Talk:Gary Lavergne

BLP issue
The content restored in this edit appears to violate WP:BLP and WP:NOR, and has generated a complaint to OTRS. Please do not restore this text until a consensus has been reached to do so. Stifle (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How does using Lavergne's own website and information constitute any error for inclusion of criticism in his own Wikipedia article? He has, as the information states, declared that the tower tragedy was the "Worst" tragedy in American History at that time - which was superceded by an even larger tragedy in American History through the Bath, Michigan school bombing in 1947 by Andrew Kehoe. In fact, read the referenced article and he claims John Douglas would agree with him on another issue - I don't read it as having by endorsed by Douglas either by cite or any other manner. To allow an author to have an article just because he is published and a living person, doesn't give him a pass on credibility and poor research as well as obfuscating the whole persona of the subject he wrote on, who is deceased and unable to answer his Wikipedia article.Victor9876 (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In so far as you're "using Lavergne's own website and information", you're drawing your own conclusions and inferences from it, which is a total violation of WP:NOR. If we want to include all those details, we have to cite where a third-party said them. Stifle (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You've got to be kidding! Lavergne is not a medical doctor - is that the "conclusion or inference" you are referring to? How can WP:NOR include a "third party" citation where the actual living persons statements are extracted from their own website? If the "in a non-medical opinion" is all you are drawing on, it can be removed and the rest should pass the NOR rule. Let me know.Victor9876 (talk) 02:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm having some real-life issues which mean I will not be taking any further interest in this or most other articles. I will not intervene further. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have taken over this ticket for Stifle, and I agree that the material as previously written seems inappropriately slanted to discredit Lavergne. If reliable sources are contrasting the findings of 1966 with his works, we may quote their doing so. Arranging material in such a way that we seem to be questioning his conclusions ourselves is problematic under No original research and should never be done in a WP:BLP. The content must not be restored as it was pending consensus for its restoration. I will report the concerns and my actions at WP:BLPN. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)