Talk:James T. Butts Jr./Archive 1

1991:, read the comments above and on the BLP noticeboard, and I am somewhat rethinking things. This article has seen a lot of back-and-forth, from pro-Butts people to anti-Butts people, and striking the right balance is tough, and I think most of us here are trying to do that. That said, my sense is the tone of the current article is somewhat negative, and that it should be fixed with words as well as more sources which stress accomplishments, and I think the article should move more in the direction which CorporateM proposed in his revamp. At the same time, however, I do not think that simply because a news source is negative about an issue, that it immediately brings POV problems. In my view, the CityWatch and Morningside Park Chronicle should not be dismissed, but kept without going into details. They are both newspapers, with dates and bylines, and they make rather serious allegations: threats/abuse/intimidation by a police officer. This is not something to be taken lightly. As we know, police officers have the legally approved power of armed force – they can arrest people, shoot people, jail people – but they must follow proper procedures when doing so. There is little to hold police accountable other than other police officers (who are almost always reluctant to accuse other officers), the courts and public opinion and the occasional unarmed journalist bold enough to challenge authority. That is what is happening here: several journalists, a community school board member, and others allege that Butts and the Santa Monica and Inglewood police went too far, abused authority, played loose with the rules. Clearly there is a pattern: a lawsuit by the ACLU which named Butts as a defendant, which went to the Supreme Court, along with reports from Seattle Times and LA Times about police abusing their authority. So, dismissing this because there is one primary source involved (a Supreme Court case, no less), seems misguided, as well as eliminating CityWatch or the Morningside Park Chronicle as sources. I agree the article should strive for neutrality, but I disagree that the way to achieve neutrality is simply to eliminate any strong views, pro or con; for me, the views should be kept, but balanced against each other. Overall, I think the tone is somewhat too negative, and in that sense, I agree, but balance could be restored by writing and by adding more positives.-- 2178:

that finer points should be hashed out thoughtfully and with kindness and a commitment to neutrality and quality here on the talk page. Finally, let's recognize the difference between "battling" - we want none of that and "dialogue" - if conducted with civility, a very long dialog can be very useful at sorting out the best way forward. I hope we do ignite that. For avoidance of doubt, I'm going to make the copy from the draft to the article space now but please consider this the act of an ordinary editor with a strong interest in biographies - not a decree or official action. Just trying to help advance things in a manner consistent with our highest values of truthseeking and respect for human dignity.--

1789:

too was removed. Essentially, Knowledge contributors including myself have tried to find a neutral view while reflecting both pluses and minuses, and this article in my view does a fair job in this regard. That a view is an op-ed does not automatically rule it out as a source; after all, a major newspaper, the Santa Monica Mirror, decided to publish it; further, Knowledge does not go into detail about the nature of their highly public dispute. Further, CityWatch is run by veteran journalists and counts as a credible source, in my view; if a publication says it will hold City Hall accountable, well, that is in fact what all newspapers try to do as being part of the

1945:, which includes the proper sources you have identified, like the LA Times and Associated Press, but not the op-eds and primary sources. Using only proper sources, the tone is radically different. For example, I think readers would want to know the outcome of legal cases/accusations, especially when they are dismissed by the court as baseless. They should also know when certain accusations are made by killers and convicted criminals Butts was the arresting officer for. I usually follow a formula of accusation-defense-outcome, however the current article is just accusation-accusation-accusation, and this is because of the use of such poor-quality sourcing. 2373:

ACLU on the grounds that it lacked standing, but the ACLU appealed, a Ninth Circuit court in 1999 found for the ACLU (ie that officers could not keep questioning suspects after they accepted their Miranda rights). The Supreme Court, by refusing to hear the CACJ v Butts case, essentially let the Ninth Circuit Court order stand. Basically what happened. Generally, if you don't mind, I've been hashing and rehashing this issue for way too long, on the talk page, everywhere else, I'm weary of this subject, I'm going to not watch the Butts page any more for a long time, but good luck with the article.--

1872:. Generally speaking, there should be actual news stories (not op-eds) that verify the information warrants inclusion. You seem to be suggesting that op-eds grant the dispute notability, which I don't think is in-line with community consensus. So for example, if the story was covered by the New York Times or had strong local sources like the LA Times and the op-ed was used to supplement those sources, than that would be a different thing all-together. Using op-eds with no other sources creates a lot of undue and NPOV issues if the dispute hasn't been covered by disinterested parties. 1655:

implies anything about that person's guilt or innocence; nor can I see how that statement could be in violation of any policy we have here. This isn't a wild libellous accusation, it's a statement of plain fact. I can't explain to TRPoD why the details of the case weren't covered more fully in the press, perhaps the detailed workings of the law are too complex or just too plain boring to sell newspapers. But those details are certainly covered in the technical literature. If anyone can see what might the way forward here I'd be pleased to know.

489:- implying something that the sources do not explicitly state. and as you said, "serious business, particularly when police overstep their rights." implying something that serious about a living person without actual sources specifically making such connections is clearly not allowed. A search of google news brings up nothing relating to the outcome which further signifies that while the case may be important, reliable third parties have not considered this living person's actual role in it to be significant.-- 421:, four officers and two police chiefs were sued. Consider that the police chief is responsible for the conduct of their officers. If the officers under their command violated Miranda, and if they did nothing to discourage it or punish the offending officers, then they could be responsible as well. It was a big enough deal that it was studied in 2007 in a journal of criminology (assuming the case was specifically mentioned in the Journal -- again, I do not have JStor).-- 1834:

Oscar de la Torre is also a public figure -- a board member of the Santa Monica school district. Third, the dispute between them involved a public matter -- whether an investigation by the police force (headed by Mr. Butts) was conducted properly; this is important not only for Mr. Torre but it is important for all citizens of Inglewood to know, that is, whether police are behaving properly when conducting investigations and upholding the law. Fourth, a newspaper, the

608:. Butts is the subject of this article. That isn't a factoid, it's an apparently important precedent in U.S. law, and it was set in the prosecution of this person. That's why I bothered to mention it above. It seems to me that to suggest omitting that fact from the article about him is unencyclopaedic. But I think I'm going to apologise for not commenting on Tom's sandbox draft, suggest to TRPOD that your results depend on how you 1074: 1036: 2398: 2064: 1708:

kind to cats; that is not what our article about him concentrates on. If Hump the Tittering Wizard had been named in the case and was sheriff of Buttsville, we'd have an article on him because of the case. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but I get the impression you may think that Butts is insufficiently notable for this wiki. If so, I won't argue!

2640: 2343: 329:(e/c) i have removed it for now. there is nothing that I can see that does anything other than pro forma name him as the head of the organization. the relevance to his being actually responsible for conduct or lack of pro active responsibility for preventing conduct would seem to be necessary in the article about him. -- 973: 562: 2111:

and is missing boring biographical material about his positions. It includes trivial items like saying he attended an event at The Forum, and so on. The draft meanwhile preserves or adds controversies supported by proper sources, such as the protests for layoffs, and being escorted out of a town hall

1654:

that RedPen and Tom are here in good faith (and hope they know they same about me); I believe Roxy to be here in good faith also. So I'm perplexed and a little discouraged by the lack of progress and lack of agreement here. I can't see how stating that someone was named as a defendant in a court case

826:

I don't really have an opinion on the court stuff, except to repeat what everyone already knows--no use of primary sources, and no UNDUE amounts of material. The tag is fine as it is, I think, since there's probably still material in the article from those COI editors. If you are confident that there

2616:

What I noticed about many of the videos produced by Fleming, which is also the case for this citation, is that the description does not accurately represent the video. For example the article says "the crowd protested loudly" but the video only shows a single audience member heckling him. It says he

2307:

I also notice that there are quite a few grammar issues, like a comma at the end of the second sentence in the Lead where I think a period is suppose to be. Some of the wording like "rose through the ranks" (I am the guilty party there) and "culminating" sound a little promotional. Minor nick-nacks.

2288:

I believe we're normally allowed to use even self-published sources to confirm a birthday, and information about where and when they earned their degrees, but I have thus far not been able to find good sources for this very basic information. His infobox also needs expansion and I'd like to see if I

2231:

1. One major difference is that the new version eliminates most discussion or indication of Butts "hands-on" or "contentious" style. 2. Handling of marijuana dispinesary shut downs? 3. Probably least contentious: omission of Dalai Lama visit (strikes me as not very relevant and neither positive nor

2177:

I think a sensible way to move forward will be to use CorporateM's draft as a starting point, but including the previously omitted court case - which is the only specific objection raised here on the talk page. It should be understood that this is only a start and that more eyes should discuss, and

1788:

Thank you for expressing your concerns. There has been apparent COI editing by both supporters and detractors of Butts; MorningsideCitizen tried to remove an entire well-referenced section. In the past, there have been detractors of Mayor Butts who have added unfair material without references; this

1707:

famous for? Only one thing, and you don't even need to look at the article to see what it is (well, OK, you probably knew that anyway). Our biography articles are not about human beings, but about what is written about people in reliable sources. Hitler painted pictures and, I don't know, say he was

911:

If you're concerned about pro-Butts or anti-Butts activists butting in, then perhaps this will happen in future, but I see myself as in neither camp, not leaning to either cheek. But maybe more content could be added about Butts' (Butt's?) accomplishments as mayor, which may be underrepresented here

533:

civilly liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. I see it as relevant to an article on Butts because he was named as defendant in the case. If anyone would like a copy of the article for their own private use I'd be happy to send it, you'd need to email me first to give me your address (can't send attachments

2511:

promoting their legal accomplishments is reliable (it also says they "later settled"). However, one half-decent source shared earlier was a brief mention in Police Magazine and I found something in the Fordham Urban Law Journal (published by Berkeley, but Knowledge does not prohibit the use of bias

2430:

The third paragraph of the Law enforcement section still has undue weight using primary sources for contentious material about a BLP. I would suggest something like just "In 1995, he was one of five police officers named as a defendant in a lawsuit alleging the police department he led was engaging

2272:

Indeed on closer inspection that would not be a reliable source. It does assert that Butts has "three children, was born and raised in Los Angeles' Crenshaw District. He attended 59th Street Elementary, Horace Mann Middle and Crenshaw High schools." A birth date would also be helpful as well as the

2022:

need to reconsider the value of the quotes in the references. Not only do these make editing more difficult (try finding actual text among the piles of quotes), but some are ridiculously POV. "The ACLU ballyhooed its ill-advised complaint at a splashy press conference at City Hall last July when it

1416:

Butts role was a simple one. He was in charge of the department. He carried the responsibility for his departments actions because he was the boss of the department. We already have multiple sources that say he was the boss, and has the responsibility. I don't understand why TRPOD is suggesting

876:

While the revamp no longer contains impact of the COI on the positive side, it is not clear that the current article is free from the POV pushing from the anti-Butts activists. And it is not clear if those anti-Butts activists who want to turn this into a hatchet job have a formal "COI" or are just

2372:

Tom? I assume you're referring to me. Basically, at issue was officers continue to question suspects after they had already been read their Miranda rights, resolved to remain silent, yet the officers kept asking questions. The ACLU sued, arguing this was harassment; a lower court ruled against the

2162:

There was support at the BLPN page to remove one of the lawsuits, but I think I accidentally deleted the wrong one (I swapped it just now). Neither have reliable sources regarding their outcome, so it's possible both should be removed though. I wasn't aware of any battling, though I don't think it

583:

I am learning more. I think we should not use the Criminology source if Butts was not specifically mentioned. I am moving around to seeing that the overall problem is not with specific factoids, but the context, and by adding the context, possibly, we can write this better. Context (stuff we might

381:

Butts was named because he was head of the police department and any time the police department gets sued, the head is named. If he personally had any guilt then there will be third party coverage that specifically elucidates his role specific role, or there will recognized critics that point out

2038:

Yes I see your point. Generally I try to put quotes within the references for two reasons: first, that people can check the quote without having to actually click on the link; second, it makes it easier for me to remember what point the reference was making. At the same time, these quotes can be

1833:

I am not sure I understand your question, but let me see if I might clarify things. First, Mr. Butts was and is a public figure -- then a chief of police, now (2014) a mayor, of a fairly large-sized California city. His job then was keeping public order and now it is managing a city. Second, Mr.

630:

a plain google search doesnt prove anything, most of the hits are from non usable sources and sources whose opinions dont matter. my search from from the news limited sites, which while not perfect, does show that news related agencies dont have much to say about Butts in relation to the miranda

990:

Red Pen, I am having trouble understanding why you think that way. Butts was named as a defendant in a lawsuit about police misconduct -- Butts was their commanding officer, responsible for their behavior; the lawsuit went to higher courts resulting in a decision that was interpreted by police

971:

that's the issue with the Lawsuit material. there is nothing about the lawsuit in reliable sources that talks about Butts role in it other than the fact that he is the head of the police force being sued and therefore his name is on the lawsuit. If the trial had found that he was culpable of

113:

Someone has done a good job cleaning up here, it's a great improvement. However, I note that all mention of the court cases involving Butts have been dropped. I'm no lawyer, but it seems that they are quite significant, and are in fact his principal claim to fame. In particular, the ruling in

462:

the case played out or what verdicts were rendered; rather, it stated what the reliable sources stated, that Butts was sued by the ACLU, which was, in fact, what happened, and this was covered by a reliable source. It does not say that Butts was guilty of anything. And the addition was not

2551:

Considering "and the U.S. Supreme Court turned down an appeal" is already in the article and unsourced, you could leave it in and it certainly wouldn't make the section worse, even if it's not perfect. I think it would be more significant if the Supreme Court accepted the case.

631:

aspect what you are saying is a significant legal matter. and while you can keep saying it, until you have third parties to validate your claim that the individual pro forma named as the head of the agency has personal involvement i dont have any reason to believe you. --

520:

OK, I didn't want to start a fuss here, just suggest covering the facts in encyclopaedic style. In my opinion, it is not encyclopaedic to omit the principal reason for which Butts is known and mentioned in national (as opposed to local) sources. The specific court case,

1188:

are allowed when used in conjunction with secondary sources, which is what is going on here. The idea is to avoid using only primary sources, as when doing original research; here, the secondary source leads, and the primary one asserts that there was a case, and names

1650:. But not this time. This person is notable. The main reason for thinking him so is that he was the named defendant in a rather important court case. I'm having the greatest difficulty in understanding what the obstacle is to putting that information in the article. I 953:. This guy is not like that, no doubt, but if there is a preponderance of "negative" information (meaning, factual information that doesn't reflect well on his character) then our article should reflect that. I'm stating the obvious, of course--for the record. 439:

was studied, but this is not an article about the case. it is an article about the individual, and until there is a reliable source that shows how the individual was or was not involved in this case other than being named, we cannot be making assumptions

1772:

I might work with them in my usual COI capacity, but thought I would tip my toes in the water and try to figure out what's going on? The article has gotten plenty of attention from experienced editors, so I was surprised to see it in this condition.

1842:, felt their dispute had sufficient gravity to publish Mr. Torre's side of the story. Clearly, there is enough here to merit a one-line inclusion in Knowledge, particularly when disputes like Mr. Torre's do not appear to be an isolated incident.-- 1902:

But there are other sources -- the Los Angeles Times, Associated Press, all pointing to a pattern in which a law enforcement official does not adhere strictly to proper procedures, and the op-ed is one further example of a pattern of contentious

2023:

accused the city and the police department of violating the constitutional rights of chronically homeless people by arresting and harassing them.... the complaint was riddled with errors, spurious facts and tortured reasoning....”" Really? —

416:

Disagree again. There is no precedent that whenever a police officer is sued, that the commanding officer necessarily must be sued as well. Sometimes individual officers are sued. Sometimes police chiefs are sued. Sometimes both are sued. In

585:(a) Butts long police career (b) Santa Monica, Inglewood pose tough policing problems, specifically, gang violence (c) history of controversies between police depts (including Butts) and community activists, ACLU etc. (d) Butts =: --> 281:, Accessed Sept. 19, 2013, “...Named as defendants in the complaint are Santa Monica Police Chief James Butts, Los Angeles Police Chief Willie L. Williams, four police officers and the cities of Santa Monica and Los Angeles....” 1278: 2617:"threw a large box full of DVDs on the moderator's table and jumped in front of residents awaiting their turn at the mic" but the video does not show this and appears to show everyone in a calm and orderly fashion. 1285:. The Butts named as defendant is incontrovertibly the Butts this article is about. To suggest that it doesn't concern him because he did not personally illegally interrogate suspects is rather like suggesting that 797:

Article is now protected. That means there is a window during which you all have the opportunity to iron some things out content-wise and achieve a consensus of sorts, without disruption. Let me know if I can help.

2526:

I implemented a modified version of the first item, as well as the third. I do not feel comfortable with the second, partly because I do not know what is meant by "Supreme Court reversed the Martinez decision, and

1084:

at least specifically lays out what Butts role in the matter supposedly was, but 1) as a primary court document is not usable, and 2) doesnt specify what the results of the charges against Butts actually are. --

1677:

coverage of Butts the human being. The police chief could have been Hump the Tittering Wizard or Mediocrates of Pedestrium, and the articles about the case would read identically, except for where it would read

812:

Thanks. I'm waiting for guidance from Red Pen and Justwords and yourself and others about the court case stuff (I'm not a lawyer), also should we remove the COI tag or leave it on, also is the article neutral.--

2103:

is a more appropriate page for this BLP, so I wanted to formally ask that someone move that draft into article-space, where it can continue to improve (I'm going to see if I can fetch an image for example).

976:. Maybe for some reason the print media is not covering it, and its a hot issue on the TV and Radio and for some reason all of the print media chose to ignore it, but please bring the links that show that. -- 948:

Sometimes a BLP is negative. I had one on the front page in the DYK section about a Georgia politician who was bad to the bone, and there was nothing good to say about him other than that he was most likely

845:

Revamps were done, based on comments here on this talk page, so hopefully none of the earlier COI material is remaining, it is all referenced, but I'll leave the court stuff to others; I hope there is not

756:

stands for Inglewood Police Department. Wondering what others think about the legal case moving to Supreme Court, and notability and such, like should there be something in the lede paragraph about the

2254:

A lot of basic biographical information is missing. Is ZoomInfo considered reliable? Perhaps not, I see that it is from public docs and "community contributions" (rather like Knowledge). This page

2140:

is too positive, omits important information such as the CACJ v Butts court case. I prefer the current Drmies draft, and I feel that swapping in the CorporateM draft will reignite more battling.--

972:

anything awful, then surely there would have been press coverage of his role in it, or at least his lack of oversight in allowing such things to happen under his watch would have been called out.

1542:

The mere fact that somebody was named in a lawsuit is no evidence of notability, even if the lawsuit itself is notable: look at the number of SCOTUS cases where the defendant and/or plaintiff do

355:

Disagree. This is serious business, particularly when police overstep their rights. Butts was specifically named in a lawsuit. Not by any organization, but by the ACLU. And it was covered in the

1433:

what we do not have is how that "responsibility" intersects with the issues and findings of the court case. Without being able to lay out for the readers what exactly is going on, we are

1119:. If contemplating removing this reference because the Seattle Times did not go into sufficient detail to satisfy you, then my sense is the community would think you are pushing your own 367:

reporter. I agree with Justwordsandnumbers that it belongs in the article. The text does not say that Butts was directly responsible for violations, just that he was named in a lawsuit.--

1323:

And Yes, i am saying this is different from the Harris/Dresden because (even ignoring the fact that Harris is dead and so not subject to the elevated level of sourcing and care required

2471:, was decided for the plaintiffs. If I remember correctly, the argument was that Butts really wasn't so involved, but he is named in the suit. I'd like to defer to an expert--perhaps 609: 586:

political figure currently. What I'm saying is the ACLU Miranda stuff is only one factoid, part of a larger pattern. I will propose an alternate article in a sandbox page in a bit.--

696:

With photo, ideally; would be helpful. If anybody reading this has a photo of this subject, please write something here, and I'll try to get it included for this article, thanks.--

141:

If there is someone here familiar with this type of material, I'd suggest adding something about this to the article; I'm not going to attempt that myself. I don't know if the

180:

Note I could not read the Criminology Journal since I do not have JStor; does it mention Butts specifically; if so, the article should probably say something to this effect?--

2607: 1596:

was the argument you were making. I sincerely apologize for mistaking your argument, and for the suspicion of sockpuppetry which said mistake led me to. But of course, I

1293:

because he didn't actually fly one of the planes. An officer is responsible for the actions of the men under his command; that is Butts's responsibility here, I believe.

1352:, and that it is sensible to cease arguing with RedPen's intransigence, but merely watch the Butts page and revert removals when necessary, which is what I plan to do.-- 719:, I've placed a COI banner on the article. That shouldn't be taken as a criticism of the article as it stands - it's intended more as a reminder to all. Hope that's OK. 2581: 1722:

and again, there are MULTIPLE sources that talk about Miranda the person in relation to the case at hand. There has yet to be ONE presented about Butts the person. --

1370:

the request for a source that makes some sort of analysis or commentary about Butts role, not multiple source that need to be cobbled together by Knowledge editors.

783:. My success rate with SPIs I've opened is to date a resounding 0%, so I hope someone more capable might get that started. I had the same thought as Tom about IPD. 1107:-- went to court -- was appealed and was much later decided by the Supreme Court. The 1995 article (by a Los Angeles Times reporter) named Butts specifically as a 1394:

since there was a claim that there were valid points that i did not respond to, I have responded to show that the responses to my positions were not valid. --

219:

sued two police chiefs including Butts, four police officers, as well as the cities of Santa Monica and Los Angeles, for not properly adhering to the required

1761:

from CityWatch reads like an op-ed and has a disclaimer saying that the contents represent the personal views of the author. Additionally, the publication's

1753:

I've glanced at the Talk page history and see that there was some COI editing, but was also surprised this page hasn't gotten on the BLP radar. For example,

761:

case going to the Supreme Court, and becoming an important part of how Miranda is interpreted, that is, is Butts notable for that, or is that a side issue.--

118:, 1999, seems to have set a precedent that is important in U.S. law. A source that appears to me fully reliable, and which discusses it more than once, is: 1750:. Apparently the unsourced material he/she added was copy/pasted from the city website (copyrighted material) and they were unaware of Knowledge's rules. 2584:, used for the very last sentence of the article. I am the one that incorporated it into my draft, which was eventually incorporated into the article by 1592:

That is the impression I'd gotten, Rox, since the idea that the head of a local police department is notable is so absurd that I didn't understand that

912:

in Sept 2013, but he has been in office only two years now, there will surely be more stuff in future. Everything in the article now is referenced, not

2352:

This would address the UNDUE issue, remove the op-ed source I used for City Hall's point of view and add the outcome with a proper source provided by

2163:

should prevent article improvements, especially when significant violations in our BLP policy are at play. Lets see what others say if they chime in.

529:

article I cited above; "James T. Butts" is not mentioned. The case is apparently important because the ruling made policemen who deliberately ignored

2108: 1754: 78:

Revamp. This article is being watched indefinitely in the foreseeable future. Please do not add unsourced material to it, conjecture, material from

2595:. Their YouTube channel where the video that is embedded in the article is hosted has the slogan "Morningside Park Chronicle is a newspaper for, 1811:

You mentioned the dispute between Oscar de la and James is "highly public". Does that mean there are other non-op-ed sources that could be used?

1348:, my sense is RedPen has not responded to the valid points made above but merely reiterates irrelevant claims, that is, the RedPen argument is 2580:

Thanks for everyone's help bringing this article into shape. There is one more thing I wanted to raise that is a complicated issue, which is

2507:. In this case the Berkeley Law School and professor Charles Weiseelber were the team of lawyers supporting the plaintiff, so I don't think 1368:

There are no valid points above for me to respond to. There are valid points that I have brought up that have not been responded to, namely

2672: 2420:

I'd like to re-incorporate one of the poorly-sourced controversies, for which I now know have quality sources in the LA Times available.

2258:

has a lot of biographical details on his schooling etc. Perhaps they can be used as a starting point to search out usable sources?

734:

I think it's time for someone to comb the history and start an SPI (or two). Protection may be in the near future if this goes on.

2342:

In 1995, Butts was one of five police offers named as a defendant regarding allegations of deliberately violating Miranda rights.

2228:

I'd like us to carefully identify all of them and consider each in turn to make a broader judgment about where to go from here.

1512:

it is sensible to cease arguing with RedPen's intransigence, but merely watch the Butts page and revert removals when necessary.

2107:

Currently, many of the BLP problems have been solved, however the article still cites attack pages from CityWatch, op-eds like

1713: 1660: 1298: 788: 724: 621: 551: 154: 1941:

I'm really surprised I am the only one that sees it, but before I give up just yet, take a look at a draft I whipped up today

1441:. If his role was so mightily important, then just provide a source that specifically clarify what his important role was. -- 858:. Thanks for blocking article; if COI stuff happens again, may be need for permanent block. COI tag removed for time being.-- 2415: 1602:

think that most police chiefs are notable, nor is there anything in our archives to support a supposition that they are. --

991:

nationwide; numerous newspaper reports chronicled the lawsuit and Butts over a decade-long period. What more do you need?--

1220:

3)his name may appear but there is nothing that discusses what is his role/how is he is personally responsible if at all.

612:, and move away from here - this is so completely not a topic I care about. I'll leave it to others to decide whether the 1758: 2620:

We cleaned out a lot of these politically charged attack piece, op-eds, but I think this one is the last remaining one.

1269:

I said I would leave this discussion, but here I still am. I'm continuing to have difficulty following the arguments of

166:

Agree that its an important issue, with reliable sources. Thanks for enlightening us. Added material with references.--

2278: 2263: 974:

but when listening for the hue and cry that would inevitably accompany such an outcome .... the crickets are deafening

1056: 1024: 278: 146: 31:

Knowledge has rules which prevent people from posting anything without references. Please include only material with

1757:

is an op-ed, which should not be used anywhere, especially not for contentious material about a BLP. I noticed that

1312:

Thats fine for making up your own mind, but we cannot put content in articles that does the same, particularly when

1310:

pull things together from multiple sources to make or imply something that is not explicitly laid out in the source.

877:

here to POV push, so while I dont have any objection to the removal of the COI tag, but I still have concerns about

2610:, accusing him of crimes and so on. Additionally, I noticed that Fleming is not listed as one of the site's editors 2602:

When I do research on Ed Fleming, I find that he has published a lot of attack-style content about Butts, such as "

1709: 1656: 1345: 1294: 784: 720: 617: 547: 150: 2080: 1869: 1723: 1529: 1489: 1480: 1475:

therefor we can assign or imply any guilt we want is not the way wikipedia works, particularly when dealing with

1442: 1395: 1373: 1332: 1239: 1086: 1010: 977: 894: 632: 566: 490: 445: 383: 330: 2289:

can get a photo. I will see what else I can contribute now that the most overt BLP issues have been resolved.

1746:

I just got off the phone earlier today with a relative of James Butts, who had been editing under the username

543: 2225:

The draft currently in place as proposed above by CorporateM has several differences from the last revision.

1747: 2611: 2592: 2404: 2070: 658: 17: 2504: 2431:

in forceful questioning that violated Miranda Rights". This element can be supported using quality sources.

2137: 2100: 2449:

Image added. I'd like to see a proposed paragraph before inserting the controversial information in #2. —

2274: 2259: 2112:

meeting. I think it's a clear improvement and brings the article more in-line with Knowledge's standards.

1583: 1519: 1460: 1422: 1349: 1270: 2454: 2240: 2204: 2183: 2028: 716: 2425: 265: 2423: 2651: 2625: 2557: 2537: 2517: 2439: 2421: 2378: 2374: 2361: 2313: 2294: 2168: 2145: 2141: 2120: 2088: 2044: 2040: 1996: 1992: 1950: 1938: 1908: 1904: 1877: 1847: 1843: 1816: 1798: 1794: 1778: 1693: 1609: 1573: 1557: 1507: 1503: 1357: 1353: 1194: 1190: 1175: 1171: 1153: 1149: 1135: 1131: 1044: 1040: 996: 992: 921: 917: 863: 859: 817: 813: 766: 762: 752:

Agree about possible need for protection. Agree about COI edits. Good idea for COI banner. Wonder if

701: 697: 681: 677: 666: 662: 613: 591: 587: 535: 472: 468: 426: 422: 372: 368: 312: 308: 185: 181: 171: 167: 94: 90: 56: 52: 48: 44: 1471:

again, you have not shown any reliable source that connects that vis a vis the suit. He is the head

2467:

better source than this] but, at the same time, I think it sufficiently establishes that the case,

2235:

That's a start - but I'm sure I've overlooked some things as I've just started to look into this.--

2133: 1839: 1127: 86: 2463:

Thanks Crisco. Yes, I agree: a proposed paragraph is best. On the other matter, I'd like to see a

2531:

as well." While hardly an expert, I have never heard this terminology and do not understand it.--

1317: 886: 441: 252: 1070:

i am not sure that this is a reliably published source, but it doesnt even name Butts personally

2115:

Thanks everyone for participating in the discussion! And my apologies for being a bit rushed.

1579: 1515: 1456: 1418: 1290: 1185: 855: 851: 363: 79: 2588:, however now that I have investigated it further, I don't think it is an acceptable source. 2500: 2480: 2472: 2450: 2427:. Let me know if the preference is for me to write it up or if someone else has an interest. 2331: 2236: 2200: 2179: 2024: 958: 832: 803: 739: 1686:. Butts is never the subject of those articles: the lawsuit and the rulings thereon are. -- 1081: 1028: 2655: 2647: 2629: 2621: 2561: 2553: 2548: 2542: 2532: 2521: 2513: 2484: 2458: 2443: 2435: 2382: 2365: 2357: 2317: 2309: 2298: 2290: 2282: 2267: 2244: 2208: 2187: 2172: 2164: 2149: 2124: 2116: 2048: 2032: 2000: 1984: 1954: 1946: 1912: 1881: 1873: 1851: 1820: 1812: 1802: 1782: 1774: 1731: 1717: 1704: 1698: 1687: 1664: 1647: 1614: 1603: 1587: 1567: 1562: 1551: 1537: 1523: 1497: 1464: 1450: 1426: 1403: 1381: 1361: 1340: 1302: 1247: 1198: 1179: 1157: 1139: 1094: 1048: 1018: 1000: 985: 962: 925: 902: 890: 867: 847: 836: 821: 807: 792: 770: 743: 728: 705: 685: 670: 640: 625: 595: 574: 555: 498: 482: 476: 458:

Disagree once more. The proposed addition does not pretend to say anything specific about

453: 430: 391: 376: 338: 316: 220: 189: 175: 158: 98: 60: 2599:

and in Inglewood". The uploader and presumably story author appears to be an Ed Fleming.

2512:

sources per se). And I think I was able to scrap together something that is reasonable.

2356:

Tom. I'm just not sure I understand exactly what the Supreme Court's ruling was on it.

2092: 1547: 878: 2508: 2464: 1578:- Are you under the impression that I think Butts is notable because of a lawsuit? -- 538:

has proposed is good. I'd suggest changing "In 1995, there was a controversy when the

2666: 1790: 1476: 1472: 1438: 1434: 1369: 1324: 1313: 1309: 1286: 1235: 1208: 1120: 1067: 1032: 882: 486: 357: 40: 2503:

I put together some proposed content for number 2 and 3 (as well as a misc item) at

1282: 1144:

2) A respected law school publication using this case to teach their students about

200:

My addition was reverted by RedPenofDoom (good handle name by the way!). Here it is:

2591:

While it's not clearly labeled as an op-ed, I noticed that the publication accepts

1215: 1167: 1124: 913: 83: 32: 2334:' Talk page, my suggestion would be to replace the paragraph with something like 2496: 2476: 2255: 2084: 954: 828: 799: 780: 735: 36: 382:

that he should have known and been doing something about it and hadnt been. --

2603: 2585: 1455:

How much clearer can the important role of "Head Of Police Department" be? --

1435:

instead creating assumptions and possibilities, which we are NOT allowed to do

1762: 292:

The Attitudes of Police Executives Toward Miranda and Interrogation Policies

124:

The Attitudes of Police Executives Toward Miranda and Interrogation Policies

2199:

I am posting for convenience for others who are also reviewing this case.--

1477:

controversial issues and claims and implied commentary about living people.

1988: 1942: 1766: 916:, and reflects faithfully (in my view) how he is described in the media.-- 2096: 1793:; whether CityWatch's writers have other jobs is immaterial in my view.-- 1077:

cites the case but does not identify what Butts role is or may have been

291: 277:

Jim Newton of the Los Angeles Times, December 20, 1995, Seattle Times,

123: 279:

Suit: Police Snub Miranda Warning -- LAPD Said To Ignore Silence Right

1236:

to tie together multiple sources that do not make the specific claim

1207:

1)is clearly a matter of publishing things that are allegations and

1115:

of managing police officers, disciplining them, teaching them about

223:

procedures when arresting suspects. The topic of police fidelity to

467:; rather, it was two lines specifically relating to the subject.-- 227:

and respect for the rights of suspects was studied in 2007 in the

145:

is a reliable source, but on the face of it it appears to be one.

2273:

names of his college and business schools as well as grad dates.

715:

Given that we seem to have a new COI editor here in the shape of

661:, made in light of comments above. Wondering what people think.-- 1528:

so your position is that you cannot produce a source, either --

539: 216: 2407:

by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

2073:

by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

2039:

POV-ish, please feel free to trim or cut them as you see fit.--

2392: 2058: 676:

After a day, with no objections, I swapped in the additions.--

2132:

While CorporateM has worked hard on this draft, the article

39:; unsourced material must be removed promptly, as this is a 2330:

Regarding the lawsuit that has attracted some attention on

1868:

FYI - I should have mentioned before that I posted on BLPN

1281:). It is discussed in apparently reliable sources such as 2469:

California Attorneys for Criminal Justice (CACJ) v. Butts

2083:, I want to hesitantly say that there is consensus among 1684:

California Attorneys for Criminal Justice v. Mediocrates

82:

such as court cases, or any other speculation. Stick to

2196: 2099:

that something more along the lines of the draft at

1769:

have day-jobs somewhere else and not in journalism.

1479:

Show me a source the does the analysis, not you. --

297:. Northwestern University. 97 (3): 873-942 via JStor 2465:

https://www.law.berkeley.edu/news/2004/miranda.html

2136:is still highly contentious. My sense is the draft 1765:says they "hold City Hall accountable" and most of 1670:Because merely being named does not constitute the 561:the claim that it is the prime reason he was known 295:

The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-)

128:

The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-)

2604:Butts has a fit at the Block Club Captains meeting 1546:have Knowledge articles about them. Roxy, can you 1275:California Attorneys for Criminal Justice v. Butts 606:California Attorneys for Criminal Justice v. Butts 523:California Attorneys for Criminal Justice v. Butts 116:California Attorneys for Criminal Justice v. Butts 1680:California Attorneys for Criminal Justice v. Hump 1329:multiple sources that specifically connect Harris 1009:and his behavior / actions / responsibility? -- 290:Marvin Zalman and Brad W. Smith (Spring, 2007), 122:Marvin Zalman and Brad W. Smith (Spring, 2007). 2414:I've uploaded a headshot image for the infobox 1437:particularly in cases of controversial content 264:Veronica Mackey, May 2, 2013, Inglewood Today, 89:sources such as newspapers and media reports.-- 1111:who, as police chief, did not properly do his 1063:case, but it doesnt indicate his supposed role 8: 1646:I'd be with you on that 99.9% of the time, 827:is none you can remove the tag. Good luck. 600:I'm sorry, I can't follow you. The case is 527:The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 251:Thomas Bunn, May 9, 2013, Inglewood Today, 2079:Based on the discussion at the BLPN board 525:, is mentioned or cited four times in the 215:In 1995, there was a controversy when the 2529:disapproved the Cooper and Butts rulings, 2475:or another legal mind can weigh in here. 2232:negative and so not a BLP issue per se). 149:is an article about the case. And so on. 1005:what sources are actually commenting on 759:California Attorneys for Justice v Butts 1331:with responsibility for the bombing.-- 266:Butts ‘State of the City’ Well Received 244: 229:Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1703:With all respect, I disagree. What is 1059:- merely says that he is named in an 7: 2308:Ok, I'm off to see about an image. 565:. Do you have any that I missed?-- 2018:While we're looking into this, we 1488:20:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC) -- 563:is not supported by search results 51:) 21:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)-- 24: 2593:crowd-sourced article submissions 534:via wiki-mail). I think the text 2638: 2396: 2221:List of major in/out differences 2062: 1325:for content about living people 616:should also be in the article. 253:FCBC Hosts Immigration Workshop 1987:, I read your proposed revamp 1732:00:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC) 1718:23:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC) 1699:22:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC) 1665:22:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC) 1615:20:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC) 1588:19:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC) 1563:18:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC) 1538:10:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC) 1524:20:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC) 1498:20:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC) 1465:19:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC) 1451:19:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC) 1427:18:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC) 1404:20:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC) 1382:18:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC) 1362:18:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC) 1341:13:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC) 1303:12:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC) 1248:20:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC) 1223:4)primary sources may be used 1199:12:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC) 1180:12:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC) 1158:12:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC) 1140:12:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC) 1095:11:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC) 1049:11:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC) 1019:10:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC) 1001:03:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC) 986:23:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC) 963:23:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC) 926:19:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC) 903:19:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC) 868:18:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC) 837:17:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC) 822:17:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC) 808:16:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC) 793:12:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC) 771:12:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC) 744:04:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC) 729:00:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC) 706:00:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC) 686:00:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC) 671:13:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC) 641:04:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC) 626:00:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC) 596:12:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC) 575:11:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC) 556:11:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC) 499:00:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC) 477:00:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC) 454:00:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC) 431:00:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC) 392:00:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC) 377:00:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC) 339:00:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC) 317:00:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC) 190:00:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC) 176:00:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC) 159:23:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC) 99:15:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC) 61:15:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC) 1: 1277:is a notable court case (see 1214:2)teaching materials are not 481:that just leads to issues of 1289:was not responsible for the 854:but that it is getting more 2673:Implemented requested edits 1148:. Yes it does name Butts.-- 614:accusations of sexual abuse 130:. Northwestern University. 2689: 2250:Schooling, birth date etc. 1216:reliably published content 779:I had the same thought as 653:Proposed revamp in sandbox 542:sued ..." to "In 1995 the 307:I'll let others comment.-- 27:Problems with this article 2656:02:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC) 2630:01:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC) 2562:01:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC) 2543:00:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC) 2522:14:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC) 2485:00:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC) 2459:00:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC) 1103:1)The then-upcoming case 465:an article about the case 255:, Accessed Sept. 16, 2013 2444:17:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC) 2383:01:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC) 2366:22:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC) 2318:17:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC) 2299:17:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC) 2283:14:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC) 2268:14:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC) 2245:14:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC) 2209:13:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC) 2188:13:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC) 2173:00:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC) 2150:00:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC) 2125:22:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 2049:10:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 2033:03:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 2001:22:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC) 1955:01:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC) 1913:21:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC) 1882:15:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC) 1852:10:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC) 1821:03:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC) 1803:23:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC) 1783:21:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC) 544:whatever ACLU stands for 1727:aka The Red Pen of Doom 1533:aka The Red Pen of Doom 1510:) above, and note that 1493:aka The Red Pen of Doom 1484:aka The Red Pen of Doom 1446:aka The Red Pen of Doom 1399:aka The Red Pen of Doom 1377:aka The Red Pen of Doom 1336:aka The Red Pen of Doom 1243:aka The Red Pen of Doom 1090:aka The Red Pen of Doom 1014:aka The Red Pen of Doom 981:aka The Red Pen of Doom 898:aka The Red Pen of Doom 850:stuff or problems with 636:aka The Red Pen of Doom 570:aka The Red Pen of Doom 494:aka The Red Pen of Doom 449:aka The Red Pen of Doom 387:aka The Red Pen of Doom 334:aka The Red Pen of Doom 136:(subscription required) 66:I found two references. 18:Talk:James T. Butts Jr. 1225:in addition to sources 2505:User:CorporateM/Butts 2101:User:CorporateM/Butts 1710:Justlettersandnumbers 1657:Justlettersandnumbers 1548:quack as well as bark 1439:about a living person 1346:Justlettersandnumbers 1295:Justlettersandnumbers 785:Justlettersandnumbers 721:Justlettersandnumbers 618:Justlettersandnumbers 548:Justlettersandnumbers 151:Justlettersandnumbers 1283:the Yale Law Journal 584:agree about?) =: --> 41:biographical article 2134:James T. Butts, Jr. 1836:Santa Monica Mirror 1068:Berkeley Law School 1033:Berkeley Law School 2608:calling him a liar 1748:MorningsideCitizen 1229:the specific claim 1075:Human Rights Watch 1037:Human Rights Watch 1023:Numerous sources: 2411: 2410: 2275:Candleabracadabra 2260:Candleabracadabra 2077: 2076: 1728: 1534: 1494: 1485: 1447: 1400: 1378: 1337: 1291:Dresden firestorm 1244: 1091: 1015: 982: 899: 637: 604:for Butts. It is 571: 495: 450: 388: 364:Los Angeles Times 335: 2680: 2646: 2642: 2641: 2540: 2535: 2400: 2399: 2393: 2332:user:Jimmy Wales 2066: 2065: 2059: 1840:secondary source 1729: 1726: 1696: 1690: 1612: 1606: 1576: 1570: 1560: 1554: 1535: 1532: 1495: 1492: 1486: 1483: 1448: 1445: 1401: 1398: 1379: 1376: 1338: 1335: 1308:you continue to 1245: 1242: 1166:. The book is a 1092: 1089: 1016: 1013: 983: 980: 900: 897: 638: 635: 572: 569: 496: 493: 451: 448: 389: 386: 336: 333: 298: 288: 282: 275: 269: 268:, Sept. 16, 2013 262: 256: 249: 137: 33:reliable sources 2688: 2687: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2663: 2662: 2639: 2637: 2578: 2549:User:Sphilbrick 2538: 2533: 2397: 2391: 2328: 2252: 2223: 2089:user:Tomwsulcer 2063: 2057: 1744: 1724: 1705:Ernesto Miranda 1694: 1688: 1610: 1604: 1574: 1568: 1558: 1552: 1530: 1490: 1481: 1443: 1396: 1374: 1333: 1271:TheRedPenOfDoom 1240: 1186:Primary sources 1168:reliable source 1087: 1011: 978: 895: 713: 694: 655: 633: 567: 491: 446: 384: 331: 302: 301: 289: 285: 276: 272: 263: 259: 250: 246: 135: 111: 80:primary sources 29: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2686: 2684: 2676: 2675: 2665: 2664: 2661: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2577: 2576:One more thing 2574: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2488: 2487: 2461: 2433: 2432: 2428: 2418: 2409: 2408: 2401: 2390: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2327: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2302: 2301: 2251: 2248: 2222: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2190: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2093:User:Cullen328 2075: 2074: 2067: 2056: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2003: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1806: 1805: 1743: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1540: 1417:otherwise. -- 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1321: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1221: 1218: 1212: 1202: 1201: 1182: 1160: 1142: 1098: 1097: 1078: 1071: 1064: 966: 965: 945: 944: 943: 942: 941: 940: 939: 938: 937: 936: 935: 934: 933: 932: 931: 930: 929: 928: 906: 905: 871: 870: 840: 839: 774: 773: 747: 746: 712: 709: 693: 692:Infobox needed 690: 689: 688: 654: 651: 650: 649: 648: 647: 646: 645: 644: 643: 610:do your search 578: 577: 518: 517: 516: 515: 514: 513: 512: 511: 510: 509: 508: 507: 506: 505: 504: 503: 502: 501: 403: 402: 401: 400: 399: 398: 397: 396: 395: 394: 346: 345: 344: 343: 342: 341: 322: 321: 320: 319: 300: 299: 283: 270: 257: 243: 242: 241: 240: 239: 238: 237: 236: 235: 234: 233: 232: 204: 203: 202: 201: 195: 194: 193: 192: 178: 139: 138: 134:(3): 873-942. 110: 107: 106: 105: 104: 103: 102: 101: 70: 68: 67: 43:. Thank you.-- 28: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2685: 2674: 2671: 2670: 2668: 2657: 2653: 2649: 2645: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2627: 2623: 2618: 2614: 2612: 2609: 2605: 2600: 2598: 2594: 2589: 2587: 2583: 2575: 2563: 2559: 2555: 2550: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2541: 2536: 2530: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2519: 2515: 2510: 2506: 2502: 2498: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2486: 2482: 2478: 2474: 2470: 2466: 2462: 2460: 2456: 2452: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2441: 2437: 2429: 2426: 2424: 2422: 2419: 2417: 2413: 2412: 2406: 2402: 2395: 2394: 2388: 2384: 2380: 2376: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2363: 2359: 2355: 2344: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2333: 2325: 2319: 2315: 2311: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2300: 2296: 2292: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2280: 2276: 2270: 2269: 2265: 2261: 2257: 2256:from ZoomInfo 2249: 2247: 2246: 2242: 2238: 2233: 2229: 2226: 2220: 2210: 2206: 2202: 2198: 2194: 2191: 2189: 2185: 2181: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2170: 2166: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2151: 2147: 2143: 2139: 2135: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2122: 2118: 2113: 2110: 2105: 2102: 2098: 2094: 2090: 2086: 2082: 2072: 2068: 2061: 2060: 2055:Request Edits 2054: 2050: 2046: 2042: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2030: 2026: 2021: 2002: 1998: 1994: 1990: 1986: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1956: 1952: 1948: 1944: 1940: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1914: 1910: 1906: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1883: 1879: 1875: 1871: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1853: 1849: 1845: 1841: 1837: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1822: 1818: 1814: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1804: 1800: 1796: 1792: 1791:fourth estate 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1780: 1776: 1770: 1768: 1767:their authors 1764: 1763:about us page 1760: 1756: 1751: 1749: 1741: 1733: 1730: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1715: 1711: 1706: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1697: 1691: 1685: 1681: 1676: 1673: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1662: 1658: 1653: 1649: 1616: 1613: 1607: 1601: 1600: 1595: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1585: 1581: 1577: 1571: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1561: 1555: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1539: 1536: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1521: 1517: 1513: 1509: 1505: 1502:I agree with 1501: 1500: 1499: 1496: 1487: 1478: 1474: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1462: 1458: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1449: 1440: 1436: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1424: 1420: 1415: 1405: 1402: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1380: 1371: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1359: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1339: 1330: 1326: 1322: 1320:are involved. 1319: 1315: 1311: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1300: 1296: 1292: 1288: 1287:Bomber Harris 1284: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1249: 1246: 1237: 1234: 1230: 1226: 1222: 1219: 1217: 1213: 1210: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1200: 1196: 1192: 1187: 1183: 1181: 1177: 1173: 1169: 1165: 1161: 1159: 1155: 1151: 1147: 1143: 1141: 1137: 1133: 1129: 1126: 1122: 1121:point of view 1118: 1114: 1110: 1106: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1096: 1093: 1083: 1079: 1076: 1072: 1069: 1065: 1062: 1058: 1057:Seattle Times 1054: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1046: 1042: 1038: 1034: 1030: 1026: 1025:Seattle Times 1022: 1021: 1020: 1017: 1008: 1004: 1003: 1002: 998: 994: 989: 988: 987: 984: 975: 970: 969: 968: 967: 964: 960: 956: 952: 947: 946: 927: 923: 919: 915: 910: 909: 908: 907: 904: 901: 892: 888: 884: 880: 875: 874: 873: 872: 869: 865: 861: 857: 853: 849: 844: 843: 842: 841: 838: 834: 830: 825: 824: 823: 819: 815: 811: 810: 809: 805: 801: 796: 795: 794: 790: 786: 782: 778: 777: 776: 775: 772: 768: 764: 760: 755: 751: 750: 749: 748: 745: 741: 737: 733: 732: 731: 730: 726: 722: 718: 717:IPD Historian 710: 708: 707: 703: 699: 691: 687: 683: 679: 675: 674: 673: 672: 668: 664: 660: 657:Please check 652: 642: 639: 629: 628: 627: 623: 619: 615: 611: 607: 603: 599: 598: 597: 593: 589: 582: 581: 580: 579: 576: 573: 564: 560: 559: 558: 557: 553: 549: 545: 541: 537: 532: 528: 524: 500: 497: 488: 484: 480: 479: 478: 474: 470: 466: 461: 457: 456: 455: 452: 443: 438: 434: 433: 432: 428: 424: 420: 415: 414: 413: 412: 411: 410: 409: 408: 407: 406: 405: 404: 393: 390: 380: 379: 378: 374: 370: 366: 365: 360: 359: 358:Seattle Times 354: 353: 352: 351: 350: 349: 348: 347: 340: 337: 328: 327: 326: 325: 324: 323: 318: 314: 310: 306: 305: 304: 303: 296: 293: 287: 284: 280: 274: 271: 267: 261: 258: 254: 248: 245: 230: 226: 222: 218: 214: 213: 212: 211: 210: 209: 208: 207: 206: 205: 199: 198: 197: 196: 191: 187: 183: 179: 177: 173: 169: 165: 164: 163: 162: 161: 160: 156: 152: 148: 144: 143:Seattle Times 133: 129: 125: 121: 120: 119: 117: 108: 100: 96: 92: 88: 85: 81: 77: 76: 75: 74: 73: 72: 71: 65: 64: 63: 62: 58: 54: 50: 46: 42: 38: 34: 26: 19: 2643: 2619: 2615: 2601: 2596: 2590: 2579: 2528: 2468: 2434: 2405:edit request 2389:Request edit 2353: 2351: 2329: 2326:ACLU lawsuit 2271: 2253: 2234: 2230: 2227: 2224: 2192: 2114: 2106: 2078: 2071:edit request 2019: 2017: 1903:relations.-- 1835: 1771: 1752: 1745: 1742:This article 1683: 1679: 1674: 1671: 1651: 1645: 1598: 1597: 1593: 1580:Roxy the dog 1543: 1516:Roxy the dog 1511: 1457:Roxy the dog 1419:Roxy the dog 1328: 1327:) there are 1274: 1268: 1232: 1228: 1224: 1163: 1162:3)Butts was 1145: 1116: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1060: 1006: 951:homo sapiens 950: 758: 753: 714: 695: 656: 605: 601: 530: 526: 522: 519: 464: 459: 436: 418: 362: 356: 294: 286: 273: 260: 247: 228: 224: 142: 140: 131: 127: 115: 112: 69: 30: 2582:citation 19 2534:S Philbrick 2509:this source 2501:Crisco 1492 2473:Newyorkbrad 2451:Crisco 1492 2371:Town =: --> 2237:Jimbo Wales 2201:Jimbo Wales 2180:Jimbo Wales 2085:user:Drmies 2025:Crisco 1492 1755:citation 19 1689:Orange Mike 1675:substantial 1605:Orange Mike 1584:quack quack 1569:Orange Mike 1553:Orange Mike 1318:WP:BLPCRIME 887:WP:BLPCRIME 546:sued ...". 442:WP:BLPCRIME 2648:CorporateM 2622:CorporateM 2586:user:Jimbo 2554:CorporateM 2514:CorporateM 2436:CorporateM 2375:Tomwsulcer 2358:CorporateM 2310:CorporateM 2291:CorporateM 2165:CorporateM 2142:Tomwsulcer 2117:CorporateM 2095:and maybe 2041:Tomwsulcer 1993:Tomwsulcer 1985:CorporateM 1947:CorporateM 1939:Tomwsulcer 1905:Tomwsulcer 1874:CorporateM 1844:Tomwsulcer 1838:, a valid 1813:CorporateM 1795:Tomwsulcer 1775:CorporateM 1759:citation 4 1648:OrangeMike 1504:Tomwsulcer 1473:ipso facto 1354:Tomwsulcer 1227:that make 1191:Tomwsulcer 1172:Tomwsulcer 1150:Tomwsulcer 1132:Tomwsulcer 1123:. It is a 1041:Tomwsulcer 993:Tomwsulcer 918:Tomwsulcer 860:Tomwsulcer 856:WP:NEUTRAL 852:WP:BALANCE 814:Tomwsulcer 763:Tomwsulcer 698:Tomwsulcer 678:Tomwsulcer 663:Tomwsulcer 588:Tomwsulcer 536:Tomwsulcer 469:Tomwsulcer 423:Tomwsulcer 369:Tomwsulcer 309:Tomwsulcer 182:Tomwsulcer 168:Tomwsulcer 91:Tomwsulcer 53:Tomwsulcer 45:Tomwsulcer 37:verifiable 35:which are 2197:This diff 1672:requisite 1520:woof woof 1461:woof woof 1423:woof woof 1130:source.-- 1128:secondary 1109:defendant 1061:upcoming 419:this case 87:secondary 2667:Category 2193:Addendum 2109:this one 2097:user:DGG 1189:Butts.-- 1125:reliable 1105:happened 891:WP:UNDUE 848:WP:UNDUE 483:WP:UNDUE 109:Nice job 84:reliable 1146:Miranda 1117:Miranda 879:WP:NPOV 711:COI tag 531:Miranda 225:Miranda 221:Miranda 2539:(Talk) 2497:Drmies 2477:Drmies 2020:really 1725:TRPoD 1531:TRPoD 1491:TRPoD 1482:TRPoD 1444:TRPoD 1397:TRPoD 1375:TRPoD 1350:doomed 1334:TRPoD 1314:WP:BLP 1279:Google 1273:here. 1241:TRPoD 1231:, but 1209:WP:SYN 1088:TRPoD 1082:Leagle 1029:Leagle 1012:TRPoD 979:TRPoD 955:Drmies 896:TRPoD 883:WP:BLP 829:Drmies 800:Drmies 781:Drmies 736:Drmies 634:TRPoD 568:TRPoD 492:TRPoD 487:WP:SYN 447:TRPoD 385:TRPoD 332:TRPoD 2403:This 2069:This 1599:don't 1164:named 1007:Butts 914:WP:OR 602:named 361:by a 16:< 2652:Talk 2644:Done 2626:Talk 2597:from 2558:Talk 2518:Talk 2481:talk 2455:talk 2440:Talk 2416:here 2379:talk 2362:Talk 2354:Town 2314:Talk 2295:Talk 2279:talk 2264:talk 2241:talk 2205:talk 2184:talk 2169:Talk 2146:talk 2138:here 2121:Talk 2081:here 2045:talk 2029:talk 1997:talk 1989:here 1951:Talk 1943:here 1909:talk 1878:Talk 1870:here 1848:talk 1817:Talk 1799:talk 1779:Talk 1714:talk 1695:Talk 1661:talk 1652:know 1611:Talk 1594:that 1575:Talk 1559:Talk 1550:? -- 1508:talk 1358:talk 1316:and 1299:talk 1238:.-- 1195:talk 1176:talk 1154:talk 1136:talk 1113:role 1045:talk 997:talk 959:talk 922:talk 893:.-- 889:and 885:and 881:and 864:talk 833:talk 818:talk 804:talk 789:talk 767:talk 740:talk 725:talk 702:talk 682:talk 667:talk 659:here 622:talk 592:talk 552:talk 540:ACLU 485:and 473:talk 437:case 435:The 427:talk 373:talk 313:talk 217:ACLU 186:talk 172:talk 155:talk 147:this 95:talk 57:talk 49:talk 2606:", 2499:, @ 1682:or 1544:not 1372:-- 1233:not 1170:.-- 1039:.-- 754:IPD 460:how 444:-- 2669:: 2654:) 2628:) 2613:. 2560:) 2520:) 2483:) 2457:) 2442:) 2381:) 2364:) 2316:) 2297:) 2281:) 2266:) 2243:) 2207:) 2195:: 2186:) 2171:) 2148:) 2123:) 2091:, 2087:, 2047:) 2031:) 1999:) 1953:) 1911:) 1880:) 1850:) 1819:) 1801:) 1781:) 1716:) 1692:| 1663:) 1608:| 1586:) 1572:| 1556:| 1522:) 1514:-- 1463:) 1425:) 1360:) 1301:) 1197:) 1184:4) 1178:) 1156:) 1138:) 1080:4) 1073:3) 1066:2) 1055:1) 1047:) 1035:, 1031:, 1027:, 999:) 961:) 924:) 866:) 835:) 820:) 806:) 791:) 769:) 742:) 727:) 704:) 684:) 669:) 624:) 594:) 554:) 475:) 429:) 375:) 315:) 188:) 174:) 157:) 132:97 126:. 97:) 59:) 2650:( 2624:( 2556:( 2547:@ 2516:( 2495:@ 2479:( 2453:( 2438:( 2377:( 2360:( 2312:( 2293:( 2277:( 2262:( 2239:( 2203:( 2182:( 2167:( 2144:( 2119:( 2043:( 2027:( 1995:( 1983:@ 1949:( 1937:@ 1907:( 1876:( 1846:( 1815:( 1797:( 1777:( 1712:( 1659:( 1582:( 1518:( 1506:( 1459:( 1421:( 1356:( 1297:( 1211:. 1193:( 1174:( 1152:( 1134:( 1043:( 995:( 957:( 920:( 862:( 831:( 816:( 802:( 787:( 765:( 738:( 723:( 700:( 680:( 665:( 620:( 590:( 550:( 471:( 425:( 371:( 311:( 231:. 184:( 170:( 153:( 93:( 55:( 47:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index