Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Ray Joseph Cormier

Request to move discussions here, keep project page for stating your posistion and the policies, guidelines behind your position
The project page is getting cluttered up with discussion. Can we try to keep that page clean and have the back and forth here? -- The Red Pen of Doom  23:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We are in agreement here, finally! DoDaCanaDa (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Please Assume good faith
I would like to request that editors remember to Assume good faith and not make accusations against other editors. -- The Red Pen of Doom  23:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Reading your reasoning for your Weak Delete of my BLP is disappointing. The deleters use imagery like ¨the "news" seems to be mostly Caused a fuss at the local courthouse and got arrested for Disorderly Conduct kind of thing.¨ While that statement is not even remotely close to the reality verifiable by the References, most people do look for what they want to see when reading, and often miss the Spirit of the letter.

The current Article has this put in it by the Admin who created it:

He was arrested on a number of occasions in the late 1970s for making religious/political speeches to crowds in Downtown Ottawa and charged with shouting and causing a disturbance. He was convicted and handed a one day suspended sentence with one condition of probation for one year "not to attend on the Sparks Street Mall, or any other Street in the City of Ottawa, for the purpose of speaking or shouting". After that judgment, he continued to exercise what he saw as his democratic right to freedom of speech; he breached the probation and was sent to jail.

What disappoints me, is that it is not only you, but most people do not see those incidents as being much larger than just myself, with implications for Democratic society as a whole. As you and I both recognize, if I or you tried that in many countries, we could be killed, and many are being killed. I only had to go to jail for a month.

If anyone accepts Democracy means only that people vote periodically, for empty promises, for a government they deserve, they would see no significance in my actions that are done deeds.

If you believe that Democracy means all Citizens are equal and measured by their worth as just being human, and not only by wealth and power, those incidents in my BLP take on a greater meaning.

I tested our Democracy and it failed the test. Having no money to advertise or rent a hall, I exercised what Democracy calls Freedom of Speech before growing crowds that were backing up all the way down the Mall. They wanted to listen. You can see a picture of one incident in the Facebook link. Every time. I had a dozen charges for ¨Shouting, causing a disturbance¨ when I was only giving a speech, and there was no disorderly conduct or disturbance except for the Authorities. The Police stopped my speech every time. The 1st time, I was locked up in maximum security, solitary confinement for 5 days before appearing in front of a Judge. They wanted to nip it in the bud then and succeeded. From my POV, that struggle continues today with the deleters. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 05:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am disappointed that you continue to make assertations about peoples motives and rather than following the principal of discuss the content not the contributor. -- The Red Pen of Doom  03:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To DoDaCanaDa with what you are saying above, am I understanding that you think this article is notable because of exercising your freedom of speech? Did your speech interupt what everyone else was doing?  To me what you say above sound like you think you are notable because you got arrested and didn't feel that arresting you was the correct thing to do.  What other reasons did the courts say you were arrested for other than just ¨Shouting, causing a disturbance¨.  I am having trouble understanding why they would put you in jail so many times for just shouting and disturbance unless there was some kind of other activities going on that I am not aware of.  Thanks, I hope my comments are clear to understand. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  12:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What happened is exactly what I wrote above. I stood up to speak extemporaneously on the Sparks Street Mall. People stopped what they were doing to listen. The crowds grew. The police came and stopped my speech, arresting me for ¨Shouting¨ causing a disturbance. They locked me up as I stated above. A week later, I stood up to speak again. Again, the people stopped to listen, and again the police came to stop my speech. There is an image in the Facebook album showing me exiting a police car. Not wanting to spend another weekend in jail, I agreed with the police demand to stop the speech. The image shows me telling the crowd that and saying, ¨I´ll be back!¨ There were no riots or disturbance at all. After the trial and imposed probation, I stood up to continue the speech 3 more times and was sent to jail for breaching the probation. The Supreme Court had ruled that no one can be convicted on this charge unless there was an actual disturbance akin to a riot. They would not uphold their own ruling on my appeal, otherwise you would have heard of me outside of Wikipedia.

The Ottawa Citizen referred to me as a ¨preacher¨ in the small item buried in the paper in their first time mention of me, Reference #1. A week later, Ref: #2, THEY referred to me as ¨God´s Emissary¨ in a story on page 2 of the Saturday Edition, taking 3/4 of the page with a border around it, and two pictures.

What should be notable is not that I gave public speeches, but the probation put on me for doing it. What is notable, that people haven´t noticed is this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ray_Joseph_Cormier&oldid=220975243#The_declaration

I admit the content in the old version is more autobiography, and not encyclopedic as Wikipedia requires, but they are factual realities in my life experience. I have to confess it was weird writing about myself in the third person. I tried to keep it to just the basic facts without exaggeration, embellishment or peacock flourishes. I would hope some of the experienced Editors here would recognize that. Again, the References show a pattern of going public, and periods in between like Jonah in the Whale

I have just been re-activated for the first time since 1997. In this current phase of activism, I expect in the not too distant future, there will come other independent reliable sources that will allow an Editor to take some of the information in the old version, and incorporate it in the main Article.

I discussed in the Article Talk and in other User Talk how the appellation of ¨Prophet¨ came to me. What remains to be seen is whether it is self proclaimed or ordained?

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Moved content

 * Comment: There are some Editors who are unhappy and discontent with my BLP as it exists in Wikipedia and want it expunged. Even though it is my Biography, I have something in common with them. I am not happy with it either the way it is, but prefer to see it improved, rather than removed. From my POV, the Article itself reflects very little of the substance suggested by the References. I could add more valid References, but would it make any more of a difference to this discussion?

I would ask you to consider the Fact of the References themselves, accumulated by a non-notable, ¨ordinary Joe¨ over a span of many years in the United States, and coast to coast in Canada. You will find nothing else comparable to it in Wikipedia.


 * Comment: If anyone took the time to actually read, not just glance, through the Article Talk, The Red Pen of Doom is one of the small handful of Editors who have involved themselves with this BLP, and made no efforts to improve the Article, but displayed a delete mentality consistantly throughout the Talk. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

My last public foray was in 1997 when I ran as an Independent for Parliament campaigning against government corruption, and calling for minority government and change. That was 13 years before Obama. Canada has had an unprecedented three consecutive minority governments since then. All of this is in the Public domain. Discovering my BLP was in Wikipedia just last April 19, not knowing it was there for over two years, has re-activated me. This has been a pattern accounting for the gaps and years the References show.

In learning the ways of Wikipedia, I have to compare it to the Bible. An Editor can choose one line, and ignore others. I have to presume all of you reading this are experienced, and know how to read the history. You will see I committed the ¨mortal sin¨ of editing my own BLP. Shortly later, a 1st time participant in my BLP just surfed in and undid my edit, quoting all kinds of COI guidelines from his POV. The guidelines also say this: The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to the subjects of biographies who try to remove what they see as errors or unfair material: and Very obvious errors can be fixed quickly, including by yourself

Confident I was acting within the guidelines, I again corrected the obvious error. Shortly after that, another 1st time participant to my BLP surfed in and placed the tag requiring this discussion. My ¨correction¨ was undid a second time. Not wanting an edit war, I let it stand.

There is much mention of the Wikipedia principle ¨assume good faith¨. This is a two way street. You must assume in good faith, the facts in the old version of my BLP in the history link above. I understand and accept those factual incidents of my life cannot be incorporated into the Article at this time, but those References and verifications will come.

Also, the question of notability was discussed last December if you read the Talk page, but remained dormant until yesterday. According to Wikipedia: '''"notable" does not mean "famous" or "important". Rather, it means that independent reliable sources have taken significant note of the subject and it appears to be a topic that is noteworthy to a reasonable extent. This requirement also ensures that a range of acceptable sources will exist for editors to draw upon. ''' DoDaCanaDa (talk) 07:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:KillerChihuahua


 * I cannot understand your last message in my Talk. Please re-read this post. If I insulted you, I don´t see it anywhere here, unless you are insulted just by anyone presuming to question your actions. Would you please point out where I insulted you? If I did, then I will apologize.

You wrote, ¨I am here at the request of another admin¨ which confirms what I suspected and wrote, that a small handful of Editors, irrespective of Wikipedia policies, will not stop in their efforts to have my BLP expunged. I´m accustomed to this. It is totally in line with the power that 1st imposed this probation mentioned in my biography you want deleted: He was arrested on a number of occasions in the late 1970s for making speeches to growing crowds in Downtown Ottawa and charged with shouting, causing a disturbance. He was convicted and handed a one day suspended sentence with one condition of probation for one year "not to attend on The Sparks Street Mall, or any other Street in the City of Ottawa, for the purpose of speaking or shouting". I am alive today only because this is Canada. I only had to go to jail for a month. In many other countries, I would just disappear for doing the same thing. I truly thank God for that.

¨I am here at the request of another admin¨. As much as I would like to assume good faith, circumstantial evidence would ¨suggest¨ the admin who came after you and tagged the Article for deletion could use the same quote.

When he started the deletion process, the issue was NN & COI, and preliminary indications show there might not be a delete consensus on COI. On the issue of NN. This is the Wikipedia guideline on that:''' "notable" does not mean "famous" or "important". Rather, it means that independent reliable sources have taken significant note of the subject and it appears to be a topic that is noteworthy to a reasonable extent.'''

Like I said, Wikipedia is like the Bible. You can pick and choose what lines you want to believe. Peace

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments
After trying to research the refs in the article I kept finding mirrored copies of things but none of the references. While doing this search I came across this conversation here at the project. This discussions says that the refs aren't available online but that there was discussion to have them scanned for use. I've personally not seen an article put together like this nor do I know if this is allowed and the conversation at the help desk is very short on comments. But that being said, I am going to reinstate my 'delete' until or unless someone can explain that this is a viable way to build the article with useful references. From what I could tell though, these refs would still come from the editor who says he is the subject of the article. I would also like to ay that from what I was able to read, I am still having problems with the articles WP:Notability. Any comments would really be welcomed, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  11:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Assuming in good faith the References are valid, you can see scans of some of them here:

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2003596&l=16beb&id=1294974109

For them to be a hoax would certainly be an elaborate and difficult one to perpetrate, and I would have no purpose in doing that. The National Archives of Canada and the newspapers cited will provide copies for a fee. It is not too difficult to understand I should have kept copies. It would be natural for anyone to save a copy of a news article written about them.

As to Wikipedia guidelines for notability, just read the bold print above.

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I confess that I don't understand where you're coming from. Whether references are online (scanned or mirrored or otherwise) is completely irrelevant for the purposes of WP:N. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, what I am saying/asking is if the references are not available then how do editors review them to see reliability, notability or anything else? The mirrors I saw were mirrors of the article here, not the refs.  I don't do facebook and so I won't go there to look for the refs.  So how do we write an article and find out about the subject of the article without being able to see the refs and without going to Facebook put together by the editor this article is about?  This is getting confusing and I am sorry to say the more comments by DoDaCanaDa the harder it is to see others comments at times.  What is this article supposed to be notable about?  I just don't see it.  Maybe back when the few articles were written about him but is he now notable?  Thnaks, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  20:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You don´t have to search Facebook to find the references. They are all collected in a single album by the link provided. To know more about the subject, look at the old version in the history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ray_Joseph_Cormier&oldid=220975243. All of those factual incidents are part of my biography that cannot be incorporated in the Article at this time in an encyclopedic manner, but could be at some future time. This is a BLP after all, and still a work in progress. For now, the principle of assuming good faith may be more relevant and applicable.

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As well, newspaper articles that aren't available online are used all over Wikipedia, and quite properly. There's no requirement at all in any Wikipedia policy or guideline that references need to be available online, nor should there be (indeed, Wikipedia is at its most useful when it takes information and publishes it online for the first time). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info, as this is kind of a learning thing for me I would like to ask a little more. If it is more appropriate to ask on your talk page, please don't hesitate to move it there and let me know.  If it's not available to check reliability or any of the core policies, how do you get the references into the article if they are not available?  Are news articles from long ago good enough to show notability of the subject?  I read what the old version of the article looked like as shown above and it looks to me that being arrested, preaching and running for office twice (and not achieving the office position) is what this article seems to be about.  What is so notable about being outspoken and arrested?  I'm sorry if these are dumb questions but I can't seem to get a picture of what this article is supposed to be about.  On a side note, I did see that you, Sarcasticidealist, are interested in rewriting this article so I will definitely being watching. I am very interested in seeing what you plan to do here.  Thanks for your patience, both of you, I'm am really trying to understand at this point.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  11:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think discussion here is probably fine, but please don't hesitate to ask on my talk page if you're ever wondering about anything. Your post raises a few issues: first, with regards to offline sources' compliance with WP:V and WP:RS, it's important to note that Wikipedia articles are required to be verifiable, but there's no requirement that they be easy to verify.  All else being equal, it's better to use sources that are easy to verify, such as those from books that every library will have or from the internet (though the internet raises some issues as well, since we usually have no way of knowing that the way a web page looks today is the same as the way it looked at the time it was cited).  But even sources that are more difficult to verify are acceptable: in my article work, which is mostly around the politics of Alberta, I use a lot of books that I suspect aren't to be found in many non-Canadian libraries.  That makes them more difficult to verify, but it's still possible: if you wanted to see if what I'd cited to a given book was actually in that book, you could ask a Canadian editor to go to a library and check for you, or you could see if you find a copy of the book on Amazon, or you could visit Canada yourself (which would be extreme, of course).  Evaluating reliability of offline sources is usually a little easier: even if the text of a book isn't available online, information about the author and publisher generally will be, and that's the information we need to assess reliability.  Same with newspapers: even if a newspaper's archives aren't available online, you can usually still learn enough about a newspaper to assess its reliability.  As for verifying content in newspapers, many newspapers will agree to send you an article by mail (for a fee) and, if not, most newspapers have archives in libraries and/or government archives, which allows for some of the same courses of action to verify as for books.  I suppose if there was a newspaper that had ceased publication without any copies of its archives being available anywhere, it wouldn't clear WP:V; of course, in that case how would the material have found its way into the article in the first place?  The bottom line is that offline sources are considered on the same basis as online ones.
 * The other issue is notability. You ask what's so notable about the things that Mr. Cormier did.  The technical answer is that WP:N doesn't talk about what a person does, but about how much a person has been covered.  Theoretically, it doesn't matter what that coverage was for.  In reality, of course, it does matter, as the various subject-specific notability guidelines will attest.  The consensus at AFD might be to keep a minor legislator from a developing country with little media infrastructure, even though the person had received less coverage than a local businessman from a mid-sized American city.  It's up to each participant in AFDs to determine exactly how they interpret the requirement of notability.  For that reason, I have no problem with editors advocating deletion of this article, even though I think it's notable.  I just found your reasons questionable, given that you seemed to be saying that because there were no online sources it should be deleted.
 * Does that answer your questions? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Peacemakers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KillerChihuahua#Resolving_Differences

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)