Talk:Charles Harrelson

message: In the first part of the article, 1937 and 1938 are mentioned. Which is true? 31.151.15.31 (talk) 08:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen some records that say 1939, however! 2603:8081:7409:DB00:9440:342F:73E:5D73 (talk) 04:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: https://happyhappybirthday.net/en/age/charles-harrelson-person_yelseuq 2600:1702:46A8:D70:51F:D308:4EFD:1643 (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

text: I think it is 1938 2001:DF5:2380:6C3B:87C:4AE1:51FC:2434 (talk) 08:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Birth Year

message: The whole paragraph on the Kennedy assasination needs to be rewritten.  It doesn't make sense, and it has nothing to do with Harrelson except the first sentence.  
For example: "Some think he was one of the three tramps photographed after being arrested on November 22, 1963 in a boxcar in the railyard near Dealey Plaza. Harrelson's arresting officer, Marvin L. Wise, claims..."  
Ok, "Some think he was one of the tramps," followed by "Harrelson's arresting officer.."  Well, which one is it?  Is it only alledged that he was one of the tramps, or was he in fact one of the tramps and had an arresting officer????!!!
Unbelievable.  Get it together, rewrite this garbage, and repost it.  I will give 3 days before deletion. --LLL —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.148.10.43 (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kennedy 

message: from the article:
:"Harrelson reportedly shot and killed Wood in the parking lot outside of Wood's San Antonio, Texas, house for a drug dealer out of El Paso, Jamiel Chagra. "
bold mine...not sure what this is referring to so i hesitate to try to rewrite it.  El hombre de haha 02:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: confusing sentence

message: Can someone please provide a reference for Harrelson being part of the 'red squad' and elaborate further.
Cheers john geraghty 00:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red Squad 

message: The article keeps being deleted with the comment "previous edits are supposition and opinion not evidence used at trial" without providing any facts or evidence to support that statement.  The article, as written, is factual with supporting documentation.  Wikipedia is not a record of the trial and to delete or edit based on this criteria is irrelevant.
I am restoring the previous edit.  If there is verifiable, refuting evidence please add to the section and discuss.  Do not just delete verified, factual evidence.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Degelia (talk • contribs) 15:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: is at it again.  I have reverted their deletions of referenced material per the above.  Favonian (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Article being deleted

message: Ok, I see it has been batted around in the revisions several times.  Somebody keeps putting in long, weird stuff about that case, I see.  Ok, fine.  But as it is now, it is completely unmentioned.  The reference to being re-tried in 1974 is VERY confusing.  It looks like that refers to the other case, which happened in 1979!  Put something in at least to make it consistent! 134.4.61.136 (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edit summary complained about being blocked, and you aren't. There are 5,000,000 articles on Wikipedia, and you can edit 4,999,999 of them: just not this one for a while. The purpose is to force people to discuss the issues instead of edit-warring. Hopefully, one of the people removing information will explain why.—Kww(talk) 04:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sam Deglia murder 

message: It seems that the dispute about this content has merits on both sides.  Perhaps the content could be trimmed to include neutral factual content supported by multiple reliable sources.  Some of the content seems to come from testimony that could be considered hearsay.  Thoughts?  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sworn testimony cannot be treated as true, "hearsay" or not. Testimony by its nature represents a specific POV, and is frequently strongly biased in favor of one party or another. It would be foolish to believe that no witnesses ever perjured themselves. Statements regarding testimony need to be qualified with who made the statement.—Kww(talk) 04:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

text: How do you suppose someone would add a reference when removing something?  Evidently the claims are contentious.  Provide multiple reliable sources and your problem will go away.  The burden of proof is on the editor who adds the content, not the one who removes it (see WP:PROVEIT).  Stop calling the other editors vandals.  It isn't blatant vandalism.  It's a content dispute (obviously slanted by POV and sockpuppets).  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 11:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of the editors that have been edit-warring here have been socks, and are blocked accordingly. I'm leaving the protection up, in the hopes that editors will discuss the controversy. Socking doesn't mean the editor is wrong, it just means his techniques were wrong. I think that some of the material that the socks were removing is pretty dicey, and I'd like to see people come forward with suggestions as to how to handle material sourced by testimony.—Kww(talk) 00:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

text: While I have reverted removal of this content again, only because there was no attempt to discuss it, the sources for the content seem sparse and marginally reliable.  If it cannot be supported by more reliable sources, it should be removed.  Testimony is evidence, but it is not a reliable source such that it can stand alone.  I have no interest in the subject, I'm only trying to help avoid content disputes.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no new sources have been added in the last two months to support the claims, this information should be removed. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I removed some of what was using the really questionable sources that were uploaded to Wikipedia and such.  Let me know if its alright.  I also added more references, and a bit on Woody Harrelson too. Nkgal (talk) 02:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Now you've left the section without any sources.  I just downloaded about 20 newspaper articles about the trials.  I'll try to read through them and put something together.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 14:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Were uploaded. Sorry, my typo there. I see some reasonable references too, and will see what can be done.--Nkgal (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Okay, that looks good. The only thing is that when searching I did find on Google Scholar the file about Scamardo and his probation, its noting that the perjury charge was appealed and overturned, so his probation wasn't really revoked. Anyway, the article's on Harrelson, so that bit we might change or just leave off. Nkgal (talk) 13:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good find.  I confirmed that in newspaper articles.  I'll take that part out, it isn't relevant.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 14:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Right, the edits themselves aren't copyright violations, but the sourcing is inappropriate and file themselves are copyright violations. There is a way to use sources on Wikipedia, and uploading and then linking to files is not correct, whether they are on the commons or on your personal Google Docs site. You should familiarize yourself with WP:CITE, as it contains rules and suggestions. Besides that, the files are copyrighted. Just because you can go into a public library and photocopy a book does not make that "public information". Documents produced by U.S. states, unlike the federal government, aren't public domain (except for Florida, with certain restrictions). The website you link to also clearly states that "for material printed after January 1, 1923 all copyrights remain the property of the copyright owner". Perhaps you can get acquainted with editing Wikipedia elsewhere, on articles you haven't been blocked from editing in the past.--Nkgal (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Documents created by a state office are actually copyrighted, and public domain is a term used when the copyright has lapsed, and for situations where it's specified by law, such as with documents created by the federal government. And even if you fix the issue of the citation, the sentence you are trying to add is problematic because, as Kww told you last year, "Sworn testimony cannot be treated as true", and maybe it would be good to also review the issue of verifiability. I don't want to censor your editing, but maybe this isn't the best topic for you given your experiences on the article.--Nkgal (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

text: I'm really sorry you feel that way. As has been mentioned, using testimony is problematic, and I'm skeptical of it given your history of using the article as a repository for courtroom material. With the PDF file, it includes on several pages, scanned copies of newspaper articles, photos, and other items that almost certainly cannot be copyright-free. A file cannot be public domain if it is a derivative of copyrighted files. So even if the Texas State Archives told you they don't have a copyright, that doesn't mean you can upload it to Wikipedia. Does that make sense? Either way, Wikipedia can't be sourced to itself, and so its unacceptable to use it as a reference for your edits here.--Nkgal (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

text: I'm unsure why you're so obsessed with Harrelson's 1968 drug affiliation, but its really not notable. Yet that's all you seem to be concerned with. If you want to add more info on Harrelson's affiliates, why haven't you added stuff about the more important characters, like Joe Chagra? If you have all these sources, why not fill out the Personal life section? Your three year obsession here is baffling, and your claims of a grand conspiracy against you are even more so. Further, if you're going to revert edits, you need to pay attention to the changes your making. You just reverted the information I added about Harrelson's escape attempt, which, unlike your edits, is sourced and verifiable. You can use the "Show changes" button to review the text before saving.--Nkgal (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

text: I guess you're not understanding that a file on the commons is considered part of Wikipedia. You've been told repeatedly, and not just this year, that you can't use a file you've uploaded as a citation. Regardless of the file's copyright status, its just not verifiable, and is likely original research. I do look at the page's history, and all I see is a long legacy of your disruptions and sockpuppetry, with no actual effort to improve the article. Just an obsession from when you created that COI username right up to today. And again, you're still blindly reverting edits that I'm making elsewhere in the article. Your three reverts have been posted to the ANB.--Nkgal (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Every edit summary lately, you've accused me of censorship, and asked for discussion on the talk page, but it just seems like I'm talking to a wall. I don't know how to make you understand how Wikipedia works, but if after three years, I guess you just don't get it. You can't use a file that you uploaded as a source. Not on the Wikimedia Commons, not on Google Docs, not on your personal website, and not on archive.org. It's not verifiable, and its original research, and its supporting claims that I'm not sure we have reliable sources for. I don't want to be the only one checking your fixation with this article, but I don't see other editors stepping up.--Nkgal (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Right, the source doesn't have be online or easy, but it needs to have been published at some point or released by a reliable source that would back them up as an authority on the matter, and then be attributed for it. I mean, that's like trying to reference Thomas Jefferson as the author of the declaration by adding a citation instructing readers to see the document in Philadelphia. It screams of original research. So I just don't know if testimony from unpublished police records, like those that the user has gone and collected, should be allowed in support their edits, which I think are then called into serious question.--Nkgal (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a primary source, certainly, and we need to be careful with those, but they aren't prohibited. I think a trip to WP:RSN may be in order.—Kww(talk) 18:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

text: I think the whole question is that of sourcing. I don't think anybody editing this article is attempting to protect any of the individuals involved.—Kww(talk) 19:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

text: That's quite enough.  Your claims of "censorship" directed at other editors are a violation of our civility policy and I ask that you refrain from making those attacks in the future.  You can discuss your differences regarding article content with other editors without resorting to such attacks.  Gamaliel (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

text: These are not the only criteria for inclusion.  Not everything that is verifiable belongs in a Wikipedia article.  To disagree with inclusion does not mean censorship.  Your insistence on calling it such does not bring us any closer to resolution of this conflict, which will not be resolved by an "official ruling" since such things are generally not made, but by a consensus of editors.  If you are interested in resolving this conflict, you will immediately stop such claims. Gamaliel (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

text: This is, however, not a murder case and we aren't looking for a verdict.  The use of original documents is generally not encouraged on Wikipedia.  Those are generally best left to lawyers and investigators and journalists and historians.  The general preference is for secondary sources.  If this material has been used by the Dallas Morning News, it is best to employ their articles and research instead of your own.  My suggestion is to read Wikipedia:No original research and you'll learn more about how Wikipedia handles such matters. Gamaliel (talk) 04:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

text: It's the other way around: stuff doesn't get in because there's no rule preventing it.  You have to show why the stuff belongs there.  Why are you using this material when there are ten other sources in that section?  What value does it add?  If the information in this package you put together isn't available elsewhere, is it something that belongs on Wikipedia?  Gamaliel (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

text: I'm starting to think that this material does not belong in the article.  If there is any doubt to its authenticity and if it contains material not contained in any published secondary sources, then it's the kind of thing that we shouldn't be using.  Gamaliel (talk)
What precedent are you using? I am sure there have to be some similar examples that have been kept off wikipedia.  No one has yet to question its authenticity.  This is now the third reason raised to keep the file off wikipedia.  The file and its contents are referenced in books on the subject.  I have written about this already. This information is not secret. Sam Degelia (talk) 03:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

text: I'm only echoing what you yourself wrote above: "assuming it can be verified as authentic".  This tells me that there is doubt to its authenticity.  If there is no doubt, why did you write that?  And if this file is referred to in books, why do we need to use the file?  Why not instead cite those books and professional authors who have examined this material and presumably have a professional judgment on its authenticity?  As I noted above, Wikipedia prefers secondary sources to primary sources like your file.  See WP:PRIMARY. Gamaliel (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

text: The goalposts are not moving.  You are merely talking to a different person who has different concerns.  I can't speak for Nkgal, all I can do is speak for myself, and the issue of primary sources is my concern.  As for the issue of the Dallas Morning News: of course it is a reliable source.  So why not use that instead?  Why use a pdf of assembled documents of dubious prominence instead?  Why should editors have to obtain copies of documents from the Texas State Archives to verify the contents of a pdf found on the internet when they could simply use the Dallas Morning News?  It is a simple question, we do not need the mediation committee to address it, though you are welcome to submit a request for mediation if you wish.  Gamaliel (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Murder of Sam Degelia dispute

message: I've protected this article for a period of a week, as this article looks like it has been edit warred over by socks of different editors for a considerable period. Discuss your controversies, and come to a conclusion.—Kww(talk) 03:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, discussion didn't break out ... I was hopeful, but realistic. I've dropped the protection to semi-protection to prevent rampant socking again, and have extended it to 3 months because of the long-term persistent nature of the socking.—Kww(talk) 03:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full protection 

message: I read about Charles Harrelson in Anthony Holden's 'Big Deal'. A search for his name + poker should yield some good results.
e.g. url: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/news-views-gossip/charles-harrelson-poker-player-poker-cheater-hit-man-1104530/
and a general search on 2+2: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/search.php?searchid=28675152
Definitely, something must be included here. Zchais (talk) 11:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poker WSOP