Talk:Dick Black (politician)

NPOV edit

I've edited the very biased paragraph on the Senator's letter to Assad which used to read:

"In April 2014 Black sent a letter to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, praising his conduct in the country's ongong civil war, during which Assad has been personally implicated in war crimes and crimes against humanity by the United Nations.[22]"

The source cited here uses the word "President," not "dictator," and make no mention of any war crimes indictment. -Helvetica (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Restoring page

I've had to restore the page to an earlier version, because there was so much cited material removed, and unreferenced biographical material added. Some of the reasons given for removing material were not true ("Removing incorrect information from unreliable source that has since been updated to show that this quote is inaccurate" and "Removing slanderous and unproven quote from unreliable source.") Some other material was removed with no explanation. It is not a good idea to put unreferenced personal information about subjects as they have a right to a private life. Haminoon (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Note that the Senator's website is a valid source for uncontroversial biographical information, per WP:SELFPUB. I'm starting to look at the edits today. It's not clear to me whether Mother Jones is a reliable source. They have a definite political bent. I don't know whether they have a reputation for unbiased coverage in their news articles.

Mother Jones (magazine) seems reliable enough for facts. I don't think a magazine of its size in the US would keep potentially defamatory material on its website. It has a definite slant but this can be balanced by using material from other media and the subject's website. Haminoon (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Mother Jones (magazine) is a political tabloid. It writes fluff pieces on politicians it likes and hit pieces on politicians it doesn't. I am not trying to take out any more of the other things that are listed about him, but the Mother Jones article is pure tabloid journalism and does not belong on this page.Ashburnian (talk) 14:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

We are not disputing that Mother Jones has a political slant, and the size of paper it is printed on is of no interest to me. The question is: are they a reliable source of facts? I say yes - there is no way a magazine with their reputation would make up a quote by a major politician (which would be potentially libellous) and leave it on their website. Do you have any evidence of them making up quotes in the past, or leaving defamatory material on their website? If you sincerly believe the quote is fabricated then your energy would be better spent getting MJ to publish a retraction. Haminoon (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I realise now you were talking about tabloid journalism, not tabloid (newspaper format). Regardless, Mother Jones (magazine) is not tabloid journalism. Haminoon (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Senator Black is not going to waste the time (and the tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees) to attempt to get a magazine that nobody reads to retract something. He will, however, seriously consider taking action to correct a site that pops up as one of the first sources of information when his name is 'googled'.Ashburnian (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It has a fairly high circulation, and making a simple phone call doesn't cost that much. What about all the other information you removed as being "slanderous"? Is that all okay now? Haminoon (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not okay, but they are incidents and quotes that I can verify from reputable sources. The Mother Jones article is simply a hatchet job and this quote in particular is unverified. Furthermore, it (once again) violates Wikipedia policy in numerous ways, not only from being unverified, but also taken out of context, not neutral, not appearing in multiple reliable sources, etc...

The other information I will be dealing with one at a time. If the quote is taken out of context, I will fix it. If not, I will provide a balance.

If all it took was a phone call to Mother Jones to get this fixed, it would have happened already.Ashburnian (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The removal of the comment about rape in the military seems proper: that comment needs a better source than a website.--Srleffler (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Although the same comment is mentioned in the Mother Jones reference.Haminoon (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The quote you keep trying to put back is libelous and wrong. I can guarantee you that the Senator did not give that quote to Mother Jones and they provide no background for where or when they claim he said it. They also provide no sourcing. Please stop putting it back in.Ashburnian (talk) 14:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The only issue for us is whether Mother Jones is a reliable source. If they report the quote, and they are a reliable source, we can use it. "Reliable source" means precisely that we can trust in their editorial standards, that the quote would have been properly sourced and fact-checked. Now, I have no idea whether the magazine is a reliable source. Unless anyone has a better idea, we could ask for help at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I recommend that the disputed passage not be reinserted until we settle the sourcing question.--Srleffler (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Senator Black is a public figure, and under the BLP guidelines, it states:

"In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."

Making the claim that Senator Black made a statement about military rape in that manner is a contentious allegation that is not supported by any other material, and is not repeated by any other reliable source. The only other places on the internet that may repeat the claim are linking back to Mother Jones, which causes a feedback loop.Ashburnian (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The quote is from 1996 so there is very little on the internet about it. I don't doubt it was well covered by newspapers at the time. Haminoon (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

How would you know when a non-existent quote is from? There is no attribution in the only source of this supposed quote. The author of the Mother Jones article was able to find sources for other information from the timeframe, so why couldn't she find a reputable source to back up this quote? Again, this quote violates the BLP guidelines for public figures. The Wikipedia guidelines are there not just to provide a neutral, balanced website, but also to protect Wikipedia from legal jeopardy. I have pointed out numerous times how this quote violates the BLP guidelines in numerous ways. I have been patient and understanding, but now I feel I have exhausted all my options. I have removed the offending quote again, and if it is restored again I will file a formal complaint with Wikipedia asking them to remove the quote and block the users who keep restoring it.Ashburnian (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Weren't you supposed to file a complaint already? You don't need to wait.Haminoon (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I am writing it now. I have a lot of supporting information to document, including this conversation. I don't know why you have an axe to grind on this, but I am not going to play this game anymore.Ashburnian (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I added back some very brief biographical details that seem relevant and not unduly self-serving or promotional. Sourced from the Senator's website per WP:SELFPUB. Previous experience in the military and legal professions is relevant experience in U.S. politics, and the article was unduly sparse about Black's career prior to entering politics at age 53.--Srleffler (talk) 06:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I want to make it clear I removed the biographical information because it wasn't mentioned on the webpage referenced - I see you have found a correct citation so thanks for that. Haminoon (talk) 06:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

BLP issue fixed

I removed three sources being used to advance what is a pretty out of context attack on Dick Black. At no point did Black endorse sexual misconduct (also rape) between mixed-gender training by instructors and recruits. On the contrary, Black asserted that the issue would be prevalent given human nature and the power dynamics which exist. This is not controversial, but the implication and usage by the source was implicit that Black was taking a stance he did not take. Here is the relevant context:

Retired Army Col. Dick Black, now practicing military law in Northern Virginia, said the Army has experienced isolated cases of sexual misconduct between drill instructors and female recruits - and will continue to do so. "The heart of the whole problem is mixed-gender training," Col. Black said. "You get these romantically inclined trainees and, on the other hand, you have sharp, athletic drill sergeants who are authority figures in a position of control. And whether the Department of Defense likes it or not, there is a good deal of sex between the two. Much of it is voluntary. Some of it is not." Female trainees at Aberdeen, which offers specialized maintenance training after boot camp, range in age from the late teens to the early 20s. The drill instructors are in their late 20s to mid-30s. The average age of the Army's 2,100 drill instructors is 33. "It is as predictable as human nature," Col. Black said. "Think of yourself when you were 25. Wouldn't you love to have a group of 19-year-old girls under your control day in, day out?" Col. Black said that, despite evidence that the matchup leads to sexual misconduct, the Pentagon has no intention of reverting to same-sex assignments between instructors and recruits. "That would be inconsistent with this tremendous drive to feminize the military today, to pretend there is no difference between the sexes," he said.

I hope this rectifies the issue and the edit warring. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for tracing this back to the original source, ChrisGualtieri. Perhaps those comments were ill-advised (in my 2015 world view). But they should not be twisted and distorted into something far more pernicious than the clear meaning of the extended quotation. Well done. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Contraceptive pill is a "baby pesticide"?

Numerous links here stating that DB called oral contraceptives "baby pesticides". Is this not in the article for a reason? Just curious.. I would have thought a fringe view like that would be notable. MLPainless (talk) 07:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Mother Jones repeating and Think Progress - the original source was more clear. It is not a "fringe view" because Black opposed the stronger pill because it could act as a abortifacient. Calling it "baby pesticide" was an analogy and a pretty clear one at that.

Opponents said the pills can act as an abortifacient in some cases, since it can prevent a fertilized egg from attaching itself to the uterine wall. "This is a baby pesticide we're looking at. It's a toxic method of eliminating a child," said Delegate Richard H. Black, Loudoun Republican.

Human life (physiologically) requires an egg and a sperm and that particular type of pill conflicts with Black's views. We should not be using an analogy as the substitute for the intention and meaning of his words - as it is too easy to be radicalized as some "fringe" belief. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 08:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

If he uses "clear analogies" like "baby pesticides", surely that should be quoted? I mean, people are often known for their quips and phrases. MLPainless (talk) 08:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I have fleshed out this quote to provide better context and balance. The text as presented is solely designed to be sensational, and not informative. I feel that this is a more balanced text while retaining the quoted material. I also added more information and a new citation for the 24 hour waiting period. The cited article does not actually state that he voted for the bill, although he clearly did. I have provided a secondary source for the information.Ashburnian (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The change Ashburnian made provides better context. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Editing and Formatting

Since there was a recent dispute that I was involved in regarding this site, I wanted to just post a quick note here to say that over the next few days and weeks I will be adding new material to this page and maybe some re-formatting of the existing material to better organize it into proper time periods/subject matter, etc.. so the page is more readable. I have some new sources for some biographical information, and I was thinking about providing some more detail about some of the more notable bills Sen. Black supported or opposed.

If anyone else is watching this page, I would appreciate constructive criticism as things move along. This is the first Wikipedia page I have been involved in and the more I learn, the more interesting it gets. After this I am thinking I might move on to edit some other pages. Thanks. Ashburnian (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dick Black (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150109085434/http://www.dickblack4senate.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=78&Itemid=143 to http://www.dickblack4senate.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=78&Itemid=143
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?011+sum+HB2570
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=011&typ=bil&val=hb2782

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dick Black (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150109085434/http://www.dickblack4senate.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=78&Itemid=143 to http://www.dickblack4senate.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=78&Itemid=143

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

COI

Please do not remove COI tag until the issue is resolved. Ashburnian has noted he has been in touch with the subject of the entry about its contents and continues to make significant changes to the entry after being asked to suggest them here first. Given the extent of the changes, the matter of uninvolved editors reviewing all of these will take significant time. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Ashburnian needs to clarify the extent of his/her relationship with Black. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't have an affiliation with him. I live in Senator Black's district, and contacted him to ask him about a quote. He replied saying he did not make that quote. The material I removed was the subject of a controversy in late 2014/early 2015 that led to me filing an ANI complaint about my edits being routinely reverted. I was upheld in that controversy and the material stayed removed for years until the person who originally posted it came back and renewed the content. I had the page on my watch list but Wikipedia did not notify me of the changes. You can see the discussion here and on my talk page under the BLP heading that the issue was resolved. When I came back to add new content to the page earlier this week I found the old offending content had been restored. When I removed it again, Innisfree987 restored it. When I removed it again, I pointed out the previous controversy. That led to Innisfree987 placing the COI tag on the page.

I have offered to have every edit I have made on this page reviewed. Every piece of content I add is properly sourced, in a neutral point of view, and follows the BLP guidelines. The only material I have removed is either poorly sourced, unverified, inaccurate, not in a neutral point of view, or some combination of the 4. The point of a Wikipedia page is to provide a full, balanced profile that provides sufficient content and proper context. It is not to be used to either fluff up or tear down the subject. All of my edits work toward achieving that goal.

It is unfortunate that I have been accused of having a conflict simply because I live in his district and decided to go straight to the source to get a question answered, but that does not mean I deserve to be treated differently here, or that I should have to go through the trouble of researching information, putting together the content and sources, then ask someone else to make edits to the page when they feel like getting around to it. Ashburnian (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I restored information that was cited to a source Wikipedia generally considers reliable, which itself included links verifying every claim Ashburnian had removed. When Ashburnian reverted me, not wanting to enter an edit war and noting the long-standing issue about consulting the subject of the entry--which creates not only COI issues but also WP:NOR problems--I placed the COI tag to flag the general concern and began delving deeper into the sources. Because material keeps getting added and there's already an ANI on the matter, it's a time-consuming task. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

When you placed the COI tag on the page and contacted me, I responded immediately. I explained that I do not have a conflict and offered to go over every one of my edits. I waited for a full day for you to reply before I gave up, removed the tag and began to add more content to the page. If you are going to take the step of claiming I am violating the rules, then you sould be a little more responsive. It also does not speak well to the idea of asking me to wait around for someone to consider making edits I suggest here on the talk page.

If you read not only the comments on this page, but also on my talk page, you will see that the article in question was considered unreliable and it has been corrected and updated many times. Here is a comment from my talk page:

"I noticed the edit war and the BLPN matter - I decided to rectify the problem. It seems you were correct and it took me all of a minute to verify that Mother Jones was pulling the quote way out of context. I have fixed one issue, but please direct me to others. I am extremely strict when it comes to WP:BLP and will try to be as fair as I can. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS - especially for quotes. The easiest way to find misrepresentation or other issues is to find a quote. Any words you say can be later used out of context and often against you, but the source will still be accurate for repeating what was said. This is why context matters and you should try to find the origin of the material when quotes are used in this manner. Hope I helped. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)"

Furthermore, Mother Jones is Tabloid Journalism and should not be used as a reliable source. The piece was written as a smear piece and was poorly sourced and unreliable, and any sources that then link back to this article are similarly unreliable (Fruit of the Poisonous Tree). This was not the first time someone tried to restore it, but this is the first time since the ANI that someone has reverted my removal of this particular content.

I have yet to hear any criticism of content that I have added to the page. If you feel anything I have added is improper, not properly sourced, or not in a neutral tone, please let me know. As for the COI, I don't know what else to say about that. I do not have a conflict, so unless you can point to anything other than contacting Black's office and asking a question, I think the tag should be removed. Ashburnian (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, the 21 hours that elapsed are far less than we generally give before a discussion is considered dormant (to my knowledge there's no specific policy, but a week is my personal rule of thumb), but in fact yes, the more I look into this, the less I think I'll be able to go through all the material this week (which is the point of the tag; it's not to determine your relationship to the subject, but to verify neutrality of the changes to the entry if the appearance of conflict has been introduced. Even if there really were a massive conflict of interest, we still take the tag down once there's consensus about the neutrality of the material). In any event, unless Snooganssnoogans or someone else wants to pursue the subject, feel free to remove the tag; it is policy we don't leave COI tags up if not currently under discussion. I may return to the entry when I have a larger chunk of time to devote to it. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Added to article Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

He is an associate member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. https://consortiumnews.com/2024/03/25/vips-memo-the-french-road-to-nuclear-war

Ironcurtain2 (talk) 07:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

I added this to the VIP webpage:

As of March 2024, the current members include, William Binney, Dick Black, Marshall Carter-Tripp, Bogdan Dzakovic, Graham E. Fuller, Philip Giraldi, Matthew Hoh, James George Jatras, Larry C. Johnson, John Kiriakou, Karen Kwiatkowski, Douglas Macgregor, Ray McGovern, Elizabeth Murray, Todd E. Pierce, Pedro Israel Orta, Scott Ritter, Coleen Rowley, Lawrence Wilkerson, Sarah G. Wilton, J. Kirk Wiebe, Robert Wing, and Ann Wright.

Ironcurtain2 (talk) 11:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

References