Talk:Wade Rathke

Untitled

I would like to remove the "Notability" tag. While Rathke may not be a household name, his stature on the left is undeniable and he has had his fingerprints on more projects than just about any other left-wing organizer over the last thirty years. You may not like what he does, but there's no denying that he's done it, and he's an important figure currently and historically. It's especially notable that he started and continues to lead ACORN, and that would be enough, but as this article shows, he has left many other notable impressions on the nation's political landscape. Politics608 (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Politics608

Actually, no, Rathke does not continue to lead ACORN (as discussed in ACORN Cracks Wide Open by Carl Horowitz). Asteriks (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent Edits

A new editor has repeatedly inserted the following content:

A member of the radical [[Marxist]] [[Students for a Democratic Society]] (SDS), he dropped out in 1968 to join the anti-draft movement. <ref>Rael Jean Isaac, Erich Isaac. ''The coercive utopians''. Regenrey Publishing. 1983</ref><ref>Andrew C. McCarthy. ''

I have removed this for a number of WP:BLP violations, and will continue to do so. It is contentious material that requires solid sources. The citation provided doesn't provide a page number, but nowhere in the book does it refer to Rathke being a radical marxist, dropping out of anything, joining anti-draft movements, etc. Since this isn't discussed elsewhere in the article, it's also not lead-paragraph material. I will continue to remove it per WP:BLP; the content being added is not in the source provided. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I added a page # and the National Review Article has been added as an additional source. -PC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pecker Checker (talk • contribs) 02:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Google books has the book ref; I can't get a full view, but on page 168 it does mention him being in SDS (I don't know the context, so I don't know if it supports the "marxist" or anti-draft portions. The McCarthy article is online here; the Rathke mention is on the second page. It mentions him in SDS and describes SDS as "communist"; nothing about the anti-draft movement. If the book or another cite does support this, I'd think the education section would be more appropriate than the lede. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on SDS specifically states they were neither Marxist nor Communist. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a copy of the book on my shelf and the reference to Rathke going on to work against the draft is in the next paragraph. - PC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pecker Checker (talk • contribs) 02:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I now also have a copy of the book, and there is nothing at all about Rathke going on to work against the draft in the next paragraph... or anywhere else in the book. In addition, the reference to the SDS membership per page 168 of this book is cited to footnote (#4) to New Spirit magazine, March 1979 issue (page 22), which only speculates on the SDS relationship. As this is a WP:BLP, a more substantial source will be required. I find the outright deception that "the reference to Rathke going on to work against the draft is in the next paragraph," when it clearly is not, very disconcerting. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

SDS

I think the mention of "activist for SDS" in the Education section seems very weakly supported. There seem to be too highly partisan sources given, with no real evidence for the significance of this claim. Moreover, absent some connection to his known activities, "activist" seems like an over-characterization, where "member" might be more neutral. However, if we use "member", it is even more questionable that this factoid is particularly germane to the biography. LotLE×talk 04:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Just saying "member of" or "activist with" doesn't contribute to the article, and really has no relation to his notability -- let alone the fact it would have been when he was a teenager. The two sources being cited, an opinion piece from NRO 2 weeks before the presidential election, and a 1983 book that footnotes the alleged SDS connection to a New Spirit source, are not quality sources. The NRO article is full of falsifications and polemic, while New Spirit only confirms that Rathke opposed the draft, but does not indicate he was a member of SDS. So not only is it non-notable trivia, but unsubstantiated, too. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. His membership in the SDS is noteworthy precisely because it has been noted by so many sources. For example: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5].

And Xenophrenic, I think that the monitors would be less than pleased with you hiding a blanking of content with a vandalism tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.216.125 (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for opting to discuss your edits. When content in a WP:BLP is disputed and removed, it is unproductive, and against policy to continue to re-insert that content before the dispute is resolved.

Can you please explain your views on the relevance of the SDS association to the notability of Wade Rathke? The fact that it was replicated in several similar sources doesn't, in itself, make it notable (or accurate, for that matter). Xenophrenic (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be the only one making complaints about it and your complaints of it being a BLP violaiton seem tenuous. So far out of those who have commented on it, JeremyMcCracken seems to be in favor of inclusion and Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters seems agnostic. That’s certainly not the kind of consensus you are claiming to have.

As I said previously, it seems to be notable because other people have noted it. The SDS was a major organization and his membership in it certainly seems important enough to mention, and if it was not important enough to mention, no one would have mentioned it, your doubts of the accuracy of the material are not relevant to this discussion unless you have something that directly contradicts his SDS membership. 75.57.216.125 (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

@Pecker Checker/75.57.213.195/75.57.216.125: McCracken notes that your source lacked context, and LotLE calls it weak with "no real evidence of the significance of this claim." That is why I am asking you for the significance. How does it apply to Rathke's notability?

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. -From WP:BLP

Your only claim that it is notable information is because other "highly partisan sources" have repeated it? That sounds like spreading tabloid sensationalism to me. Can you please explain the notability? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

These "highly partisan sources" (I might add that you haven’t quite defined what determines if something is highly partisan) appear to meet the requirements for biographies in Wikipedia. There now appears to be several sources for his membership in the SDS. Since this is a biography, biographical material on the life and times of Wade Rathke seem to be appropriate. If a source noted that he was in the Boy Scouts or was into Ham Radio’s that too would seem to be fodder for a biography. 75.57.216.125 (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

(dedent) If Rathke was in the Boy Scouts we would need two basic things to include the fact: (1) A source for the fact; (2) A reason to think the fact was notable to his biography. Even though the citations are to partisan sources, I think we meet the basic WP:RS to establish the first fork of this test. What I haven't seen any real evidence of is the second fork. Rathke very well may have joined a widely known student group during college (SDS): did that somehow affect his later life or the notability of his actions?! I have no idea. I know the partisan sources want to mention the fact to dishonestly insinuate that whatever Rathke did for the rest of his life was "in conformance with" ideas advocated by SDS; but we don't have any evidence (in either direction) of any particular life influence from this SDS membership (assuming it is factual to start with). LotLE×talk 17:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I would direct you, Pecker Checker, to read about the notability requirements in WP:BLP. Also, per your statement above, "I have a copy of the book on my shelf and the reference to Rathke going on to work against the draft is in the next paragraph. -PC", could you please give a little detail on what that paragraph says about Rathke going on to work against the draft? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits re:ACORN

I have reverted recent edits as they are in violation of WP:BLP. In particular, wording that is not contained in cited sources ("...decision that angered board members"; "...handle the issue quietly"), as well as slanted presentation or coatracking of disputed and tangential assertions ($5 million; or involvement of Tides). Some of the material might be suitable for treatment in the ACORN article, but does not meet WP:BLP requirements for this article. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Dont know what coatracking is, but of you are implying that the material is tangential, its all related to the subject and the papers I took as sources confirm this. The board members were angry at Wade Rathke, here is a direct quote from one of the papers: Some top ACORN officials tried to shield the scheme, which involved Dale Rathke, the brother of ACORN founder Wade Rathke. "Leadership has no faith in staff. Wade betrayed them," the minutes said. If you would like to rephrase my interpretation of the sources propose it, but I wont let you remove the material again on such specious grounds. Knucklehead Dojo (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I've seen that quote, but your interpretation of it is not supported. You incorrectly inserted content stating that board members were angry. Here is what your cited source actually says:

Minutes from a meeting ACORN held in Los Angeles last summer reveal a group then on the brink of financial collapse. "Currently owe over $800k to IRS," the minutes note. "Haven't paid medical bills of over $300k. We are essentially 'broke' nationally and lots of offices are struggling." Some top ACORN officials tried to shield the scheme, which involved Dale Rathke, the brother of ACORN founder Wade Rathke. "Leadership has no faith in staff. Wade betrayed them," the minutes said.

That indicates it was "top officials" that tried to shield the scheme. Do you have additional sources that clarify your assertion? Sources say that board members were involved in handling the matter internally, which is a contradiction. And your quote doesn't specify whether "Wade betrayed" staff or leadership. Let's see if we can find some clarification in additional sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I see that you replaced sources, here, in the article to support your assertion that: "They signed an enforceable restitution agreement with the Rathke family to repay the amount of the embezzlement at the rate of $30,000 per year, a decision that angered board members who were not informed of the embezzlement of donor money and pension funds." The source does not say board members were angry at the decision, but instead were angry at not being told -- and it doesn't specify whether they were angry at the other board members, Wade, both or other. Also, there is poor wording asserting as fact that money was embezzled from "donor money and pension funds". As noted above, all of this is material for the ACORN article, not this BLP. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The board members were angry [6] and lawsuits were filed [7]. Your interpretation of events minimizes this. Knucklehead Dojo (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have an interpretation of events. I can only go by what is conveyed by reliable sources. Neither of the two sources you just mentioned indicate that board members were angry at allowing the family to pay back the debt, which is what your previous edit indicated. Instead, the first source indicates they were angry at not being informed of the situation, and the second source is a completely different matter entirely (Wade still hanging around, and a division between board members, etc.). I see you also re-inserted disputed content about the $5 million stuff, which was subsequently disputed (the DA says it came from Lewis' own minutes of a meeting, and Lewis clarified the DA's misperception), content that is not suitable for this BLP anyway. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The book tells us that the board was upset that they were not informed of Dale's embezzlement and as to the AG's statements there are a number of news articles from many papers that repeat this information. Lewis's protests of the accuracy can be inlcuded, but we cant simply ignore the AG's subpoena as it was widely reported. I think it’s not kosher to remove a widely repeated and well publicized allegation made by someone as prominent as a States AG on the sole basis that one of the interested parties says its not true. I'll make the modifications to incorporate your objections. Knucklehead Dojo (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You have again deleted sourced information without explanation, so I have reverted your edit. In addition, neither of the two sources you cited indicate that board members were angry at allowing the family to pay back the debt, which is what your previous edit indicated. I see you also re-inserted disputed content about the $5 million stuff, content that is not suitable for a WP:BLP anyway. Please read up on BLPs, particularily the sections about adding contentious material that is poorly sourced or contradicted. It is not an "interested party" that disputed the smear, but the actual source of the AG's information. If you'd like to argue the merits of this ACORN issue further, I'd suggest doing it at the ACORN article. A BLP isn't the proper venue to insert titilating and disputed he-said/she-said accusations concerning ACORN and Wade's brother. You are welcome to ask for a third opinion in this matter. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

No material was deleted. The “quote” from the NY Times is said to have come from Rathke but the lack of quotation marks in the Times article indicates it is the author’s interpretation not a quote from Rathke. I do see your point about the anger from the board members, the sentence should say that the board members were upset that they were not informed of Dale’s embezzlement, not that they were upset about the repayment. The $5 million cost is not a smear, that’s your subjective reading of the material, it’s an allegation from the Louisiana AG’s subpoena and the fact that so many online and dead tree media outlets picked up on it gives the AG’s allegation prominence even if the very interested party, Bertha, disputes the AG’s interpretation of events. Your link to the St Augustine article confirms this. I don’t know many other people here, so if you could ask an impartial friend to come in a look this over that would be appreciated. Knucklehead Dojo (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, material was deleted. I have returned it. If you remove it again, please accompany that edit with an explanation here. Yes, the content about Rathke's statements contain both direct quotes and the reliable source's paraphrasing. If you have a proposal for wording indicating that some board members were upset about not being informed, let's hear it. The $5 million smear has nothing to do with subjective reading; that is wording from the source. See: Butler. And no, we don't put smears in BLPs, even when accompanied by text denying it and calling it a smear. If you can produce the required high quality reliable source conveying that the inflated number has been confirmed, and isn't just an accusation contained in a subpoena, and we can verify that it is of significant relevance and weight to be in Wade's BLP, then we can consider it. I don't know anyone here, but I do know you can probably get additional input and assistance at WP:BLPN. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It would make things smoother if you were to modify what you find objectionable and leave what you agree with. Knucklehead Dojo (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

That is what I have done with every edit. You should not be repeatedly re-adding the objectionable material without addressing the concerns above and resolving those concerns. You'll find that attempting to edit-war content into BLP article without resolving expressed concerns will not only fail, but may also jeopardize the editing privileges of your new account. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You havent don’t anything like that. Your reasoning for removing material seems to change quite often. On the ACORN article you wiped out my change saying that your edit made the “wording according to cited source” only to find out the cited source was a dead link. On this page your explanations have swung back and forth from saying the material is unrelated to saying it violates a Wiki policy. All the new wording is from mainstream news sources and directly relates to the subject. You haven’t bothered to demonstrate the opposite with one single concrete example and you certainly haven’t made an attempt to incorporate any material I added that you don’t object to.Knucklehead Dojo (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Reasons for my edits haven't changed. Sometimes multiple reasons, as well as multiple editing policies, will apply to edits we make. I have attempted to discuss your proposed content edit with you multiple times now, and will continue to do so for as long as necessary. Preempting our discussion by just going ahead and implementing your contested edits before we resolve the issue is not constructive. Perhaps if we go over your proposed edits one at a time, we can come to an agreeable solution? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, would you be the censei of the Dojo, or just one of the ten dead students? ;-) Xenophrenic (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

? My brother in law and I run an MMA dojo but we don’t instruct Japanese MA styles so we are referred to as "master" not "sensei" (its spelled with an s) and we are very delicate with beginners so no one gets hurt :). Knucklehead Dojo (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I know sensei is spelled with an 'S' -- I was making a reference to the retarded version. :) Xenophrenic (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

retarded version? Knucklehead Dojo (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

I have reverted an edit that didn't have an edit summary. That edit also inserted unsourced content about a "Centre for Community Leadership", and additionally for a "Community Leadership Centre". That edit also removed a "citation needed" tag. It also inserted poorly sourced and disputed speculation about a living person, while removing properly sourced content about debts repaid, etc. This edit mirrors similar edits by this new account. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The poorly sourced material is from The Boston Globe, The NY Post and the Washington Post. They are all hard news outlets and very mainstream. I think that the objection to adding the information has more to do with a dislike of it rather than a problem with its source. It’s all directly relevant to Wade and his forced resignation from Acorn. Knucklehead Dojo (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

And I disagree, based on equally reliable sources, as explained above. So until we resolve the issues, please refrain from inserting contentious content into this BLP. You have boldly made your edits, and they have been reverted, so it is time to come to a resolution on your proposed edits. Which would you like to tackle first? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Wade Rathke. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725020828/http://organizersforum.org/history/ to http://organizersforum.org/history/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081016084209/http://drummondpike.tides.org/index.php/2008/06/25/saultime-to-step-aside/ to http://drummondpike.tides.org/index.php/2008/06/25/saultime-to-step-aside/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 04:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)