Talk:Johnny Sutton

Removal of sourced material

I have restored a section with an official response to sutton's lies from CONGRESSMAN DANA ROHRBACHER'S OFFICE.

Can we express that he is a huge ass for being one of those rare government officials trying to destroy America? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.232.99 (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No, you can't write it that way. This is an excyclopedia. You may try to explain that certain interest groups are not content with the subject's handling of particular issues. For example, have there been calls to remove this US Attorney? Why wasn't he removed? Who favors him (difficult to evidence)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.140.59 (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I consider the removal nothing but whitewashing and WP:LIVING does not apply because it is an official response from the congressman's office. FixtheBorder (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Write it in a neutral way. If you want to state that it's a rebuttal to what he's said that's fine. To call his comments "lies" without it being anything more than your opinion, violates the WP:NPOV policy. Leebo ^T/C 14:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Quoted Cong. Rohrabacher DIRECTLY regarding sutton. Now stop the whitewashing goon who keeps deleting things from this article. FixtheBorder (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop assuming bad faith about the other users involved. It is impossible to resolve a dispute if you're going to resort to calling names and slinging mud before the discussion has even began. Repeated incivility can lead to a temporary loss of editing privileges. Leebo ^T/C 20:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I have already traced an IP address from Sutton's office that put in a bunch of hogwash here and removed the section on Sutton's complicity in the House of Death case (though the case is still linked on the bottom). That is proof enough for me that he has workers from his staff trying to sabotage this page just as he deliberately puts out falsehoods to the media. FixtheBorder (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what the hell you are babbling about, but i would suggest you take some meds and chill out for awhile. If you regain your senses, please become familiar with how Wiki works and then maybe try again IN HERE. Seriously, what's up here ?!? Thanks, --Tom (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

He has been blocked for 24 hours for continuing to edit war on this article. Leebo ^T/C 20:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Leebo, I will try not to edit war, I was just trying to revert to the last "stable" version. If Fixtheboarder wants to work on the talk page and stop accusing folks of whitwashing or whatever, I would be happy to try to help. Anyways, Cheers!--Tom (talk) 20:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• A person came on IRC yesterday making a lot of legal and media threats regarding editors involved in this article's recent edits and administrative actions linked to those edits, so future edits to this article should be taken with that in mind. While I do not believe anything will come of it, you might want to consider it an act of goodwill to ensure we cover the topic as completely and unbiasedly as we can, using the best reliable sources. Personally, I won't, but it's just my prerogative to be a jerk --Agamemnon2 (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate Material?

Comments

I somehow came across this article and made this edit [[1]] to remove POV, specifically calling a living person a liar without a source. Then I started watching the article and looking at the other POV issues within the aarticle and found many of them and removed or asked for citations. The article then became a battleground for what material belongs. I posted the article to the Living Person message board and submitted the RfC to get others to look at this and decide what is appropriate. Jons63 (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Specific claims that need addressing

1. The characterization of Sutton as "my dear friend" by G.W. Bush
2. The case of Officer David Sipe
3. The case of Officer Gary Brugman

These three points have been added and deleted from the article numerous times. The first seems somewhat trivial to me, the President has numerous public relations appearances each year, and G.W. Bush has always seemed to me to wish to portray himself a kind of an approachable figure, so him calling a person "my dear friend" would seem like a logical choice of words. I do not think the fact is noteworthy as such, I am sure numerous other people have received similar comments from Bush.

I do not believe establishing a dialogue with the editors concerned with adding these segments is at all possible, but I would like to see the claims they have made addressed. If for nothing else than to save them the costly inanity of pursuing the matter via legal means, which they have expressed a desire for doing. --Agamemnon2 (talk) 13:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You have been given ample chance to act in ways that show you actually want things addressed. Instead of doing so, you have consistently lied about our members, you have abused authority to block those who attempted to correct your completely fraudulent "article", and have shown a knowing disdain for the law.

Numerous documents have been put forth by our members, including several links to information provided by members of congress. Instead of behaving honorably and fairly, you have now locked the article in bad faith as well as dishonestly blocked multiple people claiming they are "sockpuppets" for being willing to stand up to the liars who have broken your own so-called "NPOV" standards on this article.

Interestingly, you claim you "do not believe establishing a dialogue with the editors concerned with adding these segments is at all possible" - a fairly certain assumption given that YOU AND YOUR FELLOW BIASED LIARS are preventing them from even communicating on this talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BorderGuard3022 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

In response to the deleted comments, my statements above are representative of myself and myself alone. Frankly, any allegations of bias and dishonesty is both ridiculous (as I could not possibly have any personal stake in what appears to be an exclusively American topic). My writings on this talk page were motivated by the direct legal threats by a member of "the organization" (the name eludes me, alas) that were posted on the #wikipedia IRC channel yesterday.

My assessment that the originators of the abovementioned three issues would be unreceptive to dialogue were the result of assessing the tone of both the IRC communiques and the Wikipedia edits in question, not one of which showed any attempt to reach a consensus, request clarification on pertinent comments or, indeed, establishing any kind of dialogue whatsoever. I am, of course, always open to being corrected on the issue, and indeed, if anyone wants to address the three specific claims I have outlined above, they are free to do so here, on my talkpage, or, if they prefer, over email. My address is vertigo667@hotmail.com (it's an old address dedicated for high-risk postings like this, so don't bother spamming it, you will not in fact be inconviencing me at the least). --Agamemnon2 (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I am going to try to make a levelheaded response to this and a number of things I am seeing coming to this discussion. I hope I have managed the correct formatting to restore the deleted sections because however hotheaded they are they also have value.

The first point I would make is that this is obviously a contentious issue; the state of the US/Mexico border and US policies and issues with immigration policy and illegal immigrants touch on a large number of other American debates such as a failing health care system, overcrowded and overburdened and failing public education, and taxation going to provide benefits for those who lack legal standing to be in the US and make for a volatile mix at any time. It is obvious that both sides of the aisle get quite heated during the discussion because they feel very strongly about the issues involved. It is also quite obvious that each side of the aisle has very truthful and logical points and that they are both likely correct on some part of the issue, but simply have different focuses. With that in mind, it would behoove anyone getting involved, including but not limited to wikipedia administrators who have a common knee-jerk reaction to use their extra buttons rather than looking seriously at articles to sit back and chill out a moment before doing anything.

The second point I would make is that to fail to assume good faith, and constantly accuse anyone who does not agree with the viewpoint of others on this page of being sockpuppets, is unhelpful. It is unhelpful for three reasons:

1. - it serves to reinforce a mindset on the part of those who are in disagreement that administrators are less interested in having the best article possible, and more interested in punishing/attacking those who disagree with them. The constant blocking of people, in particular, seems directly contradictory to the wording that "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users."
2. - it raises the temperature of the debate (those attacked will seek to fight back).
3. - it needlessly distracts from the points of logical discussion that need to be addressed.
4. - to any outsider viewing the discussion, it raises the appearance - whether reality or not - that one side of the discussion is deliberately being suppressed. This is unhelpful to any discussion and only furthers bad feelings towards administrators, wikipedia, and those who appear to be receiving favoritism.

I am going to operate and look at this under the following assumptions: (A) I will consider everyone who has attempted to edit the article or talk page not sockpuppets because the proof is rather lacking. "Reverting to another user's version" should not be considered "proof" of sockpuppetry, because wikipedia deliberately provides tools to do so. Otherwise, we should just as well accuse Jons63, Leebo, ThreeafterThree and Irishguy of being sockpuppets of each other; after all, they are all guilty both of reverting to each other and of edit warring as well. (B) all those who have contribued to this article, whether meatpuppets or otherwise, are interested in the article being as true and encyclopedic as possible.

Now that that's all out of the way, on to the specifics. From what I can see in the article, there are a number of points of contention, some interlinked and some not. Since many edit conflicts have gone on, I consider the likelihood high (and will under the bounds of "assuming good faith" assume until specifically informed by the users themselves otherwise) that most of these are the result of mere laziness by users/administrators who were conflicting with others and did not pay attention to the whole article they were changing, just the one sentence here or there that they were focused on.

1. - Sutton's role in the "House of Death" case. I note that this has been completely deleted from the article by user Rosieowner as well as user Steel359 despite a number of sources to both the case history and remarks by Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. At the same time, a number of links remain in the "External Links" section, which would confuse readers who come to the page as to what it is since it is no longer mentioned in the article.

I feel it is in the best interest of the article that the section as deleted (after he had locked the page) by Steel359 here [2] be restored and any improvements necessary made to it.

1. - The characterization of Sutton as "my dear friend" by President Bush: this has relevance because it was specifically made in a town-hall meeting and specifically in reference to a question asked to Bush about this case.

The Washington Post has an article regarding this here: [3] You can also see the precise wording from the transcript at whitehouse.gov here [4].

1. - The presence of a "Reactions" section for the Ramos & Compean cases. As Wikipedia currently has no specific article pertaining to this case (the closest thing comes on the page for Ignacio Ramos) this would seem to be the best place, and yet numerous sourced statements regarding public reaction to the case have been removed from the page without discussion.

Again, I feel it is in the best interest of the article (especially given the new and recent developments and upcoming appellate case) that this section be restored and any improvements necessary to bring it up to current status made.

1. - The case of officer David Sipe; this would appear to be the least directly relevant as it was not prosecuted by Sutton's office, but by a neighboring district. It does however had a specific relevance given that the appellate court threw the conviction out because the key witnesses were given deals very similar to that which Sutton gave Aldrete-Davila.

I would suggest that information regarding the case be moved to its own article, and linked from here and/or a specific Ramos & Compean page as a reference.

1. - A similar circumstance also involving agent Gary Brugman, which was definitely prosecuted by Sutton's office, involved another similar case of "incentives" given to a drug-smuggler witness to testify against an agent.

As it was prosecuted by Sutton's office, I can see no possible reason why it should be so completely removed from the page on Johnny Sutton if the section "Cases against law enforcement agents" is in the article.

Here is a new link on Sutton, Nov. 22, 2007:

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58797. Sutton is being accused by the interest group "Friends of the Borderr Patrol" of suborning perjury.

Billy Hathorn (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I will try to work this into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.196.235 (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Removal of comments

I recognize that feelings are strong on this issue, but I would like to ask that all participants please refrain from removing the comments of others. It does nothing to help your cause and only causes to inflame those whose comments you remove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.204.128 (talk) 05:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing personal attacks in which other editors are called liars is perfectly proper. Corvus cornix_talk 02:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

If they are personal attacks it is proper, but what about this info that Irishguy removed from this page, is it an attack on someone?

"I recognize that feelings are strong on this issue, but I would like to ask that all participants please refrain from removing the comments of others. It does nothing to help your cause and only causes to inflame those whose comments you remove." [[5]]

It does not appear to be an attack against anyone, why remove this info? Jons63 (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the page Corvus cornix posted to the administrators noticeboard, the removal of so-called personal attacks is not policy and in fact appears prohibited unless the comments are trying to expose someone's personal information or rise above mere invective. Neither appears to be the case and he appears to just be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.204.128 (talk) 15:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, per WP:TALK there are instances were removing comments is perfectly valid: Removing prohibited material such as libel and personal details, Deleting material not relevant to improving the article, Removing personal attacks and incivility. IrishGuy ^talk 18:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Specific Problems with info repeatedly added

He was described by U.S. President George W. Bush, as "my dear friend" at a town-hall style meeting on July 19, 2007 in Nashville, TN.

Unsourced, not pertinent to the lead of a biography of Sutton, maybe lower in the article. Leads are suppose to summarise the article.

actually, sourced above by both articles and CNN transcript of event. Relevant since it was directly in relation to a question asked about the Ramos/Compean case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.196.235 (talk) 02:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Then put it with a citation in the proper place, written to explain how it is pertinent. It is not pertinent where it was placed or how it is written. Jons63 (talk) 02:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere in [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54132], except in the title, does it say anyone lied to congressional representatives. The paragraph itself does not say that Sutton lied, only that a DHS employee connected to Sutton lied. What does this have to do with Sutton? Did Sutton lie? The implication is that Sutton lied, even though the source does not say that. Gilmer Hernandez is a former Sheriff’s Deputy of Edwards County from Rocksprings, Texas, who was successfully prosecuted by Sutton's office on a charge of violation of civil rights of an illegal alien he wounded when he was shooting into the back of a van he knew to be filled with illegal aliens, that had attempted to kill him by running him over.

Unsourced, you removed the tag asking for a source.

Aldrete-Davila has also filed a $5 million lawsuit against the U.S. government that Sutton's office helped him prepare as payment for testimony, claiming that his civil rights were violated.

The source [6]does not link to any article and searching by the title "Lawmakers seek review of border agent case" does not return any article either. This is an unverifiable statement.

I don't have the time right now to add more, but will when I get the chance. This article is about and living person and wikipedia has a policy that if information is not source or unverifiable and is questionable or derogatory it should be removed immediately. that is what has been happening here.

The editors that feel the information belongs, even remove the request for sources on unsourced info added to this article. Jons63 (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If you feel something does not belong, then remove only the specific thing you object to instead of mindlessly wholesale reverting. I have attempted to move things that needed moving and source things that needed sourcing in my recent edit.

If you want respect, then start showing others the same courtesy. — Fixthepedia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

We have a problem here

I came back from the weekend to find this page re-locked. Currently, it is completely un-usable, missing any current information and what information is there is grossly inaccurate. I looked at the history and find that those who have been reverting changes have still not come to this talk page.

In particular I see no listing of what they object to from the following people who continue to edit war, and Jons6 is still edit warring while not following up on his promise for more detail from earlier: Irishguy Black Kite Brimba

Also, someone reverted even though my previous edit was an attempt to compromise his objections with the (as far as I can tell accurate) analysis of relevance and suggestions from above by Billy Hathorn.

As the appeal hearing for the Ramos and Compean case is going on today and there is likely to be news in the next day or two, to lock the page until December 17th is completely unacceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixthepedia (talk • contribs) 18:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I have done more in trying to discuss why this information does not belong in the article than 67.177.26.215, 129.7.35.71, 98.199.227.224, 98.194.196.235, PeaceLoveDork, FriendofBorderPatrol, FixtheBorder, and Fixthepedia combined have discussed this article. The tactic of the above editors, assuming in good faith they are all different, is to revert and either tell anyone to discuss prior to removing or to revert and attack people who remove the data.

I did say I would add more when I get the chance, but didn't promise when. I haven't had the chance. Only one of the specific concerns I raised so far was even commented on. No one that has inputted info into the article has been willing to discuss the issues I have raised so far. You did try to rewrite the one that was commented on in your edit.

I tried to work with you on the edit you made to the article, I removed the Brugman section and left this edit summary as to why.

Gary Brugman - removed section, nothing about Sutton, If Sutton was prosecutor, include in the prose, explain why pertinent he is rebuilding life, was it a bad prosecution?

I am not continuing an edit war. I made 2 reverts yesterday and asked the IP Address editor to discuss the edits, both in the edit summaries and on the the editor's talk page. The editor did not respond and I didn't revert the final time that the info was placed in the article. I even tried to warn the editor against making further reverts so that he/she wouldn't be blocked for violating [WPP:3RR]].

Earlier you said, If you want respect, then start showing others the same courtesy. I have shown respect even though some of you have called me names and treated me with disrespect. You want other editors to discuss the topic, but you don't want to discuss the topic, that is not respect.

Jons63 23:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

“I came back from the weekend to find this page re-locked.” Your claim here is disingenuous, as you never left, but simply changed to logging under anon accounts.

Overall you are using this page as a coat rack ( see Wikipedia:Coatrack ) with which to argue the Ramos and Compean case, and similar cases, even when they are not significantly related to Sutton. You are trying to use this page to reargue these cases, and doing so in a one sided manner. You have every right to do this, just not on Wikipedia; do so on a political blog, or start your own website.

Starting at the top: “He was described by U.S. President George W. Bush, as "my dear friend" at a town-hall style meeting on July 19, 2007 in Nashville, TN.” Adding this to the lead to support your contentions that come after. Bush is a politician; as such he describes most everyone as "my dear friend" if he thinks it helpful, that how carre politicians operate. I have no real problem with the statement itself, however, the way in which it is being used certainly raises POV issues

“despite the fact that they reported the incident to supervisors on-scene and Border Patrol regulations clearly indicate that oral reports of shooting are the appropriate method of reporting” This went a jury, and the jury found otherwise, that in and of itself make this a disputed claim.

“that Sutton's office helped him prepare as payment for testimony” likely true, but no source is given for the statement. Until that happens, it violates WP:BLP. Even though you are speaking of Sutton’s office, Sutton himself is in charge of what occurs there.

“During Congressional investigations into the matter, a Department of Homeland Security employee with connections to Sutton lied to multiple congressional representatives, claiming that the DHS had "signed confessions" that the two agents had decided to "shoot Mexicans" that day. Under oath, DHS Inspector General Richard Skinner admitted to Congressional inquiry that this had been a blatant lie.” This was covered by someone else earlier, no need to rehash that here.

“The October Load” this should be stricken in its entirety, its non-biographical, and fails to mention that Sutton is the one prosecuting, Osvaldo Aldrete Davila. Or so says the source you have cited. This entire section is nothing more then a way of using this page to argue the Ramos/Compean case. Using this page to do that violates WP:UNDUE which states: Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. Because you are doing this on a BLP page, it therefore violates WP:BLP, which requires a neutral presentation.

“Gilmer Hernandez/Gary Brugman/ Related Cases” none of these have any reason to exit on this page, they are put here simply to support your claim that Sutton is somehow a bad man (I am paraphrasing you here), anti-American, or whatever your beef is exactly.

“House of Death” I need to look at this later to see what the heck is going on here, so no comment at this point.

Overall, your additions largely violate WP:BLP and WP:V and WP:NPOV and to some extent WP:NOR. Theses are all core policies that layout how Wikipedia runs, none are very long to read. Please take the time to read through these, so we have a common reference point from which to work. Thanks, Brimba 03:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

“I came back from the weekend to find this page re-locked.” Your claim here is disingenuous, as you never left, but simply changed to logging under anon accounts.

Sir, I work long weekend hours as a waiter to pay my tuition and hardly have the time to check my email when I get in at night. I am not the other person who has been editing and you would see that if you had taken even 30 seconds to review the edits that I had made.

Overall you are using this page as a coat rack ( see Wikipedia:Coatrack ) with which to argue the Ramos and Compean case, and similar cases, even when they are not significantly related to Sutton.

Sutton went on a media campaign of many television and radio shows to defend his personal actions and the actions of the office under his leadership in these cases. This is therefore directly related to him.

Starting at the top: “He was described by U.S. President George W. Bush, as "my dear friend" at a town-hall style meeting on July 19, 2007 in Nashville, TN.” Adding this to the lead to support your contentions that come after.

Actually, if you had done ANY looking you would see that in MY edit, the statement is moved to the Reactions section and given the precise context, which was a response to a question asked of Bush directly about this case. It has far more relevance than you are giving it credit, which you would also be aware of if you had given even the briefest look at MY edit and the source of the event.

“despite the fact that they reported the incident to supervisors on-scene and Border Patrol regulations clearly indicate that oral reports of shooting are the appropriate method of reporting”

You can do a lot to a jury, including giving them the wrong information and claiming a requirement for a written report that does not exist, and giving the jury improper instructions. The relevant regulations are also sourced in the NBPC rebuttal document which is sourced in the article and clearly show that the reporting requirements were met.

Or it could be that they did not report the incident as charged. Read this article [7], it says "The agents want the convictions thrown out; they claim the shooting was a case of self-defense but acknowledge not reporting the incident." Jons63 (talk) 01:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, an AP story? In reviewing other facts (such as the NBPC report) it appears contradicted. According to the NBPC, who quote the regulations in question, it is the responsibility of the SUPERVISORS to make the report and the agents merely to report orally to the supervisors, which according to the DHA memo was done and then the supervisors were the ones who failed to file what they were supposed to. News stories can (and often are) in error, especially thirdhand items like the AP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixthepedia (talk • contribs) 16:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

“that Sutton's office helped him prepare as payment for testimony” likely true, but no source is given for the statement. Until that happens, it violates WP:BLP. Even though you are speaking of Sutton’s office, Sutton himself is in charge of what occurs there. “Gilmer Hernandez/Gary Brugman/ Related Cases” none of these have any reason to exit on this page,

You contradict yourself in your zeal to bias this page. All of these cases were brought by Sutton's office, either he is in charge of what goes on in his office and his name or he isn't. And since he went on national news and radio programs to defend it, clearly he is in charge of it.

“The October Load” this should be stricken in its entirety, its non-biographical, and fails to mention that Sutton is the one prosecuting, Osvaldo Aldrete Davila.

Did you even bother to read? I guess I already covered that above, it's clear you didn't. My edit clearly shows that Sutton's office had Davila arrested.

Of course we also can bring in more information from numerous sources on this: http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071120/NATION/111200049/-1/RSS_NATION_POLITICS&template=nextpage http://washingtontimes.com/article/20071123/NATION/111230086 http://rohrabacher.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=78994

And then there's the fact that Sutton's attorney admitted in the appeals court that Davila lied under oath in the case: http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071204/NATION/112040041/-1/RSS_NATION_POLITICS&template=nextpage

“Gilmer Hernandez/Gary Brugman/ Related Cases” none of these have any reason to exit on this page

With the exception of David Sipe, all were prosecuted by Sutton and are part of the reason for his national media tour.

simply to support your claim that Sutton is somehow a bad man (I am paraphrasing you here), anti-American, or whatever your beef is exactly.

Lacking anything relevant to say, you now stoop to making personal attacks on me and claiming I am interested in something other than a relevant, factual, and accurate article.

“House of Death” I need to look at this later to see what the heck is going on here, so no comment at this point.

I look forward to your actually doing some research or spending any time other than edit warring here.

Overall, your additions largely violate WP:BLP and WP:V and WP:NPOV and to some extent WP:NOR.

Since I have already proven above that you did not even bother to read MY edits, and since you show no intentions to do anything other than edit war, I am appealing to Mr Black Kite to step in here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixthepedia (talk • contribs) 15:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

5th circuit appeal

A number of sources showing up today regarding the appeal in Ramos/Compean vs Sutton: http://www.culberson.house.gov/news.aspx?A=362

Want to know how I found the "unreliable" "thirdhand" AP story. Follow your link above and then click on the "overreacted" link in the statement. So I got this from your source. It is good enough to show that the US Attorney's office overreacted, but not to say that they did not report the incident.

What about the rest of my concerns, seems like you only respond to some of the concerns Jons63 (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Multiple sources show the overreacted statement. Yours is the only one that claims the agents admit to "not reporting." Big difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixthepedia (talk • contribs) 22:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, here is another one, [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51417]. Says he didn't follow procedure. This one says they did not file a report [8] The appeals judge said that they didn't report [9][10] [11] [12] [13]

And going through and finding all of these, I did not find one that said they had reported the incident. Jons63 (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The NBPC is more formally named the “NATIONAL BORDER PATROL COUNCIL. OF THE. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES. AFL-CIO”

“The National Border Patrol Council is the labor organization representing all (currently about 9,000) non-supervisory U.S. Border Patrol employees. It is affiliated with the American Federation of Government Employees and the AFL-CIO, and has 15 constituent Locals. More than 5,400 employees voluntarily pay membership dues.

Founded in 1965, the National Border Patrol Council aggressively and effectively represents employees through negotiations, litigation and legislative action provided by a nationwide network of several hundred well-trained and dedicated volunteer activists and a small staff of extremely capable professionals.”

SO the AFL-CIO is a reliable source (not that I have anything against them), but the AP is not? Might want to reread WP:V

On their main page they report “The judge further stated that it appeared to him that if the agents had reported the shooting there would have been no prosecution….” Brimba (talk) 02:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Orphaned Article Status

• I've removed orphaned article status. Articles that link here include:

Narco News, United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Ignacio Ramos,Gilmer Hernandez, Advisory Committee of U.S. Attorneys, House of Death, and Sutton (surname)

Deatonjr (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

More Specific Concerns

I have tried to add more specific concerns below. I broke them out by paragraph to make it easier to stay on track as the conversation about each subject. I took these out of Fixthepedia's edit of 15:08, 30 November 2007, [14] Jons63 (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

David Sipe

The prosecution of David Sipe was not done by Sutton or Sutton's office. It is not pertinent to a biography of Sutton. It should not be reinserted into the article, unless a direct connection to Sutton can be shown. Jons63 (talk) 02:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If you will notice, I took the advice to make sure it was listed as a RELATED CASE. Would you care to start a David Sipe article and move it there instead? Nobody has yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixthepedia (talk • contribs) 14:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hernandez

He was successfully prosecuted, are we going to add into the article everyone who was successfully prosecuted by Sutton. The information does not state any significance of the prosecution. Nor does it give any citations for the minimal information in the paragraph. Jons63 (talk) 03:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The Hernandez situation was prosecuted by Sutton, and is of note from the newsmedia.

Gary Brugman

The paragraph has no mention of Sutton. Why is it in an article about Sutton? Jons63 (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Gary Brugman was prosecuted by Sutton. [15] [16] [17][18] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixthepedia (talk • contribs) 14:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If you feel it belongs, write it so that it tells the reader that, as it is written, it says nothing about Sutton and doesn't belong, I will remove it. Jons63 (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ramos and Compean

As I stated earlier there are plenty of sources, including quotes from the appeals judge that says they did not report the incident. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51417] [19] [20][21] [22] [23] [24] Jons63 (talk) 03:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Another source that says they did not follow proper procedure or report the incident, from Congressman Rohrback's office [25] Jons63 (talk) 02:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed and Border Patrol regulations clearly indicate that oral reports of shooting are the appropriate method of reporting To many sources, including Congressman Rohrback's office disagree with this statement. Jons63 (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Aldrete-Davila has also filed a $5 million lawsuit against the U.S. government that Sutton's office helped him prepare as payment for testimony, claiming that his civil rights were violated.

The citation goes to the Washington Times homepage, and a search does not show an article that supports the claim that Sutton's office helped prepare the lawsuit at all, much less for payment. Doesn't belong unless cited. Jons63 (talk) 03:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

During Congressional investigations into the matter, a Department of Homeland Security employee with connections to Sutton lied to multiple congressional representatives, claiming that the DHS had "signed confessions" that the two agents had decided to "shoot Mexicans" that day. Under oath, DHS Inspector General Richard Skinner admitted to Congressional inquiry that this had been a blatant lie. [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54132]

A DHS employee with connections to Sutton (can we get more weasely?) How is this pertinent to Sutton? This needs to be tied directly to Sutton, with citations, or it needs to be removed.

The citation does not say that Skinner admitted it was a blatant lie. He admitted that DHS misled Congress.

Jons63 (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Dana Rohrabacher says Sutton failed to correct the same lie in a Congressional hearing. [26] This will be sourced into the next version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixthepedia (talk • contribs) 14:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

References

The October Load

Anyone or group can accuse someone of anything. That is not a basis for putting the info onto a biography about a living person. If the accusation came from law enforcement or a prosecutor's office, maybe. Definitely not when the accusation comes from a private group or person. Jons63 (talk) 03:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If you hadn't noticed already, the head of the NBPC is a law enforcement official, a member of the Border Patrol in good standing...

But he said this as a private individual, not as a member of a law enforcement agency, as such it does not belong and I will remove it. Jons63 (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What does (another Bush appointee) have to do with a biography of Sutton? Are you trying to say that Bush is to blame for this? Jons63 (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not notice that language, which has been inserted into the article by someone else. Remember, I have been trying to work on a COMPROMISE VERSION while you and Brimba and your friends have merely been edit warring all this time. It's inevitable that some things will get missed when I am trying to deal with inserts from both sides. This is also why it is so frustrating that I have had to work so hard to even get you to write down your objections at all.

So you weren't reading what you were inserting into the article by wholesale reverting. It wasn't in the version right before you made your first edit and it was in after you made your first edit. So you put it there. Jons63 (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been talking, I put concerns onto this page on 29 November that until I reinserted them in a different format last night, you never responded to. What has been hard to get me to put down my concerns, I started on 29 Nov, again on 30 Nov, again on 3 Dec, and a bunch more on 5 Dec. Jons63 (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You weren't dealing with inserts from both sides, one side was removing POV issues from a biography about a living person and the other side was placing them back in. You are continuing to do this, by inserting in without discussing your proposals first and then telling others to DISCUSS rather than edit warring. Jons63 (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with you that the language 'another Bush appointee' is flawed until such time as a direct order from Bush to those he has appointed (which has been accused by several radio personalities across the nation up to and including Mr. Lou Dobbs) is confirmed in a quotable source. I will be very sure to take this out of my next edit.

Accusations of Perjury

Congressman and former trial judge Ted Poe has officially accused Sutton of affirmatively allowing Aldrete-Davila to commit perjury as well: [27]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixthepedia (talk • contribs) 14:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

These are still just people accusing him of this, no criminal charges. It does not belong in the article. Jons63 (talk) 03:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

These are members of the US federal government making the accusations in an official and on-the-record capacity. It very much belongs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixthepedia (talk • contribs) 15:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup Please

"An illegal alien concealed in the van was wounded was wounded in the cheek." Can someone clean up this sentence please.Reinoe (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done.—Random832 18:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Page is now unprotected

The page is now unprotected; as per the unprotection note, I would like to ask what objections people have to the sourced and verifiable information that was proposed in this collection of edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maha Pizza (talk • contribs) 22:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Since it's now April 8th and no response I am assuming nobody objects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maha Pizza (talk • contribs) 01:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily and libertypost.com are not reliable sources (see WP:V for criteria) and should not be used as sources, especially not in biographies. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but one is linked to Fox News with WND listings only as backups; the other while listed to Liberty Post is a direct quotation and verifiable. Also, why did you not respond earlier, and why do you insist on prejudicial attacks like "worldnutdaily" in your edit summary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maha Pizza (talk • contribs) 12:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've only just come across the article. WND has been discussed before on the reliable sources noticeboard and the consensus (with which I agree) is that it's an unreliable source. It doesn't matter that the Liberty Post item is a direct quotation - because the publication it comes from is unreliable, we can't verify it properly and we can't use it. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I believe you are erroneously interpreting the listed criteria you left on my talk page. Additionally, you are disguising your edits by removing other things as well, such as a link to a CNN interview. Please do not behave in this way as it gives me more reason to question why you are doing this, especially retroactively AFTER I waited in good faith on the advice of the unprotecting administrator of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maha Pizza (talk • contribs) 22:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Libel

This article goes beyond POV into libel. It's fine if someone's POV is that Sutton has engaged in criminal misconduct, but to state that as fact when it is not true and a reasonable person would know it isn't true is libel. Don't Be Evil (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Bringing this page in line with BLP guidelines

It looks like this page was once more actively edited than it is now; unfortunately, stability is not the same thing as quality, and I think any objective editor would agree this falls far short of Wikipedia's BLP guidelines. It's my intent to improve this article: restating in neutral terms relevant facts with quality sources, while removing poorly-sourced, contentious material. In particular, the sections on the "House of Death" case as well as "Ramos and Compean" need significant work. Also worth noting: Johnny Sutton currently works for the law firm of John Ashcroft, with whom my employer worked earlier this year (I also proposed several successful changes to Mr. Ashcroft's page at that time). Therefore I have a potential conflict of interest. However, I invite anyone to follow my edits, and I am more than happy to discuss how best to represent this article. Just drop me a line on my Talk page. NMS Bill (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I've just revisited this article again to remove what I believe are obvious or probable BLP violations, particularly regarding the "House of Death" case. The article is still not a good one, and I intend to do some research and improve it further in the coming weeks. I don't expect to introduce anything controversial, but I'll be especially careful with any changes to the Ramos and Compean section, as that has clearly been a point of contention in the past. Cheers, NMS Bill (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

A few months and a great deal of research and writing later, I have posted a near-total rewrite of the article. There is now much more detail and information about significant events in Mr. Sutton's public career, including his baseball career and a few notable cases. In addition, the Compean-Ramos trial is now told a bit more straightforwardly, while the perspectives of key sides in the controversy are preserved. Through the process, I did converse with Mr. Sutton and he is aware of what I have done here, though the writing and all editorial decisions are solely mine. If anyone has questions about this new version, please let me know. Cheers, NMS Bill (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Just added clarifications and citations to the house of death section, which, I agree, was rather unclear and hazy, and lacking in references. It's a pretty important (and understandably controversial) issue that's received a fairly large amount of media coverage. I'm not sure that we need to say "according to the Independent (UK)" at the top of the section though, we can simply cite them instead (after all, they aren't at all the only ones who have covered this and asserted similar things). Along those lines, I already fixed the fact that words like "allegedly" and "accused" were used only sparingly in the earlier version of this article, and taking care on that front (as well as using references) should rectify the BLP issues. Again, we need to keep in mind that Sutton was not legally found to be at fault, though he was strongly criticized by at least one professor, a former Congresswoman, and host of journalists; that is to say, he wasn't officially reprimanded or penalized for his actions by anyone in the government. As such, we should make sure to be clear on what is alleged, what are "accusations" or "criticisms," and what are public facts (such as the legal proceedings of the Santillan case, the documented DoJ knowledge of the ongoing narco-cemetary operations and their informant's involvement). 173.3.41.6 (talk) 06:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Johnny Sutton. 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/20061102190758/http://dailybulletin.com/news/ci_4519632 to http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_4519632
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100108160035/http://www.ashcroftgroupllc.com/ourteam/johnny-sutton/ to http://www.ashcroftgroupllc.com/ourteam/johnny-sutton/

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) 10:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Johnny Sutton. 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/20110728090506/http://www.texaslyceum.org/news_view.aspx?ArticleId=18 to http://www.texaslyceum.org/news_view.aspx?ArticleId=18
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091130195025/http://www.justice.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Compean.con.pdf to http://www.justice.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Compean.con.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/MYSA030407_01A_usattorneystory_369805f_html21601.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100531183331/http://www.justice.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Badges%20of%20Honor.pdf to http://www.justice.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Badges%20of%20Honor.pdf

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) 10:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)