Talk:James R. Fouts

Discussion-vs-edit warring
For a page with an active content dispute I find it alarming/disappointing that nobody has even tried opening a discussion here to resolve the issues. The article is now protected from editing. This is to stop the edit war and encourage you all to discuss the matter here. If you do not choose to do that and the edit warring resumes after the protection expired everyone who participates can and should expect to be blocked. There is no right and wrong in an edit war, anyone involved in one is automatically wrong. Please bear that in mind and try to have a reasoned discussion here instead of fighting and arguing by edit summary. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I would also ask that everyone stick to one account, it looks like there may have been sockpuppetry going here as well. That is also something that can and will get you blocked, so please don't do it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This biography is in terrible shape, especially for a mayor of a good sized city; if you compare to the rest of the mayors in Michigan it's poorly sourced, poorly written, and the subject of an edit war. My first suggestion would be to strip it back to the bare facts that can be verified with reputable sources, and to adhere carefully to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. This shouldn't be hard to do once the edit wars stop. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Beeblebrox please walk me through how to 'talk' on this page, bc I cannot find an area to post my comments and explain the vandalism made by a handful of individuals using different names.Gotohell666 (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)Gotohell666

Well I see that worked. The vandals are constantly 'watching' Mayor James R. Fouts' page and are posting libelous/slanderous statements. The references they cite to majority of the time are fictitious news organizations or gossip blogs and are made up by them. They also have taken news stories and misinterpreted them or exaggerated them in such a way to cast a negative interpretation. Gotohell666 (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Controversey section is 80% of article?
Really? Could use a serious rewrite. --Malerooster (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I compressed most of the controversy into a compact paragraph, keeping all of the references, per WP:BOLD and WP:UNDUE. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 05:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

James R. Fouts Edits
Maybe too quick in removing information from a so-called "political blog." The blog you are apparently making reference to is authored by Chad Selweski, the political reporter and Sunday columnist for the largest paper in Macomb county, Michigan, "The Macomb Daily." In fact, his "blog" is published under The Macomb Daily banner and the paper controls its content. Information about Fouts' alleged attempt to ban a reporter from that paper and his alleged attempt to cause problems for a women who "sarcastically chuckled" at one of his statements at the state of the city addresses seems to come from Selweski's source and his own paper.

Also disagree with the removal of the section sourced from the Washington Post, where Fouts claimed to have raised only $37,000 to his opponent's $300,000+. especially in light of online campaign finance reports that shows that Fouts raised $225,000. DeepBluSky (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * DeepBluSky reverted several edits that had been made; rather than repeat the edit wars that got me here, I'll defer to another editor. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Not "reverted" and only information from WDIV, which was properly sourced, added back to article minus some information that was not sourced. DeepBluSky (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say an editorial post on the website of a reputable major daily qualifies as a reliable secondary source. This is not an open forum, but rather a post by a reporter that is moderated by the publication.--23mason (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Questions
Summary box shows Fouts went to Bedford College in the UK, but not sourced. Bedford is a woman's college. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.239.0.30 (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Removed, it can always be added back if this is confirmed. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Age
Does this article really need 9 lines of controversy to discuss how old someone is? The references all check out, but I'm worried about WP:UNDUE. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Considering how much controversy this created in that city, including an attempt by Fouts' political opponents to disqualify his candidacy for mayor by suing him in court and his efforts not to reveal his age, apparently yes. 174.239.33.129 (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I added a reference to the court cases (which had not been included before, thanks) and noted the question of ageism. Now we're up to 11 lines :) Edward Vielmetti (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This article is at the center of a controversy
I have added a new subsection under "Controversies." which addresses comments made by Fouts concerning this article. This is not trivia, but has become a major story in the Detroit market. Given that this article is the center of a media controversy, it would be good for the reputation of wikipedia for editors with more time than I have to improve the appearance and quality of this article. Not all sources mention this article directly, but his language appears to be directed at it's editors. --Libertyguy (talk) 04:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia does not report on everything going on in the world today. There is usually no need to write about things with no historical significance whatsoever. (From the essay Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 04:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Use of "profanity" by itself is silly as a subsection, so I edited it a bit. The guy seems upset because some folks are getting their jollies by trying to make this article an attack piece.  A controversy over whether he was born in 1942 or 44?  This is news in Warren, Michigan?  My God.--Milowent • hasspoken  15:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Campaign Finance. Recent edit concerning the $37,000 raised by Fouts, supported by source to Washington Post: "A government and psychology teacher at a local high school for 25 years, he beat his incumbent opponent by a landslide almost two years ago after raising just $37,000. He keeps about a dozen pictures of his heroes -- Frank Sinatra and president Harry Truman in his office." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009052603151_2.html?sid=ST2009052700061. Comments, Edward Vielmetti? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeepBluSky (talk • contribs) 21:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Campaign finance
I've read the Washington Post article and looked at the PDFs of (partial) campaign finance information, and I don't see any controversy. Is there a contemporary news story that refers to this as a controversy? Otherwise it looks like WP:OR. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * And now I've reread the Post, which only has one sentence about campaign finance, and it looks like the Post got the numbers wrong. It's a pretty big stretch to go from a wrong number in a story " he beat his incumbent opponent by a landslide almost two years ago after raising just $37,000." to "Claims by Fouts that he raised only $37,000 in the mayoral campaign are unfounded." - 'unfounded' is mighty POV. Did Fouts claim that? Or did the reporter simply get it wrong? Did any other news media report on campaign finance? Edward Vielmetti (talk) 02:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

More edit warring
The latest edit warring is from a user 'Frank Vogt' who has repeatedly pasted in text which, while possibly interesting, is in no way encyclopedic. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Gust Ghanam
The article now has 3 paragraphs about Gust Ghanam. If he is notable, then he should have his own wikipedia page, and the 3 paragraphs can be moved there; otherwise, if he's not notable, it's not at all clear what this is doing on the Fouts page in the first place.

Disagree with your delete. I would leave the previous paragraph and the one provided by myself. Make a proposed edit we both can agree on. Ghanam is only notable because he is a high ranking official in the Fouts Administration. Without Nixon, there would be no Halderman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeepBluSky (talk • contribs) 22:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:BLPCRIME applies (we only have allegations and investigations, not convictions). If Ghanam is in fact convicted of anything, it might be worth a mention. "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.[6] If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgements that do not override each other,[7] refrain from using pithy descriptors or absolutes and instead use more explanatory information." Based on that, there's more that should be pruned from the "controversies" section. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 13:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Executive assistant
This was removed from the article by User:88.104.24.150 citing WP:BLP. Hoping for some explanation since it is cited. VQuakr (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It's gossip. The IP is right, the article is reporting on the content of an unverified anonymously posted YouTube video.  The material should stay out until something concrete is reported.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The source is not simply parroting a Youtube video. A local news station took a lead, probably originally from that youtube video which them mention, investigated the assistant's recent history, interviewed the subject of this article who provided an official response, and provided roughly equal time to the mayor's response as they did to accusations. The news station also discussed the history of the regional politics and whether there would likely be any long-term effects as a result. Dismissing this as "gossip" seems inaccurate. How about the following modification, providing a better summary of the secondary source:


 * WXYZ (7 action news) reported that Fouts was filmed holding hands with his 25 year-old executive assistant while on an out-of-town trip to Chicago in November 2012. Fouts responded to the video saying that he had done nothing wrong, and he dismissed it as politically motivated. WXYZ noted that "politics have been bare-knuckle in Warren for years." VQuakr (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Explanation: it is in no way significant to the biography of this living person WP:BLP, and adds undue weight WP:UNDUE to a single incident of little importance; it is tabloid journalism, and as such should not appear in Wikipedia.
 * I am quite happy to discuss it, and work towards consensus - whether we need to get an RFC or whatever. In the meantime, in respect of BLP policy and respect for living persons, and caution about legality, I suggest it remains out of the article until a consensus can be reached. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 23:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It's gossip. Someone posts an anonymous video accusing the guy of something, a reporter calls him up and asks him if it's true, he says no, and now it's news?  I don't think so.  It really is a BLP issue, as  correctly points out.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You obviously did not actually review the source before forming an opinion. This was a sit down interview as part of a local investigative report. Exactly what part of WP:BLP is broken by the draft paragraph above? Be specific please. VQuakr (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I did actually read the source before forming an opinion. Here's what happened: (a) someone posts a video anonymously accusing Fouts of stuff, (b) WYXZ calls Fouts and asks did he do the stuff, (c) Fouts says no, he did not, (d) WXYZ adds some putatively related facts about the people involved, none of which speak to the truth or falsity of the allegations, (e) an article is born.  This is what reporters do, it's not what encyclopedias do.  You can refer to WP:BLPGOSSIP: 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 a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. or just the lead section of WP:BLP: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.  This is a game they play in small town politics since one can't libel a public figure for the most part: Make some anonymous accusations and get the target to deny them to a journalist.  It means nothing and it shouldn't be in this article.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The interview with the subject was recorded on video; there was not a phone involved. So yes, I am calling BS on your claim that to have reviewed the source sufficiently enough to have an informed opinion on the nature of the reporting. So, to address your policy concerns:
 * Is the source reliable? Yes, WXYZ is a reliable source for investigative reporting.
 * Is the material is being presented as true? The observation of fact that the subject was holding hands with an assistant is demonstrably true. The source skeptically discusses the possible motivations of the anonymous person who uploaded the video.
 * It is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject? Yes, pretty clearly. The secondary source also discusses this by evaluating its relevance to voters and discussing whether the video was likely to have any effect on the subject's term.
 * Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. The secondary source is not anonymous, and discusses the possible relevance of the fact that the original source was uploaded anonymously. The accuracy of the underlying facts are not in question, which is what this statement is actually addressing. VQuakr (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, obviously we're not going to settle this by ourselves. It's all over BLPN by now, so why don't we just chill out and see what others think, eh?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If you wish. Honestly, I am not quite sure why this specific issue can't be solved here though. I do not think the three of us are anything but "chill." VQuakr (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The noticeboard will draw eyes. Eyes will draw comments.  Comments will bring conclusions.  All will be well.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I just read that reply in Yoda's voice. Excellent. Ok, let's huddle in a few days and see if there any any other thoughts on this. VQuakr (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Controversies section
Is it of concern to anyone that the material in this section doesn't actually make any sense syntactically? It is word salad, and I can't see how to fix it. The sentences don't even parse: Fouts refused to reveal his birth date on official election affidavits,[2][12][13][14][15][16] summarily banning smoking within 100 feet of any city building without legislative approval,[17] and an investigation by the Michigan State Police triggered by allegations that Fouts threatened physical harm toward former city of Warren employees, who, Fouts believes, made putative negative edits to his Wikipedia article.[18][19][20] Fouts admits that he hired “a professional” to monitor his Wikipedia article and “clean it up” when necessary.[21] In 2013, another former employee who was responsible for bringing the threatening phone calls to the Michigan Department of State Police filed a Federal Whistle Blower lawsuit against the Fouts and the City of Warren when he was forced to resign due to “constructive termination." [22] The lawsuit was settled for $175,000 in favor of the former employee. The settlement agreement also requires him to destroy copies of any recordings or transcripts of Fouts' phone calls.[23]

Like, for instance, the first sentence seems to say that the fact of his refusal to reveal his birth date was the proximate cause of the smoking ban. The second paragraph talks about "the threatening phone calls" when no threatening phone calls have been mentioned. What does any of it mean, why should we care, and why is it so garbled?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yup, something is definitely broken there, particularly in the first sentence. Maybe there was a paragraph right before the second paragraph that was edited out at some point? The entire first paragraph seems dubious; per WP:BLPCRIME a mere investigation by police probably does not merit mention. The second paragraph certainly seems to merit inclusion once the ambiguity is fixed. VQuakr (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The content has been removed, again because while you are correct, and this topic has received significant coverage, none were reliable sources, and none were independent of the subject. This revision, per wiki guidelines, clearly does not belong in an article of a living person's biography article as it lacks any notability, the slanderous claims in the revision have no actual proof, as none has surfaced. This is a good faith edit to vandalism, which per Wikipedia's guidelines, was "clearly added in bad faith" and "shall be removed as soon as possible."

Chad Selweski
I think this is the right way to handle the sentence, rather than .&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2015 edits
An editor introduced a section which was inappropriate per WP:BLP. I removed it. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Sources modified on James R. Fouts
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just attempted to maintain the sources on James R. Fouts. I managed to add archive links to 2 2 sources, out of the total 2 I modified, whiling tagging 0 as dead.

Please take a moment to review my changes to verify that the change is accurate and correct. If it isn't, please modify it accordingly and if necessary tag that source with to keep Cyberbot from modifying it any further. Alternatively, you can also add  to keep me off the page's sources altogether. Let other users know that you have reviewed my edit by leaving a comment on this post.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

NPOV
The Mayor section is just a gripe session of sensational stories, not one inclusion of anything positive for Warren. This isn't what Wikipedia is for. Save it for the comment section on HuffPost and the like.--WatchingContent (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit war in progress
The last few edits have been an edit/revert war that should be addressed. Some discussion is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:68.55.155.194 Edward Vielmetti (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's an edit war in terms of content, though, mostly just vandalism/testing. Though not sure that makes it any better. I'm not sure what the intent of the edits I reverted were, just know that they were not appropriate in any article (direct c/p from what looks like a comment section somewhere?) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  Chrissymad  ❯❯❯  Talk

Suggesting that a scientific expert is not relevant to this section is ludicrous. If there is a "war" or "vandalism" it is by those who continue to remove this important piece of information. Also, the audio controversy section failed to mention the tapes about religion, which is a major omission. What do you gatekeepers and guardians of fact have against adding this information, other than it's not from you?

I see within minutes of my edit, it is again removed by John, now seriously claiming a renowned scientific expert and major news organization is not a "reliable source." Is this a joke? Can someone enlighten me how the citation is "gossip" or does not conform to Wikipedia standards?

Fouts is not a Democrat
Certain people are trying to claim Fouts is a Democrat. But he is an independent. Jdm5460 (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

2016-2017 audio controversy
The supplemental information provided to this section by FactCheckerMacomb is a legitimate addition to this biography. The voice recordings of Fouts denigrating African-Americans, the mentally challenged, religious believers and older women were confirmed to be his voice by a nationally recognized expert. Multiple people demanded his resignation over the comments including Congressman Sander M. Levin, and other high-level state and local officials. This is worthy of an encyclopedic entry; if you really want concessus, here it is John from Idegon. I will give a reasonable amount of time for other Wikipedians to respond, then I will revert the deletion and add reference to the voice expert. DeepBluSky (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

If wiki is presenting a statement as "scientific evidence" there should be multiple sources for it. Since this falls under BLP extraordinary claims need extraordinary sourcing. I dont feel that 1 single local news networks hired "expert" is extraordinary. The statements addressing the validation of the should be removed.Fusion2186 (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Don't see how this reaches the level of an "extraordinary" claim; multiple people have identified Fouts' voice on the various recordings - a standard allowed in the courts. Nevertheless, the expert, Ed Primeau of Primeau Forensics, is internationally recognized and does not deserve quote marks, used in this instance to impune Primeau, around the term "expert." His thorough curriculum vitae is posted on this website for review, and has been found to be an expert in audio and video forensics by multiple courts. His analysis was also accepted by other news sources besides WDIV and includes Fox 2 Detroit and WXYZ-TV. See for example,.

If Wikipedia is to act like an encyclopedia, then it must report even on controversies. In any case, there had been sufficient time to review my last post to the talk page, there being no comments, the deletion was reverted.

More importantly, consensus was attempted before the previous deletion was revered by yours truly; user Fusion2186 should have posted to the talk page and sought his or her own consensus just as I did. I'm calling on Fusion2186 to seek his own consensus and revert his deletion pending a reasonable period of time for comment. DeepBluSky (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello DeepBluSky, Id like to lead off with appologizing if it seems that I stepped on your toes. I certianly didnt mean to. Allow me to expound on my viewpoint: Primeau being an "expert" is not what I am contesting at all. I'm not using quotation marks to impugn Primeau himself, but rather to demonstrate that Wiki's voice is presenting the material as "expert"-ly factual thus setting a higher level of factual basis/verification. The Fox2 article you mention does not state anywhere that it is in fact Fouts on the recording. They do however use qualifiers in several places including the very first paragraph of the article to prevent the article from presenting it as a fact as well Primeau doing the same. I've copied the portions of the article and underlined/bold the specifics:

The very first paragraph of the article reads: "You've heard the recordings. Warren Mayor Jim Fouts demeaning and racist recordings are released, allegedly caught making racist and derogatory comments against blacks, women and the disabled". "Allegedly" is the keyword here. The source itself is not stating it as a fact, but an alleged act. The article continues by quoting Primeau: "The first set of recordings that were brought to me a little over a month ago had enough content where I could do  some  biometric measurement on the voice," he said. "And present some science in addition to  my opinion  that they were indeed, the voice of Mayor Fouts. Some science + Oppinon = conjecture. He is not stating it as a fact but as an opinion based on admitted incomplete information. The article continues: "The recordings that surfaced yesterday are too short. But  subjectively  based on the amount of listening I've done so far, it sure sounds like Mayor Fouts' voice to me ." Conjecture again. No statement of fact. The word "subjectively" is defined as: in a way that is based on personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. The Clickondetroit article is also very careful in what its stating as a fact: "After spending hours going over the recording and looking at the metadata which only the original has, Primeau says this recording  has not been altered and it's not fake . "I'm able to authenticate it," Ed Primeau told us. "It's science, it's a very formal process, " he said. He adds he would be able to detect a synthesized recording." "Has not been altered" means it wasnt a recording of something different altered to sound the way it does. "its not a fake" means that its not something synthesized on a computer. He makes no mention whatsoever of voice recognition, he does not confirm that it is Fouts. Maybe this is WP:SYN on my part, but I would point out again, that he doesnt explicitly say that its Fouts as a fact or that he can authenticate it as Fouts. Just that its not something that has been altered or created artificially.   The article continues: "Realize there's a different source for the recordings that have come after and so far, that source has not provided the original recordings so there is no metadata on the recordings which voice analysis does show is Fouts. Those recordings deal with minorities and women in very unflattering terms. The article itself is stating that there is no metadata on the recording where voice analysis was used. It also doesn't mention that voice analysis was used on the recordings where metadata was present. The article continues: " Primeau may not have the metadata but says, "Based in all the listening I've done to Mayor Fouts over the last several weeks it sure sounds like him to me ," Primeau said" Again it does not state anywhere that Fouts is on the recording just someone who sounds like Fouts to Primeau. Primeau is not stating a fact or even an interpretation of facts, or even an interpretation of scientific data. He is just giving his opinion on what it "sounds like". Opinion/conjecture.

These statements are interspersed in the article specifically to protect a person or news organisation from a defamation lawsuit. They are a stated as an opinions and not facts. If Primeau were stating factually that it was Fouts on the recording as he would do so in a court case like you mentioned, and other experts verified the findings and supported his claims I would agree with you that it should be included. Since Fouts is alive, he falls under the standards of WP:BLP, so the sources are subject to a higher level of verifiability and scrutiny than normal, especially in regards to material or statements that are contested or rises to the level of WP:EXTRAORDINARY. This rises to that level as well by being a "reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended".

That being said, and considering the possible negative and harmful impact it could have on the articles subject (Fouts), I will not be reverting it per WP:BLPREMOVE. I dont think that in this case, that the sources cited reach to the level of "high Quality" and certianly not to the extent that we can call it factually verified by an "expert". Since none of the articles sourced specifically state that it is in FACT Fouts on the recording it is also possibly in violation of WP:SYN which requires that it be stated "explicitly" for it to be included in an article.Fusion2186 (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi DeepBluSky. I reverted the page. But wont do so again. With the material possibly being slanderous or libelous in nature and with the source material being in contention, its better to leave it out until we decide on a course of action. Even though a concensus was previously asked for, no RFC was made for this article that I can find so other editors would not be able to see that input is needed or requested. Even if the material wasnt contested recently, it does not give it a default position of being correct or being above question. It doesnt appear that any sort of opinion was given other than yours. Please see WP:OWN. So lets see what we can figure out here. If we still disagree we can ask for WP:3O or an WP:RFC. Fusion2186 (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

This is utterly absurd. There is no "slander" or "libel." Those who keep reverting these edits are either pseudoscientists, interested in conspiratorial quackery, or are put here by Fouts to steer the tone of his Wikipedia. In any event, it is absurd to remove these additions. Primeau is in fact an expert. He did indicate that the recordings of regarding the disabled were not altered. He is nationally respected. Enough of this nonsense. Stop vandalizing the page to further nonsense.

Hello to the editor of the unsigned comment above. Please remember to sign your comments with 4 tildes otherwise things can get confusing. I am not psuedoscientist and I have little interest in conspiratorial quackery past conversations over beer for a good laugh. I have no affiliation with Mr. Fouts and live several hundred miles from his constituency. Personally I think he is a jackass. However my personal feelings are not relevant. I agree that Primeau is an expert, He did indicate that the recordings were unaltered. He did NOT however state explicitly that that it had been scientifically proven that it was Mr. Fouts on the recording. I encourage to read my comment just above yours breaking down the articles that are being sourced for the "Scientific Facts". This is a case of [WP:SYN]: A) He states the recording have not been altered. B) He states the recordings were not faked ("synthesized"). The article is written in a way that A+B=C. With C being: It is in fact Fouts on the Recording. None of the source material attricbutes this statement to Primeau. The closest thing that it does is quote Primeau as saying "it sounds like him to me." This is not a statement of fact. I will save the time and space of again explaining my challenge to this as it is already written in the post above. We really need to discuss this on the talk page and reach an agreement before we edit the article again.Fusion2186 (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello John from Idegon, DeepBluSky and FactCheckerMacomb. Just wanted to make sure you were all notified of the RFC I created so you would have a chance to offer input as well. Fusion2186 (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

RFC about 2016-2017 Audio Controversy

 * Q1: Is the source on the scientific verification of the audio recordings presenting a fact or conjecture?
 * Q2: Does the Source material meet the criteria for inclusion/exclusion per relevant Wiki policies:?


 * Discussion thus far can be found | Here.

Fusion2186 (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Replies to RFC

 * No the source does not scientifically verify the authenticity of the recording for reasons detailed in the discussion above. The strongest affirmation is that "it sounds like him". Even claims like 'not synthesised' simply mean that this is a real human voice, it does not verify that it is this human, speaking in the circumstances claimed. If used, the claim would need to be attributed to the 'expert' and so 'hedged in' with qualifiers that it would be almost worthless. What does appear to be wholly verified is that this has caused a mini-scandal, and that Fouts denies the authenticity of the recording. It isn't our job to be either judge nor jury of the balance of evidence. Pincrete (talk) 11:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, a forensic lab is a very strong source of information, and the results are being reported by a real journalist in a publication with an editor. However, the lab only verifies that the recording is unaltered, not that the recording was of the mayor, so it should only be used as a reference for that.  Although the article does say that "multiple experts" have said that the recording  is of him, it doesn't name these experts, and so is too vague to be used as a source showing that the mayor is the one speaking on the tapes. The article could legitimately say "The original of one recording was analyzed by a forensic lab, which concluded that it was not a fake."This article in the Detroit News could support adding "However, the recording was too short for the lab to conclude that the voice belonged to Fouts".&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * RFC ended 05MAR18 with comments showing a tie. Since the information is potentially harmful to the subject and the consensus is even. Im leaving the article as it is with the information removed.Fusion2186 (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

We need more on Fouts history
This might take some digging, but Fouts was not just a member of the city council for 26 years, he was a self-styled +maverick+ who has long pushed for Warren to take on blight, opposed lot splits in almost all cases, and basically sought to keep as much of Warren as possible suburban instead of it turning fully urban.

This I know from having sat through many city council meetings, been his high school student and other interactions. I remember specifically his denouncing the lot splits on Wagner close to I-696 that made smaller lots, and his complaining about the arguments used to justify them followed by slow building of houses.

As our teacher he spoke of the placing of house furniture on porches by south-end residents. Here is an article on a fairly recent attempt by Fouts to take a stand against the mobile home communities that are so common in south-west Warren.

Previously Fouts sought to get Warren to pass an ordinance that would have limited the number of occupants of housing. He also at one point pushed an ordinance that would have lowered the voting age in Warren.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Concerning similarities between the article and Jim Fouts's website biography
Hello, I'm not too familiar with editing Wikipedia, but it seems this article pulls heavily from the biography from his own website. They look to be direct quotes, but are not formatted as such. Reference 9-20 all link to his website's biography page. They also seem a little loaded, with phrases like "...he worked tirelessly to resolve many issues..."

https://dupdet.toolforge.org/compare.php?url1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jamesfouts.com%2Fmayor-james-fouts%2F&url2=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FJames_R._Fouts&minwords=4&minchars=16

Thank you to anyone more familiar with Wikipedia's conventions taking a look at this.

Anon 50.4.116.62 (talk) 05:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)