Talk:Brett Kimberlin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Brett Kimberlin has an estranged wife and children[edit]

Found out about his wife from some recent blog posts about how he just tried to have her involuntarily committed. The crazy sounding bits I won't go into because that stuff is a BLP nightmare. Even if/when the allegations are ironclad documented any text along those lines would be under pressure to get knocked out. But it would probably be a good idea to add Tetyana Kimberlin (in 2013 age 32) to the article as well as the existence of the kids. This 2007 story would allow inclusion as a RS though they may have gotten her name spelled wrong. TMLutas (talk) 07:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Update: The wife filed a peace order on Brett, from which signature you can determine that the news article above spelled her name wrong. It's Tetyana Kimberlin. TMLutas (talk) 07:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Further Update: As usual, the general procedure is to request a cite tag if you think a new fact is controversial and want to dispute it. Only after you've cited and nobody can come up with documentation do you undo an edit. I've reverted, putting the info back in and put in the 2007 article as a cite because for at least one editor Kimberlin's marriage is something that they want to dispute. This is very value neutral stuff. It's not like I'm knocking the guy for taking advantage of a naive, far too young, mail order bride in a feminist nightmare. Now that would have legitimate potential BLP problems and need major documentation before inclusion. TMLutas (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted again. First, the cited source doesn't way he was married, only that he had two kids. Second, the source is from 2007 and so there's nothing to indicate that he it still married. Finally, a lead is supposed to summarize the article. There shouldn't be material in the lead that isn't in the body. And it shouldn't be in the body unless it's noteworthy and reliably sourced. If you can find reliable sources that explain what really is going on, you could try finding a place for it in the body. If you did that, you still shouldn't put it in the lead because it's not sufficiently noteworthy to go into the lead.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Simply reverting instead of improving sourcing on a basic biographical issue on a biography page is not proper. Marriage status and children is a normal bit for the lead but if you want to move it to another paragraph, I won't protest. Just stop it with the reverts. There are better solutions to any of the issues that you raise. TMLutas (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Update: Coverage on Brett Kimberlin's latest court adventures with his wife. There is plenty of RS sourcing available via that link including court filings that demonstrate the guy is married and separated. I can certainly understand the impulse of a Kimberlin defender to keep the guy's sex life completely out of his article because of the whole Scyphers business, however doing so is both an NPOV issue and a damn creepy and unjustified defense of a sexual predator. The 2007 article is the least hostile document that I could find on Kimberlin. TMLutas (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

You added a paragraph to a BLP sourced only to Robert McCain's extreme right-wing weblog? Are you completely unfamiliar with the concept of WP:BLP? — goethean 16:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
1. you should have created a new section on the talk page. Your protest is not about whether Kimberlin has a wife and kids. I didn't cite McCain there.
2. The particular article prominently features a great big pull quote from Citizen K, including page number. After I just copied and pasted the cite elsewhere in the article. The cite now is to Citizen K with page. In the original edit, the summary says "Article used for citing is drawing directly on Citizen K book. Change the cite over to Citizen K if the sourcing is an issue" so I was perfectly aware of the potential for cite issues and provided an alternate from the start.
I want to thank you for not doing a slash and burn revert as Bbb23 was doing. Tagging your issues, even if I disagree on McCain's suitability for RS, is something I can actually work with to produce consensus. TMLutas (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't care if Robert McCain claims that he is a close personal friend of Kimberlin, it is all completely unreliable and uncitable. McCain's blog is the very definition of an unreliable source. When you cited McCain's blog[1], you violated WP:BLP. I will undo any edits that you make to this article which are poorly sourced. Also: your calling someone above a Kimberlin defender is a personal attack. If you make another personal attack or violate WP:BLP again, we will discuss it at WP:ANI. — goethean 18:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
What do you mean uncitable? RS McCain may not be reliable for a particular topic but the cure for that, and it was applied, is to look at the article, notice that it was largely based on a perfectly acceptable RS that was already used in the Brett Kimberlin article and just move the citation to that less controversial RS. Examples of what the site, TheOtherMcCain would be reliable for the purpose of a citation would be, Robert Stacy McCain himself, as well as citations regarding the pretty strange stuff directly involving him that led up to "everybody blog about Brett Kimberlin" day. In other words, RS McCain doesn't have cooties and neither does his ideology. His site is no more and no less useful for Wikipedia citation purposes than any other professional journalist's blog project where they're trying to turn a buck (or has he puts it "hit the freakin tip jar"). In other words, a grey area that is sometimes allowed, sometimes not as per the details of Wikipedia policy documents and consensus in their interpretation. If we're going to go to WP:ANI, your bullying is a more likely topic. What is this garbage to threaten proceedings based on an immediately fixable (and quickly fixed) citation dispute? TMLutas (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
You are failing to follow Wikipedia policy in a fundamental way. McCain's weblog is not a reliable source in any way shape or form, including for what he claims are quotations from an ostensibly reliable source. Whatever McCain claims on his weblog is completely and totally irrelevant to the writing of a Wikipedia article on the biography of a living person. If your source for the references to the cited book is Robert McCain's weblog, then the material should be removed from the article immediately. Have you yourself seen the book that you are citing, or are you getting the quotations from Robert Stacey McCain's weblog? — goethean 23:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Are you challenging that the cite or the text is inaccurate? Yes or no as an answer please, or at least an equivalent that is just as clear. If yes, I'll continue this line of discussion right after you give me your reasons to doubt the cite or text's accuracy. If no, there is no reason to discuss this further. TMLutas (talk) 05:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
In other words, you refuse to answer my simple question. Which most likely means that you haven't examined the source yourself, and are just quoting Robert Stacy McCain's quoting of it in his unreliable weblog. Since you have not seen the source yourself, I will have to insist that the material be removed. — goethean 13:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
In other words, if you aren't actually challenging the factual accuracy, there is no controversy and you're just pursuing a vendetta. Take that someplace else in that case as vendettas don't have a place in Wikipedia. Either you think that Kimberlin is or isn't married. If there's an actual controversy where we disagree on facts, we can discuss what each of us thinks, and how the article should reflect that. On a good day, we might even reach consensus and move on to other issues. If there is no actual controversy on the facts, then we can move on to sourcing this in a way acceptable to wikipedia, an issue that is irrelevant if we disagree on the facts (which is why I won't put the cart before the horse). Then you can share how I can acceptably put in the citizen K citation you're nit picking about (and I can't wait to hear your opinion on how I am to actually prove your request has been complied with). Along the way we might have a nice discussion on WP:AGF. So let's get on with it, is there a factual disagreement here? How am I actually supposed to prove what you're asking regarding the citation? TMLutas (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Reading something on a tendentious blog and coming to Wikipedia to add something inspired by the blog is tendentious editing. I have no particular interest in whether the article does or doesn't say something about Kimberlin being married; not having read the blog, I don't know how adding something about it would advance the blogger's agenda. But I have no doubt that there's an agenda here. Mind telling us what it is? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I hate to agree with goethean on almost anything, but I fear I must in this case. You are clearly trying to WP:COATRACK in attacks on kimberlin, by using unreliable attack sources to back innocuous facts. That he is married is irrelevant to the article, he does not have any significant "personal life" section, and it certainly does not belong in the lede, which should be summarizing the main thrust of the article, and not have a dangling pseudo-biography. Find a neutral source discussing his marriage outside of an attack, and you can add it. Otherwise stop trying to WP:GAME us. (In case you think I am biased, I personally think Kimberlin is scum, and I put credence in many of the accusations against him from the unreliable sources (especially regarding SWATting etc)- but violations of policy are violations of policy.) @nomoskedasty : I believe the attack is ultimately that she is a young mail order bride, and there are (unsourced/unreliable) allegations of mistreatment of her by kimberlin, in addition to the embarrassment of him being cuckolded. The source linked also makes allegations of potential pedophelia grooming. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin42, I appreciate the backhanded swipe, and likewise am shocked that there is a right-wing bandwagon on which you have not jumped. — goethean 22:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Gaijin42 - So let me get this straight, the edit under consideration, that Kimberlin has a wife and two kids, is tendentious because I originally found out about his marriage from a blog. Whether it is true or not is irrelevant. Whether there is RS sourcing to back up the point is irrelevant. What justifies the edit is that the original light bulb that led me to ask "I wonder what Wikipedia says about this" and to go in to fix it (when I found it was not covered at all) was not up to Wikipedia's standards. I'm not actually insisting on using the objected to source. There's a perfectly mainstream 2007 news article that talks about his family. It has the wife's name wrong. Tetyana Kimberlin's spelling of her first name can be found in court documents from her perfectly legible signature. I'm not trying to get those in the article either. I just want to use the correct spelling and have a consensus on that. Before an edit can be tendentious, it really has to be untrue or at least an NPOV issue. An agenda that is met by including factually true, neutrally worded edits is not an agenda that should be kept out of Wikipedia. I'm perfectly happy to compromise on wording and sourcing and have been from the very start. But you object because I might follow up with different edits later that wouldn't be NPOV. This is a standard that is utterly outside the norms of Wikipedia, or at least any encyclopedia project that I have an interest in contributing to. So just for forensic giggles, Gaijin42, do you think that Brett Kimberlin is married? Do you think that he has children? Are you going to at least have the guts to answer the basic question of whether there is an actual factual controversy here, something that Goethean seems determined to avoid? TMLutas (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity - Brett Kimberlin is currently portrayed as a sexless sort of guy and that's just not accurate. The Barton/Scyphers asserted relationship is completely out of the article which I kind of understand as being extremely creeptastic and difficult to properly cover with the sensitivity demanded by WP:BLP but the article also fails to cover his present relationship which is at least borderline conventional and whose basic inclusion shouldn't trip any policy violations. My agenda, and I've been pretty clear about it was exploratory. I was curious how inappropriately defensive is the community that keeps an eye out on the Brett Kimberlin page. How much are they violating Wikipedia policies in order not to have a complete, realistic picture of the fellow on Wikipedia? That was my agenda. I came at it from the initial perspective that it couldn't possibly be as bad as advertised. I now stand corrected. The Brett Kimberlin page is now included in my reference set of wikipedia mini-communities that are excellent case studies of why Wikipedia must be used with caution and not for any serious academic work on anything even vaguely controversial. TMLutas (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

What we believe is irrelevant. This is a BLP. Does he have a family? Sure. Are there reliable sources discussing the family? Dunno, you haven't linked them. Attempting to source an innocuous fact, via an unreliable source that is making exceptionally BLP violating allegations is not going to fly. There is no requirement that a pseudo biography be fleshed out for someone with a BLP. If the controversial information is the only thing well sourced, then that is the only thing that we can write about. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow, did you miss the revision where Goethean reverted a mainstream press account? diff and article link? When did the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette start being a controversial source? I don't give much of a hoot about McCain's blog being in or out on a specific link, though I take objection to the idea that it can't be a reliable source about anything because it certainly can be an RS about what McCain himself says. The reversal of the Journal Gazette sourcing just stinks. The edit comment "per talk" is especially ripe. TMLutas (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Kimberlin relationship with Scyphers/Barton[edit]

WP:V requires "multiple" high-quality sources for exceptional claims (see WP:REDFLAG). The assertion that someone had a "relationship" with a pre-teen girl (and was then suicidal when that relationship ended) is just about as exceptional as it gets. Being a "person of interest" in an unsolved murder isn't far off. TMLutas, I strongly advise you not to add poorly sourced material to BLPs on Wikipedia. In my view, trying it on so that you see what you can get away with is a poor editing practice; if you want to add something like this, much better to post to the talk page about it first and gain consensus here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Different topic entirely as well as different edit from the is kimberlin married stuff, so I'm going to insert a section tag above. The wording is mine.
The Indianapolis Star has two relevant Barton/Scyphers sources.
http://www.indystar.com/assets/pdf/BG164276919.PDF
http://www.indystar.com/article/99999999/NEWS06/100919013/StarFiles-Speedway-Bombings-Part-2
The Citizen K book also seems to cover this angle.
Since the really obvious fact that the guy is currently married and has children is generating so much controversy, I'm going to shelve the idea of including this material at this time. It's pretty obviously a bridge too far even though it would seem to meet inclusion criteria. I just wanted to get out there the sources that I've found thus far in case anybody else wants to chime in with other sources and/or take up the issue themselves. I'll just concentrate on the baby step of getting the page to admit that Kimberlin's a family man these days. TMLutas (talk) 08:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Update: The Scyphers/Barton relationship is covered in the Speedway bombing article with three sources, two of which I referred to above. The third is Stoner, Andrew (2011). Wicked Indianapolis. The History Press. ISBN 1‐60949‐205‐6.
Again, not pushing for this edit at this point because we apparently are having a knock down over what should be much less controversial, the current marriage of Brett Kimberlin to Tetyana Kimberlin and the fact he has two kids. TMLutas (talk) 09:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Frankly, this is infinitely better sourced than the family stuff, and I could see this getting added in, but we would have to be very careful to say what was alleged and not what was fact. (Clarify : Being a suspect in the murder. Pedo grooming is not covered in these sources any where near close enough to reliably) Gaijin42 (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough, do you have a text to nominate or should I do the honors? TMLutas (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

This article needs a NPOV[edit]

This article seriously needs a neutral point of view. I can see by the Talk Page that it is contentious article but the article, as it is, is biased and one-sided. It seems like editing this article has gotten way too personal for some users. Remember WP:BLP, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:POINT, WP:CALM and WP:NOTHERE!

Please do not remove the template until bias is reduced within the body of the article. It might be more quickly done if a user that is not involved in this political conflict is brought in to oversee a rewrite. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

What is your specific complaint about the article? If you do not provide this, the template can be removed. — goethean 18:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Details appear to have been added at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#NPOV_check_requested. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

A discussion on this article is being held at Biographies of living persons noticeboard Newjerseyliz (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Ukraine business interests[edit]

In an interview in Washington's City Paper Brett Kimberlin talks about a post-jail business career doing export to the Ukraine among other things, including his music career (which seems to be separate from Justice Through Music). Before we get into another pointless dispute, can we have consensus that the source meets WP:RS and we can add his business and music career in the article? Feel free to nominate texts to cover the new news in the article. I just think that his business career is another aspect to the man's life that probably should be covered. TMLutas (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes it looks like a reliable source, albeit pretty dated. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brett Kimberlin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)