Talk:Frank Lasee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Wisconsin. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. If you give this article a rating or change a previous rating, please leave a short summary in the comments to explain the rating and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Sources

The issue of whether or not you can use an opinion page as a reliable source for negative information has already been discussed and the answer is that for WP:BLP you need to have a better source. Arthur 17:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This isn't an issue of politics, it's an issue of sourcing, and Wikipedia's policy on dealing with biographies of living people. We can't use a self-contradictory opinion piece as a source for somethng as potentially inflammatory as punching an attorney in open court. If such an incident really happened, surely there would be some other more reliable sources that are available? If so, produce them. If they're not available, then the information definitely shouldn't go into Wikipedia. --Elonka 19:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Why did someone delete the information about Lasee's investigation of the high-school in Brown Deer? He wasted the time of several school administrators because he irrationally thought that there was a hallway in a public school where black students would have copious amounts of sex, and white students weren't allowed to go through it. You can't even make that shit up. --LetsGoPitt 00:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Got a source? --Elonka 05:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Elonka - it was lost in the mix of your last reversion, along with information pertaining to Lasee's policy proposals. --LetsGoPitt 22:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If you mean this source,[1] that appears to be another opinion column. To go into an encyclopedia article, what we need is a solid, fact-checked, reliable source. If you can provide one of those, please do. --Elonka 23:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not an opinion piece, its categorized as "Wisconsin News." Its also from the same author/column as another piece that was put into the article by Arthur. It should stay in. LetsGoPitt 03:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I disagree, since the tone and casual writing style make it clear that it's an opinion column rather than real news. However, if you'd like another opinion, you can post about it at WP:RSN and see what other editors think. I will abide by consensus. --Elonka 03:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It is clearly an opinion piece that is in the newspaper. However, the other item using this source is not controversial info that could be potentially seen as libelous in violation of WP:BLP, but if everyone wants, we can remove that reference as well. that item was double-sourced anyway, so I removed it. Arthur 06:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I get it, you all don't really use 'libel' as another wiki-tag, don't you? Forgive me, I though we were using legal terms in their ordinary usage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LetsGoPitt (talk • contribs) 18:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Here - more sources on Frank's desire to check into the racially-segregated high school hallway where black students were having sex: [2] and [3] Quit keeping the truth about this man out of this project. --LetsGoPitt 19:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Our goal is not to keep the truth out, it's to keep poorly-sourced negative information out. Opinion columns are not reliable sources. A column in a student newspaper, written in an inflammatory manner, is not a reliable source. Can you provide anything from reputable news sources? If not, then this definitely isn't information which should go into an encyclopedia article. We're not here to repeat gossip, we're not a tabloid. --Elonka 20:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You're not here to keep the truth out, unless you don't like the truth. Way to educate.

There's nothing wrong with a student newspaper. If you'd like to provide some argumentation to back up your baseless disapproval, then we can start that discussion. Also, your view that the article is written in an 'inflammatory' manner is subjective, unhelpful and evidences the fact that you are not working on this article in good-faith. What one views as inflammatory can be viewed by any number of agents as neutral.

Please, keep your own views and prejudices out of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LetsGoPitt (talk • contribs) 21:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's try to keep this WP:CIVIL. Our guidelines are the wikipedia Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Here in particular we see verifiability come into play: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." as well as reliable source: "A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." and neutral point of view: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors. " and especially WP:BLP: "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to the law in Florida, United States and to our content policies".

You can certainly disagree with any of the above, the proper place for that is the talk-page of the respective policy/guideline article. If you believe a source is reliable and others disagree, there is also a place to resolve such questions at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. In fact, the issue has already been approached there, so feel free to discuss the reliablity of your sources there, or create a new topic at that noticeboard. Arthur 23:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Arthur - the discussion you pointed me to concluded with the understanding that the sources I've provided are acceptable if the information is not potentially libelous. As we've already discussed - this information does not amount to libel. Truth is an absolute defense to any such allegation, and it is on my side. The sources have to go in, per your discussion. LetsGoPitt 17:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

LetsGoPitt, the result of the discussion was that opinion pages should not be used to determine truth. We don't know if the allegations made are true are not. We need a reliable source. For example if there was a non-editorial article in a newspaper, that would be a good source. If this issue true and important, there must be someone writing about it other than opinion columnists. If not, it's probably not notable enough to be included in the article. Arthur 18:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit confict) LetsGoPitt, please, spare us the debating tactics. We're trying to be patient with you since you're obviously new to the 'pedia, but please be aware that we've already had this discussion hundreds of times. Please tone down your rhetoric. Being aggressive and confrontational may be useful in some other areas of the internet, but on Wikipedia, civility will serve you much better. Also, though it may sound counter-intuitive, "Truth" is not the goal at Wikipedia. We're not a source of news, we're an encyclopedia, and as such, we're only going to stick with information after it's been published in other reliable sources, preferably academic peer-reviewed journals. Sure, there are cases where we use other sources such as newspapers and television programs, but those are done with extreme caution, especially when dealing with an article about a living person. If Lasee has done something "bad", then the place to get it published is in reputable newspapers first, and then Wikipedia, not the other way around. On the other hand, if reputable newspapers don't think it's enough of a story to write about, then it's definitely not information that should go into a Wikipedia article. In short, if you're trying to get "the truth" out there, Wikipedia really isn't the place to do it. Wikipedia follows outside sources. We don't lead them. --Elonka 18:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Elonka - you're confusing yourself in a number of areas. Let's discuss.

First, saying that there's a fundamental divide between 'bad' and 'good' information about an individual is a subjective and unhelpful stance. One man's trash is another man's treasure. While you might think that punching an attorney in open court is negative, someone might think that is entirely praise-worthy. Given Lasee's anti-lawyer stance, its fair to conclude that even the subject at issue would think highly of the move. Negative? Hardly.

Additionally, you can't tell me that 'truth' is not a goal of this project, and simultaneously declare that stringent standards exist. The standards you love spouting serve a purpose - they are far from masturbatory. In simplest terms, they are a way to filter what information is legitimate, and what is full of shit. Also, keep in mind that you and Arthur have a fundamental misunderstanding as to the purpose of Wikipedia. Perhaps you two should iron that out.

Under the dicussion Arthur linked me to - it is very clear that non-libelous information (such as what I've presented) should be included. If you want a different source - then go ahead and find one to replace mine. I've done my work, I've conformed to the standards presented in your discussions.

It is clear that you're doing nothing but stifling the project. Keep your own personal views and prejudices out of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LetsGoPitt (talk • contribs) 18:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Clarifcation lest others should be confused when someone attempts to speak for me. From what I can see here I am not in any disagreement with what Elonka is saying. As I've stated above, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Also note that at the noticeboard I said "If it's potentially libelous, find a better source." (emphasis added). Arthur 19:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Arthur, don't double-back on yourself, it only serves to diminish your credibility in these matters. Previously, you stated that "opinion pages should not be used to determine truth" and are therefore inadmissible. Ignoring the obvious fact that your conclusion is a complete defenestration of the result of the discussion you cited, your position is that this project seeks to identify and dissemintate 'truth.' Elonka, quite obviously, disagrees with you.

Put my edits back in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LetsGoPitt (talk • contribs) 19:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biography guidelines

From Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons:

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons (BLP) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.

This is something that must be followed, it's on official policy rather than a guideline. Arthur 19:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Arthur, you've ignored every argument I've made in support of the material that needs to get into this article. For the love of Christ, you've got to be smarter than this.

Follow your own rules, get the information back in the article. Quit wasting my time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LetsGoPitt (talk • contribs) 19:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of violating WP:DFTT... LetsGoPitt, you are violating multiple policies from civility to assuming good faith. It's obvious to anyone looking at your contribs: LetsGoPitt (talk · contribs) that you are here on Wikipedia for one purpose and one purpose only, which is to add negative information to the biography of Frank Lasee. Now, you've been told multiple times, by experienced editors, what our standards are for the inclusion of this type of information. If you have a reliable source, please provide it. If not, please go find something else to do, because if you continue down this path, there will be consequences for your actions on Wikipedia, up to and including being blocked from the project. --Elonka 19:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)