Talk:Edward A. Flynn

WP:WEIGHT
The edit in question adds to a very short BLP a sensational claim of dubious importance. For this, we have two sources, sort of. The first source, however, is actually a blog post based entirely on the second source. In reality, then, we have one source.

This gives us an article that covers the major events of his life, and the affair. The question of weight is this: Chief of the Milwaukee Police Department gets two bare mentions in two sentences. The affair gets two full sentences as its own paragraph. "(D)iscussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." This is an isolated event, discussed briefly at the time, then disappearing from the press.

Is the topic "relevant to a disinterested article about the subject"? WP:BLPGOSSIP I think not. The anonymous IP editor disagrees. Comments? - SummerPhD (talk) 05:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/50856427.html http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/70534067.html http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/71795452.html http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/noquarter/48568662.html http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/50754352.html http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/noquarter/48646027.html http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/48643857.html http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/49285727.html http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/50856882.html http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/50501872.html http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/70681652.html http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/70541752.html http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/noquarter/70565067.html http://media.journalinteractive.com/documents/mcbridestatementonflynn.pdf
 * The claim was reported by the New York Times and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. In Milwaukee, where the affair occured, the Journal Sentinel is the preeminent paper, although the Waukesha Freeman and all the talk show hosts were talking about it, the former doesn't provide a "deep archive" to link to and talk show host statements are rarely cited.  Furthermore, of the two participants in the affair: Jessica McBride admitted to it, leading to her divorce from her husband.  And when she admitted to it, she did so on the radio and explicitly named Flynn as the other participant in her affair.  Flynn, for his part, has neither confirmed nor denied the affair directly when so questioned.  However, when directly asked about it, he has blatantly admitted indiscretions.  So we really have the followingt sources: 1) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 2) New York Times, 3) Waukesha Freeman, 4-15) A dozen talk show hosts (note: this is relevant as Jessica McBride was a talk show host at the time and this affair caused the end of her talk show career, so all her contemporaries and collegues were talking about it), 16) Jessica McBride admitted the affair and it was noted in the divorce paperwork, 17) When questioned, Chief Flynn has not denied the affair.  Now, as to whether this is an isolated incident; no.  Jessica McBride has admitted and the paper sources reveal that the two met on multiple occasions over a period of weeks or months.  Admittedly the specific length is not clear, but this wasn't a mere one-night stand.  McBride was covering Flynn for a news story and met him on multiple occasions for that.  Naturally whether there were additional meetings for purely romantic reasons is not clear; but nevertheless the important matter is that indeed, it occured over a period of time.  Since these events are over a half-decade old, I don't think they still qualify as "recent events that may be in the news."  These events significantly effected the career (well, ended it) for Ms. McBride, and are still discussed today (in fact, some claim they are still secretly together!  THAT's the sort of speculation that doesn't get into Wiki due to Weight.):

I'd also like to point out that the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel includes in portions of its printed paper portions called "blogs" which reference either minor stories or, in this case, smaller updates to a larger ongoing story. In this example, the story is the affair, and the updates refer to its ongoing effects on the careers of the publically prominent participants, and updates on information as to whether or not the affair is indeed ongoing at the present. But these "blogs" are in fact printed in the paper by the MJS, usually in the local section under politics. I'm not saying everything on MSJ's website is printed in the paper; they have blogs, as in weblogs, and then they have blogs that make print under a heading they call a "blog", even though it appears in print before or within hours of when the story hits their website. (talk)

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/midwest/view/2009_06_19_Ex-Springfield__now_Milwaukee_police_chief_admits_to_affair/ http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/49018451.html?t=a&video=YHI http://www.fox6now.com/news/witi-090619-chief-flynn-affair,0,6918099.story http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/49018451.html http://www.milwaukeemagazine.com/currentIssue/full_feature_story.asp?NewMessageID=24642 http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/06/former_springfield_police_chie.html http://www.zadanews.com/2009/06/19/jessica-mcbride-milwaukee-columnist-affair-with-edward-flynn/ http://www.zimbio.com/Edward+A.+Flynn http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/49018546.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/19/jessica-mcbride-with-milw_n_217904.html http://www.fox6now.com/news/witi-090626-flynn-adultery-charge-citizens,0,4421262.story http://www.cnqn.com/jessica-mcbride-and-edward-flynn-affair/ http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2009/06/bruce-murphy-responds-mcbride-flynn.html http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/49018511.html http://www.twincities.com/wisconsin/ci_12652636?nclick_check=1 http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/70588242.html 72.128.198.226 (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * More sources (because apparently I didn't have enough):
 * You'll need to address your concerns to Courcelles as far as I'm concerned. The BLP concerns being discussed with hir are unlikely to be addressed the way you're going. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean. I'm just trying to prevent the government suppression of speech.  Yes, I realize Wikipedia isn't the government and I'm not blaming its admins including Courcelles.  I'm blaming the Milwaukee Police for suppressing free and true speech; and furthermore trying to lie about what the truth is in the process.  And government employees spending time checking Flynn's Wiki page everyday while at work is also unethical, especially when they're lying in the process! 72.128.200.56 (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I see no indication "the government" or anyone else is suppressing "free and true speech" (or your related allegations involving the Milwaukee police. What I see is Wikipedia enforcing its policies and an anonymous user making unsupported allegations of a government cover up while simultaneously claiming the information, which supposedly is now being suppressed, was widely covered. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The Wiki email Couricalles referred to is from an employee of the Milwaukee Police Department. the singular individual removing content (until Courecalles did due to said email) was Sirbobbypeel, a self-admitted employee of the Milwaukee Police Department.  I said it was being suppressed here, I didn't say it was being suppressed elsewhere.  What I see is no Wikipedia policies that have been described that would prevent this information from being included in Flynn's profile not based on error - the allegations Flynn didn't admit the affair despite my dozens of examples to the contrary, for example. 72.128.200.56 (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I see NOTHING indicating who was involved in the correspondence Couricalles referred to. In addition to Sirbobbypeel (great user name, BTW), I have removed the content in question. Wikipedia runs on consensus. Assuming all of those IPs from the Milwaukee area are you... You do the math. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is my only IP. I only use my home computer except when on vacation, and my last was in November.  The disproportionate number of IPs from Milwaukee are undoubtedly because Flynn and the story in question is here. 72.128.202.60 (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response, 72.128.202.60 but I was talking to 72.128.200.56 and 72.128.198.226. Realistically, I think all three are the same person. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I think Flynn's affair had a significant impact in the city and on Flynn's career, not to mention ending McBride's. I don't understand why it wouldn't get reported here.  It's not like something's a rumor when the participants come out and admit the whole thing on television.  24.209.158.107 (talk) 03:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. On a different tack, can the photo at http://city.milwaukee.gov/Police/mpdchief be used under fair use? 72.128.202.20 (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For living people, Wikipedia rarely will use photos under fair use (the only exception here is the instance where the individual is very reclusive). We would generally consider such a use as being "replaceable" in that -- in theory -- it would be possible to take a photo of a living person that could replace that photo. (See WP:NFCC for details.]] That said, I know that photos owned by the U.S. federal government (or taken by federal employees during the course of their duties) are generally free of copyright. I do not know if this applies to municipal police departments. I have asked your question elsewhere for guidance. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently, this does not apply to the municipal PD. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I reverted DarkFalls in this edit. I don't see any issue including this content in the article. It's not a separate section or some other gross violation of undue weight. It's two sourced sentences. What's the issue here? --MZMcBride (talk) 07:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Current sentence does not violate Biographies of living persons or undue weight. The incident is notable and well-documented, it belongs in the article (WELLKNOWN). --Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Edward A. Flynn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120214065207/http://city.milwaukee.gov/Police/mpdchief to http://city.milwaukee.gov/Police/mpdchief
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120214065207/http://city.milwaukee.gov/Police/mpdchief to http://city.milwaukee.gov/Police/mpdchief

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Edward A. Flynn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120214065207/http://city.milwaukee.gov/Police/mpdchief to http://city.milwaukee.gov/Police/mpdchief
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120214065207/http://city.milwaukee.gov/Police/mpdchief to http://city.milwaukee.gov/Police/mpdchief

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)