Talk:Bill Conlin

Original research, and BLP violation

I have removed, "Conlin did not specifically deny the charges in the e-mail". It's original research, and a glaring BLP violation. The editor who reverted me actually suggested I "find a quote denying it". That's not how it works. We can only report what others have reported; we can not report our own take on what is written somewhere, especially not in a BLP. While I certainly do not edit war, I will continue to remove this, per WP:BLP, and claim a WP:3RR exemption, should it be returned. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It has been returned, with a source. I still think it's a BLP vio, and I've reported this at WP:BLP/N. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• - This is getting a bit undue imo - there are no charges are there? Youreallycan (talk) 02:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I've commented at BLPN. I don't think it's undue just because there are no charges yet. He's put himself out there in spades.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• There are no charges, nor will there likely be any, due to the alleged events having taken place prior to the (non-retroactive) extension of the statute of limitations. However, this means that the news media are putting all the more emphasis on Conlin's reaction toward the allegations. In that sense, the fact that he hasn't denied the allegations (as would have to be expected for any innocent person accused of such a crime) is very much relevant -- at least in the news media. I see no problem with us truthfully reporting on that, as long as great care is taken to ensure that opinions about facts are being reported as such, and not asserted to be factually accurate. --87.78.138.72 (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hm, thanks - in the UK time since an alleged offense is not an issue apart from as such they are inherently difficult to prosecute. So there will not be any charges.... So it's trial by media then is it. As for he didn't deny it, that is sticky ground indeed - this is not a WP;rs but imo the quote is reliable - Conlin denies the accusations, and his attorney said that though Conlin will not comment on the story published by Philadelphia Inquirer, but he will vigorously fight the claims. "Mr. Conlin is obviously floored by these allegations which supposedly happened 40 years ago. He's engaged me to do everything possible to bring the facts forward to vindicate his name,"said attorney George Bochetto. - Dec 23 2011 - It appears he is denying the allegations now. - Conlin has denied the allegations.espn.go.com 22 Dec - Youreallycan (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think my main point was that whether or not he denies the allegations or whether or not he is or will be charged and/or sentenced is largely irrelevant for us in terms of WP:DUE. Allegations have been raised, and the news media are reporting on those allegations, and we have to give due weight to the relative prominence of these reports. And yes, determining a valid balance between the current media emphasis on recent events and the man's life and career is very much a BLP issue. But whether or not he denies the allegations, or whether or not charges are filed etc. is of very minor significance for the relative prominence of the news item, and thus for our determining due weight. The only aspect where matters of allegations/denying the allegations/charges/prosecution comes into play for us is accuracy in our encyclopedic summary -- not relative weight. Accuracy and due weight, we should not carelessly mingle those two. --87.78.138.72 (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I think I agree. Regarding the statute of limitations in the USA, it seems unfair that the alleged victims waited till the time limit had expired so as to deprive the subjects opportunity of ever being proven innocent in a court of law. Youreallycan (talk) 00:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The statute of limitations expired five years after the alleged abuse took place. If the kids were 12 when it happened, it means they would have had tell authorities when they were still minors. At the time of the alleged assaults, New Jersey law required that victims notify law enforcement within five years of an incident for a case to be prosecuted. So Gloucester County prosecutors told them there was nothing they could do. http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20111220_Four_say_Philly_Daily_News_writer_Bill_Conlin_sexually_abused_them_as_children.html Patken4 (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not in the habit of discussing my own private opinions on Wikipedia article talk pages. Please take care to avoid letting your personal opinions get in the way of your editing. Just saying, since you (encyclopedically correct, I might add) curbed some of the recentist material, yet I hope you didn't do it because you felt compelled to "defend" the subject of the article. We should never let our personal opinions guide our editing, and in areas where we find we cannot help it, we should refrain from editing those articles. --213.196.194.45 (talk) 01:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

My only interest in these dated allegations is in regard to weight. - There cannot be any charges, so this person is legally innocent, in fact it's worse than that, he is completely uncharged. The rest is trial by media. As such this is the article of a living person and imo as per Wikipedia:CRIME#CRIM - we need to consider that in regards to what we report. Especially, "Note: A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to ... including material suggesting that any named person has committed a crime in any article, when no conviction is yet secured. Youreallycan (talk) 16:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not it is "trial by media" is entirely irrelevant to us -- unless secondary sources specifically discuss this case in that context. The same goes for "legally innocent" etc. Entirely irrelevant unless and until specifically discussed in secondary sources. we need to consider that in regards to what we report -- No, absolutely not. So it is as I guessed, you're here on a "mission" to "defend" the article subject from "unjust" treatment. In that case, please recuse yourself from any further edits to the article. --213.196.210.1 (talk) 10:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I won't recuse myself at all. I will continue to quote policy and keep this article as policy compliant as possible. Youreallycan (talk) 12:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard thread

• - Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Bill Conlin

There is a thread about this BLP at the noticeboard. As necessary, please raise any disputed issues there, thanks - Youreallycan (talk) 03:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Date of Death

According to a Philadelphia source, he died on Wednesday January 8, 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.34.211 (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bill Conlin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110708014058/http://www.blitzcorner.com/MLB/The-time-Bill-Conlin-didnt-give-his-Hall-vote-to-Nolan-Ryan to http://www.blitzcorner.com/MLB/The-time-Bill-Conlin-didnt-give-his-Hall-vote-to-Nolan-Ryan

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)