Talk:Michael Shields

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This page contains misleading information of Michael Shields' trial. It almost looks like propaganda for signing the "Free Michael" Petition. In particular, it contains obsolete information about Graham Sankey's contradictory confession, and false statements about Bulgarian legislation system. - Please pay attention to this page!!!! and cite facts...

I will vandalize this page until it will base on pure facts published in english media institutions like BBC, Daily Telegraph.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.166.89.134 (talk • contribs) -- Goldie (tell me) 15:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC).
and later edited by 62.76.23.49 (talk • contribs) again without being signed. -- Goldie (tell me) 15:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC).

Contents

[edit] NPOV

This article is obviously violating the NPOV:

  • There is no single fact in favor of Bulgarian court's reasoning, or even a motive expressed in the court;
  • If the "Tonight documentary aired" is the only source of all that long bullet-list then it is completely unverifiable. If there are other sources available they ought to be cited;
  • The facts are utterly twisted - the court verdict in the article is dated July 26th, while Graham Sankey's written confession (can be found quite easily) is dated July 28th. Obviously the court is lacking a time machine;
  • the source is misinterpreted - being a respected news source, the BBC have tried to be more neutral but that text is not included in the article:
    "The evidence of Graham Sankey's confession as it stood had no weight whatsoever. In fairness, it would not have had much weight with a British judge either."
  • Wikipedia is not a soapbox and the information about any "Free <someone>" movement is irrelevant here together with its Google hit-ratio.

Thus I am putting the POV template. -- Goldie (tell me) 03:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some editing done

Well, I think it's more or less OK now? --D.Prok. 09:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to say that but the current form still clearly violates the NPOV!
  • Neither people outside UK can verify that "Forgotten Fan" documentary, nor even Brits who haven't been in front of the TV set at a precise moment. Many of the points in the bullet list are strong accusations which have to be proved somehow. The edits of D.Prok. to the article have removed the link to the TV newsmagazine who have aired it (why?);
  • There are two subsections on the alleged "innocence" while the Bulgarian court POV is buried in the very bottom of the article and is not even formatted as a section (WP:NPOV#Undue_weight);
  • Beyond the very vocal Liverpool fans and one or two MPs the rest of UK establishment is rather silent. I doubt the government will keep silence if the guy was innocent indeed, and that POV is not covered at all. Not to talk about other EU member states - the same very vocal Liverpool MP re-aired the accusations during the European Parliament debate on 15-th of May 2006 but there is no visible support. The section covering that same MP's speeches on the subject is deleted from the article despite being rather significant part of all media coverage.
So I can hardly agree the article have reached neutral coverage. I would even go further - in some aspects these edit have added more bias to the article. The whole set of contributions of D.Prok. revolve around one-and-only article/POV, so at the moment I can't believe in his/her non-biased opinion - deleting and blurring information contributed by the opponent is not the best argument resolution tactic. Could we have it back in the article, or at least have some sort of explanation why it was removed? -- Goldie (tell me) 11:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


Goldie,

1. I removed the reference to the 'TV magazine' because it's not relevant to the case - it's the film's title that is. All other deletes were for the same reason: irrelevance. The article is called "Michael Shields" so I was trying to keep it to the subject.

2. I see full well that the article is overbalanced by the "controversy' info, so was going to change that by adding more info and references, but my immediate impulse was to at least whittle off the horrific bias the article presented to viewers (like you said - it was more of a recruitment flyer for the Free Michael Shields 'movement' than anything else), so mine was a sort of "first-aid" editing.

If you find even this to be more biassed than it was, and know what it should look like so it doesn't violate the NPOV convention - why don't you just edit this page, yourself, instead of waging this complaints war? You've got more pressing motives for this than I have - I'm not even Bulgarian. :-)

PS I'm new here, so am not sure if it's OK for us to discuss this on this particular page? Shouldn't we use our respective talk pages instead? --D.Prok. 11:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all - yes, we are discussing the person and the article, so this is the right place. No need to worry :-) And there is no need to start separate section for each post, you can just edit the section with the initial discussion.
  • The references are really important, as the reader is supposed to be able to verify the facts presented. For the same reason the citations have to be backed with sources.
  • The whole article is centered not exactly on a rather non-notable fan but on the controvercy around him. Without that controvercy the movement and the article would not have existed. If he was just one more imprisoned criminal there would be no article again. It is the politicians who have drawn it into a public debate and tried to link it with Bulgaria's accession to EU. So that's the whole story.
Sorry if it looks as waging a war. I've already seen you are new to Wikipedia, and provided feedback in order to assist you. Maybe my comments were not in the most cooperative tone and I would prefer to apologize if it is so. Hopefully you will understand how difficult is to distinguish an editor driven by a good will from an average vandal or POV-pusher.
The initial comments above are not written by me. To avoid such misidentification had to add the "unsigned" template. I can note the lack of neutrality but cannot balance the article by adding more information, as I do not have any. I can respect you and disagree with your edits at the same time. Countrary to declared intents of the anonymous user, I prefer to argue and not to vandalize the article (or to do blind revert). -- Goldie (tell me) 15:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Hi guys, I've just done some work tidying this article and adding a few references. I've altered large parts of the prose to make everything more neutral. I should state my position; I am a Liverpool FC fan, but Shields has always sounded pretty guilty to me. I am not going to attempt to rewrite the entire article or balance the pro-Shields stuff by researching the case against him (because I don't have the time). I do however feel that I'm in a pretty decent position to mediate any arguements you might have with each other. Cheers, aLii 10:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, aLii. One more pair of eyes (and hands ;)) only can help. I can greet you for your stance that Shields is not innocent per se, and hopefully the pro-Shields people will admire you at least as a Liverpool FC fan. If you do not mind, I will separate your contribution in new section of this discussion.
I am not really interested in the topic as well but took some responsibility mainly to avoid the vandalism of the anonymous user, and locking the article in The Wrong Version. In part it is trying to harm my country so I cannot accept it.
Maybe we ought to agree what have to be in the article as fact, and what haven't. For example I consider Louise Ellman's position worth convering, as she is the most involved political figure. Also I cannot recall whether it was her, or the other Liverpool MP, but a lady spoke in the European Parliament on Bulgaria's accession (15-th of May, 2006) reffering to this same subject. Up to now the article is expressing only the one side, proving the Anglo-American focus :-) -- Goldie (tell me) 19:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The problem for me, and most editors I guess, is to verify any of the Bulgarian webpages. I have not been able to find a web-translator that can translate any of the Bulgarian links. I also have zero idea of what a respected news source is in Bulgaria. As such it is hard to cover the "Bulgarian viewpoint". From what I can tell the Bulgarian viewpoint is little more than "Our legal system is great, and he is guilty".
I've had a similar problem with the Heysel Stadium disaster article. It's really hard to give a good account of the non-English side of the story because of a lack of good sources.
As to what should be covered; I guess that any comment from notable people is worth including. Major news articles also. It'd be nice to have some quotes from Georgiev and Shields. Legal opinions from the UK and Bulgaria would also be great. aLii 10:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Goldie,

I placed a message in your personal talk page, so I'd be glad if you e-mailed me soon.

Other points:

1) "The whole article is centered not exactly on a rather non-notable fan but on the controvercy around him."

Don't you think it would be proper to split this article into two separate articles then:

  • Michael Shields
  • the Michael Shields controversy?

Otherwise it's sure to be centred on the controversy because it's due to the controversy the guy got his fame/infamy in the first place. :-)


2) "I can note the lack of neutrality but cannot balance the article by adding more information, as I do not have any."

Why don't you peruse the Bulgarian references I provided then? They're very intelligent, especially the court docs.

As for my "war" remark, it was prompted by the initial, rather belligerent, message of course: threats to vandalise the page continually etc. :-) I didn't know it wasn't you, I'm sorry.


3) "There are two subsections on the alleged "innocence" while the Bulgarian court POV is buried in the very bottom of the article and is not even formatted as a section"

"The edits of D.Prok. to the article have removed the link to the TV newsmagazine who have aired it (why?)"

"The section covering that same MP's speeches on the subject is deleted from the article despite being rather significant part of all media coverage."

"I consider Louise Ellman's position worth convering, as she is the most involved political figure."

I can hardly follow you here, I'm afraid.

First, you say that the article is imbalanced in that it provides too much coverage for the British point of view, while presenting too little info concerning the Bulgarian POV.

Then, when I try to repair the imbalance somewhat by removing superfluous, replicated or irrelevant info from the "overbearing" part, you're displeased, again. So what do you suggest? Adding some weight to the Bulgarian part instead? Well, I was going to do that later - but it's not you alone who are too busy, you know. :-) Added to which, you being Bulgarian, isn't that supposed to be up your alley rather than mine? :-)

As for my specific edits/deletes, I will discuss them in more detail below.

4) "The whole set of contributions of D.Prok. revolve around one-and-only article/POV"

Couldn't you clarify this point somewhat by specifying what "one-and-only article/POV" you're talking about? --D.Prok. 08:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Specific issues:

1)The "Forgotten Fan" documentary:

Goldie wrote:

"Neither people outside UK can verify that "Forgotten Fan" documentary, nor even Brits who haven't been in front of the TV set at a precise moment."

So what do you suggest, Goldie? Leave it out entirely and not mention it at all?

It's hard to verify ANY film, unless it's freely downloadable on the web, which this film unfortunately (or should I say "luckily", knowing how very biassed it appears to be) isn't.

My motive in leaving it within the article was that it was for the first time that I'd seen the claims listed in an orderly fashion - otherwise they're scattered higgledy-piggledy all over various forums and messageboards.

"Many of the points in the bullet list are strong accusations which have to be proved somehow."

I know, but as I said above, I let it remain because at least they're listed here in an orderly fashion - just for reference.

"The edits of D.Prok. to the article have removed the link to the TV newsmagazine who have aired it (why?)"

Why is the TV newsmagazine relevant? It's just a TV programme that shows ALL kinds of stuff - Michael Shields' case was just one of its many episodes.

The really relevant thing is the FILM'S TITLE - which I duly provided.

As for the film it could be shown in ANY programme on ANY channel - so why provide the names of all such channels/programmes, I really can't see.

2) "There are two subsections on the alleged "innocence" while the Bulgarian court POV is buried in the very bottom of the article and is not even formatted as a section"

I agree but who else but you as a Bulgarian could provide a better presentation of the "Bulgarian court POV"?

3) "I doubt the government will keep silence if the guy was innocent indeed, and that POV is not covered at all."

What POV is not covered?

4) "the same very vocal Liverpool MP re-aired the accusations during the European Parliament debate on 15-th of May 2006... The section covering that same MP's speeches on the subject is deleted from the article despite being rather significant part of all media coverage."

There'd been complaints that the article was overbalanced in its coverage, so I tried to remove superfluous and repetetive stuff from the "overweight" half.

What new info do the MP's speeches bring into the case in question?

None.

She just repeats the same old claims and accusations over and over again.

So why clutter the space with it?

"I consider Louise Ellman's position worth convering, as she is the most involved political figure."

Her "position" is just repeating the same old claims - so what's there to cover? Most of the claims are listed under the "Forgotten Fan" heading anyway. The only thing worth covering with respect to her is probably mentioning her name with an appropriate text like "she supports all these claims" or something. Otherwise I don't see why she should be given much space in the article at all.

5) "Also I cannot recall whether it was her, or the other Liverpool MP, but a lady spoke in the European Parliament on Bulgaria's accession (15-th of May, 2006) reffering to this same subject. Up to now the article is expressing only the one side, proving the Anglo-American focus."

Couldn't you make this a bit more clear, Goldie?

I'm afraid your logic eludes me here - I can't see any connection between these two sentences. --D.Prok. 09:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Alii_h,

You wrote:

  • "From what I can tell the Bulgarian viewpoint is little more than "Our legal system is great, and he is guilty".

Where on earth did you see such a "Bulgarian viewpoint"?

I spoke to a lot of Bulgarians, and none of them ever said their legal system was great - not many Britons would say that about their own legal system, either, as far is I'm informed.

But in this particular case their court DOES say that the guy is guilty, and hasn't changed its opinion throughout the trial and two appeals - that's saying something, isn't it?

  • "It's really hard to give a good account of the non-English side of the story because of a lack of good sources."

There's no lack of good sources in this particular case - I've listed even some COURT documents that are available on the web. Or aren't court documents "good" enough for you?

  • "As to what should be covered; I guess that any comment from notable people is worth including. Major news articles also. It'd be nice to have some quotes from Georgiev and Shields. Legal opinions from the UK and Bulgaria would also be great."

I really don't see how "comments from notable people" are useful in this article unless they're law experts and have studied the materials of the case.

As for the "major news articles" - I don't know your definition of "major", but otherwise there're quite a few news stories cited in this article, aren't there?

And talking generally about these "news articles" - almost all British stories provide a very incomplete (to put it mildly) and garbled version of events, compared to the Bulgarian documents I cited.

==

In my opinion, what this article does lack is the CASE PARTICULARS FROM THE BULGARIAN COURT DOCUMENTS.

If people'd read them, I'm sure that most of them would have taken this issue off the agenda and wouldn't ever raise it again.

Because even the documents I cited sound robust and credible enough to me, providing a lot of info incriminating Shields and rebutting many claims by his supporters. --D.Prok. 09:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The main problem I have with your comments is that obviously almost 0% of English-speakers can actually read Bulgarian. The links you provide may well be court documents, but a glance at the websites doesn't lead me to believe that they are actually Bulgarian governmental pages — more like news sites, that have no claim to be more impartial than British sources that also reported on the court proceedings.
The Bulgarian perspective that I paraphrased is indeed what is generally associated with the case. For example when details like the identity parade are brought up, they are dismissed. If the trial and all appeals don't question the obviously incorrect police methods then no matter how many you have it doesn't really make the conviction any more sound. I wasn't in court to hear the eye-witnesses, however I have been in court listening to witnesses in a similar case. Eye-witnesses can have some very strange recollections of what actually happened, and if they've been biased by bad police proceedure, then it's entirely possible that three people could identify the wrong man.
Again I'll note that Bulgarian sources, unless translated, hold very little weight for an article on the English Wikipedia. I could provide "court documents" in Chinese if I wanted, and you'd probably have a very hard time disproving those. The main problem is of course that none of the internet translator pages (google, altavista-babelfish, etc.) can translate Bulgarian.
I assume however that your links are correct, and that all your edits are in good faith, and so I haven't reverted any of them or removed any of your sources. You must understand the problems with using them though. It would be great if you could provide some links to translated versions of the pages as well as the Bulgarian versions. aLii 15:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I reverted some of the changes:

  • 8-pound stone

All the Bulgarian court documents say: "a rugged, irregular-shape stone" roughly the size of a human head, so I really don't see why we should rely on obviously incorrect newspaper versions of "brick" or "paving slab" - one year into the case. --D.Prok. 10:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit

I have removed all uncited facts; as this is a biography of a living person, WP:BLP is in effect. I have also removed the POV tag, as the POV facts appear to be the uncited ones. Please, all, do not reintroduce uncited facts into the article. Proto::type 14:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


  • I have removed all uncited facts
Hate to say this, Proto, but you haven't. All you did was deleting the parts that were not in favour of Michael Shields, which makes me doubt your objectiveness and purity of intentions in this case.
If you did want to remove "all ancited facts", why have you allowed all the Forgotten Fan stuff remain? I can't see any references supporting the film's numerous claims, can you?
  • the POV facts appear to be the uncited ones
Yes, they do.
But if you'd read the above messages, you'd've known that the relevant complaints concerned the Forgotten Fan film - our Bulgarian friend Goldie did not appear to be very happy about all the film's numerous claims being totally unverifiable and uncited in this article.

Anyway, I've provided all the necessary references for the parts Proto found offending, so why do people persist in deleting these parts again? D.Prok. 08:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

And doing so you've reintroduced the POV tag. Why? You've broken WP:3RR. – Chacor 08:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
D.Prok, I have reintroduced some of the referenced material, but kept out all of the commentary. Hopefully my edit can meet with everyone's approval. aLii 14:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/c/Talk%7EMichael_Shields_dfa2.html"