Talk:Jason Leopold

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
More information about this article... This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jason Leopold article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1

Archives
Archive 1

Contents 1 Removed Columbia Journalism Review article for now 2 warning/legal action 3 Legal issues, WP:BLP, protection and WP:OTRS 4 in dispute 5 Threats and personal attacks

[edit] Removed Columbia Journalism Review article for now

...as a potentially libelous (and under legal threat for same) violation of WP:BLP, and added citation request in its place. This is the same matter described in the long cease-and-desist letter above. The issue was raised at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Libelous material on Jason Leopold bio again. It is up for discussion there. Please do NOT add this source back until the matter has been discussed and there's some resolution on whether it's appropriate. That discussion will happen pretty quickly, and anyone's free to participate, so no need to get up in arms.... if the citation belongs it can come back, if not it stays out. Thanks, Wikidemo 08:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This information in the jason leopold biography IS FLAT OUT FALSE!

[4] On June 13, Truthout's executive director Marc Ash backtracked from that position, saying that the story was based "on single source information and general background information obtained from experts."[citation needed]The grand jury concluded with no indictment of Rove.[5]

THIS REFERS TO AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT STORY ON ROVE! THIS IS ABOUT A SEALED INDICTMENT! That story, and not the rove indictment story, is what Ash is saying they had one source for. That story was about a sealed indictment not the Rove story!

FIX THIS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.250.64 (talk) 05:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Done - the sealed v sealed is indeed a different story. Please understand the confusion here: the sealed vs sealed story by Leopold is written around the same time and also involves Karl Rove. --h2g2bob (talk) 01:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] warning/legal action

I am an attorney for Mr. Leopold.

Mr. Leopold has a legal action against the CJR for defamation and libel. Use of this material exposes this site to damages for republishing said material. A copy of the legal letter has been circulating for some time and is available on this very page. Continued use of defamatory material exposes wikipedia to defamation and libel.

The user Akron who has been changing the substance of this biography has clearly been acting with malice. His changes to the material violates wikipedia's own rules of neutrality. This user appears to be acting with an inherent bias and is making changes that are questinable, biased, defamatory and libelous. Unless he or wikipedia can demonstrate unequivocally that Mr. Leopold is best know for a story published two years ago and can document that he is "controversial" this is simply a case of smearing my client.

The issues that the user has seen fit to change during the course of two days have been addressed in this bio. However, this individual has seen fit to continuously change it for no other reason than to fit his own agenda.

As I stated above, continued use of CJR material when a lawsuit is pending and when previous warnings were issued will open up wikipedia to damages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.250.112 (talk) 04:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Then contact the WP:OFFICE. Threatening legal action is against our policies. Further, all amterial included is fully sourced to reliable journalistic sources, which, it appears from the article, sources, and history, your client isn't too concerned about. That said, You have your options. Vandalizing the article, and it IS vandalism, what you're doing, is not welcome here, and prohibited by our policies. The material that you object to belongs in the article, as it's relevant, and makes your client notable. I recall that incident clearly, and your client's role in it. ThuranX (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legal issues, WP:BLP, protection and WP:OTRS

The article has been protected, following a notice at the administrators noticeboard about the legal threat here and potential violations of the biographies of living people policy. In the future, a good way to address these sorts of complaints is to (i) avoid threatening an individual or Wikipedia with a lawsuit (ii) use the talkpage to discuss problems and request other editors to make the edits you desire on your behalf (iii) report the page to the requests for protection board or the BLP policy noticeboard or (iv) contact the OTRS volunteers with specific concerns. Avruch ^T 19:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

May be for the best to stub this and start from scratch George The Dragon (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, its a little unclear what in the current article is actually disputed. At the moment, the controversial incident seems to have a pretty bare and well-referenced paragraph. Unless there is some other objection, why stub the whole article? Could possibly just AfD it for notability reasons, though, I guess. Avruch ^T 20:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like most or all of the potentially defamatory information found in this revision has been removed from the current article. If that information is true, it goes a long way towards establishing notability I suppose. Avruch ^T 21:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If he's been written up in CJR (the dean of journalism criticism), then it's undoubtedly encyclopedic to mention that (and definitely isn't libelous) - however, I have concerns over proper weighting and the manner it was presented - we don't call people "controversial" in the first line of their biographies. I would suggest working here to develop a consensus version. FCYTravis (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Both the Columbia Journalism Review and the esteemed Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz have written critically about Jason Leopold. Claims that Kurtz's writings have been corrected or withdrawn are, as far as I know, completely false. As a journalist who believes in honesty and the free exchange of information, I'm disappointed that Mr. Leopold, whether through his own actions of those of someone who appears to be his attorney, has succeeded in chilling the debate on his Wikipedia page. I think it's in the best interests of those who refer to Wikipedia for authoritative information that some consensus editing be done to this page, so that we can correct what appears to be an effort to whitewash certain aspects of Mr.Leopold's past.Gefiltefish85 (talk) 01:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I find it interesting that GefilteFish85 registered on Wiki ONLY to edit Leopold's bio, which he or she has done numerous times, in a fashion that is COMPLETELY biased. This person is absolutely not a journalist but appears to be a fraud and a liar and that is ironic because he or she is accusing Leopold of those very crimes. Moreover, to say "Kurtz" is "esteemed" is highly questionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.243.138.235 (talk) 05:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I've edited Wikipedia pages before, at least one or two years ago, using a different account that I honestly can't remember. Because my other account lapsed, I created GefilteFish85 when I wanted to edit the "Jason Leopold" page, the first page I've edited in a long time. It was a coincidence, not evidence of an agenda. If I have any agenda, it's that I'm a working journalist and want to hold my fellow professionals accountable to the ethics of our job. I would discourage the above unsigned user from making unhelpful and ad hominem attacks on someone they've never met before. I'd further argue that my edits were not made in a "completely biased" fashion. I simply stated facts about the negative coverage Leopold received from Salon, the Financial Times, Kurtz and the Columbia Journalism Review, and linked to said articles. I would say that whoever deleted those passages, in a seeming effort to eliminate any references to Mr. Leopold's past, was the one acting with bias.Gefiltefish85 (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If you are truly a working journalist then you should leave your real name since you publish articles under that name. Unless you are worried about receiving the same type of scrutiny. I for one believe you are a liar and you are either one of two people: [redacted]. And you DO have a bias because as a journalist if you read Leopold's book you would know full well that the material written by these so called "esteemed" writers is wrong. Moreover, if you read the CJR article you would know that they were forced to issue a correction in which they said that quotes attributed to Leopold were wrong and should have been attributed to Ash.

So what's your name Mr. so-called journalist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.243.138.235 (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Mr or Mrs Gefilte Fish claims to be a journalist and keeping his colleagues honest. I call BS. here's his or hers activity, all for Leopold.

1. 17:22, 5 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Jason Leopold‎ (→Legal issues, WP:BLP, protection and WP:OTRS)
2. 01:47, 30 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Jason Leopold‎ (→Legal issues, WP:BLP, protection and WP:OTRS)
3. 01:36, 30 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Jason Leopold‎ (→Legal issues, WP:BLP, protection and WP:OTRS)
4. 01:36, 30 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Jason Leopold‎ (→Legal issues, WP:BLP, protection and WP:OTRS)
5. 17:43, 3 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Jason Leopold‎
6. 17:42, 3 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Jason Leopold‎
7. 17:41, 3 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Jason Leopold‎
8. 17:36, 3 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Jason Leopold‎
9. 17:35, 3 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Jason Leopold‎
10. 17:27, 3 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Jason Leopold

Yes, I think it's pretty clear that I've edited the page for Jason Leopold, as that list would indicate. After all, this discussion concerns Mr. Leopold, not myself. I would encourage the powers-that-be at Wikipedia to either allow editing on this page or use their discretion to make their own edits and restore this biographical information to a semblance of objectivity. I would remind everyone here, including the above-signed unnamed user, that stating true information (i.e. that Mr. Leopold has been criticized by several publications for his journalistic practices) is an activity immune from libel. Gefiltefish85 (talk) 05:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There is really no point in arguing with Jason about this. We will include what is published in reliable sources no matter the inane threats. Arkon (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Then you should include that Mr Leopold sued CJR for defamation and libel and that CJR was forced to print a correction, which appears at the end of the article. Both of you are incredibly biased and lack objectivity and the person who claims to be a journalist failed to respond to questions about disclosing his or her true identity.

Anything referenced in the CJR article exposes wiki to damages.It's as simple as that. The below letter sets the record straight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.250.115 (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] in dispute

There is legal action against CJR for it's story that the individual who consistently changed to make this a non-neutral bio continues to use. He then goes on to cite Howard Kurtz article which has also been retracted since the material Mr. Kurtz wrote appears no where in my client's book. He relied on a news release. Moreover, Mr. Leopold is well known for his book, his work on Enron and the California energy crisis. To say that he is "best known" for a story about Karl Rove assumes that is an opinion shared with people on the Internet. Lastly, no where in this bio does it say that Mr. Rove's attorney to this day still has not produced a letter he says that he received from Mr. Fitzgerald clearing Mr. Rove. Additionally, Mr. Rove, at an appearance this year, stated he fully "expects to be indicted at the end of the year." Whether he was being facetious or not he still said it.

It is abundantly clear that the authors of the most recent changes to my client's work have sought to use material that will fit a predisposed agenda and rely on a story that is currently in dispute and the subject of major legal action. Everything is covered in the bio as it stands currently. The person who continuously changed it used words such as "exposed" and "past liar" and makes wildly outrageous claims that cannot be supported.

Here is a copy of the letter to CJR:

Copy of a letter claimed to have been written by article subject's lawyer to Columbia Journalism Review.
the following is a letter collapsed for improved readability. Please do not modify it.
VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL Evan Cornog, Publisher Columbia Journalism Review Journalism Building 2950 Broadway Columbia University New York, New York 10027 Re: Jason Leopold / "Three Strikes, You're Out – Jason Leopold Caught Sourceless Again" by Paul McLeary Dear Mr Cornog: I am writing on behalf of our client, Jason Leopold, with respect to the article written by Paul McLeary and published by Columbia Journalism Review on June 13, 2006. The article contains a series of false and defamatory statements concerning our client, Jason Leopold. We request that Columbia Journalism Review, CJRdaily, Paul McLeary, and the University of Columbia School of Journalism ("CJR"): Issue an immediate written correction and retraction of those defamatory statements and publish such correction and retraction in substantially as conspicuous a manner as the original defamatory publication(s), in a regular issue thereof published or broadcast; Immediately remove, and cease and desist from publishing any further defamatory statements concerning Mr. Leopold; and CJR immediately identify in writing any and all media, editors, and publishers to whom CJR has sent the subject article, including via email, and immediately advise all such media of the correction and retraction demanded herein. The defamatory statements concerning Mr. Leopold in the subject article are as follows: "Jason Leopold Caught Sourceless Again" The statement that Mr. Leopold has been caught sourceless on multiple occasions is untrue. "We wonder if the folks over at Truthout.org are rethinking their affiliation with reporter and serial fabulist Jason Leopold." The true facts are that Mr. Leopold is not a "serial fabulist". "Leopold, you may recall, is the freelance reporter who was caught making stuff up in a 2002 Salon.com article, and had his own memoir cancelled because of concerns of the accuracy of quotations." "But the book was not to be" The true facts are that Mr. Leopold was never "caught making stuff up in a 2002 Salon.com article" The true facts are that Mr. Leopold's book was not only published but was on Los Angeles Times Bestseller List at the time this article was published. While it is certainly fair to note that Mr. Leopold’s first publisher did not publish Mr. Leopold’s book, it is not acceptable to defame Mr. Leopold with the false claim that his book was cancelled because of concerns over accuracy or to imply, as the article does, that the book was not to be, and was never published. "Leopold’s latest addition to his application for membership in the Stephen Glass school of journalism came on May 12 of this year..." Stephen Glass is know for being an admitted liar and fabricator of stories. The clear implication is that Mr. Leopold is also a fabricator is stories. Mr. Leopold is not a fabricator of stories. After all this certainty comes Leopold's latest version of the story, published yesterday, where he writes that he based his original article "on single source information and general background information obtained from experts. The conclusions we arrive at should be considered carefully, but not taken as statements of fact, per se." The true facts are that Paul McLeary falsely puts these quoted words in Jason Leopold’s mouth making it appear that Mr. Leopold’s work is improperly sourced and otherwise unreliable. These words were never stated or written by Mr. Leopold, but rather appeared under a byline by Mark Ash, the Executive Director of Truthout. Leopold says that he knows "for certain" that there exists a federal indictment called "06 cr 128" which he refers to as "(Sealed vs. Sealed)" since neither party's name is on the document. He also knows that this indictment "was returned by the same grand jury that has been hearing matters related to the Fitzgerald/Plame investigation." The true facts are that Paul McLeary falsely puts these quoted words in Mr. Leopold’s mouth making it appear that Mr. Leopold’s work is improperly sourced and otherwise unreliable. These words were never stated or written by Mr. Leopold, but rather appeared under a byline by Mark Ash, the Executive Director of Truthout. So much for what Leopold knows. Apparently, Leopold is a very religious man, because he "believes" quite a bit about the alleged indictment. He believes that it "is directly related to the Fitzgerald/Plame investigation. That's based on a single credible source." He goes on to list several other things he "believes" to be true, all fed to him by, in his words, the "same single credible source." The true facts are that Paul McLeary falsely puts these quoted words in Jason Leopold’s mouth making it appear that Mr. Leopold’s work is improperly sourced and otherwise unreliable. These words were never stated or written by Mr. Leopold, but rather appeared under a byline by Mark Ash, the Executive Director of Truthout. "Salon removed Leopold's August 29, 2002 story about Enron from its site after it was discovered that he plagiarized parts from the Financial Times and was unable to provide a copy of an email that was critical to the piece." The true facts are that Mr. Leopold was able, and did in fact; provide the aforementioned email to Salon.com. Salon’s concern had to do with authenticating the email. The above statements are unprivileged and defamatory per se, in that they tend directly to injure Mr. Leopold in that they are an unprivileged and expose Mr. Leopold to "to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation" Cal. Civ. Code § 45. Surprisingly, Mr. Leopold was never contacted for comment on this article. Quotes were wrongly attributed to Mr. Leopold and then used by the author to bolster the attack on Mr. Leopold’s credibility. A basic investigation into Mr. Leopold reveals that his book was published and is available. Further, Mr. Leopold’s book is cited with a link on every story he writes for Truthout, including the ones Paul McLeary cites in his article. McLeary ignores those facts and gives the impression to CJR's readers that Mr. Leopold's book was never published and is not available. The article has caused damage to Mr. Leopold and continues to cause him damage. Mr. Leopold is currently promoting his book. This article is harming his ability to secure interviews and otherwise harming him professionally. We demand that you immediately take steps to mitigate the damage your defamatory actions are causing. Please contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss the matter. Sincerely, David J. Brown Attorney at Law Egerman & Brown, LLC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.194.3 (talk) 05:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

How long will this page protection last? Hasn't gone on over the required 24 business hours?--98.215.46.64 (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, this has gone on long enough. Arkon (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, by the response of "24 business hours" you have shown your bias and lack of neutrality. Your intent is to use whatever you can find to smear. That's your goal here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.243.138.235 (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Turns out that the person who has been making changes to the Leopold entry and stating that he is a journalist is none other than MURRAY WAAS. Here's the proof. Mr. Waas has been found on the website spock.com where he is a member and has been found to have added links about Mr. Leopold to articles that smeared him, including one written under the pseudonym DHinMI. The person was exposed and discovered to be Dana Houle, the chief of staff congressman Ron Hodes.

Mr. Leopold it turns out actually sued Murray Waas several years ago. Now it's apparent as to why Mr. Waas and his butt buddy Jeff Lomanaco have been trying to change the wikipedia entry. I urge everyone at wiki to expose Murray Waas. He is not neutral but carries a bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.243.138.235 (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Threats and personal attacks

Legal threats and personal attacks are both violations of Wikipedia policies. If they continue on this page by anonymous IP commenters I'll ask that the protection for the article be converted to semi-protection for both the article and the talkpage (excludes only edits from IPs and accounts newer than 4 days). Avruch ^T 02:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)