Jump to content

Talk:Steve Beren

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article needs help

[edit]

Section titles would be a start. Also the external links is a link farm, probably start over there. Anyways, I will give it a go as time allows, thanks, --Tom (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The Seattle Times and Seattle Post-Intelligencer are the two main Seattle newspapers, and the links to the Times and P-I articles are not really blogs, but online versions of the print edition articles of the same day. The Times and P-I links were added due to previous talk/discussion saying the previous list of external links was insufficient and/or incomplete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.151.102.50 (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The External links section is not a links farm, blogs or not. The whole section should cleaned up. --Tom (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ps see WP:EL. --Tom (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

here is a suggestion on how things might be cleaned up

[edit]

I went through all the links and deleted all but those which substantially dealt with the subject; I eliminated the various government election results; any blog or website that was not linked with a print or major non-print media was eliminated; and rather than edit the article I will just propose the external links as follows, for Tom and others to use their wisdom and judgment:

[edit]
[edit]

The only remaining external links are those that are very substantive, authoritative, and detailed related to subject. But since Tom asked that the "link farm" tag not be removed, it has not been removed. If anything, it now probably has gone the other way, and some of the removed links could perhaps be legitimately reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.23.188 (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

In deference to Tom's request back in April, I left the link farm tag up, but also (I believe) properly resolved the link farm issue so that the link list was pared down only to the most significant links - but without compromising the overall references and sources that support the article. I wouldn't want to reduce the sourcing so much that the old issue (from a long time ago) arise regarding INSUFFICIENT sourcing and linking! Anyway, in good faith, I would like to ask whether perhaps people agree with me that we can delete the link farm tag now? Also, I sent Tom the following message a few minutes ago:

"Tom, hope all is well with you. About 3 months ago, you raised an issue about a 'link farm' on the Steve Beren wikipedia page. The farm, as it were, developed gradually over time - primarily in response to suggestions that the original (long ago) article was not sufficiently sourced. Also, negative links were deliberately added to provide more balance - not that the original article was biased necessarily, but some people thought it might be. Anyway, shortly after you raised the link farm issue, I went on to the page myself and did my best to sincerely and reasonably address the link farm issue. I think I did so properly, and probably if you look at it now you will agree. But since you asked that the 'link farm' tag not be removed, I of course left it up - that was wholly appropriate. But at this point I suggest the link farm tag be removed. What is your opinion, Tom? All the best to you." - Steve Beren

Restructuring

[edit]

Much of this article reads like a campaign brochure, and is overly detailed. I've significantly restructured it to bring it in line with the typical layout of biographies, as well as adding some additional sources, and replacing other non-RS sources (blogs, etc.) with RS sources. BlueSalix (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War

[edit]

This article had been the subject of repeated, undiscussed, blanket rollbacks of edits from IP addresses that geolocate to Seattle, the residence of subject of this article. To avoid 3RR, I am RFC'ing the two diffs here. Because the rollbacks conducted by the IP editors are so fundamental and substantial, I feel it might be easiest to simply RfC the two versions en totale. This version - [[1]] - represents the IP editors preferred version; this version [[2]] represents, what I feel, is a more holistic and accurate version. Obviously no one can fully support either version, but it would be appreciated if everyone could weigh-in on the version they feel is most appropriate to use as a "starting point" from which the article can be generally improved.

Update (5/19/2014) - Short of engaging in a blanket revert, I have reincorporated substantial portions of the obfuscated text, while simultaneously incorporating recommendations made by the COI IP editor and one other editor. While this is not customary while a RfC is in progress, the issue of WP:AUTOBIO has become too glaring and the page has received semi-protection status since the RfC opened due to it. Since the page has not - prior to last week - been updated since 2009 by anyone other than an IP editor, sock-blocked account, or bot, I feel safe in taking this extraordinary action, but will absolutely defer to other confirmed editors who object and would like to roll-back to the IP editor version. BlueSalix (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support (anonymous IP editor version)

[edit]

The long-standing version of this article, which has been posted for a long time with only periodic relevant updates, was the result of a previous discussion - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steve_Beren_%282nd_nomination%29 As a result of the previous discussion, the article was balanced - including negative information about the subject. Also, the long-standing article's content was more accurate and balanced than the proposed replacement. The proposed replacement places Beren's joining a Socialist party at age 12 or 13, which seems implausible. Also, in any case, the subject is notable, if at all, for activities since 2006 - public candidacies, GOP involvement, and tea party agitation - and not for the fringe activities decades before. A good faith effort has been made to include accurate and useful info from BlueSalix. Maintaining the previously-agreed upon content cannot be fairly considered vandalism. It is good that rather than an "edit war" some compromise and good agreement can be reached as in the previous discussion. The previous discussion contains much that will be helpful in reaching a good community decision on the current honest disagreement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.205.112 (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input, Centurylink anonymous IP editor from Seattle, Washington. Your Good Faith effort to include "accurate and useful info from BlueSalix" only includes my addition of subject's current place of employment and deletes and obliterates all other accurate and useful information which I have added. Wikipedia is not a resume and Wikipedia articles are not permanent. A discussion that occurred 5 years ago does not "freeze" this article from any future edits. BlueSalix (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response, BlueSalix. I've included your additional information about Congressman McDermott "soundly defeating" Beren, and also the weak fundraising of his campaign. The previous article was not "frozen" but merely an agreed-upon basis to resolve a previous disagreement. The previous discussion seemed to establish that being a former socialist was not notable in itself, but that becoming a Republican candidate and activist was perhaps notable. Also, the article was never frozen, but periodically updated with neutral information. Also, the previous discussion urged the need to include more negative information to be more balanced. Thus, the quotes from newspaper writers Postman, Bolt, Connelly, and Blethen, belittling the candidate's chances and extremism, are worthwhile and should be maintained, at least to some extent. Also, Congressman McDermott's direct criticism of the candidate he would "soundly defeat" is worthwhile and should be maintained. Regarding the Socialist party, the previous article already noted that this now-tea party activist used to support Fidel Castro, and also one of the links was to an article showing that a Republican candidate for governor was getting support from this former Socialist. Also, the fringe activities decades ago, covering decades of the subject's life prior to becoming notable, probably can't be boiled down to the two items you mention. Over decades of Socialist activity, probably he did a lot of stuff, but none of it notable for Wikipedia purposes, even if all the fringe Socialist activities were to be discovered, listed, and summarized. Notability, if at all, devolves on the activities 2006 on, it seems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.205.112 (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response, Centurylink anonymous IP editor from Seattle, Washington. The "discussion" to which you're referring was a AfD discussion from 5 years ago; it has nothing to do with current issues, nor does it create a "basis" for all future edits; it simply is a determination the article won't be purged. Finally, as per "Notability, if at all, devolves on the activities 2006 on, it seems" - there is not a statute of limitations for inclusion of information on WP. Also, kindly stop massaging this article until the RfC has run its course, as it creates a lot of confusion. Also-2, your edit summaries are bordering on disruptive (to wit: "inaccurate info (joining SWP at age 12) removed" - no version of this article ever said Steve Beren joined the SWP at age 12); please do not try to "game" fellow editors. Thank you! All the best - BlueSalix (talk) 23:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The version of the article supported by BlueSalix indicates Beren was in the SWP from 1964 to 1990, which is not correct (he would have been 12 or 13 in 1964). It is not "disruptive" to note that inaccurate information. On both sides, this is an honest disagreement and discussion about the merits of the two versions, with no vandalism, spamming, gaming, or disruptive behavior. As has been noted, neither version will be acceptable to all people. Perhaps a good resolution of this might end up being a simplified, shortened article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.14.210 (talk) 11:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Alternate version)

[edit]
  • Support - The edits made by the IP editors (a) obfuscate and obliterate the substantial elements of the subject's biography prior to 2004 (specifically, his SWP activism), (b) incorporate a variety of non-RS sources, such as subject's personal website, blogs, and the website of subject's church. Finally, the format used in the IP editors version simply does not follow the generally used template that is customary in most WP biographies. Our generally used formats should not be thrown-out so that accolades and promotional content can receive increased emphasis on a WP:BIO. BlueSalix (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some rebuttal to the above - the previous AFD discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steve_Beren_%282nd_nomination%29 - while held for the purposes of delete-or-ntot-delete - also contained useful back and forth about the notability of the subject, and the definitions of that notability. Much in that former discussion is helpful to how and why this article was considered at least somewhat notable, with some emphasis on the reasons and parameters of that notability. Notability itself is somewhat questionable, and perhaps could be separately re-visited at another time; the notability discussion and decision not to delete does not have to be frozen in time. But another thing about the old discussion is that it discussed the need to modify and improve the list of links, and also add more negative information to balance the article. The article was greatly improved as a result, and the negative comments about supporting Castro, the negative comment by Congressman McDermott, and the negative comments by four newspaper writers should probably be maintained. There is no statute of limitations for the information included in an article, but to the extent that the subject itself is notable, the content of the article should pertain to that notability, not to past activities that are not notable in and of themselves. The past AFD discussion noted that the Socialist organization was a fringe group, and that membership and activity themselves were neither remarkable nor notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.205.112 (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(A) - This is not a notability discussion. (B) - Among the information you've sanitized, and apparently believe is not worth including, is discussion of the subject that was entered into the permanent record of the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, for goodness sakes. Wikipedia does not offer a "do over" option by which someone can obfuscate elements of their past that don't fit with their current brand identity. You said "to the extent that the subject itself is notable, the content of the article should pertain to that notability" - Wikipedia is a not an e-resume and that is not how things are done here. Conan O'Brien is notable for hosting a TV show for 20 years, not for briefly being a writer on Saturday Night Live. But, we still include information on his 3 years at SNL. BlueSalix (talk) 00:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The version of the article supported by BlueSalix indicates Beren was in the SWP from 1964 to 1990, which is not correct (he would have been 12 or 13 in 1964). With regard to FBI interrogation of Beren in the 1970s, perhaps the "personal life" section could be revised something like the following (with the appropriate active link to the Senate Intelligence Committee report): "Born in New York City, Beren was raised in a nominal Jewish home and later became an atheist. From 1968 to 1990 he was an activist for the Socialist Workers Party and a defender of Fidel Castro. In the 1970s, he was questioned by the FBI regarding an investigation of a roommate suspected of subversive activities. By 1990, Beren quit the SWP due to exhaustion with it. After that he joined the Democratic Party. In 1995 he converted to Christianity. He remained with the Democratic Party until 2004. The September 11, 2001 attacks led to his turn toward to the Political Right and at age 52 he became a Republican. Beren has lived in Seattle since 1987, is an internet marketing publicist and customer service consultant, and is on the staff of the Washington State Republican Party."
Anonymous contributor from Seattle, Washington. Please properly format your comments so they are threaded in the discussion - don't just throw them up. Take your time; this is not a race. I have had to fix each of your comments to properly thread them so that others can follow along. BlueSalix (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, kindly, NickCT. I've had the page semi-protected to prevent IP editors from engaging in further fluffing (which is, honestly, what I should have done in the first place instead of RfC as, you're correct, the issues are too obvious and glaring) and restored several of the edits, while maintaining Anupmehra's edits. Your assistance in continuing to monitor this page would be very greatly appreciated. BlueSalix (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. The three day semi-protect was too short in my humble opinion. I seriously doubt this guy is going to give up. NickCT (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NickCT, I've requested a sockpuppet investigation of the two IP addresses here. BlueSalix (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]
  • Comment - Well, I find myself not agree with any of the two versions mentioned above. It should be re-written to comply with wiki standards analyzing information available in the reliable sources. There are tons of external links I find unclear and should be trimmed as per WP:EL. If there's really something substantial in these external links, better if it is used as inline citations to further expand the article.
In the lead, article reads, "Beren is currently the New Media and Technology Director for the Washington State Republican Party" (dead link citation), and in the personal information section, "[..]is an internet marketing publicist and customer service consultant" (primary link citaiton). He may be handling both designations but it is confusing to readers for now.
Article requires examining of reliable sources and encyclopedic information. I do not feel myself getting engaged, this very moment, but I'd like make corrections some time soon, probably on my next login. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 03:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly this article could be shortened. The version of the article supported by BlueSalix indicates Beren was in the SWP from 1964 to 1990, which is not correct (he would have been 12 or 13 in 1964). Regarding the negative comment (linking Beren to George W. Bush) by Congressman Jim McDermott during the 2006 debate, that could arguably be included based on the YouTube video of the debate, with McDermott's comments at http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22jim+mcdermott%22+%22steve+beren%22 (McDermott's linking of Beren to Bush starts at the 5:12 mark of part 1 of the debate). The reference to "New Media and Technology Director" was added by BlueSalix; if it is considered important enough to be included, there is at http://www.wsrp.org/party-staff a live link to support it. With regard to FBI interrogation of Beren in the 1970s, perhaps the "personal life" section could be revised something like the following (with the appropriate active link to the Senate Intelligence Committee report): "Born in New York City, Beren was raised in a nominal Jewish home and later became an atheist. From 1968 to 1990 he was an activist for the Socialist Workers Party and a defender of Fidel Castro. In the 1970s, he was questioned by the FBI regarding an investigation of a roommate suspected of subversive activities. By 1990, Beren quit the SWP due to exhaustion with it. After that he joined the Democratic Party. In 1995 he converted to Christianity. He remained with the Democratic Party until 2004. The September 11, 2001 attacks led to his turn toward to the Political Right and at age 52 he became a Republican. Beren has lived in Seattle since 1987, is an internet marketing publicist and customer service consultant, and is on the staff of the Washington State Republican Party."
Thank you for your suggestions, anonymous contributor from Seattle, Washington. BlueSalix (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2014

[edit]

Anupmehra makes an excellent point by seeking to remove unsourced information. However, with regard to the negative comment (linking Beren to George W. Bush) by Congressman Jim McDermott during the 2006 debate, I have found and sourced McDermott's statement. A YouTube search for the debate led me to http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22jim+mcdermott%22+%22steve+beren%22 and I found McDermott's linking of Beren to Bush at the 5:12 mark of part 1 of the debate. The link for part 1 is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB8gYYLPFoM and the Congressman's comment is word for word as had been quoted in the article. So I ask that McDermott's quote associating Beren with George W. Bush be put back in the article to provide more balance.

24.19.14.210 (talk) 10:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, I ask that in the section "2006 election," the following be added back in as the last sentence, with a link to the YouTube source cited above:

... During their October 5, 2006 debate in Shoreline, Washington, Congressman McDermott said of Beren, "having listened to my opponent here, I think you have a clear choice.... If you like what George Bush has done to this country for the last six years, vote for Steve because he needs another one - he needs another vote." ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.14.210 (talk) 12:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your request, however, I have had to decline it. For a variety of reasons we cannot generally source to YouTube videos. Some additional information can be found at this unofficial, but explanatory, essay. BlueSalix (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Substantial COI Edits

[edit]

First, as per Sockpuppet_investigations/24.19.14.210, the editor controlling IP addresses 24.19.14.210 and 63.226.205.112 has self-identified as the subject of this article. (Obviously, whether or not this editor is, in fact, the subject of this article cannot be definitively proven.) Also, as per the edit log for the article, the article itself was created on 8 July 2006 by an editor named Steveberen. All COI editors are generally cautioned that, as per WP:YOURSELF, "... anything you submit will be edited mercilessly by others. Many autobiographical articles have been a source of dismay to their original authors after a period of editing by the community, and in at least four instances have been listed for deletion by their original authors. In some cases the article is kept even if the original author requests otherwise."

Second, in the above linked sock investigation, the editor in question alerts us that he/she has contacted info-en-q@wikimedia.org (presumably with a cease and desist demand, see: WP:AUTOPROB). Because this takes me very far out of my depth - and because NickCT appears to be the only other active editor on this article - I am GF pinging David Gerard in hope he can provide direction on the appropriate course of action at this juncture; do we need to stop work on this article pending notification by the info-en-q@wikimedia.org reviewer, etc.? BlueSalix (talk) 02:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[from Steve Beren] No "cease and desist" demand - I don't even know what that is. I just got the impression that was the proper contact information to ask for intervention, review, and a fair outcome. [from Steve Beren] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.14.210 (talk) 03:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is where you come for review and a fair outcome. As per WP:AUTOPROB, info-en-q@wikimedia.org is where you go for legal problems. Of course, that's an honest mistake, so please accept my apology if I misconstrued the intent in your note. The labyrinth that is Wikipedia is - more often than not - cumbersome and byzantine and errors in process happen to the best of us. Best regards - BlueSalix (talk) 03:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPN is also a good place - I've put a note there - David Gerard (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, David Gerard! BlueSalix (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2014

[edit]

There are misleading and inaccurate things in the new article, and actually I thought some of the negative comments in the original article should be retained for more balance. At least everything in the old article was actually accurate. I guess there's not much I can do about the inaccuracies. But one item is of terrible concern to me - the inclusion of the name of a roommate (40 years ago!) who was supposedly suspected of subversive activities. The whole thing was a few minutes out of my life - "is so-and-so home?" / "no, she's not here right now" - and maybe a few minutes of such conversation, and that was it, and nothing ever came of it. This article is about me. Why should her name be given wide publicity via this article, which could affect her family today? Couldn't it be changed to "While living in Detroit in the 1970s, Beren was questioned by the FBI who were investigating his roommate AT THE TIME, A YOUNG Socialist Alliance partisan suspected of subversive activities. According to a congressional report of that incident, THE ROOMMATE had previously...." and etc.? [from Steve Beren]

24.19.14.210 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.205.112 (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the edit you've requested. While inclusion of the roommate's name is not necessarily a violation of WP:BLPNAME, as the name has been presented in public sources, there is a general obligation to presume on the side of privacy for non-notable persons. Also, if you note any inaccuracies, you should feel free to raise them. BlueSalix (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[from Steve Beren] I am concerned about a mini-version of a Streisand effect. Is there a way within the Wikipedia sdetup that I can communicate with you, privately and in confidence, to show you the corrective primary sources regarding the inaccuracies and misleading portions, and then you can decide and judge for yourself whether to agree with me about certain changes? [from Steve Beren] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.205.112 (talk) 20:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First, I can't unilaterally make decisions as Wikipedia is edited according to consensus. I made the above edit since it was clearly non-controversial. It would be best if you post the errors that exist here, we generally don't conduct edit discussions in secret. As to your concerns, this article currently gets less than 5 views per week, and eventually the current Talk threads will archive and disappear, so - in all honesty - I wouldn't worry too much about becoming the next Streisand off a Wikipedia page. If there are errors that exist, however, they do need to be rectified so please raise them. BlueSalix (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[from Steve Beren] As my website itself indicates at http://steveberen.com/biography.html I was a "radical left activist" from 1968 to 1990. During SOME of that time, I was a member of the Socialist Workers Party. Information about my early life and education is on that page. A balanced summary of my radical activities is described: "During two decades of radical activity, he organized protests against the war in Vietnam; publicized socialist election campaigns; defended the Nicaraguan Sandinistas, Cuban Communists, and the Palestine Liberation Organization; advocated far left positions on social, domestic, and foreign policy issues; and participated in the SWP's intervention into the trade union movement (He was at various times a textile worker, a steelworker, and a Boeing machinist.)." I also wrote, spoke, and organized about apartheid, opposition to Israel, support to abortion, freedom for Angela Davis, accusations of police brutality against the Detroit police department, support for Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers, etc. Much of this can be verified by accessing the bound volumes of The Militant, especially for the years 1971 to 1975 (not sure if later years are available in bound volumes). My name is in the index for much of what I wrote (some articles in The Militant use pseudonyms or are unsigned). Also, the use of the word "extensively" in the current version of the article is misleading, since I only wrote about four or five articles in the SWP Discussion Bulletin over a period of roughly two decades, and some of the articles were on the Cuban Revolution and the first Gulf War. In addition to the bound volumes of The Militant, another good source are various interviews with me that are on the internet. Some are on YouTube, and you've indicated that those are generally not used. In any case, a Bing or Google search will pull up a number of interviews - for example part 1 - http://neoneocon.com/2006/10/05/steve-beren-changer-extraordinaire/ and part 2 - http://neoneocon.com/2006/10/06/steve-beren-changer-extraordinaire_06/ [from Steve Beren] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.205.112 (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. - we generally can't use blogs and personal websites as sources. Here are examples of what Wikipedia considers reliable and unreliable sources: WP:RSE. Currently there are two reliable sources - the Seattle Times and Seattle Metropolitan Magazine - that say Steve Beren was a member of the SWP from 1968 to 1990. If you are Steve Beren and believe they are spreading falsehoods about you it would be best if you demand a correction directly from them, and then this article can be updated once their corrections have been published. (Or, if other RS contradict what they've published, of course it can be modified.) I think your suggested "balanced summary" reads fine, the only problem is we need reliable sources that demonstrate Steve Beren organized protests against Vietnam, etc. For obvious reasons we can't write WP biographies based on how the subject of the biographies personally recall their past (the "Al Gore invented the internet" situation).
  2. - I have removed the word "extensively" per your request, as this seems a non-controversial edit.
  3. - Over a period of four years, according to the Discussion Bulletin archives, Steve Beren contributed 9 articles to Discussion Bulletin, all of which dealt with LGBT issues so I don't feel this is cherry-picking something for inclusion and I don't feel comfortable removing it. It's important to give treatment to his SWP activities in more than a single line since this article passed AfD largely because - as User:SteveBeren noted in defending it from Delete - of the fact he was a former SWP member turned conservative; that there was not intrinsic notability outside of that. I will happily check The Militant to give additional color to his writings during this time, however, if articles are published pseudononymously, we'd probably be unable to use it as a primary source, unless a RS source confirms the pseudonym used.
  4. - This can also be raised as a RfC which will get additional editors to look at it who may have a different opinion than mine on these questions. I am by no means an expert on the SWP, but know enough to know that the Pathfinder tendency has a lot of subtleties and it may help to get other editors here who might have a better perspective than me. Please let me know if you need help starting a RfC and I'll be happy to do it for you. BlueSalix (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[from Steve Beren] I definitely wrote Discussion Bulletin articles on other topics. Leaving aside short comments of a few sentences, which I don't consider articles, I wrote a major article on Cuba around the mid-1970s (really pretty much a white paper on democracy and bureaucracy as competing trends in Cuba). And I wrote (1989 or 1990) a Discussion Bulletin article in support of the Saddam Hussein dictatorship. My articles in The Militant were almost entirely on the issues I mentioned in my previous comment, above. I guess I don't have a problem with the newspapers that say I was an SWP "member" from 1968 to 1990. Not exactly correct, but it was during that time that I agreed with and supported the SWP, even if I was not an official member for the entire period of time. Of course, it has been almost a quarter of a century since all this, and I no longer hold these views. [from Steve Beren] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.205.112 (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's standards for Biographies of Living Persons absolutely prohibit us from inserting unsourced information about a living person. We can't just say that Steve Beren supported the Ba'ath Party without a source as that has the potential to be extremely defamatory. (I recently wrote the article Conrad James; James is widely known as a climate change skeptic but no reliable source has ever happened to mention this, so it ultimately had to be left out entirely even though it is common knowledge.) At present I am unable to find any articles by Steve Beren in The Militant or Discussion Bulletin regarding Cuba or Iraq. If you can provide any additional information - even just a year - I'd be happy to go to the trouble of looking it up in The Militant's paper-bound archive so we can get the info for a proper citation. Three of the edits you've suggested so far have been incorporated and I'm 95% confident we can get to a version of this bio you find completely satisfactory and that also follows WP's policies and best practices, which the previous version did not. BlueSalix (talk) 03:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[from Steve Beren] Regarding my actual public political activism in the SWP: see the 1972 (approximately June or July) Militant for an article about Angela Davis; see the 1974 Militant (approximately February and March) for at least two major articles on Detroit politics - Coleman Young, police brutality, John Conyers, etc.; see the Militant from roughly mid-1971 to June 1972 for my weekly column "'72 Socialist Campaign," under my byline each week; see either the 1971 or 1972 Militant for a political profile of the presidential candidacy of New York Mayor John Lindsay; see the 1983 (approximately April) Militant for an article on United Auto Worker activists (including me) getting fired for political activity; see the 1988 or 1989 Militant for an article about the Boeing Machinists union (I was a member); see the 1982 or 1983 Militant for a "National Picket Line" article on the efforts of the American Federation of Government Employees (I was a member). Lots more, but that is all I can remember off the top of my head. Those just mentioned all pertain to public activities, while the SWP Discussion Bulletin just pertains to internal discussions among socialists. The SWP Discussion Bulletin article on Iraq was in 1989 or 1990, and the SWP Discussion Bulletin article on Cuba was somewhere around 1976 to 1978 - a long article later cited by SWP leader Joseph Hansen in one of his subsequent SWP Discussion Bulletin articles. Also, you refer to "'Discussion Bulletin' archives" - can you give me a link to that? I might be able to find those articles quickly. [from Steve Beren] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.14.210 (talk) 11:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks this helps much. Issues of The Militant from 1970-1995 are not digitized so, as soon as possible - within the next few days at least - I'll check the microfilm reels to get specific citations at which time I think there will be no objections to replacing the current text with your recommended alternate version. To your question, issues of Discussion Bulletin through 1976 are available at the Marxist Internet Archive here: [[3]], which is a OCLC recognized depository. BlueSalix (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[from Steve Beren] Regarding "Precinct Committee Officer," there are about 700 or 800 PCOs in King County alone, so this might not be worth mentioning - see the link to the "Republican" csv file at http://www.kingcounty.gov/elections/election-info/2014/201408/candidates.aspx Also, see the front page article in the Seattle Times of December 7, 2012, in which I was one of the people interviewed - that is at http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2019857998_voters08m.html I am trying to locate hard copies of the SWP Discussion Bulletin from 1977 to 1990. My lengthy Cuba article was certainly in 1977. And my controversial Iraq article was in 1990. [from Steve Beren] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.14.210 (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I apologize for the delay; I'll definitely have a chance to pull the issue numbers / dates tomorrow and will update this then. In the meantime, I've removed the PCO mention per your request. BlueSalix (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[from Steve Beren] Sounds good. And I've located a source - a bookstore - for a hard copy of the 1976 Discussion Bulletin with the exchange of views on Cuba, including my position paper. Also, I am in the process of locating some other hard copies, etc. [from Steve Beren]

[from Steve Beren] In 2006, endorsed by Esquire magazine - "District 7 - Steve Beren (R) - Jim McDermott (D) - McDermott is one of the most liberal, least tactful members of Congress; this is the man who called Saddam Hussein more credible than George Bush. Just because John Boehner says this kind of garbage about Democrats doesn't make it right for a Democrat to say it about the president. In protest, we endorse the Republican. Esquire endorses: Beren" http://www.esquire.com/features/esquire-endorses-america/ESQ1106ENDORSEMENTS_192 [from Steve Beren] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.14.210 (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

my revert

[edit]
See also: Ticket:2014051910010632

Just to clarify why this information was removed. This is attatched partially to the above. The main reason why I removed it is both as a privacy consideration (this was over 40 years ago after all), and because it appears to be primary sourced to the papers, and not covered in secondary sourced; The only bit that is seems to be focused on the party, not him. Therefore, I hope you can see the general gist of this; I can't say too much more without straying over the line I have set for myself now; Safe to say per the advice I have been given, it is further than the last one! --Mdann52talk to me! 15:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with including this material. There is no "privacy consideration" for publicly published documents, the policy that might be a problem is WP:WEIGHT because, as you say , "not covered in secondary sourced"(sic). Given WP:WEIGHT I don't think eliminating all of the mentions of his LGBT wrights advocacy is wise, it is a part of his past.
Mdann52, the following does not make any sense: "Therefore, I hope you can see the general gist of this; I can't say too much more without straying over the line I have set for myself now; Safe to say per the advice I have been given, it is further than the last one!" could you please try to communicate more clearly?
[4] is not a copy edit(c/e), and you appear to be acting as a meat puppet for a OTRS case, again. Please stop making sweeping changes to articles without explanation. As this is BLP I can understand removing and then requiring consensus to restore, but doing the removal with explanation of "c/e" and not stating your real reasons until after re-reverting the removal is inappropriate. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
hence why I've come here to explain - the revert has pointed out to me, so I thought I'll explain my reasoning. BLP privicy conserns are the main issue, especially as no secondary sources have picked up on this. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Steve Beren. 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:

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

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) 21:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Steve Beren. 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:

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) 13:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steve_Beren&oldid=1198312868"