Talk:Brett Kimberlin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Public figure

"By any reasonable definition, Kimberlin is a public figure. After he claimed to have sold marijuana to Dan Quayle, New Yorker writer Mark Singer investigated him and made him the subject of a book. When Kimberlin resurfaced in the world of "black box voting" activism, conservative bloggers started to ask questions about him. Skip to May 2012. Blogger Patterico says he was the victim of a hoax that brought armed police officers to his home. The blogger "Aaron Worthing," identity exposed by a frivolous lawsuit, is counter-suing." -- http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/05/25/opening_act_blog_about_brett_kimberlin_day.html 71.212.251.217 (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

"hounded"

Conservatives have "hounded" Kimberlin about the bombings? Hounded? There is not a cogent argument that can be made that such language is neutral. Moreover, repeatedly blogging about Kimberlin's bombing conviction doesn't constitute "hounding". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.75 (talk) 05:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

"Since October 2010, conservatives have hounded Kimberlin about his bombing conviction..." This sounds somewhat non-neutral, wouldn't you say? Fix or tag the article? Ebrockway (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

"Since October 2010, conservatives have written extensively about Kimberlin and his bombing conviction..." I would suggest. Ebrockway (talk) 05:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Photo

Does anyone know the copyright status of the mugshots here in terms of Commons or WP:NFCC? 71.212.251.217 (talk) 04:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Public domain. 71.212.251.217 (talk) 05:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review

This article is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 May 28 although the nomination and the discussion may well be moot. Thincat (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Closed as moot. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing

I have a few questions about sourcing:

• Is http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/05/25/opening_act_blog_about_brett_kimberlin_day.html a reliable source? It's a blog on a news site, so possibly an op-ed... I'm not sure if it falls under WP:RS.

Could I get some opinions? Is this written by a mainstream, politically neutral journalist, or a blogger? The Cavalry (Message me) 21:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The "politically neutral journalist" is a mythical creature here in the U.S. (I note that you are from the U.K., Cavalry.) Slate is a fairly reliable news source, but if you want politically neutral you'll have to look somewhere other than the American news media.74.61.32.25 (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Weigel is a Slate political reporter. Not an opinion columnist according to Slate's site. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

From their site; 'David Weigel is a Slate political reporter. You can reach him at xxx, or tweet at him @daveweigel.' Capitalismojo (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Ryantboyd

Not sure I understand the edits being made by this new editor. He/she has made four edits in total, all of which removed details of the DeLongs' injuries in the Speedway bombings. If others believe the injuries belong in this article and the Speedway bombings article, please re-add them, but I'm OK with the article either way. -- AyaK (talk) 06:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks okay in subsequent edits. I think I'm done for the night. 71.212.251.217 (talk) 06:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Last thought for the evening: I don't know why Carl DeLong's status as a Vietnam vet is relevant to either article except for sympathy, although I didn't remove it in either article, but I do know why DeLong's status as a parent of one of the freshman football players at Speedway High is relevant: it means he was among the foreseeable victims of a bomb placed outside a Speedway High freshman football game that was timed to go off while the parents were walking to their cars after the game. -- AyaK (talk) 06:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the guy was a Vet was probably included in the article to show that the victim was a good guy. Vets are held in high esteem in this country. It would be no different then saying the victim was the father or mother of three small children or something like that. It describes who the person is and why their death / murder was particularly bad or offensive to public decency. To be perfectly honest, I could careless about this guy Kimberlin and have never heard of the dude until today when I was surfing Wikipedia and accidently came across this article. I think all of the arguing back & forth and the necessity of protection for this article to be very funny and more then a little silly. But, whatever. All this nonsense from the bloggers and the fighting back & forth is amusing. Anyways, that is my guess as to why it is important to list the victim as a Vietnam Vet. Albert14nx05y (talk) 09:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, nice try. The comment directly above this one has to be the lamest attempt yet to get this article taken down. Sure you just came across this entry. Sure you did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.153.10 (talk) 04:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

(personal attack removed), I did just come across this article. I was looking at stuff regarding swatting when this guy's name came up. I never said anything about taking the article down. I was talking about why it was important to list the victim as a Vietnam Vet, if you would bother to read. I don't think the article should be taken down. It's got a lot of good info that is relevant. I was just saying that all this crap from the bloggers and this guy (that have been taked about here and elsewhere) is very silly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert14nx05y (talk • contribs)

"back and forth online battles and lawsuits"

for this statement to be acceptable there would have to be well sourced examples of a blogger suing Brett Kimberlin. I may be mistaken, but I do not think he is or was the target of litigation. Perhaps the line could instead read "Since then, Kimberlin has engaged in a campaign of litigation to prevent bloggers from reporting about him." In any event, the article needs a change to either give well sourced documentation showing that Kimberlin has been the target of litigation or to change the wording so as to avoid the implication that he has been the target of litigation. 182.173.208.86 (talk) 06:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed "and lawsuits" once before for just that reason. The back-and-forth exchanges referred to in this section have been occurring online, not in litigation. -- AyaK (talk) 06:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the best way to phrase the sentence would be "Since then Kimberlin has used litigation in attempt to prevent bloggers from writing about him." Because that does a much better job of expressing the amount of litigation involved rather than simply removing the reference to lawsuits182.173.208.86 (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

We already have a section in the article on Kimberlin as a serial litigant. I also don't know what Kimberlin's motivation for his lawsuits is, unless you can point me to a verifiable source in which he says that he litigates in an effort to prevent people from writing about him, in which case I'd be happy to include it. -- AyaK (talk) 06:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

how about something like "since then kimberlin has introduced litigation against the bloggers..." or something to that effect.Dontswatme (talk) 07:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The best way to describe events like this is to simply state the facts. Something like, "Kimberlin has started legal action against <5, 10, 20> (conservative?) bloggers in an effort to <whatever> (has he said why? is it because of harassment or the like?)." We can't say he's a serial litigant, because that phrase paints a picture. He may not be a "serial litigant" in the eyes of some - it's important to let the reader decide. The Cavalry (Message me) 21:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we can't call Kimberlin a "serial litigant" in the article, which is why all I included was the number of cases involving Kimberlin and the Singer quote. Kimberlin apparently won his "peace order" case claiming harassment against blogger Aaron Walker today, but there is no reliable source discussing it yet, so we can't include it either. -- AyaK (talk) 04:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually there are several reliable sources including an eyewitness to the trial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabbahillel (talk • contribs) 15:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

An eyewitness isn't a reliable source - it needs to be reported in a newspaper or the like, really. The Cavalry (Message me) 19:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

How about saying "all this back & forth is complete and utter nonsense and is a waste of time because nobody cares about this guy or the bloggers. This rehash of 30+ yr old stuff is a joke"? How about saying something like that? Albert14nx05y (talk) 09:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

182: "I do not think he is or was the target of litigation." Aaron Walker is suing Kimberlin (pdf). FWIW. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

ABC story on SWATing, re senator asking for DOJ investigation

• http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/senator-asks-doj-to-investigate-swat-ting-attacks-on-conservative-bloggers/
• http://www.chambliss.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ID=9f27a0be-cc7d-43e7-bbd8-6b794f5ba0fd

ABC story includes denail by Kimberlin. This incident now clearly passes the criteria for WP:WELLKNOWN Gaijin42 (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The ABC story (which was also linked above in an edited version in mainstream sources) is a very good source that presents the issues fairly, but I don't have time right now to revise the article to include it. Sorry. If no one's taken a crack at it before this evening, I'll do it then. -- AyaK (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional RS sources (Some may already be refs, did not do a full compare)

• http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/1/leftist-assault-on-free-speech-and-conscience/
• http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/may/25/picket-sen-hatch-no-surprise-kimberlin-harassing-c/
• http://chronicle.augusta.com/latest-news/2012-05-31/hoax-sends-cops-macon-commentators-home?v=1338453029
• http://www.macon.com/2012/06/01/2044547/swatting-dissent.html (Article written by Erikson about SWATs on others, before he was himself a target)
• http://www.macon.com/2012/05/30/2043237/hoax-911-call-targets-erickson.html
• http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2012/06/06/saxby-chambliss-calls-for-investigation-into-swat-ting-of-conservative-commentators/?cxntfid=blogs_political_insider_jim_galloway
• http://triblive.com/opinion/1904028-74/president-rendell-romney-banana-county-heinz-republican-split-former-kimberlin
• http://www.kingmandailyminer.com/main.asp?SectionID=109&SubsectionID=982&ArticleID=50991
• http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/31/conservative-bloggers-say-theyre-being-harassed-for-postings/?vgnextrefresh=1

Gaijin42 (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Added the story and the ref. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

In-depth recent mainstream coverage

International Business Times (May 25, 2012) "Who Is Brett Kimberlin? Meet The 'Speedway Bomber' Turned 'Liberal Activist'" (ibtimes.com.) Unsigned (although it does have a personal email address) and not an op-ed. Lots of details the article is missing at present. 71.212.251.217 (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

FOX News isn't my idea of mainstream, but this, from national cable news, explicitly links the swattings to Kimberlin with his denial. 71.212.251.217 (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I linked the Fox News article for the second person (Erickson) and for Kimberlin's denial. I'd still prefer not to use the term "SWATting" because there isn't any evidence linking Kimberlin to the incidents and the term is pejorative. Thanks for the source. -- AyaK (talk) 02:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's Senator Saxby Chambliss getting involved with a letter to the Justice Department, and a much more detailed denial from Kimberlin explaining that he doesn't blog or tweet at all, for whatever that's worth, from ABC News Radio: http://www.kgoam810.com/rssItem.asp?feedid=112&itemid=29859810 71.212.251.217 (talk) 05:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The asinine claims that Fox News isn't mainstream or a reliable source are tiresome and ridiculous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.153.10 (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Brett Kimberlin v. Orrin Hatch

How come this isn't in the article?

Kimberlin sued Senator Hatch for geting involved in Kimberlin's parole case in 1997. Kimberlin claimed unfairness and political bias in his parole revocation hearing. The case against Hatch was dismissed in DC's district court.

Sources: http://webservices.lexisnexis.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw?action=OCLGetCaseDetail&format=FULL&sourceID=gdjh&searchTerm=ehHQ.EDXa.aadi.YcOU&searchFlag=y&l1loc=FCLOW

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r106:S19NO9-0079:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/may/25/picket-sen-hatch-no-surprise-kimberlin-harassing-c/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.207.68 (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Why would this be relevant? -- AyaK (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The page has a 'Litigation' section. This falls under litigation. Sueing a US Senater is certainly something that is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.207.68 (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Why? Federal prisoners file lawsuits on a continual basis, but such a suit only gets included in Wiki if the case is notable. There doesn't seem to be anything notable about this suit. Is there a reliable secondary source that discusses it? -- AyaK (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Federal prisoners don't file lawsuits against US Senater on a continual basis. Such a case is notable. I provided three sources, one is from the The Library of Congress. The Library of Congress is a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.207.68 (talk) 05:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Anyone can file a lawsuit against anyone. The LOC cite is empty, but, in any event, the case was dismissed for failure to state a claim and is unimportant. The secondary source indicates only that the Senate authorized counsel to represent Hatch in his defense of the suit.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes anybody can file a lawsuit against anyone but doing so against a US Senater is notable. The LOC link isn't empty. The secondary source says: "Mr. Kimberlin sued Senator Hatch and a staffer for geting involved in Kimberlin's parole case in 1997". How often do US Senaters get sued for getting involved in the parole of somebody? This article has a 'Litigation' section. A law suit filed against Hatch should be part of it. The reason the case was dismissed doesn't dominish it as being notable it only suggests that the lawsuit was frivolous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.207.68 (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It's empty for me, both on Firefox and IE, but no matter. Dismissal of a lawsuit based on failure to state a claim does not mean the lawsuit was frivolous, which is a different legal standard. And there's nothing "notable" about naming a senator in a lawsuit. For inmates, it may happen less frequently than naming prison officials, but that doesn't make it more noteworthy in and of itself. The plaintiff can name whom he wishes and say what he wishes. At this point there's no consensus for adding the suit to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

You need a consenus to edit something in this article? If firefox or IE lets you visit the history page for this article you will see dozens of edits done over the last few weeks. Most of the edits had zero discussion never mind a concensus. Will you be reverting these edits until a consenus on these edits is made? I think it's been established that anybody can sue anybody in the US. A person doing so against a US Senater is noteable. Can you show that prisoners sueing a US Senater is a common thing? Are there other cases of this happening? If you can't show me it's common I'll be staying with my feeling that is noteable since it is an unusual occurrence involvinga US Senater and that makes it worthy of being added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.207.68 (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Once material is challenged, a consensus is needed. Let it go.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Consensus means agreement, and we have anything but agreement on this. I think the Hatch litigation IS notable and belongs in the article because it is related to the reason Kimberlin is notable in the first place. See WP:NPF Belchfire (talk) 05:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Bbb23 you're not be consistant. Why do you have different standards? Some edits are Ok with a discussion never mind a consenus but other aren't. Can you show him that other US Senaters have been sued for other things along the same lines? Also if a lawsuit if made with out any claim why isn't it frivolous? Gotrexman (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, 24.91.207.68, have you created an account? Congratulations!--Bbb23 (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Suing a US Senator is a regular occurence? Yeah, sure it is, sure it is. I swear, the attempts to shield Kimberlin are as transparent as they are pathetic. The notion that suing a Senator isn't notable is ludicrous. It should be pretty obvious, to anyone with a brain, that the reason it is being claimed that such a suit isn't notable is because including details of the case would support the contention that Kimberlin is a serial litigant in the habit of filing lawsuits to silence anyone who dares speak out against him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.153.10 (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is another source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hAH9djcmqKs

The Sun News Network http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_News_Network

Objections that suing a US Senator is not notable is just silly.

Mattsky (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

SWAT-ting

Unless someone has a reliable source that Kimberlin himself (or people associated with Kimberlin) were behind the SWAT-tings, this discussion has to be deleted as speculation. Also, my understanding was that "Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day" was unconnected to the SWAT-ting. Let's keep the article grounded in verifiable facts, please. -- AyaK (talk) 05:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree. It turns out we have an article on swatting though, and I added a traditional news source about Erickson's. 71.212.251.217 (talk) 05:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I just commented out the swattings, and am going to look for allegations reported in major media now.... 71.212.251.217 (talk) 05:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Amy Alkon is a traditional reporter (and advice columnist) writing here in the generally politically neutral Mens News Daily. Opinions? 71.212.251.217 (talk) 05:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

My objection would be that the only evidence that ties this to Kimberlin is Patterico's voice analyst's testimony, and we've just learned in the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case that voice analysis is a very unreliable tool. Really, all there is at this point is speculation, which might be OK for a newspaper, but WP:NOTNEWSPAPER -- AyaK (talk) 05:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, I tend to agree. I'm sure some major news source is going to pick up on this in a few days, so let's wait it out. 71.212.251.217 (talk) 05:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, the voice analysis and swatting need to be excluded, but I disagree with your reasoning. The voice analysis was unreliable in the Zimmerman case because a) no sample exists of Trayvon Martin and b) the samples for voice analysis need to be similar in terms of tone and stress levels. The problem with the voice analysis is that a) it links someone other than Kimberlin to the swatting incidents and b) I'm not sure that it's been covered in reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.168.171 (talk) 06:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It appears that the claim is that the SWATting incidents appear to have been done by allies of Kimberlin, whose identities are suspected though not proven. The victims of the attempted SWATting appear to have nothing in common except that they blogged about Kimberlin. This is a valid part of the argument. It also appears that someone claiming to have been the Swatter has called a talk show and linked himself to Kimberlin Sabba Hillel (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

But this isn't an "argument". It's an encyclopedia article. And that claim is potentially libelous. It has to stay out. -- AyaK (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree, I think it is speculation, too. However, that topic of swatting and his name is what lead me to this page. It should be noted that there are only two alleged victims of Swatting - one of whom is or was an assistant district attorney (whom I would imagine that a lot of people would want to Swat!). Albert14nx05y (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

There have been three victims, Mike Stack, Patrick Frey and Erick Erickson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattsky (talk • contribs) 17:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Removal of material

Removal of a lot of material from the article based on WP:BLPPRIMARY may have been technically correct (I haven't verified it), but the flow of the sections has all but been destroyed. Something needs to be done to fill it out so it makes sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The deletions were correct under BLP policy; there is an exception for the use of court opinions (but not motions or transcripts) in other legal areas of Wiki due to their reliability (reflected in their precedential value), but it apparently doesn't apply to BLP. That said, per WP:BLPPRIMARY, the court opinions can still be used to reinforce evidence supported by a secondary source, and so those changes have been made. -- AyaK (talk) 02:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not happy with your restoration of the material for a few reasons. First, there are still citations to judicial opinions, and at least one where there is no secondary source to back it up (citation #2). Second, there is way too much material sourced to just one person (Singer). Although not strictly against the rules, there is an essay on this issue and, particularly here where it's a BLP and with mostly negative material, it poses a problem. Third, the Singer citations are confusing. Citation #3 is a main cite, and it says Singer C for "later" citations. There's a similar one for "Singer B". That's not the way to cite to books. See Antonin Scalia's article for the correct way to do it. But, putting that aside, what about the Singer citations that don't have B or C? What book are they to?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I don't have any particular interest in this subject -- I'm only involved because I got tired of seeing Wikipedia criticized -- and so any improvement suggestions are welcome. As far as the citation method, I have revised it to "Singer 1992" and "Singer 1996" per your request. (The "Singer" citations that didn't have "C" were typos, and I fixed those too.) As far as the references to court opinions, I see no evidence that the intent of the BLP policy on primary sources was to block the use of court opinions as supporting sources to a secondary source; instead, it seems clear that the intent is to block the use of court documents as a primary source for assertions and claims in BLP. Final court opinions that are not overturned on review are not assertions; they are fact (and certainly more closely reviewed before publication than a newspaper article or a book, although perhaps not a magazine article). But I changed the sentence referenced by citation #2 to reflect the discussion in the Singer 1992 article, so there are now no facts in the article that are merely supported by a final court opinion. As far as the "single source" issue, there are a number of other sources regarding this person; I just hadn't wanted to spend the time citing them. But I have now added second cites in most places, and you could easily find more sources if you wanted to do so. -- AyaK (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work. There are still some things I think need to be done, but at this point the burden is on me or someone else to do that rather than to complain about it. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It baffles and astonishes me that the final judgement of a court is considered an unacceptable source in a biography of a living person. I've looked at the relevant sections of WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLP and, frankly, the guidance is vague to the point of useless. I don't see an issue with the reliability of the source nor was the cite used to draw any undue conclusions. --Yaush (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Just like with any primary source (pertaining to a BLP or not), it's OK to use them to cite descriptive facts. What you cannot do is make any inferences or other conclusions from said primary sources; for those you need secondary sources. That being said, it is up to editorial discretion as to whether or not it is a good idea to include a certain statement(s) with accompanying sources, primary and/or secondary, in the first place given that this is a BLP. That's what this talk page is for. --MuZemike 21:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

With respect to BLPs, the policy is quite clear that we cannot use primary sources such as court records unless there is also a secondary source: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." (emphasis in policy) --Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Nor can we use opinion pieces for statements of fact (WP:NEWSORG), particularly when the blog in question is mostly quoting from the likes of Michelle Malkin (as per the most recent attempt). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a misrepresentation of what WP:NEWSORG actually says. The policy does not categorically proscribe the use of factual information from opinion pieces; it simply cautions editors to carefully judge the reliability of information obtained from them. Belchfire (talk) 08:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

But they're not primary! Unless I'm missing something big here. --MuZemike 06:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Court records are not primary? Or, if your point is that opinion pieces are not primary: that's true, but even so an opinion piece is not supposed to be used for a statement of fact. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that trial transcripts are primary, but final judgements are secondary. See WP:Use of primary sources in Wikipedia. I just don't see a question of reliability in any case: The judgement is being cited to establish what the judgement was. How can the source possibly be unreliable when used that way? It defies common sense. --Yaush (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I quoted the policy. It doesn't exempt "final judgments" from court records. That's absurd. I've removed the material again. The Washington Times piece by Kerry Picket is awful. She is a political writer. Here's an example of one of her posts:

The government's anti-bullying campaign is getting kicked up a notch. Just before President Obama endorsed homosexual marriage, he endorsed legislation vastly expanding the federal role in fighting bullies, also at the behest of homosexual activists. While that may sound like a big deal, the reality is that government's anti-bullying efforts are a joke. Instead of worrying about Mitt Romney's alleged bullying 50 years ago, journalists should be asking why these programs are so ridiculous." ([1]).

I mean, give me a break. I've also removed the material because it simply isn't worth mentioning. Are we going to mention all of the lawsuits he files? We've said he files lots of suits. Which ones are we going to pick? Just because he happens to name Hatch? What if he names Obama or someone else? The whole thing is pathetic.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

So, your justification for edit warring against Kerry Picket is that she wrote something you disagree with about gay marriage??? Dude, give US a break!

The lawsuit against Orinn Hatch was notable enough to be found in the Congressional Record. If it is so common for a federal prisoner to file a lawsuit against a U.S. Senator, as has been claimed, perhaps you can show us some examples? Belchfire (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I, too, fail to understand this horror some editors have of mentioning the lawsuit against Hatch and its dismissal, even though there is absolutely no doubt the lawsuit was filed and what the final judgement was, and even though its relevance to understanding the nature of Kimberlin's public activities seems obvious. First the cite to the final judgement was offered, and rejected on the grounds that it was a primary source (ignoring the fact that the rule is to be cautious with primary sources, not to avoid them completely; and ignoring WP:Using primary sources in Wikipedia, which describes final judgements as secondary sources); then we were offered the opinion piece, which was promptly rejected, with the justification here that the editor doesn't like the writer's politics; then we were offered the Congressional Record, which was rejected for reasons unclear to me. So tell me: What kind of citation on the Kimberlin lawsuit would be acceptable? Once we know that, I can go look for that kind of citation. --Yaush (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• I restored the material with the Wash Times reference - I couldn't see anything wrong with it. The Times is a reliable source and the statement came to them from Senator Hatch's office. Kelly ^hi! 14:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Then you missed the fact that it's an op-ed, mainly parroting Michelle Malkin. The specific statement being supported with this reference is not part of Hatch's statement. Oh, and that Youtube video is a real piece of work -- try taking that one to WP:RSN. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Nomoskedasticity, do you really believe the sources cited are insufficient to reliably establish that the lawsuit was filed and dismissed? If so, what sources would you accept? If not, what's your real objection? --Yaush (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I concur on the removal of the YouTube source, restoring the Washington Times one. Is there really a dispute that the Hatch suit occurred? Kelly ^hi! 17:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Not everything that occurred belongs in the article. The basic fact is that this item has had "media" coverage only from right-wing bloggers. We ought not to be allowing Wikipedia to become an echo-chamber for their activities. Please reconsider on the Washington Times op-ed -- especially in light of the presumption for BLPs that we include stuff only via consensus. Otherwise this page is headed for full protection. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Could you explain what is controversial about the info, or potentially damaging to the article subject or other living person? Kelly ^hi! 18:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
        • Are the risks of Wikipedia becoming an echo chamber not apparent? Again, this whole thing is part of a blog campaign and we should not allow ourselves to be hijacked for its purposes. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

While you folks were busy here, I have established that the objection to use of the Washington Times piece is completely bogus. Another editor has cited WP:NEWSORG as the basis for its exclusion, claiming (erroneously) that the author's role as an editorial writer makes her material unusable. But the actual relevant policy should be WP:NEWSBLOG:

These may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals but should be used with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact checking process.[4] Where a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote..."). Never use blog posts that are left by readers as sources.

As with WP:NEWSORG, the editor is warned to use caution, however in this case the piece...

• was definitely written by a professional (Kerry Picket)
• was cited for its reference to a verifiable fact (existence of the Hatch lawsuit and it's dismissal)
• has its own linked primary reference (LexisNexis)

Thus, the Washington Times/Kerry Picket article appears to meet all relevant WP policy guidelines for a useable, reliable secondary source. Belchfire (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Lovely. I agree with Nomosk. The material doesn't belong in the article for the reasons restated now time and time again. I'm not removing it again for the moment because the edit war over this crap is unseeemly, but it should go.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Just for my edification, could you restate the reasons? I'm looking up the page and primarily seeing objections to sourcing. Kelly ^hi! 04:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing and not noteworthy. Also, some non-neutrality thrown in.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we've dispensed with the sourcing issue, as I outlined above. So, we're left with "not noteworthy" and "non-neutrality". Here is the verbiage:

By 1992, he had already filed over 100 motions and lawsuits in federal courts on his own behalf [32], including a lawsuit against Senator Orrin Hatch in 1999. The case against Hatch was dismissed in DC's District Court.

Looks notable to me, just based on the quantity of litigation and the target. And to my eye, it has a distinctly neutral tone, consistent with WP:BLPTONE. So what is the exact objection? Or, alternatively, what remedy would you apply? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belchfire (talk • contribs) 04:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

We're going in circles. First, you have not dispensed with the sourcing issue. Second, to make the case noteworthy, you need some legitimate secondary coverage that establishes it. Finally, the non-neutrality doesn't stem from the wording (and you mean WP:BLPSTYLE), but from its inclusion.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Your objection to sourcing is based on the incorrect policy. You found an issue in WP:NEWSORG, but the more relevant policy is WP:NEWSBLOG. In any event, WP:NEWSORG does not prohibit inclusion of neutral, factual information from an OP-ED, particularly when that information is backed (as it is, in this case) by a link to something rock-solid like LexisNexis. Your non-neutrality argument is a little ridiculous, given that the existence of the article is justified by WP:PERP. Belchfire (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not getting your objection to the sourcing...are you saying that the WashTimes is not a reliable source? And nobody has explained why the Hatch suit inclusion is controversial or harmful to the article subject. Kelly ^hi! 11:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It appears that the objection to sourcing is based on a misreading of WP:BLP (re: blog sourcing) and WP:NEWSBLOG. As a long-time editor of biographies of living persons, I have become very familiar with what is allowed and what is not from "blogs" run by legitimate news organizations. In this particular case, the material being cited is factual, clearly not opinion, and would be covered by the fact-checking policies of the news organization in question. So sourcing is not a problem with the suggested wording. "Noteworthiness" does not require coverage in reliable secondary sources, particularly when going back to incidents prior to the internet boom in the mid-90's. Noteworthiness is very much a grey area in WP, and is often in the eye of the beholder. One test I have seen editors use in the past has tried to apply the spirit of WP:UNDUE, along with the relevancy of the information to other parts of the biographical page. In this particular case, it seems that Kimberlin's use of the legal system is part of his public narrative, so this information seems like it meets the minimum threshold for notability. Finally, I'm having difficulty seeing your argument for this information being in violation of WP:NPOV. The citation seems to be brief and worded in a neutral manner. It factual, not opinion, and I'm failing to see how it is 'controversial'. It seems like you're claiming that it violates WP:UNDUE, but its brevity does not seem to warrant that. It also doesn't appear to be trying to suggest some sort of original research. Just because factual information is not flattering to the subject of a biography does not make its inclusion non-neutral. If that were the case, mentioning that the subject of this biography is a convicted bomber would be non-neutral as well (a ludicrous argument). I see no reason to block keeping this information in the article. You could formally go down the road of formally getting a Third Opinion, or to further arbitration steps, but I think that would be a losing cause in this particular care.--Lyonscc (talk) 12:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Section Blanking

Editor Goethean has twiced section blanked the article. The second time saying it was because there were no sources other than "right-wing blogs". Interestingly, this was just after I had suggested that we not blank and instead find RS and had added a Slate ref (and was trying to add Huffington Post and Washington Examiner refs). I will not engage in edit warring. Let me just suggest that the appropriate response to non-RS blog refs is not to immediately "section blank" but to find RS sources. They are out there. Two minutes will do it.Capitalismojo (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

See Gothean's talk page. He has an obvious political bias, and it shows in his editing. Gothean, your point is well-taken that blogs in general are weak sources, but blanking entire sections on the grounds that "right-wing blogs are not reliable sources" is a violation of WP:AGF. Furthermore, the primary source for the section you insist on blanking is actually Slate magazine, which is not only NOT a blog, but is also far from being "right-wing". I'm going to let this cool off for a couple of days while the Kimberlin situation develops IRL, and I suggest you do the same. 74.61.32.25 (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to suggest that you familiarize yourself with the most basic of Wikipedia policies before lecturing me about WP:AGF. This article is the biography of a living person. By adding unsubstantiated BS sourced to such non-journalists as Patterico and McCain, you make the Wikimedia Foundation a potential target for libel lawsuits. That is why I have removed the poorly-sourced material which you and your fellow wingers have added to the article again and again and again and again. Wikipedia is not interested in what "BLOG ABOUT WHOMEVER DAY" your favorite right-wing bloggers have declared it. I've invested years of my life to editing Wikipedia. Have you? I've read Wikipedia policy. Have you? If so, why do you insist on adding poorly-sourced material to the biography of a living person and by doing so, making the Wikimedia Foundation open to potential lawsuits? Please read the banner at the top of this page, which I quoted in bold italics for your convenience below. If you want your material to be kept, then do not source it to right-wing webloggers who regularly traffic in complete bullshit. It is as simple as that. — goethean ॐ 15:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Your points concerning Wikipedia policy are well-taken, but your political venom is not appreciated nor is it necessary or constructive. Your continual outbursts about "wingers" makes it difficult find what is valuable in your posts and greatly impairs your credibility. But thanks for the tip... I had no idea that putting in a few years here earns one the right to engage in hate speech. 74.61.32.25 (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure that due to my harsh words I've missed out on a great deal of good will. Readers of Michelle Malkin, Patterico and Robert Stacy McCain are well-known for their fairness and impartiality towards people of all political stripes. — goethean ॐ 02:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Those people aren't here, dude. This is supposed to be a collaborative endeavor - why should I have to explain that to somebody who has been editing Wikipedia for five years???74.61.32.25 (talk) 03:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP. WP:RS. Look into it. — goethean ॐ 21:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Gosh, thanks Goethean. What a warm, generous, and thoughtful response. I had never heard of Reliable Source or Biography of Living People policies before. Thank you ever so much. (Ok, a bit of sarcasm there, sorry) Now is it your assertion that Slate's politcal reporter isn't a RS? You may be right, maybe not. How about examiner.com? Human Events? There are a series of possible news stories that could be reasonable RS for that section. It will be hard to add them if you continuously section blank. Is it your thought that section blanking is the best way to handle this? You are an extremely active and talented editor, I genuinely would like to know what you believe that is the best way to handle such situation. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Please read the banner at the top of this page which reads: This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about edits related to a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see this page. Try adding poorly sourced paragraphs filled with contentious claims to any biography of a living person and I think that you will get a similar response. Your edits plainly violate Wikipedia policies. Improve your sourcing. I'm not going to write your winger-inspired hit piece for you. — goethean ॐ 21:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I did not write any hit piece, right wing or otherwise. This is hardly "my" article(a modest four edits in total, same as you). I made only two edits in that section, One reverted section blanking, which in my experience has often been vandalism. I am sorry to have done in this case given your understandable BLP concerns. The other edit added a reliable source. Thats it. I'd appreciate if you might assume good faith. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I see that you have added back my RS. Thank you. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

"Winger-inspired hit piece"? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. I just love how telling the truth about Kimberlin's past constitutes writing a "hit piece". The attempts to whitewash this article are so transparent, it is hilarious.74.141.154.28 (talk) 03:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

"Winger-inspired hit piece", Goethean? Do you need reminded that the hits have all come from Brett Kimberlin? After all, HE is the one who is convicted terrorist bomber. Put your naked partisanship away for a moment and think about how stupid your comment was. 65.25.121.202 (talk) 06:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Terrorist?

Kimberlin's crimes for which he is best known (the Speedway Bombings) are consistent with most definitions of terrorism. A drive-by editor inserted the word 'terrorist' in place of 'political activist', which seems to be a sticking point for some. I think the solution is obvious: keep both terms. Both are accurate. I also think we need to consider the inherent absurdity of the opening sentence, as currently written: "Brett Kimberlin (born 1954) is an American political activist best known as the perpetrator of the Speedway bombings in 1978." Belchfire (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Particularly for a BLP, the word terrorist shouldn't be used if someone wasn't convicted of terrorism (there are crimes that are defined that way, just like other crimes with labels like murder, etc.). Even if the media uses the term - and we don't have any use of the word in the body - I would not favor using it. That said, I do find the lead a bit odd the way it is currently written (your other point). Maybe we could say something like, "[Kimberlin], an American convicted political activist is best known as ..." I'm open to other suggestions.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

One issue we have is that 'terrorism' did not become a separate, chargeable crime until the 1980s. This does not mean Kimberlin isn't a terrorist, it just means that the term hadn't been enshrined in law at the time. At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, consider the case of the Nazis. "Crimes against humanity" was not considered a violation of international law until after WWII, but that makes the Nazis no less guilty. So, I offer that the argument "He wasn't charged with terrorism" is an absurd standard that does not serve the higher purpose of creating the most accurate article possible. Incidentally, as events continue to unfold, Kimberlin's status as a putative "political organizer" looks to be in jeopardy. We may need to insert the word "purported" in front of "political organizer" before long. Belchfire (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:OR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

If terrorism wasn't classified as a crime until the 80s (international terrorism was defined a bit before then in the federal statutes), then he couldn't have been charged with it, couldn't have been convicted of it, and we can't label him one. To quote from a 2004 law review article by Nicholas Perry (an attorney with DHS): "The search for a definition for terrorism has aptly been compared to the quest for the Holy Grail by King Arthur's Knights of the Round Table, with 'eager souls set[ting] out, full of purpose, energy and self-confidence, to succeed where so many others have failed.'"--Bbb23 (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Point taken, Nomo. But that would seem to apply to 'political activist' as well, no? If we stick to the basic, verifiable facts, then he's a guy who filled out some forms and set up some websites, but isn't really a political activist. Belchfire (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I somewhat dislike both formulations. We tend to avoid using "terrorist" in noun form up front, since it's such a charged word with controversy over specific application. Instead, it's used in more descriptive/attributed senses; for example, neither our articles on the Provisional Irish Republican Army nor on Hamas use the word "terrorist" in the opening sentence, though both discuss the appellation later in the introduction. On the other hand, a "political activist" convicted of bombings strongly suggests in the reader's mind some kind of political militancy, but that doesn't appear to be the case: the Speedway Bombings don't appear to have been political, but rather some kind of personal vendetta or (perhaps) crime coverup, and the "political activist" part of his life came later. Not quite sure how to fix that. Perhaps inserting a "but" or "although" to make clear that the two descriptors are not causally connected? Along the lines of, Kimberlin is a political activist, but best known for the 1978 Speedway Bombings. Open to other suggestions, though. --Delirium (talk) 01:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

At this point I think it would be more factual and appropriate to remove 'political activist' altogether. As I pointed out yesterday, Kimberlin registered a 501(c)(3) and posted some websites - I don't think that makes him a political activist and calling him one seems to fit the definition of original research per WP:OR. Belchfire (talk) 01:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been involved much lately - super busy, and you and others seems to have been making some progress. I reverted your change because there's been no consensus on how to revise the lead. Also, adding drug smuggler seems a bit odd as he was convicted of many things, so why pick on that particular one? As for your removal of the "political activist" label, I think that's easier than the terrorist label. I haven't had a chance to do it, but if he's described as a political activist - or something similar - in multiple reliable sources, then it's a fair label. If not, not. If you have the time to look at that issue and report back, that would be great.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Kimberlin was convicted of drug smuggling, so it's difficult to imagine why that label would be an issue unless some people are simply intent on whitewashing this article for reasons unknown. Certainly there are many labels that could be applied here - which ones are acceptable to a given individual are clearly not based purely on provable facts. Belchfire (talk) 22:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Too bad, you were doing better.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's hear your objection to saying Kimberlin is a drug smuggler. You know... WP:BRD I was bold, you reverted (even though my edit was factual, supported by references, and consisted with Wikipedia policy), now it's time to discuss. So what's the issue? Belchfire (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought my objection was clear above, but I'll spell it out for you. It has nothing to do with factual accuracy or sourcing, although "smuggling" was not the right word to use based on the list of his crimes. We can say all sorts of things about people that are accurate and reliably sourced. However, as editors, we choose which ones to say and which ones not to. Sometimes we do so purely based on whether it's important or trivial. However, in other cases our choices may unreasonably highlight something at the expense of something else. So, out of his list of crimes, why pick drugs? Why not arms? Why not perjury? Why not receipt of explosives? The lead is supposed to summarize the highlights of the body. Why are drugs in particular a highlight? And now you've removed "political activist" without any indication that the label is used by sources or not used by sources. This isn't a whitewash issue (a remarkably unconstructive accusation). This is you unilaterally deciding what the article should say and how it should be worded. You may prevail on this, though, if only because I'm tired of it and couldn't generate much enthusiasm at WP:BLPN for looking at the problems in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me the assertion that Kimberlin is a political activist is roughly about as well-sourced as the assertion he is (or was) a drug smuggler. Yet one label is acceptable, and the other is not. I find that odd. But in the interest of neutrality and building a balanced article, it appears that no labels at all should be used, so let's leave it there until other editors pick up where we've left off. Belchfire (talk) 23:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

An additional reason political activist is okay for the lead but drug smuggler isn't is that he is not currently a drug smuggler. Use of present tense in the lead is a way of telling readers what the person is doing now, or at least recently. If there are other reasons political activist is inappropriate, then fine -- but drug smuggler is obviously inappropriate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Would common sense not dictate that notoriety break the tie between labels? An individual is known primarily from a particular event in his/her life, whether this be bad or good. It is not out job as editors to soften the actions of a biography, nor play up what is not noteworthy. In this case, Kimberlin is best known for the Speedway bombings. However you wish to cache this (as domestic terrorist or otherwise) this must take precedent. We should avoid attempting to compensate for his past actions by overly emphasizing the "good actions" of reformed Kimberlin. EDIT: Referring back to the original article (before it was so unhelpfully deleted by "Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry") why not use the word "felon"? It is objective, perhaps the most objective one word label a man in his position has.161.253.77.235 (talk) 05:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

An objective analysis of the article's history would reveal that "common sense" is not in play here. Yes, indeed, if we are going to apply any label at all, it should be the one Kimberlin is most famous for. "Felon" works. So does "ex-convict". But the mindset employed by some would have actor Mickey Rourke labeled a "professional boxer", or perhaps a "dog fancier". Charles Manson? He's a "songwriter", of course. Everybody knows David Lee Roth is, first a foremost, a paramedic. It's ridiculous to say he's a singer or a rock star. It was in the face of absurdities like this that I elected to remove all of the labels, and let the facts speak for themselves. Belchfire (talk) 06:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed the appellation "ex-convict" from the first sentence. What he is is determined by what he does now (present continuous tense), not by whatever scarlet letter he wears: that's clear enough from the context. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa... I'm sorry but that logic does not hold water. If the scarlet letter (as you say) is egregious enough, he should wear it. It is patently ridiculous to demand that living people be primarily referred to as "what they are now". Wikipedia has an obligation to the public. The public is not searching for Brett Kimberlin for information on his new-found political activism. His actions are not irrelevant parking tickets, it is a notable act of domestic terrorism, this information should be held foremost in the article. 161.253.77.235 (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

What about avoiding the label issue completely and leaving the article the way it is without a label? I'd even suggest taking American out so it reads "Brett Kimberlin (born 1954) is best known as the perpetrator of the Speedway bombings in 1978." The second sentence makes it clear he was in prison (the ex-convict part that Belchfire tried to add) and his founding of the two organizations makes it clear that he's involved in politics, whatever you call that involvement. It's a simple solution and has the added benefit of ending this discussion. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

We could also end this discussion if people would stop trying to whitewash this article by deleting established facts. Just sayin'. Look, every BLP article on Wikipedia identifies the subject's nationality and cause for notoriety in the very first sentence. So-and-so is an American actor, so-and-so is a British politician, so-and-so is a Brazilian football player, and on and on. Things they are known for subsequently or in addition to their primary claim to fame are spelled out in the following sentences. "Ex-convict" is absolutely factual, neutral and fair. "Activist" is in dispute. It's preposterous to resist calling Kimberlin an ex-convict when the bulk of the article details his crimes and convictions. Belchfire (talk) 19:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is deleting anything. It's a matter of how to phrase it and where to put it. As Bbb23 says, the article makes it perfectly clear that he was in prison, in the first sentence even. The infobox is also pretty well stuffed with details about his crimes. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you denying that the opening sentence of almost all BLP articles follow the convention I described? Placement and phrasing is robustly addressed in WP:LEAD, and particularly WP:LEADSENTENCE and WP:BOLDTITLE. Also, for BLPs there is WP:OPENPARA. Everything there supports that the opening sentence should be written as it was before it was last reverted. Belchfire (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Previously posted as 161.253.77.235, but now I have an account. Belchfire I agree with you, but I see where the neutrality is coming from. Unless I'm out of line, I'm going to take Bbb23's suggestion and delete "American"". In most articles nationality functions as a modifier to the subject's profession (i.e. an "American plumber" instead of just "American".) The absence of such a subject is, in and of itself, a statement: implying the conscious decision to limit out his "profession" because of the negative implications. Exileintraining (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed removal of sourced content

Hello, I wandered in from an AN report. While I respect the need for sourced information I question whether the following 2 sentences impart additional information to the article.

Initially there were no injuries; however, the last bombing led to the amputation of Vietnam veteran Carl DeLong's right leg, as well as leaving DeLong and his wife with a series of other injuries that required significant hospitalization and rehabilitation.[9] DeLong committed suicide in February 1983.[8]

To me this puts a significant emphasis on "He hurt people" in this BLP when it is better served in the Speedway bombings article. I'd like to suggest that pending significant objection that the prose be removed as it would better focus the BLP. Any thoughts? Hasteur (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

That the bombing did hurt people is important, and is included at a summary level here as it was a direct result of Kimberlin's actions (A case could be made that the suicide could be removed though, as there could have been other circumstances to contribute to that other than just effects of the bombing). Consider this significant objection. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Gaijin42. The fact that another article gives more detail is not a reason not to include a reasonable summary. Indeed, the fact that the quantity of injuries is less that might have been expected from "a series of bombings" is also important to mention. The suicide might not belong in a brief summary, although it is clearly important in a longer discussion of the bombings and, as I understand it, has been causally linked in court decisions. Bovlb (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that the personal naming and addition of a victim's facts is not appropriate for here. Removing the entire thing wholesale solves the dilution of the BLP. Perhaps a rewrite of the entire first half of the paragraph to the effect of "During the first six days of September, a series of bombings resulted in injuries REF REF". This will satisfy that there were injuries and at the same time diminish the POV inducing prose that exists on the page. Hasteur (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were suggesting. Maybe you'd favour something more like:

In the first six days of September 1978, Kimberlin instigated a series of seven bombings in Speedway. The first six did not result in any injuries and only caused minor damage; the last inflicted severe injuries on two people. Investigators traced the materials used in the bombings to Kimberlin, and found more in his house and car. The police believed that Kimberlin had conducted the Speedway bombings to divert attention from the murder investigation. (references omitted)

That might be a better way to summarise the bombings, although I'm still not sure what problem you're trying to solve or what you mean by "dilution" or "POV inducing prose" in this context. Bovlb (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It is appropriate. Mr.Kimberlin's actions led directly to Mr DeLong's loss of his leg. This is not in dispute, nor is it unimportant. The primary if not the sole cause of Mr Kimberlin's notoriety are these bombings and the resulting injuries. Had he not done these things it is doubtful, at best, he'd even qualify for a Wikipedia entry. I vote we keep the content as is. OliverHeaviside (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Oliver's assessment. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from LikeLakers2, 27 August 2012

Null edit to purge cache and to remove page/file from the view of Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 17:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hash it out re the lead

Discuss here the extent to which the lead of this BLP is to smear the LP with "bomber", "drug dealer" and the like. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

He is a convicted bomber and drug dealer so where is the smear? It is what makes him notable. It is also balanced with the Justice Through Music Project and the Velvet Revolution reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.3.34.20 (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

There have been problems with other articles about people who have committed crimes. The question is how to characterize the subject in the lead. I believe the result reached before and, in my view, the most reasonable result, is not to use labels but just to summarize what the person is most notable for. The article already does that with respect to the speedway bombings. Labels are highly charged and should be avoided. However, some thought could be given to whether we should mention in the lead any of his other crimes, but then we'd have to have a discussion as to which ones, if any, are sufficiently important to summarize in the lead.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The lead needs to describe why he's notable. Three reasons are listed (Speedway Bomber, nonprofit work and legal disputes), but I think the last one is hardly noteworthy. I suggest dropping the last one and add a reference to his allegations against Dan Quayle. Specific reference to his non-profit organizations is unnecessary as they are mentioned below and don't appear to have their own Wikipedia pages. If his convictions related to the bombings can be summarized in 1 or 2 words, they should also be included. I don't see how the drug charges are relevant to the bombings.

"Brett Kimberlin was convicted in 1980 for perpetrating the Speedway Bombings. During the 1988 U.S. Presidential Election he claimed to have sold marijuana to then Vice Presidential candidate Dan Quayle. Since his release he has been involved with various non-profit organizations." Biccat (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that if you are going to use the above lead. That it be changed to say he made 'unsubstantiated claims' to have sold marijuana to Dan Quayle. I would think that the folks that have such great concerns about a convicted bomber and drug dealer being called a convicted bomber and drug dealer because they think it be a smear would give a former Vice President of the United States some consideration.

That is assuming they aren't too busy doing edits to John Angelo Gotti III, Charles Manson, David Berkowitz and John Hinckley, Jr Wiki pages so that they are kept to the same standard they want to hold this page. I'll add Jerry Sandusky to that list of needed edits to comply with BLP standards. Sandusky is called a 'convicted serial child molester' in the lead on his page. Are you editors with the concern over calling Kimberlin a convicted bomber and drug dealer going to run over to the Sandusky page and edit it? Will there be threats of deleting the page if somebody reverts your edit like there was here? Gotrexman (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The page on John Angelo Gotti III refers to him as being a mobster.

The page on Charles Manson refers to him as an American criminal and that he was found guilty of conspiracy to commit murders.

The page on David Berkowitz calls him an American serial killer and arsonist.

The page on John Hinckley, Jr. lets us know up front he tried to assassinate Ronald Reagan.

They are all still living. Are they being smeared? Why is that the Brett Kimberlin page is getting special consideration that these other living convicted criminal aren't?

Gotti is mobster and he is called that. Manson is a murderer and he is called that. Berkowitz is a serial killer and he is called that. Hinckley is a would be assassin and his page tells you that right up front.

Brett Kimberlin? He's a convicted bomber and drug dealer but referring to him as that is a smear and violates Wiki rules? Where is the consistency? Why is the Brett Kimberlin page being treated differently then other convicted criminals Wiki pages? Gotrexman (talk) 04:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomo, your claim is positively risible. "Smear"? Really? That doesn't pass the straight-face test. We're talking about rock-solid facts here, not innuendos, and it should be in the opening sentence per WP:MOSINTRO. There is no credible claim of a BLP violation. Belchfire-TALK 02:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• For me it's a question of verb tense. Is Kimberlin currently (or even recently) a bomber or drug dealer? We can refer to these things without giving the impression that this is what he is up to now. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity I'm interested in seeing what your suggestion would look like. Gotrexman (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Not currently engaging in criminal behavior does not change his status as currently being a convicted bomber and convicted drug dealer. That status is permanent unless pardoned. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

That's where we disagree. If it were a matter of criminal law, perhaps -- but Wikipedia does not have to write the lead in a way that conforms to criminal law. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

writing it in a way other than criminal law, or other than reported in reliable sources is WP:OR and WP:POV. He IS a convicted bomber and drug dealer. He is regularly described that way by reliable media (as well as being described as a terrorist.) Fo you to say he deserves a differenct description (and exclusively a different description, since you would not allow both your prefered content plus this content) is completely outside policy.Gaijin42 (talk) 14:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Why no mention of Quayle drug use allegations in lead?

I would argue that Kimberlin's claims that he sold drugs to then VP candidate Dan Quayle are at least as notorious as his convictions for domestic terrorism. Shouldn't there be some mention of this in the lead? I know there was some concern about labeling, but surely a neutral statement asserting notability for these politically charged claims could be crafted? Ronnotel (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Slandering the vice president of the US is good for some media coverage but it's hardly on par with what the man has actually been convicted for. TMLutas (talk)

I agree. The Quayle claim simply got Kimberlin a lot of media; the Speedway bombings are what make him notable. -- AyaK (talk) 04:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Swatting wikilink

The litigation section refers to "hoaxes that brought armed police officers to their homes". This type of hoax is known as swatting and we have an article on it. A wikilink to this article would add to the reader's understanding of this article, and the use of this term is supported by the sources. Some editors have been removing this link, but I don't understand why. This edit is the only one I can see that seems to attempt an explanation, saying "per WP:BTW". WP:BTW refers to a long section with many guidelines which does not clearly preclude a link from this article to swatting. Could editors please justify the exclusion of the wikilink here? Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not in the source in a way that justifies inclusion in the article. See WP:NOR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

That's my reasoning for removing it as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you connect the dots for me, please? When the article talks about "hoaxes that brought armed police officers to their homes", it's talking about the concept "swatting". Both sources use that term. What is the original research involved here in either using that term, or wikilinking to the relevant article? Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the wikilink, as that is exactly what is being alleged - is anyone disputing that? Kelly ^hi! 11:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's the account by Amy Alkon, which someone already included above. Kelly ^hi! 12:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. In two and a half days nobody has come up with any specific reason for excluding a link to swatting, so I put it back in. Please discuss here with some concrete argument before removing it again. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 05:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Swatting is specifically referenced in the Reliable Sources linked to the page, so there is no reason to exclude the link. Even so, for readability, it is probably better to wikilink the word "hoaxes" (which is what SWATting is) to the swatting page.--Lyonscc (talk) 14:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

While SWATing is often described as a hoax, I am personally of the opinion that that is an inaccurate word. The goal is not to be a joke or fool the target (it fools the police posibly). The goal is harassment/intimidation/possible harm of the target. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

From the discussion above, I see four editors who seem comfortable using the term "swatting" to refer to the activity discussed in this section of the article, and two who disagree. Pending further input, I tentatively conclude that the consensus is to include the term, and link to the swatting article. The Fox News source solidly refers to "SWAT-ing" in this sense, including in the page title. I'm afraid that I just don't understand what "It's not in the source in a way that justifies inclusion in the article" is supposed to mean here. Please provide a better explanation of your reasoning before removing the term again. Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The ABC article also makes the association quite explicit. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Brett Kimberlin has an estranged wife and children

Found out about his wife from some recent blog posts about how he just tried to have her involuntarily committed. The crazy sounding bits I won't go into because that stuff is a BLP nightmare. Even if/when the allegations are ironclad documented any text along those lines would be under pressure to get knocked out. But it would probably be a good idea to add Tetyana Kimberlin (in 2013 age 32) to the article as well as the existence of the kids. This 2007 story would allow inclusion as a RS though they may have gotten her name spelled wrong. TMLutas (talk) 07:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Update: The wife filed a peace order on Brett, from which signature you can determine that the news article above spelled her name wrong. It's Tetyana Kimberlin. TMLutas (talk) 07:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Further Update: As usual, the general procedure is to request a cite tag if you think a new fact is controversial and want to dispute it. Only after you've cited and nobody can come up with documentation do you undo an edit. I've reverted, putting the info back in and put in the 2007 article as a cite because for at least one editor Kimberlin's marriage is something that they want to dispute. This is very value neutral stuff. It's not like I'm knocking the guy for taking advantage of a naive, far too young, mail order bride in a feminist nightmare. Now that would have legitimate potential BLP problems and need major documentation before inclusion. TMLutas (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted again. First, the cited source doesn't way he was married, only that he had two kids. Second, the source is from 2007 and so there's nothing to indicate that he it still married. Finally, a lead is supposed to summarize the article. There shouldn't be material in the lead that isn't in the body. And it shouldn't be in the body unless it's noteworthy and reliably sourced. If you can find reliable sources that explain what really is going on, you could try finding a place for it in the body. If you did that, you still shouldn't put it in the lead because it's not sufficiently noteworthy to go into the lead.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Simply reverting instead of improving sourcing on a basic biographical issue on a biography page is not proper. Marriage status and children is a normal bit for the lead but if you want to move it to another paragraph, I won't protest. Just stop it with the reverts. There are better solutions to any of the issues that you raise. TMLutas (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Update: Coverage on Brett Kimberlin's latest court adventures with his wife. There is plenty of RS sourcing available via that link including court filings that demonstrate the guy is married and separated. I can certainly understand the impulse of a Kimberlin defender to keep the guy's sex life completely out of his article because of the whole Scyphers business, however doing so is both an NPOV issue and a damn creepy and unjustified defense of a sexual predator. The 2007 article is the least hostile document that I could find on Kimberlin. TMLutas (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

You added a paragraph to a BLP sourced only to Robert McCain's extreme right-wing weblog? Are you completely unfamiliar with the concept of WP:BLP? — goethean 16:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

1. you should have created a new section on the talk page. Your protest is not about whether Kimberlin has a wife and kids. I didn't cite McCain there.

2. The particular article prominently features a great big pull quote from Citizen K, including page number. After I just copied and pasted the cite elsewhere in the article. The cite now is to Citizen K with page. In the original edit, the summary says "Article used for citing is drawing directly on Citizen K book. Change the cite over to Citizen K if the sourcing is an issue" so I was perfectly aware of the potential for cite issues and provided an alternate from the start.

I want to thank you for not doing a slash and burn revert as Bbb23 was doing. Tagging your issues, even if I disagree on McCain's suitability for RS, is something I can actually work with to produce consensus. TMLutas (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't care if Robert McCain claims that he is a close personal friend of Kimberlin, it is all completely unreliable and uncitable. McCain's blog is the very definition of an unreliable source. When you cited McCain's blog[2], you violated WP:BLP. I will undo any edits that you make to this article which are poorly sourced. Also: your calling someone above a Kimberlin defender is a personal attack. If you make another personal attack or violate WP:BLP again, we will discuss it at WP:ANI. — goethean 18:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean uncitable? RS McCain may not be reliable for a particular topic but the cure for that, and it was applied, is to look at the article, notice that it was largely based on a perfectly acceptable RS that was already used in the Brett Kimberlin article and just move the citation to that less controversial RS. Examples of what the site, TheOtherMcCain would be reliable for the purpose of a citation would be, Robert Stacy McCain himself, as well as citations regarding the pretty strange stuff directly involving him that led up to "everybody blog about Brett Kimberlin" day. In other words, RS McCain doesn't have cooties and neither does his ideology. His site is no more and no less useful for Wikipedia citation purposes than any other professional journalist's blog project where they're trying to turn a buck (or has he puts it "hit the freakin tip jar"). In other words, a grey area that is sometimes allowed, sometimes not as per the details of Wikipedia policy documents and consensus in their interpretation. If we're going to go to WP:ANI, your bullying is a more likely topic. What is this garbage to threaten proceedings based on an immediately fixable (and quickly fixed) citation dispute? TMLutas (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

You are failing to follow Wikipedia policy in a fundamental way. McCain's weblog is not a reliable source in any way shape or form, including for what he claims are quotations from an ostensibly reliable source. Whatever McCain claims on his weblog is completely and totally irrelevant to the writing of a Wikipedia article on the biography of a living person. If your source for the references to the cited book is Robert McCain's weblog, then the material should be removed from the article immediately. Have you yourself seen the book that you are citing, or are you getting the quotations from Robert Stacey McCain's weblog? — goethean 23:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you challenging that the cite or the text is inaccurate? Yes or no as an answer please, or at least an equivalent that is just as clear. If yes, I'll continue this line of discussion right after you give me your reasons to doubt the cite or text's accuracy. If no, there is no reason to discuss this further. TMLutas (talk) 05:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

In other words, you refuse to answer my simple question. Which most likely means that you haven't examined the source yourself, and are just quoting Robert Stacy McCain's quoting of it in his unreliable weblog. Since you have not seen the source yourself, I will have to insist that the material be removed. — goethean 13:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

In other words, if you aren't actually challenging the factual accuracy, there is no controversy and you're just pursuing a vendetta. Take that someplace else in that case as vendettas don't have a place in Wikipedia. Either you think that Kimberlin is or isn't married. If there's an actual controversy where we disagree on facts, we can discuss what each of us thinks, and how the article should reflect that. On a good day, we might even reach consensus and move on to other issues. If there is no actual controversy on the facts, then we can move on to sourcing this in a way acceptable to wikipedia, an issue that is irrelevant if we disagree on the facts (which is why I won't put the cart before the horse). Then you can share how I can acceptably put in the citizen K citation you're nit picking about (and I can't wait to hear your opinion on how I am to actually prove your request has been complied with). Along the way we might have a nice discussion on WP:AGF. So let's get on with it, is there a factual disagreement here? How am I actually supposed to prove what you're asking regarding the citation? TMLutas (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Reading something on a tendentious blog and coming to Wikipedia to add something inspired by the blog is tendentious editing. I have no particular interest in whether the article does or doesn't say something about Kimberlin being married; not having read the blog, I don't know how adding something about it would advance the blogger's agenda. But I have no doubt that there's an agenda here. Mind telling us what it is? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I hate to agree with goethean on almost anything, but I fear I must in this case. You are clearly trying to WP:COATRACK in attacks on kimberlin, by using unreliable attack sources to back innocuous facts. That he is married is irrelevant to the article, he does not have any significant "personal life" section, and it certainly does not belong in the lede, which should be summarizing the main thrust of the article, and not have a dangling pseudo-biography. Find a neutral source discussing his marriage outside of an attack, and you can add it. Otherwise stop trying to WP:GAME us. (In case you think I am biased, I personally think Kimberlin is scum, and I put credence in many of the accusations against him from the unreliable sources (especially regarding SWATting etc)- but violations of policy are violations of policy.) @nomoskedasty : I believe the attack is ultimately that she is a young mail order bride, and there are (unsourced/unreliable) allegations of mistreatment of her by kimberlin, in addition to the embarrassment of him being cuckolded. The source linked also makes allegations of potential pedophelia grooming. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin42, I appreciate the backhanded swipe, and likewise am shocked that there is a right-wing bandwagon on which you have not jumped. — goethean 22:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin42 - So let me get this straight, the edit under consideration, that Kimberlin has a wife and two kids, is tendentious because I originally found out about his marriage from a blog. Whether it is true or not is irrelevant. Whether there is RS sourcing to back up the point is irrelevant. What justifies the edit is that the original light bulb that led me to ask "I wonder what Wikipedia says about this" and to go in to fix it (when I found it was not covered at all) was not up to Wikipedia's standards. I'm not actually insisting on using the objected to source. There's a perfectly mainstream 2007 news article that talks about his family. It has the wife's name wrong. Tetyana Kimberlin's spelling of her first name can be found in court documents from her perfectly legible signature. I'm not trying to get those in the article either. I just want to use the correct spelling and have a consensus on that. Before an edit can be tendentious, it really has to be untrue or at least an NPOV issue. An agenda that is met by including factually true, neutrally worded edits is not an agenda that should be kept out of Wikipedia. I'm perfectly happy to compromise on wording and sourcing and have been from the very start. But you object because I might follow up with different edits later that wouldn't be NPOV. This is a standard that is utterly outside the norms of Wikipedia, or at least any encyclopedia project that I have an interest in contributing to. So just for forensic giggles, Gaijin42, do you think that Brett Kimberlin is married? Do you think that he has children? Are you going to at least have the guts to answer the basic question of whether there is an actual factual controversy here, something that Goethean seems determined to avoid? TMLutas (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity - Brett Kimberlin is currently portrayed as a sexless sort of guy and that's just not accurate. The Barton/Scyphers asserted relationship is completely out of the article which I kind of understand as being extremely creeptastic and difficult to properly cover with the sensitivity demanded by WP:BLP but the article also fails to cover his present relationship which is at least borderline conventional and whose basic inclusion shouldn't trip any policy violations. My agenda, and I've been pretty clear about it was exploratory. I was curious how inappropriately defensive is the community that keeps an eye out on the Brett Kimberlin page. How much are they violating Wikipedia policies in order not to have a complete, realistic picture of the fellow on Wikipedia? That was my agenda. I came at it from the initial perspective that it couldn't possibly be as bad as advertised. I now stand corrected. The Brett Kimberlin page is now included in my reference set of wikipedia mini-communities that are excellent case studies of why Wikipedia must be used with caution and not for any serious academic work on anything even vaguely controversial. TMLutas (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

What we believe is irrelevant. This is a BLP. Does he have a family? Sure. Are there reliable sources discussing the family? Dunno, you haven't linked them. Attempting to source an innocuous fact, via an unreliable source that is making exceptionally BLP violating allegations is not going to fly. There is no requirement that a pseudo biography be fleshed out for someone with a BLP. If the controversial information is the only thing well sourced, then that is the only thing that we can write about. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow, did you miss the revision where Goethean reverted a mainstream press account? diff and article link? When did the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette start being a controversial source? I don't give much of a hoot about McCain's blog being in or out on a specific link, though I take objection to the idea that it can't be a reliable source about anything because it certainly can be an RS about what McCain himself says. The reversal of the Journal Gazette sourcing just stinks. The edit comment "per talk" is especially ripe. TMLutas (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Kimberlin relationship with Scyphers/Barton

WP:V requires "multiple" high-quality sources for exceptional claims (see WP:REDFLAG). The assertion that someone had a "relationship" with a pre-teen girl (and was then suicidal when that relationship ended) is just about as exceptional as it gets. Being a "person of interest" in an unsolved murder isn't far off. TMLutas, I strongly advise you not to add poorly sourced material to BLPs on Wikipedia. In my view, trying it on so that you see what you can get away with is a poor editing practice; if you want to add something like this, much better to post to the talk page about it first and gain consensus here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Different topic entirely as well as different edit from the is kimberlin married stuff, so I'm going to insert a section tag above. The wording is mine.

The Indianapolis Star has two relevant Barton/Scyphers sources.

http://www.indystar.com/assets/pdf/BG164276919.PDF

http://www.indystar.com/article/99999999/NEWS06/100919013/StarFiles-Speedway-Bombings-Part-2

The Citizen K book also seems to cover this angle.

Since the really obvious fact that the guy is currently married and has children is generating so much controversy, I'm going to shelve the idea of including this material at this time. It's pretty obviously a bridge too far even though it would seem to meet inclusion criteria. I just wanted to get out there the sources that I've found thus far in case anybody else wants to chime in with other sources and/or take up the issue themselves. I'll just concentrate on the baby step of getting the page to admit that Kimberlin's a family man these days. TMLutas (talk) 08:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Update: The Scyphers/Barton relationship is covered in the Speedway bombing article with three sources, two of which I referred to above. The third is Stoner, Andrew (2011). Wicked Indianapolis. The History Press. ISBN 1‐60949‐205‐6.

Again, not pushing for this edit at this point because we apparently are having a knock down over what should be much less controversial, the current marriage of Brett Kimberlin to Tetyana Kimberlin and the fact he has two kids. TMLutas (talk) 09:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, this is infinitely better sourced than the family stuff, and I could see this getting added in, but we would have to be very careful to say what was alleged and not what was fact. (Clarify : Being a suspect in the murder. Pedo grooming is not covered in these sources any where near close enough to reliably) Gaijin42 (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, do you have a text to nominate or should I do the honors? TMLutas (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)