Talk:Ava Lowery

Factual accuracy dispute

The article that is used as a cite to back up the death threats claim makes a provably false assertion. The claim is made that she was threatened after releasing WWJD, and she provides the reporter with "email proof". However, the quote from that proof was actually taken from a web posting over a year ago, well before WWJD was even conceived.[1] The claim is likely false, and the article that is cited to back the claim is verifiably false. Wikipedia should not be used to lend credibility to deceit. Crockspot 16:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment about "RE-added dispute tag, see talk page. This is not a game" : the original dispute tag may have been in the article that was deleted on 18 July, so nobody has removed it from this version of the article. Yomangani 17:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I added a dispute tag today, then found it gone a short time later, but the edit history doesn't show any of that, so I really don't know what happened. Sorry. Maybe I was only looking at a preview. Crockspot 17:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

it appears that one of the threats actually relates to a previous production by Lowery, as noted in the link above. However, there is ample evidence of renewed threats in the aftermath of the release of WWJD: for instance, the comment about masturbating to Cindy Sheehan is demonstrably from a 2006 posting on Conservative Underground. So it's possible that one of the threats cited in the Progressive article might be cited misleadingly, but that does not suggest that the death threats claim is "provably false". Richardjames444 17:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I said that the claim is "likely false", and the article (Progressive) cited to back the claim is "provably false". That article should not be used to cite the claim, since even you have just admitted that it is not true. Another source should be found to replace cite 1, or the claim is considered unverified, and should be removed. The Progressive article is tainted. Crockspot 17:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I should add that the post from CU that you link above does nothing to support a claim of death threats. In fact, there isn't a threat of any kind there, it is merely a vulgar question. Crockspot 17:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I reworked the text to account for your objections and removed the tag. Thanks for helping to improve the article. Richardjames444 17:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

And how is a reply to a thread on a conservative blog considered "hate mail"? I will rework that a little more for you. Crockspot 17:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and there never was a dispute tag on this article. I wikified it after clicking a link on the New Articles list. It was plaintext and had just been created. Richardjames444 17:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

As I indicated above, probably my own mistake. I thought that I added the tag earlier in the day. Crockspot 17:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• I changed the Conservative Underground link from an individual post to the entire thread. It gives a more fair assessment of how she was treated when she appeared on CU to promote her flash animation. I will probably do a little adjustment of some of the other source links in the article. (probably just move them around a little, their current placement seems to add a little confusion.)Crockspot 19:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Use of Progressive article as a source

I really have a problem particularly with The Progressive article [2] being used as a source in this article. It is being used to verify the claim that Ava received death threats after the release of WWJD, and I have already proven that the one message that could be construed as a threat occurred BEFORE WWJD. The other quotes are unsourced in the Progressive article (and are not even threats), and I have already proven that the most important one is falsely attributed, so I consider the entire article to be tainted. If no one can come up with another source to back up the claim being made, or cannot voice a good objection, I will soon remove it as a source, and replace it with a {{fact}} tag. In the absence of any other source of a DEATH THREAT, the section should be reworded something like "Lowery claims to have received death threats after the release of WWJD...". Crockspot 17:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

reworked as per your suggestion, see above.Richardjames444 17:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I tweaked it a bit more. If the Progressive article is staying, then the counter sentence that I added should stay, for balance. I will go back and add a cite for that.Crockspot 17:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I put the progressive article and your edits into their own section. Feel free to adjust it.Richardjames444 18:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I like what you have written. It's neutral, accurate, and gives a great summary of the dispute. Good job. Crockspot 18:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• After sleeping on it, I made a slight adjustment for NPOV, changed "crassly sexual, racist and homophobic" to "vulgar, inappropriate, and culturally insensitive". I think it sounds more encyclopedic. Crockspot 17:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree, but I'm not going to change it back. The comments had considerable overtly racist content and used homophobic slurs, and it is honest enough to note that in the article, rather than it being POV or encyclopedic, although I would take out 'crassly' as subjective if I was to do it over. In any case, if people follow the link they'll make their own conclusions.Richardjames444 18:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I did a minor spelling correction in the new text without changing the content.

I just felt that your choice of words was leaning toward inflammatory, and I wanted to tone it down a bit with more "politically correct" terms. And as you said, the link is there for the reader to draw their own conclusion. BTW, I find you very easy to work with. You have my respect. Crockspot 18:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

barnstars all around then <grin>

---

I just saw an interview with her on Fox News. She said the threats threatened her life and the life of her mother. Please change the article to reflect this, or at least do some follow-up research. She also cited death threats posted on Free Republic's message board that were relayed to her by some of the members.

YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 03:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Question: Ava herself has uploaded some of her animations to YouTube under the username "peacetakescourage," so would that be considered part of the 1% that can be linked to? Jinxmchue 06:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The further question to ask is, do Ava's animations themselves violate the copyright of others? Has she provided the copyright status of the photographs that appear in her work? Crockspot 16:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Good point. Jinxmchue 17:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Her issue to deal with, not Wikipedia's, IANAL but I believe that she uses them in such a way as to create a derivative work and this constitutes a fair use.--BenBurch 05:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• How does the Crooks and Liars link not violate CNN's copyright? Crockspot 20:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• In general it is not necessary to link to a video if you can cite the network, date and time the video was aired. Of course, this is wide open to abuse as there is no way to tell if the clip you cite in any way supports the fact you are using it to support, but that is one of the problems with scholarship in a broadcast age, and we cannot begin to address it here. In an ideal world, a TV network would archive ALL of its news and public affairs programs much as I archive all of the radio programs that air on my networks, or the way namy newspapers archive all of their issues. Perhaps that will happen some day. But for now, just cite the videos as you would any offline source, and trust that a sufficiently motivated fact checker will find the actual video or an accurate transcript of the program. --BenBurch 04:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

References and external links need clean-up

The two "references" are simply repeats of external links from the article. These should be converted to the actual references format that is now being used (i.e. the one that I keep forgetting how to do). Jinxmchue 06:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I forget how to do that too! I cleaned up some of your unintentional POV. Unless you can find a RS that describes her videos as 'anti-republican' that is POV. Where is a RS saying she is homeschooled? As for previous discussion above, CU is not RS nor V, and can't be used as a source for any claims or counter claims. I will make a concession and let a bit of exclusionable content remain, saying that there is some dispute regarding the threats, even though all the counter claims come from CU and FR. - F.A.A.F.A. 08:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Crap on a cracker, man! CHECK YOUR OWN LINKS! At least THREE of them say she's homeschooled. Jinxmchue 15:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

OK! OK! I must have missed that! Which links say 'anti-republican'? - F.A.A.F.A. 20:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Which ones say "anti-Bush?" Hmm... None! Didn't see you objecting to that phrase, though. Wonder why... Well, no matter. The wording is changed, so the issue is now moot. Jinxmchue 19:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Do I really need to make a list of Ava's anti-Republican animations for you, FAAFA?

Or are you capable of finding them yourself on this page: Peace Takes Courage Original Animations?

No, YOU need to find RS V sourcing calling them 'anti republican'. What you keep adding is OR, and POV. You should know that. AFAIK, she has not made any animations critical of anti war republicans, thus she is not 'anti republican'. Even if she had, it would stilll be OR without sourcing. - F.A.A.F.A. 22:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, YOU need to find RS V sourcing to prove Ava supports anti-war Republicans. Until then, her two general anti-Republican animations ("How Much Do Republicans Really Care" and "How Much Do Republicans Really Care v.2") and her animations targeting Santorum and Hastert are sufficient enough to establish that she has anti-Republican animations. Jinxmchue 00:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

No YOU'RE the one describing them as anti-republican. Thats YOUR OR. Please find a RS describing them as 'anti republican'. I'll give you ample time. - F.A.A.F.A. 01:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Something that is blatantly and obviously against Republicans is, by definition, anti-Republican. One does not need to cite it and calling it such is not OR. Tell me - why is it just the "anti-Republican" descriptor that is in question here? Why not "anti-Bush," too? Why, because it's obvious that many of her animations are anti-Bush. One does not need an outside RS calling her animations "anti-Bush" in order to to call them "anti-Bush." It's a given fact. Jinxmchue 03:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but noone should be called anti-Bush or anti-Republican unless they themselves identify that way and have stated so in a WP:RS and WP:V source. No piece of art should be labeled either unless under the previous exceptions mentioned. The only time something should be labeled outside of that marker is when a WP:RS or WP:V source alleges and then it should be noted that person or source X states person or piece Y is anti-republican or whatever. --NuclearZer0 16:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your reasoning, and understanding of WP as it applies to OR, Since you do not agree to find sourcing, I'll seek more input. Remember BLP applies here too! - F.A.A.F.A. 04:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Jinx and FAAFA. I don't mean to butt in, but I seem to have made a habit out of it recently. Unless I am unclear on the nature of the debate in this section (which appears to be whether it is NPOV to pronounce the subject's work as anti-republican or not), and if you'd like an outside opinion, the way I'd handle it is this. From a cursory glance, the subject's animations appear to criticize specific people who are members of the Republican party. While I have not watched any of them myself, the NPOV way to portray this would be to specifically detail some of the notable subjects discussed or mentioned in them. That is to say, In animation X, Ava Lowery criticizes person Y using Z details (images, statements, etc.)

The vital thing to remember, of course, is the way that the article's voice must withhold any but the most explicit interpretation or value judgment; that should be left to the purview of the readers. If either of you guys has any question, just drop me a note on my talk page. Happy editing. :) --Kuzaar^-T-C- 04:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, all. Kuzaar's suggestion expresses my own: make a list of ten or so names of the videos she's produced, and if they're ambiguous regarding the content a short phrase of summary; i.e. - "How Repulicans Really Care" with something like "Accuses Republicans of a double standard", or "Contrasts comfort of Republicans against suffering of troops", or something like that. That obviates the need for extraneous sources, and the links can go directly to her page. Stone put to sky 09:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

More concerns

1) Please provide RS V sourcing for any 'conservative crticism' of her work.

2) Please provide RS V sources for any 'disputes' or 'counterclaims' regarding threats and death threats.

Thanks - F.A.A.F.A. 04:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• I have some concerns as well. I have tried over a fairly long period of time to assure that this article was factually accurate. See the factual accuracy dispute section above. Unfortunately, most of the evidence is from non-RS sources. The Progressive article itself (which I consider probably not RS either) has some verifiability problems, as some of the statements put forth have been shown to have occurred long before the context of the article. I submit that the marginal notability of the subject of this article stems from incidents that can be shown to probably be a hoax. Bottom line, this article suffers from chronic and probably unresolvable problems with POV, notability, verifiability, and copyright violation issues. There are also new EL rules that this article probably violates as well. I am seriously considering putting it up for AfD again. I don't think it can survive a second round because of the multiple issues. During the first AfD, I saw a post by Ava on her site wondering why there is even an article about her on Wikipedia, so I don't think she really cares one way or another. Perhaps it is time to put this article out of our misery. - Crockspot 14:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• AfD? LOL! With 50,900 Ghits, active current Gnewshits from MSM, Interviewed by CNN, FNC, written about in the NYT, and written about by Cindy Sheehan? Why would you think that AfD - deleting an article on a highly notable individual - would be the correct course of action vs RfC? I'm sorry that you think that one source may have the date wrong on an insult that you claim came from a forum you frequent, but you think that is actually a reason for an AfD??? The date of one insult? I asked Admin Kuzaar to informally mediate this article, as I expected problems after I removed the anti-Ava POV that came from two editors who I contend are heavily biased against Ava and were doing some serious axe grinding. We'll get this sorted out! - F.A.A.F.A. 17:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• You have your facts wrong there buddy, the post that debunks the Progressive timeline comes from an archive of Ava's own site, (correction, it is from POAC, but is undisputably her post, see photo in profile and link to peacetakescourage.com) a post that she made herself. Therefore, it qualifies as a primary source in this article, so I'm not sure why it was removed. I suggest you go back through the history to before I ever edited this article if you want to see some POV axe-grinding. I worked very hard with one of Ava's friends to bring this article to a more neutral and accurate account that was acceptable to both sides. We had reached a consensus, and this article was fairly dormant until you decided to stir it up again. Crockspot 17:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC) further If I recall correctly, it was RichardJames, a friend of Ava's, who insisted on a link to CU to show how eeevil we were. The link I insisted on was the primary source of Ava's post, which shows that she received the death threat almost a year before anyone on CU had ever even heard of her. So please justify why you removed the primary source. Otherwise, it goes back in. Crockspot 17:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• It doesn't really matter if she wants it or not, she is Notable --BenBurch 17:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• As I said above, her notability is marginal, and may be the result of a hoax perpetrated as a publicity stunt. As has been recently demonstrated, people more notable than her have had their articles deleted on notability grounds. And notability is not the only problem I have with the article. In fact, this article and the one I am thinking about have quite a bit in common, as far as pov and V problems go. Crockspot 17:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Hmmmmm. Let me see if I have this right. You admit above that someone on a NN forum you frequent - a forum that itself was deleted from Wiki for Non Notability - told Ava, a 15 year old at the time, to 'masterbate' (sic) (AND SICK) to a picture of Cindy Sheehan - one article mentions that forum - but because of the forum's Non Notability, perhaps thought it was a generic term for the 'conservative blogosphere' - they possibly get the date wrong on said incident, and you think that constitutes a hoax? AND a reason for an AfD??? Do you think that perhaps 'some' members of that forum would perfer not to have that info linked to on Wiki, or even perhaps prefer to have the entire article and 'insult / threat' issue 'disappear'? People like Cindy Sheehan, and Ava - AND Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter get death threats ALL THE TIME. One conservative blogger was just arrested for sending numerous REAL death threats - and you contend her claim of possible death threats might be a publicity stunt???!!! CP - I need to warn you - BLP applies to talk pages too. That assertion itself may be a violation. Please be more careful. - F.A.A.F.A. 18:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• You think too much for your own good. You already removed the only thing that I ever wanted scrubbed from this article (the link to CU), so thank you. However, you also removed a proper primary source of a post by the subject of this article, which contains verbatim the same "threat" which appears in the Progressive article, which had nothing whatsoever to do with WWJD or CU. They not only got the date wrong, they got the video wrong, the year wrong, and the perpetrators of the "threats" wrong. I said I am only considering an AfD. I have a 100% success rate with AfD's I have nominated, so trust me, I will not nominate an AfD unless I am pretty sure it won't mess up my average. That's not to say that there are some serious pov and verifiablility problems with this article which WILL get sorted out properly, one way or another. Crockspot 18:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• "I have a 100% success rate with AfD's I have nominated, so trust me, I will not nominate an AfD unless I am pretty sure it won't mess up my average." Unfriggenbelievable. Lets see what Kuzaar, who I asked to informally mediate this article thinks would be the best course of action, and application of WP about your concerns. I'm glad I could accomodate you by removing a link to forum which was disallowed under WP- F.A.A.F.A. 18:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Your "unfrigginbelievable" type of comments are part of the problem you are having. I tried to remove the CU link in the past, but a friend of Ava's insisted on its inclusion. In the interest of gaining consensus, I went along with it, because it actually showed how inoccuous the replies to the thread that Ava started on CU were. I prefer that there not be a link to CU in this article, because CU really had nothing to do with Ava, outside of a thread she started on CU to troll her video. CU was accused by DUers of making death threats against Ava, and that is the only reason I even came to this article some months ago. I would prefer that this article exist, and be NPOV and verifiable. If this article is going to be used by you to reignite the POV pushing of the past, then Houston, we have a problem, and an AfD may be the best solution. You can thank yourself for that. There was no dispute here that hadn't already been worked out until you decided to recreate one. Crockspot 18:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Have a look at the new WP:EL and I think you will see that forum and blog links are now clearly unacceptable.

• And what is your point? Forum and blog links are still acceptable as a primary source, when the authorship is not disputed. Maybe you should read it a little more carefully before removing proper sources. Crockspot 18:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC) PS Perhaps you can show me how the Crooks and Liars link, which violates CNN's copyright, fits into WP:EL. Crockspot 18:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• I just haven't gotten around to modifying that link to a legal cite of the channel date and time for the video. Feel free to do that for yourself if you like. There is no need for a citation to go to an online-accessable source at all! And as for forum postings as a WP:EL or WP:RS that is not my reading of things at all, and I just re-read both, but I am willing to have you point out how they can be. --BenBurch 19:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Was that you I was replying to? Thought it was Faafa. WP:EL deals primarily with standalone external links included in an external links section. At the end, when dealing with citations for statements, it refers us to WP:Verifiability, which has a section headed Self-published and dubious sources in articles about the author(s) dealing with this. WP:RS also covers self-published (ie. blog) sources used to verify information about the subject. Nothing has changed here in this regard. Crockspot 19:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Please review WP:OWN

I think a case could be made for it here. Jinxmchue 13:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yup, several editors DID think they owned the article, until I found it 2 days ago. Links to forums. Imagine that! - F.A.A.F.A. 17:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:DICK may be applicable as well. Imagine that! - Crockspot 17:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

NPA there, buddy! - F.A.A.F.A. 18:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

So now citing WP guidelines is what you consider a personal attack? Crockspot 18:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think picking on little girls sets him off. --BenBurch 18:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Ben, I didn't realize that I had attacked you. :O Crockspot 18:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Now that was uncalled for and absolutely was a personal attack. Shame on you. --BenBurch 18:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

That was a joke, Ben. See smiley attached. How is "picking on little girls" not an attack as well? Again, I suggest you go through the history of this article from before I appear in it. I have worked with people who disagree with me to make this article more accurate. It was mostly fabrication before I came along, and I never "picked on" any little girls during that time. So please, find the sense of humor that you used to have. Crockspot 18:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh, no, actually, no one thought they owned the article until you found it and started [mis]using WP:V and WP:RS to selectively remove information you didn't like and ignore WP:V and WP:RS to retain and add information you do like. Jinxmchue 19:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Before I found this article 2 days ago, it was GARBAGE Last pre FAAFA version BIASED and POV, so please stop these specious claims that *I* have any other goal than to improve what was a piece of crap before I arrived. - F.A.A.F.A. 20:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what parts did you find to be "BIASED and POV?" It doesn't seem much different than what you were changing it to other than added information and attempts to insert even worse POV (if any existed in the first place). Okay, yeah, the article really sucked because (A) the subject is only nominally noteworthy and there is very little information about her available and (B) no one who gives a darn about her, her activities and her website gave a darn about improving the article. As for your goals, they are as obvious as the first day you started contributing to Wiki. You make broad and boastful proclamations about "fairness," "accuracy" and your devotion to Wiki guidelines, but you always end up contradicting it all. Jinxmchue 04:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I have written an article about someone who was notable because of media attention, Kimberly Osorio, if anyone wants to take a look at a well sourced covered article. I am sure if I was interested in this topic it would be easy to flesh out. The real job is to find a transcript of her CNN interview or other interviews and use those as a basis to flesh out her views, maybe inset a notable quote, etc. --NuclearZer0 22:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Dispute over threats section

Previous consensus had accepted the following as acceptable:

Alleged threats against Ava Lowery

Lowery's claims of having received death threats remain controversial. Emails given to reporters following the publication of WWJD, while vulgar, are not specifically threatening.[3] Documented death threats were made against Lowery in response to an earlier animation and were apparently conflated into an article discussing the right-wing response to WWJD[4]

The current section which Hwnmbn changed it to fails to be verified by the source provided. It seems to be original research. I believe the section above states the situation more accurately, and is better sourced, including a primary source of Ava's production. As an alternative way to resolve this, I propose that the "threats" section be completely removed from the article. But for that section, I have no other problems with the article, save a possible copyvio external link. Crockspot 19:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

1)the 'conflated' bit is and was OR , as is that WHOLE paragraph above, except for the second sentence. 2)I am well versed over using forum links for ANY reason, after going through this with admins on the FR article, and PW article. The forum links in the article were NOT allowable. 3)Furthermore... Before I found this article 2 days ago, it was GARBAGE Last pre FAAFA version BIASED and POV, so please stop your specious claims that *I* have any other goal than to improve what was a piece of crap before I arrived. 4)I am not adverse to deleting ALL of the threats / insults alleagtions - the entire section- except for a brief mention in the opening paragraph, and suggest that we delete it now, and work on a version here in talk, that we, with the help of an Admin if nesessary, can agree on. I will do that now. - F.A.A.F.A. 20:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• The rules are STILL: Self-published sources (such as blog posts) may be used as primary sources in articles about the subject. This has not changed, and is still part of WP:RS and WP:V, and is not specifically forbidden in WP:EL. I don't know where you and Ben are getting this idea, but that is the fact. Blogs are not reliable sources to source claims about anything else, but they ARE appropriate to use as a primary source to document what and when the subject of an article said or posted, as long as authorship is not in dispute. If what you think the rule is was really the rule, then WP would be left with a great deal of unsourced information. If you still dispute this fact, then cite me chapter and verse of where this rule has changed. I already pointed out to Ben above where it is covered in current policy. If someone is telling you otherwise, then they are wrong. Believe me, admins have been know to have completely wrong ideas about what the current policy is. Crockspot 21:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• 1) You're wrong about using forums, revist the discussion about PW, Forum Posts i.e. "self-published sources, as the WP:RS page you linked to says, are not acceptable unless they are, for example, a professor publishing an article about whatever subject. Kuzaar-T-C- 17:42, 28 August" but I'll wait for an admin to tell you that, if you'd like. 2) I thought you DIDN'T want the forum link included? Now you do? Which is it? Thanks - F.A.A.F.A. 22:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Furthermore: "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources." [5] - F.A.A.F.A. 22:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

  See WP:RS#Self-published sources in articles about themselves. Self-published sources are not ideal, but they can be used as primary sources in certain cases. And you do know that we're talking about two different forum links, right? I would prefer the section be left out, because the only "reliable source" for the section, the Progressive article, has some credibility problems. The proof that there is a credibility problem happens to be a post that Ava made nearly a year earlier on POAC. This is all covered in the first two sections of this talk page from last August. If it is going to be in the article, we need some better reliable sources to cite. - Crockspot 23:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• By the way, this is so special, in so many ways. Crockspot 00:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Some folks will never change their stripes, despite any claims they make. Dman727 00:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah... I see nothing there. What is your issue?--BenBurch 03:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

What's all the hub-bub about? Hey Crocks, weren't you one of the editors who complained when I posted a thread to NN-U? Now you're doing the same with some meamingless thread on Ava's forum?! Whatz up wit dat??? - F.A.A.F.A. 04:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page (which you scrubbed), it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out who Impeach07 is. Edit histories are a bear that way. I find it ironic that someone would do exactly what they whined about others doing. But I didn't really expect you to fess up. I'm too good a judge of character to expect that. Crockspot 15:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

And amazingly, not long after I posted the thread here, the author of the post edited out their entire contribution. Of course, no one HERE had anything to do with it. You may smirk and be smug about it, but you aren't fooling anyone. I really tried to be cooperative with you, but you continue to try to play me for a fool. "Fool me twice, I won't get fooled again." - Crockspot 15:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should post your suspicions on the Conspiracy Theory noticeboard. - F.A.A.F.A. 23:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No need to stoke the flames. --NuclearZer0 23:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

At FA's behest I added this page to my watchlist in hopes of helping informally mediate here. In the above section I noticed some back-and-forth about primary sources, reliability, and the use of forum posts. Can any of the involved editors lay the question out in clear terms for me? As an aside, if you could all talk in clear terms anyway that would be keen- in heated debate confusion on topics to both involved editors and outsiders can be cleared up with concise language. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 16:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

My input, not that it was asked for is according to first party standards for sources, if its known and can be shown that the forum poster is the person in question, the post can be used to identify their views or statements. This has to be in a situation where the person can be identified. In this case if its her website she is posting on she will be noted as webmaster or admin etc. Thus allowing her to be identified, however if its on another site, where it can be someone faking to be her, that would not be appropriate. --NuclearZer0 22:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Position of the pic

Don't all pics go on the right side of the articles? Jinxmchue 04:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

(Even though you insulted me, the subject, and my documeneted efforts to improve what was a substandard POV article above, I'll shrug off your baseless bitter attacks for the betterment of Wiki. When you get interviewed on CNN, MSNBC and Fox, and written about in the NYTimes, all in the space of a year, you can talk about notability) I don't know about picture placement. Would that be in the 'elements of style' section? - F.A.A.F.A. 04:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a more-or-less standard bio header that has the picture in it. No time now, but I'll place one soon. Live with it for a couple days, OK?--BenBurch 05:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

So I need to be notable myself in order to talk about notability? Ha! That's a laugh! Jinxmchue 16:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No danger of that, huh? ;-) I think being notable is vastly overrated.--BenBurch 18:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry you didn't get my tongue-in-cheek comment, Jinx. CNN+MSNBC+FNC+NYT+Multiple Other MSM Mentions+47,100Ghits = Notability, and to argue otherwise is pretty darn hard to understand. - F.A.A.F.A. 22:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

LSM mentions: lots of people get mentioned on the LSM every year, yet they don't warrant Wiki articles because they simply are not notable. They get a mention or two on the LSM and then they're gone, much like Ava. Ghits: worthless indicator of notability as a simple glance at the results shows little depth in the information on Ava (lots of repeated information on several like-minded websites). You need to carefully review WP:N, particularly the part about notability not being subjective and something judged by editors like yourself. Ava's pretty much a one-trick pony whose notability is going to plummet like a rock once George W. Bush is no longer our President (if it doesn't do so before then). Jinxmchue 00:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

What the _ is 'LSM' ??? - F.A.A.F.A. 01:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that's our wise friend's acronym for "LIBERAL stream media". Stone put to sky 10:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Infobox?

Somebody might want to check the birth date in the infobox. According to that, she is 26 years old. Crockspot 17:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

my fault, sorry --NuclearZer0 17:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Done here for now

I just cannot work with FAAFA anymore. I will allow Kuzaar to try to come up with an article that meets policy guideline, and when it's done, I'll check it out and contribute then if necessary. My concerns have all been expressed ad nauseum on this page, from the first section on. I can find better use of my time elsewhere for now. Crockspot 18:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, CP. I am 100% confident that my understanding of WP in regards to excluding a forum link to 'defend' the OR that Ava or the reporter of said article 'conflated' the threats is correct. Here's a link to the discussion on Kuzaar's page, for those editors interested. - F.A.A.F.A. 19:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not write the "conflated" part, RichardJames444 did, after seeing my evidence that the Progressive article was factually flawed. In the interest of avoiding an edit war, he and I worked together. He wrote that part, and I left it at that. That editor was initially defending this article against my edits, until he realized that my concerns were valid. Go back in the edit history a page or two, and you will see what I am talking about. Also bear in mind that this all occurred last summer, when I was still a fairly green editor. I agree that it smacks of original research, but I was trying to be accomodating. If FAAFA would simply stop trying to find ways to attack me with things that I did not even write (or wrote in my user space long ago and left unfinished/unsourced) for just a few minutes, and go back and read this talk page, and look at the edit history, there would be a lot less frustration all around. I am really getting sick of the depth of bullshit being thrown at me. Almost all of my wiki time lately has been tied up with dealing with this guy. Nobody reads this article anyway, so you guys do what you want, and leave me out of it. If I see a problem, I'll pipe in. OK? I have other fish to fry. - Crockspot 21:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you feel attacked CP, but less than 24 hours ago you were arguing that a link to a forum post should be allowed under WP. As an act of good faith, I deleted the whole 'threat' paragraph, and suggested we work on it here. Forgive me if I'm mischaracterizing the situation, but I get the feeling that all you've done since then is argue why you should be allowed violate WP and link to a forum post, while I have not even insisted that this 'threat' section be reinserted. - F.A.A.F.A. 22:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I was arguing against an irrelevant point you were pushing, which is that blog posts are NEVER allowable EVER. It really had nothing to do with the specifics of this article, but with the policy in general, which is not an unusual left curve to find oneself veering down when arguing with you. I simply reverted the section to a previous consensus version, which while containing some OR, at least had SOME kind of source to back it up. The text I was reverting from was OR, and had nothing backing it up. (Mentions of ongoing police investigations which were not found at all in the source cited. See diff.) As I have stated repeatedly, I prefer the section not be there at all, considering the sourcing we have available. Why did you not have a problem with the part I removed in the above diff? Is is because you recruited that person to come here and help fight the neocon cabal while you were attacking and mocking WP policy, and personally attacking WP editors from off-wiki? I refuse to work with you any further, because you are constantly on the attack. You never stop. The last message you left on your talk page is a good case. You list a series of my "transgressions", yet nowhere in that list is there any actual violation of WP policy by me. But you do manage to admit to wikistalking an admin, and make disparaging remarks about him as well. I have never dealt with such a constantly combattive editor as you. No, you haven't improved at all. You've gotten worse. You've wasted way too much of my time, so while I may or may not respond further, it will not be because you "won" or scored some sort of point I can't refute, but because I refuse to be baited by you further. Now stop attacking me and engaging in pointless arguments, and get to work on improving this article. That would be a way to show improvement on your part. As I have already said, I am done editing this article for now. - Crockspot 12:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

NPA, CIVIL, AGF - F.A.A.F.A. 15:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a little like the wolf crying wolf. People might take your citation of WP policy a little more seriously if you didn't violate those same policies multiple times a day. If you want people to treat you better, try leading by positive example. Crockspot 17:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

BEANS - F.A.A.F.A. 21:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism?

I'm looking for inclusionable criticism as Kuzaar suggested and can't find any! Do any of the Cons here know of any RS V sources that criticized her? Any mention in the Washingtoon Times? Please help!

Funny - I just watched the CNN clip again. Carol Lynn, who's usually on the ball, asked Ava 'How did a 15 year old even know about the war?' WTF? LMAO! - F.A.A.F.A. 05:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop labeling people, what is so complicated about this. I have basically walked away from the RfC, but this is getting annoying, Wikipedia has editors, period, not cons and libs, just editors. --NuclearZer0 13:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah Jeez! I should have said 'my fellow editors who are more familiar with Conservative sources' - My bad - F.A.A.F.A. 15:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

OR just simply, does anyone here know of any ... since unless you are saying liberals are totally ignorant of certain things, or basically everyone but conservatives are capable of providing sources, it doesn't make sense to specify a group. --NuclearZer0 16:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping that maybe someone here might have remembered some specific criticism from sites I don't generally visit - Wash Times, Newsmax, WND, etc. - F.A.A.F.A. 21:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

And none of those require the person to be of any political leaning to read. I thank you for any future consideration you exhibit in not labeling people. --NuclearZer0 01:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, remember WP:NPOV. --ElectricEye (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Not really sure what you are even reffering to. --NuclearZer0 03:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Seeking to include CONS sources while avoiding others isn't really NPOV. I'm not saying anyone is doing this, this a reminder. ^_^ --ElectricEye (talk) 03:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe FAAFA considers himself a liberal, so he is seeking the other side to chime in if anything. I just don't like how lately political tags are on a rise and its turning into a con/lib situation, as if the US was so black and white and everyone that was a con or lib shared the same opinions with everyone in their party etc. --NuclearZer0 03:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

(UI)TB, I see you just deleted my attempt to include sone 'criticism.' Perhaps I didn't paraphrase it perfectly. I watched the vid a couple more times, and it went like (referring to yearlykos) CL: "These bloggers played your clip on the jumbotron. Do you think they would have done that if you were 25... or 35?" CL also described the juxtaposition of the Christian hymm and injured Iraqi kids as 'almost flip'. Might that be appropriate to include? - F.A.A.F.A. 07:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn;t appear to be criticism. It appears to be questions. I don't think she is notable enough to have warranted legitimate criticism that should be put in WP. --Tbeatty 07:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Her notability has been well established. I notice you just 'arrived'. Your edits deleted significant portions of the article that were agreed to by consensus. Pehaps you might be less hasty with your deletions, and propose these massive edits here in talk, and also try to add to the article rather subtract from it. Thanks. - F.A.A.F.A. 08:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

All this talk about Ava not being "notable" enough -- and all that stuff about an AfD -- is kind of silly; for better or worse, Ava Lowery has become a notable individual and will remain so for a while -- even after her animated productions fade from the public eye -- because of the symbol she has become to the anti-war movement as well as what she represents to public cyberspace.

That said, i think the business about the CU citation has gotten out of hand. Although the article was undeniably POV prior to FAAFA's entry, still it seemed as if on this particular point the issue had been settled. With the great changes that FAAFA has worked into the article already, the passage as it stands reads with *much* less bias. I don't understand why the wording cannot be re-worked a little bit around the rhetorical structure that had already been settled upon.

In other words, i think Crockspot on this point has a quite legitimate and supportable complaint. Witness:

Lowery's claims of having received death threats remain controversial. Emails given to reporters following the publication of WWJD, while vulgar, are not specifically threatening.[6] Documented death threats were made against Lowery in response to an earlier animation and were apparently conflated into an article discussing the right-wing response to WWJD[7]

Could easily be incorporated with FAAFA's edits, and changed to something like this:

The release of the "WWJD" animation spurred contentious public reaction. Ms. Lowery received emails that were indisputably intimidating, and together with web postings expressed rhetorically vulgar, obscene, hateful and in some cases illegal and/or physically threatening intent (particularly with regard to a minor).

Yet Lowery's claims of having received death threats evoked controversy of its own. Emails given to reporters following the publication of WWJD, while vulgar, are not specifically threatening[8] and although there are documented death threats, they are in response to an earlier animation. Unfortunately, these were improperly conflated into an article discussing the right-wing response to WWJD[9] [10] and on this basis some have questioned their authenticity.

Regardless, federal and local law enforcement agencies deemed it serious enough to launch investigations which, as of December 2006, remained inconclusive.

There obviously need to be more citations here, but i don't see a problem with including the blog and thread in question; this is a biographical stub, and as such Ava's personal blog is relevant. Meanwhile, if the accusations and such were made on other blogs i'd remind everyone that those are likely to disappear into archives before too long, at which time new sources will need to be found anyway. Stone put to sky 09:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, i'm not entirely sure that "Ava's...spurred contentious public reaction" is, on its own, satisfactory. The whole reason she's notable now is because an awful lot of people also responded positively to her animations, no? But since this is under the "Threats" section, perhaps it would be o.k. to just say "Ava's...spurred contentious reaction amongst some political groups", or something like that.Stone put to sky 10:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Do they still respond? Has she recieved news coverage since the past, if not its best to stick to whats documented. Also

"All this talk about Ava not being "notable" enough -- and all that stuff about an AfD -- is kind of silly; for better or worse, Ava Lowery has become a notable individual and will remain so for a while -- even after her animated productions fade from the public eye -- because of the symbol she has become to the anti-war movement as well as what she represents to public cyberspace."

is a bit overblown. I am happy you arent attempting to add that to the article. --NuclearZer0 11:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

"Ms. Lowery received emails that were indisputably intimidating" sounds rather PoV. Given that the next passage indicates that whether the e-mails were in fact intimidating is under dispute, this wording is a bit strong to be included.--Rosicrucian 16:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont know about POV but surely something is wrong when we claim its undisputable, then its followed with a dispute =) --NuclearZer0 16:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

According to some editors, it seems everything Ava Lowery does is under dispute, whether it be the extent,importance and longevity of her contribution to the anti-war cause, her "notability," the existence of threats against her, and if they DO exist, the severity and origin of said threats. If she were so insignificant, why expend so much time and energy disputing every one of these points? I contend attracting this much attention makes her notable in the eyes of those editors arguing against her notability. As for whether this wiki entry is relevant enough to stay, Ava Lowery is still making animations which are being seen, she is still being interviewed by print, radio, and television outlets. The "disputed" threats are under investigation by federal and state law enforcement agencies. My question is where and why did this "contentious" debate begin? Forgot to sign, sorry.Hwmnbn 19:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't get your first question, are you saying since she isnt highly notable we should leave things in the article that we believe to be false or sources state to be over exaggerations? People feel XYZ is false or overly hyped and so they are contending certain sections, that is all. --NuclearZer0 19:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not saying she isn't notable, just the opposite. But now that I have you here... Over and above her body of work, her multiple national media interviews, her presence in the blogosphere, the intense reactions from some quarters, and the entry of law enforcement, what does she have to do to become "notable" in YOUR eyes? Once we quantify that, we can start in on the minutia of individual items. Thanks.Hwmnbn 19:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not for or against this article, simply attempting to help by adding bio boxes and being the referee. I stopped argunig with people over content and just make sure sources, terminology, etc are correct. --NuclearZer0 19:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sorry if I misunderstood your position. I welcome any input of reason and sanity. I'm learning the ropes here. There is SO MUCH discussion on this page, it's hard to keep up as to who's who. Thus far I've only successfully added one sentence to Ava's wiki article. It seems the ideological divide around Ava is pretty intense around here. I wonder why?Hwmnbn 20:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

My main objection was to the use of the word "indisputable" as it's a very strong word that's hard to support in an article.--Rosicrucian 20:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Style

It is bad form to have lots of quotes in an encyclopedia article. I have rewritten the quotes into sentences. --Tbeatty 16:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

"Quotations are a fundamental attribute of Wikipedia. Quotes provide a direct source of information or insight. A brief excerpt can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to do so ourselves" - F.A.A.F.A. 04:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Correct, however multiple quotes are bad style, its a writing 101 principle. Especially in such a short article. --NuclearZer0 13:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The Usual Suspects?

Can somebody explain to me why the same editors show up to "improve" all of the articles about Liberals? Some people seem to have no other goal than to "improve" liberal topics. Go edit articles about arterial stents or steam engines or blimps or something if you don't want people to wonder if this isn't some organized attempt to bias these articles.--BenBurch 18:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering the same things but slightly different when Stone put to Sky appeared here. Our watchlists are our enemies, since noone seems to trust the other of being able to edit via NPOV, people appear to watch eachother basically. Silly? Yes, Necessary, oddly enough, proably. --NuclearZer0 19:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

How did you get here? As far as I can tell, of the current editors, crockspot and jinx are the longest contributors and it appears all of you followed crockspot here in November. How did you and FAAFA get here? Tbeatty 19:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I got here when I went to look up Ava and saw this expanding mess. I wondered if there was an article. Ava is a sweet little girl, very kind, very decent. She deserves more respect than she is getting in this process. I hope this gets resolved so I can go back to what I was doing which was scanning for newsgroup names and inserting URI's and expanding the article about the RG&N.--BenBurch 19:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I will be the first to admit that since the RfC I have been following FAAFA's contribution list to see if he has been living up to the claims, while I am still seeing a poke here and there, its nothing like it was before, and I am partially greatful for that. Actually most of my own Wiki surfing is through following other peoples contribution lists until I find a project for myself to work on, like a new article. So who is next with their confession? --NuclearZer0 19:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Crockspot and jinx, for some reason, their names rang a bell, I think know them from somewhere. This article was under my radar. I didn't know it existed until it was brought to my attention. Having read the cyber "contributions" of said longtime editors it appeared to me there was indeed an anti-lowery bias. Had I known these folks were doing this previously, I would have been here the next day. I'm new to this wiki editing process, but I know all about their intellectual predilections. I'm here to help them be fair and balanced. Hwmnbn 19:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm the evil neocon freeper that FAAFA told you about (and slandered, as Ben is doing below) when he was bringing this article to your attention on peacetakescourage.com But really, I'm not so bad. If you get on my good side, I can probably even keep you out of the FEMA camps. - Crockspot 21:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You just admitted you are "the evil neocon freeper FAAFA told me about.." May I use this specific confession as sourcing when in the future I refer to you as Mr. Crockspot, the evil neocon freeper? I want to play by the wiki-rules.

About you being "not so bad" I'll need some independent sourcing on that statement, please.

About me getting "on your good side.." That assumes you have one. When can I expect it to show up? I must disclose I have neither the time or patience to look for it.

And about you keeping me "out of the FEMA camps." This intimates you have substantial administrative powers in the Justice Department. Unless you provide "indisputable" proof of that, I'll have to file your comment under "B" for bullshit. My only other option is to assume you were trying to be humorous. I'll go with that for the time being. ; ) Hwmnbn 02:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Both are long-time contributors to Conservative Underground where I believe both have called Ava Lowery "Ava The Liar". Indeed, it seems that anybody who has been a chew toy for that site gets special attention towards "improving" of their articles here on Wikipedia. I know that both editors do try to be NPOV here, but they cannot escape the selection bias of which articles they choose to "improve" or their history of having strong opinions on those subjects. I do not edit the George Bush article simply BECAUSE I know my own bias would lead me to a NNPOV selection bias no matter how seemingly NPOV my contribution would be. --BenBurch 19:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ben, you know better than to make an accusation like that without being able to back it up. Unless you can provide a link to anywhere that I have ever referred to Ava as "Ava the liar", you have just violated WP:NPA and WP:AGF. I have already stated that I will not edit the content of this article until you guys have worked something out. I have never had direct contact with Ava, and I don't even think that I ever posted to Ava's thread on CU. My opinion about her notability was based upon the content of the article at the time I expressed the opinion. The article did not assert her notability per WP:BIO. Now that many more sources have been added, the article does assert her notibility, and I no longer am making that case. I actually think this article is now vastly improved, and hope that you can all work together to come up with a truly neutral article. Now, I am pretty much out of it so PLEASE stop invoking my name in a negative way, or I will start making administrative complaints. You savvy? Crockspot 21:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Working from memory. If you are not one of the ones who were chewing on this young lady in the "Ava The Liar" threads, then my sincere apologies.--BenBurch 21:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the apology. Not everyone on CU walks in lockstep, and can be painted with a broad brush. I participated very little (if even at all) in the Ava or Andy threads. I do seem to remember some people even taking some shit from other CUers for being mean. While I may not have participated, I was well aware of what was going on, and what the real deal was. When I first found this article last summer, it was basically an OR hit piece aimed at conservatives in general (much like Andy's article was when I found it around the same time). I tried to insert balance, worked with another editor from the "other side", and struck a compromise that we both could accept. I was a green editor, and I was also compromising, so it wasn't a perfect article. But it wasn't an Ava hit piece either. I consider myself a pretty reasonable guy, but I won't stand by and allow people to use Wikipedia as their personal club to wield against their enemies. If an article was brought to my attention that was biased in the opposite direction, I would take (and have taken) the same action. You may not believe it, but I do try to be neutral on WP. As I admit on my user page, I realize that my biases may make me more likely to proactively seek out bias against conservatives, that is only human nature, and alot of editors and admins do it. Look at your own watch list. I'm sure you watch liberal articles for vandalism. BUT, I will try to get rid of unsourced bias and libel wherever I find it. Crockspot 21:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I *do* accept that you try to be neutral. It is unconscious selection bias that I wonder about. I have been consciously not editing articles about right wingers that I cannot stand because I know that no matter how neutral the content I would add would be, it would be content that could not be divorced from my selection of an article about a subject I find distasteful. This is why you will probably never see me editing Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity. I am simply not sure that I could be honest enough with myself to avoid all bias.--BenBurch 17:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to follow up Ben, perhaps you should have used the talk page when reverting TBeatty, instead of revertnig them, then telling them they need to use the talk page. --NuclearZer0 19:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that OK procedure? It's been done to me just that way A LOT.--BenBurch 19:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your sarcasm, but you should attempt to be bigger, not continue a harmful pattern, WP:POINT and all. --NuclearZer0 19:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't sarcasm. I assumed that what was done to me was OK.--BenBurch 19:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I am glad to help you then, if you revert someone, and they revert back, that is a sign that they stand by their edits and you should make your point on the talk page, not revert them again and tell them to do it. --NuclearZer0 19:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait a second, that makes no sense. So all Ben had to do is revert back, send them a sign he stand by his edits and make them go to the talk page? Is that what you are saying is the accepted protocol? Please excuse this wiki novice. I agree, if folks just revert back and forth on and on, that's just grade school crap...Big waste of time IMHO.Hwmnbn 20:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

What I am saying is that when Ben reverted TBeatty, and then TBeatty reverted back, he should have taken that as a sign to use the talk page, not revert another time and tell TBeatty to use the talk page, its hypocritical. By reverting TBeatty again, he was starting a revert war, regardless of his request for talk page usage, since he decided not to use it himself. Don't worry questions are always welcomed. --NuclearZer0 20:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Other people seem to think that is OK to do when I edit things, however. This cannot be "Some animals are more equal than others." --BenBurch 20:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I doubt you are a child, so for the better of the encyclopedia how about you follow the rules and don't worry about others. --NuclearZer0 21:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I am just saying that my perceptions of correct procedure were learned by observation here. If you say that this is wrong, I'll accept that you are correct and change that.--BenBurch 21:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ben is one of the editors who has worked hard on this article over the last week, helping it reach the consensus version that existed through collaborative work from editors of different viewpoints. One or two other editors suddenly 'arrive' and start making wholesales changes based on only their idea of what's better for the article without regard for the collaborative consensus version that existed. That's not gonna fly! - F.A.A.F.A. 22:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Not gonna fly? anyway ... Its good that people came together to make a nice concensus version, but concensus often changes and new viewpoints and ideas should be incorporated as well. Considering the age of the article, we all have just "arrived" technically. --NuclearZer0 22:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

"The usual suspects," indeed! Just another article in a long series of articles about a limited array of subjects of interest to a handful of current and former Democrat Underground and Democrat Warrior members. If it's left-wing, controversial and popular on the two sites guess who [eventually] shows up to muck it up: "the usual [liberal] subjects!" Short version: pot, meet kettle. Jinxmchue 17:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Some comments

I only found this article while doing RC patrol. I've been watching this for the last several days and would like to add my own opinion.

• "she and her work have received significant media attention"
• "She was the object of considerable conservative criticism"
• "She is also a person of considerable interest in the blog world"

These are subjective interpretations. For example, an op-ed in the NYT and a CNN interview don't count as significant media attention in my mind. Furthermore, I can't find these words used in the references (maybe I'm just dense). Perhaps we could just remove the adjectives?

As for the quotes that were reworked by Tbeatty, I don't understand why this was reverted. What do these quotes provide that cannot be provided by just summarizing them as Tbeatty did?

Finally, someone above asked about conservative criticism that has been published in a credible source. LexisNexis and Newsbank don't return anything.

-shotwell 20:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree about 'significant' etc.. I changed 'significant' to 'national' as CNN+ are national outlets. I deleted the other adjectives as suggested. I re-added the quotes. The NYT quotes descibes the VIDEO and is needed for an understanding of the content, that made her presentation' possibly the best'. The Cindy quote is notable, and appropriate as well. - F.A.A.F.A. 22:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I won't argue about the quotes because I'm not really that concerned -- it is more a matter of my personal taste. shotwell 22:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• I doubt that any RS sources for "conservative criticism" will ever be found. Being insulted on the internet by bloggers is just a part of everyday life now. Crockspot 21:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I doubted it too, but I figured I'd answer the question. shotwell 21:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well it looks like the adjectives I complained about were removed. Hopefully that will stick. shotwell 22:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Again... I attempted to include sone 'criticism.' Perhaps I didn't paraphrase it perfectly. I believe Tbeatty deleted "Carol Lin of CNN asked Ava in the BlogBuzz interview, possibly rhetorically, if Ava thought that some of her notoriety might be due to her young age more than anything else." I watched the vid a couple more times, and it went like (referring to yearlykos) CL: "These bloggers played your clip on the jumbotron. Do you think they would have done that if you were 25... or 35?" CL also described the juxtaposition of the Christian hymm and injured Iraqi kids as 'almost flip'. Might these two points be appropriate to include? - F.A.A.F.A. 01:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Anybody??? - F.A.A.F.A. 20:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I would have no problem with the addition of these things. shotwell 22:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions - Comments

Comments to Crockspot - I'm researching the history of the article as you suggested. Above you wrote  ; "When I first found this article last summer, it was basically an OR hit piece aimed at conservatives in general..." ...... er..... this was the article when you first found it. Aug 1 version just before Crockspot's 1st edit. Am I missing something here? An interesting tidbit: Jinx, a CUer as well, nominated the article for deletion the day it was created. Ouch! In the interest of fairness (that's my name after all!) I will compliment Crockspots for working hard to reach consensus with Richard444 who noted "That said, I would like to thank Crockspot for our succesful negotiations on how to incorporate the alleged death threat issue. He was willing to compromise in a way that makes me think that his input here is genuine." Good show! I'm a happy man - I got a fridge full of turkey and ham!- F.A.A.F.A. 09:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Quit it already. the more you stoke the flames the less anyone is going to care when you claim you got burned. --NuclearZer0 13:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I reject your advice in this instance. I'm not going to let false claims and historical revisionism go unchallenged. - F.A.A.F.A. 20:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Just keep burning away any good faith you recieved in the RfC and see where you are left. What does it matter what the article looked like? The article now is whats in question. I urge Crockspot not to respond to this so we can discuss the now and not the past. --NuclearZer0 21:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed my 'tone'. I'm never going to change my desire for the truth. If you feel it's OK to revise history and make specious claims - and that such claims should go unchallenged because challenging them could cause conflict and hard feelings - I don't know what to say other than I disagree. I'll drop it now. I am also concentrating on the here and now too. I made a suggestion to include some criticism, and spent at least a couple hours looking for sources of RS V criticism. - F.A.A.F.A. 21:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see you are going to cease being confrontational. --NuclearZer0 22:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I am??? I agreed to cease pursuing this specfic issue. - F.A.A.F.A. 22:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Then you wonder why you are treated as such. When you learn to edit instead of edit for confrontation, you will have a much easier time here with less time spent on MONGO's page. But at least you are dropping this issue as I asked. --NuclearZer0 22:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Me?...... er......... linky ... cough, snort, grumble :-) - F.A.A.F.A. 23:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

haha yeah, I thought it was funny, I am not really sure what you are saying however, after someone asks me what guideline I am arguing on and I answer NPOV, then they ask again, then again, and again under someone else thread ... anyway it was light hearted hence the smiley face. If you werent attempting to be confrontational now you would have seen that. I was only trying to help you avoid a RfA, however perhaps you are seeking one by your actions and so I will not stand in your way anymore. --NuclearZer0 23:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK there is no WP:CONFRONTATIONAL policy I may be breaking, or may have broken in the past. There are however WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA, etc, and I am working dilligently not to break these. BTW, although I rarely edit there, I read the discussion concerning the '9/11 Attacks', and 'Allegations of US state terror' articles every day. Any recent 'confrontation' from me is rather meek compared to what goes on there, including by Admins, and is well within the bounds of WP. Thanks for your concern though - F.A.A.F.A. 23:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

His point was less that you are breaking policy, but more that you are doing well on following the letter of policy, but not so well on the spirit. It's an attitude that can't be helping your wikistress.--Rosicrucian 23:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Correct, thank you for clearing that up. I think its an issue when people worry more about following policy to the T, instead of just being a healthy editor with good contributions. The policies aren't meant to be the bounds of the utmost you can do before getting into trouble, but something for everyone to consider to allow for a healthy atmosphere for everyone to participate and contribute. --NuclearZer0 23:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Which is why, essentially, the whole of the law and all the commandments hang upon WP:AGF. If followed, it prevents you from assuming malice and keeps your wikistress on the low side.--Rosicrucian 00:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• OK, all of this exchange above made me laugh. I was working from memory, I guess it wasn't quite as bad as I remembered it. But it does state that she received death threats for WWJD, and points to that Progressive article. I had a problem with that. But you're right for once FAAFA. I should have looked at the history before I made that characterization. Crockspot 01:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

  I'm glad you weren't upset - No harm, no foul! - F.A.A.F.A. 08:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

proposed criticism

How about :

"Carol Lin of CNN suggested that much of Ava's notoriety might be due to her young age. In regards to her appearance at the Kos Convention she asked. "These bloggers played your clip on the jumbotron. Do you think they would have done that if you were 25... or 35?". This point has been made by others as well. Lin also described the juxtaposition of the Christian hymm and injured Iraqi children in 'WWJD' as 'almost flip'."

Open for re-writes - F.A.A.F.A. 22:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Did Carol Lin mean 'flippant'? shotwell 22:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's a shortened version of 'flippant'. I've read/heard it used by others too. "Flip: adjective glib; flippant" We could add flippant in parenthesis after the quote. - "...and injured Iraqi children in 'WWJD' as 'almost flip'."(flippant) - F.A.A.F.A. 23:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that is necessary[11]. Thanks for the clarification. Aside from this, did Ava answer the question about her age? Also, who else has made this point, shouldn't we attribute this or at least source it? shotwell 23:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I forget who else. I'll have to research it, and am going to transcribe the relevant parts of the CNN interview so we have it 100% verbatim. I have to go out for much of the afternoon / evening. I'll try and get to it before bed. - F.A.A.F.A. 23:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Here are the two quotes from Carol Lin :

"Ava, taking a Christian hymn and putting it to pictures of suffering Iraqi children -- what is it you're hoping to accomplish (?)-- because the disparity between the two -- it almost comes across as flip."

"These bloiggers played your clips on the jumbo screen at their big annual convention -- I mean in some ways do you feel you were being used by them by them -- because would they have done that if you were a 25 year old or 35 year old?" I feel it's OK to remove the POV template. - F.A.A.F.A. 08:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed POV template - non neutrality is not asserted by contributor in talk

I removed the template again. Jinx added it, yet did not detail his specific objections as to why he thought the article POV, thus its addition was improper in the first place. He did object to 2 words, which he himself removed from the article. Link These templates are 'serious business', and are not meant to replace discussing issues in talk. To re-add it again would be highly contrary as we are actively working to include as much RS V criticism as can be found. - F.A.A.F.A. 23:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

What follows below are instructions for using NPOV template:

How to initiate an NPOV debate

If you come across an article whose content does not seem to be consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, use one of the tags below to mark the article's main page. Then, on the article's talk page, make a new section entitled "NPOV dispute [- followed by a section's name if you're challenging just a particular section of the article and not the article as a whole]". Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. - F.A.A.F.A. 00:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no. I RE-added it after you inexplicably removed it along with another earlier edit. I didn't add it to the article originally and I don't know who did, but as far as I can tell, there was no reason for you to remove it without noting why. In fact, there still is no reason other than your faulty reason that I have not asserted non-neutrality in talk. So back it goes again and I will ask that it not be removed again. I would suggest asking the person who originally added it if you can take it out now. Jinxmchue 04:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Who added it originally? I don't think it is NNPOV, do you? If so, point out where and lets make it NPOV. --BenBurch 04:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Tbeatty put the tag there.[12]

Wait, or maybe Crockspot put it there.[13]. I guess it doesn't matter. Let's just leave the tag there while everything is sorted out. shotwell 04:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

As Shotwell noted, looks like it was Crockspot, so I'd ask him if he wants it removed or if he wants to pursue a NPOV discussion. My thoughts on the issue are that while the first section has improved considerably, the article remains of questionable POV. Jinxmchue 05:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not the way a NPOV template is to be used. The template is used in conjunction with explaining the specific reasons in detail of why the person adding the template feels the article or section is POV. I know some people on Wiki (not saying this applies to anyone here) think that templates are a fast easy way to cast doubt onto an article, but that's not their intended use. The whole section on 'alleged death threats' that Crockspot objected to isn't even in the article anymore. The continued presence of template without supporting documentation is a violation of WP. - F.A.A.F.A. 05:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

(UI) Here's the original (I think) application - to a section that isn't even in the article anymore:

Threats against Ava Lowery

Ms Lowery's claims of having received death threats have been referred to federal and local law enforcement agencies who have opened investigations which to date, are ongoing.[14] Documented death threats made against her in response to an earlier animation are also part of a continuing attempt to intimidate Ms Lowery. - -Link

The template is no longer valid. - F.A.A.F.A. 05:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... Gee... And I just mentioned about questioning the POV of the article, too... Jinxmchue 06:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to document your objections. I don't remember if you were involved in the discussions regarding appropriate WP RS V criticism for the Protest Warrior article, but all the criticism from blogs, forums, Indymedia and even 2 student newspapers were excluded under WP RS V and other policies. The whole criticism section is:

"Protest Warrior has been a target of criticism on many liberal web sites and forums such as Indymedia."

I've worked hard to include criticism by including the 'leading' questions from Carol Lin. You can help by looking for more. - F.A.A.F.A. 06:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Quotations.

Tbeatty - Why are the quotations un-encyclopedic? Would you elaborate? --BenBurch 19:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: the last two quotes in the article (Lin) don't have a citation. Anything quoted should cite a source. I haven't been paying attention to the discussion here, so I'm not making a judgement about any other issues at this time. - Crockspot 21:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • To answer my own question, it looks like the source is referenced earlier in the article already (refname blogbuzz), so I'll go ahead and add a tagname. - Crockspot 21:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The source was the actual video on YouTube (or similar) which was removed by editors claiming copyright issues. - FaAfA (yap) 22:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the quality of that cite. It was CNN, we have the show name and the date, it can theoretically be verified. As long as the quotes are accurate, I think that's a sufficient cite. If a transcript or the video become available from CNN, a link can be added later. - Crockspot 02:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That percentage of her article being quotes by another person is unenclyclopedic. Wikipedi is not a random collections of quotes by people. Use Wikiquote for that. For her biography, criticisms and praises should be summarized in a neutral and sourced way. There is no reason to quote anyone extensively in a biography especially if the quotations are not from the subject. Either the quotation can be summarized as a notable point of view or it cannot. Using quotes extensively makes it look like the back of a bad movie cover where all the praise is summarized as quotes from notable critic. Encyclopedia's don't have their articles assembled as a large percentage of quotations. --Tbeatty 02:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• That's actually not a bad idea about Wikiquote, if it's something that falls within WQ's scope (I've never been over there). It could clean up the article a little, and enhance it with a link to WQ. - Crockspot 02:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Funny Tbeatty - you had no probem adding BLP violating quotes that were actually from the back of a bad movie box cover (The Clinton Chronicles) when it suited your agenda! - but you do have a valid point about the amount of quoted material. I'll summarise the quotes from the NYTimes article and Carolyn Lin, Cindy Sheehan's quotes, being from a notable person in the same arena as Ava can stay. - FaAfA (yap) 02:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not surprising that you A) mischaracterize this as being similar and B) don't udnerstand the difference between using a source as a fact about itself vs. quoting verbatim a third party source used as puffery. I didn't object to paraphrasing the Clinton Chronicles box. I objected to your wholesale removal of reliably sourced information under the guise of BLP. In this case, I paraphrased the praise by the subjects who were quoted. I am not sure why you find that objectionable. Look at the [diffs] and comment on what's objecionable to paraphrase? --Tbeatty 03:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• I see this matter has surfaced again, I'd like some neutral commentary on it. I think the Tbeatty wikiquote idea above has some merit, but I am not comfortable with the removal of 60% of the content of the article without current discussion. If we can have some discussion, fine, if not, I will restore the deleted material in a few days pending further discussion. --BenBurch (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Death threats

I am going to take out the sentence about death threats. In today's cyber age when anyone anywhere can post anything on the Internet, getting "death threats" that way does not seem so notable. I have even gotten some. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

External links

I think the External links should be cleared up and fixed. I think the current links to be moved up one. NachoPiano (talk) 01:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Status of notability

The most recent news coverage she's gotten is a brief blurb about sharing lunch with an Alabama state representative:

Google News search

Everything else is from a full two years ago. Ava fell off the map long before President Bush left office. 67.135.49.42 (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems WP:ONEEVENT would apply. Making flash animations is something that other higher-profile people do without having their own WP articles. This is her only claim to fame. 67.135.49.42 (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I found an op-ed, collected on-line, dated from 2008.

I'm not sure how it is relevant though. People don't get their articles deleted when they die, do they? It had a notability judgment, rendered inconclusive, back three years ago.

I concur. Many Many people do a few notable things, and remain an encyclopedic subject even when they do nothing else. --BenBurch (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)