Talk:Josh Wolf (journalist)/Archive 1

message: Based on discussions above, I have added a section on the central legal issues of the case.  I've tried to briefly outline what appear to be the issues in dispute, without delving into a debate on the merits of either side's arguments.  I considered adding citations to other legal rulings in support of each side, but I wanted to err on the side of caution and avoid sliding into any advocacy. We can direct people to external links for that sort of detail.  I think as it reads now, the section is succinct and impartial, and does a good job of informing people who don't know about the case of the pertinent issues.  Of course, I welcome feedback from others. Anson2995 17:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Central Legal Issues

message: We need some information on this persons life, education, intended career goals, and details about their stint in prison. We can debate the meaning of journalist, or worry about the legitimacy of the fed's involvement all we want, however, this does not mean the more salient details of this person's life ought to be thrown to the wayside because of a difference in ideologies. RigelOrionis 22:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added some. Tvoz | talk 07:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life 

message: As the move of this article from "journalist" to "blogger" is contested, I suggest that its proponents take it to requested moves. I note that the issue of whether or not Mr. Wolf is a journalist has not been particularly debated by the courts - indeed, it is the position of the government that whether he's a journalist or not, journalists have no right to ignore subpoenas. Furthermore, I find it ridiculous to argue that Mr. Wolf is not a journalist - there is no licensing authority or education requirement for being one. He's been the recipient of multiple journalism awards, and is the poster child for a movement toward a national journalistic shield law. If anyone wishes to challenge this, WP:RM is thataway. FCYTravis 06:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ... No. The move is contested on grounds that are at best tenuous. Josh Wolf is a blogger, Josh Wolf  MIGHT be a journalist. Because the latter is hotly contested by the public, and the courts, it is not appropriate to use that title. Blogger, however, does not fall under the purview of this conflict because that is what he is. Need proof? Someone with a blog is a blogger, Josh Wolf has a blog. Josh Wolf describes himself as a blogger. Therefore Josh Wolf is a blogger, and an admin for the wikipedia community can stop making a fool out of himself by acknowledging a conflict that is based on nothing because his own interested conflict with the truth. RigelOrionis 06:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I pointed out in the move message, by calling the article's subject "a loony leftist the likes only Lenin could embrace" you have not only made a BLP-violating personal attack, you've shown yourself to be non-neutral in this matter. You can make all the personal jabs you like - it doesn't make a difference. The move is contested. Take it to RM. FCYTravis 06:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  When being an admin entitles you to the right to A) decide where an article goes, or B) where I can talk, then your orders might have some sort of weight behind them. Sadly, neither A) nor B) are true, so I think I will use my right to voice my concern / displeasure with your actions right here. Based on your own personal page, and what you've said previously, your bias in this case is more than noted, and your ability to refute my arguments is also non-existent. The move was illegitimate, and should be undone ASAP. RigelOrionis 06:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You made the move, from "journalist" to "blogger." That move has been contested, and reverted. I don't decide where an article goes - that's for a consensus of Wikipedians to determine based on our policies and guidelines. Like I said, follow our procedures and place a notice on requested moves. That's your next step, it's right in front of you to take. FCYTravis 06:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll move onto the MP arena soon enough. That doesn't stop me from voicing my disapproval of someone who has warped the word contested in such a way that we need a consensus of wikipedians to decide if a blogger is a blogger. If not because I believe it is against the rules to reverse what you have done at this stage I would have already because it has wasted time and effort on my part in trying to prove that a self-described blogger, is indeed a blogger. Good job on picking your battles, friend. RigelOrionis 07:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You must've missed the part where the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Wolf is not a journalist.  And "he's popularly accepted by the experts in his field and the majority of his peers as a journalist" is just so much handwaving on your part; you don't know anything of the sort. Bricology 23:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guess what - the Ninth Circuit COurt of Appeals is not charged with or capable of determining who is a journalist.  The Society of Professional Journalists knows more about their own field than any court does.   But we've said this over and over and you have some kind of problem, so I am with Cowicide: the end. Tvoz |talk 04:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guess what - the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did exactly that: they made a determination that Wolf isn't a journalist.  You may disagree, you may not like it, you may think that they're not qualified to say so, but there's their ruling, in black and white: the government, through the judiciary, determined that Wolf isn't a journalist, and that the laws protecting journalists don't apply to him.  I don't know who you think you're going to go to in order to prove otherwise, but I doubt that the State Supreme Court or the Supreme Court are going to take a challenge to the Ninth's ruling.  No amount of ink from one of the hundreds of journalism organizations in the US can countermand the government's decision, any more than if the Cucumunga Association of Left-Handed Teachers claims that I'm a teacher, if the State of California (or the courts) says I'm not.  QED. Bricology 01:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unilateral move 

message: Who says Josh Wolf is a journalist?
First of all, he does. That's uncontested, so I can dispense with a link.
The Society of Professional Journalists, one of the nation's most respected journalism organizations, does. Its Northern California chapter, in fact, honored him as one of their Journalists of the Year.
The San Francisco Chronicle does, in their news stories and editorials.
KPIX-TV Channel 5 does.
The executive editor of CNET does.
So does the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin.
The International Press Institute does.
Oh, here's Edward Wasserman, the Knight professor of journalism ethics at Washington and Lee University. He does too.
Want more? I can find 'em. FCYTravis 08:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Appeal to popularity. Denied. RigelOrionis 08:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, that's a big negatory, good buddy. That's called noting what reliable sources call him. FCYTravis 08:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's called a logical fallacy; using popular appeal as justification. The Government certainly doesn't call him a journalist, and I think they have more credibility in this manner (what with the court voting against Wolf on each issue) than any exhaustive list of 'sources' you could come up with. Though again, such is fallacy. RigelOrionis 09:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good grief, you can't be serious. Since when does the government have more knowledge of who is a journalist, a doctor, a filmmaker, a fill in the blank, than a professional association in a field?  What are they teaching in high school these days?  Tvoz | talk 23:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Since when does the government have more knowledge of who is a journalist, a doctor, a filmmaker, a fill in the blank, than a professional association in a field?"  Are you high?  The government does indeed say who can call themselves a doctor, a teacher, a pilot, a truck driver and a hundred other professions.  It wouldn't matter one whit if the AMA itself declared that I was a doctor; the government says that I'm not a doctor unless I meet their criteria.  And Josh Wolf doesn't meet the government's criteria for journalist.  Deal with it. Bricology 23:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except there is absolutely no government licensing requirement to be a journalist, unlike those other professions you mentioned. Deal with it. FCYTravis 23:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the point grazed your head as it flew over.  I'll try again: previous poster wrote "Since when does the government have more knowledge of who is a...a doctor..than a professional association in a field?"  I answered, proving that the government does indeed have more knowledge of who is a doctor than any "professional association in a field", and that they also have the last word on teachers, pilots, drivers and others.  You claim that "absolutely no government licensing requirement to be a journalist".  No licensing, perhaps, but nevertheless, the government does have the right to determine who qualifies as a journalist, in order to be covered by laws that protect them.  The Ninth Circuit did exactly that when it determined that Wolf did not meet the required qualifications of a journalist.  Case. Fucking. Closed.  You want to prove that Josh Wolf really is a journalist?  (1) File an appeal to the Ninth Circuit. (2) Send Mr. Wolf to journalism school.  (3) Get him a job at the New York Times.  Otherwise, it's just so much "is too, you meanie!" Bricology 01:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you're enjoying your profane talk page rantings. FCYTravis 01:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oooh -- I used the "f-word"!  I guess that negates all of the perfectly valid points I made above.  ('m sure that Josh Wolf has never used profanity.)  Oh well -- if that's all you've got as a rebuttal, I guess it'll have to do. Bricology 04:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why waste breath on an argument that doesn't merit response? The article's well-referenced and reliably-sourced description of Josh Wolf as a freelance journalist is not going to be changed, so it's pointless to argue this any further. Find some other battle to fight. FCYTravis 04:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your summation of the article is certainly novel, considering it states, regarding the "Central Legal Issues", that "The Federal prosecutor argues that Wolf does not meet the statutory definition of a journalist (under California law) or a common law journalist's privilege based on the Federal Rules of Evidence. Further, they argue that even if he did, the protections afforded to journalists would not cover his activities in this case because he merely observed the incidents he recorded in a public place. He did not prompt them, nor did he offer anyone anonymity or confidentiality.  In their written ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled against Wolf on all three issues."  Sorry that you can't recognize (or don't want to admit) that the central legal issue being decided against Wolf does anything but support his claim of being a journalist.  This battle is important in ways that you knee-jerkers don't recognize.  I'm on the Left and I find the whole thing patently absurd -- particularly Wolf trying to hide behind journalists' shield laws.  The fact is that Wolf fails the first test of being objective.  He's LESS of a journalist than Bill O'Reilly, who actually has a degree in journalism and 30 years on the job as a journalist (despite being just as doctrinaire as Wolf).  But if Wolf is allowed to appropriate the title of "journalist" and thus be able to keep evidence out of the hands of the law, then any amateur Bill O'Reilly out there, who happens to videotape protesters being beaten by cops, is likewise going to be able to withhold that evidence, if it implicates groups that he supports.  This kind of shenanigans works both ways.  Unfortunately, those on the Right have demonstrated far more skill at hiding evidence from the light of day than has the Left.  By legitimizing an anarchist activist by calling him a journalist, you're putting the exact same dangerous power in the hands of those who will use it against freedom and justice.  Think about it. Bricology 23:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a journalist myself, it is far more dangerous to ever admit that any governmental or political authority (and the judicial system *is* political) can define what is and is not a journalist. That is a step toward regulation, licensing and governmental interference in the right to freely gather and report upon newsworthy events. Mr. Wolf acted to document the first draft of history and publicly publish it, and that meets my definition of journalism. It also happens to meet the definition of journalism proffered by other journalists - who I would term the best judge. You would have it that governmental authority could decide who gets to be a journalist, and that is patently unacceptable. Yes, there is a potential that some wrongs would not be given justice if the government could not seize journalist's videotapes and unpublished notes. But that argument is unavailing because it can justify anything - the government could right many more wrongs if, say, local police were allowed to torture criminal suspects or simply hold them forever without trial. But that is repugnant to our concept of freedom, and so is any attempt to allow arbitrary authority to decide who may or may not act as a journalist. FCYTravis 05:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your slippery slope fallacy is just that -- fallacious.  You claim "That is a step toward regulation, licensing and governmental interference in the right to freely gather and report upon newsworthy events."  That's simply alarmist rubbish.  Every profession would like to think that theirs should be free of interference from the government.  However, there's nothing about journalism that privileges it above the medical profession, the legal profession, the teaching profession, being a pilot or bus driver or any other profession that the government already practices some level of "regulation, licensing and governmental interference" over.  Just because the California State Bar Association (which is responsible to the Supreme Court of California) has the power to say that a person is or isn't legally considered a lawyer, doesn't mean that such "regulation, licensing and governmental interference" stifles the process of jurisprudence within California, it merely determines if a person is qualified to practice law before the court.  Even those it deems unqualified can still publish legal opinions, act as legal advisers, etc.  Does the fact that the government practices "regulation, licensing and governmental interference" over the qualifications of doctors prevent laymen from providing "healing advice", herbal remedies, etc.?  Does it prevent those who aren't licensed teachers from "educating" students through tutoring?  Of course not.  However, a "herbal healer" cannot qualify for malpractice insurance and the indemnity it provides, because they are not licensed.  Likewise, a person can still "practice journalism", but not be entitled to receive the legally guaranteed protection that the law extends to those qualified to be called journalists.  I can take my video camera to a demonstration and videotape the police brutalizing a protester.  I can call myself a "journalist", even though I have no real qualifications.  But I cannot hide behind a law intended to shield journalists' sources, because I'm only playing at being a journalist.  That doesn't keep me from "doing reportage", it merely says that I don't fit the legal standard for the profession, so I'm on my own.  Well, that is exactly the position Josh Wolf was in, except that he was videotaping the protesters doing the illegal activities.  And because he sided with the protesters ideologically, he refused to comply with the court.  His attempt to twist the law to serve his ideology was his mistake, and one the court addressed in their ruling.  Try examining it from the other side: what if Wolf had a degree in journalism, was a full-time journalist for a major media company, and was far Left, but kept his ideology to himself.  Let's say that he was in a situation that led him to seek the protection of the shield law, and the Appeals Court of the Ninth Circuit ruled that he WAS a journalist, and thus legally entitled to the protection, but that a certain percentage of journalistic and other organizations said that he wasn't really a journalist, and shouldn't be protected?  And what if the organizations happened to be on the Right, politically?  Who do you think should have the authority to make the call -- some civilian organizations, or the courts? Bricology 06:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The conclusion that you have drawn, that a person cannot be an activist and a journalist at the same time, is not supported by anything.  It is your opinion, which you're entitled to have, but people are not entitled to insinuate their own POVs into articles.  And your so-called evidence is entirely unconvincing - in fact Wolf did not refuse to identify himself as a journalist in the clip you posted - he declined to agree with Sites that he had to choose between activist and journalist.  He quite clearly identifies himself as both an advocate and a journalist, and he's hardly the only journalist who is an advocate.  Your "guess" about what he was saying is similarly irrelevant to this article.  Tvoz |talk 04:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  It's not for us to debate whether or not he should be considered a journalist.  The article notes that the matter was a subject of debate, and even draws the distinction between a layman's definition of "journalist" and the applicable legal definition.  The article should (and does) report these issues, not attempt to resolve them. Anson2995 04:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for reminding us what your opinion is.   I stand by my edits and by the citation of  one of the pre-eminent professional organizations in the field who identify Wolf as a journalist. You see, it's not  that I think he is one - nor is it hero worship (whatever you're referring to, I have no idea).  Your comments from April 5 misrepresented his self-identification and treated us to your guess about his motives. And you just did it again. Tvoz |talk 05:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Could you say that in English please? Tvoz |talk 03:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Josh Wolf, journalist 

message: WELCOME TO USA (UNITED SATAN'S ARMY)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.234.103 (talk) 06:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  woo