Talk:Josh Wolf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents 1 article perpetuates misconceptions 2 article is seriously incomplete and can give incorrect impression 3 What does this guy do? 4 Central Legal Issues 5 Life 6 This page should be merged with page Joshua Wolf and use that page's name 7 Unilateral move 8 We can move article to Josh Wolf if we can get unneeded disambiguation page deleted 9 Josh Wolf, journalist

[edit] article perpetuates misconceptions

The entry describes Wolf as a "journalist", when his claim on that professional title is tenuous at best. Wolf is primarily an activist, not a journalist. He has no professional credentials as a journalist (his college degree is in psychology), and his journalistic experience -- such as it is -- is mostly limited to school papers, a 6-month unpaid internship with an independent weekly, and contributions to the "Haight-Ashbury Beat", a sporadically-printed neighborhood rag. Otherwise, he's really just an activist vlogger, and one with outspoken anarchist ideology, at that. Vloggers are not necessarily journalists.

It appears that the attention and support that Wolf has received thus far in the media far exceeds his merits as a journalist, much less any validity of his defense, and is primarily an expression of the contempt that many in the media and politicians on the Left have for the Bush Administration (a contempt that I happen to share) and due to their umbrage at any perceived threats to the freedom of the press. The media has made Wolf its cause celebre for its own reasons, not because of the merits of his case. I would like to see the entry reflect this view, rather than merely perpetuating the misconception that Wolf is a journalist.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bricology (talk • contribs) 02:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Amateur internet bloggers can have journalist status too, when it comes to the protection of sources; Apple v Does showed that, so your opinion seems to be a wrong 'un. Primarily, however, *your* view doesn't matter when it comes to Wikipedia, unless you show it's the opinion of some Wikipedia-citable source. --82.45.163.18 11:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Bricology, yeah.. that's the same insult the govt. gave Josh as well... but the Society of Professional Journalists awarded Josh with a Journalist of the Year award "for upholding the principles of a free and independent press." Also, I think it was the New York Times that referred to him as a journalist as well. Unless you have superior credentials to The Society of Professional Journalists... Wikipedia should go with them on this and not you... and certainly not the govt... I mean, if the govt. now determines who are journalists or not... maybe we should just give up on this whole "America" thing and go with straight up communism? Welp, that's not going to happen... not over my dead body anyway. Whether you like what he's investigating or not... he's still a journalist according to the experts on the subject. Cowicide 01:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The SF Chronicle also refers to him as a Journalist. Claims that he isn't are plain wrong. --Falcorian ^(talk) 03:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Rather than debating it here on the talk page, we ought to ackowledge within the article that this case raises questions about how we define "journalist." Regardless of how any of us feel personally, it is a subject that is being debated and has ramifications well beyond Mr. Wolf. Anson2995 16:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

PBS Frontline spoke to him and asked the question if a blogger is a journalist here http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/interviews/wolf.html On a separate page they themselves called him “a freelance journalist and video blogger.” at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/part1/cases.html This is another example of respected journalists calling him a journalist, these people are experts at journalism and their definition of “journalist” is an expert opinion. If one wants to say that he is not a journalist they should provide references from different experts arguing that he is not or be in violation of Wikipedia:No original research.

--Wowaconia 01:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on, that's ridiculous. I'm trying to assume good faith here, but it's getting more dificult. You folks are arguing that the issue of whether Wolf is a journalist isn't in dispute. But it's *the central issue* of his case. Arguing over which "expert opinions" carry weight is pedantic, and its a disservice to both this article and the wikipedia process to present a one-sided view of the subject. It's veering towards blatant advocacy.

For what it's worth, I personally believe that Wolf is a journalist, but it doeesn't matter what I think or what the folks at PBS think, and it doesn't matter how "experts at journalism" define it. What matters for Josh is the legal definition. In the 9th Circuit's ruling, they spell this out pretty clearly: "The California Shield Law protects a 'publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, or by a press association or wire service.' ... Wolf produced no evidence this videotape was made while he was so connected or employed." (You can read the court's ruling in full if you scroll down from this column [1] at the Huffington Post).

So in repsonse to Wowaconia, Cowicide, and others, I submit that the Court's ruling meets your request to provide a reputable source on the subject. Let's add a paragraph to the article which explains that a) there is controversy over whether or not Wolf (and people like him) are covered by laws protecting reporters and b) that many journalists have come out in support of him. But let's not simply pretend that the issue is indisputable. Even if you're the strongest supporter of Wolf, I can't believe you'd favor an article that omit discussion of the central issues of his case. Anson2995 16:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course the government questioning his credentials should be included, which is far different than the original research of a Wikipedia editor (see above) saying “Wolf is primarily an activist, not a journalist.” I’m not arguing that the governments comments do not merit inclusion, I’m saying editors’ claims are original research. This is not a question “how we define ‘journalist’”, this is a question of whether journalism’s definition of “journalist” (which is also California’s definition) or the Federal government’s definition will prevail.

--Wowaconia 18:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I’ll maybe find a better place to stick this comment later, but, yeah, I’m pretty sure having “journalist” in the name of the article violates NPOV. —Wiki Wikardo 22:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Suggest we change it to "blogger." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anson2995 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Done. RigelOrionis 22:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That's funny, did the Society of Professional Journalists award Josh with a Blogger of the Year award? Nah, it was Journalist... YES, Journalist of the Year. So, are you guys just going to continue to make this up as you go along or can you put aside your biased hatred and tell the truth here? You know... be honest? Cowicide 10:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] article is seriously incomplete and can give incorrect impression

The essence of the controversy as I see it is the tension between state and federal law which is not even mentioned in the article. Wolf shot this video, got hauled into California state court, refused to hand over the tapes based on California's reporter shield law which the state legislature passed to let journalists protect confidential sources. He won in court and was not required to turn over the tapes. However, one of the crimes the prosecutors wanted to investigate was that a police car had been burned. The police department that bought the car had received some federal funds so the car was partly paid for with federal money. That let the prosecutors claim federal jurisdiction, so Wolf was then hauled into federal court where the shield law doesn't apply. He still wouldn't turn over the tapes so now he is in jail.

So there is this issue, the federal govt is sprinkling money everywhere, and then using its financial involvement to override the wishes of the state's residents about how the laws in their state should work. (It's not like the fed govt is really providing money to the state from outside, either--the money comes from taxes collected from those same state residents). There's lots of people protesting this federal intrusion based on what could in principle be an almost insignificant federal financial contribution. States might do better to refuse federal money, if they value their legislatures' ability to write laws that actually mean something.

Anyway, that's the essence of it as I've heard it, but I'm not that conversant with it and actually came to this article hoping to learn more here. Can someone following the case address the above issues in the article? Thanks. 67.117.130.181 21:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

67.117.130.18, that's a very good point. The bigger issue does seem to be the fact that the Federal government now thinks it can circumvent a State's law by merely pointing to the fact they gave said State some money. At this point, maybe we should just go ahead and wipe out all State law in every State and have Federal law be the only law of the land in America? At least in that case, American citizens will no longer live in a state of illusion where regard for State law matters anymore since the Feds can simply preemptively trump State law with money.

I'm sure the current administration is getting somewhat tired of all this preemption by now, though... so why not just also fund States after the fact too and then trump State law in that case as well? It's not like the pacified sheep will do anything about it, right? Well, maybe some "journalists" will come out of the woodwork and address it. I'm not sure it belongs in this article, it perhaps deserves its own article with links to and from here and everywhere else the Federal govt./Bush admin is declaring itself the only "decider" and ultimate ruler of the land. Cowicide 02:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "circumvention" of state law. States and state agencies (like police departments) are free to turn down federal funding if they so choose. If they choose not to do that, they exchange certain things (sovereign immunity in some cases, for example) for the money. They also allow the feds a foot in the door to constitutionally enforce their federal criminal laws through Congress's spending power. It's not some big conspiracy... if a state doesn't like it, they can turn down the money.

I also realize that you might think every "bad" thing the federal government does is Bush's fault, but this is neither a "bad" thing (the framers actually contemplated federal criminal law) nor something even remotely new. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.130.22.211 (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Nice try... but it still comes down to the fact that the federal govt. circumvented state law with a lame loophole. It's slimey and the framers would be disgusted no matter how much you or anyone else tries to polish this turd. Cowicide 10:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What does this guy do?

I've been hearing about this guy, being a journalist, blah blah blah, and I come to his wiki and see nothing of his work.

If his only journalistic quality is that he runs around with a camera and films stuff, then a whole lot of teenagers can be considered journalists... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.114.232.98 (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

What does he do? Apparently, journalism. As I've mentioned above to Bricology, the Society of Professional Journalists awarded Josh with a Journalist of the Year award "for upholding the principles of a free and independent press." Also, I think it was the New York Times that referred to him as a journalist as well. Unless you or Bric have superior credentials to The Society of Professional Journalists... Wikipedia should go with them on this and not your baseless opinion that his "only journalistic quality" is that he "runs around with a camera", etc. BTW, I hope to God we do end up with a bunch of teenagers acting as journalists... America desperately needs them. Cowicide 02:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Being a loony leftist the likes only Lenin could embrace is not an excuse to defame the word Journalism because some fancies himself the next Cronkite. The SPJ ought to have whatever credentials it has revoked for being so stupidly blind and supportive of someone who isn't even upholding their own ethical systems. Obviously journalism is a tough word to define, but to loosely quote someone who said something long ago, "You can't define the difference, but you know when you see it." RigelOrionis 20:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

So, he hasn't done anything, but because he films a riot and doesn't turn over footage, and that makes him a journalist? Since when do journalists not publish their works? The whole point of being a journalist is to publish the truth, not hide the identities of jackasses burning cars. I think this guy was just a martyr for the SoP. Worthless, this guy is not a journalist, just a jagoff with a camera. But whatever, let the lunatics have their day. TotalTommyTerror 14:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Anything posted on the web is considered published. That is why Wikipedia is so quick to remove unsourced statements in biographies of living persons to avoid being sued for libel. The fact that wikipedia is only a website will not sheild it from being sued under the same grounds a paper based media company would. So by placing his work on the web he has published it. There is a difference between a journalist with a short career and a lifelong journalist, if you rat out your sources your done. Whether you hold that his refusal is ignoble or not it is the same situation as the Judith Miller case where she went to jail to protect Scooter Libby. She didn't break that commitment, Libby told the world it was him. So it is common practice for journalist to go to jail rather than reveal sources they promised they would not expose. Wolf made an agreement with those he filmed to not expose their identities or they wouldn't have cooperated with his filming them, he wants to honor that agreement.

--Wowaconia 01:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Except that he's not upholding journalistic integrity, he's actually censoring the press by refusing to turn over footage. He's protecting the identities of criminals he filmed committing a crime. He doesn't even have to name them, the article says he's subpoenaed for just the video. I don't believe this guy is upholding any journalistic credo. If they were asking for the names of the people themselves from him, yes, but the all the courts want is his video. TotalTommyTerror 15:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Except that he has no footage of the squad car being burned, see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/interviews/wolf.html

Frontline:You were out there on the street; you were covering this event. The U.S. attorney says that the crowd tried to set fire to a police car and did damage it. Is that what you saw?

Wolf:... Basically what I saw was a cop choking a guy. I heard some comments about cars being on fire. At that particular point in time, this gentleman being choked was of much more importance, and I didn't even look up. By the time I walked past there, I saw some minor smoldering of a sign, and nothing to indicate that a cop car had ever been on fire or was ever beginning to burn at all.

Frontline:And is that what you caught on videotape?

Wolf:What I caught on videotape was the guy choking the person. Once that situation had been resolved, I had turned off the camera. You don't want to be filming ... walking down the side of the street. We've all filmed our shoes, and it's not really exciting footage. When I came over [to the police car], there was nothing really to film, and I continued on my way from there, so I don't really even have anything related to this incident. ...

So why are the fed's demanding the tape if it holds nothing? RigelOrionis 20:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This is also reported here http://www.nypress.com/20/8/news&columns/feature2.cfm

"The grand jury is investigating whether arson was attempted on a San Francisco police car, though the squad car was not damaged beyond a broken taillight. A police officer was injured after the squad car he was in was driven into the protest march (that case was investigated then dropped by the local district attorney); however, Wolf insists he was not videotaping either incident."

So what do they want to see if he has no footage of the crime? If there is a presumption of innocence why would you want to look at a video that does not have any footage of the event your investigating? Wowaconia 18:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Nobody knows what he does or doesn't have on film because he refuses to show his tape to law enforcement. Your comment is akin to saying "Why arrest that guy? He said he didn't do it!" -- of course that's what he said. I doubt his claims that there was no criminal activity caught on his tape, though, because he could easily ask that the judge to review the tape in camera and then rule on whether or not he has to give it up. If there was actually no evidence the subpeona wouldn't stick. 74.130.22.211 23:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read about what's happening before you post. Josh has not been arrested for anything he did in filming the protest, he is being held in contempt of a grand jury. This is a Federal grand jury established after the state of California found for Josh Wolf. This is the national government saying that it doesn't matter what local control decides, people in Washington DC are smarter and better than everyone else. This is an issue of Federalism. Why bother to have 50 states if anything locals decide is just a joke before the national government? Why do you dismiss the findings of California? It was they who were the majority taxpayers for the squad car and had the most at stake.--Wowaconia 19:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No, 74.130.22.211 - you have it wrong. He has offered to show his tape to the presiding judge to confirm he does not have footage of a car burning or the officer being hit. The prosecutor has refused to go along with Wolf showing the tape to the judge, preferring to lock him up for contempt. Wowaconia is right - this should have been adjudicated under California law, and if it had, the California shield law would have protected him. Switching it to a Federal venue is a manipulation that should be condemned. And meanwhile Wolf sits in jail - longer than any other journalist in US history, having committed no crime. He's 24, just out of college, and they've stolen months of his life from him because he refused to compromise his journalistic ethics. This is a very serious issue, government intimidation of the press - whether the press is traditional newspaper, tv, radio, or new media blogging, podcasting, video or otherwise. Tvoz | talk 07:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Tvoz, little pesky things like "facts" aren't going to change these guy's "minds". Discussing this any further with these guys is a trivial pursuit. Cowicide 10:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Central Legal Issues

Based on discussions above, I have added a section on the central legal issues of the case. I've tried to briefly outline what appear to be the issues in dispute, without delving into a debate on the merits of either side's arguments. I considered adding citations to other legal rulings in support of each side, but I wanted to err on the side of caution and avoid sliding into any advocacy. We can direct people to external links for that sort of detail. I think as it reads now, the section is succinct and impartial, and does a good job of informing people who don't know about the case of the pertinent issues. Of course, I welcome feedback from others. Anson2995 17:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Life

We need some information on this persons life, education, intended career goals, and details about their stint in prison. We can debate the meaning of journalist, or worry about the legitimacy of the fed's involvement all we want, however, this does not mean the more salient details of this person's life ought to be thrown to the wayside because of a difference in ideologies. RigelOrionis 22:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added some. Tvoz | talk 07:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This page should be merged with page Joshua Wolf and use that page's name

As the title for this article was changed from Josh Wolf (journalist) to Josh Wolf (blogger) under the reasoning "Calling him a journalist violates NPOV in that it presupposes that his detractors are wro[ng]." And as I feel that not calling him a journalist is POV that presupposes that his detractors are right.

I sought to drop any reference to job titles and rename the article Joshua Wolf as per the name he put on his court documents which can be found at

http://www.joshwolf.net/grandjury/wolfdecMDNfinal.pdf

As there is only a soccer player named Josh Wolff with two f's in Wikipedia and there is a disambiguation page already for the name Josh Wolf this appeared to make sense. But the page can not be moved there directly as there already is a page about this same individual there, so I am calling for these two pages to be merged with the name of the article being Joshua Wolf to avoid POV charges.

--Wowaconia 17:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Great idea. Anson2995 17:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason to merge it with another article. He IS a blogger, that isn't in question, and one of the characteristics that makes him worthy of a wiki article is the fact that he is a jailed blogger. RigelOrionis 19:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

He calls himself a blogger AND a freelance journalist. He is also called a freelance journalist by multiple sources, if you do not contest renaming the article to Josh Wolf (blogger and freelance journalist) then we can do so. It seems that this would be unacceptable to many because they contest the title journalist in any form, therefore dropping all titles removes the small conflict.--Wowaconia 19:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

And Newton was a physicist, natural philosopher, astronomer, mathematician, and a myriad of other things, but we don't see his article titled: Sir Isaac Newton (Occupation_1, Occupation_2, Occupation_3... ad infinitum). His stance as a journalist is contested, especially by the courts of the united states, however his position as a blogger is not. Anyone who disagrees with his stance as one of those deserves to have their connection terminated. Therefore, Josh Wolf (blogger) is more than perfectly acceptable for the title of this article. RigelOrionis 19:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No one is contesting that his name is Joshua Wolf, please explain your problem with just using his name. Both these articles already exist so a merge has to be done anyway.--Wowaconia 05:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

We know him as Josh Wolf, regardless of his actual name. Just as we know certain people in history by short-hand versions of their name instead of the legal titles that may span entire paragraphs. Their actual name can be expounded upon in the article; how they are known to society, by history, and by the media is how we title the articles. We call him Josh Wolf (Blogger) to distinguish him from the multitude of other Josh Wolfs in the world, and other possible Josh Wolfs that might find themselves in wikipedia later, though why you needed this explained to you given your tenure here is beyond me and more evidence of someone with an agenda that doesn't coincide with the purpose of Wikipedia. The other article can be deleted; and a redirect put in its place here. Your reasoning is flawed, and your annoying use of the merge tag unwarranted, so end it. RigelOrionis 05:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Look dude, you can disagree that this article should be placed under the name Joshua Wolf, but the merge tag's placement is entirely warranted as per Wikipedia standards Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages, the first two lines on the page are

"There are several good reasons to merge a page:

• There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject."

Please see below on idea of clearing the Josh Wolf disambiguation page so we can move this article under that name.

--Wowaconia 06:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to merge the two articles together as if they were inherently equal. Merge Joshua Wolf INTO this article if that must be done, otherwise Joshua Wolf ought to be deleted for being a needless duplicate. RigelOrionis 06:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Look it is only fair to give the people who made the Joshua Wolf article some time to react to the call to merge. I'm no longer calling for this article to go under that name, as I think it will soon be moved to Josh Wolf which is currently just a redirect page to Josh Wolf (disambiguation) (see thread below). So I don't know why you keep deleting the merge tag. Wikipedia's own standards demand that the tag is placed. See WP:Merge that says "If you are uncertain of the merger's appropriateness, you should propose it on the affected pages." You'll note it uses the plural pages. So the presence of a tag here does not dictate that this page will be forced to be placed under that title. Its just saying that this is one of two articles on the exact same subject.

--Wowaconia 07:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the merge tag once. "Keep deleting..." implies you, or someone else, ha sput up a merge tag so many times that's the only one they will ever remember due to my intense, heat seeking deletion abilities. And how would you have them react? How can they react? This page is by far more comprehensive than Joshua, so the only logical conclusion is that that page is merged with this one. RigelOrionis 07:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that was me the last time - sorry if I jumped the gun, but I am responding to 2 things: 1) the piece should be Josh Wolf not Joshua Wolf for the reasons already given and 2) this article was far more comprehensive -the other was a very short stub - and I have already incorporated the small amount of information from that page into this page and redirected here. I would agree that if we can use Josh Wolf without any qualifying words that's the cleanest way to proceed. But first we needed to have just one article to deal with. What we name it is a separate matter - there was no reason to keep two articles, given the disparity in content. There really wasn;'t anything to think about. No agenda, no offense intended. Just simple logic that one is all we need. Again, we can still talk about what to name it. Tvoz | talk 07:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unilateral move

As the move of this article from "journalist" to "blogger" is contested, I suggest that its proponents take it to requested moves. I note that the issue of whether or not Mr. Wolf is a journalist has not been particularly debated by the courts - indeed, it is the position of the government that whether he's a journalist or not, journalists have no right to ignore subpoenas. Furthermore, I find it ridiculous to argue that Mr. Wolf is not a journalist - there is no licensing authority or education requirement for being one. He's been the recipient of multiple journalism awards, and is the poster child for a movement toward a national journalistic shield law. If anyone wishes to challenge this, WP:RM is thataway. FCYTravis 06:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

... No. The move is contested on grounds that are at best tenuous. Josh Wolf is a blogger, Josh Wolf MIGHT be a journalist. Because the latter is hotly contested by the public, and the courts, it is not appropriate to use that title. Blogger, however, does not fall under the purview of this conflict because that is what he is. Need proof? Someone with a blog is a blogger, Josh Wolf has a blog. Josh Wolf describes himself as a blogger. Therefore Josh Wolf is a blogger, and an admin for the wikipedia community can stop making a fool out of himself by acknowledging a conflict that is based on nothing because his own interested conflict with the truth. RigelOrionis 06:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As I pointed out in the move message, by calling the article's subject "a loony leftist the likes only Lenin could embrace" you have not only made a BLP-violating personal attack, you've shown yourself to be non-neutral in this matter. You can make all the personal jabs you like - it doesn't make a difference. The move is contested. Take it to RM. FCYTravis 06:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

When being an admin entitles you to the right to A) decide where an article goes, or B) where I can talk, then your orders might have some sort of weight behind them. Sadly, neither A) nor B) are true, so I think I will use my right to voice my concern / displeasure with your actions right here. Based on your own personal page, and what you've said previously, your bias in this case is more than noted, and your ability to refute my arguments is also non-existent. The move was illegitimate, and should be undone ASAP. RigelOrionis 06:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You made the move, from "journalist" to "blogger." That move has been contested, and reverted. I don't decide where an article goes - that's for a consensus of Wikipedians to determine based on our policies and guidelines. Like I said, follow our procedures and place a notice on requested moves. That's your next step, it's right in front of you to take. FCYTravis 06:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll move onto the MP arena soon enough. That doesn't stop me from voicing my disapproval of someone who has warped the word contested in such a way that we need a consensus of wikipedians to decide if a blogger is a blogger. If not because I believe it is against the rules to reverse what you have done at this stage I would have already because it has wasted time and effort on my part in trying to prove that a self-described blogger, is indeed a blogger. Good job on picking your battles, friend. RigelOrionis 07:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

He's popularly accepted by the experts in his field and the majority of his peers as a journalist. It doesn't matter that you disapprove. I'm sure we can find a few nutcases out there who disapprove that Walter Cronkite was a journalist or believe he was sent here from Mars.... but Wikipedia isn't the place for their soapbox rantings. The End. Cowicide 10:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We can move article to Josh Wolf if we can get unneeded disambiguation page deleted

On the Biography of Living Persons Noticeboard I asked for an Admin to delete the disambiguation page entitled Josh Wolf. As there is only two active links there, one for the subject of this article and one for a Josh Wolff (with two fs). If they clear that disambiguation page we could move this article under that name and we could put "For the soccer player see Josh Wolff" on the top of the page. This would eliminate any need for a stand alone disambiguation page and with the name Josh Wolf on the top of this article we would not have to worry about POV in the title.

--Wowaconia 06:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Your agenda becomes all the more clear each time you try something. Someone looking for Josh Wolff may easily get the two confused when typing in the name, so for that reason a disambiguation page must exist. The comic is one that does probably warrant deletion if something is not soon done to it, but irregardless does not make the need for a disambiguation page go away. And in any case, you still have yet to explain why trying to go through all of this effort for a page merge/move is desirable, or why we can't simply merge Joshua Wolf into this one due to its being more comprehensive and correct. RigelOrionis 06:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand that some people didn't want to use the full name Joshua Wolf, as the media called him Josh Wolf. That seemed a reasonable objection - so I suggested the above. There is no article on the comic that's why the link is red. Anyone looking for soccer player Josh Wolff would see the line on top of the article that said "For the soccer player see Josh Wolff", this type of line is common on many articles where there are only two notable people with similar names. Please explain why you have a problem with moving this article so it will have the title Josh Wolf.

-Wowaconia 06:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarily have a problem with there existing only a single page titled Josh Wolf, instead of having a disambiguation page. I have a problem with your meddlesome attitude since we changed the title from Journalist to Blogger. There is also the question of need: should we both removing disambiguation pages and adding lines of code to other pages just because you're not satisfied with the (blogger) bit beside his name? RigelOrionis 07:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Following established protocal I moved the page with the links to this subject and the soccer player and the dead link to the comic to a page called Josh Wolf (disambiguation) this opens up the page entitled Josh Wolf so now we just have to wait for an Admin to clear that page so we can move this article there. I have put For other uses, see: Josh Wolf (disambiguation) on the top of this article so the objection that readers will have trouble finding the Josh they are looking for has been resolved as the use of such links at the top of an article is standard Wikipedia practice.

Wowaconia 07:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"Meddlesome attitude"? I thought only Scooby Doo villians said things like that. This whole time I've been trying to avoid getting into an edit war with you User:RigelOrionis. I could've have just as easily reverted your edits, but I thought that would not get us anywhere. I understand some people dispute him being a journalist and have been looking for the most neutral title I could think of and have been working towards that the whole time.

--Wowaconia 07:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether Scooby Do Villians or Jesus Christ himself said it in one of his various parables, does not change the fact that it describes your actions perfectly. The article had a neutral title before you went about requesting page mergers and deletions of disambiguation pages, citing a controversy that only exists in your mind. Unless Josh Wolf, a self proclaimed blogger, being a blogger, is indeed controversial. RigelOrionis 08:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and that neutral title was "Josh Wolf (journalist)" where the page was originally created last year. Mr. Wolf is not notable for being a blogger, he is notable for being a journalist embroiled in a controversy that centers around the rights and responsibilities of journalists, and their ability (or lack thereof) to refuse to answer subpoenas before a United States court. FCYTravis 08:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The title was not neutral because that title was disputed. Good job there.

Also, Rigel, I suggest you tone down your rhetoric. Waltzing into Wikipedia and tossing attacks at users ("meddlesome attitude," et al.) is hardly going to convince anyone to support you. One could further suggest that it is you who have a "meddlesome attitude" - the page's title was Josh Wolf (journalist) for months, until you decided to "meddle" with it. Pot, meet kettle. FCYTravis 08:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Waltzing into the middle of a discussion and reverting a move because of your own personal bias is both not the proper way to act, and not the proper way for an administrator of any organization to act, unless you're trying to convey to us that Wikipedia's criteria for adminship calls for just such a thing. And I would look upon anyone calling me meddlesome in the same light as I look upon those who require proof that a self-proclaimed blogger is a blogger. I just hope you have a pair of sunglasses while you try to justify a mistake being correct because it has been left standing for so long. RigelOrionis 08:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes User:RigelOrionis, Josh defines himself as a blogger, he also defines himself as a journalist (a statement that nearly every media organization on the planet and the state of California agrees with), but you seem to have a problem with that. Therefor instead of me putting that job title in this article's title, I thought we could just drop any mention of his profession in this article's title altogether.

And I can define myself as a Viking Warlord because I have a battle-axe in my room: that doesn't make myself a Viking Warlord. The fact we can justify the blogger term is not just because he is a self-described blogger, but because he is one. That is not contested, that cannot be contested. Also appeal to popularity; everyone in the world can call green blue but that doesn't make it so. RigelOrionis 08:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

He is not a "self-described" journalist, he is a freelance journalist as described by other reliable sources. That can't be contested either. We rely on what reliable sources say about people to describe them. At any event, I'm not sure why you haven't opened the requested move debate yet, because we're just spinning our wheels here. FCYTravis 08:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The history line on your edit said calling him a journalist was in effect siding against his detractors - is it so hard for you to see that someone might hold that not calling him a journalist is to side against his supporters?

--Wowaconia 08:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is hard to see because that is not the case. Not calling him a journalist is NOT siding with his supporters when that title is contested. Calling him a political activist would be siding with the dissidents, but calling him a blogger, which is what he is adds this little thing known as neutrality to the article because it describes him and his profession adequately without using a contested title. Under your logic we must call him a journalist without regard for those who disagree with such, because calling him anything else sides against his supports. If that's the case we ought not to just delete the article because under your logic we can't call him anything and hope to be neutral. RigelOrionis 08:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Under my logic we don't put a job title in this article's title, but we do provide quotes and summaries in the body of the article from notable people with opinions on either side of the debate taken from reliable sources, and all us editors try to avoid temptations of POV and edit warring. Why is just using the title Josh Wolf unacceptable?

--Wowaconia 08:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No, your logic specifically calls for the deletion of the article because qualifying his existence with any title at all violates NPOV. And as I said just calling it Josh Wolf is not unacceptable, just not needed. RigelOrionis 09:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

There. This silly war is over. Google says he's by far the most common Josh Wolf, so this takes care of that. FCYTravis 08:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not. Keep your petty declarations to yourself where one may heed it. As said already appeals to popularity do not justify something. Unless of course you agree that Jesus Christ was a Nazi if I can get every right-wing nut job in existence to refer to him as such in their publications and web dealings, which your logic calls for. RigelOrionis 09:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Josh Wolf, journalist

Who says Josh Wolf is a journalist?

First of all, he does. That's uncontested, so I can dispense with a link.

The Society of Professional Journalists, one of the nation's most respected journalism organizations, does. Its Northern California chapter, in fact, honored him as one of their Journalists of the Year.

The San Francisco Chronicle does, in their news stories and editorials.

KPIX-TV Channel 5 does.

The executive editor of CNET does.

So does the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin.

The International Press Institute does.

Oh, here's Edward Wasserman, the Knight professor of journalism ethics at Washington and Lee University. He does too.

Want more? I can find 'em. FCYTravis 08:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Appeal to popularity. Denied. RigelOrionis 08:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that's a big negatory, good buddy. That's called noting what reliable sources call him. FCYTravis 08:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's called a logical fallacy; using popular appeal as justification. The Government certainly doesn't call him a journalist, and I think they have more credibility in this manner (what with the court voting against Wolf on each issue) than any exhaustive list of 'sources' you could come up with. Though again, such is fallacy. RigelOrionis 09:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Good grief, you can't be serious. Since when does the government have more knowledge of who is a journalist, a doctor, a filmmaker, a fill in the blank, than a professional association in a field? What are they teaching in high school these days? Tvoz | talk 23:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Rigel... just drop it... you are NEVER going to win here... Once again, Josh is popularly accepted by the experts in his field and the majority of his peers as a journalist. It doesn't matter that you disapprove. I'm sure we can find a few nutcases out there who disapprove that Walter Cronkite was a journalist or believe he was sent here from Mars.... but Wikipedia isn't the place for their soapbox rantings. Keep this up and you're only going to accomplish becoming a Wikipedia troll and nothing more. The End. Cowicide 10:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)