Talk:Steve Windom

message: Mr. Windom is a colorful figure.  Some of this color may not be flattering in his Wiki biography, but the material removed by Dem1970 was accurate, and carefully noted to published media sources in Alabama newspapers.  These edits are a transparent effort to make the Wiki entry a PR piece, and omitting facts concerning controversies renders the article, as a whole, contrary to NPOV.  Would the article on Don Siegelman be NPOV, or worth reading, if all reference to his criminal proceedings were omitted? Or that on Richard Nixon, without mentioning Watergate?  Of course not. Likewise, the deletion of Mr. Windom's well-documented "jug" incident, and the rape accusations (for which his opponents, not he, were successfully prosecuted), likewise violates NPOV. Ditto the omission of the percentage by which Windom lost the gubernatorial primary.  This polish job may or may not have something to do with Windom's wife's current campaign for an elected judgeship.
In any case, I am restoring the bulk of the deleted material.  The references of awards added by Dem1970 seem to be accurate, and I won't remove them; they show where Windom's support came from.  But if gratutious PR efforts continue on the page, I will ask for edit protection.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Audemus Defendere (talk • contribs) 17:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of rape and urination references 

message: First off, my bad on the section above; I thought I'd signed it.
Now, Dem1970 has added the phrase "entirely false" to describe the accusations against Mr. Windom.  The phrase is inserted as if it is a fact about which there is no dispute.  However, even one of the jurors who convicted Mr. Windom's accuser of witness tampering made a public statement that the conviction did not clear Windom; this is evident even from the title of the article cited from The Birmingham News: "Juror Says Case Didn't Clear Windom."  see generally, WP:ASF.  The text as I had written it was supported by the news article, but the statement that the prostitute accusations are "entirely false" isn't.
I hesitate to expand the discussion of the topic to include all the accusations and counteraccusations.  Putting that much emphasis on the subject risks over-emphasizing its significance to Windom's career, and that over-emphasis itself  risks the article's NPOV.  On the other hand, omitting the incident entirely risks NPOV by limting the article to self-promoting accomplishments.  Consider the following from WP:WELLKNOWN: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."  The brief mention of the original accusation, the mention that the attorney who helped raise it was convicted of witness tampering, and the continuting controversy raised by the juror's statement seem (to me) to strike the best NPOV balance.
I am removing the phrase "entirely false" for these reasons.  I am totally open to an alternative formulation of the discussion of the prostitute controversy, but I suggest it be posted here so we can reach consensus. see WP:CON. I have the page on watch, and will try to catch them.Audemus Defendere (talk) 09:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insertion of "entirely false" reference 

message: :Dem1970: Please carefully read and review WP:NPA.  I will only note that I have previously added "positive" material to this article (e.g., the recent election victory of Windom's wife, as well as the original contribution of a link to Windom's lobbying business).
:The edit also misstates the date of Windom's party switch from D to R as 1994. I am correcting this, and adding a newspaper cite.
:As to the prostitute issue, the story from The Birmingham News, which was deleted, refers to the prostitute's recantation.  According to WP:RS, "When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used."  The item from "Overlawyered.com" is from a website with a singularly sharp point of view.  I can only imagine what's on the trial lawyers' website about Lt. Gov. Windom, and I am not going to bother looking, let alone cite it as a source here. Likewise "Overlawyered.com".  For those reasons, I am restoring the original cite, for both the conviction and the recantation (which I am leaving in).  Mindful of my own caveat, supra, about too much discussion of the topic, I am making another stab at a balanced presentation of the controversy.  As with an earlier version, the version I am now editing would leave a reader with the false impression that there is no controversy that Windom was entirely innocent.  As such, the current version has accuracy issues, as well as NPOV issues.  I honestly don't know if the accusations were true or not, and the article needs to reflect the disputed public record.  And again, I ask anyone taking issue with it to talk here before unilaterally editing, to try to reach consesnus. see, WP:CON.  Audemus Defendere (talk) 01:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  re: "Prior Anonymous Writer on High Horse"

message: I see that  and  seem to be involved in an edit war regarding some content on this article. In particular, edits like this and this. At least one legal threat has been thrown into the mix; let's try and calm things down, shall we? Obviously this is a WP:BLP concern, but it's worth noting that the material appears at first glance to be written in a more or less neutral and sourced matter. There may be a question of whether it is reliably sourced, or of whether the material is ultimately appropriate for the article. I'll be cross-posting this to the BLP noticeboard in a moment. Thoughts? – Luna Santin (talk) 05:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material appropriate or not 

message: I believe my last edits of Audemus Defendere's edits strike a balance that does not overly emphasize, nor ignore, events.  I hope no further edits on the subjects are made.  Audemus Defendere's true motive is clear.  Read his early entries for a number of Republican politicians in Alabama.  I have now cautioned him in a friendly but clear manner.  I am not making legal threats.  I am making simple observations.  If you review Audemus Defendere's comments on this page and his previous edits on this and a number of entries, he defames a number of individuals under US and international law.  Claiming controversy when there is no adequate ground for doing so, and writing statements with malice (as shown by early entries) amounts to defamation.  Hopefully this matter is now resolved.  Dem1970 (talk) 13:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I am new to Wikipedia. I am not a programmer and am learning the rules still! I did not mean to create a page for Audemus; I was trying to leave a comment on his talk page and put it in the wrong place. I was also not making a legal threat and have clarified that sentence...proper authority = Wikipedia Admin. I am a Democrat who is offended by Audemus' original edits (i.e., hacket jobs) on a number of Republican candidates. Many of those have also been fixed by others before I needed to jump in. I hope Audemus' overemphasis of certain events and clear bias against the subjects ends here. Best, Dem1970 (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: :Luna Santin seems concerned about the suitability of the prostitute case.  The most recent edits have all left some mention of it in, so I am guessing we all agree some discussion is relevant to the article topic.  Judging from the archive results of the major Alabama papers, they seem to think it's notable, too.  Between the first story in mid September, and the election on November 3, the story got the following number of hits (archive search at al.com: “Windom AND prostitute”) in the three largest newspapers in Alabama:
:*The Birmingham News: 19
:*The Mobile Press-Register: 13
:*The Huntsville Times: 15
:Between Election Day 1998 and the end of Windom's term in 2003 (during the Ivey trials, and the lawsuits), the same search generated the following numbers of hits:
:*The Birmingham News: 73
:*The Mobile Press-Register: 60
:*The Huntsville Times: 38
:Without setting out a detailed survey, it's fair to say that, after about the first week, the tenor of these stories changed from "Windom accused" to "Accusations falling apart" to "Windom's opponents accused."  The newspaper endorsements of Windom cited in the article all refer to the mess in terms favorable to Windom and unfavorable to Freeman, his opponent.  My personal opinion, for what it's worth, is that the controversy actually elected Windom, by turning public sympathy in his favor (he only won by 50.3%-49.7%).  Thus, I think the topic is notable and important, if delicate.  I think it's controlled by WP:WELLKNOWN: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."
::*Comment Sorry, but this type of analysis strikes me as very consistent with cyberstalking behavior. Cleo123 (talk) 05:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sorry, this type of confusion strikes me as strikes me as either an inability to distinguish research from "stalking", or a badly disingenous form of spin. Using newspaper archive search engines is "stalking"? Which is what you're suggesting under that weasel-wording. Care to elaborate the similarities? Feel free -- no, I insistent on -- actual citations to cyberstalking criteria. --Calton | Talk 13:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Try reading the Wikipedia artcle on cyberstalking. Maybe you and your friend can spend "an entire weekend ruminating" on it. Cleo123 (talk) 08:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability/importance/suitability 

message: :I mentioned this earlier, so I will just update. Dem1970 refers to himself as a Democrat, which I interpret as meaning that he is not the subject of the article.  The current photo is from the Subject's website, which reserves rights.  We probably need a new pic there.  I am of the opinion that such political figures abandon copyright with PR photos like that, and they really, really want the pics published by anyone who will put their mug up, but I am in a minority in Wikiland on the issue.
My condolonces (and thanks) to whoever has read this far.  I look forward to everyone's input.  Dem1970, just keep looking at the Wiki rules, it gets easier as you go.  And on second thought, those comments on my Talk page will wait until tomorrow night. (Oh, and my cursor has been occasionally jumping - if I accidentally edited someone else's comments, sorry.)  Audemus Defendere (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo of Windom 

message: Audemus, at this point, I think the article mentions what you clearly want it to without putting too much focus on two events.  Remember, Windom was in office for 14 or so years.  It seems like your desire to add more about either of the two topics you discussed at length above stems from a clear bias you have against Alabama Republicans.  Maybe you are too close to this and lack a dispassionate detachment from the process.  Take a minute to read your original edits.  It seems that everything you added was intentionally slanted and you left the article over 50% about the two events. Next, read your edits on the article on Gov. Riley.  NPOV when you finished?  Wow.  Then you edited about Dem. Gov. Folsom.  Interesting how the entire tenor of the article changed vs the other two articles.  You edited with a feather and not a hatchet.  So, back to this one.  Do we really need anything else here?  Other editors and I agree: no.  Yet, you insist on bringing up what is at best a fringe theory and at worst libel (carefully read Irish laws on the subject...and Alabama law as well.  As you no doubt know from reading the Ivey decision, the sentence was vacated over a small semantical "error" in the law re: malice, but that error has been fixed.).  Again, from BLP:
Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm."
And...
...including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced.
And...
The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article.
Finally...
Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.
I urge you to follow these guidelines.  Let this one rest.  Hopefully you, I, and other editors can agree that no further changes to this article are needed, and you get to keep your current jabs under the guise of NPOV.  Maybe once you brush up on Irish law, you'll even consider removing certain aspects of your discussion on this talk page.  Dem1970 (talk) 05:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit War Over? 

message: Although I've just started researching this subject, I am getting the sense that his efforts in the area of tort reform are perhaps somehow connected to publicity attacks against him which seem to be waged by trial lawyers. It makes me wonder....
Can anyone point me in the direction of reliable sources for the subject's accomplishments in that arena? Likewise, I'm wondering if there might be reliable sources that directly link tort reform with any possible retaliatory campaigns. Thanks! Cleo123 (talk) 08:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Happy to help Cleo, and if I kind of yelped when my toe got stepped on ... sorry.   Ivey is/was a prominent member of the Alabama Trial Lawyers Assn., which did back Windom's opponent.  Windom's whole theory  in his legal cases was that his tort reform stance was their motive. (You may note the article reference to his primary opponent pointing out Windom was once a trial lawyer favorite). Audemus Defendere (talk) 08:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Sources: If you have Lexis or Westlaw, you can search The Birmingham News, The Huntsville Times, and the Mobile Press-Register there.  If not, their archives are online far enough back to cover this topic, but only on a fee basis. Also, the Supreme Court opinion in Ivey's criminal case doesn't go into a lot of political detail, but notes that the day after the prostitute's suit was filed, "In response, Windom held a press conference denying Myers's allegations; in that press conference he stated that Myers had been paid by the Alabama Trial Lawyers' Association ("ATLA") and Ivey to fabricate the story on which the complaint was based."  Trial lawyers vs. tort reformers has been a big centerpiece of Alabama politics for 20 years or more now. Audemus Defendere (talk) 08:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

text: No, it's a WP:BLP and a WP:WEIGHT thing. And it is a good thing. I do not need to wait for your permission to address WP:BLP issues. As for consensus, you appear to be the only editor in favor of the inclusion of all this negative, mean spirited junk that is throwing the article out of balance. Think I've deleted something notable or particularly relevant in the big picture of this person's career? Make a neutral, fact based argument for its inclusion here. Cleo123 (talk) 09:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The adversarial atmosphere is not making this any easier to resolve. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Agreed. It could also be said that the comment including "negative, mean spirited junk" is in fact itself a violation of the WP:TALK guidelines, and that such comments have no place on this page. In fact, as per that page, there is sufficient cause for them to be removed and the people making them to be at least cautioned to avoid making such comments in the future. I very sincerely urge all editors to refrain from such comments regarding the actions and motivations of others, and focus instead on the actual content itself. John Carter (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: To save anyone the trouble of comparing timestamps, my apology for any extent to which I reacted to Cleo's comments was offered before I saw her Homelite Chainsaw edits on the main article - which she did NOT wait on community consensus before making.  The article as she has left it is beyond what even Dem1970, for all his sometime inappropriately strident advocacy of his position, had done. This is not a good thing. Audemus Defendere (talk) 08:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's a WP:BLP and a WP:WEIGHT thing. And it is a good thing. I do not need to wait for your permission to address WP:BLP issues. As for consensus, you appear to be the only editor in favor of the inclusion of all this negative, mean spirited junk that is throwing the article out of balance. Think I've deleted something notable or particularly relevant in the big picture of this person's career? Make a neutral, fact based argument for its inclusion here. Cleo123 (talk) 09:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The adversarial atmosphere is not making this any easier to resolve. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Agreed. It could also be said that the comment including "negative, mean spirited junk" is in fact itself a violation of the WP:TALK guidelines, and that such comments have no place on this page. In fact, as per that page, there is sufficient cause for them to be removed and the people making them to be at least cautioned to avoid making such comments in the future. I very sincerely urge all editors to refrain from such comments regarding the actions and motivations of others, and focus instead on the actual content itself. John Carter (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whoa!