Talk:William Rivers Pitt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is supported by the District of Columbia WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to District of Columbia-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 25 December 2005. The result of the discussion was {keep}.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 7 June 2006. The result of the discussion was {keep}.

Contents

[edit] Delete?

This entry should be deleted. It's little more than a vanity posting, as Pitt is not well-known outside of the Democratic Underground forum.

He's not an "essayist" in the league with Joan Didion or the late Susan Sontag. He's basically an amateur writer trying to score in the big leagues.

There are thousands and thousands of writers out there who are much more well-known but don't get an entry in Wikipedia. SN

Delete. Agreed. This entry should be deleted. Does not fit under the Wikipedia criteria for inclusion of biographies. See (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies#People_still_alive) 0nslaught 00:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

He is a published author. I believe more than 5000 copies of at leat one book were sold, but that should be verified. If he sold that many, he meets the criteria.

Agree- Delete. He is nothing more than a blogger and his books are published through 'vanity press' sources. If Wikipedia includes every self financed author or blogger, it will be utter chaos. This is nothing more than a vanity posting by Pitt.

Nonsense. I have some personal beefs with Pitt, I think he arbitrarily and jealously trashed my submissions, but he's a servicibly good commentary writer, and Truth Out is a very good compendium of short-ish liberal news. In the Rove indictment story, I think Leopold was mislead by a source or tried to hit a home run on a pitch in the dirt, and jumped way out on indications that weren't solid. I doubted it when he ran it, but the lust for fame is understandable- it is everything in USA. If you delete this listing you will be like the Soviets making records of non-person vanish- not what Wikipedia is supposed to be.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.238.67.121 (talk • contribs) .

Also Contains False Information In this site it claims Pitt was Dennis Kucinich's Press Secretary, but on Kucinich's site, it lists otherwise. (http://kucinich.house.gov) No verification can be found Pitt was Kucinich's official Press Secretary- maybe in his own mind or a title he made up because he had a blog about Kucinich http://www.muhajabah.com/muslims4kucinich .

Book Not Listed. The book this author claims to have written (Our Flag Too) is not listed on Amazon and the ISBN listed is not in the ISBN database. http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?sts=t&y=0&isbn=1893956490&x=0

He was Kucinich's Press Secretary, as you can clearly see from the following links: [1], [2]. As the article makes clear, that was only for the 2004 election,so of course he's not listed on the current website. Also, he did write those books and they were published by an independent publisher, Context Books, which has subsequently gone out of business[3], which is why you couldn't find the books on sale with your search. That doesn't change the fact that he wrote them and they received major independent reviews of them like the following: [4]. He's also had articles written about him in major newspapers like the following:[5] Add to that his online blogging presence, including his involvement with the Leopold incident, and he's pretty notable. Maximusveritas 20:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adolph vs. Adolf

I had always thought that both were acceptable. I'm not going to start a revert war over a couple of letters, but that's just what I'd grown accustomed to. I guess it's kind of like Osama vs. Usama, etc. Why do homicidal madmen have their names spelled so many different ways?:)

[edit] AfD result

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on December 21, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

— JIP | Talk 14:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current TruthOut/Rove Story Controversy

Hey - I realize that the section on the current Pitt debacle regarding his support for the false TruthOut story on the Rove indictment needs to be heavily edited, but it should not be simply deleted. It is currently an Internet-wide scandal and arguably now the thing Pitt is most famous for. Either delete this whole article on Pitt - or keep in the thing he's now most known for. Obviously, clean it up, make it NPOV, and stick to the facts. 172.131.128.169 13:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't even realize you were trying to create a section on that. It just looks like you've copied and pasted a diary from a website you are trying to promote. You didn't even remove the tags. And then you spammed the External Links section. If you want to create a section about the controversy, you need to write it in your own words in NPOV as it would be written in any other encyclopedia. I may do it myself if I have time, but I'm going to have to remove what you did until then. Maximusveritas 16:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you re-inserted that spam without an explanation, but I went ahead and replaced it with an actual paragraph on the controversy. Please do not re-insert that spam into the article again or you will likely be blocked. The paragraph might have to be changed as new details emerged, so I'll put a current tag on it. Maximusveritas 19:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the previous version of the Truthout scandal in the article with my own account. The prior one lacked expositional reporting and was mortally truncated. I and my new account are open to factual modifications. St just 19:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia's policy on NPOV. Your version is in clear violation of the policy since you are simply providing your opinion and don't even provide any sources. For example, you state that Pitt "intentionally misled" readers, but that is just your opinion. He could been acting in good faith, but was misled by others. That's just one example, but the entire thing is problematic. If you feel that you can add something to the version that is currently there, I would encourage you to do so. Maximusveritas 19:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

There is zero evidemce that Pitt, et al, acted in good faith. Why do you insist on a version that doesn't have an evidentiary basis? I can easily insert three links that bear out my assertions; one, the orginal Leopold/Truthout article, two, any one of Pitt's defensive and blatantly self-serving and irrational 'explanations' for Truthout's, Leopold's and Pitt's now-transparent malfesance, and three, Marc Ash's latest apology, which arrived sans explication or even the allocution that usually follows a request for forgiveness and understanding. Journalistic standards have clearly been breached- blatant ethical violations by any any (ethical) person's standard- by the trio and yet the account you desire spares them the only rational explanation. Why? Here is my version- the one deleted for reasons unclear at this point:

Pitt, in his capacity as articles editor for the on-line blog, Truthout, along with Truthout writer-contributor, Jason Leopold and Truthout director, Marc Ash, intentionally misled Truthout's readers with the publication of an article containing charges known by all three to be false, yet written by Leopold to appear factual.

The Truthout report contained the assertion that Republican political operative and former Whitehouse Assistant Chief of Staff, Karl Rove, had been indicted by a federal grand jury for perjury (sic) and lying to investigators. Within the span of a day, the story was proven to be false. According to Truthout, Rove was indicted on May 12th, 2006 by a grand jury convened by federal prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald. The Truthout article further claimed Rove had been given 24 hours to get his affairs in order before his arrest.

In the week that followed publication of the false report, Leopold, Pitt, and Ash mounted an online defensive attack against disbelieving critics of Truthout's Rove indictment 'scoop'. Following that, a number of increasingly implausible explanations were offered by the three to offset factual evidence put forth by the blogger community on the internet; evidence that directly contridicted the article’s reporting.

One week following publication, and after it became clear the article's basic premise and related assertions were false, Truthout's publisher, Marc Ash, issued an apology to his readers on his website---minus a plausible explanation for his blog's provably false reporting. St just 00:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there are quite a few other explanations that make more sense. First, their sources could have lied to them or just been mistaken. Second, Leopold could have lied to Pitt. Third, Leopold and Pitt could have lied to Ash. Lastly, their story could be right, but the indictment was held up and put under seal. I'm sure there are plenty of other explanations as well, but the bottom line is that we don't know and to assert one explanation as fact when it is disputed is a violation of the NPOV policy.
I'm trying to keep the assumption that you are acting in good faith here, but if you continue to simply revert to your flawed version (which will violate the 3RR rule), I will have to assume that you are not. Not only does it violate NPOV, it doesn't have any sources (which are required), and it doesn't have the proper Wiki format.
So please do not revert back to your version again. Instead, if you have anything NPOV to add, do it to the existing article. Maximusveritas 01:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

the article, as it currently stands, peddles pitt, leopold, and ash as non-complicit players in a fraud of their own making. they are not. they planned, executed and then attempted to cover up their involvement. time wounds all heels- feckless doubters and du/truthout friends, too. St just 02:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You state, "There is zero evidemce that Pitt, et al, acted in good faith." We don't need to consider the truth of your assessment of the evidence because the article doesn't assert that he acted in good faith. Nor does it take a position one way or the other on whether he was complicit in a fraud, had guilty knowledge, was an innocent victim, or whatever. You are entitled to hold your own opinion on those questions but you are not entitled to edit a Wikipedia article so that it adopts your opinion as if it were undeniable truth.
You complain that your version has been "deleted for reasons unclear at this point". More than one Wikipedian has urged you to read WP:NPOV and the NPOV tutorial. Those pages should make the reasons clear. On DU and similar websites, opinions may be freely expressed. On Wikipedia, your opinions do not belong in articles, and they belong on the talk page or in edit summaries only to the extent that they relate to discussion about what should be in the article. The latter point is a guideline. There's sometimes a certain amount of off-topic commentary, and even clowning around and in-jokes, on the talk pages. The former point, however, is non-negotiable. We have zero tolerance for NPOV violations in articles. JamesMLane t c 03:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

you can clad a dog in nutria and call it ermine, but it's still a dog and it's still rat fur. the article's current account's expiry has been exceeded. St just 04:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

St. Just: How exactly are you missing the point here? Simply stating the facts is sufficient: Pitt - along with Ash and Leopold - peddled a story as fact. When questioned, Pitt vehemently (and vulgurly) defended the article (and that defense should be in this article, by the way!). It is now clear that the story was not factually accurate. Why is there a need to say anything else? Based on those facts, the reader is free to draw an inference here - but suggesting that Pitt "intentionally misled" is NOT based on fact; it is opinion, and politically biased opinion. As was noted above, perhaps he DID lied; perhaps he was lied to; perhaps Rove was indicted and that wil be revealed; perhaps others did like to Pitt. Regardless - the NPOV facts are all that is needed to make all of this clear and accurate. Ironically, the whole thing is similar to the "Bush lied" meme used by the left. Clearly, there is no factual evidence that Bush lied; but like Pitt, what he declared was later shown inaccurate.

172.167.74.234 15:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why a Hoax?

Would somebody who knows what hoax this is supposed to be, please enlighten us by modifying the article? Thank you. It is listed in "Jounralistic Hoaxes" but when you read the article, there is no soap, I mean, hoax. 71.169.167.204 05:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)