Talk:Virgil Miller Newton

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Foucauld1 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. (declared here)

I am concerned that you are victimizing the people with “apparently had a close connection” this centre/ cult . I don’t use that word for drama but by the definition in Webster it was a cult.

Ongoing discussion on this article

See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Virgil Miller Newton. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POKROV and commerical site not RS for BLP

Says it all. There are many sourcing issues left - including claims about newspaper articles which can not be found in searching the newspaper archives. Red flag time. Collect (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-RS-sourced claims now removed. I suppose some of them were not "contentious" but the poison of a bad source can be pervasive, indeed. Collect (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that quite a bit of properly sourced content, clearly supported by the links I've restored today, has nonetheless been recently removed. 99.149.85.114 (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Examples: Most of this adheres to the source, and whatever specifics extrapolate can be removed [1]; this appears to be a not unreasonable summary of facts presented by its source [2]; this, as well, is a fairly direct use of the source [3]; the specifics here are cited by the source [4]; and I'm uncertain that this needs another source in addition to the law journal [5]. While following BLP guidelines is a necessity, I am puzzled by the removal of so much content that is apparently adequately sourced, and varies little, if at all, from the sources provided. If tone is a concern then passages can be vetted for neutrality. 99.149.85.114 (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POKROV and commercial sites do not meet WP:RS. Period. Collect (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm really puzzled--none of the examples I've provided above refer to POKROV or commercial sites, only to the New Jersey Law Journal, New York Times Magazine, and book references. These are valid sources, otherwise accepted in the article. 99.149.85.114 (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The more I search the internet, the more inevitable it is to conclude that in its current form the article is studiously avoiding multiple news sources which chronicle uncomplimentary material, as here [6], [7]. There seem to be a number of such televised reports, which in their claims exceed material for which I'd added linked sources. Respecting BLP guidelines is imperative, but since when do we censor content which can be easily verified by multiple sources? 99.149.85.114 (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your first example is a youtube video for a CBS programme, but not uploaded by CBS and thus a likely copyvio on youtube - Wikipedia rather prefers a transcript from CBS lest an inaccurate claim be made from the video. Your second cite is for a video which is from a non-RS source (CBS is RS as a rule if the material is uploaded by CBS). Wikipedia does not promote the use of sources which do not meet WP:RS. This article is a WP:BLP and so using non-RS sources is a no-no from the get-go. Collect (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Collect. I haven't researched this article very much; I did a couple of Google searches and watched a video or two. I think that the IP editor has a valid concern. The edits made by the editor claiming to be the subject of the article must be suspect, given that the notability of the subject stems largely from legal proceedings, settlements, and lawsuits. My first-blush opinion (and you may have researched this better than I), is that neutrality and BLP concerns can probably be best met by reliably-sourced quotes, judgements, and the film documentary done by CBS; the subject will have been given ample opportunity to refute claims in the courtroom and in interviews. I will state up front and for the record that I don't really like the guy. He seems to me to be a charlatan and a bit of a scam artist, and that as he nears death he would prefer to be remembered for his successes rather than his failures. But, having identified my bias, I would still like to see a neutral and reliably-sourced article and I am willing to do some research to identify sources, both positive and negative. TreacherousWays (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - even if we can't link directly to the CBS video, it is still a reliable source and can be identified as such. TreacherousWays (talk) 13:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Best link would be to the official CBS transcript of the entire programme. Worst link is to an improperly uploaded snippet on Youtube without CBS doing it. WP:RS applies here in full force. In fact, that is a fully impermissible cite. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - hear you on that. The video as identified can't be used. But I think it would be permissible to identify the broadcaster, program, segment, and air date as the source, no? Similar to any off-line source? TreacherousWays (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collect: Thank you for clarification re: acceptability of videos and copyright violations. The point here is that the better part of Newton's notability now resides in the controversies, lawsuits, and media coverage generated by his programs. It seems your interest is in suppressing, rather than aiding in the verification of information. As I've previously noted, I'd never heard of the subject before, but am struck by the care taken with respect to BLP guidelines, which I usually find a godsend, but in this case the zealous application of which is at odds with information available from reliable sources.... 99.149.85.114 (talk) 14:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked with Collect before, and in my opinion that editor has no interest in supressing anything. The interest is in writing a properly-sourced neutrally-worded article that complies with the BLP guidelines. The subject of the article is a person; a real person with a complex background and motivations. The hard part is to tell that story without judging that person. A one-sided attack page would be just as inappropriate as a beatification. TreacherousWays (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(od)@IP99: My "interest" is in following the policies of Wikipedia, especially with regard to biographies of living persons. To that end, Wikipedia has a specific policy which is given the highest level of authority WP:BLP and it is not up to any editor to say that such policy prevents properly sourced material being in an article per WP:RS and WP:BLP. If you wish to rewrite those policies, go ahead. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you TreacherousWays. I more than appreciate the intent, and have no desire to foster either an attack page or an adulatory account. To restate from above: While following BLP guidelines is a necessity, I am puzzled by the removal of so much content that is apparently adequately sourced, and varies little, if at all, from the sources provided. If tone is a concern then passages can be vetted for neutrality. Collect doesn't acknowledge the substance of these passages as properly deriving from their sources, nor attempt to reconfigure them in a fashion that may be more acceptable to their interpretation of Wikipedia policy, and has merely deleted them out of hand with the explanation that the claims are inaccurate or misused, characterizations with which I take issue. This is why I've invited other contributors to read the deleted passages and the sources for which I've provided links, the better to assess their quality. Parenthetically, the sources are on the whole far more excoriating in tone than what was deleted from the article. As for rewriting Wikipedia policies, I'd venture that nothing I'm proposing here threatens them in the least. 99.149.85.114 (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Sources for contentious claims which do not meet WP:BLP must be removed per that policy. We can not use such sources in a BLP. Period. Collect (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to be puzzled--if it's policy regarding reliable sources, then what is the problem, specifically? The NY Times and New Jersey Law Journal pieces and the book 'Help at Any Cost' are sources used in this article. They are the sources I've linked to, and which supported the most recently deleted content. If there is an issue which renders any of these sources unreliable it would be immensely helpful to know what it is. The insistence that such content is unacceptable--Nope and Period rather suggest that there's a problem with these sources--contravenes what I've long understood to be Wikipedia policy re: reliable references. 99.149.85.114 (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like

POKROV and commercial sites do not meet WP:RS. Period

Well that was, is, and shall be, true. See WP:RS and you will see why they do not meet it. And again - rewrite the policies if you do not like them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, period. We're not discussing POKROV or commercial sites, but as I've made clear numerous times, the NY Times, NJ Law Journal, and a published book which remain sources in the article. I'm now beyond puzzled, because this is no longer about adherence to policy, but an unexplained resistance to what I have long interpreted as acceptable sources. Can anyone else shed some light? 99.149.85.114 (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Example:

''Newton used a system of peer monitoring to enforce his program’s rules. New youths or youths in the first stages of the program were called “newcomers” and were forbidden to be alone, even to shower or use the bathroom. Newton labeled the youths that advanced to a later stage of the program “oldcomers” and they escorted the Newcomers everywhere through hand-to-belt looping. Socializing was not allowed, and the youths were isolated from their family and friends. To be allowed to speak during peer-group therapy, the youths had to wave their hands in a ritual called “motivating”. After speaking and receiving their peer’s judgments the group collectively yelled “love you!”. Twice a week, Newton held open meetings in which the families were seated on one side of the room and youths on the other. These open meetings would exceed over 100 participants. The purpose of these meeting was for the youths to publicly confess their deviant lifestyle and poor choices, and advancement from the first stage depended upon how revealing their confessions were. The program's counselors were former graduates of the program.<ref name="NYMagazine"/>''

The only problem is the stuff is not in the source! The word "motivating" is not in the source. The bit about "exceed over 100 participants" is not in the source. The bit about "peer monitoring" is not in the source. The bit that Newton was the one who used the term "oldcomers" is not in the source. The term "looping" is not in the source. The bit about hsaving to wave their hands is not in the source. Even the word "deviant" is not in the source. In fact, essential;ly nothing in the entire edit is supported by the source. Um -- when that happens, how strong is the claim? That is - the claim has not a single leg to stand on per the source. Collect (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the most problematic example, and you're correct that specifics here vary, and not all are supported by the source. Here are excerpts from the Times piece: From that moment until the Phase 1 is completed, a newcomer is never left alone, not even to go the bathroom or to shower. An oldcomer is a constant, hand-to-belt escort, a reminder that a newcomer cannot be trusted.; Other kids wave their hands, competing to be called on to urge Janice to 'get straight.' The claims re: newcomers not being left alone, hand to belt 'escorting', lack of socializing, isolation from family and friends, twice-weekly meetings, and advancement from the first stage dependent upon their confessions, are all supported by the Times article. Several sentences merit deletion, yet most of what's there is indeed supported by the source. 99.149.85.114 (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative version, supported by the source, could read:

A system of peer monitoring enforced his program’s rules. New youths or youths in the first stages of the program were forbidden to be alone, even to shower or use the bathroom. Newcomers were accompanied everywhere through hand-to-belt looping. Socializing was not allowed, and the youths were isolated from their family and friends. After speaking and receiving their peer’s judgments the group collectively yelled “love you!”. Twice a week, Newton held open meetings in which the families were seated on one side of the room and youths on the other. The purpose of these meeting was for the youths to publicly confess their difficulties, and advancement from the first stage depended upon how revealing their confessions were. The program's counselors were former graduates of the program. 99.149.85.114 (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The rules say the claim must be supported by the source. Your proposal is still not meeting that criterion. And if you are quoting a full sentence from a source, use quotation marks. Collect (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've contributed to thousands of articles, including FAs, and I find this an extraordinary occurrence. Assuming that I add a cite to the end of every sentence--and by the way, you could help with this, as opposed to merely deleting--could you note what specifically does not meet the criteria? Because I confess that this seems to me not solely about upholding BLP guidelines, but about sticking to a point, to the point of obstruction. 99.149.85.114 (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your IP address shows a total of 78 contributions - this is why registering helps a lot. I have no way of knowing what sorts of articles you have worked on, or what edits you made on them. If a cite supports a whole paragraph, then one cite at the end of the paragraph is fine. If a cite supports not even 5% of a paragraph, then that is "not fine". And most editors on WP:BLPs do not regard following the strict rules therein as "obstruction." The rules are there for a reason, and if you do not like them, then edit the policy pages. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask again: which parts of the proposed passage do not meet the criteria? And I'm steeling myself for repeating this process regarding each one of yesterday's deletions.... 99.149.85.114 (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And as I've previously indicated, I have some familiarity with BLP guidelines, with which I have no issue. You do seem inclined to presume ownership of the implementation of the guideline. My inclination, even in the face of the timesink this promises to be, is to allow for the addition of reliably sourced content. 99.149.85.114 (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored some of the above, rewritten to conform with neutrality guidelines, and added a quote from the Florida state prosecutor re: the program. There's more that can be restored, though doing so requires selectivity--just as there's much that can be reliably sourced, the article need not be a laundry list. This did get ample coverage in its time, and content regarding the programs' controversies, and specifically Newton's role, is appropriate and necessary for the article to have any authenticity. 99.149.85.114 (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear person : just cuz you can’t find a article confirming does not make Some one un reliable, he was a cult leader a master at manipulation there was no contact with the out side world so the only reliable source you can have is someone first hand experience . That’s why I had to make edits Cult leader K.I.D.S (talk) 03:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources

I have created this section to help clarify this issue for my own education. Collect stated above: " ... Nope. Sources for contentious claims which do not meet WP:BLP must be removed per that policy. We can not use such sources in a BLP. Period. Collect (talk) 9:46 am, Today (UTC−5) ... " regarding a CBS video posted on Youtube, but not placed there by CBS and, as such, probably in violation of copyright law. The video as posted on Youtube cannot be used. I understand that. But the video exists. We know that it exists. We could (theoretically) go to CBS and request a copy of it and the transcript. Portions of the video are hidden camera - primary source - and portions of the video are journalist analysis - secondary source. Why is it impermissible to reference the video thusly: "CBS News expose of Virgil Miller Newton, aired (date)" in much the same way that we cite passages from books that aren't online? TreacherousWays (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine if and only if a transcript is available. I know this from an incident where a person asserted what a BBC programme said - and when I finally tracked a copy down, the claim was extremely errant. In another case, an editor simply made up an entire paragraph from a book - but was banned as a result. Thanks. Collect (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was aired on public television; in theory, anybody could have seen it even if they didn't (this takes it from the realm of Bigfoot and Nessie and Area 51 aliens). Since it exists, and since it aired, why would a transcript be necessary? By airing, wasn't it published? If we view the video, isn't that verification of existence even if it's copyright infringment? Hasn't the existence of the expose and the interviews been reasonably proven and correctly attributed? TreacherousWays (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to ask, your sitation 1 - fornits.com is it really a reliable source? It is a site dedicated solely to spouting off about the troubled teen industry, put together by what appears to be disgruntled individuals. Sorry I just find this whole thing quite biased against the individual. Jojenn (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my question relates purely to the CBS "expose" video. In both a specific and a general sense, I'm looking for Collect's rationale for excluding the video as a source; not the copyright violation YouTube video, but the original CBS-aired video. My intellectual position is that citing the original video is permissible, and that excluding it ignores the fact that it exists (or existed) and was distributed to the public. Although we may not cite the YouTube video, we've seen it and know what it contains. Pretending that we don't seems questionable to me. It's an admittedly nit-picky question that may require a real honest-to-god reference expert to untangle. Actually, it reminds me a bit of Schroedinger's Cat. TreacherousWays (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whitewash?

Could someone explain this edit, which states "claim not supported by source?"

Here's the removed text:

Newton used a system of peer monitoring to enforce his program’s rules. New youths or youths in the first stages of the program were called “newcomers” and were forbidden to be alone, even to shower or use the bathroom. Newton labeled the youths that advanced to a later stage of the program “oldcomers” and they escorted the Newcomers everywhere through hand-to-belt looping. Socializing was not allowed, and the youths were isolated from their family and friends. To be allowed to speak during peer-group therapy, the youths had to wave their hands in a ritual called “motivating”. After speaking and receiving their peer’s judgments the group collectively yelled “love you!”. Twice a week, Newton held open meetings in which the families were seated on one side of the room and youths on the other. These open meetings would exceed over 100 participants. The purpose of these meeting was for the youths to publicly confess their deviant lifestyle and poor choices, and advancement from the first stage depended upon how revealing their confessions were. The program's counselors were former graduates of the program.

Here are quotes from the linked source:

"From that moment until the Phase 1 is completed, a newcomer is never left alone, not even to go the bathroom or to shower. An oldcomer is a constant, hand-to-belt escort, a reminder that a newcomer cannot be trusted."
"Music is forbidden, as is cigarette smoking, even socializing."
"And yet, the first is the loneliest phase of treatment. Though crowded by other clients, other families, the staff, the teen-ager is isolated - from his own family, the people once considered friends, the familiar drugs."
"When Janice finishes her story, the rest of the kids shout Love you, a ritual after anyone talks in therapy."
"Twice a week at open meetings, the families sit on one side of the room, facing the teen-agers. There is no one type of parent, as there is no one type of teen-ager in KIDS. For hours, they listen to public confessions by their children."
"If she continues to be this revealing, Paula may advance to the second phase.
"Because the counselors are themselves former addicts who have graduated from the program, the teen-agers cannot dismiss them as a bunch of adults who don't understand."

I'd like to understand better why the paragraph is unsupported. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence is not directly supported. I.e. that "peer monitoring" was specifically to "enforce the rules." Second sentence is not supported. "forbidden to be alone" is not the same as "never left alone." One implies there would be a punishment, the cite simply gives a statement of fact without punishment implied. "they escorted the Newcomers everywhere through hand-to-belt looping" is not the same in any sense as "An oldcomer is a constant, hand-to-belt escort." "the youths had to wave their hands in a ritual called “motivating”" is not in the cite at all. " These open meetings would exceed over 100 participants" is totally unsupported in the cite. And so on. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are quibbles of grammar and word choice, not BLP concerns. For future reference, grammar and word choice concerns are best brought up on talk pages, edited directly, or tagged, not just removed. Hope that helps! Hipocrite (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Over 100" is "grammar" or "word choice"? Nope. Facts are now just "quibbles"? Nope. And when almost every sentence has a problem, it is not up to me to fix them all - I fix as many as I can, but at some point the source just does not fit the claims at all - and that is what happened here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hipocrite. I'm raising this question re: most all of yesterday's deletions. I'll be offline for a while.... 99.149.85.114 (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) In fact, reviewing the bulk of Collects "not supported by source" edits, I find support for [8]("In early 1998, the state Department of Human Services threatened to cut off Medicaid reimbursement for Newton's program unless corrections were made. The program had depended on the money because most of its patients no longer were suburban youths covered by private insurance but urban teen-agers.") directly in the linked source. I have real concerns that we are conducting a white-wash here. Hipocrite (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, do you have a copy of "Help at Any Cost: How the Troubled-Teen Industry Cons Parents and Hurts Kids?" 99, do you? Hipocrite (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I've linked to the relevant chapter in the article [9]. Assuming good faith re: Collect's intents, but this is extraordinary. 99.149.85.114 (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the 6.5mm in the source? Provide a quote. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry--I'm dense, and don't follow. But I now realize that the passage you're referring to above is the one we've been struggling with in the earlier thread--you'll see my proposed revision. As promised I'm off for a while. Thanks again, 99.149.85.114 (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh-the 6.5 million. I think it's cited somewhere, but memory fails me now. I'm not finding a reliable source for that. 99.149.85.114 (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I would just like to chime in here, a bit, to repeat what I said above: " ... The edits made by the editor claiming to be the subject of the article must be suspect, given that the notability of the subject stems largely from legal proceedings, settlements, and lawsuits ... " I support Collect's position that reliable sources must be used and biographical guidelines diligently followed, but I have significant reservations about removing material in such a way that the neutrality of the article is lost. And in this particular instance, neutrality requires a rigorous examination of the subject's documented wrongdoing (as well as the subject's responses). TreacherousWays (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Unlimited Publishing LLC"

Does not meet WP:RS as a publisher at all. It describes itself as a "Worldwide royalty book publisher using print-on-demand and e-Book publishing technologies to slash costs." Collect (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Same user as above IP, new number when online connection is cut) Content re: the lawsuits has been added, with new cites. When simply deleting controversial content which doesn't conform to cites, I've found it's incumbent, and at least evidences a commitment to due diligence in research, for the deleter to do a cursory check for sources. 99.12.241.215 (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I note that said content and cites have been deleted as not coming from a reliable source. Further comment appreciated-- the author appeared to be credible. 99.12.241.215 (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for help at the reliable sources noticeboard. 99.12.241.215 (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would earnestly suggest you examine [10] On 15 April 2011, AARC commenced a lawsuit against the CBC. The CBC is defending the action. In that lawsuit, AARC denies the suggestion that it failed to investigate reports of abuse. AARC has also sued four female sources, all of whom appeared in the programme. AARC alleges in those lawsuits that some aspects of the Powerless programme were inaccurate, including several of the statements made by former AARC clients, and broadcast by CBC. For legal reasons, AARC has not been able to provide the CBC with details from some of those lawsuits. Each of the sources is defending the actions. Some have filed counterclaims against AARC. Seems to indicate rather a different view which must per NPOV also be placed in the article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that does indeed compromise the credibility of the CBC as a source, I've no argument against removing it. As I've now stated numerous times, if you're editing as a neutral party, your abilities in research would be most useful in a capacity other than reverting content here. Perhaps you can be of assistance in finding reliable sources. 99.12.241.215 (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In any WP:BLP when a clearly non-RS source is used, the policy requires the cite be removed. Collect (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you believe that Unlimited Publishing LLC is not a reputable publisher, exactly? Be specific. Hipocrite (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The book can be used per WP:SPS Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications [11] The man is an expert in his field from what I can see. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - I fail to find "Arnold Trebach" as a noted expert, and his publications do not appear notable. Thus not even usable as opinion, sorry. Collect (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You allege Arnold Trebach, J.D., Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Department of Justice, Law and Society, The American University, former Chief of the Administration of Justice Section, United States Commission on Civil Rights, former Chief Consultant on Administration of Justice for the White House Conference on Civil Rights, former member of the Working Group on Drugs and Crime of the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences is not an expert? Ridiculous on it's face. Hipocrite (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I "allege" (what a wondrous POV word here) that I can not find him short-listed for a Nobel Prize, and that most of his work has aimed for drug legalization. The material conserning Newton is clearly opinion in many places, and WP:BLP avers that opinions must be so cited. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's what you allege now - before you alleged that his publications were not notable, that he isn't a noted expert. You don't allege that anymore? When you failed to find his expertise, what work did you actually do? Hipocrite (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To Collect: Nobody is arguing with policy. In fact, that's never been the issue here. I've sought opinion at the RS noticeboard. Your observance of BLP guidelines is commendable, as is also apparent your lack of interest in aiding with reliable sources. 99.12.241.215 (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To Hipocrite: Thanks for the above note re: Trebach. It suggests something else is going on here, beyond pure adherence to BLP. I've never before seen an editor so conscientiously hold to a guideline, at the same time making no effort to work with, rather than against, other editors in resolving a BLP issue. 99.12.241.215 (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, there is far more disturbing material in the Szalavitz book and the New Jersey Law Journal than that which has been deleted from the article, which I've refrained from adding so as not to highlight the sensational. But since much of it describes Newton's actions made public, it's relevant. 99.12.241.215 (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious claims require more than a single source. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a citation for that? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. Collect (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jersey Journal

This is an article apparently published in the daily The Jersey Journal [12], though I don't know whether it can be used as a source in this online form. Suggestions re: its propriety are welcome. And Collect, should you deem this unacceptable, perhaps you can help guide fellow editors to a version that would be usable--that's what contributors at Wikipedia do, after all. Cheers, 99.12.241.215 (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The key word here is "blog." Please read all about Blogs at WP:RS. Unless a blog is part of a newspaper site, it is highly extremely unlikely to meet Wikipedia requirements. Collect (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Er, the Jersey Journal isn't a blog. I'm having a hard time verifying the article was actually printed IN the journal, but it's becoming problematic that you, Collect, keep saying things that are obviously and demonstrably false. Hipocrite (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The link is a blog entry presumably citing a newspaper article. The reliable source would be the newspaper article and not the blog. The blog is not a reliable source as to what the newspaper says. The blog is not part of the newspaper site as far as I can tell. Cheers and try to AGF on this sort of thing. Collect (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's as I suspected. Perhaps you'd have a suggestion per: locating the article, which I haven't yet found on the paper's website. Really. I've done the same for editors of contrasting POV...it's what I do as a published writer, and what I continue to hope for from fellow Wikipedia editors. Cheers, 99.12.241.215 (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that WP:RS is so much of a nuisance, to be sure. Wikipedia also has rules saying not to use sources which are known to be violating copyright law - this will be even more important under ACTA. Collect (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One has no quarrels with the guidelines, whether they apply to RS, BLP, or copyright violations--I guess I've tagged thousands of articles for all the above. The guidelines are in place for good reason. So, too, is the presumption that we're building an encyclopedia in unison. It may come as some surprise, but there may be several other people who value these guidelines. You'll just have to exercise great patience while dealing with the intellectual inferiority of your fellows. Cheers, 99.12.241.215 (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of clarity, could we see proposed text and associated sources in separate sections of this talk page? It might be easier to identify and resolve issues that way. TreacherousWays (talk) 15:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jersey Journal Archives

Although I was unable to find the article cited above, I was able to find these two by the reporter identified, who is a staff writer for the Jersey Journal. It's a pay-to-play site, so the full article can't be viewed.

Author: ALI WINSTON
JOURNAL STAFF WRITER
Publication: Jersey Journal, The (Jersey City, NJ)
Publish Date: January 30, 2007
Word Count: 253
Document ID: 116FBDE31543FC28

" ... A former patient at a defunct drug treatment center in Secaucus has agreed to a $3 million settlement with the center's former owners, the former patient's attorney said.

Antonio Carrera was a patient at KIDS of North Jersey for five years undergoing treatment for drug and alcohol addictions - addictions he said he did not have. He said administrators there refused to allow him to attend school and used other patients to physically abuse him when he refused ... "

Author: ALI WINSTON
JOURNAL STAFF WRITER
Publication: Jersey Journal, The (Jersey City, NJ)
Publish Date: January 25, 2007
Word Count: 419
Document ID: 116E1822F27E3948

" ... A settlement has been reached in the civil suit against the former directors of KIDS of North Jersey, a now-defunct drug treatment center in Secaucus, brought by Antonio Carrera, 26, a former patient.

The agreement was reached before Carrera was to take the stand, but Superior Court Judge Maurice Gallipoli agreed to allow him testify about his five years at KIDS. The agreement, which involves an undisclosed sum of money, is the latest in a string of multimillion-dollar ... "

Thanks TreacherousWays. I'd also found pay-per-view sites, and was hoping that freely available sites existed. Much appreciated, 99.12.241.215 (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]