m Signing comment by 76.246.156.86 - "→Protected: " |
76.246.156.86 (talk) |
||
Line 254: | Line 254: | ||
:I've cleaned up most of the sourcing issues. Found sources for some claims, removed the rest after searching for and not finding sources. [[User:Yworo|Yworo]] ([[User talk:Yworo|talk]]) 17:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC) |
:I've cleaned up most of the sourcing issues. Found sources for some claims, removed the rest after searching for and not finding sources. [[User:Yworo|Yworo]] ([[User talk:Yworo|talk]]) 17:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC) |
||
I am not a representative nor associated with Mr. Leopold and you have no basis to suggest that I am. I am simply trying to add balance to this article that has long been biased and the neutrality questionable. The village voice story is relevant and must be included, particularly the quote from Paul Krugman |
|||
== Protected == |
== Protected == |
Revision as of 21:27, 29 July 2010
![]() | Biography Start‑class ![]() ![]() | ||||||||||||
|
![]() | Journalism Unassessed | |||||||||
|
Template:Archive box collapsible
Current Relationship with Truthout.org
On 27 October 2009, Jason Leopold is listed on the Truthout.org website as a Deputy Managing Editor. Could someone with more knowledge of Mr. Leopold's current status make an update? Desertpapa (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Removed Columbia Journalism Review article for now
...as a potentially libelous (and under legal threat for same) violation of WP:BLP, and added citation request in its place. This is the same matter described in the long cease-and-desist letter above. The issue was raised at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Libelous material on Jason Leopold bio again. It is up for discussion there. Please do NOT add this source back until the matter has been discussed and there's some resolution on whether it's appropriate. That discussion will happen pretty quickly, and anyone's free to participate, so no need to get up in arms.... if the citation belongs it can come back, if not it stays out. Thanks, Wikidemo 08:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- This information in the jason leopold biography IS FLAT OUT FALSE!
- [4] On June 13, Truthout's executive director Marc Ash backtracked from that position, saying that the story was based "on single source information and general background information obtained from experts."[citation needed]The grand jury concluded with no indictment of Rove.[5]
- THIS REFERS TO AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT STORY ON ROVE! THIS IS ABOUT A SEALED INDICTMENT! That story, and not the rove indictment story, is what Ash is saying they had one source for. That story was about a sealed indictment not the Rove story!
- FIX THIS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.250.64 (talk) 05:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
warning/legal action
I am an attorney for Mr. Leopold.
Mr. Leopold has a legal action against the CJR for defamation and libel. Use of this material exposes this site to damages for republishing said material. A copy of the legal letter has been circulating for some time and is available on this very page. Continued use of defamatory material exposes wikipedia to defamation and libel.
The user Akron who has been changing the substance of this biography has clearly been acting with malice. His changes to the material violates wikipedia's own rules of neutrality. This user appears to be acting with an inherent bias and is making changes that are questinable, biased, defamatory and libelous. Unless he or wikipedia can demonstrate unequivocally that Mr. Leopold is best know for a story published two years ago and can document that he is "controversial" this is simply a case of smearing my client.
The issues that the user has seen fit to change during the course of two days have been addressed in this bio. However, this individual has seen fit to continuously change it for no other reason than to fit his own agenda.
As I stated above, continued use of CJR material when a lawsuit is pending and when previous warnings were issued will open up wikipedia to damages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.250.112 (talk) 04:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Then contact the WP:OFFICE. Threatening legal action is against our policies. Further, all amterial included is fully sourced to reliable journalistic sources, which, it appears from the article, sources, and history, your client isn't too concerned about. That said, You have your options. Vandalizing the article, and it IS vandalism, what you're doing, is not welcome here, and prohibited by our policies. The material that you object to belongs in the article, as it's relevant, and makes your client notable. I recall that incident clearly, and your client's role in it. ThuranX (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The article has been protected, following a notice at the administrators noticeboard about the legal threat here and potential violations of the biographies of living people policy. In the future, a good way to address these sorts of complaints is to (i) avoid threatening an individual or Wikipedia with a lawsuit (ii) use the talkpage to discuss problems and request other editors to make the edits you desire on your behalf (iii) report the page to the requests for protection board or the BLP policy noticeboard or (iv) contact the OTRS volunteers with specific concerns. Avruch T 19:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- May be for the best to stub this and start from scratch George The Dragon (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know, its a little unclear what in the current article is actually disputed. At the moment, the controversial incident seems to have a pretty bare and well-referenced paragraph. Unless there is some other objection, why stub the whole article? Could possibly just AfD it for notability reasons, though, I guess. Avruch T 20:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, it looks like most or all of the potentially defamatory information found in this revision has been removed from the current article. If that information is true, it goes a long way towards establishing notability I suppose. Avruch T 21:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- If he's been written up in CJR (the dean of journalism criticism), then it's undoubtedly encyclopedic to mention that (and definitely isn't libelous) - however, I have concerns over proper weighting and the manner it was presented - we don't call people "controversial" in the first line of their biographies. I would suggest working here to develop a consensus version. FCYTravis (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Both the Columbia Journalism Review and the esteemed Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz have written critically about Jason Leopold. Claims that Kurtz's writings have been corrected or withdrawn are, as far as I know, completely false. As a journalist who believes in honesty and the free exchange of information, I'm disappointed that Mr. Leopold, whether through his own actions of those of someone who appears to be his attorney, has succeeded in chilling the debate on his Wikipedia page. I think it's in the best interests of those who refer to Wikipedia for authoritative information that some consensus editing be done to this page, so that we can correct what appears to be an effort to whitewash certain aspects of Mr.Leopold's past.Gefiltefish85 (talk) 01:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- If he's been written up in CJR (the dean of journalism criticism), then it's undoubtedly encyclopedic to mention that (and definitely isn't libelous) - however, I have concerns over proper weighting and the manner it was presented - we don't call people "controversial" in the first line of their biographies. I would suggest working here to develop a consensus version. FCYTravis (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I find it interesting that GefilteFish85 registered on Wiki ONLY to edit Leopold's bio, which he or she has done numerous times, in a fashion that is COMPLETELY biased. This person is absolutely not a journalist but appears to be a fraud and a liar and that is ironic because he or she is accusing Leopold of those very crimes. Moreover, to say "Kurtz" is "esteemed" is highly questionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.243.138.235 (talk) 05:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've edited Wikipedia pages before, at least one or two years ago, using a different account that I honestly can't remember. Because my other account lapsed, I created GefilteFish85 when I wanted to edit the "Jason Leopold" page, the first page I've edited in a long time. It was a coincidence, not evidence of an agenda. If I have any agenda, it's that I'm a working journalist and want to hold my fellow professionals accountable to the ethics of our job. I would discourage the above unsigned user from making unhelpful and ad hominem attacks on someone they've never met before. I'd further argue that my edits were not made in a "completely biased" fashion. I simply stated facts about the negative coverage Leopold received from Salon, the Financial Times, Kurtz and the Columbia Journalism Review, and linked to said articles. I would say that whoever deleted those passages, in a seeming effort to eliminate any references to Mr. Leopold's past, was the one acting with bias.Gefiltefish85 (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
If you are truly a working journalist then you should leave your real name since you publish articles under that name. Unless you are worried about receiving the same type of scrutiny. I for one believe you are a liar and you are either one of two people: [redacted]. And you DO have a bias because as a journalist if you read Leopold's book you would know full well that the material written by these so called "esteemed" writers is wrong. Moreover, if you read the CJR article you would know that they were forced to issue a correction in which they said that quotes attributed to Leopold were wrong and should have been attributed to Ash.
So what's your name Mr. so-called journalist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.243.138.235 (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Mr or Mrs Gefilte Fish claims to be a journalist and keeping his colleagues honest. I call BS. here's his or hers activity, all for Leopold.
- 17:22, 5 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Jason Leopold (→Legal issues, WP:BLP, protection and WP:OTRS)
- 01:47, 30 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Jason Leopold (→Legal issues, WP:BLP, protection and WP:OTRS)
- 01:36, 30 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Jason Leopold (→Legal issues, WP:BLP, protection and WP:OTRS)
- 01:36, 30 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Jason Leopold (→Legal issues, WP:BLP, protection and WP:OTRS)
- 17:43, 3 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Jason Leopold
- 17:42, 3 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Jason Leopold
- 17:41, 3 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Jason Leopold
- 17:36, 3 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Jason Leopold
- 17:35, 3 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Jason Leopold
- 17:27, 3 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Jason Leopold
- Yes, I think it's pretty clear that I've edited the page for Jason Leopold, as that list would indicate. After all, this discussion concerns Mr. Leopold, not myself. I would encourage the powers-that-be at Wikipedia to either allow editing on this page or use their discretion to make their own edits and restore this biographical information to a semblance of objectivity. I would remind everyone here, including the above-signed unnamed user, that stating true information (i.e. that Mr. Leopold has been criticized by several publications for his journalistic practices) is an activity immune from libel. Gefiltefish85 (talk) 05:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Then you should include that Mr Leopold sued CJR for defamation and libel and that CJR was forced to print a correction, which appears at the end of the article. Both of you are incredibly biased and lack objectivity and the person who claims to be a journalist failed to respond to questions about disclosing his or her true identity.
Anything referenced in the CJR article exposes wiki to damages.It's as simple as that. The below letter sets the record straight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.250.115 (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
in dispute
There is legal action against CJR for it's story that the individual who consistently changed to make this a non-neutral bio continues to use. He then goes on to cite Howard Kurtz article which has also been retracted since the material Mr. Kurtz wrote appears no where in my client's book. He relied on a news release. Moreover, Mr. Leopold is well known for his book, his work on Enron and the California energy crisis. To say that he is "best known" for a story about Karl Rove assumes that is an opinion shared with people on the Internet. Lastly, no where in this bio does it say that Mr. Rove's attorney to this day still has not produced a letter he says that he received from Mr. Fitzgerald clearing Mr. Rove. Additionally, Mr. Rove, at an appearance this year, stated he fully "expects to be indicted at the end of the year." Whether he was being facetious or not he still said it.
It is abundantly clear that the authors of the most recent changes to my client's work have sought to use material that will fit a predisposed agenda and rely on a story that is currently in dispute and the subject of major legal action. Everything is covered in the bio as it stands currently. The person who continuously changed it used words such as "exposed" and "past liar" and makes wildly outrageous claims that cannot be supported.
Here is a copy of the letter to CJR:
Copy of a letter claimed to have been written by article subject's lawyer to Columbia Journalism Review. |
---|
the following is a letter collapsed for improved readability. Please do not modify it. |
Evan Cornog, Publisher Columbia Journalism Review Journalism Building 2950 Broadway Columbia University New York, New York 10027
Dear Mr Cornog: I am writing on behalf of our client, Jason Leopold, with respect to the article written by Paul McLeary and published by Columbia Journalism Review on June 13, 2006. The article contains a series of false and defamatory statements concerning our client, Jason Leopold. We request that Columbia Journalism Review, CJRdaily, Paul McLeary, and the University of Columbia School of Journalism ("CJR"): Issue an immediate written correction and retraction of those defamatory statements and publish such correction and retraction in substantially as conspicuous a manner as the original defamatory publication(s), in a regular issue thereof published or broadcast; Immediately remove, and cease and desist from publishing any further defamatory statements concerning Mr. Leopold; and CJR immediately identify in writing any and all media, editors, and publishers to whom CJR has sent the subject article, including via email, and immediately advise all such media of the correction and retraction demanded herein. The defamatory statements concerning Mr. Leopold in the subject article are as follows: "Jason Leopold Caught Sourceless Again" The statement that Mr. Leopold has been caught sourceless on multiple occasions is untrue. "We wonder if the folks over at Truthout.org are rethinking their affiliation with reporter and serial fabulist Jason Leopold." The true facts are that Mr. Leopold is not a "serial fabulist". "Leopold, you may recall, is the freelance reporter who was caught making stuff up in a 2002 Salon.com article, and had his own memoir cancelled because of concerns of the accuracy of quotations." "But the book was not to be" The true facts are that Mr. Leopold was never "caught making stuff up in a 2002 Salon.com article" The true facts are that Mr. Leopold's book was not only published but was on Los Angeles Times Bestseller List at the time this article was published. While it is certainly fair to note that Mr. Leopold’s first publisher did not publish Mr. Leopold’s book, it is not acceptable to defame Mr. Leopold with the false claim that his book was cancelled because of concerns over accuracy or to imply, as the article does, that the book was not to be, and was never published. "Leopold’s latest addition to his application for membership in the Stephen Glass school of journalism came on May 12 of this year..." Stephen Glass is know for being an admitted liar and fabricator of stories. The clear implication is that Mr. Leopold is also a fabricator is stories. Mr. Leopold is not a fabricator of stories. After all this certainty comes Leopold's latest version of the story, published yesterday, where he writes that he based his original article "on single source information and general background information obtained from experts. The conclusions we arrive at should be considered carefully, but not taken as statements of fact, per se." The true facts are that Paul McLeary falsely puts these quoted words in Jason Leopold’s mouth making it appear that Mr. Leopold’s work is improperly sourced and otherwise unreliable. These words were never stated or written by Mr. Leopold, but rather appeared under a byline by Mark Ash, the Executive Director of Truthout. Leopold says that he knows "for certain" that there exists a federal indictment called "06 cr 128" which he refers to as "(Sealed vs. Sealed)" since neither party's name is on the document. He also knows that this indictment "was returned by the same grand jury that has been hearing matters related to the Fitzgerald/Plame investigation." The true facts are that Paul McLeary falsely puts these quoted words in Mr. Leopold’s mouth making it appear that Mr. Leopold’s work is improperly sourced and otherwise unreliable. These words were never stated or written by Mr. Leopold, but rather appeared under a byline by Mark Ash, the Executive Director of Truthout. So much for what Leopold knows. Apparently, Leopold is a very religious man, because he "believes" quite a bit about the alleged indictment. He believes that it "is directly related to the Fitzgerald/Plame investigation. That's based on a single credible source." He goes on to list several other things he "believes" to be true, all fed to him by, in his words, the "same single credible source." The true facts are that Paul McLeary falsely puts these quoted words in Jason Leopold’s mouth making it appear that Mr. Leopold’s work is improperly sourced and otherwise unreliable. These words were never stated or written by Mr. Leopold, but rather appeared under a byline by Mark Ash, the Executive Director of Truthout. "Salon removed Leopold's August 29, 2002 story about Enron from its site after it was discovered that he plagiarized parts from the Financial Times and was unable to provide a copy of an email that was critical to the piece." The true facts are that Mr. Leopold was able, and did in fact; provide the aforementioned email to Salon.com. Salon’s concern had to do with authenticating the email. The above statements are unprivileged and defamatory per se, in that they tend directly to injure Mr. Leopold in that they are an unprivileged and expose Mr. Leopold to "to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation" Cal. Civ. Code § 45. Surprisingly, Mr. Leopold was never contacted for comment on this article. Quotes were wrongly attributed to Mr. Leopold and then used by the author to bolster the attack on Mr. Leopold’s credibility. A basic investigation into Mr. Leopold reveals that his book was published and is available. Further, Mr. Leopold’s book is cited with a link on every story he writes for Truthout, including the ones Paul McLeary cites in his article. McLeary ignores those facts and gives the impression to CJR's readers that Mr. Leopold's book was never published and is not available. The article has caused damage to Mr. Leopold and continues to cause him damage. Mr. Leopold is currently promoting his book. This article is harming his ability to secure interviews and otherwise harming him professionally. We demand that you immediately take steps to mitigate the damage your defamatory actions are causing. Please contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss the matter.
|
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.194.3 (talk) 05:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- How long will this page protection last? Hasn't gone on over the required 24 business hours?--98.215.46.64 (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Clearly, by the response of "24 business hours" you have shown your bias and lack of neutrality. Your intent is to use whatever you can find to smear. That's your goal here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.243.138.235 (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Turns out that the person who has been making changes to the Leopold entry and stating that he is a journalist is none other than MURRAY WAAS. Here's the proof. Mr. Waas has been found on the website spock.com where he is a member and has been found to have added links about Mr. Leopold to articles that smeared him, including one written under the pseudonym DHinMI. The person was exposed and discovered to be Dana Houle, the chief of staff congressman Ron Hodes.
Mr. Leopold it turns out actually sued Murray Waas several years ago. Now it's apparent as to why Mr. Waas and his butt buddy Jeff Lomanaco have been trying to change the wikipedia entry. I urge everyone at wiki to expose Murray Waas. He is not neutral but carries a bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.243.138.235 (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Threats and personal attacks
Legal threats and personal attacks are both violations of Wikipedia policies. If they continue on this page by anonymous IP commenters I'll ask that the protection for the article be converted to semi-protection for both the article and the talkpage (excludes only edits from IPs and accounts newer than 4 days). Avruch T 02:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Category
{{editprotected}}
Amusingly for a page which has been fully protected for WP:BLP reasons, this article has not actually been placed in Category:Living people. Could an admin please add it to that category? Terraxos (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Done Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Neutrality tag
The neutrality tag has been on this article sence 2008, I am going to remove it unless someone explains what they think the issue is. Bonewah (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Cited by oberman
IP 75.56.207.148 keeps re-adding the following passage to the lead of this article "who has spent more than a year probing the Bush administration's torture program and published more than 100 investigative reports, one of which was recently cited by Keith Olbermann of Countdown http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30499449/, and others cited by The Daily Beast, Harper's, The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Independent, and The Huffington Post." I do not feel that this is noteworthy enough to include in this article. Any reporter who is worth anything will be cited from time to time and listing those citations in the very first sentence is poor writing at best. Further, the portions about Enron and California's energy crisis are redundant with information allready present further down the article. I am removing the passages in question, please feel free to discuss them here. Bonewah (talk) 12:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- That would be Jason himself...I'm glad others are finally patrolling this page, as I'd kinda given up the fight. Arkon (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
wrong, it is not "jason himself." It is me. Registering for this takes forever. I am a fan of Leopold's and have been since his enron days. This article has long been presented as a wholly biased version of events by people, such as yourselves, who clearly have a vendetta against Leopold because of his story on Rove. The fact of the matter is that three years have now passed since that story and Leopold has done an enormous amount of work on the issue of torture and deserves credit and attention for that work. Moreover, much has been revealed since Leopold's story about Rove and his role in the Plame leak that would at least add context. But all of you continually harp on this one area instead of judging the entire body of work.
If you change the neutrality I will see to it that it is put back in until you can make this article more balanced —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.205.85 (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
POV tag
This entry is an entirely one-sided, biased account, of Jason Leopold that relies HEAVILY on issues related to his reporting on Karl Rove's indictment, which occurred four years ago. There is not a single entry on the work Mr. Leopold has done since then, particularly on the issue of torture, for which he has received accolades and awards, to balance this entry out. I am Mr. Leopold's lawyer and I continue to battle with Wikipedia for what is a biased, and in some places, defamatory entry. It appears that Bonewah is the individual who continues to rely heavily on these four year old claims to make a point about Mr. Leopold the person and the journalist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.202.96 (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Ive taken the liberty of moving this discussion to its own section, for easier reading. This article covers the Karl Rove indictment claim because that is really Leopold's only real claim to fame. The mere fact that it occurred four years ago doesnt matter at all, this is an encyclopedia and, as such, documents history. Mr. Leopold's false indictment claim is a historical fact, and as such, should be recorded. If you feel that some section is defamatory, by all means, be specific here and we can discuss it, likewise with bias. But remember bias (or defamation) does not mean "I dont like it"
- The same holds true for his work since then, show me actually notable awards covered in a reliable source and ill be happy to include it. If your hoping for cheer-leading of minor events such as appearing on Olbermann's show, forget it, not going to happen. Bonewah (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I am Mr. Leopold's attorney. The passage BONEWAH included on Salon contains defamatory and libelous information. The context of this passage is wholly taken out of context. Mr. Leopold sued Salon in 2003 for false statements the organization made about this episode. It is covered in great detail in his book, News Junkie, as well as a legal letter to Columbia Journalism Review on this discussion page. Mr. Leopold ultimately prevailed and Salon apologized. In fact, a simple lexis search will show this article is still available from Salon. User BONEWAH has waged a war against Mr. Leopold extending several years now and have gone above and beyond to malign my client. You state that Mr. Leopold is only known for the Karl Rove episode. Perhaps that is true for you but not for the tens of thousands of people who read Mr. Leopold's work on a daily basis and invite him on television and radio to discuss his work. Your commentary is evidence of bias and in cherry picking passages to fit your agenda you have defamed Mr. Leopold and in doing so caused him serious harm. I demand this passage immediately be removed as it does not state the true nature of the facts. Moreover, this entire article is nothing short of a hit job by a select group of individuals who have made a career of sorts of defaming and libeling my client. There is absolutely no balance to this entry and the authors seem to have knowingly avoided including the accolades, particularly on issues related to Mr. Leopold's work in other areas as well as an award he received from The Military Religious Freedom Foundation, an organization nominated for a Nobel Peace prize for 2010. A simple search of this organization's website will provide you with the information you need. By continuing to keep this passage intact wikipedia is now a party to defamation. I would advise all interested parties to read the letter on the discussion page. My contact information can be found on the letter cited above to Columbia Journalism Review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- if you are Mr. Leopold's lawyer and you are worried about defamatory entries about Mr. Leopold, then why did you add the entry "Leopold is a 'nut with Internet access'" to the main article?? That makes no sense.Anthonymendoza (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I am Mr. Leopold's lawyer and have been monitoring the bias of this page for quite some time, hoping to get it into a more neutral territory. Including that element in this bio makes sense to show how close Mr. Leopold got to Rove and how worried Rove was. That he resorts to attacking Mr. Leopold, part of Rove's modus operandi, suggests that there is more to the story. Are we to believe Mr. Rove, an individual who is a known liar, when he says that Mr. Fitzgerald called his lawyer to discuss Leopold? Why would a prosecutor investigating Karl Rove do such a thing? Why would anyone give credibility to Mr. Rove's statements? That Mr. Rove would devote an entire page to Mr. Leopold and attack him, just as he did to Gov. Don Siegelman, certainly suggests that there is something to what Mr. Leopold wrote. And readers should know about it.
- What we believe is fairly irrelevant. Wikipedia reports the facts presented by secondary sources. If you have specific concerns regarding content that is not supported by sources, please point them out so they can be addressed. Thanks Tiderolls 04:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Including that element in this bio makes sense to show how close Mr. Leopold got to Rove and how worried Rove was. That he resorts to attacking Mr. Leopold, part of Rove's modus operandi, suggests that there is more to the story
- So as Mr. Leopold's attorney, are you suggesting the article he wrote about Rove being indicted is actually an accurate article?? please explain!Anthonymendoza (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Thread at the BLP noticeboard
Hi, a thread has been opened at the BLPN here regarding content in the article, any comments there are also appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 12:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Semiprotected; instructions to 76.xxx
I have semiprotected this article for one week, to give time to discuss the possible BLP issues. I encourage everyone who edits the article to pay the utmost attention to keeping the article accurate and neutral.
To the user from IP address 76.xxx: if you are a representative for Mr. Leopold or otherwise associated with him, and you wish to advocate on his behalf, you must send an email to info-en-q@wikimedia.org containing both a clear description of your complaint and information allowing them to verify you are indeed his representative. There is no way for ordinary editors here to verify you are who you say you are, and no way for them to handle legal issues. However, the volunteers who staff that email address are in touch with our legal department and will be able to help you as appropriate. Please ask them to contact me, User:CBM, when they have confirmed your identity. I will also check this page from time to time.
To all editors: this article has a large number of statements marked as "citation needed". Given that there have been complaints about the article, I recommend finding citations for these, or removing ones that cannot be verified to reliable sources, as a high priority. I removed the word "best" from "best known" as this seems to require stronger sourcing as well. Keep in in mind our best practices regarding biographies and neutrality. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've cleaned up most of the sourcing issues. Found sources for some claims, removed the rest after searching for and not finding sources. Yworo (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I am not a representative nor associated with Mr. Leopold and you have no basis to suggest that I am. I am simply trying to add balance to this article that has long been biased and the neutrality questionable. The village voice story is relevant and must be included, particularly the quote from Paul Krugman
Protected
I have enable pending changes protection for this page, due to the ongoing but infrequent content removal. It isn't worth more strict protection because the edits are not that frequent. However, pending changes allows others to edit while helping to filter out the content removal. Any editor in good standing can request the "reviewer" user right, so that he or she can mark valid changes by IP editors as accepted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
There is no basis to support that I am closely aligned with or associated with the subject of this article or I am the author. The issues discussed in the entry for Salon are wrong and this article from the Village Voice contains commentary from Paul Krugman, a Nobel Peace Prize winner as well as Salon, that balances out and makes it more neutral. The editors of the Jason Leopold article simply refuse to include anything about Leopold that would add neutrality to the story. This needs to be included to replace the what is there:
In 2002, following a two week investigation, Salon pulled an article from its website authored by Leopold about Enron due to concerns that portions of it had not been adequately credited from an earlier Financial Times article about the same subject and that an email had been "misquoted" according to a report in the Village Voice. As the Voice notes "In a curious twist, Salon informs readers that they can still read Leopold's story in the Nexis archives." Salon never used the word "plagiarism," according to a report in the Village Voice and Leopold, as the Voice report notes, said the story was credited twice http://www.villagevoice.com/2002-10-15/news/smear-for-smear/ [10][11] Salon stated that it could not confirm that validity of an email mentioned in the article in which later Secretary of the Army Thomas E. White was claimed to have said "Close a bigger deal. Hide the loss before the 1Q".[10] The Voice reported and quoted New York Times columnist Paul Krugman who picked up the article: "Obviously, Leopold made mistakes, but it's not at all clear they justify a full repudiation of the story or a revocation of his journalistic license. As Paul Krugman told the Voice, "Everything else in that story checked out. The substance of his reporting was entirely correct." http://www.villagevoice.com/2002-10-15/news/smear-for-smear/2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)