Talk:Rod Zimmer

recent revert

Hi there. You motivated this revert [1] with the description "Subject is not his wife and it is a WP:BLP issue to include the material about another subject."

On what basis are you asserting that she isn't Zimmer's wife? This CBC article clearly identifies her as such. --Saforrest (talk) 08:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The comment speaks for itself, although it's poorly worded. The subject of the article is Rod Zimmer. The article should contain information about the subject and not about the subject's wife. Please read the linked section if you have any questions about that. However, today's news indicates that he was the initial focus of his wife's rage and so it may no longer be a BLP issue. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

From WP:BLP, "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article." The fact that the in-flight altercation from Sensenberger arose from a dispute with Zimmer ties him directly to this story. Canadian senators do not receive much press and this particular incident is noteworthy for a number of reasons. The Canadian public should be aware that Sensenberger recieved publicly funded legal aid, as the wife of a senator this should not be the case, nor should the wife of a senator be threatening airline passengers. This story deserves mention on the senator's page. 24.76.189.5 (talk) 03:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz: I didn't ask about Sensenberger's notability, but on your surprising claim that she wasn't Zimmer's wife. You didn't address that, but you seem to acknowledge she is now, so that's resolved.

As the anon commenter said, the news coverage of this event names Zimmer and indicates the incident results from a dispute between him and his wife. I find it very surprising that given this, you still assert that WP:BLP prevents us from referencing these claims in the article about Zimmer.

There are many precedents for the inclusion of incidents involving the close relatives of famous politicians in the articles about these politicians. For example, Michel Chrétien's criminal record is mentioned in both his article and that of his father. --Saforrest (talk) 09:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This very much involves Zimmer. This article talks about what happenend to him on the plane. Plus, a restraining order against his own wife pertains to him. This content should appear in the article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, you stated in your edit summary "It is a WP:BLP issue. Period" Please say why. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is "not a tabloid" - unless and until something substantive related to the incident is reported and connects the incident to "Rod Zimmer", there is very little substance involved at this point, and the issue of relevance to the BLP is present. If the wife becomes notable, then it would likely belong in her BLP, but people who are not notable do not get Wikipedia articles. Collect (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess that makes sense. I just figured that a restraining order against her connects to Zimmer quite directly. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I never claimed that Sensenberger wasn't his wife. That was clear to me from the outset. What I wrote in the first revert was "[the] Subject [of this article] is not his wife and it is a WP:BLP issue to include the material about another subject". I was trying to state that the article is about Zimmer and not Sensenberger and should not become a coatrack on which to hang the arrest and trial. It should go in Sensenberger's article, if it's ever created. It is becoming clear that Zimmer was involved. He was clearly on the plane and has attended the first hearing. It is also clear that there was abuse of the subject in the court documents. However, nothing is clear yet. When the material about how Zimmer was involved is revealed, that can and should be added here. Until such time, the article should only discuss Zimmer and not his wife.

I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Rod Zimmer to help determine if I was or was not correct in stating that this is a WP:BLP issue (period). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 10:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, I misinterpreted the "subject is not is wife" to refer to the subject of the controversial inclusion (Sensenberger), not the subject of the article (Zimmer).

It doesn't look like this story is developing any further, and provided nothing new emerges I agree that it probably is not sufficiently important to mention in the subject's article. That said I still feel that the question of whether this is/was a WP:BLP issue is more nuanced than you apparently thought as evidenced by your reverts and comments. --Saforrest (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The story has had coverage in both the CBC and CTV news daily. I'm sure that the Winnipeg Free Press and other "local" papers will carry further details as the story progresses. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a big story that is being covered all over the world, major newspapers in the US & UK have covered it, as well as all the Canadian papers. To say it's not important is a joke- 99% of people had no idea who this guy was until this story broke. He's more famous for this incident than being a Senator- we mention stories like this all the time on Wikipedia without breaking BLP, no reason we can't do it now. To not mention it is simply a POV violation. --208.38.59.161 (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

No one is saying it's not important. We are saying that this article is about Zimmer and not about his wife. The article about Zimmer is not a coatrack on which to hang the story about his wife. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Who was she fighting with? It wasn't Batman. This is news solely because of Zimmer, and he's a key player in the story. If she was married to me it would be a minor story at most. If he wasn't on the flight then maybe you'd have a point.--208.38.59.161 (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sort of split on the whole thing. Tough call. I think she threatened to slit his throat on the plane. The trouble is that this is all sort of tabloidesque. If a stranger approached him on the street and did the same, got arrested, charged, and a restraining order, that would likely be suitable for the article. But it was his wife. Strange how that lands it in coatrack domain. I don't know, but I think this is a major event in his life. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

We can't assume the way you are doing. All that we know for sure is:

• He was in medical distress, but no further details have been released so there's nothing to write about that.
• She was arrested after the plane landed and charges were laid.
• She has conditions on her release which include a no contact order.
• Several charges were eventually dropped.

We do not know how Zimmer was involved in any way. The fact that he was on the flight is just another potential coat hook, but it's not a story. If it were, there would be a great deal of space given to the airline travel of the notable. Until we have facts we can't add anything. I suggest you read the coat-rack article above and WP:BLP. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Having read http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/08/29/zimmer-update-crown-says-senators-wife-threatened-to-slit-her-husbands-throat/ the best we can add from that is that Zimmer claims to have been diagnosed with throat cancer in March 2012 ago and was given only two years to live. -- Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Good points. None of the news stories says anything about him. It's all about the woman. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

All of them? I can't find ONE news article that doesn't mention Zimmer. --TheTruthiness (talk) 05:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

All of them do mention Zimmer, but what do they say about him that we can record in the article? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. She is the focus of the sources with Zimmer being sort of a ghost. Do any sources tell of his reactions to events other than to put his hand on his wife's arm or tell her to be quiet? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the threat to CUT HIS THROAT really has nothing to do with him, other than in passing. His passing if she had lived up to her threat. --TheTruthiness (talk) 07:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

That is hearsay evidence. He has not gone on record, nor has it been entered into the court record that this is what transpired. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

"Crown says senator’s wife threatened to slit her husband’s throat". We don't need a fucking court document to put something in. Macleans is a a reliable source under WP:RS, as are many of the other news sources that have covered it. Newspapers/newsmagazines are at a much higher risk of being sued for libel than Wikipedia, if they're printing it you can be damn sure it was looked over by lawyers. It passes BLP & WP:LIBEL, plain and simple. --208.38.59.161 (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Craft a sentence as you would like to see added. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

"During an August 23, 2012 flight, Zimmer and Sensenberger had a loud argument. According to witnesses, Sensenberger threatened to slit his throat and leave him, as well as "take down the aircraft".<ref>http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/Sensenberger+charge+dropped/7159363/story.html</ref> Sensenberger was arrested and charged with causing a disturbance and uttering threats, as well as endangering an aircraft- which was was later dropped.<ref>http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/08/30/wife-of-liberal-senator-threatened-to-slit-his-throat-in-air-rage-incident-court-hears/</ref> As of August 31, Zimmer has yet to lay charges against his wife, and despite the alleged threat a Judge is allowing the couple to talk over the phone and Internet but not in person.<ref>http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/article4508436.ece</ref> The story made international headlines, including the U.K’s ''[[Daily Mail]]'' and the ''[[New York Daily News]]''.<ref>http://www.globalregina.com/69-yr-old+senator+and+young+air+rage+wife+kept+relationship+secret+until+she+was+21/6442705146/story.html</ref>"--208.38.59.161 (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Loud is not neutral so the phrase should be "had an argument that was overheard by several passengers." Other than that, it's well-crafted. I'll run it by the BLP types to see if they think it's acceptable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Way,m way too long for the Zimmer BLP, and way too involved. What might work is

"On August 23, 2012, Zimmer and his wife had an argument on board an aircraft. His wife was charged with causing a disturbance. (refs)

Details as to what she said or did do not belong in this BLP, nor should undue weight beascribed to the incident. The "international headlines" bit is pure marshmallow fluff. Collect (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. I'll wait for consensus to move forward with an edit. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Way too long? If the fact that this talk page was blank before this wasn't an indication this is the most notable thing about him, one of the referenced articles in that text also says so. The fact this person made INTERNATIONAL headlines for the first and so far only time due to this story isn't worth noting in his article? Are you serious?? That's not OR, it's in one of the sources- it's also a phrase mentioned in several Wikipedia pages. I could see removing the taking plane down comment and related dropped charge. The uttering threats needs to remain as it's a threat against him that she's being charged with. The fact a court is ruling what contact he can have with his wife is certainly relevant. This is shorter, but to say it should be two sentences is absolutely ridiculous and undue underweight:

During an August 23, 2012 flight, Zimmer and Sensenberger had an argument that required the flight crew to intervene. According to witnesses, Sensenberger threatened to slit his throat and leave him. Sensenberger was arrested and charged with causing a disturbance and uttering threats. As of August 31, Zimmer has yet to lay charges against his wife, and despite the alleged threat a judge is allowing the couple to communicate, but not in person. The story made international headlines, including the U.K’s Daily Mail and the New York Daily News. --TheTruthiness (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

That's not appropriate and has inaccuracies. Sorry. The fact that these are witnesses recounting the material to media makes it unreliable. We should stick to what's on record. What she was charged with and the fact that Zimmer has not filed charges. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

"Worst of the three?" Nice WP:CIVIL there, and how is it the worst when it combines the anon's suggestion that an editor named Walter Görlitz called "well-crafted" with more brevity, something an editor named Walter Görlitz called "reasonable"? What is inaccurate? Every single thing is verifiable in a reliable source. IT IS ALL ON THE RECORD. If this info is so unreliable, why is a JUDGE preventing them from speaking to each other in person? Good enough for a court of law, not good enough for Wikipedia?!? Do you realize how insane that sounds? --TheTruthiness (talk) 02:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I won't assume why the judge first applied a no-contact order and then later permitted them to communicate by phone, and electronically (e-mail and txt message). http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/story/2012/08/29/sk-sensenberger-zimmer-court-120829.html So what you're trying to insert into the article is the statement of unnamed passengers on the flight whose motive for the statement are unknown. I'm not worried about liable because we would simply be quoting reliable sources. I am worried about stating something that isn't actually true.

As for WP:CIVIL, Sorry you're offended by stating my opinion, but you are dead wrong. It says nothing about stating the quality of your work is good or bad. It does say not to comment on the editors, which is what you've done. And if you actually spent time reading the policies instead of simply making reference to them, you'd actually know that.

I would argue that Collect's offering is too short and anon's a bit too long. TheTruthiness' first sentence is, in my opinion, the best option. The problem with anon's and TheTruthiness' next sentence, and the testimony of the witness on the plane, why would Sensenberger first slit his throat and then leave him. It make the entire story unbelievable. However, anon does add the salient "take down the aircraft" and "endangering an aircraft" facts, which is why she was originally arrested. Adding where the story has been covered is bound to be an unending list. I wouldn't mention it at all. I wouldn't mention the lack of criminal charges supported by Zimmer. My offering is

During an August 23, 2012 flight, Zimmer and Sensenberger had an argument that required the flight crew to intervene. Sensenberger was arrested and charged with causing a disturbance and uttering threats, as well as endangering an aircraft, however this latter charge was later droped. No facts have been supported in court.{use anon's first two refs, and possibly the CBC ref I supplied just above}

The only other issue I would consider adding is the flight crew's request for on-board medical assistance for Zimmer, with the appropriate reference. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

You're worried about stating something that isn't actually true, but truth is not the criterion for inclusion. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. When there's a decent number of witnesses they aren't normally singled out in papers, in order for police to file these charges they would need cause- meaning witnesses would've had to give those statements to police. Since providing false statements is a crime, there's no known or reasonable motive for a bunch of people to lie and not only the police but a judge (both positions have a much higher standard to obtain than Wikipedia user) considered their statements credible, it's reasonable to take them at face value instead of thinking they're all conspiring against the Zimmers. As to why someone not in a good mental state at the time would threaten to both kill & divorce a person...it's pretty self-explanatory, we could leave the threat to divorce him since that's not why she's in legal trouble. However both of our original research is irrelevant- it meets the criteria. If it makes you feel better, what we're saying is true: witnesses are saying that. We're not saying they're telling the truth, we're saying what's verifiable. "No facts have been supported in court" is not a very encyclopedic phrase and I've never seen it here. We're not saying she was found guilty, we're just saying she was charged. I feel the anon's suggestion was just fine, but since others complained about it being too long, I tried to seek consensus by removing the stuff about taking the plane down since it's not directly about Zimmer and the related charge was dropped so while I'd vote to put it in, I'm ok with leaving it out. I suppose you could also leave out the stuff about Zimmer not pressing charges yet too although it could leave people a bit confused. I feel that other stuff is pretty mandatory: (ignoring the 1st sentence you like) her physical threat is the crux of the charges, a judge ordering a husband and wife have limited contact is very noteworthy, as is a Canadian senator making international headlines (a Google news search shows there's over 450x more articles about this than everything else in Zimmer's career combined) - if you really wanted to drop the name of the papers (it doesn't have to be a never-ending list, those two foreign papers are being mentioned in Canadian news articles so we just stop at them), while that seems silly to me I'd be ok with that too. As far as the medical requests, the Ottawa Citizen reports: Zimmer said loudly to his wife, "Stop it or I'll have a heart attack!" Sensenberger immediately started screaming and yelling for medical assistance. "My husband's dying! He's having a heart attack. Why aren't you all helping?" the passenger recalled Sensenberger saying. Zimmer tried to reason with his wife. "I'm not having a heart attack. I am fine," the passenger recalled him saying.A paramedic and others came to evaluate Zimmer. He was deemed to be fine. A couple others mention him getting a bit of oxygen, but from most stories it's only Sensenberger making the medical claims, and after she allegedly threatened to slit his throat. How would you suggest wording that? --TheTruthiness (talk) 08:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:BLP. We do not put everything a "reliable source" says into a biolgraphy of a living person - we write biographies "conservatively", with specific rules about sourcing of contentious claims, and taking care not to promote rumours. Thus those whome you seem to think are not allowing your information in, are simply following Wikipedia policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

TheTruthiness wrote "Since providing false statements is a crime," and I say, that's not correct. Providing false statements is "a lie". Providing a false statement to an officer of the court is a crime. People have been known to see and hear things when under duress that did not actually happen or were not actually said, and I've seen it happen. So just because a reporter, whose sources are confidential and can never be linked back to statements written, writes that something was said by someone, doesn't mean that it actually happened. I would not suggest wording any of what you said.

For the record, I'm assuming that your quoted statements were taken from a Postmedia publication such as the National Post: http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/08/30/wife-of-liberal-senator-threatened-to-slit-his-throat-in-air-rage-incident-court-hears/ --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

People keep talking about BLP, yet you seem to have not read it, or at least not understand it. It must be NPOV, verifiable and not original research. Here's further reading from the WP:WELLKNOWN section:

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

Note it doesn't say "Editors have to agree they're true." Your soapbox POV statements are, like the "truth", IRRELEVANT. It's notable, NPOV & verifiable- which is what Wikipedia requires. Side note, someone would have had to tell the police (providing false statements to police is a crime, it's called public mischief) who arrested her- otherwise how could the police charge her and a judge uphold it in the preliminary hearing? The laws of Canada require more than it being mentioned in a newspaper, the laws of Wikipedia do not. Either way, we're clear and you not trusting the witnesses isn't a valid reason to leave it out. --TheTruthiness (talk) 02:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I didn't see a sufficient number of words in all caps. I'm afraid that I don't understand. As for irrelevance, you seem to offer a great deal of that.

"Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page."

"We must get the article right."

"BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement."

"Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." As I've stated, the statements of the other passengers is essentially gossip until the facts are revealed in court, which can only be used after they have been vetted by a secondary source.

Also of relevance are WP:AVOIDVICTIM and WP:WELLKNOWN, and we're still stuck with WP:COATRACK as we need to record only those details that relate to Zimmer and not his wife.

Now that the issues have been address, TheTruthiness, please stop the personal attacks. Don't suggest what editors have and have not read, and certainly stating that editors don't understand things is a huge step over the WP:NPA line, not quite as bad as this one, but still over the line. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The 1st person to accuse someone of not reading a policy was you, actually. Anyways, the whole coatrack thing is invalid: She and Zimmer are in domestic violence court, a judge has forbidden Zimmer from having physical contact with his wife. This is undeniably involving him. "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject" Sources are major Canadian newspapers, check. It's being presented as true by the Crown, check. Relevant because he's being forbidden to have personal contact with his wife and he was the subject of alleged threats, check. "avoiding...understatement" Not mentioning this at all is understatement. AVOIDVICTIM irrelevant as his notability stems from being a senator, that's the whole reason this is an international news story. How about we get to work on putting this in the article instead of having Wikipedia look like a total joke for making no mention of this big story? How about we don't specify the threat was throat slitting, just that's she's accused of threatening him (hence the threat charge and limited contact ruling)?

During an August 23, 2012 flight, Zimmer and Sensenberger had an argument that required the flight crew to intervene. Sensenberger was arrested and charged with causing a disturbance and uttering threats against Zimmer. The case is being heard in Saskatoon's domestic violence court, a judge is allowing the couple to communicate, but not in person. The story made international headlines, including the U.K’s Daily Mail and the New York Daily News. --TheTruthiness (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Coatrack is valid. It's simple. He's not the subject of the news articles, his wife is. He's a tangential element in the story that ties it to this article.

Good, except the case is being heard in several courts including the domestic violence court, and the following phrase that starts "a judge is allowing" is not appropriate since we don't know why the judge placed the original order or why it was amended.

The entire last sentence is not necessary. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Tangential means "of little relevance", he's the subject of a court order forbidding personal contact with his wife & the subject of alleged threats against his life. I'm sure Zimmer would argue this isn't of little relevance to him. Wayne Gretzky's article doesn't mention the Janet gambling stuff because he wasn't actually involved- that would be a coatrack. If he had been sitting in on those convos it would be a different story. Anyways, we don't need to know why or give a flying fuck about why, we're not discussing the why. Wikipedia is not a philosophy essay, it's irrelevant- we're simply stating the judicial order. He's allowing X type of contact but not Y. Ours is not to reason why or question the decision of judges, just state the facts. Here's all the articles that feature the phrase international headlines. It's been allowed 17,041 times, I think we're ok. Canadian senators don't usually make the international news, it's notable. --TheTruthiness (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

He's not the subject of the court order, she is. She cannot contact him and cannot allow him to be in contact with her. If that is breached, she faces the penalty, not him. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Reclassified as a start

I have reclassified this article as a start due to its level of detail. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)