Talk:Peter Yarrow

Male or female fan?

It should be cleared up whether it was a male or female fan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.152.248.191 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Viet Nam

I don't know if this will get to Peter who claims to be a liberal and anti war and a Democrat. Please note Peter, the Viet Nam was was started by a Dem president, John F. Kennedy and expanded by Dem president LB Johnson. President Nixon brought the war to an end and also started talks with China which brought China out of war status to now a business trading partner with the U.S. Also credit is due to Henry Kissinger, of Jewish heritage. Please note that Viet Nam never bombed the U.S. as the radical Islamics have done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.199.60.15 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

As to the above comment about the inherent contradiction the poster saw between Peter Yarrow's Democratic and liberal allegiances and his opposition to the Vietnam war:

It may, perhaps, not have occurred to the poster that many liberals, along with radicals and leftists, opposed the Vietnam War, even though it was escalated by Democratic presidents, because they saw it as a threat to the continuation of liberal social programs, liberal and progressive values, and the physical survival of people of color and working-class whites, groups liberals have traditionally felt obligated to defend. Ken Burch . + . 10:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Conviction/pardon

Any reason why this was removed? -Will Beback · † · 07:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sex Case

This needs to be "truthified". He was convicted for sex with a 14 year old girl not "advances". Furthermore, if the conviction was on state charges the President had no power to pardon him. Not worth my time to do the research but someone should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John celona (talk • contribs) 12:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

All the facts are pretty much as stated in the article. His actions stopped short of intercourse and the actual charges were "immoral and improper liberties" as stated. And the constitution gives the president full power to pardon anyone convicted of just about any crime. Carter pardoned Yarrow in 1981. There are plenty of references that back up these facts. Gr8white 01:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

One more time

An editor deleted this material:

• In 1970, Yarrow was convicted of taking "improper liberties" with a 14-year old girl and later served three months in prison. He was pardoned by President Jimmy Carter in 1981.(ref)"Jet fighter, 'Jet Plane' singer forged a bond", lex Roth, San Diego Union-Tribune, March 3, 2006(/re)(ref)"Howard Dean or anybody but?" by Tim Grieve, Salon, Jan 28, 2005 .It was a reference to Peter Yarrow of Peter, Paul & Mary, who pled guilty in 1970 to taking "immoral and indecent liberties" with a 14-year-old fan and was pardoned for the crime by Jimmy Carter in 1981.(/ref)

With the edit summary:

• salon.com is not a reliable source AND undue weight (as discussed in noticeboard) [1]

There are numerous sources available, but Salon is considered reliable. Thre's no agreement on the BLP/N, but everyone on that noticeboard except one person seems to think the material belongs. I note that the editor who's removed this repeatedly has made no effort to add material to this or any other article, and has only deleted material or complained. That isn't constructive. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I am the editor who made the cuts in the interest of BLP policy. Another editor has repeatedly sought to include a poorly sourced negative incident, despite requests from admins NOT to include poorly sourced material. My goal is to contribute in a variety of ways, and I will be happy to expand this article in time; but for now, I am trying to contribute by preventing BLP violations. According to BLP policy, any poorly sourced negative item needs to be IMMEDIATELY removed. The other editor seems to be less concerned about the fairness to the subject in terms of having a fully balanced article w/o a one-time negative incident sticking out. I am ok with seeing the controversial material back AFTER the article is expanded to the point where there is not undue weight. Sorry, Will Beback, but one token sentence doesn't do the trick. Let's really expand this article properly, and then perhaps add the negative content that you are determined to see in the bio.. --Jkp212 (talk) 07:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The material is well-sourced, but I'm willing to find another dozen sources. What are the names of the admins who request that this material should be removed? I haven't seen any such comments. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[2] <-- another source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This dispute is absurd. Jkp212, you have claimed a WP:BLP violation at WP:BLPN, where not a single editor agreed with you. You have claimed a WP:WEIGHT violation, in response to which Will Beback has shortened the mention of the incident. You then stated that any mention of the incident in an article of this length would be giving it undue weight, which is insupportable (and, by coincidence, not supported by any other editors who have weighed in). Your point is well-taken, but consensus is very clearly against you. By all means expand the article, but there is no requirement that this incident be left out until you do. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

And now you've reverted my edit, claiming that this matter is "going to arb". Could you explain that remark? As for the consensus that you claim doesn't exist, since you brought this to WP:BLPN, three hitherto uninvolved editors - myself, User:Aleta, and User:Jmabel - have weighed in on the subject, each favouring the material's continued inclusion. That looks an awful lot like consensus to me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The BLP concerns that I have for the article will be discussed further in a dispute resolution forum. User User:Jmabel did not favor the material's inclusion. He/she was trying to emphasize that IF if is to be included, it must be properly sourced which, he/she pointed out ,it was NOT. Other users have favored additional information, which I agree with.. User Will Beback has an edit history which seems curiously POV, in terms of wanting to have people with sexual offenses "OUTED", so to speak. That seems to be his goal, rather than the betterment of the article. Regardless, I believe (and wiki policy states) that when in doubt, better to do no harm to the living subject.. --Jkp212 (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Jmabel wrote:

• I rarely participate in these discussions, but the claim that any mention at all constitutes undue weight strikes me as sophistry. [3]

You summarize that as:

• User User:Jmabel did not favor the material's inclusion. He/she was trying to emphasize that IF if is to be included, it must be properly sourced which, he/she pointed out ,it was NOT.

Are we looking at the same statement? I don't see how you can make that summary from his assertion. I haven't seen a single editor favor removing properly-sourced information solely because of weight concerns. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant DOC, who said: "Some of the material removed (not all) was entirely unsourced. It certainly must not be replaced unless it is." --Jkp212 (talk) 04:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, but even then his concern is solely about sourcing, not weight. If I understand you corrently you believe that no matter whow well sourced the material is it should still be omitted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting that those pushing inclusion don't seem to have cared whether or not the incident was properly sourced. And NO, for the 50th time, I do not believe the material needs to be omitted, without exception. I believe that a brief mention can be included AFTER the article is considerably longer an undue weight is no longer as much of a concern. --Jkp212 (talk) 05:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no question that the incident happened, and dozens of sources are available. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It just seems unfortunate that with a negative incident such as this, it remained poorly sourced for so long, and those promoting inclusion didn't seem to care about the quality of the sources. --Jkp212 (talk) 05:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Some of the material about the trespassing incident and the radio show was unsourced or poorly sourced, and that stuff is no great loss. The guitar incident is another odd item that seems trivial. There was no problem with the sourcing of the "improper liberties" incident. The original source that you deleted was this: "Case of Peter Yarrow", a page of clippings on the The Awareness Center. While the TAC apparently has a controversial director, the clippings themselves are from reliable sources and appear to be accurately copied. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the conviction, the pardon itself is noteworthy. It has been included in a list of the 26 most notable presidential pardons in U.S. history from Washignton through G.H.W. Bush.[4] And it's included amoing the even fewer examples in this article: [5]. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I appear to have been (probably in good faith) misunderstood by one of the participants above. Yes, I believe this belongs in the article. - Jmabel | Talk 20:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Conviction and Clemency

Can the subject's conviction 37 years ago of taking "improper liberties" with a 14-year old girl, and his presidential pardon 10 years later, be mentioned briefly in the bio or does any mention of the matter violate the WP:NPOV provision about undue weight? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This incident is worthy of mention no matter how short the bio is. The sentence should be included, but the incident shouldn't be dwelled upon. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It is important to note that this was a one-time incident for the subject with a groupie fan, and he did serve 3 months in prison; however, the pardon was one of hundreds that happen so that the individual would not be labeled a "sex convict." Mr. Yarrow has had a long and distinguished career, has done a lot of charity work, and has never had anything like this one incident occur again since the 37 years ago that it happened. There is a POV editor (whose previous edits show a pattern of trying to "out" those accused of what he perceives as sexual offenses) who seems to be promoting an attack blog which "outs" jewish people who have had these types of accusations (The Awareness Center).. Here is a recent attack piece creation of that editor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Lanner -- and sure enough, the link there is to the awareness center, the attack blog he is promoting. He is trying to include the material, and is not concerned with the betterment of the article, only that the one negative incident be included. I have no problem with a brief mention of the incident, but I believe that the article should be comprehensive enough for there not to be undue weight. Think of the merit of the argument above: "the incident is worthy of mention no matter how short the bio is. " That means that a living person who had one negative incident happen 37 years could have a BIO of his life where this one negative incident takes absolute precedence.. That is ridiculous, and clearly violates WIKI policy regarding BLP. What we need here is a thoughtful complete BIO of the subject, and if it is long enough where a brief mention of the negative incident doesn't have undue weight, then fine, mention it then. But only **AFTER** there is enough content to where it does not stick out. --Jkp212 (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I share User:Jkp212's concerns that biographies not become or drift into modern day "crusades" against subjects and I oppose User:Will Beback if he uses unrestrained attack methodology only. Noone must open up old wounds, rub salt into them and leave the subjects crippled. I fully agree with User:Sarcasticidealist that "This incident is worthy of mention no matter how short the bio is. The sentence should be included, but the incident shouldn't be dwelled upon." Amen! Now if that were the attitude of all editors there would not be pointless attack articles against anyone. Sure, celebrities, and people who function like them such as certain preachers, rabbis, recruiters, motivators, are easy targets because they are vulnerable to this, falling into these situations, which is an occupational hazard they face: All the adoration may go to their head, and indeed groupies follow them around and one thing leads to another and they do the wrong thing. The Bible talks about such things, the seduction of a vulnerable maiden and the consequences. So these things are part of the human equation, but they should not be blown out of proportion either, and certainly not used as the excuse as a "Jihad" to attack personalities. People are entitled to forgiveness. Note: Wikipedia is not a court of law, nor is it a sex offender registry and WP:LAWYERing should not be used to "justify" tarring and feathering people beyond what they have already had to face and endure. Peter Yarrow is not the Marquis de Sade, Wikipedia is not the supreme court and editors must not be executioners with a guillotine chopping heads off. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 12:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand the concerns expressed by both sides of the dispute; I do not think we cannot not mention this incident, but if we do, it cannot be more than a very, very short sentence in this very short article about this man. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your input.. When you say " I do not think we cannot not mention this incident" does that mean you think it's ok for the article to leave out the incident? I'm just a bit confused by the double negatives.. Thank you in advance for your clarification. --Jkp212 (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What I meant is that we have to mention it, but it should take more that a very, very short sentence; after all it is an incident that happen a long time ago, and not central to the notability of this person. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the most recent proposed version, which is cut down as a compromise, is:

• In 1970, Yarrow was convicted of taking "improper liberties" with a 14-year old girl and later served three months in prison. He was pardoned by President Jimmy Carter in 1981.

That's a short sentence on the original incident, and an even shorter sentence for the subsequent pardon, which is also notable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If we do mention it, I agree that it should be one short sentence, and even try to include Mr. Yarrow's position on the issue. Something like: "In 1970, Yarrow was convicted of taking "improper liberties" with an underage female fan that Yarrow said was a groupie." I believe that sentence is more than long enough, and it is not necessary to go into more detail. --Jkp212 (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there any question that the girl was a groupie? Could we just say "...improper liberties with a 14 year old groupie"? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds better: "In 1970, Yarrow was convicted of taking "improper liberties" with an underage groupie." --Jkp212 (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The judge in the case is reported to have reduced the incarcerated portion of the sentence to just three months because he agreed that the girl was a groupie seeking a sexual encounter. We also need to mention the pardon, which is independently notable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If we want to include the subject's position, we can restore the sentence that was there before:

The singer has acknowledged the incident as "the most terrible mistake I have ever made."

However that makes it long again. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that we need to mention the pardon. Quite frankly, it's not relevant or important; the pardon had nothing to do with Yarrow's short stint in custody. The pardon only served to clear his record... Many, many people are pardoned. I agree with the others that if the incident is mentioned it should be in one very very short sentence. --Jkp212 (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

See the above section. The Yarrow pardon is considered one of the most notable pardons in history by at least two separate sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Those sources are FAR from reliable sources -- they are blogs with personal opinions.. The incident being mentioned is more than enough. I agree with the others that say if it is mentioned, it should be a very very short sentence, like this:

• "In 1970, Yarrow was convicted of taking "improper liberties" with an underage groupie."

--Jkp212 (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Neither of those appears to be blogs. The pardon is often mentioned in reporting on Yarrow. To mention the conviction without mentioning the pardon puts the matter in a worse light than if we include the final disposition. We can still keep the material quite short. The pardon is much more notable than the fact the victim was a groupie, which is rarely reported. Better text would be:

• "In 1970, Yarrow was convicted of taking "improper liberties" with an underage groupie, and received a presidential pardon in 1981."

That's still very short but give s the whole story. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that mentioning the pardon puts in a better light. What is does is make it seem like a huge deal, which it's not. Let's keep it as a short sentence, as the others have suggested --Jkp212 (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Not having read the article (I found the discussion via a watchlisted user talk page) but going only on the discussion here, I think it is important to include the pardon, since it indicates that the issue got closure. If the facts are that he got pardoned, then state it. I would think that Presidential pardons are scarce enough to be worth mentioning in a recipient's article. —C.Fred (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Having now read the article, my first reaction is, why is an article about a person of his stature so short? I would have expected a much longer article about him. I still think the incident should be included in the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of verifiable facts, a conviction of that nature is an important conviction and an unusual one for a musician (I mean, if it were a drugs charge against a musician, that's not notable :) ). Accordingly, I favor leaving the conviction and pardon in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 23:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone asked on my talk page for me to comment. I think it is worth a brief mention. I am not sure "groupie" is relevant. I would probably say something like "In 1970, Yarrow was convicted of taking 'improper liberties' with an underage girl. He served three months of a three-year sentence [that's correct isn't it?], and received a presidential pardon in 1981." And, yes, fleshing out the article would be welcome. - Jmabel | Talk 06:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That sounds very sensible. I endorse that approach.--Doc^g 09:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

As do I (although I'm certainly open to minor changes here and there). Since there's a clear consensus in favour of including the information in some form, I've inserted User:Jmabel's version. If there's a need for further discussion, we can use that as a base. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The consensus was that there should be a very very short sentence if the incident is mentioned. As such, I modified to one sentence, which is not very very short, but as close as I could come up with. If someone else, can shorten it, then please do. --Jkp212 (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The version that Jmabel proposed seems sensible, short, and yet still complete. I've pasted that in. Thanks to everyone for reaching a consensus on this issue. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There was more of a consensus for a very very short sentence. If it is not a short sentence, then I will object (As the other editors have) to the undue weight, and it not being central to the subject's notability. --Jkp212 (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a short sentence, 26 words versus 17 words for the version you wrote. The version you wrote made it appear that he was pardoned without serving his sentence. You may object all you like, but please stop deleting sourced material or making the article more confusing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You are abusing your power as an admin by claiming consensus and trying to close a matter to your liking when there is clearly NOT consensus for the material you are including, which has been thought to be a BLP violation by several editors. Please stop your abuse of stature, and err on the side of not having a BLP violation, rather than doing everything possible to include negative content. Why not leave it out until the short sentence is truly agreed upon by the WP community? Why rush the way you have when there is NOT clearly a consensus? --Jkp212 (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not abusing anything. This is not a BLP issue. The incident is well-sourced and neutrally presented. There is a consensus (exceot for you) to include mention of the conviction and pardon. If you spent as much time impriving the article as you do fighting this material the article would be three times as long and the problem would be gone. Do you want to keep arguing or do you want to fix the problem by enlarging the article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It is most certainly a BLP issue. The subject is a living person. This is his bio. There has been a strong sentiment that if the incident is mentioned, it MUST be done so very carefully and sensitively. There is no reason to rush, and have potential BLP violations, when we have the time to work out a sentence that doesn't violate BLP. As Jossi said above:

"I understand the concerns expressed by both sides of the dispute; I do not think we cannot not mention this incident, but if we do, it cannot be more than a very, very short sentence in this very short article about this man"

Others, including myself, have concurred. Jimbo Wales recently wrote that people need to be more patient when it comes to including potentially problematic material. Why not honor that sentiment, and patiently discuss the issue? There is no damage in waiting, but there could be damage in rushing to include negative material. This discussion was just recently opened, and there are quite a few differing voices. Why wouldn't you give the discussion more time, and try to see a real consensus on the way the negative sentence is written? --Jkp212 (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Both the conviction and the pardon are notable and well-sourced. "Groupie" is a loaded term.

With appropriate footnotes, facts should be included, to read:

In 1970, Yarrow was convicted of taking "improper liberties" with a 14-year-old fan and served three months in jail. Yarrow has acknowledged the incident as "the most terrible mistake I have ever made." He received a pardon from President Jimmy Carter in 1981. David in DC (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think David's version lays out the facts in a reasonable manner. The material is easily sourced and should be included. Any concern about weight should be handled be expanding this article which is regrettably short now (and needs to be expanded regardless of this issue). It is not constructive to handle the weight issue by removing this notable information. Aleta (talk) 02:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That version is fine with me too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the other editors who feel it should be an extremely short sentence are correct. Even if the article is expanded, the above mention of the single incident 37 years ago is way too prominent, and the mention will definitely suffer from undue weight. Further, Yarrow's comment is taken way out of context, because while he might have felt the incident was a mistake that hurt him a great deal, he didn't feel that it was central to his life in any way. On the contrary, he felt that it was unfair to constantly mention it, for one incident does not make a man. Please suggest a wording of one sentence that mentions the incident, perhaps a variation on what is proposed below:

• "In 1970, Yarrow was convicted of taking "improper liberties" with an underage groupie."--Jkp212 (talk) 03:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't include the term nor the pardon, both of which are key details. Nor does it include the subject's comment on the matter, which gives his side of the matter. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

How can you say, in good faith, that the comment gives "his side of the matter?" That would be taking the comment way out of context, because while he might have felt the incident was a mistake that hurt him a great deal, he didn't feel that it was central to his life in any way. When one looks closely at what he said about the incident 37 years ago, one sees that he felt it was a "groupie" type of thing, and the judged agreed, which is why it makes sense to use the word groupie. Here is what Yarrow said: " In that time, it was common practice, unfortunately–– the whole groupie thing."--Jkp212 (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that perhaps the best way to handle this is to lengthen the article considerably and have a short section on this controversy which includes the word groupie. The longer the article the less significant the controversy becomes. I am a fan of Yarrows but I fail to see how failing to ask a groupie her age is such a big deal. I Google searched Yarrows name with the phrase (14 year old girl) and got over 800 hits. There is a lot of room for expansion on this article. The guy is pretty famous and I would not be surprised if he were the subject of a Biography or two : Albion moonlight (talk) 08:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I'm new. Is the pejorative term groupie a good idea here? I agree that a witch hunt is inappropriate, but we would be calling the 14 year-old victim a name which seems to make her out as a predator. Whether or not the incident was a "huge thing" should be left up to the reader, not re-lawyered 30 years later. Moreover, if there is debate somewhere about the nature or severity of the incident, perhaps those sources should be referenced in the article to achieve balance. -- It looks like WP:WEIGHT is a subset of WP:NPOV, and wordcount is just one aspect of WP:WEIGHT. So it is really being suggested here that the mention of his presidential pardon, etc is somehow POV. I think we need to keep our eye on the ball here. The information is accurate historically, notable and encyclopedic. If not for the short length of the article I would be for including the most comprehensive referenced version available, since Yarrow is a notable person. To be fair, the length should be the same as that devoted to his guitar being stolen, and as they are both notable legal issues they should be proximate in the article. Rather than shortening a Start-Class article merely to achieve a subjectively balanced wordcount (which arguably has little bearing on POV in this case) an editor who cares deeply about Mr. Yarrow and NPOV should add more to it, so that the sad but notable things that really happened (but they wish people didn't know about) are dwarfed by all the other great stuff he did. --Markelf (talk) 11:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

When one looks closely at Yarrow has said about the incident of 37 years ago, one sees that he felt it was a "groupie" type of thing, and the judged agreed, which is why it makes sense to use the word groupie. Here is what Yarrow said: " In that time, it was common practice, unfortunately–– the whole groupie thing." Also, noting that user Markelf above is a SPA. --Jkp212 (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• I, along with virtually everyone, agree with the competing interests here - undue weight on the one hand, and the inclusion of undeniably verified and relevant information on the other. I too favor a brief mention, and frankly am disappointed that a brief mention is not present in the article now. Would the concerns be addressed by language to the effect of "In 1981, Yarrow was granted clemency by Jimmy Carter for a conviction of a sexual offense that occurred in 1969." ? The facts are present in simple form, and to me, its the conviction and pardon that are notable more than the age of the minor involved. Also, according to sites I've seen, he was in fact granted clemency, rather than pardoned. Thoughts? Xymmax (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this sentence, near the end of the article: "In an effort to combat school violence, Yarrow started Operation Respect, which brings children in schools and camps a curriculum of tolerance and respect for each other's differences." makes the age of the victim relevant. Indecent Liberties with a 14 year old is qualitatively different than with an older child, notable, and relevant to his later work in schools and camps. David in DC (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with David that the age is significant. I also think Xymmax correct that it was clemency not a pardon, and we should get it correct if we mention it at all (which I of course think we should). Aleta (talk) 03:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think taking any mention at all out of the article while the RfC is still ongoing is quite cricket. Consensus seems to be gelling around the fact that some mention needs to be made. Deleting the whole thing while we're still talking about it strains the assumption of good faith. David in DC (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If we leave it in during discussion, it should be the most benign of the different versions. Otherwise, let's wait to get consensus. No need to rush the process. --Jkp212 (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone added "...which he later said was common among celebrity musicians and eager groupies of that era. " But that assertion isn't contained in either of the linked sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yarrow did say that, as well as the judge. I agree it should be sourced, which I'll do and add. --Jkp212 (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

(A) Underage is inadequate. It should say "14-year-old fan". See discussion above. (B) And his acknowledgement, in the source we're using, that it's the worst thing he ever did should be in, too. That's only fair to him. (C) The pardon or clemency from Carter should be in, too. Here's an academic cite that says it was clemency: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardons6.htm

The obsession with word-counting is misguided. This is sufficiently notable and sourced to be in here. It would not have UNDUE weight now. It would have appropriate weight. the judgement is made in the context of the articles content, not in a slavish devotion to X number of words or Y number of sentences. David in DC (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the reason that it makes more sense to work out the sentence in the talk page, once a consensus is reached, rather than go back and forth in the actual article. You wanted the mention of the incident in there; it now is. I think the consensus has pointed toward only having one short sentence about this incident (if we include it at all), considering that it took place so many years ago, and is not what makes the subject notable. If you a proposed version, please discuss it here first, before including it in the article. --Jkp212 (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That'd work if you were actually proposing text. You appear to be the only one who is opposing the slightly longer version, but you aren't working it out here either. I've restored the version that DDC wrote. Please propose alternatives here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There are others who have supported a short sentence for the sake of not violating undue weight. And others who have agreed to give context to the "groupie" nature of the incident, which both the judge and Yarrow commented on. With BLP, we are charged with doing no harm. It is not right to eagerly insert material that could cause harm, and violates WP policy. Here is my proposed version, which is the most recent edit that Aleta made to the article:

"In 1970, Yarrow was convicted of taking "improper liberties" with an underage fan, which he later said was common practice among celebrity musicians and eager groupies of that era."

That gives mention to the incident, and gives a bit of context to the fact that it was a "groupie" incident. It's much more balanced that the other proposed version. --Jkp212 (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

What's your source? Why doesn't it mention the person's age, or the clemency? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The source is the Baltimore Jewish Times, and it doesn't mention those details because they are not central to the article, and this incident is already problematic for undue weight, and any further elaboration on the "negative" side, would be wildly unbalanced. --Jkp212 (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a link or the Baltimore Jewish Times article you're citing? The age of the victim is important. If we don't mention it we could leave readers wondering whether the victim was 8, 10, or 12 years old. The short prison term served is another indication of the mildness of the crime, and the pardon is further evidence of the good will extended to the subject. Each serves to minimize the seriousness of the crime and so, while slightly lengthening the mention, these facts actually reduce the weight of the incident. Independently of that, the presidential pardon/clemency is notable in its own right. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning the prison term and other details does not reduce the weight of the incident. It just adds weight to the incident. However, if the reader is given context (that this was a common practice between celebs and groupies), then there is more balance. --Jkp212 (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

What's the date of publication or link to the material you want to add? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Baltimore Jewish Times - April 26, 2006--Jkp212 (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That article is 1268 words long, of which 251 are devoted to this incident. That's 20%. If we include Jmabel's proposed verion in this artilce it will be 344 words long, with 26 words devoted to the incident, or 7% of the whole article. Given those statistics I don't think Jambel's version represents undo weight. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Are those the parameters you use for judging appropriate weight for a biography? That article was not a biography of the man. Are you saying 7% of a man's full life biography should be devoted to one incident 37 years ago? It should be more like 1%. --Jkp212 (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be inappropriate to limit all events more than 30 years ago to 1% each. We don't say about the biography of Joan of Arc that, "gee, it all happened a long time ago, dos it really deserve mentioning?" As for the BJW artilce, it was a profile of Yarrow. Not a biography, but an overview of his life. Much of the subject'slife is covered in a separate article, Peter, Paul, and Mary, so if you combine that material with this then we devote far less then 7% to this one incident. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll

The purpose of this straw poll is to determine if there is a consensus in favor of adding this text, as written:

• In 1970, Yarrow was convicted of taking "improper liberties" with a 14-year-old fan. Yarrow has called that episode “the most terrible mistake I have ever made.” In 1981, he was granted clemency by President Carter.

Please respond by supporting or opposing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. This version is short and still includes the key elements: the conviction, the nature of the crime, the age of the victim, the comment by the subject, and the clemency. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

   Responding to Jmabel's point beloew I notice this version does not include the prison term and the time served, which it should also include. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

2. Support. I've typed at length above in the RfC comments. I stand by those. David in DC (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I believe that the other editors who feel it should be an extremely short sentence are correct. Even if the article is expanded, the "longer" mention of the single incident 37 years ago is way too prominent, and the mention will definitely suffer from undue weight. Further, Yarrow's comment about "terrible mistake" is taken way out of context, because while he might have felt the incident was a mistake that hurt him a great deal, he didn't feel that it was central to his life in any way. On the contrary, he felt that it was unfair to constantly mention it, for one incident from 37 years ago does not give much light on the totality of a person's life. However, the subject and others (including the judge in the case), have pointed out that the underage person was a groupie, and that this was a common practice in that era. So, in order to give context to the incident, the groupie nature should be mentioned as other editors above have suggested. --Jkp212 (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Kommentar

I don't actively oppose this - I think it is better than nothing - but (1) I don't see why the girl's age or the fact that she was a fan is relevant; (2) ditto for the quotation; (3) there is no mention here of sentence or the fact that he served time. I stand by my earlier suggestion "In 1970, Yarrow was convicted of taking 'improper liberties' with an underage girl. He served three months of a three-year sentence, and received a presidential pardon in 1981." I agree, however, that this is approximately the right amount of material; I think the differences fall within the range of normal editing. (In short, I support the spirit, but make no specific endorsement of this wording.) - Jmabel | Talk 20:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with Jmabel on this. The text In 1970, Yarrow was convicted of taking 'improper liberties' with an underage girl. He served three months of a three-year sentence, and received a presidential pardon in 1981. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a big difference, but I would agree with Jossi and Jmabel. "girl" is the way most sources refer to the incident, rather than "fan", there isn't a need to name the president, and unless we are trying to imply Yarrow has had a number of convictions or made a lot of similarly terrible mistakes that he has to choose between, I think the emotion in the quote can be safely assumed, so that can left out too. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

In the interstof achieving consensus, I agree to Jmabel's version too. As for "girl", note that a previous thread on this page wondered about the gender of the fan, so "girl" is a helpful distinction. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It should say "groupie" or refer to the fact that she was a groupie, as per Albion's suggestion above. It was important to the judge, Yarrow has mentioned it, and it gives context to the incident. To say girl is very misleading, and makes it seem like the groupie was a young child.The length of the sentence is also not necessary --Jkp212 (talk) 21:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

A fourteen year old girl is a child. The victim should be referred to respectfully, in the way best calculated to obscure her identity while illustrating the gravity of the offense. "A 14-year-old girl" or a "14-year-old fan" are both good. A "groupie" is not. David in DC (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The judge in the case was convinced that the 14 year old and the 17 year old (who were both there together) were groupies, and that is why he gave leniency. Yarrow's position that this was a groupie incident should be mentioned, and give balance to the incident. And no, a 14 year old is not a young child. For example, in Canada, at 14 years old, individuals can consent to sex. --Jkp212 (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Everyone has a point. How about "14 year old girl fan"? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, as long as the "groupie" nature of the incident is also mentioned. Yarrow later said about the incident: "" In that time, it was common practice, unfortunately–– the whole groupie thing."--Jkp212 (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm prepared to agree to this. A sentence along the basic structure of Jmabel's version, that makes specific the age of the girl, followed by Yarrow's properly sourced quote seems fair. I share the concern of calling the girl a groupie as that can have negative conotations, and frankly strikes me a bit of a departure from NPOV. However, I see no difficulty at all with including Yarrow's quote, or even the judge's if such is properly sourced and available. Xymmax (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Fan, yes, groupie, no. We don't want to blame the victim. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Groupie is the word that the judge, Yarrow, and others used. It is not blaming anyone, just stating facts. How about this:

In 1970, Yarrow was convicted of taking 'improper liberties' with an underage fan, for which he served a short sentence. Yarrow regretted the incident, but said:"In that time, it was common practice, unfortunately–– the whole groupie thing". He was later granted clemency for the indiscretion.

--Jkp212 (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

From reading the interview with Yarrow, I gather he wants as little said about the incident as possible, so I'm not sure including his statement benefits anyone. It can be assumed that he's sorry about it; if we include a statement that seems to be in any way derogatory towards the victim, or to seem like he's excusing his action, I suspect that will reflect worse on Yarrow than if not. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak)

I think that's getting closer. Here's a variation on that:

In 1970, Yarrow was convicted of taking "improper liberties" with a 14-year-old fan, for which he served a short sentence. Yarrow regretted the incident, and said: "In that time, it was common practice, unfortunately–– the whole groupie thing". He was later granted clemency by President Carter for the incident.

Aleta (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a fair comprimise --Jkp212 (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Another comment

I like the length. However, I would get rid of Yarrow's quote and replace it with the length of the sentence and time served. I would specifically mention her age. "Underage" could mean 11 or 17 - a vast difference. It happens to mean 14 here. I would avoid the term "groupie" in any wording, as it's a loaded term, and we need to follow BLP for her too (even though we have not used her name in any aspect of this discussion). Aleta (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that BLP concerns about the victim require us to call her a 14-year-old girl or a 14-year-old fan. David in DC (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I am glad that you are considering BLP concerns -- why not start with the named subject rather than an anonymous groupie? The subject has a right to have balance, and when the judge and others have found this to be a "groupie" incident, then why not give balance to the incident, and mention it? --Jkp212 (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

BLP concerns for the assailant would best be served by keeping the notable events down to a few lines (deference to weight without slavish dedication to word or sentence counts), including cites from reliable sources (of which plenty have been offered) and including his own acknowledgement (sourced) that this is the worst thing he ever did. Then following (as the article does) with his good works since this aberration. David in DC (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) If we use the word groupie, we need to explain why we are using it (such as by quoting the judge's use of it). This would require expansion of the discussion past any reasonable length. Avoid the situation. Aleta (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, we have an extensive article on "Groupies". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Aleta completely. There's no problem with Yarrow calling the girl a groupie, but when we state as a fact that the child was a groupie we either have to show properly sourced facts that lead inexorably to that conclusion, or we deviate from NPOV. And there's simply no need to do so when we have Yarrow's quote to provide the context other editors have sought. Xymmax (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Easily referenced by including Yarrow's quote or using this earlier version: "In 1970, Yarrow was convicted of taking "improper liberties" with an underage groupie, which he later said was common among celebrity musicians and eager groupies of that era." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkp212 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Or Perhaps with "a female fan who turned out to be 14 years Old." and then add something that mentions he thought she was a groupie. Perhaps something like that would reflect the fact that he too was a victim of circumstance. My understanding of the situation is that he jumped to a conclusion and regrets having done so. Plus I am not sure just how perjorative the term groupie is but I can attest to the fact that AnonEMouse is as good as any mediator as we are likely to find. I think we are getting very close to an agreement.... : Albion moonlight (talk) 08:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Better sources

Rather than arguing about whether or not Salon.com is considered reliable, why not just find better sources? Here, these are generally considered among the most reliable or most popular newspapers in the country. They seem to think it's worth a short sentence.

• New York Times [6]
• USA Today [7]
• Boston Globe [8]

I like Albion Moonlight's suggestion to expand the rest of the article for balance. Yes, we need to write about this, it would be a blatant hole in our coverage of the singer if we didn't mention it at all, but we can surely write more about other parts of his notability as well. He's an icon as a singer, not as a convict. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a reason we don't have more on his music career. Most of the subject's notability as a musician derives from his participation in Peter, Paul, and Mary, and so that part of his life is covered in that article. We can summarize some of that material here, at the risk of duplication. We can also add more details about his charitable activities. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It's Clemency

• See http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardons6.htm. Small point, but its sourced and, if we use it, we oughtta use the right wordDavid in DC (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I was just reading an article from the time of the pardon/clemency, and was touched by the subject's comments at the time. Allow me to transcribe them here:

• "It is my hope that they [his 8 and 9 1/2 year old sons] will see a balanced picture, one that understands that their daddy did something very wrong, but also that asserts that their daddy has also done much for society to help to eliminate want and inequity where he saw it. A presidential pardon would help my children understand that society has forgiven their father." ("Peter Yarrow Granted Pardon in Morals Case" Los Angeles Times (1886-Current File); Feb 6, 1981; pg. A2)

It's hard to fault that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

If there is a way to include that in the article then perhaps it should be considered. : Albion moonlight (talk) 10:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Very strange, because a President absolutely DOES NOT have the power to grant pardon/clemency for a state case. John celona (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad has explained this on john celona's talk page. The crime occurred in a Washington DC hotel. Before the D.C. Court Reorganization act of 1973, such crimes were typically prosecuted in federal court. David in DC (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

Unless there are any objections, I think we should include the Aleta's version above (which I have copied below), which brings together the various editors' viewpoints:

In 1970, Yarrow was convicted of taking "improper liberties" with a 14-year-old fan, for which he served a short sentence. Yarrow regretted the incident, and said: "In that time, it was common practice, unfortunately–– the whole groupie thing". He was later granted clemency by President Carter for the incident.--Jkp212 (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Jkp212, I know the cites for sentences 1 and 3, but not for the Yarrow quote. I think we've achieved consensus. Would you please add Aleta's sentence, as transcribed above, with the proper cites. (Unless someone thinks this needs more word-smithing). Thanks to all for a thoughtful discussion. David in DC (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"Short sentence" is not acceptable. We don't say Charles Manson was convicted of multiple muders and "is serving a long sentence" or Martha Stewart "served a short sentence" or Duke Cunninghan is "serving a medium sentence". Where the exact prison term served is available (as it is here) we include it. "Short sentence" may mislead some into thinking he only got probation; which is innacurate. Fair or not, whether people like it or not, he spent 3 months in prison for sex with a 14 year old girl and there are ample verifiable sources for it. If you want to amend to "a short sentence of 3 months in prison"- fine.

Also, why, oh why is someone deleting this article from the "sex offenders" category. A sex offender "is a person who has been criminally charged and convicted of, or has pled guilty to, or pled Nolo contendere to a sex crime." Yarrow spent time in prison for sex with a 14 year old child. Is anyone going to argue that is not a "sex crime"? Please discuss or stop deleting. I also have to question if the victim had been a 14 year old BOY would there be this squemishness in labeling the man a sex offender or pedophile. The man may have done many great things and be of fine character, but his partisans continued attempts to minimize verifiable facts only serve to highlight this small episode in this life. John celona (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

See section below where I opened discussion ofvthe category. Aleta (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Support

The edit proposed by Will be back is ok by me even though the term groupie is also apt. I think that since we have editors here who are looking to down play the incident as if this article were a finished product we might as well go along with not expanding the incident at least until we make the article quite a bit larger. I am looking for material at the library for that very purpose. : 00:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

As an addendum let me say that I am amenable to almost any wording I have seen thus far. That is because I do not have a strong opinion in this particular case. : Albion moonlight (talk) 09:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Category?

An editor keeps adding Category:Sex offenders to the article. Is this legally valid? From the wording "improper liberties", I'm not sure it is. From my understanding, the incident stopped short of actual sex. (?) Was the crime a sex crime, per se? Aleta (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's a hard and fast legal definition of "sex crime". In this case, no intercourse took place, so certainly according to Bill Clinton the category would be inappropriate. I'd err on the side of not including it, given the WP:BLP concerns (I also strongly suspect that the category is intended for people who are notable by reason of being sex offenders, rather than those for whom sex offenses are largely incidental to their notability, as in Yarrow's case). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, this seems absurd. If you plead guilty to sex with a 14 year old and go to prison for it you are a sex offender. If this were a priest or a GOP Congressman we would't be having such an inane discussion would we? I am not trying to slander him. He admits it was the "worst mistake" of his life. Just state the facts unsensationally and move on. All this debate is just drawing more attention to the issue. The sources clearly state he "served 3 months in prison". John celona (talk) 02:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems excessive in this case to use that category. Also, John, please assume good faith; don't accuse editors with whom you have a dispute of vandalism just because opinions differ. Aleta (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There's no agreed upon definition of "sex". Even if there was, it would be very hard to apply it here, since we don't know the nature of what happened (except that it stopped short of intercourse). Second, there is not (as far as I'm aware) an agreed upon definition of "sex offense". In light of this ambiguity, in light of WP:BLP, and in light of the fact that Wikipedia users browsing Category:Sex offenders are unlikely to be looking for people like Yarrow, I say we leave it out.

As for whether we'd be having this conversation it the person involved was a Republican or a Catholic, if such a person engaged in de facto consensual physical intimacy with somebody who de jure lacked the capacity to consent, I certainly would be having this discussion, and I take a little offense to the lack of WP:AGF implied by your suggestion to the contrary. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the addition of the category "sex offender". It took a lot of people, a lot of iterations, a lot of good faith and a lot of consensus to get the agreed-upon language into the main article. Tacking on the sex offender category a few days later is disruptive of community and consensus. It tells those who compromised to put the info in the main article at all that, here at wikipedia, no good deed goes unpunished.

I'm content to see the sex crime, conviction, incarceration and clemency mentioned in the text of the article. I think its overkill to tack on a category that groups Yarrow with Jeffrey Dahmer and the Marquis de Sade.

BLP, Undue Weight, the gravamen of the presidential clemency, consensus decision-making, not disrupting the WP Community. Any couple of these reasons argue for sticking with the consensus language and striking the newly-added category. Together, they come damn close to demanding that resultDavid in DC (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with David in DC, Sarcastic Idealist, and Aleta on this. --Jkp212 (talk) 05:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yarrow is a sex offender. In the spirit of compromise I have removed that category from the article and replaced it with the more generic and softer "American criminals". I assume and hope that no one will contest the fact that someone who has spent time in prison for sexual contact with a 14 year old is a criminal! John celona (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I think any categorization of this article based upon this incident is overcategorization. Additionally, Wikipedia:Categorization of people states: "For example, Category:Criminals should only be added if the incident is relevant to the person's notability; it has been published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal," and "Not all categories are comprehensive: For some "sensitive" categories, it is better to think of the category as a set of representative and unquestioned examples, while a list is a better venue for an attempt at completeness. Particularly for "sensitive" categories, lists can be used as a complement to categorization" (bolding in original). Yarrow's notability derives very little from this incident, and he was granted clemency. I think issues of WP:weight make categorizing the article based upon this improper. Aleta ^Sing 04:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Aleta's comments 100%. I believe that any categorization of this sort would be inappropriate, especially because of the clemency he received. To John -- the mention of the incident was done thoughtfully by numerous editors' with a variety of viewpoints (including those with a perspective similar to your own).. Please respect that careful balance that was reached by consensus. --Jkp212 (talk) 07:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Aleta's explanation of Wikipedia:Categorization of people as it applies to listing Yarrow in either the category of Sex Offender or Criminal. To put him in either list is overcategorization. The facts in the article suffice. More is provocative, disruptive and using Wikipedia to make a point.David in DC (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Use of word "molest" in edit summary

I'd ask that we refrain from that kind of inflammatory language in the edit summaries of this article, since saying, absent context, that somebody "molested a 14 year old" suggests something very different from what Yarrow did. I believe that using the word "molest" to describe this sort of groupie incident is a clear violation of WP:BLP. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

If there is going to be serious argument from anybody that a man in his 30's forcing sexual contact on a 14 year old, admitting it, and going to prison for it is NOT a sex offender I suggest this be referred to one of the Wikipedia boards for arbitration. There are verifiable sources that Yarrow's "14-year-old victim resisted his advances" [[9]].

Furthermore, a multitude of web sources refer to him as a "molestor" and "sex offender". 1."Peter Yarrow was 32 years old at the time he molested a 14-year-old girl" "convicted of sex offense". [[10]] 2. "Kerry selected molester as godfather to daughter Folksinger-friend Peter Yarrow convicted of sex offense" [[11]] 3. "a convicted child-molester" [[12]] 4. "Peter Yarrow had been convicted of CHILD MOLESTATION" [[13]] 5. "convicted of child molestation in 1970" [[14]] (quoting Washington Times October 1, 2004) 6. "convicted of a sex offense for molesting a 14-year-old girl" [[15]] 7. "convicted child molester" [[16]] 8. "child molestor Peter Yarrow" [[17]] 9. "was convicted of chidl molestation" [[18]] 10. "a convicted child molestor" [[19]] and many, many, many more. In the spirit of compromise I have so far refrained from calling him a "child molestor" or "pedophile" in the article. I would prefer to leave the original language which non-judgementally states he "served a 3 month prison sentence" I would prefer to have this unspectacular language rather than starting an edit war which may become a cause celebre in conservative media and re-hash this sordid episode for millions. John celona (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

"I would prefer to have this unspectacular language rather than starting an edit war which may become a cause celebre in conservative media and re-hash this sordid episode for millions" Them's fightin' words, Tex.David in DC (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, Yarrow didn't force sexual contact on a 14 year old. She consented. Legally, of course, she lacked the capacity to consent (which is why he went to jail), but I'm sure that you wouldn't argue that consenting intimate contact with a 14 year old is the moral equivalent of forcing intimate contact on an unwilling 14 year old. "Molest" strongly implies the latter. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No, Yarrow's molestation victim did NOT "consent" to her sexual abuse by this pedophile. Event the leftist Milwaukee Sentintinel reports that "14-year-old victim resisted his advances". [[20]] 68.14.11.178 John celona (talk) 13:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

My apologies - I had not realized that. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

John, the web sources you reference above are not reliable sources. There is room here for many different views, and passionate discussion, but not hateful rhetoric please.. --Jkp212 (talk) 07:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I gave 10 sources, including the Washington Times and the leftist publications Texas Weekly, San Francico Examiner and Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. Perhaps it is the molester who is not the "reliable source"? 68.14.11.178 John celona (talk) 13:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I've requested page protection

John celona, your behavior here has been abysmally disruptive of the project. David in DC (talk) 02:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Mediation anyone.?/

I think John's argument pursuant to the categories list is right on the money. I also do not think that accusations of disruption are appropriate at this particular time. I am going to ask AnonEMouse to have another look at this situation.I am not even sure that ther was an official consensus in place and or just how far reaching it was. So please let us stay as cool and detached as we can. And above all Happy Holidays to everyone, : Albion moonlight (talk) 09:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much Albion. I was beginning to think I had fallen down a sinkhole with Alice and the White Rabbit. A simple google search on "Peter Yarrow" shows he is almost as noticeable for his 3 months spent in prison for pedophilia as he is for his long dormant music career. Apparently, some people think it is NOT criminal to molest a little girl who resists your advances: even if you plead guilty and serve 3 months in prison for it! John celona (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Time is a good mediator. I suggest that we allow the next week or two to pass without edits to the categories. We can discuss the issue here, but reverting categories is unproductive. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with User:Will Beback. Let's let this rest for a while, and if things flair up again once protection expires, we can go the WP:RFC route. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability on google is not the issue John, The issue is whether to whether to let your edit stand. But please do not make the mistake of thinking that I think the incident warrants any more than a minor mention. Peter Yarrows contributions to society far outweigh the fact that he went to prison for seeking the sexual favors of a female who turned out to be jail bait. I could live with no mention of the incident whatsoever. But I am concerned about the fact that you are being vilified for an edit that makes perfect sense to.me. : Albion moonlight (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

John is not being vilified for no reason. User John Celona has made a mockery of the consensus process, and discussion forum. He inserted very inflammatory language into the article, and then after being advised it was better to discuss the matter first, he continued to insert the language in an even more inflammatory style, both in the article and on the edit summaries. One of his edits was summarized as "restoring vandalism", and despite being requested not to use such inflammatory language in edit summaries, he flaunted the appeal of others and did so anyway. His entire tone has been hateful, inflammatory, and unilateral. Further, his edits denying the holocaust (see his talk page) suggest a strong POV regarding all individuals of Jewish faith, including Mr. Yarrow --Jkp212 (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Albion - This threat, from John celona above, make a suggestion of disruption not just appropriate, but nearly mandatory: "I would prefer to have this unspectacular language rather than starting an edit war which may become a cause celebre in conservative media and re-hash this sordid episode for millions. John celona (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)"David in DC (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

There was no "threat". I just stated that I hoped this wouldn't become a cause celebre if some third party picked up on the attempts to whitewash the past pedophilia. I sincerly hope it is not picked up, whatever the result. Again, I must ask if any of those who don't want this admitted molestor, felon and ex-con put in the "Criminal" category would do the same for a GOP Congessman convicted of a felony and jailed for molesting a 14 year old who "resisted his advances"? The answer is obvious. Foley was labeled a pedophile by every Democrat in America for legal suggestive emails sent to an 18 year old adult who was never physically molested-unlike Yarrow's victim. John celona (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that everybody should take a big step back and chill out. If John does not want to walk away and allow the white washing we should not be trying to force him too. We should be using the dispute resolution process and trying to show as much good faith as we can muster. : Albion moonlight (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

but with that said let us all take Willbebacks suggestion and give this some time. Time is in fact a preety good mediator if we allow it to be.

Albion moonlight (talk) 02:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Category? redux

This conversation started before the page was protected. After protection is lifted, let's agree not to add anything like the categories "Sex Offenders" or "Criminals" without first achieving consensus here. David in DC (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If can only speak for me but that sounds Ok to me, : Albion moonlight (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's the right approach: to discuss things of this nature first. --Jkp212 (talk) 06:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Aleta (Sing) 20:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to me. Dictionary.com defines criminal as "a person guilty or convicted of a crime." Is anyone arguing this defintion doesn't fit Yarrow, who pled guilty to a felony (molesting a 14 year old girl who "resisted his advances"[[21]]) and served prison time for it? John celona (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The question isn't whether he's a criminal, which he clearly is (or was, depending on whether you require criminal behaviour to be ongoing for the designation to apply). The question is whether under Wikipedia's policies he should be added to the category, and there's a clear consensus that he shouldn't be. You should really consider giving WP:TE a read. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you explain to me why every other political or entertainment figure convicted of a crime is listed in this category without controversey? For instance: see Edwin Edwards, Thomas "Hollywood" Henderson, Rick James, Pete Rose, Jr., Bianca Trump, Michael Vick and many more without the editor being subject to verbal attack? Also, why did you delete my added links? John celona (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I presume he deleted your links because they were to blogs. Read through WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, and you'll see that blogs are not generally considered appropriate links. Aleta (Sing) 19:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, to be entirely honest, I removed your links because I didn't look over your edits as carefully as I should have, and thought you were just re-inserting the category (your edit summary to the contrary notwithstanding). My apologies for that. That said, those links have no place in the article because they don't meet a single one of the criteria included in WP:EL's list of what should be included, while they do meet at least one of the criteria under links to be avoided (per Aleta). They really tell us nothing beyond what's included in the article, except that some people don't like Democrats or gun control.

Your list of other celebrities with the criminal category does give me pause. Certainly, either Yarrow's link should be restored or several of those should be deleted. Give me a few days to mull it over. Regardless of what I decide I think, however, there's still clearly a consensus against adding the category to Yarrow's article, so don't do it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think some of those other celebrites ought not be included in the criminals category either. See Aleta's argument way up above about overcategorization. Pete Rose, Jr and Bianca Trump especially, seem not notable for their criminal history, but for other matters.David in DC (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

David, I don't think that was an appropriate comment, and I'd ask that you redact it. First of all, we don't know whether this is the same John Celona (or indeed whether this user's real name is John Celona). Second, if there was a COI for a notable person who had also been convicted of a crime (as the New Hampshire John Celona is) it would be in the other direction, trying to tighten the standards for when the link is appropriate to add, lest any article about him that get created include the link. David has deleted his comment. Sarcasticidealist(talk) 19:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with David about the other celebs. Yarrow, in particular, should not be added to the category because of the clemency. --Jkp212 (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Since we're giving opinions here I'd say that the subject belongs in some criminal category. It's a defining part of his life-history, just like being born in 1938, being an American Jew, being an alum of Cornell University being from Providence, Rhode Island, and being a Ukrainian-American. Those are all categories that this article is in. The fact that Yarrow is a (minor) celebrity has nothing to do with it. However I'd go further and say that the presidential pardon category is a form of crime category and is sufficient. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a very good point about his already being in the pardon category. Aleta (Sing) 23:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to question why a handfull (Albion moonlight, David in DC, Aleta, Sarcasticidealist) of editors, many of whom seem to share the far Left politics of Yarrow, are allowed to delete information that seems rather obvious. Pete Rose, maybe the greatest living baseball player, is in the American Criminals category as is Michael Vick. Conservative officeholders like Bob Taft, James Traficant, Jim Guy Tucker, Buz Lukens, etc. -and rightly so. As are entertainers like Rick James. Of late, Yarrow is certainly less notable for his music than his association with leftist politicians such as John Kerry, John Garamendi, Ted Kennedy and others and the cancelling of fundraisers when it is publicized that Yarrow is a convicted child molester. There are a multitude of news sources corraborating this, from the Washington Times to left of center publications such as the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, San Francisco Examiner and Texas Weekly. Here is a paragraph from an earlier edit in this discussion page:

Furthermore, a multitude of web sources refer to him as a "molestor" and "sex offender". 1."Peter Yarrow was 32 years old at the time he molested a 14-year-old girl" "convicted of sex offense". 10 2. "Kerry selected molester as godfather to daughter Folksinger-friend Peter Yarrow convicted of sex offense" 11 3. "a convicted child-molester" 12 4. "Peter Yarrow had been convicted of CHILD MOLESTATION" 13 5. "convicted of child molestation in 1970" 14 (quoting Washington Times October 1, 2004) 6. "convicted of a sex offense for molesting a 14-year-old girl" 15 7. "convicted child molester" 16 8. "child molestor Peter Yarrow" 17 9. "was convicted of chidl molestation" 18 10. "a convicted child molestor" 19

In short, I don't think fewer than a half dozen editors who clearly share the political views of the subject, should be allowed to cry "consensus" to impose their will while conservatives and Republicans who have commited financial and other crimes far less serious than child molesting are included in the criminal category.John celona (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep a civil tongue in your head, if you would. Among other things, please don't imply things about my political views that you have no way of knowing. I've already granted that several of the other articles you've raised require reconciliation of one kind or another, and going around questioning our motivations isn't going to help anything. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A couple of things - didn't we conclude that it was clemency, rather than a pardon? In which case, doesn't he not belong there? Second of all (and this is probably better-suited to the talk page of the category), shouldn't that category be a subcat of Category:American criminals? Its parent category (Category:Pardon recipients) is already a subcat of [:Category:Criminals]]. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think both the Pardon and Clemency categories should not be a subcat of the Criminal Category. Getting a Pardon/Clemency by definition clears the individual of officially being called or labeled a criminal. and as such, WP should not "define" them in this way. I would agree with User:Sarcasticidealist that this is best discussed on the talk pages of the category. --Jkp212 (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's actually why I'm drawing the distinction. A pardon clears you of the crime such that you have no record. Clemency just lessens or eliminates the penalty. I think somebody who's received clemency is still a criminal (whether they should necessarily be categorized as such on Wikipedia is another question), which is debatable for somebody who's actually been pardoned. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've raised some of these issues on Category talk:Recipients of American presidential pardons. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Sarcasticidealist is probably correct about the distinction. I'm not an expert on this topic, however. I hope your query at the category talk page will bring some opinions from more knowledgeable folks. If there is no comment soon from people not already involved here, it might be worth posting a query at the law wikiproject. Aleta (Sing) 13:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the more neutral category of Incarcerated Celebrities will be acceptable. This category includes musicians such as Ronald Isley, Gary Glitter, Tommy Lee, Chuck Berry, James Brown and Scott Stapp John celona (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I could live with that one, but not to the exclusion of resolving this issue about whether he belongs in the pardon category. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Me too. Aleta (Sing) 22:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I could live with the Incarcerated Celebrities category, but only in concert with respect for the prior consensus on "a short sentence" rather than "a three month sentence". If someone wants to know what "short" is, they can go to the cited sources. Everybody gets something, nobody gets everything and we all disengage from what has not been consensus' finest hour. Category discussion to continue at category pages. Whaddya say? David in DC (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

What's the basis for opposing "three months"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Gesture of respect for all the negotiating that went on before. David in DC (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There's just no rationale for not putting "served 3 months in prison". That's what the verifiable sources say. That's how its done on every other Wikipedia page, be it actors, musicians, political figures, sports figures or whatever. We don't have Martha Stewart or Pete Rose "serving short sentences"-we provide the facts in a non-sensational NPOV manner. I can live with him not being in the Sex Offenders or the American Criminal categories (although he is properly in both) and just in Incarcerated Celebrities. I can even live with the horrible, improper, self-serving label of a forced molestation victim as a "groupie" but as I have said "The dog chased his tail" is a "short sentence"- 3 months spent in prison should be reported as just that, as it is in all Wikipedia pages. John celona (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Guess a gesture of respect was too much to hope for. I'm now going to disengage on this page. I think JkP, who wanted no mention at all, gave up a lot to reach the consensus language. It held for several days until another editor started a crusade. The crusader appears to be grinding down all opposition. If I were Jkp, I wouldn't compromise at all next time. I too, remember, started out agitating for the mention in the article. Any fair reading of the history above shows a lot of people working to advance the project and one to advance a cause. It's very disappointing. Civility has been trumped by one lone crusader, who surely learns from this episode that warnings about civility, assuming good faith, working co-operatively and not being tendentious are all a bunch of appropriately ignored hot air. David in DC (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Censorship of 3 month prison sentence

A very small group of posters (jkp212, David in DC, Sarcastic idealist, Aleta) , most if not all of whom (perhaps coincidentally but not likely) share Yarrow's far-left politics as evidenced by their other posts keep screaming "consensus" as an exscuse to censor the fact that this man seved 3 months in prison for felony child molestation-See-[[22]], [[23]], [[24]], [[25]], [[26]], [[27]], [[28]]. The self-labeled "consensus" group wants the fact that the moleser served 3 months in prison censored and replaced by the weasel words "served a short sentence". The dog chased his tail is a short sentence. 3 months in prison for felony child molestation is what it is. Throughout Wikipedia, when subjects have served, or are serving, prison sentences, the exact length of such sentences are included in the article. This includes other musicians such as James Brown, Rick James, Gary Glitter, Paul Mccartney, Keith Richards, Chuck Berry, Lead Belly, and many more. It also includes other political figures such as Buz Lukens, Buddy Cianci, Duke Cunningham, H.R. Haldeman, Charles Diggs, Richard Kelly (politician), Norman Hsu, George Ryan and countless others. No reason has been propounded by the 5 person self-proclaimed "consensus" why Yarrow's 3 month sentence should be censored while the sentences of all others are included on their Wikipedia page. John celona (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If you'd care to read through this talk page, you'd see that this began with an enormous dispute over whether to mention the incident at all. User:jkp212 was the main editor on the "don't mention" side, I was one of the main people on the "do mention" side. We're both supporting the compromise wording not because it's our preferred wording (it's not either of our preferred wording - I would prefer something more specific, while User:jkp212 would prefer nothing at all), but because it's the compromise that was painfully worked out over days with the involvement of well over five editors.

I've also asked you above to please stop inferring things about my political beliefs that you have no way of knowing. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

A fact which has been pointed out before... Aleta (Sing) 22:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, one of the self-aapointed 4 member "consensus" has posted on my talk page [[29]] that "our politics are worlds apart". Of course that person had no knowledge of my politics, which are libertarian and opposed to hypocrisy and cover-ups from the Right as much as the Left, which is clearly what's going on in this article. I would like to know if Wikipedia is a "numbers game". If Michael Vick has a few dozen friends who continually delete verifiable material concerning his animal case on grounds of "consensus" will editors seeking to include the verifiable facts have to "outvote" Vick's supporters? John celona (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus, as practised on Wikipedia, is an inexact science, to be sure. In practice, though, if Michael Vick got a whole bunch of his friends to sign up for Wikipedia, become active editors (and not just single purpose accounts), and hide their conflicts of interest in editing his article, then yes, it would take quite a number of other established editors to get things re-inserted. Wikipedia's not supposed to be a numbers game, and in practice is something more than purely a numbers game, but there's definitely a numbers aspect to it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Past consensus aside, what's your opbjection to writing "three months" instead of "short sentence"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

None. I would actually prefer "three months", and if anybody on the dominant side of that consensus would like to re-open the debate, I'll advocate for its inclusion. I'm just not prepared to be tendentious about it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings about "three months" versus "short sentence". As far as I'm concerned, three months is a short sentence. I don't know why this particular thing is that big a deal one way or the other, but I realize that some folks on each side of the issue do feel strongly. Aleta (Sing) 02:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought (and still think) the mention of the incident is far too long for a short article such as this. It is my opinion that it is completely irrelevant, and not pertinent at all to his notability. Others have agreed that the material is not necessary to add. Others, like Jossi, felt it should be one VERY short sentence. However, I am comfortable with the article as it is, without adding additional detail. This was discussed in such great detail, and YES: compromise/consensus was reached. It is inappropriate for an editor to make changes such as this with disregard for consensus, and without discussion.--Jkp212 (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I should amend my comments to reiterate what others have said in various ways: the wording in the article now was a carefully crafted compromise amongst people running the gamut from wanting no mention at all to wanting lurid detail (that's hyperbole, folks). We shouldn't destroy what several people came together to make workable. When we talk of the consensus that was reached, it was this compromise. Please, John, consider the compromise. Aleta (Sing) 04:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Either wording and or almost any wording is fine by me : Albion moonlight (talk) 04:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to add that I would like to see the process for concluding when there is a consensus on something more formalized. I have seen this happen on the article on the Holocaust page and other similarly contentious pages. Usually such a process is over seen by an admin and the votes are much easier to count. Albion moonlight (talk) 08:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I am agreable to leaving "served three months in prison" in and putting him in the more neutral Incarcerated Celebrities category rather than the American criminal or Sex Offender category where he belongs. I also would, as another concession, allow the apologists to leave the horrid, self-serving labeling of a little girl forcibly molested as a "groupie". I really think those favoring the censorship of the prison term need to look up the articles on many other ex-con celebrities, including musicians. The terms they served are included in every article-it would be bizzare not to. I think I stated my concerns in language posted yesterday, which I repeat here--- "There's just no rationale for not putting "served 3 months in prison". That's what the verifiable sources say. That's how its done on every other Wikipedia page, be it actors, musicians, political figures, sports figures or whatever. We don't have Martha Stewart or Pete Rose "serving short sentences"-we provide the facts in a non-sensational NPOV manner. I can live with him not being in the Sex Offenders or the American Criminal categories (although he is properly in both) and just in Incarcerated Celebrities. I can even live with the horrible, improper, self-serving label of a forced molestation victim as a "groupie" but as I have said "The dog chased his tail" is a "short sentence"- 3 months spent in prison should be reported as just that, as it is in all Wikipedia pages." John celona (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Rehashing what was already hashed out

If we start diverting from the compromise/consensus, then I am not agreeable to any mention of this one-time incident in such a short bio, and certainly not additional detail being added. The incident is not relevant to his notability, and the article suffers from undue weight with the inclusion. Despite this, however, I am willing to accept the compromise and consensus that was reached, and still seems to be validated by numerous editors. --Jkp212 (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the previous consensus is more or less dead in the water, and that we probably have to start over. I propose starting with a straw poll on the controversial questions:

1. Should the incident be mentioned?

2. Should the length of the sentence be spelled out?

3. How should the victim be identified (groupie, underage fan, 14 year old girl, etc.)?

4. What category, if any, should associate Yarrow with his crime?

My answers are as follows: 1. Yes 2. Yes 3. 14 year old female fan 4. Category:Incarcerated celebrities. I am open to compromise on all questions except the first. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Why would a compromise that was reached be dead in the water because of one POV editor who has disregarded the overwhelming consensus? This has been rehashed too many times. It started on the BLP noticeboard, and culminated with a consensus that a lone editor has disrupted. I am going to request mediation. --Jkp212 (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be dead in the water because, regrettably, it just doesn't seem to have much support anymore. As for mediation, we should go the WP:RFC route first (in accordance with the dispute resolution process). I'll put the request in. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with criminal conviction

Peter Yarrow was convicted of taking improper liberties with a 14 year old female fan after she came to his hotel room in search of an autograph. The incident stopped short of intercourse. Yarrow served three months of a three year sentence, and was eventually granted clemency by Jimmy Carter. At issue in this article are the following questions:
1. Should the incident be mentioned?
2. Should the length of the sentence be spelled out or simply referred to as "a short sentence"?
3. How should the victim be identified (groupie, underage fan, 14 year old girl, etc.)?
4. What category, if any, should associate Yarrow with his crime (Category:Incarcerated celebrities, Category:American criminals, Category:Sex offenders, etc.)?

We have already gone the RFC route before (see history and BLP noticeboard history). It makes no sense to rehash the same material over and over just because of 1 POV editor who has used inflammatory language throughout, and has disregarded the consensus. --Jkp212 (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That RfC was only on question one, and that's not really the question that's causing division at this point. Let's give this a shot, and if nothing emerges from the process I'll be happy to go to mediation. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The division at this point is that 1 POV editor has disrupted the consensus and compromise.. And the RFC yielded all sorts of commentary about the topics at hand.. I have adjusted the questions to make it less POV. I still believe Mediation is appropriate at this stage. --Jkp212 (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record

1) Yes

2) A short sentence

3) 14-year-old girl in encyclopedic text. "Groupie" in direct quote from Yarrow.

4) Recipients of U.S. Presidential Clemency David in DC (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

My "vote"

It's important to note that it is a one time incident that happened over 30 years ago, the judge felt the girl coerced Yarrow, and referred to her as a "groupie", and that this is a short BLP which could easily suffer from Undue Weight over this incident.

1) No

However, if #1 is decided against me, then

2) A short sentence

3) 14-year-old fan in encyclopedic text. "Groupie" in direct quote from Yarrow.

4) Recipients of U.S. Presidential Clemency

--Jkp212 (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is the SOURCE that the judge felt the little girl "coerced" this 30 year old man? John celona (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Aleta's vote (sigh...)

1)Yes

2)Neutral. (Three months is a short sentence. I suppose I slightly prefer spelling out the time, but just because it is more detailed for fairly equivalent amounts of verbage.)

3) 14-year-old girl. "Groupie" should only be used within a quote.

4) Recipients of US Presidential Clemency, Incarcerated celebrities

General comment: I have no qualms with the text as is and feel like we are going in circles here. Aleta (Sing) 21:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Yes

2. "Served 3 months in prison"

3. 14 year old girl.

4. All 3 categories. Limited to Incarcerated celebrities as a compromise, but others don't seem to desire any compromise. Really, he belongs in all 3.

RfC opinion

1. yes

2. "Served three months in prison"

3.question - see below

4 Incarcerated celebrities. Overcategorization is a problem with many articles, and there's no good reason to overemphasize this single incident. One category would be enough.

Comment - If a citation can be found that the girl in question was referred to by the judge as a "groupie" or equivalent, then certainly it would be fair to describe her as such. Also, certainly, no objections to quoting Yarrow himself. However, mentioning that she was underage (14) is also seemingly important. I wouldn't object to calling her a "14-year old groupie" if the citation from the judge can be found. John Carter (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

When musicians (or anyone else for that matter) spend time in jail/prison, whether convicted or not, the amount of that prison/jail term is ALWAYS spelled out on Wikipedia. See Rick James, Gary Glitter, James Brown, Chuck Berry, Lead Belly, Paul Mccartney, Keith Richards, Ronald Isley, Scott Stapp, Tripp Eisen, GG Allin and others. Can the pro-censorship contingent provide a single example of a musician who has spent time in jail/prison where the sentence or time served is not spelled out. There are NONE-zero, zip, nada. WHY is Mr. Yarrow so special?John celona (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There are certainly examples of using general terms for jail time on Wikipedia see r http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lahr among others... It's a discretion call, and in the yarrow case less detail is certainly justifiable, and was determined by consensus. --Jkp212 (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Charles Lahr article states "he was interned for four year as an enemy alien". He was also not a musician so you fail on both arguments. You earlier stated on this discussion page that you were going to "disengage from this page". Also, you stated earlier that the judge who sentenced Yarrow to prison claimed the little girl "coerced" the 30 year old man into sex. In 2 hours on google I can find no such source. Please provide your source. Is it possible that your source is the molester or someone in his circle and that you have a Conflict of Interest? I await your response, along with a single incarcerated MUSICIAN whose time spent incarcerated is censored in favor of some generic phrase such as "served a short sentence". John celona (talk) 02:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It was David in DC who said he was disengaging from this page, and I don't believe he has posted here since then. Aleta (Sing) 02:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You are correct Aleta. However David in DC HAS posted here since his "pledge"-at 19:40 today to be precise.John celona (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, now the article that I used as an example states the specific prison term because John Celona edited the article to include the specific term...There are numerous other examples out there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Krupa or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilien_Luce or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_Domitien or many many more), but that's not really the point. John, calm down, it's ok to choose discretion of input. That's what it is -- a discretion call. --Jkp212 (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Jkp, the language "he was interned for four years as an enemy alien" was on the Charles Lahr page for months. I added a verifiable source for another prison term this Communist served years later. I will look into the Krupa and Domien articles. If the sentences are available through a verified source (as molester Yarrow's is) I will add them to the article. Obviously, if there is no source for the specific sentence it can't be added. Now-will you tell us if you are close to someone in Yarrow's circle and have a conflict of interest? Also-what is the source of your claim that the Judge who imprisoned molester Yarrow said the little girl "coerced" the 30 year old man into sex?? I await your answers.John celona (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not personally close to Yarrow. Thanks for the good faith, though. I have been fighting on Wikipedia for Bios of Living Persons to be written sensitively to the subject, thoughtfully balanced, and with respect for human beings, without being labeled and attacked the way that you have attacked this subject, ie. calling him a molestor in caps, using inflammatory language, etc.. We have to be sensitive to these living subjects, and also make sure that one-time negative incidents don't get undue weight. --Jkp212 (talk) 02:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You will be happy to know that I have updated the Gene Krupa article to reflect his 90 day sentence. There is no verifiable source I can find for the non-musicians Elisabeth Domitien or Maximilien Luce. If you find one let me know, or better yet add it yourself to the articles. Now----as for the source of your claim that molester Yarrow's sentencing judge said the little girl "coerced" the 30 year old man into sex, we all again await your response.John celona (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

John Celona, I count 5 editors on this page alone who have asked you to show good faith, and stop making accusations. You continue to accuse others, and then when I responded with the "evidence" you were looking for on wikipedia, you proceeded to make POV edits to each link. Please stop this. --Jkp212 (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

At 20:00 on January 8, 2007 you Jkp212, posted that "the judge felt the girl coerced Yarrow, and referred to her as a "groupie". I am assuming good faith, every bit as much as you are. I have asked four times for the source of your quote, as I cannot find it using any search engine. I still await your reply. John celona (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the talk page above, you'll see that user Will Beback initially mentioned the judges feelings, and that has been a part of this discussion regarding use of the word groupie: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_Yarrow&diff=176241867&oldid=176240439 This talk page is the main point, John. We've been through all this, and came to a compromise among many different viewpoints, and then you came in and unilaterally started making changes and using inflammatory language. Let's just give it some time to cool down, as some other editors have suggested above --Jkp212 (talk) 04:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh. This was nearly forty years ago and we're hanging this around his neck? If this is not strongly implicated as a pattern throughout his career here's my take" Benjiboi 13:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

" In 1970, Yarrow served a short sentence for taking "improper liberties" with a minor stating "In that time, it was common practice, unfortunately–– the whole groupie thing." He was later granted clemency by President Carter for the incident. ”

Added more positive stuff.

I did not and will not add or edit any controversial material in the near future but I do intend to keep adding positive stuff as time permits. : Albion moonlight (talk) 09:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds great. Thank you. --Jkp212 (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconded, thank you. David in DC (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Operation Respect

I created a stub for Operation Respect. Please feel free to join me in working on that article. : Albion moonlight (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Newport Folk Festival

Yarrow's self-published website biography[30], claims that:

• ...he helped launch the Newport Folk Festival in 1962.

We include that assertion in this bio. However the Newport Folk Festival website says that it was founded in 1959, and its self-published history only mentions Yarrow indirectly, saying that the festival served as a "springboard" for Peter, Paul & Mary.[31] I'm inclined to remove it from this article unless we can resolve the discrepancy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed completely. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2008

Sounds reasonable. Aleta (Sing) 22:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Will do it now. David in DC (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Federal Prison Sentence

The RFC for this article has been ended. I have now restored the verifiable information regarding the prison sentence served by Yarrow, which has continually been on this article since it was a stub-OVER 3 YEARS AGO, beginning with this February 3, 2005 revision; [[32]]. John celona (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Now we shall wait and see bow the others react. They are all still around. : Albion moonlight (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm still fine with it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted this per the lengthy discussion and consensus. The mention of the incident should not be there b/c of undue weight, but if it IS going to be in the article, this type of weight is too much. --Jkp212 (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you're fabricating a consensus - I don't think anybody except you and User:David in DC supported leaving the sentence length out, while User:john celona, User:Will Beback, and I all support leaving the length in (I believe there are others as well - it certainly appears that User:Albion moonlight doesn't object to its inclusion). Besides that, including the length of the sentence doesn't disrupt the weighting at all, since there's still the same amount of text dealing with the incident as there was before. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Celona's edit didn't significantly lengthen the text. I've never understood the objection to specifying the duration of the sentence. Why is "short sentence" better than "three-month sentence"? Looking back through the discussion I don't see that there was ever a consensus on this. All of that said, I'm not sure why Celona feels it necessary to upset the peace of this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No consensus is being fabricated. It was established, with help from Anon E. Mouse and language tweaking by Aleta. It was stable for about a week. Then a tendtious editor who'd had no involvement in the discussions came in and stirred up a hornet's nest. Please understand, JkP wanted NO MENTION. Aleta and I wanted MORE MENTION. A bunch of us found a consensus. It's worth respecting.David in DC (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

User Benjiboi and others have expressed concern that an incident over 30 years ago gets inclusion. I have objected to the inclusion based on BLP concerns, and undue weight. However, a compromise/consensus was reached (see full talk page), and I am willing to accept the inclusion of the incident if the compromise is respected. --Jkp212 (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

David's and Jkp's comments reflect my understanding of it. Several people with a range of preferences for how much to say - from none at all to more detail - reached a compromise position which we carefully crafted over several days. This was then unilaterally shattered. Aleta (Sing) 00:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The undisputed and verified FACT that Yarrow served 3 months in prison for a pedophilliac assault on a little girl who resisted his adavances has been on this article for over 3 years. 3 years-with dozens and dozens of editors keeping the information in place. That is the "consensus", first put on the article on February 3 of 2005. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Yarrow&oldid=10201477.John celona (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that an article was problematic for a long time is no reason to return to the problem. The article had many problems, and was worked on thoughtfully by a number of editors. Also, other editors have asked Celona to cease making inflammatory edit summaries, and yet is he is persisting with that type of language. Further, it is not appropriate to call the one-time incident with a groupie a "pedophilliac assault on a little girl" --Jkp212 (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no source, other than the molester, which calls the child victim a "groupie". John celona (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

How about the judge?: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_Yarrow&diff=176241867&oldid=176240439

You have provided a Wikipedia comment showing someone CLAIMING the judge called the little girl Yarrow served time for molesting a "groupie". I asked several times for a verifiable source for any judge saying that. There are none. What there ARE is verifiable sources that the child "resisted his advances". [[33]]. In the future, please refrain from using a user's Wikipedia talk commentary as a verifiable source. John celona (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The source is Toronto Daily Star - Tuesday, September 15, 1970. page 28 -- look it up, but the jist of it is that the judged agreed with the defense attorney and reduced Yarrow's sentence b/c he felt the girl and her 18 year old sister (they were there together at the singer's hotel room) were groupies seeking sex with a celebrity. --Jkp212 (talk) 01:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Please provide an online link to the claimed article. The Milwaukee Sentinel states that the little girl "resisted his advances". Unlike you, I provide a link to my claimed source-[[34]].John celona (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Your assertion that an online source is superior to an offline one (printed 28 years ago) is disturbing and completely fallacious. I advise you find another line of argument. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

What evidence is there, other than jkp212's unsupported and unilateral statement, for the existence of this "offline source". It seems rather dubious, considering it is at complete variance with the very recent online source-the respected Milwaukee Sentinel. Every online source reports the child "resisted his advances". See [[35]] and [[36]] and [[37]] and [[38]] and [[39]] and others.John celona (talk) 02:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It's nice when references are online. However, it is neither required nor always feasible. There does still exists an institution called the library. :) Aleta (Sing) 02:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not stating online sources are superior. I am questioning the existing of this claimed "offline source" which is completely at variance with every single online source. I think it is right to question it's existence, especially in light of the attacks and (failed) attempts to ban me which this user has continually engaged in and continues to. John celona (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not wish to "ban" you. I ask only that you attack other editors less, only make edits to sensitive areas (especially a BLP) once a consensus has been reached, and not question the good faith of others with such frequency. I am hopeful that this discussion has been helpful toward that cause. If you recall, in the last administrator noticeboard discussion of your edits, I asked that you NOT be banned if you start making constructive edits, and working with others in a positive way. If your edits are done with the support of consensus on the talk page, I will have no problem at all. --Jkp212 (talk) 05:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The consensus on this page, for over 3 years, through dozens of editors and scores of edits has been to include the 3 month prison sentence in the article. You and one other user, with no consultation from those of us who created this article, unilaterally took it on yourself to censor this consenus version even though it is well sourced by the New York Times and others. If you will just stop trying to censor the consnsus words "served 3 months in prison" which have been on the article for over 3 years, this dispute would stopJohn celona (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

breaking the peace

A user has been making "threats" to this page via another talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:American_criminals&diff=prev&oldid=195223525 This issue has been discussed and consensus reached on this page. The user has unilaterally shattered the consensus for the controversial content in the article. This is not the first time that this has occurred. I have started a discussion on the disruptions here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#John_celona.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29 --Jkp212 (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

What is controversial is the POV edit of "three months" to "a short sentence". It's a useless consensus. You're withholding relevant facts. --Saber^Excalibur! 00:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Read the full talk page, and you'll understand the consensus more. There could be all sorts of "relevant facts" to include, but if they create undue weight in their level of detail/attention, then they should not be included. I feel that goes for the entire incident. Others agree. But I am willing to accept the inclusion of the incident if the consensus is respected. --Jkp212 (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't care about the entire fight above, what I see is a messed up consensus that violates the manual of style and proper encyclopedic tone. Either you include it and state the facts or you don't include it at all. "A short sentence" is a relative, POV statement. Three months is a short sentence for murder. Sixty days is a long sentence for endangering traffic. Ten years is a long sentence for sexual misconduct. And so on. "Three months" provides the fact and leaves it to the reader to evaluate whether it is a short, long or proper sentence length. --Saber^Excalibur! 01:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I would be ok with not including it at all, as you mention. But if it is included, it should respect the carefully determined consensus. --Jkp212 (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You are making up this "consensus". Reading above I see a majority who opposes you. --Saber^Excalibur! 01:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Could folks please stop reverting each other while we discuss this? Just leave it as it is (which way that is) and make suggestions for edits here instead. Neither version breaks BLP so there's no reason for reverting. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the category issue, I count 7 editors against the Sex Offender/Criminal Category VS 1 for it. On the inclusion of the incident, there are many different opinions, and the current content was determined to be a compromise of many different viewpoints. --Jkp212 (talk) 01:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus here because there is still a dispute and no agreement to disagree. The next step would seem to be to seek mediation.: Albion moonlight (talk) 06:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Mediation is a good idea. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)