Talk:Chris Heimerdinger/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Praise

I think that chris should make several movies over all ten of his "tennis shoes",stories.They would be great movies! So chris if you ever read this I think you should make some movies! I think I woul dbe speaking for all (LDS) readers!I would also enjoy it if you would keep going with the tennis shoes series!Great job so far! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.58.148.2 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 15 February 2007

Hey I totally agree with whoever left that comment. I have been reading those books since i was a little kid and the whole time I was thinking wow these would make awesome feature length movies. If you do ever read this Chris I think your books are absolutely amazing. It's good to know that our church can actually have a serious writer who produces serious books that anybody could enjoy. Our church doens't neccessarily have to be limited to study guide type books. WE RULE!! Keep at it Chris, if i don't find out what happens in the 11th book i'm gonna absolutely die!!!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.64.178 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 4 July 2007

I agree as well. I am not a member of the LDS church, but I still enjoy them. He is most defenantly my favourite auther. He deserves his own page, no question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.182.39 (talk) 02:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge

Tennis Shoes Adventure Series should be merged into Chris Heimerdinger, as there is a great deal of overlap in the material covered, and a separate article on the series is not really all that useful (a redirect to Chris Heimerdinger should be sufficient). -- 12.106.111.10 20:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a merge would work well in this instance. There is really no reason to have a separate article for Tennis Shoes Adventure Series. –SESmith 23:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Seperate Subject

I think that this should remain a seperate subject as long as there is a link to it from the Chris Heimerdinger subject. The tennis shoes series is the greatest thing since sliced bread!(74.68.57.241 22:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC))

I don't know if I can agree with the sliced-bread thing, but I do agree they are worthy of a separate article. In case this comes up again. 76.88.194.195 (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Sorry --- that was me. Thmazing (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute

To me, the Chris Heimerdinger reads like a personal advertisement for his books. There seems to be nothing that really merits his inclusion in this encyclopedia. Heimerdinger is only well-known among a portion of the Mormon community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J27c (talk • contribs) 16:21, 21 July 2007

Book Updates

I recently was privileged to be able to meet with Chris as promotion for his movie and he mentioned some projects he had been working on so I have been updating his lists, including The Revised Eddi Fantastic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.8.66.136 (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You know, it's really difficult to respond to someone not having a user name because there's no way to address them directly. However, this response is directed to whoever wrote the unsigned comment above. It is my understanding that Wikipedia frowns on material not verifiable. Word of mouth may not be enough. I know that there have been times when I've altered content on Wikipedia based on word of mouth, and it was reverted. What I'm trying to say here (and saying very poorly) is that my understanding is that unless there is a source for additional changes/information, and unless that source is verifiable (as in an encyclopedia or article or website, etc.) information should not be included. For that reason alone, I am reverting the changes to reflect what was last officially announced. An official statement that can be authenticated as coming directly from Chris would be enough to convince me that this is actually the case. But word of mouth, yours, mine, or anyone else's, may not be enough. The changes will be reverted to reflect last OFFICIAL information. If I am in error on this, please let me know. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable 03:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I thought I was logged in. I will be willing to get an email and try to get some more official information from him but he is currently traveling to promote the movie so it might be little while. I also added a picture of him that I obtained, to the page. I hadn't heard he was planing a second book in the passage series so I don't know why its there. But every thing I have post here would be backed by Chris himself too. [User:Lostinbrave|Lostinbrave]] 04:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR and WP:BLP concerns

There is a bunch of information in this article that I can't find anywhere in the cited references or external links. The vast majority of the personal and family information — parents, children names, etc. — I can't find in a source. I can find some of the stuff about his early life in sources, but not all of it. I can't help but think that maybe some of this material is a result of original research. Sometimes it sounds like it was written by a publicist, or at least someone who knows him. I don't want to place tags on all the problematic WP:OR stuff or delete it until I give editors a chance to respond and maybe show me what I'm missing in the sources. Because the person is living, I'm afraid WP:BLP suggests that we delete the personal information that can't be found in sources. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Good Ol’factory, your concerns are understandable. However, let me explain something to you that you don't understand. Most of the changes made before you performed clean-up on this article were made by the user with the IP address 98.202.23.178. Without going into detail, I need to say that the user with this IP address is Chris himself. Most of the content as it stood before you cleaned up the article was either put in by or authorized by Chris. If you go to previous edits of this talk page, you would come across comments of his left in response to edits by me. The long and the short of it is, if the one (Chris) who the article is about put the information in, it should technically remain there. At least, that's my understanding of WP policy on articles about living persons to which they themselves contribute. If I am in error, please let me know. Of course there would be some degree of WP:OR in this article, because a person can hardly contribute personal facts to an article about himself WITHOUT it being OR. However, in the previous conversation I had with him on this page, which you can see if you go back to it in the archives, Chris respectfully requested that the changes he made be allowed to stand, and I think that since this article IS about him, it should be WP's duty to honor his respectfully stated wishes. He specifically requested that the information pertaining to his marriage be omitted, not just because of the legal troubles he was going through (which, by the way, have been misrepresented by the media) but also out of respect to his ex-wife. I will let you read his comments on your own and decide for yourself what effect, if any, they should have on the material presented in this article. Suffice it in closing for me to say that Chris has asked me, as one of his fans, but more importantly, as a WP editor and his friend, to "police" this page, monitor edits about it, and try to keep it within WP guidelines while also making sure his wishes are honored, and I intend to do so. I may thus be guilty of a conflict of interest; however, I don't feel that my contribution to Church-related pages is a conflict of interest between my Church membership and my position as a WP editor. The same goes for Chris's page. I think we can stick to WP guidelines without dishonoring his wishes. With that said, I'll leave you to study his previously stated request on earlier versions of this talk page. Thanks for raising the question, and I hope I've answered it. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I wasn't aware that it was the subject who made these additions, though I gathered from some of the edit comments that he had somehow made requests about the article. I know on WP we take a fairly tolerant attitude towards subjects of articles removing material from the article about them, as discussed here, but I don't think the same tolerant attitude exists for additions made by the subject. A WP article is not the same as a promotional site, nor it a place where the subject of the article can create autobiographical information. You're absolutely correct that "a person can hardly contribute personal facts to an article about himself WITHOUT it being OR". And that's a huge problem. There is no exception to the WP:OR rule that I am aware of that says if the subject of the article contributes the material it is OK. Of course, it decreases if not eliminates the WP:BLP/libel issues, but I still think the basic of WP's commitment to using verifiable sources only stands. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, which outlines many of these problems. I don't think we have any option but to delete the unsourced material.

As for the WP:COI issue, monitoring a page for the subject of the article who is a friend is definitely not something that I would be comfortable doing as a WP editor dedicated to neutrality; see this section on "close relationships" as an example. However, I think everyone needs to assess and sort out for themselves their conflicts and their interests and the relationship between them. In any case, having a conflict of interest in editing is strongly discouraged. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Therefore, since one of Chris's requests was for the information about his wife to be removed, I would suggest doing so, to avoid, as he said, embarrassment that might come to his wife because of the situation as it now stands. I understand what you said. I therefore concur that the removal of uncited or unsourced material is a good idea, and I will take the time to let Chris know about that.

I also hereby promise to you and to any other editors that may read this that I will remain neutral on this issue. While I cannot and will not ignore Chris's wishes expressed to me as a friend, nor can I or will allow my friendship with Chris to affect the way I edit this article. Chris's request for me to "police" this page referred only to making sure that unsourced or inaccurate information doesn't get into the article. Nowhere does he limit me to not concurring with edits done by other editors or following WP policy. So, I feel that there is no more conflict of interest for me on this issue than there is on ANY of the LDS pages to which I have contributed or which I have edited. When the consensus rules according to WP policy, I will stand by and uphold that, even to Chris himself if necessary. However, I don't see that any of Chris's requests would created a problem according to WP policy. Therefore, I think I am on safe ground. If there is ever a point where a COI does arise, I will probably step away from further editing or watching of this article, and explain the situation to Chris so he understands. For now, though, I will continue to keep an eye on this page and make edits that I feel will follow WP policy and honor Chris's respectful requests. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with deleting the wife's name. The only reason I included it was because it was included in the cited material. I've made that change. I'm also fine with simply putting an "original research" tag on the article for now. If it stays for awhile without any significant additions in referencing, then the problematic material can be deleted by someone. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Chris Heimerdinger has authorized me to speak/edit for him

To Whom It May Concern: Chris Heimerdinger recently contacted me about some concerns he had about edits made to this page. He knows that I am a WP editor and has asked me to represent him in edits to this page. In doing this, he is not asking me to violate WP policy, but is asking me as one of his fans and friends who is somewhat aware of WP policy to make sure that edits made to this page are in conformity to WP policy but also follow his expressed wishes to me pertaining to the content of this page. I know that this is somewhat irregular, and that my neutrality may be questioned on this. However, as I have said before, I believe that Chris's respectful wishes can be honored while still having this page and changes made to it follow WP policy. Chris has asked that I post with this message notification from him verifying what I have just told you. He said: "I am authorizing [Jgstokes] to represent statements that I have added to my page on Wikipedia. I'm not entirely pleased with some of the editorial decisions that have been made, especially with regard to links or information that may have been deleted considering that I worked hard to provide the page with biographical info not found anywhere else, info exclusive to Wikipedia that I've never written before. I believe James will represent my contributions in this way. I believe I can communicate to him in such a way that will help the page to remain neutral as far as the facts and remain focused on the most critical info appropriate to the page. Any information not yet sourced should be verified by James and indicate that such was provided directly by me. You can email me at any time to confirm this authorization. Until such time that this arrangement somehow compromises the integrity of the page, I am satisified with it. Eventually I may fill out whatever forms are necessary to become an editor on Wikipedia, but my time is limited, so I like the idea of third party watching the page." As you can see, Chris has no questions about my neutrality; that is: my ability to represent his interests but still follow WP policy. In the event that I find that I can no longer do both, I will so indicate to Chris and step down from watching/editing this page. Chris has asked me to advise those with questions pertaining to this authorization or what he has asked me to do that they can e-mail him at cheimerdinger@gmail.com or get in touch with him through me. He has indicated that at some future point, he would like to become a registered WP user and thus be able to edit/change the page himself, but until that time, he has asked that I keep an eye on the page and take any questions relating to information he would like added or deleted to him. In the meantime, anyone here can feel free to contact him at the e-mail address listed above. I'm not sure I'm fully comfortable with what he's asked me to do, but I'm flattered that he feels I can follow WP policy but represent his interests. Any questions for me or for Chris about this matter? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 03:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Chris needs to understand that WP is not the place to provide "biographical info not found anywhere else, info exclusive to Wikipedia". WP reports on what has appeared in verifiable, third-party sources. If he's interested in putting information on the internet about himself that he himself has authored, he needs to know that WP is not that place. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Response to User:Jgstokes inquiry

In response to this inquiry by User:jgstokes, I provide the following (it was requested that it be placed here as opposed to my talk page):

Original research (OR) is original research no matter who is providing it. If a person includes information about himself in an article about himself and that information is not found in any cited sources, then it is OR. The first line of the policy on OR says "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought." Later is says "to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." In other words, any information that is included in the article needs to be found in sources that are cited. Right now, there is information which I cannot locate in any of the listed sources, which is why I have attached an OR tag to the article. After a period of time, I will go through and delete anything that is still not cited. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As I explained to you in the comment on your talk page that started all of this, I believe a lot of the unsourced information can be found in any/all of the "About the Author" pages for his books. I understand where you're coming from, and have recommended to Chris that the unsourced material be sourced. Would that eliminate the problem? At the same time, I believe that if we allow ourselves to here on WP, we can carry a technicality too far. I believe that adding sources for the unsourced material (which should be fairly easy to do) will eliminate this problem. Please let me know if this is not the case, and we can then work something else out. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SOURCES and WP:SPS for what constitutes a good source for WP. I don't think any of this amounts to "technicalities". On the contrary, the three bedrock content policies of WP are Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability. This is a problem with OR, and the sources issue goes to verifiability. WP is concerned with verifiability, not truth, as that policy points out. We're not worried about the truth of Chris Heimerdinger and his life — we're concerned with presenting information that can be verified by third-party sources. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

So, under that regulation, would the "About the Author" page(s) of his book(s) be an acceptable source to use for verifiability? All of this information and more is contained in those pages. Btw, Chris has told me he has no problem with the "This article may contain original research or unverified claims" tag remaining until his website is up. Then we can use the website for a reference of the currently "unverified" claims. I think I understand what you said about third-party sources. In any event, I'm okay with the above-mentioned tag remaining until we get a proper third-party source for the information. In the meantime, sorry if I seemed to be a pest about this. My understanding of WP policy has been greatly enhanced by your responses, and I thank you for them. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say (and this is really just a guess or my best judgment, since I don't know for sure) that an "about the author" page on a book would be an OK third-party source, unless it is a self-published book (i.e. not printed by an independent book publisher, but he's not in this situation). It's still not a "true" third-party source, which ideally should have no connection to the author. In my opinion, "about the author" pages would be better sources than his own webpage, since a webpage is definitely "self-published" and an "about the author" page has one level of "third-party-ness" in that it is published by an independent company. If the information could be cited to "about the author" pages of books, then I think that would suffice as a reference until something better can be had.

And no problem about your "peskiness" — learning the policies and interacting with others is an important part of WP, in my opinion, so I'm happy to do so with you and I'm glad you can understand where I'm coming from. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

frostcave.com and the over zealousness of jgstokes

jgstokes, you seem to be a little gun shy. I looked at the site www.frostcave.com that someone else posted and it seems to me to say "The Official Website of Chris Heimerdinger" just under the title.

I know you claim that Chris has given you permission to "speak for him" but it also seems like you don't keep in contact with him. I received an email from him that pointed me to Frostcave.com as I am assuming the other posted did as well. In part the email said "Also, in the next week or two we will release www.frostcave.com, which will become the new official website of Chris Heimerdinger. Again fans will be able to ask questions and enter our new forum."

Maybe before you undo someone's post you need to check to see if their post is invalid BEFORE undoing it.

I have gone through the history on this page and am amazed at how many times you and someone claiming to be Chris have fought over what should and should not be posted here. I wonder if you are being a little too zealous with your position as an editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.181.128 (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for expressing your concerns. However, you should know that during the time I and "someone claiming to be Chris have fought over what should and should not be posted here," I had no way of knowing that that other person was indeed Chris. Since learning that it was, I have been in frequent contact with him via e-mail working out the problems with this page. I have yet to hear what Chris has to say about my removal of the frostcave.com website. For now, I can tell you I know that that will be his site, but according to WP policy, sites not yet operational or used should not be included until they are operational or used. In short, until it's up and running, WP policy says that Chris's website address should not be included on the page. Since Chris has authorized me to speak/edit for him, I feel comfortable saying that he will likely abide by this policy as well. I leave this with you to reflect upon and consider. If you have any doubts about the authenticity of my authorization, contact Chris at the address listed in the topic discussing my authorization. Thank you. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

In WP:LINKSTOAVOID, it also says that we should avoid "links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services". I don't know what the primary purpose of this frostcave.com will be when it's up and running, but if it's primary purpose to to sell Heimerdinger's products, then it would probably be inappropriate to link to it, even if it is his "official site". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

He has a different site for his online store. While there may be a link to that online store on this page, the main purpose of the site will be to give accurate, up-to-date information on Chris and his books and to allow readers and fans of his books/movie to gather together and discuss his creative works and other things in a forum, ask Chris questions, post reviews on books/movies, and generally just enjoy themselves. However, the principal purpose will be to supply up-to-date and accurate information about Chris and his projects. That's what WILL make it acceptable to include as a source/external link, but only AFTER it's officially launched. About all it has as of now is a way to contact Chris. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

As you say, it would be best to just wait until it's a real site, then it can be added or not added. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

WPR

I'm concerned by Heimerdinger's apparent control over his own page, whether by himself or through an agent. This isn't unusual--I work on a lot of pages about LDS writers and they're rife with self-promotion. It's a big problem. But no other page seems as fully integrated into a living person's will. Yes, yes, yes, we seem to be 'obeying WP policy', but only inasmuch as it doesn't counteract the desired PR. Some of his legal difficulties, for instance, are significant in regards to his career and leaving them out strikes me as egregious. When I put them in, I cited references. I don't care if the stuff about his wife is included so much, but I consider the Michael Collins information notable and worthy of inclusion. If WP's policy is to avoid treading on toes, how are we going to maintain articles on, say, Jack Abramoff? Except in the most remarkable circumstances, I think that Heimerdinger and everyone else alive should let the collective wisdom of Wikipedia work through these things and keep their own mitts off. Have some faith in the masses. Thmazing (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Thmazing

It's true that the Mike Collins lawsuits may indeed be relevant for this page. However, it is also abundantly clear to those who are acquainted with Chris and know the entire story (like me) that the media is only telling the one side of the story. They haven't even attempted to get Chris's side of things, and they haven't bothered to make certain of the facts. For instance, the media have taken particular delight in the whole issue of his problems with his "estranged wife" but they didn't even bother to go to Chris to check if the details were correct, nor did they bother to check the court records, which clearly state that Chris was not sentenced to community service or instructed to go to anger management classes. Mike Collins has made a big deal out of publishing misinformation about Chris in order to disaffect those of his fans and friends from their fanship and friendship. I know. I was one who was in the middle of Chris and Mike when all this started. I also have the story straight from the horse's mouth...Chris told me his side of everything. However, he has chosen not to drag people's names through the mud, and therefore is not inclined to publish his side of the story. He explained it all to me. However, he asked me as one of his fans (but more importantly) as one of his friends to not tell anyone else what he told me in specific terms. Because of this, I cannot tell what he told me. But because I know the full story, I would be obligated to make sure that whatever information was included was accurate. The problem with all this is sourcing. There are plenty of sources for the media's side of things, but nothing that can be sourced to validate Chris's side of things. Since WP is supposed to be impartial, I don't think we in good conscience can publish one side of the story without publishing the other. And since the other isn't in the public domain, it's best not to mention it at all. Chris himself has made this request on WP in an earlier version of the talk page. You can read it there. For now, unless someone can figure out a way to tell both sides of the story, I don't think it would be fair to Chris or to the objective WP policy to publish one side of the story. Any further questions you have about this matter will have to be directed to Chris at the e-mail address listed under another subject on this talk page. In the meantime, I think you'll find after careful study that the material available isn't permissible to include under WP's many policies relating to accurate information. Most of the material contained herein has been submitted by Chris himself and is verifiable based on the "About the Author" pages of his book. However, no one contributing to this page has yet had the time or resources to source these statements, which can be verified. So, for now, I'd say just leave the page as is, unless you have other objections. After all, after careful earlier debates on these issues, the "collective wisdom" of WP elected not to include this information because only one side is in the public domain. And it would not be permissible under WP's policy to include information in an unbiased way if we only related one side of things. Clear as mud? Hope this has helped. Any further questions about why this information isn't permissible for inclusion will need to resolved through reviewal of WP's policies about biographies of living persons. Questions about why Chris hasn't told his side of the story will need to be directed to him. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Jgstokes, WP is not about truth, it's about verifiability. Even if an editor personally knows what he or she believes to be true, a good editor still does not include that in an article unless it's verifiable through independent and reliable sources. See WP:V. Anything that is verifiable can be included; anything that is not verifiable should not be. If the media is only reporting what you personally believe is one side of a two-sided story, really that's unfortunate, but as far as WP content goes it's tough tomatoes, I think. It doesn't violate WP:BLP if it's verifiable through independent and reliable sourcing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Your comments have been taken in the spirit they were intended. However, it's obvious that you're so busy focusing on countering my "one-side-of-the-story" claim that you have overlooked what else I said. I quote myself: "I think you'll find after careful study that the material available isn't permissible to include under WP's many policies relating to accurate information...After careful earlier debates on these issues, the 'collective wisdom' of WP elected not to include this information because only one side is in the public domain. And it would not be permissible under WP's policy to include information in an unbiased way if we only related one side of things." It seems whenever I make an objection about proposed or existing contents of articles on subjects I feel strongly about, someone is always ready with a "it's permissible for inclusion based on a such-and-such WP policy." Well, what about those policies that prevent the publication of information that has not been verified? You say that information is verifiable if it's in the public domain, but what about WP's policies pertaining to accurate information? I think you'll find after careful study that there's quite a few WP policies that would be violated by inclusion of this information, particularly those policies relating to slander, gossip, misinformation, and what should be done if only one side of the story is told. I can guarantee that if we were on opposite sides of this issue and I were proposing adding this material that someone would throw a WP policy in my face that would prove why it was not permissible for inclusion. I agree that the subject of truth had a lot to do with my first post. I had temporarily forgotten that WP doesn't care what kind of "dirt" they print about people. If it's verifiable, particularly if it is sensational in nature, in it can go without a moment's pause. Well, you'll pardon me if I don't just stand still and let it happen. Unlike WP or the editors so stringent in following its policies, I DO have a strong sense of integrity and morality, and that has a profound effect on the way I view issues relating to articles I feel strongly about. It's good to be reminded that WP has no journalistic integrity and doesn't care about following its own policies. Thanks for the reminder. If my taking a moral stand based on the values of journalistic integrity I possess makes my viewpoint less valid, then I suppose I can accept that. I should have remembered that WP has little or no concern about the feelings of individuals who might be affected by malicious and deliberate attempts to paint them black in the eyes of the public. I thank you for the reminder. If it's really true that WP has no such concern, then I (as a WP editor) must concur that such material is permissible for inclusion. However, it goes against my better judgement to do so, and I don't think the encyclopedic content of this article would be damaged any more than it already has been by leaving the material out. Do what you will, then. As for me, I will continue to strenuously and vehemently object to any material I feel has no place in this article based on WP policy. Good luck to the editor bold enough to attempt the inclusion of such material. At some point, I'm sure, Chris's side of things will have to be told. And then after those reading this WP article about him, the average person will realize that all you've said about WP is true, in which case, they might conclude that WP is not the best place to come for accurate information. That could potentially cause a whole bunch of problems. But, as you say, WP policy is WP policy, and who am I as a person with morals and some degree of journalistic integrity to challenge it? Sorry if this sounds unduly bitter, caustic, or sarcastic. But I've only just now realized exactly what WP stands for according to all I've been told. I will continue to edit and follow WP policies to the best of my ability, but don't expect me to stand still when a grave injustice is being done to a subject I feel strongly about. I want to be able to look at myself in the mirror without shame, and I cannot in good conscience condone the inclusion of material I know to be false. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion about who the author of this article is. Is it written by Wikipedians in general or not? If it's written by just one person, maybe it should have a byline. I don't mean to be disagreeable, but if it's every editor versus just one editor, maybe the one editor should consider himself outvoted? (Note: I do find your arguments valid, Jgstokes, but I don't think this portion of the Chris Heimerdinger story should be left out. We can be careful to note if all the sources came from one side of the story, but we shouldn't just forget about it.) Thmazing (talk) 10:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)Thmazing

If you find my "arguments" valid, then why not leave it at that? There doesn't seem to be a neutral source for information relating to this issue. It seems in most WP articles that if criticism or controversy is described about any given person that there's usually a source that either contradicts or neutralizes the information that is included as well. I don't think it would be very objective of WP to print just one side of the story, even if it is considered verifiable by WP standards. I'm not the only one who has raised objections about including this information. If you go back to previous versions of this talk page, you'll find the matter was discussed thorougly, and that it was other factors besides just objections about the truth of the material that caused it to be rejected for inclusion in the past. I'm not going to rehash that discussion, but I will refer you to it for a more full treatment as to why it was previously decided not to include this information. Perhaps then you will better understand (and perhaps even agree with) what I've said, which will close the issue anyways. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because I find your arguments valid does not mean that I don't find the counterarguments to have at least as much validity. And I don't understand why the newspapers I cited were so grossly lacking in neutrality. This is too important a part of the Chris Heimerdnger story to just leave untouched.Thmazing (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thmazing, for convenience and to help all of us assess the situation, why don't you place the article citations here on the talk page? I don't think I was around for the previous discussion referred to so I am a bit clueless on what was discussed, etc., and your posting the citations here would help me and anyone else who is new to the discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I would find that immensely helpful as well. I believe I have enough understanding of the situation as Chris explained it to me that I could easily counter the information contained therein. Granted, I would have no source for such counterinformation, but it would be better than going back and forth on this issue. I will also be checking to see how much latitude I have as far as my permission to reveal the truth about what Chris has told me. If he gives me leave to do so, I can give you the half of the story the media is either conveniently omitting, ignoring, or not bothering to obtain. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless Heimerdinger is willing to publish that information somewhere, frankly I don't care. It's great that he's calling this the high road, but if he doesn't want to tell his side publicly, he'll have to accept that he's let go of the opportunity to have the other side of the story rebutted. I don't see how he can have it both ways. I'm not out to get him, but I do think this is too big a deal to ignore. If he really wants "balance," he needs to tell his side so we can cite it. That's how things work. Thmazing (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695260348,00.html "LDS author weaving a legal web" by Sara Israelsen-Hartley, Deseret Morning News is how the ref appeared. I guess it was only one. Memory is such a fallible thing. Thmazing (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

And the plot thickens! The MC under discussion tracked me down online (it's not very hard to do) and emailed me. Fortunately, he did not ask me to be his lackey or to push his side of the story, but he did give me two additional links worth mentioning: http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650208835,00.html and http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=663394. Being found guilty ceases to be baseless accusation and allegation and hearsay. I think we might have been better off taking my original proposal if PR and not WP is our goal. As WP *is* our goal however, what shall we do? I'm willing to let someone else write this portion of the article if I seem to be compromised now. (In additional news, I did change the film portion of his article today. I don't think it's controversial, but I feel like I ought to note anything I do, now.) Thmazing (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel like you ought to note everything you do now. That was in no way my intention. And I understand what you said about "balance." But in this case, there's more to it than that. Chris and I have contacted each other back and forth, and each time I suggest that he consider revealing his side of the story, he always says that he doesn't want to treat people the same way they've treated him, and that he'd rather not reveal his side of the story to the public to prevent embarrassment, ridicule, or ostracizement from happening to those who have turned against him.

I don't understand what you mean by "the MC under discussion," unless you're referring to Chris. And if you are, I would assume that he sent you links to these articles to prove how the media can twist things.

I am not, as you have suggested, a "lackey" of Chris Heimerdinger. I am perfectly free to have and voice my own opinion on this matter. However, because I am acquainted with ALL the facts of the matter, I feel obligated as Chris's friend and a WP editor to object to any material I know to be inaccurate.

In addition, I feel that we can stretch the whole "include it if it's verifiable" to a point. Chris recently wrote to me regarding his feelings about this. I reproduce his comments here in the absence of actual commentary from him on this talk page.

"Do these folks also want to list my speeding tickets? Do they want to list any detentions in school or conflicts I had with publishers and folks who wanted to misuse some of my copyrighted works? Should it list my Church callings? Should it go over the various hearings and conflicts of my divorce? It just isn't pertinent and it doesn't offer any kind of balanced summary of my career, which is, I assume, the reason I ought to be listed on WP in the first place. I've spent 20 years writing books, and two years in a lawsuit that really doesn't have any bearing on my creative works or career. And this editor, I have absolutely no doubt in my mind, is an advocate of gossip. Saying we are suppressing truth is bogus. Look at, say, the WP listing of Stephanie Meyer. It talks about her CAREER and the ramifications of her career. Personal information is brief. As it should be, unless, say, it directly inspired a book or another creative work, or led to her death. Yes, much of the info that I read from earlier was full of prejudiced and plain wrong information. But that's really not even the point anymore. Let the legal play out. If, say, I lost the rights of a book, well then, that would be news and ought to be listed. Otherwise, it's just not balanced." Parenthetically, I add that I do not share Chris's views about you. He for some reason got a wrong impression. I apologize for that. However, his point is well taken.

When Chris and I speak of balance, we are referring to making this information a prominent part of the article, or even the main body of it. It would be pointless to have a majority of the article be about two years of his life, and impertinent to have it discussed at great lengths. In what I say next, I don't mean to say that ideally, I consider Chris to be on the same plane as the General Authorities. What I have to say is this: There's a lot of criticism floating around about Church leaders. I've even accidentally stumbled across sites accusing prominent Church leaders of homosexuality, indecent exposure, and other things that are clearly ridiculous. If we include a substantial section about Chris's legal troubles, then in the same breath, I think we must also consent to include WHATEVER might be "verifiable" according to WP standards, in relation to Church leaders. Now, let me say straight up that I don't think it would be objective to do so. However, you will also note that NOT ONE of the Church leaders is bothering to counter the information, clarify what's actually happening, or correct false information. It's just not worth their time. And the same holds true for Chris. If there was a purpose behind countering the claims, other than just merely disproving them, then it would be done. However, if the ONLY purpose is to discredit their enemies, neither the Church leaders nor Chris will do that.

Now, let me just state something that WAS verifiable before Chris, through a court order obtained by Mike Collins, had to close down his site. He commented on the accusations against him. Among what he said was that there was no angry "breaking down" of the door, his wife wasn't even there at the time, and he was not sentenced to community service or anger management classes. He DID meet with a probation officer and a psychologist, and he even took a lie detector test. The result of all this was the conclusion by professionals working with him that the problem was not him, but his wife. The only reason he was "convicted" was because of a judge not interested in the truth, and a feminist prosecutor who took his wife's side. Ultimately, the proof is in the results. Currently, Chris has custody of all his children except the oldest (who is an adult in the eyes of the law). Would Chris have custody of his children if there was any reason to believe the accusations against him are true? All this was mentioned to me, and as long as I don't quote him directly on this, I am at liberty based on an earlier authorization to share it with you.

Just the discussion about the possible inclusion of this material takes up the lion's share of this talk page. I guess at the end of the day, if it must be included because it is verifiable according to WP standards, the thing to do would be to make it take up as little of the article as possible, with a disclaimer at the end of the section stating that the information, though "verifiable" may not be accurate.

However, I do try to keep an open mind, especially on subjects I feel strongly about, so I guess I would have to see a sample of what might be included before I form an opinion of it. However, since I do know other things about this issue that I am not at liberty to repeat, I would feel duty-bound because of who I am to object to anything I feel "goes overboard" on this issue. For now, let's see a sample. I promise not to pass judgement on it until I see it. And perhaps, with your permission, I could share the sample with Chris and see if he'd care to add/delete anything since he's the only one that really knows ALL the facts of the matter. However, if we really are to be "balanced," I would suggest leaving the material out altogether. I can't see that the page would be better with the material, and it certainly isn't bad without it.--Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 06:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutely no interest in the subject's take on his own page. I've often been surprised more subjects don't meddle with their articles, but in the end, this is NOT an authorized biography--it is a compendium of verifiable sources of significant information.

Your church-leader analogy is severely flawed. If one of them had been found guilty of a crime that you mention or documented photographically in a reputable newspaper, you had better believe it would be on their Wikipedia page, whether you or I like it or not. Wikipedia does NOT whitewash the known facts then tuck people into bed at night.

(Chris's statement above is silly on the surface. I do actually think some of his contract disputes with publishers are significant and if there were verifiable sources, I would write about them. But there aren't, so far as I know. So I won't. But speeding tickets? I appreciate you recognizing I'm not the hatemonger he's coloring me as.

(And when Stephanie Meyer gets dragged to court and found guilty of misdemeanors, then he can try making that particular comparison again as well.)

The simple fact is that Wikipedia CANNOT take anyone's word for anything. And frankly, I don't see how KSL simply noting the facts of his punishment (for example) can be called skewed and distorted and unfair. He made some mistakes. He should accept the fact that he can't keep that secret. And if Wikipedians feel it's important, it's apt to end up in his article.

My personal guiding principle is this: If I were doing some rudimentary research on this topic, would I feel like this piece of information would be vital to understanding it? In the case of the closed court cases, yes. Not the divorce, no, but the others. (And, incidentally, I really don't like the way the family portion of his article is written now.)

My last point is this notion that I'm trying to make the focal point of his article a single court case. Where did that notion come from? It seems to me a short paragraph will cover it. Two, three sentences.

I find this exchange frustrating because I'm not trying to do anything other than stick to one of WP's most vital principles: Is this a verifiable fact? If Heimerdinger doesn't want to tell his side of the story, that's fine--that's his choice. But he can't delete from the public record what is already out there. His motivations can be as lofty as protecting people or as low as trying to trick people into thinking he's lofty--doesn't matter; either way, his motivations are irrelevant. The facts are what have been published. That's the only standard for truth Wikipedia has and Heimerdinger needs to man up and accept that. 76.88.194.195 (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

(Sorry--that was me. Thmazing (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC))

YOU find this exchange frustrating? It seems like every time I make an objection based on WP's policies that prevent this kind of thing from happening that I get a totally contradictory WP policy thrown in my face. I appreciate the fact that you would keep this information brief, but I think even brevity would not do this situation justice when the inclusion of the material still constitutes a violation of WP policies about gossip, slander, and misinformation. It could prove very embarrassing to WP if this information were to be included only resulting in WP being subjected to a defamation suit launched by Heimerdinger. Let me make it clear that I am not threatening anything or anyone. Chris is already in the middle of several legal procedures stemming from the defamation published on an anti-Heimerdinger site and the misinformation about him in the news. If it's "verifiable" it's permissible for inclusion. That's WP policy. However, there seems to not be as many "rules" as I've been told. What about WP's policies about encyclopedic content (verifiable information that is ACCURATE, which this is not because it doesn't publish both sides of the story), neutral point of view (telling both sides of any issue, which it doesn't), and the code of conduct? These seem to be core values of WP, and I can see that some of what's been sourced is a direct violation of these policies. Again, I say that I'm trying to be neutral. I'm not going to state flat out that I object to a brief paragraph. I'd have to see it first. But I do reserve the right to object if I feel that WP's best purposes are not being served by the inclusion of whatever is included. Heimerdinger DOES NOT need to man up and accept that we publish facts. On the contrary, he understands WP policy. However, as it comprises a fairly small portion of his life, and since he is making attempts to have this defamatory information pulled from the public domain, it may be best to hold off and see what happens with that. Again, I say, let me see what you have in mind before you take issue with objections I haven't made yet. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

outside comment

I've never heard of this guy until ten minutes ago. There are two very strong Wikipedia principles involved here: WP:NPOV (neutral point of view) which includes WP:COI (conflicts of interest), and WP:BLP (biographies of living people) . According to NPOV, our information is based upon sources that can be verified, and this very definitely does not include personal communication from an author or his representative. This said, it was correctly stated that we do accept as a reliable source information about routine biographic facts given on a person's official website or similar material. Bookjacket copy is acceptable if there is nothing better, and if it is not controversial--the material is usually written not by the author but by the advertising department of the publisher based on material submitted by the author, and we accept the routine facts put forward if there's no reason otherwise. We do pay heed to the autrhors wishes to a certain extent, when expressed appropriately, but not if it interferes in any way with NPOV editing. The subject or his representative is welcome to comment on the talk page, but should not add any information to the article. We also discourage removing it themselves; However, we don't penalize people for doing either in good faith, and are, as mentioned, particularly tolerant about the removal of information that might compromise privacy. The correct procedure in other case is to state what is wanted to be added or removed here on the talk page, and let some uninvolved editor do it. If it's a serious privacy concern or outright libel, we have procedures for removing it by communications off-wiki. If material however negative can be verified in reliable published sources, though, we can normally use it--subject to BLP policy--see below.

The relevance of BLP is that Wikipedia does not include information of negative events in the life of someone, if irrelevant to the notability, even if the subject did not object to including it. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, but an encyclopedia. What gets included is a matter of editorial judgment, and varies with the importance of the individual and the nature of the event. Take just as an illustration drunk driving: we';d include it for a major politician, for voters care very much about such things & it's relevant to their political importance; we'd include it for a movie star, for everything about their life is accepted to be public; we ould not include it for most authors unless for some reason it developed into something really major. The question then is whether the domestic violence misdemeanor is relevant to the notability. Normally it would not be--it might be if it were a matter of a felony conviction, but this is not such , according to the sources. But this is a children's author, writing on religiously-associated themes in a conservative culture. His personal life in such respects might quite conceivably be regarded as important by his audience's parents. If it had been violence against children, I think it would have affected his reputation to such a degree that the story would be usable. This was not--children were involved only peripherally. Unless there is actual evidence that it has affected his reputation or sales, then I think it would be proper to admit it. But that's just my view. I will say that I am normally among those people here most reluctant to remove material at the request of a subject--and among those using a narrow application of BLP in general. But on balance, I think it holds here.

As to whether the newspaper account is accurate, that is not our concern. Its a responsible newspaper, and they reported it, and I suppose it's supported by the court record. Further, it was a conviction, not just an accusation or an arrest. If its though relevant, we can use it. It would help to have another independent account for material of this nature. What he may say in his own defense must be taken from published accounts in order to be used if the material is going to be included at all.

On the other hand, a dispute about whether a site is his official site or not, which has ben reported in public, is relevant content and of obvious importance for the readers. We can say what he thinks to be such site, but we must include challenges to that as given by good sources.

Now, some advice. Wikipedia people are quite bothered when anyone claims to have in any way official control over an article--with respect to the subject or otherwise. Nobody at all has the right to do so here, and it is unacceptable to assert it in such a way as to discourage other editors from using their judgment. Additionally, I remind everyone that BLP appears on a talk page also, though to a somewhat lesser degree of stringency, and it is not right to put material here that would be clearly unacceptable in an article. SAnd I strongly recommend to his defenders, that material on this page is public, subject only to that limitation, and they might want to use some discretion themselves. DGG (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur. When a religious-themed children's author is convicted of domestic violence involving his own children, it is very much relevant to his notability and his biography. It should be in the article. His copyright suit, not so much, just now, although that's worth keeping an eye on to see how it develops.Verklempt (talk) 05:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, David--I appreciate your guidance here.

As only three of us seem to be involved on this page right now, I think we should civilly decide what should be done and let Good Ol'factory have the last word. Thmazing (talk) 03:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Why thank you! Sorry for my tardiness and absence lately, but I've been on vacation. I read the comments in full and I have to say that I agree wholeheartedly with what DGG has set out above. I've made further comments about Thmazing's proposal in the appropriate section below. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Legal issues proposal

Please note that I've never entered code this way on a talk page before and may well be doing it incorrectly. Thanks.

===Legal issues=== Heimerdinger has been involved in a number of court cases in recent years. ====Criminal mischief==== In November 2006, a judge ordered Heimerdinger to pay $300, take a 16-week domestic-violence and anger-management class, and serve one year probation for an incident at his wife's home; they were separated at the time.<ref>{{cite news | title = Author of LDS Children's Books Sentenced for Misdemeanor | url = http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=663394 | publisher = [[KSL]] | accessdate = 2008-06-28 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news | title = Author of LDS fiction fined for misdemeanor | url = http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650208835,00.html | publisher = [[Deseret Morning News]] | accessdate = 2008-06-28 }}</ref> ====Copyright and defamation claims==== Heimerdinger also filed claims against Michael Collins, who had made a website for Heimerdinger. The suit claims that Collins is attempting to make claim to Heimerdinger's creative work. Heimerdinger also sued Collins and Heimerdinger's ex-wife regarding [http://chris.code911.com/|a website that chronicles his legal woes]. In regard to these suits, Heimerdinger's official website, the one made with Collins, was shut down by court order. Collins and Heimerdinger's ex-wife have made countersuit. All claims are still in the courts.<ref>{{cite news | title = LDS author weaving a legal web | url = http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695260348,00.html | publisher = [[Deseret Morning News]] | accessdate = 2008-06-28 }}</ref>

This is a rewrite trying to get the facts straight (as relayed in the sources). PLEASE someone else step in and take the wheel here. I'm sick of this and would love to let someone else drive. Thmazing (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Where is everybody? Just because I don't think you should run the show, Jgstokes, doesn't mean I don't value your input. Thmazing (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems as though jgstokes and Good Ol’factory have decided to not participate further in this discussion. See the jgstokes Talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.181.128 (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Terrific. Now I will likely be accused of horrible antiCH delinquencies.

Well, in light that I am now alone, I am adding the above as it now stands.

Thmazing (talk) 04:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"It seems as though jgstokes and Good Ol’factory have decided to not participate further in this discussion." Huh? As noted on my talk page, I've been on a vacation (and still am) and haven't checked this page for awhile. I think it's a bit presumptuous of the anonymous editor to decide that I have "decided not to participate further" based on my comments from some days ago on Jgstokes's talk page. My comments there were offered as words of advice of WP "coping strategies" to an editor who sought them out from me, and have no bearing on my decision whether or not to "participate" here.

I don't think your behaviour has been unacceptable or "antiCH", Thmazing. I actually think you have been reasonable in your approach and patient in willing to discuss things here first before simply adding the material again, which I think you would have been justified in doing, even if it would have been a bit brash, I suppose.

If anyone does care what I think, and I'm not suggesting anyone should, I think I agree entirely with what User:DGG set out in his long comment in the section above. Until Thmazing provided the reference, I didn't even know what the issue was about, much less have an opinion on it. After reading the articles, I agree that the information should be included in the WP page, and I think the draft above by Thmazing is good, and I support its inclusion in the article, which has just been implemented by Thmazing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I was already aware of the conversation you and Jgstokes had had and didn't interpret it to mean you had jumped ship. I wrote my reply to Anonymous before I reread the comments and thought maybe there had been more added. I do that sometimes. I really shouldn't.

I also agreed with DGG; his comments were the main reason I decided it was time to move forward.

Lastly, I hope you had a good vacation--oh, and thanks for fixing my formatting with the newspapers. Thmazing (talk) 04:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"It seems as though jgstokes and Good Ol’factory have decided to not participate further in this discussion." Whatever gave you that idea? In my case, I found myself getting a little frustrated over the apparent overlooking of my mention of WP's policies about gossip, slander, libel, and misinformation. In view of that fact, and because I had some personal projects piling up elsewhere, I deemed it necessary to step away from WP for a few days for a fresh perspective.

My position remains unchanged. I still maintain that the inclusion of material based on what the news reports in relation to Heimerdinger violates WP's policies on gossip, slander, libel, and misinformation. And that has absolutely nothing to do with my friendship with Chris or his request about my speaking/editing for him on WP. Even if I didn't know him at all but had heard Chris's side of the story from someone else, I would still consider it my duty to object because I know the facts.

As the matter now stands, with the information having been included while I was absent from the discussion, I will say of it that it seems to be impartially well-written and well-sourced, for the sources that are available, but still seems overwhelmingly partial insofar as only one side of the story is included.

There are a few incorrect points, but as there is no verification for that fact, it's hardly worth mentioning. In my opinion, since there is only one side of the story in the public domain (interesting that news agencies never once bothered to get Heimerdinger's side of things), any inclusion of such material can hardly be impartial.

At the end of the day, if this material must be included, this appears to be a good way to include it. However, let the record show that I still object to the inclusion of this obviously one-sided material, and that legal action could be result of continued insistence to include it in any form. Again, I myself am not threatening a lawsuit in Chris's behalf. I have no right to do so. But I know that Chris is currently involved in a number of lawsuits related to gossip, slander, libel, and misinformation circulating about him in the public domain, and it would be a simple matter to add one more to that, if it became necessary, as indeed it might.

Again, my objections to this material have little or nothing to do with my relationship to Chris, and everything to do with following WP's policies. In my opinion, where one side only of the story is available, it seems to be a clear-cut violation of WP policies relating to gossip, slander, libel, and misinformation to include it. Only time will tell if/when Chris may choose to take legal action as a result of this material. I encourage us all to consider these facts as continual discussion occurs about this material. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia won't need to worry about a lawsuit. It wouldn't be tenable. Which is part of the reason WP has the policies it has. Thmazing 07:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thmazing (talk • contribs)

How can something be "gossip, slander, libel, or misinformation" if it's simply a report on a criminal conviction? The court's job is to hear both sides of the story and then to make a decision based on the evidence it hears. Then newspapers typically report the results as guilty or not guilty, and usually don't delve into "both sides" of the story save in the most prominent cases. I don't understand how this makes it gossip or any of the other things alleged. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 19:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Because the news didn't bother to do follow up on this story. There actually was no "criminal conviction." He did not pay a $300 fine, nor was he ordered to take domestic violence or anger management classes. He met with the probation officer only twice, and with a court-appointed psychologist a few times. That psychologist determined that things were not as they had been portrayed in court. He took not just one, but several, lie detector tests, and it was proved conclusively from those that he was telling the truth. The media hasn't bothered to check the facts or to follow up on the truth of what was previously reported. Therefore, even if this information IS verifiable, because there is more to the story that COULD be verified if the media bothered to do it, it's still gossip, slander, libel, and misinformation. Again, I refer back to the earlier example of Church leaders. The accusations leveled against them are verifiable in the sense that there are websites about such accusations. Even though the Church leaders haven't publicly denied such allegations, they are not true. And including such "verifiable" information about such material is counterproductive to WP purposes. The same holds true for the information about Heimerdinger. It could be potentially embarrassing for this information to go public, because after the true facts of the matter come to light (as they gradually have been and will continue to do so) then all those who base information on inaccurate sources will have to retract such information, including, but not limited to news stories and encyclopedic articles such as this. Further research would reveal that only half the story has been told, and subsequent court rulings have completed exonerated Heimerdinger. For that reason, any mention of the previous court rulings, which have now been overturned, constitutes defamation. Not to mention, as before stated, gossip, slander, libel, and misinformation. Whether or not a defamation lawsuit against WP would be successful is irrelevant. I've merely been asked to respectfully mention the possibility of such a lawsuit. And further research would definitely overturn the material contained herein. This deserves at least some further consideration. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

What is your evidence that the conviction was overturned? If verifiable, it should be included. It's surely not the lie detector tests, because those are not admissible in court.Verklempt (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm skeptical about the argument that it is defamation to mention or cite a superceded court decision. That happens all the time — newspapers tend to report on convictions but often do not print updates if the decision is changed on appeal, etc., and mentioning the old aricle or the newspaper not following up is never considered defamation, nor is it actionable. It's part of the whole free-press idea, that newspapers can pick and choose which stories to print, even if they aren't printing the "whole story" of any particular situation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Chris himself told me that the conviction was overturned and that this was a matter of record. I have asked him for the location of the proof behind that claim, and expect to hear back from him on that soon. As far as the defamation thing goes, all I know is that mention has been made of possible legal action in relation to this matter. What exactly that course will be has not been confided to me. I don't know for sure what will be/has been done legally about this problem. All I know is that the last I heard, he was considering doing something. More than that, I can't say because I don't know. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It would hardly be objective rehashing material based on an event that happened long ago. It's past history. The only things that MIGHT merit inclusion are the lawsuits Heimerdinger is currently involved in, and even THAT is inadmissible because it's not verifiable. It seemed the media stopped paying attention to this matter after Heimerdinger's "conviction." They can't be bothered about follow-up stories that would totally contradict previously laid out facts. This too should also merit consideration as there is continued insistence about including this material. And to include this material also constitutes a violation of the WP policy on accurate information. Only those who have no respect at all for Chris or his work would insist on the continued inclusion of this material. As a matter of fact, such attitudes indicate a strong bias against Chris, which is a violation of another WP policy.--Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 00:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

OJ Simpson was acquitted of the criminal charges against him. Does that mean they should not be in his bio? In general, people's run-ins with the law should be part of their bio, if that is some part of their notability. If reported in the media, then such issues do go to notability, and should stay in.Verklempt (talk) 08:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I would only add that "past history" is what an encyclopedia is all about. For living people, an encyclopedia article is not a promotional webpage that says only good things about them. It's supposed to be a fairly balanced and comprehensive account of the significant events/things in their lives or careers, whether current or past. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 17:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

And I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding you, but is he threatening Wikipedia if the editors don't do what he wants? Not to be snide, but that doesn't work well for your Church-leaders analogy. I just can't figure out why he's still so upset about this, still filing lawsuit after lawsuit about this. I have to worry he's being taken for a ride by a lawyer. Libel (etc) cases are notoriously hard to win and the better known someone is, the closer it get to impossible to win. There is nothing online that I know of that would even have much of a shot of making it to trial, let along winning. It's seems more vindictive than practicable from where I'm standing. I just find this whole thing mystifying. If the argument's over, why keep arguing it? Can't we just put this thing to bed? I, at least, am going to try really hard not to comment on this topic anymore. But before that, thanks to everyone who participated in this conversation. I know it made me think about BLP issue on WP much more closely than I had before. Thmazing (talk) 05:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Since when is it "balanced" to print only one side of the story? Last I heard, if there are two sides to a story, the only way to be "balanced" is to print both. To print only one side of the story, especially when both sides are verifiable with a little research (other court records being in the public domain if only certain editors took the trouble to look), does not show balance, it shows bias, which should not be happening on WP.

Chris is not "threatening" anything. He merely told me that if one side of the story was allowed to remain, he'd know what to do about it. The "argument" isn't over by a long shot. My points about gossip, slander, libel, and misinformation have been completely overlooked and cast aside as other editors continue to insist upon the inclusion of information that constitutes libel, slander, gossip, and misinformation.

We can't just put this whole thing "to bed." As a WP editor but also a friend of Heimerdinger who knows all the facts, I cannot in good conscience be silent while defamatory, one-sided information is encouraged in this article. I will freely admit that at one time, I felt as the rest of you do. As a matter of fact, in the previous discussion, I was the one wondering about including this information. But that was before I heard about how Chris felt about that, and, perhaps more importantly for WP purposes, before I did some further reading on WP policies that the inclusion of such information clearly violates. If you expect me to be silent with all that going on, think again. It's not so much that I refuse to be silent until my viewpoint is enforced as it is that as long as material that clearly violates WP policy is included, it is not only my right, but my duty to object. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Try a new argument. We've already shot down all of these. Take it back to the BLP page if you think you can make a case.Verklempt (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Jgstokes, the problem here is that there is no "clear violation" of any policy. True, in your opinion, it is a clear violation, but the opinions of a number of other editors have been canvassed and all of them are tending to agree that there is no violation. You can't therefore claim that there is an objective "clear violation" — rather, there is what you subjectively view as a clear violation. You can wage any quixotic battle or make any arguments you wish, but I think the point Thmazing was trying to emphasize here is that consensus, which is how WP makes decisions, has seemed to come down against your position, and for that reason he's hinting that further discussion here will probably be counterproductive. As he also points out, though, there are always other fora that you can take issues up in on WP if you are not satisfied with the consensus decision, but you need to be prepared to accept the decisions that will be made there, also by consensus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 19:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible Error

Indiana State University is not in Bloomington. That is the home of Indiana University. My guess is that there is an error here.Verklempt (talk) 05:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I moved this to the bottom so it won't get overlooked. Can you address this, Jg? Thmazing (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you're looking at me for an answer. After all, my "expertise" in speaking for Chris appears to be challenged at the moment. However, according to Chris, you are correct. That was a factual error he made when inserting the personal information about himself long ago. Yes, it is Indiana University, not Indiana State University, that is in Bloomington. And it was the former to which he meant to refer by the statement in question. Anyone who would like to is welcome to make that change. Hope that helps. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

98.202.23.178

Who is this person? Anyone else noticed these edits? Thmazing (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been told in the past that this is the IP address used by the subject of the article, Chris Heimerdinger himself. See here. As such, edits made by this IP address on this page should be assessed carefully, I should think. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This is indeed the IP addressed used by Chris Heimerdinger. I agree that a careful assessment of edits done by Chris is necessary. I would advocate leaving the edits as they now stand, but adding whatever tags you may feel are necessary. The tags recently added to this article would be a good idea. After all, if Chris added it, the information must be based on something he has knowledge of that is not generally known to the public. I realize this constitutes original research, however, I think that adding whatever tags that may be needed should take care of that. Then, if a long period of time goes by without additional information being added, the tags could be removed. Thoughts? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be better to remove the information than the tags. However, what would be *best* is if he could add citations. The court document information, or somesuch. Thmazing (talk) 03:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

These other court documents are not in the "public domain" as it is defined today ie verifiable by internet, but as Chris himself said, they can be found by editors with enough honesty and integrity to look. WHERE we might look, I don't know. But I do know they're out there. If the information about his original "conviction" can be included without any qualm from most editors, then any information overturning that decision ought to be included as well. Both are equally vaild, and the original information from both issues should be fairly easy to track down. If we fail to include the overturning, I feel we must in the same breath submit to the removal of the information about the original "conviction." Including one but not the other shows either a pro- or anti-Heimerdinger bias on our part, and such should not be the case on an objective encyclopedia like WP. In my opinion, it should be both or neither. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sigh.... All I'll say is that just because something is online is no reason it can't be cited by case number or whatever (I'm not sure what's WP-preferred). All government documents are public domain, whether they're online or not (or technically public or not). No one owns them, in other words. Chris suggesting I don't have honesty or integrity when it would be easiest for him to put in the citations is disingenuous. Other than that, this is nothing we haven't hashed through before. Let's not do it again. Thmazing (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: The "difference" between the two, of course (and to be clear), is that we can cite something. If our standard is court documents, let's have court documents. But when we don't have those for either, we're stuck with what we have: reports from reputable sources ie newspapers.

But I have to admit I'm a bit mystified how this came up again. I don't feel like I was doing him any dirt, I was just trying to keep the article clear and ask for sources.

I guess the thing to do, Jgstokes, is for you to go ahead and do this. It's obvious Chris just expects us to take his word (which we can't), but I imagine you could get the court citations and bring them to the article? Then he can be happy, you can be happy, I can be happy--Everyone can be happy! That seems like the best solution.

Until then, I don't think we can really suggest any removals or additions. Thmazing (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, if Chris put the citations in (as he did in the past), someone would then hit him with original research complaints. Chris wasn't suggesting the name of ANYONE in connection with what he said. I quote: "Info is not available on internet, but can be verified by researchers with enough honestly and responsibility not to depend entirely upon the internet for research. A rare quality indeed." What he WAS saying was that the court dockets may be in the public domain, but they are not on the internet. And just because something is not on the internet doesn't mean it doesn't exist. He was urging us to expand our horizons. He mentioned no names in particular in connection with this statement. If you feel that this statement is an affront to you, well, as they say, "only the hit bird flutters." I myself would presume to make no judgments about you, and neither would Chris. YOU, on the other hand, automatically assume that his words were directed at you, and stated that the assumptions you assumed he had were disingenuous. So what you were doing was interpreting what you thought he said as being aimed at you, when that was clearly not the case. Enough on that issue.

The court documents are available. I asked Chris once where they could be found in the event of just such an issue being raised again. Whether because he was busy dealing with other things, or whether the e-mail never got to him, or whether he decided to just drop the subject, I don't know. I could try to ask him again, but I make no promises. Chris still seems to be pretty upset (and rightly so) about the falsehoods that are being perpetuated in the public domain. I agree that a newspaper is what WP terms a "reputable source," however, the fact that there is more to this issue than they reported, and that they never did ANY follow-up about this story makes them biased by most other definitions except WP's definition. I'm not going to open up that one again, though.

Asking for sources is all well and good. That's our job as Wikipedians. However, there are WP policies preventing the inclusion of material which, though true, is not "verifiable." That's one thing I've continually beaten my head over. Every time the subject is brought up, I get another WP policy thrown in my face that "protects" information that is "verifiable" even though it may be slander, libel, and misinformation. THAT'S how the issue came up again. You challenged material added by Chris, which, though true, because it's unsourced, falls in the category of a violation of WP's policy on original research.

As nice and informative as WP is, it seems that the regulations do little or nothing to allow for the feelings of individuals who may be hurt by damaging material contained about them herein. It seems obvious that Chris is being singled out for this kind of mistreatment, because there are plenty of things floating around about other popular people (LDS Church leaders, for example), that, according to WP standards, are verifiable, even though they are untrue. None of those kinds of things are being included in corresponding WP articles, so it seems apparent therefrom that Chris is being unfairly singled out for this kind of "verifiable mud-slinging" treatment. It's a sad statement indeed that such a highly respected organization should have no regard whatsoever for the feelings of the individuals, or for the unwarranted taint on their reputations that come with the inclusion of such information.

Even if I got the court information, there would still likely be complaints about WP:OR, and it seems apparent that no matter what is said or done, there are NO WP policies whatsoever to protect Chris's reputation or his good name (what's left of it, that is, after the likes of Mike Collins and his kind have done all they could to taint it). Because I know EXACTLY what the outcome will be (based on past experiences of a similar kind relating to this same issue) I am reluctant to try to obtain the requested material. I will try, not because I enjoy having to defend a reputation that shouldn't have been tainted in the first place, but because I believe that the information about the judgment overturning belongs just as surely as everyone else maintains that the material about the original conviction belongs.

Just a word in conclusion: I'm sorry I opened my big mouth in the first place. If you go back far enough in the page history, you'll find that it was I who (reluctantly) suggested the inclusion of the information about his legal troubles. If I had kept my mouth shut to begin with, none of this would have happened, and Chris would be happy anyways. I'M to blame for the suggestion of its inclusion, but I had no idea that my doing so would spark a discussion that is still continuing today, nor did I have any idea that because of my stupid suggestion, biased and bigoted information would be permitted on WP. Perhaps that's why the protests to my objections since that time have been so strong. Since then, I have had a HUGE change of heart and mind frame. Where once I was reluctantly advocating its inclusion, now I am decidedly against just ONE side of the story being told. Silly me. I thought that when I made this reluctant suggestion, this information would be presented in a non-biased way, and that both sides of the story would be told. I'll never make this same mistake again. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! What brought that on?

For the record, I first included this information not knowing that it had been discussed before. (You'll notice those conversations have been removed from the current version of the talk page.) And when I happened by a few months later and saw that it had been erased by a friend of the subject's I was irritated. Wikipedia is not about protecting people's feelings. It's about presenting facts about notable subjects. Once someone becomes notable, the rules change. Alas. (It's the same under law, incidentally. Public figures versus private figures and so forth.)

But thank you for knowing what was going on inside Chris's head when I was apparently so so wrong. Lucky one of us can read minds!

And I don't know of any rule that says information has to be already available online to be eligible for citation within Wikipedia. I see books and whatnot cited with some regularity. Here in this very article, for instance.

I know you feel someone (you don't name any names so I can't guess who you're talking about) is out to get Chris. I don't know who that is and I share your anger. It's not appropriate for rapscallions to use Wikipedia for drive-by character assassination! I'm just glad we are able to have friendly conversations with each other without getting disagreeable.

Anyway, I hope sometime you'll check out my other contributions to Wikipedia and realize that I'm really not treating Chris any differently than anyone else. Here's my basic MO: when I happen across an interesting bit of information that I think should be part of a Wikipedia article (whether it be an LDS writer, a modern painter, a government program, an Elizabethan play, an opera singer, or moshing), I put it in. If the source was online, I cite that. If it was print or radio or something else, I try to find it online. If I do, I cite the online version. If not, I cite my original. I happened across the information about Chris in question, thought it was interesting and worth mention, and put it in (citation included). Just as I later added other information that apparently isn't prone to casual interpretation as meanspiritedness.

The point is: thank you for not misinterpreting my intentions and making me out as some sort of bad guy here. It's a relief to know there are still bastions of civility in this crazy old world of ours. Thmazing (talk) 03:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What brought all this on was past experience. Every time I have expressed the feeling of being strongly in favor of putting in information about the overturning, I have had one WP policy after another thrown in my face proving that such information was not permissible for inclusion. I have often been beating my head against the proverbial wall over the feeling of some WP editors that the overturning cannot be mentioned unless it is verifiable, particularly in light of the fact that the news agencies reporting on the original conviction never bothered to do a follow-up and check their facts. At those times, WP editors who spoke out against me for defending Chris informed me that if information about the overturning was not in the public domain, it was not permissible for inclusion as far as WP was concerned. Some of those same frustrations I’ve been feeling since the last time this issue was raised came to the surface all over again. I realize fully now that I misdirected my renewed anger and frustration at you, and I hope you can forgive me.

You are correct that this information has been discussed before. When I reluctantly brought the issue up originally, I realized that it was permissible for inclusion, but suggesting that BOTH sides of the story be told. I was firm in my resolve that I wouldn’t write this section because I knew I would not treat it "objectively" as per WP standards. But I made a resolve to keep a close eye on this article in general and this section in particular and to object to any material I felt not only violated WP policy, but would serve to taint Chris’s reputation in the eyes of all those who might read this page. Chris was alerted to the discussion somehow (not by me), and figured out that it was I that he had known and worked with on his website forums before. He expressed his wishes at that point, pointing out several errors that were in the section as it stood, and how such additions would violate WP policy as he understood it, then respectfully requested that the information be either trimmed down (since this issue was such a small portion of his life) and that information about future overturnings be included, or that the section as a whole be eliminated. I pledged then that I would see that his respectfully expressed wishes were honored as long as they didn’t violate WP’s policy. At his request, the topic was deleted from the talk page, but it can be seen by going back in the page’s history. Believe you me, you are not the first person to point out that WP is not about protecting people’s feelings but presenting verifiable facts about notable subject. That’s something else I’ve beaten my brains out about quite frequently: WP has little or no regard for the damaging effect of false material about a subject on the viewpoint of those who are curious about the subject. I’m glad to see that you don’t necessarily agree with that. Perhaps someday, if there are enough editors like us, the policies will change to have a certain unbiased degree of concern for the feelings of individuals. Your irritation in both cases is understandable and agreed with.

The only reason I "know what was going on inside Chris’s head" was because he and I have kept in pretty frequent contact with each other since I raised this whole issue in the beginning. It has little or nothing to do with my being able to "read minds". Indeed, I have no such ability, nor do I desire to have it. Chris is my friend, and as such, he has told me things about this issue that are verifiable but not widely known. Because of the potential that the leak of such information could prove to damage those who oppose Chris (which he has no desire to do) he has respectfully requested that I only make known what he authorizes me to about this matter. That has been the guiding principle in what I have said and done in relation to this section, and it will continue to be so. If I were not one of Chris’s good friends, but merely just one of his many fans, I very much doubt he would have told me all that I currently know about this. And, if we weren’t such good friends, I’m sure he would not even have given me permission to say one word about what he told me. It’s a sacred trust I don’t intend to violate, and that is in part why Chris has authorized me to speak/edit for him on WP, because I know more about WP policy than he does, and he has confidence in my ability to violate neither WP policy or my friendship with him. It has nothing to do with "mind reading" and everything to do with my being a good friend of Chris and knowing all the facts as he related them to me.

I understand what you said about WP’s verifiability standards, and I accept what you said to be the truth. I am also not aware of any such policy that forbids the inclusion of information in books and/or other records that aren’t on the internet. The reason I said what I did about that is because of previously pent-up frustration about some WP editors who commented on this issue earlier that made the absurd statement that if it wasn’t online, it wasn’t acceptable for WP purposes. Again, sorry for my misdirected frustration, and hope you can forgive me.

I have often felt as though a few individuals here on WP have no other agenda in relation to this article than anti-Chris bias. I won’t name names because I have found that doing so subjects me to a personal attack for calling them out for attacking Chris. I refuse to open that can of worms. I’m glad you share my anger about this. Again, my frustration lies in the fact that whatever I say in defense of Chris and in relation to including material about the "conviction" being overturned gets inevitably shot down by yet another "policy" that I was unaware of up to that point. I’m glad that you understand my intentions as being friendly, and I hope that I have done nothing in any way to make you think that my intentions are unfriendly.

I know that you are not treating Chris any differently than you have treated other issues you’ve contributed to. I wish to commend you for your great work on WP in the past and say that I hope to see that you keep up the great work in the future. I appreciate your integrity and hope that will continue as well. I fully agree with what you said about citations, both on and off line. I am grateful that you are committed to sourced material in all WP articles, and I am convinced that if we search hard enough and in the right places, we will find verification for the overturning information that I feel ought to be in there. However, you will note that I said "we" and not just "I." I have been a fairly good source for Heimerinformation in the past because of my friendship with Chris, and once I hear back from him about where to start to look for this material, the search will begin in earnest. In the same breath, though, I think that you as someone who has done such great source work in the past would be able to help out a great deal with finding this information as well. I don’t know where to look, but perhaps you might. Additionally, if I am the only one searching for this material, some editors would contend that this violates WP's original research policy. So, I plead for your help in finding this information, if time allows you to offer such help. I will do all I can through working and communicating with Chris about this, but I can’t find the information solely on my own. Any help you are able and willing to give would be greatly appreciated, as it would also protect me from OR violation allegations.

You are more than welcome for my not misinterpreting your intentions. I assure you that you are in no way the bad guy here. Chris knows that as well. Unfortunately, but perhaps understandably, Chris has been subjected to so much bigotry and bias, not to mention gossip, slander, libel, and misinformation floating about in the public domain, that he has started to get defensive about it. Again, that’s to be expected. You can only be pummeled so many times before you finally give in to the urge to fight back and counter-attack. I can only apologize profusely on Chris’s behalf and assure you that he didn’t mean it the way it sounded. Understandable and perhaps even excusable, but I’m sorry that you had to be the recipient of the anger he has tried so hard not to give in to. In general, Chris has been perhaps TOO civil about all this. You can only put so many holes in the dam before it breaks. Sorry for the cliches, and again accept my apologies on Chris’s behalf that you had to be the target of the dam breaking. Best wishes. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jg. Rest assured that if I find anything for the other side, I will certainly add it. Thmazing (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Query

Who is Thumper10 and why do they continue to remove changes that have been made over the last several months? Whoever this person is, they have removed almost all of the references several times. They have removed the sub titles and information that is based on the news reports. Whoever this is they have also removed almost everything that was added by thmazimg even though that information was discussed here on the talk page.

In going back throught the history of this article the actions of Thumper10 seem to match those of jgstokes and the subject, Chris Heimerdiner, himself. Could Thump10 be one of them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.168.82 (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. That's a very interesting question. Thmazing (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)