive or dead. One of them (or another RS) would have to report Besselink as dead before we could put it here. An email or phone conversation confirmation would violate WP:OR....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel it must be him, given the date of birth. Perhaps if they were notified they might confirm it and produce something, even if it is a few years late. Nigej (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Whilst I agree that a PGA or similar type of article source would be preferable, I have added the official death and burial record from the U.S. Veterans' Gravesites database as a source for now. I also added a 2016 source from Golf.com where he was (aged 93) reported to be in a home and suffering long term memory loss (article pretty much suggests that he was dying from a form of dementia, but it doesn't use that word so whilst people can read between the lines, it can't be termed as such on the Wiki page). Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RSP for this. Ancestry is a genealogy website and not always reliable. Combining sources to conclude he is dead is a clear case of WP:OR. OR is a bad idea and can go horribly wrong. If you don't believe me, read this aka the Naomi Ishisaka fiasco. Irony thy name is Wikipedia. The article creator was named Factfanatic1 and he got permanently blocked for what he did....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * User:WilliamJE, I have reversed your revert on my edit. I do not intend to edit war with you over this, so I will lay out my reasons very clearly for doing this:
 * 1) What you quote are guidelines, not set rules, they can in some instances be adjusted where necessary and appropriate. In this case, the 2016 article suggests he was at the end of his life. It also gives a location of residence as south Florida. The grave record is AN OFFICIAL government record for a start, so your "genealogy sites aren't always accurate" argument isn't valid here, because I'm not just pulling any old record from it or quoting a user built family tree, I'm using an official record from the veterans department.
 * 2) I'm not sure how the Naomi Ishisaka incident is even remotely similar to this in any way? That case was about slander against a living individual, with a probable malicious intention behind it. But if there is any doubt as to whether this is the same Al Besselink, then it can be validated applying some basic common sense. A quick search online reveals that Besselink is a very rare surname in the USA. Clustrmaps only lists 15 adults with the surname. Google brings up little, Ancestry brings up little, so on and so forth. Now the fact that the veterans record doesn't just match forename, middle name and surname but also location and the exact same date of birth is beyond any doubt of it being a mix up with another individual. I realise Ancestry records are not visible to all of the public, so for the avoidance of your doubt, I've temporarily uploaded a screenshot here.
 * Not rules. What is the first word at WP:OR. NO. What you have above is classic original research also known as WP:SYNTH that is combining sources to say something none of them explicitly says....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Naomi Ishisaka was an example of synth. That banned editor combined multiple sources to say the reporter and the person who attempted murder were the same. They committed synth and you're committing SYNTh. Veteran's records, google searches, that's synth....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not combining anything. We have a source which explicitly reads that the Albert Cornelius Besselink who was born on the 10th of June 1923 died on 10th April 2017. I'm not combining anything. You are though, given that your only argument is a whataboutery case concerning an obscure living individual who was slandered. The two are not even remotely relatable. Also, read COMMONSENSE. --Jkaharper (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Where does it say that's the golfer? You're committing synth. I will take you to ANI. I see you been WP:CANVASSING too. Pedantic is an insult according to Merriam-Webster. SYNTH, NPA, CANVASSING. I got a good case already....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to take it to ANI. I said you were being pedantic. That isn’t an insult by most people’s standards, and no offence was intended on my part. I don’t think you’re genuinely offended but rather trying to pick up on petty things to get at me with rather than fleshing out any proper scrutiny of that source or trying to work with me to find a compromise. I haven’t reverted your changes now for several hours and I don’t intend to do so again, but I will pursue this further down the appropriate paths, including asking for the opinion of other users who I know have a degree of experience in this area. That isn’t canvassing. I wasn’t asking them for a vote of support, I was asking for their second opinion. If you’re going to repeatedly throw WPs in my direction, I suggest you read them first of all. Also, if you’re trying to build a profile on me at ANI to suit your argument, probably not the best path to pursue... I note from the archived section of your talk page that in recent years you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for edit warring. Not a good look. --Jkaharper (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This article identifies the golfer's full name as Albert Cornelius Besselink. Coupled with the newspaper clipping cited in the article that has him stating his birth date in his own words (and the source matching the full name, birth date and state of last residence), there's no way that this is not the correct person, in my view. It's not like his name was John Jones. Unfortunately it is not uncommon for deaths like these to go unreported, perhaps his family wished to lay low for whatever reason. But the information is a public record.  Connormah (talk) 05:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Come on, how can you really doubt it's him? He has the same name and birthdate, did they clone him at birth? No, absolutely acceptable to add the death date in my opinion. Barring the failing health reports, those do not imply at all he was dying. But the death certificate is definitely enough. You have to be quite thick headed to think they are two different people. This kind of exaggerated sophism is not good for Wiki. --Folengo (talk) 11:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ÷No original research reads- Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.' Everything above is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. What about no does anyone not understand?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * William, you've already made this point. The reality is there are 1000s of Wikipedia articles which use some permissible forms of O.R. because there's a lack of standard sources which exist for vital pieces of information e.g. birth date, birth name, death date etc. It's very important that we make exceptions to rules sometimes rather than be tightly bound to them 100% of the time, which is neither practical or productive. Using birth records as original research was how editors on here discovered that Doris Day was in fact born in 1922, rather than 1924 as every "reliable" source online claimed. After her DOB was changed on her page by consensus, the media picked up on it as a story and even interviewed Day herself about it. Getting to the truth is ultimately what's important on here. I have no intention of fighting you over this and I think it's bad form to quarrel with other editors on here so why don't we work together on this? I'm going to get in touch with Golf.com, and if possible the author of that 2016 article. I'm going to explain the problem we have here and ask if he'll kindly update the news piece with a post script paragraph mentioning Besselink's death. You seem to have good experience with articles relating to both Florida and golf. Is there anybody you could reach out to your end to try and get a suitable source for the page? Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks again --Jkaharper (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Looking over this issue per a request on my talk page, I would argue that this seems to be one of those rare times where WP:IAR is truly applicable. We have a) a situation where the only consideration preventing an update is a single rule, when there is considerable evidence that the individuals are one in the same. The odds of this not being the same individuals are the same odds as, say, reliable sources declaring Tanya Roberts deceased before she died. Just because that happened does not mean that we discard them as reliable sources, we recognize that the chance of such an error is incredibly low b) a situation where breaking the rule would clearly improve the article (pretending that he is still alive when he clearly is not is not good for the project) and c) a consensus among interested editors (Jkaharper, Connormah, and myself) that such an edit should be implemented., I respect your dissent because I think that there is far too much original research on this project and I appreciate you raising your objection because I think that this is a very important issue to keep in mind. In this specific case, however, I think that the guidelines permit us to include the information. With that said, I support the readdition, but will not do it myself, as other options (bringing it to WP:BLPN, encouraging reliable sources to update their data, etc.) have been proposed and I do not want to interfere with those discussion. Canadian  Paul  02:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that the guidelines permit us to include the information. Is that a joke? What don't you understand about the words No original research. No doesn't mean when it suits some editor(s). I recently had a talk page discussion with an administrator about the plague of OR, false referencing, and other behavior in articles often by experienced editors. The admin thinks there is an arbcom case to be built, but neither them or me have been to ARBCOM at all or only in a minor fashion. Maybe I should stop being lazy and file. The wanton disregard for WP policy around here is appalling....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * William, can you please answer my point above about trying to find an alternative resolution for this? It would seem that you're only really interested in prolonging a non-productive argument about this rather than trying to make progress on finding an answer. I'm not interested in confrontation. There is a consensus against you on this talk page, and yet I am willing to try and ensure all parties are satisfied, by taking a different approach where we collaborate on trying to produce a new source. Let me know your thoughts please. --Jkaharper (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I emailed Craig Dolch but haven't heard back from him. I also tweeted Craig but it is through my author account, which he won't recognize as me but he might reply to. Craig, who is a golf writer, and I have known one another for over 15 years. Even if I get a private answer, that's WP:OR too. Craig or some other Reliable source would have to report it. An official tweet from him might be acceptable. Whatever the outcome, I should file the ARBCOM case....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. To me, this is a clear case where this can be applied. As mentioned above there are multiple references to reliable, published sources which verify the person's full name and date of birth. In addition there is a published, public record of the death a person with the same name and date of birth in the same locality that the athlete was known to have lived in his later years, when he was apparently in failing health. I don't think such an inflexible interpretation of the guidelines here is productive, as other users above have also pointed out. Perhaps you might want to file an RFC for further comment. Connormah (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Per List of premature obituaries the declaring dead of someone not dead is a regular occurrence for the overzealous. I have a rare last name(there are 50-75 of us) but I have two cousins named William, one of whom has the same middle initial and the other is born the same year as me and who lived in Florida (like me) the last time I checked. Am I WP notable? No. Should the ebook I sold the Movie rights to be made into a major motion picture, I may qualify. The pandemic has things on hold but the screenplay has been written and I had a hand in that. Back to Besselink, the point I'm making is a rare name don't mean @#5!. The rules for

WP:BLP apply....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Since you apparently seem to refuse to listen to any of the counterpoints raised by others here I am done with this discussion. Connormah (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Connormah here (although I did not realize that there was a policy that said what I wanted to say). There is consensus here to include the information; if you think that the consensus needs more opinions, there are many venues that both we and you yourself have identified that you can pursue this. Here, however, we have heard your perspective and we disagree; repeating it again and again is not productive and does not benefit the project. The talk page for this article is also not a forum for you to soapbox about broader problems with Wikipedia. Again, there are many other places the have been mentioned where you can do that; this page is for improving the article. Canadian   Paul  21:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This article is protected by WP:BLP which at the very top of the page says 'No original research'. You say Besselink is dead, then try reading WP:BDP, a sub section of BLP. An article on any person born in the last 115 years is 'is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death.' You don't have a reliable source saying he is dead. Just original research. Oh and WP:BLPPRIMARY says 'Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.' Which is what all three of you want to do. All three of you are experienced editors, the IDHT going on here is you three not me....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * If anyone is still reading, I heard back from Craig Dolch. He has no information of Besselink that we don't have already....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)