Talk:Charles Harrelson

Birth Year

In the first part of the article, 1937 and 1938 are mentioned. Which is true? 31.151.15.31 (talk) 08:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I have seen some records that say 1939, however! 2603:8081:7409:DB00:9440:342F:73E:5D73 (talk) 04:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

https://happyhappybirthday.net/en/age/charles-harrelson-person_yelseuq 2600:1702:46A8:D70:51F:D308:4EFD:1643 (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Untitled

The question of fact about Jimmy and Joe Chagra falsely discussing Harrelson's involvement in the assasination of Wood is one of personal knowledge. Chagra is a friend of mine and told me this personally. I don't know if I can put this as a primary source but it doesn't get much more primary than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Politicalmerc (talk • contribs)

My primary concern about this is that Chagra has nothing to lose, nor does he have anything to gain. As a result, I'm not too convinced that Chagra is telling the truth now, especially since he lied in the first place.

He has never identified the so-called deceased hitman, yet one would think that since nothing can be done at this point, that name would be freely given. I would classify the basis of this whole comment as "Dis-information". It is not my intention to say that you don't know what was said, merely that what was said by Chagra is highly questionable and, while it provides interesting background reading material, it does nothing to prove or disprove Harrelson's involvement. Bad guys typically lie to conceal truth, and I don't believe this is any exception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.149.105.162 (talk • contribs)

Kennedy

The whole paragraph on the Kennedy assasination needs to be rewritten. It doesn't make sense, and it has nothing to do with Harrelson except the first sentence. For example: "Some think he was one of the three tramps photographed after being arrested on November 22, 1963 in a boxcar in the railyard near Dealey Plaza. Harrelson's arresting officer, Marvin L. Wise, claims..."

Ok, "Some think he was one of the tramps," followed by "Harrelson's arresting officer.." Well, which one is it? Is it only alledged that he was one of the tramps, or was he in fact one of the tramps and had an arresting officer????!!!

Unbelievable. Get it together, rewrite this garbage, and repost it. I will give 3 days before deletion. --LLL —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.148.10.43 (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

confusing sentence

from the article:

"Harrelson reportedly shot and killed Wood in the parking lot outside of Wood's San Antonio, Texas, house for a drug dealer out of El Paso, Jamiel Chagra. "

bold mine...not sure what this is referring to so i hesitate to try to rewrite it. El hombre de haha 02:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Red Squad

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

Nobody has explained the 'Red Squad' reference so I deleted it. KeithJonsn (talk) 07:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Article being deleted

The article keeps being deleted with the comment "previous edits are supposition and opinion not evidence used at trial" without providing any facts or evidence to support that statement. The article, as written, is factual with supporting documentation. Wikipedia is not a record of the trial and to delete or edit based on this criteria is irrelevant.

I am restoring the previous edit. If there is verifiable, refuting evidence please add to the section and discuss. Do not just delete verified, factual evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Degelia (talk • contribs) 15:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to the Wikipedia page on Verifiability on allowable content.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Degelia (talk • contribs) 16:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Valleyside show (talk · contribs) is at it again. I have reverted their deletions of referenced material per the above. Favonian (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Sam Deglia murder

Ok, I see it has been batted around in the revisions several times. Somebody keeps putting in long, weird stuff about that case, I see. Ok, fine. But as it is now, it is completely unmentioned. The reference to being re-tried in 1974 is VERY confusing. It looks like that refers to the other case, which happened in 1979! Put something in at least to make it consistent! 134.4.61.136 (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

All information in the article are 'verifiable' facts with sourced material according to wiki standards. The entire article is being vandalized by a user or users who either delete the section about the Murder of Sam Degelia or alter the name of Pete Thomas Scamardo. No reason is ever given and no contrary source material is provided. The vandal appear to be Valleyside Show. Check the edits, I have tried to preserve the integrity of the article and, while others vandalize. Sam Degelia (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Your edit summary complained about being blocked, and you aren't. There are 5,000,000 articles on Wikipedia, and you can edit 4,999,999 of them: just not this one for a while. The purpose is to force people to discuss the issues instead of edit-warring. Hopefully, one of the people removing information will explain why.—Kww(talk) 04:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Murder of Sam Degelia dispute

It seems that the dispute about this content has merits on both sides. Perhaps the content could be trimmed to include neutral factual content supported by multiple reliable sources. Some of the content seems to come from testimony that could be considered hearsay. Thoughts? -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 23:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a repository of courtroom documents. All wiki facts must be verifiable facts to be considered. The problem with articles about court cases is that not all facts are presented in Court. Testimony is not considered heresay. Sworn testimony is considered to be factual and truthful, unless evidence can be presented that is inconsistent with the testimony. Users are not attorneys and can not be expected to know what is or is not 'hearsay'. I think the standard of 'verifiability' gives anyone the opportunity to include their truth. Verifiability also allows wiki to remain open for all. Just my 2 cents. Sam Degelia (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Sworn testimony cannot be treated as true, "hearsay" or not. Testimony by its nature represents a specific POV, and is frequently strongly biased in favor of one party or another. It would be foolish to believe that no witnesses ever perjured themselves. Statements regarding testimony need to be qualified with who made the statement.—Kww(talk) 04:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Please check the edits. Vandals are removing and altering without providing any reference materials. I have been trying to keep the article accurate.

Sam Degelia (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

How do you suppose someone would add a reference when removing something? Evidently the claims are contentious. Provide multiple reliable sources and your problem will go away. The burden of proof is on the editor who adds the content, not the one who removes it (see WP:PROVEIT). Stop calling the other editors vandals. It isn't blatant vandalism. It's a content dispute (obviously slanted by POV and sockpuppets). -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 11:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Many of the editors that have been edit-warring here have been socks, and are blocked accordingly. I'm leaving the protection up, in the hopes that editors will discuss the controversy. Socking doesn't mean the editor is wrong, it just means his techniques were wrong. I think that some of the material that the socks were removing is pretty dicey, and I'd like to see people come forward with suggestions as to how to handle material sourced by testimony.—Kww(talk) 00:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the article can be rewritten that allows for all sides to be presented. Wikipedia is a great place for the truth about crimes to be collected. As long as any facts presented are verifiable then there is no dispute. Witnesses and Experts will have testified and their statements should be reported as such. Testimony is evidence. It would be impossible to determine if all the testimony is or is not truthful. I would imagine this issue has been addressed before.

Sam Degelia (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

While I have reverted removal of this content again, only because there was no attempt to discuss it, the sources for the content seem sparse and marginally reliable. If it cannot be supported by more reliable sources, it should be removed. Testimony is evidence, but it is not a reliable source such that it can stand alone. I have no interest in the subject, I'm only trying to help avoid content disputes. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 20:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Since no new sources have been added in the last two months to support the claims, this information should be removed. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 20:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I removed some of what was using the really questionable sources that were uploaded to Wikipedia and such. Let me know if its alright. I also added more references, and a bit on Woody Harrelson too. Nkgal (talk) 02:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Now you've left the section without any sources. I just downloaded about 20 newspaper articles about the trials. I'll try to read through them and put something together. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 14:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Were uploaded. Sorry, my typo there. I see some reasonable references too, and will see what can be done.--Nkgal (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I've trimmed out anything that I couldn't provide a source for. I added several sources that should alleviate any claim that the information is unsourced. I strongly suggest that nothing else be added that isn't immediately and reliably sourced. If you don't have a source to provide when you add it, don't add it. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 16:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that looks good. The only thing is that when searching I did find on Google Scholar the file about Scamardo and his probation, its noting that the perjury charge was appealed and overturned, so his probation wasn't really revoked. Anyway, the article's on Harrelson, so that bit we might change or just leave off. Nkgal (talk) 13:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Good find. I confirmed that in newspaper articles. I'll take that part out, it isn't relevant. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 14:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a heads up here. I reverted four edits today from an IP address which probably belongs to a user that was warned against disrupting this page last year. User:Sam Degelia uploaded two files to the commons which this IP address then tried to link from the article as references. Mufka, since you're also a sysop, might you be able to check out File:Investigation into the murder of Sam Degelia.pdf and File:Dallas Morning News 5.jpg. They are most likely copyright violations, and I'm certain commons files shouldn't be used to try to source an article.--Nkgal (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The recent edits are not copyright violations and are also accurate, as per the the referenced documents. This edit is not a personal attack nor is it disruptive. It is factual and accurate. I would also like to point out that these facts included, as well as the history of this case, are well documented elsewhere on the internet. The entire story was also thoroughly chronicled in the book 'Dirty Dealing: Drug Smuggling on the Mexican Border and the Assassination of a Federal Judge--An American Parable' by Gary Cartwright. The Article from the Dallas Morning News was obtained from www.newspaperarchives.com, which allows Fair Use(http://www.newspaperarchive.com/Copyright.aspx) of their content. The File from the Texas State Archives is public information and available for copy. It is not copyrighted material and therefore not a violation. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.93.218 (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

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

The File into the investigation is not a copyright violation, just because you say it is. What you are doing is censoring. Please explain how evidence collected in a murder investigation is copyrighted? It was never published nor copyrighted. It is public domain. Your analogy to a book in a library is not remotely accurate. The evidence is the source of the information in the Newspaper article. Please stop removing unless you can prove it was copyrighted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.93.218 (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

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

I have contacted the Texas State Archives and they told me that the file in question is NOT copyrighted. No where in the file does it indicate that the material is copyrighted. At no point have you provided any verifiable evidence that the file in question is copyrighted. You simply remove it and claim it to be. You are clearly censoring information that relates to Pete Scamardo. Regarding the testimony, I am not treating the Attaway testimony as true, I am simply reporting that a new motive was presented at the new trial. It is a fact that is what she testified as reported by the Dallas Morning News. It is also consistent with the evidence gathered by the Texas Department of Public Safety. As such, the edits I have made do meet with the wiki standards for verifiability and do not violate any copyright laws. Anyone can obtain the facts themselves by going to the Dallas Morning News and reading their reporting on the trial or they can go to the Texas State Archives website and obtain the file. The story about the trial, the heroin and Pete Scamardo is also available elsewhere on the internet. You are devaluing wikipedia with your censorship and your edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.93.218 (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

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

The PDF file has been edited of any problematic pages. Any pages with copies of newspaper articles has been removed, so as not to violate any copyright laws. All remaining pages are orignial content created by the Texas Department of Public Safety. The Content is not copyrighted and is available for free use according to the Texas State Archives. Thank you for your diligence to Copyright laws. Feel free to inform me if you find any other infringements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Degelia (talk • contribs) 23:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

NKgal is censoring wikipedia of any content unfavorable to Pete Scamardo. The Edits just added are factually accurate and verifiable from uncopyrighted sources that are public domain and available for free use. There appears to be a team of people deleting any and all content that reveals Pete Scamardo's involvement in the case. It is nothing less than censorship. Mr. Scamardo can not delete facts because he wishes they did not exist. Go through the edit history and you will see the pattern. Content goes up about Pete Scamardo and then someone will come along and delete it, not change it, not discuss it or edit it to adhere to wiki policy. The articles about the case show that Pete Scamardo denied any involvement in the crime 40 years ago. The investigation into the murder reveals that he lied. Someone is now attempting to keep facts off wikipedia, even though these facts are available elsewhere on the internet. Do not allow wikipedia to be censored. Sam Degelia (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Nkgal, there is no obsession. I simply added facts about this case and you and others continue to remove them. It appears you are obsessed with removing all content that is unfavorable to Pete Scamardo and that appears to be your only motivation. I would add much more content if you would stop deleting. There is no grand conspiracy. It is quite obvious what you are doing. The edit history of the article and and the facts of the case show that Pete Scamardo was a heroin trafficker and he gave Charles Harrelson heroin to sell. The facts show that in the trial Scamardo stood up and proclaimed his innocence, which obviously influenced the jury, as it sentenced him to probation for his involvment in the murder. From yours and other edits, it is very easy to see the pattern of removing content about unfavorable to Scamardo. Scamardo is a convicted felon, why do you continue to try to hide the facts of his case? Do not be fooled by Nkgal. Look at the edit history of the article and you can see that I added content only to have someone come along and delete the edits about Pete Scamardo. Sam Degelia (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess you're not understanding that a file on the commons is considered part of Wikipedia. You've been told repeatedly, and not just this year, that you can't use a file you've uploaded as a citation. Regardless of the file's copyright status, its just not verifiable, and is likely original research. I do look at the page's history, and all I see is a long legacy of your disruptions and sockpuppetry, with no actual effort to improve the article. Just an obsession from when you created that COI username right up to today. And again, you're still blindly reverting edits that I'm making elsewhere in the article. Your three reverts have been posted to the ANB.--Nkgal (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Every edit summary lately, you've accused me of censorship, and asked for discussion on the talk page, but it just seems like I'm talking to a wall. I don't know how to make you understand how Wikipedia works, but if after three years, I guess you just don't get it. You can't use a file that you uploaded as a source. Not on the Wikimedia Commons, not on Google Docs, not on your personal website, and not on archive.org. It's not verifiable, and its original research, and its supporting claims that I'm not sure we have reliable sources for. I don't want to be the only one checking your fixation with this article, but I don't see other editors stepping up.--Nkgal (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not quite as clear-cut as that, Nkgal. The documents seem to be scanned from a public archive. The public archive itself can be used as a source, so long as there's enough information in the citation to allow anyone that is willing to drive to Texas to request the archive for examination. The scans then become a convenience link, which is acceptable, even if it is self-uploaded. The real question to be examined is whether the original sources meet WP:RS and whether the citations provide sufficient information to allow a willing editor to verify them. They don't have to be convenient, free, or on-line, it just has to be possible to verify them.—Kww(talk) 16:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

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

It's a primary source, certainly, and we need to be careful with those, but they aren't prohibited. I think a trip to WP:RSN may be in order.—Kww(talk) 18:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

If you read the Article history, you will see that verifiable content and its source unfavorable to Pete Scamardo is deleted from this article immediately after it is posted. There is a deliberate attempt by Nkgal and others to censor wikipedia of proof that Pete Scamardo was trafficking heroin and responsible for the murder of Sam Degelia. From newspaper articles on the murder, Pete Scamardo stood up in Court and exclaimed "I didn't do it!". The Jury in the trial then proceeded to give Pete Scamardo probation, instead of the death penalty, sought by the prosecution. It is unfortunate for Scamardo that the internet and wikipedia was invented, but facts should not be kept off wikipedia. The file in question is available from the Texas State Archives here. Anyone can verify that the file is authentic by obtaining a copy by calling or emailing the Archives. The file is not copyright protected and may be 'freely used in any way' as per the website. The file is available via a 'convenience link' and is not a violation of any wikipedia rules. Any attempts to prohibit its inclusion in this article should be viewed as censorship by people trying to keep undesirable facts about Pete Scamardo off wikipedia. Sam Degelia (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Apologies. To be clear, I am only attacking censorship, not Nkgal. If the disputed content and file is public domain and verifiable, then it should be allowed to be included in the article via a 'convenience link'. How do we get an official ruling on the use of a convenience link? Sam Degelia (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

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

I absolutely wish to resolve this conflict. Lets just be clear at what it is that is being added and what is being removed. You are free to draw your own conclusions. I am seeking to include factually accurate information using source material that confirms what has been reported in the Dallas Morning News. The information I have been adding is absolutely relevant to the article and to the mystery surrounding Charles Harrelson. The evidence that Nkgal is seeking to keep off Wikipedia is the Investigative file into the Murder of Sam Degelia. The file is exactly what should be used as source material on Wikipedia. Similar files have overturned verdicts in other cases. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. It would be an extremely bad precedent to hide facts about a murder trial.Sam Degelia (talk) 02:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Gamaliel, I agree the standards of evidence are far less on wikipedia than a murder trial. The document included is not my own work or my own research. The file being deleted was created by The Texas Department of Public Safety. It is all evidence collected by the Texas Rangers investigating the murder of Sam Degelia. I have simply made the file available on Wikipedia via a convenience link. You or anyone else that wishes to verify the information can obtain the file from the Texas Archives. The file that Nkgal is deleting is a secondary source, as is the article from the Dallas Morning News. I have read all the wikipedia rules on this issue and I have not read anything that would prevent the use of the file. Perhaps Nkgal can point to the specific language that he/she believes prohibits its usage. I am still unclear as to which rule has been violated. Sam Degelia (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

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

The material only available in the file is truly extraordinary if you review its contents with the facts of the case. The prosecutor in the first trial was seeking the death penalty because the evidence in this file is so compelling. The Defense attorney in the case for Harrelelson and Scamardo was the legendary Percy Foreman. Percy Foreman could be the most successful defense attorney in US history. Prosecutors claimed the motive in the first trial was 'insurance money'. That ended in Harrelson's mistrial. Scamardo, however, was convicted of accomplice to murder. Before he was sentenced Scamardo stood up in Court and exclaimed "I didn't do it!". The file shows that the motive was in fact Scamardo's Heroin that Harrelson lost in Kansas City of June 1968. The file also shows that Scamardo was responsible for the murder despite his denials. The evidence gathered by the Texas Rangers provides the reader of the article the ability to look behind the curtain of both trials. There were two trials of Harrelson with two different motives. One was a mistrial, the other was a conviction. It is extremely unusual for someone convicted of accomplice to murder, who actually did it, to get probation instead of the death penalty. Historians, researchers and experts of criminal psychology all would want to see this file, assuming it can be verified as authentic. The file also provides the reader to look at the evidence for themselves and draw their own conclusion, instead of the editor's version of history. I encourage you to read the file and the news stories on the trials of Pete Scamardo and Charles Harrelson, you would find the wikipedia article is not remotely refelective of events or the facts. If wikipedia is to be of any value then facts and truth should be preserved and the file and its contents should remain part of the article. I can think of no reasons to prevent its use and I have only tried to keep it included because of its importance to the facts and the truth. You may now also understand why someone (like Scamardo) might want to prevent it from being available on wikipedia. Gamaliel, why would you edit all the recent article changes? Thoughts? Sam Degelia (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that this material does not belong in the article. If there is any doubt to its authenticity and if it contains material not contained in any published secondary sources, then it's the kind of thing that we shouldn't be using. Gamaliel (talk)

What precedent are you using? I am sure there have to be some similar examples that have been kept off wikipedia. No one has yet to question its authenticity. This is now the third reason raised to keep the file off wikipedia. The file and its contents are referenced in books on the subject. I have written about this already. This information is not secret. Sam Degelia (talk) 03:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

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

There has been no reason to doubt its authenticity. It is clearly marked and easily verifiable. I wrote that because people are free to verify it for themselves by contacting the Texas State Archives and get a copy for themselves. It would be foolish to represent otherwise, considering how easy it is to verify. Nkgal and others have been deleting all content unfavorable to Pete Scamardo, which is the real issue. The file is not in violation of the Five Pillars nor any wikipedia guidelines. Now, you raise the issue of Primary Sources as an objection? Nkgal never had a problem with it as a primary or secondary source, in fact he thought it was original material. If you go back and read his comments, he first complained that it was copyrighted and then after it was established that it is not copyrighted, he next claimed that it was 'original research' when he wrote "You can't use a file that you uploaded as a source. Not on the Wikimedia Commons, not on Google Docs, not on your personal website, and not on archive.org. It's not verifiable, and its original research, and its supporting claims that I'm not sure we have reliable sources for." Nkgal does not consider the Dallas Morning News a reliable source? The goal posts seem to be moving on this issue. Perhaps this issue should be escalated to the Mediation Committee? I do not see any justifiable reason to prevent its usage and it would be a fantastic precedent for other editors on wikipedia. I could live with the Mediation Committee's decision on this issue, as long as it sees all the facts. Sam Degelia (talk) 03:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Gamaliel, your concern about the issue of Primary Sources is a straw man argument. Wikipedia's concern about Primary Sources does not apply here, as the section specifically states 'Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.' That is not what is happening here at all. The topic and subject of the file is notable and relevant as it applies specifically to the part of the article titled 'Murder of Sam Degelia'. I also provided no novel interpretation of the file whatsoever. I only referenced the file as additional evidence of Sandra Sue Attaway's testimony as reported by the Dallas Morning News. Wikipedia even states that primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Are you suggesting that I have used this file carelessly? Since there are no interpretive claims or analysis there should be no concern about the use of the file. If there was an interpretive claim being contested, I could understand your concern, but that simply is not the case. Your classification of the pdf as of dubious prominence is not remotely accurate. The source of the pdf has already been disclosed as the Texas State Archives and no one has ever claimed that it is not authentic. The file can be easily verified. Anyone can call the Archives at 512-463-5455 or email the reference desk at reference.desk@tsl.state.tx.us and ask them to download the document and confirm that the pdf is the same as their files. It would actually require more effort to obtain the Newspaper article from the Dallas Morning News archives, as they charge for that service. Wikipedia and its readers should be happy to have this source material. It is authentic and provides confirmation of the facts reported by the Dallas Morning News as well as shows that Sandra Sue Attaway's testimony about her knowledge of the case is consistent with her deposition. I am sorry, but I still do not understand your objection to the pdf or how it has been used in this article. It has been used as unoffensively as possible. Sam Degelia (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Should I assume that the file is not in violation of any wikipedia rules, guidelines or policy? If so, please explain. Sam Degelia (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Full protection

I've protected this article for a period of a week, as this article looks like it has been edit warred over by socks of different editors for a considerable period. Discuss your controversies, and come to a conclusion.—Kww(talk) 03:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, discussion didn't break out ... I was hopeful, but realistic. I've dropped the protection to semi-protection to prevent rampant socking again, and have extended it to 3 months because of the long-term persistent nature of the socking.—Kww(talk) 03:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for trying. I would like to know what information presented is not accurate or why the person is deleting as opposed to adding facts that support their claims. I will keep an eye on the discussion page and engage in the discussion should the other user decide to share their thoughts.

Sam Degelia (talk) 00:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Poker WSOP

I read about Charles Harrelson in Anthony Holden's 'Big Deal'. A search for his name + poker should yield some good results. e.g. url: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/news-views-gossip/charles-harrelson-poker-player-poker-cheater-hit-man-1104530/

and a general search on 2+2: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/search.php?searchid=28675152

Definitely, something must be included here. Zchais (talk) 11:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)