Talk:Jason Leopold/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Current Relationship with Truthout.org

On 27 October 2009, Jason Leopold is listed on the Truthout.org website as a Deputy Managing Editor. Could someone with more knowledge of Mr. Leopold's current status make an update? Desertpapa (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed Columbia Journalism Review article for now

...as a potentially libelous (and under legal threat for same) violation of WP:BLP, and added citation request in its place. This is the same matter described in the long cease-and-desist letter above. The issue was raised at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Libelous material on Jason Leopold bio again. It is up for discussion there. Please do NOT add this source back until the matter has been discussed and there's some resolution on whether it's appropriate. That discussion will happen pretty quickly, and anyone's free to participate, so no need to get up in arms.... if the citation belongs it can come back, if not it stays out. Thanks, Wikidemo 08:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This information in the jason leopold biography IS FLAT OUT FALSE!

[4] On June 13, Truthout's executive director Marc Ash backtracked from that position, saying that the story was based "on single source information and general background information obtained from experts."[citation needed]The grand jury concluded with no indictment of Rove.[5]

THIS REFERS TO AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT STORY ON ROVE! THIS IS ABOUT A SEALED INDICTMENT! That story, and not the rove indictment story, is what Ash is saying they had one source for. That story was about a sealed indictment not the Rove story!

FIX THIS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.250.64 (talk) 05:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Done - the sealed v sealed is indeed a different story. Please understand the confusion here: the sealed vs sealed story by Leopold is written around the same time and also involves Karl Rove. --h2g2bob (talk) 01:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

warning/legal action

I am an attorney for Mr. Leopold.

Mr. Leopold has a legal action against the CJR for defamation and libel. Use of this material exposes this site to damages for republishing said material. A copy of the legal letter has been circulating for some time and is available on this very page. Continued use of defamatory material exposes wikipedia to defamation and libel.

The user Akron who has been changing the substance of this biography has clearly been acting with malice. His changes to the material violates wikipedia's own rules of neutrality. This user appears to be acting with an inherent bias and is making changes that are questinable, biased, defamatory and libelous. Unless he or wikipedia can demonstrate unequivocally that Mr. Leopold is best know for a story published two years ago and can document that he is "controversial" this is simply a case of smearing my client.

The issues that the user has seen fit to change during the course of two days have been addressed in this bio. However, this individual has seen fit to continuously change it for no other reason than to fit his own agenda.

As I stated above, continued use of CJR material when a lawsuit is pending and when previous warnings were issued will open up wikipedia to damages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.250.112 (talk) 04:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Then contact the WP:OFFICE. Threatening legal action is against our policies. Further, all amterial included is fully sourced to reliable journalistic sources, which, it appears from the article, sources, and history, your client isn't too concerned about. That said, You have your options. Vandalizing the article, and it IS vandalism, what you're doing, is not welcome here, and prohibited by our policies. The material that you object to belongs in the article, as it's relevant, and makes your client notable. I recall that incident clearly, and your client's role in it. ThuranX (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Legal issues, WP:BLP, protection and WP:OTRS

The article has been protected, following a notice at the administrators noticeboard about the legal threat here and potential violations of the biographies of living people policy. In the future, a good way to address these sorts of complaints is to (i) avoid threatening an individual or Wikipedia with a lawsuit (ii) use the talkpage to discuss problems and request other editors to make the edits you desire on your behalf (iii) report the page to the requests for protection board or the BLP policy noticeboard or (iv) contact the OTRS volunteers with specific concerns. Avruch ^T 19:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

May be for the best to stub this and start from scratch George The Dragon (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, its a little unclear what in the current article is actually disputed. At the moment, the controversial incident seems to have a pretty bare and well-referenced paragraph. Unless there is some other objection, why stub the whole article? Could possibly just AfD it for notability reasons, though, I guess. Avruch ^T 20:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like most or all of the potentially defamatory information found in this revision has been removed from the current article. If that information is true, it goes a long way towards establishing notability I suppose. Avruch ^T 21:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If he's been written up in CJR (the dean of journalism criticism), then it's undoubtedly encyclopedic to mention that (and definitely isn't libelous) - however, I have concerns over proper weighting and the manner it was presented - we don't call people "controversial" in the first line of their biographies. I would suggest working here to develop a consensus version. FCYTravis (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Both the Columbia Journalism Review and the esteemed Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz have written critically about Jason Leopold. Claims that Kurtz's writings have been corrected or withdrawn are, as far as I know, completely false. As a journalist who believes in honesty and the free exchange of information, I'm disappointed that Mr. Leopold, whether through his own actions of those of someone who appears to be his attorney, has succeeded in chilling the debate on his Wikipedia page. I think it's in the best interests of those who refer to Wikipedia for authoritative information that some consensus editing be done to this page, so that we can correct what appears to be an effort to whitewash certain aspects of Mr.Leopold's past.Gefiltefish85 (talk) 01:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I find it interesting that GefilteFish85 registered on Wiki ONLY to edit Leopold's bio, which he or she has done numerous times, in a fashion that is COMPLETELY biased. This person is absolutely not a journalist but appears to be a fraud and a liar and that is ironic because he or she is accusing Leopold of those very crimes. Moreover, to say "Kurtz" is "esteemed" is highly questionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.243.138.235 (talk) 05:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I've edited Wikipedia pages before, at least one or two years ago, using a different account that I honestly can't remember. Because my other account lapsed, I created GefilteFish85 when I wanted to edit the "Jason Leopold" page, the first page I've edited in a long time. It was a coincidence, not evidence of an agenda. If I have any agenda, it's that I'm a working journalist and want to hold my fellow professionals accountable to the ethics of our job. I would discourage the above unsigned user from making unhelpful and ad hominem attacks on someone they've never met before. I'd further argue that my edits were not made in a "completely biased" fashion. I simply stated facts about the negative coverage Leopold received from Salon, the Financial Times, Kurtz and the Columbia Journalism Review, and linked to said articles. I would say that whoever deleted those passages, in a seeming effort to eliminate any references to Mr. Leopold's past, was the one acting with bias.Gefiltefish85 (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If you are truly a working journalist then you should leave your real name since you publish articles under that name. Unless you are worried about receiving the same type of scrutiny. I for one believe you are a liar and you are either one of two people: [redacted]. And you DO have a bias because as a journalist if you read Leopold's book you would know full well that the material written by these so called "esteemed" writers is wrong. Moreover, if you read the CJR article you would know that they were forced to issue a correction in which they said that quotes attributed to Leopold were wrong and should have been attributed to Ash.

So what's your name Mr. so-called journalist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.243.138.235 (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Mr or Mrs Gefilte Fish claims to be a journalist and keeping his colleagues honest. I call BS. here's his or hers activity, all for Leopold.

1. 17:22, 5 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Jason Leopold‎ (→Legal issues, WP:BLP, protection and WP:OTRS)
2. 01:47, 30 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Jason Leopold‎ (→Legal issues, WP:BLP, protection and WP:OTRS)
3. 01:36, 30 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Jason Leopold‎ (→Legal issues, WP:BLP, protection and WP:OTRS)
4. 01:36, 30 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Jason Leopold‎ (→Legal issues, WP:BLP, protection and WP:OTRS)
5. 17:43, 3 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Jason Leopold‎
6. 17:42, 3 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Jason Leopold‎
7. 17:41, 3 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Jason Leopold‎
8. 17:36, 3 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Jason Leopold‎
9. 17:35, 3 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Jason Leopold‎
10. 17:27, 3 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Jason Leopold

Yes, I think it's pretty clear that I've edited the page for Jason Leopold, as that list would indicate. After all, this discussion concerns Mr. Leopold, not myself. I would encourage the powers-that-be at Wikipedia to either allow editing on this page or use their discretion to make their own edits and restore this biographical information to a semblance of objectivity. I would remind everyone here, including the above-signed unnamed user, that stating true information (i.e. that Mr. Leopold has been criticized by several publications for his journalistic practices) is an activity immune from libel. Gefiltefish85 (talk) 05:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There is really no point in arguing with Jason about this. We will include what is published in reliable sources no matter the inane threats. Arkon (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Then you should include that Mr Leopold sued CJR for defamation and libel and that CJR was forced to print a correction, which appears at the end of the article. Both of you are incredibly biased and lack objectivity and the person who claims to be a journalist failed to respond to questions about disclosing his or her true identity.

Anything referenced in the CJR article exposes wiki to damages.It's as simple as that. The below letter sets the record straight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.250.115 (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

in dispute

There is legal action against CJR for it's story that the individual who consistently changed to make this a non-neutral bio continues to use. He then goes on to cite Howard Kurtz article which has also been retracted since the material Mr. Kurtz wrote appears no where in my client's book. He relied on a news release. Moreover, Mr. Leopold is well known for his book, his work on Enron and the California energy crisis. To say that he is "best known" for a story about Karl Rove assumes that is an opinion shared with people on the Internet. Lastly, no where in this bio does it say that Mr. Rove's attorney to this day still has not produced a letter he says that he received from Mr. Fitzgerald clearing Mr. Rove. Additionally, Mr. Rove, at an appearance this year, stated he fully "expects to be indicted at the end of the year." Whether he was being facetious or not he still said it.

It is abundantly clear that the authors of the most recent changes to my client's work have sought to use material that will fit a predisposed agenda and rely on a story that is currently in dispute and the subject of major legal action. Everything is covered in the bio as it stands currently. The person who continuously changed it used words such as "exposed" and "past liar" and makes wildly outrageous claims that cannot be supported.

Here is a copy of the letter to CJR:

Copy of a letter claimed to have been written by article subject's lawyer to Columbia Journalism Review.
the following is a letter collapsed for improved readability. Please do not modify it.
VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL Evan Cornog, Publisher Columbia Journalism Review Journalism Building 2950 Broadway Columbia University New York, New York 10027 Re: Jason Leopold / "Three Strikes, You're Out – Jason Leopold Caught Sourceless Again" by Paul McLeary Dear Mr Cornog: I am writing on behalf of our client, Jason Leopold, with respect to the article written by Paul McLeary and published by Columbia Journalism Review on June 13, 2006. The article contains a series of false and defamatory statements concerning our client, Jason Leopold. We request that Columbia Journalism Review, CJRdaily, Paul McLeary, and the University of Columbia School of Journalism ("CJR"): Issue an immediate written correction and retraction of those defamatory statements and publish such correction and retraction in substantially as conspicuous a manner as the original defamatory publication(s), in a regular issue thereof published or broadcast; Immediately remove, and cease and desist from publishing any further defamatory statements concerning Mr. Leopold; and CJR immediately identify in writing any and all media, editors, and publishers to whom CJR has sent the subject article, including via email, and immediately advise all such media of the correction and retraction demanded herein. The defamatory statements concerning Mr. Leopold in the subject article are as follows: "Jason Leopold Caught Sourceless Again" The statement that Mr. Leopold has been caught sourceless on multiple occasions is untrue. "We wonder if the folks over at Truthout.org are rethinking their affiliation with reporter and serial fabulist Jason Leopold." The true facts are that Mr. Leopold is not a "serial fabulist". "Leopold, you may recall, is the freelance reporter who was caught making stuff up in a 2002 Salon.com article, and had his own memoir cancelled because of concerns of the accuracy of quotations." "But the book was not to be" The true facts are that Mr. Leopold was never "caught making stuff up in a 2002 Salon.com article" The true facts are that Mr. Leopold's book was not only published but was on Los Angeles Times Bestseller List at the time this article was published. While it is certainly fair to note that Mr. Leopold’s first publisher did not publish Mr. Leopold’s book, it is not acceptable to defame Mr. Leopold with the false claim that his book was cancelled because of concerns over accuracy or to imply, as the article does, that the book was not to be, and was never published. "Leopold’s latest addition to his application for membership in the Stephen Glass school of journalism came on May 12 of this year..." Stephen Glass is know for being an admitted liar and fabricator of stories. The clear implication is that Mr. Leopold is also a fabricator is stories. Mr. Leopold is not a fabricator of stories. After all this certainty comes Leopold's latest version of the story, published yesterday, where he writes that he based his original article "on single source information and general background information obtained from experts. The conclusions we arrive at should be considered carefully, but not taken as statements of fact, per se." The true facts are that Paul McLeary falsely puts these quoted words in Jason Leopold’s mouth making it appear that Mr. Leopold’s work is improperly sourced and otherwise unreliable. These words were never stated or written by Mr. Leopold, but rather appeared under a byline by Mark Ash, the Executive Director of Truthout. Leopold says that he knows "for certain" that there exists a federal indictment called "06 cr 128" which he refers to as "(Sealed vs. Sealed)" since neither party's name is on the document. He also knows that this indictment "was returned by the same grand jury that has been hearing matters related to the Fitzgerald/Plame investigation." The true facts are that Paul McLeary falsely puts these quoted words in Mr. Leopold’s mouth making it appear that Mr. Leopold’s work is improperly sourced and otherwise unreliable. These words were never stated or written by Mr. Leopold, but rather appeared under a byline by Mark Ash, the Executive Director of Truthout. So much for what Leopold knows. Apparently, Leopold is a very religious man, because he "believes" quite a bit about the alleged indictment. He believes that it "is directly related to the Fitzgerald/Plame investigation. That's based on a single credible source." He goes on to list several other things he "believes" to be true, all fed to him by, in his words, the "same single credible source." The true facts are that Paul McLeary falsely puts these quoted words in Jason Leopold’s mouth making it appear that Mr. Leopold’s work is improperly sourced and otherwise unreliable. These words were never stated or written by Mr. Leopold, but rather appeared under a byline by Mark Ash, the Executive Director of Truthout. "Salon removed Leopold's August 29, 2002 story about Enron from its site after it was discovered that he plagiarized parts from the Financial Times and was unable to provide a copy of an email that was critical to the piece." The true facts are that Mr. Leopold was able, and did in fact; provide the aforementioned email to Salon.com. Salon’s concern had to do with authenticating the email. The above statements are unprivileged and defamatory per se, in that they tend directly to injure Mr. Leopold in that they are an unprivileged and expose Mr. Leopold to "to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation" Cal. Civ. Code § 45. Surprisingly, Mr. Leopold was never contacted for comment on this article. Quotes were wrongly attributed to Mr. Leopold and then used by the author to bolster the attack on Mr. Leopold’s credibility. A basic investigation into Mr. Leopold reveals that his book was published and is available. Further, Mr. Leopold’s book is cited with a link on every story he writes for Truthout, including the ones Paul McLeary cites in his article. McLeary ignores those facts and gives the impression to CJR's readers that Mr. Leopold's book was never published and is not available. The article has caused damage to Mr. Leopold and continues to cause him damage. Mr. Leopold is currently promoting his book. This article is harming his ability to secure interviews and otherwise harming him professionally. We demand that you immediately take steps to mitigate the damage your defamatory actions are causing. Please contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss the matter. Sincerely, David J. Brown Attorney at Law Egerman & Brown, LLC.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.194.3 (talk) 05:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

How long will this page protection last? Hasn't gone on over the required 24 business hours?--98.215.46.64 (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, this has gone on long enough. Arkon (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, by the response of "24 business hours" you have shown your bias and lack of neutrality. Your intent is to use whatever you can find to smear. That's your goal here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.243.138.235 (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Threats and personal attacks

Legal threats and personal attacks are both violations of Wikipedia policies. If they continue on this page by anonymous IP commenters I'll ask that the protection for the article be converted to semi-protection for both the article and the talkpage (excludes only edits from IPs and accounts newer than 4 days). Avruch ^T 02:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Category

{{editprotected}} Amusingly for a page which has been fully protected for WP:BLP reasons, this article has not actually been placed in Category:Living people. Could an admin please add it to that category? Terraxos (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Errr....is this going to be protected forever or what? Is there OTRS action going on? Arkon (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

The neutrality tag has been on this article sence 2008, I am going to remove it unless someone explains what they think the issue is. Bonewah (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Cited by oberman

IP 75.56.207.148 keeps re-adding the following passage to the lead of this article "who has spent more than a year probing the Bush administration's torture program and published more than 100 investigative reports, one of which was recently cited by Keith Olbermann of Countdown http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30499449/, and others cited by The Daily Beast, Harper's, The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Independent, and The Huffington Post." I do not feel that this is noteworthy enough to include in this article. Any reporter who is worth anything will be cited from time to time and listing those citations in the very first sentence is poor writing at best. Further, the portions about Enron and California's energy crisis are redundant with information allready present further down the article. I am removing the passages in question, please feel free to discuss them here. Bonewah (talk) 12:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be Jason himself...I'm glad others are finally patrolling this page, as I'd kinda given up the fight. Arkon (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yea, that would be my guess too. Dont give up patrolling this page, I got your back! :-) Bonewah (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

wrong, it is not "jason himself." It is me. Registering for this takes forever. I am a fan of Leopold's and have been since his enron days. This article has long been presented as a wholly biased version of events by people, such as yourselves, who clearly have a vendetta against Leopold because of his story on Rove. The fact of the matter is that three years have now passed since that story and Leopold has done an enormous amount of work on the issue of torture and deserves credit and attention for that work. Moreover, much has been revealed since Leopold's story about Rove and his role in the Plame leak that would at least add context. But all of you continually harp on this one area instead of judging the entire body of work.

If you change the neutrality I will see to it that it is put back in until you can make this article more balanced —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.205.85 (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

POV tag

This entry is an entirely one-sided, biased account, of Jason Leopold that relies HEAVILY on issues related to his reporting on Karl Rove's indictment, which occurred four years ago. There is not a single entry on the work Mr. Leopold has done since then, particularly on the issue of torture, for which he has received accolades and awards, to balance this entry out. I am Mr. Leopold's lawyer and I continue to battle with Wikipedia for what is a biased, and in some places, defamatory entry. It appears that Bonewah is the individual who continues to rely heavily on these four year old claims to make a point about Mr. Leopold the person and the journalist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.202.96 (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Ive taken the liberty of moving this discussion to its own section, for easier reading. This article covers the Karl Rove indictment claim because that is really Leopold's only real claim to fame. The mere fact that it occurred four years ago doesnt matter at all, this is an encyclopedia and, as such, documents history. Mr. Leopold's false indictment claim is a historical fact, and as such, should be recorded. If you feel that some section is defamatory, by all means, be specific here and we can discuss it, likewise with bias. But remember bias (or defamation) does not mean "I dont like it"

The same holds true for his work since then, show me actually notable awards covered in a reliable source and ill be happy to include it. If your hoping for cheer-leading of minor events such as appearing on Olbermann's show, forget it, not going to happen. Bonewah (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I am Mr. Leopold's attorney. The passage BONEWAH included on Salon contains defamatory and libelous information. The context of this passage is wholly taken out of context. Mr. Leopold sued Salon in 2003 for false statements the organization made about this episode. It is covered in great detail in his book, News Junkie, as well as a legal letter to Columbia Journalism Review on this discussion page. Mr. Leopold ultimately prevailed and Salon apologized. In fact, a simple lexis search will show this article is still available from Salon. User BONEWAH has waged a war against Mr. Leopold extending several years now and have gone above and beyond to malign my client. You state that Mr. Leopold is only known for the Karl Rove episode. Perhaps that is true for you but not for the tens of thousands of people who read Mr. Leopold's work on a daily basis and invite him on television and radio to discuss his work. Your commentary is evidence of bias and in cherry picking passages to fit your agenda you have defamed Mr. Leopold and in doing so caused him serious harm. I demand this passage immediately be removed as it does not state the true nature of the facts. Moreover, this entire article is nothing short of a hit job by a select group of individuals who have made a career of sorts of defaming and libeling my client. There is absolutely no balance to this entry and the authors seem to have knowingly avoided including the accolades, particularly on issues related to Mr. Leopold's work in other areas as well as an award he received from The Military Religious Freedom Foundation, an organization nominated for a Nobel Peace prize for 2010. A simple search of this organization's website will provide you with the information you need. By continuing to keep this passage intact wikipedia is now a party to defamation. I would advise all interested parties to read the letter on the discussion page. My contact information can be found on the letter cited above to Columbia Journalism Review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

if you are Mr. Leopold's lawyer and you are worried about defamatory entries about Mr. Leopold, then why did you add the entry "Leopold is a 'nut with Internet access'" to the main article?? That makes no sense.Anthonymendoza (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I am Mr. Leopold's lawyer and have been monitoring the bias of this page for quite some time, hoping to get it into a more neutral territory. Including that element in this bio makes sense to show how close Mr. Leopold got to Rove and how worried Rove was. That he resorts to attacking Mr. Leopold, part of Rove's modus operandi, suggests that there is more to the story. Are we to believe Mr. Rove, an individual who is a known liar, when he says that Mr. Fitzgerald called his lawyer to discuss Leopold? Why would a prosecutor investigating Karl Rove do such a thing? Why would anyone give credibility to Mr. Rove's statements? That Mr. Rove would devote an entire page to Mr. Leopold and attack him, just as he did to Gov. Don Siegelman, certainly suggests that there is something to what Mr. Leopold wrote. And readers should know about it.

What we believe is fairly irrelevant. Wikipedia reports the facts presented by secondary sources. If you have specific concerns regarding content that is not supported by sources, please point them out so they can be addressed. Thanks Tiderolls 04:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Including that element in this bio makes sense to show how close Mr. Leopold got to Rove and how worried Rove was. That he resorts to attacking Mr. Leopold, part of Rove's modus operandi, suggests that there is more to the story

So as Mr. Leopold's attorney, are you suggesting the article he wrote about Rove being indicted is actually an accurate article?? please explain!Anthonymendoza (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

One thing is puzzling about the repeated references to lawsuits or legal actions against Salon and Columbia Journalism Review. The Civil Court documents for the New York City Supreme Court and the Superior Courts of Washington D.C. (where the editors for the Thomas White story worked) and San Francisco (where Salon is based) are all on line. No docket numbers are cited by the editor calling himself Leopold's attorney, and no cases with Leopold as a plaintiff and Salon or the Trustees of Columbia University or Evan Cornog, CJR's publisher, can be found. Even if they were settled, the docket would reflect this. I know that original research is ineligible for inclusion in the Wikipedia entry, but you might consider this when assessing the credibility of this contributor. (It is possible the cases had some other title, but docket numbers would be helpful in confirming that they exist.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.54.2 (talk) 04:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thread at the BLP noticeboard

Hi, a thread has been opened at the BLPN here regarding content in the article, any comments there are also appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 12:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotected; instructions to 76.xxx

I have semiprotected this article for one week, to give time to discuss the possible BLP issues. I encourage everyone who edits the article to pay the utmost attention to keeping the article accurate and neutral.

To the user from IP address 76.xxx: if you are a representative for Mr. Leopold or otherwise associated with him, and you wish to advocate on his behalf, you must send an email to info-en-q@wikimedia.org containing both a clear description of your complaint and information allowing them to verify you are indeed his representative. There is no way for ordinary editors here to verify you are who you say you are, and no way for them to handle legal issues. However, the volunteers who staff that email address are in touch with our legal department and will be able to help you as appropriate. Please ask them to contact me, User:CBM, when they have confirmed your identity. I will also check this page from time to time.

To all editors: this article has a large number of statements marked as "citation needed". Given that there have been complaints about the article, I recommend finding citations for these, or removing ones that cannot be verified to reliable sources, as a high priority. I removed the word "best" from "best known" as this seems to require stronger sourcing as well. Keep in in mind our best practices regarding biographies and neutrality. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I've cleaned up most of the sourcing issues. Found sources for some claims, removed the rest after searching for and not finding sources. Yworo (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not a representative nor associated with Mr. Leopold and you have no basis to suggest that I am. I am simply trying to add balance to this article that has long been biased and the neutrality questionable. The village voice story is relevant and must be included, particularly the quote from Paul Krugman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

To the user at IP address 76.xxx: You directly claimed to be a representative of Mr. Leopold in this edit: [1]. Therefore, I do have a basis to suggest that you might be a representative of Mr. Leopold.

If you are indeed a representative, please see my directions above. The people who staff that email address are genuinely interesting in helping people whose biographies on wikipedia are problematic. However, there is nothing that can be done here outside of the usual editing policies. If you wish to register a formal complaint you must follow the procedure I have outlined above. If you do not wish to do that, and simply wish to edit the article, then you must heed our ordinary editing policies, like any other user. I am sorry to say that I cannot help you beyond pointing you towards the people who can. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Protected

I have enable pending changes protection for this page, due to the ongoing but infrequent content removal. It isn't worth more strict protection because the edits are not that frequent. However, pending changes allows others to edit while helping to filter out the content removal. Any editor in good standing can request the "reviewer" user right, so that he or she can mark valid changes by IP editors as accepted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no basis to support that I am closely aligned with or associated with the subject of this article or I am the author. The issues discussed in the entry for Salon are wrong and this article from the Village Voice contains commentary from Paul Krugman, a Nobel Peace Prize winner as well as Salon, that balances out and makes it more neutral. The editors of the Jason Leopold article simply refuse to include anything about Leopold that would add neutrality to the story. This needs to be included to replace the what is there:

In 2002, following a two week investigation, Salon pulled an article from its website authored by Leopold about Enron due to concerns that portions of it had not been adequately credited from an earlier Financial Times article about the same subject and that an email had been "misquoted" according to a report in the Village Voice. As the Voice notes "In a curious twist, Salon informs readers that they can still read Leopold's story in the Nexis archives." Salon never used the word "plagiarism," according to a report in the Village Voice and Leopold, as the Voice report notes, said the story was credited twice http://www.villagevoice.com/2002-10-15/news/smear-for-smear/ [10][11] Salon stated that it could not confirm that validity of an email mentioned in the article in which later Secretary of the Army Thomas E. White was claimed to have said "Close a bigger deal. Hide the loss before the 1Q".[10] The Voice reported and quoted New York Times columnist Paul Krugman who picked up the article: "Obviously, Leopold made mistakes, but it's not at all clear they justify a full repudiation of the story or a revocation of his journalistic license. As Paul Krugman told the Voice, "Everything else in that story checked out. The substance of his reporting was entirely correct." http://www.villagevoice.com/2002-10-15/news/smear-for-smear/2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

"There is no basis to support that I am closely aligned with or associated with the subject of this article " What about the claim on this very page that you made "I am Mr. Leopold's attorney" [2]? That appears to be a pretty strong basis to assume either that you do have a connection with him, or that you are a liar. Which do you prefer we assume? Active Banana (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You're attacking me instead of dealing with this inherently biased story. This is about the story and it's the story that needs to be dealt with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not attacking you. I am attempting to understand who you are so that you may be addressed appropriately. Are you Leopolds attorney [3]] or are you someone who has no connection to Leopold [4] [5](but has in the past claimed that they were Leopolds attorney [6])? Depending upon which claim you made is true, the appropriate response is quite different. Active Banana (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

And this is an entry that should be included and I'd like to know why it continuously is being pulled? Other entries on other individuals have similar content

Bush Administration's Torture Program

Leopold's work on the Bush administration's torture program has been discussed and cited by Countdown with Keith Olbermann http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30499449/, The Washington Independent http://washingtonindependent.com/search-results?cx=002266174228027960838%3Azfnctxmj5lc&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=jason+leopold&sa=Search&siteurl=washingtonindependent.com%2F#581 Harper's Magazine http://harpers.org/archive/2008/12/hbc-90004094, http://harpers.org/archive/2009/02/hbc-90004387.

And one of Leopold's exclusive reports on the first high-value prisoner's, Abu Zubaydah http://www.truth-out.org/government-quietly-recants-bush-era-claims-about-%22high-value%22-detainee-zubdaydah58151, may have helped the case of a Guantanamo detainee who is believed to be innocent, in what the Ottawa Citizen described as a "bombshell report," citing Leopold's work http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/Harkat+gets+bombshell+help+from+declassified+documents/2749092/story.html http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Declassified+documents+present+bombshell+revelations+case+against+accused+terrorist+Harkat/2750542/story.html [edit] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason that stuff is being excluded is because it is fluff for a biography and OR. The first paragraph, about being cited by Olbermann and some other news outlets is trivia. Any reporter worth his salt will have his material cited in another news outlet from time to time, breathlessly listing them here is bad form. As Off2riorob correctly states, "this is a biography, not a resume" The second paragraph is mostly original research, claiming that Leopold's work *may* have helped the Guantanamo case is pure speculation, and the cited references refer to the court documents as the bombshell, not the Leopold articles about them. Indeed, the cited articles even mention that those same documents appeared in the Guardian and Huffington post, belying the claim that this was an exclusive report. Bonewah (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Read the article. It's Leopold's story that was submitted as the court document!! That's what was used. And the Guardian article and Huffington Post article came from Leopold's report! What the hell is wrong with you! Proving that Bonewah does not read closely and therefore should not be editing stories...from the Ottawa Citizen:

The document, a report under the byline of Jason Leopold, quoted U.S. court documents, which say the American government now admits that Zubaydah did not have “any direct role in or advance knowledge of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,” and was neither a “member” of al-Qaeda nor “formally” identified with the terrorist organization.

Leopold works for Truthout, a non-profit news organization that operates a website and distributes a daily newsletter. The U.S. court documents are also referred to in recent articles on the Guardian website in Britain and the Huffington Post, an online news site.

The document distributed in the Federal Court Wednesday quotes a redacted U.S. Justice Department filing on Zubaydah as saying the U.S. government “does not contend that (Zubaydah) was a ‘member’ of al-Qaeda in the sense of having sworn bavat (allegiance) or having otherwise satisfied any formal criteria that either (Zubaydah) or al-Qaeda may have considered necessary for inclusion in al-Qaeda. Nor is the government detaining (Zubaydah) based on any allegation that (Zubaydah) views himself as part of al-Qaeda as a matter of subjective personal conscience, ideology or worldview.”

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/Harkat+gets+bombshell+help+from+declassified+documents/2749092/story.html#ixzz0v9788P76

This is absolutely not fluff, it's an important fact, and similar material appears in the biographies of dozens of other people on wikipedia. The word "may" was removed and the rest comes directly from the report so stop making claims that are not true. It is not original research. You clearly did not read the news reports as it shows that it was Leopold's story that was used in the court case and that is relevant and that is worth citing as similar "fluff" also shows up on the pages of others on wikipedia. Why are you not there changing those pages?

And it is absolutely wrong to list a section called "allegations of plagiarism" since the story in the Village Voice and elsewhere make it abundantly clear it was much more complex. You are misleading readers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 06:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, the mere fact that a reporter is cited somewhere is hardly encyclopedic, it is a natural part of being a reporter. You might be able to make the case if the Leopold articles were really cited in court there might be a place for them here in this article, but even then, I dont think that it is much more than padding. Id have to investigate the issue more, but I can tell you for sure that continuously re-adding the material to the article will not have the effect you desire. On the contrary, the more you edit war and make demands about what must be included, the less likely anyone is going to care what you think. Take the time to support your point of view here on talk and you will be much more likely to get what you want.

The allegations of plagiarism section is titled correctly, as that is exactly what occurred, Salon accused you of plagiarizing the FT. If anything, the title should include mention of the uncorroborated email, as that was a major part of the story. The village voice story is an unnecessary distraction, only being brought in to cast you in a more favorable light than. We have Salon's allegations and your responses we dont need someone elses interpretations of what they think happened, its unnecessary. Bonewah (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You just displayed your inherent bias. "Show you in a more favorable light" says it all. No. This is about balance. What you are trying to do is be biased in violation of wikipedia's rules. You have gone out of your way to mischaracterize and include defamatory, libelous and untrue material to serve your personal agenda. And moreover, you really have difficulty reading it appears. The documents were used in court as the story states. That makes it relevant to disclose and include if other articles are to be used as an example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

"Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view)—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed or repaired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Improving this article

I think we're in danger of a knee-jerk reaction against the IP editor. Yes, they're being disruptive, but this biography is far from perfect. We need to include much more about Leopold's life and career, based on good secondary sources, and not succumb to the temptation to only include the more sensational details that we come across. Yes, he's been heavily criticised, but he also has supporters, and we're not giving a full picture of Leopold and his reception at the moment. Fences&Windows 12:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this bio needs work, however I am opposed to simply listing every place where Leopold has been cited. As I said above, being cited is a natural part of being a journalist and if all you can say about a citation is that it happened, then you are reaching for notable content, in my opinion. Consider this line "CNN's Randi Kaye in an article also cited a report by Leopold as the first article on Mark Kovak's inside knowledge about the safety concerns at the Prudhoe Bay, Alaska BP oil field." The cited article says only that, that Kovak first talked to truthout. Is getting the scoop on this guy's inside knowledge really so notable as to make it into a biography? This line is even worse "Digital Journal wrote up the story and also cited the Truthout report." again, all we can say is that one of his stories was cited, that is article padding at best. Bonewah (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Bonewah, again, you have displayed and continue to display your complete bias. You have spent years adding negative material to this article and ensuring that remains in place and have gone above and beyond to remove anything remotely positive or anything that would balance out the inherent bias. You have stated, on this page that the Karl Rove controversy "is all [Leopold] is known for." Who are you to make such a judgment? Why haven't you at least attempted to find or include material to make this neutral. And finally, your claims of "article padding" is BS. This type of citing exists at dozens upon dozens of other articles on wikipedia yet I don't see you being as vigilant with those entries. So perhaps you can explain why this one stands out for you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

If by negative material you mean factual, well referenced material, then yes, I have ensured that material remains in place. I think you would know, as you are the one who keeps trying to purge that very same information. As for removing anything 'remotely positive', I have removed a considerable amount of unsourced material, per the rules, but I have also added or fixed citations to a number of claims, and generally tried to clean up this article to meet wikipedia's standards. Looking back over the article's history, I am struck by how much time has been spent reverting your attempts to wipe out factual material and countering your edit warring and generally abusive behavior. And here we are again, instead of offering careful reasoning as to why your point of view is correct, you attack me and accuse me of bias. Instead of whining about what articles I choose to edit, why dont you try and actually work with the other editors here? I cant help but notice that a number of the changes you made are still in the article, despite my objections I havent removed the 'village voice' citation, nor have I removed the BP stuff referenced above (yet). Likewise, I even somewhat support the inclusion of the Zubaydah material, although I still have reservations about that. In short, the (very small amount of) good faith contributions you have made are infinitely more lasting and useful then all the endless edit warring, insults and generally combative behavior you have shown in the past. Bonewah (talk) 01:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Attacking you? Are you serious? Look at your own editing history. You're biased and anyone would be able to see that. You're not a victim here so stop trying to play one. You're editing to this article is troubling. You have and continue to take things out of context in order to support a point of view. Your simple edit to the subhed "salon article" proves that. Why add "salon article retraction?" Why did you do that? The article is not retracted. It's still available on Lexis as Salon has publicly stated. And who are you to unilaterally decide that the village voice material isn't relevant? I posted wikipedia's neutral point of view policy statements above and you have failed to address it. That VV article is relevant as is the BP material as is the Zubaydah material. Amazing that there is quite a bit of positive factual well sourced material out there on this person but you, Bonewah, have chosen to only grab the real negative material and have failed, totally failed, to represent all sides. Don't act as a victim. Your defensive attitude is telling. The powers that be should strip you of your ability to edit this article. Your own statements over the years are an indictment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 11:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Then report me. Here you go, thats the place to do it, because its obvious that you have no real desire to discuss this article in any rational way. Bonewah (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to engage with you in a rational way and you have skirted each and every question I have posed. You can't seem to answer one without being defensive. You made a point of stating weeks ago, perhaps it was longer, that as far as you were concerned Leopold is only known for the Karl Rove thing. Says who? Have you taken a poll and not shared the results? The fact is that is not true. It may be true to you, as I stated, and you did not answer. But that statement you made underscores your bias and thinking when working on this article. That happens to be four years old and a search of various websites shows numerous developments since then that would be noteworthy here. I'm happy to engage in a rational discussion. But you are the one who has shown an unwillingness to engage in one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles as sources

This sentence:

His pieces have been published in The Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, CBS MarketWatch

Is supported with links to articles on the websites of these outlets written by Leopold. Doesn't that equate to being a primary source? I'm not sure we can use them directly to support this sentence without falling foul of WP:OR --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 12:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It may qualify as technically OR, but i think its a bit of a minor quibble. Personally, Im not too worried about that. Bonewah (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Salon article... what?

I added the word 'retraction' to the subtitle 'Salon article' because I feel that there has to be some indication as to why this particular article is important. As it stands now, the heading gives the impression that it is notable that Leopold wrote a Salon article, but that is not the case. As I understand, he actually wrote a number of articles for Salon, this one is important because of the fact that Salon issued a correction and later 'took it down' (Salon's words). If editors dont feel that retraction is an accurate way of describing what happened and feel that 'accusations of plagiarism' (Salon also said that) is too strong, then im open to suggestions for wording that describes why this particular article is noteworthy. Bonewah (talk) 22:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Additional Editing is Wrong

The claim that Leopold copied seven paragraphs verbatim from Salon without attribution is totally false and anyone who accesses the article via Lexis Nexis will see that. That's getting into areas of defamation. There were three attributions to the FT in that article and Leopold made a point of saying, "Why would I attribute the FT only to pass elements of the same article off as my own." I'd like to see where you can back up that seven paragraphs were used without attribution. Moreover, Leopold worked at the Los Angeles Times as a reporter and a city editor for 14 months before helping the Times start its Our Times supplement where he was editor. His bio on The Public Record does not say what you claim it says. And moreover, if you're going to rely so heavily on Salon then you might as well flesh out the entire story and include the claims from leopold that Kerry Lauerman told him he was under pressure from the White House and that Paul Krguman told Leopold he was a "lightning rod" and had to take a "hit" for the Times. That would only make this fair and balanced and neutral —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Please be careful here. Your previous (false?) claims to be Leopold's attorney combined with slinging about words like "defamation" come dangerously close to violating our strict policy against legal threats. Violating the policy leads to an immediate indefinite block. You will get further by addressing other editors as colleagues working together to improve the article. Yworo (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Without violating the ban on original research, might the entry include links to the FT article (http://specials.ft.com/FT3648VA9XC.html) and the Salon story (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0210/S00052.htm) at issue? Any reader putting them next to one another will see that seven paragraphs of the former about an Enron/Quaker Oats deal are reproduced in the latter. There are some minor, insubstantial changes and no marked quotes (except for the words of an FT source which are attributed to the FT). As for defamation, truth is a robust defence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.54.2 (talk) 06:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality and scope

This article needs to be improved. Please stop focussing on the Salon article, and work to find more sources about Leopold's life and work. Editors seem to be trying to make this as negative as possible, and continually edit warring with that IP editor is getting tedious. They can't edit war all by themselves, can they? Can someone approve my tagging of the article (I hate pending changes). Fences&Windows 22:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't, since it can't be done without approving the IP changes, parts of which have been repeatedly rejected above on this talk page. Since you've threaten to pursue having me blocked if I revert those changes again, I can't approve your changes as I can't also revert the inappropriate and repeatedly rejected addition to the article without triggering your threat. Yworo (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You could just approve the edits and then let someone else revert the IP if they see fit. That's what being a reviewer is supposed to be about, but you obviously don't understand the role. It is not about being a gatekeeper against all content you disagree with, and it is not a get out clause to permit edit warring.

Leopold did work for the LA Times. How else did he get his by-line on LA Times articles?[7] Fences&Windows 23:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not the change that's been repeatedly rejected on this talk page, it's the addition of the section. Unfortunately, as I've already mentioned, when there are multiple changes pending, the choices seem to be to approve them all or reject them all, as the only functional links on the pending changes review page are "Accept", "Undo" and "Rollback". And undo only seems to work properly when there is only a single pending change. Otherwise it simply leaves the other changes pending, which prevents the undo from taking effect. This is a technical problem with pending changes. And an editor with a known conflict of interest, making changes for which they have been repeatedly blocked, is IMO engaging in vandalism. I see no reason to approve their changes. Yworo (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Done, i've restored the stable version and added NPOV/Expand tags Gsp8181 23:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I've found plenty of material on Enron and 2002 congressional hearings that cite Leopold's work on the company and the California energy crisis and I am building sections on those. There are about two dozen sources for the California energy crisis buried deep in Google. I do think a section on torture and Plame as well. There is a story from Tim Dickinson in Rolling Stone discussing Leopold's work. That should help give this article some balance. There's negative material on everyone out there on the internets just as there is equal positive material to balance it all out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmy McDaniels (talk • contribs) 03:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 06:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Yworo, Job losses you added information to. That is absolutely untrue. You're relying entirely on the Washington Post story. And that material is based on information from a book that was never published. It's unverifiable. Can I ask why you are consistently inserting negative material into this article? Leopold was not fired from the LA Times. Nor was he fired from Dow Jones. This is material that is patently false

How do you know it's untrue? The Washington Post has a perfectly good reputation for fact-checking and is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. It quotes a press release issued by Leopold's publisher at the time, presumably read and approved by Leopold. If the stories were some sort of publicity stunt and untrue, you will need to provide reliable sources which explain that. Otherwise, Leopold simply seems to be suffering from a bad case of "boomarang". Yworo (talk) 08:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy, you seem to have a misunderstanding as to what "verifiable" means on Wikipedia. Verifiable simply means that a reliable source is cited and that it supports the article text. It does not mean that we have to research any further than that. That's what we call original research and it's not allowed. This is an encyclopedia and we report and summarize what secondary sources say about the subject. If there are conflicting reports on the matter in equally reliable sources, then both points of view are reported and cited. That's all our neutral point of view policy means. If there are many negative reports about a subject, they will be given weight proportionally. This subject happens to have a lot a negative press in reliable sources, so the article will reflect that. If the preponderance of material is negative, the article will be mostly negative. Typically primary sources, such as Leopold's claims about himself, are discounted and not used, except for uncontroversial information such as place and date of birth, etc. Sources for an article should be primarily secondary, third party sources. However, if he's publicly rebutted anything, that can generally be used. Yworo (talk) 09:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

This is clearly block evasion by the IP editor. I have extended the block of the IP editor, and I have blocked the account Jimmy McDaniels (talk · contribs) for a week. They need to sit out their block and decide which account or IP they will edit from. Despite having been involved in editing and discussing this article, I feel that this block was justified as the evasion was so clear, and I will avoid any further involvement in this article content. My action here is, of course, open to review. Fences&Windows 11:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I know it's untrue because I actually bought the book and read it and those claims are nowhere to be found in the book. Quite the opposite a matter of fact. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)And the website of his publisher has documents posted and other material along with a free chapter.

As I am sure you well know, you can't cite a negative. And as you say, Kurtz was quoting publicity material from a previous version of the book. We don't have to prove that what he quoted was really in the material. The Washington Post is a reliable source. We can report what the Washington Post says. Yworo (talk) 01:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Did I say that Kurtz was quoting from publicity material? I don't remember. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 05:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you did. And more to the point, so does Kurtz. And you can't add stuff like "Prior to the publication of Kurtz's report, he discovered he was criticized by Leopold in an early version of his memoir." without a source. You especially can't put it just before the Kurtz reference, implying that it is supported by that reference. Don't put it, or anything like it, back again, unless you can provide a citation for the fact. Yworo (talk) 06:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources

I'm sworn off editing this article, but there's a book review of News Junkie by Sam Smith of the Progressive Review that should be made use of:[8]. And here's another couple of reviews:[9][10]. This YouTube video would probably also make a good EL, it's a clip of Leopold reading an excerpt of his book (no copyright issues, it's on an official channel of Fora TV):[11]. And another, a Google talk:[12] Fences&Windows 10:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, two Billboard articles that note his role at Milan Entertainment in 1995.[13][14] He was director of national radio promotion in June 1995, then was promoted to be director of media relations in December 1995. Fences&Windows 11:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Consider this review of News Junkie too: [15] Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

And here is another review: [16] Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Neither one of these links "Jimmy" recommends appear to be high-quality reliable sources. I say leave them out. Yworo (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any objections to the edit request below? Off2riorob (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No, but shouldn't we rather link to the full program, here? Yworo (talk) 03:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Boulder Daily Camera, a newspaper in Boulder Colorado, is not a "reliable" source but the Progressive Review, a blog is? Please explain how you arrived at that conclusion "Yworo."Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 04:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Midwest Book Review is most certainly a "high-quality reliable source" judging from its own entry [17] on Wikipedia "Yworo."Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 04:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

A simple search of Wikipedia shows that The Boulder Daily Camera is indeed a "reliable source" and it too has its own entry [18]. It is formerly a Knight-Ridder newspaper. So I have established that both publications are reliable. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 06:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Midwest Book Review "review" that you pointed to is not an in-depth review, it's a blurb. It adds nothing to the article. Book reviews should be, well, reviews. They should have both length and depth. Not sure why you're going on about the Progressive Review. While the review was written by Sam Smith of the Progressive Review, is published by Scoop, a third party. The only reason blogs are excluded is because they are self-published and typically not peer-reviewed. Since this review is not self-published, it doesn't fall under the blog restrictions.

You also ignore your own argument, since the Progressive Review has a Wikipedia article. But you know that argument is bunk: just because the person, newspaper or magazine is notable enough for Wikipedia, that doesn't automatically make everything the person writes or everything published in that particular media notable. Notability is not inherited. This applies in the Midwest Book Review case. MBR is notable, none of the "reviews" on that page are. Yworo (talk) 06:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Waiting for your explanation about The Boulder Daily Camera. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 06:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

And I'd like to know what your definition of a blurb is, Yworo. Did you do a word count? A blurb is a sentence. This is a paragraph. Paragraphs are not considered blurbs. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 06:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

By your definition, "notability" is subjective then. Is it not notable because you think it's a blurb? What makes it not notable? I am truly curious. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 06:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Disregard my question above re MBR. Answered in one of your responses I missed. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 06:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

There are clips from news programs that should be considered to expand this article and the sections on California energy crisis and News Junkie. I also believe creating a section on torture and Valerie Plame leak case and President Bush's firing of the US attorneys are warranted since I found media people discussing Leopold's coverage.75.56.203.166 (talk) 06:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

"Jimmy", I don't have to answer all your questions and demands. Wikipedia is a collaborative process. I've given my input, and other editors give theirs. Wait for other editors to chip in. Wikipedia operates on consensus, and if the consensus is that the Daily Camera review is indeed a reliable source and provides something that the other reviews don't, then of course it may be used. You may or may not be aware, but we aren't going to list every review under the sun in the article. There has to be a reason to include a review that improves the article. The longer and more in-depth a review is, the less it is "fluff", copy simply written to promote a booksigning, the more likely it is to be included. More to the point, it might be useful to indicate what text you intend to insert supported by each review. Are you planning on quoting a sentence from the BDC review? If so, which one? What reason do you have for its inclusion? Yworo (talk) 13:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

To Yworo, Bonewah and the other editors: It's hard not to admire your perseverance and your determination to stick to Wikipedia's rules. But there is a conundrum in the rules. Let's say that Jason Leopold was never on the staff of the Los Angeles Times, either as a reporter or as a city editor. Let's say that the Times took over a corporate cousin, known as Times Community News, in April 1999. Back then it was expanding its stable of community news inserts, each called "Our Times." http://www.allbusiness.com/services/business-services-miscellaneous-business/4721852-1.html As that article indicates, each had a city editor responsible for perhaps half a dozen reporters. The Times city editor during the period in question was Bill Boyarsky. http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/bill-boyarsky). After the Times took over Times Community News, it appended the articles written for "Our Times" to the main newspaper's archival database. Distinctions are made in the identification following the byline. Staff Writers are so identified. Stringers are identified with a "Special To" tagline. See this example: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/arts/. Let's say that "Our Times" staffers had their phone numbers after their bylines, unless, perhaps, they had a double byline with a staff writer. Unless someone knows these distinctions, the "Our Times" articles and double-bylined pieces could be cited to prove that Jason Leopold, say, was a Times reporter. No citation in this entry confirms he was a city editor. But other than one mention on the L.A. Observed blog about his "Our Times" job, no Internet record indicates whether he worked for a local supplement or the main newspaper. And blogs are ineligible as cites. So how can anyone demonstrate the fact that someone was not a reporter and city editor (!) for the L.A. Times? How does one find credible citations to prove a negative about obscure details of an early career, when no "credible" source is paying attention? Just food for thought if you open editing back up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.54.2 (talk) 05:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. That's why I've been requesting citations for Leopold's past positions. We cannot accept the "bios" written by Leopold and posted at his current employers like Truthout or The Public Record. Those are non-independent sources and, especially given Leopold's reputation, cannot be taken at face value. Nor can we simply point to an article published with a byline in a newspaper as "proof" of a position at that paper. There are many ways that an article with a byline can get into a paper, from newservices and freelance work as well as the situation you describe. I think all positions which are unverified by third party sources should be removed. Interestingly enough, the only third-party source verifying Leopold's positions at the LA times and the DJ Newswire is the Kurtz article, and that was derived from press releases from Leopold's publisher for Off the Record and also includes the negative information about separation from both positions. So, if are to include those positions based on that single reliable source, we also have to include the separation information, which is precisely why I added it. Yworo (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

"Yworo," one again shows his/her bias. So an unsigned person leaves a comment, somewhat challenging Leopold, from an IP address that appears to be within the vicinity of the other IP addresses "Yworo" claims is Leopold and because that person's commentary supports "Yworo" personal position it's ok. This, and "Yworo's" editorializing "leopold's reputation" shows why he/she should not touch this article. "Yworo" simply wants to add material that fits his/her agenda. "Yworo" is biased and incapable of being neutral. The material on Leopold and the LA Times is all over the internet. "Yworo" simply does not want to look for it. His/her reasons for citing the WaPo is utter BS. The citations should not be removed. I can easily supply the links from third party "reliable" sources because I have found them. Sorry "Yworo" nice try. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

edit request

{{editprotected}}

an addition to the external links section. Off2riorob (talk) 10:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• - Jason Leopold - Breaking the Enron Scandal publisher - FORA.tv - via YouTube. Jason Leopold describes breaking one of the first stories on Enron's manipulation of the California energy market in an excerpt from his book "News junkie" August 24, 2006.
  •  Done here. TFOWR 13:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

edit request 2

{{editprotected}}

1. Change the youtube link added above to the external links section to this one at fora.tv, which provides the entire fora.tv program rather than just a single segment.
2. Remove the sentence "The author of the Washington Post story, where both claims appeared, is Howard Kurtz, who was criticized in Leopold's book." from the Career section, because it is not supported by the source provided. Leave the citation, though, as it supports the previous sentences. Of course, the "not in source" tag may also be removed.

Yworo (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't remove anything, please. This article is protected until the dispute is resolved. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you stating that the source DOES support the full claim? Active Banana ( bananaphone 17:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

He has said that several times, but the source does not in fact support it. The fact that Kurtz is criticized in News Junkie is irrelevant here in any case, as "Jimmy" is trying to imply that Kurtz may have written the article in retaliation. However, the Kurtz article predates News Junkie, so if anything Leopold was retaliating for the negative material in the Kurtz article. Since there is no reference which establishes a causal connection in either direction, the sentence and implication should be left totally out. Its inclusion smacks of original research. Yworo (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• - Regarding point1 - I prefer the link I added as it is more concise and specific. Regarding point2 - I have no objection.Off2riorob (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

 Not done {{editprotected}} is only for uncontroversial changes or those for which a consensus has been established, which doesn't seem to be the case here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yworo is suggesting that an unsubstantiated slur of Kurtz be removed until/unless it can be substantiated. Makes sense to me. But because the sentences is "controversial" it cannot be removed while the article is edit-protected. This makes edit protection an automatic shield for all sorts of dubious assertions, here and elsewhere. Was that what it was intended to be? Why not go with the principle of "when in doubt, do no harm?" Let this time-out be an occasion for Wikipedia editors to remove things that are unsubtantiated and possibly harmful, like this sentence. There has to be a consensus that this sentence is unsubstantiated, right? 12.108.23.2 (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, an unsigned person/IP who has never done anything on wikipedia before other than comment on Jason Leopold. Is that you Howard Kurtz? I just proved it was substantiated IP address Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 04:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yworo is absolutely wrong, as usual and draws conclusions based on assumptions and zero facts. There are numerous, numerous press reports that show News Junkie is the exact same book as Off the Record. In fact, Kurtz says in that Washington Post article that Leopold referred to him as "lazy" in Off the Record, if the same press materials Yworo has clung to are to be believed, which is debatable since no one has seen the press materials. Still, yes, it is cited. Perhaps Yworo or rather "Yworo" is just hoping to add more negative elements to this already biased/unneutral article by being pointed to the "lazy" part. Let's see what he/she does. Virtually 1/2 of it is based on the Washington Post article by Kurtz. Way to do research. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 04:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Even if the books are the same, it's not an appropriate addition, because you are engaged in attempted synthesis. You are implying that Kurtz was retaliating for Off the Record, but you can't do that. You have to cite a reliable source that says he was. Otherwise, there is no need to mention it. The name of the author of the article is easily found in the citation. Unless such a citation can be found, the sentence should be removed. Oh, and calling be "absolutely wrong" could be considered a personal attack. I am rightly applying Wikipedia standards to your addition. Please discuss the content and not the editor. Thanks. Yworo (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

"Yworo" you should not be one to discuss or comment on personal attacks. My talk page is filled with personal attacks from you. On a side note, you just changed your position. You said it's not cited. Guess what? It's now cited. There you go.Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 04:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No it's not. The source says "that criticizes journalists as lazy." It doesn't say criticizes Kurtz as lazy. So it's still not cited and still not appropriate. Yworo (talk) 04:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and feel free to take those "personal attacks" to the Wikiquette board. You'll be laughed out of there because they aren't personal attacks. I haven't called you names, used racial epithets, or any other gross insult. You're simply a bit confused about what's considered a personal attack here. Yworo (talk) 04:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You have called me names and attacked me and threatened me. Already went to the board "Yworo."Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 04:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

March 10, 2005 article [19] (cue "Yworo" saying "source not reliable").

Refering to a news story he broke, [Leopold] writes on page 224 of Off the Record: “The Times story was contagious. On Monday, October 7, 2002, my thirty-second birthday, Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post put another nail in my coffin. He, too, called my credibility into question. He didn’t even bother to snoop around and get the truth, I thought; he just jumped on the bandwagon. After I read Kurtz’s story, I returned my copies of his books Spin Cycle and The Fortune Tellers to my local Borders bookstore.”

Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 04:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

And it's not reliable, it's a press release for Leopold's book, written by Leopold. We don't accept press releases as sources. Plus the webiste itself doesn't meet our standards for reliable sources. You might want to read those standards before you continue to suggest low-quality sources. Yworo (talk) 04:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a news article. A report. Not a press release. Read. Cited. There you go.Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 04:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The site is not a reliable news source. How low can you get when finding sources? It's run by an individual and accepts contributions over the web. Anyone can write anything there. Again, read the policies, that type of site is explicitly excluded as a reliable source. Yworo (talk) 04:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The point is ...you're wrong You made an allegation above and now you've been proven wrong! Just found two articles on Lexis in "reliable" publications so I'll be submitting those pal as soon as I get it off of the website archives where they were published. End of story. And your "how low can you get" was uncalled for. 75.56.203.166 (talk) 05:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop with the attacks. I made no allegation, I simply pointed out that what you claimed was not in the source given. And it wasn't. I never said that there were no sources to be found. So please stop commenting in an adversarial way, it's not going to help you, it's only going to hurt you. Yworo (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

First, I forgot to sign my post above. Second, I certainly have not "attacked" you. So stop suggesting I did. You made an argument above and I responded to that argument with facts despite the fact you say it's unreliable. You suggested, in no uncertain terms, that Leopold was the aggressor and retaliated against Kurtz and you did not provide anything to support that. I provided a link to an article that quotes Off the Record and provides the page number. That is the issue I am addressing and I said I found two other articles on Lexis that has the same info. You have consistently attacked me. You have called me names and I have the evidence to prove it--your own comments. My comment is hardly an attack and if you have an issue with what I said above take it to the judge. I am here to improve this article. That means improve as in providing additional material to expand it. I have also found numerous other articles on media individuals in need of improving and I intend to help there as well. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 05:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Uh huh. Don't say I didn't warn you about where this sort of attitude would take you. Yworo (talk) 05:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

For some reason, you refuse to stay on point and respond to my comments about the substance of your own allegations regarding this article. You are now threatening me as you did earlier in comments on my talk page. I have filed a formal request to have you removed or blocked from editing this article as well because of what I consider to be a bias. You consistently show hostility toward the subject of the article and make unsubstantiated allegations. I do not understand how wikipedia can allow this. 75.56.203.166 (talk) 05:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Everything I've added is supported by reliable sources. And I've taken out tons of unsourced material since starting to edit the article. I have no doubt that anyone who examines the edit history here will come to the conclusion that you've been disrupting the article for years. So go ahead, report away. Yworo (talk) 06:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for revealing your current IP address, since that leaves no doubt about you being the same as the previous umpteen IP editors. Yworo (talk) 06:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

A: I was not trying to hide my IP address. B: there is a user on this page who has made changes for the past three years with one of those IP addresses. C: other people have made changes to this article from IP addresses in the same area. Los Angeles is a big city Yworo.

Your edit history, by the way, all of it with regards to this article demonstrates that what you have taken out has been material that is either perceived as "positive" or have added "negative" material to make unbalanced. It's all there. Not sure why you're downplaying that. You also refuse to expand this article, as the tags suggest, or try to improve it and provide the balance it needs to ensure the neutrality of it is not called into question for a third or fourth time. You make statments about the surreal nature of the conversation here yet you have refused to look at the role you have played and seem to be ok with shifting blame entirely on to me. Yet when another IP shows up here to make comments that support your thinking you're ok with that even thought the IP has only edited the Leopold article and the Leopold article only for three years. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 06:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I've not taken out any positive information that was well-sourced. And I've taken out negative information that was not well-sourced. I don't care about any other IPs than yours, because they haven't been disrupting the article like you have. I've only been editing this article recently, the disruption has been going on for years, so it's hardly my fault, is it? Yworo (talk) 06:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Uh-huh. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok what is it going to take to get the tags off this article?

What exactly is the problem with the neutrality of this article? I know a certain editor who is now restricted from editing this article thinks it has a POV problem but does anyone else actually think that, and if so, why?

How about the COI tag? In my mind that tag can go because the COI user is now topic banned and there are plenty of people who are unrelated to the subject editing it, but again, if there is disagreement, what needs to be done to remove this tag? Bonewah (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The COI tag has done its job and can go now. The NPOV template can go also for me, any issues have stabilized and the templates are stale.imo Off2riorob (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I also agree, the tags can go. That IP that reverted them is "Jimmy". I've added the topic ban notice to its talk page. Yworo (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Good evening Wikipedia editors. My name is William. I've been monitoring the lengthy debate on this subject via Wikirage. Most intriguing to say the least. Having read the work of the Mr. Leopold in the past year pertaining to torture I would like to weigh in if I may. I have entered my information and now have an account here. I see there is a consensus, however, I choose to voice my feelings that this entry indeed lacks neutrality. Much of it rlies upon very old news, nearly a decade in some instances. May I vote for keeping the neutrality tag and expansion tags in place? I would like to begin as well by helping to build a torture section. Mr. Leopold's work, in my humble opinion, in this area has been very important. There are very few journalists who have documented these war crimes. I often read about the issues of torture on the website emptywheel where Mr. Leopold's work has been featured regularly. Since I have collected torture stories and maintain a torture database, I believe I can add a section that would let people know about the fine work Mr Leopold has conducted in this area and the appropriate citations his reporting has received in addition to the developments that resulted from his reporting. Up here in Canada it has assisted many detainees, no other than Mr. Mohammed Harkat. This is a blow to Canadian government. Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by William Borgenicht (talk • contribs) 03:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)