Talk:Al Haig

Material about his wife's death

I'm not entirely sure why Zeamays (talk · contribs) is intent on adding the sentence casting doubt on Haig's story; the fact is that he was acquitted of his wife's murder. We are in no position to say that there are reasons to think that he was guilty, or even to imply it; the very most that we should do is add a reference to the book (though it's not clear to me that even that is warranted). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Etitis: Why are you trying to hide this? There is evidence in the book. If you think it is controversial, just edit my text to state that the statement is controversial. I suggest your read the book before you delete the statment and the reference. Zeamays 00:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC) One more comment, please refrain from using aggressive language such as, "vague and portentous comment". Zeamays 00:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

1. I've explained my reasons for deleting the material; you haven't responded to what I said, only claimed that you're right. It doesn't matter what the book says; we shouldn't be repeating it. If you want to add the book as a reference, I probably wouldn't object, though I have my doubts about it. If you want to get more comments from other editors, place this page at WP:RFC.
2. "vague and portentous" isn't aggressive; why do you think that it is? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from deleting my documented references to the situations. I did not call you names. Zeamays 11:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If you continue to add this libellous material, I shall take steps to have you blocked from editing. I'm taking it up with other admins in any case. Also, look at what "personal abuse" measn; it's not confined to name calling. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

What exactly does the book say? What evidence does it cite? I consider it unencyclopedic to say something like "there are reasons to believe that his version of story is not correct." That sounds like we're endorsing Rutan's theory, which violates WP:NPOV. Instead, if this is indeed a reliable source, the article should say something like "In Death of a Bebop Wife, G. Rutan has disputed Haig's account, claiming x and y," where x and y are the specific claims and/or evidence in question. For what it's worth, the estates of dead people can't sue for libel in the United States. Regardless, we need to make sure that the edits meet Wikipedia standards. *** Crotalus *** 23:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems only reasonable that the recent book should be mentioned here. It is not "unencyclopedic" to state that a particular viewpoint is not universally shared and point to the documentation to prove it. In fact, only a short mention is necessary to show that other viewpoints exist. The problem here seems rather that Mr. Etitis considers Mr. Haig's reputation more important than giving the reader information that is relevant. I have previously encouraged Mr. Etitis to edit my reference to the book to his satisfaction, but instead he deletes all of it. It is he who is not following NPOV standards by deletion of the entire reference.

• "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." - from the Wikipedia article on NPOV. Zeamays 01:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Instead of indulging in semi-paranoid conspiracy theories about my motives, you'd do well to read what I, and now Crotalus horridus have said. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Just stop deleting this very reasonable and documented addition. Please refrain from using such comments as "conspiracy". Where did you get that. I quoted the official Wikipedia policy. You don't try to edit the text, just delete it, which indicates that you don't want it in the article. I challenge you to edit it, rather than deleting it. Zeamays 01:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course I don't want it in the article, and I've explained why. You're still ignoring that explanation. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not ignoring your explanation for deleting the book reference. What I have consistently done is not accept it as a reasonable justification for deleting it. The book actually goes well beyond the measured statements I added to provide evidence that Mr. Haig had a history of violence against the women in his life. Zeamays 16:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Primary topic

I suggest that Alexander Haig is, at the very least, just as likely to be referred to when somebody says "Al Haig" as the subject of this article, and that, as such Al Haig should be turned into a disambiguation page. john k (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)