This is an archive of past discussions about Reid Stowe. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Please keep personal opinions about the living subject off the talkpage and be aware that WP:BLP policy applies here just as much as the article itself. Off2riorob (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree. Asserting that he paid his time for his drug smuggling and that it is not important because he's doing something positive now is completely out of line. The same would apply to those editors who have expressed personal opinions about his back child support beyond opinions of relevance. Any specific examples you can provide me where you think I have expressed a personal opinion about the subject himself would be greatly appreciated. Making inferences based on my input to this discussion doesn't count.
The article itself is oozing with opinions, BTW.
I re-read the archived section on Drug Smuggling and Back Child Support and can find no personal opinions about the subject expressed, so I am reintroducing the section for further discussion. I would appreciate you or anyone else to directly address my reasoning as to why it is important that these issues be included Regatta dog (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Cites for Reid Stowe's Drug Conviction and Back Child Support
DRUGS -- An article in the San Francisco examiner confirms Reids drug smuggling. Reid himself is said to have acknowledges his conviction and time served "He acknowledges having served nine months in prison for conspiracy to deal drugs in the Caribbean — helping transfer marijuana from a Colombian vessel to some yachts in 1987." Cite -- [1]
BACK CHILD SUPPORT - In an article in the NY Daily News (a very frequent source for other parts of the biography) it is confirmed that Reid owed back child support upon his departure - "The adventurer who is a third of the way through a 1,000-day sailing expedition is also a deadbeat dad running from nearly $10,000 owed in child support, records show." The article also states - "New York's Department of State issued a warrant for Stowe in 2005, claiming he owed $11,581." Cite - [2]
Before this discussion page was archived, Skol fir had argued that Reid Stowe's criminal past was not relevant and listed 5 or 6 people as examples of people who's criminal background was not relevant. I then pointed out that in all 5 cases, Wikipedia articles not only alluded to their criminal backgrounds, but in each case had a separate subhead under which it was covered.
Now that the topics have been adequately sourced, I would like to invite Skol fir to continue on with the discussion as to why these two legal topics should not be included in the article.
A couple of opinionated editorials, one with fluffy claims from over twenty years ago and some not notable child support claims, neither of with have been widely reported and neither of which with these citations is worthy of inclusion in the article, you should stop your campaign against the subject of this article. Off2riorob (talk) 08:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The drug smuggling'article [3], though agreeably "fluffy", is not an editorial but an article carried in the SF examiner and credited to the Associated Press. It contains an admission of guilt from the subject regarding drug smuggling presumably during an interview which took place a little more than a year ago - more than 2/3 the way through the subject's current voyage, which certainly gives it relevance.
The article about 'back child support'[4] is well sourced by the author. Your assertion that it contains "not notable child support claims" is a highly subjective call on your part and makes no sense in context. I would suggest that for a well known and often cited reporter for this BLP to investigate the charges, confirm them and have an article published where the topic is dedicated to the back child support makes it notable.
The back child support is also relevant in light of what transpired on his latest journey. The subject departed on his journey owing over $10,000 in child support. The subject then conceived a child at sea. The child was born while the subject of the article was still at sea. The subject chose to continue on the voyage even after learning of his pending fatherhood. The subject will see his new child for the first time upon his return. This is a very relevant issue that needs to be included. In the press article, Jim Benedict, a member of Stowe's own support team lends weight to the relevance of the back child support issue--
"By the time this thing is over, hopefully some cash would have come in," said Benedict. "Enough for Reid to pay what he owes."
"This is just another crazy chapter in a crazy story."
If a member of his own support team considers the issue a chapter in itself, it certainly deserves a mention in the Wiki article.
I would also suggest that discounting press articles out of hand that may be considered "fluffy" would leave this Wiki article with little if any substance. Regatta dog (talk) 12:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
As II said your conflict of interest and your involvement in one of the articles means you are unable to take a neutral position here, and your repeated discussion over this is tiresome. One of the things I dislike the most is not fluffy articles that do no harm to the subjects of our articles but single purpose accounts with as conflict of interest. You are now double posting the same links, once is enough thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 12:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I am in no way trying to editorialize within this article, unlike a number of other editors involved here. I am simply trying to gain inclusion of relevant, well sourced information ad preset it in a neutral fashion. I have not seen application of the same strict requirements of impartiality to other editors here who are clearly advocates and supporters of the subject, if not actually members of his support staff. Almost the entire article as it now stands is a "single purpose account with a conflict of interest".
I like the article as a neutral wikipedian editor it is totally ok. I have commented about the content, wikipedia is not to be a primary vehicle for the publication of controversial content about living people that is not widely published. Off2riorob (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
As a neutral Wikipedia article, this one does not pass muster. Again - I would ask you to apply the same standards to other BLP's. If this was an article about the voyage, as the subject and his staff would like it to be, you might have a point. However, this is a biography that covers his childhood and previous voyages. Did Reid spend more time in prison than in college?
It appears as though he spent about the same amount of time building his catamaran as he did in prison. His BLP covers from birth to the present with some serious gaps - one gap of which he served time in a Fed Pen. So we can have an article that highlights significant events in his life like his time as a child, leaving college, building surf boards, etc. -- but being convicted of smuggling drugs and spending time in prison is not worthy of note?
Are we willing to drop any reference in the article to his latest child who was conceived on the voyage and that Reid has yet to meet? No, of course not - it is integral to the current story of Reid Stowe. But if we allow the article to contain positive mentions of him as a father of a child conceived on the voyage, his failure to pay child support must be included or this article has no credibility.
I would also mention to you, Off2riorob, that if you want to apply the concept of "content about living people that is not widely published", this article should be taken down. The vast majority of this article is sourced to the subject's own promotional web site and press reports containing Mr. Stowes own, unverifiable accounts which are often contradictory (see archived discussion about Moitessier, Charlie Doane article, etc).
Mr. Stowe is due back in NY in about a month. I don't think that the editing war's timing is coincidental, or that that a couple "impartial" editors happened to trip over the article at this time. Anyone that reads the archived discussion can make their own judgments. Great thing about Wiki is that any and all discourse survives. Unfortunate thing is that a Wiki article can be hijacked for personal gain. Regatta dog (talk) 06:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
It seems now that links to blogs are ACCEPTABLE references? Ok then... here we go. Good thing the mainstream media has been apprised of the situation.Aloha27 (talk) 21:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I removed the references to NASA, as the article linked to does not make the same connection, except through the subject's own assumptions. In fact, the linked article clearly states that no one from NASA has expressed interest. No outside party quoted in the linked article confirmed the text in the Wiki article. I understand that the subject of the article feels this is analogous to a mission to Mars, but without any other supporting sources, this is simply the subject's own view. Regatta dog (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
You are wrong as usual: The article does refer to NASA unless you have deliberately altered it to suit your POV. We have a reliable source, Outside (magazine), that confirms the interest of several NASA researchers and quotes one of them.
"The venture has piqued the interest of several NASA researchers because keeping astronauts healthy and fending off terminal boredom are two key challenges for future space voyages. "It's a good analog for a long-term space mission," says Frances Mount, a lab manager at the Johnson Space Center's flight crew support division, which is hoping to get funding that would enable its researchers to treat Stowe as a floating lab rat. "NASA pays a lot for [isolation] studies in the Antarctic and Arctic," continues Mount, "but I think this voyage is closer to the real thing.""
Moreover, In his web site, Stowe quotes Dennis Chamberland, a NASA engineer, not his own views. But of course, you were well aware of those facts when you wrote your post above. You deleted both of those sources and references to them several times during the edit war that you instigated. --Zanthorp (talk) 06:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Vessel length
In the Voyages with the Anne section, we read "The Anne, twelve meters long and displacing sixty tons..." In the section directly above that we read the vessel is 21 meters long. The latter is obviously correct. I'll see if we can bypass the current full lock and get that fixed. --Zanthorp (talk) 07:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Zanthorp, that was very observant of you. I missed that one, even after several readings, probably because it was written out instead of a number. I would, though, correct it to "The Anne, [twenty-one] meters long...", including the square brackets, because the information was quoted from a book, and I assume the book itself already had the error. I cannot see how someone would transpose "twenty-one" into "twelve," unless they had some kind of mental lapse. :) Anyway, good detective work!
If you want to make an edit request to which there are no objections or there is consensus for then please copy and add this and then your request and an Administrator will come along and make it for you.
Yes, so soon. As you can see from the page history for Reid Stowe, I updated the Anne's geographical location a couple of times over 2 days (21,22 May) and also fixed a reference that needed to have a more permanent address (same reference, different URL). Two days later, Regatta dog decided to unilaterally lop off nearly 2000 bytes of text, with references included, simply because they were not linked to a specific event or were directly a result of an interview with Reid Stowe. I did not engage in a war with him over this, because I knew that would cause a block of the editors, including me, rather than of the page itself. Fortunately for him, that did not happen.
As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news channel, we should be striving to present all the facts that are relevant and not just select out what we like in a reference. One example is the quote by Jon Sanders, probably inserted by someone to embarrass Reid Stowe, that "I think the boat by the look of it would stay in one piece. It won't break any records." If you continue to listen to the video clip, you hear Jon Sanders immediately follow that with "But...I couldn't say anything that it wouldn't...He's still got a lot of patience and time." He then admitted at the end of the interview that there was a possibility that Reid Stowe could do it: "Interviewer: There's a possibility he could take your record out. Sanders: "Ah, ya." All this is from the same reference. See what I mean about trying to skew the article in a negative direction? It is clear to me that none of the material that was selectively placed as proof of Reid Stowe's supposed incompetence should be kept in the article without giving the whole truth.
Another example is the quote in the article -- "I've given him nearly $7,000 worth of food," reported Danny Kadouri, of Brooklyn-based Kadouri International Foods. "I've met him a few times and I've been on his boat, but I'm no sailor." he said to the New York Daily News. "I think he's genuine but, honestly, I don't know. I hope he's not pulling my leg." -- I have it on authority from a commentator at the following NPR story (Soanya Ahmad Returns Home After 305 Consecutive Days at Sea) that "this project has had its ups and downs. Most sponsors know this. Many of the recent donations came from individuals or organizations that Reid had helped with various matters and [they] contributed as a way of thanking him. ...P.S. After the [above-mentioned] Daily News article came out, [the quoted] Mr. Kadouri donated even more food (some of it for the launch party)--guess he didn't feel [too] 'taken.'"
I could also improve the article by adding that some critics of Reid Stowe have dug into his private life to find ways to undermine him, which has no relation to his current project. In other words, they set out from the beginning to damage his reputation in the public eye. There was no noble purpose of uncovering the facts here. It was and continues to be pure, unadulterated character assassination.
There are some errors in English which could be corrected. For example, we don't say "she departed the vessel," because the word depart as a transitive verb is now archaic and only used in reference to someone "departing this earth." The word should be "she disembarked." There are other examples of improper English grammar, that I don't want to itemize here. I also found a "dead link" about Hurricane David washing up some debris. -- no link available, therefore leave out that reference. There might be more to add after the arrival of Reid Stowe in NY, but that could definitely be shortened by just referring to the homepage for the 1000-Days and more.
The article really needs a rewrite to take it out of start class. That doesn't seem possible given the current state of discussions and the fact that the article is now locked. Quotes can become problematic as you have correctly stated above. There's a guideline about that somewhere amongst Wikipedia's myriad of policies and guidelines. I'm inclined to go to rfc or mediation to resolve the disputes we've had here, but I think it would be best to wait until Stow completes his voyage. What do you think? --Zanthorp (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree that in the current state, there is not much we can do to improve the article. As the lock is on until June 25, that allows at least one week to have this article placed under some form of dispute resolution after Reid Stowe's planned arrival in NY on June 17. I have long realized that arguing with a person dead-set on making someone look bad, is like going in circles, and it becomes very tiresome. Already, this person has shown his true colors elsewhere, with vacuous arguments and unsubstantiated claims to harm a person's image, without regard for the limits of journalistic integrity.
The same person once brought Watergate into this discussion. Well, it turns out that the reason Watergate came to light was not because Woodward and Bernstein had an axe to grind. It was because they had a source within the FBI, known as "Deep Throat," who helped them break a blockbuster of a story. Any journalist(s) would jump at that opportunity. Reid Stowe's indiscretions do not involve denial. They are already on the public record, and all but one or two journalists have kept their hands off of these private matters, precisely because of journalistic integrity. Why should Wikipedia now stoop to the level of yellow journalism, where anything goes to make a headline?
You could report the user to the conflict of interest noticeboard, and ask to have him blocked from the article altogether. Off2riorob (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Off2riorob, that's an idea, but I was hoping for a solution that would protect the neutrality of the article without blocking a specific editor, by simply enforcing the rules for a BLP. Blocking an editor could incite that person to simply create a new identity, and the whole process would be back at square one. To block that new identity, we would have to wait again for sufficient evidence of that person's repeated infringement of the allowable edits for a BLP. I still insist that the best approach is to concentrate on what rules have been broken by insertion of defamatory statements (with very little supporting sources besides "own research" and a newspaper article that has conflict-of-interest written all over it). Furthermore, these harmful statements are irrelevant to the biography, besides amounting to an invasion of privacy, as they are of no concern to the public, i.e., the readers of Wikipedia. I will familiarize myself with the procedure for submitting a request for mediation, and go that route.
Please add your comments (pro or con) to this request for change, and if no objections are raised, we can implement them. (replace "--" with square brackets for final edit within ref tags) Request for change to Reid Stowe Article:
2. Change the word "Currently" under Mission status to a date. For the latest one the date can be "June 1, 2010," and the location is "in the North Atlantic Ocean about 760 km NW of Bermuda."
Please add your comments (pro or con) to this request for change, and if no objections are raised, we can implement them. (replace "--" with square brackets for final edit within ref tags) Request for changes to Reid Stowe Article (numbered):
1. Certain quotes in this article fall into the category of non-allowable quotes- See Wikipedia:Quotations#When_not_to_use_quotations, where we find, "Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided." I repeat two examples of this, as already mentioned above in the section called "Balancing the article."
a) One example is the quote by Jon Sanders, probably inserted by someone to embarrass Reid Stowe, that "I think the boat by the look of it would stay in one piece. It won't break any records."
This is a very selective quote designed to prejudice the reader.
The full quote should be used to provide balance:
I think the boat by the look of it would stay in one piece. It won't break any records. But...I couldn't say anything that it wouldn't...He's still got a lot of patience and time." He then admitted at the end of the interview that there was a possibility that Reid Stowe could do it: "Interviewer: There's a possibility he could take your record out. Sanders: "Ah, ya."REF start -- http://1000days.net/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=449&Itemid=92 Soanya interview by freodoctor.com.au + short segment with Jon Sanders --. from 1000 Days at Sea website, 23 February 2008.REF end
...and to allow Soanya Ahmad to give her side of the story, we should include:
After Soanya Ahmad returned to New York, she was interviewed on NPR, explaining how she first became involved with the 1000-day voyage, and why she had to leave the Anne.REF start -- http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87851181 Woman Jumps Ship After 305 Days --. NPR Online, Mar. 3, 2008. Retrieved 22 May 2010.REF end
b) Another example is the quote in the article ~~ "I've given him nearly $7,000 worth of food," reported Danny Kadouri, of Brooklyn-based Kadouri International Foods. "I've met him a few times and I've been on his boat, but I'm no sailor." he said to the New York Daily News. "I think he's genuine but, honestly, I don't know. I hope he's not pulling my leg." ~~
The above should be followed by:
In a later NPR story about Reid Stowe's voyage, a commentator states that "this project has had its ups and downs. Most sponsors know this. Many of the recent donations came from individuals or organizations that Reid had helped with various matters and [they] contributed as a way of thanking him. ...P.S. After the [above-mentioned] Daily News article came out, [the quoted] Mr. Kadouri donated even more food (some of it for the launch party)—guess he didn't feel [too] 'taken.'"REF start -- http://www.npr.org/blogs/bryantpark/2008/03/soanya_ahmad_returns_home_afte.html Soanya Ahmad Returns Home After 305 Consecutive Days at Sea --. The Bryant Park Project (NPR News), Mar. 3, 2008. Retrieved 22 May 2010.REF end
Further new information about the same sponsor:
It turns out that the same Mr. Kadouri is again providing food for the REF start -- http://1000days.net/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=911&Itemid=72Welcome home party -- REF end at Pier 66 Maritime, on June 20, 2010. He does not seem to be disappointed in Reid Stowe at all, as evidenced by this line, "Snacks courtesy of Kadouri International Foods, Inc (KIFI) and Parmigiano Reggiano."
Can you provide a link to the NPR interview that contains the above quote regarding sponsors knowing about ups and downs? There is no such quote in the NPR article referenced. Also, one should be careful in referencing quotes like this not to assume that the interviewer has independently verified facts. More likely, these kinds of comments are made based on information provided by the subject of the interview.
Do a Google on "mr. kadouri ups and downs" and see the first result, which is the same link to the NPR story that I gave as a reference....
"NPR: Soanya Ahmad Returns Home After 305 Consecutive Days at Sea -- 3 Mar 2008 -- This project has had its ups and downs. -- (P.S. After the Daily News article came out, Mr. Kadouri donated even more food [some of it for -- www.npr.org/.../soanya_ahmad_returns_home_afte.html - Similar - Add to iGoogle..."
They should still have the comment up there, unless someone at NPR has done house-cleaning and removed the comment board due to the age of the article. Here is an image of my search result:
I did the Google search and got the same result, however linking to the article itself there is no mention of Kadouri at all. Fragmented Google search results are not reliable sources. Regatta dog (talk) 05:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
All right then, do this Google search -- "project sponsors ups downs Kadouri launch taken" -- and you get most of the quote I found at NPR about a week ago, as that is still in Google memory but unfortunately was removed as a comment from the comment board at the original NPR site. It is a moot point anyway, because as I stated a couple of times in this Talk Page, "Posts left by readers [of blogs] are never acceptable as sources." I placed this quote in this discussion for you to see that Mr. Kadouri was finally satisfied that Reid Stowe was following through on his plans, so all the previous talk about being worried was unfounded. Furthermore, I did not say to take out the original skepticism (see below) but to balance it with final approval, especially given that Mr. Kadouri is providing food for the "Welcome Home " party. Skol fir (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, Mr. Kadouri's skepticism at the time should be included. It was before Reid Stowe departed and is in the context of the many delays. Regatta dog (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I said so myself. I just stated that the other two quotes should be added to the one already in the article, for balance, that is all. If you read what I said, it was, "The above should be followed by," not replaced by... and the notice for the Welcome home party on June 20, 2010 has this line in the bulletin at Stowe's website: "Snacks courtesy of Kadouri International Foods, Inc (KIFI) and Parmigiano Reggiano." Mr. Kadouri must be awfully disappointed! (NOT). -- Skol fir (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
So, if we include the opposite point of view, we have a balance and the problem is solved.
2. 2nd paragraph, Intro.: Replace the sentence..."She departed the vessel near Perth, Australia on February 22, 2008, after a call was made to the Royal Perth Yacht Club seeking assistance for the "gravely ill" Ahmad." This statement has no reference and one call was not made. The arrangement with the Royal Perth Yacht Club took several weeks, and the expression "gravely ill" is meant in mockery.
Can you provide a reference where it took more than one phone call and took several weeks? Or is this from your personal knowledge as a close associate of the project. Regatta dog (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
See my answer to Aloha27 below: >>In current Ref #47, Joe Barello (presumably part of MC) is quoted as saying, "She has wanted off the boat for five weeks, said Barello." That doesn't sound to me like "a call was made to the Royal Perth Yacht Club seeking assistance for the "gravely ill" Ahmad."<<
Should the article rely on a quote from someone who is only "presumably" a part of MC? You and I both know that Joe Barello is a part of Mr. Stowe's support team, and the article states that clearly. but I appreciate your efforts to try and distance yourself from any connection to MC yourself by feigning ignorance. That, however, is not the point. Mr. Borello's statement does indicate, in any way, the number of calls to the RPYC or how long the arrangements took. Because it is not reflected in Mr. Borello's statement, your claim that "The arrangement with the Royal Perth Yacht Club took several weeks" suggests you have inside knowledge of what transpired between the shore team and RPYC. I look forward to your response. Regatta dog (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Calm down, boy! Does a good detective with intuitive ability have to intimately know the subject? No. He uses deduction based on the clues available, and I did just that by deducing that if Ahmad had been wanting off the boat for 5 weeks and a guy who you seem to know personally as a member of the Stowe MC—I do not have a clue except from what I have read in the references we both have seen—knew about it, that one call would seem kind of ridiculous. I assume that Mr. Barello started the ball rolling right after Ahmad complained about her nausea to make arrangements for her departure from the vessel. Don't be naive and expect such a rescue operation to be based on one frantic phone call. Good Lord! Skol fir (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Is it really the job of an editor to make that kind of deduction? I don't think so. We are not to assume anything, but are rather to edit based on facts from reliable outside sources. Regatta dog (talk) 05:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Aloha27, tell me the reference, where the quote "gravely ill" appears from MC, otherwise, I can only surmise that someone threw that in to ridicule the subject. I am not speculating, when a sentence comes out of nowhere and does not even stick to the facts. In current Ref #47, Joe Barello (presumably part of MC) is quoted as saying, "She has wanted off the boat for five weeks, said Barello." That doesn't sound to me like "a call was made to the Royal Perth Yacht Club seeking assistance for the "gravely ill" Ahmad." You seem to like throwing in comments here without backing them up.
I also noticed you commented above that "Good thing the mainstream media has been apprised of the situation," referring to blogs as sources, and didn't care to elaborate.
Do you not find it the LEAST bit odd that NOT ONE of the major media outlets, whether it be over-air or print has covered this? No elaboration on anyone's part is necessary at this point. Aloha27 (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
On that point, and for your information, I quote from various sections of Wikipedia Policies:
All self-published sources, whether experts or not, are considered reliable as sources on themselves, especially in articles about themselves, subject to certain criteria, though no article should be based primarily on such sources (see below)
the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all.
Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP
Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, or tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below)..."Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources.[4]
Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion.
Wikipedia contains biographical material on people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, focusing on high quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution; see above. Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many countries repeating defamatory claims is actionable, and there is additional protection for people who are not public figures.
Ostensibly suffering from seasickness, Ahmad left the schooner near Perth, Australia on February 22, 2008, assisted by members of the Royal Perth Yacht Club.
3.Subsequent attempts: "Funding issues is the reasons Stowe gave for launch cancellations." This is bad English. Moreover, none of the references for this paragraph specifically mention why he had to cancel the trip launches, so it would be better to leave out this sentence altogether- pure speculation on the writer's part. Also, an additional reference is needed for the preceding sentence. "...a number of sailing dates announced, but not undertaken.REF start ref name="Nowhere" REF end
specifically states that cash flow problems were the reasons for the delays. It's becoming more clear that Skol fir is less than "arms length" from the subject IMO. Aloha27 (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I repeat, "None of the references specifically mention why he had to cancel the trip launches." You are referring to one isolated quote which applies only to the most recent launch, not all the trip launches to date. The first sentence in this paragraph refers to "a number of sailing dates announced, but not undertaken." It is totally inappropriate to extrapolate from one case to all the others. Furthermore, I have already stated many times that my purpose as an editor at Wikipedia is to edit, not to promote a point of view. The latter appears to be your purpose here.
The article itself mentions numerous missed departure dates - "But a departure date of last Thanksgiving quietly passed, followed by a Christmas sailing, a date in early 2006 and most recently summer." Regatta dog (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Well now that you mention it, there certainly were more announced departures that failed to materialize than I thought.
October 18/05, a departure date of "Thanksgiving Thursday Nov. 24" was announced.
October 27/05 a departure date of "around Thanksgiving".
November 24/05 a departure date of "December".
December 28/05 a departure date of "first quarter 2006".
April 5/06 a departure date of "late spring/early summer 2006".
August 15/06 a departure date of "summer 2006".
August 23/06 a departure date of "2006".
February 5/07 a departure date of "early 2007".
Aloha27 (talk) 00:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Call for consensus on minor changes- Part 3
Please add your comments (pro or con) to this request for change, and if no objections are raised, we can implement them. (replace "--" with square brackets for final edit within ref tags; view edit source for full text of inline citations; the actual replacement text is marked by "•") Request for changes to Reid Stowe Article (numbered):
1. An author for Ref # 42 was misspellt. It should be "LaDonna Bubak."
2. There is a mistake in the section "The Caribbean and Antarctica," 3rd paragraph. Please correct to read: "The Anne, twenty-one meters long and displacing sixty tons, would set forth with a crew of six to eight..."
3. One reference that is repeated three times in the article has been listed separately each time. It should be given a ref name so it is listed only once. These are Ref's 44, 45 and 48, which are all the same reference: ...
...using the ref name "freodoc interview" at the other locations (Ref # 45, 48), as in "REF start name="freodoc interview" REF end
4. Reinsert the following in section "Significant events", as the second sentence in paragraph 3...
Also on Day 658, Stowe's schooner Anne was hit by a rogue wave, after having already rounded the infamous Cape Horn. The huge wave caused the boat to roll more than 90 degrees, after which it righted itself, as it had been designed to do in such a case. Fortunately for Stowe and his expedition, nothing had been lost overboard, the electronic equipment had been spared, and essential supplies remained unaffected. As for Reid, he suffered only minor bruises to himself, as he was probably thrown against a wall during the capsize.[1]
The above text was removed in a recent edit for no reason except that the subject of the article was the source of the information. This is no reason to prohibit a fact. The event is well-documented as Stowe took a photo as evidence of the capsize showing food splashed onto the ceiling, and one reliable source is included here. There is also audio evidence from two phone calls that Reid made after the incident: Audio- Day658- knockdown-- added by Skol fir (talk) 00:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC) --
Please see the following Wikipedia Policy, which backs up using the subject as a source on himself.
All self-published sources, whether experts or not, are considered reliable as sources on themselves, especially in articles about themselves, subject to certain criteria, though no article should be based primarily on such sources
If the subject claims it, it is a fact? I don't think that makes a whole lot of sense, especially in this context where there is no possible way to verify. It is fine for a source to be a reliable source on themselves, but I would put that more in the category of the subjects opinions and feelings, not that everything the subject claims can be taken as fact. Please refer to earlier discussion in which the subject claims to have met Moitessier - a so called "fact" that appears to have been debunked, or his claim to have been the first to sail a small boat across the Atlantic twice, or first to visit Antarctica to name a couple more. He has a history of claiming "facts" often turn out to be unsubstantiated claims. Regatta dog (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
5. Remove this part "supplied largely from debris thrown up by Hurricane David.[19]" in the section on "Construction of the Anne," as the reference #19 is a dead link and nowhere else can this fact be verified.
6. Add some information about the media coverage for Reid Stowe, adding as a new paragraph 4, section "Significant events."
The Associated Press took the opportunity to interview Reid and Soanya separately in May, 2009, as a progress report after 700 days.[2] Referring to Reid's detractors, a journalist noted, "It's tempting to write off Reid's earnest penchant to embrace his karma and consciousness." He concludes his article, "Where and how will this odyssey, this very long journey through space and time, ultimately end? Only Reid knows. Like Kurtz, the rogue ivory trader in Conrad's Heart of Darkness, he's ventured to the far side of his soul. But while Kurtz chose to dance with the darkness, Reid has tacked for the opposite shore and is flirting with different obsessions. Alone with his sea, he's bathing himself in the light."[3] For those who do not approve of Reid Stowe's style of sailing, and who have opposed his voyage from the beginning, there are many avenues available to express their views, as seen in the comments accompanying this audio clip from American Public Media.[4]
It is very significant to include in a biography how the subject has been received by the media and the public who follow the media. However, caution must prevail in a BLP with regard to information that might harm the individual and that has no basis, particularly when derived from unsubstantiated claims and false accusations, relying on distortion of the evidence (which constitutes libel). Also, it should be noted that "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources." -- See my notes about this and other Wikipedia policies in the above section, "Call for consensus on minor changes- Part 2; item #2."
Media coverage should not be considered a significant event, unless it covers new and substantial revelations, such as his leaving port while owing back child support or that he is a convicted drug smuggler - both of which are substantiated claims from reliable news sources. To include the fluff articles above without the balance of the not-so-positive articles which reveal compelling information about the subject which the readers should be aware of provides no balance. It simply reads like a 1000 days press release. This is not a minor change and there is no consensus. Regatta dog (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
7. The last sentence of the section "Significant events" should read...
None of these records, however, have been officially recognized by the World Sailing Speed Record Council.
Clearly, the records claimed by Reid Stowe's support team must be recognized by a qualified organization to become official.
They have not been recognized by Guinness, or any other official record judging body either. The verbiage should stay as is. Regatta dog (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
As no significant objections were raised to "Talk:Reid Stowe#Call for consensus on minor changes- Part 2," I am reposting the requested changes (without the attendant discussion from the Talk Page). Three days have passed since first submitting them to discussion, and only one person offered his opinions, both of which I answered. There being no further input, I am assuming that all who have seen my proposal now concur with them.
>>Call for consensus on minor changes- Part 2<<
(Inline citations are placed inside "nowiki" tags in the edit source to prevent them from displaying here; the actual replacement text is marked by "•") Request for changes to Reid Stowe Article (numbered):
1. Certain quotes in this article fall into the category of non-allowable quotes- See Wikipedia:Quotations#When_not_to_use_quotations, where we find, "Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided." I repeat two examples of this, as already mentioned above in the section called "Balancing the article."
a) One example is the quote by Jon Sanders, probably inserted by someone to embarrass Reid Stowe, that "I think the boat by the look of it would stay in one piece. It won't break any records."
This is a very selective quote designed to prejudice the reader.
The full quote should be used to provide balance:
I think the boat by the look of it would stay in one piece. It won't break any records. But...I couldn't say anything that it wouldn't...He's still got a lot of patience and time." He then admitted at the end of the interview that there was a possibility that Reid Stowe could do it: "Interviewer: There's a possibility he could take your record out. Sanders: "Ah, ya."<ref>[http://1000days.net/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=449&Itemid=92 Soanya interview by freodoctor.com.au + short segment with Jon Sanders]. from ''1000 Days at Sea'' website, 23 February 2008.</ref>
...and to allow Soanya Ahmad to give her side of the story, we should include:
After Soanya Ahmad returned to New York, she was interviewed on NPR, explaining how she first became involved with the 1000-day voyage, and why she had to leave the Anne.<ref>[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87851181 Woman Jumps Ship After 305 Days]. ''NPR Online'', Mar. 3, 2008. Retrieved 22 May 2010.</ref>
b) Another example is the quote in the article ~~ "I've given him nearly $7,000 worth of food," reported Danny Kadouri, of Brooklyn-based Kadouri International Foods. "I've met him a few times and I've been on his boat, but I'm no sailor." he said to the New York Daily News. "I think he's genuine but, honestly, I don't know. I hope he's not pulling my leg." ~~
The above should be followed by:
In a later NPR story about Reid Stowe's voyage, a commentator states that "this project has had its ups and downs. Most sponsors know this. Many of the recent donations came from individuals or organizations that Reid had helped with various matters and [they] contributed as a way of thanking him. ...P.S. After the [above-mentioned] Daily News article came out, [the quoted] Mr. Kadouri donated even more food (some of it for the launch party)—guess he didn't feel [too] 'taken.'"<ref>[http://www.npr.org/blogs/bryantpark/2008/03/soanya_ahmad_returns_home_afte.html Soanya Ahmad Returns Home After 305 Consecutive Days at Sea]. ''The Bryant Park Project'' (NPR News), Mar. 3, 2008. Retrieved 22 May 2010.</ref>
Further new information about the same sponsor:
It turns out that the same Mr. Kadouri is again providing food for the Welcome home party at Pier 66 Maritime, on June 20, 2010. He does not seem to be disappointed in Reid Stowe at all, as evidenced by this line, "Snacks courtesy of Kadouri International Foods, Inc (KIFI) and Parmigiano Reggiano."<ref>[http://1000days.net/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=911&Itemid=72 Welcome home party]. from ''1000 Days at Sea'' website, 14 May 2010.</ref>
So, if we include the opposite point of view, we have a balance and the problem is solved.
2. 2nd paragraph, Intro.: Replace the sentence..."She departed the vessel near Perth, Australia on February 22, 2008, after a call was made to the Royal Perth Yacht Club seeking assistance for the "gravely ill" Ahmad." This statement has no reference and one call was not made. The arrangement with the Royal Perth Yacht Club took several weeks, and the expression "gravely ill" is meant in mockery.
The new sentence should read:
Ostensibly suffering from seasickness, Ahmad left the schooner near Perth, Australia on February 22, 2008, assisted by members of the Royal Perth Yacht Club.
3.Subsequent attempts: "Funding issues is the reasons Stowe gave for launch cancellations." This is bad English. Moreover, none of the references for this paragraph specifically mention why he had to cancel the trip launches, so it would be better to leave out this sentence altogether- pure speculation on the writer's part. Also, an additional reference is needed for the preceding sentence. (Note: since the reference already exists under a name, use the "ref name" format)
...a number of sailing dates announced, but not undertaken.<ref name="Nowhere" />
Not done This isn't what I'd call a minor, uncontroversial edit and I'm extremely reluctant to make significant changes to the content of an article protected due to edit warring. I see no rush for the edits to be made, so there's no reason they can;t wait for more input or for the protection to expire. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
HJ Mitchell, I have no problem with that. :) I was basically just setting the scene for future changes, which need to be made somewhere down the line, and they can be discussed here in the meantime. There was no harm in trying, was there? The French have a saying, "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose." In other words we all end up going in circles anyway.
HJ Mitchell - I would suggest that this article remain locked indefinitely, and that all edits be discussed here for consensus. It appears as though Skol fir is prepared to rewrite the article so there is no balance whatever and the article becomes nothing more than a promotional tool for the subject and his support team. Regatta dog (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I happen to be one of the editors who actually took the time to look up all the rules about a BLP and is trying to follow them, unlike others here who keep pushing questionable material of a libelous nature without regard for the rules at Wikipedia. My purpose here, which I have explained over and over, is to provide balance, which obviously the article lacks because certain single-purpose editors have decided to wage a campaign to deface someone here on Wikipedia. They should take their campaign elsewhere. This is not the place to do it. Has that not sunk in yet? -- Skol fir (talk) 00:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Skol fir - I don't think it is appropriate for you to accuse another editor of making libelous comments or pushing questionable material, and I invite you to point out specific instances in which I have done so. For you to claim you are interested in providing balance is not backed up by repetitive attempts to remove anything that does not put the subject and his voyage in the most favorable light - - including attempting major rewrites under the guise of "minor changes". You and I agree that the article lacks balance. As it stands, it is a marketing tool for the subject, his support staff, and their combined efforts to promote Mr. Stowe and his journey. This is the place to provide balance, and I ask you to re-read the rules you claim to be championing, almost as strongly as you have been championing the subject of the article. I look forward to your specific examples of my libelous comments and questionable sources. Regatta dog (talk) 01:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
United States of America v. Reid Stowe
The Defendant is convicted of the offense(s) of: "conspiracy to import marijuana in violation of Title 21 USC, Section 952."
He was never caught with any drugs... notice there is no mention of possession.
So, you are committing libel (which is actionable in a court of law) when you say "an article in the San Francisco examiner confirms Reids drug smuggling" on this very page. Wrong! What the article does say is that he "served nine months in prison for conspiracy to deal drugs in the Caribbean." Even there, the tag "deal drugs" by this author, Dobnik, is libelous, because he was not the dealer; he was part of a "conspiracy to import marijuana." As for the 30,000 pounds of marijuana you keep throwing around like a ton of bricks, he was never caught with any of that loot. He was a small part of a larger scheme, and was imprisoned because he failed to "rat" on his associates, while they, on the other hand, turned around and "ratted" on him. Nice, eh?
Interesting that an editor that claims no relationship with the subject of the article what so ever has such very intimate knowledge of what transpired in this chapter of his life. Or is this simply conjecture, like the amount of time it took to arrange a pick up for Soanya by the RPYC.
Unlike you, I am just reading the documents available and making my conclusions based on that. Have you ever heard of comment posts? I learned a lot from reading those, including your numerous and rambling contributions scattered like detritus all over the internet. Also, your English skills are lacking, if you cannot see the difference between "conspiring to do something" and actually getting caught doing it. A big difference, legally, and you seem not to have got it. Skol fir (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
It you read the rules for BLP, you will note that the article by Dobnick is from a reputable source with editorial oversight and is therefore acceptable to Wikipedia. What you leave out of the article is also telling. Here's the pertinent paragraph in full - "He acknowledged serving nine months in prison for conspiracy to deal drugs in the Caribbean - helping transfer marijuana from a Colombian vessel to some yachts in 1987". I will leave it to you to look up the definition of "smuggling". Please note that I have never suggested inclusion in this article of anything that was not sourced. Regatta dog (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
No, the actual quote, if you care to get it right is "He acknowledges having served nine months in prison for conspiracy to deal drugs in the Caribbean — helping transfer marijuana from a Colombian vessel to some yachts in 1987." Don't put something in quotes if you change the wording, please. Skol fir (talk) 23:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Did you ever care to notice that Reid Stowe received the lightest possible sentence that anyone could ever expect under this charge, and it could have been even more years for him in other states besides Maine? So he committed a relatively minor offence there, not the exaggerated offence that you and your associates keep purporting without checking the actual facts.
His sentence compared to those of others or the severity of the sentence based on the charge is of no concern here, unless those issues are published by a reliable source. I don't think anyone here has exaggerated anything. Just providing sourced facts. If you think that an offense that carries a nine month sentence, which the subject admits is true, is minor that is your opinion. I think others may disagree with that assessment. Regatta dog (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
As for the child support payments, that is not your business, and concerns no one. It was a matter between the State of New York and Reid Stowe, and should have never been allowed to surface in a newspaper, and therefore constitutes invasion of privacy, ergo libel. You might have had a hand in exposing that information to Adam Nichols, as you were known to have spoken with him (see the Feb. article from the NYDN) and were in possession of said public documents from the Department of State - State Child Support Enforcement Warrant Notice System—which you also published on your blog Reid Stowe and 1000 Days at Sea - Reality Check.
I suggest you take up your libel issue with the NY Daily News. It was the NY Daily news that felt the story important enough to devote time and resources to investigate it and publish a story about it. The NYDN is a reliable source and is cited many times in the existing Wiki article. It is also important to note that in that article, Jim Benedict, a member of Mr. Stowe's support team is quoted -- "By the time this thing is over, hopefully some cash would have come in," said Benedict. "Enough for Reid to pay what he owes. This is just another crazy chapter in a crazy story." A member of Reid's own support team acknowledges that this is a chapter in the story, and yet you argue it is not worth a simple mention in the Wiki article. Regatta dog (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
It seems odd that nowhere else on the entire internet are these embarrassing documents to be found, and they coincidentally appeared on your blog–Reid Stowe...Reality Check–eight days before the NYDN article of Mar. 9, 2008, under your own title of "Saturday, March 1, 2008 --Reid Stowe is a Deadbeat Dad." So where else have I seen that phrase "deadbeat Dad"? Oh, yes in the very same NYDN article, with the title "1,000-day sailor a deadbeat dad who could lose ship, sez state", to which you promptly added a link on your own blog on Mar. 10, 2008, with the smug statement, "Update March 10, 2008 - The New York Daily News published an article today that claims Stowe's back child support debt to be nearly $10,000. That is a significant drop in the amount owed when this site first posted the warrants." So, I wonder who was the original source of all this juicy information?
In case you didn't notice the sarcasm, I was pointing out the similarity in the expression "deadbeat Dad" used in your first post on Mar.1, and in the title of the article by Nichols eight days later, in which article the word "deadbeat" never occurred once (except in the title). The connection is too obvious for words, although I seem to have to spell it out for you. Skol fir (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore, you had the motive to harm Reid Stowe, as you have shown by creating a blog specifically to ridicule and demean him. You of all people have the nerve to ask me where you have made unsubstantiated claims and libelous statements. Well, there you have it. I can also add, that your behavior here and elsewhere has seriously undermined your ability to provide balance to this article on Reid Stowe.
My behavior here is no more biased than your own. You and a couple other editors have repetitively shown blatant bias for the subject of the article, and you in particular have shown that you have intimate knowledge of the subject inexplicable based on information in the public domain.
I have made no unsubstantiated claims and no libelous statements. The sources are reliable. They are the exact same sources used throughout the article to create the image Mr. Stowe and his shore team are trying to promote to the public. If you have a problem with libelous claims and/or unsubstantiated claims, those are not with me. Regatta dog (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Stowe, having skipped on child support payments for some three decades would be the CLASSIC deadbeat parent. "Deadbeat" has been used to describe "skips" for many, many years so it is not at all surprising or shocking that it was used in the headline of the article. Since The New York Daily News (let's face facts here, the most mainstream media outlet to even cover this) broke the story, any problem that Stowe would have with the wording in the article would be with that newspaper, NOT with Wikipedia or anyone editing it. Your closing "parting shots" at any editor who happens to disagree with you on ANY subject are getting a little tiring. Aloha27 (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any "parting shots." If you were ever in a debating club, you might know the meaning of a "rebuttal." Surely, if a debater misinterprets something I said, or misses the point of what I said altogether (as in the difference between conspiracy charges and actual misdemeanors) I am entitled to a rebuttal. A "parting shot" is usually delivered by a person retreating from an argument, who wants to put in one more salvo before departing from the scene. I am far from retreating. Quite the opposite: I am fully engaged. -- Skol fir (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Engage me, then, please. How does a misdemeanor charge end up with a 9 month prison sentence. Please, I'd like to know. Debating clubs rely on the same rules as Wikipedia - reliable sources to cite. If the source is reliable, even if it is factually incorrect - that doesn't matter. That concept is spelled out quite clearly in the Wiki rules. Editors can't discount out of hand an acceptable source if they feel that source got it wrong. The reliable source holds the credibility - not the debater him/her self. I am still waiting for a counter rebut with actual cites where I have not used credible media sources. Regatta dog (talk) 03:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
-a crime for which the punishment in federal law may be death or imprisonment for more than one year
Definition of a misdemeanor:
-a crime less serious than a felony
As for the article that you most likely had a hand in planting into the NYDN, with your cosy relationship to a journalist there, enough said. ...and you now know that Reid Stowe was never actually caught drug smuggling; he was convicted for "conspiracy to import marijuana," not drug smuggling as you have claimed. If the reference you used (Dobnik's article) had correctly interpreted the original court documents (she had not because she claimed he had been "drug dealing") it might be acceptable, and the information provided would be usable in this article.
I am not in favor of totally whitewashing Reid Stowe's background. However, unless we have a credible and accurate account of Reid Stowe's misdemeanors published in a reputable source, Wikipedia must err on the side of caution, as opposed to your own blog, where you can rant and rave at will. Furthermore, in this particular case Presumption in favor of privacy - Avoid victimization rules as we have stated many times before, and Zanthorp again spelled out below. No one but you and a handful of associates in the sailing community (thus a minority opinion) believe that this information should be made public. In my description of the rules of a BLP to Aloha27 (I quote from various sections of Wikipedia Policies), I included this quote: "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." ...and you are only a tiny minority, since I do not see the mainstream media interested in this, nor anyone else on the internet except for the blogs which you happen to control. Furthermore, I also included this quote:
Wikipedia contains biographical material on people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, focusing on high quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution; see above. Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many countries repeating defamatory claims is actionable, and there is additional protection for people who are not public figures.
Even you, Regatta Dog, are constantly downplaying the significance of what Reid Stowe is trying to accomplish, thereby relegating him to the position of a minor figure, not a public figure, such as a politician or an actor, or a famous scientist for that matter. On those grounds, Reid Stowe gets extra protection with respect to privacy and defamatory claims.
What is getting tiring for me is the absolute hypocrisy of a number of editors here who are quick to call bias when they themselves are the epitome of the word. I may not be a huge fan of this expedition or it's central figure, but I and many others throughout the world use Wikipedia on a daily basis to get a convenient and concise overview of almost anything of interest we run across. It should not be allowed to be used as a propaganda tool for self promotion or promotion of a cause. Regatta dog (talk) 03:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
"...of almost anything of interest we run across." To this I add, that Reid Stowe's past indiscretions are not of interest. Furthermore, Regatta Dog, I noticed that one of the forums you have contributed to recently had the following telling reply by Mark to a post by John...
>>the backers of this journey would have better spent their time editing [Stowe's] narcissistic ramblings than his wiki page to remove any reference to his "tinged reputation".<<
John
Why in the world would you waste your time reading it if thats what you thought?
Of all the folks doing stuff he seems to me to be the least harmful!
In what possible way could his life be inflicting itself on you, or others? He's floating at sea thousands of miles away from everyone.
If you don't like him or his thing just don't read about him.
The things I don't like in life I just ignore. These [sic] sure a lot of threads on here I have on ignore.
The period of time from 1978 to 1997 is not documented yet. Mr. Stowe conducted a five month voyage to Antartica with a crew of eight; originating from New Zealand
Added summary information about the Antarctic trip, 1986 - 1987. As for the rest of the time, he seemed below the radar screens insofar as published information is concerned. — Gosgood16:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
coverage of the actual start of the 1000 Days at Sea, commencing April 21, 2007, not in place yet.
references are a bit thin; text has overdependence on an interview between Stowe and Hudson Channer: old (04-Aug-2003), and the interviewer only asked softball questions
Reid Stowe is something of a media darling at http:goodnewsbroadcast.com; the material there may be of some use, but I found it to be light on content and long on good feelings.
Coverage of his activities from 2003 to 2007 is spotty; the New York Times seems to have lost interest in him.
I haven't tracked down real basic stuff yet: such as his exact date of birth.
surmised from the (removed blacklisted external). The Jan 08 2007 blog entry notes his birthday party on the previous day.
I've found few sources critical of Stowe; this causes me to raise one eyebrow. Good strong print references are presently hard to come by; Mr. Stowe is a bit of a media darling, and available material reflects that. Gosgood22:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Update:
Nothing in the article on his career as a fine artist. The project blog does make reference to sold paintings, but I don't have references yet documenting whether a gallery represents him or who has purchased his work recently. http://www.reidstowe.netfirms.com/ pesumably has some information, but is usually beyond its delivery capacity.
Reid was arrested in Manhattan and extradited to Maine in 1991. Reid's trial is public record via Docket #91-2365. His release from federal prison is documented via the Federal Bureau of Prisons website, but no details are given.[1]
I do not claim that this is false, but I have reason to doubt that it is about the Reid Stowe of this article. Mr Stowe of this article was born January 7, 1952; he would have been in his early forties at the time of this release, not 55. Unless (and until) this can be documented unambiguously, WP:BLP compels its removal. To quote: we must get it right. This addition is not sufficiently documented for me to conclude that with confidence. Gosgood12:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
If you read the documentation on the Bureau of Prisons web site, the age refers to the prisoners current age; not the age when he was released. 65.60.211.10720:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Granted, anon, the record is certainly about Reid Stowe. But what sort of story does this record support? The Bureau of Prisons itself asks us to note that an entry in the BOP locator database does not necessarily mean the person has been sentenced and is serving time; it may be that "a person was detained pre-trial but criminal charges were dismissed, held as a material witness, [or] held for civil contempt." So this record in and of it self does not support "ex-con" allegations that various anonymous editors were inserting into the article last September 27th. Mmoes says he looked up the docket number and, in conjunction with the BOP data, comes away with a story that, to my mind, is of pretty limited scope; Reid Stowe was held for a year or so until his testimony concerning the trafficking of marijuana, supporting charges against David Munsell and James Twombley was secured.
Now I happen to be reading this from Mmoes Wikipedia talk page, not the court papers, and Wikipedia talk pages are absolutely unreliable sources. However, for sake of discussion, let us suppose that Mmoes is accurately reproducing court papers, even the plea-bargain part. What is the story these papers support? Certainly not that Stowe was involved in drug trafficking: he wasn't charged with anything. It seems he was held as a 'material witness' (my interpretation, not necessarily factual). Taking again for sake of discussion that these court papers are accurately reproduced, does this source now warrant the inclusion of the 'Prison section' in the main article? Absolutely not. Court papers, though public records, are primary sources. They are 'raw stuff' that goes into the analysis, synthesis, and interpretation furnished by an author/journalist composing a secondary source: a newspaper or magazine article, or a book. When a tertiary work like Wikipedia looks for foundation references for its articles, it turns mainly to secondary sources because, by and large, wikipedia editors are not competent to apply analysis, synthessis, and interpretation "to make sense" of raw primary sources: to do so would be to engage in original research. This material on Mmnos talk page furnishes a working example: we interpret all kinds of dark and nasty things about Reid Stowe. Thoughts that the guy was just as guilty as the rest of 'em, but plea-bargained his way out of a near-certain conviction, automatically leaps to mind to all but the most innocent naif and is just the sort of on-the-fly "synthesis" that Wikipedia absolutely wants to avoid, because to allow such synthesis to occur in connection with a biography of a living person opens Wikipedia up to charges of libel. I'm not here to defend Reid Stowe's innocence because I'm credulous, I'm here to defend Wikipedia from libel, and I do so absolutely out of self-interest: it's a useful resource; I donate money to keep it running, and I'd rather see my money used to buy server storage and pay for electricity, than have it line the pockets of defense lawyers because Reid Stowe finds the basis for a libel suit in his Wikipedia biography and he needs money to fix the bow sprit.
Now you may be cut from different cloth, whoever you are, and think that this Reid Stowe character is just about pulling the wool over the eyes of everyone on the planet, save for a few clear-headed types such as yourself. So be it. While I'm making all kinds of assumptions for sake of discussion, I'll make the assumption that you are a journalist of no small calibre. Then you know the deal: take the bits and pieces you have on Stowe to an editor of a reputable journal and do the story pitch. If you pull it off, you'll get some money up front (not a lot, but maybe enough to avoid the 9-to-5 gigs for awhile), a byline, and and some time to put The Truth all together. Once it's published, meaning that an editor is willing to stake his or her publication's reputation on your work, then Wikipedia has a decent secondary source on the dark side of Reid Stowe, a framework in which to cite these court papers, and a basis for changing the article. Short of that, find the journalist who has already put together the article. Short of that — well if entails bits and pieces of primary sources that engender interpretive guess work, then you've just plowed up against my pig-headed self-interest, which, at times, makes me something of an exclusionist. Have fun. Gosgood01:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Regatta dog has posted facsimiles and transcripts of Reid Stowe's sentencing hearing at (9removed blacklisted external link) blog; the editor had obtained the documents via the Freedom of Information Act. Reid Stowe had pleaded guilty to importing 30,000 pounds of marijuana into the State of Maine. The sentencing hearing was held January 22, 1993 concerning criminal importation of marijuana into Maine in 1987; Stowe was sentenced to a one year term of imprisonment. It was a light sentence; Stowe was a minor figure in a larger importation scheme, according to the sentencing transcript.
Done Applied changes, since they were uncontroversial with no immediate objections. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Not done This isn't what I'd call a minor, uncontroversial edit and I'm extremely reluctant to make significant changes to the content of an article protected due to edit warring. I see no rush for the edits to be made, so there's no reason they can;t wait for more input or for the protection to expire. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
