Jump to content

Talk:Edward A. Flynn: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 30: Line 30:
http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/noquarter/70565067.html
http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/noquarter/70565067.html
http://media.journalinteractive.com/documents/mcbridestatementonflynn.pdf
http://media.journalinteractive.com/documents/mcbridestatementonflynn.pdf

[[Special:Contributions/72.128.198.226|72.128.198.226]] ([[User talk:72.128.198.226|talk]])
I'd also like to point out that the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel includes in portions of its printed paper portions called "blogs" which reference either minor stories or, in this case, smaller updates to a larger ongoing story. In this example, the story is the affair, and the updates refer to its ongoing effects on the careers of the publically prominent participants, and updates on information as to whether or not the affair is indeed ongoing at the present. But these "blogs" are in fact printed in the paper by the MJS, usually in the local section under politics. I'm not saying everything on MSJ's website is printed in the paper; they have blogs, as in weblogs, and then they have blogs that make print under a heading they call a "blog", even though it appears in print before or within hours of when the story hits their website. ([[User talk:72.128.198.226|talk]])

Revision as of 17:03, 26 January 2011

WikiProject iconBiography: Politics and Government Stub‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group.
Note icon
An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.
WikiProject iconLaw Enforcement Stub‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconWisconsin Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The edit in question adds to a very short BLP a sensational claim of dubious importance. For this, we have two sources, sort of. The first source, however, is actually a blog post based entirely on the second source. In reality, then, we have one source.

This gives us an article that covers the major events of his life, and the affair. The question of weight is this: Chief of the Milwaukee Police Department gets two bare mentions in two sentences. The affair gets two full sentences as its own paragraph. "(D)iscussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." This is an isolated event, discussed briefly at the time, then disappearing from the press.

Is the topic "relevant to a disinterested article about the subject"?WP:BLPGOSSIP I think not. The anonymous IP editor disagrees. Comments? - SummerPhD (talk) 05:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The claim was reported by the New York Times and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. In Milwaukee, where the affair occured, the Journal Sentinel is the preeminent paper, although the Waukesha Freeman and all the talk show hosts were talking about it, the former doesn't provide a "deep archive" to link to and talk show host statements are rarely cited. Furthermore, of the two participants in the affair: Jessica McBride admitted to it, leading to her divorce from her husband. And when she admitted to it, she did so on the radio and explicitly named Flynn as the other participant in her affair. Flynn, for his part, has neither confirmed nor denied the affair directly when so questioned. However, when directly asked about it, he has blatantly admitted indiscretions. So we really have the followingt sources: 1) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 2) New York Times, 3) Waukesha Freeman, 4-15) A dozen talk show hosts (note: this is relevant as Jessica McBride was a talk show host at the time and this affair caused the end of her talk show career, so all her contemporaries and collegues were talking about it), 16) Jessica McBride admitted the affair and it was noted in the divorce paperwork, 17) When questioned, Chief Flynn has not denied the affair. Now, as to whether this is an isolated incident; no. Jessica McBride has admitted and the paper sources reveal that the two met on multiple occasions over a period of weeks or months. Admittedly the specific length is not clear, but this wasn't a mere one-night stand. McBride was covering Flynn for a news story and met him on multiple occasions for that. Naturally whether there were additional meetings for purely romantic reasons is not clear; but nevertheless the important matter is that indeed, it occured over a period of time. Since these events are over a half-decade old, I don't think they still qualify as "recent events that may be in the news." These events significantly effected the career (well, ended it) for Ms. McBride, and are still discussed today (in fact, some claim they are still secretly together! THAT's the sort of speculation that doesn't get into Wiki due to Weight.):

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/50856427.html http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/70534067.html http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/71795452.html http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/noquarter/48568662.html http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/50754352.html http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/noquarter/48646027.html http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/48643857.html http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/49285727.html http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/50856882.html http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/50501872.html http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/70681652.html http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/70541752.html http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/noquarter/70565067.html http://media.journalinteractive.com/documents/mcbridestatementonflynn.pdf

I'd also like to point out that the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel includes in portions of its printed paper portions called "blogs" which reference either minor stories or, in this case, smaller updates to a larger ongoing story. In this example, the story is the affair, and the updates refer to its ongoing effects on the careers of the publically prominent participants, and updates on information as to whether or not the affair is indeed ongoing at the present. But these "blogs" are in fact printed in the paper by the MJS, usually in the local section under politics. I'm not saying everything on MSJ's website is printed in the paper; they have blogs, as in weblogs, and then they have blogs that make print under a heading they call a "blog", even though it appears in print before or within hours of when the story hits their website. (talk)