Talk:Al Besselink

message: For the record: There was a discussion about his probable death at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Golf/Archive 10#Al Besselink but no firm conclusion was reached as to how to proceed. Nigej (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on, how can you really doubt it's him? He has the same name and birthdate, did they clone him at birth? No, absolutely acceptable to add the death date in my opinion. Barring the failing health reports, those do not imply at all he was dying. But the death certificate is definitely enough. You have to be quite thick headed to think they are two different people. This kind of exaggerated sophism is not good for Wiki. --Folengo (talk) 11:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: ÷No original research reads- Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.' Everything above is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. What about no does anyone not understand?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: William, you've already made this point. The reality is there are 1000s of Wikipedia articles which use some permissible forms of O.R. because there's a lack of standard sources which exist for vital pieces of information e.g. birth date, birth name, death date etc. It's very important that we make exceptions to rules sometimes rather than be tightly bound to them 100% of the time, which is neither practical or productive. Using birth records as original research was how editors on here discovered that Doris Day was in fact born in 1922, rather than 1924 as every "reliable" source online claimed. After her DOB was changed on her page by consensus, the media picked up on it as a story and even interviewed Day herself about it. Getting to the truth is ultimately what's important on here. I have no intention of fighting you over this and I think it's bad form to quarrel with other editors on here so why don't we work together on this? I'm going to get in touch with Golf.com, and if possible the author of that 2016 article. I'm going to explain the problem we have here and ask if he'll kindly update the news piece with a post script paragraph mentioning Besselink's death. You seem to have good experience with articles relating to both Florida and golf. Is there anybody you could reach out to your end to try and get a suitable source for the page? Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks again --Jkaharper (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the guidelines permit us to include the information. Is that a joke? What don't you understand about the words No original research. No doesn't mean when it suits some editor(s). I recently had a talk page discussion with an administrator about the plague of OR, false referencing, and other behavior in articles often by experienced editors. The admin thinks there is an arbcom case to be built, but neither them or me have been to ARBCOM at all or only in a minor fashion. Maybe I should stop being lazy and file. The wanton disregard for WP policy around here is appalling....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: William, can you please answer my point above about trying to find an alternative resolution for this? It would seem that you're only really interested in prolonging a non-productive argument about this rather than trying to make progress on finding an answer. I'm not interested in confrontation. There is a consensus against you on this talk page, and yet I am willing to try and ensure all parties are satisfied, by taking a different approach where we collaborate on trying to produce a new source. Let me know your thoughts please. --Jkaharper (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I emailed Craig Dolch but haven't heard back from him. I also tweeted Craig but it is through my author account, which he won't recognize as me but he might reply to. Craig, who is a golf writer, and I have known one another for over 15 years. Even if I get a private answer, that's WP:OR too. Craig or some other Reliable source would have to report it. An official tweet from him might be acceptable. Whatever the outcome, I should file the ARBCOM case....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. To me, this is a clear case where this can be applied. As mentioned above there are multiple references to reliable, published sources which verify the person's full name and date of birth. In addition there is a published, public record of the death a person with the same name and date of birth in the same locality that the athlete was known to have lived in his later years, when he was apparently in failing health. I don't think such an inflexible interpretation of the guidelines here is productive, as other users above have also pointed out. Perhaps you might want to file an  RFC for further comment. Connormah (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Per List of premature obituaries the declaring dead of someone not dead is a regular occurrence for the overzealous. I have a rare last name(there are 50-75 of us) but I have two cousins named William, one of whom has the same middle initial and the other is born the same year as me and who lived in Florida (like me) the last time I checked. Am I WP notable? No. Should the ebook I sold the Movie rights to be made into a major motion picture, I may qualify. The pandemic has things on hold but the screenplay has been written and I had a hand in that. Back to Besselink, the point I'm making is a rare name don't mean @#5!. The rules for 
WP:BLP apply....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Since you apparently seem to refuse to listen to any of the counterpoints raised by others here I am done with this discussion. Connormah (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   I agree with Connormah here (although I did not realize that there was a policy that said what I wanted to say). There is consensus here to include the information; if you think that the consensus needs more opinions, there are many venues that both we and you yourself have identified that you can pursue this. Here, however, we have heard your perspective and we disagree; repeating it again and again is not productive and does not benefit the project. The talk page for this article is also not a forum for you to soapbox about broader problems with Wikipedia. Again, there are many other places the have been mentioned where you can do that; this page is for improving the article. Canadian Paul 21:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is protected by WP:BLP which at the very top of the page says 'No original research'. You say Besselink is dead, then try reading WP:BDP, a sub section of BLP. An article on any person born in the last 115 years is 'is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death.' You don't have a reliable source saying he is dead. Just original research. Oh and WP:BLPPRIMARY says 'Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.' Which is what all three of you want to do.  All three of you are experienced editors, the IDHT going on here is you three not me....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

text: If anyone is still reading, I heard back from Craig Dolch. He has no information of Besselink that we don't have already....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Probable death