Talk:Lester Coleman/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

There is something very peculiar (and fishy) here about Lex Coleman and his twin brother, Lester Coleman, who has used the following aliases: Thomas Leavy, Thomas O'Leary, and Lex Coleman [1]. That peculiarity seems to center around their shared interests: writing, Lebanon, Pan Am 103, and various periods of "lost time". Reliability, verifiability, and truth hopefully will prevail because I'm not buying the twin brother biography until some substantial and credible documentation is presented quickly. See pages 163-183 of Michael T. Hurley's I Solemnly Swear [2] (use Riconosciuto in search to isolate pages) Anne Teedham (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It is quite apparent to me that the two articles Lex Coleman and Lester Coleman are about the same man ... who seems to want his readers to believe that he is dead. I have proposed this merger in order to combine everything, and to get to the truth. I assure you: unless someone can produce a death certificate (properly notorized—and by this I mean something much better than a false document published on American Budda Online Library), or a highly-reliable mainstream death announcement, Lester Coleman is trying to pull the wool over his readers eyes. Yet before we attempt to complete the merger, I suppose we should discuss exactly why I believe that Lex and Lester are one and the same, eh. As soon as someone appears, I will be happy to explain. Anne Teedham (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please tell us why you think the two people are the same person? This would not be the first time someone has two articles on Wikipedia; I spotted Hj. Nortamo and Hjalmar Nordling on the Finnish Wikipedia. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that ethically we can use Trail of the Octopus, The Untold Story of Pan Am 103 as a source. It was written and published during a time when Coleman was clearly lying about his connection with the events in question. The accuracy of its content is therefore highly questionable. By extension the article by Paul Foot is somewhat suspect, although less so, since its basically a reciew of the book. Nrswanson (talk) 09:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Paul Foot's 1994 review of the book did lend some credence to the Coleman 'drug-running' theory. But, ten years later, Foot had moved well away from that theory when he wrote "Lockerbie's dirty secret" in The Guardian:

"There is, in my opinion (not necessarily shared by the families), an explanation for all this, an explanation so shocking that no one in high places can contemplate it. It is that the Lockerbie bombing was carried out not by Libyans at all but by terrorists based in Syria and hired by Iran to avenge the shooting down in the summer of 1988 of an Iranian civil airliner by a US warship. This was the line followed by both British and US police and intelligence investigators after Lockerbie. Through favoured newspapers like the Sunday Times, the investigators named the suspects - some of whom had been found with home-made bombs similar to the one used at Lockerbie.

"This line of inquiry persisted until April 1989, when a phone call from President Bush senior to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher warned her not to proceed with it. A year later, British and US armed forces prepared for an attack on Saddam Hussein's occupying forces in Kuwait. Their coalition desperately needed troops from an Arab country. These were supplied by Syria, which promptly dropped out of the frame of Lockerbie suspects. Libya, not Syria or Iran, mysteriously became the suspect country, and in 1991 the US drew up an indictment against two Libyan suspects. The indictment was based on the "evidence" of a Libyan "defector", handsomely paid by the CIA. His story was such a fantastic farrago of lies and fantasies that it was thrown out by the Scottish judges.

"In Britain, meanwhile, Thatcher, John Major and Blair obstinately turned down the bereaved families' requests for a full public inquiry into the worst mass murder in British history.

"It follows from this explanation that Megrahi is innocent of the Lockerbie bombing and his conviction is the last in the long line of British judges' miscarriages of criminal justice. This explanation is also a terrible indictment of the cynicism, hypocrisy and deceit of the British and US governments and their intelligence services. Which is probably why it has been so consistently and haughtily ignored."

We can, in my view, keep the Trail of the Octopus in the Lester Coleman biography as a matter of record (since it advocates one of the Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories) but I agree we can't use it as a reliable source.---PJHaseldine (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes I certainly agree that a mention of the book should remain in the article. I just don't think we can use the book directly as a source about the life of Lester Coleman. He could have easily misrepresented his activities with the DIA etc. within the work. A better treatment of addressing the book would be to find some post-1997 trial criticisms of the work by reputable people (hopefully they exist). Otherwise, only a brief overview of his position in the book should be given within the context of his later admission of deception.Nrswanson (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Trail of the Octopus, is now published in Kindle form by Amazon, so the credibilty of Lester Coleman's claims are back on the front burner. It seems this new publication of the book as caused the latest round of mis-information and effort at discrediting Coleman, including allegations he was two persons, not deceased, guilty of perjury ( his detractors failed to include the TORT settlement Coleman reached with the U.S. Justice Department for maltreatment and false imprisonment. If Coleman is alive, where is he? If he did not have a brother, where is the evidence? If he was imprisoned for ten years, where is the proof? Has anyone checked online prison records for his name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.250.12.246 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 2 April 2009

• A few points. First, a re-issue of a book already available at google books online is not likely to cause much notice. (Apparently it didn't because the media ignored it) Second, no source ever produced here has claimed that Coleman had a twin brother and a search has yielded no such source ever refering to a twin. Proof isn't needed to deny a twin's existence but to prove that the twin existed in the first place. Third, no source has been produced or been found in a search which indicates that Coleman has died. Fourth, if a TORT settlemnet does exist than reliable sources should be easily found. You must know something about it, so produce these sources and add the content to the article. There is no censorship at wikipedia, just a requirement that the facts presented come from reliable published sources. Finally, your last questions are a matter of conjecture which falls under WP:Original Research. Wikipedia is not interested in what is true but what is "verifiably true". Just because certain information is not easily available, doesn't mean that we can assert opinions based on lack of information. The answer is we simply don't comment about his whereabouts, etc. We present the verified information that we have and that is all. What is in evidence is that he received a ten year sentence, etc. The article doesn't state where and when he went to prison because no evidence specifies this information. Find content in reliable sources and we can add info. But everything in the article stays because its supported by reliable evidence.Nrswanson (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This site is under investigation by Reputation Restore. It will be addressed to the fullest extent of the law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.223.206.112 (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This article has been altered extensively by banned sockpuppet Merry Yellow. Several related articles have also been altered by this person. The sockpuppets of Anne Teedham were originally banned several months ago, this one somehow slipped under the radar.Winksatfriend (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Trail of the Octopus, USA Edition was published August 17, 2009 by 1prime publishers. It brings the original version published only in the UK up to date and includes new documents that link Libyan Leader Muhammar Kadaffi to the CIA, recruited in 1977. See: www.amazon.com & www.trailoftheoctopus.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.124.204 (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I am Lester Coleman the subject of this article: I find it extremely inaccurate bordering on the absurd. It is my intent, however, at this stage, to work with those who have contributed to this article to correct errors and omissions in the very complex history. If you are one of the editors who has contributed to this article please contact me @ lescolemanlll@gmail.com. I also wish to refer you to www.trailoftheoctopus.net. Let me address one very inaccurate statement in the article: FRAUD. It mentions a Fayette County Kentucky order that overturned an appeal. County courts do not hear appeals, and did not hear this one. The Kentucky Court of Appeals did deny a motion in 2004. However a Criminal Writ & accompanied Civil Action was filed in the United States District Court, District of Columbia, before The Honorable Eugene Sullivan, re: Case 1:04 – CV – 01688 – EGS/ LeWinter,Coleman, Francovich Estate vs CIA et al. which overturned the conviction in Kentucky. The action and decision was Under Seal after the CIA moved to enforce the US Intelligence Disclosure Procedures Act of 1980. Consequently, only the civil action has been published.

I have no criminal record of any kind. I have never served a 10 year sentence in Kentucky or in any other jurisdiction. I was held for 154 days by the government who later settled a TORT claim for illegal detention and maltreatment.

I am also not a former US Navy Officer. My only government affiliation was with the US Defense Intelligence Agency and the Drug Enforcement Administration. Presently, I am Chair of the Faculty of Arts & Humanities Emeritus, American University of Technology, Lebanon. I trust the editors of this article will correct the errors reflected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drlescoleman (talk • contribs) 16:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem with these claims is, and has been, that they contradict published sources, and aren't supported by any reputable independent sources that are available for examination. Everybody involved wants the article to be accurate, but it can't be altered on the basis of assertions without visible evidence to support them. Looie496 (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I am requestng the editors provide the published sources they are using as attribution for each statement contained in this article, ((example: re: Navy Officer)). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drlescoleman (talk • contribs) 11:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

...and the "uscourts.gov" link given above didn't work when I tried it, even after I fixed the format. Looie496 (talk) 23:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you User talk:Looie496|talk]] Please assist me in placing the documents cited on the article. You must register with the www.uscourts.gov site to access the court records. There is a $25 fee, as I recall for six months access. I wait to hear from you and other wiki editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drlescoleman (talk • contribs) 23:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

What's the link to register? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Link to register: www.uscourts.gov sign up for PACER in left column: term: Lewinter et al vs CIA et al 2004 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drlescoleman (talk • contribs) 11:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok I found the court case here: [3] with links to PACER. Problem is, I'm outside the U.S. and the registration form only takes U.S. addresses. Any established editor willing to register? There is no registration fee and the only cost is 8 cents per page retrieved but you're not charged unless you hit $10 per calendar year so it's quite likely you can get the documents for free. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 13:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Golly, Drlescoleman, it's good to see that you have finally put to rest all that nonsense about your twin brother, and taken on full responsbility for all these shenanigans. —Sullied Sullivan (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This is an unfounded asssertion. I have no connection nor take any responsibility for any of the "shenanigans" that appear on these pages. To claim such reflects disinformation written without attribution. Please refrain from "opinion" sir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.124.204 (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a grevious error. Lester Coleman is an identical twin, born Pensacola Naval Airstation, Florida 25 September, 1948, not 1943 as listed in this article. The twins graduated from Marion Military Institute, Marion, AL in May, 1963. There is a group picure of both of them in the 1961 MMI Yearbook, the Orange & Black. Dr. Lex Coleman, Lester's brother, is an accomplished scholar and developer of Audiophonic Visual Isolation. Lester Coleman died April 17, 2007 after suffering a stroke -- 208.114.116.75 00:32, 2 April 2009

Classmates.com has a profile for Lex Coleman claiming he graduated in 1963 from the Marion Military Institute. No Lester! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Regardless, www.classmates.com is not a reliable source. Also, even if an identical twin exists, all of the content currently in this article is reliably tied to Lester Coleman. Until an actual reliable published source proves that he died then we must assume he is alive. Further, no mention of his supposed brother should be made unless a reliable published source indicates that such a person exists.Nrswanson (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I represent Lex (Lester Knox Coleman, III,) twin brother of the late Lt Cmdr Lester Knox Coleman, II ) who you have deviously depicted in your inaccurate article. You have purposely omitted that Cmdr Coleman retracted his "purjury" plea in 2004,claiming it was obtained under duress, and was awarded a TORT settlement by the U.S. Justice Department over medical maltreatment and 154 days of false imprisonment. This is a matter of public record, EDNY04-1867 Cmdr Coleman died 17 April, 2007 in Lebanon at the home of his brother. Survived by a wife, Mary-Claude, and three children His brother, Dr. Lex Coleman is retired from the American University, Lebanon, and lives in Zeitra, Lebanon with his wife, Gerri.

We would be delighted to have the names and mailing addresses of all parties involved in producing and contributing to this article so we may take appropriate action to clarify its contents. Dr Ellis G. Gueis, Tarbarja,105 Lebanon/ c/o 41 west 72nd st, 7-A, New York, NY 10023 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.250.12.246 (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Regrettably none of these statements seem to be practically verifiable, and newspaper accounts have repeatedly named the Lex Coleman involved in the Lockerbie business as LKC III rather than LKC II as you say. What sort of record is EDNY04-1867 supposed to be? Looie496 (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No twins. Same person.

I think the following information helps to clarify the issue of whether or not Lester Knox Coleman and Lex Coleman (the LexTalkAmerica website man) are the same person. With one exception, these headlines all appeared in the Lexington Herald-Leader, a Lexington, Kentucky, newspaper. They are listed in ascending dates from 2000 to 2004.

1. Did Defendant pass fraudulent checks? Jury to decide case filled with twists, turns - March 16, 2000

   "The court testimony sounds like it came straight out of a spy novel, sprinkled with references to Syria and Pan Am Flight 103, Tom Brokaw and Oliver North. But the issue on trial in Fayette Circuit Court is whether former government informant and local radio talk show host Lester Coleman passed fraudulent checks in Lexington."

2. EX-TALK SHOW HOST is found guilty in check fraud case - March 17, 2000

   "A Fayette Circuit Court jury yesterday found former federal government informant and Lexington radio talk show host Lester Coleman guilty of fraudulent-check charges."

3. Former informant convicted [The Kentucky Post - March 18, 2000]

   "A jury has recommended that a former federal government informant and Lexington radio talk show host serve four years in prison."

4. Ex-federal agent sentenced for check fraud term is probated but defendant also faces U.S. perjury conviction - April 11, 2000

   "Lexington's most prominent conspiracy theorist, Lester Coleman, was sentenced yesterday to 10 years for passing fraudulent checks but the prison term was probated."

5. Coleman to finish sentence for fraud, former U.S. agent fled Kentucky while on probation - May 24, 2003

   "Former federal drug agent Lester Coleman, who gained fame with a theory that a Pan Am flight exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, because of a drug sting gone sour, admitted yesterday in Fayette Circuit Court that he had violated the terms of his probation on check fraud convictions."

6. Shock probation denied former RADIO HOST, prosecution says Coleman lied about jobs - September 1, 2003

   "Lester Coleman, former Lexington radio host and conspiracy theorist, won't be getting out of prison quite as soon as he had hoped.On Friday, Coleman asked for shock probation -- early release -- from the 10-year sentence he received in 2000 for check fraud."

7. Conspiracy theorist sues governments and prosecutor, prison term violated his rights, he says - April 20, 2004

   "Lester Coleman, the conspiracy theorist and former Lexington radio host convicted in 2000 for check fraud, is suing Fayette County, the state and Commonwealth's Attorney Ray Larson for allegedly violating his constitutional rights.In the federal suit, Coleman says that Circuit Judge Thomas Clark went against the jury's recommended four-year sentence by sending him to prison for 10 years. Clark did so by making the sentences for the check-fraud counts run...

8. Ex-drug agent's suit is thrown out of court, Coleman known for plane-crash theory - April 24, 2004

   "Former federal drug agent Lester Coleman has seen a speedy end to his most recent court battle.One week after he sued Fayette County, the state, Commonwealth's Attorney Ray Larson and Lexington Mayor "Rebecca" Isaac, a federal judge threw out the case out because it failed to meet any legal requirements. In the suit, the only accusation Coleman raised was that Fayette Circuit Judge Tom Clark -- whom he did not name in the suit -- had improperly sentenced..."

These headlines clearly establish a relationship between a Lester Coleman and radio shows. Lex Coleman is LexTalkAmerica, some sort of radio show, either real time, or online. The biographical details at the LexTalkAmerica website parallel Lester Coleman's background. Located at Lex Coleman's website, there is a photograph on the Lex Stuff page of Sarah Coleman, Lester Coleman's daughter. Sarah Coleman maintains another website where she presents the photograph of her father, Lester Coleman. The photograph's html-id is labeled "dad1-small.jpg". The caption below the photograph reads: "Boy Scout executive Lester Knox Coleman III in 1988 on the eve of Operation Shakespeare, his last mission as an agent of the United States' Defense Intelligence Agency"—though that caption is not easily read. (A much better image and caption are located here). Additionally, Sarah presents updated information (2006) which implies that Lester Coleman was released from his 10-year prison sentence by the Green River Correctional Complex on February 9, 2006 (see details regarding Warden Patti Webb "Spoiled Milk Lands Coleman in the Hole" and contact GRCC directly for specific info). At her website, Sarah presents an abundance of unviewable material along the borders of a computer screen. This material appears to be constricted by poor html-coding. Some of those hidden photographs though contain what appear to be references to European newspaper material; however I am unable to view those photographs for more than a glimpse. That material though does look as if it may corroborate some of Lester Coleman's bona fides—for instance, his Swedish asylum. Yet, as I say, I can not find a way to view the material at length. [Addendum: I have just now discovered that several of those photographs may be viewed here. ^{16:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)}]

Some of the above information was discussed well already apparently during the deletion process.

Unfortunately, I can not provide more information at this time.

The above news articles were obtained by accessing NewsLibrary.com which requires payment for all material. I see no need to waste my money on this issue. It is clear to me that Lex Coleman, the radio show host of LexTalkAmerica and Lester Knox Coleman of this Wikipedia article are one-and-the-same, not twins. —Merry Yellow (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Also almost all of the above sources are not considered reliable since they are self published. There's nothing mentioned above that establishes anything reliable for this article.Nrswanson (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are reluctant to accept The Lexington Herald-Leader as a reliable source. The newspaper clearly states that Lester Coleman was a radio show host. —Merry Yellow (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was referring to the online sources at www.freewebs.com which is designed so that people can freely edit and add content. I clinked on the links without reading all of your above text. I should have read more carefully. Also, some of the bio on Lester Coleman is false. A search of the Boy Scouts of America website shows he never held the leadership position he claims to. Same with a search of Emmy Award winners at the Emmy Award website. But the newspaper articles should be fine. I think that content can be reliably linked to this Lester Coleman. As for the twins, there is no evidence to support the existence of a twin so I don't think we need to prove that there are no twins. The burden of proof is on establishing that a twin existed in the first place. Nrswanson (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

His Emmy is a regional New England Emmy Award. I do not think that these are evenlisted on any web site. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

He was commissioned into the BSA Professional Service in 1972, he served as National Event Public Relations Executive, Boy Scouts of America, National Staff, 1972-1975.

He returned to Professional Scouting in 1988 as Director of Public Relations, Chicago Area Council. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.250.12.246 (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ellis G Quies, Counsel for Dr Lex Coleman

Unfortunately the above information is far from accurate> Both Les & Lex had some exposure to broadcasting. Cmdr Coleman had a brief stint in talk radio after Lockerbie. Lex, however was in radio-television for 30 years. The Lextalkamerica website is not a talk radio site, as you claim. It is clearly a site for English as Second Language applications, Dr Lex Coleman's academic speciality.

Les Coleman ( Lester knox Coleman, II ) is the twin who worked for DIA, Dr Lex Coleman ( Lester K. Coleman III ) is the twin who worked in broadcasting and is a Professor Emeritus, Les died 17 April, 2007. Lester K. III is the co-author of the book with Donald Goddard, written about his brother Les. Much of this confusion should be blamed on Lester Knox Coleman, jr. who named the twins II and III.

I trust the appropriate corrections will be made, and those responsible will come forward so they may be interviewed about this article.

Dr Ellis G Quies

Counsel for Dr Lex Coleman

Tarbarja, Lebanon

c/o 41 West 72nd St 7-A

New York, 10023 USA

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.250.12.246 (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want the information corrected, please provide sources – or links and references to sources. You could start by providing a reference that shows you exist. A listing in a telephone directory would be good for a start. --Petri Krohn (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. - In fact I would be pleased if you could even provide a source (other than Coleman's book) that says Tarbarja, Lebanon exists. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Google iz yer frend. It's more frequently spelled Tabarja, but that doesn't necessarily mean the IP was wrong -- there is often a lot of variability in translations from Semitic alphabets, and Google shows that the "Tarbarja" spelling is used every so often. Looie496 (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The IP address of the account is located in California. I have doubts about whether the account is indeed counsel for Lester Coleman or Lex Coleman. I still have doubts that a twin brother even exists. No evidence has established that. Nrswanson (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It's perfectly straightforward: the proponents of the alleged twin Lex Coleman just have to provide verifiable sources. Those that say Lester Coleman is dead, please provide a citation. Simple as that!---PJHaseldine (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems that Lex/Lester Coleman may still be alive. He stoped editing this article as Lexcoleman (talk · contribs) or Lexcolemanllc (talk · contribs) on 29 June 2008. He may however be faking his own death from these two four IP addresses: 85.154.253.13 (talk), 85.154.52.37 (talk) and 68.35.248.90 (talk) 70.180.77.23 (talk). All users have been vandalising the article trying to twist the facts. All their edists should be reverted. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Petri Krohn would you please sign your comments. Thank you.Nrswanson (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment I think anything that is not cited to a reliable source should be removed from this article; regardless of who added it and why. The whole article is a mess and needs a good weeding through. Since we don't have a reliable source stating he's dead, I don't think the death year should be given. The article could list him under Category:Possibly living people.Nrswanson (talk) 05:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Lester Coleman died in Jounieh, Lebanon, St Joseph Hospital, April 17, 2007 after suffering a stroke. Maronite Church records confirm this in the province of Kessowaan, Lebanon. He, in fact has a surviving twin brother, Lex Coleman who is a retired university professor and developer of Audiophonic Visual Isolation. There are many pictures of the brothers dating from their attendance at Marion Military Institute, Alabama, 1961-1963. This article is so full of inaccuracies it should be deleted intirely. -- 208.114.116.75 00:25, 2 April 2009

Who are you? Where does your information come from? Can you provide any sources or references? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment, the article is highly accurate and verified by reliable published sources. 208.114.116.75 (talk), you seem to have an agenda of some sort to spread mis-information. If this continues I will be reporting you to WP:ANI as a disruptive WP:SPA which will reult in the blocking of you from editing wikipedia permanently. This goes for your other IP addresses, which I believe are yours as well. Please see WP:Sock for the seriousness of sockpuppetry. Nrswanson (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone speak or read Norwegian?

The front-page news article iDAG (19 October 1992) as seen here, may help to illuminate Coleman's claim of asylum and may be used as verifiable material for the currently unsupported claim. Ideally a full translation for both articles located somewhere within the internet would be preferable; yet iDAG (in Wikipedia) defaults to a journalist (?), named Jan-Olof Bengtsson so I am baffled as to how reliable iDAG really is, and whether or not it is truly recognized as "...Sweden's national afternoon newspaper" though a Google search did provide these two references [4] [5].

Aside: It would seem as if the Wikipedia link to iDAG needs further clarity, or at least disambiguation; however further investigation into Wikipedia provides only more puzzling information [6] [7]. —Merry Yellow (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The Google references are to the Norwegian newspaper Norge i dag, whereas iDAG is an edition of the Swedish newspaper Kvällsposten, which is confirmed by the article concerning Coleman's asylum claim. Instead of the redirect to Jan-Olof Bengtsson, I am therefore redirecting iDAG to Kvällsposten.

I'll leave it to a Swedish-speaking editor to confirm whether the cited iDAG article can be used to verify Lester Coleman's claim of political asylum in Sweden.---PJHaseldine (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I can read Norwegian, but luckily the text is in Swedish, which is even easier. Unfortunately the quality of the image is unreadable, even when scaled 200% using Lanczos filtering. This much I can translate:

“

USA-agent seeks asylum in Sweden Speaks of murder threat from his hideout Lester Coleman was an agent of the narcotics police DEA. He is now sitting in western Sweden, hoping for asylum in this country. Motivation: Coleman has information about the so called Lockerbie catastrophe, that is very alarming.

”

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Petri, would it be possible for you to contact the publisher of the aforementioned articles and request a readable copy? Or better yet a definitive reference to something which would clarify Coleman's claim? As written, the Wikipedia statement says that Coleman "was granted asylum", so somewhere there must be documentation dealing specifically with the issue. Currently, all that really exists is Coleman's claim that he was in Sweden seeking asylum, as well as the U.S. government's attempt to extradite him. Neither issue deals specifically with whether asylum was granted or it wasn't though it would appear that the extradiction process would detail those specifics. Your translation is revealing: it says, "...from his hideout" and "...hoping for asylum". The actual granting must have therefore come sometime after October 19, 1992. This would give us a timeframe for research. Until then, the request for factual verification of the phrasing "was granted" and "After he was under Swedish protection" must be considered unsupportable. —Merry Yellow (talk) 13:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: Further research into the validity of Coleman's claim may be unnecessary. According to my research using Micheal Hurley's book I Solemly Swear, Coleman was denied asylum and fled Sweden to Spain before the Swedish authorities deported him to the U.S.. See pages 288, 479, and ppg. 482 – 485. For example, on page 288, Hurley writes: "He had applied for political asylum in Sweden, claiming the U.S. government was persecuting him. The Swedish government saw through his nonsense and was about to deport him—most likely onto a plane destined for New York—but he saw the handwriting on the wall and fled before Swedish immigration officials caught up with him." Then on page 479, Hurley adds, "It was rather funny that all the while Coleman was hiding out in Spain he was claiming to have been granted political asylum in Sweden. I knew that was incorrect because I personally checked with the Swedish government and was told that Coleman had fled Sweden when he received word that the Swedish Police were going to deport him and that, 'Mr. Coleman and his family have no permit to stay in Sweden.'" —Merry Yellow (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hurley Book slammed by Amazon Review. ' I Solemly Swear' is not a reliable source. It was published by IUniverse, a Vanity press. See the following book review from Amazon: Book Review Amazon.com I SOLEMLY SWEAR BY MICHEAL T HURLEY

This book interestingly appears 17 years after the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland that set off a still unresolved international who-done-it. At first glance the work appears to have some merit, considering the Author’s credentials in international law enforcement. Unfortunately, this reviewer quickly concluded that it is a boring heap of vengeful ineptitude. Micheal Hurley, a retired federal drug agent, turned Mossy Rock, Washington tree farmer, falls on his own chain saw, while whittling the truth into toothpicks. He was mentioned in world-wide media reports in the 90’s as one of several U.S. agents who may have triggered the terrorists plot that brought down flight 103 in 1988. His central theme is that main-stream media, from New York to Sydney, falsely tied him to C.I.A. covert operations that armed and trained Libyan and Syrian based terrorists to blow up airliners. He was based at the American Embassy in Kabul Afghanistan when the U.S. was backing Osama Bin-Laden, and, later, in Cyprus where he actively recruited Arab drug dealers to be C.I.A. covert operatives. One operation the C.I.A. ran with Hurley was called Goldenrod, an over-blown capture of a Beirut used car salesman, turned dubious sky-Jacker, in September, 1987. Hurley denies he played any active role in C.I.A. Ops, but admits now he is working on a book about Goldenrod. Mr. Hurley claims his arch nemesis is Les Coleman, a former U.S. Defense Department operative. Coleman co-authored a book, Trail of the Octopus with former New York Times editor, Donald Goddard, in 1993. Hurley tries to win over the reader by dwelling on a small settlement he had brow beaten out of Coleman’s British publisher, using Great Britain’s arcane libel law. Trail continues to be sold in several countries, including Canada and the U.S., and in several foreign language editions. A Kindle and U.S. paperback version is readily available from www.amazon.com I Solemnly Swear was apparently intended to answer Hurley’s numerous critics. Even with the pointed pen of his co-author, retired English teacher, Kenton V. Smith, Mr. Hurley fails miserably. His research relies heavily on several tainted journalists to boost his credibility, including a defrocked reporter at the Atlanta Constitution. Ron Martz falsely named security guard Richard Jewell as the Atlanta Olympics bomber, costing his newspaper $millions. Joining Martz is Lloyd Burchette, a Georgia Soldier of Fortune gadfly with a merc-and-lurk past, and hero worshipper of the Grand Moofta of arm-chair mercenaries, the late Mitchell Werbell, III. Others include a sacked New York Magazine writer, and a relative of the late Theodore Shackley, Director, C.I.A. Counter-Intelligence. In 1988, according to published accounts, Martz and Burchette went on a world-wide drug trek for The Constitution, with the cooperation of Hurley’s bosses at the Drug Enforcement Administration. They were welcomed with open arms at the U.S. Embassy in Nicosia, Cyprus, and Mr. Hurley even arranged for them to slip into Afghanistan. Hurley’s version of the Pan Am disaster is further discredited with his propensity for school yard profanity and childish name-calling. He repeatedly refers to his detractors as “pricks”, “piss-ants”, “ass-holes,” “S-O-B’s”, and “sociopaths.” His own supervisors at D.E.A. HQ are labeled “slugs” by the author who also poo-poos a federal prosecutor in New Orleans who once labeled Mr. Hurley “ a disgrace to his profession”, by “perjuring himself” on the witness stand. In 1986 a three judge panel of the Italian Tribunale De Roma ruled that “ Mr. Hurley’s testimony simply cannot be believed.” Nor can the assertions Mr. Hurley makes in I Solemnly Swear, leading this reviewer to conclude that the “W” in “Swear” is upside down. Hurley obviously chose to spend his wood chips on vanity publishing rather than on Prozac. He attempts to seek solace in retribution, at the reader’s expense, reinforcing his role as a timely federal attack dog,who, once again, dissembles and demonizes those who blew the whistle on the government’s link to the Pan Am 103 disaster. The author’s only purpose in publishing was to attempt to blur the fact that his cronies at the C.I.A. armed and trained those who blew up Pan Am 103. It is no surprise his latest “ cop-roach” ambiguities crawled from beneath a mossy rock worthy of its own zip code. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.250.12.246 (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I found those references to Hurley's veracity over here shortly after I published my above remarks, so Hurley's accusations must be seen in light of his testimonies to the various proceedings cited.

Coleman's claim of asylum must be pursued in greater depth. Sadly little light is shed upon that claim by the nameless Amazon reviewer who may be just another, scholarly kook with a propensity to see all things jumbled into a massive conspiracy. I found his reference to the minuate of the upside down W to be as enlightening as your own, most-recent effort to perform that same magic upon Hurley's book title. [8] Should I conclude that you, Dr Ellis G Quies, and the Amazon reviewer are one-and-the-same? What fun! You all write on the life of Lester Coleman with such authority . It is almost as if you all know him personally. Perhaps you will find the subject of conflict of interest as rewarding as the upside down W. —Merry Yellow (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Other Swedish sources?

I made a search on Google for Lester Coleman on Swedish sites. All I found was one article from 1999. It agains cites as its source "Times, UK, 13 June 1999". The part on his stay in Sweden and 1994 emigration to Spain may be from local Swedish sources. Article: Lockerbieattentatet avslöjat av agent - Translation Lockerbie bombing revealed by the agent -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the IP who has persistently been trying to falsify this article has now opened an account, Dawholetruth (talk · contribs). It isn't socking for an IP to open an account, so there is nothing punishable here, but we should be aware of it. Looie496 (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The only ghost trying to falsify this article is talk:Looie496. who does not exist, has no ID or email address. This article is slanderous, and lawsuits are about to fly. If Looie spouts truth then step forward and get served and have your day in court. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawholetruth (talk • contribs) 03:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

If I reported that comment, you would immediately be blocked on the basis of WP:NLT. I'm well aware that you're just blowing smoke, so I'm not even going to bother. Once again, if you believe the article is wrong, all you have to do is show some evidence of it. Looie496 (talk) 05:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Not only are you a ghost but a thug! Idle threats now ??? My my my !!! This has been reported to ReputationRestore who will be addressing this garbage and those who have perpecuated it. Please inform us how to present evidence when there is no contact for any of you scribs filling this site with lies, garbage and inuendos---- lets have a name, email address Looie496 Spook. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawholetruth (talk • contribs) 16:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Passports

Please provide email address and copies of both Lex and Les's passport will be sent to you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawholetruth (talk • contribs) 06:04, 11 May 2009

Please send copies to me at petri.krohn (at) iki.fi -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

We perfer your direct email address, not some ghost address on this rubbish of a website —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.223.206.112 (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This is my direct email address, the one all my friends use. I am a member of the Finnish Internet Users Forever association and I am commited to uning this email address "forewer".

“	English summary: The Internet Users Forever IKI is a non-profit society which provides its members, private individuals in Finland, permanent iki.fi-addresses with e-mail and WWW forwarding services (IKI does not host the web pages, it just forwards the addresses). This allows our members to keep the same personal identity should the actual location or ISP of their e-mail or www homepages change.	”
— Internet-käyttäjät ikuisesti IKI ry

If you seach my user page you may also find my home address hidden somewhere. I do not know how it could get any more real than this. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 12:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. - As for your block, I suggest you read WP:NLT and Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats and state on your user talk page (User talk:Dawholetruth) that you have understood them and do not consider taking legal action. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 12:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion, legal threats, and protection

IP editor User:206.223.206.112 is now blocked for a year for being an IP sockpuppet of User:Dawholetruth. Please do not continue to make legal threats on Wikipedia or further protective measures will be applied. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

No Legal Threats

Legal warning. All inaccurate information contained will be addressed in a court of law. The very fact that you are threatening retaliation by using "protective measures" is criminal verbal assault. If you proceed with such threatening actions, that too shall be addressed in the proper forum.

Please note: a new revised version of Trail of the Octopus, the book about Lester Coleman, is to be published within a week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.180.133 (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The Fraud conviction in Kentucky was dismissed in a Federal lawsuit filed in 2005 in the District of Columbia. Oswald Le Winter, Lester Coleman, Allan Francovich Estate v U.S. CASE No. 1:04 – CV – 01688 – EGS . This item is omitted in the article and should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.124.204 (talk) 12:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

68.59.124.204, the lawsuit to which you refer (CASE No. 1:04 – CV – 01688 – EGS) is a well-crafted bogus document circulating the internet. —Merry Yellow (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The above document that Yellow|talk has labeled "bogus" is on file with the United States District Court, District of Columbia, before The Honorable Emmett Sullivan. Please see www.uscourts.gov/1:04cv01688 --Drlescoleman (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

To label this verifiable action "bogus" is nothing but more "wiki-trash" that has killed the reputation of this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.124.204 (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

...ah, Would the Honorable Eugene Sullivan be the same Judge Eugene R. Sullivan who retired from the U.S. District Court of Appeals in 2002 and then went on to pen the 2005 fictional spy-thriller, Majority Rules? Or perhaps the "EGS" in CASE No. 1:04 – CV – 01688 – EGS refers to the Honorable Emmet G. Sullivan? who might be annoyed to be mistaken for a predecessor and/or referred to as Eugene. —Sullied Sullivan (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is pointless anyway. A Federal Court decision would be a reputable source, but a mere complaint is nothing -- anybody can file a complaint about anything. Looie496 (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

So no decision was rendered in the case? If so, I agree with you - nothing in the complaint can be added to the article. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if a decision has been rendered, I'm just responding to the material included above, which only shows a complaint. For what it's worth, I signed up for the Pacer system a couple of days ago, but haven't received a return email with a password yet -- I'm guessing the system is not fully automated. Looie496 (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think the approval is manual. Thanks for starting the process. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:29, 6 September 2009 (U

The PACER file only holds the Civil Action. The accompanied Criminal Writ that overturned lower State Court rulings was SEALED after the CIA moved the court to invoke the Classified Information Disclosure Act ===www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/laws/pl096456.htm===. Security clearance must be obtained by any party who wishes to view the file. An application can be made with the US Dept of Justice, District of Columbia. Partitioner must be a US Citizen and show just cause. Wiki should seek legal counsel to proceed to review the court record under CIDA or remove this article in total--User:drlescoleman

"...remove the article in total". That's not going to happen as the article content is well-sourced. If you wish to contact group of volunteers who may be able to assist please read Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problem/Factual_error_(from_subject)#Email. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 13:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

[A discussion of Coleman's claim that his criminal record was expunged by a civil action was discussed from November 15, 2009, to November 26, 2009 on the Biographies of Living Persons/Noticeboard [9]. For further discussion on this issue please continue below:] —Merry Yellow (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• What is the issue here now? Off2riorob (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand your question? The issue seems obvious to me—that is, it is an issue of whether or not to reestablish the verifiable, supporting documentation for Coleman's criminal background (i.e. reinsert the paragraph plus its references). The material was removed under the supposition that "as primary source material" it was unusable. However, there is sufficient "secondary sources" to corroborate that material. Moreover, claims of an existing tort action have never been supported by any reliable documentation.—Merry Yellow (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

If you have quality sources for content and it is not excessive weight then please present it here for discussion to see if there is support to add it. Off2riorob (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The Lexington Herald-Leader articles clearly support all the Fayette County court documents. This information has been presented "here" for a long time. There is no need to belabor this issue. The removal of the "offending paragraph" should never have occurred—Merry Yellow (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you got a link to this lex header article? Off2riorob (talk) 18:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorob, please look above you in the subsection 3.1 marked "No Twins. Same person." Each of those headlines and article-first-paragraphs are found by accessing the subscription service called NewsLibrary.com. Once there, a person needs only to use the NewsLibrary search engine with the proper parameters. The result will return the above cited material at no cost. Yet, the procedure does not allow for a hypertext link which, in turn, would provide anything meaningful as a Wikipedia reference citation: the link would merely take an interested party to the NewsLibrary search engine without the necessary parameters. —Merry Yellow (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

We don't just want to create an article that attacks him , that is against policy. Off2riorob (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The article does not "attack him"; the article attempts to provide the reader with verifiable, reliable information. Currently the article is a joke of watered down nonsense. If a criminal is a criminal then a reader deserves to have that information at his disposal. Many biographies within Wikipedia provide truthful, unpalatable information about their notable persons e.g. Giovanni Di Stefano and O.J. Simpson. If you argue that the truth should not be revealed, that is an unacceptable argument in my opinion. It is not against Wikipedia policy, to present verifiable, reliable information. That is what was presented in the retracted paragraph.—Merry Yellow (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

There is almost nothing in the article that is sourced to a strong citation, if I removed all the content that I thought was weak there would be little left, oj po jay, all situations are different, oj , I am not even going to go there and look, if I went there I would find lots of content about his career and also some about the murders and crimes, this article in incomparable. Off2riorob (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You're kidding right? The NY Times is not a reliable source? The American Journalism Review is not a reliable source? Okay.... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorob, in the case of Giovanni Di Stefano the editors ran afoul of Mr. Di Stefano because of his 1986 arrest and conviction on similar charges to those of Lester Coleman. Di Stefano's details are readily available and readable on the many pages of the Talk:Giovanni Di Stefano talkpage. Wikipedia seems to be handling Mr. Di Stefano's articlepage well. Wikipedia will be able to handle the fraudster, Lester Coleman equally as well. I would like to think that you are reasonable, can see that the supporting documentation for Coleman's conviction is verifiable and reliable, and that you are not using language such as "oj po jay" just to be argumentative.—Merry Yellow (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I could link to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as I clearly said, what is in the oj article has no bearing on what is in this article. Off2riorob (talk) 12:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, these comparisons are simply muddying the waters , if there is something that you want to add, would you just put it here with the link for discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 13:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Off2, why do you wish to belabor this issue? The Kentucky appellate court judges decision No. 2004-CA-001134-MR (as reference in the 23:03, 15 Novemember 2009 version of the Lester Coleman articlepage seen here) should be satisfactory. Yet if you insist on seeing the Lexington Herald-Leader articles you must go here then insert the following in the appropriate boxes: "Lester Coleman" in the for box and "Jan 1, 2000 to Dec 31, 2004" in the limit by date box. Then, before you click Search you must click the KY (Kentucky) state in the map. The result from your Search will return the 9 headlines and first-paragraphs from the Lexington Herald-Leader (which were previously quoted above in subsection 3.1. "No Twins. Same Person"). As you can imagine, this latter procedure with NewsLibrary is an unacceptable procedure for Wikipedia's reference citations; thus, the Kentucky appellate court judges decision should be an adequate source for the details of Coleman's conviction. What is your reason for insisting that his conviction should NOT be written into the article? I have been with this article for almost a year now and have seen it unwind from an interesting article on someone who is quite noteworthy into a stub as vandals insist on disrupting unpalatable, but verified and reliable facts. —Merry Yellow (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• This would be an example of an acceptable version of the offending paragraph as far as I am concerned. —Merry Yellow (talk) 15:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

These vandals as you call them, simply seem to disagree with the portrayal of this subject, please remember he is a living person and we should do our best to portray them fairly according to the citations, there is a degree of dispute here, and as the result of the discussion was that this source should not be used. I don't feel good myself about what is left, a couple of editors here have expressed strong views about the subject and it is hard to not allow private opinions to affect our judgment, I also feel that there is perhaps excessive weight being given to these positions, no one could tell me if he was in jail, where he was in jail or any of the detail at all, one reason for this is that it is not notable and has not been widely reported. Off2riorob (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is really not one of "not been widely reported" but rather that Coleman is/was just a small-time common criminal in the Kentucky court system. The national news—and even regional news—do not waste time on common criminals. Actually we are lucky that the Lexington Herald-Leader has provided us with decent supporting documents to verify all of the elements of the offending paragraph. The issue is that you do not want to accept these details because you feel that the details are unfair to Coleman. The details are what they are. There is no disputing that. As far as where Coleman was incarcerated, we need only to look into Coleman's daughter's webpage for answers: Coleman was incarcerated at the Green River Correctional minimum security prison sometime around 2000 to complete his 10 years sentence. Sometime later (possibly 2006), Coleman apparently secured an early release according to the daughter's webpage. But since her webpage is unreliable information, there is no way to really know if her reporting of the early release is accurate. Since Coleman is currently on the staff of American University of Technology in Saudi Arabia, one would assume that he was released before 2010, the scheduled release date. Kentucky prison inmate locator seach engines proved to be useless, as well as email requests to Kentucky's Attorney General, and the Lexington, Kentucky bureau of information. The fact of the matter is: not many in Lexington, Kentucky are interested in a small-time, narcissistic, pathological liar who has spent a lifetime pursuing a grandiose belief that he is/was significant in the histories of Inslaw, Danny Casolaro, Michael Riconosciuto, and Pan Am Flight 103. Currently there are three opinions expressed in favor of keeping the offending paragraph: mine, NeilN's, and Looie496's. Your opinion seems to be supported by Collect's opinion. Perhaps this discussion needs the input of a RfC, with a timeline of 30 days. I am not going to change my opinion. It appears to me that you are not going to change yours. Consequently you and I have nothing further to discuss on this issue. I will sit back for awhile and see what Neil and Looie have to say. —Merry Yellow (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I am considering your comments, as you have mentioned the detail from his daughters webpage and detail from it, could you please provide the link to those pages. Off2riorob (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Off2, located above in the subsection 3.1 and beneath the No. 8 headline is a paragraph discussing Sarah Coleman's webpage as well as Lester Coleman's LexTalk America webpage. Sarah Coleman's webpage —Merry Yellow (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I have not put back the paragraph because after thinking it over, I believe Off2riorob is right. A conviction for check fraud is not notable on its own and does not seem to tie in to the events Coleman is notable for (the phony Pan Am story). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but any editor who deliberately tries to add incorrect facts to an article is a vandal. The uw-error1 to uw-error4 warning templates cover this situation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this issue sorted? It seems to be..? I will mark it as resolved at the BLP noticeboard if there is no problem with that? Off2riorob (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No. I would like Looie496 to weigh in with his opinion. The issue of secondary sources/primary sources was addressed; and, in my opinion, it was shown that there were sufficient secondary sources to support the contested material. Now, it seems that the issue has blossomed into one of whether or not a biography is written around the single event for which a person is notable. For example, does the past bad behavior of a bank robber become overlooked if he becomes notable as a symphony conductor? —Merry Yellow (talk) 13:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP states that, "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability..." and "...insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." You could argue that the fraud conviction adds to Coleman's notability as a con man but other editors should weigh in. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some of this confusion can be clarified by reading the Memoramdum Opinion and Conclusion of Honorable Emmet G. Sullivan, dated August 28, 2006 [12]. Coleman does not contest that his July 1999 arrest and conviction in Kentucky for forged instruments is unrelated to his notability, rather he cites that his conviction was worthy of a $150 million damage suit against the U.S. government. Coleman asserts that the government began its campaign due to his whistleblowing activities on Lockerbie. Judge Sullivan's Memoramdum should not be confused with the above cited (and collapsed box) civil complaint(presented by Drlescoleman) but rather as the end result. The case was dismissed against the defendants and nothing within the memorandum supports the claim that Coleman's Kentucky criminal conviction was reversed, or settled favorably for Coleman.—Merry Yellow (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been too busy to follow every iteration here, but basically my opinion is that information about the fraud conviction is necessary in order to give an accurate portrayal, and that the sources establishing the conviction are as reputable as any sources could possibly be. Looie496 (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am yet to be convinced by the comments here that this was widely reported by reliable sources, feel free to show me the citations that are intended to support the inclusion of this content. Off2riorob (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorob, we have shown you repeatedly sufficient citation material. It is time to draw up a WP:RFC.—Merry Yellow (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be a strong disagreement over printing facts regarding Lester Coleman unless those facts are both directly related to his notability and have been reported widely. See the discussion begun under the subheading "Fraud"[13], then carried over to the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard[14], and then returned to the subheading "Fraud case discussion"[15]. I am strongly opposed to the removal of the offending paragraph, have offered my opinion ad naseum, and welcome a concensus of Wikipedia opinions. Please offer an opinion.—Merry Yellow (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• As yet, to my knowledge, no wikipedia reliable source has been presented for this addition, I would like to request that if you are asking for additional input regarding this addition? that you post the desired addition here with the citations that you would like to support the addition clearly for people to consider its appropriateness. Off2riorob (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I gave you reliable sources on the BLP noticeboard. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen any, is there some problem with adding here the desired addition with the citations to support it? I would think that is normal to assist people in deciding if the addition is ok or not. Off2riorob (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

These [16], [17], [18] were provided in direct answer to your question. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry this is hard, as regards this request for comment, I am requesting someone to please please here the addition that they are requesting comment about and please also with the specific citations that are to be used to support the addition, allow me to help and add a section... Off2riorob (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

So you agree these are reliable sources? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

What are they to be reliable sources for? I see there is a problem here, it is a simple good faith request that I am making here and the refusal to post the desired addition is strange. Off2riorob (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

What's strange is your assertion that you had not seen any sources. Making additions to articles can work two ways. 1) You find sources, editors agree they are reliable, then you write text based upon the sources. 2) You write the text and then find sources to support the text. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the addition in question

please add the desired addition and the supporting citations here...

Per Mellow Yellow above:

On April 10, 2000, he was sentenced to ten years on thirty-six counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument.[19] The trial court then suspended imposition of the sentence and granted Coleman probation for five years. However, on June 11, 2002, his probation officer filed an affidavit stating that Coleman had violated the terms of his probation and was residing in Saudi Arabia.[20] Coleman was then apprehended later in Florida and was returned to Kentucky where he was then formally sentenced to ten years in prison on May 29, 2003. Later, upon appeal to vacate his sentence, the Fayette Circuit Court of the Commonwealth of Kentucky denied his motion and affirmed his conviction on May 28, 2004. ^[1]

comments regarding the desired addition

These sources are imo no where near reliable, perhaps if I take them to the RS noticeboard for looking at, I see one primary source and a couple of other subscription links that I couldn't even get to sit in a citation template, this is exactly the position that was strongly rejected at the BLP noticeboard. Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. Some article templates work strangely in talkspace. And there's no need for you to see the article when determining the reliability of a source. The WSJ archives are behind a paywall but the WSJ is a reliable source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the edit, as I have said all along, this is very weakly cited, it has not been widely reported as these citation reveal, the primary citation was refused at the BLP noticeboard and I am surprised to see it again being presented here. Off2riorob (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Per Mellow Yellow, "I think that it would be an unnecessary task to rewrite the offending paragraph—in order to conform to the WP:BLP issue raised by Collect. The pdf-files (i.e. a primary source) are easily confirmed by a secondary source (i.e. the Lexington Herald-Leader articles which were published during the period of time of Coleman's incarceration)" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"On April 10, 2000, he was sentenced to ten years on thirty-six counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument."[21]

Off2, what precisely is wrong with this citation? Is it that you object to the fact that it is not in the <ref></ref> format?

And what do you mean "...the primary citation was refused at the BLP noticeboard"... That is an incorrect statement. There was no acceptance-or-rejection of the primary source involved. There was a discussion, and now that discussion seems to be continuing due to either your lack of understanding, or your refusal to accept facts that are presented to you repeatedly.—Merry Yellow (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually the use of the PDF was rejected as it was a legal document. However, the "do not use trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them" exemption might apply. Is the PDF really needed? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

EC, The primary source is not ok as per the BLP discussion at the noticeboard and supported by the subscription headers is weak indeed, there are no stronger citations because it was not widely reported and as such is not particularly notable, feel free to wait for other opinions. Personally I suggest the reliable sources noticeboard and perhaps returning to the BLP noticeboard, but those are tasks for tomorrow Off2riorob (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you still disputing the Herald-Leader is reliable? I never got any kind of proper answer on your talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have decided to remove myself from this discussion, I have not really changed my personal opinion but other editors discussed the situation with me here and there was little or no support at all for my position, I was especially swayed by User:John_Carter 's clear informative comments, I have the wikipedia's interest as my driving force and bow down to the weight of comments regarding this, my position is more fluid than fixed and I learn and grow from each situation. This situation is perhaps better understood by editors local to the article and although I feel articles are better served by a diversity of editors from a variety of locations thereby developing a global article in preference to a local one, as per the comments in this discussion I will be re evaluating my involvement in such articles. Off2riorob (talk) 03:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Coleman’s notability—or lack thereof—rests on his credibility as an expert witness in the crash of Pan Am 103 in 1988. I would point out that this credibility rests both on the subject’s expertise and on his personal character. The latter was severely damaged when he was convicted in a US court of perjury regarding his public claims concerning the cause of the plane crash—he admitted that he lied about the whole thing. This fact is obviously relevant to the subject’s notability and so was rightly included in the article. The inclusion of the contested paragraph detailing his later conviction for an unrelated fraud offence is also relevant, though admittedly much less so. It is relevant because it further calls into question the the subject’s credibility as a trustworthy source of information in the Pan Am tragedy. I support Merry Yellow and others, who argue that Mr. Coleman’s 2000 conviction for check fraud, and the 2004 affirmation of this conviction in appeals court, should be mentioned in the article. They convincingly argue that the conviction was reported in a reliable secondary source, the Lexington Herald Leader. I would argue that the information presented in the contested paragraph is not only verifiable, but also neutrally stated and relevant to the question of the subject’s notability. I would also suggest that the main points in the American Journalism Review (AJR) article (hyperlinked in Reference #3), “Pan Am Scam—How two self-styled intelligence agents took the news media for a ride,” are also very relevant to the notability of the subject, and should also be included in the article. Mr. Coleman's own correction of fact, presented apparently by him, in the beginning of this discussion, that he was never a Navy officer, should also be reflected in the article. Mr. Coleman has very determined and creative defenders in this Wikipedia discussion, e.g., they have claimed that it the Mr. Coleman in question had a twin brother, and that it was he who was convicted of perjury. And they have made legal threats, signed by attorneys of doubtful verifiability. The article has the feel of a courtroom trial, but this is not the case. The trials have already taken place, all three have been duly reported in the media, and because they are relevant to the subjects notability, deserve mention in this article. --Early morning person (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

On the one hand we have some information on a BLP which has not been widely reported. If the person were more high profile then it is likely that the info would not be included due to undue weight. However, in this case, there is not a massive amount of info to go on anyway, so the fact this has been reported anywhere to my mind merits inclusion. The sourcing appears reliable, and shouldn't be excluded because it could be construed as negative. Quantpole (talk) 11:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)