Talk:Peter Yarrow

External Link to a page at The Awareness Center's website

I deleted this link but it's been re-inserted. The Awareness Center is controversial and, arguably, its website is slanted. It also reproduces scads of copyrighted material from newspapers. Not just lines, but whole stories. That's what it does on its Yarrow page. Please see WP:ELNEVER. I'm looking for a consensus to redelete the external link. Or a reality check telling me I'm wrong. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like you are probably correct. It does copy entire stories from various newspapers, in what I would think would be a manner violating copyright. Aleta ^Sing 19:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I also think that that link is inappropriate because it is mostly irrelevant. I have already contacted the person who added it last and dod not find his explanation compelling. Albion moonlight (talk) 01:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It should be ommitted if for no other reason than our policy against linking to copyvios. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems appropriate and relevant, but it's all copyvios so we shouldn't link to it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Quotes

As Wikiquote doesn't have quotes for any of the PP&M members, and I don't have sources suitable for Wikiquote's current standards for citations, I think it would be appropriate to have a link to an outside page. However, as the best page I know of happens to be on my own quotation site, I'm not about to put the link in myself. (I've gotten in trouble for that before!) If other agree, I would encourage someone to add the following link to the External Links section:

• Peter Yarrow quotes on QOTD.org

Vanhorn (talk) 11:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC) It's fine the way it is. Leave the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.15.100 (talk) 07:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Madison protests

Today, Peter performed and spoke at a rally against Scott Walker's budget repair bill to a crowd of over 100k people. He drew connections to his time at the rallies when the I Have A Dream speech was made. This MAY be something of interest for his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkdeadite (talk • contribs) 22:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I've removed a derogatory cat from this BLP

This was a the topic of protracted mediation and eventually an case. Please review archives. If an editor wants to reinsert the cat, please engage in an effort to generate a new consensus here, if possible. The language on this topic was tortuously negotiated for many months. It is the current consensus. Please do not re-insert without discussion. David in DC (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The mediation has been blanked so I can not review the results. He was convicted of a felony, that is factual, well sourced, and notable. Upon conviction of a felony his freedoms were taken away, and some will never be returned(ie. the right to vote.) Yes it is negative but that doesn't mean it violates BLP. So it appears the only valid discussion of whether the category should be included is weight. I don't know you but if I was convicted of a felony that would be a pretty big freaking deal in my life. Also I don't know of another wikipedia article that's subject is a person convicted of a felony that doesn't have have a category indicating such. If you don't like that category exists because you feel it is derogatory then submit it for deletion, but until the category is deleted it is an applicable and a qualified category.Racingstripes (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The clemency was granted quite specifically so that he COULD vote again. I'll add cite for that in a second. The weight factor, in regard to this article, was the crux of the issue and, once the most strident advocate for inclusion was banned as a mischief-making multiple identity sock puppet, editors of goodwill reached a consunsus. "I don't know of another ..." is a variation on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's not very persuasive and it doesn't even establish that others don't exist, just that a single editor doesn't know of them.

As for the category, please review the talk page for American Criminals. It, too, was a part of this dispute. When the editor who must adamantly argued the line you're taking was banned for outing another editor, that controversy died down as well. OK, I'm off to find the cite for Carter granting clemency so that Yarrow could vote again.

Bottom line, please don't re-edit the article to add the cat without establishing a new consensus. While I look for the clemency to vote cite, and examples of others with felony convictions mentioned but not categorized, maybe you could initiate an RfC? David in DC (talk)

Milwaukee Journal article about Carter's action. Specifically cites restoration of civil and voting rights. David in DC (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Listing of articles of people convicted of felonies where it's noted in their article, but not in cats. To do so is unfair, undue weight: Susan B. Anthony, Daniel Berrigan, David Crosby, David Dellinger, Mohandas Ghandi, Hollywood Henderson, Michael Irvin, Mother Jones, Jomo Kenyatta, Dexter Manley, Nick Nolte, Billy Preston, Bayard Rustin, Mitch Snyder, Michael Vick, Oscar Wilde. David in DC (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not have the time to argue about this and I feel that this is an example of Wikipedia:CRYBLP. It is apparent to me that you care way more that this information is omitted from this article than I care about the contents of this article. I dislike WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS it prevents uniformity, I am a big fan of getting the article right which is why I like WP:IGNORE. For now I yield my time in this manner until it is brought up again and I am adding this to my watch list.Racingstripes (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

A very respectful BLP that covers Yarrows life

I found the following article online. Perhaps some of its content could be used to expand and or improve this article. http://jewishsurvivors.blogspot.ca/2006/04/convicted-sex-offender-peter-yarrow.html. This is of course only a suggestion and yes I know about the history of this article. Michaelgossett (talk) 03:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

This is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a reliable source.

Whitewashing of Sex Abuse case in both article and talk pages

I think there is a concerted effort to try and whitewash Peter Yarrow's pedophilia incident. In 1970 Yarrow was convicted and imprisoned for taking improper liberties with a very young female. He has admitted to it "In that time, it was common practice, unfortunately –– the whole groupie thing." Given the age of the individual some reports saying 11, others 14, it is unlikely that the girl was a groupie at all.

Its interesting to see any attempts to bring these facts to light and even the talk pages for it are suppressed.

mickrussom (talk) 06:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

This is hardly a whitewash, nor is there any suppression.

In 1970, Yarrow was convicted of, and served three months in prison for, taking "improper liberties" with a 14-year-old girl who went with her 17-year-old sister to Yarrow's hotel room seeking an autograph.[22][23][24][25] He has since apologized for the incident: "It was an era of real indiscretion and mistakes by categorically male performers. I was one of them. I got nailed. I was wrong. I'm sorry for it."[22]

In 1981 Jimmy Carter granted Yarrow a presidential pardon for the crime.[22][23][24][26] Nonetheless, it has occasionally become a campaign issue for politicians he supports.[24][27][28] In 2004, Texas Democrat Rep. Martin Frost canceled a fund-raising appearance with the singer after his opponent ran a radio advertisement about Yarrow's offense;[24] in 2013 Republican politicians called on Democrat Martha Robertson to cancel a scheduled fundraiser with Yarrow.[27][29]

It tells the story, it's well-sourced, and it complies with both WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT. It is the result of an ArbCom case and reflects the local consensus. Please make no changes without first establishing a new consensus here. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with David that there is no attempt to whitewash or suppress anything. I included the blog . http://jewishsurvivors.blogspot.ca/2006/04/convicted-sex-offender-peter-yarrow.html for the purpose of showing that there is a respectful way to perhaps expand this article without violating WP:BLP amd or WP:WEIGHT. I know that blogs are not reliable sources but everything that Blog had to say can be sourced elsewhere. Wiki is not a place to attack celebrities for there wrong doing. BLPs are supposed to be both respectful and tactful. Michaelgossett (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I have previously stated it should be more prominent. There have been attempts to completely erase it from the article. His felony conviction deserves a section and the appropriate category, instead of being buried in the article.Racingstripes (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Personally I would not object to erasing it from this article altogether, not as a whitewash but as a courtesy to Peter Yarrow. Years ago Jerry Lee Lewis was accused of Killing at least one if not two of his ex-wives in Rolling Stone Magazine: The editors an that Bio brushed it off as if it did not happen. That definitely seems like an attempt to protect Mr Lewis. Michaelgossett (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

"Courtesy to Peter Yarrow" should be factor in decisions like this only as a corrolary to WP:BLP. The subject committed a crime, was convicted and apologized for it. The incident has received coverage in reliable, secondary sources. A due amount of well-cited coverage is therefore warranted in the article. Jerry Lee Lewis is a poor comparison if there was no conviction, which is why we base this sort of decisions on policy rather than comparison to other articles. VQuakr (talk) 00:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy? This isn't a place for the fans of Peter Yarrow to ensure that he is portrayed in their liking.Racingstripes (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

There was an arrest, conviction, jail time, apology and extension of presidential clemency. All is noted, and sourced, as is the fact that the topic has sometimes come up when Yarrow has lent political support to a candidate for office. The current formulation complies with WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT. At least that's the consensus reached in a very detailed mediation and ArbCom case, a consensus that's stood the test of time. I do not see a consensus emerging here for inserting additional derogatory information about this living person into this biography, nor for making his conviction and clemency more central in the biographical prose.

It is absolutely the case that, were such a new consensus established, WP:BLP would demand that the clemency be afforded equal prominence with the conviction and jail time. David in DC (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes I am a fan of Yarrows and as I said, I would not object to erasing the negative stuff about him. I am also a fan of Jerry Lee Lewis but he was accused of murder by Rolling Stone Magazine. I made the comparison hoping that the editors who want to hang Yarrow might go to an article that is truly controlled by fans. Michaelgossett (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

He hasn't quite lived the matter down. http://nypost.com/2014/04/22/la-guardia-hs-to-honor-convicted-sex-offender-folk-singer/ Nicmart (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Look, Yarrow has apologized for the incident, but he cannot change the past and correct that wrong - nobody can. He has acknowledged that what he did was wrong, but whilst it doesn't wipe out or negate what happened, it's important that he has apologized and he hasn't had sex with any underage girls or groupies ever since that incident. He is not Gary Glitter or Rolf Harris, both of whom were preying on young girl fans for years, and he did get pardoned by President Carter. 60.240.8.249 (talk) 10:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Pardon

I'm looking for clarification on the conviction and pardon. Was he convicted of federal crime? From what I understand the president can only pardon for federal crimes.Racingstripes (talk) 01:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

@Racingstripes: it is probably related to the fact that the crime was committed in Washington, DC. VQuakr (talk) 08:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Yup, that's correct. The hotel where it happened was on federal land so he was prosecuted in Federal District Court rather than in the local D.C. courts. It's in one of the cited articles. I'll try to find which one. David in DC (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Why is Operation Respect first paragraph worthy, but his sex offence and pardon not?

Operation Respect is something Yarrow has spent time on, but doesn't look especially notable. There is reference to an Arbcom decision in the talk page, but I can't find it. Newystats (talk) 01:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs there, either. It's appropriately in the article, but it's too peripheral to be in the lede.

I was a party in the arbcom case, but it was so long ago, I'll have to hunt in my contributions to see when. I'm only on my handheld right now, but I'll look for it in the next day or so. David in DC (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)