User talk:Absenter

Clayton Counts

How is any announcement of Clayton's death not relevant to his article? If you continue to revert to prior versions, you will be reported for vandalism. You have been warned. This is not a good faith attempt on your part to improve the integrity of Wikipedia. It is instead an attempt to omit known information (i.e., that Counts' website gave notice of his death, true or not) and control the content of the article based on your own presumptions.TrevorPearce (talk) 14:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If it does not come from a reliable source, it is just a rumor. Absenter (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have read the terms before, thanks, and as a fellow editor it is my responsibility to make mention of something that was featured on the subject's official website, but I have never said that he was dead for sure. THAT would require a reliable source, hence the mention that his death has not been verified. If this was any other blog, you would have a point, but because it is his website, I contend that it is applicable. We are not saying that he is dead, and least of all because his website says so. We are saying that his website CLAIMS that he is dead. Any mention of someone's death on their own website, whether true or not, is relevant to the article. If he's really dead, it is relevant. If he's faking it, it is relevant. Let's not get into an edit war. If you feel so strongly about it, we can take it up with an arbitrator.TrevorPearce (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:BLP, "Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons." As I see it, you are in favor of omitting content to suit your bias. To be NPOV, we must include this information, but also mention that it has not been verified. Can you not see why this would be important?TrevorPearce (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Trevor - I feel it is quite malicious to publish death rumors. I'm sure you feel the same. That is why I am attempting to enforce due rigor when sourcing this. Absenter (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Again, I understand your point. If we were stating as a FACT that Clayton Counts was dead, a reliable source would be called for. However, we are saying that his website CLAIMS he is dead, which is pertinent to both the article and its subject. Lots of rumors and hoaxes are covered in Wikipedia, but they are mentioned as being unverified. That's why I changed the text initially. Press releases are frequently referenced, with the caveat that it was announced on the artists' own website. I feel very strongly that an official death notice from his website should be included in the article, even if somebody proves that he is alive. If this was some other website posting a death rumor, it may well be considered malicious, but this is his own website. Your point is appreciated, but it seems a bit shortsighted.TrevorPearce (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Trevor - Once again - I'm simply following the steps outlined in the BLP which in my eyes are pretty cut and dry. I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation. In this case there is no press release, no public notice, etc. As such I strongly feel it should be treated as a rumor and in accordance with the rules of the BLP deleted immediately. Absenter (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

To say that the rules are "in [your] eyes pretty cut and dry," you are denying ANY interpretation other than your own. I simply don't think there's any precedent for this kind of thing on Wikipedia. I do think we should get an arbitrator involved, because I doubt that we are getting anywhere with this. I was offering a compromise to the others who were editing the article by mentioning that the report was unverified and that Clayton Counts might not be his actual name. I never stated that he was dead. The sentence, "According to his website, Clayton Counts died on December 24, 2007" should be enough on its own, but because so many editors have gotten involved, on both sides of the fence, I think it's clear that it is a rumor, and that should be referenced as such.TrevorPearce (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Trevor - I'm not interpreting at all - and I don't believe there should be any interpretation with respect to the rule on BLP. The rule says that personal websites, etc. should not be used for reference. You are citing a Clayton Counts personal website for reference. In addition, you also seem to assume that Clayton Counts is a stage name without any indication of why you would think that. Stage names are common, but are usually noted (See Bono / Slash) as such. Your willingness to publish rumor is troublesome to me - Wikipedia will forever struggle for legitimacy if such practices become the norm. Absenter (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have every intention of maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia, just as you do. Let's not get into a fight here. Again, if this was stated as a FACT, a reliable source would be needed. There are already references to Clayton's site in his article, but they are not references intended to prove or disprove biographical content. Likewise, the link to his death notice is not meant to prove or disprove anything. It is a link to a rumor on the subject's own website, with a caveat explaining that it has not been verified. You are cherry picking. Only references intended to prove or disprove biographical content need to be reliable, as I see it. And yes, it is open to interpretation. Otherwise, there would be no outside links to ANY websites other than reliable sources, anywhere on Wikipedia. You have interpreted these rules yourself. You interpret them to mean that they should not be open to interpretation, but I'm quite sure that not every editor on Wikipedia would agree with that assessment. Also, on the discussion page, I just added that I have tried to verify that Clayton Counts was a real person. The hall of records in Austin, Texas, has told me that no Clayton Counts was born anywhere in the state on August 19, 1973, or at any other time. The county clerk's office in Midland, where Clayton is said to have been born, also came up empty handed.TrevorPearce (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a fight at all - a spirited discussion. I think you are right in that we should submit this before arbitration. I appreciate your attempts at gaining additional biographical information. Perhaps an email to the maintainers of his website would aid in gaining biographical information / official notice necessary to research and provide reliable reference for the information contained in this article? Absenter (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

A very good suggestion. I will attempt to contact someone. Also, I just changed the title of the "Death" section to "Rumor of Death" and altered the text so that it reads, "the claim is unverified," rather than "his death is unverified." Hopefully that will be a suitable compromise until this can be resolved.TrevorPearce (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the change is an improvement (I saw your Paul M. comment on the talk page - I'm not we can equate these two situations for numerous reasons), but ultimately I think resolution should be handled thru arbitration. I trust you will submit the matter - if not, I can. Absenter (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never done it before, so if you feel like saving me the trouble we can get right to it. I'm at work right now, and have wasted the better part of my morning already. It's better than sitting here listening to my boss talk about his golf game, though.  :) The reference to the "Paul is Dead" article was just one example of a rumor being covered in Wikipedia. There are far more references to rumors contained within other articles. I mentioned on the discussion page that not all of Clayton's biographical information is questionable. We do know that someone calling himself Clayton Counts made a notable record, and that he was mentioned by that name in several independent, reliable sources. There must be precedent for someone who goes by an assumed name, even if they are otherwise unidentified. I think, if anything, the article should be amended to reflect what we KNOW about him. In the meantime, I will keep trying to find out more information about him.TrevorPearce (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I just heard back from the records office in Midland. There was a James Clayton Counts born on August 19, 1973. How do we verify that for inclusion in the article? Do we acquire his birth records? I would assume that this kind of thing crops up from time to time. Also, another question for arbitration is: if we are unable to confirm his death, how long do we wait until we state that he has faked it? I would think that eventually it would need to be mentioned, if his blog continues to maintain that he is dead.TrevorPearce (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Trevor - It could be considered malicious to accuse him of faking his death - we don't know for sure it was even him that made that post. In addition I believe faking your death - in an effort to cash out insurance policies, etc - is an actual crime. I wouldn't want to confuse a possible misleading post on his website with something more serious. It's been my contention that the website should not be used as the sole reliable reference for any biographical information - so I wouldn't mention the death until it was substantiated somewhere else. If it were to turn out to be some sort of joke - I wouldn't consider it noteworthy as it doesn't seem to have been referenced anywhere other than on his site - and unfortunately the Wikipedia page. I'll leave it up to arbitration on how to best approach this. Absenter (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds fair to me. I'm not sure if faking your death online is illegal, but it is definitely questionable. I did find a few other mentions online. One on otisfodder.com, another here http://arvofingers.blogspot.com/2007/12/radio-shows-from-xmas-eve-and.html, another here http://flyingsparxscabinetofmiscellany.blogspot.com/2008/01/sad-news-to-start-with.html, and another here (in French) http://forum.maccablog.com/topic3381.html. There are also several threads on message boards, some of which require registration, but none of those would be reliable sources. As for his birth being verified, do you have any suggestions how best to implement that information into the article? It seems to me that he was or is a real person, based on the fact that someone with the same name was born in the same town in Texas on the same day. Also, I saw that you called the article a "vanity article" and said that Clayton was an "obscure musician." He has been mentioned by some of the biggest publications in the world, and he had the most downloaded remix album of 2006. His article has been maintained by many people, none of whom (to my knowledge) were him. Additionally, the article was already nominated for deletion. After the AfD debate, the decision was to keep. I think that as long as his date of birth can be verified, there should be no issue aside from the inclusion of the death rumor. Thanks for the friendly discourse on this matter.TrevorPearce (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Trevor - Yes, my apologies about the "obscure" reference. It comes across a lot more derogatory than I had intended - and it certainly suggests bias. My sole contention with this article presently is whether to include the rumor of death (I clarified this to the BLP talk page). While I would question if your research resolved the DOB definitively, I think it's far less harmless to be inaccurate on that. Absenter (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. We can just wait and see where it goes. I won't be able to check in again for a couple of days, but it may take some deliberation before there's any decision. Have a nice weekend.TrevorPearce (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)