Talk:Chris Heimerdinger/Archive 2

My edits
Just to explain what I'm doing here, I came originally in a response to a message on the biographies of living persons noticeboard. I've got a fair amount of experience in editing biogs of people who have been controversial in one way or another. I am continuing to watch the page and want to see a neutral well-sourced article. If you disagree with any edits I have made I shall be pleased to discuss them here or perhaps on my talk page. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Your flag that you noted from noticeboard was made at the request of 216.49.181.128, who has been identified as a party currently in lawsuit with the subject of this article. We disagree with many of your content changes, particularly removing info on songs and other pertinent details. Changes with regard to form are supported. Content is not. Any material that is judged to be non-verifiable should be identified and sources will be provided. This article is under constant assault from individuals motivated by rancor, anti-religious sentiment, and those who are in direct legal contention with the article's subject. Your initial edit was overwhelmingly non-helpful. Slash and burn. Scorched earth. If you truly wish to present a neutral approach that will improve the content of this article, be more communicative regarding each and every edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thumper10 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I really don't think it was "overwhelmingly non-helpful". But if you want, we can work point by point. Of course, I'm not going to be influenced either way by whether there has been editing by someone with a conflict of interest. Any edits I make are completely independent of that. Since you yourself may also have a conflict of interest, I'm going to place a note straight away on the conflict of interest noticeboard. Now, to take one point at a time. I'm going to take the list of songs on the CD out again. The fact that the subject produced a CD is notable. The whole list of songs is not in the least necessary. We have Amazon for that kind of thing. Thanks for coming to the talk page. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can find such lists on another Amazon or another site, then you are welcome to remove the info. Otherwise, such info is genuinely of interest to those who review this page. Don't get bent out of shape, sister. If you notice "overwhelmingly non-helpful" was revised and removed from original post. You're too quick on the draw. Don't be influenced by emotion. If you wish to police this article to keep those with "conflicts of interest" at bay, such involvement is welcome. Just retain that neutrality. It is known that the subject of this article has already employed legal counsel to insure that defammatory information is not re-included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.23.178 (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was going to undo the removal of song titles, but I see it has already been done. Listing these song titles was done with the specific motive of distinguishing such cuts from music written for this project which was NOT created by the artist who is the 0subject of this page. It is therefore pertinent for viewing by those with an interest in learning about this subject.Thumper10 —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC).
 * I agree with Thumper10. There is nothing contained in this article at the present time that violates neutrality, is unhelpful or unverifiable.  How about you get off of your high horse itsmejudith and look at the overall content of things, or rather, spend your oxygen editing something that really does need to be edited rather than something you just felt like jumping in on.  They teach reading in Elementary school for a reason these days I'm told, but it appears that its not a skill needed for this site.  --FireandFlames17 (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll be civil to you if you'll be civil to me. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that civility is called for. It's clear that many, including me, are highly interested in the accuracy and fairness of this article. However, having read recont posts on Heimerdinger's website passagetozarahemla.com, I reposted info that was cut for unknown reasons, perhaps because in some kind ensuing edit war the original reference that was provided was inadvertently (or advertently) deleted. Information seemed benign and interesting to anyone who reads this article. Other changes applied by editor Scott MacDonald much appreciated.Thumper10 —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC).

Sorry, we don't include information from a blog. It isn't just about reliability, it is that we are not a fansite. If third parties are reporting the author's future plans, then they are perhaps relevant worth this encyclopedia including - but we don't mirrors an authors blogging. This is an encyclopedia not a fan site.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, I would like to thank all the new people who've showed up on this page for bringing a heightened rigor to what has been a long, slow march to verifibility and general goodarticleness. Thmazing (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hiya, popping in as an uninvolved admin. Folks, for best results, please comment on the content, and not the contributors, thanks. --Elonka 05:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Info about his mother coming from his blog
The following text is in the Family section:


 * Heimerdinger's mother, Anna Cecelia, was baptized by Heimerdinger into the LDS Church in May 2005. He also accompanied her in her first attendance to an LDS Church temple in December 2007. She also has a bit part in Heimerdinger's movie, Passage to Zarahemla, as a "laughing old lady."

The reference is to the Passage to Zarahemla blog.

This is really on a fine line with verifiability. Self-published sources—which a blog is—are not to be used as sources for information on third-parties. Based on that, it's not appropriate to use it as a source about his mother. On the other hand, it could be argued that the items really all relate to Chris directly:
 * It's unstated, but the conclusion is that he led her to the Church.
 * He accompanied her to a temple (and as I understand it, getting admitted to a temple is a Big Deal to Mormons).
 * He got her a bit part in his movie.

If the reference were to a biography of Chris—a secondary, non-self-published source—I would not have objections with this item being included. Because it's sourced to a blog, it's really in a gray area to me. —C.Fred (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Much ado about something that should not provoke such sentiments. Your work is much respected, C.Fred, but blogs are frequently used in Wikipedia--especially title blogs from a website owner or controller. What Wikipedia has determined to be patently questionable are replies to blogs. But this is written by the source subject, and the info is harmless. Really, considering the import of the edit, this whole discussion seems a waste of energy. The info now seen on the page does not go beyond what the subject has stated, allowing the reader to judge what is written without ad-ons or assumptions. Let it stand. Hey, I personally find it interesting. And Wikipedia should always be source that offers interesting biographical information to a reader--so long as it can be verified. Thumper10
 * We also need evidence that the information is notable. We don't just mirror someone's personal blog posts - that's for fansites. If third party sourced are not interested in these details, nor are we. A blog is a primary source, and should not be used without secondary sources to show that the information is being noted.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 02:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Advertisement
I've tagged the article with the tags appropriate for the problems discussed above. I left out the coi tag, as I don't think this is still a problem (See COIN).

I suggest trimming the article back, using the BYU NewsNet source as a guide for what to cover and to what detail per WP:UNDUE and WP:PSTS.

The blogs are not appropriate sources per WP:SELFPUB.

The press release, the "About the Author" quote, and the box office stats should only be used to expand upon information already determined notable by a secondary source. --Ronz (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little confused here - I've read all your nice little policy stubs about "what's right" and "what's wrong" and it seems like WP needs to get a few things straight. Seems like this is a little excessive to keep monitoring and tweaking things just because its "not up to standard." You can't cite a certain source because it doesn't meet these 600 requirements, you try and use another source but can't because you don't meet these 723 requirements for this one. This article is about an author to say that his blogs on his official movie site are not verifiable is absurd. By nature of the article being about an author there is going to be some slant towards their direction. I'm not suggesting that each author's article become a fan site - but some of the information about their families would only be known in a few places. The beauty of Wikipedia is that the editors determine what should be included - and I'm sure there are a number of editors on this article that have been fans of Mr. Heimerdinger's works for a while and know certain things that are relevant. The fact that some you cannot find the sources is irrelevant - that doesn't mean that it should be removed from the site or given excessive flagging. Have some of you even considered some of the previous discussion that I've come across here? That would be that there are currently some legal issues in which the author is involved with against other parties. Have you all considered that its possible that perhaps this author's official site could be involved in the dispute and as such currently unavailable? I'm just suggesting that its a plausible theory for the inability to find information out on the web. Also, consider that this gentleman is an LDS Author - not exactly the largest genre on the market. Yes, authors like Orson Scott Card, Tom Clancy, and JK Rowling all have a bizillion sites about them - official, fan, news, etc. Being on a much smaller scale the information is also available on a much smaller scale and as such you should probably be content with what you can get, how you can get it. If you are are really all that concerned about finding citations for everything, how about searching for the information out on the Internet yourself? Just a thought! —Preceding unsigned comment added by FireandFlames17 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No one said it wasn't verifiable. But because someone blogs a bit about their family and future thoughts on publications does not make it encyclopaedic. If no third party sources have shown any interest in the information then it does not belong in an encyclopaedia article.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have come to this page in response to an entry regarding this article at WP:COI/N. In skimming through the comments here, there’s a lot of speculation and misunderstanding about Wikipedia’s policies of verification and reliable sources, which suggests to me that the correspondents here might want to re-familiarize themselves with them.  With respect to self-published sources, WP generally eschews personal websites and blogs; there are exceptions, but there are strict qualifications for them.  When the self-published website or blog is about the subject’s own self, the restrictions become even tighter.  (Also see Reliable source examples.)  Regarding an assertion made above that legal documents aren’t verifiable because they aren’t online, this is incorrect; if the source is in the public purview and thus potentially accessible – even if not physically accessible to a particular editor – it is indeed usable as a reference.  I think a clearer, common understanding of these policies might reduce the general level of conflict here.  Askari Mark (Talk) 14:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

We're making some good progress, but far too much of the article is unsourced. Too much of what is sourced is based entirely upon primary sources. --Ronz (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Fireandflames should have a look at some completely unrelated articles to see the amount of effort that goes into checking minor details about topics that are only of interest to a few people. Also, look more carefully at the articles on some authors and see the range of sources - not just websites - that are used. If Heimerdinger is a minor writer and not discussed much in the media, then the article on him will be relatively short. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that WP:V states that "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." That alone should be an incentive to cast the net for reliable sources more broadly. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)