Talk:William C. Welch

Untitled
I added sources to the article!!!!!!!

re: SmooveK (11/21/05 - A little late replying but I just made an account so I apologize. This is the author of "Bleeding Was Only Half the Job." In my opinion, the inclusion of the information from the book is totally relevent to Messiah's profile. I do not mean for it to portray Messiah in a negative light; all I intend is for the other side of the story to be achknowledged - that Messiah has heat with other people besides Black I have re-edited the information with that information.

Also, why did you say that the information could go in the "References" section but not put anything there (in the References section)? - Thanks

To JB196, your text with regard to these people was previously barely tolerated because it was neutral and stuck to the facts. You have within the last few days changed the text in a rather obvious attempt to make POV accusations that were removed from this page a long time ago. If you want your text to remain, you have to use the previously acceptable version. You know this already so there will be no discussion about it any more. If the unacceptable version of these comments shows up, it will be removed. We are talking about a small difference in wording. If you can't accept that version, at least explain why. 168.127.0.51 17:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Which specific comment in the paragraph do you not want in there?JB196 17:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Previous versions on the page from (for example) June 30th are acceptable as well. 168.127.0.51 17:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You still have not answered me. Which specific comment that is currently in the paragraph do you not want in there?JB196 17:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You see your text. You see the text I have put in the page and have listed above. Look at the differences between them. That is your answer. If you don't like that, please explain to me what is unacceptable in my version above or in the page. 168.127.0.51 17:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do see my text. In fact I see about 10 different versions of my text because we have been going back and forth, back and forth.

No, I don't see "the text [you] have put in the page and have listed above."What EXACT version of my text are you referring to?

If I take out the part about him not answering in his SMV shoot why the relationship with Myst ended, will that appease you?JB196 17:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I am alright with the version as you have it right now.JB196 18:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

EPIC
Why was the information about EPIC taken down?

That makes the article inaccurate.

Messiah left XPW before it folded. The article says that he was there until it folded.

AMW
I'm sorry I ever added the info from AMW in the first place now, as important as it was. I admit the original thing I posted was worded poorly.

I think what's up their now is better, but still poor. Maybe someone can fix it.--Unopeneddoor 21:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"Bleeding Was Only Half the Job."
All references have been removed. This turns out not to be a book but rather a collection of self-published material from an obsessed fan of the promotion. The author isn't objective and he has an agenda.

Re: "Bleeding Was Only Half the Job"
r/v'ed. The book has been officially endorsed by Shane Douglas, Ron Jeremy, Jerry Lynn, Chris Kanyon, Lizzy Borden, and others, and was written after extensive interviews with former-XPW talent who knew Billy Welch personally. If that doesn't make it credible, nothing does. Even if it was self-published material, it is still relevent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JB196 (talk • contribs)


 * Do you have a verifiable source for that? Weregerbil 14:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Can't you guess who would be interested in this with the initials "JB". There is no book. When he actually publishes a book you can mention it as a source, but right now you are quoting from nothing more than web articles. That is not a credible source.

Followup
Me and Weregerbil worked this out on his talk page. One more thing to add in relation to what the anonymous IP person said: either there should be no sentence implicating Rob Black as a suspect because theere isn't any evidence, or the implication of him as a suspect should be included but with the explanation already there (which you had removed).JB196 15:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You have to work this out in public and work it out here. You have not published a book and what you have published in no way qualifies as anything that can be cited on Wikipedia as a source.


 * That's fine. So don't go using Wikipedia to make false accusations. That's the meat of this issue and why the passage was added in the first place.JB196 04:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Rob Black was the focus of an episode of the TV show America's Most Wanted relating to the attack, therefore his name is relevant in regards to the attack.
 * He wasn't the "focus" and even if he was the sole fact that he was featured on AMW doesn't meet the Wikipedia criteria to name him as a suspect in the article. This isn't about your personal belief; its about Wikipedia's policiesJB196 18:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Rob Black was mentioned as a possible suspect on America's Most Wanted & Inside Edition. It has never been proven that he wasn't behind his thumb severing.
 * Nor was it proven he was behind it. Innocent until proven guilty. And no, he was only featured on AMW, not on Inside Edition.JB196 09:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

unacceptable text
"Since then there has been information released that has moved some of the speculation away from Black and indicated that Black is not the only person who Messiah had problems with in the past.
 * A wrestling promo is in no way a notiable source for this sort of accusation.


 * You have no source that says that anything has "moved some of the speculation away from Black and indicated that Black is not the only person who Messiah had problems with in the past".


 * "For instance" has to come out. It is a POV suggestion that there is more supporting material than is being presented. If you have more sourced material, you need to present all of it.

If you want this material in the page you are going to have to properly source and support it. Its totally unacceptable in all the ways I have outlined above. 168.127.0.51 19:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with this specific instance not being included in the text, as long as it is indicated clearly that Black was never charged with anything. I have edited the text to meet that condition. Hope that is OK.JB196 19:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I changed the text slightly. AMW has to be included and it can be said that nobody was ever charged. But you can't go so far as to mention Black specifically. You also can't put POV into the AMW mention.
 * I agree that AMW should be included. I don't agree that it should not be mentioned that Black was never implicated further. Is that OK with you?JB196 19:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Since you have attempted to re-add all the gossip and speculation again in a reworded form, we are back where we started. You can't single out Black with "never implicated" because that is clear POV. The AMW story is a fact. Trying to defend Black in response to the AMW piece is POV. You can't edit down the AMW text to make Black look better. You can't put up unattributed sourceless gossip either. This is all basic Wikipedia stuff that you can't argue with.


 * Now I'm even more confused about what your trying to do. Why would you want to put his accusation against Black back into the page? It wasn't there for a reason.


 * I don't know if you're purposefully ignoring the citations of all of the "gossip" or if you honestly don't realize that all this "gossip" as you call it is all cited and documented in interview, but regardless there is nothing "sourceless" in there to the best of my knowledge (and if there is, let me know). I am totally willing to compromise but I am not sure how exactly you want the article to be designed.JB196 22:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know why you found it unacceptable to have this gossip on his personal life in a different section than the details of the assault. It's redundant to say that.  Unless Black was publicly named as "the only suspect" then it's a given that other suspects may exist.  I'm more than happy for any information on suspects from AMW or law enforcement agencies to be added to the article, but I draw the line at information allegedly derived from people in the wrestling business which can't be verified.  Sasaki 00:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * First off, all of the information I provided was fully cited as required by Wikipedia's policies. As far as the wording. I would be fine if it did not mention Rob Black in the first place, and said something simply like "The incident was the subject of a feature on America's Most Wanted." Is that agreeable?JB196 00:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I refer you to WP:RS . It can be listed as an external link if you choose, but I feel it should not be used as part of the entry. The Rob Black reference is factual and should remain in my opinion.  I feel any decision to remove it should come from someone who has an independent viewpoint, as you are well known as a supporter of XPW. Sasaki 00:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, that is fine if Rob Black is mentioned, but I think it should be indicated that Black is not the only person who Messiah has heat with. All of the other info that I had in the previous version before you reverted it was factual and cited. I am going to go ahead and revert back to that; if that is not OK, with you, let me know and we will proceed from there. Thanks.JB196 00:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * To be fair my version from earlier today did not name Rob Black as a suspect, I specifically worded it to avoid that.  I'm not satisifed with the current wording of "Welch's former promoter, Rob Black was mentioned on an episode of America's Most Wanted about the incident",  as to the best of my knowledge Rob Black is the only publicly named suspect in the case and the current wording seems to be an attempt to paint him in a better light.  The wording I propose is:


 * Welch's former promoter, Rob Black was the focus of an episode of America's Most Wanted about the incident. Since the episode's airing, nobody has been accused or arrested by police in connection to the attack. The case remains unsolved.


 * This implicitly states that although Black was a suspect (a fact which can't be denied) he has never been arrested or charged in connection with the case.
 * Re Gary Yap: Again according to WP:RS the Gary Yap interview is not a reliable source. You yourself have stated that Gary Yap and Messiah have had problems, therefore everything he says would need to be verified by a secondary source. Sasaki 01:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sasaki you're totally misunderstanding me. There is no Gary Yap interview sourced in there. I am referring to the current version, where everything is cited to specific interviews Messiah has done.JB196 01:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * PS - I am not comfortable with the wording "Welch's former promoter, Rob Black was the focus of an episode of America's Most Wanted about the incident. Since the episode's airing, nobody has been accused or arrested by police in connection to the attack. The case remains unsolved." I have seen the episode in question and he was not featured prominently. If "the focus of" were to be changed to "mentioned on" I would be content.JB196 01:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It just seems to be largely trivial and not noteworthy, or am I missing something? I too have seen the full episode of AMW, and I do not feel "mentioned on" is sufficient.  Other than Rob Black, no other suspects (excluding the actual assailants granted) or motives were mentioned, so he was the focus of the show.  I've been more than willing to compromise by not explicitly stating he was a suspect, and I feel that is NPOV.  I'm more than willing to listen to any suggestion that falls somewhere between our viewpoints though? Sasaki 01:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, how about "was featured on?" Are you agreeable to that wording? User:JB196|JB196]] 02:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not happy with that at all. I'm trying to assume good faith here, but it's quite difficult.  In fact my next suggestion is an entirely factual one, which if you're not happy with I'll need extensive reasoning please.  I suggest "was named as a suspect on".  The "biggest controversy" reads more like random information about his personal life, so unless someone reading the article has prior knowledge they won't actually understand what point you're trying to make.  Sasaki 17:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * "The "biggest controversy" reads more like random information about his personal life, so unless someone reading the article has prior knowledge they won't actually understand what point you're trying to make. " - I'm not sure what you mean by this, please clarify. I think it's pretty weird to say "If you're not happy with I'll need extensive reasoning." How do you figure its entirely "Factual"? As far as the "named as a suspect on," well, "if you're not happy with" my version of the article which explains his history then "I'll need extensive reasoning please" as well. I don't think it reads "like random information about his personal life; it is explaining how the attack led to one thing which led to another etc. etc.JB196 19:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

anonymous removal of material
To the person removing the details of the Assault on William Welch, please explain yourself. If you don't explain yourself, all your going to accomplish is locking the page against anonymous edits. 168.127.0.51 21:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The explaination offered is: "It is irrelevant to his Career and Accomplishments"

If you are suggesting its not appropriate for the section, please create another seperate section to deal with it. You cannot be suggesting that the assault is irrelivant to the page as a whole? 152.163.100.200 01:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

assault section
Ok. One of you says it can't be in the page because its inappropriate for the section. The other has removed the section from the page. At least two of us agree that the material should be there. Can we get some discussion going to resolve this? 168.127.0.51 21:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Come on people, dont delete whole entire paragraphs from bios


 * Classic Wikipedia! What a joke of a website. Clever trolls just remove whatever information that they want to remove. Sometimes an arcane justification will be given, nonetheless valid information is removed from wikipedia and is gradually forgotten. Someone should create a new website that can serve as as online encyclopedia ;) Leondegrance (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed your changes. Please see the explanation. You can't just add to wikipedia information that could be violative of someones rep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.65.2 (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Personal life section
I've removed the information that Mr Welch wants removed, per WP:BLP which states to "do no harm". This information is not relevant to his notability. One Night In Hackney 303  19:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The content is sourced, therefore it should stay. There is also no proof that the IP editor is actually William Welch. Also, every bit of the content itself was stated by William Welch himself in interviews, both of which are directly linked from the article. I too am sensitive to the BLP rule and the "do no harm" sub-rule, but the content is sourced to the subject of the article themself, in addition to third parties. You can't get a more accurate source than the subject themself.--ClaudioCastag7 20:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion
Summary: Keep the information.


 * WP:BLP states that all biographies of living persons should adhere to Wikipedia's content policies strictly. This means all content must be sourced well, and adhere to the neutral point of view policy.
 * The "do no harm"-clause here was cited rather out of context, and citing rules like this is not done in Wikipedia - follow the spirit, not the letter of the rule. "Do no harm" is to be used as a rule of thumb in case of doubt, specifically to avoid speculation.
 * There is no speculation here. The content is properly sourced, as these sources are reliable. "Do no harm" in this context does not mean do not write anything the subject does not like. It means do not speculate when the sources are dubious.
 * Because of the above, the information should be kept.

--User:Krator (t c) 20:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A third point was raised, in addition to the not applicable "the subject doesn't want the information here" and "do no harm" points. This point cannot be as easily rebuked, and is based on the assertion that stating this information is not relevant to his notability. See this section of WP:BLP for the "letter" of the rule.
 * For proper analysis, the main question is "Why is William Welch notable?" Without doubt, this is because of his wrestling career. One might question the relevancy of the relationships he has had to this fact. However, in every encyclopaedia article on a living person, a small biography and personal life sections should be included. In biography sections, education and marital status are always included.
 * In this case, marital status should include who the subject's significant other is, at least. Exes and related information may be included as sources permit, and only if they played a significant role in the subject's life. For example, Monica Lewinsky is included in the article Bill Clinton, but the girl who had a one night stand with him in a motel back in '81 is not. Sources should be examined whether the information under dispute here is trivia or significant.
 * As a separate comment on style, biography sections are usually the first section in the article.


 * The information is not reliably sourced. The majority of it comes from wrestling fan sites, which thrive on gossip. Welch's own comments are not sufficient per WP:BLP as he names third parties, if he had named Hilary Clinton as someone he had a relationship with it would be unacceptable, corroboration from any named third party is needed. One Night In Hackney  303  20:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The sources included are entirely reliable sources considering lordsofpain.net is a valid source according to yourself.--ClaudioCastag7 20:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a secondary source reporting details of what was on a TV show. Pray tell, where do your fansites get their information from? One Night In Hackney  303  20:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, the sources are no different.--ClaudioCastag7 20:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes they are as I've just adequately demonstrated. Can you answer the question please? One Night In Hackney  303  20:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Krator, can you take a look at WP:NPF and see how it applies to this article please? William Welch is not well known. Thanks One Night In Hackney  303  20:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You haven't adequately demonstrated anything. Respectfully, based on your indication that one wrestling fan site is a reliable source and another is not, your statements are suspicious to say the least and double standards to say the most. They're all wrestling fan sites. If wrestling fan sites are not reliable, then lordsofpain.net doesn't qualify as a reliable source. According to you, it does. It can't go two different ways. And William Welch is well known enough to have an article about him.--ClaudioCastag7 20:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's incredibly obvious. The source of the information on LOP is cited, it's direct from a TV show and can be checked elsewhere. The other sources are just gossip of unknown origin. One Night In Hackney  303  20:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If wrestling fan sites are not valid sources as you say, then it's entirely possible that none of the information stated on the page you linked to came from the TV show in question. If wrestling fan sites are reliable, and lordsofpain.net is a reliable web site, then please provide a more adequate source. If the web sites in question are gossip sites, then lordsofpain.net is no different. Again, it can't go two different ways.--ClaudioCastag7 20:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to understand. What is the origin of the information on the sources you provided? The source for LOP is more than clear. One Night In Hackney  303  21:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand perfectly. If wrestling fansites are not reliable sources, then LOP is not a reliable source, regardless of where it cites its information from. If LOP is a gossip web site, it's certainly not a legitimate source to say what did or did not air on a non-wrestling program. You stated that better sources are available; please provide them. If one wrestling fan site is a valid source, then so is another wrestling fan site.

Comments of William Welch himself are much more reliable than what you term to be a gossip web site.--ClaudioCastag7 21:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, please stop with such "sigh" edit summaries. They could be construed as light personal attacks.--ClaudioCastag7


 * No you don't understand. As LOP is reporting what was on a TV show, in that case it is a secondary source. Your sources are reporting information of unknown origins, and the information is not reliable. Policy specifically states any information from Welch should be treated with caution, especially information about third parties. One Night In Hackney  303  21:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do understand. I have said what needs to be said. What you just said in your most recent reply (21:07) was addressed in my previous edits.

As a followup to what Krator said above, in addition to his wrestling career making him notable, it is apparent from the article that the "assault" was also a big part of his career, and according to what Welch said in the interview linked to, his personal life was closely linked to the assault, so I think that the relevancy of his personal life is more apparent than it may appear at first glance.--ClaudioCastag7 21:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, where do your sources obtain their information from? It's a simple question, so perhaps instead of prevaricating you'd like to answer it? One Night In Hackney  303  21:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I repeat - if a source is not reliable, then whether or not it attributes its source to a reliable party, what it says is NOT reliable, BECAUSE IT IS A "SOURCE" WHICH IS NOT RELIABLE IN THE FIRST PLACE, as you have pointed out about wrestling fansites above. LOP is a wrestling fan site, thus it would seem that you have your answer.

On the other hand, if it is a reliable source, then the information is reliable. Again, it can't go two different ways. I am open to it going either way, but one cannot go ONE way and the other the OTHER way.--ClaudioCastag7 21:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for admitting your sources are unreliable. One Night In Hackney  303  21:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't say anything like that. That comment, coupled with your edit summaries, make me question your attitude.--ClaudioCastag7 21:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Question away, your contributions make your intent clear. One Night In Hackney  303  23:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion: response
Some points were raised above, which I will respond to. What is the origin of the information on the sources you provided? What is the origin of the information on the New York Times? Pray tell, where do your fansites get their information from? Pray tell, where does the New York Times get their information from? --User:Krator (t c) 21:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NPF is written with non-public figures in mind. Think of notable speechwriters for politicians, notable ambassadors who have negotiated multiple important treaties, studio artists who have contributed to multiple top-selling albums and composers of video game music. The common factor here is: their work (notably the end-product) is important, but their person is not. With an American wrestler, their person is important as well, as they are constantly in the spotlights as well as subject to a lot of media coverage. Summarized, WP:NPF does not apply here, as the subject is in fact a public figure.
 * On the reliability of sources, my point is best illustrated with a quote of the above discussion.
 * Though the above is probably clear, the point is: the source of the information is in fact not a requirement listed in WP:RS. A source is reliable per WP:V when it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The cited sources here have a reputation of accuracy in the specific area of wrestling. Most reliable sources do not list where they got their information. It is not a requirement for being classified as reliable on Wikipedia, as the reputation is what matters. One cannot measure reputation, and in most cases (i.e.: The New York Times) it is clear.


 * Sorry, are you suggesting self published wrestling fan sites that are little more than blogs are as reliable as the New York Times? The information being supplied by them isn't about wrestling, it's about the private lives of living people. One Night In Hackney  303  21:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I am not. I am invalidating your reasoning that cited sources in Wikipedia must publish their sources before being classified as a reliable source, by presenting the counterexample of the New York Times, which is without a doubt a reliable source, but does not publish its sources. --User:Krator (t c) 21:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * So, are the sources reliable for wrestling or the private lives of living people? One Night In Hackney  303  21:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not personally familiar with the reputation for fact-checking of the sources cited here, though I must presume that the subject of this article, or at least his agent, would have forbidden publication of the interviews if they turned out to contain slips of the tongue. I was also unable to find any source stating that these websites are unreliable with a quick Google search. A more thorough search would perhaps turn up something. These sources are not self published (i.e. not blogs or forums) either, so I see no reason to assume unreliability per any Wikipedia policy. To comment specifically, it is not uncommon for sports commentators to have extensive knowledge of participants' personal lives, as much as any newspaper sports journalist would. Also note that the information may be excluded per the notability concern you raised earlier - please see the Third Opinion for my opinion on which parts should be included and which can be exluded. --User:Krator (t c) 21:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * They are self published. The point I was making that the SPA (check contribs) is saying if one source isn't reliable then neither are the others. My point is that all such sources are generally unreliable for details about someone's private life, however one source is reporting the details of the show regarding Welch on America's Most Wanted. Please also see this edit by the subject of the article. One Night In Hackney  303  21:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The IP editor being subject is relevant, per WP:BLP. There's no independent source for his relationship with a third party. Again would we include that Welch had a relationship with Hilary Clinton if he said it in an interview? BLP applies to ewveryone mentioned in an article, not just the subject. One Night In Hackney  303  22:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Which of the sources and relationships are you talking about here? --User:Krator (t c) 22:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The sources are Welch himself, and a user submitted site. These are not adequate sources for allegations about third parties per policy. One Night In Hackney  303  22:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed the sentence on the subject's wife, as the source was not reliable, and I could not find anything on Google. We agree here. When a source is an interview that does not immediately classify it as unreliable. Interviews are frequently cited in featured BLP articles as well. Examples are Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) and Michael Jordan.

On a side note, perhaps you should re-read this discussion and examine all arguments again. I have now thrice written a lengthy invalidation of your arguments, and every time new ones are brought in. It would have been much clearer if you had written all your arguments down at once, allowing for a single response. This borders stubbornness, if you forgive me the rather brisk term in English - the Dutch word I am translating here has a less harsh meaning. --User:Krator (t c) 23:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, my apologies, I misread your statement (this was the first time that happened).

LOP is not different.--ClaudioCastag7 22:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I never said it did, yet again I suggest you read the discussion. LOP is different, as explained repeatedly and at length. One Night In Hackney  303  22:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said it did, yet again I suggest you read the discussion. LOP is different, as explained repeatedly and at length. One Night In Hackney  303  22:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In regards to One Night In Hackney's question as to "are the sources reliable for wrestling or the private lives of living people?" the LOP source discusses the private life of William Welch, and you say that it is a reliable source.--ClaudioCastag7 21:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * On this occasion it is a secondary source, as stated above. Please read the dicsussion rather than going round in circles. One Night In Hackney  303  22:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please read the discussion. One Night In Hackney  303  21:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * One Night In Hackney, please do a close reading of my edit at 21:18. Everything is addressed there.--ClaudioCastag7 23:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I read it and ignored it, it's not relevant. One Night In Hackney  303  23:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Sumary
Per WP:V - Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP

Per WP:V - Material from self-published sources and sources of questionable reliability may be used in articles about themselves, so long as...it does not involve claims about third parties

Per WP:BLP - ''In case of doubt, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives''

Per WP:BLP - ''Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability''


 * Claims are made in this source and this source that a married third party had an affair with Welch. The first source is Welch himself claiming that. Going back to my earlier point, if he had claimed to have had an affair with Hilary Clinton would that be acceptable for inclusion? No, it involves a third party. The second source says "he was rumored to have slept with...", so it's completely unacceptable.


 * This source is a recap of an episode of mainstream television show America's Most Wanted. Under those circumstances it's perfectly acceptable in my opinion, as it isn't the owner of the site making those comments.


 * Welch is not a well known person. He's an independent wrestler, which means he wrestles a couple of times a week in front of a crowd normally numbering three figures. He isn't on national TV, he should be afforded some degree of privacy.

There are real people with real lives we're dealing with here. One Night In Hackney 303  06:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If a source is not reliable, then whether or not it attributes its source to a reliable party, what it says is NOT reliable, BECAUSE IT IS A "SOURCE" WHICH IS NOT RELIABLE IN THE FIRST PLACE, as you have pointed out about wrestling fansites above. LOP is a wrestling fan site.--ClaudioCastag7 18:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Checkuser says exactly who you are, and I can revert your edits on sight JB196. One Night In Hackney  303  21:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * OWW isn't a reliable source for people's private lives especially if they are living, see here. Removed again per WP:BLP. One Night In Hackney  303  21:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, for frick's sake, the man got his thumb chopped off! Why is this not mentioned anywhere on the page? It's certainly worth a mention, and is NOT a hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.128.89 (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

- "After leaving XPW, Welch, using his Messiah ring name and gimmick, made his debut in Combat Zone Wrestling (CZW) on August 31, 2002 at their first Tournament of Death, only thirty days after being assaulted in his home by two assailants." Actually he was wrestling for CZW at least on January 12, 2002 at Answering the Challenge. Not sure if that was the debut but he certainly made his debut before August 2002. Stunttis (talk) 01:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)