Talk:Alford plea

Archived

Archived threads that degenerated into WP:NOT#FORUM. Cirt (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Answer to Brumski

(Awaiting answer. Mistakenly archived on the pretext of "notforum")

At the time I notified Cirt of ANI report, the first two references provided by Cirt, both of which failed to support the text, were still the only two authoritative sources in place and both failed to give support to the assertion referred to them. After being informed of the report, Cirt added more references, who up to that point had asserted that these were sufficient - but the two sources in question were still cited as saying what they did not say, and have never at any time been cited on this page as examples of authoritative sources that DO NOT back Cirt's POV. You yourself questioned that the assertion was beyond doubt (as well as the validity of the related name-change), so did User:ChildofMidnight. Now you seem to suggest that, as five out of seven references were accurate, "it is not true" that the other two, original references were faulty, that they were somehow validated and acceptable and should not have been questioned. That's a strange view. Note also that "admitting to certain facts as specified by the prosecution" is not admission of evidence. I still assert that the definitions are intended to specify a difference from "nolo contendere" and do not represent a legal requirement and that the necessity of admission is not specified by all authorities, including some that have been cited. Finally, when a user seeks to make changes to a page with a view to making a WP:POINT on another page, uses inadequate citations and refuses to desist without recourse to admin, that editor is disruptive. Redheylin (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This comment violates WP:NPA, as it makes attacks not backed up or supported by anything. It violates WP:NOT#FORUM, as it is use of the talk page space for discussion not related to further improvement of this article but rather to increase drama and drag out attacks. And per both of those, it violates WP:BATTLE. I ask you to please remove it. You could continue this line of questioning at User talk:Brumski if you wish to. Cirt (talk) 02:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If you think it's an attack, report it. As far as I am concerned, I am still wondering why you cited sources as saying what they do not say, and why the sources are not cited as exceptions to a definition you present as universal on the present article, and why you wish to remove comments addressing this valid concern over NNPOV. Redheylin (talk) 02:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Redheylin has failed to even mention which sources he claims I have cited "as saying what they do not say". Cirt (talk) 02:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Must be in the archive! Fancy that. Good job I pulled out the above..... Redheylin (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Redheylin is making a very serious claim that sources were "cited as saying what they did not say". And yet despite being warned about making unsupported claims like this, he refuses to take the time to do any research and actually name the sources he is questioning. Cirt (talk) 02:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No it's all there in the above letter. There's more detail in the archive but I do not seem to be able to see any archive icon on this page.....Redheylin (talk) 02:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Alford plea/Archive 1. Redheylin does not cite any sources on that page either. Cirt (talk) 02:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

He did in the earlier discussion, which you just archived. I think it is the sources used in this version: [1] The discussion was here: Talk:Alford_plea/Archive_1#Tags. One of the sources you added there, i.e. Champion, calls the Alford plea a "nolo contendere" plea, which according to our article on it is different from a guilty plea. The other source, Gardner/Anderson, says that "Most state courts hold that an Alford plea is the "functional equivalent" of a regular plea of guilty." Given that part of the debate at the time was about moving the article from Alford plea to Alford guilty plea, which is by far the less common term, I think that Redheylin's concerns were at least understandable. The version at the time was confusing as to what nolo contendere meant; it said

"The Alford plea is a form of nolo contendere; where the defendant in the case states "no contest" to the factual matter of the case as given in the charges outlined by the prosecution. An Alford plea is simply a form of a guilty plea, and, as with other guilty pleas, the judge must see there is some factual basis for the plea. Therefore, a defendant's prior conviction via an Alford plea can be considered in future trials; and it will count as a "strike" if a three strikes law applies. On the other hand, a nolo contendere plea is in no way an admission of guilt, and it cannot be introduced in future trials as evidence of incorrigibility."

Another reasonable concern is that the other cited source said

"Most state court hold that an Alford plea is the "functional equivalent" of a regular plea of guilty"

which could reasonably raise the possibility that this might require a more differentiated treatment. I am not a lawyer and don't know what the facts of the matter are; I am only saying that given the state of the article at the time, which you have improved tremendously since then, Redheylin's questions were not without logical basis. If the two of you could manage to get on a bit better, that would obviously help in teasing apart the facts of the matter, such as the difference between Nolo contendere/no contest plea and "Alford guilty plea", and any possible state-based differences. --JN466 02:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, Redheylin (talk · contribs) this entire time to date has yet to give a presentation of any sources or claims or why those sources do not support them. Jayen466, fancy seeing you here, in light of your evidence presented against me in the Scientology arbitration case, I would ask that you refrain from interjecting yourself in disputes I am involved in at articles where you have had no prior involvement before. Cirt (talk) 02:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, you presented evidence against me too. I thought we could put these matters behind us. Your improving this article was a direct result of a discussion at Talk:Osho_(Bhagwan_Shree_Rajneesh)#Alford_Plea that we were both involved in. I don't believe you are being entirely fair to Redheylin here. He did present the sources, as google books links, in his first two posts at this thread, and said what he felt the sources did not back up, and you replied to him, saying he was incorrect. Looking at the sources and the specific wording he took objection to at the time, I think he may have had a point. But please let's not personalise this. --JN466 03:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

In the WP:ARBSCI case, Jayen466 (talk · contribs) presented evidence and commentary attempting to make the case that I should be deemed a WP:SPA of all things because of my Featured Article contributions to Wikipedia. Jayen466 is aware of a request not to follow me around to articles he has previously never edited [2]. With his involvement at WP:ARBSCI, such behavior of interjecting himself into areas I am involved in may seem to be bad faith. Cirt (talk) 03:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The assumption of bad faith is noted. --JN466 05:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I am simply saying it could be seen as such, and to avoid the appearance of impropriety, it is best for Jayen466 to avoid interjecting himself on pages he has never edited where I am a party to a dispute on said page. Cirt (talk) 08:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Noted. You know all of us were discussing details of this topic elsewhere, before you started overhauling this article, and I just wanted to point out that Redheylin had told you which sources he meant, what the discrepancy was, and that you had read his comment and replied to it. I agree though that nothing good can come from further discussion between us here, so I will bow out of this conversation, but not without acknowledging that you did a great job on the article here.

I am sorry we don't get on these days; we used to once. I guess arbitration does that to people. Take care, --JN466 11:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind words about my work on this article. Cirt (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

How about discussing the article?? (NOTAFORUM) you know..... I could take your above suggestion that I did not provide the sources as a personal attack, but I am busy making wiki better. When you get to work, you do too, as you say. It's a clear choice Cirt - discuss improving article or disrupt. Redheylin (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Redheylin, all of your above comments are not related to improvement of the article but instead to complaining about a prior version of it. Cirt (talk) 03:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Read again. Redheylin (talk) 06:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Please be more specific. Can you give a suggestion about a certain part of the article in its present state, on how to improve its quality further? Cirt (talk) 08:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit break

If I might make a suggestion, I don't think that it's productive to bring up the past here. Redheylin, you are mostly complaining about the article as it was, in a previous state. I understand that Cirt has accused you of engaging in personal attacks by complaining about the accuracy of sources without justification. I think that Jayen466, accusations of bias aside, made a reasonable defense of your claims. I think you could have been more specific with your complaints (it shouldn't take another editor to clarify) but what's done is done and I don't think that you should be censured for them. It appears to me that most of your concerns have already been addressed.

I don't think either of you have been disruptive. You have had a disagreement, you haven't handled it in the best way possible, but as long as things proceed constructively from this point forward there shouldn't be a problem.

To get back to the article, if I may, I see two complaints made that still apply to the current article. They are:

• "Admitting to certain facts as specified by the prosecution" is not admission of evidence.
• Definitions are intended to specify a difference from "nolo contendere" and do not represent a legal requirement and the necessity of admission is not specified by all authorities, including some that have been cited.

Both of these complaints seem to be regarding the Definition section of the article. Does this seem to be an accurate summation of the current issues you have with the article, Redheylin? -- Atama頭 22:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Atama (talk · contribs), for this analysis. I can say that if they are not there already, from my research the overwhelming majority of WP:RS sources clearly state that the defendant must admit that there was enough evidence to find them guilty, as a direct part of the plea. Cirt (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Atama. Thankyou, yes, you have hit it on the head. I'd mention that the previous discussion was archived, some discussion has also taken place on other pages. A couple more editors agreed there was some room for doubt as to the fine points but have withdrawn. I found it necessary to drag this part out of the archive and was reverted, hence the terse answers. I applaud Cirt's work on this article, which is now far better than before, even if I reserve the opinion that my comments have driven this to some extent and that the thrust of the article has also been somewhat driven by the desire to make a point re. Osho, where the discussion began. I think, in the absence of definitive sources (and I understand implementation differs from state to state), the omission of the "evidence" clause in some authorities should be noted. And it seems to me that the main factor is; that the guilty plea is in the plaintiff's interests. I'd like to ensure no contradiction with the Alford case article. I am no expert and I'd consider it impudent actually to edit these articles, and so I have been requesting the oversight of a more knowledgeable editor than myself and shall be happy to turn the matter over to such an editor. Redheylin (talk) 07:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)