Talk:Kevin Coughlin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

James Renner, Kevin Coughlin, and the Akron Beacon Journal[edit]

Here is the source in question: Trexler, Phil. Journalist Sues Cleveland Scene Over Firing, Akron Beacon Journal, June 2, 2009. Now, here are the problems with how this source is presented in this article:

  • WP:BLP; that is, the Wiki shorthand to describe Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons, also briefly described above. To wit: "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard." [Emphasis in original] We cannot allow poorly sourced information to remain in the article whilst we debate its propriety, and the claims made in the article are not clearly sourced by the above source.
    • How is it poorly sourced? It's sourced by the same daily paper that is used as a source in other sections of the page. JamesRenner
  • WP:COI; that is, the Wiki shorthand to describe Wikipedia's policy on conflicts of interest. The editor who added this to the article is User:JamesRenner, who shares the name of the person who has named Coughlin in a lawsuit. Certainly all can agree this gives at least the appearance of a conflict of interest.
    • Regardless, the content was well sourced. Does it matter if it's inserted by someone else? JamesRenner
  • WP:NPOV; that is, the Wiki shorthand to describe Wikipedia's policy on maintaining a neutral point of view where possible. The paragraph added to the article does not meet NPOV, as it ignores aspects of the suit that implicate parties other than Coughlin. We could work with this, were this the only problem with the edit. Sadly, it is not: The first two reasons preclude our ability to salvage the edit. Regards, JeffBillman (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, James, I know you've been warned about this before. You have a conflict of interest with regards to this article. That alone should be enough, especially since you're suing the subject of the article-- this rule is as much about protecting you as protecting Wikipedia! Then we have the fact that even though the ABJ is a proper source, what you added was not properly sourced. You made it seem as though Coughlin was suing Cleveland Scene, when in fact you're suing both of them, and the allegation that Coughlin threatened to sue Cleveland Scene is your own... and it hasn't been proven in a court of law, nor reported by the ABJ. This edit has conflict of interest written all over it. I will remove it once again, and will report this to the living persons biography noticeboard. We can't afford to let this edit stand... and quite frankly, neither can you. -- JeffBillman (talk) 01:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the sourcing. These are all articles from reputed daily papers that support the information presented here.
The sourcing isn't the issue, my dear anonymous editor. The issue is that the information presented, in James' own words, has been presented over and over again by Mr. Renner and a seemingly inexhaustible supply of anonymous IP editors without any real regard for whether or not it's true, without any regard whatsoever for a neutral point of view, and with a series of sources that are at best tangential to the claims being made. Combine that with the fact that Mr. Renner is active in a lawsuit against parties mentioned in the edit, and this makes for a very bad edit at this time. Can't you folks at least wait until this has had its day in court?! -- JeffBillman (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually read the sourced articles, you will find that the lawsuit has been settled. Coughlin was dismissed by Mr. Renner after he admitted that the article was not defamatory and that he never had any intention of suing Renner or Scene magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.80.72 (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • James, I've put this issue up for review at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Kevin_Coughlin. In the meantime, you will not help your case by continuing to add this edit. You may or may not have noticed that anonymous, IP-only editors have been blocked from editing this article until this issue has been resolved. Let's allow active editors to consider what we've written here before proceeding. Thank you. -- JeffBillman (talk) 20:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Your argument on the noticeboard, however, is incorrect. Please read the sourced documents. JamesRenner —Preceding undated comment added 03:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • I've got to agree with JeffBillman here. The current paragraph in the article seriously twists the facts that the papers reported. One glaring example is "Coughlin threatened to sue Scene Magazine if the story was ever published." Only the Beacon even touched on this aspect and rather than saying Coughlin made a threat, it says that James Renner's lawsuit simply alleged such - that's two very different things. While there might be a brief place in the article for the lawsuit, it needs to be written from what the sources actually say, no more, no less. Shell babelfish 23:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In reviewing the lines in question and comparing them with the listed sources, I have to agree with JeffBillman`s grave BLP concerns. The only thing in this edit that is supported by the three sources ([1], [2], [3]) is that Coughlin was sued by journalist James Renner. Everything else appears to be BLP-violating, highly slanted supposition written in a way to make Coughlin appear guilty of Renner's claims ... which I am sure is not coincidental since this content was added to the article by the same person suing Coughlin.

My BLP concerns are on pretty much everything after the first line. As an example, none of the sources mention anything about "illegally altered petition ballots." Likewise the edit states as fact that "Coughlin threatened to sue Scene Magazine if the story was ever published" when in actuality the sources indicate that this is nothing more than Renner's unsubstantiated claim. Worse yet, the final line "Coughlin later admitted that he never had any intention to sue the paper and that Renner's story was not defamatory" is not even hinted at by the sources, and gives me the impression that it was just made up to make Coughlin look bad. Speaking as an uninvolved admin, 90% or more of the disputed text appears to be moderate to severe BLP violations against an elected official. — Kralizec! (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to comment here. Having read the disputed text and the sources, the sources don't support the edit, so if anything is to be added, it would have to be rewritten, at least. The material also shouldn't be added, even if reworded, by any of the parties involved in the dispute. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the original article that lead to Renner's firing and the lawsuit: [4] "76.211.6.68 (talk) 13:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)"[reply]
Here's a well-sourced blog entry about Coughlin's spin in the media. [5] I agree, Renner shouldn't be the one to write the entry. But it looks like something should be mentioned. Who wants to step up? "76.211.6.68 (talk) 13:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)"[reply]
As per Wikipedia rules, we must use "reliable, third-party, published sources," of which, neither of these latest references appear to be. Regardless, the blog is straight out as it is a self-published source. This article is fully protected for another nine days, so there is plenty of time to hash this out the right way. — Kralizec! (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no problems with the three sources that were initially offered. (Two from the Akron Beacon-Journal, one from the Columbus Dispatch.) If someone (not Renner, and probably not me either at this point) were to write something using only the information in these three sources, with no innuendo based only on Renner's allegations, I don't think I'd have a problem with it. -- JeffBillman (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about this, with the three sourced articles: In June, 2009, Coughlin was sued by journalist James Renner, who alleged that he was fired by Scene Magazine after Coughlin threatened to sue the paper if it published Renner's article about Coughlin, in which the writer claimed the state senator had an extra-marital affair. Coughlin was later dismissed from the lawsuit by Renner, after he admitted the story in question was not defamatory. "69.208.2.202 (talk) 03:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)"[reply]
    • Could we make it a bit clearer? I confess I lost you halfway through the first sentence. Thanks! -- JeffBillman (talk) 19:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Try this: In June, 2009, Coughlin was sued by journalist James Renner after Renner was fired by Scene Magazine while reporting on allegations that Coughlin had an extra-marital affair. Coughlin had threatened to sue the paper if it published the report and the management at Scene declined to release the story. Coughlin was dismissed from the lawsuit in August, by Renner, after Coughlin admitted the story in question was not defamatory. "70.60.182.114 (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)"[reply]

(outdent)Having carefully reviewed the two reliable, third-party, published sources ([6], [7]) given above, I have the following concerns:

  • In the first of the three proposed lines, the statement that "Renner was fired by Scene Magazine while reporting on allegations that Coughlin had an extra-marital affair" is improperly presented as fact, when source #1 clearly shows that it is Renner himself who was "claiming he was unjustly fired over his unpublished story" (emphasis mine). While Renner's personal claims might be appropriate in the James Renner article, this sort of primary sourcing is not appropriate in this article.
  • All but the last few words in the second sentence are Renner's claims again improperly presented as fact. Specifically the statement that "Coughlin had threatened to sue the paper if it published the report" is a clear WP:NPOV and WP:BLP violation that cannot be made as the source indicates that Renner's "lawsuit contends that Scene bowed to threats of a libel lawsuit from Coughlin if the story were published."
  • Finally, the last half of the third sentence states that Coughlin was dismissed from the lawsuit "after Coughlin admitted the story in question was not defamatory," which is at best a complete misrepresentation of what the source states: "Earlier this week, Renner's attorney dismissed Coughlin, a Cuyahoga Falls Republican, as a defendant in the lawsuit."

This article is about Kevin Coughlin the public figure, and as per long standing policy, needs to consist only of properly sourced and cited content. This article is not about the various claims or allegations that have been made about Coughlin by every Tom, Dick, and Harry who have ever sued Coughlin.

Additionally, everyone involved in editing this article should note that as the concerns over the these issues have already been brought up at both WP:BLPN and WP:ANI, Wikipedia administrators will respond appropriately in defense of the Biography of living people and Edit warring policies. As an otherwise un-involved admin, I have added the article to my watchlist so that I may more closely monitor the situation and react accordingly. — Kralizec! (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kralizec. But I don't see the sourcing problem here. It sounds like semantics to me. Would you like to take a stab at a rewrite? While the wording seems to be in dispute, I don't think anyone can argue this part of Coughlin's life is not important enough to be included in some form, as it was covered by both the Beacon Journal and the Dispatch. He dropped out of the race for governor of Ohio during this lawsuit and is retiring from politics. Just a coincidence? The dude also threatened the life of Renner's source, according to this article: ([8]), which was published in Akron & Cleveland last week. I picked up a copy at Angel Falls in Akron. I haven't heard anything about Coughlin suing Renner over what is presented as fact, here. In fact, I don't think he can if he was dismissed from Renner's suit. Thoughts? "69.208.12.229 (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)"[reply]
I am sorry if you do not see a problem with this article portraying Renner's unsubstantiated claims about Coughlin as if they were facts, but as per official Wikipedia policy on BLPs, this issue is non-negotiable. Additionally I cannot re-write this -or any other- material since I am here solely in the capacity of an outside, uninvolved administrator to enforce Wikipedia policies and guidelines. — Kralizec! (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Kralizec! As you and other (uninvolved) admins are keeping a closer watch on this article, I am going to take a step back, particularly after an ambiguous, somewhat mysterious, and vaguely threatening message was left on my talk page. To be clear (and at the risk of sounding like a broken record) my concern here is WP:BLP. I am otherwise uninvolved with Coughlin, Renner, or any other party to this whole mess; indeed, I'm starting to regret becoming involved, after the railroading I got at WP:ANI by admins who hinted (clearly while assuming bad faith) that I had some kind of hidden agenda in involving myself with this mess. I regret that very much, but my only recourse at this time is to step aside. -- JeffBillman (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the main article. It is now unbiased and well-sourced. I think we can move on. "174.100.25.47 (talk) 17:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)"[reply]

I'm sorry, did you ignore the part above where it was explained, bit by bit, why your proposed text was completely unacceptable? You may not list allegations as fact and its unlikely that this article requires more than a bare mention of the suit, if it honestly deserves any weight at all. Shell babelfish 17:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read it. No one is listing the allegations as fact. This is not what BLP is set up for. Renner sued Coughlin. Fact. Renner dismissed Coughlin. Fact. It's a pretty big deal for a guy running for the highest office in Ohio. The major dailies in the state found it newsworthy. "76.211.15.60 (talk) 20:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)"[reply]
Correct. Now, can you explain why what you added says more than those two "facts"? Shell babelfish 20:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fact: He sued Coughlin over blowback from an article about Coughlin's alleged affair. Coughlin admitted the suit was not defamatory. He admitted in court filings that he would never sue. The way I read BLP, this is acceptable. It is fact and well sourced that these things occurred. You're implying that by stating the fact that Renner sued Coughlin after he was fired for reporting on a story about Coughlin's alleged affairs that we're saying these affairs occurred. That is not the case. We're not stating the affairs are facts, we're stating that the lawsuit was a fact. We're stating the factual reasons for the lawsuit. Please ask for an administrator to explain this and please stop vandalizing the page. "69.208.6.114 (talk) 22:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)"[reply]

Let me see if I can give you a better explanation of the various policies at work here and why the text you're adding is a problem.

  1. "He sued Coughlin over blowback from an article about Coughlin's alleged affair." - He did sue, as the references say. The references do not, however, opine on his reasons and whether or not they were accurate. "Renner said" isn't really a compelling reason to repeat the information, nor do the references treat his claims as fact. As I said earlier, Wikipedia articles must report only what sources say, no more; biographies are held to a very high standard in this regard. This also means that we cannot treat a single person's claims as if they were fact, unless the source itself reports it as such - that is not the case here.
  2. "Coughlin admitted the suit was not defamatory. He admitted in court filings that he would never sue." - None of the sources given make this claim. Primary sources (such as court filings) are not generally acceptable sources and certainly can't ever be used to draw inferences such as "would not sue = suit was not defamatory" (this is actually prohibited with any source). Unless you have a reliable third-party source making this claim, it cannot appear in the article.
  3. "he was fired for reporting on a story about Coughlin's alleged affairs" - again, pure conjecture based only on the claim of Renner and not reported as fact by the sources. If you want to get into the details about Renner's claims and firing, it might be appropriate on his article, but completely irrelevant here.

You've said things like "The way I read BLP, this is acceptable." What Kralizec! and I have been trying to explain is that the way you are reading BLP, especially since there are many other policies you need to consider, is not correct. I understand that Wikipedia's policies can be very confusing and almost a maze to navigate at times, which is why experienced editors will often offer advice on whether or not material meets those policies - you're also welcome to read the policies for yourself or even use related noticeboards to get additional opinions. One thing that you cannot do is continue to edit war and try to force your material in the article. This will only lead to restrictions on your editing. If you have further concerns and would like more opinions than already provided to you on this page, then lets do that. I'd be happy to explain any facet of dispute resolution on Wikipedia that you have questions about. Shell babelfish 23:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geez. I ignore this page for awhile and everything blows up. Thanks for helping, Shell. My two cents, for what it's worth, is that this is absolutely a big enough deal to put in some form on his page. I understand you can't use an article I wrote for The Independent as a source. And I understand you can't use court filings. However, this was a big news story around here. And certainly Coughlin's decision to drop out of the race for governor and retire from politics, which he promises to do when his term runs out, is not mere coincidence. Shell, can you take a look at the article from the Dispatch and Beacon and give us an example of what could be acceptable for inclusion? Thanks again. "JamesRenner (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)"[reply]

Improperly sourced content reverted, considering re-protection[edit]

Improperly sourced content has again been added to the article [9], and was reverted. The reasons are as follows:

  • The first line states that Coughlin was also sued for "illegally altering petition ballots." This claim is not substantiated by any of the listed sources.
  • The second source is a blog, not a reliable, third-party, published source. As such, the part stating that "Coughlin dropped out of the race for governor...during the lawsuit" needs to be cited to a publication.
  • The final line also indicates that Coughlin "announced his retirement from politics" but this is not supported by either of the Beacon Journal articles.

As BLP-violations have been reverted from the article four times now, I am strongly considering re-protecting the article. — Kralizec! (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By all means. Here's another source that backs up those claims of Coughlin dropping out of politics. [10] The issue isn't the wording. The issue is that this is an event that merits inclusion in Coughlin's article. If you don't agree with the wording, change it. Don't just kill it without presenting a solution. That's inane. "JamesRenner (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)"[reply]
As I noted in the previous section, my presense here as an outside, un-involved administrator is to make sure that all parties follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Re-writing content would make me an involved party. — Kralizec! (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, your second point is incorrect. That source is the Columbus Dispatch. Not some 'blog'. You are showing biased reasoning and I question your personal motivation. Let's get an unbiased administrator in here. "JamesRenner (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)"[reply]
I am sorry you feel that way, however that does not change the fact that official Wikipedia policy specifically prohibits blogs and other self-published sources from being used on BLPs. As WP:SPS states, "self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer." Requested different administrator oversight is not going to change the enforcement of this policy. — Kralizec! (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added an article from the Plain Dealer that backs up the claim that Coughlin has no plans to continue in politics following his senate term. "JamesRenner (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)"[reply]
The cleveland.com source [11] states that Coughlin "quit his longshot campaign to be Ohio's next governor" and that "he was grateful to again be able to focus full time on his job as a state senator." As such, you cannot claim that Coughlin has "announced his retirement from politics" and attribute it to this source. — Kralizec! (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The altering of petition ballots has been confirmed by another source as well, and is cited in the main page now. "JamesRenner (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)"[reply]
The tallmadgeexpress.com source [12] does not in any way support the claim that "Renner was fired from Scene Magazine while reporting on a story about Coughlin's alleged affair with a former staffer and allegedly illegally altering petition ballots." That article notes that Coughlin has "challenged petitions filed by 64" people and that he "is asking the elections board to reconsider seven of the 18" disqualified filings, but it has nothing to do with Renner's lawsuit and nothing to do with the "illegally altering petition ballots" text you added to the article. — Kralizec! (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the excessive number of times that BLP-violations and improperly sourced content have been added to the article, I have revered it back to its pre-dispute state and fully-protected the article for twenty days. If consensus emerges that supports a version of the text in question that is both fully and properly sourced and cited to reliable, third-party, published sources, I will unlock the article early. — Kralizec! (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kralizec, it's apparent to me you are not even reading the sourced information. The second source is not a personal blog of mine. It is the Columbus Dispatch, the daily newspaper of the Columbus region. "JamesRenner (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)"[reply]

My apologies on the Tallmadge Express link. It actually should have been linked to this article, which appeared in the Beacon Journal:[ http://www.ohio.com/news/14019487.html] "JamesRenner (talk) 19:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)"[reply]

RfC: How should this part of Coughlin's bio be written?[edit]

Can an unbiased third party take a look at the sources presented here and help with a neutral edit of the facts surrounding Coughlin's lawsuit and alleged affairs? "JamesRenner (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)"[reply]

This entire article is a POV mess. Did Mr. Coughlin's campaign staff write this? Where are the reliable sources for all of the claims? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just glancing at this page, I agree with WTWaG here. This seems unsourced and totally one-sided. Dayewalker (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with WTWAG. I might suggest stubbing the article and rebuilding it, while strictly adhering to NPOV and relying upon only WP:RS. Basket of Puppies 01:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concur, make this a very stubby stub, then rigorously keep to a "no generally wp:reliable source, no content added". wp:BLP information must be well sourced.- Sinneed 03:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with WTWAG. Let's use the material that is there now as a stub, and add reliable source material adhering to WP:BLP guidelines. --BwB (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stub article[edit]

{{editprotected}} I kindly ask that the article be stubbed so that it can be rebuilt in a very NPOV way using only WP:RS. I would be happy to begin this process. Basket of Puppies 02:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read {{editprotected}} before deploying it; proposed changes should be either controversial or have consensus support. Cheers,  Skomorokh  08:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please begin the process. "174.100.25.47 (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)"[reply]

The protection level on the article has been dropped from full to semi. Please note that as this issue has already been to AN/I twice and BLP/N once, any insertion of un-sourced BLP-violating text may result in blocking and/or resumption of full protection on the article. — Kralizec! (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Coughlin. Over the years there appears to have been a war of insertion and deletion of un-sourced BLP-violating text on this page.

Specifically: "A 2008 Cleveland Independent article alleging that Coughlin had an extra-marital affair with a staffer, at times taking her to Ohio State football games using money from his campaign accounts. The article also revealed that the Summit County Sheriff's Office was investigating Coughlin for allegedly altering petition ballots [7]" Clicking the citation reveals that no such source exists. This should be removed and blocked from being re-published.

In addition: "Coughlin threatened to sue the author, but the author sued him, eventually dropping the charges.[8]" The article linked to this statement does not, in fact, report that Coughlin threatened to sue the author. It says that the plaintiff and his attorney accused Coughlin of the threatening legal action. Big difference and not portrayed factually on the Wiki page. Again,, this should be removed and blocked from being republished.

It appears that attempts to correct this type of violation in the past have been corrected by Wiki administrators. However, the items listed above continue to be an issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombraider44303 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem[edit]

‎ This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. --VWBot (talk) 12:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been reverted by a bot to this version to remove User:CAFESDO's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. VWBot (talk) 12:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Kevin Coughlin is removing the controversy section of his article[edit]

A user, User_Talk:Coughlinohio, whose only edits seem to be removing Kevin Coughlin's controversy section, keeps removing Kevin Coughlin's controversy section. (ex. [14]). Should something be done about this? Lazylaces (Talk to me) 21:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kevin Coughlin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified a section on [[Kevin Coughlin]: Coughlin's attorney threatened to sue the author of an intended Cleveland Scene article alleging an extra-marital affair. Scene fired the employee, who later filed a wrongly termination suit against the publisher, also naming Coughlin as a defendant. The Coughlin was later dismissed from the case.[7]

Removed: archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130815194518/http://www.clevelandindependent.com/2009/07/06/the-real-kevin-coughlin/ to http://www.clevelandindependent.com/2009/07/06/the-real-kevin-coughlin/ because it was false and landed on a blank page.

Sticking with the Beacon Journal article for this seems to provide an actual source and keeps the facts accurate. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified a section on [[Kevin Coughlin] to change author to publisher and include Coughlin's response to the allegation from the article. [7]

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kevin Coughlin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kevin_Coughlin&oldid=1201177130"