Talk:Sherman Austin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] David Touretzky

Ironically, Carnegie Mellon University professor David Touretzky, who has also posted bombmaking information to the internet, has not been charged or arrested.

This was removed from the main article as being irrelevant. I don't think it is. The whole reason that the FBI and their thugs were supposedly after Austin was his posting this content. David Touretzky posted the same content out of protest and in support of Free Speech. David Touretzky posted this information because of the FBI's abuse of its powers in regards to Sherman Austin.

I agree with the above comment.


Perhaps it was removed because it wasn't the least bit ironic :) But it wasn't particularly relevant either.72.91.198.248 18:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV/Accuracy check

This article reads as a vitriolic polemic against charges being brought against this individual rather than any relevent biographical approach to the subject, much less the reason why he is known at all. Wikipedia is not a personal soapbox to reflect the arguments of editors over obscure political causes. --TJive 22:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Be specific please about which sentences are POV in your opinion. --Revolución (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
This stands out "In fact the FBI referred to a completely different site authored by a completely different individual (whom they visited and questioned in person) but purposely lied, fabricated evidence, and lied in court documents to frame Sherman and paint him as a terrorist." Were any of this to be provable, the events outlined in this article would have played differently. However they aren't, things haven't, and so they don't fit a NPOV. Alvis 05:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

These statements about the FBI coming "ready to kill" give this article an anti-government tone, and to me a lot of this article reads like a defense of Mr. Austin and a diatribe against the government. Its ok to factually state that the FBI came with guns drawn, etc., but this is standard procedure for dynamic entries, such as in the case of WACO, Elian Gonzales, and other police raids to execute warrants, and are far from unique. While I respect user Revolucion's political views, the fact that HE seems to be putting an anti-government edge on this article sounds like this is intentional bias on his part. Please don't use Wikipedia as a soapbox for your agenda.


I agree, this article begins and ends as a biased tract in support of Austin, as opposed to an objective statement of the facts about his biography. To call him a "political prisoner" is a very charged statement.

[edit] Wiki links

There seems to be some problems with wiki links in this article, can someone figure out why, I don't know much about the workings of MediaWiki or the syntax.


[edit] This is a biography

It would be nice to have things like a birth date or at least a year, if possible. If somebody else wants to make the "Sherman Austin crimes" page, that would be fine also. -- 75.24.107.10 01:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

So I took out the complex discussion on the CGI technical details and the big statement that Sherman after his release from jail. They are really not part of the biography. This article is, relatively still a little heavy on the process of this persons journey through the American legal system. Is that really all there is to this person? He has been convicted of a crime? He has written a book or something? -- 75.24.107.19 03:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)



[edit] details of the charges

There needs to be a little more info on this, i'm under the impression that the reason for the charge, was a post to his website, made by SOMEONE ELSE, that was just a link to an external site. This seems like an important detail, anyone got good info on this? Murderbike 21:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The statue under which Austin was convicted criminalizes the distribution of bomb-making instructions, not just the authoring of it.Factcheck 4uwingnuts 18:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

--- Good info is undoubtedly available in the court proceedings in which he was convicted. Wikipedia is intended as a repository for actual factual information, not as an alternate universe for people who oppose the government to use as a platform for conspiracy rhetoric. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.91.198.248 (talk) 07:39:39, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-factual references.

The links cited as references are non-factual, opinionated rhetoric. The source cited as evidence for the ridiculously vague claim "The government fabricated evidence documented in the January 16, 2002 search warrant and affidavit issued by the FBI.[3]" is a website for anarchism enthusiasm and includes word-of-mouth information as well as uninformed speculation. As an example of what I mean, this same article, which is cited as factual evidence of a government conspiracy to frame Austin, offers the text "Bear in mind that USA officials have a shameful history of lying and deception" as evidence of Austin's innocence.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.91.198.248 (talk) 07:48:59, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A bit of cleanup

Changed the wording of the introduction about 18USC 842p in order to reflect that the statute only criminalizes distribution of explosives information in case the distributor acted with the knowledge or intention that the information be used to commit a violent federal crime.

  • Indicated a citation is needed for the claim that Sherman Austin's IRC accounts were compromised by an individual who made threats against the Federal government.
  • Indicated that the statement "The government fabricated evidence documented in the January 16, 2002 search warrant and affidavit issued by the FBI." lacks any factual reference.
  • Indicated a citation is needed for the claim that Austin was questioned for six hours without an attorney present.
  • Indicated a citation is needed for the claim that Austin's appointed public defender participated in an attempt to threaten or intimidate him.
  • Indicated that Austin's claims about secret NSA wiretapping of his communication are unverified by any factual reference or independent observer.
  • Corrected the quote “distribution of information relating to explosives, destructive devices and weapons of mass destruction”, which was misprinted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factcheck 4uwingnuts (talk • contribs) 17:15, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
  • Indicated that Sherman has admitted to distributing the information which he was convicted of distributing. The reference is in the same publication cited in the same sentence, so no additional citation is needed.Factcheck 4uwingnuts 17:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Indicated that some observers consider Austin's arrest and conviction to have been just. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factcheck 4uwingnuts (talk • contribs) 17:29, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
  • Indicated in the introductory paragraph that Austin is a convicted felon.Factcheck 4uwingnuts 17:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Great work overall, with the exception of the last two – there is no source to support your claim that "some observers consider Austin's arrest and conviction to have been just", and it's unnecessary to identify Austin as a convicted felon, as teh second clause of the opening sentence makes his criminal record quite clear. Keep up the good work, Skomorokh incite

The already existing references in the article only mention two Americans: Zack de la Rocha and David Touretzky. Thus the claim that many Americans consider Austin to be a political prisoner is, itself, unsourced. Additionally, the rest of the article also makes it clear that Austin is an anarchist and was prosecuted under 18USC 842p, yet all of this information is appropriately located in the summary contained in the introduction.Factcheck 4uwingnuts 17:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for your support! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factcheck 4uwingnuts (talk • contribs) 17:48, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

  • Added REFIMPROVE tag. Factcheck 4uwingnuts 17:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
You're right, the De La Rocha and Touretsky references are not sufficient to support the claim that Austin enjoys wide support or approval. What I meant was that the section needs reliable sources, and that two wrongs don't make a right in this regard. By the way, to sign your comments, simply type four tildes like this ~~~~. Best of luck, Skomorokh incite 18:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


Fair enough, I'm still learning the ropes. And I know how to sign, just don't remember to do it every single time. Changed "many Americans" to "Austin's supporters" and "Many others" to "critics" in order to indicate that neither of the viewpoints being described is necessarily unbiased or NPOV.Factcheck 4uwingnuts 18:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Added COPYEDIT tag because I'm not doing it myself :PFactcheck 4uwingnuts 18:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Claim that "the government fabricated evidence"

Besides lacking a reference to a reliable published source, and being inexplicably vague, this claim is dubious and should be verified or removed.Factcheck 4uwingnuts 17:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I will delete the statement on Saturday September 1st 2007 if it is not sourced by that time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factcheck 4uwingnuts (talk • contribs) 19:52, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Added POV tag to the section containing this claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factcheck 4uwingnuts (talk • contribs) 18:01, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] [Touretzky] says the law is vague to the point that virtually anyone could be prosecuted under it.

If Professor David Touretzky of CMU has ever made this claim, it's difficult to imagine why it would not be found anywhere on the extensive and well-maintained website which he has specifically devoted to the topic. Furthermore, the claim is dubious and difficult to support; at the very least it needs to be substantively qualified. Even assuming the goverment had no methods or intention for determining the criminal intent requisite for prosecution under 18 USC 842p and genuinely sought to criminally penalize Austin for protected political speech in a manner that violated both established law and constitutional analysis, the claim that "virtually anyone could be prosecuted" under this law is patently ridiculous. I highly doubt, and see no evidence, that this claim as worded belongs to Touretzky. If wrong, I imagine I may be in for a frightening discharge of intellectual authority, but hey, that's the risk I'm taking.Factcheck 4uwingnuts 07:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "pro-violence"

Is this really a neutral term? Is it encyclopedic? Does it really describe anyone? The police are pro-violence. The military is pro-violence. Heck, governments are founded on violence. What is this supposed to mean? Murderbike 21:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

In context of the cited article, it means that the RaiseTheFist forums are/were used primarily by people who advocate violent resistance to police and government authorities. And I am pretty sure your removal of that text did not satisfy a NPOV rationale because it's a significant viewpoint that has been published by a reliable source, not me adding my own editorial POV to the article. Factcheck 4uwingnuts 21:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Have to disagree there. A POV claim by an obviously pro-cop editorial is not suitable for the lede of an article. If you want to add somewhere in the body that a pro-cop editorial called the website "pro-violence", feel free to do that. As it was, it was def POV-pushing, whether intentional on your part or not. Murderbike 22:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you please explain what you mean by "pro-cop" and clarify whether you're saying you think anything from this article needs a preface explaining that it is from a "pro-cop editorial"? Also, remember that NPOV does not mean "No Point of View" -- the NPOV means all significant published views are given weight. Sourced material reflecting a significant published POV is perfectly acceptable.Factcheck 4uwingnuts 23:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the source, which is written by a cop, in Law and Order Magazine, I don't really know how you could not see that as being a "pro-cop editorial". I think the term "violence" is loaded with connotations, that are inherently POV. Some would change "pro-violence" to "pro-self-defense". If you want to add something about specific material included in the website outside of the intro, that's totally cool, but if you wanna cite that cop, please cite somebody else that can balance the inherent POV of a cop commenting on the actions of those who do work critical of the actions of cops. Oh, and if you're acknowledging that the term is somebody's POV, sourcing it isn't enough, for how it was worded in the intro. It read as if those descriptors were official, instead of just somebody's opinionated description of it. Somebody could say that Amazon.com is a "pro-violence" website because they distribute the info included in Raisethefist, but it would be ridiculous. Murderbike 00:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


If you believe RaiseTheFist.com passes the notability test, make an entry for it and, there, claims that the site is a platform for anti-police, anti-government activists to discuss violent tactics will be controversial and you can rebut them with a credible third party opinion that it's actually a site which promotes self-defense against state-sponsored terrorism and oppression. This article is about Sherman Austin, details surrounding his arrest and conviction pursuant to 18 USC 842(p), and a controversy as to whether that law can or ought to survive constitutional challenges. The fact that Austin ran RaiseTheFist, however important a detail in his case, does not make this article a platform to rationalize the anarchist views espoused on the site. Notability is not provided by association.

Furthermore the source itself does not seem biased; in fact you may note that it distinguishes "Anti-Police Sites Calling for Protest" and "General Anti-Police Sites" from "Sites that pose a threat to police". You might also notice that out of the 15 sites listed in the article, only two of them sites are described as advocating violence -- RaiseTheFist being one. So I would hardly say the description is especially controversial. I have yet to see anything written by a third party that desribes RaiseTheFist as anything other than an organization that advocates violence. That's a notability problem, not a genuine controversy.

Finally, RaiseTheFist itself, despite its precisely worded disclaimer that all the information contained therein is for research and educational purposes only, openly serves as a platform advocating armed and unarmed violent resistance against government and police authorities for the purpose of promoting anarchy. Find a single third party source willing to say otherwise and you've got yourself a controversy suitable for discussion under a hypothetical Wikipedia entry on RaiseTheFist -- not in an article about Sherman Austin's arrest and prosecution and the constitutionality of the relevant law.

I haven't restored the words "pro-violence", but it's mainly because I don't like the wording. I would say it's accurate, but it just *sounds* misleading. The substance itself, however, is perfectly valid for inclusion, and actually necessary to convey the underlying reasons why Austin was charged with distributing bombmaking instruction *with the intent or knowledge that it would be used to commit a violent crime*. It's suitable to be mentioned, without implying to the reader that the author of that article is an "obviously biased cop", despite what you've said.Factcheck 4uwingnuts 03:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be confused about how wikipedia works. Just because the article is about Sherman Austin (and secondarily the crime for which he served time, the article isn't called Sherman Austing and his legal troubles anymore than it's called Sherman Austing and Raisethefist.com), doesn't mean that info in the article that isn't directly about him doesn't have to be NPOV. If this isn't what you're implying, sorry, but it really looks like it. But this isn't even the point. The point of this section is that the term "pro-violence" is POV. You seem to agree that term shouldn't belong, so why are we discussing this other stuff? Murderbike 07:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


I think we may both be confused, but that's forgiveable given the huge number of Wikipedia regulations. The crime for which Austin was convicted is NOT "secondary" -- it is the entire reason for his notability per Wikipedia standards. Without that conviction there is no Wikipedia entry on Sherman Austin -- even the arrest by itself would not be enough, as numerous defendants have been charged, but never convicted, under the same statute.

Thus while the article is not actually titled "The Legal Case of Sherman Austin", that is its central focus. This is a mere semantic quirk which was necessary because Wikipedia doesn't feature articles on "The legal case of X", yet somebody felt there should be a Wikipedia entry on Austin. The notoriety surrounding his arrest is the _only_ factor providing notability to warrant a Wiki entry.

Now, I never said that material in an Austin article doesn't have to be NPOV. You seem to have misunderstood me there. What I am saying is that inclusion of the cited material does not equate to a NPOV statement. The article is not describing RTF as "a haven for terrorists" or "a place for dangerous criminals to discuss anti-police tactics". The description of RTF members as "anti-police, pro-violence activists" is a pretty cut and dry way of saying RTF members advocate the use of violent tactics against police.

For the sake of discussion I will reprint part of the NPOV policy:

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one."

Note the words "verifiable perspectives". In plan English, this means that a controversy only exists when third parties say it exists -- the self-published views and complaints found on RTF are not sufficient to "bootstrap" a claim of controversy. In a similar fashion, articles on geography and world travel are not generally expected to remind the reader of a flat-Earth controversy. In any case, besides being self-published, RTF appears to lack even basic notability for a Wikipedia entry, which any reliable source (and a large number of non-realiable sources) would have.

Please note also that there do not appear to be any reliable sources refuting the sourced claim that RTF provides a discussion forum for members who wish to discuss violent anti-police tactics. In absence of even one such source, there is no legitimate controversy as to whether RTF is a site which caters specifically to violent anti-police activists... and thus the inclusion of derivative material does not present a POV problem for this article. The material EMPHATICALLY does not need to be labeled as being written by an "obviously biased cop". Again, it is fit for inclusion, although, again, I do not plan to restore the specific words "pro-violence". Factchecker atyourservice 21:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand why you keep repeating that Raisethefist is non-notable. I don't really care whether or not RTF is NN or not, it's not the subject of this article, or the discussion. What I want you to understand, is that "pro-violence" is a loaded term. It's the same thing as referring to pro-choice activists as "pro-death" or something, just because somebody wrote an article labeling them as such. And AGAIN, I don't even care if you want to put the info in there (with the qualifier of whose opinion it is), it's just very inappropriate for a lead paragraph. And AGAIN, I don't even know why we're still having the discussion if you don't want to re-insert the term. Murderbike 22:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, and wikipedia does include articles specifically about people's legal troubles. Check out United States v. Libby. Murderbike 22:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I bristled at your suggestion that I identify the source as a "pro-cop editorial". That language is just as loaded, if not more, than "anti-police, pro-violence activists". And it's a semantic game, anyway: of course governments are "founded on violence", and so "pro-violence", taken completely out of context, is highly ambiguous, but when put together with its proper context, the resulting phrase "anti-police, pro-violence activists" clearly means "people who advocate violent actions or protest against police".

A statement is not POV just because somebody might disagree or does disagree with it. Even matters of proven fact may be disputed vigorously by anyone with sufficient vigor. Many claims are commonly referred to without being accompanied by substantiating material, even though somebody disagrees with the claims, because the dispute is not generally held to be significant. This is one example of a convention. And like it or not, Wikipedia is an entity that strives to abide by conventions.

This fact is in evidence in the first sentence of the stated NPOV policy: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources." Notice that it does not read, "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by the existence of conflicting perspectives." This is why your objection that some people would say that "anti-police, pro-violence activists" should actually be referred to as "anti-police, pro-self-defense activists", when discussing weapons and tactics to be used against police, DOES NOT MEAN that a claim to the contrary must be appropriately packaged as a POV claim. This supposed conflict of opinions must be verifiable and must be reliably sourced before it warrants the explicit identification of the published claims in question as merely one side of a serious controversy.

In a nutshell, it's my understanding of wikipedia policy that before such a "fringe" or "niche" view can be considered as one side of a legitimate controversy AT ALL, let alone in an article that does not even address the view in question, a reliable source must publish that view, and the self-publication found on RTF does not count. The words "anti-police, pro-violence activists", as applied to RTF in this article about Sherman Austin, are a POV claim that must be packaged accordingly ONLY INSOFAR AS a reliable source disagrees.Factchecker atyourservice 01:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean that the exact phrase "pro-cop editorial" would need to be used, but something specifying where it come from. As to the rest of it, I don't care to argue it until the term gets put back in. Until then, I have better things to do. Murderbike 01:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The footnote specifies where it came from and from what I see nothing more is required. As for the fact that no actual restoration has occurred so far, I'm trying to hash out the dispute in talk rather than engaging in an edit war where we would likely end up simplistically Undoing each other's edits while having some discussion, similar to this but less structured, in the edit summaries.Factchecker atyourservice 01:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, it's totally standard to qualify controversial opinions with something like "what some critics, like Law and Order Magazine, characterize as a 'pro-violent' website." Followed by somebody else's opinion balancing out "the other" POV. Like I've tried to example previously, you can't just put something like "pro-Holocaust of the Unborn Innocents website" in an article referring to a "pro-choice" site, just because somebody who is obviously biased against the site called it that in their magazine. Murderbike 03:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. That's all well and good, but for the opinion to be controversial there must first exist a significant controversy as to whether it's true. If the opinion is not controversial, this whole discussion is moot. From what I can see it is not controversial. There is no significant opposing POV that I've been able to find, although I'm not a professional researcher or investigator. Unless one exists, there is no controversy. Just because an extreme and controversial opinion can exist, like your cartoonishly exaggerated example of calling a pro-choice site a "pro-Holocaust of the Unborn Innocents website", does not mean that every opinion you disagree with is extreme and controversial and needs to be POV-packaged.
As I said, find a significant published POV from a reliable source that disagrees with the claim in question and you've got yourself a controversy. In the meantime, Wikipedia is not a soapbox for unpublished ideas, and doesn't require that published claims from reliable sources be refuted with unpublished objections from unreliable sources. The POV policy is not a tool for individual editors to cast doubt on statements that they personally do not agree with. Factchecker atyourservice 17:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think your reasoning holds. I'll be less cartoonish, but with the same sentiment. I don't need to find a source that says that www.naral.org is NOT a "pro-violence" website, just because somebody wrote in an official Catholic Church magazine that it is a "pro-violence" website. Proving negatives is just ridiculous in this case. Why can't you see that it is a POV term, no matter if it's sourced or not? And to claim that I am soapboxing is really assuming bad-faith, and I take offense. I don't see what I'm doing as any different than what you are doing. Murderbike 18:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
For what substantive reason do you think the reasoning does not hold? The POV policy is crafted as such because the primary purpose of Wikiepedia is to summarize and report established consensus as indicated by published material, not to serve as a platform to promote and highlight any and all argumentation that might exist on a given subject. See my above comments about "fringe views". Wikipedia DOES have a policy which affords minority organizations a fair analysis and representation of their views, even if they are contrary to majority viewpoint, but it is restricted and limited scope, and it does not guarantee that minority views (let alone unsourced minority views) will be presented as objections within articles that are not explicitly written about these views. For example, the NPOV policy states that "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views."
As for your NARAL example: it is better, but still does not hold. Here's why. Most obviously, the correct way to deal with somebody posting a sourced claim that NARAL is a "pro-violence website" would be to attack its credibility as a source or remove the material on the judgment that it is NOT a reliable source. That's one Wikipedia policy that should provide a speedy disposition of this matter.
Second, the two statements are worlds apart in terms of factual substantiation and public consensus. Whereas the hypothetical Catholic newsletter article would be basing the supposed claim "NARAL is a pro-violence website" on the tiny-minority view that "abortion is murder", the Law and Order article is basing the identification of forum posters as "anti-police, pro-violence activists" on the fact that the forums contain "ideas for practicing to defeat the police with weapons and tactics". The former is extremist and based only on a tiny-minority opinion; the latter is conventional, is based on fact, and reflects prevailing public opinion (though it does not reference any measure of public opinion, it is still representative of it).
Here's a further example of how the legitimately controversial abortion topic is handled by established Wikipedia policy, without requiring, contrary to fact, that a prevailing view be presented as controversial. Although there may be a substantial minority or even a majority of people who oppose abortion or hold religious or medical views that undeveloped fetuses are equivalent to a human life, even among these people, only a tiny minority hold that abortion amounts to "murder" or that an abortion clinic is "pro-violence".
This is evidenced by the absence of such language in conventional newspapers. It is representative of a consensus which is properly carried over, according to Wikipedia policy, into the article on abortion, which makes no mention of views holding that abortion is murder. Nor does it appear on the separate subtopic of Ethical aspects of abortion. It is appropriately reflected in the characterizations of the theological debates summarized under the Religion and abortion subtopic, which discusses abortion in a theological context, and, appropriately, addresses political aspects of abortion only insofar as they relate to the religious subtopic. The platform for presenting the view is limited in scope, appropriately classified, and isolated from the rest of the discussion. In the same way, a topic about RaiseTheFist or Anarchism could represent the view that violent anti-police tactics should be viewed as actions of self-defense. But the rest of Wikipedia does not serve as a platform for these views.
In short, as the NPOV policy states, "We should, both individually and collectively, make an effort to present these conflicting views fairly, without advocating any one of them—with the qualification that views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views and perhaps should not be represented at all...To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute."
Murder, I didn't mean to imply that YOU are soapboxing, but rather to warn that primary source material from RTF would not seem to be appropriate to refute a third-party criticism, in case you wanted to balance the L&E claim with a counterclaim from RTF. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for those views.Factchecker atyourservice 21:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


Comment: Any material that is unsourced and contested by a Wikipedia user should be removed without question. A source, even it has contentious language "pro-violence"/"anti-cop" is not in violation of NPOV, but should be attributed. i.e.

Bad: Joe is a lousy golfer.<ref>The New York Times</ref>
Good: The New York Times has described Joe as "a lousy golfer" <ref>The New York Times</ref>

Any attempt by a Wikipedia user to describe anything in a certain way without a reliable source is in clear violation of policy and should be resisted.

The burden of proof is not on the person attempting to remove material, it is on the person attempting to add it. If in doubt, leave it out. Skomorokh incite 19:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Shok, I take note of your comment, but I wonder if you personally think the material in question is opinionated and non-factual enough that it needs to be prefaced with its source in the text of the Wiki entry? Of course it all depends on the wording of an edit, so I will take care in that regard, but looking at the article as a whole, would you describe it as a factual report or an editorial opinion?Factchecker atyourservice 21:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
My position is that it doesn't really matter if there's consensus that something is opinionated or non-factual - if anyone has a problem with sourced material, the source should be openly stated in the article. What is not appropriate is adding a comment about what you think the source's bias is - pro-cop, pro-violence etc. That is blatant "original research". I've gone through the article again and tagged it as I saw fit, but please feel free to change statements with hidden references to open references, as long as you don't add editorial comments of your own. Does this seem reasonable? Skomorokh incite 22:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and I'm not trying to be unreasonable by any means. I'm of the opinion that at this point, little worthwhile commentary can be made by non-lawyers and the topic itself should be reclassified under "United States District Court Cases", where perhaps more knowledgeable editors than myself (read: lawyers) can discuss the constitutional implications of the case. I could read and summarize the "Test for Criminally Instructive Speech", the single best source on this page, but I don't know if I'd feel comfortable analyzing it. I'm certainly not professionally qualified to. There are potential pitfalls associated with a lay analysis of the admittedly complex issues of constitutional law.
While you may have a point that the article is dominated by court case rather than the individual (WP:COATRACK), the subject of the article is still nominally Sherman Austin. He is notable because this thing happened to him, but that doesn't mean only lawyers are reliable sources about it. Original research by editors, no matter how knowledgeable, has no place here. Speculation about constitutional implications should be removed unless it can be attributed, but it doesn't necessarily need to be attributed to lawyers; any notable person or publication (barring Hilary Duff etc.) is a potentially valid source here. Skomorokh incite 23:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
For example, I doubt any of us has reliable access to LEXIS/NEXUS. And I'm not sure if the law is actually an amendment to the Patriot Act. It appears to have been enacted in or around 1997, although I'm basing this only on a somewhat vague statement contained at http://feinstein.senate.gov/03Releases/r-bombmaking3.htm. The statute 18 USC 842, in its entirety, only outlines criminal acts and does not authorize any government eavesdropping or wiretapping although these may have been used to obtain evidence in an law-enforcement act that is lawful only under the Patriot Act. There is a legitimate legal discussion here, although much of it has already occurred and has simply not been publicized in news media or been made known to the general public.
Sorry, that was lazy editing on my part, trying to make the opening sentence short and accessible. If you suspect its innaccurate, please remove it, but don't replace it with technical info if you can help it (WP:LEDE). Skomorokh incite 23:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
But none of this actually has anything to do with a biography of Sherman Austin. Case in point, there IS no real biographical information in the article -- it's all about the case -- and almost anything you can imagine adding would be dwarfed in significance relative to the legal case. For example, elaborating on the hip-hop CD alluded to in the third paragraph would seem ludicrous and badly upset the flow of the article. It's not even immediately clear whether Austin is as notable as any of the other people with biographies categorized under [Category:American_anarchists], and he is only 23 or so, although admittedly there's quite a copious biography of Hillary Duff so it might not matter.

Factchecker atyourservice 23:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Austin is notable, imho, and is the nominal subject of the article. As such, we shouldn't be too concerned with getting the legal nuances perfectly accurate, this is a biography of a living person first and foremost. If necessary, the rotten material can be removed and the article reduced to a stub, but I don't think this is absolutely necessary. Skomorokh incite 23:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This is getting way too long. Your argument for why those things aren't appearing on pro-choice articles, still holds here. You are claiming that the article at LAW AND ORDER magazine, represents a mainstream view, but have offered no other sources to back this up. Do you know anyone that isn't a cop who reads Law and Order Magazine? It is a niche source, the same way that a (hypothetical) Catholic Church newsletter is. If it represents a mainstream viewpoint, then I ask that you please source it, that is, IF YOU WANT TO PUT THE PHRASE IN. Otherwise, I'm done with this conversation. Oh yeah, and I don't know where you live, but where I live, the idea that Abortion is Murder is definitely not a fringe view. Murderbike 23:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, well "niche source" doesn't imply "extremist source" or "factually unreliable source", though obviously a source could be all three at once. For example, the Virginia Law Review is written for lawyers, by lawyers, yet the article by Leslie Kendrick CLEARLY gives a fair analysis of Austin's case -- a "niche" view with no evident bias. Contributors to the Virginia Law Review can be considered experts on the subject of law, but that does not imply they will make uncritical generalizations about defendants or take a narrow/biased view on other unrelated subjects. I'm not going to say that "Law and Order" is as prestigious as The Virginia Law Review, but in a similar fashion, the publication appears to be written about policework, by police. Assuming that the article is biased on this subject based on the expectation that COPS IN GENERAL are biased on this subject is a bit ridiculous and a prime example of begging the question. In either case, a significant controversy would be reflected by material in a reliable source which could then be cited as an opposing view. To use your Catholic newsletter example, the claim "NARAL is a pro-violence website", insofar as it could ever be allowed to remain in a Wikipedia entry, could easily be balanced by copious opposing opinions published in reliable sources, but of course that discussion would really only be appropriate in the religious or (perhaps) ethical subtopics of the abortion topic.Factchecker atyourservice 01:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
While I agree with your points on the Virginai Law Review vis a vis the cop source, two important points to note per WP:SOURCE:
  1. Non-notable or otherwise innapropriate sources should be removed, not balanced.
  2. The burden of proof is on you to show that the cop source meets Wikipedias criteria for reliable sources.
Regards, Skomorokh incite 02:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism by 72.91.198.248

Just a quick note here.

This user deleted my comments here.

Talk pages should be kept "as is" unless there is a valid reason for deleting comments. This is different from the article itslef.

If you cannot state a reason for deleting something than don't do it.

Piercetp (talk) 04:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)