Talk:Barry W. Lynn/Archive 1

Archive 1

High school

Any idea where he went to high school? PAWiki 01:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Liberty High School, graduated in 1966. 04:40, 3 October 2006 Nyutko 04:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. How about college? I see no mention of that. Just his law school PAWiki

I changed "draft resister" to "draft dodger" because that is the page that Wikipedia points to.

Georgetown University Law School

What's his graduation year from Georgetown University Law School

Family

I hear that Barry Lynn is married to a bioethicist. What's the bioethicist's name? Page on the bioethicist?

Source information

Where is the reference information on O'Reilly's recommendation of Lynn's book? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.120.42.58 (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Birthplace

The article starts with (born in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania) and then under Biography says he was born somewhere else and moved to Bethlehem at an early age. Which is it? 87.151.5.28 (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Views on Child Pornography

See http://hoohila.stanford.edu/firingline/programList.php Scroll down to FLS166, open the PDF and see PDF page 24 150.108.157.180 (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Why was this taken out? The transcript, with the exact page number, says he believed that the Constitution protects the production and dissemination of child pornography. The addition also reported Lynn's personal condemnation of it as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnScott2 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC) I forgot to sign my earlier comment. The ACLU and other civil libertarians believe that "hate speech" is protected by the Constitution. Yet very few people would agree that those who hold such a position are racist or bigoted themselves. The fact that Lynn and the ACLU believe the Constitution also protects child pornography does not mean that they endorse it. In fact, the contribution includes Lynn's own personal condemnation of child pornography. The Firing Line transcript, available at the link and viewable in PDF, does confirm what he said. JohnScott2 (talk) 04:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This is one incident, from almost 20 years ago, yet as presented in the article it could easily be taken to represent his present-day perspective. Unless you can find contemporary references to add, or related matters that suggest this was controversial, there is no merit to including this. Either way, as a BLP, we have to err on the side of caution. Find consensus here first, before simply reverting it back in. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Incident? In the debate, he explained what his position was. I added a sentence pointing out it's unclear whether he still holds it today. But it's indisputable that he did make the statement believing that the Constitution protects child pornography.JohnScott2 (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Is the source credible? Yes, it's a printed transcript of a debate on a PBS show. Is the source verifiable as per Wikipedia guidelines? Yes. Anyone can visit the link, scroll down to the name of the program and number, and open the PDF file of the transcript and go to the page cited. Lynn's words are there. And they are presented in the context in the entry. We're not saying he's a fan of child pornography but believes that the Constitution protects it. As to the claim that the source is nearly 20 years old (17 actually), it's irrelavant. Lynn's career dates back to the 1970s. So why would sources from back then, the 1980s, or 1990s be irrelevant? You can see old articles from Time Magazine, the New York Times, and other publications on the Internet. If these sources have relevant information about subjects on Wikipedia, they are fair to cite and quote. Does Lynn still hold this controversial view, or has he changed it? We don't know. There's no source indicating it. That's why we can a include sentence informing the reader that it's not known (as of yet) if he STILL holds that opinion. But he did make the original statement. JohnScott2 (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The section is entitled "Views on Child Pornography", which suggests it covers his current views. This is certainly a controversial topic, yet our only source is nearly 20 years old. This is not acceptable, as we have no indication whether or not his opinion has changed, if he would have said the same things today, and so on. (Simply putting the "current views aren't known" sentence is not sufficient.) This needs wider discussion; we are also much more cautious with BLP articles than with other articles. As such, the material has been removed until we reach some form of consensus; please refrain from restoring it. I'll try to locate some suitable places to post requests for additional comments. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You have been repeatedly asked to not restore the potentially controversial material until we can sort this out. You have one source which, while reliable, is almost twenty years old. You have been asked to allow this matter to be resolved, and you have ignored that. I have not blocked you yet, under the presumption that you are editing in good faith. However, as I mentioned, BLP articles are expected to meet a higher standard, and as such I have no choice but to protect the article from editing for a few days until this can be resolved. Please participate in the process per Wikipedia's conventions, rather than merely repeatedly reverting in your preferred text. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop saying "nearly 20 years old." It's 17 years old. Be precise. Yesterday, you said 21 years. Lynn has been a public figure since the 1970s. He was involved in the anti-draft movement, then worked for the ACLU in the 1980s, and then Americans United since the early 1990s. Reliable sources from different decades are perfectly acceptable as long as they can be verified. The transcript contains his own words on the subject, and the section included everything he said in context. Unless someone can show that it was the wrong Barry Lynn or the transcript is deficient, then I fail to see why it should not be included. I am perfectly willing to change the heading to indicate that he expressed this opinion in 1993.JohnScott2 (talk) 06:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Last time I checked, 17 was almost twenty, and it certainly rounds that way... not sure why you think I said "21", though, as I don't see it anywhere on this page. Anyway, the page was protected over BLP concerns as you were repeatedly restoring the controversial material without resolution here. I have also placed a request for additional input from editors who specialize in BLP articles. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

For anyone who wants to participate, the transcript can be found here in PDF, http://hoohila.stanford.edu/firingline/programView.php?programID=1375 Scroll to the bottom of the page. The exchange is on PDF page 24. Judge for yourselves.69.126.242.217 (talk) 06:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

(OD) This certainly seems undue, it's 17 years old. A current source would certainly help, although the last sentence about not knowing his current views certainly doesn't belong. Dayewalker (talk) 07:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

These two edits created a section titled "Legal Opinion on Child Pornography". I believe that text does not belong on Wikipedia because it is original research since it is just some quotes selected by an editor to convey an impression about the subject. If the matter is significant, there will be secondary sources dealing with it. Furthermore, a statement made in a live debate in 1993 does not warrant attention in an encyclopedic article unless there is substantial follow-up, as verified by secondary sources. Johnuniq (talk) 07:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

When he was employed by the ACLU, Lynn worked on First Amendment issues, and how they related to censorship and pornography. See these references in Google Books Though conservative, this book cites Lynn's testimony to Congress in the mid-1980s that the constitution also protecs child pornography. The book's source is the congressional record. It seems it cited his 1986 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee's subcommitte on juvenile justice. His report on the Meese Commission report on pornography see the first book, his, on the list, affirms the ACLU's view (during the mid-1980s) that the distribution of child pornography is protected by the Constiution. None of you dispute the veracity of the Firing Line transcript. You all seem to think that it's unfair to include it in his entry.JohnScott2 (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The fundamental point is that Wikipedia is not a blog where we add snippets with the intention of casting an unfavorable light on a person. I have no idea what are Lynn's views on the Constitution, free speech, or child pornography, however I am pretty sure that quoting something said during from a live debate in 1993 (with no further analysis by a secondary source) will not help clarify what Lynn's views are now, nor even what his considered views were in 1993. On a website, you might write (as you did in these two edits): "Whether Lynn still belies [believes?] today that the Constitution protects child pornography is unknown." However, text like that is in the "it is not known if [prominent person] has stopped beating his wife" school of blog writing and is totally unsuitable here. The criterion for including information in a biography is not fairness; instead, the issues explained at WP:BLP apply. Yes, it is verifiable that certain comments were made, however picking isolated comments that might portray a person favorably or unfavorably is original research. We would need a reliable source with an analysis of the issues before quoting an incident, particularly one from 1993. The links you gave seem to be all related to that one incident, and would only be suitable in an article on the incident. Johnuniq (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Didn't realize this was also here, so I'll make my comments on this page (rather than my talk). All of these sources seem to be dealing with comments made long ago, and seem to be here for the point of making a statement on the subject's beliefs. Are there any current references mentioning this? Dayewalker (talk) 03:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

His entry covers his work for the ACLU (which was in the 1980s). So we can't mention his work on pornography/censorship and his testimony expressed to Congress that the Constitution protects the distribution of child pornography, his own written report on the Meese Commission, and his 1993 comments? Wouldn't current secondary sources also quote his testimony, his report, and his comments at the 1993 debate? Claiming that he just made the statement once in a debate is not the case. The book referenced above, the ACLU vs. America, (published in 2005), also states he that said that the Constitution protects child pornography. Although certainly conservative, the book is a recent source.JohnScott2 (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

As you well know, mentioning "child pornography" in a biography of a living person is a big red flag with enormous cultural associations. The only conceivable effect of including the text you mentioned would be to attack the person, and we just do not do that here. If you can find a source with an analysis of the situation, some suitable text might be included. The analysis would have to examine the Constitution and legal interpretations by experts, and consider which groups (like the ACLU) have supported the "individual rights and liberties are guaranteed" view and why, and which groups have opposed and why, as well as the implications. To pick one comment by one person from a complex minefield is not satisfactory.

To illustrate the "attack" I mentioned, consider the title of this talk section: "Views on Child Pornography". That title is a misrepresentation because the subject clearly stated his opposition to child pornography – his views on that are the same as everyone here. The issue actually concerns the subject's views on constitutional rights which is rather more complex. Johnuniq (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Bill Donohue

This article has a section titled "Controversial Eulogy for AU's Founder", but the only evidence of any controversy is a press release from Bill Donohue. This doesn't sound right.

Donohue makes it his business to have a strong opinion on anything remotely connected to Catholicism, and to publish it through his organization, the Catholic League. If Donohue's press release led to public discussion then we can cite that discussion subject to due weight, but a press release showing that Bill Donohue was angered is not evidence that there was a controversy worth mentioning, let alone one worthy of an entire section in this article. I will remove that section pending proper sourcing to a controversy. Tasty monster (=TS ) 01:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)