Talk:Al Giordano

Contested deletion

This is a complete re-write of the deleted article, with more sources for notability than were present during the AFD. "[G4] excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content that has been moved to user space or converted to a draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy)." --Xavexgoem (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

A deleted article does not get to be immediately re-created and tinkered with in the mainspace. Editors were advised at Deletion Review discussion to work on the article in a sandbox for a few weeks, try to come up with some sources that demonstrate notability, and reduce the reliance on the dubious and self-promotional Rolling Stone blurb. Brmull (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I would agree with Xavexgoem. The scope of the deletion review was solely to discuss procedural errors in the closure of the first AfD. Notability itself was not relevant. This new version contains new sources that were not considered at AfD, and they are enough to say this version is not "substantially identical" under WP:G4. I strongly advise renominating to AfD instead if you feel this should still be deleted. Mz7 (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong. The closing admin on the AfD wrote: "The consensus is that at the moment, he does not meet the notability criteria. If he is successful in running for a Senate seat, his notability at that time can be taken into consideration for re-creating the article. PhantomSteve". These were the sources at the time of the AfD:

^ Mim Udovitch (August 30, 2001). "Hot Muckraker: Al Giordano". Rolling Stone.

^ "Damn You, Barack Obama". Boston Phoenix. September 26, 2007.

^ "The Good, the Bad, and Joe Lieberman". Vanity Fair. February 2009.

^ Zapa-Sutra

The Udovitch blurb remains as the main source for notability. It is an entertainment piece, not a reliable source for important facts. The Cheshes article is called "error-laden" by Giordano himself on his blog so it should not be a source for BLP. Neither Jezer, Wolcott nor Dodson come close to establishing notability. Brmull (talk) 04:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The AfD is not in question. The deletion review states that it is not up for discussion whether " subject is notable (which is a matter for the AfD discussion, whereas this process only reviews procedural errors in the AfD's closure". It is allowable to rework the article. Indeed, I worked on the article in my sandbox, as advised. This version, per Mz7, is not substantially identical under WP:G4. It does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Ricardiana (talk) 04:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The article is substantially the same. You broke down the blockquote and added inline citations but the basis for the AfD--that Giordano is not notable because the sources do not demonstrate notability--remains as valid as ever. By immediately recreating the article, you are violating the outcome of the Deletion Review. Brmull (talk) 04:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I rewrote the article from scratch using sources I culled from university databases. As Mz7 suggested, if it is emotionally important to you that this new, sourced version by an editor with multiple Featured Articles be deleted, then simply renominate to AfD. Ricardiana (talk) 04:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Second that. Complete rewrite, reliable sources. Needs some work, e.g. current "notability" - Mr. Giordano is, after all, currently being quoted and talked about by a LOT of people. Haven't gotten around to adding my references to the article (deletion of old article and posting of new one took me by surprise) but will in the next few days. Question for the new nominator: If Mr. Giordano is so unnotable, why is deleting a Wikipedia article on him so important to you? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I just located the archived discussion page on the deletion review log (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_May_17), and I'm starting to think that this is a lost cause. The vandals win! So, for the record, here's some stuff that didn't make it into the discussion due to its sudden end.

The nominator for deletion, Underdog 456, spent two days in January on a Hillary Clinton page, deleting references: Here’s his contributions page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Underdog456, and here is Clinton’s page (another editor caught on pretty soon, called it vandalism): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign_endorsements,_2016&dir=prev&offset=20160107061059&limit=500&action=history; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign_endorsements%2C_2016&type=revision&diff=701551084&oldid=701550155. The dates and times you need to look for are from 21:09, 24 Jan 16 (Underdog456) to 05:57, 25 Jan 26 (PotvinSux). I checked on one of the deleted non-endorsers (Marge Hoffa, Minnesota), and she is indeed supporting Mrs. Clinton and listed in the reference (7th line from the bottom in the “Hosted By” section). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Brmull: The consensus of the first AfD was, indeed, that the subject was not notable. However, the editors who recreated the article now have presented sources that were not considered at the AfD. The outcome of the deletion review was solely that the closure of the prior AfD was procedurally valid—not an endorsement that the subject is indeed not notable. In fact, Wikipedia policy specifies that past consensus is not binding on the future. Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#If you disagree with the consensus encourages us that if we disagree with the outcome of the discussion (not procedural errors with the closure), we should recreate the article. WP:G4 only applies if the content of the article is substantially the same – here, the article has been rewritten and contains sources that weren't presented at the AfD. If you still believe that the subject is not notable, re-nominate to AfD instead. Mz7 (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

To add, although it might have been more prudent to wait a few days or weeks after the deletion review before recreating the article, I think that to give those who believe that the subject is notable a fair hearing, we should have another deletion discussion before deleting this new version, especially given the controversial nature of the deletion review. If the new AfD results in delete, then that result should be respected. Specifically, we should discuss whether the Abbie Hoffman biography, The Guardian article, and others establish notability. Mz7 (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because it has been completely rewritten and includes half a dozen reliable sources. --Ricardiana (talk) 04:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --2601:642:C401:36E0:70C0:C2B1:B165:DEAF (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Clearly this page is being tagged as a possible speedy deletion because Bernie Sanders supporters do not like the idea that he has a primary challenger. It is utter insanity (and hypocrisy) that wikipedia might deleted it because of that. THE MAN IS RUNNING FOR SENATE. If "Bernie Sanders Dank Meme Stash" is a wikipedia page, this obviously should as well.

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... Article has been rewritten with better citations. And he's still notable even if you don't like him. --Uvaduck (talk) 02:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually just like 99.999999999% of the world I don't care about him, which is why he shouldn't have a Wikipedia page. As far as the article having been rewritten, the primary cite, as with much of the prose, is still the same. Take for example the first paragraph, how he was "running the Rowe Nuclear Conversion Campaign, which resulted in the first shut-down of a nuclear power plant". I can't find any independent information about this group. I can't find any information that any protest group, let alone RNCC, ever succeeded in forcing a shut-down of a nuclear power plant in the U.S. I found one counter-source saying it was never done. Would you feel comfortable putting this cite in the Wikipedia article about the nuclear protest movement or the article about the Rowe nuclear power plant? I wouldn't, and therefore I don't think it belongs in a bio either. Brmull (talk) 04:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not aware that Mr. Giordano "ran" any groups. He was an organizer for the Clamshell Alliance and other anti-nuke groups which is more of an advisor, I think. It might have been better to relaunch this article with an "under construction" template (I have been reading up on Wikipedia rules - you sure have a LOT of them), but please be patient with editors who don't know the rules as well as you do. Yankee Rowe was shut down in 1992, so there's probably not a whole lot of info online. From what I've gathered so far, plants are usually shut down for one of two reasons or both: Safety issues and/or money which often involves public funds which the protests may just have helped to dry up (conjecture on my part), and the disposal of nuclear waste is getting very expensive. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Content question

The article now has two different birthdates. "1960" is obviously from the Udovitch article. So it's really Dec 31, 1959? I've started to edit the section formerly entitled "Banamex lawsuit". Need to get my stuff organized and I have more sources as to notability, but it might take a few days.Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I've removed both birthdates. The December 31, 1959, date is unsourced. And unless I missed it, the Udovitch article does not specifically say it's 1960. It says he was 16 in 1976, but that's not the same as saying he was born in 1960. He could very well have been born on December 31, 1959, and still would have been 16 for the majority of 1976. Also, per WP:DOB, we should only list the date of birth if it has been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. Mz7 (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Here let me help. http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/ It will be AfD'd soon anyway. Brmull (talk) 01:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 01:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• "Early years". Sifting through a lot of source material.

Rowe Nuclear Conversion Campaign: Found one newspaper article online, adding it as a reference. Three others that look like they might contain pertinent information are accessible with subscriptions only, and unfortunately on different websites.

- Coakley, Tom, and B.J. Roche. 1988. Two Towns, Two Nuclear Plants, Two Stories. Boston Globe, April 4: 21. The free part: In Rowe, a Yankee Atomic company town, the proposition is viewed as an intrusion by antinuclear forces who have given their facility a "bad rap" by lumping it with problem plants elsewhere. (https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-8074671.html)

- Poughkeepsie Journal, Poughkeepsie, NY, Jan 25, 1981, page 2A https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/114321184/

- http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/this_just_in/documents/01778107.htm Issue Date: August 16 - 23, 2001 There he is inside the current issue of Rolling Stone (the one with the August 30 cover date), characteristically enveloped in an outrageously thick cloud of tobacco smoke he has just exhaled, accompanied by the headline hot muckraker.

Audio cassette tapes of public meeting of Rowe Nuclear Conversion Campaign held in Buckland, MS, Oct 2, 1980, in support of closing Yanking Rowe Power Plant. Reddy Kilowatt Records, 1926-1999, by Samantha Richert, pg. 62-63, archived at Smithsonian Archive Center. (http://sirismm.si.edu/EADpdfs/NMAH.AC.0913.pdf)

According to Giordano: Six years ago, after having worked as a staff reporter covering courts, cops, and politics for the Valley Advocate (1989-1993), as political reporter for the Boston Phoenix (1993-1996), as a daily AM talk radio host on WSPR, WHYN and WNNZ radio in Massachusetts (1990-1993), as a co-host of Radio Free New York with Penny Arcade on 99.3 FM Steal This Radio in New York City (1996-97), as a guest host at the ABC TV affiliate - WGGB TV-40 - in Springfield, Massachusetts, as the host of Television Free America produced by Continental Cablevision, as an online editor in its early years for the Delphi Internet service, and after having published articles in the Washington Post, American Journalism Review, the Utne Reader and many other publications, ... (http://www.narconews.com/jschoolopen.html). Found this on the Valley Advocate years: http://blogs.gonomad.com/roundworldphoto/2008/09/al-giordano-valley-advocate-going-gonzo.html. Couldn't find the actual article from the 2008 Valley Advocate - looks like it might be on the Wayback Machine, but couldn't call up the 2008 crawls. 2007 and 2008 seem to be "fused". There are a number of articles or posts by former colleagues on the Boston Phoenix, confirming some of that, lot's of researching still to do, but the Cheshes article seems a bit lacking in substance now.

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2007/10/wolcott

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/06/wolcott200806

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/2/1041709/-

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2013/04/a-phoenix-that-will-rise-no-more

https://newleftreview.org/II/41/al-giordano-mexico-s-presidential-swindle

http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/this_just_in/documents/01674434.htm

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_breakfast_table/features/2000/cynthia_cotts_and_dan_kennedy/renos_raiders.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/press_box/2003/05/defending_howell_raines.html

Signed: Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC) Signed: Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Legal History vs Hype

Of course since Giordano is non-notable and hence the ultimate source for information is almost always him, it is difficult to find sources that meet Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources that contradict his spin on things. For example, Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet & Society has a post that is the ultimate source for the Charles Nesson quote in this article about Banco Nacional potentially being "New York Times v. Sullivan for the internet". But the same post also says "legal experts may be divided over whether the decision constitutes a significant precedent" and quotes Executive Center Director Eric Salzman as saying "The truly precious nugget in this opinion is Justice Omansky's statement that a news website may be entitled to strengthened First Amendment protections because of its interaction with its readers." (See https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/node/94045) In fact the U.S. Supreme Court in Lovell_v._City_of_Griffin 303 U.S. 444 (1938) had already ruled that "The press, in its historic connotation, comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion." Furthermore, as the EFF notes in its amicus curae brief, "Though titled the Supreme Court of New York for the district in question, the court is actually the equivalent of the superior court in most states, and roughly the state equivalent of a federal district court." Therefore having limited value as precedent. (See https://w2.eff.org/Censorship/SLAPP/Forum_shopping/BNM_v_Narco_News/20011205_decision.html). I don't see any resolution to this if Giordano supporters are hell-bent on enabling him, other than eventually persuading non-follower editors to delete the article. Brmull (talk) 18:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for the link(s). So far, I have only looked over the Online News text briefly; at first glance though, it doesn't seem to contradict what I wrote. I had already removed the "landmark decision" bit from the initial version because of the legal experts being "... divided over whether the decision constitutes a significant precedent ...", because NY Supreme Court is "only" a trial court, and because the bank apparently decided to quit while they were behind and didn't appeal. I'll try to improve it. This is my first attempt at contributing any lengthy writing to a Wikipedia article, and I'm learning by doing. I obviously disagree with you on whether Giordano is notable or not and also apparently on whether or not the sources or some of the sources meet Wikipedia's criteria. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion (timestamp 20160531030255)

And there it is! Been kinda expecting it. Oh well, back to the rambling and poor writing. (You'll just have to wait for it.) Note to self: If I even think about doing something like this again, shoot me! (Quark, DS9, season 6, episode 10) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit of article by Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I removed the quote from the Udovitch article on testifying before the State legislative committee, not sure it's relevant to the article. Still looking for more sources on Rowe Nuclear Conversion Campaign (who, when, where). Maybe too much detail on Hoffman and Del-AWARE? Haven't found any secondary sources on involvement in first Kerry campaign for US Senate. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

More sources

Placed here for "safekeeping" while determining whether they contain info to be added to article and, if so, where.

Dan Kennedy (Associate Professor at Northeastern University School of Journalism, media commentator, blog “Media Nation”, A pair of heartfelt tributes to the Boston Phoenix, April 10, 2013, https://dankennedy.net/2013/04/10/a-pair-of-heartfelt-tributes-to-the-boston-phoenix/

"... friend of Media Nation Al Giordano[] ..." Dan Kennedy, https://dankennedy.net/tag/al-giordano/; http://www.northeastern.edu/camd/journalism/people/dan-kennedy/

“Awful Albano - Few new Councilors get to a more stumbling start on the Council than newcomer Michael Albano did. A task force on crime he headed turned out to be so lame that Kateri Walsh called it "a political sham," while Valley Advocate writer Al Giordano quipped, "If brown-nosing public officials could solve the violent crime problem, this task force would have won a Nobel Prize." http://bestfriend-friant.blogspot.de/2008/08/council-report-card.html

Reprint of article Stephen J. Simurda, Scooped in Springfield, February 19, 1990, Boston Globe, retrieved at http://tommydevine.blogspot.de/2009/07/journalism-fiasco.html

Not Wikipedia-ready - too current? Joy-Ann Reid, Meet Al Giordano, The Man Who Wants to Take Bernie Down, June 6, 2016, The Daily Beast, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/06/meet-al-giordano-the-man-who-wants-to-take-bernie-down.html

Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Also let's mention additional coverage of Giordano's project (June 9) http://theweek.com/articles/627770/could-political-gadfly-steal-bernie-sanders-senate-seat "Could this political gadfly steal Bernie Sanders' Senate seat?" HouseOfChange (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Banamex controversy?

This heading misses the central point of the section, i.e., deep pockets trying to squash reporting on their (alleged) illegal activities which resulted in a court extending freedom of etc. to Internet publications. In one of the referenced articles, Mark Shapiro writes: "You've got a Mexican Internet magazine, published in English, being sued in an American court," comments veteran civil liberties lawyer Thomas Lesser, who is defending Narco News. "If they can get away with this, nobody on the Internet will be safe from legal harassment." The suit has been a nerve-rattling experience for Giordano, a former political correspondent for the Boston Phoenix. With no legal insurance and operating on a bare-bones budget, he is conducting a joint defense with Lesser, representing Narco News, and David Atlas, representing Menéndez. I have therefore changed the heading back. That may not be the perfect heading, but "Banamex controversy" IMO isn't even in the ballpark. If you think otherwise, this is the forum for discussing it. Please, don't change it back without a discussion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for doing it without discussion. The reason I changed it was because " Extending Freedom of Speech and of the Press Privileges to Online Media" is a very unnecessarily long title and "In my opinion isn't even in the ballpark" isn't a good reason to retain it- this is Wikipedia, after all, and information has to be presented in a clear and unbiased manner. Please consider reverting the title back to my edit or come up with a short and concise title. Again, sorry for the inconvenience. N.R. 03:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nelson Richards (talk • contribs)

I agree with this. "Banamex controversy", "Banamax lawsuit", etc, presents the information more broadly. The claim is also pretty extraordinary, so I'm wary of using it as a heading. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Adding my comments at the end of this talk. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• Banamex continued. What I was trying to say is that the name of the bank isn't all that important because the lawsuit is not a landmark case like New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. "They" sued, they lost, they went away (and the defendants presumably ended up paying off their legal bills for years). What seems important to me is that the defendants stood up to "them" and that the outcome set a persuasive precedent. I'm not particularly happy with the text, either - work in progress! Some suggestions for the heading:

1. Legal battle for freedom of the press rights for online news media
2. Defending freedom of the press rights for online news media
3. Fighting for freedom of the press rights for online news media
4. Resistance is not futile (I'm pretty sure this won't be acceptable, but how can I pass up a chance for an almost-TNG quote?) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• • The last one definitely isn't acceptable ;-) An additional concern is that Al Giordano and Narco News were sued for defamation, so they did not actively fight for freedom of press. That was a consequence of the outcome of the case. --Xavexgoem (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
• True, the defendants didn't start the legal "fight", but they had to defend themselves pretty actively. And I guess I haven't quite mastered the Wikipedia-required neutral point of view yet, so I've added a more suggestions, including the two Banamex suggestions, hoping for more input from other editors. I haven't found a way to continue an ordered list after another paragraph (html ol doesn't seem to work in Wikipedia), so I just typed the list numbers.

5. Getting sued for defamation - Freedom of the press rights

6. Freedom of the press rights for online media

7. Fighting defamation lawsuit and freedom of the press

8. Winning defamation lawsuit and freedom of the press rights

9. Banamex lawsuit

10. Banamex controversy Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I finally found plaintiff's complaint online. You have to scroll down past the editorial section: http://www.narconews.com/narcolawsuit.html.

And Giordano's second affidavit in the case: http://narconews.com/giordanomemojuly2001.html

Plus these write-ups which may or may not be acceptable as reliable, published sources: http://www.november.org/razorwire/rzold/25/page26.html; http://www.november.org/razorwire/rzold/27/page12.html. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• Figured out the ordered list issue (forgot ul). Corrected item 7 - that was the opposite of what I meant to say.

5. Getting sued for defamation - Freedom of the press rights
Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
6. Freedom of the press rights for online media
7. Fighting defamation lawsuit
8. Winning defamation lawsuit and freedom of the press rights
9. Banamex lawsuit
10. Banamex controversy

Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• The general consensus so far seems to be meh? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Question about identity

Is this the same Al Giordano planning on running for the junior United States Senate seat in Vermont in 2018? https://twitter.com/AlGiordano N.R. 04:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nelson Richards (talk • contribs)

Yes, he is, although "planning" seems to be premature. According to the Twitter page you linked to, he's "exploring" the possibility of running for a US Senate seat in 2018. As for the title, I agree that it's long and somewhat awkward. I'll try to think of something more concise and to the point. Suggestions very welcome! Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!! N.R. 16:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nelson Richards (talk • contribs)

Edits by Wokehuggies, Jun 18, 2016

Seems to be advertising [1] for a podcast by some people who sound self-righteous and just a tad sexist. Quote[2]: She is one of those incredibly self-important Hollywood blondes. Like she writes about the Oscars all year. I'll delete it unless someone gives me a reason why the sentence and the references are relevant to the article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is becoming a locus for harassment of the article subject. The new account WokeHuggies has only four edits, all of them on this article. Furthermore, the podcast is not a notable part of Giordano's bio. It would be good if somebody could protect the article so that URLs and special-purpose accounts can't play here. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Cleaning up an old mess

Back in March 2017, an anonymous SPA added a joke tweet of Giordano's to "verify" his claim that Giordano (who is a US citizen from the Bromx) is "Mexican-American." Diff

Another editor quickly removed the "Mexican-American" claim, but did not remove the joke tweet from Giordano, which I am removing, since many subsequent references give ample detail that Giordano is American, a fact for which the existence of one joke tweet is hardly evidence pro or con. This computer does not have a tilde symbol, so let me just sign this manually, HouseOfChange, August 25, 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HouseOfChange (talk • contribs) 21:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Organized crime

Hello,
Because of Giordano's journalism related to the War on Drugs (in other words, "organised crime") ref; this article is of interest of WP:WikiProject Organized crime. So I am adding project's banner on the talkpage. Kindly do not interpret this as he was involved in organized crime. All the persons who were involved in or against organized crime, are being tagged procedurally. If you have any question/doubt; kindly ask me (by pinging me, or on my talkpage). Regards, —usernamekiran(talk) 05:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Somebody's allegation on Twitter does not meet policy for RS that should go in a BLP

Wikipedia is very cautious about adding material to the biography of a living person. If the NYT reports a story about allegations against Al Giordano, that would be a reliable source. Somebody's comment on Twitter is not a reliable source. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

{{BLP noticeboard}}

This article has been under attack recently from three SPAs with very similar style of creating links to sources: BotMan34[3], 118.200.144.177[4], and Don_lemonparty[5]. They are trying to add defamatory material based on rumors in Twitter and Facebook plus (so far) one clickbait blog, which merely reports in detail claims on Twitter and Facebook.

Botman34 was warned a few days ago about edit-warring, after which he became more subtle, making a few "improving" edits. These SPAs don't seem interested in wiki policy, what they want is to get defamatory material into the article, even if only briefly. Why? See for example this tweet from around the same time that Botman34 showed up: "What happens when you google your good buddy Al Giordano?" [6]'

If harassment claims show up in RS, then we can discuss adding them to the bio, although the MeToo claims against Giordano seem minor: that he made some inappropriate remarks, that others at his journalism school harassed people, plus several complaints that he asked women students to do things for no pay, which seems an odd complaint about somebody who runs a nonprofit group that needs volunteer help from many participants.

Semi-protecting the article might do more than continuing to debate policy with these SPAs, but what do others think? HouseOfChange (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Your concern about the sourcing of the harassment claims is a legitimate one. However, the claims themselves are decidedly not "minor." They include allegations that Giordano offered "roofies" to a male student at the School of Authentic Journalism[7], that he sexually harassed and degraded female students[8][9], and that he tried to silence and intimidate his victims[10]. Perhaps you should take the time to review the full allegations before making any more contributions to this page. ~BotMan34 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Botman34 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

This discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard where interested visitors can see responses by me and by others. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy notification, new IP has listed this article at WP:BLP

A new IP, without discussion on this talk page but supporting the effort of new editor Aheezau (Special:Contributions/Aheezau), has requested support at WP:BLP to add recent HuffPo article to this BLP. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Al_Giordano HouseOfChange (talk) 23:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Sexual Harassment Allegations

I posted this to the BLP noticeboard and another editor kindly requested I post it here as well (was having trouble locating this page earlier): This BLP has undergone a number of contentious edits since sexual harassment allegations came out against the subject in February. At that time, the consensus seemed to be that the allegations lacked RS to back them up and support their inclusion in a BLP. Now there is a new report, published in the Huffington Post, that includes direct testimony from multiple alleged victims, who attended the subject's journalism training school. I can understand why some editors may take issue with HuffPo as a source, but in this case I see no reason to question the story's reliability, unless you believe the reporter fabricated the women's words. Even journalist Noah Berlatsky, who has written flatteringly about Giordano in the past, calls the report "well sourced and devastating." Nevertheless, I'd like to hear from other editors before reinstating the short section about the sexual harassment allegations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.95.216 (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

When you suggest "reinstating" sexual harassment allegation section, do you mean re-adding very POV text created by Aheezau, who recently started adding defamatory materials to many BLPs including not only Al Giordano but also Tim Kaine and Neera Tanden? Even if the recent HuffPo hitpiece by freelancer Higgins, who has clashed with Giordano as long ago at 2016, is accepted as a "reliable source", surely our representation of it should contain less POV, OR, and SYNTH than Aheezau's draft. Both the source and the wording need to be discussed on this talk page. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

When I said "reinstate," I just meant adding back in a brief section on the allegations. I agree that the wording of Aheezau's edit needs to be revised to meet BLP standards. I think two to three sentences on the allegations, with a note that Giordano denies them, would suffice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.95.216 (talk) 02:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

This matter is being discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Al_Giordano, so let us unify the discussion there rather than having it both here and there. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Revised Lead

The old lead devoted two out of three sentences to a "potential" Senate campaign that Giordano has said he has no plans to run. I have not seen any other examples of BLP leads giving this much space to activity that never took place. It seems especially odd in this BLP since Giordano is an activist and journalist, not a politician, and he has not (to my knowledge) ever run a political campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.95.216 (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Giordano became much more well-known after his project to oppose Sanders. According to Wikipedia, notability is not temporary. I am disturbed your pattern of removing bio text that establishes Giordano's notability, together with references supporting them, as you did not only here in the lede but also your edit yesterday removing the entire reference to an article in Vanity Fair. That article, from a source much better than HuffPo, included substantial material about Giordano. You removed the entire reference with an edit summary saying that you disputed the article's summary of what was in it. [11]

Our project here is to build a great encyclopedia, where people can find NPOV information about notable people and events. Please respect that mission if you want to edit here. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

What "project" did Giordano conduct to "oppose Sanders"? As far I'm aware, he did nothing more than float the idea of running for Congress. He did not relocate to Vermont to establish residency (a requirement for running for office), he did not file the documentation to become a candidate, he did not hire campaign staffers or recruit volunteers, etc. If Giordano says he is going to establish a colony on the moon, should we mention that in the lead too? The bulk of this article establishes his notability as a journalist and political organizer. The lead should reflect that. Including two sentences in the lead about a political campaign that never materialized is a disservice to readers, implying as it does that Giordano has some kind of clout in the world of Vermont politics.

As for your other point, I cut that text because it misrepresented the source material. The sentence as written in the bio made a claim that was not present in Walcott's original text. Surely removing dubious and false information is consistent with the mission of building a great encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.95.216 (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Giordano's project to oppose Sanders was notable enough to be reported by several different WP:RS. It generated much wider interest in Giordano than his other recent activities. The bio devotes significant space to the story, and I think it belongs in the lede. But what do others besides the two of us think? HouseOfChange (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The bio devotes three sentences to the story. That's "significant space"? So significant that there should be two sentences on it in the lead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.95.216 (talk) 15:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice to expand that section. I agree it is too short, and the sources cited contain ample material that would improve the bio. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Please clarify why you believe that section should be expanded. I recommended no such change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.95.216 (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I respond to your question in new section below, let us discuss the article lede in this section. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• Guidance on the role of a lede section from WP:DETAIL: "Many readers need just a quick summary of the topic's most important points (lead section)." Although much of Giordano's notability comes from his activism and journalism, in recent years he is more widely known for his political activism and in particular for his opposition to Bernie Sanders. Most people coming to this article will probably be brought here to learn more about his recent political activity than his antinuclear campaigns, etc. IMO it makes sense that the lede should contain a mention of his recent political activity, because that is what most people will be coming here to read about. We should include it in the lede and describe it in some detail in the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:BRD: Expanding material about Giordano's 2018 Senatorial campaign

I would like to make this section more informative, based on references we already cite. The new IP 108.41.95.216 has reverted my changes, so I put the proposed revision here for others to discuss, improve, and reach consensus on including.

In June 2016, journalists Joy-Ann Reid and Noah Berlatsky reported that Giordano planned to challenge independent Senator Bernie Sanders for his United States Senate seat from Vermont if Sanders failed to endorse Hillary Clinton at the 2016 Democratic National Convention. Both Reid and Berlatsky regarded Giordano's decision as surprising, because of his leftwing politics and 2008 opposition to Hillary Clinton.

Boston Magazine noted that Giordano was an early supporter when Sanders ran for mayor of Burlington, and for some years thereafter, but lost enthusiasm in 1994 when Sanders refused to "align with" Barney Frank and other Democrats then working together to oppose House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Giordano told both Reid and Berlatsky that he saw his candidacy as a way to defend the "Obama coalition" against supporters of Bernie Sanders. According to Berlatsky:

Giordano thinks Sanders has disrupted that critical progressive coalition. The Vermont senator "has a blind spot on racial justice issues," Giordano argues. He is "exploiting racial and gender divisions... in a way that harms the movement." For instance, Sanders' comments about the illegitimacy of the primary process, and dismissal of Clinton's victories in Southern states, which were fueled by black voters, have "poisoned the well," Giordano says, and made unity against the Republicans difficult.

According to Reid, Giordano told her, "For me this is not about Hillary Clinton, who has her strengths and she has her flaws...This is about a coalition that has saved the United States and can keep saving it, and this is what needs to be protected. And so maybe it’s time for the Obama coalition to go to Vermont.”

Later, however, Giordano said that he was battling cancer and so would not challenge Sanders for his seat.

What do others think? (Just updated proposal, which I have been working on in my sandbox.) HouseOfChange (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

108.41.95.216 please discuss on the talk page. WP:BRD entitles you to revert my edit, the next step is to discuss what you think would be a better choice. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

References

I might be okay with this edit if Giordano were actually running for office. But that's not the case. Why does this section deserve several paragraphs and a block quote when Giordano's work on the Kerry campaigns only has a single sentence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.95.216 (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

It deserves it because it is notable and recent and interesting, covered in 3 different WP:RS. Typically people who know anything about Giordano know about his sparring with supporters of Bernie Sanders. Feel free to add material about the Kerry campaign if you find some good RS to cover it. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The three "recent" RS are all from 2016, which is quite a while ago for a section that is supposedly about a "2018" campaign. Maybe a separate section on "Opposition to Bernie Sanders" or something like that would be more appropriate. My main concern here is that cluttering the section on "Potential 2018 Senate Campaign" gives undue weight to something that never happened (since, again, Giordano isn't running). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.95.216 (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Very good idea from you to change the section title! I will do that and rewrite the material accordingly. I was also impressed by your good work creating neutral content based on the Boston Globe article. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good. I think the material you posted above (quote from Bertlatsky article, etc.) would fit well there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.95.216 (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Expanding material about Giordano's political activities in Presidential primaries

While improving other sections of this bio, I discovered that some of the RS we cite have interesting information beyond his support for Obama in 2008 and for Clinton in 2016. I propose to add that material to this bio. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:04, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

PUtting together ideas from the section above with this one, I think the best way will be to integrate the "Potential Senatorial campaign" material into a discussion of his opposition to Bernie Sanders in 2016. Then the logical division for the section on "Presidential campaigns" will instead be a subsection concerning the 2008 campaign and a different subsection concerning the 2016 campaign. AFAIK there is not much material about Giordano's involvement in the 2012 campaign, but if some emerges we could add a section on that. What do others think? HouseOfChange (talk) 02:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

If I'm reading you correctly, I think that sounds good. So it would look something like...

3. Politics

3.1 Presidential Campaigns

3.2 Opposition to Bernie Sanders (with the material on the potential 2018 campaign integrated here)  ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.95.216 (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking of something more like this

3. Politics, 3.1 2008 Presidential election, 3.2 2016 Presidential election

Then if somebody later comes up with good material for other elections, that could be added later. But RS give us lots of good info about 2008 and 2016. Opposition to Bernie Sanders would be a theme of the 2016 campaigns, but maybe not a separate subsection header. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I approve! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.95.216 (talk) 02:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Radio Journalism

Al Giordano once hosted a talk segment on Springfield, Massachusetts AM talk radio station WNNZ, which at the time was owned and operated by Curt and Cele Hahn . The years were probably between 1990-91. The Hahns and the station were predominantly of a conservative Republican bias, and I think Giordano may have been the only liberal section on the show. Syndicated personalities that I can remember on the station included G. Gordon Liddy and radio psychologist Joy Brown. Giordano was subsequently let go for reason which Curt Hahn did not fully disclose on air. I will only enter it here in the talk section (for now) because Internet archival history, unlike the Dead Sea Scrolls, for instance, seems to shift and erode quickly in the space of a few decades. But rightly, it was probably an important period in Giordano's professional portfolio.giggle (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

References