Talk:Aaron Swartz/Archive 5

Clarify the crime

From both this and the article United States v. Aaron Swartz there is nothing to clarify what was illegal about his actions. All it says is that he downloaded articles from JSTOR at his university. "Swartz used JSTOR, a digital repository,[67] to download a large number[ii] of academic journal articles through MIT’s computer network over the course of a few weeks in late 2010 and early 2011."
- Well so does every other university student and lecturer - they are regularly used in university lectures and seminars and for students in their essays and dissertations. So my point is: what was illegal about his actions? The quantity he downloaded? Was it what he intended to do with these downloads that was illegal? The article doesn't say anything and so I'm left in the dark as to where the crime actually occurred. If someone could clarify this in the article please.
Rushton2010 (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

No one knows, or will ever know, whether a crime was committed and, if so, what that crime was.. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I replied more fully at Talk:United States v. Aaron Swartz#Clarify the crime. —mjb (talk) 04:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Swartz was arrested on charges of breaking & entering, Rushton2010. (Not on charges of criminal downloading.)

“He was arrested for two counts of Breaking and Entering ..., Chapter 266 Section 18.” Officer Report. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Although the question was implicitly in regard to only the federal charges, my response applies to the state charges as well. There was no finding and no plea. We can write about the alleged actions & supporting evidence, and we can write about the charges. But in response to what Rushton2010 seems to be asking, we can't guess at the prosecution's reasoning in tying those things together. —mjb (talk) 11:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Well the problem with all that is that for everyone like me, who does not know the case in depth, the article doesn't say enough to give even a clue as to what has happened or what he did wrong. I must say, for someone from the UK, where an individual's name and the full list of offences are made public when that individual is formally charged with the crime, the fact that someone can be facing 35 years in prison but no one knows why, is quite ridiculous. From what people have said above, and on Talk:United States v. Aaron Swartz#Clarify the crime it just seems to be a flaw/quirk in the American justice system. But to the casual reader of the article, it seems to be an omission from the article.

Is there anyway it could be worked into the article to clarify that situation so that readers aren't left with such huge unanswered questions?

Rushton2010 (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

All the charges are listed quite clearly at the Wiki page about the legal case. However, none were ever tried, some involve interpretations of the law that are subject to controversy, and it is entirely possible that the subject did not do anything wrong. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Rushton2010, like I said at Talk:United States v. Aaron Swartz#Clarify the crime, your confusion and dismay about the charges are very much in line with the feelings that a lot of Americans have about it, and these feelings underpin the overwhelming majority of public responses and press coverage that make the case notable.

In the opinion of people who share your confusion, this seems to be one of a string of cases in which the federal (national) government increasingly pushes for laws regarding wire fraud and computer abuse to apply to an ever-broader category of "hacking", in an effort to send a message / make an example of people like Aaron.

A rather vocal minority, given the exact same input (with a dash of contrarianism), concludes that the charges are not a stretch at all, that he was as guilty as the day is long, and that the severe punishment either fits the crime or is irrelevant because, as they see it, the likelihood of a reduced sentence in cases like Aaron's (possibly as part of a plea bargain) mitigates any injustice.

I'm not sure how we could better convey this in the article, or if we really need to. —mjb (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Rushton2010, I do not think we need to try to clarify something which is, in reality, not clarifiable. This does happen often regardless of whether it is ridiculous; for example, Brandon Mayfield's fingerprints were "100% verified" by the FBI as being on a bag found in Spain, but this was disputed by Spainish authorities and the FBI apologized; so if something is "100% verified" the literal meaning of that is that it can not be wrong, yet it was wrong, ergo its "ridiculous". It happens all the time. Just trying to help, you may wish to read The Trial by Kafka ( I know its fiction, but still...). May122013 (talk) 04:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The D.A. said Swartz (a known Wikipedia editor) had allegedly broken & entered with intent to SOCK. “In order to obtain an IP address that would not be blocked, Swartz allegedly entered a restricted network-interface closet....”--Dervorguilla (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC) 01:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? This is nothing to do with Wikipedia or sockpuppetry. I'm really struggling to see the point of the issues you keep trying to raise here. Bonusballs (talk) 11:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Users here and at Talk: United States v. Aaron Swartz are asking for information about the “wrong” acts that Swartz is alleged to have done. This suggests that we’re not listing the charges accurately or giving the most helpful background material. Maybe we could explain better what happened (or was said to have happened)?

• Swartz was arrested after a network engineer at MIT’s information-systems department told police that (1) someone had broken into a restricted room, (2) the suspect’s laptop had been “illegally downloading” periodicals, and (3) the downloaded information was worth about $50,000.

• Swartz was then arraigned on charges of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony.

• The D.A. appeared to believe it mattered that the defendant “had no affiliation with MIT”.

• Swartz was ultimately arraigned on charges of breaking and entering a restricted room, obtaining unauthorized access to a computer network, breaking into a depository with intent to take data, and illicitly downloading data worth more than $250.

I believe we also ought to mention somewhere that Swartz denied committing the charged offenses. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 05:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

More about his personal life/relationships

I just read the BLP for the first time and found it amazing. The only person who I can think of who accomplished nearly as much (but not as much)in such a short life is Alexander the Great. At the same time I found at the end that I knew lots about Aaron's work, which left me feeling quite sad, and, I imagine quite typically, pissed off; I suppose because his great work was interrupted and stopped by something I can only describe as control-freakish tyranny. So, I find myself wanting to brighten up the BLP a bit, and in that regard, I notice there is little about his personality, "solely for fun" activities and relationships. Perhaps there is little written about any of that, but I will be having a look around for RS articles about those aspects of his life. I will take my time and propose it here before putting it into the BLP. Hopefully this will be ok, if not please advise. May122013 (talk) 04:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I notice that you were edit-warring this page about the subject's suicide two weeks ago, but here you are saying that you read the page for the first time. MarkBernstein (talk) 08:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

That was a mistake on my part. I came around to your position on the talk page as you can see if you have a look at that talk [1] section. It was about 1 and only 1 specific detail of the BLP, which I did research on before challenging it. However, I am now only interested in improving the BLP in the way I refer to above and as I say, I will not add anything unless the dedicated editors here, like yourself, think it would be an improvement. May122013 (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

No need to wait for approval. Edit first, ask questions later. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks,May122013 (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

United States v. Aaron Swartz

I'm glad to have moved the contentious material to a stand-alone article. In light of this, we may need to discuss the material again, on that article's talk page. David in DC (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Link to MIT Police article

The MIT Police do get mentioned five times in this article, so they may be important enough for a link.

Lead
On January 6, 2011, Swartz was arrested by MIT police on state breaking-and-entering charges, after systematically downloading academic journal articles from JSTOR.^{[14] …}
JSTOR
According to state and federal authorities, Swartz used JSTOR, a digital repository,^[74] to download a large number^[ii] of academic journal articles through MIT’s computer network over the course of a few weeks in late 2010 and early 2011.… The authorities said Swartz downloaded the documents through a laptop connected to a networking switch in a controlled-access wiring closet at MIT.^{[14][80] …}
[ii] The MIT network administration office told MIT police that “approximately 70 gigabytes of data had been downloaded, 98% of which was from JSTOR.”^[14]
Arrest and prosecution
On January 6, 2011, Swartz was arrested near the Harvard campus by MIT police and a U.S. Secret Service agent.…^{[14][80] …}
References
[14] Commonwealth v. Swartz, 11-52CR73 & 11-52CR75, MIT Police Incident Report 11-351 (“Captain [A.P.] and Special Agent Pickett were able to apprehend the suspect at 24 Lee Street.…”).
[80] Cohen, Noam. "How M.I.T. ensnared a hacker, bucking a freewheeling culture". The New York Times. p. A1. “… Within a mile of MIT … he was stopped by an MIT police captain and [U.S. Secret Service agent] Pickett."

Revision as of 16:12, 25 July 2013 Mightyhansa (talk | contribs)  (Added MIT police link)
Revision as of 18:36, 25 July 2013 MarkBernstein (talk | contribs)  (Undid revision 565770831 by Mightyhansa (talk) No reason to link to the MIT police; they're not important to this story)

--Dervorguilla (talk) 08:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand your close personal connection with the MIT police. But in this case they were simply running an errand, and their involvement seems to have been brief and inconsequential. MarkBernstein (talk) 11:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

(alteration added) --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC) 04:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The Abelson report, released today, makes it clear that the MIT Police involvement was brief and peripheral, serving briefly as an intermediary between an MIT department and law enforcement agencies with the expertise and resources to proceed -- expertise that MIT police lacked. Dervorguilla has been extensively connected with MIT Police for years, and almost all his edits at Wikipedia involve some aspect of their work or the activities of "The MIT Crime Club". Many if not all of the mentions currently in the article stem from his additions, and he has worked zealously on their behalf. That he is clearly COI with respect to the MIT Police is evident from his edit history and from the user pages of his account and of his alternate account talk. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Based on the pertinent guidelines, MarkBernstein’s view is clearly wrong. I’ve added a second link to MIT police (at Arrest and prosecution). --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Wrong about the conflict of interest? MarkBernstein (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Wrong about the revert of Mightyhansa. Your edit summary — “No reason to link to the MIT police; they're not important to this story” — is impertinent (meaning, irrelevant). As is your argument above.

The remainder of your comment is inappropriate and in error and is not going to get a response.

For guidance on the issues, consult RPA at Aaron Swartz (claim that entity’s involvement was peripheral not relevant to wikilinking). --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC) 00:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC) 07:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC) 00:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Full disclosure of interests. Dervorguilla declares that neither she nor any member of her immediate family is MIT Police or working for MIT Police. Cf. pertinent user page. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC) 09:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, you "won" the RPA in July and got to keep your links; the issue of whether the linking was appropriate is resolved. For purposes of improving the article, the thread is dead and would've been archived, had it not been for your just-under-the-wire, utterly inconsequential edits. Your edit summary when reverting my attempt to manually archive the thread was "The allegation (24 August 2013) that 51 percent of User:MarkBernstein’s comment is in error could be consequential; shouldn’t the user be given time to rebut?" ...that, plus your full disclosure comment added immediately afterward, suggest that you are just desperately fishing for reasons to keep the thread alive...but MarkBernstein's response, or lack thereof, is impertinent, irrelevant, and unimportant; the issue of linking is resolved.

As for whether you have a COI: that, too is moot; it has nothing to do with the article, and I thought you said it was "not going to get a response" anyway. There is no reason for this thread to remain on the talk page. Even before you added your full disclosure, the mere possibility that someone might keep the tangential discussion going does not warrant subverting MiszaBot I's archiving schedule. You already got the last word, so just let it go, and let's archive this thread already. No one needs to respond to your declaration and I encourage everyone to ignore it. If the question of "Does Dervorguilla have a conflict of interest?"—regardless of whether you frame it in terms of MarkBernstein's correctness— needs to be resolved or otherwise discussed further, it's okay to start a new thread in the appropriate forum, which I'm pretty sure is not here. —mjb (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Dervorguilla consents to your request.
See generally id. (“On pronoun usage. Why does Dervorguilla persist in speaking of herself in the third person? ... She ... could be channeling the now Queen Pretender, who would be expected to speak and be spoken to in the third person (“... if Your Grace so wishes”; “The Crown consents to your request”; etc.).) --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC) 01:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Restoring Hacks and Hoaxes section

Restoring in part the section removed in revision 557213932 by MarkBernstein.

In § 1 below, MarkBernstein points out that the hacks were not conducted with Swartz’s permission. But nor was anything else that occurred after January 11, 2013.

In § 2, the cited material doesn’t seem to identify Swartz as a hacker or an Anonymous confederate.

In §§ 1–2, HectorMoffet’s assertion of undue weight seems pertinent, as does MarkBernstein’s statement about the supposed gunman’s being of no more than brief local interest. That part isn’t getting restored.

[§ 1]. == Hacks and Hoaxes ==
Is this subsection adding useful information to the subject? These posthumous hacks and hoaxes were not conducted by the subject, or with his knowledge or permission. Nor do they add significantly to the subject's notability. Perhaps they belong elsewhere -- on the page for Anonymous, perhaps -- but do they belong here? MarkBernstein (talk) 21:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm persuadable to the contrary, but in my editorial judgment, this belongs in a section about the aftermath of Swartz's prosecution and suicide. I think it belongs in a biography of Swartz because it is a part of his legacy. We've got a couple of citations that suggest his influence will extend beyond his death. Some of that is all of the Congresscrap. But so is the hacking. I wouldn't block consensus if I'm the only one who turns out to think this way, but I'd like to see a healthy discussion here, an arrival at consensus, and then action (or not - depending on the consensus.) Who knows? Maybe by disagreeing and enlisting the community to reason together about this, we can provide an example for others. --David in DC (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't disagree that Swartz will have a lasting influence; at the recent Web Science conference, several speakers felt comfortable in assuming that a room full of academic computer scientists drawn from the global research community would immediately recognize his name. But I'm not sure that some other people's hacks and pranks are going to be a significant part of that legacy. Nonetheless, if we think this section might be useful, let's keep it and revisit it in a year. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree- The hacks/hoaxes seem a sliver [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight|WP:UNDUE]. Vandals and pranksters always exist, do they really deserve this much coverage relative to the serious interests involved? --HectorMoffet (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Graf 4 is the wordiest by far. Maybe this 18-word passage could be dispensed with (it doesn’t talk about the hoax itself): “On February 26, MIT’s student newspaper, The Tech, reported law enforcement radio traffic suggesting police were concerned that….” Other than that, I have to agree with MarkBernstein that it′s still too early to tell. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC) […]
[§ 2]. == Superb repair work ==
[…]
None of [the Hacks and hoaxes section] concerns the subject, his life or accomplishments. Its inclusion here is a posthumous attempt to identify the subject as a "hacker" and a confederate of "Anonymous", and most of these were pushed by POV editors hoping to discredit the subject. The supposed MIT gunman, in particular, was of local interest on one day on one campus, and could have been perpetrated by anyone who read about Swartz in the newspaper or on Wikipedia. None of this is very notable, and none is especially pertinent to Swartz. If it were notable, it could have its own page. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

--Dervorguilla (talk) 05:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC) 05:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC) 08:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the restoration. Some unknown person briefly disrupted some web site and claimed it had something to do with the subject. Clearly wp:undue. MarkBernstein (talk) 12:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Compare what MarkBernstein says (“Some unknown person … disrupted some web site”) with what the article says:

== Hacks and hoaxes ==

On January 13, 2013, members of Anonymous hacked two websites on the MIT domain....  On the night of January 18, MIT’s e-mail system was taken out of action for ten hours....  On January 22, e-mail sent to MIT was redirected by hackers Aush0k and TibitXimer to the Korea Advanced Institute of Science & Technology.  All other traffic to MIT was redirected to a computer at Harvard University....  References: Washington Post, The Tech....  -- Dervorguilla (talk) 06:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC); 21:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC) (emphasis added); 04:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Anyone can claim to be "Anonymous". My characterization is accurate. And the prominence accorded a hardly-unprecedented MIT hack by an editor so deeply involved with the MIT crime club is obviously wp:undue.MarkBernstein (talk) 11:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The attention of active editors is drawn to the pattern of creeping stealth reversions in this article by this editor, who seems intent on restoring it to its state before his block. . MarkBernstein (talk) 12:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

MarkBernstein explains that “wingnuts” like Dervorguilla formed high-school “sex cartels” to punish Swartz (and MarkBernstein):

== A Parting Gift (Maybe) ==

… I've done what little I could to save this page -- and wikipedia. I think it's clear that it's beyond me. Link: "They Hate Us" →

“Aaron Swartz taught me something yesterday.…

“I was keeping half an eye on his wikipedia page. It’s a waste of time and effort ….

“The wingnuts are attacking.… Because they hate us.

“They’ve hated us since 3rd Grade Reading and 6th Grade Math.… They formed sex cartels in high school to punish us ….”

They Hate Us, Mark Bernstein (Jan. 23, 2013), paras. 1–4.

--Dervorguilla (talk) 07:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Dervorguilla  neither  admits  nor denies  the allegation that she would’ve been happy to ‘punish’ Swartz (presuming he’d earned himself a spanking!!). --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)  Having had “time to calm down and reflect”, Dervorguilla self-edits. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

This remark is not in the best of taste, for reasons which will occur to the editor when he has time to calm down and reflect. I suggest some self-editing.

it's also poor style to tack two excerpts from different times together in this way, with the newer before the older, in order to mislead unwary readers. But let that pass.

Are you admitting that you are in fact one of the editors I was discussing in this January column? If so, you were using a different sock, I believe, and on other occasions you have denied the presumption that this was you. My own conclusion is that you're probably a different editor, one obsessed with MIT Crime where the editors of which I wrote were apparently interested in promoting Carmen Ortiz and her prosecutorial staff. MarkBernstein (talk) 11:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Responding to MarkBernstein’s inquiry, Dervorguilla can neither admit nor deny that she’s one of the editors he was discussing.

Jan. 21, 2013:  Dervorguilla makes her 1st edit to Aaron Swartz.

Jan. 22, 2013:  Dervorguilla makes her 15th edit to Aaron Swartz.

Jan. 23, 2013:  MarkBernstein discusses “zealots” making edits to Aaron Swartz.

She can and does deny socking. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC) 21:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Quoting the two passages linked by MarkBernstein (not Dervorguilla):

== 6. Hacks and Hoaxes ==

== 7. WP:Battleground ==

== 8. A Parting Gift (Maybe) ==

… I've done what little I could to save this page -- and wikipedia. I think it's clear that it's beyond me. Link: "They Hate Us".… --MarkBernstein (talk) 13:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

→

“They Hate Us

“They’ve hated us since 3rd Grade Reading and 6th Grade Math.… They formed sex cartels in high school to punish us, they recruited gym teachers and coaches … to taunt us.

“They hate us. They fear us, too. There’s going to be a war someday.…

“We will win.…”

They Hate Us, Mark Bernstein (Jan. 23, 2013), paras. 4, 10, 12.

--Dervorguilla (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC) 21:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Was date of arrest relevant to timing of suicide?

Lead section — “On January 11, 2013, just after the second anniversary of his arrest [on January 6, 2011], Swartz was found dead in his Crown Heights, Brooklyn apartment, where he had hanged himself.”

3 RSs cited. 0 mention the two-year anniversary.

WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject.…
From Jimbo Wales …
* If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
* If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents.…
Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

--Dervorguilla (talk) 08:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

This is pure axe grinding. The account by the subject's partner makes clear the importance of the anniversary, as do the family accounts and numerous eulogies. The proximate cause of the subject's death is wp:undue ? MarkBernstein (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The account by the subject’s partner doesn’t mention the anniversary, MarkBernstein. Nor do the family accounts. A more likely “proximate cause of the subject’s death” was the rejection of the plea-deal request on January 9. Read Ante et al., “Legal Case Strained Troubled Activist,” Wall Street Journal, January 14, 2013. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should the bio say in the lead that the subject killed himself just after the second anniversary of his arrest?

Resolved

 – Article updated using balanced compromise language. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Should a parenthetical comment be inserted in the lead saying that Swartz killed himself “just after the second anniversary of his arrest”?  (Illustration: “On January 6, 2011, Swartz was arrested.... On January 11, 2013, just after the second anniversary of his arrest, Swartz was found dead....”) --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC) 07:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Usage note: Parenthetical sentence elements
  “Commas [are] used to set off a parenthetical element inserted into a sentence as an explanation or comment.” CMOS.
  “‘Parenthesis.’ An amplifying or explanatory comment inserted in a passage.” W3.

Has a source been found that uses the date of the anniversary to explain the date of the suicide? --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC) 09:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Editors are asked not to add threaded replies to this subsection.

• Oppose, not relevant enough. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose connection not really established.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support current language doesn't state causality, which in any case can never be known, but rather situates the suicide in relation to an important prior event. The only reason to exclude this is a highly NPOV effort to minimize the role of the prosecution in its denoument. See prior discussions in January in which multiple posters attempted to argue here that the subject was mentally unstable. Devorg, having (mostly) failed in efforts to cast the prosecution in a more favorable light and the subject in a worse one in a relentless edit war a few months back, a war that ended in his block, returns to the identical crusade once more. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Since reference to a second anniversary has already been removed, I think the burden now rests with those who want to revert back to show a justification for that edit. A connection must be evident to link these two events or otherwise, it is just an unfortunate coincidence. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Liz: Devorg has been grinding this axe for weeks or months. He "just happened" to call for this survey moments after he (again) replaced the consensus language with his preferred formulation. Devorg has done this repeatedly; it's just edit warring with a few extra moves to obscure the record.MarkBernstein (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support Perfectly valid non-judgmental language. Its removal appears to be the result of an ongoing single-issue crusade by the questioner, activity for which they have previously been blocked. Bonusballs (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support Non-judgemental and doesn't assume causation. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose in the lead: if there’s no evidence of causation it’s not sufficiently important or relevant. I wouldn‘t object to including a parenthetical mention in the body, though, along with the developments in the legal case at the time, as background for the death.—Odysseus1479 19:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose If this fact met Wikipedia inclusion criteria then it would have been highlighted and noted by reliable sources. To give attention to this without identifying sources which had already done so would be original research. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - I don't really see much harm in the language, but at the same time I'd have to agree with User:TonyTheTiger & User:Dervorguilla. Not sure I see the relevance or the connection. NickCT (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

No source has been found yet that uses the date of the anniversary (January 6) to explain the date of the suicide (January 11). According to Swartz’s partner, family, and lawyer, he died 2 days after prosecutors rejected his second request for a plea deal. See, for example, “Legal Case Strained Troubled Activist,” Wall Street Journal.

“Just days before he hanged himself, Internet activist Aaron Swartz’s hopes for a deal with federal prosecutors fell apart.... Mr. Peters said he spoke to Mr. Heymann again last Wednesday [January 9] in another attempt to find a compromise. The prosecutor, he said, didn’t budge.”
“Swartz ... had realized he would face a costly trial and would need help financing his defense, his girlfriend said.”
“Aaron Swartz Hanged Himself as Hopes for Legal Deal Fell Apart”

None of their statements mention the anniversary. UNDUE (out of proportion to prominence in sources), BALASPS (“depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements”). --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC) 09:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

See also New Yorker profile. MarkBernstein (talk) 11:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The profile doesn’t mention the anniversary.

“Requiem for a Dream,” New Yorker, March 11, 2013.  “Two years ago, he was indicted ....” Indicted (July 14), not arrested (January 6). --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

“The only reason to exclude this is a highly NPOV effort to minimize the role of the prosecution.... Devorg, having (mostly) failed in efforts to cast the prosecution in a more favorable light and the subject in a worse one in a relentless edit war a few months back, ... returns to the identical crusade....” — MarkBernstein, Comment to Liz.

 Resolved or partly resolved. Amending language so as not to “minimize the role of the prosecution”.

On January 11, 2013, just after the second anniversary of his arrest, Swartz …

   ->

On January 11, 2013, two days after prosecutors denied his lawyer's second request for a plea deal, Swartz …

   ->

On January 11, 2013, two days after the prosecution denied his lawyer's second request for a plea deal, Swartz …

   --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Resolved. Article updated by MarkBernstein using balanced compromise language.

Two years later, two days after the prosecution denied his lawyer's second request for a plea deal, Swartz …

--Dervorguilla (talk) 03:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, just wanted to throw in there that sources do exist which mention the two-year interval. Example, example. groupuscule (talk) 05:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Example 2 says, “In January 2013, two years after his indictment, Swartz hanged himself.” His indictment, not his arrest. MIT Reacts to Internal Review of Aaron Swartz Case, WGBH News, July 31, 2013. --Dervorguilla (talk) 14:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

But surely in example 2, the reporter assuming that the indictment followed hard upon the arrest and that "indicted" was here synonymous with "charged". The reference clearly is to the events of January 2011; the sentence makes no sense at all in your (desperately strained) interpretation that they refer to events six months later. Again, pushing this esoteric, personal POV against the clear sense of the source. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Reddit falsehood and overall POV of article

I was afraid when I started to read this that it would be all sorts of biased knowing the standard political views of your average Wikipedia editor. It starts out with the false claim that he was involved in the creation of Reddit. Not a good start, as he had nothing to do with Reddit itself and only was part of the same company working on a project that failed. This article is a puff piece inflating his credentials to make him sound impressive for obvious POV-pushing purposes. There are a number of mainstream, reliable sources that have debunked the many falsehoods about Swartz. This article needs to be written by people committed to writing a good encyclopedia, not fans. DreamGuy (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

This article was written, as it happens, by people committed to writing a good encyclopedia. Some of those people are critical -- in my opinion tendentiously critical -- of the subject. Few of those people, I admit, have a block log as long as yours, but then, we can't all excel at everything.

Swartz's early involvement with Reddit is well known and well understood, as is the subsequent falling out in which you seem to have some stake. As to whether the article makes Swartz seem impressive, I'm not familiar with many people who met him and who were not impressed. (Oh -- and "falsehood" is walking right up to the line of a BLP issue, and your "good encyclopedia" assumption of good faith will doubtless endear you to the dozens of contributors to this page.) MarkBernstein (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

"There are a number of mainstream, reliable sources that have debunked the many falsehoods..." Citations please. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC) 10:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Opinions of Aaronovitch

User:Sam Blacketer keeps adding the opinions of Aaronovitch, which are self-reported. I think that in this case, where there is vast amount of opinion pieces written about this matter, we should be selective and prefer those opinions which are reported in WP:SECONDARY sources, i.e. not by the opinion holder/emitter himself or herself. This article is already too unwieldy because it's verging on becoming an indiscriminate collection of opinion pieces. I will add that Aaronovitch, writing over the pond, seems poorly informed about what the fatal lawsuit was about. It wasn't JSTOR vs. Schwartz (a case of copyright infringement that JSTOR decided to not even pursue), it was US vs. Schwatz based on CFAA wire fraud charges. There are similarly poorly informed pieces in the American right-wing blogosphere, casting this as a copyright case e.g. this in RedState; I don't see those being included in this Wikipedia article (thank goodness). As for Aaronovitch's opinion about JSTOR (how relevant is that to this article?) that is riddled with POV too, which NPOV would require a counterbalancing opinion; see for example what this article in the New Republic wrote: "As a nonprofit institution, JSTOR talked a good game about embracing the values of the academy. But it was often extremely reluctant to negotiate discounts to its exorbitant fees. (This has changed in more recent years, and even in 2008 it ran a special program allowing free access in Africa.)" Still want to include Aaronovitch's opinion about JSTOR here? Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

There are several pretty fundamental misunderstandings in that brief paragraph. Will take a bit of time to go through and explain why they are all wrong, unless someone else wants to help. Start you off with the fact that an opinion article published in a major newspaper is not "self-reported". Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you confuse "self-reported" with "self-published". Aaronovitch is both the opinion holder and the reporter in this case (which is different from publisher, duh). Furthermore, I wanted to add this, but we edit conflicted: Yes, one can argue cogently that the US gov't was doing copyright enforcement by stealth/proxy in this case; see this piece of Philip Greenspun, where he does that. But Aaronovitch doesn't ever manage to articulate that point besides the "copyright matters" platitude. And besides that what else is he saying? Some (probably false if not debatable) platitude about a generation "unaware of its power". Really? It seems just an excuse for spamvertizing Aaronovitch and his newspaper. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Update: I've added Aaronovitch's opinion about JSTOR to United States v. Aaron Swartz, together with a counter-balancing one (by Peter Ludlow) [2]. I think the rest of Aaronson's platitudes about the younger generation can be safely omitted from these articles, without any loss to our readers, except yourself maybe, Mr. Blacketer. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

S.B. seems like a decent enough chap, Someone, although BracketBot may disagree. In any case, thank you for your very helpful analysis of the "self-reporting" problem. I believe that Aaronovitch could, in addition, be condemned for question-begging. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC) 06:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

2011 TOC talk about Wikipedia?

According to [3], Swartz gave a talk about Wikipedia at the O'Reilly Tools of Change for Publishing Conference 2011 (the link to the actual talk is dead). But going to [4] I can't see him listed as a speaker. Can anyone figure this out? Maybe the year is wrong or something like that... Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Aaron Swartz, Wikipedia and the Future of Libraries, Address at the O'Reilly Tools of Change for Publishing Conference (Feb. 12, 2008), http://web.archive.org/web/20130729110418/http://blip.tv/oreilly-tools-of-change-for-publishing-conference/aaron-swartz-wikipedia-and-the-future-of-libraries-976337

In this talk, we’ll … review new research challenging conventional wisdom about how its articles are authored, and discuss Open Library, a new project to extend Wikipedia’s reach into the publishing world by creating a wiki with a page for every book ever published.

also at http://www.toccon.com/toc2008/public/schedule/speaker/2540 (“Aaron Swartz, Tech Lead, Open Library”). --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC) 06:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Reference column widths

I've set the 30em widths (see Template:Reflist for details why this is one of the common styles). This has been reverted twice without a reason - do you think 30em is too narrow for the widths in which case is 40 or 45em OK? Can you detail your reasoning, as I'm trying to follow the commonest style which with over 200 refs this should easily be fitting for em rather than a fixed 2 columns to reduce whitespace. Widefox; talk 00:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

No strong opinions, but I generally use 35em. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Reflist: Practices

“The number of columns to use is up to the editor, but some major practices include: … 2 columns specified: Where there are a number of Footnotes; 30em: Where there are many footnotes plus a page-width Bibliography subsection.”

Many featured articles do use 30em, however.

More important, perhaps, is that very few have 200+ refs. Could you help eliminate a couple? (Then we could spend a little quality time on the column question...) --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes under practices an em (e.g. 30em) is detailed for this many references. The more refs, the more automatic column selection (em sizes) is useful. The problem with the fixed 2 columns, although completely acceptable, is they they do not automatically scale with browser window widths. They force 2 columns whatever the width. With this many references a size like 30em, or as Andy prefers 35em, (the size should be selected to fit reference widths and reduce whitespace) automatically scales - providing say two columns for typical browser windows width, more for wider windows. Reducing the number of references is a separate issue. Dervorguilla, the em widths have been used here, what's your actual objection? Is it's just the width, shall we try 35em? Widefox; talk 18:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

P:FC, at New featured content - Articles, currently gives three articles without a Bibliography or the like. One uses Reflist|2; two use Reflist|30em. Template:Reflist#Practices, at Major practices, gives Reflist|2 ("where there are a number of Footnotes", meaning, more than a few) and Reflist|30em ("Where there are many footnotes plus a page-width Bibliography subsection"). H:REFCOLS gives only Reflist|30em "where there are a number of footnotes".

30em, 4-2. --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

30em is the way to go. I use it even in articles with not very many references. With almost 200, it's certainly necessary to do it by width. 35 or 40 could be almost as good. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Dervorguilla , please ensure that you reason here to try to reach consensus. Although I still don't know your objection, and you setting 30em makes this moot, it is important to reason for change/lack of change, else this may give the impression of WP:OWN. Thank you, Widefox; talk 01:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Reflist was reset (not “set”) to 30em based on H:REFCOLS and on current frequency of use at P:FC ("New featured content - Articles"). Also on consensus (30–35; 35; 30; 30). There is no appearance of WP:OWN because no editor is disputing minor edits daily or even monthly, and so forth. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

depression

While I can understand that some editors might disagree, i think this article should at least mention that Aaron Swartz suffered from depression. it's mentioned in several prominent news articles e.g. [5] [6] and [7] as well as Aaron's own blog [8]. I see from talkpage archives that it hasnt really been discussed, which is surprising. I think it can be carefully worded, even/especially in the context of the extreme pressure and stress of his final two years. Respectfully, El duderino ^(abides) 12:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, aside from the section on his family's response to his death, there is hardly any content here relating to his personal life, it's all focused on his work with internet issues. I think if it was any other notable person, his depression would be mentioned but that doesn't seem like it fits into the narrative of his life that the editors of the page want to present to the world. Maybe, as time passes, a fuller portrait of Swartz, the man and his life, will appear on his Wikipedia article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Our Government Fascists/Fascism killed him. Figuratively if not literally. Everybody knows that. Period. Mrgrantevans3 (talk) 04:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Plus its not notable for any person living in America to suffer from depression. Its as common as the American Flag, paranoia, brainwashing and guns. Mrgrantevans3 (talk) 04:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Amer. Psychiatric Assn., Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed. (2013)

“Bipolar and Related Disorders”

Bipolar II Disorder (DSM-5 296.89)

Hypomanic Episode

A. A distinct period of abnormally and persistently elevated, expansive, or irritable mood and abnormally and persistently increased activity or energy, lasting at least 4 consecutive days ….

B. During the period of mood disturbance and increased energy and activity, three [(3)] (or more) of the [seven (7)] following symptoms have persisted …

1. Inflated self-esteem or grandiosity.

2. Decreased need for sleep (e.g., feels rested after only 3 hours of sleep).

3. More talkative than usual or pressure to keep talking.

4. Flight of ideas or subjective experience that thoughts are racing.

5. Distractibility (i.e., attention too easily drawn to unimportant or irrelevant external stimuli).

6. Increase in goal-directed activity (either socially, at work or school, or sexually) or psychomotor agitation.

7. Excessive involvement in activities that have a high potential for painful consequences ….

--Dervorguilla (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC) 09:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

That’s interesting. Did you know that Zinc is an element? That Marvell was a poet? That rabbits are herbivores? That Ernie Banks was a terrific shortstop? I'm not sure any of us are psychiatrists, and I'm reasonably sure that the subject was not our patient. This discussion is not, nor cannot, come to good given the inherit obstacles of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and a decent respect to the opinions of mankind. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Accord NOTGOSSIP. See generally BDP. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

MarkBernstein does make some good points, El duderino. Only if the material is in accord with “WP:NPOV, WP:V, and a decent respect to the opinions of mankind” (and womankind) should you even contemplate republishing it. Further, the subject mustn’t have been your patient. Black’s Law Dictionary (“psychotherapist–patient privilege”).

Also, note that the subject’s symptoms may not have met the authoritative diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder. DSM-5 (“Criterion E. There has never been … a hypomanic episode.”). Just sayin’ --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Religion and Ethnicity

[WP:CAT/R]: Categories regarding religious beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see [WP:BLPCAT]), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion. For a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkBernstein (talk • contribs) 15:28, 15 May 2014

It has now been changed to ethnicity, which is rarely used in persons' infoboxes and needs to be justified. How many other Americans do we describe by ethnicity? TFD (talk) 03:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

A lot. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Not in the info-box. TFD (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

You are correct. I found some mentions of religious affiliation but none for ethnicity in the infobox. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Someone said I can't place that he was Jewish

They had said that there is no such thing as "de facto and de jure religions" yet that concept has been used on many occasions on Wikipedia for example Karl Popper Kirk loganewski (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed before; see the talk archives on this page. The best current source, in Haaretz, reports that Swartz considered himself an atheist. In any case, it's far from clear that religion played a significant role in Swartz's career, and so WP:UNDUE is a concern here as well. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

It was me that reverted the edit. 'De jure' means 'concerning law'. Can you point to a source that states that Swartz was legally 'Jewish by religion'? Which law would that be, and where was this legal ruling made? 'De facto' of course means "concerning fact", and we cite a source which states that Swartz was an atheist. (And incidentally, the religion you refer to is known as 'Judaism'). As for Popper, I will look into this, as it seems to make no sense there either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Jews are an ethnicity, unlike Christians and Muslims. Judaism is not the same thing as Christianity or Islam. Please don't deprive someone of their identity merely because of your ignorance of Jews. "The 2013 Pew Research study of American Jews found that 62% thought that being Jewish was mainly a matter of ancestry and culture, while 15% thought that is was mainly a matter of religion. Of those who stated themselves to be Jews by religion, 55% thought that being Jewish was mainly a matter of ancestry and culture, while two-thirds thought that it was not necessary to believe in God to be Jewish. [9]" And yeah, I'm one of those atheist Jews just like Aaron Swartz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.150.252 (talk) 06:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that I'm ignorant of Jews, or (for that matter) that Aaron Swartz was. Again, WP:UNDUE is a concern here -- or, to avoid getting bogged down in jargon, we need to keep some perspective. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

"Jews are an ethnicity" Yes. Or rather, Jewish self-identity is a complex matter, including aspects of both ethnicity and religion, as the Pew Research study makes clear. Swartz may well consider himself ethnically Jewish, but he isn't Jewish by religion - he is an atheist. See also WP:EGRS, which makes clear Wikipedia's position on what we put in infoboxes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

So what's the objection, Mark? Pinocchio3000 (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

As several experienced editors explain above, and as Wikipedia policy requires, we don't go around tagging Jews willy billy, nor do we make lists of those we consider Jewish. The category is reserved for those who explicitly adopt it, and for those for whom it is apart of their public identity. Moreover, wp:undue means that the biography is not just a coatracks of facts, but each item must have due weight. MarkBernstein (talk) 11:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

My argument is that "Aaron Hillel" (Hebrew) "Swartz" (German) that lived in New York (at least 9% Jewish population) can't be of any ethnicity other than Jewish. Do you agree on this, and can you be more specific on how this violates WP:UNDUE and WP:Coatrack? "we don't go around tagging Jews willy billy, nor do we make lists of those we consider Jewish. The category is reserved for those who explicitly adopt it, and for those for whom it is apart of their public identity." Hahaha! Good one, bro. I beg your pardon, but a brief survey of Wikipedia suggests that Wikipedia Jews have gone willy billy, and have done all the taboos you just mentioned. Sorry for the overdue response, BTW. Looks like Wikipedia stopped allowing my IP so I changed it. Pinocchio3000 (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The arguments you give above are (a) only circumstantial, (b) fallible, and (c) original research. What you need a is reliable source that shows both that Swartz was ethnically Jewish and also that his ethnicity was notable -- that it was significant to his career. For example, the ethnicity of Hank Greenberg is germane to his biography. The ethnicity of Samuel Gompers is germane to his biography. But it is not Wikipedia's job to list every person who was Jewish, or had Jewish ancestors. In what way is Swartz's ethnicity significant to the events and contributions discussed here? MarkBernstein (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's see... (a) and (b) nope, neither. Care to bring up a counterexample that fits those three prerequisites? Hebrew first name, German surname, born or living in New York and not Jewish? (c) Wait a minute, it has been "undue" all along, now it's "original research"? Please read the pages for Greenberg and Gompers. So, ethnicity has to have a significance to be mentioned? How about birth date and parents' names I can't see how those could be relevant. It's an encyclopedia's job to be comprehensive. This discussion is taking too long, so to put an end to all doubts, would you be a dear and quote from the article where the funeral of this Swartz guy was held? Pinocchio3000 (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Why is it significant? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Lots of people whose parents, grandparents, or more distant ancestors converted have Germanic names. Some of them have Hebrew names in some form or another. Lots of Germanic, Scandinavian, and Benelux people and their descendants prefer names derived from the Old Testament -- Elin and Isak. And some of those people live in one of the great cities of the world. In this case, the subject's parents are Jewish, and the subject described himself as an atheist. The subject was also very short; are you eager to add him to the category "short people"? My point is that, for Greenberg, his Jewish identity was a key part of his public role. For Sandy Koufax, it wasn't -- not really -- though it did figure in one public controversy and so might be mentioned. But for Ken Holtzman it's not very pertinent, and for Gabe Kapler it's really not very relevant.

Birth date is always relevant, both because it helps identify the subject's contemporaries and because it disambiguates the subject. (Do you think they ask your birth date when you visit the doctor simply to know whether to wish you happy returns?) A brief mention of the parents of a notable person is customary, as with other people who were close to the subject. But not every scrap of information can be accommodated, and even if it could, not every scrap deserves equal emphasis. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

If Wikipedia editors make such a category someday, why not? Dwarfists, such as the Ovitz family, are completely different. Sir, the baseball players you keep bringing up are stamped Jewish from head to toe in their respective articles. I think you are supposed to counter my point, not to advance it. And to stay within the fine borders of the context, my ethnicity will be of much greater importance to the said doctor than parents' names. In the case of Jewishness, Familial Mediterranean Fever might be it. And can you please explain how this atheist was paradoxically buried in a synagogue? There is nothing else to discuss here, please stop wasting time and energy on this ridiculously simple issue. Pinocchio3000 (talk) 14:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The Astors. TFD (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort but I'm not sure that demographics of two hundred and fifty years ago amounts to anything now. Pinocchio3000 (talk) 14:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I apologize that I haven't read and closely considered every comment, but not note something along the lines of "he is an atheist with Jewish family heritage". I don't really undertand the big deal. It's more than a religion. Tweak the wording as appropriate and let's get on with life. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The article already says that "Swartz was born in Chicago, Illinois, the eldest son of Jewish parents Susan and Robert Swartz". What is being discussed here is whether we need to label Swartz as 'Jewish' in the infobox, as if it is of some sort of significant fact. Which it isn't. It has nothing to do with his notability, and accordingly doesn't belong there. Wikipedia isn't an ethno-religious database, as much as some obsessive contributors would like to make it so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Thank you for the clarification. I saw it get removed from the body of the article text and I thought that was a little strange. If he's atheist it would certainly be misleading to call him Jewish in the infobox. I am not great lover of infoboxes, but if we're going to have them we should make sure that what's in them is clear and accurate. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Navbox: Swartz to be listed as "Jewish"?

Reviewing the Bidding

Pinocchio3000 wants to list the subject's ethnicity as "Jewish" in the navbox. He cites the probability that a New York resident with a Hebrew first name and a Germanic last name has Jewish ancestry -- especially one whose funeral was held in a synagogue.

[User:MarkBernstein] asserts that this is a specious line of reasoning, WP:OR and probably WP:POINTY. Pinocchio asks for a counter-example; TFD suggests the Astors; Pinocchio dismissed them as archaic -- though the family is very much extant. Plenty of non-notable counter-examples may be adduced, but that's not appropriate here. (New York is in any case a red herring -- Swartz grew up in Chicago, spent a year at Stanford, lived for a time in greater Boston (twice) and in San Francisco, and then moved to New York.)

AndyTheGrump says, "Wikipedia isn't an ethno-religious database."

[User:MarkBernstein] argues that the application of this category is WP:POINTY although I can't yet figure out the shape of this particular editor's WP:AXE. We do not categorize this subject as short, although I'm fairly certain that Aaron's height had as much impact on his career as his ethnicity.

I've reverted the navbox in accord with the consensus, but sense that administrative intervention may be necessary. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Depression

This article badly needs some well-sourced discussion of Swartz's depression and possible bipolar disorder. Currently the article does not even mention it other than to lightly imply (via a footnote) that he was not depressed. Given that the subject committed suicide over a six-month prison term, I'd say that's a rather significant explanatory gap.

More generally, this article has a bit of an "evil government killed this poor boy" tone to it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

We refer to the Atlantic Monthly profile, which I believe is careful to restrict itself to the offering the opinion of his partner that Swartz was depressed. This is not a diagnosis, of course; lots of people’s spouses and partners may casually say they are depressed or anxious, but that is neither here nor there. I know of no source for bipolar disorder.

In fact, to the extent that your comment above appears to state that an individual suffered from a mental disorder, it itself raises a BLP (or rather a BRD) issue; you might want to amend it. I disagree with your (highly NPOV) contention that the article is not neutral, and if you review its (extensive) talk page history you will find the current language arose from extensive discussion. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Swartz himself and numerous reliable sources referred to his depression in published writings. In 2007 he wrote a blog post that was interpreted by many as a suicide note, leading his Reddit business partner to have the police break down his apartment door trying to rescue him. NY Mag refers to his "suicidal depression". My mention of bipolar disorder refers to speculation in a New Republic article.

Extensive discussion does not guarantee that an article will be free from POV problems. Also: BLP? BRD? Huh?

An example of my concern over POV problems:

"Facing almost certain incarceration for alleged offenses about which the victims, M.I.T. and JSTOR, declined to pursue civil litigation, Swartz committed suicide on January 11, 2013."

Here we've got WP using its editorial voice to express an unsourced view both blaming the prosecutors for his suicide and implying they were wrong to prosecute him. That's two or three big problems at once. With such a radioactive topic, we need attributed, sourced opinions. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)I see that you're leaving your assertion of mental illness intact. If you really don't want to change it, IMHO this should be brought to the attention of AN/I without delay. For sourcing on "almost certain", see Lessig, also the subject's attorney. For MIT and JSTOR, see Mass Lawyers Weekly and the Abelson report. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I am now thoroughly confused and I don't even know what you're threatening to report me for at AN/I.

I certainly am not disputing the factual proposition that Swartz faced "almost certain" jail time. He was going to end up incarcerated no matter what. But I think my previous comment made clear that this is not the specific nature of my concern. Rather, the WP article is making a thinly veiled accusation in its editorial voice. We just don't do that. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Let me be precise. You're asserting without evidence in a BRD that the subject suffered from a specific mental illness. (You also assert above that you know that the subject would have been convicted, which we cannot assert. Neither are appropriate, as you well know. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

"BRD" generally refers to "Bold, Revert, Discuss", so I need you to be a little more precise about what you mean. I looked in vain for any policy on "Biography of Recently Dead" people and found nothing, other than some admonitions about not assuming without evidence that someone is dead unless they are 115 years old. And I'm not aware of any inappropriateness of my comments above. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry! I meant BRD -- biography of a recently deceased person. Many of the caveats extended to BLPs are also extended to recently dead people . It is (to some extent) true in law that you cannot libel someone who is dead and that they, being dead, cannot sue Wikipedia for defamation. But defamation is always wrong, and it's especially wrong in the case of near contemporaries. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Great. But nobody's doing (or suggesting) anything that would be libel if Swartz were alive. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Support inclusion of his possible depression, carefully worded as suggested earlier [10] (where i list several sources) -- and, as I also stated then, this has not been discussed much at this talk page. User:MB replied then in a rather snarky and vague manner, apparently as self-appointed protector of this article. (On that note, and a possible COI issue, googling both names brings up alot of blog posts...) El duderino ^(abides) 10:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Personal attack, much? Ad hominem? I'm not entirely sure how one can possibly have a COI with a dead person, but I certainly don't. I have indeed written about the subject, as well as a fair number of other subjects; that's what writers do. Perhaps you have written something about something, too? If not, do you imagine that's that a good thing? In any case, speculating about a recently-deceased person's undiagnosed mental illness is both OR (and BRD at that) and unencyclopedic. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no speculation or OR being proposed, nor were Dude's comments about possible COI inappropriate. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Support inclusion of widely reported fact of AS's depression, as sourced by WP:RS noted above (in linked Talk archive); and with strict adherence to other relevant WP policies of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, etc., including decent respect and common sense.

This is encyclopedic knowledge. (It could even be life-saving knowledge for some awestruck young geek reader at similar risk.) No speculation or diagnosis or original research implied or required. As far as WP:BLP concerns as they apply to recently deceased, see coverage of Philip Seymour Hoffman for an example of how well-documented facts of his drug addiction were correctly handled in that article - source citations for every sentence addressing the issue. The recently dead are not beyond the reach of factual documentation.

We can do the same with the testimonies of the many witnesses to his depression. A few sentences and several sources should do it. I would order them: self report, family, friends, lawyers, for reasons obvious below.

After establishing wide consensus on his battles with (unspecified type of apparently untreated) depression, simply juxtapose two well-documented factoids and let reader draw their own conclusions. (Or indulge in original research and preface with <speculation spoiler alert!> <unlicensed practice of psychiatric forensics!> tags and have at it.) Two possible contributing triggers of suicidal depression, both just two days before his January 11, 2013 death:

1. prosecution rejection of defense counter offer (Cullen, Boston Globe January 15, 2013 is good source, as 3 of his lawyers also weigh in on his depression in that article; another source needed for pinning January 9 as date of rejection) (addenda: ref name AP_20130114 in case article adds last lawyer's testimony of depression & importantly adds Jan. 9 as date of rejection - see next addenda for link)
2. JSTOR's announcement of release to public of 4.5 million articles on same day (Library Journal source, January 9, 2013, also referenced in WP article on JSTOR case).

His realization of the prosecutor's dedication to his actually doing time with multiple felony convictions, coupled with his perception of his now Pyrrhic victory over JSTOR's pay wall access policies, may well have been too much for him to bear at once. </unlicensed forensic psychiatry>

The coincidence of these two blows strike me as particularly significant, but I've seen nothing in print on that topic. We don't need to connect the dots or interpolate original research, we just need to stick to the sourced facts and put them in their well-ordered place: in this article.

(addenda re: sources for above. I've added archive.org links to 3 ref names in United States v. Aaron Swartz, as of now, footnote #s 46, 47, 48: 'cullen', 'AP_20130114' & 'LibraryJournal' )

Let's see a draft here and get something resembling consensus so we can move forward without rehashing this ad infinitum. Paulscrawl (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Aspergers

Did Aaron Swartz have Asperger syndrome? I watched the documentary about him last night and in my opinion he seemed like he did. Has this been discussed before? I did some research online and a lot of people think he did. See here - [11], [12], [13] and [14] アスペルガー (talk) 12:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a psychiatrist. Are you? In any case, I don’t play one on Wikipedia, and offering psychiatric diagnoses of a deceased person is not particularly edifying. In point of fact, I believe that Asperger's is no longer used as a diagnostic category. In my experience, if you define a high-school sophomore who is considered a world expert in three or four distinct neighborhoods of the software world and who frequents international conferences as a "high-functioning autistic", then your definition of autism may be so broad as to encompass most of humanity. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

saw the film on Swedish telly today

hi did not know that he existed before - is there any way one can help to do what he wanted - my son is 16 and he just cried as I did of the injustices of how he was treated yes freedom has a price but not this high freedom of speech is so important being Swedish is a part of the constitution it is not often I think off global issues, to much just to get on with helping people close or near, but anything me and my son can do let us know This is important puss puss which means lot of kisses Camilla — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.63.252.208 (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Links

Link neeaded for his 'Intellectual property and software' essay for listing under publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VedantMadane (talk • contribs) 12:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

New Book about Aaron Swartz

Hello, I've just published a book about Aaron Swartz (Raw Thought, Raw Nerve: Inside the Mind of Aaron Swartz). This books is 824 pages with small font; it is a selections of Aaron's best writings, and is sold with low profit, which we're hoping will cover the work done on editing. The issue at hand here is we'd like this information to be available on this page without making it look as we want to advertise about it. Could you tell me how to achieve this goal? Discoverypb (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Initially, I added a Book section to Aaron's page, with the Amazon link. I realise that this action may be seen as advertisement. I'll add the link to the website with the complete introduction. If any objections, please let me know. Again, I want to emphasize on the fact that this action is to inform readers about the existence of a book about Aaron's work. Discoverypb (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Unless and until this book receives significant coverage in third-party sources (e.g. book reviews etc in significant sources unaffiliated with the author or publisher), it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. We aren't here to provide free publicity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I thought this wasn't a book about Aaron, so much as an edited collection of his own writing? In which case it's a shoo-in as his own publication. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

How can he publish it? He's dead... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Posthumous publication is a thing. We don't use the term to mean "he is the publisher", (rather obviously!) we use it to mean "he is the author". This is nothing radical for this article, we have many similar publications listed on author biogs already. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

If there were an article about Aaron's writing specifically, which would require that his writing be notable enough to have an article devoted to it, such a link would be easier to justify. But in this general article about Swartz, it's too spammy. Wikipedia articles, quite simply, are information about a topic, not a portal to everything related to that topic. There's precedent for adding pointers to "further reading", but that's generally only for more authoritative or in-depth coverage—which is on the opposite side of the inclusion threshold from "to inform readers about the existence of a book about Aaron's work." By Wikipedia standards, that's not "information"... it's spam. It's no different than "Maybe some readers would be interested in this superficially related thing they can buy." —mjb (talk) 03:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It is also worth pointing out (as to be fair, the publishers themselves do [15]) that the content of the book is all freely available to view online, on Swartz's blog. If we are to link the book, we should also make this clear ourselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley, @AndyTheGrump, @Mjb. Alright, it is understood. Thanks for the feedback. Discoverypb (talk) 13:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Entrepreneurship

@Bbb23: You just reverted this edit that added the term "entrepreneur" claiming that Swartz was not one. He was part of the original Y Combinator class, founded the firm Infogami, merged that firm with Reddit and started another firm Jottit. How is that not entrepreneurship? —mako๛ 17:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Starting the discussion here was constructive. Reverting my revert was not. His "business" activities were a means to an end and are not part of his "occupation". Just because someone does work with companies doesn't make them an entrepreneur. The labels used in the article to describe him are more accurate; entrepreneur is not. I suggest you self-revert until and unless you obtain a consensus for adding the word to the lead.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Swartz was the founder and primary shareholder of multiple businesses and devoted multiple years of his life (2005-2007) to working, full time, on creating this companies' business models, acquiring funding and other resources, building and marketing their products, and then selling his companies. This is almost literally the definition of entrepreneurship (according to the Wikipedia article). What is the ends he was pursuing and how do these ends makes this process not entrepreneurship? At the moment, I honestly cannot see why you would argue that he was not an entrepreneur. If you can explain it to me convincingly and/or if there is clearly consensus on this, I'll happy self revert. If this has been discussed before and my revert went against a decided consensus, I'll also happily self-revert (I searched in the archives and did not see anything). —mako๛ 21:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

That's not how WP:BRD is supposed to work. You edit (bold). I revert (revert). You leave it alone and talk (discuss). But do whatever you want. I have other things to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bbb23: The first edit was Gasull2 (a newbie with 6 total edits), not me. Because reverts of initial edits can be demotivating, I figured it was better to restore it until we could talk about it. —mako๛ 23:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Also, when the New York Times profiled quoted him in February 2009, he was introduced as "Aaron Swartz, a 22-year-old Stanford dropout and entrepreneur." There are many other reliable sources who refer to him this way. I actually don't understand why this label is controversial. —mako๛ 21:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not controversial, but it's not accurate either. (WP:V != truth) I'm with Bbb23 on this – entrepreneurship was something that just happened to Aaron. He didn't seek it, he went along with it because it was part of what he was doing at the time. But his heart was never really in it and his mind was always on other things. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Swartz certainly worked on various projects but his full time job for years, and one of the things he is most well known for, is starting companies. Entrepreneurship didn't "just happen to" Swartz and he did seek it out. He applied to Y-Combinator with the Infogami business plan. He dropped out of Stanford to continue working on his firm full time and to further seek funding. He was conflicted about his role in tech business and as a entrepreneur but it's unambiguously something he did and was known for. —mako๛ 23:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the word from the lead. You have no consensus for the addition. All you have from this discussion is two editors who disagree with you and no one who agrees with you. Feel free to use other dispute resolution mechanisms if you wish, but don't revert back to your version.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Although their is clearly no consensus, there are two editors (myself and the original editor) who support the term and two who are opposed (you and Andy Dingley). Of course, this is a discussion, not a vote. I've spent some time detailing the substantive reasons why I think the term applies and provided verification for the claim in the npaper of record. Can you please cite any sources, respond to my questions, or provide a more detailed explanation for why the fact that Swartz worked full time starting businesses for years does not make him an entrepreneur? This is not a position I have strong feelings about and I'm absolutely willing to be convinced. —mako๛ 17:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

As an observer - this discussion seems rather silly? The NYT describes him as an 'Entrepreneur' and nothing we know about his activities contradicts that. That's a reliable source and the best possible justification for using the word in the article, IMHO. There are multiple additional reliable sources using the word 'entrepreneur' in relation to Aaron, including NPR [[16]], an Inc article entitled 'Entrepreneurs we lost in 2013' [[17]], Bizjournals [[18]] and Smart Company [[19]]. Whereas the viewpoints of BBB23 ("just a means to an end") and Andy Dingley ("something that just 'happened to' Aaron"), in the absence of similar notable and reliable sources saying the same thing, are just that - viewpoints. I thought that the Wikipedia model (verifiability over truth) deliberately placed no emphasis on editors who say "well it just IS", in contradiction to published, notable sources. The number of editors may be equal but the weight of their opinions surely cannot be. I can't see any objective reason why the word does not apply here. Bonusballs (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Sigh... Gasull2 added the term to the lede again also renamed one of the subsections accordingly. I've warned Gasull2 on her/his talk page to not edit war and invited her/him to join the conservation here. In the meantime, I've tried to edit the content of the section so that it is more detailed, to add a reference or two for the claims within, and to correct a few mistakes in terms of the timing of Swartz' business activities.

Although the newbie is clearly editing out of process, it would be wonderful if we actually heard some further detail, reasoning, and verifiable sources from the editors opposed as per my previous messages and Bonusballs'. —mako๛ 16:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Library of Congress

The section called "Library of Congress" is untrue. Aaron did not receive a copy of the LC file; the file was obtained by Casey Bisson after winning an award [20] which left him with enough money to purchase the file. He gifted the file to the Internet Archive. Aaron came on to create the Open Library, based on Infogami, and the LC data was the first data that was processed. As the LC connection has nothing really to do with Aaron, I suggest that section be deleted. Unfortunately, I can't find any record of Bisson's gift of the LC file to IA, but if I do I will add it to the Open Library page. I will also look for references that can be used to document to development of the Open Library and Aaron's role, which would be appropriate for this page. I do have his presentation at Code4lib 2008. LaMona (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, I found some evidence about the original LC file: [21]. This is the listing in IA for the records, and it says they were "generously donated by Scriblio" which was Bisson's system. This would be OR, I assume, since it is directly from the Internet Archive. But at least I satisfied my need for proof. LaMona (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@LaMona: A third party source would better but this works for verifiability. —mako๛ 15:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I see that the article in the Economist is the source for this. I would like to change the section to "Open Library", change the statement to "as reported by" and include the IA link as another fact possibly countering the Economist article. (So much dis-information came out after his death; and so much for "reliable sources.") If I don't get any objections here, I will make that change in a few days. (I realize that there is a lot of emotion around Aaron, so I'm treading lightly.) Disclosure: I worked with Aaron on the Open Library project. LaMona (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit done As I proposed above. Let me know if anyone sees problems with it. LaMona (talk) 16:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect terms

Please be aware of user Medeis edits (1, 2). 85.243.244.220 (talk) 06:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I consider them to be appropriate. I agree that he should not be known primarily for his suicide, but for what he did while he was alive. And the new wording is definitely more neutral in tone. LaMona (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I am fully satisfied with the subsequent edits, and am not sure what IP 85's actual objection was to mine. μηδείς (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

MIT section - not NPOV

Compare what this wiki says with the information in this article: http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/03/29/the-inside-story-mit-and-aaron-swartz/YvJZ5P6VHaPJusReuaN7SI/story.html It seems like the MIT-section has been written or edited by MIT employees. 82.169.75.143 (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)