Talk:Josh Wolf (journalist)/Archive 1

Archive 1

article perpetuates misconceptions

In addition to "journalist", this article also lists "filmmaker" amongst Wolf's many seemingly self-styled labels. If he is, in fact, a filmmaker, then there should be some listing or description of his body of work as related to making actual films. Simply shooting events with a video camera and posting them online does not make one deserving of the title of filmmaker and perhaps the more apt title of videographer or documentarian should be used (although only, in the case of the latter, if Wolf has been personally engaged in the capturing and creating of documentary films.) It is generally not accepted that news cameramen are "filmmakers", and I see no difference in Wolf's case. In fact, if one follows the footnote after the title of "filmmaker" in the first sentence of the article, it merely leads to Wolf's personal web site in which he writes "I consider myself a journalist and a filmmaker." If this is the only evidence in support of the title of "filmmaker", then it is glaringly insufficient. Cellulapse 22:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The entry describes Wolf as a "journalist", when his claim on that professional title is tenuous at best. Wolf is primarily an activist, not a journalist. He has no professional credentials as a journalist (his college degree is in psychology), and his journalistic experience -- such as it is -- is mostly limited to school papers, a 6-month unpaid internship with an independent weekly, and contributions to the "Haight-Ashbury Beat", a sporadically-printed neighborhood rag. Otherwise, he's really just an activist vlogger, and one with outspoken anarchist ideology, at that. Vloggers are not necessarily journalists.

It appears that the attention and support that Wolf has received thus far in the media far exceeds his merits as a journalist, much less any validity of his defense, and is primarily an expression of the contempt that many in the media and politicians on the Left have for the Bush Administration (a contempt that I happen to share) and due to their umbrage at any perceived threats to the freedom of the press. The media has made Wolf its cause celebre for its own reasons, not because of the merits of his case. I would like to see the entry reflect this view, rather than merely perpetuating the misconception that Wolf is a journalist. Bricology 04:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Amateur internet bloggers can have journalist status too, when it comes to the protection of sources; Apple v Does showed that, so your opinion seems to be a wrong 'un. Primarily, however, *your* view doesn't matter when it comes to Wikipedia, unless you show it's the opinion of some Wikipedia-citable source. --82.45.163.18 11:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Bricology, yeah.. that's the same insult the govt. gave Josh as well... but the Society of Professional Journalists awarded Josh with a Journalist of the Year award "for upholding the principles of a free and independent press." Also, I think it was the New York Times that referred to him as a journalist as well. Unless you have superior credentials to The Society of Professional Journalists... Wikipedia should go with them on this and not you... and certainly not the govt... I mean, if the govt. now determines who are journalists or not... maybe we should just give up on this whole "America" thing and go with straight up communism? Welp, that's not going to happen... not over my dead body anyway. Whether you like what he's investigating or not... he's still a journalist according to the experts on the subject. Cowicide 01:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The SF Chronicle also refers to him as a Journalist. Claims that he isn't are plain wrong. --Falcorian ^(talk) 03:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Rather than debating it here on the talk page, we ought to ackowledge within the article that this case raises questions about how we define "journalist." Regardless of how any of us feel personally, it is a subject that is being debated and has ramifications well beyond Mr. Wolf. Anson2995 16:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

PBS Frontline spoke to him and asked the question if a blogger is a journalist here http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/interviews/wolf.html On a separate page they themselves called him “a freelance journalist and video blogger.” at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/part1/cases.html This is another example of respected journalists calling him a journalist, these people are experts at journalism and their definition of “journalist” is an expert opinion. If one wants to say that he is not a journalist they should provide references from different experts arguing that he is not or be in violation of Wikipedia:No original research.

--Wowaconia 01:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on, that's ridiculous. I'm trying to assume good faith here, but it's getting more dificult. You folks are arguing that the issue of whether Wolf is a journalist isn't in dispute. But it's *the central issue* of his case. Arguing over which "expert opinions" carry weight is pedantic, and its a disservice to both this article and the wikipedia process to present a one-sided view of the subject. It's veering towards blatant advocacy.

For what it's worth, I personally believe that Wolf is a journalist, but it doeesn't matter what I think or what the folks at PBS think, and it doesn't matter how "experts at journalism" define it. What matters for Josh is the legal definition. In the 9th Circuit's ruling, they spell this out pretty clearly: "The California Shield Law protects a 'publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, or by a press association or wire service.' ... Wolf produced no evidence this videotape was made while he was so connected or employed." (You can read the court's ruling in full if you scroll down from this column [1] at the Huffington Post).

So in repsonse to Wowaconia, Cowicide, and others, I submit that the Court's ruling meets your request to provide a reputable source on the subject. Let's add a paragraph to the article which explains that a) there is controversy over whether or not Wolf (and people like him) are covered by laws protecting reporters and b) that many journalists have come out in support of him. But let's not simply pretend that the issue is indisputable. Even if you're the strongest supporter of Wolf, I can't believe you'd favor an article that omit discussion of the central issues of his case. Anson2995 16:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course the government questioning his credentials should be included, which is far different than the original research of a Wikipedia editor (see above) saying “Wolf is primarily an activist, not a journalist.” I’m not arguing that the governments comments do not merit inclusion, I’m saying editors’ claims are original research. This is not a question “how we define ‘journalist’”, this is a question of whether journalism’s definition of “journalist” (which is also California’s definition) or the Federal government’s definition will prevail.

--Wowaconia 18:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I’ll maybe find a better place to stick this comment later, but, yeah, I’m pretty sure having “journalist” in the name of the article violates NPOV. —Wiki Wikardo 22:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Suggest we change it to "blogger." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anson2995 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Done. RigelOrionis 22:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That's funny, did the Society of Professional Journalists award Josh with a Blogger of the Year award? Nah, it was Journalist... YES, Journalist of the Year. So, are you guys just going to continue to make this up as you go along or can you put aside your biased hatred and tell the truth here? You know... be honest? Cowicide 10:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I highly recommend the article by Kevin Sites in which he interviews Josh Wolf, who seems incapable of giving a straight answer to a fairly direct and unambiguous question. It seems to me from reading that article that Josh Wolf is claiming the rights of a journalist while proclaiming himself an activist. I think that's a greater crime than having a bias, that is misrepresentation, intentional and malicious. I think this biography is inaccurate and needs to address the dual roles that Josh Wolf claims in the beginning of the entry, instead of waiting until the central legal issues section to barely mention there is dispute. The article begins by saying he is the longest jailed journalist ever to be inprisoned, but what if that isn't true, then that is a sensational and untrue statement. (Its a sensational statement regardless if its true or not, actually.) It would be accuate to state the facts of his inprisonment, (time served, place, etc,) and then the reason why. Let the reader learn that even Josh Wolf doesn't proclaim himself a journalist. Also, what is a video activist? It would be more accurate to say what cuase he is an activist for, and then state his medium, (video, blogs, et al.) Overall, a poorly written entry because it doesn't give accurate information. Unsigned Comment added 15:13, 6 April 2007 by 138.163.0.37; moved to bottom of section

Please sign comments. Your supposition that Wolf does not call himself a journalist is completely wrong. He self-identifies as an independent journalist, in fact. As for the Sites interview, essentially the same point was made down below and responded to yesterday. Response is the same: The Society of Professional Journalists gave Josh Wolf a 2006 Journalist of the Year Award. Wolf did not in that interview say he is not a journalist, he only was not willing to agree that journalists cannot be activists. There is nothing at all sensationalist about this article. Tvoz |talk 22:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The Society of Professional Journalists is not the arbiter of who is or isn't a journalist, any more than the scientists at the Center for Science and Culture are the arbiters of who is a scientist (especially since they all happen to dismiss the veracity of Darwinian evolution); and if they gave their "scientist of the year" award to Rev. Pat Robertson (who likewise disbelieves in evolution) it wouldn't make Pat Robertson a scientist. The Society of Professional Journalists is just one of hundreds of journalist organizations, and smaller than many of them. Their endorsement proves nothing significant in this case. Bricology 23:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

article is seriously incomplete and can give incorrect impression

The essence of the controversy as I see it is the tension between state and federal law which is not even mentioned in the article. Wolf shot this video, got hauled into California state court, refused to hand over the tapes based on California's reporter shield law which the state legislature passed to let journalists protect confidential sources. He won in court and was not required to turn over the tapes. However, one of the crimes the prosecutors wanted to investigate was that a police car had been burned. The police department that bought the car had received some federal funds so the car was partly paid for with federal money. That let the prosecutors claim federal jurisdiction, so Wolf was then hauled into federal court where the shield law doesn't apply. He still wouldn't turn over the tapes so now he is in jail.

So there is this issue, the federal govt is sprinkling money everywhere, and then using its financial involvement to override the wishes of the state's residents about how the laws in their state should work. (It's not like the fed govt is really providing money to the state from outside, either--the money comes from taxes collected from those same state residents). There's lots of people protesting this federal intrusion based on what could in principle be an almost insignificant federal financial contribution. States might do better to refuse federal money, if they value their legislatures' ability to write laws that actually mean something.

Anyway, that's the essence of it as I've heard it, but I'm not that conversant with it and actually came to this article hoping to learn more here. Can someone following the case address the above issues in the article? Thanks. 67.117.130.181 21:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

67.117.130.18, that's a very good point. The bigger issue does seem to be the fact that the Federal government now thinks it can circumvent a State's law by merely pointing to the fact they gave said State some money. At this point, maybe we should just go ahead and wipe out all State law in every State and have Federal law be the only law of the land in America? At least in that case, American citizens will no longer live in a state of illusion where regard for State law matters anymore since the Feds can simply preemptively trump State law with money.

I'm sure the current administration is getting somewhat tired of all this preemption by now, though... so why not just also fund States after the fact too and then trump State law in that case as well? It's not like the pacified sheep will do anything about it, right? Well, maybe some "journalists" will come out of the woodwork and address it. I'm not sure it belongs in this article, it perhaps deserves its own article with links to and from here and everywhere else the Federal govt./Bush admin is declaring itself the only "decider" and ultimate ruler of the land. Cowicide 02:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "circumvention" of state law. States and state agencies (like police departments) are free to turn down federal funding if they so choose. If they choose not to do that, they exchange certain things (sovereign immunity in some cases, for example) for the money. They also allow the feds a foot in the door to constitutionally enforce their federal criminal laws through Congress's spending power. It's not some big conspiracy... if a state doesn't like it, they can turn down the money.

I also realize that you might think every "bad" thing the federal government does is Bush's fault, but this is neither a "bad" thing (the framers actually contemplated federal criminal law) nor something even remotely new. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.130.22.211 (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Nice try... but it still comes down to the fact that the federal govt. circumvented state law with a lame loophole. It's slimey and the framers would be disgusted no matter how much you or anyone else tries to polish this turd. Cowicide 10:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What does this guy do?

I've been hearing about this guy, being a journalist, blah blah blah, and I come to his wiki and see nothing of his work.

If his only journalistic quality is that he runs around with a camera and films stuff, then a whole lot of teenagers can be considered journalists... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.114.232.98 (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

What does he do? Apparently, journalism. As I've mentioned above to Bricology, the Society of Professional Journalists awarded Josh with a Journalist of the Year award "for upholding the principles of a free and independent press." Also, I think it was the New York Times that referred to him as a journalist as well. Unless you or Bric have superior credentials to The Society of Professional Journalists... Wikipedia should go with them on this and not your baseless opinion that his "only journalistic quality" is that he "runs around with a camera", etc. BTW, I hope to God we do end up with a bunch of teenagers acting as journalists... America desperately needs them. Cowicide 02:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Being a loony leftist the likes only Lenin could embrace is not an excuse to defame the word Journalism because some fancies himself the next Cronkite. The SPJ ought to have whatever credentials it has revoked for being so stupidly blind and supportive of someone who isn't even upholding their own ethical systems. Obviously journalism is a tough word to define, but to loosely quote someone who said something long ago, "You can't define the difference, but you know when you see it." RigelOrionis 20:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

So, he hasn't done anything, but because he films a riot and doesn't turn over footage, and that makes him a journalist? Since when do journalists not publish their works? The whole point of being a journalist is to publish the truth, not hide the identities of jackasses burning cars. I think this guy was just a martyr for the SoP. Worthless, this guy is not a journalist, just a jagoff with a camera. But whatever, let the lunatics have their day. TotalTommyTerror 14:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Anything posted on the web is considered published. That is why Wikipedia is so quick to remove unsourced statements in biographies of living persons to avoid being sued for libel. The fact that wikipedia is only a website will not sheild it from being sued under the same grounds a paper based media company would. So by placing his work on the web he has published it. There is a difference between a journalist with a short career and a lifelong journalist, if you rat out your sources your done. Whether you hold that his refusal is ignoble or not it is the same situation as the Judith Miller case where she went to jail to protect Scooter Libby. She didn't break that commitment, Libby told the world it was him. So it is common practice for journalist to go to jail rather than reveal sources they promised they would not expose. Wolf made an agreement with those he filmed to not expose their identities or they wouldn't have cooperated with his filming them, he wants to honor that agreement.

--Wowaconia 01:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Except that he's not upholding journalistic integrity, he's actually censoring the press by refusing to turn over footage. He's protecting the identities of criminals he filmed committing a crime. He doesn't even have to name them, the article says he's subpoenaed for just the video. I don't believe this guy is upholding any journalistic credo. If they were asking for the names of the people themselves from him, yes, but the all the courts want is his video. TotalTommyTerror 15:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Except that he has no footage of the squad car being burned, see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/interviews/wolf.html

Frontline:You were out there on the street; you were covering this event. The U.S. attorney says that the crowd tried to set fire to a police car and did damage it. Is that what you saw?

Wolf:... Basically what I saw was a cop choking a guy. I heard some comments about cars being on fire. At that particular point in time, this gentleman being choked was of much more importance, and I didn't even look up. By the time I walked past there, I saw some minor smoldering of a sign, and nothing to indicate that a cop car had ever been on fire or was ever beginning to burn at all.

Frontline:And is that what you caught on videotape?

Wolf:What I caught on videotape was the guy choking the person. Once that situation had been resolved, I had turned off the camera. You don't want to be filming ... walking down the side of the street. We've all filmed our shoes, and it's not really exciting footage. When I came over [to the police car], there was nothing really to film, and I continued on my way from there, so I don't really even have anything related to this incident. ...

So why are the fed's demanding the tape if it holds nothing? RigelOrionis 20:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This is also reported here http://www.nypress.com/20/8/news&columns/feature2.cfm

"The grand jury is investigating whether arson was attempted on a San Francisco police car, though the squad car was not damaged beyond a broken taillight. A police officer was injured after the squad car he was in was driven into the protest march (that case was investigated then dropped by the local district attorney); however, Wolf insists he was not videotaping either incident."

So what do they want to see if he has no footage of the crime? If there is a presumption of innocence why would you want to look at a video that does not have any footage of the event your investigating? Wowaconia 18:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Nobody knows what he does or doesn't have on film because he refuses to show his tape to law enforcement. Your comment is akin to saying "Why arrest that guy? He said he didn't do it!" -- of course that's what he said. I doubt his claims that there was no criminal activity caught on his tape, though, because he could easily ask that the judge to review the tape in camera and then rule on whether or not he has to give it up. If there was actually no evidence the subpeona wouldn't stick. 74.130.22.211 23:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read about what's happening before you post. Josh has not been arrested for anything he did in filming the protest, he is being held in contempt of a grand jury. This is a Federal grand jury established after the state of California found for Josh Wolf. This is the national government saying that it doesn't matter what local control decides, people in Washington DC are smarter and better than everyone else. This is an issue of Federalism. Why bother to have 50 states if anything locals decide is just a joke before the national government? Why do you dismiss the findings of California? It was they who were the majority taxpayers for the squad car and had the most at stake.--Wowaconia 19:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No, 74.130.22.211 - you have it wrong. He has offered to show his tape to the presiding judge to confirm he does not have footage of a car burning or the officer being hit. The prosecutor has refused to go along with Wolf showing the tape to the judge, preferring to lock him up for contempt. Wowaconia is right - this should have been adjudicated under California law, and if it had, the California shield law would have protected him. Switching it to a Federal venue is a manipulation that should be condemned. And meanwhile Wolf sits in jail - longer than any other journalist in US history, having committed no crime. He's 24, just out of college, and they've stolen months of his life from him because he refused to compromise his journalistic ethics. This is a very serious issue, government intimidation of the press - whether the press is traditional newspaper, tv, radio, or new media blogging, podcasting, video or otherwise. Tvoz | talk 07:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Tvoz, little pesky things like "facts" aren't going to change these guy's "minds". Discussing this any further with these guys is a trivial pursuit. Cowicide 10:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Central Legal Issues

Based on discussions above, I have added a section on the central legal issues of the case. I've tried to briefly outline what appear to be the issues in dispute, without delving into a debate on the merits of either side's arguments. I considered adding citations to other legal rulings in support of each side, but I wanted to err on the side of caution and avoid sliding into any advocacy. We can direct people to external links for that sort of detail. I think as it reads now, the section is succinct and impartial, and does a good job of informing people who don't know about the case of the pertinent issues. Of course, I welcome feedback from others. Anson2995 17:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Life

We need some information on this persons life, education, intended career goals, and details about their stint in prison. We can debate the meaning of journalist, or worry about the legitimacy of the fed's involvement all we want, however, this does not mean the more salient details of this person's life ought to be thrown to the wayside because of a difference in ideologies. RigelOrionis 22:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added some. Tvoz | talk 07:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This page should be merged with page Joshua Wolf and use that page's name

As the title for this article was changed from Josh Wolf (journalist) to Josh Wolf (blogger) under the reasoning "Calling him a journalist violates NPOV in that it presupposes that his detractors are wro[ng]." And as I feel that not calling him a journalist is POV that presupposes that his detractors are right.

I sought to drop any reference to job titles and rename the article Joshua Wolf as per the name he put on his court documents which can be found at

http://www.joshwolf.net/grandjury/wolfdecMDNfinal.pdf

As there is only a soccer player named Josh Wolff with two f's in Wikipedia and there is a disambiguation page already for the name Josh Wolf this appeared to make sense. But the page can not be moved there directly as there already is a page about this same individual there, so I am calling for these two pages to be merged with the name of the article being Joshua Wolf to avoid POV charges.

--Wowaconia 17:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Great idea. Anson2995 17:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason to merge it with another article. He IS a blogger, that isn't in question, and one of the characteristics that makes him worthy of a wiki article is the fact that he is a jailed blogger. RigelOrionis 19:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

He calls himself a blogger AND a freelance journalist. He is also called a freelance journalist by multiple sources, if you do not contest renaming the article to Josh Wolf (blogger and freelance journalist) then we can do so. It seems that this would be unacceptable to many because they contest the title journalist in any form, therefore dropping all titles removes the small conflict.--Wowaconia 19:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

And Newton was a physicist, natural philosopher, astronomer, mathematician, and a myriad of other things, but we don't see his article titled: Sir Isaac Newton (Occupation_1, Occupation_2, Occupation_3... ad infinitum). His stance as a journalist is contested, especially by the courts of the united states, however his position as a blogger is not. Anyone who disagrees with his stance as one of those deserves to have their connection terminated. Therefore, Josh Wolf (blogger) is more than perfectly acceptable for the title of this article. RigelOrionis 19:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No one is contesting that his name is Joshua Wolf, please explain your problem with just using his name. Both these articles already exist so a merge has to be done anyway.--Wowaconia 05:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

We know him as Josh Wolf, regardless of his actual name. Just as we know certain people in history by short-hand versions of their name instead of the legal titles that may span entire paragraphs. Their actual name can be expounded upon in the article; how they are known to society, by history, and by the media is how we title the articles. We call him Josh Wolf (Blogger) to distinguish him from the multitude of other Josh Wolfs in the world, and other possible Josh Wolfs that might find themselves in wikipedia later, though why you needed this explained to you given your tenure here is beyond me and more evidence of someone with an agenda that doesn't coincide with the purpose of Wikipedia. The other article can be deleted; and a redirect put in its place here. Your reasoning is flawed, and your annoying use of the merge tag unwarranted, so end it. RigelOrionis 05:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Look dude, you can disagree that this article should be placed under the name Joshua Wolf, but the merge tag's placement is entirely warranted as per Wikipedia standards Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages, the first two lines on the page are

"There are several good reasons to merge a page:

• There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject."

Please see below on idea of clearing the Josh Wolf disambiguation page so we can move this article under that name.

--Wowaconia 06:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to merge the two articles together as if they were inherently equal. Merge Joshua Wolf INTO this article if that must be done, otherwise Joshua Wolf ought to be deleted for being a needless duplicate. RigelOrionis 06:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Look it is only fair to give the people who made the Joshua Wolf article some time to react to the call to merge. I'm no longer calling for this article to go under that name, as I think it will soon be moved to Josh Wolf which is currently just a redirect page to Josh Wolf (disambiguation) (see thread below). So I don't know why you keep deleting the merge tag. Wikipedia's own standards demand that the tag is placed. See WP:Merge that says "If you are uncertain of the merger's appropriateness, you should propose it on the affected pages." You'll note it uses the plural pages. So the presence of a tag here does not dictate that this page will be forced to be placed under that title. Its just saying that this is one of two articles on the exact same subject.

--Wowaconia 07:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the merge tag once. "Keep deleting..." implies you, or someone else, ha sput up a merge tag so many times that's the only one they will ever remember due to my intense, heat seeking deletion abilities. And how would you have them react? How can they react? This page is by far more comprehensive than Joshua, so the only logical conclusion is that that page is merged with this one. RigelOrionis 07:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that was me the last time - sorry if I jumped the gun, but I am responding to 2 things: 1) the piece should be Josh Wolf not Joshua Wolf for the reasons already given and 2) this article was far more comprehensive -the other was a very short stub - and I have already incorporated the small amount of information from that page into this page and redirected here. I would agree that if we can use Josh Wolf without any qualifying words that's the cleanest way to proceed. But first we needed to have just one article to deal with. What we name it is a separate matter - there was no reason to keep two articles, given the disparity in content. There really wasn;'t anything to think about. No agenda, no offense intended. Just simple logic that one is all we need. Again, we can still talk about what to name it. Tvoz | talk 07:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Unilateral move

As the move of this article from "journalist" to "blogger" is contested, I suggest that its proponents take it to requested moves. I note that the issue of whether or not Mr. Wolf is a journalist has not been particularly debated by the courts - indeed, it is the position of the government that whether he's a journalist or not, journalists have no right to ignore subpoenas. Furthermore, I find it ridiculous to argue that Mr. Wolf is not a journalist - there is no licensing authority or education requirement for being one. He's been the recipient of multiple journalism awards, and is the poster child for a movement toward a national journalistic shield law. If anyone wishes to challenge this, WP:RM is thataway. FCYTravis 06:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

... No. The move is contested on grounds that are at best tenuous. Josh Wolf is a blogger, Josh Wolf MIGHT be a journalist. Because the latter is hotly contested by the public, and the courts, it is not appropriate to use that title. Blogger, however, does not fall under the purview of this conflict because that is what he is. Need proof? Someone with a blog is a blogger, Josh Wolf has a blog. Josh Wolf describes himself as a blogger. Therefore Josh Wolf is a blogger, and an admin for the wikipedia community can stop making a fool out of himself by acknowledging a conflict that is based on nothing because his own interested conflict with the truth. RigelOrionis 06:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As I pointed out in the move message, by calling the article's subject "a loony leftist the likes only Lenin could embrace" you have not only made a BLP-violating personal attack, you've shown yourself to be non-neutral in this matter. You can make all the personal jabs you like - it doesn't make a difference. The move is contested. Take it to RM. FCYTravis 06:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

When being an admin entitles you to the right to A) decide where an article goes, or B) where I can talk, then your orders might have some sort of weight behind them. Sadly, neither A) nor B) are true, so I think I will use my right to voice my concern / displeasure with your actions right here. Based on your own personal page, and what you've said previously, your bias in this case is more than noted, and your ability to refute my arguments is also non-existent. The move was illegitimate, and should be undone ASAP. RigelOrionis 06:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You made the move, from "journalist" to "blogger." That move has been contested, and reverted. I don't decide where an article goes - that's for a consensus of Wikipedians to determine based on our policies and guidelines. Like I said, follow our procedures and place a notice on requested moves. That's your next step, it's right in front of you to take. FCYTravis 06:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll move onto the MP arena soon enough. That doesn't stop me from voicing my disapproval of someone who has warped the word contested in such a way that we need a consensus of wikipedians to decide if a blogger is a blogger. If not because I believe it is against the rules to reverse what you have done at this stage I would have already because it has wasted time and effort on my part in trying to prove that a self-described blogger, is indeed a blogger. Good job on picking your battles, friend. RigelOrionis 07:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

He's popularly accepted by the experts in his field and the majority of his peers as a journalist. It doesn't matter that you disapprove. I'm sure we can find a few nutcases out there who disapprove that Walter Cronkite was a journalist or believe he was sent here from Mars.... but Wikipedia isn't the place for their soapbox rantings. The End. Cowicide 10:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You must've missed the part where the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Wolf is not a journalist. And "he's popularly accepted by the experts in his field and the majority of his peers as a journalist" is just so much handwaving on your part; you don't know anything of the sort. Bricology 23:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Guess what - the Ninth Circuit COurt of Appeals is not charged with or capable of determining who is a journalist. The Society of Professional Journalists knows more about their own field than any court does. But we've said this over and over and you have some kind of problem, so I am with Cowicide: the end. Tvoz |talk 04:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Guess what - the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did exactly that: they made a determination that Wolf isn't a journalist. You may disagree, you may not like it, you may think that they're not qualified to say so, but there's their ruling, in black and white: the government, through the judiciary, determined that Wolf isn't a journalist, and that the laws protecting journalists don't apply to him. I don't know who you think you're going to go to in order to prove otherwise, but I doubt that the State Supreme Court or the Supreme Court are going to take a challenge to the Ninth's ruling. No amount of ink from one of the hundreds of journalism organizations in the US can countermand the government's decision, any more than if the Cucumunga Association of Left-Handed Teachers claims that I'm a teacher, if the State of California (or the courts) says I'm not. QED. Bricology 01:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I wasn't aware that we live in a society with a state-run press. Thomas Jefferson might raise an eyebrow. The court has no authority over whether or not Wolf or anyone is a journalist, friend - do you actually believe that? They made a ruling in a case, and indeed it may have gone to a higher court if there hadn't been a mediation, and a higher court indeed might have overturned their incorrect ruling when amicus curaie were filed by professional journalists' organizations. But if you seriously think that Wolf is not a journalist because a court said so, I dont know what to say. And by the way - it is true that the government issues medical licenses, but what makes a doctor a doctor is the training that he or she gets in med school, and the certification by the medical establishment required before any state issues a license to practice. In other words, you can stand on your head and petition the government to give you a license to practice medicine, but not even the Ninth Circuit can do it without medical professionals - not government - certifying that you are qualified. Read the Constitution - we have a free press, and it's not supposed to be regulated nor is it credentialed by the government. And any freedom-loving American should rejoice at that very simple truth, and be horrified at any attempt by the government or its apologists to get in the way of that basic freedom. I think we have exhausted this topic now, or in any case I am exhausted by it. Tvoz |talk 04:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

We can move article to Josh Wolf if we can get unneeded disambiguation page deleted

On the Biography of Living Persons Noticeboard I asked for an Admin to delete the disambiguation page entitled Josh Wolf. As there is only two active links there, one for the subject of this article and one for a Josh Wolff (with two fs). If they clear that disambiguation page we could move this article under that name and we could put "For the soccer player see Josh Wolff" on the top of the page. This would eliminate any need for a stand alone disambiguation page and with the name Josh Wolf on the top of this article we would not have to worry about POV in the title.

--Wowaconia 06:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Your agenda becomes all the more clear each time you try something. Someone looking for Josh Wolff may easily get the two confused when typing in the name, so for that reason a disambiguation page must exist. The comic is one that does probably warrant deletion if something is not soon done to it, but irregardless does not make the need for a disambiguation page go away. And in any case, you still have yet to explain why trying to go through all of this effort for a page merge/move is desirable, or why we can't simply merge Joshua Wolf into this one due to its being more comprehensive and correct. RigelOrionis 06:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand that some people didn't want to use the full name Joshua Wolf, as the media called him Josh Wolf. That seemed a reasonable objection - so I suggested the above. There is no article on the comic that's why the link is red. Anyone looking for soccer player Josh Wolff would see the line on top of the article that said "For the soccer player see Josh Wolff", this type of line is common on many articles where there are only two notable people with similar names. Please explain why you have a problem with moving this article so it will have the title Josh Wolf.

-Wowaconia 06:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarily have a problem with there existing only a single page titled Josh Wolf, instead of having a disambiguation page. I have a problem with your meddlesome attitude since we changed the title from Journalist to Blogger. There is also the question of need: should we both removing disambiguation pages and adding lines of code to other pages just because you're not satisfied with the (blogger) bit beside his name? RigelOrionis 07:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Following established protocal I moved the page with the links to this subject and the soccer player and the dead link to the comic to a page called Josh Wolf (disambiguation) this opens up the page entitled Josh Wolf so now we just have to wait for an Admin to clear that page so we can move this article there. I have put For other uses, see: Josh Wolf (disambiguation) on the top of this article so the objection that readers will have trouble finding the Josh they are looking for has been resolved as the use of such links at the top of an article is standard Wikipedia practice.

Wowaconia 07:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"Meddlesome attitude"? I thought only Scooby Doo villians said things like that. This whole time I've been trying to avoid getting into an edit war with you User:RigelOrionis. I could've have just as easily reverted your edits, but I thought that would not get us anywhere. I understand some people dispute him being a journalist and have been looking for the most neutral title I could think of and have been working towards that the whole time.

--Wowaconia 07:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether Scooby Do Villians or Jesus Christ himself said it in one of his various parables, does not change the fact that it describes your actions perfectly. The article had a neutral title before you went about requesting page mergers and deletions of disambiguation pages, citing a controversy that only exists in your mind. Unless Josh Wolf, a self proclaimed blogger, being a blogger, is indeed controversial. RigelOrionis 08:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and that neutral title was "Josh Wolf (journalist)" where the page was originally created last year. Mr. Wolf is not notable for being a blogger, he is notable for being a journalist embroiled in a controversy that centers around the rights and responsibilities of journalists, and their ability (or lack thereof) to refuse to answer subpoenas before a United States court. FCYTravis 08:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The title was not neutral because that title was disputed. Good job there.

Also, Rigel, I suggest you tone down your rhetoric. Waltzing into Wikipedia and tossing attacks at users ("meddlesome attitude," et al.) is hardly going to convince anyone to support you. One could further suggest that it is you who have a "meddlesome attitude" - the page's title was Josh Wolf (journalist) for months, until you decided to "meddle" with it. Pot, meet kettle. FCYTravis 08:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Waltzing into the middle of a discussion and reverting a move because of your own personal bias is both not the proper way to act, and not the proper way for an administrator of any organization to act, unless you're trying to convey to us that Wikipedia's criteria for adminship calls for just such a thing. And I would look upon anyone calling me meddlesome in the same light as I look upon those who require proof that a self-proclaimed blogger is a blogger. I just hope you have a pair of sunglasses while you try to justify a mistake being correct because it has been left standing for so long. RigelOrionis 08:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes User:RigelOrionis, Josh defines himself as a blogger, he also defines himself as a journalist (a statement that nearly every media organization on the planet and the state of California agrees with), but you seem to have a problem with that. Therefor instead of me putting that job title in this article's title, I thought we could just drop any mention of his profession in this article's title altogether.

And I can define myself as a Viking Warlord because I have a battle-axe in my room: that doesn't make myself a Viking Warlord. The fact we can justify the blogger term is not just because he is a self-described blogger, but because he is one. That is not contested, that cannot be contested. Also appeal to popularity; everyone in the world can call green blue but that doesn't make it so. RigelOrionis 08:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

He is not a "self-described" journalist, he is a freelance journalist as described by other reliable sources. That can't be contested either. We rely on what reliable sources say about people to describe them. At any event, I'm not sure why you haven't opened the requested move debate yet, because we're just spinning our wheels here. FCYTravis 08:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The history line on your edit said calling him a journalist was in effect siding against his detractors - is it so hard for you to see that someone might hold that not calling him a journalist is to side against his supporters?

--Wowaconia 08:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is hard to see because that is not the case. Not calling him a journalist is NOT siding with his supporters when that title is contested. Calling him a political activist would be siding with the dissidents, but calling him a blogger, which is what he is adds this little thing known as neutrality to the article because it describes him and his profession adequately without using a contested title. Under your logic we must call him a journalist without regard for those who disagree with such, because calling him anything else sides against his supports. If that's the case we ought not to just delete the article because under your logic we can't call him anything and hope to be neutral. RigelOrionis 08:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Under my logic we don't put a job title in this article's title, but we do provide quotes and summaries in the body of the article from notable people with opinions on either side of the debate taken from reliable sources, and all us editors try to avoid temptations of POV and edit warring. Why is just using the title Josh Wolf unacceptable?

--Wowaconia 08:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No, your logic specifically calls for the deletion of the article because qualifying his existence with any title at all violates NPOV. And as I said just calling it Josh Wolf is not unacceptable, just not needed. RigelOrionis 09:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

There. This silly war is over. Google says he's by far the most common Josh Wolf, so this takes care of that. FCYTravis 08:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not. Keep your petty declarations to yourself where one may heed it. As said already appeals to popularity do not justify something. Unless of course you agree that Jesus Christ was a Nazi if I can get every right-wing nut job in existence to refer to him as such in their publications and web dealings, which your logic calls for. RigelOrionis 09:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Josh Wolf, journalist

Who says Josh Wolf is a journalist?

First of all, he does. That's uncontested, so I can dispense with a link.

The Society of Professional Journalists, one of the nation's most respected journalism organizations, does. Its Northern California chapter, in fact, honored him as one of their Journalists of the Year.

The San Francisco Chronicle does, in their news stories and editorials.

KPIX-TV Channel 5 does.

The executive editor of CNET does.

So does the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin.

The International Press Institute does.

Oh, here's Edward Wasserman, the Knight professor of journalism ethics at Washington and Lee University. He does too.

Want more? I can find 'em. FCYTravis 08:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Appeal to popularity. Denied. RigelOrionis 08:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that's a big negatory, good buddy. That's called noting what reliable sources call him. FCYTravis 08:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's called a logical fallacy; using popular appeal as justification. The Government certainly doesn't call him a journalist, and I think they have more credibility in this manner (what with the court voting against Wolf on each issue) than any exhaustive list of 'sources' you could come up with. Though again, such is fallacy. RigelOrionis 09:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Good grief, you can't be serious. Since when does the government have more knowledge of who is a journalist, a doctor, a filmmaker, a fill in the blank, than a professional association in a field? What are they teaching in high school these days? Tvoz | talk 23:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"Since when does the government have more knowledge of who is a journalist, a doctor, a filmmaker, a fill in the blank, than a professional association in a field?" Are you high? The government does indeed say who can call themselves a doctor, a teacher, a pilot, a truck driver and a hundred other professions. It wouldn't matter one whit if the AMA itself declared that I was a doctor; the government says that I'm not a doctor unless I meet their criteria. And Josh Wolf doesn't meet the government's criteria for journalist. Deal with it. Bricology 23:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Except there is absolutely no government licensing requirement to be a journalist, unlike those other professions you mentioned. Deal with it. FCYTravis 23:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess the point grazed your head as it flew over. I'll try again: previous poster wrote "Since when does the government have more knowledge of who is a...a doctor..than a professional association in a field?" I answered, proving that the government does indeed have more knowledge of who is a doctor than any "professional association in a field", and that they also have the last word on teachers, pilots, drivers and others. You claim that "absolutely no government licensing requirement to be a journalist". No licensing, perhaps, but nevertheless, the government does have the right to determine who qualifies as a journalist, in order to be covered by laws that protect them. The Ninth Circuit did exactly that when it determined that Wolf did not meet the required qualifications of a journalist. Case. Fucking. Closed. You want to prove that Josh Wolf really is a journalist? (1) File an appeal to the Ninth Circuit. (2) Send Mr. Wolf to journalism school. (3) Get him a job at the New York Times. Otherwise, it's just so much "is too, you meanie!" Bricology 01:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope you're enjoying your profane talk page rantings. FCYTravis 01:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Oooh -- I used the "f-word"! I guess that negates all of the perfectly valid points I made above. ('m sure that Josh Wolf has never used profanity.) Oh well -- if that's all you've got as a rebuttal, I guess it'll have to do. Bricology 04:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Why waste breath on an argument that doesn't merit response? The article's well-referenced and reliably-sourced description of Josh Wolf as a freelance journalist is not going to be changed, so it's pointless to argue this any further. Find some other battle to fight. FCYTravis 04:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Your summation of the article is certainly novel, considering it states, regarding the "Central Legal Issues", that "The Federal prosecutor argues that Wolf does not meet the statutory definition of a journalist (under California law) or a common law journalist's privilege based on the Federal Rules of Evidence. Further, they argue that even if he did, the protections afforded to journalists would not cover his activities in this case because he merely observed the incidents he recorded in a public place. He did not prompt them, nor did he offer anyone anonymity or confidentiality. In their written ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled against Wolf on all three issues." Sorry that you can't recognize (or don't want to admit) that the central legal issue being decided against Wolf does anything but support his claim of being a journalist. This battle is important in ways that you knee-jerkers don't recognize. I'm on the Left and I find the whole thing patently absurd -- particularly Wolf trying to hide behind journalists' shield laws. The fact is that Wolf fails the first test of being objective. He's LESS of a journalist than Bill O'Reilly, who actually has a degree in journalism and 30 years on the job as a journalist (despite being just as doctrinaire as Wolf). But if Wolf is allowed to appropriate the title of "journalist" and thus be able to keep evidence out of the hands of the law, then any amateur Bill O'Reilly out there, who happens to videotape protesters being beaten by cops, is likewise going to be able to withhold that evidence, if it implicates groups that he supports. This kind of shenanigans works both ways. Unfortunately, those on the Right have demonstrated far more skill at hiding evidence from the light of day than has the Left. By legitimizing an anarchist activist by calling him a journalist, you're putting the exact same dangerous power in the hands of those who will use it against freedom and justice. Think about it. Bricology 23:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

As a journalist myself, it is far more dangerous to ever admit that any governmental or political authority (and the judicial system *is* political) can define what is and is not a journalist. That is a step toward regulation, licensing and governmental interference in the right to freely gather and report upon newsworthy events. Mr. Wolf acted to document the first draft of history and publicly publish it, and that meets my definition of journalism. It also happens to meet the definition of journalism proffered by other journalists - who I would term the best judge. You would have it that governmental authority could decide who gets to be a journalist, and that is patently unacceptable. Yes, there is a potential that some wrongs would not be given justice if the government could not seize journalist's videotapes and unpublished notes. But that argument is unavailing because it can justify anything - the government could right many more wrongs if, say, local police were allowed to torture criminal suspects or simply hold them forever without trial. But that is repugnant to our concept of freedom, and so is any attempt to allow arbitrary authority to decide who may or may not act as a journalist. FCYTravis 05:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Your slippery slope fallacy is just that -- fallacious. You claim "That is a step toward regulation, licensing and governmental interference in the right to freely gather and report upon newsworthy events." That's simply alarmist rubbish. Every profession would like to think that theirs should be free of interference from the government. However, there's nothing about journalism that privileges it above the medical profession, the legal profession, the teaching profession, being a pilot or bus driver or any other profession that the government already practices some level of "regulation, licensing and governmental interference" over. Just because the California State Bar Association (which is responsible to the Supreme Court of California) has the power to say that a person is or isn't legally considered a lawyer, doesn't mean that such "regulation, licensing and governmental interference" stifles the process of jurisprudence within California, it merely determines if a person is qualified to practice law before the court. Even those it deems unqualified can still publish legal opinions, act as legal advisers, etc. Does the fact that the government practices "regulation, licensing and governmental interference" over the qualifications of doctors prevent laymen from providing "healing advice", herbal remedies, etc.? Does it prevent those who aren't licensed teachers from "educating" students through tutoring? Of course not. However, a "herbal healer" cannot qualify for malpractice insurance and the indemnity it provides, because they are not licensed. Likewise, a person can still "practice journalism", but not be entitled to receive the legally guaranteed protection that the law extends to those qualified to be called journalists. I can take my video camera to a demonstration and videotape the police brutalizing a protester. I can call myself a "journalist", even though I have no real qualifications. But I cannot hide behind a law intended to shield journalists' sources, because I'm only playing at being a journalist. That doesn't keep me from "doing reportage", it merely says that I don't fit the legal standard for the profession, so I'm on my own. Well, that is exactly the position Josh Wolf was in, except that he was videotaping the protesters doing the illegal activities. And because he sided with the protesters ideologically, he refused to comply with the court. His attempt to twist the law to serve his ideology was his mistake, and one the court addressed in their ruling. Try examining it from the other side: what if Wolf had a degree in journalism, was a full-time journalist for a major media company, and was far Left, but kept his ideology to himself. Let's say that he was in a situation that led him to seek the protection of the shield law, and the Appeals Court of the Ninth Circuit ruled that he WAS a journalist, and thus legally entitled to the protection, but that a certain percentage of journalistic and other organizations said that he wasn't really a journalist, and shouldn't be protected? And what if the organizations happened to be on the Right, politically? Who do you think should have the authority to make the call -- some civilian organizations, or the courts? Bricology 06:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Rigel... just drop it... you are NEVER going to win here... Once again, Josh is popularly accepted by the experts in his field and the majority of his peers as a journalist. It doesn't matter that you disapprove. I'm sure we can find a few nutcases out there who disapprove that Walter Cronkite was a journalist or believe he was sent here from Mars.... but Wikipedia isn't the place for their soapbox rantings. Keep this up and you're only going to accomplish becoming a Wikipedia troll and nothing more. The End. Cowicide 10:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a crazy thing to question whether this individual identifies himself as a journalist. I've seen an interview with him where he in fact refuses to do so. In a recent Yahoo! Kevin Sites interview, posted Tuesday, April 3, 2007:

Kevin Sites: Well, that's what I want to ask you. If I asked you to take sides, if I asked you to take a side of journalism or activism, you know, which side are you taking here? Because you're asking for the protection of journalism yet you're also seeking to be an activist.

Josh Wolf: Would you not say that Thomas Paine was an activist for the Declaration of - or the independence of America and also...

Kevin Sites: But I would say that he would not be claiming to be journalist, he would be claiming to be an activist. That's all I'm asking you to do, is take sides. Are you claiming to be an activist or a journalist?

Josh Wolf: I don't. I see that advocacy has a firm role within the realm of journalism.

In fact, part of his woes would seem to be that his status as a journalist is highly in question. I have no doubt the present corrupt Bush administration would have no qualms with imprisoning a bona fide journalist for refusing to tell them what they want to know, but I am quite sure the outcry would be far louder if Wolf had worked for, say, the NY Times or even the Pasadena, CA Star News.

His status as a journalist is highly in question, regardless of how many organizations place that laurel upon him, if he himself declines to accept that role, or wiggles his way out of it when he has a chance to claim to be one. My guess is, he has no desire to be bound by journalistic ethics such as impartiality, and likely very much WANTS to make news, and convince people, which is what a good activist does.

You can't be both. ThatBajoranGuy 01:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The conclusion that you have drawn, that a person cannot be an activist and a journalist at the same time, is not supported by anything. It is your opinion, which you're entitled to have, but people are not entitled to insinuate their own POVs into articles. And your so-called evidence is entirely unconvincing - in fact Wolf did not refuse to identify himself as a journalist in the clip you posted - he declined to agree with Sites that he had to choose between activist and journalist. He quite clearly identifies himself as both an advocate and a journalist, and he's hardly the only journalist who is an advocate. Your "guess" about what he was saying is similarly irrelevant to this article. Tvoz |talk 04:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not for us to debate whether or not he should be considered a journalist. The article notes that the matter was a subject of debate, and even draws the distinction between a layman's definition of "journalist" and the applicable legal definition. The article should (and does) report these issues, not attempt to resolve them. Anson2995 04:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see it that way. Certainly you can be an activist and a journalist, but no, you can't be one at the same time. Journalism has a set of codes and ethics that is to be followed; when journalists fail to do so, that is bad journalism. The very definition of activist is to support one side of a debate at the exclusion of all others -- after all, you want your side to win.

As to the article, it only states at the bottom that it is a matter of debate. I mentioned this at the top of the article, where it needs to be mentioned, and it was removed and claimed to be "POV", which in fact it wasn't; I merely mentioned that his journalistic status was, in fact, in contention. Just because you believe he is one, Tvoz, doesn't make it so. If anyone's engaging in POV here, it's definitely you. Your edits border on hero worship, which is some mix of mildly unfortunate, or just a little sad. He's just a guy who either got screwed over by the government, or really covered up nicely for some pals of his. ThatBajoranGuy 04:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding us what your opinion is. I stand by my edits and by the citation of one of the pre-eminent professional organizations in the field who identify Wolf as a journalist. You see, it's not that I think he is one - nor is it hero worship (whatever you're referring to, I have no idea). Your comments from April 5 misrepresented his self-identification and treated us to your guess about his motives. And you just did it again. Tvoz |talk 05:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Debra Saunders is an outlier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.69.190.75 (talk • contribs)

Could you say that in English please? Tvoz |talk 03:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV in Lead

I reverted the article back to my version as I feel it accurately represents all significant viewpoints as per WP:NPOV. Though Josh considers himself a journalist, it's important to also mention that the state of California does not. The court follows the laws adopted by the democratically elected representatives of California. The court determined that, based on these laws, California's people do not consider Josh Wolf a resident. The way the lead is currently worded, the reader can determine on their own if Josh Wolf is a journalist. The way the lead was previously worded, the lead was telling the reader what to think without representing all significant viewpoints. It's better to represent all significant viewpoints and allow the reader to think for themselves based on the information. We shouldn't present a POV. Pdelongchamp 01:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The determination of who is a journalist is not made by laws or by that court. He is a journalist, whether or not they chose to recognize him as such for the purposes of applying the state shield law. The court is not the arbiter of what someone's profession is. As noted above, the Society of Professional Journalists is in a better position to decide who to call a journalist than a random court. Furthermore, the article goes into detail about the various issues, including his standing as a journalist. It is not POV to indicate what the man considers his own profession to be. Tvoz |talk 06:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Tvoz, I think we can both agree that the lead to which you’re reverting does not present all significant viewpoints. Could you suggest a better way to word it? I was going to try to mention that certain organizations consider him a journalist but in doing research I realized that many specifically do not consider him journalist. In the end, the views of these organizations (whether supportive or non supportive) don’t matter to Josh’s case. Rather, it just matters what Josh thinks (that he is a journalist), and what the people of California think (that he is not a journalist). In the united states, there is no licensing for journalists so as long as we’re stating what each side of the case thinks, the reader can then form their own opinion.

I’m up for including the viewpoints of outside parties (i.e. organizations that agree and disagree with josh being a journalist) but I’m not sure its very useful in the lead. I’m open to including it though. Just keep in mind that stating that Josh “is a journalist” is POV. We can’t just revert it to the previous lead.Pdelongchamp 20:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not POV to state that he's a journalist. FCYTravis 21:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

FCYTravis is right - you see, that's the problem here. It is not POV to say that the man is a journalist - he self-identifies as such, and by the way, the SBJ does say he is a journalist - they gave him an award for jourrnalist of the year - they didn't qualify that. And please also note that this is an article called "Josh Wolf", not an article called "Josh Wolf's court case" - his profession is journalist, whether or not that court thought so. As you said, in the US we do not license journalists, and the determination of who is a journalist just is not decided by a court, or by the government. We clearly explain what that particular court ruling was about, but they are not the final arbiter of anything. Further, I think you'd be hard pressed to actually say what the "people of California think" about Josh's profession - the vast majority don't know or care, and the fact that one of their courts ruled in a particular way is hardly tantamount to speaking for the people of the state. That's rather absurd, on the face of it, in fact. By the way - in Soviet Russia there were underground journalists who published illegal newsletters at risk of imprisonment - the Soviet government did not recognize them as journalists either, but I think most of us would, including the people of California. Tvoz |talk 21:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an appeal to popularity and it's a logical fallacy. A journalist isn't "a person that calls themselves a journalist." We can go ahead and mention that Josh and certain organizations believe that he is a journalist but we also have to mention those that don't think he is. Otherwise, it's POV. Let me repeat that, it is not POV to say that the man is a journalist. It is POV to say that the man is a journalist and omit the POV that the man is not a journalist if that POV is significant. and it is significant. I won't revert it right now, can we come to a compromise on this? Pdelongchamp 04:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

So is it POV to call Neil Armstrong an astronaut because some people believe that he never walked on the moon? No, it's not, because the mainstream point of view is that he's an astronaut and he landed on the moon. The mainstream point of view is that Mr. Wolf is a journalist. Thus, we describe him as one. FCYTravis 05:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you don't have consensus to revert it, so it's good that you're not. By the way, you haven't mentioned (unless I missed it) who these "certain organizations" are who do not believe he is a journalist. There's the beginnings of a list of some of those who do, in the section immediately preceding this one. Tvoz |talk 05:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

And here's another one - by journalist Amy Goodman. PLease take the few minutes and read it - she makes the case quite well. Tvoz |talk 05:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You're not understanding my point. I do want to describe Josh as a journalist and my version does describe him as a journalist. My point is that we also need to include the court ruling on him not meeting the definition of a journalist which is a significant viewpoint. Is that not a significant viewpoint? (and if the viewpoint that Neil didn't walk on the moon was significant, then of course it should be meantioned. Otherwise it would violate NPOV. Remember, it not about the truth, it's about presenting the whole picture.) Pdelongchamp 13:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I do understand your point, I just don't agree with it as far as the lede is concerned. The court ruling is adequately covered in the text of the article. The person Josh Wolf is a journalist, which you admit to, and this article, as I said earlier, is about the person Josh Wolf not only about the court case. And you still have failed to tell us the reliable sources that you claim believe he is not a journalist - if you have such sources, could you tell us here on the talk page, with citations so they can be reviewed? And you have not shown how the section is POV. Tvoz |talk 15:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It must be mentioned in the lead because the topic of Josh Wolf is only notable due to the court case. Without the court case, Josh Wolf wouldn't have a Wikipedia article. The reliable source claiming he is not a journalist is the federal court. The section is POV because it mentions the profession of journalism and only presents one viewpoint: Josh's Viewpoint. It ignores the other significant viewpoint: The State of California's viewpoint. Both viewpoints must be included. Pdelongchamp 16:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You do not have consensus for your change. Tvoz |talk 20:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

And you still have not answered my question about the supposed "many" professional organizations who "do not consider him a journalist" or substantiated your claim about the people of California. Tvoz |talk 20:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

When I mentioned the many organizations, i also mentioned that they were irrelevant which is why I haven't bothered to discuss them or make note of them. I'm only arguing my edit which only includes the opinion of the people of california by which I mean the court ruling which is an interpretation of the laws put into place by the democratically elected representatives of california. Furthermore, concensus is not required to make an edit. Especially when NPOV is being violated. Let's get back on track though because I'm hoping we can come up with a compromise. If the lead represents a viewpoint (that josh considers himself a journalist) it must also contain all other significant viewpoints. (that the state of california does not consider himself a journalist) This is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. To show my good faith, I won't revert it right now but only because i'm hoping you can come up with your own version showing all viewpoints that you prefer to mine? Thanks Tvoz. Pdelongchamp 23:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually didn't see this comment until now - I wasn't avoiding responding to it. I do not agree at all that the the people of the state of California have said anything on this subject, nor would their vote about this, if it were taken, be relevant. It's not the way we determine what a person's profession is. Your lack of reliable sources supporting the view that Wolf is not a journalist is the problem here. Tvoz |talk 18:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Josh Wolf Profession Viewpoints

This is a dispute about which viewpoints should be included in the lead regarding Josh being a journalist. 21:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• Though Josh considers himself a journalist, it's important to also mention that the state of California does not. The court follows the laws adopted by the democratically elected representatives of California. The court determined that, based on these laws, California's people do not consider Josh Wolf a resident. The way the lead is currently worded, the reader can determine on their own if Josh Wolf is a journalist. The way the lead was previously worded, the lead was telling the reader what to think without representing all significant viewpoints. -- Pdelongchamp 01:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• The determination of who is a journalist is not made by laws or by that court. He is a journalist, whether or not they chose to recognize him as such for the purposes of applying the state shield law. The court is not the arbiter of what someone's profession is. -- Tvoz |talk 06:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• No, it's not POV to state that he's a journalist. -- FCYTravis 21:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• It is not POV to say that the man is a journalist - he self-identifies as such, and by the way, the SBJ does say he is a journalist - they gave him an award for jourrnalist of the year - they didn't qualify that. And please also note that this is an article called "Josh Wolf", not an article called "Josh Wolf's court case" - his profession is journalist, whether or not that court thought so. -- Tvoz |talk 21:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• It is not POV to say that the man is a journalist. It is POV to say that the man is a journalist and omit the POV that the man is not a journalist if that POV is significant. -- Pdelongchamp 04:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• It must be mentioned in the lead because the topic of Josh Wolf is only notable due to the court case. Without the court case, Josh Wolf wouldn't have a Wikipedia article. -- Pdelongchamp 16:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• The section is POV because it mentions the profession of journalism and only presents one viewpoint: Josh's Viewpoint. It ignores the other significant viewpoint: The State of California's viewpoint. Both viewpoints must be included. A possible more neutral version of the lead could be:

Joshua Wolf (born June 8, 1982) is an American video blogger who was jailed by a Federal district court on August 1, 2006 for refusing to turn over a collection of videotapes he recorded during a July 2005 demonstration in San Francisco, California. Though Wolf considers himself a freelance journalist, a federal court ruled that he did not meet California's statutory definition of a journalist. Wolf served 226 days in prison at the Federal Correctional Institution, Dublin, California, longer than any journalist in U.S. history has served for protecting source materials. With permission from the prosecution, U.S. District Judge William Alsup ordered Wolf's release on April 3, 2007. On July 5, 2007, Wolf announced that he has filed a declaration of intent to run for mayor of San Francisco against incumbent Gavin Newsom.

-- Pdelongchamp 14:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope. We do not recognize any governmental authority's right to judge who is and who is not a journalist. Reliable sources describe Matt Drudge as a journalist; thus, we call him a journalist. Reliable sources describe Josh Wolf as a journalist; thus, we call him a journalist. FCYTravis 17:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur with FCYTravis -and the summary posted by Pdelongchamp above was selective and not representative of the comments I have made on this matter. A prominent professional association and many reliable journalistic sources have identified Wolf as a journalist, in addition to Wolf himself. The state of California does not license journalists, nor does any governmental authority in this country, and they do not determine who shall be called a journalist and who not. perhaps it is different in other countries, but that's the way it is done here. The point of view of the ninth circuit court is amply discussed in the article; the identification of the man's profession in the lead sentence is not to be determined by them. It's not POV when there are reliable sources to back it up, and none presented to refute it. Tvoz |talk 18:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The court ruling is a significant viewpoint. This significant viewpoint can be backed up by reliable sources. You are right to say that there are no governmental authorities that license journalists however this statement is misleading as there are also no non governmental authorities that license journalists. Any mention of Josh's profession is a point of view and if a significant point of view exists claiming he is not a journalist, it must be included. -- Pdelongchamp 19:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You say: The court ruling is a significant viewpoint. This significant viewpoint can be backed up by reliable sources. But you haven't done so, as compared to all of those sources mentioned here who support his identification as a journalist. You also don't have it quite right regarding other authorities: journalists are not licensed in this country, but there are professional organizations who determine, say, if a person fits their requirements for membership. I do not know what organizations Wolf is a member of but I do know that the Society of Professional Journalists, as has been said repeatedly, for one, has given Wolf an award called "Journalist of the Year". It is not likely they would give such an award to someone they did not believe was a journalist. Nor would prominent newspapers and well-known journalists give him that designation - include him in their ranks - if they believed that a court had more knowledge of what a journalist is than their own professional organizations and colleagues. Please, instead of continuing to claim that it's POV to state a person's profession, backed up by many sources who also claim that is his profession, would you give us some backing for your POV on this? And perhaps we should see what comments we get.Tvoz |talk 19:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If no one disagrees that the court ruling is a significant viewpoint, I'll make the change. Keep in mind that I'm still open to rewording it but all significant viewpoints must be included. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-kaus/huffpo-scoop-ninth-circ_b_29119.html -- Pdelongchamp 20:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The viewpoint already is included in the text. That doesn't preclude us from correctly describing him as a journalist. FCYTravis 20:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[outdent] First, I don't understand what this means If no one disagrees that the court ruling is a significant viewpoint, I'll make the change. Both FCYTravis and I disagree with your position that this should be in the lede. No one has commented in agreement with you as of yet in fact. So please do not make the change, if I am understanding you correctly. Second, I think you aren't understanding what "backed up by reliable sources" means. The Huffington Post piece merely reports that the court was going to make that ruling. It is not an independent source that argues that the court's determination was valid - no one is questioning whether the court ruled that way. That's why it is discussed in the article. But you are trying to insert it where it does not belong - and I've asked you to provide some other reliable sourcing that supports that he is not a journalist and you have failed to do so. Many sources consider him a journalist; so far you haven't provided anything beyond the court's ruling to say he is not. It's not POV as it stands now. Tvoz |talk 20:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The mainstream viewpoint is that Josh Wolf is a journalist, as demonstrated by a wide array of reliable sources from across the spectrum of politics, media and academia. The court's viewpoint, that Mr. Wolf is not a journalist, is a minority viewpoint. NPOV requires us to mention all significant minority viewpoints. NPOV does not require us to give minority viewpoints the same credence or importance as majority viewpoints. It does not require that we say that "Neil Armstrong and NASA claim that he is an astronaut, but Joe Billy Bob and the Conspiracy Theory Radio Hour dispute this, asserting that Armstrong was actually racing sprint cars in Knoxville, Iowa at the time." FCYTravis 20:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, this the headline - the title - of the Huffington Post piece that pdelongchamp posted above, presumably posted to support the view that Wolf is not a journalist: "HuffPo Scoop: Ninth Circuit Rules That Freelance Journalist Josh Wolf Must Comply With Federal Subpoena". Emphasis mine. I rest my case. Tvoz |talk 21:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Tvoz, Sorry, no. The link wasn't posted to support the view that Wolf is not a journalist. The discussion is regarding the significance of the court's viewpoint. Pdelongchamp 21:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sorry if I misunderstood you - the post didn't make that clear. Tvoz |talk 21:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

FCYTravis, I want to thank you for responding to my concerns over significant viewpoints. You're right about about undue weight. So the issue is whether the court's viewpoint is significant enough that it merits mention in the lead along with the viewpoint that Josh is a journalist. If other (independent) editors disagree with me than I'm totally willing to step down because I'll know that we have achieved a NPOV. Personally, I feel that, because the court case itself is the only assertion of notability for Josh, the court's viewpoint does deserve mention in the lead if Josh's opinion is mentioned. I also feel that on it's own (ignoring that it asserts Josh notability) the court's viewpoint is also very significant. Like I said, i know I might be wrong so I'm looking forward to getting some comments from the RfC. Thanks for your response. -- Pdelongchamp 21:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment If he self-identifies as a journalist, and if he regularly publishes the information that he collects, I see no problem with calling him a journalist in the lede. I am not familiar with his work, so I don't know if "regularly" applies here or not. My understanding of the case is that the court didn't determine whether or not he was a journalist, just whether or not the press shield law applies to him. Regardless, journalism isn't a licensed profession in the United States, so I baulk at relying on a court ruling to determine whether or not someone is a journalist. Cmprince 22:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment I think calling him a "freelance journalist" in the lede, as the article now does, is a good compromise. Freelance, to me, implies self-styled, while not denying that he is really a journalist. However, the article as it is now omits the court's claim that he is not the type of journalist covered by the press shield law, which I think is a significant part of the case; the court's POV should be more completely represented somewhere in the article. —David Eppstein 15:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment the description "an American video blogger, freelance journalist and filmmaker" is fine with me. Obviously it should be mentioned that the court ruled that he is ineligible for shield law protection, but has been stated over and over, the State/court does not decide who is a journalist, just who is protected. "Journalist of the year" is a significant award enough for me to call him a journalist. Murderbike 17:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Just because sheild laws might not apply here does not mean he is not a journalist. By definition he is a journalist and I can’t see how calling him that is even close to violating WP:NPOV or any other policy. According to Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary: Journalist 1 a : a person engaged in journalism; especially : a writer or editor for a news medium b : a writer who aims at a mass audience.[2] —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 22:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Based on the above outside opinions, the text we have in the lede, with Wolf identified as a freelance journalist, is not seen as POV, so I am removing the NPOV tag. Tvoz |talk 20:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

woo

WELCOME TO USA (UNITED SATAN'S ARMY) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.234.103 (talk) 06:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)