Talk:Andy Martin

Changes

I made a few edits to help the article conform to WP:BLP standards. No important information was removed. Redddogg (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I added the wolf pack line because somebody deleted it, it's part of the quote of "feeling less sorry for the Holocaust" and i believe that he should be quoted in full context. The reference is attached. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.151.36.208 (talk) 05:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

More is needed about his role in the anti-Obama smears

Somebody ought to include some of the information from today's NYTimes' article about him, such as the recent Fox News special about (that is, against) Obama:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/us/politics/13martin.html?scp=1&sq=andy%20martin&st=cse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.101.64 (talk) 10:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I added the FNC program. JamesMLane t c 21:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I added info from the NYT article on The Obama Nation.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced claim

Early this morning someone added the claim that A. Martin is the brother of Politico's Jonathan Martin. I happen to know JMart, who brought this to my attention a few minutes ago; he says this is not true and indeed, there seems to be about a 30-year difference in ages between the two of them. I have removed the claim, and in the extremely unlikely circumstance that someone produces evidence to the contrary, well, I'd sure be interested to see it. WWB (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Latest political stunt by Andy Martin

I just added the info about the lawsuit against the state of Hawaii by good ole' Andy Martin.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

---

== CRAPPY CRAP shame on you "posters".... wiki must have been taken over! This article wreaks of biased viewpoint with no accountability or effort to correct it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.134.197 (talk) 02:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

---

guys, let's TRY to be a little fair and balanced here, ok? Rutenberg is clearly and obviously pro-Obama, not objective, and if he is going to be the source for things in this article, they should be ACCURATE. Andy Martin does NOT state as FACT in Hannity's America that "Obama was training to overthrow the government" as stated by Rutenberg. Martin states his OPINION, by prefacing his comments with "I think..." I added a source to the YouTube video where anyone can hear his words. Furthermore, "widely discredited" when used to describe Corsi's books are WEASEL WORDS...if we're going to describe the book is "widely discredited" then to be fair we should cite some actual discrediting by reputable...um..."discrediters." There have been many positive reviews of this book, it is the number one book on the NY Times best seller list, and the books is heavily sourced with easily checked cites. the pro-Obama slant to this wiki article is obvious, and needs a little balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.77.151.199 (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC) "the pro-Obama slant to this wiki article is obvious, and needs a little balance. " I agree. Shall we vote now? Kingphilip2 (talk) 05:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Pro-Barack Hussein Obama Bias

This whole article seems to be a smear attempt at Andy Martin. Need an example?.. Why is the title "U.S. politician" instead of "Internet writer/columnist/investigative journalist" ? Why was "Factcheck.org has seen and handled the actual birth certificate, and determined it to be genuine, including the requisite raised seal." removed? Is it because I posted this:

"Factcheck.org has seen and handled the actual birth certificate, and determined it to be genuine, including the requisite raised seal."

(The rest of the article was posted by yours truly.)

William Ayers and Barack Obama both served as co-chairs of the Chicago Annenburg Challenge. Obama called for an $3.5 million dollar earmark for the Annenburg Foundation that sponsors FactCheck.org. Several FactCheck articles have been viewed as promoting the Obama campaign line instead of truly acting as a fact checkers. The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was chaired by Barack Obama from 1995 to 1999.

Copyright © 2003 - 2008 Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania FactCheck.org's staff, not the Annenberg Center, is responsible for this material.

Barack Hussein Obama was also sued by Philip J. Berg, Esquire in Berg v. Obama. (Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 10/21/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama's lack of "qualifications" to serve as President of the United States, announced today that Obama and tbe DNC "ADMITTED", by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit. Obama is "NOT QUALIFIED" to be President and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President and the DNC shall substitute a qualified candidate. The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.

[1]

Obama & DNC Admit All Allegations of Federal Court Lawsuit - Obama's "Not" Qualified to be President Obama Should Immediately Withdraw his Candidacy for President

Why was the above removed from the history of edits as well?Kingphilip2 (talk) 05:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't the one who removed your material, but my first guess would be it was removed because it has nothing to do with Andy Martin, and this is Andy Martin's page, not Obama's or a page about Obama or the DNC. Everything you've brought up here is rather irrelevant, as it is not directly connected to anything about Andy Martin.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

At the time it was posted, the "Suit against the state of Hawaii" section concluded with; "Factcheck.org has seen and handled the actual birth certificate, and determined it to be genuine, including the requisite raised seal." I felt that, "William Ayers and Barack Obama both served as co-chairs of the Chicago Annenburg Challenge. Obama called for an $3.5 million dollar earmark for the Annenburg Foundation that sponsors FactCheck.org." shows that Factcheck.org is not a RS in this particular case.Kingphilip2 (talk) 06:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That's all fine and dandy, but what about all the other stuff you've listed here? It doesn't seem to have anything to do with Andy Martin.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Citing Youtube

Please, for the anonymous IP address you cited a Youtube video, don't do that again. Cite a credible news organization.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Find us a "credible news organization"...71.171.19.102 (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, Andy Martin

Suffice it to say that I find his lawsuits to be pretty entertaining. :-) 204.52.215.107 (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Notable for one event

This gentleman may have filed many frivilous lawsuits and made many unsuccessful attempts at office, but his only claim to notability is his allegations about Obama. Wikipedia should discuss those allegations (while briefly noting that the person making them holds fringe opinions), not the person who makes them, under biography of one event. Andjam (talk) 09:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This is so if you do not consider his 1996 Florida campaign a notable event.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider it notable. Assaults are not a claim of notability in the vast majority of cases. Andjam (talk) 08:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Right, but this isn't just an assault propagated by some random thug or car burglar; it's one committed by a man who made a serious run for a state senate seat. Perhaps you are right though; if he had never made any allegations about Obama and become well-known in that regard, his anti-Semitic remarks and the fact that he simply made an assault does seem rather trivial for a Wiki article.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ugh

"Obama is formerly a member of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, a Black Liberation Theology ("BLT") church inspired by BLT founder, James Hal Cone, who has repeatedly stated that BLT is a fusion between the teachings of the Nation of Islam and so-called Black Christianity."

Besides being blatantly POV ("so-called Black Christianity"?!?) this is a tangential statement that doesn't really belong in an article about Andy Martin. It's also offensive because it implies that black Christians are not really Christian, which is exactly the same thing that the KKK, the White Citizens Council, Christian Identity, Kinists, and their racist ilk were and are still saying. In any event, like I said, there's no relevance to an article about Andy Martin.

I'm removing it, and please don't re-add it. This is Wikipedia, not Wikkkipedia. -Mason —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.99.104.234 (talk) 12:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Jesus

This guy sounds like a complete idiot. Are there really still some Americans who vote for someone like this? Thank god that the majority of Americans now seem to want intelligent leaders rather than dickheads but I am a bit confused. Such racist people would not be allowed to hold office in many European countries. Is this yet another example of the 'American free speech'? --217.202.9.238 (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand your sentiments, but this is not a blog for your opinions, this is a talk page for discussing how to improve Andy Martin's page. Quite frankly, for a person who is not very notable, Martin's page does not need any further expansions.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

Someone added neutrality tags to the article recently, yet did not follow up with the necessary argument or justification for them here on the talk page. Care to explain the new tags? The first tag says not to remove it until the dispute is resolved: exactly what dispute is being made? I will remove the tags in a week's time if this isn't properly addressed here on the talk page.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It's been four days already; I'm starting to think the person who added those tags isn't taking them very seriously.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

My own opinion is that this article is currently written about as neutrally as possible, given the remarkable collection of verified facts about its subject.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's assume good faith here for now, and wait three more days (a full week's time since the 20th) to let this person state their case. I honestly don't think the person understands what the essential follow-up is when adding a neutrality tag, otherwise they would have immediately come here to the talk page.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability

Martin is notable enough. He had a Wikipedia article earlier, which was deleted, and then he was on Hannity & Colmes as an 'independent expert' on Obama. The man is a nutcase, and if he's notable enough to get this sort of national exposure then he's notable enough to get a Wikipedia article to describe him factually. I realize some Wikipedians would like to delete every article about an anti-Semite, but I don't think that's actually helpful. Flatterworld (talk) 03:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There's plenty of mainstream media coverage of this guy, and not just for the citizenship case.--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The deletion log does not list the article being deleted at any stage. Can you please point to where it was deleted? With regards to media coverage, he has received some, but by way of comparison, a 2008 news archive search for Andy Martin Obama got about 117 results, whereas a news archive search for Corey Delaney party (an individual who is a mere redirect on BLP1E grounds) gets 1380 results. And no, I'm not seeking to delete him on the basis of his political views. I'd never seek to delete Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for example, because he's notable. Martin is notable only for his claims about Obama (he's not succeeded in doing anything else notable), which makes him a BLP1E. Andjam (talk) 12:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That assumes that he's most famous for his Obama conspiracy theories. A search for "Anthony Robert Martin-Trigona" returns sixty-plus items on his vexatious litigation from the 70s/80s, and of course Web searches aren't going to pick up on a fraction of those from that period (enscribed on those awkward dead trees). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of his vexatious litigation, but I've argued on this talk page that it isn't a claim to notability. Do you wish to explain why you think his vexatious litigation is notable? Andjam (talk) 13:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Mainly because it wasn't "one event", as implied in the section you started. That's rather like suggesting that John Dillinger isn't notable because robbing banks is "one event". It was a several-year-long episode covered by multiple reliable sources. That he has also received coverage for other completely unrelated events like the Obama theories suggests that there is sufficient material covering a broad enough period of his life that a biography can be constructed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

"Cover the event, not the person" wouldn't work well for Dillinger. Which "it" are you referring to with "Mainly because it wasn't "one event", as implied in the section you started."? Andjam (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The vexatious litigation in question was not one lawsuit, or even one series of related lawsuits; it was hundreds of different suits filed against different parties for different reasons over the course of several years. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

So far you've argued that if his (non-Obama related) litigation is notable, then it should be in this article. Can you please now explain why his vexatious litigation is notable? Thanks, Andjam (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Multiple instances of direct, non-trivial coverage by secondary sources. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the hits for the search you provided seem to be primary sources, rather than non-trivial coverage by secondary sources. Andjam (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I really should go through these properly and add them to the article, but over the first two pages of results there are already three instances of secondary coverage by the Chicago Tribune - one of which labels hism as "a political gadfly and frequent candidate". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why you think primary sources are unacceptable. I suggest you review WP:RS. Dlabtot (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed "blantly"

My edit summary wasn't really accurate. Its not that "we get it", its more that its subjective how "blantly" his actions were, even though they appear to be pretty blatant :) Anyways, --Tom 18:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Allegations against Chuck Robb

Here is the link to the article: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=-wwOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=9HsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3820,2847783&dq=anthony+martin+trigona —Preceding I admit that I have difficulty with creating footnotes in Wiki, so if someone else feels like doing the honors, I would not be offended. unsigned comment added by 165.97.69.26 (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Lawsuit

According to his press release, Mr. Martin has sued Wikimedia over the content of this article. Dragons flight (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikimedia foundation has not yet been formally served, and this should probably not go into the article until there is wider coverage than a press release from the subject of this article. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 07:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems to already be in , but I don't see why not, we have two citations and it was his announcement after all? well. we have the press release and the Huffington post. Off2riorob (talk) 09:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want the direct citation, it can be found here: [1] (This is his actual blog, I linked to it from his campaign site) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Ta for that, its worth a read, he is saying... a hearing on January 8, 2010 on his Motion for a Preliminary Injunction Off2riorob (talk) 19:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Running for office

I'm pretty sure he's running for office in some republican primary. Why isn't it mentioned in the article? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

www.BoycottHawaii.com

Should we mention this website, run by Martin? I think it is extraordinary for an American to try to cause divisions in the union like that. But what would I know? I'm British. Maybe it happens all the time. Yaris678 (talk) 10:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

IMO no, it looks like the obama birth certificate story and the site just seems to be for collecting donations and selling a book. Off2riorob (talk) 11:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

So you don't think it extraordinary for an American to ask his fellow American's to boycott one of the 50 states? Yaris678 (talk) 13:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Amongst this gentleman's career not really, it seems to be a side issue as regards the obama story. Has it been widely reported in reliable sources? Off2riorob (talk) 13:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess you are right. I just did a Google search and it came up with other people boycotting Hawaii! And not much about Martin. I guess it's not that notable. Yaris678 (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

@Yaris: It does happen all the time. For example, a few years back, African-American leaders called for a boycott of South Carolina in protest of the Confederate battle flag flying over the state capitol. There is nothing wrong with citizens calling for a boycott of a state. This guy is just insane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.97.69.11 (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material

Rather than just removing sourced material, read what it says. My addition noted a quote from the Chairman of the Illinois Republican Party concerning Martin's ad. It had nothing to do with any claims made in the ad and the quote itself is not controversial. Please do not remove sourced material without the discussion you yourself asked for.Shsilver (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, having a citation does not make it non controversial, it is tittilating sexual specualation and not very encyclopedic, imo. Off2riorob (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If you read what is said in the current version (unless you've reverted it), you'll find that it simply mentioned the accusation Martin makes in a non-tittilating manner, and notes the response the state party has to Martin's ads. Where do you see the controversy? In Martin's accusations (yes those are controversial)? In the party's response (which is simply a quote from the party chair)? Be more specific in your objections. And generally removing the statements a citation refers to without removing the citation is considered akin to vandalism.Shsilver (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

ec. - Your comment is also unclear..you have added this.. After Martin ran ads questioning the sexual orientation of Mark Kirk, the way you have worded this gives weight to the assumption that Martin ran specific adds for this questioning of this persons sexual preference and as far as I know this was actually just a small part of the add. Off2riorob (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

A quote from the ad in question: "Illinois Republican leader Jack Roeser says there is a 'solid rumor that Kirk is a homosexual.' Roeser suggests that Kirk is part of a Republican Party homosexual club. Lake County Illinois Republican leader Ray True says Kirk has surrounded himself with homosexuals. Mark Kirk should tell Republican voters the truth." Shsilver (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

ec It is not also the parties response it is a single persons comment, can the comment not be added in a more neutral way? Perhaps putting Martins position and not just the negativity. Personally imo the sexual comments about someone else are of no value here in this encyclopedia. Off2riorob (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

When the person speaking is the Chairman of the party, they are speaking officially for the party. If you want, we can include that above quote from the ad to specify Martin's position, although I feel that to do so adds to the titillation that you are arguing against.Shsilver (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Also the inclusion of the whole comment from brady is imo a bit excessive and should not be included, especially this bit... His statements today are consistent with his history of bizarre behavior and often times hate-filled speech is excessive and adds nothing of value except to denigrate the subject of this article who might add is in some kind of legal issue with the wikipedia at the moment. Additions like this add nothing of encyclopedic value and are simply partisan attacks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you object to the quote from brady being removed, it is a bit opinionated and excessive. Off2riorob (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• From this...the Illinois Republican Party Chairman Patrick Brady announced that "The Illinois Republican Party disavows the statements made today by Mr. Andrew Martin in his statewide radio advertisements. His statements today are consistent with his history of bizarre behavior and often times hate-filled speech which has no place in the Illinois Republican Party. Mr. Martin will no longer be recognized as a legitimate Republican candidate by the Illinois Republican Party.

• To this...the Illinois Republican Party Chairman Patrick Brady announced that "The Illinois Republican Party disavows the statements made today by Mr. Andrew Martin in his statewide radio advertisements" and that "Mr. Martin will no longer be recognized as a legitimate Republican candidate by the Illinois Republican Party".Off2riorob (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the bit that imo is a bit excessive and better left out of the article His statements today are consistent with his history of bizarre behavior and often times hate-filled speech although of course it will be in the citation. Off2riorob (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I can live with it, although I would suggest (and I'm making the change) that an ellipses be used to specifically show something was left out, which, I think is a more accurate representation of his comments. Shsilver (talk) 01:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Why were my edits reverted? [2] I see absolutely nothing wrong with quoting a news source directly and the current paragraph does not accurately say what the cited source says. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, your alteration seems to be a bit excessive, the titillating details would sit well in a gossip column but all of this actually is about rumor and gossip, all of which isn't worth really adding, so the excessive comments and quotes are better imo left out and what s left is about as encyclopedic as we can get the comment, another editor Shsilver did support this position on my talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 12:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't find it titillating myself, I just think it's more informative of what actually happened. Making what basically amounts to a homophobic attack on a political opponent (who may not even be gay) is a bit more than simply asking someone to clarify their sexuality. :-/ Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a big issue, just its a bit excessive for encyclopedic content and the trimmed down version is plenty, it is just a political campaign that gets dirty but there is no need for us to report every minute detail here, we comment and then link to the gory details, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 01:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, well anyway, the grammar and punctuation in the paragraph was not right, so I fixed that. Also Roeser isn't really a "leader", Martin just called him that, so I removed that word from the description of Roeser. Finally, I moved the sun times cite up so it references the third sentence, as well as including it where it originally was. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, your edits and your discussion are appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The Illinois primary will be conducted on February 1, 2010

The Illinois primary will be conducted on February 2, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcl444 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Date corrected, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Updates

Are there any updates on the election results and the threatened legal lawsuit against the wikipedia? Off2riorob (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

heres the election results, five percent, this could be added. Off2riorob (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Vexed

My edit summary was truncated due to my poor typing. "vexatious litigant" has been part of the lead to this article for years, because its what this individual is primarily known for, along with "perennial candidate". There is a whole bloody section about itAndy_Martin_(American_politician)#Vexatious_litigation_and_anti-Semitic_remarks and unless Rob wants to delete that whole well sourced and established section, or rewrite the MoS so that the lead is not a summary of the article, I suggest he stop blind reverting and re-whitewashing the article. Not an NPOV problem, as Uncle Milty succinctly put it[3] Respectfully, KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yea, its gone there was a fraca about it and a complaint and the article was cleaned of such issues. Please don't just put it back in again, there was a thread at the BLPN and a dagree of support for the tidy version and the article has been stable for some time, perhaps you missed it as you don't seem to have been very involved here recently. Off2riorob (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Since when is a whitewashed version called a "tidy" version? I guess I'll just go remove "murderer" from Gacy's article lead too, eh? Please provide a link to the BLP discussion; I'm presuming you're citing that as when consensus supposedly changed to remove a whole section from the article from being mentioned at all in the lead? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Please tell me you're not referring to this, where consensus was clear that he is a vexatious litigant, and one person suggested, with no support, that we "might consider" taking that out of the lead, as somehow being a change of consensus??? You must have something more, please link it here. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That looks like the primary reason, yes, from three months ago. This situation has been pretty much stable since then you are the first person who basically wants to revert the article back to the state it was in then, which basically in my personal opinion was a bit of an attack article. Insisting on calling him in the lead a vex lit is imo a bit much. You are welcome to open a RFC if you like and see what people think about it, me I don't mind about him either way, I removed what I considered to be excessive POV. IMO the article as it stands now is fine a lot better than what you edited to today, but as I said, I am a neutral about him. Off2riorob (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I did say it might be considered, but given that the term appears to be technical (you get declared one by the courts of a locality, not just an opinion writer in the local rag) and given that the term appears to be, as Chihuahua says, a large part of what he is known for, I think leaving it in makes sense. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Precisely - he's been declared such by the courts; its his primary claim to fame; taking it out is not indicated by any argument put forth. Rob is merely whitewashing, and has no support for so doing. That no one noticed he'd done so for several months is not rationale for keeping his unsupported and non-consensus edits - Seigenthaler was missed for four months, after all. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop stuffing it back in, the article has been stable without it for three months, if you want to readd it then ask for a RFC and we can get more community comments. 13:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

See my comparison to Seigenthaler, above. You obtained no support for this whitewash before you implemented it; I am sorry it was missed for three months that you'd done so, but I have corrected the error now. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

This is what the individual is known for yes? So why wouldn't we put it in the lead? I have to agree pretty strongly with the deadly puppy here. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

disputed

[4] Explain how this well sourced content, which only Rob wants to remove, is "disputed" - it was the finding of a federal judge! Please provide a source that the judge was wrong. Explain how this is not the article subject's main claim to fame. Please do not resort to your pathetic "I changed it three months ago and no one changed it back until you" argument, it is worthless. That no one noticed your whitewash/rewrite is a pity, but does not change the facts. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Please try and stay civil, and stop refering to my editing in such a derogatory manner, please assume good faith. Just open an RFC to allow the community to choose which version is preferable, me I feel that the version you support is excessively pov in a negative way, and was the subject of complaints from the subject, I have simply taken a bit of the excessive weight out of it, the fact that a mijnor court judge refered to him as vex is not a reason for us to obsessively assert that about him in the infobox and lede. Off2riorob (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course the subject complained; he's a vexatious litigant. Do you know what that means? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, it means that's what they do: complain a lot in a legal fashion. Findings of US federal judges are of course reliable sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Just start a RFC and get it over with. Off2riorob (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't be absurd; I am not your secretary and don't do your bidding. You have failed to explain why you think something well cited, a finding by a federal judge, is "disputed". You're the only one who desires this change. You are the only one who wants an Rfc. All I want is a sensible answer from you. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)