Talk:Kevin Thompson (pastor)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 11 April 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
[edit] Arbitrary section header
Does this guy really rate his own article? I don't think we want to start filling Wikipedia with the bios of criminals unless they are truly noteworthy. This guy wasn't. --Bookworm857158367 14:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I doubt this page meets speedy deletion criteria. Thompson's exploits (as the article states) have been covered by the national media, incl. the LA Times and NPR. Hydriotaphia 14:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Honestly: I'd think twice before I deleted this article. I agree that Wikipedia shouldn't be filled with the bios of minor criminals. But this fellow has become semi-famous. Hydriotaphia 14:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
This article is kind of a thin and one sided rant, isn't it? If this text were published as the biography of just about anyone -- including some notorious criminal mastermind -- it would be laughed at by the critics. The man had lead a full and otherwise very positive life. He has a faithful wife and five successful children. He's got a degree in marriage counseling, and has assisted numerous couples. Thompson received awards from the Coast Guard and US Navy, for heroism in the rescue of a downed naval aviator, in San Francisco Bay. During his recent trial, hundreds of letters (many by respected VIPs) were forwarded to the Judge, in support of his good character and pastoral efforts. (Much of this information has also appeared in the Bay Area and national media. I know, I know -- there should be links. That 1994 jet crash happened in full view of thousands, and was huge news, and danged if I can find it in any news archives . . . )
71.131.4.241 04:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)-Paul C
Paul C: Clearly you feel strongly about Mr. Thompson, and perhaps are a friend or acquaintance of his. Nevertheless, these feelings cannot change the fact that the edits you just made to this article were biased ("successful children," for example) and unsupported by citation. Let's try to keep this article factual. Best, Hydriotaphia 18:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, Hydrotaphia, I can accept that. And if I finally dig up some newspaper citations, then will it be okay? But hey, is the whole article factual, and it is unbiased? This could be disputed, and vigorously. In the "Eleven Year" section, it uses the phrase "his paritioners" What is the source of this identification? The fishing project began long before the man was a Pastor, so that is a logical impossibility. May I please correct this detail?
As for the sermon, mentioned in the "Communication With" section, that is the *only* basis for all the media reprts that are cited. One man's informal spoken recollections, posted by his own affiliates. (Show me one cited media source that met, much less interviewed, Kevin Thompson. Who did *anything* more than listen to an old audio file, and take other people's word for things.) Isn't that called hearsay? Does it really meet Wikipedia's standards?
Question: In general, what type of source does Wikipedia find acceptible, for biographical information? (Marriages, children, college degrees, personal achievments, etc.) If a person 'deserves' an article here, then surely such personal details are normal inclusions. Must a person first become famous enough to have a published biography? Surely not.
Thanks for your attention to detail. 71.131.0.120 23:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC) -Paul C
One more: The phrase "Thompson boasted." Can any impartial reader say that is not a biased statement? Who judges a person's tone of voice; his thoughts and intentions, in such a context? Seriously.
(From the forbidden fount of Original Research: I myself was present for that sermon, so heard the words and watched the speaker, and there was no boasting.)
71.131.19.220 23:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC) -Paul C
Been looking at the Biographies of Living Persons guide section. IMHO it's awfully strict. Persons "known primarily for one event" and all that. In this specific case, it's bizarre that the media sources cited, themselves relied upon data that Wikipedia would not have accepted. In any case, I'd like to make minor corrections, based upon the same data everyone's using here -- the man's own recorded words; and the dates given in Federal court documents, specifically the DOJ press release the article already links to. I wonder if official Coast Guard and Navy records qualify as Wikipedia sources, and if so, must they be link-to-able?
Cuebon 04:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC) -Paul C
I quite agree that "boasted" was inappropriate. Thanks for getting rid of that. Hydriotaphia 06:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Prohibitions of the Lacey Act
Been busy. I respect Hydriotaphia for great dedication to accuracy, and a willingness to tackle some daunting tasks, such as the fine details of Federal legislation. In this case, if I'm not mistaken, the Lacey Act and its 1994 revisions.
What I've done is, contact several attorneys familiar with the Thompson case. In point of fact, the Federal Lacey Act is enabled by State law(s). Prior to January 1994, it was legal to catch leopard sharks of any size, in California coastal waters. Since 1994, only those smaller than 36 inches in length are illegal to catch.
Therefore, my addition to the article, stating, "initially this activity was legal," is correct and appropriate. Also, in this same context, the phrase "enlisted in a conspiracy" is not correct. Something like, "recruited for a project" would be more accurate.
Only later did it become an illegal conspiracy, though (on the face of it) one mild enough to escape official attention for a dozen years, even though their juvenile sharks were on open retail sale to the public.
Rather than get into a literary Page Ping-pong match, I'm placing my findings here, before doing anything else. Ah yes, and the Verification.
http://www.cuebon.com/Indictment.html
http://www.cuebon.com/Indictment.pdf
These are scans of the Thompson indictment itself, and of the two key applicable laws. These are all in the Public Record, so anyone can find their own copies, if they wish.
Cuebon 02:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Paul C
Extremely informative and utterly unanswerable, thank you. I'm going to change the article to reflect that catching leopard sharks in California was not unlawful under the Lacey Act until 1994. Hydriotaphia 04:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
One further note. Because there's no indication in the indictment or elsewhere that Thompson and his friends began catching leopard sharks either before or after 1994, I'll omit any reference to "initially the activity was legal, etc." If we can't say when the activity began -- and by "can't say," I mean "can't say by reference to some outside authority" -- then we can't say that the activity was legal or illegal when it began. Anyway, thanks again for these most illuminating sources you've brought to my attention. Hydriotaphia 04:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, my last comment is not entirely correct. If the conspiracy lasted 11 years, and if (as the indictment seems to indicate) the conspiracy ended in 2004, then obviously the activity began as a legal activity, as you say. However, there seems to be no consistency among the sources as to how long the activity lasted. The indictment says the activity began in 1996 and ended in 2004 (8 years) while some of the other sources say the conspiracy lasted over a period of 11, or 13, or even 15 years. Since there seems to be no definitive answer on that point, I will omit the "eleven-year-long" bit. Let me again thank you for your work on this. Hydriotaphia 04:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, per the above, I'm changing "enlisted in a conspiracy" to "enlisted," since we don't know one way or the other about the initial legality of the project. Many thanks to Cuebon for pointing me to that. Hydriotaphia 21:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to keep on adding more comments, but one more thing occurred to me. I realize that Thompson in his 2003 sermon apparently said he had spent 10 years catching leopard sharks. I'm reluctant -- and I think this article should be reluctant -- to simply accept that statement without another source to back it up. I mean, while we can say that he said the operation started circa 1993, there's no independent source to confirm that. Hydriotaphia 21:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Hydriotaphia. If one wishes to pin down the 'exact time period,' this would not be simple, under Wikidedia's or any common standard. Just FYI, there were several boats and many activities going on, some regular and some occasional or singular. For example, giving city kids the experience of a day spent salt water fishing. (I was not involved at all, but saw much of it happen.) That "ten year" quote was casual and off-the-cuff, and not meant to be definitive.
Those sharks were (and remain) commonly regarded as a useless "junk" catch, by area fishermen. Then, at some point, Thompson realized there was an aquarium market for the smaller ones. I could inquire further, as to the exact timing, but as you say, there is no verifiable documentation anyhow.
Cuebon 01:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC) -Paul C
Still digging. Here's a Fish and Wildlife Service account of their part in the investigation.
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/News/Release07-15.html
It states (in several places) that Thompson's shark sales began in 1992, which is two years before the activity became illegal. Lisa Nichol's account is truly moving. And yet, then as now, the species is not listed as Threatened or Endangered.
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/Descript/LeopardShark/LeopardShark.html
Any way you look at it, what a sorry mess . . .
Cuebon (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC) -Paul C
The USFWS's figure of 1992-2003 is an independent and sufficiently reliable one, I think. I'll add that to the article. Hydriotaphia (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Cool.
(I intend to query the Navy and Coast Guard for official records about Thompson, but this will probably take a long time, at best.)
Just a heads-up. I have a lot of Unificationist friends who are active online, and some contacts who are vehemently 'negative' -- most of whom aren't familiar with Wikipedia's standards. Thus I've been low-key about updating this article. Still, folks tend to get riled up, and there may be a burst of activity here.
