Talk:Byron v. Rajneesh Foundation International/Archive 1

And they lived happily ever after?
"The assassination plot against Turner was never carried out, and actions against others on the list were never fully executed.[17]"

So what happened? Did they just get one with their lives? This cuts off rather suddenly, without any info on whether they were arrested and tried etc... and also, what is meant with "were never fully executed" (that seems to hint that they partly were, and may also be a bad choice of words for an assasination plot).

Would be good if there could be a bit more context. Thanks and keep up the good work. Ingolfson (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a bit more detail over at 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot. The wording is similar to that in the secondary sources, but I will work on copyediting that a bit more. Thank you for your comments on the article. Cirt (talk) 06:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above user that the article looks badly worded and the changes, after one year, do not appear to have materialised. I'd point out that reference to another wiki article is insufficient and in fact just duplication of the problem.


 * Further I note "A survey submitted by the Rajneesh organization in the case was deemed unreliable by the judge" - this is mentioned twice, but the substance and significance of this survey is not explained.


 * I also note that an allegation that the Byrons were on a hitlist is sourced to Gillins, Peter (May 25, 1985), "Scientology attorneys seek to overturn $39 million judgment", United Press International: Domestic News and Moore, Kenny (2007), Bowerman and the Men of Oregon: The Story of Oregon's Legendary Coach and Nike's Cofounder, Rodale, ISBN 1594867313. In view of the difficulty at first sight of accounting for the presence of the information in these cited publications and in view of notability/authority issues with respect to them, and finally bearing in mind the BLP rules, I'd suggest the citations are insufficient as they stand to link any plot to Byron. Redheylin (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you are suggesting. Every single sentence in the article is sourced to sources that satisfy WP:RS and WP:V. Cirt (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am experiencing difficulty in understanding how a news item on scientology and the bio of a "legendary coach" can be considered authoritative and reliable sources on this legal case, the nature and context of what they said, their authority for saying it and the reason that no such authority can itself be produced for the allegation that Byron was "hitlisted" in the plot. In the first case please note that there is no sign of the article on the web apart from 3 that trace back to yourself. I therefore dispute verifiablity and would like sight of the article or notable account. IN the second case ditto. Redheylin (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I found the article in a news archive database. It satisfies WP:V. Both sources satisfy WP:RS. Multiple other sources could however be given to also further verify this information. Cirt (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources.[5] If such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons"


 * Then I request that you substitute the mentioned sources. You may if you wish quote the database address. Redheylin (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:SOURCEACCESS. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Unacceptable, owing to the complete absence of reference to the article on the web, your failure to provide reasonable evidence of verifiability and your use of inadequate references at Alford plea. Redheylin (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The web is not the only place to find references, and most certainly Wikipedia does not require that we only use sources that are online. Far from it. Cirt (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Redheylin was already advised previously about this very issue regarding WP:V and specifically WP:SOURCEACCESS. See this comment by admin by Peteforsyth to Redheylin, where he notes, ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Redheylin&diff=284316918&oldid=284315759 a review of WP:V is probably in order. Even if a link has gone completely dead, a book citation is still "good."]'' Cirt (talk) 12:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)