Talk:Jane Akre

message: The external links are all not working and have been redirected to the wrong pages. Someone please rectify?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.22.226 (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: I believe there were two separate wrongful termination suits, which Wilson lost and Akre won; Akre's win was overturned on appeal.
There is far more to this story than is reported in this article, this is not NPOV.
See, for example:
http://www.gene.ch/gentech/2000/Aug/msg00077.html  (This link appears to be an opinion piece on the character of Jane Akre and Mr. Wilson.  It's certainly not NPOV, and it doesn't add anything to the story)
http://www.milkismilk.com/news-akre-wilson-questions-1-21-05.htm  (struck because it's a dead link; Also, other links on that website are more character assassination pieces, not NPOV).
http://www.johnsugg.com/2005/08/letter_to_the_f.html
Briholt 03:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrongful termination suits

message: I took the liberty of making it clear that it was section 448.01 of the FLORIDA legal code that was at issue here, along with a citation to the Florida legal code at onecle.com. If there's a better legal reference for the FLorida code, please feel free to update the reference
Alienburrito (talk) 02:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whistleblower Law 

message: Provide documentation for the following assertion:
"FOX did not dispute that it tried to force Akre to broadcast a false story, but argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports. This would be the sixth time that FOX had used this argument in court."
I want to see excerpts from the transcripts of the trial. -- 195.225.107.17 04:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to read the supporting evidence.  Perhaps a second reference directly to the legal opinion would help as well? Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 11:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

text: That's why we must keep my edits as they are, as the reliable sourcing indicates the verifiable information that we have available.  We must be governed by the sources, not what we want the sources to say. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article by John Sugg cited in this paragraph is not a reliable source.  Your advocacy has compromised the integrity of this Wikipedia article.  JEM.  --24.41.28.120 (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And why is it not a reliable source? Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let’s set aside the credibility problems that Reason has had in the past.  The publication has defended itself against the appearance that it had been one among many outlets to benefit from ExxonMobil’s funding of misleading science journalism denying anthropogenic climate change.  This charge was raised against ExxonMobil in a 2006 letter from the British Royal Society, the world’s oldest scientific fellowship.  (Reason had abandoned its climate denier stance in 2004.)  I take issue specifically with the John Sugg piece cited on the Jane Akre Wikipedia page, not with the publication as a whole.  The attention drawn in Sugg's article to Wilson's weight and personal appearance, a rhetorical tactic that attempts to persuade by playing on readers’ prejudices, marks the article as a work of partisan polemics, not a work of sober journalism and a trustworthy factual source.  The blow to credibility is especially important because so much of Sugg's article relies on his account of his own contacts and investigations, rather than on material that is independently documented.  He derides this same approach to reporting in his attack on Wilson’s tabloid journalism when he tells us that Wilson admittedly had no “proof” (i.e. only eyewitness testimony) in his exposé of Detroit’s “Michigan Boys,” a group of politicos and businessmen who allegedly consorted with prostitutes while on a junket to Costa Rica.  Authoritative reporting only works when the reporter speaks with authority.  In short, Sugg’s article is a colorful editorial.  It has its place.  It should not be mistaken for solid reporting.  JEM --24.41.28.120 (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Reason has had no credibility issues.  Your issue with the tone of the article does not change the facts of the article, which is a) what is referenced and b) what is at issue here.  This issue is not about the Michigan Boys, but about the unsupportable, false claims made by Akre and Wilson. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are undertaking to edit Wikipedia.  A key responsibility of an editor is to be judicious.  Are you able to distinguish the shades of gradation along the spectrum from documented facts, to advocacy, to agenda-driven distortion?  If you accept sources uncritically, without being able to assess their intrinsic quality, integrity, and credibility, but based on whether they tell you what you want to hear (and on what you wish others to believe), then you will make poor editing decisions and leave a trail of messes for other people to clean up.  Take some time to read the Wikipedia guidelines.  "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a means of promotion."  No doubt you're a person of strong convictions, and there are many channels for the expression of that.  This is not the place for dogmatic opinions or shutting out competing points of view.  It's the dialogue, not the heartfelt convictions and moral certainties of one person or one bloc, that leads to the truth.   JEM --24.41.28.120 (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the issue at hand - the entire Akre/Wilson debacle is advocacy, and it's up to us to a) report their claims as they've stated them and b) bring about the verifiable facts in the case.  Verifibly speaking, from both Reason and the court opinion, their claims hold no weight, and to state otherwise does a disservice.  The Akre/Wilson point of view is given its hearing, and the facts are referenced.  Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Regarding the use of "left wing," the only time it's used is when noting that they have become popular with the left wing press.  That remains true.  If you want to rephrase that, be my guest, but don't ruin the factual basis.  As for the RFK book, the piece I saw did not attribute the quote to Wilson, and I will repair that.  That's my error.  However, Kennedy (and Wilson, for that matter) did fail to note that Wilson and Akre originally brought the case.  We need to remain honest, and the consensus of the legal community and of reality is that things did not go as Wilson and Akre claim - per neutrality guidelines, we give their minority viewpoints an airing, but we are not required to pretend it is the correct one. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Glad you at least fixed the attribution error, but the other problems remain unaddressed.  I've already pointed out that Kennedy acknowledges, on page 181 of Crimes Against Nature, that Akre and Wilson initiated litigation in response to their termination of employment.  The text as it stands is factually wrong and misleading.  If you are operating in good faith, you will address the remaining errors.  Obviously I attempted to do that myself and you reverted my edits.  Thus I leave it to you to consider how you will procede, what your goals are as an editor of Wikipedia, and whether this is the best place to prosecute an agenda.  JEM--24.41.28.120 (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no other problems.  Kennedy acknowledges what is claimed by him - the timeline in the article regarding when and how Akre and Wilson were dismissed and when the suits came about is accurate.  We can add the Kennedy book as a second source to the already-accurate claim if you wish.  Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll come back to this later -- in late May 2010, I expect -- and suggest some alternative wording in the discussion area.  Together perhaps we can agree on some wording that maintains accuracy while giving an account of the differing points of view.  JEM.--24.41.28.120 (talk) 03:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: http://www.courttv.com/archive/legaldocs/misc/foxsuit.html    Briholt 03:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Original complaint

message: * "FOX did not dispute that it tried to force Akre to broadcast a false story, but argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports. This would be the sixth time that FOX had used this argument in court." - Are you serious? Did they really use this article?!
I added the bold emphasis to this claim because I can't find that argument in the amicus brief.  It may have come out in a verbal exchange during a trial, but I can't find evidence to that. Briholt 21:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fox's argument

message: You can read that here, case number 2d01-529:  
http://www.2dca.org/opinion/February%2014,%202003/2D01-529.pdf
Here is the Amicus brief submitted on behalf of COX news and WVTV:  http://www.foxbghsuit.com/090201amicusbrief.pdf
Although there won't be anything like 'first amendment protects lies' I am finding the argument that basically says no one can regulate reporting except FCC, and they won't touch the veracity of a report for fear of exercising censoring practices.  Quotes to come.
Briholt 18:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Decision of Florida 2nd court

message: "In 2004, Fox filed a US$1.7 million counter-suit against Akre and Wilson for trial fees and costs." What's the current status of that? DMacks (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Results of countersuit? 

message: "(rBGH), a milk additive that had been approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration but also blamed for a number of health issues"
This doesn't sound right.  Isn't rGBH administered to the cow, not added to the milk?  
Also, the article says it is blamed for "a number of health issues."  From what I can tell, the health issues in question are primarily those of the cows.  Effects on human health of those drinking affected milk are more speculative, based on changes in composition to the milk.
--50.135.209.86 (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article describes rGBH as a milk additive 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Jane Akre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100406161747/http://www.injuryboard.com:80/jane-akre/ to http://www.injuryboard.com/jane-akre/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jane Akre. 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/20100623021855/http://law.onecle.com/florida/labor/448.102.html to http://law.onecle.com/florida/labor/448.102.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jane Akre. 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/20100421103357/http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-the-media-can-legally-lie to http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-the-media-can-legally-lie/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified