Talk:Matt DeHart

Child pornography in lead sentence not neutral
If the intro starts "he is indicted with child pornography" many readers will close the case. What he is famous for is however not child pornography but his accusations against the FBI. Galant Khan (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Done the best I can, but it's a complex case Deku-shrub (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Misleading
The last section really needs thorough verification. Statements such as being tortured and denial of food and water (just to start) can't be based on his statements and written as a fact. It can be written that he claims these things, but the current writeup is far from neutral.--Burzum (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that paragraph lacks reliable sources. I however find your comment and the "misleading" template misleading: The article says He claims he was drugged and describes the treatment he received as "torture". and they provided documents to make an asylum claim in accordance with the UN Convention Against Torture. So it is indeed written that these are his claims. I added a citation needed tag for the food and water claim. What else is not neutral in your eyes? Could we replace the template with the one for improved sources for articles about living persons? Galant Khan (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Compromise on tone
I thought this might come up eventually,, surely you can see that the section you added for Matt_DeHart effectively duplicates Matt_DeHart. Now you may want to change the tone, prominence or position of the section, but simply creating your own section without addressing this is no good.

Secondly, no, Matt DeHeart is not known for 'for receiving indecent images of two boys aged 12 and 14, as well as meeting with them various times in 2008', this is however forms the charges against him. Just because it appears you want him known for this doesn't make it so.

Also, what's this 'activist agenda' of which you speak? I simply tried to make the page coherent which I feel I did a fairly good job of.

I'm going to make some concessions to your edits now, please don't revert them without further discussion. Deku-shrub (talk) 18:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

POV and bad English
The article now suffers heavily from bias and bad language. I deleted a large part with slanderous unsourced allegations. The intro is misleading now as it leaves out that DeHart argues the allegations are a pretext for taking him out - and even a US judge confirmed there is evidence in this direction. This is the primary reason why his case got much media attention. Ironically, the user responsible for these changes accuses another one of "activism" in an edit summary. Galant Khan (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Incorporating the evidence from Enemies of the State
Anyone who has seen this documentary will know it approached the DeHart story from somewhat of a new angle, giving evidence to support both the mistreatment of DeHart by the government, as well as evidence that DeHart was a sexual predator. Right now the article, in my opinion, gives a lot more weight to the former (such as providing information about his hospitalization), but it does not give enough weight to the latter (specifically in the lead section).

The documentary provides evidence from a detective Kniss, who had phone calls that DeHart made to the victims and their families, where he is impersonating a lawyer, though at one point he assumes his identity of "Matt DeMarco" which he used to groom the victims. (He admited to posing as a 16-year-old named Matthew DiMarco, who he claimed was the son of a Mafia boss. BuzzFeed, 2015.) Adrian Humphreys, a journalist who has reported on DeHart since the beginning, recognizes his voice from the phone calls.

Problem is, I'm having trouble finding any secondary sources that repeat any of this specifically from the documentary. So far this is what I've found.

Source 1:

Source 2:

If anyone wants to do some more digging, I believe new reliable sources probably exist to expand the article. –– FormalDude  talk 01:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * FormalDude, I tend to agree that this article needs work. It is apparent from the evidence presented by the police (who have nothing to do with the FBI or national security aspects) that Matt's child porn activities were hidden by him from the very beginning, and only after the police finally gained access to his computer did they find even more evidence, including his communications with victims and the carefully-written script he used to intimidate the victims and their families in several phones calls. The child porn angle should be featured prominently and mentioned in the lead. Currently this article violates "unduly self-serving" by using Matt's POV, and the sources that present his POV on events, as the main theme, rather than national security angle possibly being misused as a cover-up of his nefarious activities proven in court. The national security aspects may not be as factual or certain as he alleges, so they should be couched in "he alleges" language. -- Valjean (talk) 03:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Completely agree. I've tagged the article for now until these issues are addressed. –– FormalDude  talk  05:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In addition to the two points mentioned above - the mistreatment of DeHart by the government and the child pornography charges - there is another very important point which, afaict, is only mentioned in three sentences. What information about the CIA did DeHart possess? We say:
 * Dehart claims to have received classified documents alleging serious misconduct by the CIA.
 * In September 2009, while monitoring the server, DeHart claims to have found an unencrypted folder containing hundreds of documents, including one detailing what looked like an FBI investigation into some particularly shady deeds by the CIA
 * DeHart also claims "a document dropped onto his Tor server included details of FBI's investigation into CIA's possible role in the anthrax attack".
 * What "serious misconduct by the CIA"? What "particularly shady deeds by the CIA"? And why is the anthrax allegation not explored in more detail? It seems quite significant. Burrobert (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, these seem to be dubious claims by a man who was hiding his child porn problems. The clincher was his harassment of the families and victims, all caught on film and tape. The proclamations by himself and his family that the government was out to get them and had planted false evidence on his computers evaporate into thin air. Is such a thing possible? Heck ya! The FBI and CIA have done devious things at times, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence in this case. This article needs to be rewritten. -- Valjean (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This source covers the topic pretty well. –– FormalDude  talk  21:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The article does not describe DeHart's claims as dubious. It makes no judgement about which side of the argument is more believable. Some quotes:
 * the bewildering, uncertain nature of all of these accusations and counter-accusations cannot be resolved and the viewer is forced to conclude either that DeHart has been the victim of a nefarious smear campaign spearheaded by American intelligence, which benefits from Americans’ gullible assumptions concerning the supposedly ubiquitous presence of pedophilia in our midst... or is attempting to camouflage his involvement with child porn by emphasizing the unsavory motivations of both the FBI and CIA.
 * DeHart remains as much of an enigma at the end of her documentary as he was at its beginning.

Burrobert (talk) 03:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The article does mention a point which seems to undermine the claim that DeHart was using "the unsavory motivations of both the FBI and CIA" to "camouflage his involvement with child porn". It says " In 2009, DeHart, at the time an intelligence analyst for the Air National Guard, claimed to have discovered explosive evidence of a CIA plot to implement the anthrax attacks of 2001 ...". The child porn raid happened in January 2010, after DeHart had already made his claims.
 * It appears that the "serious misconduct by the CIA" and "particularly shady deeds by the CIA" all relate to its alleged involvement in the anthrax attacks. I haven't seen any other claims by Dehart and the article does not mention any others. The article does have some useful additional background information about Dehart's claim which we could incorporate into the article. It says that the "ostensible" reason for the CIA to engage in the anthrax attacks was "to draw the United States into a war with Iraq that was promoted years earlier by the Bush administration".

NPOV?
"He thought that the search for child pornography was really a ruse to try to get the proof about his extracurricular national security issues. I found him very credible on that issue. Obviously, child pornography charges are serious offenses. I have learned several aspects of this case which, in the court's mind, indicate the weight of the evidence is not as firm as I thought it was

— Judge Trauger"

This is a federal district judge speaking after reviewing *classified* material. I'm sorry but some of this discussion is trending towards a personal bias

No offense to Mr Valjean, but saying "Matt's child porn activities" is already a non-neutral expression. He clearly denies it - which whether true or not is his position. Moreover, the police, specifically the detective's words were used to hold DeHart at the border. Multiple articles clearly articulate the fact that the FBI used the detective to issue a hasty complaint to keep him in custody at the border.

...were hidden by him from the very beginning, and only after the police finally gained access to his computer did they find even more evidence, including his communications with victims and the carefully-written script he used to intimidate the victims and their families in several phones calls"

Now this is directly supporting one side - which is not a problem, provided both sides are fairly represented. This can't come at the expense of removing a judge's direct quotation because it happens to support the other POV. It's also untrue to simply frame Matt's POV as his own unfounded assertions given the fact that the National Post article is in fact its own investigation. Results of this investigation are at least as weighty as a government assertion where it has an inherent interest in prosecuting as well as covering up a crime if the assertions are at all true. 2A0E:1C80:15:0:0:0:0:82 (talk) 04:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

What makes this individual famous or infamous?
Not sure a government applied label which is extremely inflammatory and damaging to reputation should be present in the header.

"Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" This is more of a primary source problem as this "label" isn't highlighted in any written source. 2A0E:1C80:14:0:0:0:0:66 (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you referring the phrase "registered sex-offender"? Had a look at other bios in the category "American sex offenders" and could not find another one in which that description was used. Also have not seen it mentioned in any source, so am unclear about its origin. We could seek guidance from the BLP Noticeboard. Burrobert (talk) 13:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have added sources, including his own mother's statement, that he is registered as a sex offender. He has apparently moved to New Hampshire and is also registered there by the state police, so he also appears on several websites which show the locations on maps of local sex offenders. His 2021 mugshot there shows him with blonde hair. -- Valjean (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

2A0E:1C80:14:0:0:0:0:66, your edit summary is inaccurate. You write: "the talk page is not supposed to be a forum for original research". Actually, that this exactly what it's for. Here we compare notes, find sources, figure out what wording is best, etc., and that is all OR. -- Valjean (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Attack Page
"Please do not add content or create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you."

Not sure why this page has been changed so many times unless there's been a concerted agenda to re-frame a factual piece. As policy, Wikipedia is against re-victimization and given this case, the individual in question is a victim of torture. Furthermore, the talk page has been used to provide geo-location information for what purpose? An unbiased discussion of current sources of information is what this should be.. since when do high quality sources get removed and replaced with an article with one POV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.212.96.74 (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion, but as a new editor you should realize that the experienced editors here know policy much better than you do. See the comments on your talk page and in the edit summaries for the reversions of your edits. Currently, you are edit warring, so stop it and stick to discussion here. -- Valjean (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * While remaining civil, and deferring to your assertion that you are better informed as to policy, would you explain how the most recent version of your edits provides a NPOV and is a factually superior article given that a large number of reliable sources have been removed and this individual's POV has been minimized to the point of removing context? Regardless of the finality of "official" record, there are reliable sources which provide another narrative. You clearly chose to replace a neutral photograph with a mugshot. Is this the best picture available? If not, does this not amount to taking a particular side in a controversy? I will not "revert" your edit. I will restore the original and I would ask again what your relation to the other editor is given the previous material you have worked "together" on. You should be well aware that any article which relates to an intelligence agency is a tempting target for psychological operations. We have to retain perspective and assume good faith which is why I would appreciate an explanation of why such a significant re-write of this article is being supported. This need not be a conflict but as a researcher and scholar, there appears to be an agenda here (yes, my opinion). There is no personal insult intended but let's remain objective here, please.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.212.96.74 (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * All speculations of "concerted agenda" and relation to other editors is a failure to AGF. Don't do it again. Formal Dude and I are just other editors who are concerned with following policy.
 * Articles change, and that's what you're seeing. Do not edit war. As more sources provide more information, such as the documentary, it gets used to change the article. This article previously sided very clearly with Matt's unproven assertions and largely ignored the other side of the story, the side of proven legal evidence, videotapes of him literally phoning and harassing his victims, etc. Now the other side is getting some voice and the article may change even more as we go through the RS more.
 * The image is a standard mugshot from 2021 which is used in the "Infobox criminal" template, which is the proper infobox for this article.
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "geo-location information". His addresses are no secret and are described in RS. -- Valjean (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Infobox
I have a few concerns about the current choice of infobox for this BLP.
 * We are using the Criminal Infobox template. Instructions for using this template say:
 * Choose this template judiciously. Unwarranted or improper use of this template may violate the Biographies of living persons, Neutral point of view and Privacy policies. This template is generally reserved for convicted serial killers, gangsters, mass murderers, old west outlaws, murderers, mafia members, fugitives, FBI 10 Most Wanted, serial rapists, mobsters, and other notorious criminals.
 * I don't think DeHart fits into any of these categories.

Burrobert (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The photo we are currently using is an unattractive mugshot of DeHart uploaded by Valjean. Imo the previous photo is preferable as the main photo. The mugshot could still be used at another place within the bio.
 * Okay, I'll restore the old infobox, even though the Criminal infobox is made for convicted criminals. I don't know who or why those suggested restrictions were written but I won't fight this. -- Valjean (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Rightho. Thanks. Burrobert (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)