Talk:Jim Bede

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ohio Portal

Jim Bede is part of WikiProject Ohio, which collaborates on Ohio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to current discussions.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] Birth date and place

I don't know how accurate this ([1]) site is, but it gives his birth date (17 April 1933). It also gives his middle name (Richard) as well as a different birth place (Edie, Pennsylvania instead of Cleveland, Ohio) and a different graduation year (1957 instead of 1958). FWIW. 67.8.85.101 01:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BLP concerns

[edit] "The BD-5"

I've moved the following here until proper sourcing can be found per WP:BLP:

Although the company was effectively bankrupt at this point, work on the BD-5D continued for some time. The bankruptcy became official in 1979, by which point the BD-5 project was long dead. During the bankruptcy proceedings it was learned that the money ostensibly being used to build kits was instead being spent on a variety of projects. As a result, Bede entered a consent decree with the FTC to no longer accept deposits on aircraft for a period of ten years.

--Ronz 20:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ref added and text restored. Please don't remove text, either tag that a citation or ref is needed or comment out of view to make it easier for other editors to correct the issue and restore the text. Flybd5 13:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Per BLP, such content should be removed immediately. Such edits are exempt from 3RR. Please do not instruct others to violate policies. --Ronz 15:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted it. Ref only verifies existence of consent decree, but gives no details that I found searching the doc for "Bede". --Ronz 15:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Can someone check this reference? --Ronz 20:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, you are being asked, in a civil manner, to cooperate with other editors. Your practice of deleting things rather than commenting them out or adding a fact tag is not constructive. Stop being disruptive. You have been warned about this again and again. Ref added to specific FTC document containing consent decree. Flybd5 17:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, I ask, can someone verify this reference? I've been unable to verify it with the given reference. (Sorry if you don't like my asking for verification. Sorry if this somehow comes across as uncivil.) --Ronz 19:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Bede Aircraft, again"

Another:

Although the deposits were claimed to be in escrow, it appears Bede secured a line of credit against the escrow accounts, which were then seized, leaving kit builders in the lurch again.

--Ronz 20:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please explain where this is sourced? --Ronz 21:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Addressing Ronz's concerns

This issue shows up in several places...here, Ronz's talk page and now my talk page. I'm going to respond to Ronz's note on my talk page here, so that the discussion can be centralized. Basically, it comes down to this: I believe, and it appears that others believe as well, that you're taking BLP to an extreme. BLP is intended to prevent personal information that is unsourced and libelous from being added to articles. That is very different from adding information about public business dealings and improprieties that are committed by people and which are subject to court and governmental actions. Bede's actions and the problems with his BKs and the financial harm caused to others is public news and public information, and is not libelous in nature. The fact that the FTC had to take action against this company makes this a matter of public record, and is not therefore subject to the BLP restrictions that you are attempting to impose. Also the fact that two admins spoke up about this should cause you to consider that maybe you're not seeing the entire picture. I take issue with your assertion on my talk page that you only reverted twice in 24 hours. Not so, and I hope it's just an oversight on your part, not an attempt to deceive. You reverted here at 20:56 on 10/10, hre at 15:10 on 10/11, and here at 19:49. Those are three reverts within 24 hours. While I appreciate your zeal to keep Wikipedia's articles of the highest quality, you need to be open to considering that you're over reaching. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Since you decided to reply here, I shall do the same. I guess we have extremely different and possibly incompatible interpretations of BLP and 3RR. I think your interpretations should be examined by others as I've never in all my editing encountered anyone with your viewpoints. --Ronz 00:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The point here what constitutes "libelous", and that's why the BLP policy, in the very first paragraph, references the laws of Florida. Perhaps you need to better familiarize yourself with the legal points of libel...I would suggest the Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual as a starting point. You might also want to read the "Criticism" section in the BLP policy. Including critical information about a person is not, in itself, a violation of BLP. You seem to think that it is. The Criticsm section makes several points, and as I see it, the contested sections all meet the requirements. This isn't even controversial material we're talking about. When the FTC gets involved, and $9million dollars of customers' money is at stake, that is a matter of public record and is very much appropriate for an article. As far as your statment of not encountering anyone else with my views, I hardly buy that...keep in mind that I'm not the first admin to get involved here with views that are contrary to your BLP interpretations. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

My concern is that your interpretation is unique in my experience and I'd like outside examination of it. No need to go into your interpretation further. You've made it clear. --Ronz 15:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

BLP reaches further than Florida libel law and trumps it. We remove content based on BLP, not Florida libel law. Or, BLP > any law. BLP > anything, really, is how I read it. • Lawrence Cohen 16:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FTC

The reference says

"C-2934 Bede aircraft, Inc., et al. Ordered to place itself under the control of a trustee to serve the twofold purpose of protecting consumers as well as preserving options for the continued viability of this small business, an order which was designed to provide consumer redress of about $9,000,000."

But the article says

"Although the company was effectively bankrupt at this point, work on the BD-5D continued for some time. The bankruptcy became official in 1979, by which point the BD-5 project was long dead. During the bankruptcy proceedings it was learned that the money ostensibly being used to build kits was instead being spent on a variety of projects, $9 million having disappeared in the process. As a result, Bede entered a consent decree with the FTC to no longer accept deposits on aircraft for a period of ten years.[6]"

There seems to be a hint of OR going on here (ie/ the redflag "As a result"). Sure this may all be true, but there are no sources to date and seemingly little interest of RS being provided? Simply put, the current reference does not support the article as it stands. This falls into "unsourced" section of WP:BLP or at best, poorly sourced. I will however wait for additional sources to be added - hence my citition tags, unfortunately it seems every second sentence needs a cite it appears :-(. Shot info 01:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe I am properly paraphrasing your question as "nothing in the FTC statement says that it happened because of the escrow issues". Is that correct? IE, are you concerned about any of the other statements in the quoted portion? Maury 18:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well someone in the US is going to have to do this, because the WATS line doesn't work from up here in Canuckia. The number will be either (800) 898-6899 or (800) 726-1004 and uses a IVR system to retrieve records. People who have read the court records have stated in no uncertain terms that it directly supports the article as it reads now. Maury 12:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The ref is to BEDE AIRCRAFT, INC., ET AL, 92 F.T.C. 449. Flybd5 17:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Lets just forget specific "issues" (such as escrow at the moment) and address the greater context of the biography. There is a paragraph in the article which is only half supported by the reference. So where did the rest of the article come from? It is unreferenced. And it appears to be WP:SYN. Is there court records, they should be able to be sourced. If they cannot be sourced, then by very definition, they cannot be sourced. Come on guys, this is WP:V here, a core pillar. Shot info 23:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Again I have to express my confusion. What exactly do you mean by "half supported". There are many statements in that paragraph, and I'm having trouble figuring out which ones in particular you have a problem with. Please be specific so we can fix them. I'm not sure about the rest of the post though... are you unhappy with the court roll that FlyBD5 provided for some reason? All US bankruptcy proceedings are in the public domain, but sadly only a small number are online. But having talked to people who have read them, I am assured they say what it is claimed here. FlyBD5 may have a physical copy -- is this true FlyBD5? Maury 21:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, will answer the first bit later, but what we have here is a basic problem. "I am assured they say what is claimed here". This is not WP:V. If we don't have a verifiable source out it goes. This isn't rocket science, it is the basis of Wikipedia. Now my concern overall with this Bio, is that it says a lot, with a lot of sources, but the sources don't back up the article in about 50%. I am personally using this paragraph as an example, only as their seems to be some confusion about BLP that (frankly) I am really surprised about given the experience of editors here. In Bio's we tread carefully...always...see the top of this talk page for the rules. If the article says something....ANYTHING....without a source, then out it goes....policy TELLS us to do this. Sure their is the arguement of the policy police, but it helps us be a better encyclopedia rather than just a fanfic, blog or personal website.

But back to the paragraph in question, the source has no mention of "effectively bankrupt at this point" what point? where is the source to say it was bankrupt, even effectively so.

"Work on the BD-5D continued for some time" how long.

"The bankruptcy became official in 1979" where is the source that states this?

"by which point the BD-5 project was long dead" this is editorialising and still, where is the source that says it was long dead?

"During the bankruptcy proceedings it was learned that the money ostensibly being used to build kits was instead being spent on a variety of projects" source? This one should be easy, and not somebodys blog or personal website...

"$9 million having disappeared in the process" source, surely the bankruptcy proceeding would say it "disappeared"

"As a result, Bede entered a consent decree with the FTC to no longer accept deposits on aircraft for a period of ten years.[6]" Was it a result that the FTC acted this way? Also where does [6] support the ten years?

Now I'm not trying to be difficult, but the [6] at the end of this simple paragraph suggests it is the reference for the entire paragraph. Simply put, it isn't. So how many other paragraphs are similar? Shot info 23:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll try again, this time as tightly focussed as possible. Have you read the bankruptcy records, yes or no? Maury 12:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Rather than asking me this question, can you supply the WP:V link of this document please. If you cannot, then it fails WP:V. Sorry, that's it. Shot info 22:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The ref is BEDE AIRCRAFT, INC., ET AL, 92 F.T.C. 449. Maury 11:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a link? This is a BLP we are talking about. Just quoting a court case document doesn't cut the mustard. You as an experienced editor [2] should know this basic tenement of WP. Shot info 22:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of references

While I think that much of this could be referenced, I think it's time to start trimming back sections that potentially contentious per NPOV. --Ronz 15:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Instead of clipping, why don't you try to reference them yourself? All of the items you have complained about above are referenced in the various other linked articles, and could easily be cut and pasted here. If you are not willing to do this, do what FlyBD5 suggested, and add the ref-needed tags first. Inviting the original author to comment is also a good idea, generally. And just to head you off; don't start quoting wiki regs to me before visiting my userpage. Maury 18:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm waiting proper referencing and response to my previous BLP concerns above. --Ronz 20:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Which BLP issues are not properly referenced now? I am aware of the three remaining in the BD-12 section, and am awaiting replies on these. Are there any others? Maury 18:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The list of various aircraft

Hi all, I agree that there should be mention of the various aircraft Bede was involved with here in his BLP, however there is a lot of dublication now between them and their actual articles. Normally, well at least in other BLPs I have edited in, the section is pruned back to a sentence or two, or even just back to a link to his aircraft. After all, this is a biography about Jim Bede not about his aircraft. Thoughts? Shot info 23:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, those articles generally started out as parts of this one, and were clipped out (by me). I'm all for making them smaller. Maury 18:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, given the nature of the article at the moment, it is preferable that you make the necessary edits as chances are my edits will be mischaracterised and reverted. Shot info 23:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The articles in question include:

Did I miss any? --Ronz 04:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I give up

It seems that the policy police have arrived in force. Combatting edits have now made the content disagree with the refs, broken other refs, removed content that was directly stated in the references, and all without a single word here in the talk page even though I asked twice for additional specific examples. Thanks for your "help" everyone, the article is yours to clip as you see fit. Maury 15:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AA1 reference

Is the context of the recent revert [3] is this "aa1" > [4]? Shot info 23:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It is a reprint from an article in Aviation Consumer. More references saying the same thing can be found in the BD-1 article, better formated. Maury 12:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you double check it for the "Development dragged on and a lot of money was expended without delivering a final design. The investors finally forced Bede to leave the company in 1966.". The first sentence is a summary of the difficulties in the design, although a better sentence would be "The project had difficulties delivering a final design". But I cannot find any info supporting the second sentence (the one you reverted). Again, not trying to prove a point or anything, but I cannot find it. Just let me know which paragraph they are mentioned in (out of interest a text search for "66" and "six" doesn't find anything about 1966). Shot info 23:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean like "but the company ran into financial turbulence and Bede was kicked out in 1965"? Before you complain about the date, you should what I suggested above and check the references in the BD-1 article. this reference states "Bede ran into financial troubles (another hallmark of his career), and by 1966 he had been ousted from the company". I grow tired of these complaints. Maury 11:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

So now we need to go to another article to look up a reference that is not present in this article? And you have a source that says 1965, but you haven't changed the article. Maury, you may be tired of this, but you cannot have it both ways, you protest against the article being change and now you protest against the discussion here. Frankly, if you aren't going to discuss, "silence is consent" and I will make the edits accordingly. I note that you still haven't pruned down the various aircraft details as requested. I guess somebody else will need to do it. Shot info 22:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

(undent) My silence implies concent? Uhhh, maybe it implies I'm on a business trip several thousand miles from my home and this is the first lengthy internet session I've had in several days? Whatever dude, edit as you see fit. Maury 19:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Rather than getting angry about it, perhaps you should take the comments on board and edit? Shot info 22:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)