Jump to content

Talk:C. Vernon Mason: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Ultraexactzz (talk | contribs)
Lead - Edit War: Protection not appropriate; Issue of lead still relevant
Outline what I think are the major points at issue here. WP:BLP isn't really one of them, since the information in question is sourced to either the NYT or the New York courts.
Line 8: Line 8:
==Dispute regarding Lead==
==Dispute regarding Lead==
<s>I have requested page protection, until we can discuss and resolve issues relating to the lead.</s> Bear in mind that, as the subject is a living person, [[WP:BLP|Biographies of Living Persons]] applies to anything added to the article. If there are sources, however, and if the information is discussed in the article, it's possible that a mention in the lead is justified. So, let's discuss the matter. [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] <sup> [[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Claims]] </sup>~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Evidence]] </small> 15:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
<s>I have requested page protection, until we can discuss and resolve issues relating to the lead.</s> Bear in mind that, as the subject is a living person, [[WP:BLP|Biographies of Living Persons]] applies to anything added to the article. If there are sources, however, and if the information is discussed in the article, it's possible that a mention in the lead is justified. So, let's discuss the matter. [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] <sup> [[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Claims]] </sup>~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Evidence]] </small> 15:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

:Thank you. As you know, [[WP:BLP]] only applies to poorly sourced material, and the material which "Bloomfield" (the anon who posts from a variety of Bloomfield College IP addresses) keeps removing is sourced to the New York Times, so it seems unlikely that WP:BLP would actually end up all that relevant to our discussion. I'd like to address what I think ''are'' the relevant points:

:Point one: C. Vernon Mason is primarily notable because of his participation in the [[Tawana Brawley]] case. This is pretty easy to verify. Search on Google for '"C. Vernon Mason"' and you'll get about 3,000 hits. Search '"C. Vernon Mason -Brawley"' (i.e., only return results that contain "C. Vernon Mason" but ''do not'' contain "Brawley") and 2,000 of those hits disappear. You can try the same thing with "Vernon Mason" instead of "C. Vernon Mason", and you'll get roughly 8,000 vs. 4,000. There is not much denying that the Brawley case is primarily why C. Vernon Mason is notable, and the introduction to an article should describe ''why'' a subject is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article.

:However, in Bloomfield's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C._Vernon_Mason&oldid=186127489 preferred version], the introduction does not mention ''anything'' about the Brawley case. Bloomfield thinks that the introduction ''should'' describe Mason as "current executive with a non-profit organization" but should ''avoid'' mention of Mason's participation in a case that grabbed national headlines and continues to echo over twenty years later. To give you an idea how significant this "non-profit organization" is, by comparison: the organization is called "Uth Turn". Out of the following Google searches:
:* '"C. Vernon Mason" Uth Turn'
:* '"C. Vernon Mason" Uth-Turn'
:* '"Vernon Mason" Uth Turn'
:* '"Vernon Mason" Uth-Turn'
:-- none of them reaches even ''100'' hits. Is it representative of any kind of fair judgment to think that Mason's status as a "current executive with a non-profit organization" merits coverage in the introduction but his participation in one of the biggest legal cases of the 1980s should be ''suppressed'' from the introduction?

:Point two: Mason is not just a "former" lawyer; he is a ''disbarred'' former lawyer. This is an important and significant distinction. Whenever you have had to discontinue your line of work because the professional bodies who accredit that line of work decide that ''you can no longer be trusted'' in that line of work, that is a very important piece of information. I think there is room for discussion about how much of the ''circumstances'' of Mason's disbarment should go into the introduction, and how much should be left for the appropriate place in the main body of the article. But I cannot picture any reasonable argument that could be made for describing him in the introduction as a "former lawyer" but deliberately ''omitting'' the fact that Mason is a "former lawyer" ''because he was disbarred''.

:Point three: Whether or not the circumstances of Mason's disbarment should go into the introduction, there is no question that they should go into the ''article''. Again, Mason did not make a voluntary decision to leave the practice of law -- he was ''forced'' to discontinue the practice of law. The reader of the article can make up their own mind about whether the Bar did the right thing by removing Mason's law license -- ''but not if someone keeps taking away the relevant information.''

:Mason's fate is often confused with that of his associate in the Brawley case, [[Alton Maddox]]. Maddox's own legal difficulties with the Bar stemmed from the Brawley case,* and from Maddox's refusal to cooperate with an investigation into his activities in that case. Now, given that the original grand jury concluded Tawana Brawley's allegations to be a hoax, and that, during the defamation lawsuit where ''they'' were defendants, "[e]very opportunity was afforded Mason and Maddox to prove that Brawley’s allegations were true ... the jury found them false by clear and convincing evidence, a high burden of proof"[http://www.nycourts.gov/press/old_keep/brawley.htm], it would be ''difficult'' for a reasonable observer to believe that Maddox obstructed the Bar's investigation because he was a champion of the underprivileged against the rich and powerful, a champion of the oppressed African-American against the white hegemony, or anything similar. However, since it is still ''possible'', we can give the reader the relevant information and let them decide.

:And this is exactly what Bloomfield seems to want to prevent when it comes to Mason. If someone wants to believe that Mason is a champion of the underprivileged against the rich and powerful, they're going to have to deal with the information that the 20 clients Mason was found to have taken advantage of were virtually all low-income or moderate-income. If someone wants to believe that Mason is a champion of the oppressed African-American against the white hegemony, they're going to have to deal with the information that most of those 20 clients were African-American. But Bloomfield's edits have consistently sought to ''remove'' that information. Why? What ''good'' reason can there be for it? It's clearly relevant.

: * Apparently disbarment proceedings against Mason were mooted earlier during the Brawley case ([http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE4DF1338F93BA25752C0A96F948260]), on grounds much different from those on which he was later disbarred, but nothing came of them. -- [[Special:Contributions/209.6.177.176|209.6.177.176]] ([[User talk:209.6.177.176|talk]]) 05:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:35, 24 January 2008

WikiProject iconBiography Stub‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

Dispute regarding Lead

I have requested page protection, until we can discuss and resolve issues relating to the lead. Bear in mind that, as the subject is a living person, Biographies of Living Persons applies to anything added to the article. If there are sources, however, and if the information is discussed in the article, it's possible that a mention in the lead is justified. So, let's discuss the matter. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. As you know, WP:BLP only applies to poorly sourced material, and the material which "Bloomfield" (the anon who posts from a variety of Bloomfield College IP addresses) keeps removing is sourced to the New York Times, so it seems unlikely that WP:BLP would actually end up all that relevant to our discussion. I'd like to address what I think are the relevant points:
Point one: C. Vernon Mason is primarily notable because of his participation in the Tawana Brawley case. This is pretty easy to verify. Search on Google for '"C. Vernon Mason"' and you'll get about 3,000 hits. Search '"C. Vernon Mason -Brawley"' (i.e., only return results that contain "C. Vernon Mason" but do not contain "Brawley") and 2,000 of those hits disappear. You can try the same thing with "Vernon Mason" instead of "C. Vernon Mason", and you'll get roughly 8,000 vs. 4,000. There is not much denying that the Brawley case is primarily why C. Vernon Mason is notable, and the introduction to an article should describe why a subject is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article.
However, in Bloomfield's preferred version, the introduction does not mention anything about the Brawley case. Bloomfield thinks that the introduction should describe Mason as "current executive with a non-profit organization" but should avoid mention of Mason's participation in a case that grabbed national headlines and continues to echo over twenty years later. To give you an idea how significant this "non-profit organization" is, by comparison: the organization is called "Uth Turn". Out of the following Google searches:
  • '"C. Vernon Mason" Uth Turn'
  • '"C. Vernon Mason" Uth-Turn'
  • '"Vernon Mason" Uth Turn'
  • '"Vernon Mason" Uth-Turn'
-- none of them reaches even 100 hits. Is it representative of any kind of fair judgment to think that Mason's status as a "current executive with a non-profit organization" merits coverage in the introduction but his participation in one of the biggest legal cases of the 1980s should be suppressed from the introduction?
Point two: Mason is not just a "former" lawyer; he is a disbarred former lawyer. This is an important and significant distinction. Whenever you have had to discontinue your line of work because the professional bodies who accredit that line of work decide that you can no longer be trusted in that line of work, that is a very important piece of information. I think there is room for discussion about how much of the circumstances of Mason's disbarment should go into the introduction, and how much should be left for the appropriate place in the main body of the article. But I cannot picture any reasonable argument that could be made for describing him in the introduction as a "former lawyer" but deliberately omitting the fact that Mason is a "former lawyer" because he was disbarred.
Point three: Whether or not the circumstances of Mason's disbarment should go into the introduction, there is no question that they should go into the article. Again, Mason did not make a voluntary decision to leave the practice of law -- he was forced to discontinue the practice of law. The reader of the article can make up their own mind about whether the Bar did the right thing by removing Mason's law license -- but not if someone keeps taking away the relevant information.
Mason's fate is often confused with that of his associate in the Brawley case, Alton Maddox. Maddox's own legal difficulties with the Bar stemmed from the Brawley case,* and from Maddox's refusal to cooperate with an investigation into his activities in that case. Now, given that the original grand jury concluded Tawana Brawley's allegations to be a hoax, and that, during the defamation lawsuit where they were defendants, "[e]very opportunity was afforded Mason and Maddox to prove that Brawley’s allegations were true ... the jury found them false by clear and convincing evidence, a high burden of proof"[1], it would be difficult for a reasonable observer to believe that Maddox obstructed the Bar's investigation because he was a champion of the underprivileged against the rich and powerful, a champion of the oppressed African-American against the white hegemony, or anything similar. However, since it is still possible, we can give the reader the relevant information and let them decide.
And this is exactly what Bloomfield seems to want to prevent when it comes to Mason. If someone wants to believe that Mason is a champion of the underprivileged against the rich and powerful, they're going to have to deal with the information that the 20 clients Mason was found to have taken advantage of were virtually all low-income or moderate-income. If someone wants to believe that Mason is a champion of the oppressed African-American against the white hegemony, they're going to have to deal with the information that most of those 20 clients were African-American. But Bloomfield's edits have consistently sought to remove that information. Why? What good reason can there be for it? It's clearly relevant.
* Apparently disbarment proceedings against Mason were mooted earlier during the Brawley case ([2]), on grounds much different from those on which he was later disbarred, but nothing came of them. -- 209.6.177.176 (talk) 05:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]