Talk:New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case

This article has less information about the incident than New Black Panther Party#Recent controversies. I propose creating a sub-section within that section dealing with the charges of voter intimidation and merging this article into that sub-section. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I've fixed the lack of information problem with this article now. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Further reading section

I notice that Malik Shabazz has just added a "further reading" section to the article with a link to this article in the Washington Post. The linked article is a pretty good summary of this case, but I was wondering if he could explain why he considers this article more relevant to include here than any of the dozens of other news articles that exist about the case, some of which are currently cited by the Wikipedia article. The Washington Post alone has published at least six articles about this case, and the Washington Times has published more than 50 about it. Why single out this one article in particular? --Captain Occam (talk) 07:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I added it because I thought it presented a good overview of the case, whereas many of the sources in the article seem to be about specific events. If you think it's inappropriate, by all means remove it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:EL, one type of external link to be avoided is "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." The linked Washington Post article contains very little information that isn't currently in the article, so I don't think it satisfies EL criteria.

The article is still a useful resource, though, so you're welcome to add it as a source for any of the content in the body of the Wikipedia article. I may take a look myself sometime soon to see if it's worth using as a source for anything. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

On one hand this incident is quite minor. My first impression is that this incident does not have the enduring notability necessary for it to have a long term future on Wikipedia. I sincerely doubt that in five or ten years time there will be much discussion concerning this controversy. It is possible that it could grow legs and start to run. If there is some scandalous email or recorded phone conversation from the DOJ, anything could happen. But barring such a revelation, I don't see this incident having long term notability, similar to WP:NOTNEWS. I consider the tone of this article not neutral and have added the NPOV tag. Captain Occam has attempted to preemptively address neutrality problems by including some criticisms of how some conservatives have handled the case. The New Black Panther Party is a fringe group that has made a series of highly controversial and divisive statements in its history. But I do think that in this article, the NBPP has been set up as a punching bag, a sort of strawman. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not this case is notable enough to deserve its own article was discussed here and here, and every editor who expressed an opinion about this agreed with me that it was. That was in July. If anything, the case’s notability has only grown since then, since that was before Christopher Coates offered his testimony about this case as well as before the DOJ’s inspector general began his investigation about it.

If anyone else thinks this case isn’t notable, then they can start an AFD about the article, but I don’t think there’s much question what the outcome of any such AFD would be. This topic has about the same level of notability as the Resignation of Shirley Sherrod, which was nominated for deletion in July. The deletion discussion about that article lasted barely a day, before being closed early as “keep” per WP:SNOW. I think we can expect any AFD about this article to have a similar result.

Something you need to keep in mind about this article is that the case it covers has received more coverage from conservative news sources than from liberal ones, and both conservative and liberal news sources have pointed this out. NPOV policy requires articles here to contain the same proportion of perspectives that exists in reliable sources, so in order for the article to comply with NPOV policy, that proportion of conservative and liberal viewpoints needs to be reflected in the article. According to WP:TAGGING, any tag for an article should be accompanied by an explanation of what’s wrong with the article, and if none is provided it’s appropriate to remove the tag. All you’ve said about your reason for tagging the article is “I consider the tone of this article not neutral”, which does not tell me anything about what specific parts of the article you think are biased, or even in which direction you think they’re biased. (I suspect that you think the article has a conservative bias, but you haven’t even made that clear.) Therefore, I am going to remove the tag until someone can explain more specifically what NPOV problems there are with this article, in a way that would make it possible for them to be fixed. --Captain Occam (talk) 08:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You have given a blow by blow account of the controversy, mostly from a conservative perspective. However this blow by blow dramatic account tends to give undue weight to the controversy. You have used several quotes but most of your quotes have been cherry picked from conservative sources, and there is much less criticism of conservatives. The article assumes that the incident is very important, whereas most mainstream outlets have not considered the story as one of their top priorities. In short, in this article, the NBPP is the punching bag, and the justice department was wrong to dismiss the case. This is why I believe the article isn't neutral Wapondaponda (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

“most mainstream outlets have not considered the story as one of their top priorities”

That’s simply false. I recommend that you take a look at the source list I’ve assembled in my userspace to get an idea of the mainstream news coverage this case has received. So far there have been six articles about this case from the Washington Post, five from the Associated Press, four from CNN, and so on. This case would be notable even if were to completely ignore the coverage it’s received from conservative sources. (Not that we should, since that would be a blatant NPOV violation.)

I also don’t see how it’s possible for the article to “give undue weight to the controversy” over this case. The article is about the controversy over this case, because the controversy over it is what every one of the news articles about it is discussing. How is it possible for an article to give undue weight to its entire subject matter?

And you aren’t acknowledging my point about the article needing to accurately reflect the balance of viewpoints that exists in the source literature about this case, which are more conservative than liberal. Until you address this point, and provide specific examples of things that you think ought to be changed about this article, there’s nothing for us to discuss here. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that mainstream outlets haven't covered the story, only that it is not a top priority for them. There are not enough arguments from mainstream outlets that suggest that this incident is "very small potatoes". Sure there is a section on media coverage, but there isn't enough information about how this story is actually being hyped up and driven by conservative outlets. In my opinion, this is more of a story about a story. The actual incident is close to being irrelevant. The fallout is more seemingly more important than the actual events. I think these news items give a better representation of the media coverage and the controversy as a whole.

• A conservative dismisses right-wing Black Panther 'fantasies'
• Conservative Media Stokes New Black Panther Story

Wapondaponda (talk) 04:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Since articles at Politico are not checked for accuracy by an editorial board, I don’t think articles there satisfy WP:RS. However, there is already an entire section devoted to the main subject of the Politico article you linked to, which is Abigail Thernstrom’s criticism of the investigation about this case. And the NPR article that you linked to is already cited here.

NPOV policy requires that each aspect of this case be given about the same amount of space in the Wikipedia article that it’s given in reliable sources discussing the case. Of the 100 or so news articles that I’ve found about this case in reliable sources, there are around eight that focus on the media coverage it’s getting. In other words, around 8% of the source material about this case is discussing the media coverage it’s received, with the other 92% of the source material being about various aspects of the case itself. Therefore, in order to comply with NPOV policy, discussion about this case’s media coverage should take up around 8% of the article. That’s pretty close to the amount of space that it currently has. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I got the NPR item from the article, but a lot of the information from the source isn't included in the article. Such percentages are unscientific and misleading, especially given how a single news item can be duplicated in an infinite number of ways over the internet. In time I will proceed to make some adjustments to bring some neutrality to the article, I will use sources such as those mentioned above. Wapondaponda (talk) 10:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The article has major NPOV issues that I will start address in the coming days. The article could also do with some trimming because sometimes less is more. Wapondaponda (talk) 03:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If you actually are intending to try and improve the article, I hope it’s going to involve more than just blanking large sections of content. There may well be parts of the article that could be worded in a more neutral or more concise manner, but I don’t think there are any entire sections or paragraphs that it would be reasonable to just delete, the way you’ve often done on race and intelligence articles. Your other method of trying to improve articles, by reverting them back several months to an earlier version you liked better, also isn’t going to work in this case because the article doesn’t have an earlier version to revert it to. (Unless you intend to turn it back into a redirect, which is completely inappropriate for a topic with this level of notability.)

I’d also suggest that you seek consensus for any major changes you’re intending to make. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Some of the changes you’ve made to this article appear to be worthwhile, so I’m not going to do a blanket revert, but it would have been better if you’d discussed them here first. There are definitely some changes you’ve made that I don’t approve of, such as sourced content that you’ve blanked without any explanation why, and unsourced statements that you've added about living people. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Initially I didn't do a thorough job of sourcing. I have added the sources that were missing, so all the material should be backed up. I can provide clarification if needed. To go over a few points

• The criminal investigation was dropped by the Bush administration, not the Obama administration. [1]
• According to Perez's testimony

Whereas, the original complaint sought an unlimited injunction prohibiting acts of intimidation anywhere in the United States, the final relief sought by the Department was limited solely to the City of Philadelphia and was only to last through November of 2012

So I have added this text to explain what exactly the reduction in scope entailed.

• As for the Reactions in Congress vs Republicans in congress, I just wanted to point out that it is not a bipartisan concern, rather it is a few republican congress people who are driving the issue. [2]
• According to Adam's testimony

MR. BLACKWOOD: Was there any indication that anyone higher up than Loretta King or Steve Rosenbaum was making the decision to override the six career attorneys who said the case should go forward?

MR. ADAMS: None that I had any indication of.

• This is still a Bush administration controversy, because it started prior to the Obama administration, and is also related to the Noxubee- Ike Brown case.

Wapondaponda (talk) 02:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I have just added some information that states that the individuals who decided to dismiss the case against the NBPP, King and Rosenbaum, had served in the justice dept under both Bushes and several other presidents. They were temporarily "promoted" to acting AAG under the Obama administration, but they were still DOJ insiders. This may help clear up what actually happened. One could easily get the impression that the decision to dismiss the case came directly from the White House. While not impossible, the evidence seems to suggest that a lot of the deliberation was internal to the DOJ and that disputes over how to handle such incidents commenced in the Bush administration, and not the Obama administration. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I don’t have a problem with including this information, but we also need to make it clear that what’s currently being reported by reliable secondary sources is that political appointees may have been heavily involved in the decision to drop the case, and that the DOJ has tried to conceal their involvement. An example of an article pointing this out out is this article in the Washington Post, which is a fairly mainstream and non-partisan news channel. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

One issue is the characterization of political appointees. Usually we think of a political appointee as someone who comes from outside the department to enforce the governing administration's policies. In this case the political appointees who made the decision to dismiss, King and Rosenbaum, were not from outside, but were veterans of the DOJ. Conservative critics would like to give the impression that their decision to dismiss came from higher up, that is from the AG or the White House. This is not impossible, but it also seems likely that their decision may have been influenced by baggage from their long careers in the department, rather than any direct influence from higher ups. According to Adam's testimony, there was already tension in the DOJ about how to handle racial issues long before the Obama administration took office. The DOJ was also under a lot of pressure from civil rights groups when it came to pursuing cases against minorities. Blaming the Obama administration for what is partly a pre-existing dispute seems to be a bit of an exaggeration. This is why a number of sources have described the controversy as phony, faux or as a manufactured scandal.

As for the Washington Post article, it doesn't give the whole story. The draft report that states that political appointees were involved in the decision to dismiss was created by the conservative dominated US Civil Rights Commission. It is the report that the democratic commissioner Michael Yaki, walked out on in order to prevent a vote when he described the commission as a Kangaroo court. The draft report was leaked to TPMMuckraker, so it is not officially out. Wapondaponda (talk) 03:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks like I initially cited the wrong article in this paragraph. I’ve fixed the ref now, and clarified which political appointees are suspected to have been involved in the decision.

Something you need to realize about this article (and all Wikipedia articles, for that matter) is that the perspectives we present in it can only be the perspectives that exist in reliable secondary sources. You’ve added a lot of information to this article that’s cited to primary sources, such as unedited transcripts of testimony before the Civil Rights Commission. That isn’t in itself a problem, but it isn’t appropriate for you to use your understanding of the case from these kinds of sources as a basis for disputing what the Washington Post is reporting about it. If the Washington Post doesn’t give the whole story, and neither do any other reliable secondary sources, then Wikipedia can only give as much of the story as what these sources are reporting. That’s just how Wikipedia works. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The CNN article gives a more accurate account, than the Washington Post. The CNN article is a reliable secondary source, so I believe it should supersede the Washington Post article. The title "possible involvement of political appointees" reads like a leading question and would appear to violate NPOV. Some claim that political appointees were not involved and some claim that they were involved. Therefore it is appropriate for neutrality to take neither side. I can't find much on Hans Spakovsky, it seems the only articles that have published anything are Foxnews and The National Review. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

As I said, Wikipedia can only present information that’s published in reliable sources. So if National Review and Fox News are the only sources that talk about Spakovsky, then that’s all we can present about him here. (I think it’s better to cite National Review than Fox News, since there seems to be some dispute over how reliable Fox News is.)

The CNN article that you linked to is already cited here, for the part of the article which talks about Yaki walking out of the commission meeting. This article doesn’t discuss the question of the extent that political appointees were involved in the decision to dismiss the case, so I don’t see how it’s possible for it to supersede what the Washington Post is reporting about that. I understand your point that the draft is what Yaki walked out of the meeting in order to prevent a vote about, but unless a reliable source is disputing what the Washington Post has reported about political involvement specifically for this reason, for Wikipedia to use Yaki’s reaction as a basis to dispute this would be an example of WP:SYNTH. Remember, we can’t present any conclusions here that don’t exist in the source material. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

What I meant was that the Washington Post does not explicitly mention that the draft report was leaked to TPMMuckraker as the CNN article does. The Washington Post does not mention that the leaked report was not the final draft. The CNN articles states

Reynolds confirmed the draft document is authentic, but said it is not the most recent summary that the commission would have voted on Friday had there been a quorum. He declined to immediately release the newest version, and would not describe what revisions may have been made.

You write

The Washington Post reported that according to a draft report from the Civil Rights Commission, political officials had been extensively involved in the decision to dismiss the case, and that the Department of Justice had attempted to conceal their involvement.

But this statement is out of context and even obsolete because the draft that the Washington Post is referring to is not the final draft, is not official but a leaked version and has not even been voted on by the commission. This was why I mentioned that the CNN article supersedes the Washington Post because it has these extra details. Wapondaponda (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

As you might have noticed, I’ve added some of the additional details from the CNN article to clarify that the leaked draft wasn’t the final version. However, I think for this part of the article to discuss Yaki walking out of the meeting would be getting too close to WP:SYNTH. The CNN article discusses Yaki’s reaction without discussing the report’s accusations of political interference, and the Washington Post article discusses the report’s accusations about this but not Yaki’s reaction, so for us to bring up Yaki’s reaction in order to dispute what the report says about this is making a point that doesn’t exist in the source material. I think Yaki’s walking out of the meeting should be discussed later in the “Civil Rights Commission” section, where it currently is. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not particular about the details. The main point is that the accusations from the USCCR are not official yet. When they draft is voted on and the final report is officially made public, not just leaked, then the USCCR would have declared its position. It wouldn't be inappropriate to report speculative or unofficial claims that appear in reliable secondary sources, but these claims should be placed in their proper context. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

George W. Bush administration controversies

I notice that Richrakh has just added this article to Category:George W. Bush administration controversies. Could he please explain why he thinks the article belongs in this category? Even though Bush was in office when the New Black Panthers were charged with voter intimidation, the actual controversy over this case didn’t start until the charges against them were dismissed, which happened after Obama had been inaugurated. It doesn’t seem appropriate to put the article in this category when none of the controversy over this case happened while Bush was in office. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Update

I am not not confident on how to edit articles but this page needs desperately to be edited esp not only is the investigations over but there is plenty of government information concerning the case.Notnow1230 (talk) 05:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Blanking of content verified by multiple reliable sources

Two editors, User:Malik Shabazz and User:MastCell, have blanked content verified by multiple reliable sources. The reliable sources are as follows:

• Matthew Boyle (19 September 2012). "Emails reveal Justice Dept. regularly enlists Media Matters to spin press". Daily Caller. Retrieved 24 February 2013.
• "Emails show Justice working with Media Matters on stories that target critics". Fox News. 18 September 2012. Retrieved 24 February 2013.
• Matthew Boyle (19 September 2012). "Farenthold: Congress will likely investigate DOJ-Media Matters collusion, target group's tax-exempt status". Daily Caller. Retrieved 24 February 2013.
• Ryan J. Reilly (14 February 2013). "Top Eric Holder Aide Tracy Schmaler To Leave DOJ". Huffington Post. Retrieved 26 February 2013.
• Allen, Charlotte (2013). "Politicizing Justice". The Weekly Standard. 18 (23). The Weekly Standard LLC. Retrieved 26 February 2013.
• Evan Perez (14 February 2013). "Senior Aide to Holder Stepping Down at Justice". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 26 February 2013.
• Mike Allen (15 February2013). "IN PRIVATE, OBAMA FLASHES ANGER OVER GOP STRAFING OF HAGEL -- Justice's Tracy Schmaler to ASGK Public Strategies -- The era of big Wall Street deals is back -- Ted Cruz shakes Senate". Politico. Retrieved 24 February 2013. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

The blanking of verified content is uncalled for. If we look at all sources that connect "New Black Panther" and "Tracy Schmaler" one will find dozens of sources, some reliable, some not, that connect the two subject's togther, that connect the individual to the subject of this article. Same things can be said if one does a search for "New Black Panther", "Tracy Schmaler", and "Media Matters". The reason given by one for blanking content is because the reliable sources are "partisan". Yet, as has been said by others, it isn't sources that need to be neutral, it is how the sources are used and the content that needs to be neutral. I cannot answer why such "partisan" sources such as the Huffington Post, MSNBC, and other such sources did not cover the emails that the Daily Caller received through a FOIA request regarding the DoJ working with Media Matters regarding the coverage of the subject of the article. What I can say is that reliable sourcse verify all the content which was removed.

Per WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification I shall be informing other potentially interested editors of this blanking of verified content.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Tracey Schmaler's connection with the case is that she was the Department of Justice spokesperson who explained why the case was not prosecuted. The removed material explains her later career move from reporting to one prominent Democrat to another. There is no reason to believe that she had anything to do with the decision not to prosecute and adding this material appears to be an attempt to insinuate that the Democratic Party had some connection with the alleged intimidation of voters. That is highly POV and misleading and was rightfully removed. I notice that RightCowLeftCoast has canvassed subscribers to the Conservatism project, although the New Black Panthers is not a conservative group. TFD (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I made the notification I would be contacting all listed wikiprojects, of which Conservatism is one of them. To point out only that one notification does not appaer to be assuming good faith of my actions. The content removed verified that Tracey Schmaler, as a high level spokeswoman within the DoJ coordinated with Media Matters on coverage of the subject. There was at least one reliable source that verified that at least one congressmember called for an investigation of Schmaler in relation to the subject of this article, and her communications with Media Matters in regards to news coverage of the subject of this article.

IMHO that appears to be relevant to the subject. Others may differ with my opinion, and they are free to do so. But to remove content from reliable sources because one does not agree with the bias of the source IMHO is not a reason for removal, it falls into a battlefield mindset. I am not attempting to push a POV.

If others believe that the content can be more neutrally worded, I would like to hear it, and like to see proposals of neutral wordering to be used.

If others believe that the content is given undue weight I would like to hear explinations as to why other editors believe that. Know upfront, that I will disagree, and will do my upmost to be civil in our future conversations.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Another NPOV and RS dispute. The material was removed due to undue weight and poor quality sources. There seems to be a competency problem at work here that lies outside the scope of this talk page. Perhaps the problem is with your understanding of the policies and guidelines. If so, editors should not be required to argue with you on page after page after page. Rather, you should be required to explain your reasoning for adding the material based on NPOV and RS. Viriditas (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:CIVIL & WP:AVOIDYOU

The following comment gives me great concern:

If so, editors should not be required to argue with you on page after page after page.

— Viriditas

It can be seen as evidence of WP:WIKIHOUNDING. If this is the case, I kindly ask that this stop.

I have provided links showing multiple reliable sources that verify the content.

Removed sources show the connection between Schmaler, the subject of this article, Media Matters, and her resignation.

If others wish to limit the content to Schmaler's communications with Media Matters regarding the subject of this article, and leave out her resignation, I am fine with that as a compromise.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm on the fence with Malik's removal, and leaning in favor of it. The sources don't establish the connection well enough IMO. MastCell's removal has no merit. These sources are perfectly acceptable. The claims of UNDUE are even more baffling. How is discussing possible legal macihnations not germane?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It is germane, and thus why I am saying that the removal was uncalled for.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)