Talk:Jack McClellan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 22 May 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
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 part of a WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's articles related to pedophilia. For guidelines see Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.

Contents

[edit] NPOV

Even though the initial write of this article was, I think, very NPOV, I put the POV tag on it anyway as I would expect it to become POV very fast. Hopefully this proactive warning will prevent this and keep text of the article based solidly in research and references. Of course, good luck with that... VigilancePrime 06:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's not how you protect an article. With an article this short (at present), there's no reason we can't put it on our watch lists and remove any POV/OR violations instead of using an ugly, inaccurate boilerplate to create a problem where there is none. Luatha 00:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. I meant to be proactive about it, figuring that it would quickly become POV, which has not happened. I am actually surprised. Thanks for the improvement! VigilancePrime 00:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stub categorization

Maybe make this a US-crime-bio-stub?

Icarus999 19:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

While I wouldn't necessarily disagree in principle, reports are unanimous that McClellan has no criminal history and he has not even been charged with a crime. Wouldn't it therefore be, at the least, POV to say that this is a "crime-related" stub? At the most it is inaccurate. Until a law is broken, I don't think this could be categorized as a crime-related stub of any sort... VigilancePrime 20:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When

McClellan has run multiple websites where he documents his experience and findings. While he resided in Washington he ran "Seattle-Tacoma-Everett Girl Love" and later "Los Angeles Girl Love" after moving to California. Both websites were taken offline by McClellan.

His move and when the websites went on and offline should be documented. Especially if he didn't take them down until after he recieved political pressure and restraining orders. EvilCouch 12:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Tebo

Can we get more information on this person? Roman619 23:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Google and create an article on him. VigilancePrime 07:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal with dynamic IP

This is getting tiring. The vandal that continually puts POV and unreferenced content back into this page is at least dedicated. I removed - again - the "with a camera" part. I searched back to the original referencing, and the first time that section is referenced does not include that phrase, leading me to rationalize that it was not in the original article. Unfortunately, that article is no longer available. Additionally, I searched for a similar article and no true media source I found (though I didn't look at a lot, only a few) do not state that a camera was with him.
This page was started out neutral, in spite of the strong emotions on both sides of this "issue". We all need to make sure that it stays this way, in accordance with Wikipedia's Point-of-View policy. Also, I would like to invite the IP user to register! It's easier for you to track your own changes, and you have a Watchlist that will help you see other people's edits too! Anyway, that's all I have for now.
IP addresses that appear to be the same user on a dynamic IP (constantly re-adding poor content):
VigilancePrime 18:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I've requested semi-protection. An IP block might also be a good idea to request. Jeffpw 19:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
It's protected now. If it starts up again after the protection expires (72 hours), we'll ask for longer protection. In theory and article can be semi-protected in perpetuity, if need be. I'm watching this page more vigilantly now, and will revert anything I think is POV pushing. NPOV is the only way Wikipedia can maintain credibility. Jeffpw 21:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Good work and thank you. Credibility is key to Wiki. VigilancePrime 22:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] section deleted

In accordance with WikiPolicies, this page is to discuss the article, not the subject of the article. Thusly, content that is extraneous to the article has been removed. VigilancePrime 19:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor Edits

Added information about his current website. Added note about online interaction between McClellan and Anthony Zinnanti (who sought the restraining order). Sources for the note about Zinnanti and McClellan corresponding on GirlChat will take some time - their posts have to be located first. --HolokittyNX 23:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hurry. With a controversial article (as this has turned out to be) on a living person (as others have pointed out), content must be immediately referenced or it'll be removed. I am not one to usually remove content quickly due to unreferenced-ness (especially when it is accurate), but there are some others.
On a side note, this article is still awful and needs a total reformat. Anyone interested in taking on that task (or partially taking it on)?
VigilancePrime 00:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Newsweek Article

A Newsweek article (Up Against the Law) is referenced in the External Links section of the article. After clicking the link, I was redirected to the Newsweek homepage. Assuming that it was out of date and Newsweek had changed the location of the story, I searched Newsweek's site, and couldn't find it. I then searched EBSCOhost for the article - I could not find it there, either. Does the article exist, and if so, could someone update the link to actually show the story? 216.159.169.120 02:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted the link. Fortunately, it was not used as a reference, so it doesn't affect the article. VigilancePrime 02:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citing

Adding a citation direcly following the "self proclaimed pedophile" clause would be a good idea, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blog "citation"

See PAW section for reference justification. BLUF: It is acceptable under WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:OR. VigilancePrime (talk) 06:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Again (since I'm the only one discussing this here... WP:RS et al guide against evaluative. To say "Mr. X posted a message to YChat" and use that very post as the reference is perfectly acceptable, even if PRIMARY sourcing. VigilancePrime (talk) 07:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
From the so-called PAW project page: "for policy reasons (WP:RS, WP:V, WP:EL, WP:NOT), and by simple common sense" (note, the policy citations continually change and move around, and common sense is not a policy, as Jack and others have occasionally demonstrated - and I'll count myself in that now and then too). "Since there are third party sources available, there is no reason to use primary sources;" said Jack. Very well, then re-reference them (as you would undoubtedly tell me to do were I the one trying to remove legitimate and evidenced content). The sources are legitimate to demonstrate/show the statement about them. No evaluation is being made. Perfectly acceptable. If you want them to be referenced some other way, reference it some other way. Until then, the primaries will neccessarily remain (because otherwise it'd be unreferenced and someone could start whittling it down until it's stubbified, redirected, or deleted. VigilancePrime (talk) 08:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I'm not replying to your debate points, because as you pointed out, the question has been posted for wider attention on the WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch talk page (page archived Feb 2008, link edited to point to archive). I'm willing to discuss this either here on this talk page or on the PAW page, wherever the discussion gets traction. The question goes beyond just this article and this particular pair of links, that's why it's also posted on the Wikiproject page. Also, I have no interest in discussing it only with you as a one-to-one dialog; this requires more people to fill out the conversation.
Regarding your not-so-veiled unfounded accusation about the whittling down of the article, you're completely off-track with that. But it's of interest that you took that kind of approach; now I understand you better, so thank you for that insight. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome, I guess. As said before, whether it was intent or not, it has been viewed that way by some and, even if not the intent, it was the result, so I would hope that we would work to grow instead of shrink this (and other) articles so that someone else can't come along and PROD/AfD/Redirect the articles because of their tiny size. See what I mean? Thinking long-term. As you said, these statements can be tertiary-reference sourced, so please go ahead and do that! I have no complaints about further referencing! I understand the wider implications of the question. Granted, you could have responded to the original two messages here or at the least posed the question here and left a note on PAW directing people to the article's talk page. But both methods work and that's fine with me. (I just would have preferred some sort of dialogue here before going to PAW with a "he keeps reverting me" whine (which, intended or not, is how I saw it). Lastly, I agree that "this requires more people to fill out the conversation." Totally on target with that. VigilancePrime (talk) 09:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Your comment again repeats the unfounded accusation of some generic "shrinking the articles" campaign, and adds an insult, "going to PAW with a 'he keeps reverting me' whine"... That's the third or fourth time you've insulted or accused me with no basis. Maybe it would be better if you would re-read your comments before clicking "save", so you can remove the impulsive insults before they get stored on the Wikipedia servers.
What you call a "whine", I call an invitation to editors to discuss the issue. And I was not alone in removing the links, you also reverted Squeakbox who agreed about the removal. No-one is calling for references that the guy re-opened his website, that's a minor passing point in the article; there's no hurry in referencing it and plenty of time to find valid secondary sources. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 10:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you should read my comments before you respond. I said explicitly that I saw it that way, that it had that appearance. I did not accuse you of doing that with intent. I was (effectively, had you read it evenly) pointing out that the appearance was of one intent, regardless of the actual intent. The same is true of the whittling. It did, in many ways, appear that way. I'm not convinced that you were doing it intentionally, though I'm not entirely convinced that the long string of removals were unrelated. I'm still undecided about it and I think that's been clear in my comments. You seem to be the only one attacking me and my thought process (not how you see it, but what I'm actually thinking...somehow you can know that...). My experience with you and Squeak is that (if you don't like it) you will remove an unreferenced line completely and immediately if it isn't referenced. I tried to encourage you and he (and Will) to use the {{fact}} tag before, but to no avail. Now you say that a statement doesn't need an immediate reference? That strikes me as potentially disingenuine. You and Squeak (yes, two whole people) did both remove it. Neither of you bothered to Talk Page about it, even after repeated requests and thorough edit history reasonings for inclusion. If I was as low-threshholded as some, I would call that edit-warring, POV-pushing, disruptive, or even vandalism. I am not that low threshhold; I don't think it's been any of those. But I think that in doing so you provide others the opportunity to think it is (just like the whittling issue... the appearance to some was that it had distinct purpose/agenda behind it). I don't know how to make that any more plain. Trying to get you to Talk Page it has been far too difficult and it wasn't until I challenged your "whine" - as you reiterated - on the PAW page that you (finally) addressed the concern here as I had thrice requested. Do you even see the potential for an appearance of bad faith? Potential. Again, my high-threshhold is still holding all this in good faith, but I absolutely would have preferred earlier dialogue and undeniable good faith to this waiting-until-challenged mentality. VigilancePrime (talk) 10:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

Calm down you two. Discussions that degenerate into mutual accusations never go anywhere. And I've got some real stuff for you to chew on.

I've been asked to give an opinion on using a blog as a source. While WP:V says that blogs are largely not acceptable as sources, it does not rule them out completely. I think the most relevant portions of the Verifiability policy is the section on WP:SELFPUB, where seven criteria are laid out.

"Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

  • it is relevant to their notability;
  • it is not contentious;
  • it is not unduly self-serving;
  • it does not involve claims about third parties;
  • it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  • there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
  • the article is not based primarily on such sources."

Based on this diff, which I assume details the disputed references, I have these comments. I haven't looked at the references themselves, nor do I intend to, so all of these are interpretations of policy as applied to the context of the link.

  1. Number one seems to be met, since his blog is part of his notariety.
  2. I have no idea how to interpret this one when the entire topic is controversial. It could be used as a cop out to block them all but I think the controversial nature of the article topic needs to be taken into account. Thus, it would depend on what the reference itself contained.
  3. Number three has a little leeway because it is being used twice to indicate that he was in fact blogging from those locations at that time. If the blog entry is an announcement that the site is up and running, directly confirming the claim, then I would expect some self-aggrandizement. If the entry is just a random accounting of his activites in that city, then I'd probably say that it is unduly self-serving (and fails relevancy).
  4. Number four seems to deal a fatal blow to the third instance, the claim about Zannanti, and the other two have to basically be free of claims about other people.
  5. Number five can only be determined by those who read the blog.
  6. Number six seems straightforward enough to assertain.
  7. Number seven seems to be met.

So, with the elimination of the Zannanti claim, it boils down to whether the remaining two were created by him, whether they directly address his presence in Portland at that claimed time, don't make claims about other people, and are not excessively self promoting. I'll leave that for you to figure out unless you pull specific passages for examination. I think the second has the strongest chance of passing, based on the blog title and it's recent date, whereas information for the first has a chance of being found in news accounts.

Having said all of that, these are the poorest possible references that could be used. A newspaper report that says he was or is running a blog would be so much better on lots of levels. Blogs would be subject to more frequent removal on the grounds that they are blogs, resulting in this very justification having be brought out every time (and eventually having it fail). News accounts are more stable references.

Finally, the Crime Scene Blog that isn't being contested at the moment needs to be removed. It fails criteria number four, in that it makes claims about a third party, in this case McClellan.

I hope that helps, and I hope you appreciate the thought and effort that went into it. In other words, don't kill the messenger. :D Pairadox (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikisposure warnings (warning: link to hate site included in this section)

Wow! I noted on the hate-site Wikieposure that supposedly in February "a call recently went up on Annabelleigh.net to vandalize the Wikipedia Jack McClellan article in favor of him". So, having created the article a long time ago in order to insure neutraliy, I was expecting to come over here (I unwatchlisted it long ago) and find edit warring or at least a heavily unsourced and pro-McClellan page needing a ton of work to neutral-ize. Turns out it's barely been edited at all in the nearly two months since I last made any edits. So much for the "pro-pedophile cabal". And I had been looking forward to removing a bunch of pathetic, self-serving, unsourced, opinionated comments propping Jack up to deification level. Oh well. Looks like WSposure was wrong (again). • VigilancePrime • • • 01:37 (UTC) 6 Mar '08
Where do you see that? I can't find it.Roman619 (talk) 06:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
"Pretty quiet so far this month, though a call recently went up on Annabelleigh.net to vandalize the Wikipedia Jack McClellan article in favor of him. So far this has gone unimpeded." (last line currently) • VigilancePrime • • • 07:39 (UTC) 6 Mar '08 and look at me, little ol' me, a target of this hate site now too! I feel so...important... "Now all that remains is for VigilancePrime, the last of the most egregious offenders." (same page)
note: apparently I'm "in collusion" with "with the others on- and off-Wiki for quite some time." interesting note: I only activated my email on Wikipedia last month and only recently figured out how to email people through Wikipedia. It's amazing the factual inaccuracies such a hate site will throw out as unarguable truth. Amazing.
LOLZ I was only asking for help for sourcing some of the new Ron Tebo info I was posting. But since refs to the message boards and blogs have been deleted, looks like my "efforts" were in vain. I'll get you next time, Gadget! Next time! NGAAA! Roman619 (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
It's so lovely to hear about how you're a honest editor with only the best intentions. So what exactly does this section have to do with "discuss[ion of] changes to its associated article or project page"? Are you interested in discussing your edits, or those of HolokittyNX, or Roman619, or...? Would you like to do so? John Nevard (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
It's good to hear that you're a sarcastic editor more interested in mocking others than discussing the article. The point was that this article may allegedly "come under attack" from the likes of the anti-you, whose POV-pushing is just as bad and mockery of all things Wikipedian is just as bad. It was a question and a warning and a notice to be on guard for such crusading in either direction.
Nice to know that you just cannot resist the opportunity to attack other editors instead of make a note and watch the page to help maintain its neutrality.
Have a great day. • VigilancePrime • • • 15:07 (UTC) 6 Mar '08
In that case, why didn't you not that Wikisposure had noted that this page was likely to come under attack rather than spend a large paragraph on how it's such an awful hate site and how you're so put upon? John Nevard (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Weak

Was that the big "call went out" result? Weak. For a "movement", the PPA is really pathetic. Good for us Wikipedians, eh? • VigilancePrime • • • 02:06 (UTC) 11 Mar '08 By the way, Xavier, thanks for proving my point in your own page, even though I never made such a statement.

[edit] I'm depressed...

I'm depressed... Apparently (see above link), I am "lead defender of Wikipedia pedophiles everywhere [and] is dumb", and yet WikiSposure still doesn't have a page dedicated to me... John, can you fix that maybe? I mean, since I'm famous and all and you clearly have some sort of in with that site/page (or are)... And thanks for adding the March section after I pointed out the date and changes... it gave me more fun reading tonight. • VigilancePrime • • • 02:24 (UTC) 11 Mar '08
Oh, thanks, I hadn't been keeping up to date on what PJ was doing there. I never tire of uh, I guess 'ham' is the right word, thinking that some small internet group is the only opposition to raping kids out there. John Nevard (talk) 06:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course you hadn't. Neat little unrelated argument, too. Wikisposure doesn't claim to be against "child rape", by the way... Perhaps you should read carefully the article on what they do oppose. It'd be like saying, "damn, that woman's hot" and then John Nevard and/or "Xavier" claim that you're an adulterous rapist. So is the difference between thought and action; to the actions we can all be opposed, but no need to harass the thinker who never acts, or the one who defends the civil rights of others. I guess "the call" to "vandalize" this page was minimal and unheeded... so Wikisposure and Co. had no need of my services to maintain its neutrality. Happy editing everyone! • VigilancePrime • • • 17:19 (UTC) 11 Mar '08


[edit] Allegations Section

Crazy what 5 minutes alone with Google will net you, found a ref for the first line of this section. But can't find anything more about the second line, except a comment in a blog posting. Does this guy archive or post transcripts of his shows? kitsune361 (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
It was a while back, but I also tried to find transcripts or something and could not. • VigilancePrime • • • 23:48 (UTC) 12 Mar '08

[edit] Tony Zinnanti

2600- The Hacker Quarterly published a letter in issue 25-1 by Mr. Zinnanti. He claimed that a previous article in 24-4 was incorrect in stating that he was working against McClellan's freedom of speech. 169.233.10.201 (talk) 03:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)