Talk:Michael Connell

Including suspicions about Connell's death

Is it just me, or does this article seem to be dominated by conspiracy theorists? What's the proper course of action to take in this sort of circumstance? --NeuronExMachina (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any such domination. The current version doesn't even mention the allegation that Connell had expressed suspicions about tampering with his plane. In any event, the proper course of action is to make sure that everything is properly sourced. Opinions about Connell's death that come from prominent sources can be included if attributed and cited (we report facts about opinions, per WP:NPOV). If you think one side is underrepresented, the proper course of action is to find and include opposing opinions, also attributed and cited. JamesMLane t c 21:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Did he express such suspicions? I hadn't heard that. Badagnani (talk) 23:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

He canceled two prior flights because of his suspicions. [1] What does this add up to? Larisa Alexandrovna gave a good summary of the current state of our knowledge:

"He has flown his private plane for years without incident," Alexandrovna wrote. "I know he was going to DC last night, but I don't know why. He apparently ran out of gas, something I find hard to believe. I am not saying that this was a hit nor am I resigned to this being simply an accident either. I am no expert on aviation and cannot provide an opinion on the matter. What I am saying, however, is that given the context, this event needs to be examined carefully."

(from the linked article) JamesMLane t c 03:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, almost all the cited references are to conspiracy theorist sites and youtube videos. --NeuronExMachina (talk) 07:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

- hi i got a link for a interview on democracy now about his death if anyone wants to use it for refs or anything. here it is: http://www.democracynow.org/2008/12/22/republican_it_specialist_dies_in_plane (DrakeLuvenstein (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC))

I removed the bottom paragraph about sabotage which was sourced to a ludicrously unreliable Russia Today piece citing some political group citing anonymous sources. I also inserted a key missing nuance--when Rove "threatened" Connell, it was actually that he was threatening to have Mrs. Connell prosecuted for lobbying violations, not the more violent threat the old phrase implies. 67.188.189.163 (talk) 07:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Most of the sources state that both Connell and his wife had been threatened. Just substitute another source rather than removing Connell from this passage. Badagnani (talk) 07:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Details to evaluate for inclusion

See [2]. Badagnani (talk) 07:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

To do

Check Social Security Death Index. Badagnani (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Badagnani (talk) 04:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Please update the NTSB report link. The current link seems to be broken. The current link is:

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20081223X12815&key=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.73.198 (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Birth

Was he born in Illinois? Badagnani (talk) 04:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Russia today source doesnt back up claims

The source russiatoday does not back up either of the claims to which it was attached. Further, I dont really think its a reliable source anyway. Bonewah (talk) 03:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I do see the warning not to fly (which you claimed was not in that article) mentioned, at some length, in that article. Badagnani (talk) 03:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I see a warning not to fly, but this was apparently made to an associate of his, not to him. The paragraph about Arnebeck making allegations also seems to get it wrong - the source says someone made these claims, but not who. The only thing that checks out is that 'twice in the two months prior to the crash Connell had canceled flights due to "something wrong with his plane"', although the quote there is not quite correct. The rest should be deleted, at least until a better source can be found. I have concerns about the reliability of this source too. -- Avenue (talk) 03:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want to include this material, find a better source, preferably one that actually backs up the claims made. Bonewah (talk) 12:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Raw story as a RS?

I added the tag to this link [3]. I dont think the 'raw story' is really a reliable source. Its really only being used to cite the claim that Connell refused to testify, thoughts? Bonewah (talk) 12:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

According to our article, The Raw Story seems like a perfectly valid online magazine. It has correspondents and an editorial staff. It's achieved journalistic recognition. On the Iraq War, the New York Times gave us the lies of Judith Miller, while The Raw Story gave us the truth by breaking the Downing Street memo story, so I'd say it's more reliable than the Times. It certainly has an ideological orientation, but so does The Wall Street Journal, which is generally accepted under WP:RS. That readers are allowed to comment on stories doesn't turn a source into a blog or decrease its reliability. (Of course, the reader comments couldn't generally be quoted.) JamesMLane t c 14:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV calls for reporting facts about notable opinions

By this edit Bonewah has removed the properly sourced information that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. considers Connell's death to be a serious issue. (Kennedy's opinion is noted here, with his explanation that the incident goes to the integrity of the electoral process.)

According to WP:NPOV, our article should certainly not assert that Connell was murdered as part of a Republican dirty-tricks effort. We should stick to the facts. On the other hand, that same policy recognizes that "facts" includes facts about opinions, if presented by a prominent spokesperson, and if reported rather than adopted. Kennedy's opinion qualifies under that standard. That Bonewah considers it "conspiracy bs" is immaterial because a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor is not prominent. I would have no objection to the inclusion of a quotation from some prominent right-winger (like, say, the infallible William Kristol) who dismisses the concerns about the Connell case as "conspiracy bs" or the like. JamesMLane t c 08:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

So what,specifically, do you want to add to the article? Bonewah (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Given that I specifically mentioned the Kennedy statement, obviously what, specifically, I want to add to the article would include the Kennedy statement.

I haven't yet looked at the rest of the material you removed. If you want to present a rationale for any of your deletions, this would be a good time. JamesMLane t c 17:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

"Some media have reported that since Connell possessed knowledge which, if revealed, would be damaging to high-level Republicans, his death may have been the result of sabotage of his aircraft " This part should be obvious, its totally speculative on all parts. That he possessed some super secret knowledge is simply assumed. To the best of my knowledge, that was never demonstrated. That said knowledge (assuming it even existed) would be damaging is even more speculative, It just assumes that what his accusers imagine is correct. That his aircraft crashed as a result of sabotage, also just assumed (the 'may have' part is a dead give away) Also, 'some media' is a wp:weasel word. I dont know that the citation for this section is RS anyway.

The next section is also heavy with speculation, supposition and a good dose of BLP problems to boot: "In July 2008, the lead attorney ... Cliff Arnebeck, sent a letter [4] to U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey seeking protection for Connell as a witness in the case, saying he had been threatened. Arnebeck wrote, “We have been confidentially informed by a source we believe to be credible that Karl Rove has threatened Michael Connell, ..., that if he does not agree to "take the fall" for election fraud in Ohio, his wife Heather will be prosecuted for supposed lobby law violations." Here we accuse Karl Rove of threatening Connell based on what Arnebeck claims a (naturally) confidential source claims. It may be enough for some that Arnebeck believes this (unnamed) person is credible, but BLP demands a significantly higher standard than that. Moreover, the point of this section it seems is to create the connection, in the mind of the reader, between Rove and Connell's death, none of which is anywhere close to established fact. Like any good conspiracy, the meaty portions of the story are reliant on the word of some guy who heard from some guy that something amazing happened. If you want to create an edit that shows that Kennedy swallows this BS, fine, but Kennedy's belief is not carte blanche to print any wild speculation that one can find. Bonewah (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You're nitpicking the sources. They are clear and the information as reported in the article is both NPOV and appropriately weighted. You may not think it has been demonstrated that Connell was significant in this way, but reliable sources have reported that notable people do think so, and that is all that is necessary. If you want to add a section called "Bonewah's opinion" in which you refute what the sources say, we can discuss that, but stop removing well sourced material. Rove's possible intervention is an extremely notable fact reported in reliable sources, I don't see a BLP issue (and it's hardly the worst thing written about Rove on Wikipedia!) csloat (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Not just the sources, what we are saying generally. NPOV does provide license to print whatever anyone says. I accept that the opinions of prominent spokespersons *might* be acceptable, but I dont believe that what is being included here qualifies, and, at any rate, I dont believe you have even tried.

I shouldnt have to spell out to you the BLP problem again, per above, we reprint Arnebeck's claim that Rove threatened Connell backed up by nothing more than Arnebeck's claim that it is so. Per WP:BLP: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources." I just dont think that the say so of one guy is a high quality source and might even qualify as a wp:SPS. Additionally, BLP states "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article" I dont think you have demonstrated that Mr Arnebeck's claims qualify. Bonewah (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You write about one passage: "Here we accuse Karl Rove of threatening Connell based on what Arnebeck claims a (naturally) confidential source claims." No, the passage in question stated (truthfully) that Arnebeck sent a letter, and it reported (truthfully, as far as I know) the contents of that letter, and it clearly attributed the whole thing to Arnebeck. Therefore, we aren't accusing Rove of anything. See the section heading.

By the way, I thought of an obvious analogy on the left -- someone who died, under circumstances that didn't obviously demonstrate foul play, yet whose death was argued by some to have been caused by a powerful political figure, an argument denounced by others as a conspiracy theory. That's Vince Foster. In his case, the charges are mentioned in his bio and elaborated on in a whole daughter article. The latter article states, "Speculative variations on this theory abound, including claims that Mrs. Clinton either killed Foster herself [18] or was personally responsible for having him killed.[19]" Given the prominence of the charges, I think this passage is justified. Do you?

Arnebeck is certainly a prominent person in the area of the election controversies, which is Connell's field of notability.

I would now say that our article should include at least the Kennedy statement and the information about the Arnebeck letter (although we might choose to paraphrase the latter in lieu of the full verbatim quotation). Bonewah, is it your position that none of this material belongs in the article? JamesMLane t c 13:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Id say if a charge is prominent, notable and well documented it should be included in an article. At a glance, I see that the Vince Foster speculations are cited to Rush Limbaugh, and Matt Drudge, no small names in politics and it would be trivial to find mainstream news reports on Foster and the various conspiracy blather that surrounded him. Arnebeck, on the other hand, is a minor player at best, and the story doesnt extend much beyond him. If you want to include the Maxim article, thats fine I guess (I dont think much of Maxim as a source, but what the hell), If you want to include a Kennedy quote of a brief summary of his views thats fine too, but I object to the repeating of unsubstantiated, anonymous, third party claims from a fringe figure, I dont think that qualifies as any of "notable, relevant, and well-documented" as per BLP. Bonewah (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Arnebeck is a minor player on the national stage but is far more prominent within the limited area of election controversies. I don't think Arnebeck's opinion about, say, health-insurance reform would merit reporting, but he's prominent with regard to Connell. JamesMLane t c 18:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

And your basis for making that claim is what, exactly? Bonewah (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Arnebeck was the lead attorney in Moss v. Bush, challenging the counting of Ohio's electoral votes, and in King Lincoln Neighborhood Association v. Blackwell, the case in which the federal court ordered the preservation of all Ohio ballots from the 2004 election, over the opposition of Secretary of State Blackwell. (See Opinion and Order of Judge Marbley.) Offhand I can't think of an attorney who's more prominent in this area. You should also note that Arnebeck's statement about Connell was in the form of a communication to the court in the specific case Arnebeck was litigating, not a generalized observation. JamesMLane t c 00:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

<-Moss v. Bush was so much grandstanding that accomplished absolutely nothing. As I recall, the judge in that case described it as being "devoid of logic" and "at best, highly improbable and potentially defamatory", not exactly a singing endorsement of his prominence if you ask me. I dont know about the other case but I dont see how being an attorney in a couple of (failed) lawsuits makes one a notable commenter. Likewise the fact that he made the statements in question to the court, so what? Anyone can sue anyone and anyone can make a statement to the court, that in no way makes those statements notable or the person issuing the statements notable. Bonewah (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

We cannot base massive deletions of well sourced information with nitpicking about a single sentence, particularly when the only "evidence" your nitpicking is based on is a whine about a source that you claim to "recall" being lambasted by a judge. If you want to question this particular sentence we can reword it, but please stop deleting the material tout court. Such unilateral actions are extremely disruptive. csloat (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you are a piece of work, arent you? Typically, most editors will actually try and resolve disputes such as this via the talk page, you know, like the rules say you are supposed to: Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Talking_and_editing, wp:Consensus You might want to read that one: "Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can happen through discussion, editing, or more often, a combination of the two. Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner.". That is just to name a few. Instead you seem intent on wp:Edit warring: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about some aspect of the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion." See, JamesMLane and I have been trying to resolve our differences here via discussion, whereas you simply revert followed by uncivil attacks such as describing my arguments as a 'whine" and "nitpicking" while offering no arguments of your own. Further, you seem to be totally ignorant of wp:BLP which insists (at the outset) that "We must get the article right." and "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." and yet your response is a jaw-dropping "it's hardly the worst thing written about Rove on Wikipedia!" Wow, so its ok to violate BLP so long as we do it all over Wikipedia? Stunning.

Oh, and I didnt bother to cite my claims about Moss v. Bush because I figured if anyone was that interested in this particular (mostly immaterial) side point, they could just visit the link provided. As you apparently cant even be bothered to do that here is the link, you will find the text in question on page 2, paragraph 4. Bonewah (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Please address the arguments and not the other editors, thanks. I'm not going to respond to your blatant misinterpretation of Wikipedia rules and guidelines concerning consensus. There are simply no real BLP issues raised. That we quoted a notable quotation that says something bad about Karl Rove is not a BLP violation. Accurate reporting about Karl Rove being accused of misconduct in a public legal forum is hardly defamation. Secondly, that is not the only thing you have been unilaterally deleting in this article. If that is the only objectionable sentence why not propose a way of rewording it that is to your liking? Since you claim to want to resolve disputes and all... Third, if your point about the source in Moss is irrelevant, then please stop deleting things because that was the only argument you were left with in the discussion above. Finally, please at least attempt to follow ethical discussion guidelines. If you can cite page and paragraph for a direct quotation, why would you earlier pretend is simply a vague recollection? csloat (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Michael Connell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150612201503/http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Republican_IT_consultant_subpoenaed_in_case_0929.html to http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Republican_IT_consultant_subpoenaed_in_case_0929.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

RS fail for "Raw Story"

"Raw Story" fails as an unreliable source.

Removed from article.

Unfortunately, both the left-wing and the right-wing each have their unreliable sources.

Infowars.com is an example from the right-wing.

"Raw Story" is an example from the left-wing.

Best to check if other more reliable sources report on same information.

Removed. Sagecandor (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing much. King Lincoln Bronzeville Neighborhood Ass'n v. Blackwell may be a coatrack related to this. -Location (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michael Connell. 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/20081231150731/http://www.cantonrep.com/news/x512369135/Pilot-killed-in-crash-had-strayed-off-course to http://www.cantonrep.com/news/x512369135/Pilot-killed-in-crash-had-strayed-off-course
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081227042831/http://arkansas.indymedia.org/newswire/display/23207/index.php to http://arkansas.indymedia.org/newswire/display/23207/index.php

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) 15:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)