Jump to content

Talk:Cheney Mason

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

Cheney Mason

[edit]

I found Cheney Mason's birthplace (Jacksonville, Florida) and birth date (December 12, 1943) at: http://www.martindale.com/J-Cheney-Mason/820078-lawyer.htm I do not know the reliability of the site, but just to let you know.

Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.160.21 (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Preceding comment copied from the Help desk [1] - frankie (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Substantial depuffing made. Collect (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Finger

[edit]

I removed the "middle finger" part. Including that is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE, designed to impugn the character of the person. That a person made one gesture is not worthy of being included in a BLP. Just because a fact is verifiable does not automatically mean it must be included--otherwise, every single article we have would just copy every single detail in every single news report, academic journal, or other reliable source that mentioned the subject. Now, if Mason were famous for regularly making such gestures, or if it (somehow) caused lasting controversy, or if it were particularly notable (like if she walked up to Barack Obama and did it to his face), then, yeah, maybe, possibly it could be included. But not as a on-off gesture. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly, just as I said at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Cheney Mason: "Even if a reliable source is found for this, it is so un-notable that it fails Undue weight. Someone giving a reporter the finger, probably a tabloid reporter at that? Give the man a barnstar, if anything." First Light (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to dispute your decision to deny to others access to such information. It is of considerable significance for an attorney of such stature to have done something as alleged. It is of public interests, and that is incontrovertible. Moreover, to put an end to your debate, let's remember that this matter was picked up by news sources throughout the nation, and, as a result, it need not be belabored further as to its need to be noted in the subject article.

Also, your argument that it is in violation of WP:UNDUE because it is allegedly "designed to impugn the character of the person" is ludicrous, and for good reason: It is an infamous public act on the subject's part, as documented by numerous news outlets, and it is being duly noted, irrespective of what you think of it. Since when is Wikipedia subject to third-world censorship? Should your logic of censuring factual information because it can have the effect of impugning someone be applied universally, then Charles Manson's murder convictions need to be removed, stat! So, yes, let reason guide your decisions that you attempt to apply upon all Wikipedia viewers, and not unfounded impulses, with all due respect. Diligent007 (talk) 04:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diligent007, I see that you're a new editor (at least as a registered user), so I think you may misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. Our job is not to provide all information that was picked up by news sources; in fact, we have a sister project, called Wikinews that does just that. Instead, we have to make decisions about what information about people is of lasting importance. A single event that happened to get coverage in some sources does not automatically mean something should be in a person's article. Two examples: politicians give speeches every single day. We do not provide a summary of those speeches, except when a particular speech turns out to be particularly newsworthy over a long period (perhaps it represents a key idea used by the politician often, or it lead to a major controversy, etc.). Similarly, articles on what entertainers wear to special events appear in countless newspapers, tv shows, and on reputable websites, all of which can qualify as reliable sources. But we would never include such information in a Wikipedia article, as it's obviously ephemeral and of interest only in that moment.
Additionally, you should know that Wikipedia is not here to serve the public good. We are here to provide a complete source of encyclopedic information. Your comparison of this to the Manson murder convictions makes no sense--that is an actual crime, widely covered, the subject of coverage at every level, from pop reporting to serious academic and legal analyses. This is a single gesture made by one attorney that has no relevance to that person's life or career. This is not about denying access to information (if someone wants the info, let them find it in a Google search, but not in an encyclopedia).
I'm very strongly tempted to revert you again, as this seems to be very close to a WP:BLP violation to me. I'm going to be patient for a little bit, and, unless there's some sort of clear consensus for inclusion, I'll take it out. Any other editor is, of course, welcome to remove it right now, and I would think that behavior fully acceptable. If necessary, I'll take this to WP:BLPN, because this just seems so obviously wrong to me. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted, since there is no consensus for adding such irrelevant and undue trivia to a biography. The 'impugn the character' angle is not pertinent to the fact that a person giving the finger is an entirely WP:UNDUE factoid for an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. It is an encyclopedia. And this is a Biography of a Living Person. There must be consensus for adding something like that to this article. First Light (talk) 05:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. At this point, if someone really thinks it should go in, it's time to stop edit warring and just keep the discussion on this page (or BLPN, or via an RfC, or whatever other process you want). Qwyrxian (talk) 05:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qwyrxian, let me attempt to point out the flaws of your response to my arguments set forth above: Yes, I'm a new editor, however, with all due respect, that has no bearing on your inclination to decide on behalf of all viewers what should be made available to them.

I very much understand the purpose of Wikipedia. My assertion is NOT that the middle-finger incident should be included in the subject article (I started) because of news reports, as you contend. If you will review the foregoing, the reason why I cited the news reports is because a flagrantly reckless comment was inserted that what is of issue now is not worthy of documenting when the exact opposite is true; the news reports is best evidence in that regard, and the person who said it is not worthy has only but his mouth--an inferior source of 'evidence,' relatively speaking. It is noteworthy, and, if you can come to appreciate the context of the subject's profession and for which has become known to be involved in, then you'll come to appreciate the significance it plays out in the essential need to properly reflect the entirety of the trial in which the subject became a major fixture as co-counsel.

Your example of everyday political speeches is seriously an inapposite example by which to convey your point: Contrary to a mudane, everyday speech, here, an attorney just allegedly got out of court in obtaining a siginficant finding in his client's favor--defeating immense odds and seemingly going against the court of public opinion--and just afterwards gathered with his team at a restaurant just down the street from that historic victory, during which he released the manifestation of his emotions, etc., as one could imagine. This was included as part of a segment of the whole article of the subject---there is no article specifically on this incident, so let's also come to appreciate that we're not talking about a whole article being devoted to the incident, as you seem to want to imply.

And, to the contrary that this incident is of interest only at the moment, more and more discussions are being held about the audacious incident, and has cultivated an interest in what happens next, as if it is leading to a whole host of other actions (whether that includes the filing of a bar complaint, etc.), and this leads us to the national grand scale interest of the audacity of officers of courts acting in such a manner, etc.

Also, what is of serious concern is your failure to understand my drawing on the Charles Manson example: I DID NOT utilize it as an example to convey the worthiness of the content you seek to remove, but, instead, I utilized it to highlight the illogical reasoning of your colleague's intention to remove the subject content (i.e., the middle-finger scandal) merely because your colleague has concerns it can have the effect of impugning one's character. That is so erroneous. The subject of the article did the act in a public place, so he should expect to have it publicly documented. He's a public figure in that respect, just as well. If Manson did the criminal acts, it will be documented irrespective of how bad it impugns him, and so it follows if the subject of the article extended his middle finger, as photographed by an AP photographer, it will be documented as part of that scandalous conduct irrespective of whether the action of the subject causes a self-inflicted impugning of his character in the process.

Furthermore, I concede that Wikipedia is not in existence for the greater good, and that was never my contentio. Again, you misunderstood the context I place in the words, "public interests." Going back to the above, it is incontrovertible that is of the interests of the public, and, consequently, it should be documented well because, as noted in the latter paragraph, it is beginning to take shape in having a lasting impact on what we have come to expect from individuals, such as the subject of the article.

Let others--certainly at least those who helped me in creating the article--chime in with their thoughts before you take an action on behalf everyone else. Let's not do something in such a haphazard way. Do not deny information in haste. Diligent007 (talk) 05:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see how flipping off some reporters is even tabloid news worthy, it certainly doesn't belong in this Wikipedia article unless there is a lot more to it, and there doesn't appear to be. Monty845 06:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the removal, it's extremely trivial and non-encyclopedic. Dayewalker (talk) 06:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My own objection about including the incident was all about the sourcing. I'm neutral about including it with a solid source. (I'm still a relatively new editor and while I'm comfortable with most of Wikipedia's sourcing policy, I'm not familiar enough with how some of the other policies work to have a well considered opinion there.) Cloveapple (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything that can be referenced to a reliable source should be placed in an article, as you probably can see. The official policy on Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLP) addresses this sort of trivia quite clearly: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives...." An attorney giving a paparazzi/tabloid reporter the finger is also not notable enough for inclusion, even if it wasn't being covered by sources entirely due to its sensationalism. First Light (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

we dont need no consensus about the "middle finger"

[edit]

this article is encyclopedic article about living person. one flipped finger has nothing to do here! its against at lest two rules. 50.9.109.170 (talk) 03:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cheney Mason. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cheney_Mason&oldid=1236888458"