Talk:Jim Bell

message: I just made some more edits, which I believe can be fully justified. I am starting this topic here to ask that they not be reverted without prior discussion. I believe I have defended my previous batch of edits successfully, as I have not received a reply after one week. Additionally, I think the list of POV statements I posted on 28 February 2010 speaks for itself.
As as an example, I removed the references to methamphetamine - the article previously stated that he was charged with the manufacture of it. But the source only said that police said they had found a "methamphetamine lab" - this was clearly incorrect. Furthermore, I removed a reference to Bell's mother, as it unnecessarily mentions her, but she is not a public figure and her privacy should be respected. Keystroke (talk) 04:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for explaining your changes. --NeilN talk to me 04:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Great! Keystroke (talk) 03:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuing edits 

message: I have some serious doubts about BLP policy and interpretation - nonetheless, the section "Acolytes" runs afoul of it as I see it.
First, there's no source that uses the term "acolyte".  The sources barely associate Bell with another named individual (Bell calls him a distant acquaintance; prosecutors "tried to link" according to one news story).
Second, the individual is a BLP1E.  If he had his own article it would get deleted under the policy as currently practiced.
Third, there is an attempt to then link an attack on a prosecutor to the trial of this then-imprisoned distant acquaintance, which is based only on mailing list commentary about a news story that doesn't mention it.  And the mailing list commentary is more of the "ha-ha look what happened to him" variety than any serious attempt to claim that that particular case was really responsible for the attack, and again, that has little relationship to Bell.
So in the end I just threw it all out. Wnt (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. --NeilN talk to me 21:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Thank you! Fantastic! Keystroke (talk) 04:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Acolytes" 

message: Contrary to the edit summary, the claim does appear in the source:
The affidavit also said that officials tied Bell to a militia group through his computer documents.
"From April 1995 to November 1995, Bell had written press releases for the Northwest Independent Militia Training Association, which met in Vancouver," the affidavit said. 
Is there any other reason to remove the material? --NeilN talk to me 02:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for catching that! I was looking at this link rather than this one. I think we should probably change the link order to be more clear. Currently it looks like the "'They're seeing demons in dark,' says Bell's mother" article is the one which is being cited with regards to the press releases. Keystroke (talk) 03:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved that ref to the end of the sentence (it was there anyways) so hopefully it's clearer. --NeilN talk to me 03:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some further research and can't find anything about this organization on the net which shows it as being a militia, despite the word militia being in its name. This site says that it met once a month at a pizzeria. Is there anything else important about this group besides Bell's purported involvement? As there is no other evidence to associate Bell with a militia, perhaps we should still remove this line. Keystroke (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's bordering on original research as we should rely on secondary sources to describe the group. But you're right as this particular group seems very non-notable. So associating Bell with a militia group might be undue weight. --NeilN talk to me 01:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writing press releases for a militia