Talk:Tom Bates

Subjects own words

Some facts are only supported by the subject's own words. No record of his military service is verifiable. Actual dates of deployment are fuzzy. If the only reference is the person's own biography, it needs to be stated as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.206.144 (talk) 04:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not the official policy of wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Added source to military service regardless.User:calbear22 (talk) 06:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The official Wikipedia policy is to clarify to the reader the information. When the subject is the sole source of information, the read is entitled to know that. It does not change the information, but it does provide clarity. No accusation is laid that the information is false. I'm merely stating that only he is the source of the information. Why would you wish to bury information in the footnote linked pages? Provide the reader the information when possible. Please read [[1]]. Please find a third party source. As I read the "rules" the sentence could be struck without a third-party verifiable source. Neither of us intend to do so. Letting people know that the source of the information is the subject is the correct thing to do. You think it belongs hidden in the footnote linked pages, and I believe it belongs in a few simple words. We could rewrite the sentence as a quotation from a recent news clip. I do not like that style. --70.237.206.144 (talk) 14:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

This dispute is about the source of the information regarding Bates' military service. The dispute is between calbear22 and 70.237.206.144.

This source [2] from which the information comes would be considered a reliable source as it is a local government source. It wouldn't matter for our purposes who wrote it - Bates or an assistant - as we would assume in the absence of any other evidence that the local government - in this case the City of Berkeley - would be responsible for ensuring that the facts are correct.

As the source would be considered reliable, and there is no evidence of dispute or conflict regarding the veracity of the material, it would be inappropriate to challenge the material within the article as that would put a POV slant on the material. Wording such as "according to Bates" can be read as an implication that the person is lying. Not everyone would read it that way, but some might, and that would be potentially damaging to Bates' reputation.

The phrase "according to" is used on Wiki, but generally where the information is in dispute. As there is no dispute here - the information is out there in the public domain, and has not been challenged - it would be inappropriate to use that phrase in this article to refer to the information on the City of Berkeley website. Any questions, please get in touch. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 16:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Response

The source is the same - Bates himself. I am not questioning whether he is being truthful or not. I'm just attributing the source for the reader. We can keep iterating on the words until we are both happy, but simply removing anyone else's edits is being a bit childish. Let's find the appropriate wording that makes the reader understand without digging through the footnotes. Lacking a true independent source, I feel the military service line ought to be shown as coming from Bates. The City of Berkeley website is controlled by Bates - his bio is his words. The SFC article is quoting him on his service. All the same source with none of them doing any fact checking or original research. That makes it a single source. When someone in the coffee house says they served, I believe them. No different from Bates saying he served. But if I were to relay that information to a third party, I would not claim it as a fact, but rather I would say the guy from the coffee house says he served. "Bates says..." or "In Bates' bio..." or "Bates' uncontested statement..." or whatever might be appropriate and neutral for making sure a reader understand this. --70.237.206.144 (talk) 05:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Follow up

Bates is a very public figure who has been in politics for a very long time. If he was not telling the truth about his military service, it would have come up by now. If we were to use your line of reasoning, many articles on wikipedia would need to be rewritten.User:calbear22 (talk) 07:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

---

"it would have come up by now." Sorry, that holds no logical ground. What you might be saying would mean every word ever spoken in the history of politics from X years ago has been researched to and determined its factual basis. Complete nonsense. Furthermore, EVERY article on Wikipedia needs to be rewritten. You do understand the idea of Wikipedia, right? Everyone keeps adding information to make a better article. There is no perfection that never needs editing. If you believe your article cannot be improved, you need to re-read the wiki instructions. I'm not claiming to have wordsmithed the sentence to perfection. I'm claiming my version provides the reader additional information. I do not understand your reluctance to add information. It seems you have an agenda here to keep the casual reader from knowing the source by burying it in the footnotes. A few words in the article achieves clarity for the reader. Let me make this perfectly clear - I am not questioning the factual content. I'm attempting to let the reader understand the source. Why is it necessary to NOT let the reader know in the article? While I did not read "according to" in a negative sense, I accepted some might. We should be working together to find the words that convey both his military record and let the reader know the source of it. --70.237.206.144 (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Every article that meets the Featured Article status would have to be written. Bill Clinton's article, Hilary Clinton's article, highly regarded articles with high editor traffic (like there would be 3 editors weighing in on our dispute in a few minutes) would be have to be rewritten. We need an outside source to settle this dispute.User:calbear22 (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The San Francisco Chronicle story is sufficient proof that Bates served in the Army as a Captain. There is no need to qualify the article's statement about his army service. Obviously, as a graduate of UC Berkeley, he would have been much more likely to have had a commission in the reserve instead of the regular army, so I think we can accept his statement official biography about that. Darkspots (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I did a Google search, and it appears nobody has found a scintilla of evidence that Mr. Bates did not serve in the Army. You don't need "Bates said." He served. It is obvious. I have spoken. (Small, furtive grin.) Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

And the language "Bates has said" has been inserted again. I reverted. Bates's service is independently verifiable. What he has claimed and the independent sources agree with each other, so there is no need to present this information like Bates is making an unsupported claim. Hypothetically, if a politician has been accused of a heinous crime, issues a denial, and then is universally supported in his denial by independent media, we don't report just the denial, we say that everyone agrees that he didn't do it. Darkspots (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I read over this discussion again, and on this reading I find the IP's contention that the Chronicle has only reported Bates's statement and has done no fact checking of its own to be ludicrous. The Chronicle story presented Bates's military service as a fact, not a claim. The Chronicle knows very well how to check on the records of a veteran: How to Check Records Of Military Service. This is a guide, published in the Chronicle, of how to submit FOIA requests for information on any veteran. Why would they have left this stone unturned? They are in the business of selling newspapers. The irony of Bates having lied about his Army commission, in the middle of the flap with the Marine Corps, would make a great story. Why would they not have had an intern or fact checker spend an hour filling out a FOIA request? In any event, you can submit a FOIA request on your own (and fax the Chronicle the letter if it turns out Bates is lying), or write a letter to the Chronicle and tell them you think Bates is lying. They'll check it if they haven't already. Until then, please respect the number of editors asking you to leave this sentence of the article alone. Darkspots (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Direct Quote Deleted

An edit by Calbear22 to the Tom Bates Wiki deleted a properly sourced quote from Mr. Bates and the entry was labeled as 'unconstructive'.

There is no clear indication why a factual quote from Mr. Bates with a referenced source regarding his political stance regarding the US Marine Recruiting station would not provide context to the issue.

The article as it stands now gives the false impression that Mr. Bates had a change of mind regarding the Marines. However, he still does not support their continued presence in the city. I can understand issues with style of composition but not erasing factual additions.

Here is the the original quote:

"I think it's unwanted," Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates said. "I think it stands (that) we didn't want them here and they came here. And (they are) unwelcome, you know we'd like them to leave voluntarily. So I don't think an apology is in order."1

Additionally, another source dated Feb 13, 2008, provides even more context on Mr. Bates position regarding the U.S. Marines Recruiting Station located in Berkeley.

In a brief interview after the council finished voting Wednesday, Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates said there was no reason for the council to apologize for its Jan. 29 vote.

"What would we apologize for?" he asked.

Referring to the Marines, Bates said, "They were uninvited and unwelcome."

During the meeting, Bates said, "The Marines have a right to be in Berkeley, but I don't like it. I think it's bad judgment and I wish they would leave and we can suggest that it would be good for them to move on."2

Sources:

1 Berkeley Mayor To Marines: 'Don't Expect An Apology'

2 Berkeley: No Apology For Marines Stance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.121.8 (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel your pain. Removing facts seems to the way this article is going. I can only suggest you keep adding them back. Editing and improving articles is the best means for achieving the facts. Even if someone keeps removing them, you can restore them. Good luck. --70.237.206.144 (talk) 04:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

As I noted on 71.62.121.8's talk page, I didn't delete that quote and I referred 71.62.121.8 to the user that did to ask him why.User:calbear22 (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion calbear22, however the person who removed the factual posting has whatever reason chosen not to respond to this thread. Hopefully, this is not how all California Democrat politician pages are handled. 71.62.113.98 (talk) 12:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Military service sourcing discussion continued

Without getting personal, it does seem to be the way pages you edit are handled. I am completely befuddled by your insistence to deny the attribution of one uncontested fact to the reader. I do not care the words if you feel the way I've edited show bias. I do not think they do, but find the words you approve that inform the reader who the source of the information is from. Then we can end this silliness. --70.237.216.165 (talk) 13:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The referenced material is the same ultimate source. The reader deserves to know this without going on a fact finding mission. If you think the phrasing is bias, find better words! Just deleting the words is unproductive, and it shows your own bias in the matter. I've been open to finding simple, better words. Let's not just trash other people's words because we are in love with our own. Let's find the means to convey the idea without prejudice. --70.237.216.165 (talk) 00:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This matter has reached Wikipedia:Consensus based on widely accepted interpretation of Wikipedia rules and the voices of established editors with long edit histories. Failure to comply with consensus and wikipedia rules might lead to this page becoming semi-protected, preventing non-experienced users and those without registered user names from editing this page. IP users make many strong contributions to wikipedia and it would be a shame to have them blocked from editing this page. Please respect the rules.User:calbear22 (talk) 05:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The San Francisco Chronicle, one of the nation's largest newspapers, states Bates was a Captain without dispute or attributing the fact to Bates. The article doesn't say Bates said he served in the army; the article says he did. The Berkeley City Biography is also a credible third party source. It is provided by the City of Berkeley. Bates is not the City of Berkeley. "Bates said" is unnecessarily wordy and causes a Wikipedia:NPOV problem. "Bates said" or any other wording that claims Bates is the source of the fact of his military service implies that he might have not served in the military. Without a source, such an implication is libel. Bates claiming his military service, from the sources we have, is in fact erroneous. Not one of our sources states "Bate said" he served in the military. Such an inventive claim qualifies as Wikipedia:Original Research which is also banned as one of the core pillars of Wikipedia. Your last comments directed at me were also not in the spirit of Wikipedia:Civil because they do not assume Wikipedia:good faith.User:calbear22 (talk) 09:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I missed the discussion jumping down to here. Same topic, why the move? Anyway, I figured there was a chance that you'd missed my edit above, in which I basically argued that the Chronicle is a responsible newspaper and that we assume that responsible newspapers do their jobs unless we have specific evidence contradicting them. Likewise for the City of Berkeley--governments in America are assumed to be responsible sources of information for a free society, etc. To pursue this further, bring in other sources that specifically back you up--right now the reliable sources that are available simply don't support your claim that this a solely a self-published statement by Bates. Otherwise, Calbear22 is right--this ends up with some kind of protection to keep you from editing the article at all, which would be unfortunate. Darkspots (talk) 12:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No mention of his campaign for mayor?

I'm surprised, given the various accusations that were leveled at him, that there is no mention of them in this article. Is there a reason for this, or has someone removed the fact that he walked off with every copy of a free newspaper that was running an article criticizing him during the election? (69.232.239.205 (talk) 06:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC))

"Shortly after his successful 2002 campaign for mayor, he admitted to throwing away about one thousand copies of The Daily Californian on the day before the election after the student-run campus newspaper endorsed his opponent, then-Mayor Shirley Dean. He was charged with an infraction and was fined $100. During his term, Mayor Bates worked with the City Council to pass a law outlawing the stealing of free newspapers. Additionally, he took the opportunity to speak to Berkeley public school students about the consequences of his actions.[5]" Seems it's covered. --Falcorian ^(talk) 11:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Measure G

The article mentions that Bates features in Power Trip: Theatrically Berkeley, which according to its article is about "Berkeley, California's attempt to green the city—partly by passing Measure G in Berkeley in 2007." But there's no mention in the "Mayor" section of his involvement in greening the city or Measure G. If it's worthy of a movie, surely it's worthy of inclusion in the article. 86.44.199.106 (talk) 06:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)