User talk:Drinkability

COI PROMO and SPA
You are WP:SPA who has undertaken long-term POV-specific editing of the article, and the article has a history of this sort of thing, under different handles, going back many years. You should be aware of WP:COI and WP:PROMO. -- Green  C  16:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * In the spirit of the Wikipedia rules, I wish to point out that the August Busch IV page includes numerous errors, half-truths, and damaging information that violates the spirit of Wikipedia's guidelines covering “biographies of living persons.” While I can take that up with the other avenues, I'd at least like you to consider my points about inaccurate and misleading information, including at least one error you've edited into this page.


 * As I stated, this page unfairly relies on information from a book titled Bitter Brew: the Rise and Fall of Anheuser-Busch and America’s Kings of Beer by William Knoedelseder.


 * Knoedelseder is not a fair and impartial author or narrator. Knoedelseder admits in the acknowledgments of his book that he is the brother-in-law of former Anheuser-Busch executive Mike Brooks. Brooks left the company after he was denied a promotion by August Busch IV in 2002. https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2002/09/23/story4.html  Further, Knoedelseder’s book did not adhere to journalistic standards and relied on information from his brother-in-law Brooks and numerous other “unnamed sources” as referenced in the book’s acknowledgments.


 * Books are not journalism and are not fact-checked—and this one certainly wasn’t. https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/09/why-books-still-arent-fact-checked/378789/


 * This book is written in a tabloid style. Further, the book’s sections on Busch IV almost solely rely on anonymous sources—which go against the Wikipedia rules I show below, particularly those that involve tone, balance, and avoiding gossip.


 * In addition: Wikipedia has an entire section on Mr. Busch's “legal trouble” even though he has never been convicted of a crime.  While they could be considered "legal matters," clearly this section is written and designed with malice.  Further, it should be places under Mr. Busch's "personal section" and not it's own section as it doesn't involve his work or career.


 * Wikipedia's guidelines state: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured. A conviction is secured through judicial proceedings; accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction."


 * The August Busch IV page violates the Wikipedia rules on Living Persons in the following categories:


 * Tone: Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking.


 * Balance: Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association.


 * Avoid gossip and feedback loops: 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.


 * Public figures: If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.


 * THERE ARE NOT MULTIPLE SOURCES OF MANY OF THESE ALLEGATIONS


 * The Frederick section completely relies on Knoedelseder who is a biased narrator.


 * Further, the page cites Knoedelseder quoting a police investigator (years after the crash and not in any official police or court records) stating he had never seen samples mishandled. Not true. Publicly available quotes in the Arizona Daily Star (November 18, 1984) state: “Jim Howard and Thomas Zawada, the deputy county attorneys who handled the case, say the loss of samples is ‘not that unusual.’” Howard went on to state: “It happens more than the public would stand for.” Gilbert Contreras, the head of the Tucson General Hospital blood lab, stated “there might have been a problem with communication.” https://www.newspapers.com/clip/50364834/


 * Then, the Wikipedia page gives the impression that Busch committed a crime when it allows a retired police detective, no longer in any official capacity, to opine that “I didn't feel good about [dropping the case]. My gut told me this guy was drunk and killed this girl and I couldn't do my best for her because the [blood and urine] evidence just disappeared.”


 * This violates the prongs on tone, balance, and guilt by association. Guts don’t convict people, facts do. Benson didn’t drop the case, the prosecutor did. The quote, more than two decades after the incident, is used as gossip, loaded language, speculation, and from a third party source who had something to gain from his sensationalism.


 * Gut instinct isn’t a Wikipedia standard. Please note the above standard that states: “Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking.”


 * LACK OF BALANCE/LIVING PERSON


 * The Benson quote only appeared in Knoedelseder’s book—years after he was involved in the case--and is pure speculation. The press release from the Pima County Prosecutor’s Office, which is a source on this page, states Busch wasn’t drinking excessively.  The section is designed to imply Busch was drunk and caused the death of Frederick—while ignoring the danger of the road and other factors. In fact, the page fails to appropriately define the danger of the road, which was commonly known as Dead Man's Curve. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/49536815/ The road was so dangerous that authorities had to reconfigure the roadway several years later. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/50358402/east-river-road-known-as-dead-mans/ This violates the prong on balance, as the page gives more weight to alleged drinking. The accident rate along the road, according to the article, was 43 times higher than the county average.


 * The Wikipedia page, citing Bitter Brew, goes on to state that empty Bud Light cans were found “scattered in and around the car.” What is the source of this? Nowhere in the sensationalist Bitter Brew does it state that Bud Light cans were inside the car.  It does state that Bud Light cans were on the side of the roadway—which is certainly possible along any roadway in America. According to prosecutors, fingerprint analysis of the cans along the roadway found that Busch had no connection to them. Why is this included? It’s included to paint Busch in a false light, which goes against the Wikipedia guidelines on tone and balance, which states editors should avoid “guilt by association.” In this case, the page has falsely stated Busch was driving around with empty Bud Light cans. The specification of Bud Light is meant to convict Busch by association since his family produced Bud Light—one of the most popular beers in America. Were other beer brands found along the roadway as well? The Wikipedia article doesn’t say.  This again violates the tone and balance prong. In fact, it’s mere gossip meant to harm a public figure. The false information was edited into the page on June 3, 2013 (citing Knoedelseder’s book as the source) by user, presumably you, who has virtually controlled the Busch IV page for a decade.


 * Wikipedia has done great harm to Busch. The beer can error was subsequently mentioned by other media outlets, including Forbes Magazine, without any attribution to the source. Wikipedia is the first place the false information has appeared.


 * Beyond that, as shown above, the Michele Frederick section is not well-documented, doesn’t avoid gossip, and is designed to defame Busch.


 * Because of this, I ask that you ban Bitter Brew and Knoedelseder as a source for this page, remove all false information, and adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. Or, at the very least carefully consider the undue weight you are giving to the book and edit the section appropriately. Drinkability (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, message received, give me some time to go over your research, and I'll see about making some adjustments. I started with the scattered cans which is an easy one the others will take more time. You are doing the right thing by posting here (or the article talk page) instead of editing the article directly. -- Green  C  20:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your attention. I respect the process and have no problem with an independent editor reviewing this. I have not attempted nor would attempt to add something misleading or false.


 * I saw your edit. It seems to imply Busch's wallet was found with beer cans. His wallet was inside of the car. There were beer cans alongside of the road, but none linked to him. Stating his wallet was with them makes it look like there was a connection. Drinkability (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I inquired about this last week. This page continues to have half-truths and inaccuracies. I have documented the problems. Should I seek editor assistance elsewhere?
 * I am still collecting sources as you can see on the talk page there has been almost daily update/work on this, thank you for your patience while I await approval from the Wikipedia library for additional commercial database accesses. I am quite certain we will be bringing in the wider Wikipedia community to look at these sources at some point, but before we get there I would like an opportunity to rearrange some things based on what the sources say. --  Green  C  17:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

At this point I have collected sources at Talk:August_Busch_IV, changed some of the things you requested re: beer can, and as for the Michele Frederick section removed anything that is original to Knoedelseder's investigative reporting, such as witness quotes and Knoedelseder's own opinions. It is still cited for the factual aspects which could be replaced with many of the sources at Talk:August_Busch_IV. Either way I disagree Bitter Brew is unreliable, we would have to open a case at WP:RSN if that becomes an issue. Is there any thing else you are concerned about? I don't know what else to call the section 'Legal troubles' it mirrors some other sources that use the same language and mirrors what we do in other articles, it does not imply legal conviction, if you have more neutral wording, perhaps 'Troubled past'. The other (and ultimately best) option is to integrate most of the article into a chronological history without separate thematic sections, but these incidents are notable and carry weight as seen by the amount of sourcing at Talk:August_Busch_IV so they can't be parred down too much, it is part of his history. For a long time the article has only had two editors interested in it, yourself and myself. We can change that at anytime you like, I don't want you to believe I am 'controlling' the page, I would be happy to see other editors involved. As for the factual error about the beer can, that was fixed within hours of being notified and was an honest mistake of fact/memory (I had listened to the audiobook and was writing from memory, I now have an ebook version) it was not designed to defame. I still think Knoedelseder is the most in-depth source on Michele Frederick, he did original research interviewing witnesses and is a professionally experienced investigative reporter. I can't imagine he would undermine his credibility and professional standards for a personal vendetta on behalf of his sister's husband, and it is supposition that itself borders on a BLP violation. None of the independent book reviews say it is unreliable or tabloid just the opposite. -- Green  C  14:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)