Talk:Peter Yarrow/Archive 1

Male or female fan?

It should be cleared up whether it was a male or female fan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.152.248.191 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Viet Nam

I don't know if this will get to Peter who claims to be a liberal and anti war and a Democrat. Please note Peter, the Viet Nam was was started by a Dem president, John F. Kennedy and expanded by Dem president LB Johnson. President Nixon brought the war to an end and also started talks with China which brought China out of war status to now a business trading partner with the U.S. Also credit is due to Henry Kissinger, of Jewish heritage. Please note that Viet Nam never bombed the U.S. as the radical Islamics have done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.199.60.15 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

As to the above comment about the inherent contradiction the poster saw between Peter Yarrow's Democratic and liberal allegiances and his opposition to the Vietnam war:

It may, perhaps, not have occurred to the poster that many liberals, along with radicals and leftists, opposed the Vietnam War, even though it was escalated by Democratic presidents, because they saw it as a threat to the continuation of liberal social programs, liberal and progressive values, and the physical survival of people of color and working-class whites, groups liberals have traditionally felt obligated to defend. Ken Burch . + . 10:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Conviction/pardon

Any reason why this was removed? -Will Beback · † · 07:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sex Case

This needs to be "truthified". He was convicted for sex with a 14 year old girl not "advances". Furthermore, if the conviction was on state charges the President had no power to pardon him. Not worth my time to do the research but someone should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John celona (talk • contribs) 12:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

All the facts are pretty much as stated in the article. His actions stopped short of intercourse and the actual charges were "immoral and improper liberties" as stated. And the constitution gives the president full power to pardon anyone convicted of just about any crime. Carter pardoned Yarrow in 1981. There are plenty of references that back up these facts. Gr8white 01:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

One more time

An editor deleted this material:

• In 1970, Yarrow was convicted of taking "improper liberties" with a 14-year old girl and later served three months in prison. He was pardoned by President Jimmy Carter in 1981.(ref)"Jet fighter, 'Jet Plane' singer forged a bond", lex Roth, San Diego Union-Tribune, March 3, 2006(/re)(ref)"Howard Dean or anybody but?" by Tim Grieve, Salon, Jan 28, 2005 .It was a reference to Peter Yarrow of Peter, Paul & Mary, who pled guilty in 1970 to taking "immoral and indecent liberties" with a 14-year-old fan and was pardoned for the crime by Jimmy Carter in 1981.(/ref)

With the edit summary:

• salon.com is not a reliable source AND undue weight (as discussed in noticeboard) [1]

There are numerous sources available, but Salon is considered reliable. Thre's no agreement on the BLP/N, but everyone on that noticeboard except one person seems to think the material belongs. I note that the editor who's removed this repeatedly has made no effort to add material to this or any other article, and has only deleted material or complained. That isn't constructive. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I am the editor who made the cuts in the interest of BLP policy. Another editor has repeatedly sought to include a poorly sourced negative incident, despite requests from admins NOT to include poorly sourced material. My goal is to contribute in a variety of ways, and I will be happy to expand this article in time; but for now, I am trying to contribute by preventing BLP violations. According to BLP policy, any poorly sourced negative item needs to be IMMEDIATELY removed. The other editor seems to be less concerned about the fairness to the subject in terms of having a fully balanced article w/o a one-time negative incident sticking out. I am ok with seeing the controversial material back AFTER the article is expanded to the point where there is not undue weight. Sorry, Will Beback, but one token sentence doesn't do the trick. Let's really expand this article properly, and then perhaps add the negative content that you are determined to see in the bio.. --Jkp212 (talk) 07:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The material is well-sourced, but I'm willing to find another dozen sources. What are the names of the admins who request that this material should be removed? I haven't seen any such comments. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[2] <-- another source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This dispute is absurd. Jkp212, you have claimed a WP:BLP violation at WP:BLPN, where not a single editor agreed with you. You have claimed a WP:WEIGHT violation, in response to which Will Beback has shortened the mention of the incident. You then stated that any mention of the incident in an article of this length would be giving it undue weight, which is insupportable (and, by coincidence, not supported by any other editors who have weighed in). Your point is well-taken, but consensus is very clearly against you. By all means expand the article, but there is no requirement that this incident be left out until you do. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

And now you've reverted my edit, claiming that this matter is "going to arb". Could you explain that remark? As for the consensus that you claim doesn't exist, since you brought this to WP:BLPN, three hitherto uninvolved editors - myself, User:Aleta, and User:Jmabel - have weighed in on the subject, each favouring the material's continued inclusion. That looks an awful lot like consensus to me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The BLP concerns that I have for the article will be discussed further in a dispute resolution forum. User User:Jmabel did not favor the material's inclusion. He/she was trying to emphasize that IF if is to be included, it must be properly sourced which, he/she pointed out ,it was NOT. Other users have favored additional information, which I agree with.. User Will Beback has an edit history which seems curiously POV, in terms of wanting to have people with sexual offenses "OUTED", so to speak. That seems to be his goal, rather than the betterment of the article. Regardless, I believe (and wiki policy states) that when in doubt, better to do no harm to the living subject.. --Jkp212 (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Jmabel wrote:

• I rarely participate in these discussions, but the claim that any mention at all constitutes undue weight strikes me as sophistry. [3]

You summarize that as:

• User User:Jmabel did not favor the material's inclusion. He/she was trying to emphasize that IF if is to be included, it must be properly sourced which, he/she pointed out ,it was NOT.

Are we looking at the same statement? I don't see how you can make that summary from his assertion. I haven't seen a single editor favor removing properly-sourced information solely because of weight concerns. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant DOC, who said: "Some of the material removed (not all) was entirely unsourced. It certainly must not be replaced unless it is." --Jkp212 (talk) 04:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, but even then his concern is solely about sourcing, not weight. If I understand you corrently you believe that no matter whow well sourced the material is it should still be omitted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting that those pushing inclusion don't seem to have cared whether or not the incident was properly sourced. And NO, for the 50th time, I do not believe the material needs to be omitted, without exception. I believe that a brief mention can be included AFTER the article is considerably longer an undue weight is no longer as much of a concern. --Jkp212 (talk) 05:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no question that the incident happened, and dozens of sources are available. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It just seems unfortunate that with a negative incident such as this, it remained poorly sourced for so long, and those promoting inclusion didn't seem to care about the quality of the sources. --Jkp212 (talk) 05:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Some of the material about the trespassing incident and the radio show was unsourced or poorly sourced, and that stuff is no great loss. The guitar incident is another odd item that seems trivial. There was no problem with the sourcing of the "improper liberties" incident. The original source that you deleted was this: "Case of Peter Yarrow", a page of clippings on the The Awareness Center. While the TAC apparently has a controversial director, the clippings themselves are from reliable sources and appear to be accurately copied. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the conviction, the pardon itself is noteworthy. It has been included in a list of the 26 most notable presidential pardons in U.S. history from Washignton through G.H.W. Bush.[4] And it's included amoing the even fewer examples in this article: [5]. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I appear to have been (probably in good faith) misunderstood by one of the participants above. Yes, I believe this belongs in the article. - Jmabel | Talk 20:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Conviction and Clemency

Can the subject's conviction 37 years ago of taking "improper liberties" with a 14-year old girl, and his presidential pardon 10 years later, be mentioned briefly in the bio or does any mention of the matter violate the WP:NPOV provision about undue weight? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This incident is worthy of mention no matter how short the bio is. The sentence should be included, but the incident shouldn't be dwelled upon. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It is important to note that this was a one-time incident for the subject with a groupie fan, and he did serve 3 months in prison; however, the pardon was one of hundreds that happen so that the individual would not be labeled a "sex convict." Mr. Yarrow has had a long and distinguished career, has done a lot of charity work, and has never had anything like this one incident occur again since the 37 years ago that it happened. There is a POV editor (whose previous edits show a pattern of trying to "out" those accused of what he perceives as sexual offenses) who seems to be promoting an attack blog which "outs" jewish people who have had these types of accusations (The Awareness Center).. Here is a recent attack piece creation of that editor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Lanner -- and sure enough, the link there is to the awareness center, the attack blog he is promoting. He is trying to include the material, and is not concerned with the betterment of the article, only that the one negative incident be included. I have no problem with a brief mention of the incident, but I believe that the article should be comprehensive enough for there not to be undue weight. Think of the merit of the argument above: "the incident is worthy of mention no matter how short the bio is. " That means that a living person who had one negative incident happen 37 years could have a BIO of his life where this one negative incident takes absolute precedence.. That is ridiculous, and clearly violates WIKI policy regarding BLP. What we need here is a thoughtful complete BIO of the subject, and if it is long enough where a brief mention of the negative incident doesn't have undue weight, then fine, mention it then. But only **AFTER** there is enough content to where it does not stick out. --Jkp212 (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I share User:Jkp212's concerns that biographies not become or drift into modern day "crusades" against subjects and I oppose User:Will Beback if he uses unrestrained attack methodology only. Noone must open up old wounds, rub salt into them and leave the subjects crippled. I fully agree with User:Sarcasticidealist that "This incident is worthy of mention no matter how short the bio is. The sentence should be included, but the incident shouldn't be dwelled upon." Amen! Now if that were the attitude of all editors there would not be pointless attack articles against anyone. Sure, celebrities, and people who function like them such as certain preachers, rabbis, recruiters, motivators, are easy targets because they are vulnerable to this, falling into these situations, which is an occupational hazard they face: All the adoration may go to their head, and indeed groupies follow them around and one thing leads to another and they do the wrong thing. The Bible talks about such things, the seduction of a vulnerable maiden and the consequences. So these things are part of the human equation, but they should not be blown out of proportion either, and certainly not used as the excuse as a "Jihad" to attack personalities. People are entitled to forgiveness. Note: Wikipedia is not a court of law, nor is it a sex offender registry and WP:LAWYERing should not be used to "justify" tarring and feathering people beyond what they have already had to face and endure. Peter Yarrow is not the Marquis de Sade, Wikipedia is not the supreme court and editors must not be executioners with a guillotine chopping heads off. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 12:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand the concerns expressed by both sides of the dispute; I do not think we cannot not mention this incident, but if we do, it cannot be more than a very, very short sentence in this very short article about this man. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your input.. When you say " I do not think we cannot not mention this incident" does that mean you think it's ok for the article to leave out the incident? I'm just a bit confused by the double negatives.. Thank you in advance for your clarification. --Jkp212 (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What I meant is that we have to mention it, but it should take more that a very, very short sentence; after all it is an incident that happen a long time ago, and not central to the notability of this person. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the most recent proposed version, which is cut down as a compromise, is:

• In 1970, Yarrow was convicted of taking "improper liberties" with a 14-year old girl and later served three months in prison. He was pardoned by President Jimmy Carter in 1981.

That's a short sentence on the original incident, and an even shorter sentence for the subsequent pardon, which is also notable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If we do mention it, I agree that it should be one short sentence, and even try to include Mr. Yarrow's position on the issue. Something like: "In 1970, Yarrow was convicted of taking "improper liberties" with an underage female fan that Yarrow said was a groupie." I believe that sentence is more than long enough, and it is not necessary to go into more detail. --Jkp212 (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there any question that the girl was a groupie? Could we just say "...improper liberties with a 14 year old groupie"? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds better: "In 1970, Yarrow was convicted of taking "improper liberties" with an underage groupie." --Jkp212 (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The judge in the case is reported to have reduced the incarcerated portion of the sentence to just three months because he agreed that the girl was a groupie seeking a sexual encounter. We also need to mention the pardon, which is independently notable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If we want to include the subject's position, we can restore the sentence that was there before:

The singer has acknowledged the incident as "the most terrible mistake I have ever made."

However that makes it long again. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that we need to mention the pardon. Quite frankly, it's not relevant or important; the pardon had nothing to do with Yarrow's short stint in custody. The pardon only served to clear his record... Many, many people are pardoned. I agree with the others that if the incident is mentioned it should be in one very very short sentence. --Jkp212 (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

See the above section. The Yarrow pardon is considered one of the most notable pardons in history by at least two separate sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Those sources are FAR from reliable sources -- they are blogs with personal opinions.. The incident being mentioned is more than enough. I agree with the others that say if it is mentioned, it should be a very very short sentence, like this:

• "In 1970, Yarrow was convicted of taking "improper liberties" with an underage groupie."

--Jkp212 (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Neither of those appears to be blogs. The pardon is often mentioned in reporting on Yarrow. To mention the conviction without mentioning the pardon puts the matter in a worse light than if we include the final disposition. We can still keep the material quite short. The pardon is much more notable than the fact the victim was a groupie, which is rarely reported. Better text would be:

• "In 1970, Yarrow was convicted of taking "improper liberties" with an underage groupie, and received a presidential pardon in 1981."

That's still very short but give s the whole story. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that mentioning the pardon puts in a better light. What is does is make it seem like a huge deal, which it's not. Let's keep it as a short sentence, as the others have suggested --Jkp212 (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Not having read the article (I found the discussion via a watchlisted user talk page) but going only on the discussion here, I think it is important to include the pardon, since it indicates that the issue got closure. If the facts are that he got pardoned, then state it. I would think that Presidential pardons are scarce enough to be worth mentioning in a recipient's article. —C.Fred (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Having now read the article, my first reaction is, why is an article about a person of his stature so short? I would have expected a much longer article about him. I still think the incident should be included in the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of verifiable facts, a conviction of that nature is an important conviction and an unusual one for a musician (I mean, if it were a drugs charge against a musician, that's not notable :) ). Accordingly, I favor leaving the conviction and pardon in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 23:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone asked on my talk page for me to comment. I think it is worth a brief mention. I am not sure "groupie" is relevant. I would probably say something like "In 1970, Yarrow was convicted of taking 'improper liberties' with an underage girl. He served three months of a three-year sentence [that's correct isn't it?], and received a presidential pardon in 1981." And, yes, fleshing out the article would be welcome. - Jmabel | Talk 06:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That sounds very sensible. I endorse that approach.--Doc^g 09:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

As do I (although I'm certainly open to minor changes here and there). Since there's a clear consensus in favour of including the information in some form, I've inserted User:Jmabel's version. If there's a need for further discussion, we can use that as a base. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The consensus was that there should be a very very short sentence if the incident is mentioned. As such, I modified to one sentence, which is not very very short, but as close as I could come up with. If someone else, can shorten it, then please do. --Jkp212 (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The version that Jmabel proposed seems sensible, short, and yet still complete. I've pasted that in. Thanks to everyone for reaching a consensus on this issue. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There was more of a consensus for a very very short sentence. If it is not a short sentence, then I will object (As the other editors have) to the undue weight, and it not being central to the subject's notability. --Jkp212 (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a short sentence, 26 words versus 17 words for the version you wrote. The version you wrote made it appear that he was pardoned without serving his sentence. You may object all you like, but please stop deleting sourced material or making the article more confusing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You are abusing your power as an admin by claiming consensus and trying to close a matter to your liking when there is clearly NOT consensus for the material you are including, which has been thought to be a BLP violation by several editors. Please stop your abuse of stature, and err on the side of not having a BLP violation, rather than doing everything possible to include negative content. Why not leave it out until the short sentence is truly agreed upon by the WP community? Why rush the way you have when there is NOT clearly a consensus? --Jkp212 (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not abusing anything. This is not a BLP issue. The incident is well-sourced and neutrally presented. There is a consensus (exceot for you) to include mention of the conviction and pardon. If you spent as much time impriving the article as you do fighting this material the article would be three times as long and the problem would be gone. Do you want to keep arguing or do you want to fix the problem by enlarging the article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It is most certainly a BLP issue. The subject is a living person. This is his bio. There has been a strong sentiment that if the incident is mentioned, it MUST be done so very carefully and sensitively. There is no reason to rush, and have potential BLP violations, when we have the time to work out a sentence that doesn't violate BLP. As Jossi said above:

"I understand the concerns expressed by both sides of the dispute; I do not think we cannot not mention this incident, but if we do, it cannot be more than a very, very short sentence in this very short article about this man"

Others, including myself, have concurred. Jimbo Wales recently wrote that people need to be more patient when it comes to including potentially problematic material. Why not honor that sentiment, and patiently discuss the issue? There is no damage in waiting, but there could be damage in rushing to include negative material. This discussion was just recently opened, and there are quite a few differing voices. Why wouldn't you give the discussion more time, and try to see a real consensus on the way the negative sentence is written? --Jkp212 (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Both the conviction and the pardon are notable and well-sourced. "Groupie" is a loaded term.

With appropriate footnotes, facts should be included, to read:

In 1970, Yarrow was convicted of taking "improper liberties" with a 14-year-old fan and served three months in jail. Yarrow has acknowledged the incident as "the most terrible mistake I have ever made." He received a pardon from President Jimmy Carter in 1981. David in DC (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think David's version lays out the facts in a reasonable manner. The material is easily sourced and should be included. Any concern about weight should be handled be expanding this article which is regrettably short now (and needs to be expanded regardless of this issue). It is not constructive to handle the weight issue by removing this notable information. Aleta (talk) 02:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That version is fine with me too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the other editors who feel it should be an extremely short sentence are correct. Even if the article is expanded, the above mention of the single incident 37 years ago is way too prominent, and the mention will definitely suffer from undue weight. Further, Yarrow's comment is taken way out of context, because while he might have felt the incident was a mistake that hurt him a great deal, he didn't feel that it was central to his life in any way. On the contrary, he felt that it was unfair to constantly mention it, for one incident does not make a man. Please suggest a wording of one sentence that mentions the incident, perhaps a variation on what is proposed below:

• "In 1970, Yarrow was convicted of taking "improper liberties" with an underage groupie."--Jkp212 (talk) 03:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't include the term nor the pardon, both of which are key details. Nor does it include the subject's comment on the matter, which gives his side of the matter. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

How can you say, in good faith, that the comment gives "his side of the matter?" That would be taking the comment way out of context, because while he might have felt the incident was a mistake that hurt him a great deal, he didn't feel that it was central to his life in any way. When one looks closely at what he said about the incident 37 years ago, one sees that he felt it was a "groupie" type of thing, and the judged agreed, which is why it makes sense to use the word groupie. Here is what Yarrow said: " In that time, it was common practice, unfortunately–– the whole groupie thing."--Jkp212 (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that perhaps the best way to handle this is to lengthen the article considerably and have a short section on this controversy which includes the word groupie. The longer the article the less significant the controversy becomes. I am a fan of Yarrows but I fail to see how failing to ask a groupie her age is such a big deal. I Google searched Yarrows name with the phrase (14 year old girl) and got over 800 hits. There is a lot of room for expansion on this article. The guy is pretty famous and I would not be surprised if he were the subject of a Biography or two : Albion moonlight (talk) 08:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I'm new. Is the pejorative term groupie a good idea here? I agree that a witch hunt is inappropriate, but we would be calling the 14 year-old victim a name which seems to make her out as a predator. Whether or not the incident was a "huge thing" should be left up to the reader, not re-lawyered 30 years later. Moreover, if there is debate somewhere about the nature or severity of the incident, perhaps those sources should be referenced in the article to achieve balance. -- It looks like WP:WEIGHT is a subset of WP:NPOV, and wordcount is just one aspect of WP:WEIGHT. So it is really being suggested here that the mention of his presidential pardon, etc is somehow POV. I think we need to keep our eye on the ball here. The information is accurate historically, notable and encyclopedic. If not for the short length of the article I would be for including the most comprehensive referenced version available, since Yarrow is a notable person. To be fair, the length should be the same as that devoted to his guitar being stolen, and as they are both notable legal issues they should be proximate in the article. Rather than shortening a Start-Class article merely to achieve a subjectively balanced wordcount (which arguably has little bearing on POV in this case) an editor who cares deeply about Mr. Yarrow and NPOV should add more to it, so that the sad but notable things that really happened (but they wish people didn't know about) are dwarfed by all the other great stuff he did. --Markelf (talk) 11:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

When one looks closely at Yarrow has said about the incident of 37 years ago, one sees that he felt it was a "groupie" type of thing, and the judged agreed, which is why it makes sense to use the word groupie. Here is what Yarrow said: " In that time, it was common practice, unfortunately–– the whole groupie thing." Also, noting that user Markelf above is a SPA. --Jkp212 (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• I, along with virtually everyone, agree with the competing interests here - undue weight on the one hand, and the inclusion of undeniably verified and relevant information on the other. I too favor a brief mention, and frankly am disappointed that a brief mention is not present in the article now. Would the concerns be addressed by language to the effect of "In 1981, Yarrow was granted clemency by Jimmy Carter for a conviction of a sexual offense that occurred in 1969." ? The facts are present in simple form, and to me, its the conviction and pardon that are notable more than the age of the minor involved. Also, according to sites I've seen, he was in fact granted clemency, rather than pardoned. Thoughts? Xymmax (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this sentence, near the end of the article: "In an effort to combat school violence, Yarrow started Operation Respect, which brings children in schools and camps a curriculum of tolerance and respect for each other's differences." makes the age of the victim relevant. Indecent Liberties with a 14 year old is qualitatively different than with an older child, notable, and relevant to his later work in schools and camps. David in DC (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with David that the age is significant. I also think Xymmax correct that it was clemency not a pardon, and we should get it correct if we mention it at all (which I of course think we should). Aleta (talk) 03:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think taking any mention at all out of the article while the RfC is still ongoing is quite cricket. Consensus seems to be gelling around the fact that some mention needs to be made. Deleting the whole thing while we're still talking about it strains the assumption of good faith. David in DC (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If we leave it in during discussion, it should be the most benign of the different versions. Otherwise, let's wait to get consensus. No need to rush the process. --Jkp212 (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone added "...which he later said was common among celebrity musicians and eager groupies of that era. " But that assertion isn't contained in either of the linked sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yarrow did say that, as well as the judge. I agree it should be sourced, which I'll do and add. --Jkp212 (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

(A) Underage is inadequate. It should say "14-year-old fan". See discussion above. (B) And his acknowledgement, in the source we're using, that it's the worst thing he ever did should be in, too. That's only fair to him. (C) The pardon or clemency from Carter should be in, too. Here's an academic cite that says it was clemency: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardons6.htm

The obsession with word-counting is misguided. This is sufficiently notable and sourced to be in here. It would not have UNDUE weight now. It would have appropriate weight. the judgement is made in the context of the articles content, not in a slavish devotion to X number of words or Y number of sentences. David in DC (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the reason that it makes more sense to work out the sentence in the talk page, once a consensus is reached, rather than go back and forth in the actual article. You wanted the mention of the incident in there; it now is. I think the consensus has pointed toward only having one short sentence about this incident (if we include it at all), considering that it took place so many years ago, and is not what makes the subject notable. If you a proposed version, please discuss it here first, before including it in the article. --Jkp212 (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That'd work if you were actually proposing text. You appear to be the only one who is opposing the slightly longer version, but you aren't working it out here either. I've restored the version that DDC wrote. Please propose alternatives here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There are others who have supported a short sentence for the sake of not violating undue weight. And others who have agreed to give context to the "groupie" nature of the incident, which both the judge and Yarrow commented on. With BLP, we are charged with doing no harm. It is not right to eagerly insert material that could cause harm, and violates WP policy. Here is my proposed version, which is the most recent edit that Aleta made to the article:

"In 1970, Yarrow was convicted of taking "improper liberties" with an underage fan, which he later said was common practice among celebrity musicians and eager groupies of that era."

That gives mention to the incident, and gives a bit of context to the fact that it was a "groupie" incident. It's much more balanced that the other proposed version. --Jkp212 (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

What's your source? Why doesn't it mention the person's age, or the clemency? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The source is the Baltimore Jewish Times, and it doesn't mention those details because they are not central to the article, and this incident is already problematic for undue weight, and any further elaboration on the "negative" side, would be wildly unbalanced. --Jkp212 (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a link or the Baltimore Jewish Times article you're citing? The age of the victim is important. If we don't mention it we could leave readers wondering whether the victim was 8, 10, or 12 years old. The short prison term served is another indication of the mildness of the crime, and the pardon is further evidence of the good will extended to the subject. Each serves to minimize the seriousness of the crime and so, while slightly lengthening the mention, these facts actually reduce the weight of the incident. Independently of that, the presidential pardon/clemency is notable in its own right. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning the prison term and other details does not reduce the weight of the incident. It just adds weight to the incident. However, if the reader is given context (that this was a common practice between celebs and groupies), then there is more balance. --Jkp212 (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

What's the date of publication or link to the material you want to add? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Baltimore Jewish Times - April 26, 2006--Jkp212 (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That article is 1268 words long, of which 251 are devoted to this incident. That's 20%. If we include Jmabel's proposed verion in this artilce it will be 344 words long, with 26 words devoted to the incident, or 7% of the whole article. Given those statistics I don't think Jambel's version represents undo weight. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Are those the parameters you use for judging appropriate weight for a biography? That article was not a biography of the man. Are you saying 7% of a man's full life biography should be devoted to one incident 37 years ago? It should be more like 1%. --Jkp212 (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be inappropriate to limit all events more than 30 years ago to 1% each. We don't say about the biography of Joan of Arc that, "gee, it all happened a long time ago, dos it really deserve mentioning?" As for the BJW artilce, it was a profile of Yarrow. Not a biography, but an overview of his life. Much of the subject'slife is covered in a separate article, Peter, Paul, and Mary, so if you combine that material with this then we devote far less then 7% to this one incident. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll

The purpose of this straw poll is to determine if there is a consensus in favor of adding this text, as written:

• In 1970, Yarrow was convicted of taking "improper liberties" with a 14-year-old fan. Yarrow has called that episode “the most terrible mistake I have ever made.” In 1981, he was granted clemency by President Carter.

Please respond by supporting or opposing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. This version is short and still includes the key elements: the conviction, the nature of the crime, the age of the victim, the comment by the subject, and the clemency. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

   Responding to Jmabel's point beloew I notice this version does not include the prison term and the time served, which it should also include. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

2. Support. I've typed at length above in the RfC comments. I stand by those. David in DC (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I believe that the other editors who feel it should be an extremely short sentence are correct. Even if the article is expanded, the "longer" mention of the single incident 37 years ago is way too prominent, and the mention will definitely suffer from undue weight. Further, Yarrow's comment about "terrible mistake" is taken way out of context, because while he might have felt the incident was a mistake that hurt him a great deal, he didn't feel that it was central to his life in any way. On the contrary, he felt that it was unfair to constantly mention it, for one incident from 37 years ago does not give much light on the totality of a person's life. However, the subject and others (including the judge in the case), have pointed out that the underage person was a groupie, and that this was a common practice in that era. So, in order to give context to the incident, the groupie nature should be mentioned as other editors above have suggested. --Jkp212 (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment

I don't actively oppose this - I think it is better than nothing - but (1) I don't see why the girl's age or the fact that she was a fan is relevant; (2) ditto for the quotation; (3) there is no mention here of sentence or the fact that he served time. I stand by my earlier suggestion "In 1970, Yarrow was convicted of taking 'improper liberties' with an underage girl. He served three months of a three-year sentence, and received a presidential pardon in 1981." I agree, however, that this is approximately the right amount of material; I think the differences fall within the range of normal editing. (In short, I support the spirit, but make no specific endorsement of this wording.) - Jmabel | Talk 20:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with Jmabel on this. The text In 1970, Yarrow was convicted of taking 'improper liberties' with an underage girl. He served three months of a three-year sentence, and received a presidential pardon in 1981. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a big difference, but I would agree with Jossi and Jmabel. "girl" is the way most sources refer to the incident, rather than "fan", there isn't a need to name the president, and unless we are trying to imply Yarrow has had a number of convictions or made a lot of similarly terrible mistakes that he has to choose between, I think the emotion in the quote can be safely assumed, so that can left out too. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

In the interstof achieving consensus, I agree to Jmabel's version too. As for "girl", note that a previous thread on this page wondered about the gender of the fan, so "girl" is a helpful distinction. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It should say "groupie" or refer to the fact that she was a groupie, as per Albion's suggestion above. It was important to the judge, Yarrow has mentioned it, and it gives context to the incident. To say girl is very misleading, and makes it seem like the groupie was a young child.The length of the sentence is also not necessary --Jkp212 (talk) 21:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

A fourteen year old girl is a child. The victim should be referred to respectfully, in the way best calculated to obscure her identity while illustrating the gravity of the offense. "A 14-year-old girl" or a "14-year-old fan" are both good. A "groupie" is not. David in DC (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The judge in the case was convinced that the 14 year old and the 17 year old (who were both there together) were groupies, and that is why he gave leniency. Yarrow's position that this was a groupie incident should be mentioned, and give balance to the incident. And no, a 14 year old is not a young child. For example, in Canada, at 14 years old, individuals can consent to sex. --Jkp212 (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Everyone has a point. How about "14 year old girl fan"? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, as long as the "groupie" nature of the incident is also mentioned. Yarrow later said about the incident: "" In that time, it was common practice, unfortunately–– the whole groupie thing."--Jkp212 (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm prepared to agree to this. A sentence along the basic structure of Jmabel's version, that makes specific the age of the girl, followed by Yarrow's properly sourced quote seems fair. I share the concern of calling the girl a groupie as that can have negative conotations, and frankly strikes me a bit of a departure from NPOV. However, I see no difficulty at all with including Yarrow's quote, or even the judge's if such is properly sourced and available. Xymmax (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Fan, yes, groupie, no. We don't want to blame the victim. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Groupie is the word that the judge, Yarrow, and others used. It is not blaming anyone, just stating facts. How about this:

In 1970, Yarrow was convicted of taking 'improper liberties' with an underage fan, for which he served a short sentence. Yarrow regretted the incident, but said:"In that time, it was common practice, unfortunately–– the whole groupie thing". He was later granted clemency for the indiscretion.

--Jkp212 (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

From reading the interview with Yarrow, I gather he wants as little said about the incident as possible, so I'm not sure including his statement benefits anyone. It can be assumed that he's sorry about it; if we include a statement that seems to be in any way derogatory towards the victim, or to seem like he's excusing his action, I suspect that will reflect worse on Yarrow than if not. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak)

I think that's getting closer. Here's a variation on that:

In 1970, Yarrow was convicted of taking "improper liberties" with a 14-year-old fan, for which he served a short sentence. Yarrow regretted the incident, and said: "In that time, it was common practice, unfortunately–– the whole groupie thing". He was later granted clemency by President Carter for the incident.

Aleta (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a fair comprimise --Jkp212 (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Another comment

I like the length. However, I would get rid of Yarrow's quote and replace it with the length of the sentence and time served. I would specifically mention her age. "Underage" could mean 11 or 17 - a vast difference. It happens to mean 14 here. I would avoid the term "groupie" in any wording, as it's a loaded term, and we need to follow BLP for her too (even though we have not used her name in any aspect of this discussion). Aleta (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that BLP concerns about the victim require us to call her a 14-year-old girl or a 14-year-old fan. David in DC (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I am glad that you are considering BLP concerns -- why not start with the named subject rather than an anonymous groupie? The subject has a right to have balance, and when the judge and others have found this to be a "groupie" incident, then why not give balance to the incident, and mention it? --Jkp212 (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

BLP concerns for the assailant would best be served by keeping the notable events down to a few lines (deference to weight without slavish dedication to word or sentence counts), including cites from reliable sources (of which plenty have been offered) and including his own acknowledgement (sourced) that this is the worst thing he ever did. Then following (as the article does) with his good works since this aberration. David in DC (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) If we use the word groupie, we need to explain why we are using it (such as by quoting the judge's use of it). This would require expansion of the discussion past any reasonable length. Avoid the situation. Aleta (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, we have an extensive article on "Groupies". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Aleta completely. There's no problem with Yarrow calling the girl a groupie, but when we state as a fact that the child was a groupie we either have to show properly sourced facts that lead inexorably to that conclusion, or we deviate from NPOV. And there's simply no need to do so when we have Yarrow's quote to provide the context other editors have sought. Xymmax (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Easily referenced by including Yarrow's quote or using this earlier version: "In 1970, Yarrow was convicted of taking "improper liberties" with an underage groupie, which he later said was common among celebrity musicians and eager groupies of that era." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkp212 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Or Perhaps with "a female fan who turned out to be 14 years Old." and then add something that mentions he thought she was a groupie. Perhaps something like that would reflect the fact that he too was a victim of circumstance. My understanding of the situation is that he jumped to a conclusion and regrets having done so. Plus I am not sure just how perjorative the term groupie is but I can attest to the fact that AnonEMouse is as good as any mediator as we are likely to find. I think we are getting very close to an agreement.... : Albion moonlight (talk) 08:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Better sources

Rather than arguing about whether or not Salon.com is considered reliable, why not just find better sources? Here, these are generally considered among the most reliable or most popular newspapers in the country. They seem to think it's worth a short sentence.

• New York Times [6]
• USA Today [7]
• Boston Globe [8]

I like Albion Moonlight's suggestion to expand the rest of the article for balance. Yes, we need to write about this, it would be a blatant hole in our coverage of the singer if we didn't mention it at all, but we can surely write more about other parts of his notability as well. He's an icon as a singer, not as a convict. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a reason we don't have more on his music career. Most of the subject's notability as a musician derives from his participation in Peter, Paul, and Mary, and so that part of his life is covered in that article. We can summarize some of that material here, at the risk of duplication. We can also add more details about his charitable activities. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It's Clemency

• See http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardons6.htm. Small point, but its sourced and, if we use it, we oughtta use the right wordDavid in DC (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I was just reading an article from the time of the pardon/clemency, and was touched by the subject's comments at the time. Allow me to transcribe them here:

• "It is my hope that they [his 8 and 9 1/2 year old sons] will see a balanced picture, one that understands that their daddy did something very wrong, but also that asserts that their daddy has also done much for society to help to eliminate want and inequity where he saw it. A presidential pardon would help my children understand that society has forgiven their father." ("Peter Yarrow Granted Pardon in Morals Case" Los Angeles Times (1886-Current File); Feb 6, 1981; pg. A2)

It's hard to fault that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

If there is a way to include that in the article then perhaps it should be considered. : Albion moonlight (talk) 10:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Very strange, because a President absolutely DOES NOT have the power to grant pardon/clemency for a state case. John celona (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad has explained this on john celona's talk page. The crime occurred in a Washington DC hotel. Before the D.C. Court Reorganization act of 1973, such crimes were typically prosecuted in federal court. David in DC (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

Unless there are any objections, I think we should include the Aleta's version above (which I have copied below), which brings together the various editors' viewpoints:

In 1970, Yarrow was convicted of taking "improper liberties" with a 14-year-old fan, for which he served a short sentence. Yarrow regretted the incident, and said: "In that time, it was common practice, unfortunately–– the whole groupie thing". He was later granted clemency by President Carter for the incident.--Jkp212 (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Jkp212, I know the cites for sentences 1 and 3, but not for the Yarrow quote. I think we've achieved consensus. Would you please add Aleta's sentence, as transcribed above, with the proper cites. (Unless someone thinks this needs more word-smithing). Thanks to all for a thoughtful discussion. David in DC (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"Short sentence" is not acceptable. We don't say Charles Manson was convicted of multiple muders and "is serving a long sentence" or Martha Stewart "served a short sentence" or Duke Cunninghan is "serving a medium sentence". Where the exact prison term served is available (as it is here) we include it. "Short sentence" may mislead some into thinking he only got probation; which is innacurate. Fair or not, whether people like it or not, he spent 3 months in prison for sex with a 14 year old girl and there are ample verifiable sources for it. If you want to amend to "a short sentence of 3 months in prison"- fine.

Also, why, oh why is someone deleting this article from the "sex offenders" category. A sex offender "is a person who has been criminally charged and convicted of, or has pled guilty to, or pled Nolo contendere to a sex crime." Yarrow spent time in prison for sex with a 14 year old child. Is anyone going to argue that is not a "sex crime"? Please discuss or stop deleting. I also have to question if the victim had been a 14 year old BOY would there be this squemishness in labeling the man a sex offender or pedophile. The man may have done many great things and be of fine character, but his partisans continued attempts to minimize verifiable facts only serve to highlight this small episode in this life. John celona (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

See section below where I opened discussion ofvthe category. Aleta (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Support

The edit proposed by Will be back is ok by me even though the term groupie is also apt. I think that since we have editors here who are looking to down play the incident as if this article were a finished product we might as well go along with not expanding the incident at least until we make the article quite a bit larger. I am looking for material at the library for that very purpose. : 00:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

As an addendum let me say that I am amenable to almost any wording I have seen thus far. That is because I do not have a strong opinion in this particular case. : Albion moonlight (talk) 09:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Category?

An editor keeps adding Category:Sex offenders to the article. Is this legally valid? From the wording "improper liberties", I'm not sure it is. From my understanding, the incident stopped short of actual sex. (?) Was the crime a sex crime, per se? Aleta (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's a hard and fast legal definition of "sex crime". In this case, no intercourse took place, so certainly according to Bill Clinton the category would be inappropriate. I'd err on the side of not including it, given the WP:BLP concerns (I also strongly suspect that the category is intended for people who are notable by reason of being sex offenders, rather than those for whom sex offenses are largely incidental to their notability, as in Yarrow's case). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, this seems absurd. If you plead guilty to sex with a 14 year old and go to prison for it you are a sex offender. If this were a priest or a GOP Congressman we would't be having such an inane discussion would we? I am not trying to slander him. He admits it was the "worst mistake" of his life. Just state the facts unsensationally and move on. All this debate is just drawing more attention to the issue. The sources clearly state he "served 3 months in prison". John celona (talk) 02:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems excessive in this case to use that category. Also, John, please assume good faith; don't accuse editors with whom you have a dispute of vandalism just because opinions differ. Aleta (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There's no agreed upon definition of "sex". Even if there was, it would be very hard to apply it here, since we don't know the nature of what happened (except that it stopped short of intercourse). Second, there is not (as far as I'm aware) an agreed upon definition of "sex offense". In light of this ambiguity, in light of WP:BLP, and in light of the fact that Wikipedia users browsing Category:Sex offenders are unlikely to be looking for people like Yarrow, I say we leave it out.

As for whether we'd be having this conversation it the person involved was a Republican or a Catholic, if such a person engaged in de facto consensual physical intimacy with somebody who de jure lacked the capacity to consent, I certainly would be having this discussion, and I take a little offense to the lack of WP:AGF implied by your suggestion to the contrary. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the addition of the category "sex offender". It took a lot of people, a lot of iterations, a lot of good faith and a lot of consensus to get the agreed-upon language into the main article. Tacking on the sex offender category a few days later is disruptive of community and consensus. It tells those who compromised to put the info in the main article at all that, here at wikipedia, no good deed goes unpunished.

I'm content to see the sex crime, conviction, incarceration and clemency mentioned in the text of the article. I think its overkill to tack on a category that groups Yarrow with Jeffrey Dahmer and the Marquis de Sade.

BLP, Undue Weight, the gravamen of the presidential clemency, consensus decision-making, not disrupting the WP Community. Any couple of these reasons argue for sticking with the consensus language and striking the newly-added category. Together, they come damn close to demanding that resultDavid in DC (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with David in DC, Sarcastic Idealist, and Aleta on this. --Jkp212 (talk) 05:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yarrow is a sex offender. In the spirit of compromise I have removed that category from the article and replaced it with the more generic and softer "American criminals". I assume and hope that no one will contest the fact that someone who has spent time in prison for sexual contact with a 14 year old is a criminal! John celona (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I think any categorization of this article based upon this incident is overcategorization. Additionally, Wikipedia:Categorization of people states: "For example, Category:Criminals should only be added if the incident is relevant to the person's notability; it has been published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal," and "Not all categories are comprehensive: For some "sensitive" categories, it is better to think of the category as a set of representative and unquestioned examples, while a list is a better venue for an attempt at completeness. Particularly for "sensitive" categories, lists can be used as a complement to categorization" (bolding in original). Yarrow's notability derives very little from this incident, and he was granted clemency. I think issues of WP:weight make categorizing the article based upon this improper. Aleta ^Sing 04:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Aleta's comments 100%. I believe that any categorization of this sort would be inappropriate, especially because of the clemency he received. To John -- the mention of the incident was done thoughtfully by numerous editors' with a variety of viewpoints (including those with a perspective similar to your own).. Please respect that careful balance that was reached by consensus. --Jkp212 (talk) 07:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Aleta's explanation of Wikipedia:Categorization of people as it applies to listing Yarrow in either the category of Sex Offender or Criminal. To put him in either list is overcategorization. The facts in the article suffice. More is provocative, disruptive and using Wikipedia to make a point.David in DC (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Use of word "molest" in edit summary

I'd ask that we refrain from that kind of inflammatory language in the edit summaries of this article, since saying, absent context, that somebody "molested a 14 year old" suggests something very different from what Yarrow did. I believe that using the word "molest" to describe this sort of groupie incident is a clear violation of WP:BLP. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

If there is going to be serious argument from anybody that a man in his 30's forcing sexual contact on a 14 year old, admitting it, and going to prison for it is NOT a sex offender I suggest this be referred to one of the Wikipedia boards for arbitration. There are verifiable sources that Yarrow's "14-year-old victim resisted his advances" [[9]].

Furthermore, a multitude of web sources refer to him as a "molestor" and "sex offender". 1."Peter Yarrow was 32 years old at the time he molested a 14-year-old girl" "convicted of sex offense". [[10]] 2. "Kerry selected molester as godfather to daughter Folksinger-friend Peter Yarrow convicted of sex offense" [[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41199]] 3. "a convicted child-molester" [[11]] 4. "Peter Yarrow had been convicted of CHILD MOLESTATION" [[12]] 5. "convicted of child molestation in 1970" [[13]] (quoting Washington Times October 1, 2004) 6. "convicted of a sex offense for molesting a 14-year-old girl" [[14]] 7. "convicted child molester" [[15]] 8. "child molestor Peter Yarrow" [[16]] 9. "was convicted of chidl molestation" [[17]] 10. "a convicted child molestor" [[18]] and many, many, many more. In the spirit of compromise I have so far refrained from calling him a "child molestor" or "pedophile" in the article. I would prefer to leave the original language which non-judgementally states he "served a 3 month prison sentence" I would prefer to have this unspectacular language rather than starting an edit war which may become a cause celebre in conservative media and re-hash this sordid episode for millions. John celona (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

"I would prefer to have this unspectacular language rather than starting an edit war which may become a cause celebre in conservative media and re-hash this sordid episode for millions" Them's fightin' words, Tex.David in DC (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, Yarrow didn't force sexual contact on a 14 year old. She consented. Legally, of course, she lacked the capacity to consent (which is why he went to jail), but I'm sure that you wouldn't argue that consenting intimate contact with a 14 year old is the moral equivalent of forcing intimate contact on an unwilling 14 year old. "Molest" strongly implies the latter. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No, Yarrow's molestation victim did NOT "consent" to her sexual abuse by this pedophile. Event the leftist Milwaukee Sentintinel reports that "14-year-old victim resisted his advances". [[19]] 68.14.11.178 John celona (talk) 13:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

My apologies - I had not realized that. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

John, the web sources you reference above are not reliable sources. There is room here for many different views, and passionate discussion, but not hateful rhetoric please.. --Jkp212 (talk) 07:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I gave 10 sources, including the Washington Times and the leftist publications Texas Weekly, San Francico Examiner and Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. Perhaps it is the molester who is not the "reliable source"? 68.14.11.178 John celona (talk) 13:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I've requested page protection

John celona, your behavior here has been abysmally disruptive of the project. David in DC (talk) 02:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Mediation anyone.?/

I think John's argument pursuant to the categories list is right on the money. I also do not think that accusations of disruption are appropriate at this particular time. I am going to ask AnonEMouse to have another look at this situation.I am not even sure that ther was an official consensus in place and or just how far reaching it was. So please let us stay as cool and detached as we can. And above all Happy Holidays to everyone, : Albion moonlight (talk) 09:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much Albion. I was beginning to think I had fallen down a sinkhole with Alice and the White Rabbit. A simple google search on "Peter Yarrow" shows he is almost as noticeable for his 3 months spent in prison for pedophilia as he is for his long dormant music career. Apparently, some people think it is NOT criminal to molest a little girl who resists your advances: even if you plead guilty and serve 3 months in prison for it! John celona (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Time is a good mediator. I suggest that we allow the next week or two to pass without edits to the categories. We can discuss the issue here, but reverting categories is unproductive. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with User:Will Beback. Let's let this rest for a while, and if things flair up again once protection expires, we can go the WP:RFC route. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability on google is not the issue John, The issue is whether to whether to let your edit stand. But please do not make the mistake of thinking that I think the incident warrants any more than a minor mention. Peter Yarrows contributions to society far outweigh the fact that he went to prison for seeking the sexual favors of a female who turned out to be jail bait. I could live with no mention of the incident whatsoever. But I am concerned about the fact that you are being vilified for an edit that makes perfect sense to.me. : Albion moonlight (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

John is not being vilified for no reason. User John Celona has made a mockery of the consensus process, and discussion forum. He inserted very inflammatory language into the article, and then after being advised it was better to discuss the matter first, he continued to insert the language in an even more inflammatory style, both in the article and on the edit summaries. One of his edits was summarized as "restoring vandalism", and despite being requested not to use such inflammatory language in edit summaries, he flaunted the appeal of others and did so anyway. His entire tone has been hateful, inflammatory, and unilateral. Further, his edits denying the holocaust (see his talk page) suggest a strong POV regarding all individuals of Jewish faith, including Mr. Yarrow --Jkp212 (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Albion - This threat, from John celona above, make a suggestion of disruption not just appropriate, but nearly mandatory: "I would prefer to have this unspectacular language rather than starting an edit war which may become a cause celebre in conservative media and re-hash this sordid episode for millions. John celona (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)"David in DC (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

There was no "threat". I just stated that I hoped this wouldn't become a cause celebre if some third party picked up on the attempts to whitewash the past pedophilia. I sincerly hope it is not picked up, whatever the result. Again, I must ask if any of those who don't want this admitted molestor, felon and ex-con put in the "Criminal" category would do the same for a GOP Congessman convicted of a felony and jailed for molesting a 14 year old who "resisted his advances"? The answer is obvious. Foley was labeled a pedophile by every Democrat in America for legal suggestive emails sent to an 18 year old adult who was never physically molested-unlike Yarrow's victim. John celona (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that everybody should take a big step back and chill out. If John does not want to walk away and allow the white washing we should not be trying to force him too. We should be using the dispute resolution process and trying to show as much good faith as we can muster. : Albion moonlight (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

but with that said let us all take Willbebacks suggestion and give this some time. Time is in fact a preety good mediator if we allow it to be.

Albion moonlight (talk) 02:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Category? redux

This conversation started before the page was protected. After protection is lifted, let's agree not to add anything like the categories "Sex Offenders" or "Criminals" without first achieving consensus here. David in DC (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If can only speak for me but that sounds Ok to me, : Albion moonlight (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's the right approach: to discuss things of this nature first. --Jkp212 (talk) 06:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Aleta (Sing) 20:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to me. Dictionary.com defines criminal as "a person guilty or convicted of a crime." Is anyone arguing this defintion doesn't fit Yarrow, who pled guilty to a felony (molesting a 14 year old girl who "resisted his advances"[[20]]) and served prison time for it? John celona (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The question isn't whether he's a criminal, which he clearly is (or was, depending on whether you require criminal behaviour to be ongoing for the designation to apply). The question is whether under Wikipedia's policies he should be added to the category, and there's a clear consensus that he shouldn't be. You should really consider giving WP:TE a read. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you explain to me why every other political or entertainment figure convicted of a crime is listed in this category without controversey? For instance: see Edwin Edwards, Thomas "Hollywood" Henderson, Rick James, Pete Rose, Jr., Bianca Trump, Michael Vick and many more without the editor being subject to verbal attack? Also, why did you delete my added links? John celona (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I presume he deleted your links because they were to blogs. Read through WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, and you'll see that blogs are not generally considered appropriate links. Aleta (Sing) 19:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, to be entirely honest, I removed your links because I didn't look over your edits as carefully as I should have, and thought you were just re-inserting the category (your edit summary to the contrary notwithstanding). My apologies for that. That said, those links have no place in the article because they don't meet a single one of the criteria included in WP:EL's list of what should be included, while they do meet at least one of the criteria under links to be avoided (per Aleta). They really tell us nothing beyond what's included in the article, except that some people don't like Democrats or gun control.

Your list of other celebrities with the criminal category does give me pause. Certainly, either Yarrow's link should be restored or several of those should be deleted. Give me a few days to mull it over. Regardless of what I decide I think, however, there's still clearly a consensus against adding the category to Yarrow's article, so don't do it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think some of those other celebrites ought not be included in the criminals category either. See Aleta's argument way up above about overcategorization. Pete Rose, Jr and Bianca Trump especially, seem not notable for their criminal history, but for other matters.David in DC (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

David, I don't think that was an appropriate comment, and I'd ask that you redact it. First of all, we don't know whether this is the same John Celona (or indeed whether this user's real name is John Celona). Second, if there was a COI for a notable person who had also been convicted of a crime (as the New Hampshire John Celona is) it would be in the other direction, trying to tighten the standards for when the link is appropriate to add, lest any article about him that get created include the link. David has deleted his comment. Sarcasticidealist(talk) 19:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with David about the other celebs. Yarrow, in particular, should not be added to the category because of the clemency. --Jkp212 (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Since we're giving opinions here I'd say that the subject belongs in some criminal category. It's a defining part of his life-history, just like being born in 1938, being an American Jew, being an alum of Cornell University being from Providence, Rhode Island, and being a Ukrainian-American. Those are all categories that this article is in. The fact that Yarrow is a (minor) celebrity has nothing to do with it. However I'd go further and say that the presidential pardon category is a form of crime category and is sufficient. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a very good point about his already being in the pardon category. Aleta (Sing) 23:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to question why a handfull (Albion moonlight, David in DC, Aleta, Sarcasticidealist) of editors, many of whom seem to share the far Left politics of Yarrow, are allowed to delete information that seems rather obvious. Pete Rose, maybe the greatest living baseball player, is in the American Criminals category as is Michael Vick. Conservative officeholders like Bob Taft, James Traficant, Jim Guy Tucker, Buz Lukens, etc. -and rightly so. As are entertainers like Rick James. Of late, Yarrow is certainly less notable for his music than his association with leftist politicians such as John Kerry, John Garamendi, Ted Kennedy and others and the cancelling of fundraisers when it is publicized that Yarrow is a convicted child molester. There are a multitude of news sources corraborating this, from the Washington Times to left of center publications such as the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, San Francisco Examiner and Texas Weekly. Here is a paragraph from an earlier edit in this discussion page:

Furthermore, a multitude of web sources refer to him as a "molestor" and "sex offender". 1."Peter Yarrow was 32 years old at the time he molested a 14-year-old girl" "convicted of sex offense". 10 2. "Kerry selected molester as godfather to daughter Folksinger-friend Peter Yarrow convicted of sex offense" 11 3. "a convicted child-molester" 12 4. "Peter Yarrow had been convicted of CHILD MOLESTATION" 13 5. "convicted of child molestation in 1970" 14 (quoting Washington Times October 1, 2004) 6. "convicted of a sex offense for molesting a 14-year-old girl" 15 7. "convicted child molester" 16 8. "child molestor Peter Yarrow" 17 9. "was convicted of chidl molestation" 18 10. "a convicted child molestor" 19

In short, I don't think fewer than a half dozen editors who clearly share the political views of the subject, should be allowed to cry "consensus" to impose their will while conservatives and Republicans who have commited financial and other crimes far less serious than child molesting are included in the criminal category.John celona (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep a civil tongue in your head, if you would. Among other things, please don't imply things about my political views that you have no way of knowing. I've already granted that several of the other articles you've raised require reconciliation of one kind or another, and going around questioning our motivations isn't going to help anything. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A couple of things - didn't we conclude that it was clemency, rather than a pardon? In which case, doesn't he not belong there? Second of all (and this is probably better-suited to the talk page of the category), shouldn't that category be a subcat of Category:American criminals? Its parent category (Category:Pardon recipients) is already a subcat of [:Category:Criminals]]. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think both the Pardon and Clemency categories should not be a subcat of the Criminal Category. Getting a Pardon/Clemency by definition clears the individual of officially being called or labeled a criminal. and as such, WP should not "define" them in this way. I would agree with User:Sarcasticidealist that this is best discussed on the talk pages of the category. --Jkp212 (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's actually why I'm drawing the distinction. A pardon clears you of the crime such that you have no record. Clemency just lessens or eliminates the penalty. I think somebody who's received clemency is still a criminal (whether they should necessarily be categorized as such on Wikipedia is another question), which is debatable for somebody who's actually been pardoned. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've raised some of these issues on Category talk:Recipients of American presidential pardons. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Sarcasticidealist is probably correct about the distinction. I'm not an expert on this topic, however. I hope your query at the category talk page will bring some opinions from more knowledgeable folks. If there is no comment soon from people not already involved here, it might be worth posting a query at the law wikiproject. Aleta (Sing) 13:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the more neutral category of Incarcerated Celebrities will be acceptable. This category includes musicians such as Ronald Isley, Gary Glitter, Tommy Lee, Chuck Berry, James Brown and Scott Stapp John celona (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I could live with that one, but not to the exclusion of resolving this issue about whether he belongs in the pardon category. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Me too. Aleta (Sing) 22:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I could live with the Incarcerated Celebrities category, but only in concert with respect for the prior consensus on "a short sentence" rather than "a three month sentence". If someone wants to know what "short" is, they can go to the cited sources. Everybody gets something, nobody gets everything and we all disengage from what has not been consensus' finest hour. Category discussion to continue at category pages. Whaddya say? David in DC (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

What's the basis for opposing "three months"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Gesture of respect for all the negotiating that went on before. David in DC (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There's just no rationale for not putting "served 3 months in prison". That's what the verifiable sources say. That's how its done on every other Wikipedia page, be it actors, musicians, political figures, sports figures or whatever. We don't have Martha Stewart or Pete Rose "serving short sentences"-we provide the facts in a non-sensational NPOV manner. I can live with him not being in the Sex Offenders or the American Criminal categories (although he is properly in both) and just in Incarcerated Celebrities. I can even live with the horrible, improper, self-serving label of a forced molestation victim as a "groupie" but as I have said "The dog chased his tail" is a "short sentence"- 3 months spent in prison should be reported as just that, as it is in all Wikipedia pages. John celona (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Guess a gesture of respect was too much to hope for. I'm now going to disengage on this page. I think JkP, who wanted no mention at all, gave up a lot to reach the consensus language. It held for several days until another editor started a crusade. The crusader appears to be grinding down all opposition. If I were Jkp, I wouldn't compromise at all next time. I too, remember, started out agitating for the mention in the article. Any fair reading of the history above shows a lot of people working to advance the project and one to advance a cause. It's very disappointing. Civility has been trumped by one lone crusader, who surely learns from this episode that warnings about civility, assuming good faith, working co-operatively and not being tendentious are all a bunch of appropriately ignored hot air. David in DC (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Censorship of 3 month prison sentence

A very small group of posters (jkp212, David in DC, Sarcastic idealist, Aleta) , most if not all of whom (perhaps coincidentally but not likely) share Yarrow's far-left politics as evidenced by their other posts keep screaming "consensus" as an exscuse to censor the fact that this man seved 3 months in prison for felony child molestation-See-[[21]], [[22]], [[23]], [[24]], [[25]], [[26]], [[27]]. The self-labeled "consensus" group wants the fact that the moleser served 3 months in prison censored and replaced by the weasel words "served a short sentence". The dog chased his tail is a short sentence. 3 months in prison for felony child molestation is what it is. Throughout Wikipedia, when subjects have served, or are serving, prison sentences, the exact length of such sentences are included in the article. This includes other musicians such as James Brown, Rick James, Gary Glitter, Paul Mccartney, Keith Richards, Chuck Berry, Lead Belly, and many more. It also includes other political figures such as Buz Lukens, Buddy Cianci, Duke Cunningham, H.R. Haldeman, Charles Diggs, Richard Kelly (politician), Norman Hsu, George Ryan and countless others. No reason has been propounded by the 5 person self-proclaimed "consensus" why Yarrow's 3 month sentence should be censored while the sentences of all others are included on their Wikipedia page. John celona (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If you'd care to read through this talk page, you'd see that this began with an enormous dispute over whether to mention the incident at all. User:jkp212 was the main editor on the "don't mention" side, I was one of the main people on the "do mention" side. We're both supporting the compromise wording not because it's our preferred wording (it's not either of our preferred wording - I would prefer something more specific, while User:jkp212 would prefer nothing at all), but because it's the compromise that was painfully worked out over days with the involvement of well over five editors.

I've also asked you above to please stop inferring things about my political beliefs that you have no way of knowing. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

A fact which has been pointed out before... Aleta (Sing) 22:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, one of the self-aapointed 4 member "consensus" has posted on my talk page [[28]] that "our politics are worlds apart". Of course that person had no knowledge of my politics, which are libertarian and opposed to hypocrisy and cover-ups from the Right as much as the Left, which is clearly what's going on in this article. I would like to know if Wikipedia is a "numbers game". If Michael Vick has a few dozen friends who continually delete verifiable material concerning his animal case on grounds of "consensus" will editors seeking to include the verifiable facts have to "outvote" Vick's supporters? John celona (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus, as practised on Wikipedia, is an inexact science, to be sure. In practice, though, if Michael Vick got a whole bunch of his friends to sign up for Wikipedia, become active editors (and not just single purpose accounts), and hide their conflicts of interest in editing his article, then yes, it would take quite a number of other established editors to get things re-inserted. Wikipedia's not supposed to be a numbers game, and in practice is something more than purely a numbers game, but there's definitely a numbers aspect to it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Past consensus aside, what's your opbjection to writing "three months" instead of "short sentence"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

None. I would actually prefer "three months", and if anybody on the dominant side of that consensus would like to re-open the debate, I'll advocate for its inclusion. I'm just not prepared to be tendentious about it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings about "three months" versus "short sentence". As far as I'm concerned, three months is a short sentence. I don't know why this particular thing is that big a deal one way or the other, but I realize that some folks on each side of the issue do feel strongly. Aleta (Sing) 02:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought (and still think) the mention of the incident is far too long for a short article such as this. It is my opinion that it is completely irrelevant, and not pertinent at all to his notability. Others have agreed that the material is not necessary to add. Others, like Jossi, felt it should be one VERY short sentence. However, I am comfortable with the article as it is, without adding additional detail. This was discussed in such great detail, and YES: compromise/consensus was reached. It is inappropriate for an editor to make changes such as this with disregard for consensus, and without discussion.--Jkp212 (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I should amend my comments to reiterate what others have said in various ways: the wording in the article now was a carefully crafted compromise amongst people running the gamut from wanting no mention at all to wanting lurid detail (that's hyperbole, folks). We shouldn't destroy what several people came together to make workable. When we talk of the consensus that was reached, it was this compromise. Please, John, consider the compromise. Aleta (Sing) 04:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Either wording and or almost any wording is fine by me : Albion moonlight (talk) 04:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to add that I would like to see the process for concluding when there is a consensus on something more formalized. I have seen this happen on the article on the Holocaust page and other similarly contentious pages. Usually such a process is over seen by an admin and the votes are much easier to count. Albion moonlight (talk) 08:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I am agreable to leaving "served three months in prison" in and putting him in the more neutral Incarcerated Celebrities category rather than the American criminal or Sex Offender category where he belongs. I also would, as another concession, allow the apologists to leave the horrid, self-serving labeling of a little girl forcibly molested as a "groupie". I really think those favoring the censorship of the prison term need to look up the articles on many other ex-con celebrities, including musicians. The terms they served are included in every article-it would be bizzare not to. I think I stated my concerns in language posted yesterday, which I repeat here--- "There's just no rationale for not putting "served 3 months in prison". That's what the verifiable sources say. That's how its done on every other Wikipedia page, be it actors, musicians, political figures, sports figures or whatever. We don't have Martha Stewart or Pete Rose "serving short sentences"-we provide the facts in a non-sensational NPOV manner. I can live with him not being in the Sex Offenders or the American Criminal categories (although he is properly in both) and just in Incarcerated Celebrities. I can even live with the horrible, improper, self-serving label of a forced molestation victim as a "groupie" but as I have said "The dog chased his tail" is a "short sentence"- 3 months spent in prison should be reported as just that, as it is in all Wikipedia pages." John celona (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Rehashing what was already hashed out

If we start diverting from the compromise/consensus, then I am not agreeable to any mention of this one-time incident in such a short bio, and certainly not additional detail being added. The incident is not relevant to his notability, and the article suffers from undue weight with the inclusion. Despite this, however, I am willing to accept the compromise and consensus that was reached, and still seems to be validated by numerous editors. --Jkp212 (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the previous consensus is more or less dead in the water, and that we probably have to start over. I propose starting with a straw poll on the controversial questions:

1. Should the incident be mentioned?

2. Should the length of the sentence be spelled out?

3. How should the victim be identified (groupie, underage fan, 14 year old girl, etc.)?

4. What category, if any, should associate Yarrow with his crime?

My answers are as follows: 1. Yes 2. Yes 3. 14 year old female fan 4. Category:Incarcerated celebrities. I am open to compromise on all questions except the first. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Why would a compromise that was reached be dead in the water because of one POV editor who has disregarded the overwhelming consensus? This has been rehashed too many times. It started on the BLP noticeboard, and culminated with a consensus that a lone editor has disrupted. I am going to request mediation. --Jkp212 (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be dead in the water because, regrettably, it just doesn't seem to have much support anymore. As for mediation, we should go the WP:RFC route first (in accordance with the dispute resolution process). I'll put the request in. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with criminal conviction

Peter Yarrow was convicted of taking improper liberties with a 14 year old female fan after she came to his hotel room in search of an autograph. The incident stopped short of intercourse. Yarrow served three months of a three year sentence, and was eventually granted clemency by Jimmy Carter. At issue in this article are the following questions:
1. Should the incident be mentioned?
2. Should the length of the sentence be spelled out or simply referred to as "a short sentence"?
3. How should the victim be identified (groupie, underage fan, 14 year old girl, etc.)?
4. What category, if any, should associate Yarrow with his crime (Category:Incarcerated celebrities, Category:American criminals, Category:Sex offenders, etc.)?

We have already gone the RFC route before (see history and BLP noticeboard history). It makes no sense to rehash the same material over and over just because of 1 POV editor who has used inflammatory language throughout, and has disregarded the consensus. --Jkp212 (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That RfC was only on question one, and that's not really the question that's causing division at this point. Let's give this a shot, and if nothing emerges from the process I'll be happy to go to mediation. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The division at this point is that 1 POV editor has disrupted the consensus and compromise.. And the RFC yielded all sorts of commentary about the topics at hand.. I have adjusted the questions to make it less POV. I still believe Mediation is appropriate at this stage. --Jkp212 (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record

1) Yes

2) A short sentence

3) 14-year-old girl in encyclopedic text. "Groupie" in direct quote from Yarrow.

4) Recipients of U.S. Presidential Clemency David in DC (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

My "vote"

It's important to note that it is a one time incident that happened over 30 years ago, the judge felt the girl coerced Yarrow, and referred to her as a "groupie", and that this is a short BLP which could easily suffer from Undue Weight over this incident.

1) No

However, if #1 is decided against me, then

2) A short sentence

3) 14-year-old fan in encyclopedic text. "Groupie" in direct quote from Yarrow.

4) Recipients of U.S. Presidential Clemency

--Jkp212 (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is the SOURCE that the judge felt the little girl "coerced" this 30 year old man? John celona (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Aleta's vote (sigh...)

1)Yes

2)Neutral. (Three months is a short sentence. I suppose I slightly prefer spelling out the time, but just because it is more detailed for fairly equivalent amounts of verbage.)

3) 14-year-old girl. "Groupie" should only be used within a quote.

4) Recipients of US Presidential Clemency, Incarcerated celebrities

General comment: I have no qualms with the text as is and feel like we are going in circles here. Aleta (Sing) 21:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Yes

2. "Served 3 months in prison"

3. 14 year old girl.

4. All 3 categories. Limited to Incarcerated celebrities as a compromise, but others don't seem to desire any compromise. Really, he belongs in all 3.

RfC opinion

1. yes

2. "Served three months in prison"

3.question - see below

4 Incarcerated celebrities. Overcategorization is a problem with many articles, and there's no good reason to overemphasize this single incident. One category would be enough.

Comment - If a citation can be found that the girl in question was referred to by the judge as a "groupie" or equivalent, then certainly it would be fair to describe her as such. Also, certainly, no objections to quoting Yarrow himself. However, mentioning that she was underage (14) is also seemingly important. I wouldn't object to calling her a "14-year old groupie" if the citation from the judge can be found. John Carter (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

When musicians (or anyone else for that matter) spend time in jail/prison, whether convicted or not, the amount of that prison/jail term is ALWAYS spelled out on Wikipedia. See Rick James, Gary Glitter, James Brown, Chuck Berry, Lead Belly, Paul Mccartney, Keith Richards, Ronald Isley, Scott Stapp, Tripp Eisen, GG Allin and others. Can the pro-censorship contingent provide a single example of a musician who has spent time in jail/prison where the sentence or time served is not spelled out. There are NONE-zero, zip, nada. WHY is Mr. Yarrow so special?John celona (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There are certainly examples of using general terms for jail time on Wikipedia see r http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lahr among others... It's a discretion call, and in the yarrow case less detail is certainly justifiable, and was determined by consensus. --Jkp212 (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Charles Lahr article states "he was interned for four year as an enemy alien". He was also not a musician so you fail on both arguments. You earlier stated on this discussion page that you were going to "disengage from this page". Also, you stated earlier that the judge who sentenced Yarrow to prison claimed the little girl "coerced" the 30 year old man into sex. In 2 hours on google I can find no such source. Please provide your source. Is it possible that your source is the molester or someone in his circle and that you have a Conflict of Interest? I await your response, along with a single incarcerated MUSICIAN whose time spent incarcerated is censored in favor of some generic phrase such as "served a short sentence". John celona (talk) 02:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It was David in DC who said he was disengaging from this page, and I don't believe he has posted here since then. Aleta (Sing) 02:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You are correct Aleta. However David in DC HAS posted here since his "pledge"-at 19:40 today to be precise.John celona (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, now the article that I used as an example states the specific prison term because John Celona edited the article to include the specific term...There are numerous other examples out there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Krupa or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilien_Luce or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_Domitien or many many more), but that's not really the point. John, calm down, it's ok to choose discretion of input. That's what it is -- a discretion call. --Jkp212 (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Jkp, the language "he was interned for four years as an enemy alien" was on the Charles Lahr page for months. I added a verifiable source for another prison term this Communist served years later. I will look into the Krupa and Domien articles. If the sentences are available through a verified source (as molester Yarrow's is) I will add them to the article. Obviously, if there is no source for the specific sentence it can't be added. Now-will you tell us if you are close to someone in Yarrow's circle and have a conflict of interest? Also-what is the source of your claim that the Judge who imprisoned molester Yarrow said the little girl "coerced" the 30 year old man into sex?? I await your answers.John celona (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not personally close to Yarrow. Thanks for the good faith, though. I have been fighting on Wikipedia for Bios of Living Persons to be written sensitively to the subject, thoughtfully balanced, and with respect for human beings, without being labeled and attacked the way that you have attacked this subject, ie. calling him a molestor in caps, using inflammatory language, etc.. We have to be sensitive to these living subjects, and also make sure that one-time negative incidents don't get undue weight. --Jkp212 (talk) 02:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You will be happy to know that I have updated the Gene Krupa article to reflect his 90 day sentence. There is no verifiable source I can find for the non-musicians Elisabeth Domitien or Maximilien Luce. If you find one let me know, or better yet add it yourself to the articles. Now----as for the source of your claim that molester Yarrow's sentencing judge said the little girl "coerced" the 30 year old man into sex, we all again await your response.John celona (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

John Celona, I count 5 editors on this page alone who have asked you to show good faith, and stop making accusations. You continue to accuse others, and then when I responded with the "evidence" you were looking for on wikipedia, you proceeded to make POV edits to each link. Please stop this. --Jkp212 (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

At 20:00 on January 8, 2007 you Jkp212, posted that "the judge felt the girl coerced Yarrow, and referred to her as a "groupie". I am assuming good faith, every bit as much as you are. I have asked four times for the source of your quote, as I cannot find it using any search engine. I still await your reply. John celona (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the talk page above, you'll see that user Will Beback initially mentioned the judges feelings, and that has been a part of this discussion regarding use of the word groupie: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_Yarrow&diff=176241867&oldid=176240439 This talk page is the main point, John. We've been through all this, and came to a compromise among many different viewpoints, and then you came in and unilaterally started making changes and using inflammatory language. Let's just give it some time to cool down, as some other editors have suggested above --Jkp212 (talk) 04:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh. This was nearly forty years ago and we're hanging this around his neck? If this is not strongly implicated as a pattern throughout his career here's my take" Benjiboi 13:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

“ In 1970, Yarrow served a short sentence for taking "improper liberties" with a minor stating "In that time, it was common practice, unfortunately–– the whole groupie thing." He was later granted clemency by President Carter for the incident. ”

Added more positive stuff.

I did not and will not add or edit any controversial material in the near future but I do intend to keep adding positive stuff as time permits. : Albion moonlight (talk) 09:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds great. Thank you. --Jkp212 (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconded, thank you. David in DC (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Operation Respect

I created a stub for Operation Respect. Please feel free to join me in working on that article. : Albion moonlight (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Newport Folk Festival

Yarrow's self-published website biography[29], claims that:

• ...he helped launch the Newport Folk Festival in 1962.

We include that assertion in this bio. However the Newport Folk Festival website says that it was founded in 1959, and its self-published history only mentions Yarrow indirectly, saying that the festival served as a "springboard" for Peter, Paul & Mary.[30] I'm inclined to remove it from this article unless we can resolve the discrepancy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed completely. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2008

Sounds reasonable. Aleta (Sing) 22:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Will do it now. David in DC (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Federal Prison Sentence

The RFC for this article has been ended. I have now restored the verifiable information regarding the prison sentence served by Yarrow, which has continually been on this article since it was a stub-OVER 3 YEARS AGO, beginning with this February 3, 2005 revision; [[31]]. John celona (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Now we shall wait and see bow the others react. They are all still around. : Albion moonlight (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm still fine with it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted this per the lengthy discussion and consensus. The mention of the incident should not be there b/c of undue weight, but if it IS going to be in the article, this type of weight is too much. --Jkp212 (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you're fabricating a consensus - I don't think anybody except you and User:David in DC supported leaving the sentence length out, while User:john celona, User:Will Beback, and I all support leaving the length in (I believe there are others as well - it certainly appears that User:Albion moonlight doesn't object to its inclusion). Besides that, including the length of the sentence doesn't disrupt the weighting at all, since there's still the same amount of text dealing with the incident as there was before. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Celona's edit didn't significantly lengthen the text. I've never understood the objection to specifying the duration of the sentence. Why is "short sentence" better than "three-month sentence"? Looking back through the discussion I don't see that there was ever a consensus on this. All of that said, I'm not sure why Celona feels it necessary to upset the peace of this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No consensus is being fabricated. It was established, with help from Anon E. Mouse and language tweaking by Aleta. It was stable for about a week. Then a tendtious editor who'd had no involvement in the discussions came in and stirred up a hornet's nest. Please understand, JkP wanted NO MENTION. Aleta and I wanted MORE MENTION. A bunch of us found a consensus. It's worth respecting.David in DC (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

User Benjiboi and others have expressed concern that an incident over 30 years ago gets inclusion. I have objected to the inclusion based on BLP concerns, and undue weight. However, a compromise/consensus was reached (see full talk page), and I am willing to accept the inclusion of the incident if the compromise is respected. --Jkp212 (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

David's and Jkp's comments reflect my understanding of it. Several people with a range of preferences for how much to say - from none at all to more detail - reached a compromise position which we carefully crafted over several days. This was then unilaterally shattered. Aleta (Sing) 00:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The undisputed and verified FACT that Yarrow served 3 months in prison for a pedophilliac assault on a little girl who resisted his adavances has been on this article for over 3 years. 3 years-with dozens and dozens of editors keeping the information in place. That is the "consensus", first put on the article on February 3 of 2005. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Yarrow&oldid=10201477.John celona (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that an article was problematic for a long time is no reason to return to the problem. The article had many problems, and was worked on thoughtfully by a number of editors. Also, other editors have asked Celona to cease making inflammatory edit summaries, and yet is he is persisting with that type of language. Further, it is not appropriate to call the one-time incident with a groupie a "pedophilliac assault on a little girl" --Jkp212 (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no source, other than the molester, which calls the child victim a "groupie". John celona (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

How about the judge?: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_Yarrow&diff=176241867&oldid=176240439

You have provided a Wikipedia comment showing someone CLAIMING the judge called the little girl Yarrow served time for molesting a "groupie". I asked several times for a verifiable source for any judge saying that. There are none. What there ARE is verifiable sources that the child "resisted his advances". [[32]]. In the future, please refrain from using a user's Wikipedia talk commentary as a verifiable source. John celona (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The source is Toronto Daily Star - Tuesday, September 15, 1970. page 28 -- look it up, but the jist of it is that the judged agreed with the defense attorney and reduced Yarrow's sentence b/c he felt the girl and her 18 year old sister (they were there together at the singer's hotel room) were groupies seeking sex with a celebrity. --Jkp212 (talk) 01:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Please provide an online link to the claimed article. The Milwaukee Sentinel states that the little girl "resisted his advances". Unlike you, I provide a link to my claimed source-[[33]].John celona (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Your assertion that an online source is superior to an offline one (printed 28 years ago) is disturbing and completely fallacious. I advise you find another line of argument. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

What evidence is there, other than jkp212's unsupported and unilateral statement, for the existence of this "offline source". It seems rather dubious, considering it is at complete variance with the very recent online source-the respected Milwaukee Sentinel. Every online source reports the child "resisted his advances". See [[34]] and [[35]] and [[36]] and [[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41199]] and [[37]] and others.John celona (talk) 02:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It's nice when references are online. However, it is neither required nor always feasible. There does still exists an institution called the library. :) Aleta (Sing) 02:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not stating online sources are superior. I am questioning the existing of this claimed "offline source" which is completely at variance with every single online source. I think it is right to question it's existence, especially in light of the attacks and (failed) attempts to ban me which this user has continually engaged in and continues to. John celona (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not wish to "ban" you. I ask only that you attack other editors less, only make edits to sensitive areas (especially a BLP) once a consensus has been reached, and not question the good faith of others with such frequency. I am hopeful that this discussion has been helpful toward that cause. If you recall, in the last administrator noticeboard discussion of your edits, I asked that you NOT be banned if you start making constructive edits, and working with others in a positive way. If your edits are done with the support of consensus on the talk page, I will have no problem at all. --Jkp212 (talk) 05:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The consensus on this page, for over 3 years, through dozens of editors and scores of edits has been to include the 3 month prison sentence in the article. You and one other user, with no consultation from those of us who created this article, unilaterally took it on yourself to censor this consenus version even though it is well sourced by the New York Times and others. If you will just stop trying to censor the consnsus words "served 3 months in prison" which have been on the article for over 3 years, this dispute would stopJohn celona (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Just a note, I believe that I have access to microfilms of the Toronto Star from 1970; I'll try to check the source tomorrow and provide its text. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: Apparently, despite having copies of the Globe, the Gazette, the Citizen, and almost every other significant Canadian daily going back to the nineteenth century, the University of Alberta library only has the Star back to 1982 (the have further back in the university archives, but I'm unlikely to be taking a trip out there any time soon). Does anybody else have the ability to corroborate Jkp212's source (just a note that I fully trust Jkp212's account of what's in the source, but given the mistrust that seems to permeate this page, it would be good to have corroboration from elsewhere)? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

See http://www.theawarenesscenter.org/Yarrow_Peter.html#Sex. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

breaking the peace

A user has been making "threats" to this page via another talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:American_criminals&diff=prev&oldid=195223525 This issue has been discussed and consensus reached on this page. The user has unilaterally shattered the consensus for the controversial content in the article. This is not the first time that this has occurred. I have started a discussion on the disruptions here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#John_celona.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29 --Jkp212 (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

What is controversial is the POV edit of "three months" to "a short sentence". It's a useless consensus. You're withholding relevant facts. --Saber^Excalibur! 00:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Read the full talk page, and you'll understand the consensus more. There could be all sorts of "relevant facts" to include, but if they create undue weight in their level of detail/attention, then they should not be included. I feel that goes for the entire incident. Others agree. But I am willing to accept the inclusion of the incident if the consensus is respected. --Jkp212 (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't care about the entire fight above, what I see is a messed up consensus that violates the manual of style and proper encyclopedic tone. Either you include it and state the facts or you don't include it at all. "A short sentence" is a relative, POV statement. Three months is a short sentence for murder. Sixty days is a long sentence for endangering traffic. Ten years is a long sentence for sexual misconduct. And so on. "Three months" provides the fact and leaves it to the reader to evaluate whether it is a short, long or proper sentence length. --Saber^Excalibur! 01:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I would be ok with not including it at all, as you mention. But if it is included, it should respect the carefully determined consensus. --Jkp212 (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You are making up this "consensus". Reading above I see a majority who opposes you. --Saber^Excalibur! 01:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Could folks please stop reverting each other while we discuss this? Just leave it as it is (which way that is) and make suggestions for edits here instead. Neither version breaks BLP so there's no reason for reverting. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the category issue, I count 7 editors against the Sex Offender/Criminal Category VS 1 for it. On the inclusion of the incident, there are many different opinions, and the current content was determined to be a compromise of many different viewpoints. --Jkp212 (talk) 01:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus here because there is still a dispute and no agreement to disagree. The next step would seem to be to seek mediation.: Albion moonlight (talk) 06:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Mediation is a good idea. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the article to give editors a chance to resolve this issue either here or in mediation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 15:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}}

There was an "edit protected" request template, but no clear request. —EncMstr 07:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Locking the text is good, for mediation. But locking the categories American criminals and American sex offenders is stacking the deck a bit, I think. Please consider a more balanced lock. Keep the 3 months and source, for now. But lose the categories, for now. David in DC (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yarrow pled guilty to felony sex offense charges, as sourced by numerous online major newspapers such as the Milwaukee Sentinel which states that "The 14-year-old victim resisted his advances" [[38]] and the New York Times which tells us of " folk singer Peter Yarrow, who was arrested for having sex with a 14-year-old girl. (Mr. Yarrow was ultimately sentenced to three months in jail.)" [[39]]. Since no one could seriously argue that an adult convicted of a felony and imprisoned "for having sex with a 14 year old girl" who "resisted his advances" is not properly placed in both categories I assume your concern was in regards to sourcing. Hopefully that concern has now been met. John celona (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Every editor except Celona argued against the 2 other categories (see above), and it had nothing to do with sourcing. --Jkp212 (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No editor but Celona argues for the categories. And it has nothing to do with sourcing. It has to do with Undue Weight.David in DC (talk) 03:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the first time I've encountered "undue weight" as a reason to place an article in a particular category. It's a bit confusing as I don't see categories really given much weight as they're dichotomous; either the article is in the category or it's not. Can you please further explain and expand upon your reasoning/argument? --ElKevbo (talk) 12:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

 Not done Please be more specific in your request. Happy‑melon 20:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The subject was not convicted of a sex crime, and so he should not be placed in that category. He never had sex with the groupie, and he was pardoned for the 1 time incident, which by definition clears him of any labels or categorizations such as that. Further, if there is any question about this, it should be taken out until discussion has had a chance to work its course. --Jkp212 (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. The cited sources seem to be very clear in documenting that Yarrow was sentenced to 3 months in jail for having sex with a minor. How then can you state that he "was not convicted of a sex crime"? --ElKevbo (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Jkp212 argues that "taking improper liberties" is not a sex crime (and, indeed, in this case Yarrow did not have intercourse with the victim, which puts us into Bill Clinton territory). I actually have considerable sympathy for the view that the categories are inappropriate, and I wish User:John celona would stop adding them. That said, there is clearly no consensus for their removal right now. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, the sources are very clear that he did not have sex with a minor. He was convicted for taking "improper liberties" in his hotel room where a groupie was visiting, they did not have sex, and the judge in the case suggested that he was seduced by this groupie fan, and therefore reduced his sentence. Also, he was pardoned for the offense, which by definition means he was cleared of this and any categorizations of the sort. --Jkp212 (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not clear if the crime of which Yarrow was convicted is one that we commonly associate with sex offenses. It sounds like it is to me but I defer to those with more extensive legal and sociological knowledge. I am also sympathetic as we have, particularly in recent years, been very free with the label "sexual offender" often to the detriment of our fellow human beings. However, this is not the correct place to lobby for a change in our collective standards and ideas.

I utterly reject the idea that we should suppress facts because of political decisions or actions. I accept the reasoning behind presidential pardons but I reject the idea of an encyclopedia engaging in historical revisionism because of pardons. --ElKevbo (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much, both ElKevbo and Saber for your input. The "rule" which Jkp212 seeks to impose would result in any fan of a celebrity such as Pete Rose, Michael Vick or Chuck Berry being allowed to unilatteraly revert well sourced criminal convictions because they don't like the way it reflects on their heroes. This is patently absurd. John celona (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I'll just point out that Yarrow received clemency, not a pardon. While I am foggy on the exact ramifications of each, I believe there is a legal distinction. Aleta (Sing) 21:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

BLP and the incident

Hi! I'm an uninvolved admin who's never edited this article before. I've taken a look at the incident involved and I don't believe BLP requires its removal. First, the sourcing appears to be adequate and reliable enough to establish that the incident occurred even given the heightened sourcing criteria BLP requires. Second, the San Diego Trubune source suggests that the incident influenced Peter Yarrow's later outlook and views, making it at least arguable that the matter isn't simply a completely isolated incident but has more general biographical relevance. Third, mention of the incident is relatively brief and towards the bottom of the article; it does not seem to be grossly over-emphasized. Finally, the matter involves Yarrow's own conduct, not (for example) being a victim of others' conduct. Accordingly, I don't believe BLP requires administrative removal of the material and believe the matter should be resolved through ordinary discussion. I express no opinion on whether the material should ultimately be included based on the discussion. I simply don't believe BLP requires an administrator to override the discussion and immediately delete it, as had been requested. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have responded on your talk page. --Jkp212 (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much Shirahadasa for bringing some rational imput to this unilateral attempt to censor a criminal conviction because the subject's family "doesn't like it on Wikipedia". Jkp212 continues to post patently false information regarding this case. He claims Yarrow didn't actually have sex with the girl but the New York Times tells us that he "was arrested for having sex with a 14-year-old girl.". [[40]]. The mainstream media sources clearly state that the girl "resisted his advances" [[41]]. Surely a 30 year old man who has sex with a 14 year old child who "resisted his advances" is a sex offender by any sane person's definition. Jkp212 has continually reverted the well sourced information, which has been on the article for over 3 years through consensus, through constant editors and edits. He then spreads slanderous accusations against the molestation victim, claiming as his "source" a 38 year old Toronto newspaper article which no one but him claims exists. This user should be admonished not to continue unilaterally reverting well sourced NPOV information which has been on the article over 3 years by consensus. If we were to follow his absurd guidelines every celebrity from Pete rose to Chuck Berry to Michael Vick would have their well sourced criminal convictions reverted from their articles because a fan doesn't want them there!John celona (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Please adsvise us on what happens if Celona is banned as a sockpuppet. This diff prompts the question. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:John_celona&diff=195596873&oldid=135135655. Because I suspect this can be resolved on the talk page quite easily if that happens.David in DC (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have never posted under the name Rastishika, as the most cursory examination of where my IP is coming from will show. Now on to the next irrelevant attack on me? None of which address this article. Bring up the Ming Dynasty, Byzantine Empire and applied Swahili. Anything but Peter Yarrow and his New york Times sourced sex offense against a 14 year old child who "resisted his advances". I believe you are a sockpuppet since the real David in DC disengaged from this article January 8! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_Yarrow&diff=prev&oldid=182870008John celona (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Shira appears to be correct; moreover the widespread sourcing for this as far as I can tell necessitates its inclusion in the article. I'm not sure however that the categories included are a good idea; a single short conviction may not be enough to stick someone in the sex offender category. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

On disengaging: I said I would but I couldn't. It's a weakness, but not sock puppetry. You yourself noted my reengagement when it occured.

On Categories, Aleta got it right above, back in December. I'm cutting and pasting.

"I think any categorization of this article based upon this incident is overcategorization. Additionally, Wikipedia:Categorization of people states: "For example, Category:Criminals should only be added if the incident is relevant to the person's notability; it has been published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal," and "Not all categories are comprehensive: For some "sensitive" categories, it is better to think of the category as a set of representative and unquestioned examples, while a list is a better venue for an attempt at completeness. Particularly for "sensitive" categories, lists can be used as a complement to categorization" (bolding in original). Yarrow's notability derives very little from this incident, and he was granted clemency. I think issues of WP:weight make categorizing the article based upon this improper. Aleta ^Sing 04:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)" David in DC (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yarrow is very notable because of his prison time. It was quite an issue in the 2004 elections when his friend John Kerry made a failed bid for the White House. Indeed, many of the articles merely referred to Yarrow as a "child molestor" or "pedophile". Only later in the article would it be mentioned that this person had also belonged to an obscure 60's musical group. For instance: "Kerry selected molester as godfather to daughter" [[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41199]] and "JOHN Kerry's presidential campaign strategists are probably hoping his friendship with frisky folk legend Peter Yarrow of Peter, Paul and Mary will go "Puff!" like a certain Magic Dragon.[[42]] and "Kerry's godfather a pothead/ molester" [[43]] and " Child Molester Raises $$ for Garamendi: Put that in your pipe and smoke it" www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1680554/posts. Separately, Yarrow's association with incumbent Texas Congessman Martin Frost became a major cause celebre in Frost's failed bid for re-election. See "Representative Martin Frost (D-Texas) had planned a fundraiser headlined by Peter Yarrow of the Kerry-era folk group Peter, Paul, and Mary. Frost backed away when he discovered that Yarrow had been convicted of sexually abusing a 14-year-old girl." [[44]] and "Peter Yarrow, the child molester that liberal Congressman Martin Frost would not allow to entertain at his fund raiser (because according to Frost, he did not want to be connected to a child molester)" [[45]] and "In 2004, Texas Democrat Martin Frost cancelled a fundraising appearance with Yarrow, after learning of his molestation conviction. Interestingly, Frost appeared favorably in press reports for having the backbone to cancel any political appearances with Yarrow. "Crimes against children are very serious offenses," Frost said in a statement. "I do not believe it is appropriate for Mr. Yarrow to campaign on my behalf." (National Journal's Congress Daily, Oct. 1, 2004)" [[46]]. Even the most casual viewer of cable news in 2004 would realize that Yarrow is now more notable for his pedophilia than for his 40 year old pop music hits. John celona (talk) 00:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The vast majority of those sources are nowhere near what I would label as credible or authoritative; they're blatant partisan political attack rags. Furthermore, referencing Mary, Paul, and Peter as an "obscure 60's musical group" is also not quite on the level.

I am being swayed by those who insist that the categories give this incident in Yarrow's life undue weight. I'm not quite convinced as I would still like to know how other persons that are in, were in, or should be in those categories are treated. Do we typically list persons who have been convicted of any crime related to sexual conduct in those categories? Or are we being asked to give Yarrow special treatment? --ElKevbo (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

We are being asked (actually demanded) to give Yarrow special treatment. It is obviously an option available to users as to whether to put an article in an appropriate category. Right now actor Jeffrey Jones, internet video pioneer Marc Collins-Rector, legislator Galen Fox, NBA player Byron Houston, actor Vincent Margera NBA players Ruben Patterson and Kendall (Tiny) Pinder and NFL player Rafael Septien and others are in that category. Director Roman Polanski and actor James Stacy also belong there. I intend to add a bunch of names to that category but will not do so until the block is lifted on this article on March 16.John celona (talk) 13:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Collins-Rector fled the United States, had sex with 5 underage people, and then payed millions of dollars to the victims. Not comparable at all. Similar remarks apply to Margera who was sentenced to 10 years intensive probation. Similar comments apply to most of the others. In any event, I'd be more inclined to remove some of those people from the category than to include Yarrow. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Please Delete Categories

{{editprotected}} Please delete categories American criminals and American sex offenders. All but a solitary editor advocates their continued inclusion on the locked version, pending mediation. David in DC (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe what David means is all that a solitary editor advocate their deletion from the locked version. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

SarcasticIdealist is correct and I'm a dolt. D'oh. David in DC (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Not quite, thanks to my confusion of "but" and "that". So, one last time: all but a solitary editor advocate their deletion from the locked version. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

RESTATING REQUEST: Please delete categories American criminals and American sex offenders. Only a solitary editor advocates their continued inclusion on the locked version, pending mediation.David in DC (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've made the edit per this request. I hope mediation will be requested. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. The man served time for molesting an unwilling child. His pedophilia became a media cause celebre in the 2004 Presedential race and his association with Texas Congressman Martin Frost helped unseat that politician in favor of Pete Sessions. If that's not a "sex offender" than we must all be living in the Twilight Zone. Those in favor of non-inclusion should put this on a RFC. Otherwise, unless an administrator orders me not to, I will continue to list him in these categories-where he properly is according to all verifiable sources. If an administrator orders me not to I will abide by that, although I see it as an absurd result. I will not flile blatantly false sockpuppet allegations and make other wild accusations, as has been done to me. John celona (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This is indeed a content dispute but you appear to be in the minority. Threatening to continue making dispute edits until "ordered" to not do so is not helping your cause. Mind if I ask why this is so important to you?

By the way, I also believe that fulfilling the protected edit request was a huge mistake. Administrators should not use their tools in content disputes or make controversial edits to protected articles. Bad show, Will. --ElKevbo (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's important to me because I believe in truth. To say that a well sourced, indeed notorious, sex offender cannot be placed in that category because a handfull of his fans will have hurt feelings makes a mockery of this whole project. John celona (talk) 02:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You talk about his family's feelings, and you talk about his fan's feelings. Where is this coming from? --Jkp212 (talk) 05:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hang on, is John celona correct about how much of an issue this became? Are there sources to back that up? If so, then keeping the categories seems reasonable to me. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The only sources that I've seen so far are the right-wing attack pieces posted in the section above. I agree that if substantive information from reliable sources can be provided it would help John's argument and perhaps sway other editors. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

On Yarrow's sex offense status impacting 2004 elections: Left wing San Francisco Chrinicle Examiner [[47]], USA Today,[[48]], Associated Press [[49]], left-wing Austin Chronicle [[50]], Salon.com [51]], WFAA-Channel 8 Dallas [[52]], Real Clear Politics [[53]], UPI [[54]], Texas Weekly [[55]]Fox News [[56]] CNN [[57]] Boston Globe [[58]], Reason Magazine [[59]] Times News [[60]] The Hill [[61]] Dailiy Kos [[62]] and [[63]] Washington Examiner [[64]] and many more including extensive coverage on all Cable News stations. John celona (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks John. I think it's a pretty dirty political tactic but those definitely appear to be solid sources. --ElKevbo (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm fine with the categories. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Mediaton Now Please.

I am going to see this through until it goes to mediation and is eventually resolved by arb bringing down the hammer on the editors who are making this article and others a battlefield. I know that arbcom does not decide content issues but they do have a away of dealing with disruptive wikipedians and there is disruption coming from both sides of the issues at hand. I think Will should be commended for his actions because both sides are behaving very badly and have been for at least a few months now. I do not agree with John Celona but there is a larger issue that needs to be dealt with and that is a control issue that predates John Celonas first edits to this article. I think that Peter Yarrow is a fine human being but this does not mean that we should be able to squash the true story of what happened and how and why. And it surely does not mean that we should allow the kind of tactics used on John Celona to be used on anyone else. So I say bring on the mediation process so we can move closer to making this an article one that everyone can feel free to edit without fear of being ostracized or vilified for their views. Albion moonlight (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've filed a request for mediation here. Besides myself, I've listed as parties User:John celona, User:Jkp212, User:David in DC, and User:Albion moonlight (the first three because I perceive their participation as being essential to any useful mediation effort, and Albion because of the above statement expressing a desire to participate). Would anyone else like to be added as a party? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I would, please. Aleta (Sing) 14:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Toss me in if you like, I haven't been engaged especially actively but I do support the inclusion of the disputed section. --SABER^EXCALIBUR! 15:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added both of you. Please visit the mediation case page and add your signatures to the "Parties' agreement to mediate" section. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, SI. I've signed. Aleta (Sing) 20:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I know-I'll just delete the whole damn category

Just to let everyone know how Jkp212 "plays"-in the midst of debate about whether to include his convicted pedophile hero on the sex offenders category, he pointedly tries to delete the whole damn category and moot the issue! [[65]]. Such "good faith" is expected from someone who has stalked every page I have ever posted at since this dispute arose, posting ad nauseum false information, trying repeatedly to have me blocked and slapped down for doing so and falsely reporting me as a sockpuppet. There is NO mediation with such a rogue user. John celona (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The category only has a handle full of subjects listed, with no rhyme or reason, and should be deleted. There is nothing wrong with making a nomination and welcoming discussion on its deletion. --Jkp212 (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

John, should I take this to be a formal refusal to agree to mediation? If so, I sincerely hope that you'll reconsider. The only alternative to mediation I see at this point is to put the article on article probation, and I don't think you'd want that to occur. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you direct me to the details of article probation? Frankly, with the torment and stalking I have been put through by these 2 users over a simple desire to preserve a well-sourced fact which has been on the article over 3 years I see mediation with these users as an exercise in futility. The sleazy attempt to delete the whole category in the midst of discussion, falsely claiming that "only a handle full" (sic) are listed, when in fact over 2 dozen are listed, shows a good example of the blatantly false torment I have been subjected to by these 2 users. John celona (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The details of article probation vary from article to article, but here's an example. Basically, the threshold required for administrators to sanction editors is decreased, and the range of sanctions available to individual administrators increases. Frankly, I think both your behaviour and that of User:Jkp212 have been generally non-conducive to resolving this situation, but at least Jkp has agreed to try mediation. I wish you'd do the same. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

John, mediation is a way to try to resolve the dispute. Please try it. If we try it and it doesn't work, so be it. If we don't try it, it cannot possibly work. Aleta (Sing) 02:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This mediation should be pursued with or without John's participation. Some of these people think they own this article and they need to learn the fact that they never had a consensus in the first place. I intend to expand this article and these categories may come in handy. Albion moonlight (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It can't be. From the mediation page: "All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected." If he so chooses, he could derail the process. I hope he'll think better of that. Aleta (Sing) 03:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Any mediation pursued without John would be as futile as any mediation pursued without Jkp212 or David. Unless mediation produces something that all parties can agree to, we're headed for an ugly situation. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Albion, that's great, please expand the article as you have mentioned in the past that you intend to do. It will be good for the article to have more details on the many various things that this man has done for society, including his records, performances, etc. --Jkp212 (talk) 03:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay then if John refuses to participate we should perhaps report him for it and force him to participate or back off. He can be blocked indefinitely for disruption if he fails to participate and keeps edit warring. We can also take an RFC out on him. As for expanding the article I will wait until we deal this problem because what I want to do may require a forking of this article. Thank you Jkp and Aleta for your clarifications.: Albion moonlight (talk) 07:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The article, as far as I'm concerned, can be expanded ad nauseum to include all his alleged good deeds. It should also be expanded to include the very well sourced (see the 18 mainstream media sources in my post from yesterday [[66]] on this page) connection his sex offense conviction had on the 2004 Presidential race and in the unseating of Congressman Martin Frost by Pete Sessions. Now we can see how the king of good faith Jkp212 will run over to the Pete Sessions article and delete the reference to Yarrow's pedophilia conviction. This information has been on that article since August 2006 and was put on by user John Broughton [[67]]. Anyone in for a pool on how long before Jkp212 and/or David in Dc "report" me as a suspected sockpuppet of John Broughton? John celona (talk) 13:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, actually the AP language on the Sessions page looks pretty darn good, in context. David in DC (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually what I want to do is to cover the whole incident to include the facts that Yarrow made sexual advances toward a female fan who turned out to be 15 years old. Or was it 14 John ? I don't know. Sometimes it is very hard to tell how old a post pubescent female is. But all I intend to do is lay down the facts in an unbiased manner. Mediation is not binding but if you refuse to participate you will likely be blocked from editing wikipedia indefinitely for disruption or something like that. An RFC on you and your particular behavior coupled with your refusal to participate in the mediation process is very likely to lead to an end to your participation as a contributor to wikipedia, Article Probation is in fact an option but it leads down the same road. So please reconsider your position and participate in the mediation process John. Do it for for yourself.: Albion moonlight (talk) 15:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Everyone please read this.

It gives a cleared view of the ramifications of Mediation . :Albion moonlight (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If no mediation, then consensus version, with additions by Albion and others?

Hello, I would just like to propose that if we have no mediation b/c one party is not willing to go through the process, then we should stick with the consensus version that Aleta, David in DC, Sarcastic Idealist, Albion, myself, and other editors agreed to in December. I have no problem with Albion and others expanding the article and exploring the long and varied life of Yarrow. I just ask that we respect the effort that was put into finding a compromise on the subject matter in question. Jkp212 (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you remind everyone what text you're referring to? What is the "consensus version" from December? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, this is the version I'm referring to, originally written by Aleta after much discussion, and approved by all the other editors at the time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_Yarrow&diff=prev&oldid=177966281 Jkp212 (talk) 03:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

:::Actually the "consensus" version is the one which has been on the article for well over 3 years [[68]] through dozens and dozens of editors which does not do what you and David in Dc have been doing these last few weeks by disrupting this article and demanding that a well-sourced (NY Times [[69]], etc) prison sentence of a pedophile be censured. Even though that prison sentence became a widely reported issue in the 2004 Presidential race and the unseating of Congressman Martin Frost by Pete Sessions [[70]]. John celona (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we ever had a real consensus but I think we should should be looking at consensus as if it is a fleeting thing when it comes to article newbies. But yes if John doesn't want to take part in the mediation process. I say we should get the article unprotected and if John continues with his disruptive edits and comments we can take out an Rfc on him and ask the Arbitration committee to deal with his behavior. If he wants to counter by taking out an Rfc on any of us we can let the past record speak for "itself. I think some of us behaved badly but this does not give John the right to refuse mediation and do whatever he pleases. His own past record coupled with his refusal to join in mediation will likely lead to his undoing : Albion moonlight (talk) 07:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you albion. I think any objective party will say that this article was in bad shape until we started working on it in December. The entire biography was carelessly written and without a single source. With the work of numerous editors, certain content compromises were made, and it is that compromise/consensus (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_Yarrow&diff=prev&oldid=177966281 ) which should be kept unless this is worked out through mediation, which I'm also totally open to. --Jkp212 (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

As someone who hasn't been involved much in the discussion up to now could somebody please point me in the direction of the consensus version (or versions) which some people are proposing we might adopt? And can somebody explain the disagreements some people might have to this? PatGallacher (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

To make it simple and short: For over 3 years [[71]] the article has contained the very well sourced (NY Times [[72]] and many others) fact that Yarrow was convicted of molesting an unwilling girl and served a prison sentence. This conviction was a well reported issue in the 2004 campaign because of Yarrow's association with John Kerry. It also led to Yarrow's friend , veteran Congressman Martin Frost losing his seat to Pete Sessions [[73]]. Over the last few weeks, two fans of Yarrow, Jpk212 and David In Dc have attempted to censor mention of this prison sentence from the article. John celona (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ with this summary. While it is true at least one person preferred no mention of the incident, others wanted more. Several of us worked out a compromise text, which can be seen in this difference. The compromise says he had a "short sentence" rather than spelling out that he served three months. That is at least part of John Celona's objection to that version. Since the compromise was made, no one has been trying censor mention of the incident. Aleta ^Sing 14:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this diff [[74]] shows at least one user wants to "censor mention of the incident". The language "short sentence" is ambiguous, and intentionally so. It could refer to probation, a suspended sentence, home confinement, work release, community service or a deferred sentence. What these 2 fans (groupies?) have attempted to do in the last few weeks, without notice or consent of those of us who worked 3 years using the consensus version, is to permanently revert the well sourced word "prison" from the body of the article-where it has been by consensus for more than 3 years [[75]]. John celona (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to keep harping on this, John, but you seem to be deliberately avoiding the question of whether or not you're willing to agree to mediation. I agree with you that the incident needs to be mentioned, and I agree with you that this mention should include the sentence length. I don't agree with you on the category thing, but I think there's some room for give and take. But it makes me very difficult to take your side on anything when you're the only user apparently unwilling to proceed with formal dispute resolution, which we clearly need. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, as long as I have your general support, I will sign on to it. Although, when you see the "other questions" being propounded on the mediation page and the false, nonsensical comment below mine by Jpk212 I think this will all be just a voluminous and painfull re-hash of all the nightmares we have been through on this article over the last 3 months. I don't have time to devote to what I am sure will be a tortured project tommorow or Tuesday but I will sign in on Wednesday, with much trepidation. There is PLENTY of room for give and take. I don't care if they expand the article to 1000 paragraphs about this ex-cons "good deeds" but his well sourced prison sentence and the well sourced effect it had in the 2004 election cannot be censored at the whim of a couple of fans (groupies?). John celona (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree that we should proceed with binding mediation. --Jkp212 (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Just as a clarification, mediation is in no way binding, and maediators will not even make judgments regarding which side is "correct". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

John, you can go ahead and agree to the mediation just so we know everyone's on board even if it will be a couple days before anything more can be done. Please go ahead and just indicate your agreement on the mediation request page. Thanks! Aleta ^Sing 19:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I will sign up before the deadline.John celona (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Age Matters

I think the article should mention that Yarrow was 32 when he molested the 14 year-old fan. And that he had been married only a few months, and that his wife was pregnant when the incident occured.

Daver852 (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)daver852

Mediation accepted

Notice to anyone watching this page: the request for mediation regarding this article has been accepted. Aleta ^Sing 15:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been two weeks now. Should we prod (poke, whatever - adding to clarify that I don't mean prod in the WP:Prod sense) the Mediation Committee? I think they have a backlog. (I wouldn't be able to participate much until next week anyway.) Aleta ^Sing 21:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be listed here: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Perhaps it wasn't filed correctly? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's in the box off to the side, under "Unassigned". It looks like they're pretty backlogged with cases, so we might be waiting a while. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Reorganizing

I have made a pass at subdividing and reorganizing the biography section. Others please look at it, and modify as needed! I have no idea where the anecdote about his stolen guitar should go. I've left it in "controversy" for now, but that doesn't seem right. Aleta ^Sing 21:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I'd suggest the following changes (which I'll implement myself if there are no objections):

• moving the stolen guitar bit to "personal life";
• moving "personal life" to after "music" and "social activism" (I'm a believer in putting personal life at the end of articles, since it's usually incidental to the reason the article exists);
• retitling "controversy" to something more specifically related to the incident. We might need to wait until the mediation process to decide on a title, but I'll throw out some suggestions anyway: "Conviction and clemency" or "1970 incident" (my personal preference would be something more factual and straightforward, like "Criminal conviction", but I make the preceding suggestions in the spirit of compromise). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I like your suggestions, SI. Why don't you go ahead and implement them as a next pass, and remove the restructuring tag, while we continue the conversation. (I'm sure others will have comments.) "Conviction and clemency" sounds good to me as a title for that section. Aleta ^Sing 22:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. I also changed the "main article" template at the top of the musical career section to a "see also" template, since Peter, Paul & Mary only describes a subset of Yarrow's musical career, rather than going into detail on the whole thing. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That's much better than it was! :) Aleta ^Sing 22:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I've made a couple of edits to comply with WP:NPOV. I'm hoping they'll be non-controversial, but feel free to WP:BRD if you don't like them. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Not only does it improve the neutrality, but it also changes it from a copyright violation. Look what I just found: [76]. Some of that prose sounds pretty familiar. Aleta ^Sing 23:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Truly fine work, friends. David in DC (talk) 23:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I am making a slight modification, which includes the incident, but puts it in more proper context to his life. It is not worthy of an entire section. Thanks for the work. --Jkp212 (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Jkp, WP:AGF requires me to assume that your ommission of the section's last paragraph was accidental, so I will. But please be more careful in the future (I've restored the paragraph). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. It was not accidental -- I believe it is not really that relevant, and serves more as a factoid, but I will accept your content for the time being. I think the main goal should be to expand the article on the more pertinent part of his life, like the music. Thanks. --Jkp212 (talk) 03:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It should, and I think the organization should facilitate that. Aleta ^Sing 03:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the format is helpful and makes it a much more effective piece --Jkp212 (talk) 03:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me too but I miss the picture of Yarrow. : Albion moonlight (talk) 06:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - in case you weren't aware, though, that wasn't a discretionary call on our part. It was deleted deleted for failing to comply with the non-free content policy. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I did know but I am hoping someone is able to find one. Perhaps one or all of us can ask him for one after we have settled the dispute. : Albion moonlight (talk) 06:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've tried a little re-arranging. Please over-ride anything that doesn't make sense. I've tried, and I think succeeded, at moving items around without changing content at all. David in DC (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Until mediation, do no harm

I have removed the special section and the focus on the 1 time incident in this subject's life until mediation is worked out. Thankfully, we have all signed up for mediation and these issues will be worked out civilly and patiently. Until then, I think we should follow BLP policy, which is "when in doubt, do no harm" to the subject. thanks --Jkp212 (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Leave intact the NY Times sourced information which has been on the article since its inception pending mediation. 2 Administrators have already examined this issue and determined it is well sourced and should STAY. Yarrow is not being "harmed". The whole world knows he is a convicted child molester. It was a wideley reported issue in the 2004 presedential election. That same year saw 26 year Congressman Martin Frost thrown out of office in favor of Pete Sessions, in large part because of Frost's friendship with molester Yarrow. John celona (talk) 00:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you deliberately misrepresenting your case John ? Frost was reelected 12 times without serious opposition. He served as chairman of the House Democratic Caucus from 1999 to 2003. However, he was one of the targets of a controversial redistricting engineered by then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. His district, which included portions of Dallas, Fort Worth and Arlington was redrawn to be much more Republican. It was an open secret that the new 24th was redrawn for State Representative Kenny Marchant. Moreover, his home in Arlington was shifted into the heavily Republican 6th District, represented by 10-term incumbent Joe Barton. Frost decided to seek re-election in the newly redrawn 32nd District, which included a considerable amount of territory that he had represented from 1979 until 1993. He lost by 10 points to Republican Pete Sessions. Since Ralph Hall's party switch earlier in 2004, Frost had been the only white Democrat to represent a significant portion of the Metroplex. Do you really think that your explanation is more representative of what happened to Frost or are you merely trying to stir up the flames again ? Albion moonlight (talk) 07:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Please look at my post at 00:26 on March 4 on this discussion page for some mainsteam media articles which clearly show that Frost's friendship with a convicted child molester was a major issue in that campaign. Indeed the Pete Sessions page has long held that informastion-and no it was not put there by me. Until mediation, do no censorship. Two administrators have already reviewed this, found it to be well sourced and ruled it should STAY John celona (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

==Thanks for the clarification John. It still seems to me that you are fanning the flames unnecessarily . The source you supplied seems to be pure spin made at election time. There is a big difference between editing and censorship. If you make an edit that lasts longer than 24 hours I might decide to edit it but I will not revert it. : Albion moonlight (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Kerrville Folk Festival

Yarrow's bio on the PP&M page [77] says Yarrow co-founded the Kerrville Folk Festival, and we cite it for that piece of information. However, the About Kerrville Festivals page [78] names one other person as the founder and only mentions PP&M as performers. Anyone know any details about this discrepancy? Aleta ^Sing 17:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Man, it's the Newport Folk Festival all over again (see earlier on this page). I'd say that, as in that case, if sources differ we should remove the claim. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought something seemed familiar about it! I went ahead and took out the info. I haven't, so far, been able to find any other sources besides these two disagreeing ones. Aleta ^Sing 18:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I just found this quote: "In 1970, building on this concept, Peter conceived of and co-organized the New Folks Concert, which became the signature event of the Kerrville (Texas) Folk Festival, which is considered his most important achievement in this arena." [79] It would be nice to find an independent source for it though. Aleta ^Sing 19:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a source from the Kerrville Festival website that confirms Yarrow's central role in developing both Festivals' "New Folks" concerts (at Kerrville AND Newport.) In neither case is it asserted that he started the overall festivals, just the "New Folks" concerts at each. http://www.kerrville-music.com/Birth%20of%20New%20Folk.pdf David in DC (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent find, David! Yay! Aleta ^Sing 20:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Until mediation

I am happy that almost every party has signed up for mediation, and agreed to move forward. Unfortunately, not everyone has agreed to move forward yet, and the process is stalled. I hope that we can move that process forward. I have temporarily removed small items that I believe to be potentially harmful or unfair to the subject. I will explain my position in more detail during mediation, and will respect the views of others, as well as the ultimate consensus. I hope that others can respect this temporary move until that process has taken place. Thank you, --Jkp212 (talk) 18:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

C'mon gang

Let's not mark what will obviously be controversial edits as minor.

Let's not use inflammatory words like "censorship" to describe a content dispute.

Let's not have a slo-mo revert war that skirts the 3-rr rule by only changing one another's edits on a daily basis. The 3-rr rule doesn't cover it, but it's still disruptive to the project, and tendentious to boot.

Let's not describe the Bexley incident as having been on the page for three years. As best I can tell, it was contributed for the first time just a week or so ago, by someone who, 'til now, appears to have had no part in this content dispute. I'm the person who wikified the footnote for that one. David in DC (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I was not referring to the incident you added but to the fact that Yarrow served 3 months in prison. That fact HAS been on the article for "over 3 years" by consensus. It was reviewed by at least 2 administrators who found it properly sourced (NY Times, etc.) and should STAY. John celona (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The administrators took pains to express that they are making no judgements on the content dispute. Whether or not something is sourced is not necessarily relevant to whether or not it's a BLP violation. I feel any mention of the incident in such a short article is undue weight, but I'm comfortable with the compromise that was reached. However, all these issues will be discussed in mediation. --Jkp212 (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

since Yarrow is much better known for being a leftist extremist activist and a convicted child molestor whose pedophilia has caused major problems for his leftist politician friends than his single 45 year old pop hit, I feel the attention paid to his music, stolen guitar, etc. give undue weight. However, unlike you, I have not tried to censor these facts from the article. That may change. Also, the facts of Yarrow's felony child molestation and prison term and how that influenced the 2004 Presedential election and the unseating of 26 year Congessman Martin Frost by Pete Sessions needs to be, and will be, added to the article. John celona (talk) 01:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The mediation is finally starting, people! Now you want to edit war? Let's just discuss this rationally in the mediation, please. Aleta ^Sing 01:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I just got back from trip. Will post opening statement by Monday night. John celona (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

American Criminals Category

Please note I have begun my long-promised additions to this category. I am NOT and have not used any of these new names as arguments regarding the ongoing category dispute concerning Yarrow. John celona (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Un-freaking-believable. The phrase is "long-threatened" not "long-promised" and it's a major, shameful disruption of the project. I'll say more on the American Criminals talk page. David in DC (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

User Celona's comment: "I have not used any of these new names as arguments regarding the ongoing category dispute concerning Yarrow" -- is that supposed to be a noble act? I would hope that you wouldn't use your own edits in other articles as part of your argument. Please note that comparing random articles is not really that valid an argument, as we saw earlier on this page. For every article you can point to demonstrating one thing, I can point to another demonstrating the opposite. Adherence to the spirit of WP policies should be the goal, not finding random inconsistencies in unrelated articles. --Jkp212 (talk) 04:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• I have looked at this. Adding to the criminals category is, in my view, an egregious violation of WP:BLP. The sources for the one sentence we have do not indicate any huge significance - none of them are about the case, they merely mention it in passing - and there is no evidence that he is mainly or even largely known as a criminal. I'd be astonished if even the most right-wing tabloid referred to him as a criminal in so many words, let alone any reliable sources. Contentious inclusion, living individual, needs a really compelling source. None is provided. Guy (Help!) 10:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there are dozens of sources which refer to him primarily based on his pedophilia. No one really gives a damn about his one-off novelty hit 45 years ago. For one article amongst scores available see "Child Molester Raises $$ for Garamendi: Put that in your pipe and smoke it" The link is blocked by another user but you can find the article by googling the words "child molestor put that in your pipe and smoke it"-it will be the first article. There are dozens more if you are interested, many of them already on this talk page. Not to mention the Pete Sessions Wikipedia page. John celona (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

My goodness, this argument is still going ? (and please review these links)

I briefly participated in the discussion on this article, and am surprised to see that there is not consensus. If someone would be good enough to point me to the mediation section, I'll be happy to participate if I can be of use.

There are two problematic links in the references section of the article. Normally I'd simply remove them, but I don't want to do anything to the article while its under discussion. First, the current Reference 10 is a search string to the NYT rather than a link to a particular article. It doesn't work, and should be removed. Second, the current Reference 13 is not a link to the Baltimore Jewish Times as claimed, but rather a link to what appears to be an advocacy site. If you follow the link, it appears that the text of the article is reproduced, with the facts of his conviction highlighted in a bold red font. This is not an appropriate reference, although the underlying BJT would appear to be. Best of luck in reaching a resolution here. Xymmax (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thans for bringing that to your attention. Mediation is going on here (and at subpages linked from that page). I'm not sure what the protocol is for somebody who's not a party to the mediation to participate - you might want to contact User:MBisanz, our mediator, for guidance on that front. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You can find the mediation here: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Peter Yarrow. (There seems to be a typo somewhere in SI's link.) Aleta ^Sing 17:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops - left the S out of "requests". I've fixed it now; thanks for doing my proofreading for me, Aleta. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I just saw the red link! :) Aleta ^Sing 17:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Ok, thanks for the link. It looks like I'll just be an interested observer; I hope you're able to work everything out. Xymmax (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Contact MBisanz if you want to join the mediation. He might welcome your addition. (I don't know, but it can't hurt to ask.) Aleta ^Sing 19:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'll just watch. I seem to recall another article many moons ago on which a group of editors worked hard and had reached consensus, when a previously uninvolved person came along and... ;) Xymmax (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have restored a working, direct link [[80]] to the NY Times article. John celona (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Protected again

There have been many back-and-forth edits with no discussion on the talk page. Please seek consensus for changes and avoid reverting each other. I'd be happy to unprotect the page if editors start using this page to agree on edits again. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Bexley

I am getting very angry. Every time I try to add that Peter Yarrow was not allowed to perform at a high school because of an incident and complaints of a parents because of that, someone takes it out. If it should be moved to another part of the article, don't be lazy and move it instead of deleting a whole section of the article.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Xxhopingtearsxx - the whole business of Yarrow's conviction for taking improper liberties with a fourteen year old is a sensitive one that's currently in mediation - see here, primarily. It would probably be best not to try to make any edits of that nature until the mediation process is completed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've retrieved the language xxhoping is talking about. Our mediation is no reason xx shouldn't re-insert this information once the page is unlocked. Here 'tis: "On April 14, 2007, Peter Yarrow declined to appear at a previously scheduled Operation Respect event at Bexley High School after several Bexley parents contacted district officials regarding Yarrow's 1970 guilty plea to taking "immoral and improper liberties" with a 14-year old girl. His daughter Bethany Yarrow performed instead."

The article's structure has changed since this material was removed. I think it belongs as the last paragraph of "personal life" now. David in DC (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? This information is absolutely NOT OK. Whether or not he performed in some high school is not relevant to his bio, and how can you say that this is not connected to the mediation? Also, it is far from a reliable source -- some community newsletter. --Jkp212 (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

He's got FOUR sources listed. It's staying in. John celona (talk) 01:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The sources have nothing to do with Bexley high school. It is not relevant to his life, and if you place it in, it will be removed by editors who are sensitive to BLP. --Jkp212 (talk) 02:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If the article mentions the incident at all, and if it mentions Operation Respect, this sourced report should stay in. None of us in the mediation should be editing this page while we're in mediation, but xx is no part of that. We do not WP:OWN the article.

But, um John, there's only one source. The other three are sources for other parts of the article. I couldn't figure out how to delete the other three from this page. Only footnote 4 is relevant to this discussion. And you don't get to unilaterally announce that "it's staying in". Jkp is right, other editors, concerned with BLP, have every reason to review all edits on this page with particular scrutiny. You both would be well-advised not to act on XX's edit, if he makes it. Let WillBeback or some other neutral admin make those calls. They're obviously watching. David in DC (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

For more discussion on this topic, please see this. Let's keep further discussion of this here, where xx and others are more likely to participate. David in DC (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

While I do not defend the proposed edit by xx I do defend his right to make it. I am not sure that it should be reverted in its entirety because it would fit in well with a backlash section in the article if such a section were created. :22:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Albion moonlight (talk) 22:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Operation Respect redux

What would people think of merging Operation Respect into this article? It is basically a stub, and could help fill out this article. Aleta ^Sing 02:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. It's certainly more relevant to his life and work. --Jkp212 (talk) 03:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That is an excellent idea Aleta. Can we drag a copy of over to the mock up article ? Do it if you know how. Albion moonlight (talk) 05:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, done. :) Y'all can play with it now (the flow, etc.) Aleta ^Sing 06:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much Aleta . Feel free to join us. Albion moonlight (talk) 09:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please add {{mergefrom|Operation Respect}}. I think this should be entirely non-controversial, but will let an uninvolved admin do it to avoid any impropriety. Aleta ^Sing 00:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done PeterSymonds (talk) 11:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter! Aleta ^Sing 16:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like there are two mentions of the clemency. Which one should be removed? --Jkp212 (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Congessional Caucus standing ovation

Can we get a source for that? It seems unlikely that a majority Republican House gave a standing ovation to a fringe-leftist and pedophile. More likely Democratic or "progressive" caucus. John celona (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. And here's a second source. AniMate 15:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

And, just so you know, the link I just provided on the talk page is also in the section right above this. AniMate 15:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

All right. Fair enough. John celona (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Animate, I kind of thought that that might be challenged but I am still trying to learn about sourcing and footnotes. I will practice in the sandbox. :Albion moonlight (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Albion moonlight (talk) 23:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)