Talk:Robert Thaxton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Article listed on WP:VFD Jul 10 to Jul 23 2004, consensus was to keep. Discussion:

Wow. A rock thrower. Really worthy of an encyclopedia article. Rick'K 05:09, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC) Addendum: This page was originally on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old but moved here due to a deadlocked discussion. Johnleemk | Talk 14:53, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Double wow. I want credit for the seven seconds I wasted reading this. - Lucky 6.9 05:16, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• I threw a plastic bottle at a copper once. Do I get an encyclopaedia entry? Delete. — Chameleon My page/My talk 07:57, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• I flipped the bird at a red light. I said a bad word to a parking meter. I spat on the curb. Give me my due. I demand a wiki page. Oh - I'm a user - I have one!! My bad! Denni☯ 03:32, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)
  • (no vote) You people obviously don't know that rock throwing was an olymic discipline. I'll have to write an article about it once. Nikola 23:45, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• I cursed at the mounted police when they tried to crush us in the anti-Iraq-invasion demonstration; I ran away from a riot in 1984 but wished the rioters well; the pollution sticker on my car is out of date and I drive it anyway for Anarchy! Delete. Geogre 13:22, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• I created the article because he was mentioned in the anti-globalization article, with a red link to create a new article. I figured somebody considered him worthy of an article if they'd put that, so I created a stub. Now that I think about it, you're probably right, but he did create some buzz after the demonstrations. There have also been allegations of police brutality against him. I can probably add a little more if anybody would be interested, but otherwise deletion is fine with me. Sorry, I'm kinda new at this, and thought that if somebody put a link to an article not yet created, it meant that they thought somebody should create one.

btw.. if anybody wants more info on him it's here. Tomorrowsashes 18:20, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please don't read these comments as belittling your efforts. You worked in good faith, and the fault is probably that of the original red-linker. Sometimes people very close to a subject, who have heard of everyone in it, will bracket everyone and then not follow up. Other times, people will bracket every proper noun, figuring that there might be an article on them. I think people in this debate have been having a bit of fun on the notability offered in the stub, but no one questions the desire to fill red links or to add information. In the case of the anti-globalization, and particularly the Anarchists there, we have had some authors who've gone hog wild and put up highly suspect articles, so folks are coming to this entry with that in recent history. Geogre 19:18, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Googling for "Rob Thaxton" suggests he's pretty well known for what he did. Good enough for me, anyway. Wikisux 22:08, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. The linked page and a google search for that name demonstrates that the gentleman and his case are well known. Jamesday 04:03, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Throwing a rock doesn't get you an article. Drawing a seven-year sentence for throwing a rock does. As for the Wikipedians who've touted their own bottle-throwing and cursing misdeeds, come back when you get such a disproportionate sentence and we'll write it up. JamesMLane 10:18, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• • Comment: This article doesn't provide notability. This article -- the one we're reviewing -- doesn't qualify. The fact that the man qualifies is well and good, but this is not a value judgment on the person, but on the article. It would be nice if the the people assured of the notability of the case wrote some of that into the article so that people could change their votes. By the way, throwing a rock and getting a 7 year sentence does not get one an article, either, unless all the Tienamin Square protestors are covered, all the Zapatistas, all the victims of purges, etc. There has to be some context besides oppression. Please provide it so that the subject can stay, so that it doesn't look like all the minor anarchist pages that have been put up. (Let it come back when some context is in it, and it should be written up.) Geogre 17:00, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I've attempted to add context in the sense of anarchists' criticism of the sentence. Is that what you had in mind? There's more biographical data about Thaxton available online (writings, participation in other protests, etc.), if that's the kind of thing you meant. JamesMLane 01:36, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • That is. I'll look again, when the article is up, and I promise to change my vote if the person and the offense are placed in a wider context so that he is distinguished from other examples. Even saying, "His arrest caused widespread discussion of police responses" would help. Promise to change to keep if the article broadens. Geogre 02:26, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Keep: Vote changed. The article explains the context now. (Picky point: did they suspect him of being in Earth Liberation Movement or Earth Liberation Front (the infamous ELF)? I don't know, just wondering.) Geogre 01:12, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. JamesMLane's argument seems reasonable. Przepla 15:20, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I concur- he's not a major figure in and of himself, but his involvement merits an entry, if only because people are going to want to look up info on the issues from his name, since it's likely to be the most useful keyword from a news story. Keep. FZ 15:46, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• The only Google pages that mention him seem to be sympathetic to his cause. He threw the rock at a cop in self defense, etc. He's even been referred to as an "anarchist political prisoner" — a sort of Kevin Mitnick among anti-globalism protesters. But I struggle to sympathize with him, even if his punishment did not fit his crime. Why rally behind a man who felt it was acceptable to throw rocks at other human beings? Did Martin Luther King throw rocks at police officers? Delete, and don't look back. --Ardonik 20:30, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • We don't delete articles just because some people find their subjects unsympathetic. The question for Wikipedia is not whether Thaxton is noble, but whether he's notable. Although you don't want to "rally behind" him, the fact is that, rightly or wrongly, anarchists do. They treat his case as a cause célèbre, within the U.S. (http://slash.autonomedia.org/article.pl?sid=03/03/18/1310236) and internationally (http://www.spiritoffreedom.org.uk/profiles/rob.html). By analogy, we don't have an article on every black defendant who got railroaded by the judicial system in the South, but we do have one on the Scottsboro Boys because of the attention paid to that case. JamesMLane 00:44, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • In my opinion, he's a violent blowhard milking the sympathies of well-wishers from behind bars, but you have a legitimate point. I'm changing my vote from delete to keep. --Ardonik 02:19, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I appreciate your willingness to reconsider. I'm not any kind of pro-Thaxton zealot. If the POV that Thaxton is a violent blowhard etc. is expressed by someone quotable (maybe an Oregon prison official), that should of course be included in the article. JamesMLane 06:48, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable person, non-notable event. Sentence no more disproportionate than thousands of other non-notable cases (and many including me would argue it's not disproportionate at all). Rossami 20:50, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - whether people sympathise or condemn has no bearing on whether we keep the article. If the guy is well known then we keep them. Secretlondon 12:56, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep -- perfectly reasonable subject. Jgm 15:20, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. He passes the Google Test and this is not a vanity piece. Carptrash 05:57, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. --Gary D 23:13, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• keep, interesting --Kyknos 22:58, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Thanks for adding more information. As I've said, I'm new here, but I'll definitely be more careful with the stubs I create in the future. For what it's worth, my vote would be keep. Tomorrowsashes 01:45, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End archived discussion

[edit] His Plea

Was his plea rejected by a judge, or merely disbelieved by a jury? Maybe this could be clarified. 162.84.72.171 21:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)