Talk:Phoenix Jones

Real Name and vandalism/removal of data

Anybody who is caught removing ref'ed data - including his real name of Benjamin John Francis Fodor per http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44848642/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/?GT1=43001#.TpRjvP5CqU9 - from the page will be reported to the admins for vandalism. WP POV policy is clear and while it may look negative on him, the fact remains there are multiple verifiable sources showing this data as accurate even if some people wish to illicitly censor this data despite it being public domain and publicly available knowledge. Belgarath TS (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd highlight my comments in the "Who Is he?" section. As far as I can tell, being cautious about naming this individual is in accordance with our policies. It might be appropriate to discuss this further in that section. Adambro (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC) his friend black spider is great hero.

WP:BLPNAME Explicitly states that as long as the sources name is verifiable from multiple NPOV and verifiable sources that its allowed ad expected. Since multiple news orgs have posted his real name, and they all have a legitimate reputation to maintain as NPOV themselves, its considered factual and thus in line with WP policy to post it on the page. Belgarath TS (talk) 16:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I won't comment further here. I'll reply in the section below rather than spreading this discussion between two sections. Adambro (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced information

Please do not add any unsourced information to this page. It will be removed. Thanks. Kag427 (talk) 05:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

real name is Benjamin John Francis Fodor has a criminal record that includes 22 different violations. He has been cited 6 times for driving without a license, driving without insurance, or driving with his license suspended. A restraining order was filed against him by another costumed crusader with whom he had feuded over the internet.Jones also was booked during a traffic stop in Snohomish County for "refusal to give information to or cooperate with an officer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.149.97 (talk) 02:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC) http://dw.courts.wa.gov/index.cfm?fa=home.namelist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.149.97 (talk) 02:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Useless

is it just me or is this phoenix jones bloke pretty much useless _ he attended a car break in but the criminal escaped _ and "alerted police that a driver was intoxicated" _ which everybody does every day _ this guys a joke to be honest _ plus someone kicked him in the nose and broke it _ not much of a superhero then —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.54.92 (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I have corresponded personally with Phoenix Jones. He is very open and honest. I have heard several stories with locations and dates. He has done several things that set him as a "super hero" apart from a typical person. 1. He goes out 5 nights a week specifically to patrol and keep an eye out for possible crimes. 2. He speaks to people who inform him of when and where crimes are going to take place. They tell him where people deal drugs most, who those people are, etc. He has friends on the inside who are informants. 3. He approaches people who he sees are committing crimes and attempts to stop them. Example A> He approached a man on video who was trying to drive drunk. This was documented on video. Example B> He approached a man who was soliciting sex for money from a woman who was in the mans car. When he found that the man was really attempting to solicit sex from who he said was his "wife" Phoenix called the police. 4. After Phoenix calls the police about a crime he stays put to see how it goes. From Example B> He stayed put and watched the police talk to the man about the man's 'wife'

There are many things that Phoenix does that are different from you or I. Here, Let's take me for example..Would I do #1? No. How about #2? No, I don't have those resources. #3? Definitely not. I would not do that. #4? Well, I've called the police several times for people committing illegal activities. As soon as I am done calling the police - I leave. So, no. — Preceding Alena comment added by 71.227.137.190 (talk) 05:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Page of Falsehoods violating NPOV

This page is full of information that is not true and has not been proven true. I think this should be marked for deletion as this seems to be just used to promote somebody who even the police cant back up the claims of. If it cant be proven it should not be on wikipedia, and many of the youtube videios linked to where paid for productions. This smells like a marketing scam for the comic books store. Belgarath TS (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC).

Wikipedia does not concern itself with separating truth from fiction. See WP:TRUTH. Articles meet inclusion criteria if their subject is considered worth covering by reliable sources. As Phoenix Jones has been the subject of articles in major newspapers, he meets notability criteria. Blue Rasberry (talk) 07:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying the fact that its been proven that he lies to the media has no merit? Also, he has stated things that are untrue that can be verified as such. Why are the references to these items always deleted from the page? They are just as valid, if not more so becouse they show that he is willing to lie and act uncharacteristically un-heroic in the name of media attention seeking. Belgarath TS (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Belgarath, I would suggest adding that information (referenced of course) to the article. Any information that this guy is a liar does not make the article less notable, it is just additional material that should be included in the article. I looked up this guy's wikipedia article because he IS newsworthy, and I personally have my strong doubts about this guy. And what do I find instead of info refuting his claims? Critics trying to censor any information about him at all! To me, that's taking the exact opposite of the route you should be taking (censoring instead of providing accurate information). If that's the quality of his critics, maybe there is something to him. Just saying... 211.26.193.93 (talk) 04:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

See WP:Verifiability not truth. Dream Focus 07:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

So by that same token, the fact that its been verified that he is a criminal who has been probven in court that he made threats to murder innocent people is just as valid. I think its only fair that we include the bad and the good, in order to keep with NPOV. Belgarath TS (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Source? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Many sources exist and in the comming days more will be available but here is one of his most recent exploits that got him arrested for attacking innocent people who were DANCING: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44848642/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/?GT1=43001#.TpPN4f5CqU8 More news that reference public records are available soon and it looks like somebody is censoring this page and abusing it as I added multiple links and they are now gone... This is suspicious. Belgarath TS (talk) 05:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Adding more refs as I find them, but I am noticing that this page has had an increase in sock puppet activity and I worry about it being censored by people trying to create a non-NPOV page, either to support him or to otherwise affect the current legal situation. Belgarath TS (talk) 03:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

So which one are you, Bel? The one in the red pants, or the drunk girl with the shoe? Btw, it's almost an axiom that when someone says that many sources exist, they post one and say there's more to come later, it's almost guaranteed that the one they post won't actually support their position. 173.60.214.178 (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Marking for deletion, NOT a biography

As this page violates many of WP policies and has been mistakenly added as a biography I have marked this as for deletion,. I also feel that the prior discussion on deletion had many sock-puppets for keeping it, so I respectfully request this discussion begin anew. Belgarath TS (talk) 06:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you propose a rationale for deletion? I suggest reviewing WP:N for guidance. It seems to me that this article solidly meets inclusion criteria. Another user removed your deletion tag, presumably because you failed to state a reason for inserting it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 07:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I seem to have been misunderstood. Currently the page is protected by the mark of "biography". this should be removed. It does not meet the standards for biographies, as the person real name is not included and that is a core requirement and definition of the word "biography". I did in fact add a delete reason, and formally request that it be re-added and this page be deleted. Belgarath TS (talk) 02:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thats amazing maybe we should delete Jack The Ripper's Biography because obviously "the person real name is not included" in that either or any of the various other historical figures who have remained anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.81.54.66 (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, I had not thought of that, thank you.. Added his real name and reference to media news outlets confirming this data as reference, available now due to his recent arrest for assaulting innocent people. Belgarath TS (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC).

Ok signed but put 3 ~ not 4.. Suffice to say my main point here was lack of his name and that has been resolved, but I still think this page is very non-NPOV Belgarath TS (talk) 05:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Who Is he?

Shouldn't we work to get the facts on this and make it public, so that the facts can be fully collected? A google search finds all sorts of information in this guy that so far seems to be ignored on the page, including but not limited to his real name and his criminal history. Belgarath TS (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC).

If new information is out there, then by all means. You added a dubious tag to various facts, despite those facts all being referenced to major newspapers. [1] Is there any reliable source that says those stories were false? Dream Focus 06:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• I searched through Google news archive and I don't see anything about him having a criminal record. Where did you see that at? Dream Focus 06:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The media reports him having a criminal record, as well as cites him being proven as having lied to the media about events and his skills, here: http://www.seattleweekly.com/2011-06-01/news/the-alleged-adventures-of-phoenix-jones/ Belgarath TS (talk) 02:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Given that his real name is well known, would it be appropriate to add it to the page in the best interest of keeping the data correct/current/factual/npov? Belgarath TS (talk) 04:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

If reliable sources report things then it is notable enough for inclusion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

You're going to have a difficult time finding a reliable source to make the connection of alias to real person. I happen to know who Jones is from research I did while working on a profile for Akzia. I had to do it the hard way, matching tattoos and sifting through fight records/photos from the MMA career he discussed with me, and all that does is establish the probability that they are the same person. In terms of work that has already been published, which is what's relevant for a wikipedia entry, there is bupkis on the identity connection. The only thing I ever found was a snarky comment on a YouTube video of his true identity, and YouTube's comment section might as well be officially designated the internet's asshole Dlewisnash (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

This AP article about his recent arrest says that he was booked under the name "Benjamin John Francis Fodor". Is that good enough? http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/seattle-superhero-arrested-accused-assault-14706614 Dcoulter (talk) 23:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

If not msnbc has an additional link that confirms it as Benjamin John Francis Fodor at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44848642/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/?GT1=43001#.TpPN4f5CqU8 and I have updated the page to refect this and added the reliable reference. Belgarath TS (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC).

Please do not publish his real name! This puts his family in danger. so far it's not so easy to google his name. cnn reports from Peter Tangen (spokesperson of Phoenix)"Tangen asked CNN and other media not publish Jones' real name, which is listed in his police booking. "His family is at risk of retaliation from criminals," he said. Many, but not all, news outlets were going along with the request."" http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/10/justice/washington-seattle-superhero/ so please, don't put his family at risk. one could rather consider deleting this article for not meeting wiki criteria for relevance. --Nonchablunt (talk) 11:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I call BS on this and i think you are a sock puppet. The fact remains wikipedia is well known for posting real names if the page is relevant, and it would be a violation of multiple policies if we did not. The rules say we have to. Belgarath TS (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Whilst I think it is right that we discuss this issue rather than have people deciding to censor this information with no discussion, I am a little skeptial as to the suggestion that we would be in violation of multiple policies if we didn't post the subject's real name. Perhaps Belgarath TS could highlight which policies we would risk violating? Rather, I think being cautious about naming the subject is completely in-line with policy; see WP:BLPNAME. Adambro (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Well according to WP:BLPNAME, because this is all sourced from multiple places considred "legit" and all confirms the same thing, and this is not a "one-off" event as he has had trouble with the police before, its perfectly OK to post his full name, and in fact expected. Thus it is perfectly in line with wikipedia's policies to post it. Belgarath TS (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Does being conscientious count as a policy? If so, his name should be removed as it has no encyclopedic value, and serves only to pry into someone's private life and put their family at risk.

Dozens of celebs are on wikipedia and the names they have - even if its different then the ones they are born with - are on their pages, so what makes this any different? They are even much bigger a target, yet wikipedia still has their private details on their pages. Having Ben's name on his alter egos page is expected and normal for wikipedia, given that this is expected of other celebs. Face it, the guy wanted attention and wanted to be in the media.. he has it, and just because he does not like the spotlight on him now that its negative does not change the way wikipedia has worked for years and will continue to work. Belgarath TS (talk) 03:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't help that this article currently reads like a hatchet job against Phoenix Jones. For one thing, traffic violations don't count toward a criminal record. JoeFink (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually it does show up on his criminal record, if you pull it - as I have - you see he has multiple offences including driving with a suspected license after getting pulled over for traffic violations. If you think its a hatchet job, feel free to add verifiable references and improve the page. Belgarath TS (talk) 03:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I think Belgarath TS may be overstating the policy basis for including the name here. WP:BLPNAME says "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context". A quick glance around the web could indicate that his name is reaching the "widely disseminated" mark but it is obvious that he has "intentionally concealed" his name by adopting the pseudonym. As JoeFink suggests and WP:BLP supports, we have to balance the value of naming this individual for our readers against the privacy considerations. Adambro (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Dozens of celebs are on wikipedia and the names they have - even if its different then the ones they are born with - are on their pages, so what makes this any different? They are even much bigger a target, yet wikipedia still has their private details on their pages. Having Ben's name on his alter egos page is expected and normal for wikipedia, given that this is expected of other celebs. Face it, the guy wanted attention and wanted to be in the media.. he has it, and just because he does not like the spotlight on him now that its negative does not change the way wikipedia has worked for years and will continue to work. Belgarath TS (talk) 03:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Phoenix's real name is now of public record, it is widespread and noteworthy and ought to be included. He even has a facebook (http://www.facebook.com/people/Benjamin-Fodor/100001645583024) which could provide additional information for research and may point to more reliable sources of information. MichaelJPierce (talk) 05:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Clarification of Seattle police stance

Under the "Injury" section, I noticed the sentence about SPD using Phoenix Jones's broken nose as an example of the dangers of untrained law enforcement was flagged as dubious. I know from press-released statements and my own research as a freelance journalist that the official stance is true as expressed; the due diligence just hasn't been done to make it sound unbiased. Those types of statements just don't come out well in an encyclopedic context when they're paraphrased. I'll attempt a rewrite when I get home from work, citing SPD's public info officer as opposed to "Seattle Police said." An organization can't "say" anything, and I think that's the issue here. Dlewisnash (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• I believe this is fine as written as it is presented as a "claim" and not presented as fact. The "dubious" should be removed. Good referencing for "claims" and somewhat comical. MichaelJPierce (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed that orgizations don't "say" anything. I reworded this to be presented as a "statement". Please review when you are able. MichaelJPierce (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• organizations is the correct spelling. [[User:User] |User]](talk)16:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• I would love to get some clarification on WP policy for what makes a valid source for this sort of thing, is it just any newspaper quote or is a bar of quality/checklist presented? Belgarath TS (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

YouTube as references

In these edits User:Noeleonman removed cited information about the article's subject, continued editing after an anonymous user removed more information, and added new information citing a YouTube account. I reverted it all. The cited stuff needs to stay unless there is a discussion to remove it. The YouTube information does not meet WP:RS but could possibly be an external link if it does not violate WP:YOUTUBE. The YouTube videos are to this account RAINCITYSUPERHERO, but this account gives no indication of who owns rights to the videos. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

That looks like a sock puppet edit to me, thanks for reverting. Clearly this page had somebody angry. Belgarath TS (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC).

user:Adambro is removing youtube links citing that the YouTube videos have copyright infringement. Should these links be recovered or should we attempt to find original sources of videos?MichaelJPierce (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

We don't link to copyright violations so unless it can be determined that those videos aren't copyright violations then the links shouldn't be reinstated. When I've got a little more time I'll see if a more appropriate link can be found. Adambro (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Adambro is being correctly selective. There is a YouTube video which was posted in CBS's official YouTube channel which is in the article; other news videos created by agencies but uploaded by users have been removed. If you can find video content posted by the agency which owns it, then consider using it as a source for information! Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be best practice to note in Discussion of the offending video links, so that someone may research to see if there is a official video link stored else where on the web. We do not need exclusively YouTube videos. Most news organizations use their own in house players anyway. 206.126.163.20 (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The only references that can be used from Youtube are videos from verified official channels. If the video is uploaded by random user X it's self-published from a non-reliable source, thus we can't use it. Things from places like CBS can be used only if it comes from their verified official channel which they link to and which there is no controversy over whether or not the channel belongs to them.--Crossmr (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Continued Investigation

Thanks to all who have taken the time to add the needed phrases of claims, allege actions, etc. Its important to note that the references surrounding Phoenix Jones are from media covering events that are still under investigation by local police. Outside of local journalist, police reports, and Jones's own party its difficult to find a completely reliable resource. All of these parties have a conflict of interest with the type of information presented. There isn't exactly a "Real Life Super Hero" auditing firm. MichaelJPierce (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Even if he is found innocent of the charges the fact remains this happened and is factually reported via multiple legit media NPOV parties, so the fact he was arrested, his name, etc would stay. Belgarath TS (talk) 03:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand. What I said applies to even the claims of Phoenix Jones himself. MichaelJPierce (talk) 13:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Marijuana laws

I removed some content relating to marijuana laws due to it violating WP:SYNTHESIS. As I explained in my edit summary, whilst the policy states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", the portion I removed was combining content from two sources to imply the subject is wrong about marijuana laws. Whilst that may be the case, neither source says that so as per the policy on synthesis, it shouldn't be included. This has since been reinstated by MichaelJPierce who queries what position I am suggesting is being advanced but I'm unsure how that wasn't clear from my edit summary. Adambro (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the way it was worded violates NPOV, this may have been corrected with the edits I have made. I feel that it is noteworthy to keep the core information previously contributed by another party, as this compares Pheonix Jones personal stance with State and Federal law. What's not clear from your edit comments is what position you feel is being advanced. MichaelJPierce (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel that the synthesis issue has been resolved. It is still implying the conclusion, that Pheonix Jones is wrong about marijuana laws, despite neither source making that argument. It isn't appropriate for us to make these kind of comparisons of what PJ might say and what the law says but we could mention the apparent discrepancy if a reliable source did. Adambro (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

If the sources do not have a quote or have paraphrased PJ's stance on the matter the whole section ought to be deleted. Can we get someone else to review the links and advise Adambro and I? In review. I agree that if the sources do not make the comparison themselves, the statements regarding the comparison ought to be removed. Before removing just the last line. Let's review if the section has merit enough to remain in the article. MichaelJPierce (talk) 18:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Could it not be the case that the first sentence in the section adequately describes PJ's attitude to marijuana? I'm not sure thatthe second sentence, based upon the "That's not a crime. Stupid, but not a crime" is particularly useful since it is unclear whether he literally doesn't believe it to be illegal or rather feels it shouldn't be. Adambro (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion is to stick with what can be referenced by the media and delete any other posturing from either side of the drug debate. Belgarath TS (talk) 03:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Reading the sourced article, it appears the the original contributor has taken heavy liberties with interpreting the situation and stance of Phoenix Jones. In my opinion, the whole section ought to be removed, due to the statements of his "stance". The article simply states, "Passing through a parking lot, he and his posse catch a whiff of marijuana smoke. 'You smell that?' he asks. 'That's not a crime. Stupid, but not a crime.'" The alleged marijuana smoke and its smoker was not witnessed. This whole section seems based solely on this quote. MichaelJPierce (talk) 03:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yet its a valid quote that shows his thoughts on the drug, as quoted by the media, and should be kept. Belgarath TS (talk) 03:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Stance on Drugs

This section is in dispute and had lines removed. This removal has been undone, and has been reworded to be more neutral from what was originally contributed. Will another party please review section to see if sources match up with what is written to confirm neutrality has been maintained and that the paragraph does not lead to a biased position regarding the character of Phoenix Jones? MichaelJPierce (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It is still completely biased in my opinion and not needed in this article. Jgheld (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

We do perhaps need to consider whether his view on drugs is particular relevant I suppose. Adambro (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

I propose a criticism section be added. Reading through many of the sources already cited there is a repeated theme that the local police are not a big fan of Phoenix Jones's tactics. One article by Seattle Times states "Although officers have advised Jones to call 911, "he continues to try to resolve things on his own," says the report." Thoughts? MichaelJPierce (talk) 05:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I think with so much positive things on the page its only fair and in support of NPOV to have such a section, so I support this. Belgarath TS (talk) 05:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

A section dedicated to "police reaction" seems like a good idea, given the nature of Jones's work; a catch-all "criticism" section less so. --McGeddon (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively, perhaps we could have a section describing his "patrols" and include the police view as part of that? Adambro (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

interviews and news coverage of him

My original article had a receptions section which included the following bit:

He has been interviewed and mentions in various news sources, including:

• Good Morning America
• Seattlepi
• CNN

I think we should have a section mentioning where he has gotten notable coverage at. Dream Focus 14:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

A flat list of press appearances doesn't tell the reader anything - these articles can be used as sources (and the Good Morning America is already used as one), and they get listed in the "references" section, clearly showing that Jones has received enough press coverage to be considered a notable public figure. If there's anything interesting in the interviews that the article doesn't already cover, it'd be much better to quote them and give the Wikipedia reader some actual information. --McGeddon (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

PubliCola

Is PubliCola a reliable source? If not, we should remove material based on it. —Ashley Y 00:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Their website makes the assertion that their editor is registered as a media person with the state government, whatever that means. Being reliable depends on context; this source seems reliable enough to report objective information but I am not sure that opinion pieces from this source or any small media outlet should be included. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

"real life super hero group"

THIS IMPLIES THEY HAVE ACTUAL SUPER HUMAN POWERS WHEN THEY ARE SIMPLY MASKED VIGILANTES. i suggest changing "real life super hero group" to "masked vigilante group" 70.255.227.137 (talk) 22:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC) tomas rivera

I agree. A superhero is a type of stock fictional character. A vigalante is 'a private individual who legally or illegally punishes an alleged lawbreaker, or participates in a group which metes out extralegal punishment to an alleged lawbreaker'. That seems to apply better in this case.--Stvfetterly (talk) 13:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps - but this is a WP:BLP (Biography of Living Person) and we can't go around calling him/them "vigilantes" without an enormous amount of supporting evidence. When we write articles about living, breathing, humans - we're required to be exceedingly careful about what we say. "Vigilante" is not going to work. We could say "Self-proclaimed super hero group" or something - implying that this is what they call themselves (and they do) but that we don't necessarily endorse that claim. SteveBaker (talk) 13:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. Would the fact that he admits to going around punishing alleged lawbreakers, the fact that he was caught on camera doing so and is now in legal trouble due to it, and the many news stories regarding his vigilante actions not meet the criteria for an 'enormous amount of evidence' that you mentioned?--Stvfetterly (talk) 12:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

All of that information is very useful and interesting - but to interpret it and turn that into calling this guy "a vigilante" in our article would conflict with the guidelines on WP:NOR (no original research) and WP:SYNTH (synthesis of published material that advances a position). The problem is that taking information about his activities and from that, determining that he is a vigilante implies a layer of interpretation of those facts to form that conclusion. We're not supposed to do that here: WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are quite specific on that point. Hence we need to find reliable sources that actually say something like "Phoenix Jones is a vigilante" before we can apply that label - if we have reliable sources (such as police reports or court records) that use the term - then fine - but if it's just some local newspaper or news report - then it would be better for us to say "XYZ News said that Phoenix Jones is a vigilante" rather than "Phoenix Jones is a vigilante" - which would imply that we know this for an absolute fact.

Since there are reliable sources that say that he's been "going around punishing alleged lawbreakers" then we are perfectly at liberty to document those occasions and allow the reader to make up their own minds about whether this guy is a hero who helps out people who are in trouble or a true vigilante who sets himself up as an upholder of the law outside of the police and the courtrooms. Because this term has become a pejorative and because we're dealing with a biography of a living person (a "BLP"), we have to be super-extra-careful about what we say here in order not to break the WP:BLP guidelines. SteveBaker (talk) 13:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that vigilante is a pegorative. Neither does wikipedia's (and thus the Oxford English Dictionary's) definition of the word. Vigilante - "A vigalante is 'a private individual who legally or illegally punishes an alleged lawbreaker, or participates in a group which metes out extralegal punishment to an alleged lawbreaker'." If there are reliable sources to say that he is 'going around punishing alleged lawbreakers' then why can we not use the term for people who go around and punish alleged lawbreakers? Can you provide an alternate definition of the word that indicates it's a pejorative? If not I will add the word back to the article. --Stvfetterly (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit self-selecting to throw out a Google search, but http://www.google.com/search?q=vigilante+pejorative turns up a lot of references to the term's pejorative connotations. --McGeddon (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

By the same token, a google search of 'Phoenix Jones + vigilante' gives 9,670,000 hits . . .while your search of 'vigilante + pegjorative' gives 166,000 hits. The current phrasing used "ten-member citizen crime-prevention patrol group" is inaccurate anyway. We don't know the identities of the people in the group, and thus cannot determine if they're even citizens of the patrolled areas. --Stvfetterly (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, and "phoenix jones + moron" turns up 21 million. I was just demonstrating that the term vigilante is considered pejorative by more than a couple of Wikipedia editors, which is what you asked for. --McGeddon (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

hahaha, point taken. I still think that the best fitting word for the actions taken is vigilante, but there seems to be enough disagreement with that to let it slide. I'll reword the instances in the article referring to him as a 'superhero' to maintain a neutral tone to the article without using 'vigilante'.--Stvfetterly (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't be afraid to use the word "superhero" when it gets the point across, or when it more accurately reflects the original statement of a person we're quoting, so long as it's in scare quotes and/or context.

I've cut your infobox description of Jones being known for "legally or illegally punishing alleged lawbreakers while dressed in a costume", though - it's obviously inappropriate for us to describe someone as being known for "punishing people, maybe illegally" when the sources only support that he was arrested and released without charge. (Given that this infobox edit was a precise dictionary definition of "vigilante", this is a good reason why we should be careful about using the word.) --McGeddon (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Stealth Removal of data when "editing references" is not tolerated

Anybody sought removing information in this backhanded and deceitful way will be told about to the admins. Belgarath TS (talk) 01:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Image Clarification?

Random people keep trying to expire out the image but its used in compliance with fair use, so I can only think its sock puppets trying to limit associations. If people do this again without saying why I'm going to start reporting people. Belgarath TS (talk) 01:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, Belgarath TS, there are a few points I'd raise here. Removing the deletable image-caption will not stop the image being deleted. This is simply a warning that concerns have been raised about the image and it may be deleted. If you go to the image page at File:Superhero Phoenix Jones.jpg then you can read about those concerns and they can be discussed on the image's talk page. As far as I'm aware, I'm the only one who has added the deletable image-caption template or reinstated it when you've removed it.

On a second point, at least twice when you've removed the template you've described it as reverting vandalism or similar. As per the Wikipedia:Civility policy, users are encouraged to be cautious when describing edits by others as vandalism. You might also wish to review the Wikipedia:Vandalism policy and its definition of what is considered to be vandalism on Wikipedia. There have been a few other examples where I think labelling an edit as vandalism has been inappropriate.

On a related point, just as removing the template won't stop the image being deleted, changing the protection template won't extend the protection; only an administrator can change that. As it stands, I think it is unlikely that extending protection for a year would be justified.

Finally, it is customary when adding comments on a talk page to add new sections at the bottom of the page rather than at the top. Adambro (talk) 08:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I doubt the image will survive a deletion request. It's not in compliance with Wikipedia's policy surrounding Fair Use images. In particular, Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Unacceptable_use says that it is unacceptable to use "Pictures of people still alive"...if..."taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image.". Hence the encyclopedia's position is that (in principle) some Wikipedian could track down this guy and take his picture - and therefore, we cannot justify using a non-free image, even if it's the only one available, and even if using it would actually be legal under the copyright provisions for fair use. SteveBaker (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is this page listed as Phoenix Jones?

Shouldn't this page should be listed as "Benjamin John Francis Fodor" with "Phoenix Jones" linking to it? It's not like "Phoenix Jones" is the only alias he's known by . . . his MMA fight alias is 'Fear the Flattop'. --Stvfetterly (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME - we go with the name they're most frequently referred to by in sources. --McGeddon (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the link!--Stvfetterly (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Consider that we generally give people's full first and last names in articles about them - yet authors are most often known by their pen-names. Hence we have E. E. Cummings and not Edward Cummings. Also, the article isn't really about Fodor - it's about his alter-ego. Fodor would be entirely non-notable otherwise. That said, I have created a 'redirect' from Benjamin Fodor so that anyone who searches on his real name will find this article anyway. SteveBaker (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Rain City Superhero Movement

Do we have any source that actually lists the self-identifying members of this group? The cited news source only gives a list of "nine people dressed in costume going around Seattle after dark" that the police were investigating, which is not the same thing. --McGeddon (talk) 08:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Applying WP:BLP to Secret Identities

I made some deletions regarding Phoenix Jones' secret identity. I am saying that WP:BLP protects the private person who is his secret identity. No, this is not a joke. BLP is all about this but particularly I'd note that Phoenix Jones was accused of a crime and point to "[a] living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until convicted by a court. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." Colton Cosmic (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Its not a secret identity if he called a press conference, took off his masks, and told people his real name. That's the information I put back in there, not commenting on the rest. Dream Focus 19:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

In response to your question, he was placed in a position, not by choice, where he had to unmask. I do not think that's a basis for us to ignore WP:BLP and all of the privacy matters that you or I or he would find important. Colton Cosmic (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense at all. Everyone knows who he is, they can easily look it up. And Wikipedia covers what's in reliable sources. Dream Focus 19:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Which part of it doesn't make any sense at all, and why? Colton Cosmic (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't know why you aren't getting this, or how to explain it to you in a way that you would understand. There are no privacy matters, he revealing things publicly, anyone able to easily find that information out. There is no possible reason to try to censor that information from Wikipedia. Dream Focus 20:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Your "censor" remark is silly. A government can censor. I don't think Wikipedia can, and I'm certain that a little editor like me or you can't. It doesn't matter if it's easy to find some information. That doesn't mean we include it. It doesn't mean there are no privacy matters. Colton Cosmic (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

It seems to me that if he has publicly stated that this is his identity, it cannot be libellous to say as much. Is there controversy as to whether or not he is telling the truth about this being his identity? It seems not, in which case, while it is important that we properly source the statement, and so long as we don't say "and therefore he is a criminal" or some some such (although it is legitimate to neutrally state the facts and let them speak for themselves), it's okay to neutrally make the factual statement. WP:BLP does not prevent us stating something that's a matter of public record, so long as its properly sourced and rigorously accurate and neutral. But it is important to restrict ourselves solely to what he has actually said, not any inferences we might draw from that regarding his guilt or otherwise.Anaxial (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

From WP:BLP "A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until convicted by a court. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." Colton Cosmic (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, repeating public statements that he has himself made does not constitute a violation of that rule, which, in any event, says 'give serious consideration to not including...', not 'under no circumstances include...'. We must, of course, be careful not to go beyond what he has said. Indeed, I wonder on what grounds he is notable other than by virtue of his public statements. If there is doubt that he would be notable otherwise, then the correct venue for discussing this would actually by WP:AFD, since, without notability, the article cannot be sustained. Anaxial (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Have you had a chance now to "give serious consideration to not including?" Here's some more from WP:BLP, "Presumption in favor of privacy... people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private... When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories." I say that Phoenix Jones alter-ego is tangential to this article and that it deserves the benefit of WP:BLP. Colton Cosmic (talk) 10:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

That section starts with "Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event." This isn't really a single event. Do you think anyone in the area he is in, doesn't know his real name, or if they saw him wouldn't just Google and find it out if they were curious? Dream Focus 11:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't. That section starts with "Privacy of names." The sentence about "in terms of a single event" doesn't limit everything (or anything) that follows it. Indeed it can't reasonably be portrayed as limiting the text about family members, for example. Interesting comment about Google. Where do you figure this article will pop up in a Google search for "Phoenix Jones?" Your argument, paraphrasing, "it's easy to find out anyway," is circular. People are going to find out from the Wikipedia entry. Colton Cosmic (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Its not a secret identity if he called a press conference, took off his masks, and told people his real name" -- I agree entirely with Dream Focus on this one. One might reasonable disagree regarding whether it belongs in the article (I think it does), but it's preposterous to claim it's a BLP violation to include it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree 100%. No BLP violation to include well-sourced (and self-disclosed) information. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Those editors concerned with the importance of getting one's facts straight should check the accuracy of the assertion that Phoenix Jones called a press conference, and explore the context, for example "forced to reveal his real identity in court" says The Washington Post. Colton Cosmic (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe this source will help people understand how the story went. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

And does this source indicate you had your facts straight when you said he called a press conference? Colton Cosmic (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Close enough to deal with the BLP violation issue, which is what we were discussing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not he called the press conference himself is a secondary concern, surely. The information is publicly available, as the sources indicate, and its definitely notable. I also agree that BLP doesn't block against statements that the subject has made themselves. If this were a vote, I'd vote for the secret identity to be included.Euchrid (talk) 01:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

"Superhero" is an appropriate description per reliable sources

I'm looking to come to terms with fellow editors here on the fact that Phoenix Jones is described by more than one and I think more than a few reliable sources as a "superhero." Ohnoitsjamie has cavalierly deleted the reference I put at "Occupation," substituting his belief that "there is no really no such thing" in place of the RS. Whereas Nomo. actually links an article (immediately above at the moment) that says "superhero" but then comes back a couple days later deleting (reverting) edits with his or her personal position "not a superhero."

Now I understand that you folks may have some reasonable resistance to opening your thought processes about the definition of a term that has historically been used only in comic books, but I say it's not that simple and you should be considering the reliable sources that you yourselves are deleting and even posting. It's reasonably that this is a jarring adjustment for some to make, but I urge you to adhere to Wikipedia practices regarding sources and verifiability rather than substituting what evidently seems to you to be an obvious personal point of view. Colton Cosmic (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm wondering how far you're going to want to push this. On the basis of this source, I could create a category "Idiots in superhero costumes". Several other sources would support a category like "Self-styled superheroes". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It's you who are "pushing" things Nomo. by disregarding policy on WP:RS and WP:V and edit warring entirely unconstructively. And you're wrong again. I didn't create the superhero category and there was already a real-life superhero or two in there. If you want to create a "self-styled superheroes" category I see that as very constructive and wish you success. You could also call it "real-life." You want to do that other term you said, you're on your own, and it'll probably be an epic fail. Colton Cosmic (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

What exactly was I wrong about, darling? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You know, I actually like a comment like that, because along with your "idiots in super costumes" remark, it tends to get thing out on the table. Colton Cosmic (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see anything wrong with "costumed vigilante". That is a more accurate description of him, despite what he might claim on Facebook. There are neighborhood watch people which can legally patrol and help the police, but they aren't allowed to wear masks. Dream Focus 12:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

"Costumed vigilante" is still there, but if the man disputes the term surely we can acknowledge that. Colton Cosmic (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

picture

Is there an actual picture of the guy in costume we can use? Having a picture an artist made makes no sense at all, when surely there are usable images out there. Can we just take a screenshot of a news video? Does that qualify under fair usage? Dream Focus 12:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything not sensible about using an artistic representation. I don't *think* you'll find policy to that effect and you may not even find a guideline as to preferring a photo over a portrait. I don't know the answers to that other stuff you said. Colton Cosmic (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

DF, there was a normal photograph of the guy (in costume, naturally). CC has substituted the current one. I don't see why it is preferable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

There was no image at the time I inserted the current one (the artistic representation), it takes 30 seconds to verify this in the change history for today. I've never seen a photograph of the guy (in costume naturally) or any photograph in this article or any image before the current one and thus I don't see how it's possible I could've "substituted" one. I don't know if Nomo. is hallucinating or baiting, but I figure the latter. Colton Cosmic (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to be gracious, in hopes that it will help you lighten up a bit. I was wrong. I apologize. I was thinking of one of the newspaper articles. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't've thought to ask for an apology on such a minor matter, but I do accept yours, and give you credit for admitting you were wrong. Colton Cosmic (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Assume good faith. A simple mistake. Dream Focus 20:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, you're right about the "assume good faith" policy, would you mind furnishing a policy or guideline for your pronouncement "we don't do comic illustrations of real people; not a superhero" when you wiped out my edit, or reverting yourself on that one? Colton Cosmic (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

What? The edit history says Ohnoitsjamie did that, not me. Dream Focus 21:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

A simple mistake. ;) Colton Cosmic (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay three amigos (and whomever, jump in please), I'm looking for input on whether we use a photograph of MMA fighter Ben Fodor or an artistic rendering of Phoenix Jones for the Phoenix Jones article. It was a minor pain to locate it but the key policy seems to be WP:Image Relevance. In non-cherrypicked but yes-relevant part it says:

• "For most topics, the selection of a lead image is plainly obvious: a photograph or artistic work of a person, photographs of a city, or a cover of a book or album, to name a few" (does not appear to prioritize photograph over artistic work)
• "Images are primarily meant to inform readers by providing visual information. Consequently, images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, even if they are not provably authentic images." I submit that MMA fighter Ben Fodor does not particularly look like costumed entity Phoenix Jones.

I doublechecked with Ohnoitsjamie and he kindly acknowledged that his edit comment "we don't do comic illustrations..." was not meant as an expression of Wikipedia policy but rather of his perception of normal practice based on his editing and viewing of Wikipedia. Lastly I'd argue that when the average person types "Phoenix Jones" into the dominant search engine, he or she doesn't come here expecting or wanting the image of Ben Fodor in his MMA attire, they're rather expecting or wanting an image of Phoenix Jones in his supersuit. What else? No formalities, but please make at least some reference to policy or guideline in addressing the point. Colton Cosmic (talk) 00:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I doubt you will find anyone else that believes that we should put a comic strip strawing in place of a properly licensed actual photo. The article also mentions his MMA career, so it's not just about the superhero stuff. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 11:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie, that's not a policy-based position. You don't get to wipe out the work of others just because it seems right to you personally. Colton Cosmic (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC) Unbelievable! *You* are an admin?! Colton Cosmic (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, guys, I'm here from the 3O noticeboard. I'd say that the photograph is superior to the illustration, for a few reasons. First, being a photograph, it's a more accurate portrayal of what the guy looks like. The article is about the person, not just the superhero persona, and I'd say that the photograph demonstrates the person better than the illustration does. A photograph of him in costume would probably be better, but not a drawing of him. I haven't found any policy/guideline that explicitly talks about this either way, so it's left to us to make editorial decisions and interpretations. Second (and perhaps more importantly), the illustration appears to be a non-free image. I understand that you say you have permission for using it, Colton, but that's generally not enough for Wikipedia. Wikipedia generally requires its content to be freely-licensed under terms compatible with CC-BY-SA, the license that Wikipedia itself uses. There is an exception for this called fair use, but we prefer free content over fair-use content, and the photograph appears to be appropriately-licensed and is preferred in this regard. Moreover, I'm not sure that the use of the illustration would qualify as fair use under the non-free content criteria: specifically, I think it fails criterion 1, because a freely-licensed photograph of the man in costume could be made, which would unquestionably serve the same encyclopedic purpose. So, yeah, I think we should use the photograph. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Writ Keeper, thanks for the input. Colton Cosmic (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Self-Promotion & Bias

I'm concerned about some of the wording in this article. It appears to be phrased in such a way as to portray this guy in as positive a light as possible.

For example, the very first line of the article really bothers me: "Phoenix Jones.... is an American leader...."

I realize the sentence continues and that the author would probably claim that he was just trying to be concise, but I'm not buying it. Throughout the article, one-sided information sourced from his supporters dominates with very little mention of the abundant number of criticisms and concerns about his overall mental health. In another example, look at the "Criticisms" section. It's literally just one short sentence! I mean, is that the entire sum of criticisms against him?! A quick Google search can easily provide numerous sources to the contrary.

Look, I understand that some of his costumed friends (and perhaps even Fodor himself operating one of the sock puppet accounts) have been aggressively lobbying to remove any criticisms from this article and portray his image in the best posssible light. This looks almost like a microcasm of the shenanigans that the Church of Scientology got in so much trouble for awhile back. I support the decision to lock down this article for that reason.

In short, could somebody with edit privs please add the Neutrality template on my behalf? I really don't have a strong opinion on this guy or his friends either way, but it really bugs me when people try to abuse Wikipedia like this for shameless self-promotion. At very least, the reader deserves to be warned that the neutrality of this article is currently in dispute. Thank you. 216.243.53.178 (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

while your overall concern may have merit, your first example is words pulled out of context. If the article simply said "Phoenix Jones.... is an American leader." then yes there is obvious problems. But it doesnt. it says "Phoenix Jones.... is an American leader of a ... squad."

I request that you read the article more closely and if you still have concerns about the actual specifics of the article, in the actual context of the article context, you can make a note here again. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I've checked against earlier versions and can't find any obvious evidence that negative material has been suppressed - the current, weak "Criticism" section was added as a single edit in March, although since this was from a user who has since been banned, and who was also trying to remove Fodor's name from the article, we should check he wasn't deliberately under-representing the available sources.

You say that "A quick Google search can easily provide numerous sources to the contrary." - could you provide some specific examples? There are a lot of snarky blogs and forums out there, but from a quick skim I can't find any press coverage that speculated or reported directly on Fodor's mental health. Wikipedia requires that its sources meet the bar of WP:RS, so they'd have to be published news stories or quotes from television coverage. If you've got anything, though, we can add it.

I'll check the article for POV (the section describing the nightclub pepperspray victim as being drunk is clearly unsourced and aggressive speculation from someone who's just watched a YouTube video) but if you could flag any examples, that would help. --McGeddon (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Fight record section

As an unregistered user, i can't add the [] needed to correct the Strikeforce wikilink in this section. Could a confirmed user do it, please ? --81.48.140.178 (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done--McGeddon (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Questionable Fight Record

The two fight records that are cited in this article conflict. The reference to mixedmartialarts.com shows an 11-0-0 amateur record and a 1-0-0 Pro record. This conflicts with the second reference at mmauniverse which not only shows 4 professional bouts, but it also uses the names of four opponents cited in the amateur record on mixedmartialarts.com.

Sherdog also indicates that his amateur record is actually 15-2-0 and he has no professional bouts.

I'm quite new to changing wiki articles, so I'm not sure if this is the correct avenue to bring up these issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astralis Lupus (talk • contribs) 13:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

"The effect of masks on inebriates"

There is a section of the article under "Reported Actions" which states

"In the video, a police officer is shown later talking to Phoenix Jones and his group regarding the effect masks may have on an intoxicated individual."

There is no link to a wikipedia page on said effect. I was left puzzled myself. I can assume they would see them differently, but I would just be going off original research on that. If such a page exists (or even a subsection that would explain it) it sounds like a worthwhile cause in my opinion, and would surely improve the article. --74.139.196.97 (talk) 11:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Power ratings

I've added an infobox (costum infobox) highlighting power ratings so to better grasp Phoenix Jones' powers. Feel free to remove it given resaonable conclusions but please first hit my talkpage and discuss your edit. PsychoticInquire (talk)

@PsychoticInq: I'm removing this, as it is not factual and not appropriate for a living person. Even if this were an article about a fictional character, the reference cited does not mention the subject. Nick Number (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)