Talk:Gordon Park

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
More information about this article... This article has had a peer review by the Biography WikiProject, which has now been archived.

An entry from Gordon Park appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on February 2, 2007.

Contents 1 Rewrite 2 some editing comments 3 Bias 4 Large revert

[edit] Rewrite

If there is anyone who edits this article reguarly, then I am working on a complete rewrite. I am writing it in my sandbox, feel free to come along and give me a hand. It is coming on slowly and steadily. J Milburn 19:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. I feel I can get this up to good article status. Any suggestions or help would be welcomed. J Milburn 22:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] some editing comments

Hi - thanks so much for your help with Chafik Charobim's page today. I'm trying to reciprocate your kindness so here are some minor edits that I think might help in your article:

- 'agaisnt' is misspelled in "evidence agaisnt him can be ..."

- "For this reason," to replace "It was because of this reason, Gordon claimed, that he did not .. "

- "The body was found in " instead of "The body was found to be in"?

- "When the body was discovered" to replace "At the time of the discovery of the body, "

- "After the charges were dropped Gordon said" to replace "Gordon said after the charges were dropped" Cheers,

Liliboyd 05:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I have made all of the changes you suggested, apart from the second one. The reason the second one needs to stay is that that particular course of events is not the one agreed with by the courts, and so it is important to differentiate between the course of events that the courts deemed true, and what Gordon claims. J Milburn

24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

I think this has been written by a member of the family lots of the so called facts which supposedly point to innocence are conjecture or just downright incorrect for example it was proven at the triaL that Gordon did not sell the boat till July 1976 not June therefore he could have had the boat at the time of the murder. Wikpedia is supposed to be accurate, not the forum of a very sad family who cannot accept the truth. I sat through the whole trial, belive me he is guilty.

I would very much appreciate your input in the article then. If you can add information that is well referenced then PLEASE do so. I am the author of this version of the article, and I can assure you that I am not a family member, just a teenager with an interest in local history. Everything that is in the article is referenced to various websites that I have come across while searching for information- another editor already mentioned that there is a bias, when I voiced my concern that there may be at a peer review here. J Milburn 19:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Large revert

Ok, I just reverted a large amount of this article. That is because the new information seemed even more biased in Gordon's favour than the original article was, and some of the claims were unsourced. All of the edits I reverted can be seen here, but I kept the new spelling of Rachael. The areas that I had the most problems with was the unsourced rant about the rocks in the lake, and the unsourced mention of the vigils happening every year. Also, the unsourced point about the people being Rachael's friends- that stunk of bias. If that information is going to be added, then please source it, and let us strive to remain neutral here. I have had an idea for fixing the neutrality of the article involving the case controversy section- there was a Daily Mail article- if I edit the section to include only the items that are mentioned there, then that should remove some of the speculative fluff. J Milburn 16:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The rigor mortis explanation and the point about the witness being too far away were also unsourced. J Milburn 16:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)