Talk:Barrett Brown/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Arrested live on camera!

http://www.dallascounty.org/jaillookup/defendant_detail.do?recno=C600EC95-019B-E2D7-4291-C53CBF49AF57&bookinNumber=12061478&bookinDate=1347508260000&dob=1981-08-14&lastName=BROWN&firstName=BARRETT&sex=Male&race=White and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eky-q9CE_co 108.16.133.246 (talk) 06:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

0_o

There *must* be a less cracked-out photo of Barrett Brown that can be used here. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia is CIA propaganda shithole. If you are against the establishment, you are smeared. If not, you are raised to the heavans. FUCK WIKIPEDIA!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.65.237.209 (talk • contribs)

Weasly words

"restated his beliefs about a conspiracy targeting him" - words well-chosen to imply he's a loon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.1.73.1 (talk) 09:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Then somebody added a link suggesting he's getting a lucrative book deal. Implication: he's no victim, no hero. Move along, nothing to see. 89.240.254.214 (talk) 08:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is CIA propaganda shithole. If you are against the establishment, you are smeared. If not, you are raised to the heavans. FUCK WIKIPEDIA!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.65.237.209 (talk • contribs)

Paragraph removed

I removed this paragraph because it makes no sense and is redundant, but there are some references that might be useful for other things so here you go:

As of September 2013, Brown has been [[Detention (imprisonment)|in custody]] since September 12, 2012.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.democracynow.org/2013/7/11/jailed_journalist_barrett_brown_faces_105 |title=Jailed Journalist Barrett Brown Faces 105 Years For Reporting on Hacked Private Intelligence Firms |publisher=Democracy Now! |date= |accessdate=2013-09-06}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Zetter |first=Kim |url=http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-01/25/barret-brown-charges |title=Anonymous spokesman Barrett Brown faces new charges (Wired UK) |publisher=Wired.co.uk |date=2013-01-25 |accessdate=2013-09-06}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/21/barrett-brown-persecution-anonymous |title=The persecution of Barrett Brown – and how to fight it | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free |publisher=theguardian.com |date= |accessdate=2013-09-06}}</ref>

Blah. --Closedmouth (talk) 08:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Close connection

Someone has added a notice to the top of the article: "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view." I'm pretty sure I'm the close connection, as I'm the creator of freebarrettbrown.org and thus have a declared conflict of interest. However, I haven't contributed anything major—the only things I've contributed are the picture, some facts and events regarding his legal cases, and links to the website. All edits I made are sufficiently neutral. I encourage an editor to review my edits and then consider removing the notice. I intend only to add facts about his legal case as corroborated and reported elsewhere, nothing that makes any judgments or representations about his biography, motivations, personality, etc. In other words, I'm following the Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. — Kevin Michael Gallagher aka @ageis. 15:44, 17 Oct 2013 (UTC)

I've reviewed the edits made by Kevin Michael Gallagher aka @ageis. and can find nothing of a biased nature. All the edits evince a design to improve the article by adding valuable and sourced information as warranted. Accordingly, I've taken the liberty of removing the COI notice. Danny Sprinkle (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Cite check tag

Theta00 inquired about the cite check tag I added last week. I added the tag after finding a number of poorly cited statements without having looked very hard. Here are some examples of ones I've fixed or tagged so far:

  • "He founded Project PM, an online distributed think tank, to facilitate analysis of the vast troves of hacked emails and other leaked information that may shed light on the sometimes questionable inner workings of the cyber-military-industrial complex" - sentence with controversial language required citation (tagged)
  • "A judge ruled that he would not be denied bail because he was “a danger to the safety of the community and a risk of flight" - source actually said the opposite (fixed)
  • "He founded Project PM, an online distributed think tank, to facilitate analysis of the vast troves of hacked emails and other leaked information that may shed light on the sometimes questionable inner workings of the cyber-military-industrial complex." - added source did not support full statement (trimmed and tagged)

This pattern suggested to me that an article-wide cite check is probably appropriate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I disagree regarding Project PM though. You can find numerous articles in well-regarded journalism outlets supporting that. I assumed you meant WhoWhatWhy was untrustworthy. Did you look at the first paragraph under the subheading 'Barrett's Baby'? It's pretty much a paraphrase of the same sentence... The only problem I could see is the tense/historicity of it- is that what you mean? According to Barrett, Project PM was founded "(a) to reduce the negative influence of incompetent pundits and (b) to increase the positive influence of the capable segments of the blogosphere" so going through leaked e-mails was not its original mission, but a later purpose that evolved. Care to clarify about "controversial language" and "source did not support full statement"? Theta00 (talk) 01:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not what I meant. The WhoWhatWhy article appears to be a reliable source. The sentence you appear to be referring to is: "Brown’s work is a potential bonanza for journalists, as one of the few efforts to come to grips with the explosive growth of the private intelligence industry in the last decade." There is a world of substantive difference between the meaning of that and what was in the article, namely: "He founded Project PM, an online distributed think tank, to facilitate analysis of the vast troves of hacked emails and other leaked information that may shed light on the sometimes questionable inner workings of the cyber-military-industrial complex." This goes beyond semantics. Namely:
  • The source doesn't say Project PM is an online distributed think tank.
  • The source doesn't say that the Stratfor e-mails and other leaked information may shed light on the inner workings of the cyber-military-industrial complex. (Not to mention that this isn't appropriate content, per WP:CBALL; the article should focus on the past and present, not speculate about the future.)
  • The source doesn't say that the inner workings of the cyber-military-industrial complex are sometimes questionable.
  • The source doesn't use the term "cyber-military-industrial complex," which appears coined and possibly non-neutral.
--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, that is not the sentence I'm referring to in the WhoWhatWhy article. This is the sentence I'm regarding as a reliable source for that statement: "ProjectPM is a crowd-sourced research effort with several aims. First, to study 75,000+ emails pilfered by Anonymous from military and intelligence contractor HBGary Federal, and its parent company HBGary. Second, to post these raw, primary-source documents to a website where readers can edit and contribute further information. Third, to use these documents to map out the relationships between private contractors and the federal government that form our current national security state." 'Crowd-sourced research effort' is virtually synonymous with 'distributed think-tank', as are relationships between private contractors and government that form our current national security state to the 'cyber-military-industrial complex'. I suppose the word questionable could be cut out. Care to evaluate that one? Theta00 (talk) 10:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Sure.
  • distributed think-tank: I see two problems with this. The first is that it is not virtually synonymous with "crowd-sourced research effort." "Think tank" implies subject matter expertise, and Project PM participants are journalists and laypeople, no? The second problem is that this language appears to have been directly lifted from promotional sources such as freebarrettbrown.org Project PM's own Twitter feed. Borrowing language from these sources is itself promotional, and passing it off as supported by independent secondary sources smacks of deception. As a community we must absolutely avoid any appearance of promotion or deception, even if unintended.
  • cyber-military-industrial complex: Again, this appears to be a coined term. And "military-industrial complex" appears to be non-neutral as well; as far as I can tell it's used overwhelmingly by opinion sources speaking out against it. The overwhelming majority of independent news sources use more neutral language such as "military industry."
--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
It's true, this term mostly comes from Barrett himself. See The cyber-intelligence complex and its useful idiots. The "intelligence-industrial complex" is also used in a recent motion to dismiss filed by his defense lawyers, which itself cites an Amy Goodman article in The Guardian. The Guardian is a good news source. I think the usage of this term is accurate because it encompasses private in addition to state interests, and suggests the growing role of cyber within the military. So, I don't think it's been lifted from "promotional" sources necessarily. Also, one thing I'd like to correct you on is that @ProjectPM2013 is NOT the official Project PM Twitter feed. That is an impostor/wannabe account created by a guy called Commander X after Brown's arrest and hasn't been endorsed by Brown. In any case, I'm sure it would be very easy for us to rewrite and fully cite a sentence with a roughly equivalent meaning. Theta00 (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Isn't that what I did? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not aware if you did... It appeared to me that all you did was add a citation needed tag.. Theta00 (talk) 11:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I see, I lost track of the sequence of events. I have no problem with you or anyone else re-writing this sentence or others, provided the new language is both verifiable and neutral. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
In my 6 October 2013 rewrite of the lead, I distilled Ludlow's "web of connections between the US government, corporations, lobbyists and a shadowy group of private military and information security consultants" and Carr's "close and perhaps inappropriate ties between government security agencies and private contractors" by grafting 'cyber' to the familiar (and wikilinkable) 'military-industrial complex' to render "sometimes questionable inner workings of the cyber-military-industrial complex." Danny Sprinkle (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Understood, but that doesn't make this language any more compliant with WP:V or WP:NPV. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Further reading and external links

(Transcluded from User talk:DrFleischman:)

DrFleischman, about this revert: Wikipedia:Further_reading#Reliable states that "However, other sources may be appropriate, including: historically important publications; creative works or primary sources discussed extensively in the article; and seminal, but now outdated, scientific papers. When such sources are listed, the relevance of the work should be explained by a brief annotation."

It's an opinion piece written by Brown itself and readers may be interested in Brown's opinion on prison life. It may be treated like any other Op-Ed (cited for the opinion but not for the facts) WhisperToMe (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for writing. There are two related problems here. First, an opinion article written by the subject of the article can hardly be described as "like any other Op-Ed." This source falls squarely into WP:ABOUTSELF, unlike independent op-eds. Second and more importantly, nothing in WP:FURTHER exempts "Further reading" sections from the general requirement that articles be written in a neutral tone. A source written by the subject of the article about his personal experiences, with the words "FREE BARRETT BROWN" written in bold red letters across the top is nothing akin to neutral, and including it in our article not only creates an appearance of bias but also might be construed as promotion of a specific political view. Not to mention that this source is merely one of 12 covering Brown's detention, which itself is only one of many parts of his biography, so inclusion of this source arguably puts undue emphasis on this aspect of his life. Hope this helps. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
No, linking to a work is not an endorsement of viewpoints expressed in that work. The "Further reading" section is indeed different: there is no confusion that Wikipedia is endorsing any such claims as anything other than the claims of someone other than Wikipedia--which is to say such references are not to be confused with material in the article. WP:NPOV arguments are easily defeated when claims are clearly identified as external to Wikipedia, as they are by their mere inclusion in such a section. For example, WP:NPOV is not a reason to purge Wikipedia of references to Mein Kmapf--only incorporating the claims of such work into Wikipedia is forbidden by policy. And that something "might" be a violation of policy is not reason for removing material because of policy; only a violation (notice the lack of the "might" qualification) of policy is. There is no "appearance of impropriety" policy. I'm not saying the material should or should not be in the article, I'm saying the above arguments for removal are invalid. Int21h (talk) 01:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
For starters, you ignored my point about undue emphasis and the fact that the source is merely one of 12 covering Brown's detention. Second, you are effectively saying that NPV doesn't apply to "Further reading" sections, a proposition I doubt you'll find much support for in the editor community. So. Now that you've proven out Godwin's law, let's run with your Mein Kampf analogy. Suppose I added a "Further reading" section to Adolf Hitler and then put in a citation to Mein Kampf in Google Books. You don't think I would get instantly reverted on neutrality grounds? Now, say, I the citation I added was to a full text version of Mein Kampf (where a reader could read the full work) and at the top of the page, in big read letters, was a neo-Nazi slogan. How long do you think that would last? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Whether or not it is WP:UNDUE requires editorial decisions, of which I have no opinion, but the other arguments you put forward are invalid, and insofar as an WP:UNDUE argument relies on them it must fail with them. Again, no, NPOV is usually not a reason to remove material, it usually only requires that controversial material be clearly identified, and that is not a problem in a "Further reading" section. And continuing the analogy, a reference to Mein Kampf in the "Further reading" section of Adolf Hitler would obviously be relevant, any revert being itself subject to a revert, the only decision left being which URL, edition, publisher, etc. to use. Insofar that any link to Mein Kampf included "a neo-Nazi slogan" that is not part of Mein Kampf, technically such a work would not be Mein Kampf so it would be mislabeled; however, if the "neo-Nazi slogan" was a part of the work, removing the reference because of it, and not replacing the URL or something, would be inappropriate. Saying works written by Adolf Hitler should not be in the Adolf Hitler article is ridiculous. (As it happens, there is an entire article dedicated to works written by and about Adolf Hitler, so the analogy is a bit stretched.) Int21h (talk) 13:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
You're repeating the same straw man argument. I never said our article can't include citations to works by Barrett Brown. I said it can't include a "Further reading" citation to a work by Barrett Brown that has "FREE BARRETT BROWN" emblazoned across the top in bold red letters. I don't see any substantive difference from the Mein Kampf analogy, however you choose to interpret WP:NPV. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Again, your assertion that policy calls for the removal of this reference is not valid. A work is prima facie a relevant reference if it is authored by the subject of the article. That a work so referenced has a non-neutral POV is not only acceptable, its expected; references do not need to be neutral to be mentioned, or even used, in Wikipedia articles. Int21h (talk) 23:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Early Life and Education

I'd made a few changes to the "Early Life and Education" section, only to see them later reversed for insufficient verification by Dr. Fleischman. I would like to point out that all of the points in my revised paragraph except the reference to Park Cities can be found in either the Rolling Stone article or the D Magazine article. I am currently working to track down a source for the mention of Park Cities, and will speak up when I find it. --Seylerius (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I've restored my earlier changes, minus the bit about Park Cities. I'll add that back if/when I've got a source for it. --Seylerius (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Growing up in Highland Park (another name for the same place) is mentioned in the first piece Brown wrote for his current D Magazine column from jail, does this count?[1]

References

  1. ^ Brown, Barrett (January 14, 2014). "The Barrett Brown Review of Arts and Letters and Jail: The Poetry of William Blake". D Magazine. Retrieved May 07, 2015. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
The way you've added this content makes it very difficult to verify. We have a whole paragraph with text coming from three different sources, but all three are simply cited at the end of the paragraph. This is not how it should be done - see WP:INTEGRITY for guidance. I've identified at two more tidbits that appear unsourced: (1) the writing awards in high school and (2) the fact that his father was residing in Tanzania when Barrett visited him. As for growing up in Highland Park, it's a bit odd that Rolling Stone says he grew up in Preston Hollow, but he says he grew up in Highland Park. This apparent conflict should be noted; we can't simply accept both as true. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Is there a convenient way to cite specific sections within articles? There are different references throughout the three pieces, and it would help to be able to specify. Regarding where Brown grew up, the family moved around. I'll find a reference specifically describing the fact that they changed residences, and combined with the references to the different neighborhoods that should be enough evidence for that. Tanzania and at least one of the awards are both sourced in the linked articles. I'd be glad to cite within sentenced and in between sentences, but it would be clearer still if there were a way to cite specific paragraphs. I'm open to any suggestions you have. — Seylerius (talk) 05:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any easy way to cite specific sections or paragraphs, and no guideline suggests that you should. The important thing is to add citations for each fact in the text so that readers can easily verify that fact without having to hunt through multiple sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

More problems, these with the sentence: "He went on to win awards for his writing, contributed to his school newspapers, and interned at several weekly newspapers during his teenage years." The cited sources don't say he contributed to multiple school newspapers (just one) and don't say he interned at several weekly newspapers (just one). Also, it misleadingly implies he received received multiple awards for his journalism work, when the sources say he got second place (not necessarily an award) for writing an essay about Ayn Rand. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Awards

The DMag piece also lists him as being poet laureate of Preston Hollow, which is an additional writing award. Second place counts as "placing", thus he was "awarded" second place. That's two awards, and merits use of the plural. You're correct about the currently available source only listing the one school newspaper. I will investigate to see if I can track down any documentation of there being multiple, likewise with the internships. But obviously for now, I'll leave your changes as is, since only two are cited. — Seylerius (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
What is the basis for your believe that being "poet laureate of Preston Hollow" is some sort of award? The source doesn't suggest that. As I read it, the source uses that language rhetorically to reflect how Brown described himself. And second place in a contest is not an award, unless the source says it was. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
The DMag piece quotes the author's mother as saying "I don’t remember them all. But I remember him. Yes, he was the poet laureate. I don’t have it anymore, but I kept that poem for years." This specifically links the title of "Poet Laureate" with a specific poem that was lauded during school, and which the author's mother (Brown's art teacher at that school) kept for years due to its laudable quality. That sounds like an award-winning poem to me. — Seylerius (talk) 23:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
The author's mother isn't a reliable source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
The author's mother has first-hand knowledge of the poem in question, and taught Brown at that school. No one is likely to have better information than her, and the only other possible source would be school records of the award in question. — Seylerius (talk) 23:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't matter - see WP:V. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Post-UT

The statement that he left UT to start a freelance career is also unsourced. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The Rolling Stone piece lists his post-UT life as involving working part-time in between slacking and drugs. This does not outright state, but implies, that freelance writing was the purpose. The second page of the DMag piece states "After he dropped out, Brown bounced among New York City, Austin, and Zihuatanejo, taking on a succession of writing jobs and freelance gigs." Again, it does not indicate the intended purpose, but does show freelance writing to be his major activity post dropout. I understand having difficulty finding all these things in the sources: the articles (especially the DMag one) ramble quite a bit. — Seylerius (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
We can't rely on implications. If the sources don't say something explicitly, then we can't say it either. See WP:STICKTOSOURCE, WP:SYNTH. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Do you suggest saying that he left school, "and" pursued freelance writing, instead of "to", to avoid implying things not explicitly stated? — Seylerius (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Best would be to say he left school "and later" pursued freelance writing, since it seems there was at least a short gap. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Prosecutorial Lies

There's a line towards the end of the "Arrest and Trial" section where Joshua Kopstein is cited as claiming witnesses lied. Two problems I can see with this: Kopstein is implying the prosecution lied, not necessarily the government's witnesses; and Kopstein's theory here is speculation. He doesn't provide enough evidence to back it. Dr. Fleischman, do you see anything to validate the claim of prosecutorial lies here, or should this be either reworded or removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seylerius (talk • contribs) 18:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Barrett Brown. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Barrett Brown. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barrett_Brown/Archive_1&oldid=1041628749"