Talk:Robert Roche (activist)

Controversy Section
According to WP:BLPREMOVE, any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards, is to be removed. However, the information cited within the section relies on information gathered from independent news organizations and news stations, satisfying WP:NEWSORG. These topics are also a continuing source of coverage, satisfying WP:SIGCOV. Please remember that WP:DONTLIKE is insufficient grounds to remove material from Wikipedia.

Below is the following section which has been removed:

'''Robert Roche has been the subject of criticism from some members within the Cleveland Native American community. Philip Joseph Yenyo, an Aztec Indian, has repeatedly made accusations against Roche's credibility. Yenyo has claimed that Roche has constructed a false identity, claiming to have a birth certificate which reveals that Robert Roche was really Jose Roche. However, when asked to validate the nature of the injurious claims, Yenyo was unable to substantiate his accusations with material evidence. Yenyo has also posted letters which attack Roche's character. In a letter published on 27 August 1997, Yenyo, among other things, alleged that Roche "fathered a child with a 12-year-old minor and broke his commitment to care for the child." On 24 September 2014, The Committee of 500 Years of Dignity and Resistance (in which Yenyo represents in the position of a co-chair) and The Lake Erie Native American Council published a press release in which both organizations stated they did not recognize Roche as a representative of the Native American community. Yenyo has also made accusations of "beating his daughter" against Roche, stemming from booking charges Roche received on 6 March 2012 for felonious assault and domestic violence. Yenyo has also accused Roche of being a "convicted embezzler," a claim originating from an investigation launched by The Ohio Attorney General's Office following a 2013 anonymous complaint that alleged the American Indian Education Center mishandled the grant money it had been appropriated, and the fact Roche paid $153,00.00 in salary and benefits to himself that year, according to the tax filing. Closer examination to the available financial records, however, showed that Roche paid himself in relative proportion of grant funding allocated to the organization. In 2012, the American Indian Education Center received $650,000.00 in grant funding, an elevated increase in comparison from previous years. This was due largely to a Department of Education grant aimed at improving education for impoverished and underprivileged kids. In 2011, when the center was allocated $235,000 in grant funding, Roche paid himself only $37,000.00. Prior to that year, in 2010, when the Center was allocated $42,000.00 in grants, Roche, who served as the executive director, and the sole full-time employee on staff (who also worked seven days a week), paid himself only $12,000.00. During that same year, he also wrote a $16,000.00 loan for the center. On the tax filing, under "purpose," it read: "Keep Center Open." Yenyo has also referred to Roche as a scumbag. Roche has also been accused by members of the Native American community of using the Center as a platform for himself while failing to provide a consistent regimen of services. Roche was also asked by one of the founders of the original American Indian Movement to stop identifying himself as a member of the organization. According to Vernon Bellecourt, Robert Roche had never been an AIM representative in Ohio. "We have known for some time that he was invoking the name of AIM," Bellcourt said. "We feel if people are doing good work in our name, it's OK. But that is not the case with Roche. We received complaints about him from leaders of the Indian community, and that was enough to cause us to issue the letter." Despite identifying himself as a representative of the Autonomous America Indian Movement, Roche would also state that he was representative or executive director of Cleveland AIM, even doing so in a resume where he describes himself as an "appointed American Indian Movement executive director - Cleveland Ohio, 1994-present."

'''New details into the mismanagement of money allocated to the American Indian Education Center have slowly emerged. It was revealed that the inspector general for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services also launched an independent investigation into the American Indian Education Center. According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) starting in 2011. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, which is a branch of the U.S. Department of Health, had provided thousands of dollars to the American Indian Education Center from 2011 onwards. However, due to the placement of a "high risk restriction" on the Center, access to the SAMHSA grant money was on a limited basis. The investigation also cites the lack of proper financial management to administer the federal grant. The probe has also identified certain irregularities into the expenditure of funds provided by the SAMHSA. These irregularities included the $136,000.00 salary Roche paid himself in 2012, which did not appear to be concordant with wages supplied in grant documentation provided by the American Indian Education Center, the flat fees paid to the center's grant writer, McGuire & Associates, are inconsistent with standard practice, and the Center's bylaws giving Roche governing authority and control over his board of directors, are not in keeping with federal guidelines, which state that the board should operate independently of its director. There are also matters of personnel costs, related taxes and fringe benefit payments that The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration is looking into.

'''One grant received by the American Indian Education Center received in 2012 carried over into 2013. However, the rant was terminated by the grantor, the Ohio Department of Education, which decided that the program being funded by the grant was ineffective. Roche also made an attempt to open a second education center for American Indian people in the city of Columbus, Ohio in spite of financial difficulties faced during 2012. Although he cited poor health and financial difficulties, Roche registered a 1989 Jaguar in the "unfinished" Columbus Center's name in December 2012. According to Roche, he donated the car to the center, where he plans to raffle the vehicle in the name of American Indian services.'''

Now here is a list of the following sources:

Source #1: 19 Action News (WP:NEWSORG) Source #2: Cleveland Scene (WP:NEWSORG) Source #3: Facebook American Indian Movement of Ohio Page Source #4: Facebook American Indian Movement of Ohio Page Source #5: Mugshots (listing name, DOB and picture of subject) (WP:USEBYOTHERS) Source #6: Cleveland.com (WP:NEWSORG) Source #7: Newspaper (WP:NEWSORG Source #8: Plain Press (WP:NEWSORG) Source #9: Cleveland Blog (WP:NEWSORG) Source #10: Cleveland (WP:NEWSORG)

With the possible exception of the Facebook information, each source used in this section has been produced by a reliable, secondary sources, satisfying WP:WPNOTRS. Therefore, I will use the discussion page as the appropriate venue in which to have the pertinent information relating to the biography of the subject back to the page. Silver Buizel (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Right, to go through them: Number one has no mention of Roche at all, 3 and 4 are Facebook, so I'm not convinced they are unreliable, 5 should ideally be a secondary source (not one of these redistribution "mugshot"-style websites), 2 and 7 are duplicates of each other, 8 appears to be a blog (or a very local news site, not convinced by reliability, seems quite opinionated). Overall, I don't think the sources are sufficient to pass the rules, especially as many of these sections will be sparsely sourced or unsourced. Mdann52 (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Source #1 is used to emphasize the position others working to bring attention to the same issue as the subject is have with the subject of the biography (Source #8 goes to show the same thing). Source #2/7 still fall under the umbrella of (WP:NEWSORG), which warrants their inclusion in the information on the subject of the biography. I can understand your concerns about the similar phrasing, but as both are evident secondary sources of reliable information, there is no reason to exclude their content from the article. The category of Source #5 can be classified under (WP:USEBYOTHERS) given the pertinent information they possess about the subject. Can you tell me what your objections are to the inclusion of an arrest record given that the material does not fit the standards for being classified as WP:UNDUE? According to WP:BALASPS, An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. Given the fact that certain courses of action taken by the subject of the biography have been deemed slightly unusual by verifiable sources, omission of said material as it relates to the subject's practices as far as activism would come across more as censorship than any issue with WP:BLP. Remember, WP:UNCENSORED is important to keep in mind. What are you concerns with Source #9 and Source #10? Silver Buizel (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears from your explanation that you are using sources 1 and 8 to provide WP:SYNTH and that is disallowed. The Facebook sources are unacceptable in this context. Source 5 does not meet WP:RS as it has no editorial oversight.  Source 9 is a blog, and therefore questionable. I would recommend that this section be rewritten based on the remaining sources in a WP:NPOV fashion, and see what kind of consensus can be reached.  Scr ★ pIron IV 15:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am unsure of how you believe WP:SYNTH is being used here. Sources #1 and #8 demonstrate that there have been other reputable sources launching the same accusations. However, I am using WP:YESPOV to neutrally present the verifiable material that has been reported by these media outlets. The information is presented as WP:WEIGHT without injecting an opinion into the material. For instance, one portion of the section reads has repeatedly made accusations against Roche's credibility. Yenyo has claimed that Roche has constructed a false identity, claiming to have a birth certificate which reveals that Robert Roche was really Jose Roche. However, when asked to validate the nature of the injurious claims, Yenyo was unable to substantiate his accusations with material evidence. As the section is written, an individual has accused the subject of the biography of wrongdoing, and then is noted to have no evidence to substantiate the claim. I am unsure of how that can be construed as being bias or WP:SYNTH. Silver Buizel (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am especially concerned about so much information being presented about who has accused whom of what; for a WP:BLP we should stick to what he has been accused of by law enforcement, if he was arrested for it. anything less gives undue weight a tomeone's opinion.  If he IS a "convicted embezzler" than that should be presented as such, with a news reference.  No that X accused Y of being a convicted embezzler.  This whole section is huge, particularly when we try to avoid controversy sections in the first place.  Facts, not opinions - even when they are sourced opinions - when it comes to a BLP.  As for synth - you are correct; I was misreading the intention.  But it is absolutely wrong to to say Group X, Group Y, and Person Z all accuse Person A of some misconduct, and then go on to say that they have no evidence for those accusations.  When we do that, we are propagating unproven accusations, and violating WP:BLP.  Best to stick with the fact of what the subject of the article has done, and has been proven against him.  Scr ★ pIron IV 15:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe the secondary sources regarding the possible misappropriation of money related to the center are an important part of the biography. As the matter is connected to the sub related to several federal entities (such as the SAMHSA), as outlined in the sources, I do think the sources merit inclusion. What are your objections to the inclusion of the material? Silver Buizel (talk) 03:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As I stated earlier, I object to the violations of WP:BLP by spending an inordinate amount of effort to spread unproven allegations. I had never heard of this man until I came across this discussion.  Scr ★ pIron IV 13:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * According to WP:BLPSTYLE, Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. There is information from several of the sources on here to acknowledge the fact that the federal government is not entity concerned about possible monetary misappropriation, which counters any claim of giving space to the views of tiny minorities or WP:UNDUE. Therefore, there is no "disproportionate space" being allocated to a particular viewpoint. Only the secondary sources are doing the talking. Even if there are certain sources whose verifiability are called into question, there are more than enough other secondary sources to pass the threshold set by Wikipedia through WP:WPNOTRS. As WP:BLP, WP:WEIGHT, WP:BIASED, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and WP:NEWSORG have been met, it now appears there is a stronger case of WP:IDL than any credible standard which can be used to merit the exclusion of all the information here. While you may not have heard of the subject, I do not believe that qualifies as an objective metric by which to measure of validity of the information on the page. Silver Buizel (talk) 12:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

So, as I suggested before, rewrite it without the unacceptable and questionable sources, and see what is left. My only point in mentioning that I had not heard of the subject was to indicate that I have no personal feelings on the subject.  Scr ★ pIron IV 13:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request: Third Opinion (3O) is only for disputes where there exactly two editors involved, there are three here, so your request has been removed. Let me also note that Mdann52's opinion, above, is particularly apropos as a third opinion since Mdann52 is a respected member of the dispute resolution community here at Wikipedia. You'd be unlikely to get a 3O from some other Third Opinion Wikipedian which is better than the one which you have already received from him. If you still wish to pursue dispute resolution, however, consider the dispute resolution noticeboard. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC) (3O volunteer)

To add to article
Basic information to add to this article: information about his background/ancestry/heritage. Which Native American tribes does he descend from? Is he Chiricahua Apache? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)