Jump to content

Talk:Bernie Ward

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Seicer (talk | contribs) at 00:46, 17 February 2008 (→Posting Purient Details about the case: Comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Archive box collapsible

Copy edit and unsourced material

I tried to do a little work but this artilce looks like its in pretty bad shape as far as unsourced material goes. Can any additions be added with sources going forward?Anyways, thanks, --Tom 16:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of for the most part. I'm going to continue to monitor and edit this page as I have time to do so. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added a link to a primary source (an actual copy of the federal indictment http://abclocal.go.com/three/kgo/bernie_ward_indictment.pdf but you removed it, citing advertising amd undue weight reasons. I disagree with your reasoning, but would like to hear other opinions before reinserting the link. We need to be careful here of course, but I would think primary sources should be available for those who wish to view them.SeaphotoTalk 04:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never stated that the URL was "advertising." In my edit summary, I cited that it was essentially duplication of existing sources, but after further review, it would also violate verifiability -- since the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources, per WP:RS. Having the link could also add undue weight and potentially influence the reader's decision -- especially since it is all but used as a source. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point of view, but disagree. The document is public record, easily verified, and was indeed published by a third party. I don't understand how it's inclusion would give "undue weight" - he has been indicted, and that is simply a fact. As far as influencing a readers decision on the matter, how is that relevant? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a court of law, and there is a substantial portion of the article devoted to Bernie Ward's good works. To be fair, I will wait to see other editor's opinions on the matter before restoring the link.SeaphotoTalk 05:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be honest, that's not really a third-party source. It's just a local news station storing a copy of the indictment on their servers, which is different than if they had actually written an article based upon that. But I'll wait until we can get more feedback on this -- I'm interested in other's viewpoints. I'll also finish cleaning up the rest of the article tomorrow as well -- removing links and converting them into sources, and the like. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
why are you camping this article and revert-warring, seicer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.56.87 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BLP vios. necessitate immediate removal, per policy. From BLP, "We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space." There is no question that there is a dedicated group of POV-pushers who are attempting to derail the page. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
that's fine. the police report is all over the place and is being served from many locations. shame on you for maintianing active support for this animal. 14:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.56.87 (talk)
Good for you. This is an encyclopedia. Not a blog. Not a personal web-site. Not for your personal agenda or endavours. It's quite sad that you can't present your work in a balanced and neutral viewpoint, and resort instead of not assuming good faith in other editors by labeling them as pedophile-supporters. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
you clearly accept that he is a pedophile, and you are camping and editwarring to prevent the article from clearly reflecting that he is a pedophile. if the shoe fits...15:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.56.87 (talk)
Sorry, BLP vios. take precedence. If you wholly disagree, that's fine. But to label others as pedophile supporters is nothing short of personal attacks and will be treated as such. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i never did call you a pedophile-supporter. that's a conclusion you jumped to entirely on your own. i'm certain you support ward for other reasons and are merely inapropriately maintaining his reputation here. i suppose misrepresenting me and vandalizing my talk page is WP:NPA in a way simply stating facts about an individual is not in any way conceivable a BLP violation.15:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.56.87 (talk)

A police report is not proof of guilt, and there should be no rush to condemn the man before his day in court. I will say I am leaning toward including a link to the report - I've read it, and it seems an authentic statement of rather damning facts, but they have not been proven true. Linking will let people read, and judge for themselves, as the report is out there, and through the efforts of a national talk show host, being widely distributed. As for the article itself, I would strongly urge editors to leave the controversey section "as is" until such time as Bernie Ward has been convicted of a charge. At that point, it would be appropriate to include relevant details. Please remember, this is an encyclopedia, not a forum.SeaphotoTalk 18:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:V, articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources. A police report is wholly one-sided, and we need a newspaper article to verify the claims in the police report, and to hear a counterbalance from Bernie Ward (or attorney). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signs of a coming Edit War? (I'm ready to appeal to Administrative Authorities on this question -- Are you?)

I would like to ask whoever is responsible WHY they removed remarks I added at the top of this article stating that its purpose was to cover Ward's career, not to document a current event which can better be followed in the current press, at the SFGate link that was offered. I would also like to ask WHY the established American principle of the Presumption of Innocence should NOT be cited as a further indication that this article should not be instantly transformed, by people who ostensibly harbor personal hatred for Mr. Ward, into a one-dimensional "Bernie's a Pervert" Showcase? -- I am confident that whoever is doing this (Show Yourself!) will NOT be able to claim NPOV! Administrative Authorities: Your Input Is Strongly Requested Here. I recommend this article be temporarily frozen. DThrax (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:WQA#User:DionysiusThrax, I noted there was obvious WP:BLP violations with the article, specifically regarding the child pornography inditements. In the future, all statements need to be fully sourced, and this is not negotiable. Per Jimmy Wales, this type of information should be aggressively removed unless it can be adequately cited with reliable sources. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DThrax, there is a person known as SeaPhoto that keeps deleting a reference to Bernie Ward's external home page, claiming that this is "POV". This is nonsense. Counterexample:There is nobody preventing the Michael Savage article from having a link to Savage's home page. Also, the article stated that "Bernie Ward *was* a talk show host..." as if the man was dead. He is distinctly alive. Please stop seaPhoto's attempt at censorship. I also appeal to the Adminstrative Authorities. Savebernie (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of POV is when you edit Wikipedia to push a particular point of view, Savebernie. Please review my edit history on this article before throwing around accusations. I removed a link to a site that purports to "Support Bernie Ward"; that is not the same as removing a link to an official homepage. If Mr. Ward has an offical website, then a link to it would be appropriate for the article. Reviewing the site in question, I see nothing that indicates Mr. Ward has an official connection to it, although to be fair, it appears to post letters from him. Point me to to something that indicates he considers it his official site, and that will be that.
The danger of claiming that a site is "official" when not sanctioned as such by the person in question should be obvious, but particularly so when there are legal issues at stake.
As for the "was/is" a talk show host, that was not my edit. Since you bring it up, the sentance could be more clearly written - certainly he is still alive but is not, at this time a talk show host. I don't feel stongly about it though, so will leave that decision to others. I would like to hear from Seicer and other established editors regarding the link to the page too, so will leave that alone for a day or two until we can reach consensus regarding that issue.SeaphotoTalk 00:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Savebernie", your attempts at adding materials to Bernie Ward are nothing more than POV-pushes, which is painfully obvious given your username reflects the edits of your single purpose account. You are also adding in spam links to not his "home page," but to your web-site which is pretty much all about how Bernie Ward is not guilty. Which is also POV-pushing. Please cease those types of edits. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"seicer", please do not judge the merit of the changes based on what my username happens to be. This is indeed the very first time I have edited Wikipedia, mainly because I didn't care about it enough in other cases. Anyway, let us see whether the "support" page perhaps will morph into an official home page, will you then agree? I have to state that current page is not neutral, with mucho material about indictments, purported views etc. If one cannot even link to a man's homepage (by any other name) where he (among other things) defends himself, how is he going to get a fair trial in cyberspace? If the Michael Savage (the polar opposite of Bernie Ward) article can have a link to Savages' homepage, then it must also be allowed for Bernie Ward, or I have lost all faith in Wikipedia. I don't mind seeing a "controversy" section either, which is something I have seen in many other articles. Why not here? The GA indeed questions the neutrality of the current article, and I agree with that assessment. By the way, the link was not to MY website, I did not set it up. Savebernie (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in regards to section headings, not text. Once again, how is spamming a web-site that is not endorsed or managed by Bernie Ward declare it to be of some official value? You alluded to the fact that it was not even his web-site; if it was, that would be marginally acceptable per WP:EL, but as it stands, it's just one POV-link. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seicer, the link I posted IS the official Bernie Ward web site. Just take a look again. It now also has real domain address: www.supportbernieward.com. Is that good enough now? Savebernie (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It claims to be the Official Support Bernie Ward website. As such, it would be in conflict with WP:EL Links to be avoided #12. However, I see some effort is being made by the page to make it more "official". Just ask Mr. Ward to make a statement on the page, if it is indeed his own, that it is his official website (not that he or his family simply "endorses it") and I will have no objection to posting it under WP:EL What should be listed # 1. The fact it has a domain addres is irrelevant - to use your example, if I owned the domain name "suppportmichaelsavage.com", that would not make it his official site. Please step back, and consider for a moment if people were allowed to put up links from Wikipedia to official sites that were not indeed such, and what damage that could result from that,particularly for a controversial subject. SeaphotoTalk 19:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, it's not an official Bernie Ward web-site; it's a web-site from supporters of Bernie Ward, as the title claims, "THE OFFICIAL SUPPORT BERNIE WARD WEBSITE: Updates, Political Commentary and News from Bernie Ward." However, at the bottom is, "Friends of Bernie's." I also see nothing more than a blog web-site, which is specifically excluded per WP:EL. It would also be nice if the WHOIS information for the site wasn't private, so that the authenticity of the web-site could be verified. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 08:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's improve upon this...

I've done my part in improving the article, wikifying as much as I can, converting links into sources and applying proper attribution, and cleaning and condensing the text for better flow and to remove POV pushers. I think the next step is to ensure that this stays the same and hopefully it will improve so that it can quality for good article status. Best wishes! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good edits. I added a source for the his suspension (found here). I think this fact is important enough to be included in the introduction of the article. SeaphotoTalk 19:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per this edit, I am pretty sure I had a reference in there pointing to the transcript at one time or another, regarding the Hustler bit on CNN. As for the latter, I believe the source prior covers that (I'll check on that tomorrow), or alludes to it. If not, then it can be safely removed. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job on the sections, they are indeed more NPOV. I checked the reference listed before removing that section, but it referred to the Larry Flynt article on WP, not to anything relevant to this one. Unless it can be documented, that is a pretty inflamatory statement. Without a tie-in to statements made on the show itself, the CNN reference is not relevant to this article.
As far at the statement of support, it is relative - there are several hundred signatures on an online petition of support, but Ward had an audience of hundreds of thousands at night - KGO is a powerhouse on the West Coast after dark. At what point can - or should - we judge support be "substantial"? Advertiser support might be easier to judge,or perhaps a short list of those who have issued a statement of support? This is a thin NPOV line, but it might be relevant in this case, as it would be notable if an advertiser is willing to do this under these circumstances. SeaphotoTalk 06:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good call. I suppose that it is a relative phrase, and after looking at it, it really does pretty much amount to a POV-push. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent cut/pastes

  1. You were cut-and-pasting press releases and violating copyright from this web-site.
  2. You were referencing blogs, which are not acceptable reliable sources per policy. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Failed GA

GA review (see here for criteria)

This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    I would however recommend that the lead be expanded a bit.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    His biography section was too short, his childhood is overlooked, his parents are not mentioned in greater details.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Is 'Child pornography indictment' and 'Views on Judaism and Catholicism' really neutral?
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    I am sure that pictures should be used at least twice, I can not pass this article unless some pictures for illustrative purposes are present.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Good luck improving the article.

Λua∫Wise (talk) 19:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I should have went ahead and requested a peer review instead of a GA-request, but this should give a few pointers. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Taken care of two items, by adding a FU image of Bernie Ward to the infobox, and by renaming two section headers per WP:NPOV. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Posting Purient Details about the case

I would suggest holding off posting the lurid details into the article until there is a resolution to the case. As far as the link to the most recent KGO article, I don't feel as strong about deleting it, but would like to hear others opinions before its inclusion.SeaphotoTalk 23:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to hold off posting if new material is avaialable. IMO. Hempbilly (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does this include removing counter arguments? It has since been restored. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the information from the indictment, his counter argument seems like a staming pile of BS. Hempbilly (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not for you to decide. Per WP:V, you can't use the indictment as a sole source; it must be verified with third-party sources. To not provide a counter-balance, as far fetched as it may be, is in violation of WP:BLP. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You Ward-healers have really made the offense seem quite mild, considering the sourced details that you've deleted. May he live up to your devotion. Badams5115 (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I would suggest is that there is no urgency to putting unproven details into the article, that would be my posistion no matter who the subject was. There is no good reason not to wait until the criminal matter is resolved. If it goes against Mr. Ward, then article will reflect those proven facts at that point. The fact that we are being railed against by both Bernie Ward supporters and detractors gives me some confidence we are doing a decent job on the article.SeaphotoTalk 02:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might have a point, if it was not for the fact that this kind of editing is not barred or even frowned upon on oither subjects. Hempbilly (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And we are not dealing with other subjects, but with living, human beings, as you are well aware of. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whats that old saying about geese and sauce and ganders ...... I forget? IT would seem to me that if the material is cited to a reliable source and has some notability, then its not off limits? Or are there some rules for "some" articles and other rules for "other" articles? But more onto the proposed additions. Hempbilly (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the top of this page:

"This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard."

This applies to all biography pages, not just Bernie Ward. For example, Jared Fogel, hardly a political figure, is constantly having his article and talk page edited by those who wish to push their POV about his private life. A police report is a series of allegations, not yet proven. The link is there in the article for those who wish to read and evaluate it for themselves, but until those facts are proven in court, they should not be in the article or talk page. Jimbo Wales has been very clear on this policy, and has personally intervened in the past when this has not been followed. Whatever your personal feelings toward Bernie Ward, please help us keep the article neutral until the facts of the case have been decided.SeaphotoTalk 00:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that Hempbilly plans on continuing his BLP-vio. rage with different accounts, per this comment. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bernie_Ward&oldid=191963690"