Talk:Steve Windom

Deletion of rape and urination references

Mr. Windom is a colorful figure. Some of this color may not be flattering in his Wiki biography, but the material removed by Dem1970 was accurate, and carefully noted to published media sources in Alabama newspapers. These edits are a transparent effort to make the Wiki entry a PR piece, and omitting facts concerning controversies renders the article, as a whole, contrary to NPOV. Would the article on Don Siegelman be NPOV, or worth reading, if all reference to his criminal proceedings were omitted? Or that on Richard Nixon, without mentioning Watergate? Of course not. Likewise, the deletion of Mr. Windom's well-documented "jug" incident, and the rape accusations (for which his opponents, not he, were successfully prosecuted), likewise violates NPOV. Ditto the omission of the percentage by which Windom lost the gubernatorial primary. This polish job may or may not have something to do with Windom's wife's current campaign for an elected judgeship.

In any case, I am restoring the bulk of the deleted material. The references of awards added by Dem1970 seem to be accurate, and I won't remove them; they show where Windom's support came from. But if gratutious PR efforts continue on the page, I will ask for edit protection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Audemus Defendere (talk • contribs) 17:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Insertion of "entirely false" reference

First off, my bad on the section above; I thought I'd signed it.

Now, Dem1970 has added the phrase "entirely false" to describe the accusations against Mr. Windom. The phrase is inserted as if it is a fact about which there is no dispute. However, even one of the jurors who convicted Mr. Windom's accuser of witness tampering made a public statement that the conviction did not clear Windom; this is evident even from the title of the article cited from The Birmingham News: "Juror Says Case Didn't Clear Windom." see generally, WP:ASF. The text as I had written it was supported by the news article, but the statement that the prostitute accusations are "entirely false" isn't.

I hesitate to expand the discussion of the topic to include all the accusations and counteraccusations. Putting that much emphasis on the subject risks over-emphasizing its significance to Windom's career, and that over-emphasis itself risks the article's NPOV. On the other hand, omitting the incident entirely risks NPOV by limting the article to self-promoting accomplishments. Consider the following from WP:WELLKNOWN: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." The brief mention of the original accusation, the mention that the attorney who helped raise it was convicted of witness tampering, and the continuting controversy raised by the juror's statement seem (to me) to strike the best NPOV balance.

I am removing the phrase "entirely false" for these reasons. I am totally open to an alternative formulation of the discussion of the prostitute controversy, but I suggest it be posted here so we can reach consensus. see WP:CON. I have the page on watch, and will try to catch them.Audemus Defendere (talk) 09:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Prior Anonymous Writer on High Horse

Audemus Defendere, you certainly have done a good job of propounding the goal of unbiased articles on Wikipedia. I find it odd that your original entries/changes for this article, as well as a number of others focused on Alabama Republicans, were so incredibly biased. Go back and read those and get off your high horse. Your interest in these articles seems to be based on some personal animosity toward the subjects. Your original entries amount to attacks, and attacking others anonymously is cowardly. Dem1970 (talk) 10:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

re: "Prior Anonymous Writer on High Horse"

Dem1970: Please carefully read and review WP:NPA. I will only note that I have previously added "positive" material to this article (e.g., the recent election victory of Windom's wife, as well as the original contribution of a link to Windom's lobbying business).

The edit also misstates the date of Windom's party switch from D to R as 1994. I am correcting this, and adding a newspaper cite.

As to the prostitute issue, the story from The Birmingham News, which was deleted, refers to the prostitute's recantation. According to WP:RS, "When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used." The item from "Overlawyered.com" is from a website with a singularly sharp point of view. I can only imagine what's on the trial lawyers' website about Lt. Gov. Windom, and I am not going to bother looking, let alone cite it as a source here. Likewise "Overlawyered.com". For those reasons, I am restoring the original cite, for both the conviction and the recantation (which I am leaving in). Mindful of my own caveat, supra, about too much discussion of the topic, I am making another stab at a balanced presentation of the controversy. As with an earlier version, the version I am now editing would leave a reader with the false impression that there is no controversy that Windom was entirely innocent. As such, the current version has accuracy issues, as well as NPOV issues. I honestly don't know if the accusations were true or not, and the article needs to reflect the disputed public record. And again, I ask anyone taking issue with it to talk here before unilaterally editing, to try to reach consesnus. see, WP:CON. Audemus Defendere (talk) 01:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Material appropriate or not

I see that Dem1970 (talk · contribs) and Audemus Defendere (talk · contribs) seem to be involved in an edit war regarding some content on this article. In particular, edits like this and this. At least one legal threat has been thrown into the mix; let's try and calm things down, shall we? Obviously this is a WP:BLP concern, but it's worth noting that the material appears at first glance to be written in a more or less neutral and sourced matter. There may be a question of whether it is reliably sourced, or of whether the material is ultimately appropriate for the article. I'll be cross-posting this to the BLP noticeboard in a moment. Thoughts? – Luna Santin (talk) 05:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I believe my last edits of Audemus Defendere's edits strike a balance that does not overly emphasize, nor ignore, events. I hope no further edits on the subjects are made. Audemus Defendere's true motive is clear. Read his early entries for a number of Republican politicians in Alabama. I have now cautioned him in a friendly but clear manner. I am not making legal threats. I am making simple observations. If you review Audemus Defendere's comments on this page and his previous edits on this and a number of entries, he defames a number of individuals under US and international law. Claiming controversy when there is no adequate ground for doing so, and writing statements with malice (as shown by early entries) amounts to defamation. Hopefully this matter is now resolved. Dem1970 (talk) 13:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

I am new to Wikipedia. I am not a programmer and am learning the rules still! I did not mean to create a page for Audemus; I was trying to leave a comment on his talk page and put it in the wrong place. I was also not making a legal threat and have clarified that sentence...proper authority = Wikipedia Admin. I am a Democrat who is offended by Audemus' original edits (i.e., hacket jobs) on a number of Republican candidates. Many of those have also been fixed by others before I needed to jump in. I hope Audemus' overemphasis of certain events and clear bias against the subjects ends here. Best, Dem1970 (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Response to "Clarification" et al.

Hurrah, we're talking! At least Dem1970 and I are. In the meantime, we seem to have a couple of other editors afoot, which is great; the more, the merrier, and the less likely any goof Dem or I makes is to last long. I would only ask that anyone editing talk first, and see if we can get to common ground here, then edit. 'Tis the Wiki Way. see WP:CON. I do hope Dem can hold off discussions of my personal edit history here; this is for talk about the article. see WP:TALK. I am going over shortly to my Talk page to make some observations about his concerns. Short version, I think my edits are a lot less biased when you consider the typical history of an article on politicians below the gubernatorial level. Now, for a couple of issues hanging around out there:

Notability/importance/suitability

Luna Santin seems concerned about the suitability of the prostitute case. The most recent edits have all left some mention of it in, so I am guessing we all agree some discussion is relevant to the article topic. Judging from the archive results of the major Alabama papers, they seem to think it's notable, too. Between the first story in mid September, and the election on November 3, the story got the following number of hits (archive search at al.com: “Windom AND prostitute”) in the three largest newspapers in Alabama:

• The Birmingham News: 19
• The Mobile Press-Register: 13
• The Huntsville Times: 15

Between Election Day 1998 and the end of Windom's term in 2003 (during the Ivey trials, and the lawsuits), the same search generated the following numbers of hits:

• The Birmingham News: 73
• The Mobile Press-Register: 60
• The Huntsville Times: 38

Without setting out a detailed survey, it's fair to say that, after about the first week, the tenor of these stories changed from "Windom accused" to "Accusations falling apart" to "Windom's opponents accused." The newspaper endorsements of Windom cited in the article all refer to the mess in terms favorable to Windom and unfavorable to Freeman, his opponent. My personal opinion, for what it's worth, is that the controversy actually elected Windom, by turning public sympathy in his favor (he only won by 50.3%-49.7%). Thus, I think the topic is notable and important, if delicate. I think it's controlled by WP:WELLKNOWN: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

• Comment Sorry, but this type of analysis strikes me as very consistent with cyberstalking behavior. Cleo123 (talk) 05:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, this type of confusion strikes me as strikes me as either an inability to distinguish research from "stalking", or a badly disingenous form of spin. Using newspaper archive search engines is "stalking"? Which is what you're suggesting under that weasel-wording. Care to elaborate the similarities? Feel free -- no, I insistent on -- actual citations to cyberstalking criteria. --Calton | Talk 13:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Try reading the Wikipedia artcle on cyberstalking. Maybe you and your friend can spend "an entire weekend ruminating" on it. Cleo123 (talk) 08:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Now for the ticklish part. To facilitate my discussion, I am going to paste in the article text as I last edited it, with references converted to parentheticals, and the sentences numbered for reference:

(1)Windom's campaign for Lieutenant Governor was marked by accusations that he had hired, and later assaulted, a prostitute. (2)Garve Ivey, an Alabama plaintiffs' attorney who supported Windom's opponent, was eventually convicted of witness tampering and criminal defamation in connection with his efforts in originating those accusations. (3) In that trial, the prostitute recanted her earlier accusations of Windom.("Ivey Guilty on Two Counts, Cleared of Bribery," The Birmingham News, June 23, 2000, p. 1A) (4)The forewoman of the jury in that trial later told the media, "I still don't know whether [the prostitute's] statements were true."("Juror Says Case Didn't Clear Windom," The Birmingham News, July 4, 2000, p. 1A) (5)The Alabama Supreme Court later vacated Ivey's conviction, although it noted that "this opinion cannot and should not be viewed as vindication of Ivey's version of the evidence."(Ivey v. State, 821 So.2d 937, 939 (Ala. 2001))

Sentences (1), (2), and (3) are retained by both Dem1970 in his most recent edit, and by the mysterious 71.198.183.184 in his edit (which is the current version as of this comment at 03:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)). Hopefully, that means we all agree these sentences are accurate, and properly sourced.

The dispute thus seems to be whether to include (4) and (5). Dem repeatedly in comments, and 71.198.183.184 in his one cameo, imply and infer, if they do not state, that this particular material is "defamatory." To be defamatory, a statement has to be false. My recurring question is, what, exactly, in (4) and (5) is false? Are you saying the jury forewoman didn't say that, or that The Birmingham News didn't say she did? Look at the article. If the largest paper in Alabama, which endorsed Windom in 1998, and has at least 2 Pulitzer Prizes, got it wrong, take it up with them. Are you saying the Supreme Court didn't vacate Ivey's conviction, or didn't say what I quoted? Look at the case in the Findlaw.com link. Unless I see a really persuasive, well sourced reply, I am going to assume that Dem1970 and 71.198.183.184 agree that these sentences are accurate and properly sourced, and will hereinafter refrain from referring to them as "defamatory."

Which leaves us with NPOV. The way I have been looking at it is to start with the following from NPOV:

When reputable sources contradict one another, the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner. (my emphasis)

The dispute between Windom and Ivey about the truthfulness of the original accusations was never resolved by any concession by Ivey (or Windom) that I could find referenced in a public source (I am all eyes if someone has one). The most recent story I found had Ivey still unrepentant of anything he may have done. "Windom Asks Court to Delay Two Lawsuits," The Birmingham News, January 18, 2002, p. 1B. Thus, as long as the parties are in dispute, is there something credible in the secondary sources to back both sides up? I think so.

Looking at the five numbered sentences, I "score" them thus: (1), (2) and (3) push the reader in Windom's favor. (4) goes to Ivey, because someone reading that sentence or the source article (The forewoman is quoted as saying, "I laughed" when she read a letter from Windom thanking her for "vindicating" him.) would be "pushed" in the direction of believing the prostitute's original accusations, even if not persuaded. (5) is more of a tie. Any reader would tend to lean in Ivey's direction from the simple fact his conviction was thrown out. On the other hand, the language from the Supreme Court - which mean old anti-Windom me looked up and quoted, instead of just reporting the reversal - gives it a nudge back in Windom's direction. Under NPOV, as long as there is properly sourced material that would cast some doubt on the conclusion of what really happened between Windom and the prostitute, both sides deserve a mention in the article. And I think the balance my text reached, especially after I added the Supreme Court quote, is about right based on the scores of news stories out there. I think it would be easy to violate NPOV here - by, say, adding material from the first week of the story, before the prostitute's story came under third party attack - but I don't think I have come near that line. The fatal flaw with the current edit and its ancestors is that they, having only the first three sentences, make it look like everyone in the world, probably including Ivey, agrees that the prostitute's original accusations were false and that Ivey was guilty. That raises issues not only of NPOV, but of more fundamental accuracy.

Jug

I haven't really mentioned it; most of the stink seems to come over the prostitute references, but Dem1970 and other editors keep knocking out the second sentence referring to the famous "jug" tape, the video cap from that tape, and the link to the video on YouTube. I am going to presume that it isn't in the "defamatory" category the editors have referred to, because there's no serious denial that it happened in any reference I find. I do think it's notable, and worthy of the coverage I give it, because it drew a lot of media attention. Again, the newspaper hits (archive search: "Windom" AND "jug") from 1999 until the end of Windom's term in 2003:

• The Birmingham News: 48
• The Mobile Press-Register: 28
• The Huntsville Times: 30

The jug itself is apparently considered of sufficient historical interest to be in the Alabama State Museum, at the Department of Archives and History. “State Archives Hold a Lot More than Documents,” The Huntsville Times, December 19, 1999, p. D3. It seems that Windom, try as he might, could never shake ... the story. It’s hard to see how a story of this character, given this much play, didn’t become “notable” by contributing to Windom’s defeat in the 2002 gubernatorial primary. At least one political journalist thought so. “Insider Onus Helped Beat Windom,” The Huntsville Times, June 5, 2002, p. A7. And while I don't doubt any mention of the prostitute issue upsets Windom himself, I have seen him talk about it with a very engaging, self-deprecating sense of humor. And given its coverage (the original link someone else added is to a 2007 news item discussing it), I think it needs more than one sentence, and the pic and link add interest and utility to the story (in my completely NPOV opinion).

Photo of Windom

I mentioned this earlier, so I will just update. Dem1970 refers to himself as a Democrat, which I interpret as meaning that he is not the subject of the article. The current photo is from the Subject's website, which reserves rights. We probably need a new pic there. I am of the opinion that such political figures abandon copyright with PR photos like that, and they really, really want the pics published by anyone who will put their mug up, but I am in a minority in Wikiland on the issue.

My condolonces (and thanks) to whoever has read this far. I look forward to everyone's input. Dem1970, just keep looking at the Wiki rules, it gets easier as you go. And on second thought, those comments on my Talk page will wait until tomorrow night. (Oh, and my cursor has been occasionally jumping - if I accidentally edited someone else's comments, sorry.) Audemus Defendere (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit War Over?

Audemus, at this point, I think the article mentions what you clearly want it to without putting too much focus on two events. Remember, Windom was in office for 14 or so years. It seems like your desire to add more about either of the two topics you discussed at length above stems from a clear bias you have against Alabama Republicans. Maybe you are too close to this and lack a dispassionate detachment from the process. Take a minute to read your original edits. It seems that everything you added was intentionally slanted and you left the article over 50% about the two events. Next, read your edits on the article on Gov. Riley. NPOV when you finished? Wow. Then you edited about Dem. Gov. Folsom. Interesting how the entire tenor of the article changed vs the other two articles. You edited with a feather and not a hatchet. So, back to this one. Do we really need anything else here? Other editors and I agree: no. Yet, you insist on bringing up what is at best a fringe theory and at worst libel (carefully read Irish laws on the subject...and Alabama law as well. As you no doubt know from reading the Ivey decision, the sentence was vacated over a small semantical "error" in the law re: malice, but that error has been fixed.). Again, from BLP:

Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm."

And...

...including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced.

And...

The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article.

Finally...

Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.

I urge you to follow these guidelines. Let this one rest. Hopefully you, I, and other editors can agree that no further changes to this article are needed, and you get to keep your current jabs under the guise of NPOV. Maybe once you brush up on Irish law, you'll even consider removing certain aspects of your discussion on this talk page. Dem1970 (talk) 05:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Reprinted from the BLP Noticeboard

Audemus Defendere, you will not be dictating the terms under which WP:BLP concerns are addressed, as you talk page commentary would seem to imply. No one has asked you to take charge of the article's talk page discussion. As I see it your edits to the article do not represent a neutral point of view, at best they are mean spirited and inappropriate. According to this New York Times' article, this man was the victim of an illegal conspiracy of defamation which resulted in a criminal prosecution and conviction. He is the victim, not the perpetrator. The manner in which you have presented the material seems deliberately misleading, depicting the subject in a false and derogatory light. Obviously, the Times is a more reliable source of information than some local paper you've scrounged up quoting an anonymous juror. You are also WAY OVER THE LINE - speculating as to another editors real life identity on the article's talk page. I will be removing those remarks and referring the article's subject to WP:Oversight so they can be permanently expunged from the page history. I suggest that you step away from the article as you appear to have a personal bias against the article's subject. Cleo123 (talk) 05:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Cleo, just to give you some rapid, if not detailed, feedback:

• Cyberstalking? Looking to see how many newspaper articles were written about a topic is cyberstalking? The Admin who took up my original legal threat complaint (which remains unresolved, and the threatmaker has repeated legal threats tonight) inquired whether the issue was notable. I don't know a better way to find out. "Cyberstalking" is digging up someone's bank account and Social Security numbers through online sources, without a lawful purpose. I think the word to describe what I did is "research."

• "the Times is a more reliable source of information than some local paper you've scrounged up quoting an anonymous juror." Let's have perspective. I admire the Times. I read it daily. I have a couple of friends who work there. I have made some expansive Wiki edits on the papers they own in Alabama (which, sadly, have limited archives online). But when I am looking for a source on something that happened in Alabama, I consider bylined lead stories in an Alabama paper more reliable than a 95-word, unsourced, un-bylined, un-datelined "National News Brief" in the Times. Especially when the Alabama paper is the state's largest, and the holder of Pulitzer Prizes in 1991 and 2007, and was the finalist for another in 2006. And if you read my text closely, the juror is not "anonymous," as you peremptorily dismiss her. She is identified in the part of the article I quote as the jury foreperson, and is named in another part of the article by her full name.

• The greatest, and fatal, flaw with this analysis is that it is founded on the assumption that the Times snippet is the definitive source for the subject under discussion. You base your conclusion that "he is the victim, not the perpetrator," on that one item. The problem is, that ignores the very facts that Dem1970 keeps editing out - that the conviction was vacated (although on technical grounds, not on a finding of innocence), and that the forewoman of the jury referred to it as not a vindication of the subject. I don't propose a conclusion. But I don't propose censoring one side of the debate, when there are facts in both pans of the balance, as some apparently do.

• I think you need to consider also the article's edit history - Dem1970 has, in the past, edited out material that no rational person could consider false, defamatory, irrelevant, or anything else improper. For only one example, he edited out the rather lopsided (and usdisputed) margin by which the subject lost the 2002 gubernatorial primary. Audemus Defendere (talk) 08:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• In the unlikely event that any reader construes my Talk as an effort to "dictate" anything: It isn't. And I don't see how it can be.

• I am "WAY OVER THE LINE" speculating about an editor's identity? I noted that the editor identified himself as the subject in uploading the picture he placed in the aritcle. That raises an issue about WP:AB which seems to trouble me more than you. And if he is not the subject, Wiki has a copyright issue with the photo, which is taken from the subject's website. And if discussion of a self-identified autobiographer is taboo, we probably need to delete the WP:AB page while we're in a deleting mood.

• I really don't like making this observation, but I don't feel it's wrong to make it, either. The comment above refers to me as being "deliberately misleading, depicting the subject in a false and derogatory light..." among other things. These comments were made on the basis of some very shallow (95 word, unsourced &c. article ...) research. And, unless Cleo has been working on this since before I posted the chat on which she claims to freshly comment, it was hasty research (see the timestamps). If I had it in for the subject, there was some wild language I could have quoted from published court opinions (Cleo would probably insist on the New York Court of Appeals, not some bunch of bumpkins in Montgomery), and the numerous news stories, which I took time to research before typing. I have probably invested more time in this article than the subject is worth, but it has been to provide a better Wiki article. Under these circumstances, I hope Cleo will reconsider some of her remarks, which are more appropriate in tone for the idiot vandals who smear articles with obscenities, or "Siegenthaler" them. It certainly doesn't encourage me to make additional Wiki contributions. Audemus Defendere (talk) 08:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my remarks, and this little diatribe of yours only reinforces my view that you have some sort of obsessive vendetta against the subject of this article. Your cyber "research" strikes me as obsessive, mean spirited and inappropriate. I would suggest that you read up on cyberstalking as you do not seem to have a clear grasp of the type of behaviors normally associated with it. While you're at it, please have a look at WP:STALK. And AGAIN I am WARNING you to stop speculating as to another user's real life identity. The editor has clearly denied being the subject of the article. The fact that you seem to be deliberately tormenting and harassing this editor is demonstrative of a clear cut bias against someone you believe to be the subject of the article. I'm sure you'd love it if he was the subject. Is that belief what is fueling your attempts to get this new user punished for making "legal threats"? Hey, maybe you can get him banned - that would be a real feather in your little cap. I will point out that although Wikipedia frowns on people creating articles on themselves (which does NOT appear to be the case here), subject's of articles have every right to remove libel and put Wikipedia on notice if they feel they have been defamed.

Much of the negative information you have inserted into the article is simply not notable on a national level. The brevity of the Times piece should prove that to you. You are creating WP:WEIGHT issues with all the irrelevant negative crap you added to the article. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a battleground. If you have some kind of real life issue with the subject of this article, I suggest you take it off line. Wikipedia is not a venue for personal retaliation. Statements such as " I have probably invested more time in this article than the subject is worth" betray your lack of neutrality. I strongly suggest that you step away from editing this article and allow members of the Biography Project to work on making it conform to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV criteria. Cleo123 (talk) 09:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

And I strongly suggest you stow that Superman cape back in your closet, Cleo123, and reflect on WP:OWN yourownself, not to mention WP:NPA (what with language like "diatribe" and ) and WP:AGF (what with language like "obsessive vendetta" and your rather bizarre attempt to spin someone else's attempt at a not-very-veiled legal threat as a part a gotcha game - a quick review of WP:NLT might do you some good, especially the point of said policy).

Rushing and trying to issue orders while waving WP:BLP as if if were some tin sheriff's badge granting you personal power ain't gonna cut it. Try again. --Calton | Talk 13:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Not at all surprisingly, these little pearls of "wisdom" come from a user with a long history of being blocked for incivility and personal attacks. Figures. We can thank Audemus Defendere for this productive input as he/she has apparently been doing a bit of canvassing in what would appear to be an attempt to sway consensus. How neutral of him. Cleo123 (talk) 08:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If we keep indenting, someone is going to fall in the floor to the right of their monitor.

Calton, thank you.

Now, a few points about the last Cleo123 edit:

• Cleo123:“Much of the negative information you have inserted into the article is simply not notable on a national level.” I have yet to be pointed to a Wiki policy mandating that something that is important, perhaps critically, in Alabama be important to Vermonters and Michiganders to be suitably included in Wikipedia. Ceteris paribus, something impacting New York is more important than something impacting Alabama. Likewise, a governor is more important than a lieutenant governor. With those caveats in place, I don’t see you, or any Biography person, rushing off to delete or truncate the 1250+ word separate article, with 47 references, on Eliot Spitzer’s prostitute issue, or the separate section in his main bio. This, even though it’s harmful to him and his family, and even though it only dealt with a few hours of his spare time, compared with the “big picture of this person's career.” (Your language there.)
• Cleo123:“As for consensus, you appear to be the only editor in favor of the inclusion of (the material you hacked out)”. (emphasis added). Apparently, you didn’t look at the article’s edit history before setting your opinions in concrete, or you would have known that Calton made a revert of one of Dem1970’s deletions, restoring my version intact. Now, let’s see. Since I am not a smart New Yorker, I have to use mah fingers ... yep, it’s two. Oops, she’s wrong again. And before you jumped in, the only ones removing it were Dem1970 and “71.198.183.184.” That is, at the most, two in favor of its exclusion.
• What I said earlier about the Times still stands. It’s a great paper, well worth reading. But about Cleo’s Gothamocentric statement that “Obviously, the Times is a more reliable source of information than some local paper you've scrounged up ..., ” two words. Jayson. Blair. I have never, and am unlikely to, run into him in the offices of The Birmingham News.
• I want to re-post this, because it got lost in a shuffle when I missed it and tried to edit it in after a previous post: I think you need to consider also the article's edit history - Dem1970 has, in the past, edited out material that no rational person could consider false, defamatory, irrelevant, or anything else improper. For only one example, he edited out the rather lopsided (and usdisputed) margin by which the subject lost the 2002 gubernatorial primary. (As did you.)
• Cleo123:“The manner in which you have presented the material seems deliberately misleading, depicting the subject in a false and derogatory light.” (emphasis added). Now if I am misquoting Luna, an apparently highly respected admin, or quoting him out of context, I hope he will correct me, but his first observation on the article was, “...it's worth noting that the material appears at first glance to be written in a more or less neutral and sourced matter.” He expressed some concern about the importance of the topic and the depth of the sources, which my subsequent research, which translates into New Yorkese as “stalking,” was to address his concerns on those points. And FTR, especially in the age of search engines, “article counts” are a widely accepted tool in journalism and the social sciences to measure the general level of interest in a topic. Of course, under Cleo’s definition, if I go online to see if the Red Sox are winning, I am “stalking” them.
• Cleo, I know this is an article on Windom, and I know that Ivey is not the subject, and probably doesn’t meet “notability” criteria in his own right, but in light of your repeated calls for the article not to torment, insult, besmirch, etc. Windom, think about this. If Windom had been convicted of something in this affair, and that conviction had been thrown out by the appellate courts, and the forewoman of the jury had made public statements impugning the verdict – would you not have insisted – and rightly – that the article reflect this? Are the Wiki policies you are espousing inapplicable to Ivey, merely because he’s not the subject of an article? And does a non-subject mentioned in an article have no moral claims to NPOV treatment? I don’t think so. Yet, your text
• One last thing. I don’t know if you’ve done a lot of work on the biographies of politicians. But if you’re going to assume supreme command of such articles, you need to be mindful of something. Politicians are the biggest control freaks, and image freaks, on the planet. Lots of people are mad at all politicians, and will push articles negative without intending to benefit an opponent. Positive pushers, on the other hand, are a different genus altogether. Audemus Defendere (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, for what it's worth, arguing that "information is not notable on a national level" is completely unsupported by any of wikipedia's guidelines and policies. WP:NOTABILITY makes no such statements. This could be particularly problematic in larger nations such as the US, Canada, and Russia, where few if any "local" stories about officials of state or similar governments reach national media, while at the same time stories about similar figures in smaller countries, such as Togo, which often get even less press coverage, tend to be seen as meeting those guidelines. We can't use the size of the US and similar countries as a reason for excluding content which would be considered significant enough for figures in smaller countries. John Carter (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Question

Although I've just started researching this subject, I am getting the sense that his efforts in the area of tort reform are perhaps somehow connected to publicity attacks against him which seem to be waged by trial lawyers. It makes me wonder.... Can anyone point me in the direction of reliable sources for the subject's accomplishments in that arena? Likewise, I'm wondering if there might be reliable sources that directly link tort reform with any possible retaliatory campaigns. Thanks! Cleo123 (talk) 08:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help Cleo, and if I kind of yelped when my toe got stepped on ... sorry. Ivey is/was a prominent member of the Alabama Trial Lawyers Assn., which did back Windom's opponent. Windom's whole theory in his legal cases was that his tort reform stance was their motive. (You may note the article reference to his primary opponent pointing out Windom was once a trial lawyer favorite). Audemus Defendere (talk) 08:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources: If you have Lexis or Westlaw, you can search The Birmingham News, The Huntsville Times, and the Mobile Press-Register there. If not, their archives are online far enough back to cover this topic, but only on a fee basis. Also, the Supreme Court opinion in Ivey's criminal case doesn't go into a lot of political detail, but notes that the day after the prostitute's suit was filed, "In response, Windom held a press conference denying Myers's allegations; in that press conference he stated that Myers had been paid by the Alabama Trial Lawyers' Association ("ATLA") and Ivey to fabricate the story on which the complaint was based." Trial lawyers vs. tort reformers has been a big centerpiece of Alabama politics for 20 years or more now. Audemus Defendere (talk) 08:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoa!

To save anyone the trouble of comparing timestamps, my apology for any extent to which I reacted to Cleo's comments was offered before I saw her Homelite Chainsaw edits on the main article - which she did NOT wait on community consensus before making. The article as she has left it is beyond what even Dem1970, for all his sometime inappropriately strident advocacy of his position, had done. This is not a good thing. Audemus Defendere (talk) 08:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)]]

No, it's a WP:BLP and a WP:WEIGHT thing. And it is a good thing. I do not need to wait for your permission to address WP:BLP issues. As for consensus, you appear to be the only editor in favor of the inclusion of all this negative, mean spirited junk that is throwing the article out of balance. Think I've deleted something notable or particularly relevant in the big picture of this person's career? Make a neutral, fact based argument for its inclusion here. Cleo123 (talk) 09:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The adversarial atmosphere is not making this any easier to resolve. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It could also be said that the comment including "negative, mean spirited junk" is in fact itself a violation of the WP:TALK guidelines, and that such comments have no place on this page. In fact, as per that page, there is sufficient cause for them to be removed and the people making them to be at least cautioned to avoid making such comments in the future. I very sincerely urge all editors to refrain from such comments regarding the actions and motivations of others, and focus instead on the actual content itself. John Carter (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Request

Now, I know there are some issues with this page, so I have a challenge. Please, in filling this request, put the information below with sources to that information (and then we can decide how to add it):

1. We need more biography. This includes some information between birth and getting his JD. What college? What important events happened in his life? Is he even married or have kids? (ti is suggested that he has both, but there isn't any information in the body of the biography) Politicians gush about this, and I am sure that local newspapers ran something. 2. What did he do in the state senate? Anything important? Who did he run against? 3. What was the political campaign for Lt. Governor like before the political scandal? Who did he run against? 4. How important is that "urination" story really? I would like to see at least three reliable sources before adding anything on it. Did he do anything else? I'm sure there has to be something besides urinating that is notable. 5. What more information is there about his Governor campaign? How about the 6 years afterwards?

Thanks. (and be sure to number them!) :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, thank you for asking. The day got a little unexpectedly hectic after lunch, but I will try to answer ASAP. Audemus Defendere (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

BLPs are delicate pages, so it is best to work over a longer period of time. Feel free to relax and take your time. I doubt this will be finished before the end of the week. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Before any further edits are made, please re-read what I bolded in my last entry above. The fringe opinions of a very small number of people, however sourced, have no place in a BLP, especially considering how shockingly they have been weighted in prior edits. Inclusion of them, however couched, is what tips and tipped previous comments/edits into defamatory territory. Dem1970 (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Just go with me here. I've worked with many biographies before. I just want to see what everyone can produce so we can then discuss what is "notable" and what is not. Someone committing fraud against a Lt. Governor is definately notable, for instance. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• 1. B.S. and J.D. degrees from the University of Alabama as per here.
• 2. Defeated John Amari in the primary, and Dewayne Freeman (D) in the general election as per page 9 here, almost outspending both opponents combined, which may not be that unusual.
• 3. :For opponents, see above.
• 4. Quite a few stories from the Birmingham News, 1576 to be exact, as per here.
• 5. I'm fairly sure some of the stories above deal with later events as well, although I haven't run through them all. John Carter (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, good. Thats a great start. I was hoping I wouldn't be wrong about there not being that much information on these topics. It seems like we can put together enough "neutral" information to expand the page and minimize any of the controversy. I will see what I can put together and put a proposed language for the beginning section. I would like to get that knocked out of the way before we deal with any controversy. That way we all have a chance to work together on the topic on something we can all accept and hopefully learn to trust each other. Trust is something hard to build, especially over the internet. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Biography

Here is my suggestion for the biography section (this will be the first, with everything following the current first sentence of the biography to be put into a subsection titled Political career):

Windom was born in Florence, South Carolina. He graduated from Sidney Lanier High School. He then received his B.S. and J.D. degrees from the University of Alabama. In 1974, he moved near Mobile, Alabama and began to practice law. He married Mary Becker and had with her two sons: Robert and Thomas. His wife later ran for Court of Criminal Appeals in the Alabama Appellate Court system.

Then to start the political career section:

He was first elected as a Democrat to the Alabama State Senate in 1989. During his time in the Senate, he was selected to be the Banking and Insurance Committee chairman for 8 years. Although his first two terms were as a Democrat, he switched to the Republican Party in 1997 for his last term as a legislator. After his career in the Senate, he joined the Sirote Permutt lawfirm.

This is just a start. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is this level of detail necessary? Doesn't the current article cover everything needed, giving proper weight to the various subjects? Isn't Windom now a private citizen and shouldn't we thus respect his privacy to some degree? In any event, there are a number of typos in your suggested intro paragraph as well as a number of basic factual errors. If you insist on writing more, you should at least take the time you suggested Audemus take to research the subject better. However, I do want to give you compliments for keeping your edits NPOV! Dem1970 (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

A proper biography must cover a large portion of an individual's life. Privacy comes to things that are rather unnotable or important. None of this is an invasion of privacy, especially when its released in press releases. If you think there are factual errors in my paragraph, then please take it up with the Alabama archives. Most of that information derives from there. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the visible grammar/spelling mistakes. My internet explorer spell checker is apparently not working today. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• It's "Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals" that Mary W. is running for.
• Was he with Slepian before they merged into Sirote? Do you know, Dem? And can we source it?
• I stuck my nose up in the text and Wiki linked Sidney Lanier High School. Sorry, Ottava, I know you'd have preferred Keats. Audemus Defendere (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

eally? I was sourcing this. The League of Women Voters tends to be a decent guide for basic information. I don't know why they would have been wrong, and I am rather baffled. The only information I could have about Slepian was his time as Lt. Gov. If you can find more, that would be helpful. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I reread the page and it seems that I was going looking at the greater name instead of looking at the specific office. I clarified above. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Here is her campaign website if anyone thinks it approrpiate, or as an alternate source or external link or something. And query: She is running and the election's not until November. Past tense??
• where in this forum format can we stick a reflist? Or would that cause the markup to crash? Audemus Defendere (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly that much more text needs to be added to the article regarding his political accomplishments. Although the defamation scandal warrants mention because it received national attention, it can not be given undue weight. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid and we do not dedicate disproportionate amounts of space to information simply because it is provocative. In the broader context of a lengthy career of public service, the two scandals are somewhat inconsequential. We can not rob someone of their legitimate accomplishments simply because their detractors tried to manufacture a scandal. To do so, would be to victimize this person anew, and I believe Wikipedia is better than that.

I think the beginning paragraphs of the article would be more effective if there was a better sense of chronology. My suggestion is that we dedicate some text to each of his terms in office and his major accomplishments in each. If there is sufficient reliably sourced information available, I would propose a brief paragraph on each term. His awards, service on committees and involvement with Presidential campaigns should be presented within the context of each term. In this way, the reader will get a better sense of his political growth on the path to higher office.

Although it is important to mention his wife and children in a passing way, his wife's political career is distracting in the article's opening. I think her current campaign should be mentioned at the end of the article in a "Today" style section. His superior rating as an attorney should also be mentioned there. Cleo123 (talk) 05:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

References

Dona nobis pacem

What this is not:

This is NOT an effort to circumvent, or replace, the framework suggested by Ottava, and contributed to by John. I want to follow that, especially as to language. This is a scattered thought while the whole deal is still fresh in my mind, primarily addressed to Dem, but with anyone welcome to read or comment. And yes, it IS about the prostitute deal ... but it's going to be calmer than anything I typed so far.

At this point, and after a weekend of rumination, I think I can better define (with help from the gang in all quarters) what my overarching concerns are. As I said earlier, I think this affair was what elected Windom when the public got angry at his opponent about all the stuff coming out. I remember discussion to that effect at the time. I am sure some newspaper guy, poli sci prof or campaign staffer talked about how it hurt Freeman in a newspaper, so it can be sourced.

I agree that Ivey's conviction deserves the center spot in the discussion of the topic. My main concern is that it's unfair to Ivey (and I know he's not a sympathetic figure in this case, but he, like Windom, has family, etc.) to discuss his conviction, without mentioning the two facts I noted: the statement of the forewoman, and the fact of the subsequent reversal at the Supreme Court. We don't have to say it was a tie. We shouldn't say Ivey/Freeman won; the ultimate jury there was the voters. What we can't say is that Ivey lost in a shutout. (God save us from too many sports metaphors.) What we need to work toward agreement on is exactly what else to include to provide balance approximating that in public opinion. Again I agree, if that balance hadn't been pretty firm in Windom's favor, he probably would have lost. Subject to reliable sourcing and tone, what to add? We already have the fact, offered by Dem, that the prostitute recanted her accusations, in court, under oath (but that needs a newspaper cite, not a POV one). Now, everybody hold your breath, I am going to throw out some additional facts, hitherto unsuggested by Dem, and "positive" to Windom's POV that, subject to sourcing and tone, I have no trouble with adding to the paragraph:

• That Myers's original lawyer, ex cop, name ________? dropped her just a week or so after he filed her suit.
• That the Mobile DA, Tyson, a Democrat, immediately determined not to charge Windom based on the accusations.
• The fact that Ivey's conviction was reversed on a "technicality" (or similar language), not a finding of "innocence."
• The strong language of the Court vacating Ivey's conviction, emphasizing that their decision did not endorse Ivey's factual version (which I had edited in, and Cleo ironically removed.)
• I am pretty open to any other details of the testimony from the trial, provided they are sourced from a daily paper, published court opinion, or higher source.
• Any other ideas? Just put them up in talk. If they're sourced, I am inclined to put them in.

Heck, you all put me and Dem in the corner booth at Dreamland, we'll have this worked out by the third rack, or the third round of beer.

Thanks again to the new contributors to consensus. And the old ones, too. Audemus Defendere (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the best way to go would be to create a separate article on the case, and included a summary section and link to it in this article? I'm going to assume that there was rather a lot of material put out on it in the local press, and having a separate article would allow for a fuller discussion of the matter from all sides. John Carter (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

For formatting, find the case name (i.e. _____ v. _____) and make the topic. Then you can wikilink it into the article and have one or two lines on the topic. That would provide enough detail so someone interested can find the information without having to disrupt any biographies. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Local lawsuits regarding misdemeanor offenses do not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for stand alone articles. Please, do not encourage inappropriate behavior. Wikipedia is not a weapon for defamation. Cleo123 (talk) 08:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is a state, not a local, legal matter, and it dealt with an important person and a political campaign. That is definitely notable, especially when it was covered in national news. Furthermore, "defamation" is saying that which is untrue, and I have never allowed such things to be entered onto a page. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Problem with that approach is, although they are all interwined politically, there were numerous court cases. Prostitute sues Windom for assault. Windom sues Ivey for defamation. Ivey sues Windom for defamation (in Ivey's hometown). State charges Ivey criminally. And that's before the cases engender 3 or 4 appeals to the AL Supreme Court. I'm not sure it's necessary to get into the legal intricacies to cover the issue. Just something similar in structure to my paragraph, or Cleo's - short narrative. It might be a long paragraph, but not, I think, freakishly so. (darn edit conflicts) Audemus Defendere (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

In such a case, it would be possible to create an article on the issue or something similar and include them all in that. The name might be a bit of a problem, but precedent exists. John Carter (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

John, this subject doesn't warrant a page and your originally suggested title is ffensive. Not as a legal threat but as a way of educating yourself, you should read defamation law and Cleo123's posts on this subject. Since you seem to want to play with fire, you should learn how not to get burned! Dem1970 (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The above statement seems to me to not even remotely abide by the talk page guidelines, as per WP:TALK. And it is hard not to take a request to read the above comment as being anything other than a threat of a lawsuit. I very sincerely urge the above editor to abide by wikipedia guidelines to avoid being burned himself. John Carter (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This is where you need to be careful, Audemus. You are so focused on this one event -- and seem to have very intimate details of it -- that it seems to be a bit difficult for you to let go of it...or present NPOV edits. Why is there need for more detail on this subject? Why did you come back to this instead of fleshing out the rest of a 14+ year public service career and 50+ year life? Quoting defamation is defamation. Suggesting truth behind lies is defamation. For proper weight, I don't think any more should be added, but if anyone does write any more about this, it shouldn't be you. Dem1970 (talk) 23:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Audemus Defendere, as calmly as I can, let me address your points within the framework of Wikipedia. You've stated that your weekend of rumination on this article (?) has lead you to define your overarching concerns as such:

" As I said earlier, I think this affair was what elected Windom when the public got angry at his opponent about all the stuff coming out. I remember discussion to that effect at the time. I am sure some newspaper guy, poli sci prof or campaign staffer talked about how it hurt Freeman in a newspaper, so it can be sourced."

This is your opinion, moreover, it is synthesis. This is an encyclopedia. We present facts, not opinions - and we present those facts in a neutral, balanced and objective manner. Synthesis, original thought and opinion are not allowed. This talk page in and of itself is not a discussion forum for venting personal political opinions. It is for discussing the article, not the subject. Moving forward, I would ask you to please refrain from expressing your personal theories and opinions as to why the subject was or wasn't elected to any particular post at any point in his career. Please, have a look at WP:SOAP. Please, don't waste anymore of your valuable time researching negative opinions to insert in this article as quotations. It appears that you are somehow attempting to diminish this man's legitimate accomplishment of winning the election with this tactic. I will staunchly oppose you on that front, and I do believe that policy is on my side. Let's stick to the facts - he won. If a reader wants to draw any conclusions as to the whys and wherefores, they can do that on their own, without any assistance from Wikipedia.

As for this:

"I agree that Ivey's conviction deserves the center spot in the discussion of the topic."

As far as I can see no one involved with this discussion has agreed to any lengthy discussion of the incident. Am I missing something? As I read it, consensus is that the incident warrants mention. I'll agree that the Supreme Court reversal of Windom's conviction on a technicality warrants mention, for the sole purpose of presenting a balanced and fair presentation of the facts regarding Ivey's conviction. However, no more than a simple sentence regarding Windom alone should be mentioned. The forewoman's opinion is completely inappropriate and out of bounds. As Dem1970 so eloquently put it "suggesting truth behind lies is defamation." The facts are clear and verifiable. The former call girl was paid to lie and she testified to that effect under oath. There is also apparently a paper trail and a corroborating witness who testified to the conspiracy and the pay off.

Sorry, but the notion of a separate article dedicated to the scandal is entirely inappropriate, because the subject matter clearly does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. It is not a significant national incident and certainly not a global one. The lack of significant national media on the subject should tell everyone that. This is a small local incident involving a group of minor lawsuits and a protracted conviction appeal for MISDEMEANOR offenses. If such an article is created I will nominate it for deletion in very short order.

Audemus Defendere, I am going to ask you once again to step back from editing this article. Your statements on this talk page are demonstrative of a less than neutral point of view. Your intricate personal knowledge of these events betrays a possible personal agenda. It's easy to be cruel when one is anonymous - but are you anonymous? I suspect that the subject of this article has a pretty good idea of who you are. Someone who has previously pursued and successfully obtained a criminal prosecution involving defamation, is probably a subject that Wikipedia should be treating with kit gloves. Ask yourself this - how would you feel if someone created an article about you on Wikipedia and used that article as a means of diminishing your legitimate accomplishments, sullying your good name and generally harassing you? It can happen. It can happen to anyone on this site. I suggest you stop and stop now. If you have some sort of gripe with this person, take it up with them in real life. I doubt that you will be allowed to laugh in the shadows of cyberspace for very long. In the cold hard light of day, how might your professional reputation be affected by your conduct here? Now there is something worth spending a weekend ruminating upon.... Cleo123 (talk) 07:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we please drop this right now? We have not gotten to that point, nor have we had time to put together proposed language. Please wait until the appropriate time. There wont be any major changes to this page for at least three days. Save your comments and your arguments til then. This is purely the research phase. Is that possible? I sure think it is. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, have I missed something? Has someone asked you or directed you in someway to take charge here and mediate what you seem to think is a dispute? There is no compromise on Wikipedia when it comes to libelous material about living people. The material must be removed from the article as quickly as possible, plain and simple. There is nothing to mediate. When and by whom was it decided that no one could edit the article for three days? Have I missed something here? As I stated on your talk page, I really appreciate your efforts to help out here. I'm sure they are well intentioned. I'm not sure where you are getting the notion that someone here has asked you to serve as a mediator. You've only been actively editing Wikipedia for a few months and as near as I can tell you aren't even a member of the biography project. This is a very delicate situation as the article's subject has already pursued and obtained court rulings and criminal libel charges. Due to the history of legal action, this matter needs to be handled with the utmost sensitivity and respect in order to protect Wikipedia. No offense, but I do not accept a relative novice to WP:BLP as any sort of mediator in this matter. You input as an editor in the group is most welcome, however. Cleo123 (talk) 05:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with Cleo123. Audemus should carefully read what Cleo wrote. Also, I agree that most of Audemus' comments on this discussion page should be either deleted or archived. Dem1970 (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I also note that the above editor has had to date literally no contributions other than to this page, and that he has made what seems to be at least implicit threats of legal action. Would it be asking that editor too much to ask why he has been so interested in this article? I would also remind that individual of our behavior guideline regarding conflict of interests. Finally, if he is in fact indicating that there could be a lawsuit arising from inclusion of material which is both verifiable and reliably sourced, may I ask on what basis he draws that conclusion? John Carter (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

For anyone whose wondering why John Carter is so interested in this article, I suspect it may have something to do with my support of an action to have him stripped of his administrative powers. Some of the details of which can be read here and here. John, again I ask you to stop following me from article to article. It would appear that you are adopting a stance in this matter that you must know is at odds with Wikipedia's policies simply to provoke some sort of confrontation with me. That strikes me as a conflict of interest and certainly doesn't make you look very good. I suggest you stop, as encouraging the creation of an article that serves no other purpose than the escalation of defamation and harassment will surely come back to bite you in the future. I stay away from articles you are editing, I would appreciate it if you would extend me the same courtesy. And BTW, I believe you owe Dem1970 an apology. It is clear from his IP postings that he can not possibly be the subject of this article. Cleo123 (talk) 04:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Just because something is verifiable (as distinguishable from "true") / reliably sourced does not shield the writer or the repeater from defamation charges. Also, I cannot, am not, and will not threaten you legally. I am not an injured party. I am merely pointing out that there are landmines you must avoid when editing biographies and you and other parties seem to be running right in to the same ones repeatedly. Dem1970 (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Dem, for something to be defamatory, the party in question must declare it so and seek to have it addressed. I have asked for the Lt. Governor's views, and I would ask that you would wait until I hear back before pressing the issue. Thank you. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

What? I'm sorry, but you really do not know what you are talking about here. Any specific statements regarding the prostitute's initial false allegations have been ruled in a court of law to be defamatory and libelous.As such they cannot be included in the article - end of story. As far as policy goes, there is no debate, no dispute, no compromise. Libel is to be removed immediately. No one has to complain to anyone. And the idea that you would be trying to contact the subject of the article on behalf of Wikipedia is outrageous and completely inappropriate! Are you kidding? Boy, I hope so. Cleo123 (talk) 05:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleo, you have not even seen what has been stated yet, so you have no ability to make claims about the legal nature. Furthermore, as even Dem has pointed out, only those who would be affected have the right to make any claims about legal actions, so your statement is perfectly moot. Instead of disrupting standard Wikipedia process, discussion, and compromise, could you join in and participate in a non-inflammatory manner? Ottava Rima (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, the point isn't moot. Since you contacted Windom, it follows that he may now read this page. Thus, it seems highly likely that any defamatory comments made here will be noticed. Regardless, however, it is and should be Wikipedia's policy to remove libel immediately, right? Dem1970 (talk) 23:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually Dem, it is moot, because the party in question is the only one given the right to use the term defamation, and they are able to if they want. Therefore, it is highly disrespectful and highly wrong for anyone but them to bring it up. You are not their lawyer, you are not their selected defender. Please show them that respect. They have been notified, and they are capable of acting. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Defamation is a legal standard. The injured party is the only one who can bring civil charges, but they aren't the only ones who can identify it. Also, pointing out defamatory language is not disrespectful. Writing the defamatory language is disrespectful. Dem1970 (talk) 01:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Dem, Defamation is only identified when a court of law does such. To go through a legal ruling, it must have a victim that wishes to procede. Therefore, you couldn't be more wrong. Also, claiming others are defaming without a legal ruling has been viewed as defamation before. Accusing people of potentially breaking a law is not covered under the first amendment. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I would love to see sources for any of your comments. Dem1970 (talk) 06:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I will dig some up. Ever wonder why the news can only say "alleged" before a certain law? Innocent until proven guilty. Ottava Rima (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

And, in such cases, the complaints should be filed as per the guidelines at WP:OFFICE, not on the talk page of the article in quesiton. John Carter (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)