Talk:Shane Ruttle Martinez

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] A Note

I don't care about this page. I don't know the person, nor any of the information. However, cited information that says a video was produced about a person, regardless of who the group is or what kind of portrayal, is notable, especially the type of video produced. It is not putting forth any favorable opinion over the video, or saying that its correct. It only says that a video was indeed produced. That is a fact. It cannot be removed. Furthermore, an arrest, regardless of a conviction, is notable and a fact, which cannot be removed. I expect OJ Simpson's page to say that he was one arrested for killing his ex wife even though he was later found innocent, so this page needs to follow the same when dealing with facts. Please stop trying to erase facts for whatever strange reason you feel compelled to do so. SanchiTachi 05:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC) I doubt this is true. From your positions on trying to defame this article and the effort put into it. This must be something personal.--CmrdMariategui 15:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not All "Facts" Are Required

You don't care about the page? Fine. I happen to care about every page I edit on Wikipedia. Please consult the regulations and standards surrounding Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) for Wikipedia. If you were to open Encyclopedia Britannica, or a similar encyclopedia, do you think you'd read things as trivial and incomplete as the references to the arrest and DVD which you're trying to stick in here? No, of course not. Wikipedia is professional, just like Encyclopedia Britannica. We cannot hold ourselves to any lower standards, stooping to the level of a tabloid outlet. Get yourself informed, and then may you venture into Wikipedia enlightened and aware that we must abide by the guidelines here, and not insert random statements and incomplete "facts" on this website.

Frank Pais 15:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read: Wikipedia:NPOV#Undue_weight. It seems that you don't understand the importance of not deleting things because you disagree with the fact that they actually existed:

"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority."

That means that even a hate group deserves one sentence on the page, even more so when that sentence doesn't say anything about what the video actually says. By not including the information, you are expressing a point of view and skewing the article in a biased manner. SanchiTachi 00:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not what Wikipedia:Undue weight means at all, you're actually interpreting the policy as meaning the opposite of what it says. Undue weight means we shouldn't be according greater significance to minority views than they deserve. Giving weight to the views of Nazis, as you propose, would violate WP:Undue weight, as well, WP:BLP says we should only use reliable sources in biographies of living persons, particularly in regards to negative information and the publishers of that DVD are not considered reliable or mainstream.

Frank Pais 05:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It clearly says that the flat earth theory deserves one mention on a page about Earth, therefore, you are misinterpreting undue weight. You cannot delete a minority view. Furthermore, the view was never even expressed! Therefore, you especially cannot delete it. SanchiTachi 13:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The planet Earth is a planet, not a human being. It does not have a social standing which is affected as that of a person would be by his / her Wikipedia profile. Furthermore, a major global philosophy which created culture, perspective, and shaped societies is hardly comparable to an obscure defamatory video made by outright fascists.

Frank Pais 14:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There was an admin already saying that the item was sourced and met the requirement under BLP, thus, how can you make such claims? Clearly, the item fits what is legitimate and required to be put in. Furthermore, the flat earth theory is not a major global philosophy. Also, if the video is obscure, so is Shane Ruttle Martinez, which if you push for one, then the article should be deleted based on what you said. Either the video stays, or Shane is not notable. You cannot have one without the either. Furthermore, its verifiability. If the US Supreme Court says that the KKK is a legitimate source and has the right to publish legitimate material under the first amendment, so too is an "outright fascist" group, especially when Shane is the one investigating them and publishing information on them. If he is newsworthy for reporting on them, then they are news worthy enough to report on him. There are thousands of arguments, and you are just being ignorant.SanchiTachi 19:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I find it unusual that when a page about Shane Ruttle Martinez was created over a year ago, it was speedy deleted due to the subject being not notable. When he creates a page about himself, he is suddenly notable. I submit that Shane Ruttle Martinez is not notable and does not deserve a Wiki page. Dogmatic

Well, he could be notable by being the center of a controversy, but that would require the opposition video to have mention, which his people seem unwilling to let happen. So yes, he isn't notable until such a thing happens (which I doubt they could ever let, as it seems to be a page here for a soap-box espousing Shane's philosophy/achievements instead of an encyclopedic page). SanchiTachi 13:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

I have protected the article pending Wikipedia:OTRS review and action. -- Donald Albury 21:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Endorse removal of the arrest and the extremist DVD link. Neither is appropriate per WP:UNDUE. Guy (Help!) 10:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep the arrest and documentary film link. They are both relevant Dogmatic 12:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep the arrest and documentary film link. Arrest and Extremist DVD are required under WP:UNDUE. If Flat Earth Theory is required to be put in, so is a legitimate movie produced by a legitimate company and is a arrest for doing exactly what the rest of the article is about. Removal of said information is showing POV and Soap-boxing. SanchiTachi 13:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • DO NOT keep the arrest and defamatory film link. Neither are required under WP:UNDUE. The Flat Earth Theory is a ridiculous comparative argument (see above), especially in regards to an obscure DVD produced by a neo-Nazi organization. The arrest mention is not from a reliable source (a tabloid), is at odds with video reports of that day, and has already been proven to consist of be unacceptably incomplete information, and is clearly in violation of the WP:BLP standards as per numerous previous precedents of a similar nature. Removal would be in accordance with WP:BLP standards. Frank Pais 16:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - The arrest was documented by and shown on TV in a documentary about the actions of the ARA. The primary interviewee in the video was Shane Ruttle Martinez and he was the one followed by CBC cameras and reported in a documentary. The documentary can be found here. Frank Pais is Shane Ruttle Martinez himself. The first thing that this account did was create the Shane Ruttle Martinez article like some sort of online resume. View his contribution history here. Imstillhere 19:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Hm, and what is the first thing your account ever did? Let's look. Stolen Glances‎ (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse removal of the arrest and the DVD link since the information is not credible and the producers of the video have an agenda. AnnieHall 20:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you please provide a verifiable source to put forth why they are "not credible" or they "have an agenda, or is this your own original research that determined such a thing? If it is your own original research, could you please provide specific examples and the like that prove your above claim. Thanks. SanchiTachi 20:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • As I said on your talk page, slander is not encyclopedic. AnnieHall 20:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
You have no verifiable information to provide that such things are slander, and that there is verifiable information proving you wrong. Furthermore, the Marxist-Leninist Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election has the same provided information, and the arrest of the ARA members for protesting on private property is part of the Canadian government police records. To remove such information is to put forth that you are here to remove Encyclopedia, verifiable, and notable information to put forth a soap-box position. I believe that this is enough to show that you don't have any actual evidence supporting your vote. SanchiTachi 20:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I simply have chosen not to get into a debate with you. That's all. My vote stands for itself. Now, and as I said, I will not be troubling myself with responding to you any further. AnnieHall 20:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Frank Pais claims that Shane Ruttle Martinez says: "This is very misleading, since while I was arrested, all charges were dropped and I have never been convicted of anything." and that makes the charges real, not fiction, and the source is therefore legitimate. This is enough to contradict your argument. SanchiTachi 20:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I never claimed that. That's a copy and paste of an email I received from the subject of the article, which I forwarded to Wiki administrators. If you're going to outright lie and attempt to deceive people on here, I have nothing more to say to you, and have confidence that Wiki administrators will take proper action against you for your continuously inappropriate behaviour.Frank Pais 21:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I added "Shane Ruttle Martinez says:" but we do not know if Shane actually said it, as it was only put forth under your name. I only copied and pasted exactly what you typed in. Furthermore, you keep throwing around terms such as libel and slander, which are legal terms and legal threats, which are not allowed on Wikipedia. Also, sourced information is not slander, btw. If you feel that it is, please sue the source in the courts and provide Wikipedia with the legal ruling so it can be shown that the information was wrong. However, as long as there was an addition to say "this information was deemed wrong in such and such court case" added to it, it could still go in. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it doesn't belong. SanchiTachi 21:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
For the record, slander does not apply here, it's libel. So lets stop throwing the accusation around, shall we? ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 23:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Nit-picking since the point is the exact same, defamatory information should not be included in a Biography of a Living Person, particularly one who is not a major figure, unless it is a matter of signicant notability and is well sourced. Tabolid newspapers are not reliable sources, neither are neo-nazi websites. Stolen Glances‎ (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Please explain how a page can contain paragraphs of a person's crusade against a group but not one sentence of the group producing a legitimate movie in defense of themselves without any information pertaining to the content or expressing support of said content. Thanks. SanchiTachi 20:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The website that created the DVD has been charged by a Canadian human rights commission for promoting hatred. It also appears to be a one-perosn operation. It wouldn't qualify as a reliable source, and the production of the video doesn't seem notable. Regarding the arrest, it appears to have been part of a demonstraiton. Police are known to make mass arrests at demonstrations with many of the charges dropped later. Unless we can indicate the case's disposition including it gives the incident undue weight. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 20:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Please provide verifiable information to back up your claims that the Canadian Human Rights Commission is charging the group, that it is done by one person, and the rest in your paragraph above. Talk pages still follow Original Research rules and it would be helpful for you to provide such information, thanks. SanchiTachi 20:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you really need to reply to everybody's comments? Leave it alone for a while, could you? And please stop accusing others of POV pushing as you did in my talk page: I have no POV on this subject whatsoever. As you know, it is being revised by Wikipedia:OTRS, so take some time off this article and let the process unfold. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse removal of both, as per AnnieHall. Arrests without convictions are not inherently notable, and the video link comes from an extremist site. CJCurrie 23:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
No, you're wrong actually. The CBC video shows a man by the name of Marcell, and another by the name of Jose getting arrested. The others who are arrested are unnamed. The video makes no connection to Ruttle Martinez, and certainly depicts no assault against a senior citizen.Frank Pais 02:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The video on Google Video and the DVD Sanchi is referring to are two entirely different items. The DVD was produced by Marc Lemire and is being sold through Stormfront and his own "Freedomsite". The CBC video is not for sale and is not the item referred to in the article. Stolen Glances‎ (talk) 02:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse removal of DVD. Unsure about arrest.
    That DVD is completely unacceptable as an External Link, let alone a Reliable Source: polemical, propaganda, costs money, not available in libraries like a newspaper or book would be, etc, etc.
    It might be OK to say something like "Ruttle Martinez was arrested during one protest but the charges were dropped" and trust readers to realize that "charges were dropped" is the important bit. Mentioning the arrest without saying charges were dropped is not acceptable. Having more than ~20 words about the arrest would violate WP:UNDUE. I'm guessing that the Toronto Sun item says only that a clash between protesters turned violent and people from both sides were arrested. Unless there's more to the story than that, such an arrest is barely significant.
    Talking about polemical propaganda, the article reads like it was written by the subject or someone who admires him very, very much. CWC 09:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Problem is we have no reliable source regarding the disposition of the charges meaning that even if we accept the tabloid account our information is incomplete. A private email purportedly from the subject of the article is not RS. Stolen Glances‎ (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
As I pointed out below, the Toronto Sun is far more reliable than at least those sources. Please be Neutral and remove those sources. The Toronto Sun is a seriously published paper that even the Wiki page says has credible information. Furthermore, it is highlighted and used as fact on other pages (the same article) as I pointed out already. I believe it is not your intention to remove articles that don't have fair sources, but only remove this one article. Please prove me wrong and remove the articles listed blow that clearly are poorly sourced, and remove the information from the page that refers to those sources as being non-verifiable. Thanks. SanchiTachi 16:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sanchi, you say the arrest should be included because it is "part of the Canadian government police records". Do you have access to these records? I'd be very surprised if you did since, unlike in the US, Canadian police records are not public. Secondly, arrests that do not result in convictions are expunged from CPIC (which is the database of police records) so, because it seems there has not been a conviction in this case it is reasonable to assume that, in fact, the arrest is NOT part of the "Canadian government police records" and therefore, by your argument, should be excluded from the article.

Moreover, you've completely failed to say anything in regards to the BLP policy which is the dominant policy in regards to this article. BLP makes it clear that simply because something is a "fact" is not sufficient to warrant its inclusion, particularly if it is negative. In this case, as there is no evidence of a conviction, and as the arrest is only mentioned in one source and a tabloid at that, it's clear that inclusion of it would violate not only WP:BLP but WP:Undue_Weight.

As for the DVD, it is not produced by a "legitimate source" ie not by an established DVD content-producing company nor by an established film maker. According to testimony at the Canadian Human Rights Commission it was produced by one Marc Lemire[1], a well known neo-Nazi activist rather than a "legitimate" filmmaker. I really don't see how you can call this DVD "legitimate" or, for that matter, notable (how many copies of it have been sold? 3? 4?). You've argued elsewhere that if the DVD isn't credible, neither is Mein Kampf and therefore references to Mein Kampf should be removed from Wikipedia. The difference is that while Mein Kampf is not credible it is notable; the same cannot be said for Lemire's DVD. If Lemire were to become Prime Minister and then invade Poland then you'd have a point for including a reference to it. Until then references to the DVD do not belong since refernces to an attack DVD would violate Wikipedia's BLP policy. Sanchi, if you want to have your position taken seriously you have to address BLP and Undue Weight (simply saying another admin didn't see a BLP problem isn't an argument, particularly as that admin has not actually addressed the BLP issue) since both of them trump your argument that all facts must be included because they are facts. Stolen Glances‎ (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember what I said about the records, but I'm saying that they are legitimate because they are a matter of public record (i.e. they aren't fake, and the link above has the author of the page say that Shane admitted to being arrested and is "suing" over the arrest, which would make it notable).
For the DVD being "legitimate," my argument was 1. if something is not legit because it has a racist source, then Mein Kempf and anything written by Hitler should not be allowed (which is clearly not true), 2. if someone is saying something against a group (which is notable) then the response from the group should at least be mentioned (that they responded, fair is fair). To boil it all down, my argument is: seeing as how the guy was arrested during a protest on private property would be notable, especially when the article mentions that he protested. Seeing as how a counter movie was put out to defend against the attack campaign launched by the person, it is notable to mention that it exists. Wikipedia is not a Soap Box or a promotion tool, so not including the above would make the paragraph dangerously POV. Please see my entry below that points out many aspects of that section which are extremely point of view. SanchiTachi 00:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
What DVD? The Nerve Video was made and aired by the CBC on Television it is a perfectly reliable source. It has nothing to do with Marc Lemire. You guys are as biased as biased can get. 72.143.226.191 01:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The DVD is the something that Marc Lemire produced and which was referred to in an earlier version of the article. The CBC Nerve video is something else. Stolen Glances‎ (talk) The subject of an article saying something in an email does not meet Wikipedia's standards for a "reliable source". As for what you said, it was that the arrest is "part of the Canadian government police records". In fact, it likely is not. As for Hitler, you completely ignore the point that where Mein Kampf is notable, this DVD is not. The mere fact that something is a response does not make it notable, nor does "fair is fair" make something notable, or for that matter, a reliable source. The mere fact that the DVD exists does not make it notable. You have also failed to establish either how the arrest is notable or how mentioning it is not a violation of BLP, particularly when you have no information on whether or not there was a conviction. In fact, as usual, you've completely ignored BLP which just happens to be the main policy barring your proposals. As long as you ignore BLP and Undue Weight in your arguments there really isn't anything to talk about. Stolen Glances‎ (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The original complaint was issued by the above poster who claimed that the arrest was libelous but then quoted Shane as saying that it happened and that he would sue over it. Please understand why I would bring up two conflicting statements made by the originator of the complaint against the links. Furthermore, can you prove that Shane was arrested but the police decided to delete all record of that arrest? Because it was during a protest and last time I checked, the Canadian police do not mysteriously delete records for when they bring someone in. Furthermore, the one he was arrested with made it a campaign issue, and the protest/arrest after the protest was major news. You can try and dismiss the online version of it as being "tabloid" but it doesn't make it tabloid. Being arrested at a protest when your job revolves around protesting is rather notable. If you cannot understand that, then I don't think this part of the conversation can be continued. The simple truth of the matter is that if a teacher was arrested while teaching, or a lawyer was arrested while doing his law thing, then that would play an important role to be mentioned, even if he was later not tried. Undue weight say that opposition groups still have a right to say. It only prohibits them from having any majority part of the article. One sentence meets that criteria perfectly. Undue weight was put in to allow opposition groups in articles, not ban them from being there. SanchiTachi 02:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

In response to "Furthermore, can you prove that Shane was arrested but the police decided to delete all record of that arrest?" please read what I said. There is no evidence of a conviction and, with CPIC, the records of arrests are purged if the individual is not convicted therefore, since there is no evidence of a conviction, it's quite likely there is no longer a police record. Can you show any evidence of a conviction? In any case, as you have not produced a police record, the point is moot. And I don't think you understand what undue weight means or why the policy exists, it's not to give minority views an airing, it's to prevent extreme views from being accorded unnecessary weight (which is what you are proposing to do). If, as you claim, the arrest were "major news" there'd be more than a single report in a single tabloid on which to hang your hat. In fact, a Factiva search returns nothing on this "major news" story which indicates it is not, actually, major news. As a tabloid newspaper, the Toronto Sun is not included in Factiva's database which should tell you something. Stolen Glances‎ (talk) 02:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There is evidence of an arrest. The sentence never said a conviction. It said, in the area where it mentions the protest, that he was arrested. If you are going to mention that he was protesting, you might as well tell the way it concluded. Its silly to think that saying he was arrested is somehow bad, either. I'm sure many groups like he belongs to show pride in being arrested, as many "peace activists" in America tend to do. Why would I have to produce a police record? Unless you want to say that the Toronto Sun is lying and take them to court, they stand as being accurate. This is not your place to try people for libel if you think they lied. Until you go to the court, it stands as being accurate. I don't care how many times you label something as tabloid, it doesn't make it necessarily wrong. The NY Post is considered Tabloid by many and has quite a lot of legitimate stories and articles about people. SanchiTachi 02:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Toronto_Sun according to that page, they define tabloid as "News stories in the tabloid style tend to be much shorter than those in other newspapers, and the language Sun journalists' use tends to be simpler and more conversational than language used in other newspapers." That does not mean that they are fiction, nor does it say that the paper isn't credible. Thus, your use of tabloid is misleading and not justification to discount the article. SanchiTachi 02:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"There is evidence of an arrest. The sentence never said a conviction."

And therein lies the problem, there is incomplete information and no published sources exist on the disposition of the charge therefore no reference can be made to it. (And no, for the nth time, a private email saying the charges were dropped is not considered a Reliable Source on Wikipedia; using that would violate the policy on Original Research which is sacrosanct.) And Sanchi, you have still failed to address or even acknowledge WP:BLP which is the gaping hole in your argument. As for the use of the tabloid Toronto Sun as a source, no one says the Sun story is wrong, the point is that a single reference in a single tabloid newspaper does not make an event notable. Actually, the fact that there are no followup articles on the disposition of the charges and no references at all in any other newspapers or broadcast media underscore the non-notability of this story. Stolen Glances‎ (talk) 17:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

As Swatjester put forth before, sourced information (even if you disagree with the Toronto Sun) is permissible, especially when the sources don't actually say anything bad about the source (which none of the sentences said anything bad), thus, it doesn't fall under BLP. If the information was negative, you might have had an argument, but the information wasn't inherently negative. SanchiTachi 18:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
It is if you're applying for a job. You forget we're dealing with real people here which is the whole reason there is a BLP policy. Please read it and stop wasting everyone else's time. Stolen Glances‎ (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
This is not a website for job applications and saying that something is negative based on that does not fall under Wikipedia guidelines. Please read what Wikipedia is, because it seems like you need to reread it. Thanks. SanchiTachi 20:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Get real, you said the information is not inherently negative and I gave you a very real life context in which it is. Unlike you, WP is concerned about BLP's needlessly harming someone's reputation or causing real-life hurt. The fact remains that all you have is a single article from page 36 of a tabloid newspaper, an article you haven't even read, and an article with no followup on what happened to the charges. This is an event that was deemed so unnotable that no other news source carried an article and the tabloid that did run the article didn't deem it important enough to do any followup. Clearly non-notable, particularly as there's no evidence of a conviction. Your second piece of evidence is an attack DVD produced and sold by a neo-nazi outfit which is not an acceptable source of information. Your third piece of evidence is a CBC item from a youth show (not a news show) that shows someone named Jose getting arrested but no one named Shane Ruttle Martinez so it is completely irrelevant to this article and your fourth piece of evidence is a legal ruling on the CBC tape, a ruling that makes no mention of anyone named Shane Ruttle Martinez and is therefore also irrelevant to this article. This is real life and your dealing with the reputation of a real person. This is not a role-playing game and you should stop acting as if it is. Frank Pais 14:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • (Just stopping by in response to a request on my User Talk page.) I endorse removal of the DVD mention. We only report things that reliable sources have noticed first. When a reliable source mentions the video, we should consider mentioning it, with a link to the reliable source and not the neo-Nazi website (duh). As for the arrest, being arrested is not necessarily a bad thing for an activist's reputation. However, as the only source for it is a tabloid, I endorse removing the mention of the arrest as well. Kla'quot 07:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse removal of both the nazi DVD violates WP:RS and the mentioning of a minor arrest without its outcome violates WP:BLP and Undue Weight. Stolen Glances‎ (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please Remove the Following POV Adjectives

I put this here because the page is protected and needs an administrator to edit. (Note, I didn't want this to immediately happen, nor do I care if anyone actually does it. I just wanted to point out many of the biases in the wording and how they don't fall under NPOV guidelines).

POV is not allowed and the anti-facist activism paragraph is filled with them.

1. The title. Saying "anti-fascist" is not neutral and from his groups claim, not from an unbiased source. Please change it to activism. 2. "In 1996 Ruttle Martinez became active in community educational initiatives to combat racism and bigotry." Please add "to combat what he viewed was" to show the difference between fact and opinion. 3. "The organization came to be a strong and active base for youth involvement" the adjectives "strong" and "active" are not allowed based on the POV standards. Please put in information in its place that deals with actual statistics and not base claims. 4. "ECARA became widely known amongst youth in Atlantic Canada" see #3 on the use of "widely known." 5. "the far-right movement was making desperate attempts to maintain its presence in the region, which increasingly included acts of racist violence and intimidation." This is unsubstantiated, use of the word "desperate" is conjecture, and doesn't belong according to NPOV regulations. 6 "Ruttle Martinez was active in the organization of anti-racism community responses to numerous hate crimes". Not notable. Has no source about what "community" this is, members, and doesn't explain what "active" means, and all of this is unsourced. 7. " to the large regional demonstration against the violently racis" the words "violently racist" are very POV, unsourced, and do not belong. 8. "The series of educational meetings combined with protests which followed, exposed the leaders of the Aryan Nations who were living in east Toronto, and in turn effectively shut down the organization." no evidence to support this claim is provided Thanks. SanchiTachi 21:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

9. The authenticity of the DVD is not at issue here. The Nerve video was created by a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation documentary crew. VIEW THE VIDEO HERE. The source is 100% reliable and documents Shane Ruttle Martinez and other ARA *** on a bus intentionally following individuals to the Jack Astor's restaurant where an altercation ensues that Shane Ruttle Martinez ***** and another dufus start with people who are seated eating. There was news coverage as well as video coverage by the documentary crew of them getting arrested. Regardless of the vote, the issue is valid. There are standards on wikipedia and "I don't like what people are saying about me" is not one of those. 72.143.226.191 01:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

10. The creator of this article is in fact Shane Ruttle Martinez himself. 72.143.226.191 01:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This is completely inaccurate. The Nerve video is not the video in question. Furthermore, Ruttle Martinez is not identified anywhere in this CBC-produced video. No sources are given by the anonymous person above about the phantom "news coverage" he claims exists. Again the BLP guidelines are very clear, and it's obvious that persons (i.e. the poster above) have political agendas which are motivating their back-and-forth opinions about the article in general (for example, wanting their sources in it one moment, and when that's not possible, wanting it deleted entirely). Not very Wiki-friendly, let alone professional.Frank Pais 03:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to make it clear that I am not Canadian, I have no clue who any of the people mentioned in the article are, and I only came here based on the NPOV argument. Furthermore, I am Catholic, and I have had experience as being targeted by KKK members (and other fanatical groups). I do wonder if Frank is seeing "neo-Nazis" everywhere, as I believe that he is either the person (Shane) in question or a member of his organization, which seem to be radicals in their own way ("exposing" hate members and protesting don't seem to be the friendliest, Gandhi-esque types of political movements). BTW, Frank was over Marxist-Leninist Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election and didn't edit out what he edited out here. On the other page he can't claim a neo-nazi conspiracy there. It states: "Rodden was arrested at an Anti-Racist Action counterdemonstration against Holocaust denier Ernst Zündel on September 12, 2004, along with three other anti-racists and several neo-Nazis." How would that not be acceptable information here? SanchiTachi 03:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Please do not post in these talk pages any names of people that may be defamatory, or use these pages for advocacy of any kind. See WP:TALK and WP:BLP ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] unprotection

The page will be unprotected in a couple hours. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 23:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have extended the block indef, pending action of the OTRS. Do you think that it needs to be unprotected? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I had intended that the article be protected for only 24 hours or so. As a resolution of this dispute is not likely to come from OTRS in the immediate future, I will remove the protection. There seem to be several admins watching the article, and I trust all editors will remain courteous and avoid doing anything that might result in the article being protected again. -- Donald Albury 01:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
No problems. Unprotection will allow editors to continue improving other aspects of the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review of Sources

I would like a consensus on the following sources. I bring this up because the Toronto Sun is attacked for being a "tabloid" but there are many "references" that aren't actually sourced appropriately. Could someone please clean them or remove them as being unsubstantiatable/unverifiable. Some also seem to be personal websites or from things cited improperly or unprovable. Thanks. SanchiTachi 04:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

5. Michael Parenti interview on U.S.-sponsored terrorism against Cuba 7. Federal election coverage, Fredericton, NB, interview with Paul Martin - broadcast on CHSR 97.9FM 8. Millions for Mumia coverage, April 24, 1999 from Philadelphia, PA - broadcast on CHSR 97.9FM in two installments in May 1999 11. http://www.anti-racist-action.org/pn/index.php?name=Sections&req=viewarticle&artid=32&page=1 13. "Anglo-Society of NB 'Flag-Flap'", 5Broadcast News, August 4, 2000, 4:15 PM 14. http://www.antiracistaction.us/pn/index.php?name=Sections&req=viewarticle&artid=19&page=1 15. http://naziwatchcanada.blogspot.com/2007/01/aryan-nations-joe-and-andrew.html 27. http://www.granma.cu/espanol/ener4/..%5C..%5Cingles/2004/marzo/mar30/14amigos.html


According to this information, the Toronto Sun is exactly correct in its reporting: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2006/2006oncj54/2006oncj54.html

This information is verifiable and notable.

"A group of counter-demonstrators, members of “Anti-Racist Action” (“A.R.A.”), came by bus to the parking lot of the detention centre to show their opposition to the Zundel supporters. On the bus was a camera crew, which intended to film what might happen, for a CBC television program entitled “The Nerve”. In total, the camera crew filmed some 90 minutes of videotape (a) on the A.R.A. bus going to the demonstration (b) at the demonstration outside the detention centre, and (c) at a nearby restaurant (Jack Astor’s) where some members of the opposing groups encountered one another after the events outside the detention centre."

The Nerve video was mentioned and systematically deleted by users, claiming that it was wrong. The above information shows that it was, indeed, true. I request that mention of the video be reinserted.

If Shane was present (which it is asserted by many sources for this rally) then information on the rally, including the above video, should be allowed, at least in some wording. SanchiTachi 06:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

1) What was deleted was a promotional link to a neo-nazi DVD produced by Marc Lemire, not the CBC video you are referring to.
2) The CBC Nerve video does not identify Shane Ruttle Martinez but someone named Jose
3) No one ever claimed the Nerve video was "wrong", just that it does not identify anyone named Shane Ruttle Martinez and therefore cannot be used in this article.
4) the link you refer to does not refer to Shane Ruttle Martinez
5) you are therefore engaging in original research. Frank Pais 12:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, you keep referring to the Toronto Sun article and claim it is "exactly correct" in its reporting. How can you be the judge of this if you've never read it? Has anyone here actually read the article? It's not available on the Toronto Sun's website or on Factiva. Frank Pais 12:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit-war Protection

Until you can show maturity and work out your differences, this page is hereby off-limits to you. There are numerous complaints regarding this article, and if you are going to fight rather than try to iron out the issues here, I will be more than happy to issue as many blocks as I need to in order to make this stop. Please stop edit warring now, and discuss. -Pilotguy hold short 00:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

As Swatjuster pointed out previously, there are people who believe that the user Frank Pais may be (or may be operating for) Shane Ruttle Martinez, which would show a conflict of interest/fall under problems discussed in the autobiography section. This Page is also coming under attack, even though the information there was held by consensus for many months unedited, and the editing seems to be a recent phenomena traced to the appearance of Frank et al. SanchiTachi 00:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Your continued (incorrect) speculation about my identity is a violation of WP:HARASS:

Posting of personal information

Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media. This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Wikipedia editor. It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives.

If you do not cease stating who you think I am, I will file a formal complaint with the proper Wiki authorities. Stop violating the policy, or you risk being banned from Wikipedia.Frank Pais 02:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The only way you could claim that I am posting your personal information is for you to actually be Shane Ruttle Martinez, and by creating a page on yourself is accepting of people knowing who you are. Furthermore, I never claimed to know who you were. However, I believe that your constant Ownership of the page, Ownership of other related pages, and criticizing anyone who tries to make the pages fall under Wiki standards shows that you are the only one violating Wiki policy here.
As you claimed to have the ability to speak for Shane Ruttle Martinez, it is appropriate to accuse you of being him or someone working for him. Hence, its appropriate under "unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself," as you provided that information when you tried to get admins to help with your bullying of the page. SanchiTachi 03:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, the "Harass" that you quoted is a guideline, so you cannot quote it blatantly and demand people get banned. Furthermore, you demanded that people who spoke out against you previous to be banned. That does violate WP:CIVIL. SanchiTachi 03:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

SanchiTachi is being very immature, one should question his motives in editing this, perhaps he is a nazi and enemy of this shane person. --CmrdMariategui 03:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC) de Perú

SanchiTanchi either missed this part, or he / she is cherry picking and ignoring the parts of the policy which apply to him / her and his / her actions: "...regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct..." (re: Posting personal information) Frank Pais 03:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Godwin's Law. SanchiTachi 03:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
And what does Godwin's law have to do with your violation of WP:HARASS, specifically the prohibition on posting personal information, including names, of users "...regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct..."? Frank Pais 12:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
This person is an anti-nazi, as such no doubt faces real life attacks by Neo-Nazis. Noone has been compared to nazis, but there is a speculation that you are in fact one of these Neo-Nazis who want to discredit mr. shane ruttle and put personal information about him, alongside hate videos.--CmrdMariategui 15:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You all might want to should follow WP:DR, specifically getting a third opinion on this issue or taking it to mediation. -Pilotguy hold short 21:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If this nonsense continues, I will be inclined to issue a one week block to involved editors so that they can cool off. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Removed. Information is in History. I have said my peace. This is a refactor. I would normally scratch it out, but the issue is no longer pertaining directly to the article at hand. SanchiTachi 02:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The one that needs to apologize for this drama, is you, SanchiTachi. This article will remain protected for a while so take the opportunity and take a break, really. It will do you good, believe me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Removed. Information is in History. I have said my peace. This is a refactor. I would normally scratch it out, but the issue is no longer pertaining directly to the article at hand.SanchiTachi 03:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, enough is enough. If you have any concerns about my actions as an admin, place a notice at WP:AN, where is will be assessed on its merits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Removed. Information is in History. I have said my peace. This is a refactor. I would normally scratch it out, but the issue is no longer pertaining directly to the article at hand.SanchiTachi 04:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)