Talk:Philip Markoff/Archive 1

Popular news events

Wikipedia's official policy about popular news events:

"Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. [...] Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.) While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews." - (posted here by Frankie (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC))

See the AfD action here which resulted in consensus to keep this article. Tvoz/talk 23:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability concerns

This page does not seem to be able to hold its own weight yet. I would prefer to see it redirect to Craigslist Killer as markoff is one of three different accused murderers given that name by media sources -- and he is not notable for anything but this one arrest. cat yronwode, not logged in; sorry! 64.142.90.33 (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The person (and incident is notable) and Craigslist Killer is a dab page. It was being used to circumvent two previous deletion debates that resulted in the deletion of Craigslist Killing (11 November 2007) and a year later, Michael John Anderson (deleted Nov 2008). All proposals being made to redirect Philip Markoff to Craigslist Killing are being done to get around previous consensus regarding this and related topics, all of which were deleted and merged into the main Craigslist article. Furthermore, Craigslist Killer is being used to host original research. For these reasons, I have converted it into a dab page and there is no reason to consider a redirect at this time. Viriditas (talk) 09:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you quite understand that this is a major current event in boston right now. There are other murders that have been termed "craigslist" killer but this one happens to be the current and significant one. It is significant in of itself, not because it is one of the three craigslist killers. over a period of ten days the accused terrorized the region and sex workers who use craigslist with a series of three brutal hotel attacks, one that resulted in murder. this is likely to be a very sensational and nationally watched case, especially due to the young and clean cut nature of the accused murder, a 22 year old in his second year of medical studies, his coming from a wealthy background, etc. It lead in Google News last night for the US and it is leading all boston newscasts tonight. momentarily, i expect to see it in the national newscasts in the united states. it was covered in the new york times today. I seriously spent a good bit of time here trying to put up a well referenced stub. It is just a start! I put it up a half hour ago... give me a little bit to get it going before you decide that it doesn't hold its own weight. It is silly to get into these deletion battles, its interesting that in stead of expanding this article I have to argue for its notability and significance when doing a quick google news search would show anyone that with .2,370 articles coming up right now for Philip Markoff he certainly seems notable to many, many news organizations the world over. 24.91.117.213 (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That's why you talk about the event, not the person. (As in you redirect to the event)

ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

i don't know why I even bother. fine, delete the article! this is such a waste of time. this is why people don't write for wikipedia. this bureaucratic crap is complete bs, and i guarantee someone who actually feels like fighting you will soon come along and re create the article. I don't have time for this. This is so obviously significant I really can't believe you are still trying to delete this. in any case there is no page for the event, this page used to redirects to a generic page for "craigslist killer" which is a generic term that describes three separate murders. If the event is the "craigslist killer (boston)" maybe some such page needs to be created, but the murderer is of course significant. He is getting international media coverage right now. 24.91.117.213 (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a process, 24 - give it a chance. Meanwhile, improve the article. You never know how these things will work out. Tvoz/talk 00:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If this article is deleted I will have to seriously reconsider wikipedia as a good source of information. This news story is everywhere and it's about the event as well as the person. In fact the "person" in this case is what's giving this story legs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.68.169 (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

whoever is arguing that this article isn't notable is completely insane. This is huge news. I live in Michigan and I am watching this story intensely. It has an element of the bizarre that is sure to make it a long lasting story.

Inclusion in Wikipedia is not solely based on it being news, that's wikinews. Read what wikipedia is and is not. Current policy for wikipedia is to cover the event meaning at the least a redirect/merge, not the person. Wikinews also has policies (which I would assume involve the event as well btw cause that's NEWS, the person is not NEWS, but I've never contributed to wikinews and don't know the policies there)ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Whatever gramps, gotta be by the book all the time eh? Too bad we're got senior buzzkill over here ruining all our fun. "You kids keep off my lawn!!!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.144.190 (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has rules, without rules, there would be anarchy. I'm sorry, but you seem to fail to understand what wikipedia WP:ABOUT is, it is a encyclopedia with standards. Enough schools already ban wikipedia as it is as a source for it's lack of standards (ps: I'm still in high school). ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

So I'm confused...? You say that the policy or "rule" is that we are to cover the event and not the person. If that's the case why can we find pages for Scott Peterson, Seung-Hui Cho, John List, Lyle & Erik Menendez??? I could go on and on and on! Surly you have to be able to understand that it's not the crime that is making this story go. It's the draw of the young, handsom, successful, seemingly normal guy who allegedly committed these crimes. If Philip Markoff where a 35 year old crack head who was holding up prostitutes for drug money we would never have heard anything about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.68.169 (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It is the event that makes the person notable, so in a sense, the event is notable, not the person. On wikipedia, notability is not inherited. Also, please read wikipedia policies on WP:OTHERSTUFF. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 22:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting how you make no mention of the other peaple mentioned above who are notable becasue of an event who have their own page! That must be the anarchy you mentioned above. Why don't you take you crusade to the next level and try to deleat all the pages of people who are notable because of an event. PEOPLE WANT TO READ ABOUT THIS GUY OUTSIDE THE CONTEXT OF THE EVENT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.248.205 (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Policy is policy. There is no crusade, there is no Cabal.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 21:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I say keep this article. The story clearly has legs, and from an article I read in the Boston Herald today, supposedly he was keeping mementos from his victims. It sounds to me like that makes him a serial killer. And people are always fascinated by serial killers. Just look around on wikipedia at all of their articles - Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, BTK Killer, and the list goes on. I predict that eventually the world will need an article for this guy; why not just keep the one we have for a few months, see how it evolves, and if the story dries up, it can always be deleted or merged later. takethemud (talk) 13:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)takethemud

LOL, he is not a serial killer (unless they find evidence that he has been killing women like this, typically more than two, rather than his one deceased victim; I would say "alleged deceased victim," but I do not believe that he is innocent and I never "side with" the accused in murder cases, unless the accused is obviously innocent due to the actual murderer trying to frame that person).

Furthermore, a story "drying up" does not suddenly make it non-notable. Notability does not go away just because that subject is old news. If it did, the Jeffrey Dahmer article and others would no longer be here. Flyer22 (talk) 07:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why this article would be considered for deletion. Markoff has been arrested for three separate crimes (and is suspected of more). He isn't associated with the events, the events are associate with him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.13.162 (talk) 16:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

NOTE THIS IS NOT THE AFD. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 18:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I doubt this is an appropriate argument, but it should be noted that this is one of the most informative articles that is easily available on the subject. The article on Craigslist Killer is not focused on this event, and the article on the Murder of Julissa Brisman also contains very little information. As there does not seem to be a good page to substitute for this one, I feel it would be irresponsible to delete this one without first providing a suitable alternative. If such an alternative provided sufficient background information about Markoff, it is doubtful that arguments contending that Markoff is too interesting to delete would continue to be meaningful (even ignoring the fact that such articles are against Wikipedia's policies). --Ilikerps (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is so biased it is a disgrace. This article incriminates Wikipedia in the decimation of Markoff's constitutional presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The media are sensationalizing this story, just as they did with O.J., Caley Anthony, ect, for entertainment purposes. Wikipedia should not be about entertainment, it should be about the facts. This article is completely one-sided and should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.27.57 (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, now, that's an entirely different argument.... In fact, I'd say that's much less valid, as articles can be improved. Put an NPOV warning if you think it's biased, or fix it yourself. --Ilikerps (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Jew???

Resolved

 – WP:BLP's are not for speculation.

Is this guy jewish??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.43.30 (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No, Roman Catholic, and only a few sources have covered it. The background section could be expanded with that material, but I'm waiting for the best sources to cover it. Viriditas (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You sure???? The New York Post is reporting that his grandfather's name is "Jerome Markoff". And on top of that, the grandfather is a lawyer. This sounds jewish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.43.30 (talk • contribs)

His family attended Catholic church.[1] Wikipedia isn't used for the kind of "I think he's X because his name sounds X" musings. I don't see why this thread shouldn't be removed. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why this thread should be removed. Speculation of religious affiliation is quite relevant. Lose the Jewish insecurity. Markov is a Russian name, Markoff is proably of Russian/ East European extraction. Absent any other indicaiton, there is no reason to belive he is a Jew. Based soley on the name, all evidence points tp Russian Orthodox Church. Though years of assiminlation will assign him to some mainline Protestant/Roman Catholic church, to which the family occasionally attends. I suppose the speculatoin exists because of Markoff's simlilarity to a recenlty hot button Jewish name, Madoff. But the two names are quite different. The reason they both sound similar is because the Jewish Ma-Tov family and the Russian Madov family both tried to assimilate into American culture with a vaguely German/English name. The confusion is intended.--Thinkweek34 (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The thread should be removed because it violates talk page guidelines. We don't use talk pages for speculation. Viriditas (talk) 00:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I went and read that article - it was his step-father that was Catholic, and it says that Philip Markoff rarely went to Church. It looks like Philip Markoff's father was jewish. His grandfather's name is Jerome, and it would have been very rare back then (even today) for a non-jew to be named "Jerome" - like being named "Jacob" or "Zvi", or "Marc" instead of "Mark". It is looking to be that this guy is part-jewish/half-jewish. Hopefully a reporter somewhere will be allowed to report/comment on this part of his background.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.43.30 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It didn't say that, and whatever his religious beliefs are, I'm pretty sure that both Catholics and Jews value the Ten Commandments. Now that you're done trolling, I'm closing this thread for the second time. Of course, if you return to tell us his musical tastes or preference for violent video games caused this, or if you blame his "gambling addiction", I will say the same thing. Viriditas (talk) 00:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Really, speculation on a WP:BLP is relevant, especially when the question has veils of racism. (sarcasm) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"Philip Markoff" and... [Edited]: "Murder of Julissa Brisman"

The title of the other article was later changed to "Murder of Julissa Brisman" -- (see below****). ↜Just me, here, now … 16:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Now a Craigslist Killer (Boston) page has popped up... it's an older version of the philip markoff page essentially. Maybe these should be merged somehow and a decision should be made on what this page should be called? I don't know how nor care to deal with the details of this... in any case the current page that has evolved here is much better than the older version located at Craigslist Killer (Boston) 24.91.117.213 (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Since I just moments ago (for WP:BLP concerns) moved info from this page over to "Craigslist Killer (Boston)" and then deleted some of what had been moved from the page here at Philip Markoff, in what way do you believe the less-detailed article here is "much better" than the more detailed one over there? Please help by being specific, Special-Contributions-24.91.117.213. ↜Just me, here, now … 02:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This kind of unnecessary article duplication during a current event is not helpful. First of all, that article name is biased. We have a suspect and a current case, all ongoing. No trial yet. So, you are jumping the gun. The suspect deserves his own page until the trial starts. At that time, we can start an article about the case, and merge the biographical information into it, summary style. No need to call him the "Craigslist killer" in the article name until we have a published confession or the trial ends with a guilty verdict. Viriditas (talk) 07:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so now that Craigslist Killer (Boston) is redirecting back here, the info on the attacks markoff allegedly commited has been deleted. Shouldn't that still be here? 24.91.117.213 (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

****The title of the other article has now been changed to "Murder of Julissa Brisman." ↜Just me, here, now … 16:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Police investigation timeline

First of all, this story has made international news and the frontpage of CNN.com THRICE in just the last 8 days. And the trial hasn't even begun yet! And it is definitely going to trial - that much we know. Who's ever saying this article is worthy of deletion is crazy; I came to wikipedia SPECIFICALLY to find this article.

That being said, now that we are getting details on how the police investigation unfolded, I think it would be a great section to have in the article which spells out this timeline / how they tracked him / consolidates all the "evidence" which is presently scattered around all over the internet in bits and pieces. I think it would be greatly helpful. Anyone mind If I create such a section? Protophobic (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Ever heard of Media circus? As for investigation, that goes under the case/crime page, NOT here.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Photo

| 'Craigslist' Killer Philip Markoff and fiancee Megan McAllister | Full Article 76.109.163.218 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC).

Are you suggesting that photo be added to this article? If so, it cannot be added due to Wikipedia:Image use policy. Flyer22 (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Evidence

should be alleged evidence. BLP policy dictates that we should not be the prosecutor even though he's as guilty as hell. Richard Jewell was one man that looked as guilty as sin but NBC and others dropped the ball on that one. Markoff is no Jewell but let's be careful. User F203 (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Huh? What does "alleged" evidence mean? The word "alleged" means that someone (e.g., the police) levels an allegation (e.g., of a crime) against someone (e.g., Markoff). How is the evidence itself "alleged"? Who is leveling what allegations against the evidence? This makes no sense at all. It is evidence. Period. It may be good evidence, bad evidence, reliable evidence, unreliable evidence, credible evidence, incredible evidence, disputed evidence, undisputed evidence, corroborated evidence, uncorroborated evidence, confirmed evidence, unconfirmed evidence, planted evidence, etc. But it cannot be "alleged" evidence. Am I missing something? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC))

I agree with Joseph. The text makes it clear that the conclusions are alleged, not yet proven. Tvoz/talk 23:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Commentary

I removed a paragraph as unsourced commentary. I was then reverted by the IP that added it.[2]. I believe that without sourves this should be removed, however rather then edit war I'm bringing this here for other opinions.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe this comment (placed in a section above) was in response to my invitation for comment in this section.[3]--Cube lurker (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

As a comment also, this IP has made a large number of changes to the article. Some I have no problem with, but others are iffy depending what the sources actually say. I don't have time now, about to go offline, but I'd suggest at least a brief review of this editors edits as a whole.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is extremely one sided. It should be neutral. The fact that the media reports are all biased does not excuse the tone of this article. The media have a reason to be biased--they need to sell newspapers and advertising. They must have sensational stories to do that. Wikipedia is an encycopedia. It should be totally neutral. There is no economic justification for sensationalizing the story. For example, the article reported that the IP address traced to Markoff. That is false. He had a shared IP address that went to the huge apartment complex where he lives. Just as I have a shared IP address--and I see a whole talk page that refers to edits made by someone having this IP address who is not me. So the facts are not being presented in a neutral manner. This guy is on trial for his life and liberty. Wikipedia should not be participating in the electronic lynching that the media is now engaging in for economic reasons. If the article is not neutral is serves no legitmate purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.27.57 (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If not sourced, the unsourced commentary should be removed. It also needs a tiny bit of re-wording so that it does not come off as regular commentary.

The only other problems I have with this IP's edits are removing significant terms which, per Wikipedia guidelines, should be linked. And removing those terms or other terms to reword them in ways that are not entirely accurate, such as two parts in the Attacks section. Where it says a paid escort, which is linked as a call girl, the IP twice changed it to prostitute. I mean, while it is true that an escort service is a form of prostitution, a call girl is not a typical prostitute and this should be distinguished for the reader (to see that it was not some random street walker). It is as though this IP was trying to make the woman seem "dirtier" or sleazier. The other part that the IP changed twice was the exotic dancer part to instead a woman offering lap dance services. It should be made clear that this woman was/is not some random woman who offered Markoff a lap dance. We should name the profession. That is why I tweaked those parts back or comprised with the IP there.

Other than that, I am not against this IP's edits thus far.

This IP, though, should also remember to remain neutral. Flyer22 (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Flyer22: The reason why I changed the term to "prostitute" is that she has admitted that she is a prostitute. A few days ago she did an interview on local tv where she was descibed as a prostitute. Since she does not hide this fact, I saw no reason to use a euphamism. But use of a particular term is not all that important, so long as the overall tone of the article is not one-sided damnation of a man not yet convicted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.27.57 (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Even so, IP, I explained above why it should be distinguished in this case. It is not merely a euphemism, considering that not all prostitutes are call girls. She happens to be a prostitute, yes, but she is a call girl (which is different than the typical or what used to be the typical prostituting people think of -- street-walking).

In any case, welcome to Wikipedia. And thank you for wanting to keep things neutral here. Flyer22 (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

IP, you also removed a sourced statement about Markoff's religion, which was reverted by Tvoz. I got sidetracked in mentioning that removal of yours earlier, but at least Tvoz noticed it by going through your edits. Care to explain that removal, IP? Flyer22 (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've reinstated it again, as it is sourced. IP or anyone - find something that refutes the source if it is to be removed. I also have removed a lot of the OR that was added - we always need to stick to sourced material, but especially so in an article like this. We cannot speculate or offer our own interpretations or explanations, as some of the IP's edits did, regardless of what we think or know on our own. I believe the article now has sources for all allegations, and all are clearly identified as such - "police investigators say", etc. To the IP: please don't re-add material that is not sourced by reliable sources - our standard is verifiability, not truth, meaning that of course we want our articles to be accurate and truthful, but our first responsibility is to make sure that we show what our sources are, and that those sources be verifiable and reliable, and we fairly and neutrally reflect what these sources say. Tvoz/talk 23:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I have asked the IP to join us here to discuss these changes - I am going to revert the ones that are OR and not otherwise in compliance with policies and guidelines, and hope we can reach consensus on some of the others, such as including the reference to his religion, an item that is common;y included in biographies on Wikipedia if it is sourced. Tvoz/talk 00:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be descending down into the gutter with mainstream media. They sensationalize to sell newspapers and ads. The fact that the Herald rag printed that Markoff was overheard to say something does not make it true. There is no source published. The comment was overheard, not stated in court or where there were witnesses. To me it is so unreliable that it should not be published in an encylcopedia. Give me break that you want to be neutral. No you people are painting him as guilty when all we know is from sources trying to sell newspapers.

As for his religion, that is irrelevant. If it is to be included then the fact that he is from a part Jewish and part Christian family should be imcluded. To me, the information is irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.27.57 (talk) 00:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for coming here to talk. The problem with your edits is that they are not supported by sources - they are what appear to be your own opinions and interpretations. Maybe you are completely right, but we can't base an article on that. No good faith editor on this article - and there are several - have tried to sensationalize or paint Markoff as guilty; we are just reflecting what many sources have been saying and we are, whether you believe it or not, trying to remain neutral. As time goes on, if there are new reliable sources that refute anything that other sources have asserted, we'll include that too. This happens all the time here - there is always more than one way to view facts that are presented. So our responsibility is to be sure that we not speculate ourselves - source articles can speculate, and we try to identify them as such. As for specifics, the story about what Markoff is said to have told his family is widely covered beyond the Boston Herald - and at least one source today said that the information came from a law enforcement source - and that's what we should say, not the way you worded it which is not particularly supported by any reliable source that I've seen. So I'm going to change that wording to conform to the sources. Please leave it, unless you find reliable sources that say something else and they can be added. As for the religion matter - I don't think it is the most important thing in the world, but despite the fact that you find it irrelevant, it is fairly common to include things like religion and ethnicity in our biographical articles. My understanding, by the way, is that although his biological father is Jewish, his mother and stepfather who raised him are Catholic - at least that's what I've seen in sources. So I'd like to hear what other editors think on this point, and hope we can reach consensus on what should be included. Tvoz/talk 04:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth ... here are my two cents. The edits made by User 63.215.27.57 are extremely biased and violate neutrality. Quite frankly, User 63 comes off as if he's Markoff's best friend / brother / fiance / God knows what ... and is attempting some form of damage control in light of all the incriminating evidence mounting against Markoff. But - hey - that's just my personal opinion, when I read User 63's edits. They are hardly neutral. Ironically ... the very thing that User 63 is complaining about regarding other editors. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 10:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC))

Joseph Spadaro--your comments seem paranoid. I have nothing to do with this case and know no one involved at all. What bothers me is that some of the posters/editors are trying to paint a one sided view of the accused. But there are two sides to every story and a proper place to try a case. It is wrong for the media to convict someone in the press and it is wrong for Wikipedia to convict someone based on what the commercial media is doing. In some countries, such as England and Canada, it is illegal for the media to discuss a criminal case that has not yet been decided--so that the right of the accused to a fair trial can be protected. In the U.S. we have gone in the opposite direction and the media and shows like Nancy Grace are now jeopardizing the rights of the accused to a fair trial. I would hope that Wikipedia would NOT participate in this, but it appears that some posters/editors have been so influenced by the media in this case that they are now spewing that same stuff on here. I will continue to try to present the other side of the story since the truth and fairness require that both sides be considered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.27.57 (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the bottom line. If a statement contains a reliable source, then it is fair game to include in this article. That includes any and all statements ... whether they look good or look bad for Markoff. You are under the impression that this article should only include statements that you like and statements with which you agree. That is the very height of hypocrisy. It is you, in fact, who is strongly biasing this article. You only want to include what you want to include. Which -- I note -- is material in favor of Markoff. And you want to exclude material unfavorable to Markoff. That is not the way this process works. And that is the bottom line. As far as your soap box ... about truth and justice and the ideal way that America and its media should operate ... that has no place here. Whether you are right or wrong in those matters, those issues are left for some other forum. That forum is not the editing of a Wikipedia article. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC))

Two other comments. (1) The media and the public cannot "convict" anyone. That makes no sense. A "conviction" is a process that happens in the legal setting in a courtroom and a trial. It is not even possible, by definition, for the public and/or the media to issue a conviction. (2) You say that "I will continue to try to present the other side of the story since the truth and fairness require that both sides be considered". However, you are being quite the hypocrite. What, in fact, you are doing is removing all statements that you do not like or agree with or that paint Markoff in an unfavorable light (whether that statement is true or not) ... and you are only putting forth statements that you like and statements that you do agree with (which only seem to be those that favor Markoff, I notice). (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC))

Tvoz--you seem to be saying that so long as the media has reported something, then that becomes a 'fact' that Wikipedia can present as a fact. But these media reports are often based on anonymous sources, and the media has a bias towards sensationalizing stories to sell newspapers and advertising. Just because the media reports something from an anonymous source does not make it true. There are some serious issues going on in the media--for example with Nancy Grace trying to conduct her own trial of Casey Anthony on her tv show by spending hundreds of hours investigating Anthony and talking about her on the tv show. I do not believe that Casey Anthony can now get a fair trial in America. Now other media are losing their restraint and also overexposing information about the accused in other cases--like the Markoff case. Markoff may well be guilty--but it is possible that he is innocent. That can only be determined according to proper procedures and rules of evidence. I think that most people in America now believe him to be guilty--so what is the point in having a trial? How can an impartial jury now be obtained? All these efforts to sensationalize criminal cases in America for entertainment purposes is seriously eroding essential constitutional protections afforded to us under the Bill of Rights. I think even Wikipedia is now participating in this erosion of the Bill of Rights based on what is going on now with this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.27.57 (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

To User 63.215.27.57 ... you seem awfully concerned about the manner in which the media and the public deal with high exposure criminal cases like this one. That is fine. However, the editing of a Wikipedia article is not the forum to address those issues of concern that you have. This Wikipedia article is not the place for you to "take your stand" and to further your personal crusade against all that you perceive to be unfair and unjust in America. But here is a side note for you to consider. You are very concerned about the rights of Markoff in his criminal trial (while no one here at Wikipedia is claiming that he should not be allowed his rights). But ... by the way ... the American media also have rights ... and the American public also have rights ... and some of those rights are called the First Amendment rights to free speech and to freedom of the press. So, please remember that Markoff isn't the only person in the universe who has rights. Just because he is accused of murder does not mean that the rights of everyone else in the universe become secondary to his rights. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC))

To Joseph Spadaro: You removed everything in the article that was at all supportive of the accused--such as the section on his Defense Team and the section on the Support of his Family and Friends. You deleted another person's work then say that YOU have First Amendment rights to do so. That is just ignorant. You are preventing the article from being at all balanced by claiming that only YOU have the First Amendment right to present your views. The sections on the defense attorneys and the views of family and friends should not have been deleted. You are trying to embarass this family due to your own maliciousness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo789 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

To Joseph Spadaro: Just what is your agenda here? Do you work for a newspaper or media source that can financially benefit from sensationalizing this case and convicting this guy in the media? You seem awfully interested in making the accused look as bad and dehumanized as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo789 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Every single word that I typed into this article comes from a reliable and valid source. It is not me who is stating those negative facts about Markoff. It is some other source that is stating them (e.g., newspapers, the Boston Police, jail officials, ABC News, etc.). If the accused "looks bad" (as you say), it is not because of anything that I said or did. It is because of what these reliable and valid sources are reporting. Please stop trying to advance your agenda and instilling your non-neutral point of view. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC))

Joseph Spadaro: You are either delusional or quite a hypocrit. You keep deleting everything posted that is at all favorable or supportive of the accused. That is where your bias is revealed. You think you have the right to post serious accusations and humiliating speculation against a man who has not yet stood trial--but no one has the right to post favorable, neutral or supportive information to counter what you have included. You want this article to read like a condemnation of a man who still retains his innocence as a matter of law. That is not 'balanced', that is propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo789 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

User Theo789 ... please give me specific examples whereby I have included text in this article that was not properly cited to valid and reliable sources. I shall await the reply, with any specific examples you can point to. You have accused me of manufacturing serious accusations, of engaging in humiliating speculation, and of condemning a presumed-innocent man. (Sheesh ... talk about libel, by the way!) So, I am more than willing to review the specific instances / specific edits in which I did what you claim that I did. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC))

You're not getting it, IP63. (By the way, you might consider taking a username, as it would increase the likelihood that all comments and edits made from your IP are actually made by you. But that's your choice.) It is not our job to determine the guilt or innocence of anyone or to portray them one way or the other. It is not our job to paint victims of crimes in negative terms as you seem hell-bent on doing, or to extol the virtues of those accused of crimes - or vice versa. We are not putting him on trial and we are neither acquitting nor convicting him. All we are supposed to be doing here is writing neutrally worded articles that fairly represent the reliable sources they are based upon. We are not asserting that the sources are truthful by including them, we are indicating that this is what reliable sources are reporting. We try to have multiple sources so that we are not presenting the bias of one publication or venue. We do not include speculation, unless it is the speculation of the source and we identify it as such. We are not here to make public policy or to reform the media or to comment upon the tactics of a television host. You're using this talk page - and worse, this article - as your soapbox for your point of view, and that is against policy. And finally - and this is the most important point - you do not have consensus for your text changes. If you want to argue that certain wording that you prefer is what should be used, then work with the other editors and see if you can develop consensus for the words. Just changing the text repeatedly is not ok, and you are already on thin ice as far as that's concerned. Please listen to what we're telling you, and start working with editors, according to the well-defined guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. Tvoz/talk 23:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Tvoz: This whole process is a joke. What I write keeps getting deleted so that the article retains a totally negative tone towards someone who is not yet convicted of any crime. Surely this cannot be in accordance with Wikipedia policy. I think this article should be deleted or at least call in people for arbitration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo789 (talk • contribs) 01:04, May 1, 2009 (UTC)

Number 1 ... nowhere in this article does it mention that Markoff was convicted. Number 2 ... "tone" (as in the "totally negative tone" that you refer to) is quite subjective. It is in the subjective eye of the individual reader. You clearly have a "chip on your shoulder" with regard to Wikipedia reporting facts from valid and reliable sources ... when you do not like what those sources have to say. Please get off the soap box. All that you accuse other editors of, you are yourself guilty of doing. You want to remove sourced statements for no reason other than to sanitize the "reported facts" to your liking. You can't have it both ways. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC))

I don't know if the previous two comments ([4] and [5]) were by the IP or a new user - my post was during an edit conflict. PLease clarify if these are two separate people. Thank you. Tvoz/talk 23:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth ... I think that User 63.215.27.57 and Theo789 is the same person. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC))

Joseph Spadaro: perhaps you should educate yourself a bit about laws on libel and slander. This is a good article to start with. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel You should also review the Wiki policy on Biographies of Living Persons. That policy is intended to protect Wiki against actions for libel. Read up and you might learn something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo789 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I know plenty about the law. For example ... Number 1 ... I know that slander is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. Number 2 ... I know that truth is an absolute defense to an allegation of libel. (01:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC))

To Joseph Spadaro: Wrong. In Massachusetts truth is not an absolute defense. There is a recent case saying just that: Noonan v. Staples (1st Cir. February 13, 2009) http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20090330.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo789 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

And, by any stretch of the imagination ... how is that relevant or applicable here? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC))

Edits by Tvoz

You have made numerous edits without reaching consensus with other editors. Note that all of your edits were to remove anything favorable to the accused. You removed the footnote containing info on Facebook claiming that Facebook is not a good reference. That is bullcrap. The reference to Facebook was clearly not provided as a reference intended as a source to back up a fact. Facebook was included in the footnote to back up the statement that a specific Facebook page had been set up by Markoff's friends. There is nothing wrong at all with documenting that in a footnote. You keep deleting the information because it is favorable to the accused--just like all your other edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo789 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You must be kidding. I have not removed sourced positive information or added unsourced negative information about Markoff. My edits are neutral and have removed the unsourced POV padding that you've repeatedly added, and by the way, I have no clue as to whether or not Markoff is guilty or innocent, nor do I particularly care. What I do care about is the integrity of Wikipedia and this highly-viewed article, and I will continue to do what I can to keep it in line with our BLP and other policies. I have removed lots of material, not only yours, without regard to whether it is positive or negative, but with respect to whether it is sourced, neutral, relevant and appropriate. And I have come here over and over to try to talk with you about it. As for consensus - several editors have essentially agreed with the thrust of my edits, and made similar ones. You, on the other hand, are out there all on your own seemingly without any interest in reaching consensus - all you've done here is carried on in an insulting manner about other editors and their motivations, and railed on about what you perceive as the unfairness of the media, Nancy Grace, the Bill of Rights and other irrelevant commentary, and then ignored what other editors tell you and go ahead and do as you please. Enough is enough - you have not shown any significant interest in actually discussing the edits you want, and frankly I'm tired of wasting my time explaining basic Wikipedia policy and guidelines to you without getting any acknowledgment from you as to the validity of the points. You are new here, and I'm sorry to say you have a lot to learn about how this community works and how to write an encyclopedia. I'll hold my edit history up for anyone's scrutiny. Tvoz/talk 06:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Tvoz--your edit history is all one sided. I am restoring the Facebook information in the footnote. Don't remove it again. The citation backs up the sentence which claims that a Facebook page was set up by friends. The citation established the truth of the sentence. There is no policy against showing that. You just don't want anyone to see that he has support on Facebook so you keep deleting the citation. As for the editors being on your side, I would say that the pre-judgment of the accused is so pervasive due to media coverage that everyone believes he is guilty and wants to show that on here. While he may indeed be guilty he is still entitled to the presumption of innocence until his trial is concluded or he enters a guilty plea. For so long as the presumption of innocence is operative, it is wrong and unfair for Wikipedia to present him on here in a one-sided manner to demonstrate his guilt. Please stop deleting everything that is even remotely in his favor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo789 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Theo, please notice that in fact I did not remove the text that reports that there is a Facebook page in support of Markoff, or that it has many hundreds of members, or the actual title of the page, or your description of its purpose or the reliable source that talks about it. I removed the Facebook link for Wikipedia policy reasons, not because it is "pro" Markoff. Please take a look at WP:ELNO, item #10. Facebook is generally not linked to because of the lack of oversight and its potential instability, and it is not considered reliable as a source. However, I am not the last word on things here, and I am asking for other editors' opinions about whether it is appropriate to link to this Facebook group page or not. If the consensus among experienced editors is yes, I'll be glad to reinstate it. If the consensus is no, I expect you'll abide by policy. You need to stop seeing everything as some sort of attack on Markoff or the Bill of Rights. He of course is entitled to the presumption of innocence, but as I've said before, our job is to write neutral articles - and "neutral" doesn't mean add something positive for every negative thing that's added. And for the last time, I hope, I have not deleted "everything that is even remotely in his favor". That is an absurd allegation, and it's time you stopped attacking other editors. Tvoz/talk 20:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

And you have not acknowledged the issue of needing to seek consensus for your edits. Tvoz/talk 20:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

New edit and a request

I've gone through the article again and removed repetition, consolidated like material in appropriate places, and corrected many references to consistent format. (For example, the biography section is not the place for the reactions from family, friends or fiancee - that belongs in the reaction section.)

Regarding the Facebook reference, I had asked about this at the RS noticeboard, and heard back from Blueboar (talk · contribs · logs) who is the most active and experienced editor on that board - his reply was:

You are correct, Tovz... In the absence of a relable secondary source (such as the Times-Union article) we could have allowed the Face Book page (as a primary source, verifying its own existance). But the Times-Union article is a better source for the same information, and so should be used instead. Blueboar (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Therefore, I kept the same exact text regarding the Facebook group, but swapped the citation to the secondary Times-Union source. There is absolutely nothing POV about this edit, and it follows policy. If anyone objects, please take it to the noticeboard and discuss it on policy grounds, as that's all this is.

I think the article is balanced, neutrally-worded and well-sourced, and while I'm sure it can be improved, it's taken a lot of work by a lot of editors to get to this point, so I hope from now on there will be some constructive discussion here about any perceived problems rather than edit warring and assumptions of bad faith. Tvoz/talk 06:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Tvoz--I must disagree with your opinion that the article is neutral. Anyone reading the article would come away with the view that the accused is guilty.

Guilt is the overwhelming impression given. The 'evidence' is listed as if it is real evidence, not just rumors and speculation repeated in newspapers. Since the information is largely based on anonymous sources and leaks, much of what is posted as 'evidence' may not be true. The listing of 'evidence' does not clarify the problem of the anonymous sources at all. Information leaked by unknown persons is a far cry from "evidence."

The prosecution may be intentionally leaking information to paint the accused as guilty, so as to bolster the prosecution's influence on judges and potential jurors, to diminish the defendant's network of family, legal and financial support for his defense, and to pressure the accused into a plea deal. These leaks are wrong, unfair and prejudicial to the right of the defendant to a fair trial.

Now Wikipedia is participating in that wrong by presenting as "fact" that which is really just leaked information which may not be real evidence at all. I think Wikipedia should not be participating in that type of infringement on the constitutional right to a fair trial. Leaked, unverfied information should not be included in an encyclopedia as FACT.

As for Facebook, the editor's opinion cited above does not say that the Facebook page address should not be included in the footnote. He said that the newspaper article would be better. I see no reason why there cannot be two sources to verify the fact that a Facebook page has been set up--one the newspaper article, and the second the Facebook address itself. The editor you consulted did not say he found the Facebook citation objectionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo789 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

To Theo789 - I must say ... I really do not think that you "get it". Wikipedia articles (including this one) merely report what has already been reported by other reliable and valid sources. Wikipedia does not control what those other sources report. And Wikipedia does not "screen" what those other sources report. If information comes from a valid and reliable source, then it rightfully belongs in a Wikipedia article. We at Wikipedia cannot engage in an editing process such as you suggest: that is, we should "screen" and "filter" the information that we think is OK for those sources to report versus what we at Wikipedia think is not OK for those sources to report. All of your grievances are (or should be) with those other sources ... not with Wikipedia, where we are merely reporting what has already been reported. Why not take your grievances to these other sources (the newspapers, the TV news, the police officials, etc.)? If THEY change what THEY report, then Wikipedia will follow suit. Not the other way around. You have it backwards. For example, in this article, there is a section on evidence. No one here at Wikipedia is saying "This is 100% true evidence as presented in a court of law". We at Wikipedia are merely saying "This is the evidence that has been reported by other sources". There is a difference. I really don't think that you "get it". You seem to be on a crusade to change all that is wrong with America and the criminal justice system and the American media. That's great ... go ahead and do all that, if you want. But do it at the right place ... which is not here, in the editing of a Wikipedia article. Please take your crusade elsewhere. Furthermore, I notice that you never reply to my questions above ... about citing specific examples where I included non-sourced information into this article ... and about what the relevance of that First Circuit Court defamation case was. So, of course, your silence on those issues speaks for itself. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC))

Furthermore ... here's a thought. Yea, all of this stuff being reported looks pretty bad for Markoff. I find it humorous how you "blame" that on the media for reporting it. Perhaps there may be some blame on Markoff for whatever conduct he may have engaged in ... no? Yeah, let's blame the Boston Herald for reporting the actions of a murderer, but let's not blame the murderer himself for his own murderous actions. Unreal. Why not look to Markoff himself for how "bad" this looks, instead of blaming everyone else under the sun except for Markoff? How come every newspaper in the USA and every TV station in the USA is not reporting news stories that you went on a criminal murderous rampage ... or that I did? Hmmmmmm. Makes one wonder about whether or not Markoff himself may be to blame for the predicament that he is in ... and for what s being reported about his actions. The blame just might be in the actions themselves. And not in those who merely report the actions.

You go on and on and on about his constitutional right to be innocent until proven guilty. Which no one here at Wikipedia is disputing. Now, put your money where your mouth is ... go let your daughter or your sister or your niece get involved with him, visit him in jail, possibly marry him. Why not? Nothing wrong with that, right? After all, he is still innocent. Presumed innocent. So, I am sure you would have no objections whatsoever to your daughter/sister/niece getting intimately involved with this innocent man. Right? Oh, wait ... now are you singing a different tune about what the term "presumed innocent" really means? I wonder. I certainly am curious. So easy to crusade for a cause when one is so distant from it ... but perhaps not so easy if / when it affects one personally and directly. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC))

Let's try to stick to what's relevant to the writing of the article, ok? Tvoz/talk 19:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Completely not familiar with wiki, but just wanted to point out that if a "reliable" newspaper reports evidence that was leaked to them from an anonymous source, that should obviously not be reported in an encyclopedia. Even though the newspaper may be reliable, the information gleaned from it is not. I'm not saying you lack it, but common sense in this case is necessary. What you are trying to do is read straight from a wiki rule book that says you can add info if it is from a reliable source. The common sense comes in when you actually have to decide if what the reliable newspaper is reporting is reliable for an encyclopedia.~~

Actually, I thought that was exactly what I had posted above ... no? How "stuff" (information) gets into a Wikipedia article. We at Wikipedia are not saying that it is true information ... only that some reliable source reports this information. I thought my previous posts above were rather on point. If they digressed (from the narrow topic of "how to write a Wikipedia article") ... then that is only in response to Theo789's persistent crusades against all that is wrong with American media and how his misperception necessarily spills over into an article such as this (and thus, how it's written). I believe that Theo789 is mistaking Wikipedia as a court of law ... and believing that the same rules apply here. There is one set of rules / conduct when one is sitting in the four walls of a courtroom. That set of rules / conduct has nothing to do with how US citizens can (and do) act outside of the courtroom. That is to say ... I can agree that Markoff is "presumed innocent until proven guilty" ... but that is in a court of law only. How I think on my own free time (outside of the courtroom) is certainly not restricted in that same manner by that same presumption. If I want to form my own opinion about him being innocent or guilty, I am 100% free to do so. As are the other 6 billion people in the world. My opinion has zero to do with what transpires in his actual court case. Even though an official court ruling found that OJ Simpson did not commit a murder against Nicole Simpson, I am not bound by that ruling. I am free to form my own personal opinion that he did, in fact, murder her. My point is ... Theo789 would like all of the official rules of court and of evidence to also apply here in the forum of Wikipedia. And I believe that such thinking is not only erroneous, but also dangerous. That's my two cents at the moment. And, for what it's worth, I noticed that Theo789 deleted a lot of information that I added into the article. And I have every intention of adding it back in. When I have time. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC))

[edit conflict] To Theo: Blueboar said it should be used "instead" - I assume you know what that word means. As for the "evidence" section, I would not allow anything in there that wasn't reported on by reliable sources, and I would make sure it is clear that these are alleged - I think the section did make that clear, but I'll have another look as I might have missed something while trying to remove the excesses that I found there last night. You do see, I hope, that my edit reined in that section a great deal - and the sources were all identified as investigators and police sources - nothing was stated as fact. (I haven't looked to see if the section still reads as it did when I finished what I was doing - I'm talking about my last edits last night.) So while I understand your concern, I think from a journalistic/encyclopedic viewpoint, what we have is reasonable and balanced, and in line with similar articles found here. My work has been to consolidate and organize the sourced material that has been added to the article so that it has some kind of rational form - I don't see how we can make a ruling to remove material that has been widely reported in reliable sources as what police investigators are saying is some of the evidence they have amassed. Investigators leak, journalists report - that's how it works. I'm afraid that the fairness of his trial, assuming it goes to trial, will be determined by the strength of the judge's instructions to the jury about what they should or should not take into account, and their adherence to the fundamental principle that they should only consider what is actually presented into evidence in the court. As a citizen, I hope that they ignore what any of us or any journalist has written about the case; as an editor here, I hope our articles will be fair and even and clear about what is proven and what is alleged. But we're neither an arm of the prosecution nor the defense - and I also believe that censoring us would be an assault on a free press as well. I think the only way to accomplish your goal of not having material that in your view pre-judges him would be to not have any article at all about Markoff or about the cases, but I don't think that will fly. Tvoz/talk 19:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Tvoz-- This article falls within the category of a "biography of a living person", as well as other categories. The policy of Wikipedia is to be careful about libel in such articles. This article relies almost solely on newspaper and media articles. Yet the Wiki policy on sources states: "[E]ditors should ensure that material from news organizations is not the only existing source outside of Wikipedia."

There is a substantial issue here as to whether the news sources should be deemed "reliable" sources, given that they are relying themselves on anonymous sources leaking information. If this information being leaked is so reliable, then why is this information not being given out by District Attorney Conley himself? It may be that the DA does not say these things himself because they are not true. He does not put his name and face behind these allegations being reported in the press.

I submit that it is not consistent with Wikipedia policy to rely on news reports using anonymous leaked information that has not been verified with a statement or press release by the DA or police department. Just because a newspaper or tv program reports something does not make it exempt from consituting libel or slander. If the media is reporting false information leaked by anonymous sources that is libel, and it is also libel if Wikipeidia posts that information on its website as "evidence' for all the world to see, notwithstanding the fact that a footnote citing the news article is included. At the very least the reports should be characterized as information being given out by the media and not as "evidence." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo789 (talk • contribs)

Theo, let me give you some advice. Don't cherry-pick your quotes from policy when talking to editors who are way more experienced here than you are - it makes you look as if you are not serious, or it makes you look ignorant, or it makes you look as though you are trying to manipulate policy to mean what you want it to mean. None of those are ok.

The whole quote from WP:RS that you picked that line from is talking about being careful not to use sources that may have picked up their information from Wikipedia, causing a self-referential situation. Here is that clause in its entirety:

Some news organizations have used Wikipedia articles as the sole source for their work.[2] To avoid this indirect self-referencing, editors should ensure that material from news organizations is not the only existing source outside of Wikipedia. Generally, sources that predate the material's inclusion in Wikipedia are preferable.

2. A variety of these incidents have been documented by Private Eye and others and discussed on Wikipedia, where incorrect details from articles added as vandalism or otherwise have appeared in newspapers.

It has nothing to do with the reliability of newspapers in the context that you tried to claim. As an aside, I notice that you use newspaper reports to support the points that you want included - like about the praise from his former neighbors and teacher - so your argument fails on that level too. And by the way, you are sounding more and more like a member of the defense team - and if you are, I'd suggest you take a look at WP:COI in your spare time. Tvoz/talk 21:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

And this is an extremely hostile reponse. I highly suggest you keep your personal feelings about other editors to yourself. Though I wouldn't know where to find it, I assure you those are the rules of wiki somewhere. 98.227.241.45 (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, but as you said, you don't know how things work here, and by choosing to ignore the often nasty and uncooperative comments by Theo you are hardly being objective. Also, please do not put your commentary inside of other people's posts as you did here. And finally you have it quite wrong - I haven't said here what my "personal feelings" about other editors are - I am talking only about policy and content. Tvoz/talk 05:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Tvoz: No, I won't bother to look at the policy you cite because I have nothing to do with anyone associated with the defense or the accused. I am concerned about the "process' not this particular accused. I might add, however, that you sound like someone associated with the prosecution since you seem so fond of relying upon hearsay upon hearsay upon hearsay to support defamatory information. Hearsay is not 'evidence' as a matter of law. The fact that a newspaper has reported a rumor or a leak from an anonymous source, and that other news organizations then also report the rumor, does not make the information "verified." Information leaked from anonymous sources does not belong in an on-line encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo789 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Next suggestion: read Wikipedia:Verifiability which explains what we mean by "verified" here. I'll quote the first line:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

Our responsibility is not to check if the sources that a newspaper relied on were anonymous, leaked, named, or anything else - not even if they are truthful (although obviously we want them to be truthful) - we are responsible to assure that the information has been published by reliable sources who are known to provide oversight, check sources, etc. That's their job, not ours. You are trying to reform how Wikipedia works, and this is not the place to do that. Go to the Village Pump, or go to Jimmy Wales' talk page for that matter if you want to debate what verifiability means here and how we assess sources. Stop doing it here. We're following well-established policy and guidelines, and we're going to continue to do so, regardless of what you think of the way we work.

As for me, I'm an editor working here for well over 2-1/2 years, with over 16,000 edits on a very wide range of topics. I have nothing to do with this or any other case. I'm not in Massachusetts, I'm not a lawyer, and I am not "fond of relying upon" anything other than reliable sources that can be verified, meaning checked that they have been previously published by a reliable source. If these points of evidence were reported only in the National Enquirer, for example, I would not include them, because their journalistic standards don't rise to what I would consider an acceptable level. But ABC News, The New York Times, the Boston Globe, etc., do. You don't seem willing to acknowledge any points that anyone else makes here, which makes it difficult to work productively, but I will remain optimistic. Tvoz/talk 23:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality and Verifiability in Biography of Living Person

I have flagged this article for neutrality. The template did not come up right. Does anyone know how to fix the template? I would like to also add a template challenging verifiablity, if I can figure out how to do that. The issue is whether in the case of a living person, an article relying heavily on information reported in the press from anonymous sources leaking information is sufficiently neutral, where that information contains accusations of embarassing, defamatory or criminal misconduct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo789 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Let’s see now. You want the article to be more ... ummm ... neutral. Now just for clarification ... by that, I assume that you mean more "pro defense" as opposed to "pro prosecution" ... right? Can you clear up what exactly you mean by "neutral"? For example, you have added the following statements into this article:

• Markoff has maintained his innocence of all charges and pled not guilty at his arraignment.
• He was a member of the National Honor Society.
• His former English teacher and neighbor described him as "a good student and just a really nice kid... smart, wanting to succeed... nothing strange, nothing out of the ordinary."
• Other old friends also recalled him as quiet, polite and intelligent.
• He had no criminal record.
• Friends, neighbors and former teachers expressed shock and disbelief at the charges.
• Some of his friends have formed a group and set up a Facebook webpage entitled "Philip Markoff Is Innocent Until Proven Guilty."
• The on-line group now has hundreds of members.
• McAllister has issued statements affirming her belief in his innocence and, along with his family and friends, continues to stand by him.
• She described Markoff as "beautiful inside and out" and stated that he "couldn't hurt a fly.
• According to her attorney, she remains his fiancée and continues to support him.
• His attorney says that he is innocent of these charges.
• Etc. Etc. Etc.

Now, all of those statements don’t sound very, ummm, neutral to me. In fact, they sound very pro defense. They sound very biased in favor of the accused. So, how exactly is that neutral? In other words ... if my suspicions are correct ... you want to have your cake and eat it, too ... is that right? To you, "neutral" means ... let's leave in all the good stuff and let’s paint Markoff out to be a saint ... but, golly geez, let’s leave out anything that has any hint whatsoever of being negative because, golly geez, he is considered innocent until proven guilty. Do I have your agenda pretty much correct? You can’t have it both ways. For example, I added into this article some statements to the following effect ... which were all cited and sourced. Why did you delete them?

• The fiancée said that the cops are framing Markoff.
• The fiancée said that the cops are conspiring and trying to make money by telling lies about Markoff.
• His lab partner called him "very creepy".
• His lab partner said "I am not in the least bit surprised that he would commit murder".
• And others, as well.

None of these statements were attributed to anonymous sources. None of these statement were "leaked". They were all well documented, cited, and sourced ... and by multiple sources, to boot. So, why are you deleting these specific comments? (Which I will be restoring, by the way.) Yet, it is OK to keep your "neutral" comments about what a great guy Markoff is. I am just a little unclear on what exactly you want? Please clarify for us. Let us all know what "neutral" means to you. It's very confusing. Am I seeing a double-standard here? Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 09:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC))

I just scanned the article again very quickly. There was a statement that said "Markoff told his family that there was more to be revealed, so they should just forget all about him and move out to California". Where did that go? You deleted that, as well? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 09:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC))

This article is about a living person. According to Wikipedia standards, defamatory statments about a living person are not allowed. Many of the statements about Markoff in this article would be considered defamatory if untrue or malicious. At this point, it is not certain that many of these claims and accusations are true. None of them have been proven. Most are based on anonymous sources leaking information apparently without the permission of their employers. I have made numerous edits to balance out what was a very one-sided article. It is less one sided now, but may still be defamatory. The issue that needs to be resolved is the extent to which claims and accusations against a living person should be the subject of a Wikipedia article, and if so, how those accusations should be presented so as to not be defamatory and within the paramaters of Wikipedia standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo789 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah ... duh. None of this will be "proven true" until and unless there is a trial / conviction / evidence formally presented in court. So, in the meanwhile ... we only post the favorable comments and leave out all the unfavorable ones ... correct? And that is your definition of "neutral" - right? And, by the way, I noticed that you did not answer my direct questions in the post immediately above. So, let me reiterate the statements that you deleted:

• The fiancée said that the cops are framing Markoff.
• The fiancée said that the cops are conspiring and trying to make money by telling lies about Markoff.
• His lab partner called him "very creepy".
• His lab partner said "I am not in the least bit surprised that he would commit murder".

So ... as for the above four statements ... none are defamatory; none have to be "proven" to be true (in fact, I doubt that they are contested at all); none of these are anonymous sources (in fact, they are directly attributed); none of these are leaked. So, then, what's the problem? The problem is that you simply do not like them, they paint your "Saint Markoff" in a bad light, and you unilaterally removed them. So, for once and for all, please directly answer my questions ... as opposed to circumventing them with your crusade for Markoff and your tirade of all the ills in American media. Neutral? What a joke. According to you, it's "neutral" only if you like it and it paints Markoff as a saint. I'd like direct answers to my direct questions. But I won't hold my breath. Because -- as in several posts above -- when I make an irrefutable point, you simply do not reply. (Two occasions above, at least, on this Talk Page.) And ... once again ... your silence speaks for itself, when presented with such questions. That is, it reflects your concession that I am right in these points, as you can make no valid counterpoints. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC))

The "disclaimer" in the evidence section

I find the following to be a really strange addition to a well-cited section: "The following are claims and accusations reported against Markoff in the media. The information is largely based on anonymous sources leaking information to the press. The truthfulness of these accusations has not yet been established. In most instances, the claims and accusations have not been made by anyone authorized to speak on behalf of the Suffolk County District Attorney, the Boston Police Department, the Warwick, Rhode Island Police Department, or any other governmental agency or official." I notice that I am not the only person to have deleted it, but it's back - I won't remove it again, or I would be in violation of 3RR, but 3RR doesn't seem to have stopped Theo789 from adding it back at least 4 times. Anyhow, is there a consensus that the statement shouldn't be there, or is it just me? I think maybe in some of the individual bullet points, it could be pointed out that the allegation is made by an anonymous source, if that's supported by the source, but as a blanket statement, it doesn't work. I also disagree with the change of the section's title from "Evidence reported in the media" to "Information reported by the media." I mean, the whole article, and (in theory) the rest of Wikipedia is based on information reported by the media, right? What is the consensus on this point? Dawn Bard (talk) 23:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a significant problem in this case and article--somewhat unique. Much of the information in the case is not coming through official channels, such as through press releases, releases of documents, press conferences, phone conferences, ect. Much of the information about the 'evidence' comes from leaks from anonymous sources who are violating the rules of their employers in giving out the information. Since the info is only leaked, it is not from a reliable source. Yet it is being included in Wikipedia as if it is reliable information. As a compromise, I suggest leaving the info in, but including a disclaimer that it is NOT information released to the public by an official source, but rather through unauthorized leaks. That way the reader is alerted to the unusual origins of the information. Anonymous sources cannot be traced back though the reporters. They can say anything they want since they will not be held accountable. Since this is probably the most unreliable type of information, and probably should not be included in an encyclopedia, a disclaimer is appropriate. Theo798

Information published in reliable sources can be fairly shared through an article. "The media" are indeed reliable sources, and it is not necessary for the newspaper articles to come directly from press releases. Indeed, information from press releases is less reliable than that reported in newspapers. I think that this 'disclaimer' adds bias to the article by strongly indicating that the reliable sources are not reliable. Information from unreliable sources should be removed, but it is not helpful or neutral to have a disclaimer indicating that, for example, the Boston Herald is something other than a reliable source. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The source of the information is ANONYMOUS. That is what makes it unreliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo789 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

To Dawn Bard and Fisher Queen ... I agree with you 100%. Don't waste your breath, however ... this Theo789 is a wing nut. Just read the above sections on this Talk Page. Theo789 think's that this article is his article to do with as he pleases. Period. If he wants something in, he feels it should be in ... for no reason other than he wants it. If he does not want something in, he feels it should not be in ... for no reason other than he does not want it. As I said, read all the above posts. You will have better luck talking to a brick wall. Oh, and by the way ... Theo789 has been a registered editor here since ... umm ... yesterday. But, nonetheless, he is the expert and the Wikipedia dictator already! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC))

I disagree. Though I do not support the grand majority of Theo's edits, he is right in this case. As I mentioned before (and not to insult others) common sense is needed. Even if something is reported by a reliable source, you still have to use common sense. The reliable source its self is stating that the information is anonymous and leaked. Therefore, it should not be included in an encyclopedia. If the reliable source stated in more "clear" terms that some "dude of the street relayed this information to us", would you still use it because the reliable source did? I think not. And an anonymous leaked source is some "dude off the street" until proven otherwise. It is shocking to see something like that included. And shocking to see a "reliable" source print it as well. It is the kind of information gleaned from a tabloid magazine. 98.227.241.45 (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

No big deal, Joseph. The first step is clearly establishing the community's consensus. Doing so is only the first step, but it's by no means a waste of breath. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I hear you. But establishing consensus -- with someone who feels no need to do so -- is difficult, if not impossible. Good luck dealing with him. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC))

Spadaro--Perhaps if you were not so rude to people and did not resort to personal attacks all the time, you would get better results. Theo789 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo789 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I am sure that that is the issue at play here ... absolutely. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC))

←Thanks FisherQ and Dawn Bard for weighing in here - and please continue to do so - we need help here. As all of my comments further up on this page and edit summaries indicate, and as evidenced by my frustrating attempts to rein in this article, I agree 100% with both of you that what is needed here is consensus. I've tried to make the point to Theo789 but he doesn't seem to want to understand what we mean and takes policies that he either doesn't or chooses not to understand and has been twisting them to say things they don't mean - like verifiability. He is the only editor, as far as I recall (he was editing under an IP at first and then registered) who has taken his position about what should be included or not. So, to be clear:

1. I am completely opposed to the disclaimer he has added without discussion, as it is unencyclopedic, unsourced, OR, and by the way not even accurate. (The articles do in fact name some of their sources, and others are not identified, but appear to be known to the journalists who are more than entitled to keep their sources anonymous. They are not rumors. But that's not even the point - our sources are absolutely RS sources - The New York Times, Boston Globe, CBS News, ABC News, etc.)I removed it.
2. I agree with Dawn that the heading should go back to "Evidence". It is described as "evidence" in every single source. That doesn't mean it is proven, it means it is physical evidence. "Reported by the media" is unnecessary as everything in the article is reported by the media = or it wouldn't be here.
3. Theo789 added a link to his Facebook "Phiip Markoff is Innocent Until Proven Guilty" group, which I brought to the RS noticeboard and Blueboar confirmed that we should use the third party source instead of the Facebook link. So then Theo put in a link to a discussion page associated with the Facebook group - that is, comments by individuals who belong to the Facebook support group - that is about as far from a reliable source as any I can think of. Comments by random individuals on a talk page? If a reliable source discusses the Facebook group and characterizes the concerns its members have expressed, perhaps that could go in - that third party source - but we don't link to Facebook discussions, or Usenet groups, etc. To me this is a back-door way of getting in his Facebook link and I think it's as unacceptable if not more so, than the link to the group page. What is to stop him from posting comments on that discussion page and then linking to it here to prove his assertion that supporters have these concerns? That's not reliable sourcing. And he obviously didn't have consensus to add it, as he didn't even bother to discuss it. So, I'd like other editors' views on this.
4. Although it's not as serious as some of the other excesses, I question the inclusion of Attorney Salsberg was named a "Massachusetts Superlawyer" in 2006, 2007 and 2008 by a committee at Superlawer Magazine. <ref> http://www.superlawyers.com/massachusetts </ref> This source doesn't seem to fit our usual requirements, and it's questionable as to whether that statement belongs in here at all. This article is not an advertisement for Salsberg, nor is it his biography. So what purpose does this serve? And we don't refer to people as "Attorney Salsberg" repeatedly, once we've made the point that he is Markoff's attorney. This paragraph reads like Salsberg's CV, and raises questions about possible COI editing. And that concern is also raised when Theo789 removes the words "part-time" before "Professor", as the source quite clearly says "part-time". As a side question, the inclusion of the sentence "Salsberg has stated that Markoff is not guilty of the charges against him." is sourced, but he's his lawyer - of course he says he is not guilty, and in the eyes of the law, of course that is correct. But are we not gilding the lily here? We may as well also include that his fiancee says he is a beautiful person, inside and out. Opinions?

So, to reiterate, there is no consensus whatsoever for inclusion of the edits Theo789 has made - indeed, he has no support at all - and he doesn't seem to be getting the point that he can't just continue to add his text without regard to Wikipedia policy. Tvoz/talk 03:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Tvoz, I agree with what you're saying here. I just wanted to add for everyone's benefit that there is good info available at Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. I don't think that this content guideline has yet been mentioned here, but it's directly relevant to the questionable disclaimer. In a nutshell, "Disclaimers should not be used in articles. All articles are covered by a general disclaimer." Dawn Bard (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

What if Mr Markoff is innocent?

I don't mean that WP should be setting itself up as judge and jury, but, simply, what of the information in this article would we still keep, and in what form, if Mr Markoff turns out to be not guilty of the charges? Until something is proven, regardless of who publishes what anonymous source, WP has an obligation to minimize potential damage to this living person. As we are reminded in WP:BLP, WP is not a newspaper and most especially not a tabloid. If you can honestly answer that Mr Markoff or his attorneys, following a "not guilty" verdict, would have no reasonable objection to the material leaked by anonymous or unofficial sources, regardless of what "news" purveyor has broadcast it, then include it. If they could reasonably object, then leave it out until either the trial is over or there is better confirmation of the accuracy of the leaked information.

IMO, much of what appears in the article is either speculative (like his so-called gambling problem; having $1,000 in cash on your person on the way to a casino, absent other confirmation of a gambling problem, is of very little significance) or includes information (like his parents' names, places of residence and employment) that is not pertinent to the focus of the article, which ought to be the three crimes for which he has been charged. He is otherwise, and no disrespect is here intended, completely lacking in notability. // BL \\ (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Bielle, I think you misunderstand what this article is supposed to be. This article survived an AfD early on, when it was agreed that an article focusing on Markoff should continue to exist. There are separate article(s?) that focus on the individual crime(s) he's accused of - at least one is Murder of Julissa Brisman and I think there are a couple of others about the other crimes that he is accused of. This article is supposed to focus on him, as a great deal of attention has been paid in reliable sources to him, perhaps because of the seeming incongruence of a 22 year old medical student being accused of such crimes. We're not trying him and we're certainly not convicting him, and we're using reliable sources for the material that we include - we aren't reporting rumors, we're presenting what is reported in reliable sources, often multiple sources, as having been told to them by police investigators, or by the District Attorney, etc. Our assumption is that the journalists know who their sources are, even if they don't reveal their names. Please don't be misled by the claims of one editor here who is editing with an agenda - we have been careful to characterize the evidence as "alleged", and we have been careful to source everything. It is the responsibility of the journalists that we quote to check their sources - when did that become our responsibility, and how would we go about doing that in any case? "Deep Throat"'s identity was known to Woodward and Bernstein, but they didn't reveal it in their articles, and I doubt it would have been said that Wikipedia shouldn't use anything attributed to him because he was anonymous. I agree wholeheartedly that we need to be careful in BLPs, and I think we have been here. Tvoz/talk 05:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

To that extent that the focus is on the person, and not on the person solely in relationship to the crimes, I would likely have voted for "Delete" for a separate article; however, that is of no materiality whatsoever. What remains material still is what we choose to report about him, and "everything", as our WP:BLP establishes, is too much. If it is information, and not speculation (and I still see the so-called gambling problem as being such speculation, for example), it doesn't matter who does the speculating. It shouldn't be in the article. (Your reference #19, for example [6] says that the officials -the District Attorney, no less- will not confirm that any record of gambling problems. The officials will likley talk to a lot of people and business; it means nothing in and of itself.) So, I merely ask that we consider what of this information and speculation would still be permitted under WP guidelines if the man is found to be innocent, and to remind us that we are not a newspaper and minute-by-minute releases need weight that usually only comes with time. This is still a person, and just because he is currently in no positon to object, is no reason to join forces with the media speculating about his motives. As for the "one editor with claims", his interjections caused me to look at what was being said, and so I read the article. It is what appears in the article that has lead me to these comments. "Deep Throat" is a poor analogy. With him, the reporters were specifically identified; there were two of them, both with strong reputations for probity; and there was a real and present danger to revealing Deep Throat's identity. "Anonymous sources" are not usually so bolstered, in this article or elsewhere. I think the article goes too far in catering to sensationalism. YMMV // BL \\ (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Bielle, that's actually not true about Woodward & Bernstein. They got those strong reputations as a result of their Watergate investigative reporting - they were not senior reporters before their Watergate reporting. Woodward was new to the game (worked at the Post only months before Watergate) and Bernstein was not well-known either. But the Post's reputation and editorial oversight indicated that the editors - Bradlee in particular - believed the articles to be accurate, so we would have been comfortable using them as sources. You mention that there were two reporters then, and they were identified - true, and indeed almost all of our source articles also name the reporters and are more than one. Presumably our sources' editors decided at their editorial meetings whether the anonymous sources of the information their reporters wished to report on were trustworthy. I'd guess, although I don't know as a fact, there's a good chance that the reporters in this case told their editors which police or DA investigators told them which information, as Woodward & Bernstein told Bradlee. I don't want to overstate the analogy, but our policy does not evaluate individual reporters' reputations for probity when deciding if their articles can be used as sources - we generally go with our take on the publication and its standards. In that way,the analogy is apt. I just am not finding anything in WP:RS or WP:V about not allowing reliable sources who refer to anonymous sources. Maybe I'm missing it - if so, please show me. Tvoz/talk 00:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I just removed the reference to the potential gambling problem - I agree with you that it was not well supported - the sourced article said that they were looking into a possible gambling problem as a motive for robbery, but a possible motive under investigation doesn't seem concrete enough to include. That said, though, I still think this is largely a well sourced article, and that most of the information is appropriate. I might take some time today if I have a chance to look at the details of some of the sourced articles to make sure that the statements are clearly backed up by the cited articles. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Bielle, I agree with all of your points. Only you said it better than I did. The comment "the article goes too far in catering to sensationalism" hits the nail precisely on the head.

In a way, it is a good thing the dispute over this article arose because Wikipedia needs to adopt a policy on how to handle these sensationalized criminal cases, like Markoff, Casey Anthony, O.J., ect.. The media have an economic interest in sensationalizing the cases--to sell newspapers and ads. What they print is according to the credo---"If it bleeds, it leads." The prosecution has an interest in leaking damaging information, since turning the public against an accused has many benefits for the prosecution. Meanwhile, the defense can say little, since it often does not yet have actual access to the prosecution's "evidence" to challenge it. It is also usually against the interests of the defense to disclose its strategies and likely challenges to the prosecution's "evidence."

This Markoff case is especially egregious since so much seemingly damaging information has been leaked by anonymous sources. It may turn out at the end of the day that much of what has been leaked is not true at all. For that information to have sat on Wikipedia for months listed as 'evidence' when the information was not even true is unfair, defamatory, and not in accordance with the policy on biographies of living persons.

Tvoz and Spadoro have repeatedly accused me of having an 'agenda' or working as Markoff's lawyer. That is simply hogwash. My concerns are not about this particular guy, but about the more general principle of basic fairness for the accused and the problems of pre-trial publicity. I feel strongly that Wikipedia should not be participating in efforts to prejudice the public against an accused by presenting primarily pro-prosecution views on a defendant, especially when that information is coming largely from anonymous sources leaking information. Anyone participating in such efforts could indeed find themselves facing claims of defamation if the defendant is acquitted, and I bet most here would not want to have to spend time and money defending themselves in something like that. But that is a real risk if horrible accusations are posted against a living person which turn out not to be true.

Editors on Wikipedia need to write responsibly and fairly, and that means not defaming a living person. It also means avoiding being manipulated by the press and prosecution using anonymous leaks into believing someone is guilty before there has been a trial--and making sure the article is neutral until the jury renders a verdict.

That whole section on the so called 'Evidence' is misleading, since it is not 'evidence' at all, but information leaked from anonymous sources that may or may not be true. Unless the "evidence' is stated by a source acting in an official capacity, such as a spokesman for the District Attorney--and not an unknown person sneakily disclosing information against the rules of his office--the claims should not be listed as "evidence." I think this issue should be bumped up to some higher level, so that Wikipedia's policy on the use of anonymous sources in sensationalized criminal cases can be clarified.

It is disturbing that a number of editors appear to be using intimidation tactics--like making personal attacks, name calling, deleting my edits, threatening to ban me-- for presenting an alternative viewpoint. But the Wikipedia policy on Neutrality supports the notion that more than one view about a subject matter should be incorporated into the article. Some editors on here are acting abusively and I reject that. It is not helpful to the success of Wikipedia for a few people to be using bullying tactics to try to stop someone from trying to make an article less damning of a living person who has not yet been convicted of any crime. Theo789

Theo, I disagree that anyone here has been abusive to you, but I did want to make sure you know that there are places to report abuse if you feel it's happening. Wikiquette alerts are an "informal streamlined way to request perspective and help with difficult communications with other editors", and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is a place to report incidents that you think need admin attention. Leaving a user warning on your talk page is not a threat to ban you, rather it is a notice that you are engaging in activity that might get you temporarily blocked by an admin. Dawn Bard (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, Dawn. FisherQueen and others have made numerous threats as well as name calling and accusations. The climate is one of intimidation. It really is a sorry situation when a valuable website such as this is being allowed to degenerate into a place where those holding minority opinions are bullied into silence. This website is supposed to be about respecting the views of every editor. By making threats to ban me for trying to instill some balance/neutrality into articles about Markoff and Casey Anthony, those engaging in such bullying are undermining a basic tenet of Wikipedia--that more than one point of view should be allowed in formulating a NEUTRAL article. These articles should NOT be written as if a person is guilty before there has been a trial. But folks on here apparently have been so brain-washed by the media that they feel angry or appalled by the alleged conduct of the accused and feel that the articles must reflect the GUILT of the not-yet-convicted defendant. Now I am being bullied and threatened for trying to stand up for principles of fairness and the constitutional presumption of innocence and it really is pretty disgusting. Theo789

No one has made any threats, they have made predictions as to what will happen if you continue on your present course. If you'd rather just have it happen then have a warning, I'll be happy to oblige you if you carry on like this. You also need to read our WP:NPOV policy - 'neutral' is not the same as 'neutral point of view'. And I am sure that the editors involved in this article will make sure that our policy on biographies of living persons is adhered to. Dougweller (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Dougweller: How obnoxious. You make a threat while you say no one is making threats. That about says it all. Theo789 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo789 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

There are some serious issues going on with the way these articles on criminal defendants are being prepared, and I think this section from the NPOV policy is relevant:

• Information suppression
• A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted. Such an article complies with Wikipedia:Verifiability but violates NPOV. A Wikipedia article must comply with all three guidelines (i.e. Verifiability, NPOV, and No original research) to be considered compliant.

Some examples of how editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject in an unfair way:

• Biased or selective representation of sources, eg:

Explaining why evidence supports one view, but omitting such explanation in support of alternative views.

• Making one opinion look superior by omitting strong and citable points against it, comparing it instead with low quality arguments for other POVs (strawman tactics).
• Not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors.
• Editing as if one given opinion is "right" and therefore other opinions have little substance:
• Entirely omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it is claimed to be not credible.
• Ignoring or deleting significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Wikipedia terms (this could be done on spurious grounds).
• Concealing relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value.
• Thus, verifiability, proper citation and neutral phrasing are necessary but not sufficient to ensure NPOV. It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability

NOTE THE LAST SENTENCE: "IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THE VARIOUS VIEWS AND THE SUBJECT AS A WHOLE ARE PRESENTED IN A BALANCED MANNER AND THAT EACH IS SUMMARIZED AS IF BY THE PROPONENTS TO THE BEST OF THEIR ABILITY."

Theo789 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo789 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems like the solution is obvious: Theo789 should propose some changes to the article, cite some reliable sources that verify those proposals, and obtain consensus for them. As noted above, the proposals must comply with all three guidelines (i.e. Verifiability, NPOV, and No original research). SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Note that it is better to seek consensus in advance, since the article has become contentious. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I agree as well - I respectfully asked Theo (and to the IP he edited from previously) no less than six times on this talk page to engage in constructive discussion - find countervailing sources, suggest changes here on talk for discussion, etc. His response tended to be comments like [7] "This whole process is a joke" or a cherry-picked line from policy that actually meant something quite different from what he was claiming. But I am still more than willing to work with constructive, sourced suggestions for edits. I say again, though, that "neutral" doesn't mean for every item that is perceived to be negative in an article we must have one that is perceived to be positive. Sometimes there just aren't sources to support that. Tvoz/talk 22:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to Tvoz's several comments: first, I apologize for appearing to ignore you. Somehow what you had written was buried above in the all the other words above and I only just now really noticed your comments as separate entities. Your notes about Woodward and Bernstein are valid; memory plays terrible tricks, which is one of the reasons WP relies upon sources. What we are not suppposed to be creating, however, is a news story, with daily or weekly developments and every allegation and/or leak. I do note, however, that since I first noted the contention around Theo's actvities, and after I started asking questions, Dawn Bard, FisherQueen, SheffieldSteel and Kevin have been bringing somewhat overstated text in-line with sources. ("Since" and "after" merely establish chronology, not necessarily causality in this case.) That's really the essence of what it was all about. // BL \\ (talk) 03:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I blocked Theo789 last night for 24 hours for edit warring. tried to leave a message on ANI but didn't notice I had an edit conflict (just hit save, waited a bit, and then left as it had been running very slow for me last night). He says on his talk page he's going to contact Jimbo. Dougweller (talk) 05:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Bielle- not a problem. This is a fast-moving page and it's easy to get distracted - I didn't at all feel ignored. I actually agree with you that we have to be careful not to perform as a news source - I've argued that point on other articles myself. The thing is, though, if an article is created that to some extent chronicles a current event, we have to keep it current or we end up with a lopsided piece that doesn't accurately represent what it's supposed to represent. So we can try to put off entering anything about a particular facet of a story until it's completely developed - but for that to work we need everyone to agree to proceed that way. From my experience around here, it'll be very difficult to keep to that. So I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that some articles are going to read like news stories during the high-profile time that the story is unfolding, and that the encyclopedia is better off having us work on keeping such stories as complete as possible, even though we're not a newspaper. The recent edits look good - I hope they stick. Thanks to all for the help. Tvoz/talk 07:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Most peoples' BLPs do not have an "Evidence" section

That surely raises some questions about the way that this article is laid out. I would like to change the section to a level three heading, and perhaps consider changing its title, but as that is currently the subject of an edit war, I would rather we discuss the matter here. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what other name would make sense? Allegations? But the idea of moving the level header makes sense. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree about the level three heading, and certainly don't have a problem with a title change if consensus can be reached - I don't think going back to "Information reported in the media" is the way to go, though. Maybe much of that section could actually be moved to Murder of Julissa Brisman? Just a thought. Dawn Bard (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Another solution might be to disperse it altogether, moving individual sentences (and their sources) to other points in the article. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking... what structure will still make sense after the trial is over (whether Markoff is eventually found guilty or not guilty)? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that a single level2 section heading should cover all material related to the crimes, arrest and trial, and possibly events beyond that, but we'll have to see what those might be. That would mean merging the sections titled Attacks, Arrest and Evidence together. The more I think about this, the more I'm thinking it might be best to use a summary style paragraph to lead to a separate article containing more info on the crimes etc. - which would mean moving info out of this article. I guess that means Dawn is right :-) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Dawn Bard's idea about moving the material in the "Evidence" section to the articles on the crime itself is, I think, sound. For the most part, evidence will stand regardless of who is charged with the crime or committed the crime. It will not be evidence, just mistaken connections, otherwise. // BL \\ (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Sheffield Steel's earlier suggestion makes more sense - not sure we have enough material yet to sustain a fork off of this one. This evidence is regarding this particular person -- the kind of evidence claims that would go into Murder of Julissa Brisman I think would be more general items regarding the crime, the nature of her assaults, etc. So I think it belongs here, but I agree that a single level2 section heading is better weight. And when more evidence is forthcoming we can do a fork article. Tvoz/talk 22:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tvoz. This is evidence regarding Markoff ... not evidence regarding some unknown assailant. It belongs here. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC))

We could just as accurately name the section "Unproven allegations against...", which is exactly what they are while he remains un-convicted. We are trying to write a neutral account of a person here, not a laundry list of possible misdeeds. If evidence has been presented at arraignment or trial then it should go into those sections. Anything else should be left out. I feel that the current presentation puts undue weight on this aspect of his life. Kevin (talk) 07:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Foootnote 31

Right now, footnote 31 is a bit WP:SYNTH. Do we have a source that more explicitly discusses the legal history of jury prejudice due to prior publicitly that more explicitly connects it to the Markoff case? JoshuaZ (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue of prejudice resulting from extensive pre-trial publicity has been considered by the courts in similar cases.

ref An informative discussion of the constitutional issues raised by extensive pre-trial publicity can be found in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Shephard v. Maxwell [8]

My concern is that, having read the summary (first page) of the Shephard v. Maxwell ruling (which reads like a comedy of errors), I don't really think that this is a similar case. I agree that a better source should be found, if possible. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

My problem with it is that no source has been presented that connects it to Markoff at all. Is this article the place to discuss the general issue of prejudice resulting from pre-trial publicity? And I'm also concerned about the validity of linking to a Facebook discussion page with random comments from the members of a group which can easily be manipulated to say whatever one wants it to say, and then post it here as a so-called source for what "friends and family" are concerned about. Is this reliable? encyclopedic? (currently note 30). Tvoz/talk 23:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed that paragraph. We can't source BLP content from Facebook. The bit about pre-trial publicity could go back if a source is found discussing it in relation to this case, otherwise it is a synthesis as JoshuaZ pointed out. Kevin (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to chime in, to contribute to consensus, if you will - I agree with the decision to remove the paragraph. Dawn Bard (talk) 01:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Advertising for his attorney

The paragraph on John Salsberg reads a bit like a resume. We could lose the whole paragraph, and add "At his arraignment, where he was represented by John Salsberg, Markoff maintained his..." to Arrest para. 2 without losing any information relating to Markoff. Kevin (talk) 07:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree - and I tried trimming that several times a few days ago, only to have it repeatedly reverted. I think all of the points I raised here are now addressed. Tvoz/talk 07:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Title this article should be under

until such time of a suspect's conviction, IMO would be "Craigslist killer of Boston murder case," yet still to include whatever details about Markoff would be appropriate. (I had even created such a page, and therefore, WP:CFORK, a while back, which article someone then came along and retitled as "Murder of Julissa Brisman.") Anyway, carry on. ↜Just M E  here , now 22:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but I disagree. "Craigslist killer of Boston murder case" is kind of an awkward title, but more to the point, Markoff is notable because he is connected with this highly publicised crime, and that notability doesn't depend on his guilt or innocence. The page will of course reflect his acquittal or conviction when a verdict is reached. Just one woman's opinion. Dawn Bard (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

If he is only notable in connection with this crime, then shouldn't we have deleted per WP:BLP1E? Kevin (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, actually, but it survived an AFD, so it stays, I guess. Dawn Bard (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Where the line is exactly for BLP1E is not exactly clear. Thus, for example everyone agrees that John Hinkley will have an article. A discussion to merge this article could still presumably take place. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Is neutrality still in question?

As I recall, the POV tag was added to this article by a particularly contentious editor who hasn't come back after being temporarily blocked for 3RR. What's the consensus? Dawn Bard (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, Dawn. Tvoz/talk 18:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is too biased and does not meet NPOV standards

Dawn Bard--Contentiousness is in the eye of the beholder. The same could be said of you. But the lack of neutrality in this article is an obvious problem.

This article is unacceptably biased. It does not meet the standards for NPOV. I have tried to make edits to make the article more neutral, but most have been deleted. What is going on here is that editors have been so biased by the anonymous leaks to the media that they are convinced he is guilty and that saying whatever has been reported in the media, no matter how unreliable or defamatory, is justified. That is not in accordance with NPOV policy.

I just added language saying that the District Attorney in Rhode Island has refused to confirm the information-- leaked by anonymous sources-- saying that fingerprints and cell phone records have been found implicating Markoff. Well, since the D.A. has refused to confirm that the information is true, the information should be deleted or language added to state that the official source, the D.A. will not confirm this info is true. NPOV policy expressly requires that type of clarification, but it was deleted.

That is just one of many examples of the bias in this article. This article need to be brought into compliance with NPOV standards, but some editors are too biased to allow that. Not only is the article not in complaince with NPOV policy, it is damaging and unfair to the defendant, who has not been convicted of any crime as of yet, and may interfere with his Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial by spewing prejudicial pre-trial publicity. Neutrality in this article is essential--but some editors here will never allow that. Theo789+

Also, I agree with this comment below by Kevin--who specializes in biographies--which I am copying from a section of this Talk page, above.

We could just as accurately name the section "Unproven allegations against...", which is exactly what they are while he remains un-convicted. We are trying to write a neutral account of a person here, not a laundry list of possible misdeeds. If evidence has been presented at arraignment or trial then it should go into those sections. Anything else should be left out. I feel that the current presentation puts undue weight on this aspect of his life. Kevin (talk) 07:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This comment was in reference to the "Evidence" section, which I still believe has no place in this article. Removing it would go a long way toward making a more neutral article. Kevin (talk) 08:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Repeated deletion of mention of Markoff's mother

The mention of Markoff's mother's name and occupation has been deleted (and reverted by me) 3 times this morning, so I'm bringing the issue here for discussion.

• I reverted the first edit as vandalism - it was an anon IP, no explanation in the edit summary, deleted mention of both parents, and the citation was partly deleted.
• The second edit deleted only mention of his mom and her employer, and claimed "defamation of employer" in the edit summary. I strongly disagree that there was any defamation, but I added back mention of his mother, with just her occupation, not the name of the employer.
• The third edit again deleted his mom's name and occupation, with the explanation "the full name of his mother and specific place of employment is not necessary nor is it appropriate." I undid this one because my last version actually didn't mention her specific place of employment, and because it seems to be standard in Wikipedia biographies to have a brief mention of the subject's parents, including their occupations.

I'm not going to edit this particular item again, because I'd be in violation of 3RR, but also because I thought I should seek consensus, especially on an article that has been contentious. Any thoughts? Dawn Bard (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

A biography article ought to include information about the subject's parents. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a real reason not to include the basic info, but I'd support the idea of including the profession without naming the actual employer. Knowing the specific place of business doesn't add anything to the understanding of the subject himself.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Compromise position of including the parents' names and occupations without specific employer is ok with me too, although I do not believe that it was defamatory toward anyone, and was information that has been published in reliable sources so is in the public sphere already. Tvoz/talk 03:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)We should remember our aim here, that is to produce an encyclopedic article on Markoff, which is not the same as repeating every publicly available piece of information regarding him. I agree with Cube lurker here, adding the actual employer adds nothing to our understanding of Markoff. Kevin (talk) 05:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of Irrelevant, Defamatory Info on Contacts with Transsexual

Text Proposed for Deletion

"One man who said he wished to remain anonymous to protect his employment claimed on The Today Show that he had placed an ad on Craigslist looking for "males for transsexuals"; he claimed that Markoff responded to the ad from an email address registered to the name "sexaddict5385", allegedly sending the man explicit emails and photos of himself.[19] The Today Show speculated based on this man's claims that Markoff may have used the Internet to solicit transsexual men to target as victims. Other than this one unidentified man, no other individuals have come forward with similar allegations.[20]"

The part about Markoff targeting men for robbery is pure speculation and not supported by any facts at all. No witness or police have claimed that he targeted men for robbery. As I recall from the t.v. interview, the man did not claim that Markoff was targeting him or any other man for robbery, but only for sexual contacts.

I think this paragraph should be deleted. It has nothing to do with the armed robbery or murder charges. Even if true (which is questionable) the conduct would indicate homosexual inclinations, which may be salacious--but that is not a crime and is irrelevant to this article on alleged crimes. Why should Markoff's sexual activities or interests be included in an article on robbery and homicide?

Also, the source is anonymous. I heard him on the t.v and he said that Markoff was trying to hook up with all kinds of people: transvestites, transexuals, homosexuals. His claims sounded very exaggerated. This unnamed transexual is the only one making such claims. The Boston Police put ads on Craigslist asking others to come forward to back up what this guy was saying and look for other victims--and no one responded.

The defamatory and inflamatory nature of the paragraph should be weighed against what the paragraph contributes to an understanding of the crimes. Since the alleged activites with the transexual are not criminal they are largely irrelevant and should be deleted. Theo789

Let me add this point. This article is about Philip Markoff ... not "the crimes of Philip Markoff". Whether or not an edit contributes to an understanding of his crimes is not the litmus test. The article is about him ... it is not narrowly focused on his crimes only, alleged or otherwise. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC))

I agree completely with Theo789 on this. We have no business repeating speculation based on an anonymous report, no matter who is doing the speculating. Kevin (talk) 09:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This quote from Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources

Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases and attributions to anonymous sources. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?

covers this type of reporting. Remember that the media may have a different agenda to us, and will publish things that we should not if it suits their purpose. Kevin (talk) 09:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That's true, Kevin, but are we supposed to be evaluating whether a reliable publication's source is reliable? This was a report on NBC News if I recall correctly. Are they "less than reliable"? Do we have reason to believe that they did not check out his story and his reliability? Do we have further sources that indicate that they didn't believe their own reporting? Or are we now in the business of doing our own investigations? I don't think this paragraph is essential, but I think it's important to be clear on what we mean by "reliable sources" here - as far as I've seen, we don't refuse to include material from reliable sources who have chosen to keep their sources anonymous. "Anonymous source" does not necessarily mean that the source was anonymous to the reporters. Tvoz/talk 18:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I firmly believe that if NBC had proof or confirmation of this that they would have said so. As it is, they have offered up anonymous claims, as they describe them, followed up with their own speculation. Kevin (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No, Kevin, that's not what happened. Any of us can believe whatever we wish to believe - but I am not comfortable with saying that our editors should insert their subjective judgment about the veracity of the original sources in place of that of the editorial boards and fact-checkers of our sources. As I have said, I don't think this particular allegation is crucial and would agree with Dawn Bard's suggestion that follows that it be boiled down to a shorter statement - but I don't agree it should be removed just because the source isn't named. Perhaps you are unaware that he was on camera - not the kind of faceless anonymous source Theo is alluding to - the Today Show knew his identity, and we do not have reason to assume that they didn't check into his story. I think that their putting it on the air, with his face showing to the reporter but without his name and where he works, suggests on the contrary, that they did check into it and had enough confirmation to go ahead with the story. This was not a tabloid story - it was a story that went out on a respectable news venue with an on camera source. They did not "offer up anonymous claims", they had a specific person, and just did not reveal to the public what his name is or where he works. Tvoz/talk 05:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC) clarifying my comment by adding to the reporter as per my comment below. Tvoz/talk 08:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

What TVOZ is saying about the interview with the transsexual man who made the allegations about Markoff is not accurate. I saw that interview on t.v. and the man's face was shown in darkness only. His identity was completely hidden. The only identifying detail revealed was his voice. This was presented as an anonymous source and should not be given the same weight as a story in which a person appears on camera and puts his reputation on the line when he makes allegations against another person. Theo789 Theo789 (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

His identity was not at all hidden to reporter Jeff Rossen who interviewed him face-to-face on camera, with the source's face obscured to the public( [9] anyone can click on Launch to see the video). That you and I couldn't identify him doesn't make him anonymous in the sense that you are implying - like some voice on the phone calling in a tip to a news source without telling THEM who he is. Reliable news sources disguise the identities or obscure the faces of their sources all the time. What NBC said is that he did not want his to be identified to the public because he didn't want his place of employment to know about his activities outside of work. And they had printouts of the emails, and they said that sources confirmed that the email address those emails came from was the same email address as the one used to contact Brisman and the other women. What sources do you have that refute these claims? If you have them, please bring them forward for evaluation, and I'll be the first to include that too or re-evaluate the whole thing. But your impression, and your inaccurate claims about what is meant by "anonymous" do not belong in this discussion. Tvoz/talk 00:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• I think that, as it stands right now, the article could be seen as placing undue weight on the transexual allegations. I think it should be mentioned, but maybe in just one sentence that simply states that an anonymous source on the Today Show made these allegations, but nobody else has come forward to corroborate them. (Any changes hinge on achieving some consensus here, of course.) That said, I agree with Joseph A. Spadaro that this a biography of Markoff and not an article just about his alleged crimes, so information shouldn't be deleted just because it has nothing to do with the crimes. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

But Markoff is notable only because of his alleged crime against Julissa Brissman. What happpened with Julissa Brissman was a robbery, not a sex crime. Markoff's sexual interests in men--if he had such interests- are not notable. Generally speaking, you do not see information about a subject's sexual interets in biographies--unless that played some major role in the subject's life--like someone became his partner or wife. These alleged contacts on the Internet are trivial and do not rise to the level of significance warranting inclusion in a biography. The information also seems very unreliable and defamatory. Theo789

Actually, "what happened with Julissa Brisman" was murder. But right, not a sex crime. Tvoz/talk 18:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

But ... this is an article about Markoff ... not narrowly limited to the alleged crimes of Markoff ... two very different things. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC))

I agree - I was just correcting the incredible minimizing of the crime against Brisman as robbery. Tvoz/talk 05:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Tvoz--my intention was to emphasize the point that the MOTIVE was robbery, not a sex motive. I was not intending to minimize what is so very obvious--that the case is about a murder. Theo789 (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to be nitpicky, but there I have an issue with this sentence: Markoff's sexual interests in men--if he had such interests- are not notable. If reliable sources are writing about it, then it is notable. I think the question is, how much weight would be appropriate in this article? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

"If reliable sources are writing about it then it is notable" I don't think that applies to this situation. The accusations were made by an anonymous man on the Today Show. He is the only source of the claims of Markoff's alleged sexual interest males. Recall the Wikipedia policy on biographies "Avoid repeating gossip". It does not strike me that this type of claim that does not even have to do with the crimes against the women rises to the level of what belongs in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo789 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

But quoting a Today Show /NBC News report is not repeating gossip, it is reporting what a reliable source has presented. Tvoz/talk 05:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The "source" of the story is an anonymous man who appeared on camera with his face in darkness. The fact that a reputable tv program put him on the air does not mean that they knew his story to be true or had verified it. The man was making blockbuster allegations pertaining to a hot news story, and the Today Show went with it. The man made claims that do not seem credible. He said that Markoff was contacting "transvestites, transexuals, men, women, everyone" looking for sex. That is a sensational allegation, but the man, when questioned offered nothing to back that up. His only "proof" was his claim that Markoff had supposedly contacted HIM. This man had zero evidence that Markoff had contacted EVEN A SINGLE OTHER PERSON looking for sex. So when I listened to this guy, I had the distinct impression that he was exaggerating, at best. Given that the man is anonymous, and even during his interview could not back up what he was saying, he does not seem credible. The fact that the Today Show went with a ratings booster interview, does not transform this into a credible source. Theo789 (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

That is their job, not yours, and not ours. I'm glad to know what your impression was, but that it utterly irrelevant. I don't believe lots of reports that I read in the newspaper about lots of things, but that doesn;t mean they fail to meet our standards of reliability and verifiability and shouldn't be included. We are not the fact-checkers - we are supposed to evaluate the venue, not the content. Tvoz/talk 23:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV requires that both positive and negative information be included

Let me add this point. This article is about Philip Markoff ... not "the crimes of Philip Markoff". Whether or not an edit contributes to an understanding of his crimes is not the litmus test. The article is about him ... it is not narrowly focused on his crimes only, alleged or otherwise. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC))

It seems that "the standards" keep changing to suit the biases of certain editors, rather than remaining as a firm set of guiding principles by which decisions can be made in a consistent manner.

An example. In terms of other biographical information--when I added general bio information like the fact that Philip Markoff was on the National Honor Society, bowling league, ect. Joseph Spadaro had a hissy fit claiming the information did not belong in the article. I guess that is because most of the bio info is positive or neutral--reflective of Philip Markoff's life prior to age 22. I think the real guiding principle for some editors here is whether or not the information discredits the accused defendant--who has not been convicted of any crime to date. If the info is a known fact (like the National Honor Society) but is positive--the info is deemed irrelevant, inappropriate, or too "biased." The info is included if at all only after a lengthy battle with much harassment. If the info is negative, then it is included even if it is only based on unproven accusations from an unidentified transsexual. The editing of this article is a long way away from the standards on biographies established by Wikipedia. Theo789 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo789 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Theo789 ... you have a very selective memory indeed. First, I had no hissy fit. In fact, if I recall correctly, it was you who was blocked from Wikipedia ... essentially as a result of your, um, "hissy fits" (as you say) ... and repeated hissy fits, at that. Now, on to the matter of Markoff and the National Honor Society, etc. I now have no objection to such material ... nor did I object in the past. What I did object to was that you were adding in only positive statements to glorify Markoff, all the while deleting every possible negative statement that made him look bad. Let me give an example. You insisted on putting in statements how his friends, neighbors, fiancee, etc., think he's such a great guy and were shocked that he was arrested. I had put in statements from his lab partner who called him a weirdo and stated that he was not in the least bit surprised that Markoff was accused of murder. (Which, by the way, I still am intending to add back in all my edits that you deleted.) You insisted on all these statements about his fiancee sticking by him and supporting him. And when I added in the statements where the fiancee said that the police have set up Markoff so that they could profit off of a false story, you deleted that. It was stuff like that. That was my recollection of the events. You insisted on adding in all positive and glowing accounts of Saint Markoff (which I had no issue with). Yet, in your crusade to be, ummmm, neutral ... you insisted on deleting any and every negative point about Markoff, even when it was cited through valid and reliable sources. So, your above post is both inaccurate and misleading. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC))

To J. Spadaro: The information that I added, and to which you have objected, was intended to make the tone of the article more neutral. That is what "Neutral Point of View" means-neutral tone. "Neutral Point of View" means that when a topic is controversial (such as whether someone is guilty or innocent) BOTH sides should be recognized or presented to some extent in the article.

If only negative information is presented about the man who is the subject of the article, while ignoring the positive aspects of that person's life, then the article is not neutral. An article that takes the position that this man is likely guilty and includes primarily negative, embarassing or defamatory information is not neutral.

The overall tone of this Markoff article is that this man is guilty. It may well be that he is in fact guilty, or it may be that he is in fact innocent, but that is not yet known and will not be known for about two years when the case goes to trial. Until the REAL evidence and facts are established at trial (and not just leaked by anonymous sources), the article should be neutral in tone. If he is found guilty or enters into a plea bargain admitting guilt, then an overall condemming tone to this article would be warranted since it will be an established fact that he committed these crimes and is therefor a very bad person.

But the facts have not yet been established.

Until then, he is entitled to the presumption of innocence under the Constitution. Since there is an alternative view of this case presumed as a matter of law--that he is innocent at this time--that should be reflected within the article in accordance with NPOV guildeleines. If you check the guidelines for NPOV you will see that an alternative view MUST be included in the article. This is the essence of the dispute here as I see it: WHETHER NPOV REQUIRES A NEUTRAL TONE IN AN ARTICLE DISCUSSING A MAN WHO HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH A CRIME BUT WHOSE GUILT OR INNOCENCE HAS NOT YET BEEN ESTABLISHED. This identical issue has also arisen in the Caylee Anthony article. Theo789 Theo789 (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

To Theo789: ... nice tirade ... nice crusade ... nice soap-box ... but, you offered no meaningful reply to my above post ... (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC))

I think you misunderstand what is meant by Neutral point of view. NPOV isn't making sure an article contains an equal amount of positive and negative information. NPOV isn't giving equal validity to opposing views. NPOV definitely is not adopting "an overall condemning tone" when describing someone found guilty of a crime. NPOV is a requirement to represent without bias the views of the reliable sources writing about a topic. If those sources are writing about an anonymous witness, we should document that. What we should not be doing is second-guessing the source, using our own logic to infer or assert that a witness is not reliable. This is not a trial, and we are not lawyers, judges, or jurists. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you should go back and review NPOV in detail. NPOV definitely requires the inclusion of an alternative viewpoint that is substantial. Theo789 (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is a small excerpt:

Neutral point of view The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.

The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is "POV". Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but without endorsement of any particular point of view. Articles should provide background on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular; detailed articles might also contain evaluations of each viewpoint, but must studiously refrain from taking sides.

Bias

Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be fixed.

Theo789 (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I want to say how outrageous some of the editors on this page are acting. Though Theo definitely has some neutrality issues that are against wiki standards, I'm shocked at the editors replying to him in such an immature manner. All posts directed at him are insulting and condescending. And I have not seen the same from Theo. Though his opinions differ greatly from mine, he has spoken with respect to those he is arguing with. The same can not be said for the rest. I find it interesting how many of the editors like to quote the rules of wiki and accuse others of cherry-picking when they themselves do it. Are there no rules to quote about being respectful and assuming good faith? 98.227.241.45 (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, right ... which posts exactly have you been reading? And ... by the way ... have you also been reviewing Theo's edit history? And Theo's edit summaries? Or, are you simply speaking (and accusing) without knowing the full story? Pray tell how you conclude that his actions, his edit summaries, his edits, and his posts amount to "being respectful" to all other editors? I'd be very interested to hear your criteria ... and to hear the basis of the statements in your post above. Theo789 may (or may not) have valid points. (Personally, I think they are not valid.) I think the issue is with his bedside manner, more than with his opinion per se. He simply goes in and adds whatever he wants. Deletes whatever he wants. Goes off on tirades and crusades about all the ills of American society. How unfair the world is to an accused criminal. And does not listen when he is "schooled" on the in's and out's of how Wikipedia works, how Wikipedia articles are edited, and how consensus is achieved. He does what he wants to do, while ignoring all other editors. He had been a Wikipedia editor for all of 24 hours (at the time) ... yet, he knows better than all of the other experienced editors who have been editing here for God-knows-how long. And ... according to your criteria ... this demonstrates how respectful Theo has been to the rest of us? Really? Wow! How interesting it is that you defend his behavior. For which -- by the way -- he was blocked from Wikipedia. And then you turn the tables to blame the rest of us for not treating him with kid gloves? Get real. As I said ... which posts exactly have you been reading? Simply unreal. Don't accuse unless you have the full story. Go back ... read all the edits and posts ... and then tell me what criteria exactly allows you to conclude that Theo is acting respectfully. I'm dying to hear this one. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC))

Once again, I find your demeanor to be extremely disrespectful not just to others, but myself included. If you want to disagree with me, please do so. You'll notice that my writing does not speak in a condescending tone, nor attempt to "tell you" what to do. I simple would appreciate the same in return. As I have mentioned before, I do not necessarily believe that Theo's edits do not follow NPOV. In fact, I believe just the opposite. But my remarks were directed specifically at you and how you are responding to people. If you believe Theo is a serious threat to wiki, I'm sure there is a report button. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.241.45 (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, folks, that's enough sniping. Those who want to discuss the meaning of NPOV can do so at WT:NPOV. Those who want to politely discuss improving this article can do so here. Other posts, particularly posts that are inappropriate under our talk page guidelines, may be removed. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sheffield Steel: It is not the topic of NPOV that is the problem. It is the obstruction of attempts to faciliate a NPOV in this article that is the problem. There is undue weight being given to the view that an accused individual is guilty, when another view (in accordance with the presumption of innocence) should ALSO be incorporated into the article under NPOV standards. Theo789

Also, thank you to IP 98.227.241.45 for your support. I agree that the situation has been an extremely unpleasant one. In terms of your comments about my neutrality, I am neutral on this defendant, in the sense that I have no connection to him or anyone connected to him in any way. However, I do feel that it is wrong for an accused person to be convicted in the press, and for Wikipedia to then "summarize" that information as objective fact, when the facts have not yet been determined. It is even worse to do that while excluding any edits that tend to show that the defendant may not be as clearly guilty as the press is making him out to be. I consider the presumption of innocence in our Constitution to be a sacred right and one of the cornerstones of our democracy. If that makes me biased, then I plead guilty. In any event, thank you for your comments. Theo789 (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Theo, the article doesn't say he is guilty, so there's no undue weight placed on the view that he is guilty. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

What just happened to this page? The entire recent discussion of problems with the article was deleted. Fortunately it was restored. Theo789 (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Dawn Bard: The issue of undue weight is not as simplistic as that. An article that would give a reader the general impression of guilt--such as listing as 'evidence' information from anonymous sources (while deleting MANY edits that attempted to clarify the basis of the "evidence" as being from anonymous sources)--is clearly giving undue weight to the view that he is guilty. You deleted most of my many edits yesterday, all of which attempted to add an alternative perspective. An example--you deleted my sentence saying that his lawyer said that he is not guilty. Then you deleted many edits adding the word "alleged' and "anonymous". You or someone else deleted my sentence saying that the R.I. District Attorney had refused to confirm that the leaks about 'evidence' by anonymous sources were true. So I do think there is undue weight being given to one view--that of guilty--while attempts are made to block the alternative view that he is not yet deemed guilty and may not be, however unlikely the press had made that seem to be.Theo789 (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a fundamental problem or misunderstanding regarding "the view that Markoff is guilty". Theo clearly feels that the article expresses this view; other editors do not see the same thing. Perhaps it would be productive if we could focus discussion on concrete examples. Theo, could you point out a sentence from the article that you think best typifies the "Marloff is guilty" view? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

To Theo789 ... you know, Theo789 ... I have clearly noticed -- and you have clearly demonstrated -- that you only hear what you want to hear and see what you want to see. In the post above, you in no way responded to my reply. You went off on some tangent ... presumably your usual crusade about how great Markoff is and that he has not yet been found guilty. Blah blah blah. (Which ... by the way ... no one has stated in this article that he has been found guilty, I can point out.) And -- of course -- your usual "all that is wrong with America" and the ills of American media ... etc., etc., etc. But -- of course -- you offered no meaningful reply to my post. Now, I can point out many, many, many other times that you have done so. In fact ... on this very page ... above, there is a section entitled Talk: Philip Markoff#Neutrality and Verifiability in Biography of Living Person. It is the 11th section down from the top. Dated May 3rd. You presented your concerns. I addressed them. And you never replied. What exactly are your counter-points to my points? You never offered any, and your silence speaks volumes. Then ... many days / weeks later ... you bring up the same exact issue that I already responded to in the above referenced-post that you ignored (because you had no valid counter-points). So, stop dancing around the issues ... stop crusading about all that is wrong with American media and the American criminal justice system ... and engage in some meaningful responsive dialogue. If possible, that is. You keep going on and on and on and on about neutrality. Yet you are the biggest violator of it! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC))

To Sheffield Steele:

One example: I again tried to add a sentence yesterday stating that Markoff's lawyer said that he is not guilty of the crimes. That same sentence has been deleted a few times. But I think it is an appropriate quote to show an alternative view other than guilt. The fact that so many sentences have been allowed tending to show his guilt (like the listing of unverified, unsubstantiated "evidence' from unofficial sources) while not allowing even a single sentence stating that someone else in the criminal justice system is saying he is not guilty--shows that undue weight is being given to the guilty opinion, and it is only an opinion at this point.

Also, I tried to add a sentence stating that the R.I. District Attorney is now on record that he will not confirm that the alleged leaked "evidence" reported in the media is true (the info from anonymous sources about finger prints and cell phone records). But my sentence about that was deleted also. It is surely giving undue weight to the guilty opinion when anonymous sources are credited with info about "evidence", while it cannot also be noted that the District Attorney refused to confirm that this information is true. If the information were true, he would have said that. Theo789 (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

So, Theo ... let me ge this straight? Markoff's LAWYER is saying that Markoff is not guilty. And that is neutral and unbiased? Fer real? Seriously? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC))

No, such a statement is not neutral. But NPOV does not require that each and every sentence and quote be neutral. What NPOV requires is that differing viewpoints be combined in the article so as to create a neutral article. It is the article that must be neutral, not each sentence or quote. This excerpt from the NPOV policy is helpful:

Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be fixed.

It is disappointing that the editors on this article do not seem to grasp this NPOV concept. But I have spent far more time on this than I ever intended and feel that I have tried to make my point about NPOV as best as I can. It appears that the differing viewpoints on what NPOV means will not be resolved anytime soon on this article. So I will not continue with this article anymore, but will work instead on another article which also has NPOV problems. I hope that NPOV policy as applied to accused individuals (who are not yet convicted and still presumed innocent) will be clarified on Wikipedia sometime in the future. Good Luck. Theo789 (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

So, Theo ... again -- for clarity -- all of these dozens of Wikipedia editors who have been collectively editing here for umpteen years do not grasp the Wikipedia policies ...? Correct? And you -- an editor for all of one week -- have a more firm understanding and a fuller grasp on the Wikipedia policies? That is your position ... am I hearing correctly? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC))

Reverted: "Police believe... there may be other victims"

This is my preferred version of the text:

Police investigators believe that Markoff may have kept the panties as "souvenirs" from his alleged victims, and that there may be other victims who have not yet come forward. [10]

The second half of the above sentence was removed, and the word "believe" changed to "speculate", with the comment Pure speculation, not fact. No additional victims came forward despite ads in papers to come forward. I have reverted back because that comment seems to be based only on the reasoning of the editor (which is clearly lacking in logic, but which I have no desire to refute), rather than what any reliable source has said. The source uses the word "believe" not "speculate" (which I think falls foul of our Words to avoid guideline, as it carries connotations of wild, unfounded guesswork). If further sources are required, there are a couple more that can be cited, but this particular source also says the following:

investigators believe there could be more victims who have not yet come forward, law enforcement sources said.

I'm posting here to explain why I've reverted, and in the hope that anyone who has a problem with this will discuss it here rather than starting an edit war. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 04:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with your edit, SheffieldSteel, and thank you. Time for the OR and POV editing to stop and to stick with what reliable sources actually report, as you did. Tvoz/talk 07:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Sheffield Steele: I believe the information that you posted is now outdated. The police did initially speculate that there may be additional victims. However to check for that they posted ads on Craigslist asking for additional information about other victims. They also made public pleas on the t.v. for any other victims to come forward. None came forward. So then there were additional newspaper articles stating that there were no additional victims identified. I think if you check the local papers on-line like the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald, they both printed such stories recently stating that no victims came forward. So the accurate information is that while the police did initially suspect there were additional victims, that suspicion did not pan out per the reports published in the local papers. So I do not think your sentence reflects the current information per what has been printed in the newspapers. Theo789 (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If you think a source is wrong, whether because it's out of date or for another reason, the solution isn't to turn the article into an editorial denigrating the source, or to cut the material you personally believe to be wrong, but to add another source documenting or correcting the error. It may be appropriate to replace the old sourced material with newer sourced material, but in general simply removing it shouldn't be done lightly. In general, what's important is not what you think, but what the sources say. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"None" plus singular verb

A day or so ago, I changed the last sentence of the first paragraph under "Attacks" to read "None of the victims was sexually assaulted" from "None of the victims were sexually assaulted." It has since been reverted to the "None . . . were" form. I don't think this is correct grammar; "none" being "not one" requires the singular, I believe. I have change it again to "none . . .was". If someone has better knowledge or if this is truly contentious, please let me know. // BL \\ (talk) 05:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Bielle - your grammar is correct. "None" takes "was". Thanks for the catch. Tvoz/talk 07:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "None was" is correct. It's an easy mistake to make. People see "...victims was..." and think it ought to be "...victims were..." SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"None" has no number of its own, so whether it takes a singular or plural verb depends on its context in the sentence. The noun it relates to, 'victims,' is plural, so in this sentence, 'none' should take a plural verb: "None were." Love, an English teacher. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I looked it up, and this source has a very similar sentence, and says that either singular or plural is correct in this case. Since either can be correct, let's have a really violent edit-war over it, ending in at least five blocks! I'll go first: it should be plural, and everyone who disagrees with me is a Republican dittohead. :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This may be an WP:ENGVAR problem :-( SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I found an WP:ENGVAR solution :-) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

As stated in an above post, "none" can take either a singular verb or a plural verb ... that is, either "was" or "were" are correct. The original sentence can be read as "from all of his victims, no victim was sexually assaulted" ... or it can be read as "from all of his victims, no victims were sexually assaulted". Neither is wrong, in this instance. Both are right. Just a stylistic preference. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC))

While you are quite correct about your two examples ("no victim was" and "no victims were"), Joseph A. Spadaro, it would appear to be where you live and/or when and where you were educated that determines the use of singular or plural with "none". As this article is about an American, the current local variants of grammar are acceptable; no further argument from me. The new version eliminates any future need to repeat this discussion. // BL \\ (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Quote of English Teacher

The references listed for the quote from Markoff's English teacher do not contain this quote with the exact wording. His English described him as "a good student and just a really nice kid. Smart, wanting to succeed, nothing strange, nothing out of the ordinary."[9][9][10] The quote the source does contain is this ""He was a good student and just a really nice, nice kid. He was one of my most polite students," she said. "Just a nice, clean-cut boy, smart, wanting to succeed. Mmmm ... No, nothing strange, nothing out of the ordinary." (Reference 9 - http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/04/alleged_craigsl.html" I propose going with the later quote rather than the edited version of it, for accuracy's sake! I think this quote has been progressively copy edited into saying something that this English teacher didn't quite say, and though I may be quibbling over something small, it is not proper to change direct quotes unless you use brackets to indicate that the quote has been edited. How about this-- the whole passage would read-- His former English teacher and neighbor described him as "a good student and a really nice, nice kid" and as a "nice, clean-cut boy, smart, wanting to succeed... nothing strange, nothing out of the ordinary."71.233.47.3 (talk) 04:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Jewish Father

I find it funny how in some cases a person with a Jewish father and a 'gentile' mother are categorised as Jewish, but others, such as this case, aren't. I believe I have even seen someone with just a Jewish grandfather categorised as such. Heh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.236.183 (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Presuming you're the same person who keeps mentioning Markoff's possible Jewish heritage as though it's somehow the key to this whole story, I just have to wonder what it's like being an anti-semitic horse's ass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.194.21.199 (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

presumably he feels insecure about the long heritage of white christian men as mass murderers and spree killer in the United States. Uucp (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC).

Nobel Prize

If he won the Nobel Prize, he'd be "Jewish". Any Jewish criminal gets his Jewish membership card revoked and anyone who speaks up about it is labeled "anti-Semitic". When Bernie Madoff was first arrested, every scrap of his "Jewishness" was removed from his article and it took a wrestling match to get it back on there. Just the way it is.§ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.222.254.1 (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)