Talk:Jane Hamsher

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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Contents 1 Comments section 1.1 RfC response 2 FDL and photoshop incident 3 Dead link and POV problems 4 Cleaning up the article 5 Reverting vandalism 6 Edit by AZJustice 7 Recent edits retreading old ground 8 Subject's Friend Kynn

[edit] Comments section

I have placed a request for comment so that other editors may weigh in on whether the section belongs. I have reverted it because it takes a point of view about the FDL comments section vis-a-vis comments sections at other blogs, but cites no outside sources for its assertions. I don't find it remarkable or encyclopedic that a blog moderates comments, and assertions about the rightness or wrongness need to be cited to a reliable source, such as one of the newspaper profiles about Hamsher. --Dhartung | Talk 01:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Copied from dialog at Dhartung's Talk page

Dhartung,

Your removal of the recently contributed text titled "Firedoglake Comments Section" under the entry on Jane Hamsher is out of line. Your comments justifying that reversal violate all three of Wikipedia's content-governing policies [No Original Research, Neutral Point-of-View, Verifiable]. These policies are 'non-negotiable' and your violation of them as an editor is a serious offense to contributors at Wikipedia. While I commend the accuracy of your comments on the previous submission regarding Original Research, you have no right to suddenly switch arguments to suit your opinion that the corrected post is unworthy of a sectional entry in Wikipedia.

Your comments accompanying the deletion were: Dhartung (Talk | contribs) (rv: seriously, 90% of blogs moderate comments, so what? this reads like an axe-grind)

"Seriously, 90% of blogs moderate comments" Where do you get your facts? Is this your opinion or do you have a reference? Your reversal on this comment alone is a violation of the 'No original Research' and 'Non-verifiable' Policies. In addition your opinion is directly contradicted by Wikipedia itself...

Check out the Blogs entry on Wikipedia. It clearly states that comments are used in blogs and that they "are a way to provide discussion on blog entries. Readers can leave a comment on a post, which can correct errors or contain their opinion on the post or the post's subject." Where does it state that blog readers can 'attempt' to leave a comment but that 90% of blogs moderate them?

Further, follow the link to another entry on Wikipedia entitled Feedback comment system. This entry states that Feedback comment systems "are usually placed on blogs". It also states that "Collecting comments from visitors is very important, especially if your website is for commercial purposes. It can help you understand what your visitors are looking for and what your visitors do not want." If a commercial site implies it has a commonly accepted 'Feedback comment system', but does not, then that is an interesting piece of factual information about the site. It could be that it uses the system to create fictional dialogs, market a story, or any number of purposes. The post you deleted does not accuse this site of any of these things. It simply states that the site does not allow comments under the generally accepted definition of a "Feedback comment system" that is used on many "Blogs". It is up to the reader to draw any conclusions or conduct further research, and it does not by inference imply any particular scenario.

"so what?" Do I really need to address the inappropriateness of your comment in regards to an entry in a FREAKIN Encyclopedia??? It is especially troubling to hear this point of view emanating from an Editor of encyclopedia that is an online collaborative effort. Besides the fact that you justify your cavalier 'so what' attitude with only NON-Verified speculation, the larger point is that you seem to have some attachment to this particular page. Which brings me to my final point

"this reads like an axe-grind" How so Dhartung? You seem to be trying to read between the lines here. The entry contains no Point-of-View, it is completely neutral. It is fact based and would be relevant to someone looking for more information on the Firedoglake blog, especially someone having trouble submitting comments. In the future it can be easily abridged with the addition of a documented policy on commenting by the site. Do your frequent additions and contributions to this page cloud your judgment? Based on your complete deletion of the text (with no effort to edit), your varying and contradictory arguments to suppress the contributed content, and your substitution of speculation for fact, I believe it might be you who has the axe to grind. I suggest you re-read the Wikipedia policy defining a Neutral Point-of-View. It applies to deletions and edits as well as contributions. You should know better.

I will resubmit as is. (oops, looks like someone else already has) I am open to your improvements as long as the facts remain articulated, and the content remains in keeping with Wikipedia's three fundamental policies - Original Research, Neutral Point-of-View, Verifiable.

Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.174.121.17 (talk • contribs).

I am confident that I have removed the section per Wikipedia policy. I have argued that the content is a) unencyclopedic (not notable), b) unverifiable (no citations to third parties), and solely constitutes your personal observations. If they were neutral and to the point, they could stay. I do not believe the section is neutral. --Dhartung | Talk 03:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

We could moosh two sentences and take out the line:

Regular 'front page' posts at Firedoglake are often in convergence with the Progressive and Libertarian blogging establishment (see blogroles at Atrios, Wolcott, Billmon and other commonly accepted Libertarian or Progressive blogs).

So it reads as follows:

The comments section at Firedoglake implies that comments are accepted from the internet community at large. There is a comment submission form attached to all 'front page' posts. However, there is no documented or published policy that explains the criteria for acceptable comments at the site and no registration process for creating accounts capable of submitting comments. (see Firedoglake) Comments submitted with a valid e-mail address do not register in the comments section so there is no way to verify the authenticity of comments or commenters on Firedoglake. (Select the Firedoglake comments link on any homepage post and enter your comment with a valid e-mail address). Jane Hamsher has not publicly addressed the fact that the comments section at Firedoglake is censored and edited.

That should help cut to the chase and make the entry 'too the point'. I really don't know how to address your assertion that it is not neutral. Exactly what point of view is the section advocating? It does not say this is wrong or right, it has proper tone, its fact based, its a major feaure of the site whether it is spam protection, censorship, a bug, or marketing ploy, and is relevant information to a user of the site of any political persuasion. Go to the site...its completely verifiable.

I don't want to get into this much more with you but you really haven't argued much of anything...just stated your beliefs and opinions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.174.121.179 (talk • contribs).

Look, it's the responsibility of the person adding information to have a solid justification. That said, I'm fair, so:

• The political commentary just seems unnotable. A progressive/liberal website has progressive/liberal comments. Um, OK.
• The mere fact of having a comments section merits little more than an acknowledgement, as a small number of prominent blogs do not have them.
• That there is no published policy is also fairly normal for blogs, which are mostly run pretty much ad-hoc. If they have a policy that is unusual, that might be notable.
• Registration information not being displayed is slightly unusual, but is it notable?
• Finally, your concern that Hamsher has not "addressed" what you then call censorship seems suspect, as if you're ticked off about a deleted comment (whether or not you are).

In my view most of the above are simply the result of using WordPress vs. more robust community software such as Scoop or phpBB.

The reason that not every verifiable fact is worth including is that Wikipedia should only be about facts that are notable. If someone else writes about something, that at least shows that it's been noted. Otherwise we would have everybody and his little brother doing ginormous write-ups of their little brother's best friend's website. Look at our articles on Atrios and even DailyKos and you won't see much about posting policies. I think it's far more interesting and notable that Hamsher has opened up front page posting pretty broadly.

Ultimately, Wikipedia is just not a "guide" to using another website.

As I said, I'm fair, so here's my take on the topic, folded into a higher paragraph:

... as a result of the blog. FDL is now published using WordPress and allows limited commenting capabilities without the features found on more robust community sites such as Daily Kos. Volunteer moderators or an automatic spam filter may block comments. Almost all threads run to hundreds of comments.

This describes the community for the general reader without giving the comments undue weight as part of the topic.--Dhartung | Talk 08:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC response

The section in question does take on the tone of POV OR. If the material cited a source for its criticism it would be acceptable. As things are, I doubt this rises to the level of encyclopedic material. I agree it would be appropriate to delete the section. Durova 15:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Response

Dhartung, For the most part I agree with what you just said and would agree with your suggested changes. Thanks for taking the time to explain your thoughts. The topic of comments is covered in other entries on Wikipedia describing blogs (so it is notable to others), however it is condensed to a sentence or two. A published policy or faqs is quite common on blogs that have risen to the level of a firedoglake. I think you would agree that most blogs do not deserve mention in Wikipedia and one's that do, have reached a threshold where unique details of their sites are notable.

Like I said, I am ok with your folding this into the preceding paragraph:

... as a result of the blog. FDL is now published using WordPress and allows limited commenting capabilities without the features found on more robust community sites such as Daily Kos. Volunteer moderators or an automatic spam filter may block comments. Almost all threads run to hundreds of comments.

Durova, I think any possible tone issues are corrected via Dhartung's suggestion. It is similar to other Wikipedia entries on blogs once condensed.

I have read the section on what Wikipedia is/is not. For the record, 'Notable' is a terrible term to use in editing an encyclopedia, especially this one, and I see it is not official policy. It's use as a guideline is in dispute. Think about it. It provides tremendous leeway to editors to justify their opinions on content and is very open to abuse. Encyclopedia's are 'notable' for their depth, their topic, their format. By its very nature, an encyclopedia is a collection of content that is not notable to most people, hence their need. Suggesting content submitted to a worldwide collaborative encyclodia is not notable, goes against the very concept. Any of the points made by Dhartung\Durova could have been better articulated by leaving out the term 'notable', 'unencyclopedic', 'level of encyclopedic', etc. and instead focusing on a more detailed arguement in support of official wikipedia policy. I appreciate your collaboration. This is just a request to avoid the term in the future. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.174.121.179 (talk • contribs) .

This is rather odd: why do you critizize the use of "notable" when I have not used that word? In my opinion, this section is deletable as OR unless a reliable source can be found to verify its claims. I have made no comment about the general encyclopedic value of the article as a whole. Durova 00:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Anon, thanks for being agreeable. You will find that "notable" and "encyclopedic" are used frequently on Wikipedia despite being tricky to define. You will also find extensive guidelines attempting to create working definitions that editors can use. There is broad agreement that the project needs some sort of scope to keep it from being just a webhost for random opinion, and these are terms that are in line with most participants' vision of the project content as being both serious and important. How the determination is made is either by policy, by guideline, or by editorial consensus, in descending order of priority. Obviously there is always judgement involved but usually things can be resolved using these broad metrics. Thanks for your interest in Wikipedia, and I hope you stick around and register. --Dhartung | Talk 09:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Dhartung.

-Anon  :)

[edit] FDL and photoshop incident

That section about the photoshop incident is way overblown and looks like more axe-grinding to me. I suggest shortening it considerably or removing it. 67.117.130.181 13:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. --Dhartung | Talk 06:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dead link and POV problems

First things first: This link doesn't go anywhere: [1]

I have removed the link and added a {{fact}} flag.

And the article seems very POV to me, especially the lawsuits described in the film career section -- none of the links provided mention Hamsher, so it's impossible to deduce that she was linked to the lawsuits except for working on the films in questions. Links which are provided in a biography, especially about legal claims, should at least go to something which name the person involved, in my opinion. I would like to see these removed, or replaced with better citations.

Additionally, this link: [2] is a copy of an LA Times article on Don Murphy's web site, not a valid source for wikipedia. Original sources need to be checked and verified. Plus, the source does not say what the article claims it does. What's more, the linked copy does not say what this article claims it says.

Furthermore, the reference [3] does contain the phrase "colorful expressions of opinion" as claimed in the article, but does not say they are merely such; instead, the full quote is "colorful expressions of opinion are thoroughly disclosed with no fact of any significance falsely stated." The premature truncation of this quote introduces further POV problems into the entry.

In short, this is an entry with serious POV issues related to Hamsher's film career. --Kynn 06:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• While I can agree with the dead link issue (have a mackeral) I must dispute your POV issue completely. Go back several months and you will see the debate that was held. The fact is the woman gets involved in a lot of lawsuits. The fact also is that it is not for us to decide why, simply as a cyclopedia to state the facts. An LA Times article is a VERY good source for this place. Indeed the best source. Who cares whose site they are on. Would you rather host it yourself? Therefore, the article is very valid and has been up here now in this form for some time and is not for you to question. Thanks for playing though. Spawnopedia 07:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

...you're kidding here, right? Let's look at what all you've said. ...the woman gets involved in a lot of lawsuits... Is she notable for her lawsuits? Is this encyclopedic? In any case, most of the articles linked to for the lawsuits do not mention her. ...Who cares whose site they are on... It definitely does matter whose site it is on. A copy of an article on someone else's site is not a valid source for wikipedia. ...is not for you to question... You're totally wrong there. This is wikipedia. Saying "you can't question this" is not appropriate. Everything can be questioned. --Kynn 15:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

if everything can be questioned then Wikipedia has no value. Are you therefore slamming the site? This can lead to banning.Spawnopedia 17:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

... What? Questioning a specific source and specific entries on Wikipedia are not grounds for banning. Again, I ask you to step down from this aggressively confrontational attitude, assume good faith, and work together to resolve our differences regarding this entry. --Kynn 18:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaning up the article

Despite being told that I can't question this article, I made some changes, and I'm going to explain them here. --Kynn 18:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Removal of born Jane Elizabeth Murphy -- I haven't seen a citation for this yet.
• General cleanup of the film career section.
• Removal of by coincidence Hamsher's real last name is Murphy; Hamsher is her mother's maiden name as this is unsourced.
• Removal of The book was later dismissed in the L.A. Times by Stone and those that worked on the film as "inaccurate" and "a cartoon". -- the cited LA Times story [4] is not at a valid location for citing and 'dismissed' is not a fair characterization of the quoted article. (Read it, it's a positive review of the book.)

• Removal of In addition, her book led to Tarantino attacking Murphy in a restaurant in broad daylight because of things she said about him in it. -- the cited story [5] does not imply that Hamsher was involved in this, and it is not listed in [[Don Murphy|Murphy]'s entry nor in Tarantino's. Inclusion here, in the page of someone who was not in the fight, does not seem reasonable here.
  • • I have added an additional footnote that clearly confirms this point. Please do not make changes again. Either use the Sandbox or an Etch A Sketch instead. Spawnopedia 17:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This is insulting to me and I ask you to please refrain from personal attacks.

It is not personal to point out you have no idea what you are doing.Spawnopedia 18:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is, especially when I do indeed know what I'm doing. Given the history of your edits on Wikipedia, versus mine, I think you should be a little more careful about who you declare is "vandalizing" and who is not. --Kynn 18:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

YOU are vandalizng. And apparently will not stop it. Spawnopedia 19:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

... I haven't changed the entry since your reversion. I fail to see why you are accusing me of vandalism, and saying that "will not stop it." I have not reverted your reversion, for example, and have attempted to discuss this at both User talk:Spawnopedia and here. And your response has simply to become more and more inflammatory. Please see WP:TALK for information on how to have a proper discussion on a Talk page. Thanks. --Kynn 19:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

--Kynn 18:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Rewording of The attorney who filed the fraud case, Thomas Ferlauto, later sued Hamsher over her descriptions of him in the book, such as a "whore's son" and "a K-Mart Johnnie Cochran". -- the inclusion of language found to be non-libelous and non-defamatory doesn't add anything to the story, other than attempting to take the language out of context. Note that the decision itself [6] states The statements complained of may not be ripped out of context or, as Ferlauto seeks to do, defined from language in a review on the book's jacket asserting the "horrifically honest" nature of the book.
  • • The sentence AS WRITTEN is 100% accurate- Ferlauto sued because she called him those names. rewriting the sentence so it pleases you is considered vandalism. Please stop. Spawnopedia 17:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Ferlauto sued because he alleged that she called him those names. The court found that one of those you quoted -- "whore's son" -- was not actually applied to Ferlauto! So the sentence is not 100% accurate. Furthermore, mere accuracy of a sentence does not mean that the sentence itself is not misleading about the case, nor does it mean that it is appropriate for inclusion an encyclopedic article. --Kynn 18:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Removal of An appellate court in Los Angeles eventually found that the language was not defamatory, but merely "colorful expressions of opinion". -- in fact, the appellate court simply upheld the original court's finding.
  • • The quote is taken FROM the appelate court decision. It is not up to Wikians to re-interpret court decisions. Spawnopedia 17:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That is not the full finding of the court, so the quote itself is questionable. Including only a portion of a quote -- out of context -- is itself a form of "re-interpeting" of the court decision. NPOV doesn't include cherry picking quotes. --Kynn 18:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Removal of 'The family of a woman murdered by a pair of spree killers also sued Oliver Stone and others associated with the film, claiming it inspired the murders. -- Jane Hamsher was not named in this lawsuit [7] so there is no reason for its inclusion in this article.
• Removed A shower scene in Apt Pupil was the source of litigation over the use of underaged male actors. -- only one of the three lawsuits [8] [9] [10] filed in this case actually named Hamsher; the others did not. The cases were dismissed for lack of evidence [11]

Based on the comments from Spawnopedia, "The fact is the woman gets involved in a lot of lawsuits. The fact also is that it is not for us to decide why, simply as a cyclopedia to state the facts," I believe that the intent of the items I've removed above is to push the defamatory POV that Hamsher is involved in a lot of lawsuits. However, the number is not particularly excessive, and in fact, several of the citations listed above are lawsuits or incidents that Hamsher herself was not directly involved in, such as the "spree killer" situation. --Kynn 16:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks so much for your feedback. The FACT that somebody os litigious is not defamatory. It is a fact, like the sky is blue. Your other citations are of course incorrect. The purpose of the talk page is to discuss changes not to give you carte blanche to rewrite an article about your friend. Do not revert without consensus. Spawnopedia 17:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You use the word "litigious" here as if it is a fact. The problem is, there's no proof that she is litigious (do you know what that word means?) -- rather that she has been sued a few times in a few years. It is not the place of Wikipedia to make rulings that since she is "litigious" (which means: filing lawsuits, not being the target of lawsuits which get dismissed), therefore irrelevant information (such as baseless lawsuits) will be included. You are in the wrong on this.

Furthermore, Ms. Hamsher is not my friend. I don't know her, I haven't met her, and I don't even read her blog regularly (although I do read it when linked to it). Your attitude and insults are offensive and inappropriate for wikipedia, and I ask that you refrain, and not revert my cleanups when they're legitimate. --Kynn 18:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Get a grip. This page is to discuss diputed changes NOT TO GIVE YOU PERMISSION to go make them. The point of the article seems to me that she gets sued on every film she does. This is not POV this is reality backed up by footnotes. Whether baseless or not she gets a lot of them. My attitude is impatience because YOU are VIOLATING this place by making changes that ARE DISPUTED. Stop it. Spawnopedia 18:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the point of this article is not to document your personal theory that Hamsher "gets sued on every film she does." That is indeed POV, as it has not happened. I am sorry I am making you impatient, but I think perhaps you need to step back from Wikipedia if you are getting so upset that you start insulting other editors.

It's perfectly acceptable to make changes that get disputed. The way to address this is not to become belligerent and upset, and start reverting everything. Editing is appropriate and nothing I did was "vandalism." I'd like to resolve this peacefully, if we could. Are you up to that now, or would you like to take a break in order to let your impatience fade a little? --Kynn 18:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not my theory it is what the article says. It is not POV- it is footnoted fact. I am not impatient YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. The changes you propose are disputed ERGO DO NOT MAKE THEM. This is vandalism Spawnopedia 19:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

... you just said my attitude is impatience, and now you're saying I am not impatient. I'm confused as to which it is. There is no article you can find which says "Hamsher gets sued on every film she does." That is your POV, and it is also inaccurate factual information. The simple fact that you dispute a change -- a change meant to remove misleading and potentially libelous information that should not be included in an entry about a living person -- does not make that change "vandalism." It doesn't warrant reversion. It doesn't warrant your impatience and intractible attitude as I try to resolve this peacefully. --Kynn 19:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, here is the deal, I will type slowly so you can follow me. My attitude is irrelevant this is a neutral paragraph. You ARE confused though. Forget about the conclusion I reached from the entry about people suing her. That was my conclusion. The point is that the lawsuits happened and are well sourced. There are NO inaccurate facts in the article. None. There is nothing libelous in the article- everything is sourced. The article has been fine as it is for months. Now you come along like god knows what and YOU decide that it is wrong. I then come along and tell you NO I think the article is fine. You are supposed to wait to hear from others. Instead you CHANGED THE ARTICLE TO SUIT YOU. This is NOT permitted. Maybe you are right. Maybe the Iraq war IS a good idea. BUT you do not get to change an article that is disputed until others weight in. Follow? Spawnopedia 19:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Once more you are being unnecessarily insulting. I'll address your points one at a time:

1. You claim there are no inaccurate facts. Inaccuracy is not the only measure of whether information should be included in an encyclopedic entry, however.

2. Facts may be both accurate and irrelevant. For example, several of the lawsuits mentioned were not lawsuits against Hamsher. Including these on Hamsher's entry is misleading, especially if the net effect is POV.

3. There are serious problems with some of the sourcing, including a reference to a copy of the L.A. Times article rather than to the article itself.

4. Factual errors DO exist in the article as written. Here's one: The family of a woman murdered by a pair of spree killers... FALSE CLAIM: Patsy Byers was murdered by spree killers. TRUTH: Patsy Byers died in 1997 of cancer. Do you still stand by your assertion that the article is fully factual?

5. There's no rule saying that an entry is set in stone after a few months. Anyone in Wikipedia is welcome to come along after the fact and edit it. It doesn't make them God. It makes them ... a wikipedia editor.

6. It's certainly permitted to make changes in this manner. See, for example, WP:BRD for a discussion.

7. Anyone can make changes to an article without people weighing in. One person did weigh in, in five days, and that was you -- who told me I have no right to question the article. (Wrong, by the way.)

8. I have attempted to discuss this civilly with you, not only on this entry's talk page but also on yours and mine. And you have simply gotten more belligerent and insulting.

9. Therefore, I have listed this article under request for comment in hopes of resolving this problem.

10. If you truly believe that I am "vandalizing" Wikipedia, you are welcome to file an appropriate complaint. I don't fear this, because I am certain that I have not vandalized.

--Kynn 19:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

1- Don't quit your day job

2- That is true. But since EACH lawsuit pertains to Hamsher and in most cases involves her that makes them relevant.

3- The article is the article. There are THOUSANDS of references on WP to sources that are not on the original site. There is no difference in Wikiland

4- You have my blessing to change the word murdered to "shot"

5- This does not give you license to come in an alter an article that is well sourced and accurate just for jollies

6- See [http:/www.ratemypoo.com] for the contrary position

7- Once I weighed in you had no right except those I give you.

8- You have been illogical and threatening more vandalism. I gave up trying to deal with your irrationality.

9- Yabba Dabba Do.

10- Thanks- I really appreciate your warm thoughts. They make me cozy. Spawnopedia 21:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

...were any of those supposed to be serious responses? 1, 5, 6, 8 were all insults. 2, 5, 7 are counter to the way Wikipedia is run. 9 and 10 are nonsensical. 4 is the only real response. This lack of willingness to dialogue -- going back to your original comment (...the article is very valid and has been up here now in this form for some time and is not for you to question. Thanks for playing though.) -- is exactly the problem here. You think that by insulting me, you get your way. I've been looking for compromise and asking you to follow established Wikipedia processes for editing this entry. You've responded with "yabba dabba do." --Kynn 21:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Look at it this way. Article has been up for a year. It has been the subject of heated debates over Hamnsher's racism, over the films, over comments on her page. It has all been argued. Then YOU show up today, out of a clear blue sky, and feel you have the right to question stuff that has been argued and concluded. I find it hard to respect that behavior unless you are a troll. So I follow the rules and dispute your changes. Which you then make ANYWAY. Which confirms you are a troll. Then you call me one. So pretty much saying ANYTHING to you is pointless. You are a pal of Hamsher's and should recuse yourself. Spawnopedia 21:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Article has been up for a year...It has all been argued. That doesn't mean that the article can't be improved. Then YOU show up today, out of a clear blue sky... Not true. I "showed up" on January 17. Which, incidentally, is about the time of your first edit (under this username). I would be careful about making "clear blue sky" accusations if I were you. (My first edit was back in 2005, for the record.)

So I follow the rules and dispute your changes... You didn't dispute my changes, since I hadn't made them at the time. You disputed that the entry was POV, and your defense for this was to claim that the entry was "not for you to question." That's not a dialogue. You are a pal of Hamsher's and should recuse yourself... I am in no way a friend of Hamsher, and I have no reason to recuse myself. You are not assuming good faith, you are calling names and being uncivil, and you are reverting legitimate edits. You are the problem here, not me. --Kynn 21:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess that sums it up Mr. Kynn. THEY ARE NOT LEGITIMATE EDITS because I dispute them. Simple. You obviously began the discussion in bad faith and never intended to discuss the edits, just make them. Spawnopedia 21:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The way to deal with edits you don't like is to rewrite them, not to revert them and falsely claim they are vandalism. I don't see anything in my original post that claims bad faith; I do see plenty in your accusations against me that is not good faith.

Instead of reverting the edits, you should try to work with them to make the entry better. You didn't attempt to do so; a reversion with vandalism accusation is highly inappropriate for simply disagreeing with an article. Why not revert your reversion, and work on rewriting the edits I made, so that they meet your satisfaction? Surely the factual errors deserve to be removed.

Your #2 claim -- that lawsuits against someone else should be included simply because they relate to a movie that Hamsher worked on, rather than lawsuits against her specifically -- doesn't stand up. If the lawsuits need to be included (and I don't think they should), then it should be mentioned which ones Hamsher was named in, and which she was not. That would help establish the relevancy of each lawsuit, don't you think? How can you rewrite the "spree killing" paragraph to make it clear that Hamsher was not involved in any way with the lawsuit, either as a defendant or as a plaintiff? Show me that paragraph, and then we can decide if it belongs. (I can't think of a way to do it, which is, to me, a good sign that it's irrelevant to this biography.) --Kynn 21:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Look this debate is tiresom. WHY did you ask about NPOV if you intended to write whatever you wanted ANYWAY? That is where this all comes from. Spawnopedia 22:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Stopping by from RfC. All I can see here is Kynn trying to keep the article relevant, trim, and free of "facts" that are pruned and worded to cast aspersions on Jane Hamsher (who, incidentally, I had never heard of before today). Spawnopedia, you are being rude, deliberately obstinate, and appallingly obtuse. Please take some time to review Wikipedia policy and carefully consider whether you are really trying to contribute to an encylopaedic article, or to push a personal opinion of Hamsher. Re-read the above and give it a think. Nothing Kynn has done even remotely comes close to "vandalism." Frankly, s/he's shown remarkable restraint in dealing with you and I envy his/her composure in the face of such belligerence. --MattShepherd 18:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This was already resolved yesterday. Thanks for stopping by and come again.Spawnopedia 18:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted your reversions, after getting this third opinion from Matt. If you'd like to edit the page again -- if you are ever unblocked -- please start with my revision as a starting point rather than reverting. --Kynn 20:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting vandalism

I've reverted two deletions of paragraphs by Bowspearer (User talk:Bowspearer), a brand new user who showed up shortly after Spawnopedia (sock puppet of User:ColScott) was banned. The edit summaries by Bowspearer state:

• Removing uncited paragraph under strict BLP- needed sources and are none
• section s deleted- PERSONAL BLOGS NOT VALID CITATIONS

These edits do not seem to be made in good faith, as the page has recently been a subject of debate between myself, others, and an abusive user; furthermore, proper Wiki etiquette does not call for wholesale deletion but rather flagging with {{fact}} portions which are unsourced. Furthermore, WP:BLP does not require citations for every fact, merely those which are potentially controversial -- and the biography section deleted was not controversial. As far as valid citations, personal blogs are acceptable for references to the subject's cancer, under the guidelines of WP:RS#Self-published_sources_in_articles_about_themselves.

I would try to assume good faith on the part of this user, but with the blanking of valid sections it's difficult to do so. Therefore I have reverted those changes. --Kynn 19:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit by AZJustice

(Note: AZJustice is most likely another ban-evading sockpuppet of User:Spawnopedia, but good faith assumptions require me to play along until he tips his hand again.)

I have added appropriate full name, explanation of his role in Killers, and a wiki link to Oliver Stone's name. Also, as explained before, the link to a web page hosted on the web site of Don Murphy is not a valid source for wikipedia. Please find a better source for this reference.

I have deleted the sentence that reads "Hamsher's Hollywood career ended soon after." as this is not only POV, but also incorrect -- the book (and supposed article) were in 1997. Hamsher's IMDB entry clearly shows that she produced From Hell in 2001. --Kynn 08:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure I follow you on this one. Are you claiming that Murphy somehow edited the Times article? AZJustice 15:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

We have no way to confirm what he did or did not do with the LA Times article. Linking to copies of articles on someone else's web site is bad practice. --Kynn 16:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits retreading old ground

I've reverted the article to remove edits by User:AZJustice. There are several problems with the text which was included:

Another film she produced, Apt Pupil also was the target of a strange lawsuit involving young boys and allegations of sexual misconduct. [New Times Los Angeles Thursday, July 2, 1998,] [12]

Those problems include:

• The source cited does not state Hamsher's involvement. In fact, this has very little to do with Hamsher, apparently, and including it in her entry here is an obvious attempt at guilt-by-association. See previous discussion on this page.
• The link given for the article cited is not a reliable source, but rather a copy of an article on Don Murphy's web site -- Murphy being Hamsher's ex-partner. Copies of articles are not reliable. See previous discussion on this page.
• The language used here does not describe the "strange lawsuit" nor Hamsher's involvement in it -- or actually, lack of involvement. A "strange lawsuit"? That's POV right there. Loaded words are used as well. If this were valid for inclusion on Hamsher's entry (and it most definitely is not), then it would need to be rewritten. However, the material is not appropriate.

Once more, this is (to me) a very clear example of a sockpuppet and/or meatpuppet by Don Murphy rather than a legitimate attempt to improve the entry. --Kynn 07:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

the full article is reprinted on that page by cited on many pages on the web. I cited the article in my edit which you just removed as a gut wrench without reading. I propose we remove the word strange and just cite the article AZJustice 07:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Prove the relevancy of this information to the subject of the article, Jane Hamsher. The cited article -- from Don Murphy's site -- does not mention Jane Hamsher. Why exactly would this be in an encyclopedic article about her? (Unless, of course, it's meant to support the Spawnopedia theory (earlier on this talk page) that Hamsher has been involved in "a lot of lawsuits" -- which is POV poppycock).

If you can write a version of your citation that identifies how Hamsher was involved in the Apt Pupil lawsuit and explains why it is relevant to an encyclopedic entry on Hamsher -- as well as providing a legitimate source link -- then by all means, go ahead. I don't think you can do it, though, because although it might be easier for you to provide a URL to the New Times article that isn't on Murphy's site, there exists no relevance to your addition beyond a smear on the subject of the article. --Kynn 07:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subject's Friend Kynn

Sir you removed a very well sourced edit and said to refer to talk page. Are you gonna talk? AZJustice 06:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It's explained above why it is not "well-sourced".

Also, please immediately stop with the "subject's friend" smear against me. You -- or your meat/sockpuppets -- have repeatedly impugned my integrity and credibility with this false statement, which you have manufactured yourself, claiming that I'm a "friend" of Jane Hamsher. I am not, and persisting in labeling me as such will be treated as harassment. Stop. --Kynn 07:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me NextofKynn? You can tell me I am Don Murphy or his friend (which I am not) but I cannot tell you that I have read that you are closely related to Hamsher? Sorry, Honey says no. Harassment involves something you are forced to do BTW. You do NOT have to read anything I write. AZJustice 07:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, now I am "closely related to Hamsher." Cute. You know, you'd be more believable as a non-sockpuppet if you would just stop saying the same things that every other sockpuppet has said so far. --Kynn 07:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I know what I read. Why would you guard her entry for WEEKS if you were not a friend or relative? Answer- you would not. AZJustice 07:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. I'm neither a friend nor a relative of Hamsher, nor have I ever met her or exchanged email with her.

Answer actually is: When I edit an entry, I put it on my watchlist. And I revert vandalism that happens to pages I've edited. Simple enough, isn't it? --Kynn 07:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

you revert things you do not like- that does not ipso facto make it vandalismAZJustice 07:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)