Jump to content

Talk:Brett Kimberlin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

This article needs a NPOV

This article seriously needs a neutral point of view. I can see by the Talk Page that it is contentious article but the article, as it is, is biased and one-sided. It seems like editing this article has gotten way too personal for some users. Remember WP:BLP, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:POINT, WP:CALM and WP:NOTHERE!

Please do not remove the template until bias is reduced within the body of the article. It might be more quickly done if a user that is not involved in this political conflict is brought in to oversee a rewrite. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is your specific complaint about the article? If you do not provide this, the template can be removed. — goethean 18:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Details appear to have been added at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#NPOV_check_requested. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand the claim. The facts are accurately reported. Indeed the numerous bogus lawsuits, SLAPP's, Kimberlain has initiated to are largely unreported on this page which seems rather complimentary to the old boy. How much more neutral can one be? 50.32.126.56 (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion on this article is being held at Biographies of living persons noticeboard Newjerseyliz (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine business interests

In an interview in Washington's City Paper Brett Kimberlin talks about a post-jail business career doing export to the Ukraine among other things, including his music career (which seems to be separate from Justice Through Music). Before we get into another pointless dispute, can we have consensus that the source meets WP:RS and we can add his business and music career in the article? Feel free to nominate texts to cover the new news in the article. I just think that his business career is another aspect to the man's life that probably should be covered. TMLutas (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it looks like a reliable source, albeit pretty dated. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brett Kimberlin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Potential issues with this article

The content of this complaint comes from VRTS ticket # 2018022310001561, written by the subject. I have reproduced his concerns with only minor formatting changes:

Brett Kimberlin Wikipedia page violates its own policies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

This page was originally put up by people associated with Andrew Breibart in order to smear me and deprive me of being able to receive funding for my non-profit organizations. Moderators initially removed it because of WP policies regarding living persons. Finally, the Breitbots, led by Breitbart/Sputnik reporter Lee Stranahan, began a pressure campaign to force WP to keep the page over my strong objections. At the time, Stranahan also launched "Everybody Blog About Brett Kimberlin" to further that smear campaign. I eventually sued the whole lot of them in federal court, and more than a dozen settled the defamation/invasion of privacy claims by removing content and paying me money. I do not fit the description of a "notable person" since the crime I was accused of was local and it was 40 years ago. Even the Breitbots I sued were unable to convince any judge that I was a "public figure" under First Amendment analysis. If I am not a public figure, then I should not be deemed notable by WP.

The first line is false and it has no attribution whatsoever. It says that I am "best known as the perpetrator of the Speedway Bombings in l978." Best known to whom? That was 40 years ago. It was a local crime of no national importance. In fact, at the time, it was never even reported in the national press. I am best known to my kids as a terrific father, and to my wife as a devoted husband. I am best known to my employees as a kind and effective employer. I am best known to activists as a passionate and dedicated promoter of progressive causes. I am best known to musicians as an amazing composer, producer, engineer and musician. I am best known to the environmental community as an innovator of green building and design. I am best known in federal court as a victim of smears by Breitbots, and as the victim of a crime I did not commit involving the now banned use of six hypnotized witnesses.

Nowhere in the WP is there any mention of the fact that I sued the federal government for false imprisonment and that case was settled to my satisfaction. There is no mention of the fact that Harvard Dean and Solicitor General Erwin Griswold took my case pro bono because he knew my trial involving hypnotized witnesses was unfair.

The statement that the police believed I set the bombings to divert attention from a murder is gossip and speculation. No police official ever said that in any public forum or in court. First of all, I did not even commit the bombings and the entire case is suspect since it was based on the testimony of six hypnotized witnesses. Second, police speculate about all kinds of things that are wrong, so why is that in the WP? Your own policies say that you have to get the WP "right." You can't rely on belief or speculation by anonymous local keystone cops.The article this supposedly comes from is a dead link, so it cannot even be used as a source. That is not "getting it right."

The police did not trace Tovex 200 explosives or timers back to me. They used hypnosis on witnesses who repeated what the police told them to say. You say that the police placed me under surveillance. Ok, so what? They never discovered a single thing to do with any bombings because of that surveillance. Yet the way the WP reads, it leaves the reader speculating that the police discovered something during that surveillance. But once again, your own policies prohibit speculation and innuendo.

Footnotes 8 and 9 are dead links.

I was not arrested in Texas "while trying to retrieve bales of marijuana." I never tried to retrieve any marijuana.

Nowhere does the WP say that I took legal action against Mark Singer for his false portrayal of me in the book he wrote, and that that defamation matter was settled in my favor. Instead, the WP repeatedly cites Singer's book as gospel. Nothing Singer wrote should be cited since he settled my legal action in my favor. He is not a high-quality source when he was sued for publishing the very sources you cite, and settled the suit in my favor.

I was never a suspect in the murder of Julia Scyphers other than through gossip which is prohibited by WP. She was killed during a robbery by a person seen by her husband. The husband knew me well and he never ever mentioned me. Who said I was a suspect? More anonymous sources?? WP does not allow speculation, and WP is not allowed to carry water for right-wing smear artists who rely on innuendo, winks and nods, outright falsehoods to destroy people's reputation.

In footnote 34, the article cited

quotes almost entirely Michelle Malkin who settled my federal lawsuit against her for defamation. She is not, as your policies require, a "high-quality source." She is a right-wing smear artist I sued for defamation and won. Indeed, I don't believe the Washington Times qualifies as a high-quality news source, especially when there is no original reporting in the article.

Footnote 37 is a dead link.

Parts of the WP read like a tabloid with sensationalism and total disregard for my privacy. I have been the subject of a right-wing smear job that lasted years because of my work running a progressive non-profit. Right wingers have used this WP as part of their toolset against me, knowing full well that anyone who considers working with or funding me will consult WP first. If I were living in Europe, I would have a right to be forgotten and left alone for things that happened 40 years ago. Why should I be treated differently in the US? The right wing uses this WP as a Scarlet Letter to whip and shame me in the public square even though I have spent the past 20 years devoting my life to progressive causes, kindness, and justice. Enough is enough.

In short, the entire WP falsely portrays me, my life and my work. The WP relies on dead links, people I sued and won cases against, and asserts that the criminal trial against me was somehow legitimate when it was based on hypnotic testimony that has since been banned from all federal and state trials in the US and Canada. In fact, my case was the last federal case in the country to allow hypnotic testimony.

What is left in the WP after disregarding the above is non-important. Who cares if I was arrested for a marijuana conspiracy 40 years ago? It's legal now and WP does not have articles on every person who was arrested for marijuana conspiracies decades ago. Who cares if I have been involved in litigation or got arrested as a teenager for perjury? And why in God's name does WP talk about a perjury conviction that occurred when I was a teenager and was based on things that occurred when I was a juvenile. That juvenile record was expunged yet WP dredges it up and puts it in the first sentence describing my criminal convictions. Have you no shame? Is that what WP thinks is "right?" Is that not an invasion of my privacy? I was a juvenile for God's sake.

On a final note, recently Twitter, Facebook, Medium and other social media orgs have begun proactively removing fake news, disinformation, bots, trolls and other data from their platforms. Most of this information was generated by Russian operatives and right-wing operatives who use these tactics to harm their targets. As noted above, my WP page was started by Breitbart/Russian operatives to harm me with disinformation, innuendo and smears. This has become abundantly clear of late with Lee Stranahan now working for Sputnik after working for Breitbart when he started the WP page. That alone should be enough for you to remove the page. You guys got "had" by these right-wing smear artists. Now it's time to make things right by refusing to be their bludgeon any longer.

Third, I am floored that your https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brett_Kimberlin page is even live since it discusses lies spread by right wing smear artists about my wife and children, and a murder that I had nothing to do with. I am not estranged from my wife or kids, they live with me. I was never charged, suspected of or convicted of any murder. Why would WP allow that "talk" to be published for all the world to see even though WP found it to be unreliable? You have just given the right wingers what they want, and that is to be able to see lies they published on their blogs now published on WP. You need to remove that talk page as well.

In short, please delete these pages. I am not able to do so myself because of all the WP coding required and I do not want to give the right wing trolls another opportunity to smear me more.

I am a (mostly) neutral party in this case, but I am willing to assist if/where necessary. Primefac (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Break for ease of editing

First draft responses (broken by paragraphs from original post):

  • Who put up the page is irrelevant. Clearly passes WP:GNG many people who are not "public figures" are notable. No actionable issues
  • Most of what he claims here as being "best known" is obvious bunk. There are not (many) WP:RS discussing his involvement as a father, employer, or musician. The vast majority of RS discuss him in the context of the bombings, pot, and recent controvercies. WP:WEIGHT is the policy here, and I see no evidence that we aren't following it
  • False imprisonment, won lawsuit : What WP:RS can be used to source this? If they exist, sure this could be included
  • It may or may not be speculation, but it is reliably sourced speculation.
  • Tovex : reliably sourced.
  • Dead links can probably be recovered from wayback
  • MJ bales : Reliably sourced.
  • Are there RS for the singer defamation suit? If so this could be included (and would perhaps be a reason to re-evaluate using the singer source so heavily)
  • He obviously was a suspect in Scyphers murder. its reliably sourced many times over. There may be issues with why he was a suspect. Are there sources for that?
  • source 34 (malkin)  : Does seem like a low quality source, being used to back something which is sourced elsewhere. Seems like it might be a bit of WP:COATRACK and could be removed.  Done
  • source 37 : wayback

The remaining portion is WP:POLEMIC which shows either blatant disregard or gross misunderstanding of wikipedia policy. LegitPrivacySockBK (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomoskedasticity: Indeed, I called out several places above asking for sources where some of his issues could potentially be addressed (although theymay be hard to see in all the points which cannot be addressed). I have bolded my responses for the ones that are actionable (imo) LegitPrivacySockBK (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brett_Kimberlin&oldid=1252372123"