Jump to content

Talk:Kevin Jennings: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Yobot (talk | contribs)
m Tagging, replaced: {{talkpage}} → {{Talk header}} using AWB (7571)
DLHugsly (talk | contribs)
clearing old items to archive
Line 10: Line 10:
{{archivebox|auto=yes}}
{{archivebox|auto=yes}}
__TOC__
__TOC__

== Jennings' praise of prominent [[NAMBLA]] supporter [[Harry Hay]] ==

Jennings has come under criticism[21] for his praise of Harry Hay, a prominent public supporter of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).[22][23] In 1994, Jennings edited and co-authored a book entitled ''Becoming Visible: A Reader in Gay and Lesbian History for High School and College Students'', in which chapter 11 is called ''Harry Hay and the Beginnings of the Homophile Movement''.[24]

:Someone reverted this eight minutes after I included it, although I reverted it back twelve minutes after that. In any event, the text cites articles from [[Fox News]], [[The Wall Street Journal]], [[The Washington Examiner]], and the text of Jennings' own book, taken from [[Google Books]], thus I'm a little unclear how it could have been reverted on the basis of its "unreliable sources" (as it was). I would hope that does not happen again, as it seems totally inappropriate. [[User:KevinOKeeffe|KevinOKeeffe]] ([[User talk:KevinOKeeffe|talk]]) 14:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

::27 minutes after I reverted his revert (effective deletion) of my edits, [[User:Newross|Newross]] reverted them a second time. I had left a message at his Talk page asking him not to do this, explaining that the edits were properly sourced. I have left a second message at his Talk page, demonstrating more clearly the reliability of the sources I cited, and reminded him of the '''three-revert rule''', and provided him with a link to [[WP:Edit warring]]. If he reverts it a third time, he will have no valid excuse for his violation of Wikipedia policy. [[User:KevinOKeeffe|KevinOKeeffe]] ([[User talk:KevinOKeeffe|talk]]) 14:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

:::Regarding [[Special:Contributions/KevinOKeeffe|KevinOKeeffe]]'s repeated [[WP:BLP]] violations not citing [[WP:Reliable sources]]:
:::* a [[Sean Hannity]] [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,561044,00.html opinion column] is not a [[WP:RS]]
:::* a Mark Tapscott [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obama-appointee-lauded-NAMBLA-figure-63115112.html opinion column] is not a [[WP:RS]]
:::* a Dan Riehl "[http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/10/face-it-people-kevin-jennings-is-fine-with-child-adult-sex.html Riehl World View]" [http://onespot.wsj.com/politics/2009/10/06/a/506282216-face-it-people-kevin/ blog entry] is not a [[WP:RS]]
:::* [[Special:Contributions/KevinOKeeffe|KevinOKeeffe]]'s [[Google Book Search]] [http://books.google.com/books?id=OjNoAAAAIAAJ&dq=%22kevin+jennings%22&q=%22harry+hay+and+the+beginnings+of+the+homophile+movement%22#search_anchor snippet view] is not a [[WP:RS]]
:::[[User:Newross|Newross]] ([[User talk:Newross|talk]]) 14:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The Sean Hannity opinion column is employed in order to demonstrate that Mr. Jennings has been criticized; surely Mr. Hannity calling for his resignation constitutes "criticism?" That is why I put that citation (#21, as can be readily viewed above, in my initial quoting of my edits to the article, at the top of this section) immediately after the phrase "Jennings has come under criticism..."

The Mark Tapscott piece from the Washington Examiner cited facts; I did not quote Mr. Tapscott's subjective opinion about the relative merits of Mr. Jennings, but rather the facts of the case which were noted in the piece.

I did not cite the http://www.riehlworldview.com article itself, but rather I cited a reference to it contained wholly within the website of The Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal cited that RiehlWorldView piece, and I cited The Wall Street Journal. That is a very different thing from what you allege I have done.

I am also more than a little unclear how it is improper to cite the Table of Contents page from a book, when attempting to establish the name of one of the chapters of that same book. That would seem to be a very distinctly ludicrous proposition. [[User:KevinOKeeffe|KevinOKeeffe]] ([[User talk:KevinOKeeffe|talk]]) 15:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

:Well, now that I have aptly refuted the claims of [[User:Newross|Newross]], who clearly makes ridiculous charges, such as that I have linked to a site I have not linked to, and that linking to the ''Table of Contents'' page of a book (page 7, as it so happens) is somehow inappropriate when attempting to establish the name of one of the chapters within that same book, I feel that I am properly justified in re-introducing my edits, as there exists no readily apparent basis for his contention that my edits constitute "unreliable sources." I was previously under the misimpression that the '''three-revert rule''' explicitly disallowed a third revert, but since it explicitly disallows a fourth, I shall make my third revert in order to reintroduce the edits I researched & wrote a couple of hours ago. In the event a fourth revert takes place, I shall be filing the appropriate report. [[User:KevinOKeeffe|KevinOKeeffe]] ([[User talk:KevinOKeeffe|talk]]) 15:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

::I've been looking around for further evidentiary substantiation for my recent edits, and I found some in an editorial piece from [[The Washington Times]], which I have added as a reference within the article. Before it is claimed that an editorial piece is somehow not germane to the topic at hand, due to its non-NPOV status or whatnot, allow me to quote the relevant section of the article:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/04/obamas-lewd-schools-czar/?feat=article_top10_read

---QUOTE BEGINS---

On Oct. 25, 1997, at a conference for the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, Mr. Jennings stated, "One of the people that's always inspired me is Harry Hay." The late Hay was a "gay-rights" activist most notorious for supporting the North American Man Boy Love Association. In 1983, speaking in support of NAMBLA, Hay claimed: "[I]f the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what 13-, 14-, and 15-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world."

---QUOTE ENDS---

I trust we are all in agreement that the above text is supportive of my contention that Mr. Jennings praised Harry Hay, as well as the related contention that praise of Mr. Hay is controversial within American society? [[User:KevinOKeeffe|KevinOKeeffe]] ([[User talk:KevinOKeeffe|talk]]) 16:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

:Mr. Jennings did praise Harry Hay, but not for his support of NAMBLA (not that Hay did support NAMBLA, but that's another issue). In fact, before (his communist activities) and after (his anti-assimilationist activities) his founding of the modern gay rights movement, Harry Hay was not very prominent or notable. You can see this by the [http://americansfortruth.com/news/kevin-jennings-1997-transcript-promoting-homosexuality-in-schools-glsen-good-for-kids.html full speech, not taken out of context] wherein Jennings expounds on exactly ''what'' he praises Hay for.

:Second contention, Hay is not 'controversial within American society', because he was not a "prominent public supporter of NAMBLA". He didn't like their marginalization, so he withdrew from the main pride parade and joined an alternative one—but this was already AFTER the gay rights movement was going, and he lost influence. He did not go on public speaking tours for their cause. I suggest you read his biography, or maybe some of his obituaries, because you are putting too much weight on one small aspect of his politics. [[User:Pepe Silvia|Pepe Silvia]] ([[User talk:Pepe Silvia|talk]]) 22:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The attack on Jennings is based on this syllogism: Person A praises person B for doing thing X. Person B also has done thing Y. Therefore Person A endorses thing Y. This is obviously faulty. You are allowed to praise somebody for having done a particular thing without buying into everything else the person has done. [[User:Wasted Time R|Wasted Time R]] ([[User talk:Wasted Time R|talk]]) 23:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

::Wikipedia itself documents Harry Hay's involvement in NAMBLA. Anytime a public figure praises an individual with ties to NAMBLA, it should be considered controversial and newsworthy. [[Special:Contributions/208.107.76.142|208.107.76.142]] ([[User talk:208.107.76.142|talk]]) 16:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

== Bad writing ==

Some of the writing in this article is substandard. A sentence such as, "The chairwoman of the NEA's Republican Educators Caucus criticized the NEA for the award, citing a 1988 story from one of Jennings' books where he being a high school teacher and counseling a teenage male student who was sexually involved with an adult male", does not make sense and is not grammatical. I'm calling attention to this here as the badness of the writing may well be a clue to other problems. [[user:Born_Gay|BG]] [[user_talk:Born_Gay|talk]] 21:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

:Yes, the article's undergone heavy moving around and editing of material. But I've tried to fix up this instance. [[User:Wasted Time R|Wasted Time R]] ([[User talk:Wasted Time R|talk]]) 23:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

::What's there now is better, I think it could stand to be improved further, however. [[user:Born_Gay|BG]] [[user_talk:Born_Gay|talk]] 02:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

== Family Research Council and opinion/editorials are not useful sources for BLPs ==

Please don't use these sources especially to add negative material on BLPs - they just aren't helpful and anything notable enough will be covered in [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. [[User_talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u><u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b<font color="#AA0022">oi</font></u>]] 23:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

:The material that I've just restored is sourced to AP, CNN, Fox News, LA Times, etc., all news sources not editorials. You can't pretend that Jennings' appointment hasn't produced some attacks against him. Nor can you just delete the statements of the Secretary of Education, White House press secretary and others defending him! But as stated above, I'm in favor of keeping the ridiculous Harry Hay stuff out. [[User:Wasted Time R|Wasted Time R]] ([[User talk:Wasted Time R|talk]]) 23:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
::It's unneeded and undue and completely unencyclopedic. Simply note that there was some opposed and why and that others supported him. We are not a tabloid and we don't keep scorecards of those opposed/supporting. [[User_talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u><u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b<font color="#AA0022">oi</font></u>]] 00:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
:::Put your comments in the straw poll below, which you requested. [[User:Wasted Time R|Wasted Time R]] ([[User talk:Wasted Time R|talk]]) 00:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
::::I didn't request a straw poll but I have added my comment there. This thread, BTW, was on sourcing not content per se. If the content is well sourced and presented neutrally I have no issue with it. [[User_talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u><u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b<font color="#AA0022">oi</font></u>]] 00:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

== removed ==

{{cquote|An editorial in the [[Washington Times]],<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/04/obamas-lewd-schools-czar/?feat=article_top10_read|title=Obama's lewd schools czar|date=2009-10-04|accessdate=2009-10-07|publisher=[[The Washington Times]]|work=Editorial}}</ref> followed by commentator [[Sean Hannity]]<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,561044,00.html Fox News], "It's Time for Kevin Jennings to Resign," by [[Sean Hannity]] (October 6th, 2009 - retrieved on October 7th, 2009).</ref> criticized Jennings for his remarks about [[Harry Hay]], an early founder of the country's [[gay rights movement]].<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/10/25/BA142097.DTL|title=Henry 'Harry' Hay -- gay rights pioneer|date=2002-10-25|accessdate=2009-10-07|publisher=[[San Francisco Chronicle]]|first=Christopher|last=Heredia}}</ref> Jennings gave a speech in 1997, in which he said "One of the people that's always inspired me is Harry Hay, who started the first ongoing gay rights groups in America. In 1948, he tried to get people to join the [[Mattachine Society]]. It took him two years to find one other person who would join. Well, [in] 1993, Harry Hay [[March on Washington for Lesbian, Gay and Bi Equal Rights and Liberation|marched with a million people in Washington]], who thought he had a good idea 40 years before."<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://americansfortruth.com/news/kevin-jennings-1997-transcript-promoting-homosexuality-in-schools-glsen-good-for-kids.html|title=Kevin Jennings 1997 Transcript: ‘Promoting Homosexuality’ in Schools; GLSEN ‘Good for Kids’|publisher=Americans for Truth About Homosexuality|accessdate=2009-10-07}}</ref>}}
:I've removed this as not only being poorly written but also for it's likely intention to conflate Jennings with pedophilia. If this content has any actual merit please find neutral reliable sources that feel this has any merit whatsoever. A quick look shows this has been propped up as a smear campaign against Jennings. This violates NPOV as well as BLP policies. It's called cherry-picking some remark from a public person's past to somehow vilify them. We're an encyclopedia not a tabloid. If this persists more eyes will indeed land on those working to add such dubious content. In contrast the man founded and led one of the leading LGBT youth organizations yet we spend more time discussing his praise for Hay who was a gay liberation activist for four decades. [[User_talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u><u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b<font color="#AA0022">oi</font></u>]] 23:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

::I agree that this makes no sense as written, and violates BLP badly as Hannity and his ilk intended. But as for amount of time spent on this versus the rest of the article, if you checked the edit history you'll see I'm responsible for researching and adding about 90% of the pre-2009 biographical material in the article. I've haven't seen you do nearly as much. [[User:Wasted Time R|Wasted Time R]] ([[User talk:Wasted Time R|talk]]) 00:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
:::We each offer what we can when we can - the article needed overhauling and clean-up and I did exactly that. It's looking much better now and I appreciate your efforts to improve it. [[User_talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u><u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b<font color="#AA0022">oi</font></u>]] 01:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Harry Hay is pretty close to being indisputably the most prominent public advocate of sexual relations between adult men and underage youth in American history. When a prominent official within the U.S. Department of Education praises a man who attended NAMBLA conferences, and marched with NAMBLA banners (photographic evidence of which I recently posted to the Harry Hay Talk page), then that fact becomes a major aspect of his public persona, whether his faithful partisans like it or not. If one Googles "Harry Hay," one of the first ten hits to come up is a NAMBLA link to an essay entitled "Harry Hay on Man/Boy Love." Within the narrow confines of the gay activist community, Harry Hay may be seen as a pioneering activist, but almost everyone else in the Western world, among those familiar with his name, regard him as one of the most disgusting and vile public figures in modern memory. When Kevin Jennings praises Harry Hay, a very public & prominent child-adult sex advocate, that fact forever attaches itself to Kevin Jennings, and his career. That's just the way the world works, outside of the insular world of gay activism. If a member of the Bush administration praised [[George Lincoln Rockwell]], I very much doubt any of you guys would be trying to remove that from his article. Well, this is the same kind of situation, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. [[User:KevinOKeeffe|KevinOKeeffe]] ([[User talk:KevinOKeeffe|talk]]) 05:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
:Harry hay is known for many things - from my understanding he is best known for his leading role in the Radical faeries movement. To suggest that his life work should be equated with pedophilia and all who praise his lifelong accomplishments as endorsing NAMBLA or pedophilia or anything resembling that is quite a stretch. Show that Jennings directly endorses pedophilia without [[WP:OR|Original research]] or move on. [[User_talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u><u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b<font color="#AA0022">oi</font></u>]] 09:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
:George Lincoln Rockwell is not a good analogy – he founded the American Nazi Party and was the leading figure in the post-war neo-Nazi movement in the U.S. He isn't known for anything else. A better analogy would be someone like Rosie O'Donnell – it's certainly possible to praise a lot of what she's done in the entertainment world and the gay rights world without buying into her over-the-top remarks on Bush and Iraq or her idiotic 9/11 conspiracy theories. Or someone like Charlton Heston – someone could easily praise his acting abilities, screen presence, and 1960s civil rights work, without buying into his NRA presidency. Or the reverse – someone could think Heston was great as a gun rights advocate but stiff and self-conscious as an actor. Your syllogism is still faulty. [[User:Wasted Time R|Wasted Time R]] ([[User talk:Wasted Time R|talk]]) 11:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
:Harry Hays is more analogous to George Lincoln Rockwell than Rosie O'Donnell. Some actions (Nazism, murder, pedophilia) are such great evils that they overshadow everything else a person has done. The criticism of Kevin Jennings for his praise of Harry Hays is accurate. Why isn't it documented in the article? [[Special:Contributions/208.107.76.142|208.107.76.142]] ([[User talk:208.107.76.142|talk]]) 16:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

== Straw poll: should this material be included in the article ==

Proposed material:
:[following description of drug use objections and defense] Renewed discussion of the 1988 counseling incident also occurred.<ref name=fox093009/><ref name="cnn100209"/> The Family Research Council expressed the view that Jennings should resign or be removed.<ref>{{cite web |title=Alert |url=http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=AL09I09&f=PG07J52 |publisher=[[Family Research Council]] |date=September 29, 2009 |accessdate=October 1, 2009}}</ref> In October 2009, U.S. Representative [[Steve King]] also called on Obama to dismiss Jennings.<ref name="york100509">{{cite news | url=http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Lawmaker-calls-on-Obama-to-fire-official-in-gay-sex-ed-controversy-63514502.html | title=Lawmaker calls on Obama to fire official in gay sex ed controversy | author=[[Byron York|York, Byron]] | newspaper=[[The Washington Examiner]] | date=October 5, 2009}}</ref> Secretary Duncan supported Jennings,<ref name=fox093009/> as did [[White House Press Secretary]] [[Robert Gibbs]].<ref name="york100509"/> The head of the [[National Association of Secondary School Principals]] also supported Jennings,<ref name="cnn100209"/> and the head of the NEA accused Jennings' attackers of practicing [[McCarthyism]].<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/1009/NEA_head_King_guilty_of_McCarthylike_smears.html | title=NEA head: King guilty of "McCarthy"-like smears | author=Thrush, Glenn | newspaper=[[The Politico]] | date=October 6, 2009}}</ref>

* '''Support''' I see no reason why this should not be included. This gives the reactions of a leading social conservative organization, a congressman, the Secretary of Education, the White House press secretary, and two leading educational organizations. It is simple and factual. To remove this material is to pretend that Jennings' appointment has not generated criticism and support when it obviously has. [[User:Wasted Time R|Wasted Time R]] ([[User talk:Wasted Time R|talk]]) 00:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

* '''Opposed''' It's redundant and unneeded. It really doesn't matter to our readers that John Doe and Group X endorse or oppose because we are an encyclopedia and not a newspaper. We report dispassionately that Jennings was appointed but the appointment was protested in some way and why. For NPOV we add that he also had support. I can't remember which other BLP it was but we had a similar situation of a lengthy [[WP:Coatrack]] of all the groups who opposed or supported the actions - they were all removed for a more generalized and neutral statement. A year from now we really won't care that much. That's the recentism effect - those calling for his firing will move onto their next target and the one after that. This, in part, is why we shouldn't even bother with partisan sources including op ed pieces. They're just not creditable and have a skewed perception based on a POV agenda. For our purposes we look to the most reliable sources and follow their lead. If they think this is a really big deal and the story has a lot of traction then they will start running a lot of stories on it. In general the media makes money by stirring drama - we don't do either. [[User_talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u><u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b<font color="#AA0022">oi</font></u>]] 00:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
** I'm not suggesting adding all groups for and against, just the key government figures and interest groups relevant to the office he holds. And note that your current text in the last section suggests that past drug use is the only thing he's being opposed on, which isn't correct. [[User:Wasted Time R|Wasted Time R]] ([[User talk:Wasted Time R|talk]]) 01:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - provides a correct and verified reaction to the appointment.--[[User:William S. Saturn|William S. Saturn]] ([[User talk:William S. Saturn|talk]]) 00:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
**Plus, this statement: "His appointment was criticized by socially conservative groups" is too vague and doesn't account for the criticism from the Congressman. --[[User:William S. Saturn|William S. Saturn]] ([[User talk:William S. Saturn|talk]]) 00:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
***If that Congressman's statement is that notable it could possibly be wedged as "and elected officials" - which sees weasely - but then the race to add praise from some other congressman is also added etc ad nuseum. There seems little doubt that many don't like the appointment and many do, our job is to neutrally explain the encyclopedic overview rather than the polarized opinions which are more suitable for talk radio. [[User_talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u><u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b<font color="#AA0022">oi</font></u>]] 01:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
****The support from administration figures is also important. It's when Van Jones didn't get that level of support that you knew his goose was cooked. [[User:Wasted Time R|Wasted Time R]] ([[User talk:Wasted Time R|talk]]) 01:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
*****Well, ''we'' make believe that but is there relaible sources that show these opinions are really that important? I'd much rather give it a few weeks and see if it's that big of story or not. There are so many news reports that are blown up and recirculated and in hindsight not that important. [[User_talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u><u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b<font color="#AA0022">oi</font></u>]] 02:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
******Yes, the flap will die down at some point, and Hannity et al will find somebody else to harp on. But that doesn't mean the attention won't have had an effect. It may damage Jennings within certain parts of the Dept of Ed or wider educational community, or it may distract him from mastering the bureaucratic subtleties of his new office, or it may intimidate Jennings from taking certain actions as director, or conversely it may have a backlash effect and give more support and power to Jennings than he otherwise would have had. [[User:Wasted Time R|Wasted Time R]] ([[User talk:Wasted Time R|talk]]) 01:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' as excessive coverage of a transient media circus. Remember [[Mark Lloyd]]. [[User:Pepe Silvia|Pepe Silvia]] ([[User talk:Pepe Silvia|talk]]) 00:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

*'''Support''' throw Jennings' name into google news - this is what he is known for. The proposed text is well sourced, neutrally worded and presents both sides, of course it should be included. - [[User:Schrandit|Schrandit]] ([[User talk:Schrandit|talk]]) 07:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
** "Throw[ing]" his name into Google News spits out recent articles concerning him. This does not mean it's what he's known for. Type Bill Clinton into Google News. It gives you tons of recent articles almost none of which have anything to do with him being President for 8 years which, of course, is what he is most known for. I have no problem with the proposed material itself, but it is redundant and Steve King, a seven-year Congressman, is hardly a powerful member of Congress. He has never chaired a subcommittee and is best known for his controversial statements to the media. You might as well write, "Jennings' opponents oppose him but his supporters support him." The list could go on and on. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/192.135.238.55|192.135.238.55]] ([[User talk:192.135.238.55|talk]]) 21:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

*'''Support''' notable, well sourced and descriptive. clearly encyclopedic. [[User:Cdcdoc|Cdcdoc]] ([[User talk:Cdcdoc|talk]]) 01:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' - unnecessary repetition of information already mentioned in the article (that he was criticised for the 1988 counselling controversy). We don't need, and shouldn't have, long lists of supporters and opposers on articles like this - it's enough to say he's been the target of criticism from conservatives, we don't have to name them all. [[User:Robofish|Robofish]] ([[User talk:Robofish|talk]]) 20:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

* '''Oppose''' - cites too many outdated, inaccurate and unreliable sources for a [[WP:BLP]]—see: [http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200910020042 Following ''Media Matters'' exclusives, CNN dismantles Fox's lies about Jennings.]<br />[[Jessica Yellin]]'s October 2, 2009 [[CNN]] article [http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/02/jennings.student Ex-pupil defends Obama aide over controversial advice in 1988] is the least inaccurate cited source, although:<blockquote>— Jennings is ''<u>not</u>'' an "Obama aide"—he is an Assistant Deputy Secretary of Education who reports to [[United States Deputy Secretary of Education|Deputy Secretary of Education]] [[Anthony W. Miller|Tony Miller]] who reports to [[United States Secretary of Education|Secretary of Education]] [[Arne Duncan]].[http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/or/index.html]<br />— Jennings did ''<u>not</u>'' write in any book "that when he was a 24-year-old teacher, a gay student confided that he'd <u>''had sex''</u> with an older man."</blockquote>The [[Family Research Council]] started the [[Christian right]]'s campaign against Jennings' appointment.[http://www.frc.org/pressrelease/frc-launches-stop-kevin-jennings-campaign] [[User:Newross|Newross]] ([[User talk:Newross|talk]]) 20:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)<br />
: I have rewritten the two paragraphs about:
:# NEA Republican Caucus chairwoman Diane Lenning's 2004 accusations against Jennings (citing the only contemporaneous—and potentially [[defamation|libelous]] source—the "[[Moonie (Unification Church)|Moonie]]" conservative newspaper, ''[[The Washington Times]]''.)
:# The Family Research Council's 2009 campaign against Jennings (citing a press release by the [[Family Research Council]], a Washington, D.C. [[Christian right]] conservative lobby group—not a [[WP:NPOV]] or [[WP:Reliable source|WP:Reliable source]])
: These paragraphs may still give undue weight to a false, potentially [[defamation|libelous]] claim for the inclusion of either paragraph in this [[WP:BLP]]. [[User:Newross|Newross]] ([[User talk:Newross|talk]]) 22:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
:: Your revisions have definitely improved the article, but most of your comments and changes are independent of the straw poll question. I think the article as it stands now is in danger of violating BLP: there are two detailed paragraphs describing the 2004 and 2009 attacks on Jennings, yet the article is completely hiding the fact that Duncan, Gibbs, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, and the NEA are all backing Jennings. If I didn't know better and was just reading this article, I'd think the guy was isolated and without supporters. [[User:Wasted Time R|Wasted Time R]] ([[User talk:Wasted Time R|talk]]) 23:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
:::I've cleaned them up a bit to removed extraneous details - we don't care for instance that Lenning was an [[Orange County, California]] high school teacher as this has to stay focussed on Jennings. I also reintegrated that content so it's only in the one section and removed Family Research Council campaign. They are only a reliable source on themselves and they seem to do campaign on lots of things, who cares? Show that independent reliable sources think that's a big deal and we have something to work with. Otherwise it feels soapboxy and I don't think anyone wants that. To Wasted Time R's concerns I do share that ''maybe'' who supports or condemns that appointment may be relevant but arguably Obama's appointing him would seem the most relevant. If reliable sourcing shows other folks' condemnation or endorsement is a big deal then let's look at those and figure out what to do. [[User_talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u><u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b<font color="#AA0022">oi</font></u>]] 04:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
:::: That the Family Research Council has led the attack on Jennings is supported by [http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/blogtalk-palin-death-and-the-olympics/ this NYT writeup], [http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-education-official1-2009oct01,0,7883971.story this LAT story], [http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/02/jennings.student/ this CNN story], [http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/01/education-official-becomes-the-latest-target-for-obama-critics/ this other CNN story], [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/30/obamas-safe-schools-czar-admits-bad-handling-teen-sex-case/ this Fox News story], and [http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/09/head-of-office-of-safe-and-drug-free-schools-expresses-regret-for-controversial-incident.html this ABC News story], among others. The current article just says "His appointment was criticized by socially conservative groups". There are, in fact, ''many'' "socially conservative" groups, most of whom have probably never said a word about Jennings. Why isn't being specific better than being vague? Why isn't your refusal to name FRC a violation of [[WP:WEASEL]]? [[User:Wasted Time R|Wasted Time R]] ([[User talk:Wasted Time R|talk]]) 11:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::The FRC leads attacks on lots of people[http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?it=al] - mainly against anything Obama is doing - it's part of the US Christian right-wing and does an excellent job at that - it doesn't mean we should promote them or in any way add anything but encyclopedic material about Jennings. Show the FRC's campaign has had a notable impact on anything then we can look to adding context. By the way, that other Obama article this reminded me of is [[Gerald Walpin]] who had a whole paragraph of who endorsed him being fired and who opposed it - ugh! It was all removed. [[User_talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u><u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b<font color="#AA0022">oi</font></u>]] 17:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::Alright, I can see this is getting nowhere. I'm just repeating myself over and over without getting anywhere, never a good sign. I'll cease and desist here. [[User:Wasted Time R|Wasted Time R]] ([[User talk:Wasted Time R|talk]]) 23:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

* '''Support''' For all the reasons already stated. The article does, however, need a little re-writing. [[User:ElizaBarrington|ElizaBarrington]] ([[User talk:ElizaBarrington|talk]]) 19:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

===Update===
The current wording is now:
{{cquote|[[Social conservatism|Social conservative]]s in the [[Christian right]] criticized Jennings' appointment while Education Secretary Duncan, the White House, the NEA, and the [[National Association of Secondary School Principals]] have supported Jennings' appointment.}}
The 1988 counseling issue has been generally re-written and moved to the section above. [[User_talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u><u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b<font color="#AA0022">oi</font></u>]] 12:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


== Endorsement of NAMBLA? ==
== Endorsement of NAMBLA? ==
Line 151: Line 33:
==Category==
==Category==
Is Presidential advisorss category correct? TIA --[[User:Threeafterthree|Tom]] [[User talk:Threeafterthree|(talk)]] 14:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Is Presidential advisorss category correct? TIA --[[User:Threeafterthree|Tom]] [[User talk:Threeafterthree|(talk)]] 14:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

==Falsse accusations of supporting child molestation==
I removed the part about the person being of age and not having sex since it didn't really make sense. I guess the talking headz(my s key iz broken) are making thiz an izzue? Anywayz, let me get a new key board :) --[[User:Threeafterthree|Tom]] [[User talk:Threeafterthree|(talk)]] 21:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
:ok,I see this material is covered in the section above. Is seems a bit repeatitive, maybe a rewrite with care for BLP? Anyways, --[[User:Threeafterthree|Tom]] [[User talk:Threeafterthree|(talk)]] 22:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:05, 20 March 2011

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Endorsement of NAMBLA?

Conservative talk show hosts are saying scathing and possibly defamatory things about him. They are alleging that he admitted to holding the founder of NAMBLA up as a hero. It is interesting that all we have thus far is a stub article. This is in the news now and is quite newsworthy.

I thought I put this earlier, but maybe I was lacking sleep and didn't, since I cannot find it. I know we can't have any editors around who are against discussing this, and I know that we have no editors who hate mainstream America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.124.187.76 (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been discussed above. Moreover, few to none of those links are considered reliable sources suitable for use in a Wikipedia biographical article. Robofish (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've redacted this per WP:Talk, WP:Soap and WP:BLP. None of those links would be useful here and this issue has been gone through before. Wait until reliable sources present this information, and no, opinion pages do not count. -- Banjeboi 03:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GLSEN speech

Jennings gives an extended speech about GLSEN [1]. -- Banjeboi 04:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV

As I look back through the discussion history regarding this article, I must say quite frankly that it is one of the worst displays of whitewashing and sanitizing I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Any attempt by anyone to add information on the significant criticism of Jennings as Director of the Office of Safe Schools (which criticism is one of the best-known and most notable facts about Mr. Jennings) has been downplayed or removed based on tenuous-at-best claims about sources, notability, etc. For those editors who are determined to create an online encyclopedia that is devoted less to facts than to promulgating a liberal worldview, I say: Congratulations. You've done a great job. The current article embeds some mention of the "Brewster" episode within one paragraph, then quickly dismisses it. The section on Mr. Jennings' current position has "consensus" language stating that there was opposition to his appointment, but politely declines to mention WHY there was opposition. This is nothing short of ridiculous. The article is unbalanced and reeks of POV. Unfortunately, I have every confidence that it will stay that way. 72.224.119.119 (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You raise a good point that we omitted why they were protesting, I thought t it was there and have added that content. -- Banjeboi 04:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category

Is Presidential advisorss category correct? TIA --Tom (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]