User talk:Everton Dasent (renamed)

September 2008
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. &bull; Florrie &bull; leave a note &bull; 02:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. &bull; Florrie &bull; leave a note &bull; 02:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

South Sydney Rabbitohs
The information posted on the Wikipedia South Sydney Rabbitohs page was accurate. It can be substantiated and it also referred to public perception which is valid. There is nothing controversial about the fact that Peter Holmes a Court was made to stand down from the Rabbitohs as Executive Chairman. That has been widely reported in the press. There is nothing controversial in stating that Rabbitohs fans were unhappy with the move to Homebush. Links provided were valid and verifiable. Please refer to the website Rebel Rabbitohs for further information, including many secret documents Peter Holmes a Court does not want seen.
 * Hi - On Wikipedia, it doesn't matter if your edits were "accurate", the problem lies in no reliable sources being provided.
 * It would help you to read:
 * WP:Verify (Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source.)
 * Biographies of living people (Wikipedia articles can affect real people's lives. This gives us an ethical and legal responsibility. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious.) and
 * Neutral point of view (All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias.)
 * What Wikipedia is not - everyone should read this anyway.


 * before attempting to re-insert your edits. The edits as you are currently inserting them will continue to be deleted as vandalism. Inserting a link to a forum is not a reliable source.


 * If you need assistance with inline citations once you have located third-party sources, please leave a note on my talk page and I'll see if I can help. &bull; Florrie &bull; leave a note &bull; 04:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(As posted at Florrie's talk page): Here are some verifiable sources demonstrating that Peter Holmes a Court's tenure as executive chairman was less than successful and ended due to a falling out with Russell Crowe.
 *  "Souths lost $4m in the first year of the Holmes a Court chairmanship." Brent Read, The Australian, May 28, 2008
 *  "Now he's fallen out with Holmes a Court, who does not want to spend any more of his money on Souths. Once close, their talks are now brief. No doubt there have been lengthier, more stable relationships in Crowe's working life but the volatile break-ups have been there as well." Ray Chesterton, Daily Telegraph, May 27, 2008
 *  "Figuratively and literally, Souths are once again broke. Under the watch of executive chairman Holmes a Court, the Rabbitohs lost a whopping $4.2 million last financial year. It was a sobering result given the largesse that accompanied Crowe and Holmes a Court's takeover in June 2006." Josh Massoud, Daily Telegraph, May 27, 2008
 *  "SOUTH Sydney's revolution under Peter Holmes a Court fizzled out last night after the Rabbitohs co-owner was dumped as chairman by business partner Russell Crowe." Josh Massoud, Daily Telegraph, May 27, 2008
 *  "But just last week, Mr Holmes a Court warned he could not guarantee the club's survival following a $4.2 million loss in 2006/07. That scary public statement was believed to be the final straw for Crowe, who was already at loggerheads with Holmes a Court over a number of decisions he had made." Josh Massoud, Daily Telegraph, May 27, 2008

Holmes a Court claimed he had stood down in some news articles, but he also claimed he had been in the job for 2 years which was incorrect.

It is fair to comment in the Rabbitohs history that Peter Holmes a Court was most likely forced to stand down.

''It is also fair that the websites www.rebelrabbitohs.com be added as a link for those interested in the club, its supporters and its history. The website has files, articles, video, news, audio resources and a vibrant discussion forum. The site has been active since March 2008 and continues to grow. The website is in the top 25 Google results, the top 5 Yahoo results, the top 5 Ask results, and the top 5 AOL results. To leave the website out of any mention as a link is not honest in describing the South Sydney Rabbitohs diaspora. Everton Dasent (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)''


 * Thanks for finding those quotes. That's exactly the type of reference you need to support edits. I've managed to find them all online although some are by different authors. This is where it is important to get your citations right.


 * As for what may be 'fair', yes an article should be balanced - but it's also about verifiability. A link to a forum is in no form a reliable source.


 * There's another link I didn't mention above (although you may think I've given you too many already) - it's on original research. If a third-party reliable source actually states "Peter Holmes a Court was most likely forced to stand down" or "Peter Holmes a Court was forced to stand down" then you can state that in the Rabbitohs article. But you cannot infer that from other statements made that may skirt around the issue.


 * I'll pop all the articles I found into citations for you and drop them back. Given the history of the insertion of the statements into the Rabbitohs article over the last week or so, it may be better to bring it all up on the talk page first. That's where contentious edits are best resolved. You can repost your comments above and the citations (when I do them). Sorry I can't do much more, but I have Father's day committments today. Be back shortly. &bull; Florrie &bull; leave a note &bull; 01:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"Fan" sites
It can be difficult with what are called "fan" sites, particularly forums. If the site contains, as you say, plenty of information it may be acceptable on those grounds. There are "fan" sites linked in rugby league club articles. Whether they remain there or not is another matter. The problem with the way you were posting the link before was (I think/possibly) that you quoted it as a source for your edits, which, as you now know, isn't acceptable. Cheers, &bull; Florrie &bull; leave a note &bull; 13:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Russell Crowe
I reverted the addition for many reasons, one of which is that it gives that content undue weight, it has many stylistic issues and it is not fully referenced. It contains content and quotes that have no attribution at all. Wildhartlivie (talk)

I will remove all unreferenced material. I expect the referenced material to remain as it is pertinent. Everton Dasent (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

All of the referenced material which follows the first sentence supports the first sentence. Gerald Ryle's book investigates the connection and that is referenced. The material comes from a wide variety of sources. The more you attempt to block this material the more you look like a Crowe advocate rather than a real wikipedia editor. Everton Dasent (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I would admonish you to assume good faith and address the comments on Talk:Russell Crowe, which concern undue weight being given this content. I assure you, I am acting like a "real wikipedia editor" in challenging this material. Let's not bring in a request for comments on this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Admonish is something you do to a naughty child. I think you are asking me, at least I hope so. I will engage on the discussion page. Everton Dasent (talk) 11:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)