Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Jill Metzger

Allegations without sources

Subsequent news reported in the Kyrgyz Republic but not in the U.S. claimed that Metzger was pregnant at the time of her disappearance and that her disappearance was related somehow to hiding her pregnancy from her fiance or husband.

— [1]

We cannot have this in the article without something to back it up. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article on Metzger reads like an Air Force press release. Why is there no discussion here about the Kyrgyz Television report that discovered she had had an abortion outside of Bishkek? Why discussion of why the Air Force whisked her out of the country without raising a stink with the Kyrgyz? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.162.9.2 (talk • contribs) .

You could always add it yourself- take a look here to get started.

EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME 21:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What?

"Metzger was the women's winner of the United States Air Force Marathon in 2003 and 2004 and placed 12th in the women's division of the Marine Corps Marathon in 2005 with a time of 3:06:39. While in Germany became a jagermeister. It involves highly intensive training to become a jager so one can hunt in Germany."

Uh... the last two sentences make no sense. Jagermeister is apparently a drink. Maybe I'm just being naive here. Either way, it's grammatically incorrect. Also, it was placed there by 209.22.88.24 who changed a lot of things just slightly - the person changed three to four, September 5th was changed to the 4th... yeah. And it would have nothing to do with the running, unless hunting is now running? Just thought maybe it's worth mentioning.-Babylon pride 18:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jager translates to 'hunt'. Meister translates to 'master'. Jagermeister = Hunt Master; hence the reference to 'hunting'...!

Polygraph?

What happened to the part about her failing a polygrapgh test? I think this is an important detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.255.35.52 (talk) 02:02, July 12, 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it because I couldn't find any reliable, corroborating evidence that she failed one. There are a lot of rumors and allegations surrounding this story so I think we need to avoid putting contentious claims into the article unless we can back them up with a decent source. I hope you agree! -- Hux 10:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


After some research I agree- I feel silly posting that now. I know I have seen several places where it was stated "...Fox news is reporting that she failed a polygraph test." But there is no mention of it after doing an exhaustive search of the Fox news website. Thanks...CB

Good sources, bad sources and rumors

Regarding this edit and the edit comment, "MCC and AIM both do considerable fact checking. People reading this should have the option to read BOTH sides of this, not just AF press releases!":

1) Despite the name, Accuracy in Media is a clearly questionable source; please see the "Criticism" section in its article.
2) MilitaryCorruption.com is a shrill blog/rumor site that is nowhere near reliable enough to use as a source to back up the many contentious claims that surround this story.
3) Despite what FOX News may have us believe, news stories are not about representing "both sides", firstly because no story has merely two sides and secondly because merely making an allegation that is the opposite of mainstream opinion doesn't mean that that allegation must be given credence. In many situations - this being a prime example - such allegations are unreliable and should not be put alongside properly sourced facts because doing so wrongly suggests that they are as accurate as those facts.

The majority of the sources quoted in the article are respectable ones, e.g. Washington Post, CBS News, etc. These are the kinds of sources we should be using for stories like this one, not blogs and clearly biased NGOs that purport to be all about accuracy when they are clearly not. Accordingly, I've removed the poorly sourced information. If that info gets picked up by a better source then by all means let's add it back in. -- Hux 06:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opposing view

Hux, you are clearly entitled to your opinion here. However, I feel that you are rating sources on ideological grounds, not factual ones. Lets look at WHY I see this to be true:

1) You attack AIM and MCC based on their slant. However, the reality is that ALL news media is slanted to some extent. One of these sources you name as “reliable”, CBS News, is so slanted it went so far as to publish FORGED documents in 2004 with the intent of influencing the presidential election. By your own standard, everything they say is now “questionable”, and both of them (WP and CBS) are overwhelming LIBERAL sources. Are you simply removing sources based on politics?

2) There is little doubt that this case has a political component. Feminists and liberals would view a court martial of Maj Meztger as yet another example of a male dominated military just out to get a poor little woman who dared to challenge the glass ceiling(clichés added for effect) The issue here at hand is not any of that, but rather did she commit offenses under the UCMJ, and if she did, why has she not been held accountable? If she didn’t, and her story is true, why didn’t she receive one or more military decorations for her bravery? The Air Force has not yet answered the most important question here, what REALLY happened? Until they do, we are ALL guessing

3) There is no doubt that all media outlets do get things wrong from time to time. MCC is no exception to this rule, but also not alone. I think we should look at MCCs record in THIS case as to factual accuracy, so lets do that. Months before the official release, MCC was reporting that Maj Metzger would receive a PTSD pension. Last week, it was revealed that she was to receive just that. Unless MCC has well placed sources, there is no way to obtain such confidential information. Their other facts in this case have been accurate, and what they posted as opinion or satire was clearly labeled as such. If you can point out to me how either MCC or AIM are factually wrong in this case, thats something else.

Wikipedia’s readers should have the option of reading news from both sides of the political spectrum. However, I agree that such material should be sourced in that way, and I have noted that in the most recent edit. It is clear that you are on the liberal side of this, and I respect that. However, I will not allow the other side of this to be not be heard. Per Wiki's rules, we are close to an "edit war" at this point, something not permissiable. I am more than willing to listen to you in talk here, and if you can prove the unreliablity of my sources with facts, I will remove them myself. So, lets talk, but here, not by revising and editing each other's posts. -- Blowejoe1960 18:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blowejoe1960 - The above is all well and good, but there is a more important issue here: that of Wikipedia's rules with respect to biographies of living persons. Due to the extensive damage that a major libel case could do to the site, Wikipedia holds biographies about living persons to a much higher standard than regular biography articles. (Judging from your edit history, you haven't been around here that long so you'd be forgiven for not knowing.) As WP:BLP notes (bold text theirs):

Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, including as an external link, unless written or published by the subject of the article

It goes on to say:

Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced [or] relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability...Where the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. Content may be re-inserted when it conforms to this policy.

Given the additional guidance given here, I don't think any reasonable person would regard either AIM or MCC as reliable enough for a living persons bio article. Given the libelous consequences, we are obligated to err on the side of caution. Like I said, if the mainstream press reports on the issues MCC et al. have discussed then we are free to put it in the article. But for now it can't stay, so I'm going to revert it. -- Hux 20:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(PS Your assumption that I am assessing sources on ideological grounds is in error. I am assessing them on the basis of reliability and respectability, in accordance with the guidance provided on the aforementioned Wikipedia policy pages. - Hux 21:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
This is certainly an interesting thread, couple questions for Hux
1st, WHO defines "mainstream press"? Would Fox News count as part of that? As I have stated, CBS has been CAUGHT faking stories in the past, yet they remain as a mainstream source? I wouldnt consider them as one at all.
Furthermore, to prove libel, three things would have to be proven. That the comment was false, that the person so libeled was harmed by it, and that the person saying the false statement KNEW it was false and knew it would hurt the person, and wrote it anyway. Furthermore, any person filing such a suit would expose themselves to the legal process, and the party sued would have the right of discovery and subpoena, and I would guess that Maj Metzger would prefer that the private details of this case remain private(as would anyone)
Also, define "reasonable person"? I consider myself to be a reasonable person, and find both AIM and MCC to be acceptable sources on this matter, on this case.
Hux, thanks for the education on how Wiki works, best of wishes to you in Bishek.
-- Blowejoe1960 22:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blowejoe1960: The scope of this discussion is getting a little too broad for this article, so I've replied instead on my talk page. If you'd like to continue the discussion there I'd be happy to. -- Hux 13:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Vandalism

Found the article with this statement in it: "She was also voted "Most Likely to get an Abortion While Deployed by the 376th AEW"

Removed the statement since the series of changes would not allow for a revert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.41.68 (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation Complete

I added a section showing the investigation was completed in Feb 2012, and the evidence supports Metzger's original story. Hildenja (talk) 13:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested modifications

Hi all,

We received via email the below suggestion for some changes to make to the article. I am posting them here (with the consent of the sender) for wider discussion and consideration.

The investigation of Metzger's disappearance was closed on February 3, 2012. Various agencies, including the Air Force Office of Special Investigations, confirmed Metzger's account of the events. Evidence taken from surveillance

tape at the ZUM department store indicate a surveillance effort against her. Her kidnapping may have been by mistake, her captors having mistaken her for someone else.

Although the actual Final report is referenced as further reading the AFT article is not fact checked against the actual report. More significantly the wiki article asserts " Investigation complete" and suggest the kidnapping might be a case of mistaken identity by referencing the AF Times article and not the report.

Rationale: The final OSI report confirms nothing. It essentially states no evidence exists to disprove her kidnapping story, but nothing exists to prove it either. Report states (p12) FBI and other agencies withdrew from investigation due to no access to interview Jill Metzger and other obstruction preventing investigation.. Please read the actual report. http://cytechandprofservices.com/pdf_folder/Metzger%20Report%20Analysis.pdf for analysis of the Final OSI Report.

Thanks very much in advance.

Regards,
Daniel (talk) 09:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jill Metzger. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 11:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jill_Metzger