Talk:Adam Kokesh/Archive 1

Archive 1

Marine Corps Hearing

There are a few elements in the section regarding Kokesh's upcoming hearing that are inaccurate, from my understanding of the UCMJ and Marine Corps regulations.

• They are not "changing" Kokesh's discharge. He has already been discharged once, from active duty to the IRR. The upcoming discharge is his complete discharge from the service.
• Being in the IRR does not mean you are not under Marine Corps jurisdiction. You are still a reservist, subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
• He is not being recalled to active duty. He was given the opportunity to waive his right to appear before a hearing, and chose to do so. Doing so does not mean he is on "Active Duty."

Unless anyone can provide documentation that shows any of those elements are false, I'll be changing them shortly.--Uhlek 19:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you're probably right. There is just so much spin happening with this story that all of the media are reporting inaccurately. But that's standard. —Kenyon (t·c) 06:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The hearing is scheduled for today, I'll wait until after the hearing results are announced to make the needed changes. --Uhlek 16:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Papers are reporting that the panel has recommended a General Discharge; whether higher will do that is unknown, as is whether Kokesh will appeal. I'd rather not edit the story, and there's no telling what mis-understandings of military law the papers have. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/4861746.html htom 03:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Your second point is incorrect. Reservists are not subject to the UCMJ except when under a paid status. UCMJ 1-802.2 is clearly worded on what persons are subject to the UCMJ. Even drilling reservists are not subject except during AT, ADT, and drill times. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.207.126.151 (talk • contribs) 18:32, June 5, 2007 (UTC)

Your understanding seems to differ from the Air Force's html at http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm htom 19:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that link confirms my statement. Let's go through it sentence by sentence if we must: 802. ART. 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER

(a) The following persons are subject to this chapter: (1) Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces; and other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the call or order to obey it. (Mr. Kokesh was not a member of a regular component so (1) does not apply.) (2) Cadets, aviation cadets, and midshipman. (None of these categories apply.) (3) Members of a reserve component while on inactive-duty training, but in the case of members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States only when in Federal Service. (Mr. Kokesh was not on inactive-duty training which includes ADT and AT as well as drills--none of which are performed by the IRR.) (4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay. (Again, does not apply.) (5) Retired members of a reserve component who are receiving hospitalization from an armed force. (Does not apply.) (6) Members of the Fleet Reserve and Fleet Marine Corps Reserve. (These are people who have retired with at least 20 years but fewer than 30 years of service, therefore it does not apply.) (7) Persons in custody of the armed forces serving a sentence imposed by a court-martial. (Does not apply.) (8) Members of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Public Health Service, and other organizations, when assigned to and serving with the armed forces. (Does not apply.) (9) Prisoners of war in custody of the armed forces. (Does not apply.) (10) In time of war, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field. (Does not apply.) (11) Subject to any treaty or agreement which the United States is or may be a party to any accepted rule of international law, persons serving with, employed by, or accompanying the armed forces outside the United States and outside the Canal Zone, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. (Does not apply.) (12) Subject to any treaty or agreement t which the United States is or may be a party to any accepted rule of international law, persons within an area leased by or otherwise reserved or acquired for use of the United States which is under the control of the Secretary concerned and which is outside the United States and outside the Canal Zone, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. (Does not apply.)

So, you see, "my interpretation" matches the plain text of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.207.126.151 (talk • contribs) 00:29, June 6, 2007 (UTC)

It's been many many years, but my understanding is that he is, indeed, a member by (1); I am not a lawyer of any type, however, not even a seabag lawyer. We were taught (granted, back in the 1960's) that you were subject to the USMJ from the time you raised your hand until the end of your period of enlistment plus whatever Congress or the President wanted. I doubt it's shortened over the years, but it is possible (and if so, will be changed.) htom 03:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Your understanding (that he is a member under (1), would require Mr. Kokesh to be a member of a "regular component," which he clearly is not. He is a member of a Reserve Component. The definitions of these terms can be found in US Code: Title 10, 101. The clause of UCMJ-2.2(1) "including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment", refers to Active duty members who have been involuntarily extended for reasons such as operational commitments, and stop-loss; who remain members of the Regular (Active) Component until they are transferred to the Reserves or fully discharged from service. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.207.126.151 (talk • contribs) 16:39, June 6, 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting. However, note that he was not being punished under the UCMJ. He was being administratively separated, which is a procedure outside the UCMJ. Either way, this far exceeds my layman's understanding of the UCMJ and military law, so, I'm just going to drop it. :) Uhlek 16:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Help

I've done what I can to fix a real weird thing that BlueMarine did but I'm not sure why he did it or just what to call what he did.

See for yourself

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Bluemarine/Adam_Kokesh&action=history

Kokesh shouldn't be mistaken for Bluemarine I know that much. Ncrage 00:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Bluemarine (aka Matt Sanchez) is a conservative blogger who works for Right Wing News. Bluemarine last edited the Adam Kokesh article on Oct. 1 using his IP address 213.255.230.132. As you can see here self-promotion appears to be the primary purpose of his last edit. He used the opportunity to add a link to his own web site. I think that's why he used his IP address instead of his username when he made the edit. I know for a fact that 213.255.230.132 is Matt Sanchez/Bluemarine because he used this IP several times when responding to comments on his talk page. JMarkievicz2 (talk) 04:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Heckling during McCain's speech at 2008 RNC

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=09&year=2008&base_name=interview_with_mccain_heckler

Adam Kokesh was the heckler who help up a sign at the beginning of McCain's acceptance speech at the RNC which read "McCain votes against vets" on one side and "You can't win an occupation" on the other side. After he was thrown out, he gave this brief interview. user:Everyme 03:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Rally for the Republic

Please add a reference to his speech at the Rally for the Republic. It is located on Youtube.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.231.150 (talk) 07:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

We can only do that if it's legally hosted on youtube and from what I've found, all instances of the clip are copyright violations. user:Everyme 06:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that his comments at the Rally for the Republic were accurate, regarding, "When I went out to fight the War on Terrorism, I found that the real enemies were right here at home." This displayed his blatant disregard for the people who were trying to kill innocent Americans and tried to blame it on us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.58.66 (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Discharge status?

In the lead, it says he has an honorable discharge; later, it says ... a general discharge under honorable conditions, a discharge status below honorable. Kokesh appealed the decision,[10] and that appeal was denied. Was the general upgraded to honorable, and if so when, and if not, why doens't the lead say "general discharge under honorable conditions"? htom (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Now I've become confused. Was he ever granted an Honorable Discharge? (Note that there are three different discharges being talked about: Honorable Discharge (HD); General Discharge under honorable conditions (GH), General Discharge under other than honorable conditions(GO).) Was the hearing a request to change an HD to a GO, or was the hearing about whether to give him a GH or GO without his having received an HD? htom (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's how it happened according to the articles... He got out of the military with an honorable discharge. He remained in the IRR but was discharged with the honorable unless called back... The Marines tried to discharge him from the IRR with an "Other than Honorable" discharge, which would effectively downgrade the original honorable. So yes, he had an honorable discharge first... Note that there is no such thing as a "General Discharge under other than honorable" as you describe. The "other than honorable," known as an OTH, has serious consequences if allowed to happen. Kokesh successfully fought off this serious OTH and instead got the general discharge, which according to a quote from his lawyer, is a middle ground between bad and good so to speak and without the negative consequences that the Marines tried to get. So the hearing was convened by the Marines to seek the OTH due to the protest activity, but they fought it and got the general... make sense? Aardvark31 (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If he remained in the IRR he wasn't discharged, he was separated or released. You get a discharge on the transition to not being in the military at all (other than the various militia duties.) There are (as far as I know) five kinds or characters of enlisted discharges:

• Honorable
• General (under honorable conditions) (sometimes can be upgraded to Honorable upon petition)
• General (under Other than Honorable conditions) (not upgradeable to Honorable)
• Bad Conduct (only from a Field or Special Court)
• Dishonorable (only from General Court; considered a felony conviction)

Looks like the language has changed, slightly, since I was typing these, but they are still the five.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/l/aadischarge1.htm

So he was separated to the IRR, generating a DD214 that says "character of service": HONORABLE; and he would have then normally received an Honorable Discharge at the end of that duty. (There are many reasons to issue a DD214, Discharge being one, others are moving to a different service, to the reserves, from the reserves to active, ....) Due to his behavior in the IRR he was considered not to have continued in that character of service status by the USMC, which proposed awarding him an OTH Discharge. His lawyer managed to get him a General Discharge, which is indeed better than an OTH, but not the Honorable Discharge he would have normally received administratively. There never was an Honorable Discharge, from your description, and there is not one now. htom (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

A reservist gets a DD-214 every time he or she leaves active duty. This means that one will be active for a month for training, and they will get a DD-214. After deployment and you get deactivated, another DD-214. Separation from the reserves, DD-214. His second to last DD-214 was honorable due to his speration from service. It is well documented and was the whole point of all the articles about this case. There is no question that he originally had an honorable discharge. His final DD-214 from involuntary separation from the IRR was a general... the "other than honorable" is always referred to as "other than honorable" or simply "OTH" and not as you describe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aardvark31 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they can accumulate a pile of them. But they don't say "Discharge" in box 11a, "Type of transfer or discharge" box, they say something else or one of the five above. He doesn't, from your description, have a DD-214 that says "Discharge" and "Honorable"; it says "SEP TO IRR ..." or somesuch and "Honorable". htom (talk) 20:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

When you separate from your obligation, you do get Honorable. In fact, I recall reading that he received an honorable discharge upon going into IRR, with a discharge code stating that he was banned from re-enlistment due to some negative circumstances (misconduct over smuggling a weapon from Iraq) surrounding his initial honorable discharge. Aardvark31 (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

He can't have gotten a discharge (of any character) into IRR, because when you're in IRR you're still under an obligation. He could have gotten a transfer into IRR with characterization "Honorable". (Well, there are typographical errors, but such an error is almost certainly going to be caught before the page leaves the typist's desk (hmmm, maybe with computers it wouldn't be!)) A discharge is leaving the military, a transfer is to a different part of the military. htom (talk) 02:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

that's it... he was transferred to the IRR early due to some misconduct, although his characterization was listed as honorable. But while he was on IRR status, the Marines apparently had enough. In any event, the lede paragraph is accurate. Aardvark31 (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. It says "his original honorable discharge" when there wasn't such a thing. How about changing

and is notable for wearing portions of his military uniform to anti-war protests and the attempts of the Marine Corps to effectively downgrade his original honorable discharge in response. Ultimately, the Marine Corps failed to secure the "other than honorable" discharge that was sought, with a military tribunal instead ruling that Kokesh was to receive a general discharge (under honorable conditions.)

into

and is notable (being a member of the IRR) for wearing portions of his military uniform to anti-war protests, and the subsequent attempt of the Marine Corps to downgrade his original characterization of service, when he was transfered into the IRR, "honorable", to "other than honorable" as his final discharge characterization. Ultimately, the Marine Corps failed to secure the "other than honorable" discharge that was sought, with a military tribunal instead ruling that Kokesh was to receive a general discharge (under honorable conditions.)

You change works, but is very wordy... I still contend it is correct the way it is. read the following from the LA Times:

Marine Cpl. Adam Kokesh had already received an honorable discharge from active duty before he was photographed in March wearing fatigues – with military insignia removed – during a mock patrol with other veterans protesting the Iraq war.

Kokesh received his honorable discharge after a combat tour in Iraq. He is now in the Individual Ready Reserve, a pool of former active-duty service members in unpaid, nondrill status.

A military panel in Kansas City, Mo., will hold a hearing Monday to decide whether he should be discharged from service and, if so, with what type of discharge.

Col. Dave Lapan, a Marine Corps spokesman, said Kokesh was under administrative review because he wore his uniform at a political event, which is prohibited. And, Lapan said, when a senior officer told Kokesh that he violated military regulations, Kokesh cursed and indicated he would not comply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aardvark31 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The quote, itself, is contradictory, quoting an unknown someone saying that he had been discharged, and stating that there was to be a hearing to decide if he should be discharged (which implies that he hadn't been.)

It is wordy :(, I'll try again:

and is notable, as a member of the IRR (whose service was characterized as "Honorable" until that duty), for wearing portions of his military uniform to anti-war protests, and the subsequent attempt of the Marine Corps to downgrade the characterization of service to "other than honorable" at his final discharge. Ultimately, the Marine Corps failed to secure the "other than honorable" discharge sought, Kokesh failed to secure the "honorable discharge" he sought, with a military tribunal ruling that Kokesh was to receive a general discharge (under honorable conditions.)

or

and is notable, as a member of the IRR (whose service was characterized as "Honorable" until that duty), for wearing portions of his military uniform to anti-war protests, and the subsequent attempt of the Marine Corps to downgrade the characterization of his service to "other than honorable" at his final discharge. Ultimately, a military tribunal took the middle course, ruling that Kokesh was to receive a general discharge (under honorable conditions.)

htom (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Still think it is accurate way it is. Here's a quote from an article on this... Granted this quote is from "Truthout.org", but seems legit.

"Now that the Marine Corps is going after honorably discharged members, who are in fact civilians, for free speech rights, we are fighting back," Lebowitz said in a telephone interview Wednesday.

Context of quote was that he was "honorably" discharged from service and that the Marines were seeking to OTH him from the IRR.63.138.81.2 (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Aardvark31 (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

As a Marine, he should know better than to listen to political activists and their lawyers telling him he'd been discharged, rather than fellow Marines telling him he'd been transferred and not discharged; he wasn't discharged, he was a member of the IRR, and all of his woes come from the consequences of that erroneous understanding (well, this set of woes.) I won't say that it was intentional on the part of those who gave him the bad advice -- they may have been ignorant of the difference and the requirements -- but they were suspiciously ready to continue encouraging him in risking what would have been an honorable discharge, in exchange for getting them publicity that would make the Corps look bad. They've got the publicity, the USMC looks like a bully, and he doesn't have the Honorable Discharge he thought that he would end up with. I see one winner and two losers. (BTW, the USMC emblem is a part of the digital cameo pattern, so you can't remove it.) htom (talk) 21:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I think he has done well for himself in making a career out of political activism based from this case, so crocodile tears. But again, I respectfully contend that you are wrong about the original discharge. After going back to my own records, my DD-214 upon separating from the military and going into the IRR says "honorable." That convinces me that this does occur and you are honorable after separation from your actual service since IRR, like was argued in this case, is a non-pay, non-anything status unless you are called back to duty. Unless my DD-214 is wrong, this is definitive. Perhaps he posted his records online somewhere with ss# redacted? Aardvark31 (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Service is always characterized on any transfer (or it was when I was typing them) and it's rarely anything other than "honorable", unless someone is being discharged with other than an Honorable Discharge; if you were being sent somewhere with anything else in that block it was a head's up to those who were getting you that you'd screwed up big-time but managed to stay in. Your behavior on active duty was "honorable", and it was so noted when you transferred. (And 'thank you' for serving!) If you'd gone to BUDS, say, instead of IRR, it would say "honorable" when you then left BUDS and transferred to Special Forces, and then ... until you were finally discharged, when it would again say "honorable". Unless you screwed up, and it would say something else, and you would be usually be discharged, not transferred. "Honorable" means you've kept your nose clean, so far; I did see jackets where it was not that, and people turned their lives around and got back to a string of "honorables". Character of service and type of separation are different things. htom (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.kokeshforcongress.com/.

Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

possible sources

• "Marine Vet Faces Hearing Over Protest," By Heather Hollingsworth. Associated Press Thursday, May 31, 2007. [1] -Shootbamboo (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

"Adam vs The Man" section

That whole section is incredibly biased, and barely states what the show is about. All it seems to do is highlight how RT is controversial. 97.125.86.17 (talk) 06:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree it was a biased presentation and have made more NPOV. People can follow links for the praise and/or "dirt" on both Russia Today and Accuracy in Media. This article doesn't have to do it for POV purposes. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

TJ dance party

There are two entries for this. One in the protest section, and one in adam vs the man. The first entry was in the protest section, which one should this one be in?--72.175.115.246 (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Both have been removed but I added it back in the protest section. There is no reason to remove this from the article like it previously was. The new source is from Fox News in D.C.--Hellogoodsir (talk) 01:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I was at the TJ Dance Party. There were over a thousand demonstrators, easy, and there is a TON of video proof out there on the internet; Just go looking. Also, Over a hundred of us danced *inside* the rotunda uninterrupted and without harassment from the US Parks Police, who actually went out of their way to NOT interact with the dancers. Even in the Washington Post video article, you can plainly see they are inside the monument. Your wiki on this event is wholly misrepresented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.199.17.117 (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/dancing-protesters-return-to-jefferson-memorial-060411 @ 1:40 "More than 40 minutes after the dancing started, the last three protesters left their own". Please properly represent this event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.199.17.117 (talk) 04:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Report on RT cancellation

News with views has a report. I don't know how WP:RS it is, though searching the general URL find quote a few articles, including BLP, do use it. I'm not too driven to put it in but FYI. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that site is RS but it has plenty of good links, including one from Politico that reports on the cancellation of the "show".

-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Read the whole article and find the links? I don't need to read no stinking... har har. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Explain Advert and Unreliable Source tags

User:Plot Spoiler put them on the other day but I don't see those problems and unless he explains specifically what needs to be fixed, the tags will be removed soon. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 03:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Was just checking this. I don't see the reason either. Removed tags now. For anyone wish to add them then explain on the talk page. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Revamp

This is response to the unwarranted "revert" attempt by a certain user. I have edited the article in purely productive manner. I have replaced several dead links with alternative and archived links (this required a lot of time/effort on my part). I have cleaned up certain areas and added newer citations to them. I have also added a "Personal background" section, where I have moved the info about his father, and added more info on background and family. I have also decided to break up and divide the "Protest activities" section into smaller sub-sections divided by year. And plan to add a few more protest events to that list/section. DA1 16:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Please do not be offended by a revert of your changes. I suggest you make the changes in smaller increments so that other editors can easily see what you've done and how you have rearranged content. IfThe edits can be unclear or time-consuming to decipher when many small changes are done in a single edit and general summary. Also please discuss content and edits and avoid references to other editors. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 17:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I actually tried to include larger swathes per edit, because I've seen in the past how certain users advise to use "show preview" section rather than making individual edits. I will try to be more descriptive in my edit summaries. However, I would like you to preview/analyze my edits and see if i removed anything of importance or not. I can assure you, I only added info, rearranged certain info, and mostly replaced/added links and cite. There were a lot of dead citations, and formatting inconsistencies, I spent last night and this morning fixing that. DA1 (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

To be frank, my level of interest in this article is not high enough to warrant the time it would take me to sort through a single compound edit. My quick impression is that some of your edits are constructive and add significant information but that others make the narrative obscure and take a somewhat promotional non-encyclopedic tone and style of language. Anyway, I think many smaller edits would engage more feedback for your work here, and please be mindful not to introduce "peacock" evaluative, or promotional language into the article. SPECIFICO talk 17:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

DA1: Not everyone defines peacock language the same. FYI. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 23:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Excessive Detail and Narrative Style

The recent additions, particularly the sections captioned by year, have the tone of a real-time narrative or script rather than an encyclopedic summary of notable events. I think some condensation and removal of inessential detail would help this new content deliver the important facts more clearly. Also, some of the references do not appear to be WP:RS for the content cited to them, e.g. International Business Times "Rally a Success..." SPECIFICO talk 03:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

While year sections probably are not necessary and poorly sourced information should removed. But International Business Times is a perfectly good source. Any others problematic? The purpose of wikipedia is to share relevant information, including about notable people. I think a proper rendition of the VFW commander comments belongs there, if not necessarily as its own section. Just haven't gotten around to fixing it yet. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 03:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of whether there is some RS journalism published on the IBT website, the cited web page is opinion and promotion and is not RS news reporting: [2]. SPECIFICO talk 12:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

From the author's description on IBT sounds more like that was a journalistic report, if rather enthusiastic. The next sentence ref is the problematic one. I've encouraged the editor whose been active here to come join the discussion since this except for watching out for actual BLP violations I'm not heavily invested in this article. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽

Please elaborate your concern. I may not fully engage in discussion today (if its long), as I'm kind of busy, but I will eventually get around to answering it by tomorrow night for sure. DA1 (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I actually read all of your comments. For some reason I only read Moore's comment and missed Specifico's. Yes, i concur with the other user that IBTimes is reliable. Also, i have been doing extensive research and comparison between sources/links before deciding to use one to a given line on the article. And what I've seen, some of the other articles out there are more fluffed up than this one you may have concern over (which i believe is unwarranted as is). I know for a fact that around 500 people attended, 300+ of whom were veterans (this is based on numerous YT statements by Kokesh himself). However, some of the other articles out there (and not many articles out there, the incident was very under-reported) state either NO attendance-figures or that over the thousands. IBTimes, actually mentioned a reliable attendance number without exaggeration or non-specificity. Also, calling something a "success" doesn't make it "opinion and promotion", it may have implied what the organizers for the event considered it to be (a success). DA1 (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I also would like to state, my style may seem un-preferable by some, but I'm willing to modify that as i go along. However, what matters most is the encyclopedic content, and not the narration per se. My whole aim is to clean up the article (which I've done) and continue to include relevant content throughout the years (that have been missed). As for me assigning "years", I did so as part of cleaning up the section. There were already numerous examples/events listed, and I figured it would be best to divide them by year, so as to be easier for readers and newer edits can be made in chronological order (which is seemed to lack in some respects, previously). DA1 (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

{{od}Whether such an event is a success is a matter of opinion, not fact. For whatever reason, the page cited is opinion, praise and promotion. The IBT and this writer may from time to time do journalistic news reporting, but this ain't it. An attendance figure, on the other hand, seems like a fact that could be reported here if well-sourced. 500 people attended the press conference when Anthony Weiner resigned his Congressional seat, but it was not a "success." I am not criticizing your effort to add fact here, however some of it may be challenged when it lacks proper sources and some of it may be copy edited for style or excessive detail. I'm not anticipating spending much of my time here, but those will be the issues that I would expect future editors to work on. SPECIFICO talk 20:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggested exactly that, that its a matter of opinion ("success"), and fortunately you will see that matter of POV is not present within my edits to the Wiki article itself. Opinion stayed within the opinion piece, if that is what you consider it. According to Wikipedia: RS#Biased or opinionated sources, an opinionated source does Not make it unreliable. I have made sure to that, and my edits were completely neutral. And the only thing being put into question here is a "title" of the article and not what's within it, because that seemed rather neutral as well. I only cared for the content source, not the persuasion. Being a niche [under-reported] event, the options are limited and the alternatives are even more "opinionated". Also, IBTimes is a genuine newspaper thats circulated in NY, its not a tabloid. DA1 (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and switched the link to an alternative cite.[3] However, i would still reiterate Wikipedia does not require sources to be neutral, only its own wiki articles. Though i also dispute that source was somehow opinionated anyways. DA1 (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Still promotional not factual. WP requires sources either to be factual, to be cited as the opinion of the author, or to represent broadly held opinion that is documented as such. This one doesn't qualify. SPECIFICO talk 21:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I heavily dispute this claim. And am open to a third-party to look into the sources, and arbitrate whether it is factual or not. I also dispute the assertion that somehow the source author is just making stuff up, just because you think its "promotional". The assertion is ridiculous, and IBTimes has nothing to gain nor any affiliation from such a venture. DA1 (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

1.The assertion that "successful" is opinion and evaluation is true on its face. "Successful" is not an objective factual report. It is not that the reporter "made stuff up" as in misstating fact, it's that he stated his evaluation or opinion in a linguistic and reportorial format as if it were fact. 2. Good idea to get more editors looking at this, maybe post on RS board asking for comment. Also maybe post on various projects relating to journalism. 3. Tabloids most certainly do have something to gain by enthusiastically inflating the significance of the events about which they write. Think about it. I don't think you really believe the supermarket tabloids have nothing to gain by running stories claiming some movie star was impregnated by a runaway elephant or some politician was abducted by the little people from Pluto. Of course they have something to gain, otherwise we would not have lousy journalism all around us. If nothing else they save on the staff time, expense, and payroll of enforcing legitimate journalistic standards and practices. SPECIFICO talk 22:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

This back and forth between us is redundant and i was hoping for a third-party to give their take. And the purported "subjective" nature of the source material is irrelevant as per Wikpedia:RS rules, only the wiki article is required to be neutral and not the source material (although i still insist the material is infact neutral). Furthermore, i have already received recommendation from a Wikipedia moderator to use the article that you are attempting to shoot down: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#examiner.com_article_on_Ron_Paul_march — DA1 (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not a battle. Nobody is shooting here. I urge you to read your link RE:RS biased sources. It's not about stating opinion as if it were fact. What does it mean to say that something is "successful" without specifying successful at what or in accomplishing what end? BTW, it would be more productive, to say the least, if you announce here that you are seeking a third opinion. Others will help you to find the proper venue and to provide as much background information as possible on all sides. SPECIFICO talk 22:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I just took a look at the link you cited on the spam noticeboard. That's hardly an opinion on the issues under discussion here. Please be careful to state such matters clearly and accurately. SPECIFICO talk 22:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Just because the reporter calls it successful in his opinion, doesn't mean you can't state facts. It's not like "success" is such an extra-ordinarly high bar anyway; in protest terms it merely means enough people showed up to make the point organizers wanted to make (and get covered at least by IBT times). It does not mean that the protest made some big change in policy or headlines all over the country. Few protests are that successful! I think the larger community would agree that a not terribly controversial opinion ("success in protesting") does not obviate the facts presented by an award winning professional journalist. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 02:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of headlines all over the country, just searched his name in news.google and, not unexpectedly, quite a bit of commentary on his gun march - and 4000+ people signing up. (WP:COI??? I talked to him just once in 2007 at/after a demo - thus the photo I added to page a while back. Otherwise, just watching the passing parade.) Don't quite have energy to read and add anything from the various articles at this point. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 02:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The reporter did not "call it successful in his opinion." He stated it was successful as if that were fact, but without defining what was meant by that term, which is an evaluation not a description. Please check the definition of obviate -- your meaning is not clear. The fact that the journalist won an award for other unrelated work is irrelevant. If you have a better source for description or properly attributed reaction to this event, that would resolve the problem. SPECIFICO talk 02:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I cut down the unnecessary detail. And added a better ref here. Easier to search than discuss most of the time anyway :-) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 04:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I know its not a "battle",but that's exactly what it seemed here, when you argue back/forth because of a single source which was not even cited for its opinion but its recording of events. I second Carolmoordc's opinions. I also have observed most of the newer edits to the article, and say that I am perfectly comfortable with them. Some of them, i would have eventually made myself. I will, however, make some minor edits.DA1 (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Source needed for this quote of Kokesh, deleted as unsourced, so that it can be returned to article text

There he stated, "While it is our responsibility now to resist tyranny civilly, while we still can, there may come a time when we will say to the powers that be, be it with your blood or ours we have come to water the tree of liberty … who will stand with me?" Removed pending verification [4]--— Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 16:49, 18 May 2013‎ (UTC)

The verification is a couple of youtube videos of the talk, but not from his channel (at least couldn't find with a search; maybe I did it wrong). And I didn't feel like a) listening and getting time stamp and b) thinking about/arguing whether or not it was a primary source quote, though I do know it has been quoted on a number of not very WP:RS sites. But if someone else wants to weigh through all that, go for it. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)