Talk:Peter Camejo

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]

There's evidence out there from multiple sources that suggests he was born in Venezuela ... but what's disturbing is the changes on the Web site of his company.

Yesterday, the information about him being born in Venezuela was removed from the site of Progressive Asset Management. However, it's cached on Yahoo and Google.

Compare those to how it looks now.

There has been some confusion as to Peter Camejo's birthplace, likely because he spent his earliest years growing up in Venezuela. I contacted Peter Camejo personally, and he assured me that he possesses a valid United States passport obtained on the proof of his birth certificate registered in the borough of Queens, New York.

Reverted some POV language from a partisan; the same was inserted into David Cobb as well. Several unproven statements made, including that a "majority of Greens" supported a Camejo campaign. Will attempt to come up with some better language in the near future, working with the partisan if necessary. - Scooter 03:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1 Totally disputed
2 POV
3 Sourcing
4 npov
5 VP Campaign
6 GDI

[edit] Totally disputed

Even my minor, modest NPOVing gets reverted. [1] Cognition 2 July 2005 22:18 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. -Willmcw July 4, 2005 10:09 (UTC)

A snide "that's right" does not suffice as an exlanation. Please discuss your reverts or move along. Cognition 4 July 2005 10:24 (UTC)

It does seem fairly minor. I would think perhaps something could be worked out. There's no discussion going on here. Everyking 4 July 2005 10:32 (UTC)

YOu're welcome to it, EK. Cheers, -Willmcw July 4, 2005 20:02 (UTC)

What he "purports to be" his love of democracy is what only a LaRouchie could call NPOV. James, the arbcom ruled that any editor could remove material inserted to promote LaRouche's position from articles not "closely related" to LaRouche, so if you object, take it up with the arbcom, and not on these talk pages. SlimVirgin ^(talk) July 4, 2005 20:48 (UTC)

Wait a minute. There's no direct reference to LaRouche, is there? I think the ArbCom ruled against adding LaRouche content to articles where it was inappropriate, I don't think it was a ban from editing an article to reflect a certain view. If you didn't know he was a LaRouchite you couldn't find out from that edit. Everyking 4 July 2005 20:53 (UTC)

It would be enough to arouse the suspicion of anyone familiar with LaRouche. The arbcom ruled that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, that it is not for advocacy or promotion, and Cognition is clearly here to do that. Secondly, regardless of the LaRouche issue, "what he purports to be his love of democracy" is not NPOV, is not good writing, is not encyclopedic, and is not sourced, and therefore shouldn't be defended. SlimVirgin ^(talk) July 4, 2005 21:19 (UTC)

If I may add, the issue is promoting the theories of Lyndon LaRouche, not just LaRouche himself. A LaRouche publication has called Camejo a "sleazy-looking," "avocado fascist". The LYM was noted for interrupting Green Party activities (along with those of other parties) in the last campaign and these edits appears to be a continuation of sniping left over from that conflict. This editor is promoting the LaRouche theory on Camejo (and many other topics). -Willmcw July 5, 2005 08:06 (UTC)

So if you're a LaRouchite you aren't allowed to edit the articles to reflect a negative POV, but if you aren't a LaRouchite you can still do so? Everyking 5 July 2005 12:49 (UTC)

James, you don't support the LaRouche POV either, so it looks like you're arguing for the sake of it here, but to answer your question, these edits wouldn't have stuck no matter who had made them. The distinguishing feature of a LaRouche supporter is that they seem almost incapable of making edits that don't reflect a LaRouche POV, and they are here for that sole purpose; not here in the interests of WP, or because they want to make honest contributions, but here to reflect the views of a political cult. That is what's unacceptable about it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) July 5, 2005 13:00 (UTC)

This article is not typical of Cognition's work; most of his edits have been more drastic. But these edits stand out because Camejo is so non-controvsersial to most people. I'm sure he's no saint, but criticism of him is quite rare. He's fading fast into obscurity. So it appears that Cognition's unsourced attacks on Camejo are based on LaRouche's animus. How would yo suggest dealing with this kind of situation? -Willmcw July 5, 2005 18:35 (UTC)

Or how would you deal with the repeated insertion that the leftwing, pacifist British philosopher Bertrand Russell was, in fact, a Nazi? SlimVirgin ^(talk) July 5, 2005 19:36 (UTC)

[edit] POV

For most of his life, Camejo has purported to participate in political movements advocating social, economic, and environmental justice. He makes the claim that he marched with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in Selma, Alabama, rallied with migrant farm workers, and protested the Vietnam War.

Unless there is some reason to doubt the truth of these statements, adding "purported" and "claimed" pushes a POV by disparaging the honesty of Camejo. -Willmcw July 4, 2005 22:34 (UTC)

Exactly, and unless we have credible, non-LaRouche sources saying there is good reason to doubt his honesty, we'd be breaching WP:NOR by leaving it in. SlimVirgin ^(talk) July 4, 2005 22:58 (UTC)

From Camjeo's POV he advocated social, economic, and environmental justice. Others strongly disagree, especially when he was a member of the SWP, which is not an organization with mainstream recognition. Cognition 5 July 2005 01:24 (UTC)

If there are notable critics of Camejo, then please add their specific, referenced criticisms. -Willmcw July 5, 2005 01:40 (UTC)

Like I have been doing on High Times? Oh, wait, I get reverted without discussion there too. Cognition 5 July 2005 01:41 (UTC)

Now this is too funny and not a particularly convincing argument against Camejo. Lyndon LaRouche was a member of the SWP. Kaibabsquirrel 5 July 2005 02:58 (UTC)

Yeah, and could I go to the LaRouche page and say "For most of his life, Camejo has purported to participate in political movements advocating social, economic, and environmental justice?" Or would I get reverted? Cognition 6 July 2005 00:14 (UTC)

You'd get reverted. But that's because LaRouche is a conspiracy mongering fraud, and Camejo isn't. Snowspinner July 6, 2005 00:42 (UTC)

And because there is no obvious reason why you should add Camejo to the LaRouche biography. Additions of irrelevant details are likely to be reverted, regardless of the POV. -Willmcw July 6, 2005 01:48 (UTC)

Let's see how I can explain this. Material on Camejo doesn't belong in the LaRouche article unless it pertains specifically to LaRouche; general material on marijuana doesn't belong in the High Times article unless it's specific to High Times; editing the Camejo article so it says he "claimed" to march with MLK when he marched with MLK, unless you can cite a reference indicating that he did not, is pushing a POV. By the way I agree with Everyking that there is no reason why LaRouche supporters should not be welcome to contribute to Wikipedia. That's not the issue, the issue is whether the edits are pushing unsubstantiated claims and POV, or working in a collaborative way to build a fair and level-headed encyclopedia. Kaibabsquirrel 6 July 2005 02:04 (UTC)

I added a section called "political criticism of Peter Camejo"I hope it is written with npov.

Also corrected the birth information; from the story Peter has told publically about his birth in New York, that his mother flew in to have him for good health care and specifically, to give him the American birthright. Hank chapot 01:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I took out a great deal of the comments which were pov and added responses to the critisms.

Hank, I'm dissapointed to see you adding disparaging remarks about groups like the ISO and calling them "fringe," amongst the many other POV comments. Many would gladly call the Greens "fringe" so I can't see why you want to promote that sort of dialog on a Green Party candidate's page. The comments are overly negative and you are going into far too many criticisms -- it isn't going to help the party to have a member being openly attacked on wikipedia. Your edits on here are permanently recorded in the history (and the IP address of the computer you use if you don't login under your username).

You are misinformed.

I did not call the ISO fringe or anything, all that stuff about trotskyite, etc. was the work of another green critic. I even came along after and struck a few of his more obvious insults. I do not log in as anything except my own name (except once or twice when I forgot to sign-in) so my contributions and my edits are there for you to reads and for me to defend. I am critical of Peter but if you look closely, I tried to stick to NPOV as much as is humanly possilbe, and if you look close you will see which of my criticisms have stayed even in this controversial part of the bio. I notice, whoever you are, you are not signing your name. Hank chapot 22:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I still think the link to the article critical of the convention process is not relevent to a criticism of Peter.

And, in the interest of full disclosure, I am not now nor have I ever been a Cobb supporter, I never liked the guy, I opposed his candidacy and I wrote in Ralph in 2004. hc

If I'm misinformed, then I apologize, and glad to hear you wrote-in Ralph. I suggest we all tone down our points of view on this page and stick to facts. Having a webpage on Camejo of primarily criticisms only means that it will take up some Green Party activist's time to then respond, furthering the split in the movement and showing more and more public infighting in the party. Maybe that's what it needs, I don't know. But I think the best way to promote our ideas is to focus on the positives of our own ideas, and not on the negatives of the idea we disagree with. The best solution will prove itself the best solution and should stick on its own merits - we don't need to spend all our time taking out the opposition with critisms to make our positive solution work. I'm not at all saying there shouldn't be any critisms but I've been upset by the ones I've seen on here. The best solution should work all on it's own, without needing to have the person who is promoting that solution be described in such a strong way, to put it mildly. btw, my signature is Bov 00:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC), which goes along with the changes I made on the page in the history.

From Hank Chapot, hchapot@igc.org, 510 654.5311

Dear BOV, if you want to tone it down, go forth and prosper. the webpage on Camejo was a puff piece. A little criticism is warranted. And if Green activists want to argue over the Camejo page on wikipedia, well, that's our loss. The split is so wide that critiquing Peter is nothing compared to the bigger issues. If we just focus on the positives, we get all slaphappy and loving while endorsing denial of the issues.

If you've been upset by by the criticism you've seen here, the previous criticisms, I suggest you take two aspirins and lie down; politics is not worth that kind of pain.

And if you are a conspiracy theorist, then you are a total loser because much of this stuff, including my decision to criticize Peter Camejo, is the result of a remarkable set of coincindences. Namely, he has decided to run for Governor again.

[edit] Sourcing

somebody is demanding for facts that I have not seen ordinarily requested in other Wikipedia entries, that I am familiar with.

I hav a fifteen year old archives called, California Green Archives. The facts are resting quietly there. It is available to any and all scholars who wish to do research, call me at 510-654-5311.

Hank C.

Actually, I didn't ask for "facts" in the typical notion of the word (implying objectivity), but rather we need some sources for this article. While you've changed it around a bit and readded some of the unsourced assertions, you've only added wikilinks, not references. It is fine to have statements that demonstrate points of view, as long as teh point of view is identified ("Reagan said X" or "Fellow Green X has criticized him for Y") as long as those assertions are properly referenced. You need to provide references to speeches or transcripts, publications, websites, etc. Please also avoid charged, and POV, wording like "insults," "assailed Peter," "stepped aside to watch the entire effort collapse within a year due to the falseness that it represented". And yes, sources are a basic requirement for all good Wikipedia articles, see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Cite sources. Dmcdevit·t 07:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

This information still needs to be sourced. I've placed fact tags on the pertinent assertions. Simply saying "See the Green Party archives" isn't good enough; we need specific references, citations, in-line links etc. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 20:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the Reagan citation because Peter is proud of it and though it may be apocryphal, he tells it to any interviewer who asks.

Second, the fact that the Progressive Alliance was a failure is obvious by its disappearance from the scene when Camejo's money ran out. The information about the PAAC is stored in my archives which is publically available and funded by the state party.

Arguments about Peter's leadership style are recorded in the archives of the Green Party National abd state Committee discussion list. That he did not inform most California Green primary voters of his "stand-in" campaign is likewise archived in the ca-grn-org discussion list, that the GDI is considered a polarizing force was not my contribution, but I agree with it and the argument are also recorded on the Ca greens discuussion list.

My goal here is to establish that some of Camejo's activities are problematic, if you want to call me on citations, then I will seek out the references for them. Notice the ones that stand up to your petty scrutiny. 03:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

P.s. who is we?

The royal we, of course. As in "Wikipedia and its editors." I look forward to your finding proper citations. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 04:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you had time to find citations yet? · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 04:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

What is your deadline? Hank chapot 02:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Please don't remove the fact tags until you've provided citations. There's no hard and fast deadline, but technically unsourced information may be removed at any time. I figured another week would be a reasonable time period for you to back up these assertions with sourcing. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 02:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and edit, be bold.

[edit] npov

I removed the tag on the top since there is one further down on the criticisms section Bov 20:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

how does one post legitimate criticisms of a person from recognized sources without the post having a point of view? Espercially if the post is under a heading, Political Criticisma of X? I included sourced material. 00:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what material you want to add but, in general, criticism (pro or con) should be attributed, not just sourced. For example, "Smith is a liar" or "Smith is known as a liar" would be wrong, even if sourced (unless it'd been proven in court). However, "Jones has called Smith a liar" is probably OK, if "Jones" is a notable, reliable source. "Some have called Smith a liar", is a last ditch effort if the critic isn't really notable, is a stretch if there's only one sourced critic, and is usually not allowed in contentious articles. What we must especially avoid is coming up with criticisms, or defenses, on our own. We're just here to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. Cheers, -Will Beback 06:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VP Campaign

Is all of the ranting regarding the GPUS presidential selection process relevant to this section? This seems like a separate issue, that may perhaps warrant its own article, since at least one book has been published regarding it since. In this section a reference to the controversy and how it affected Camejo and his supporters would suffice, in my opinion. -Banyan 11:31, 24 Jan 2007