Talk:Steve Kubby, co-author of California Proposition 215, grows dangerously ill in US custody

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Cleanup?[edit]

I do NOT see any need for a cleanup. As far As I can see the Tag was put up without just cause. Jason Safoutin 20:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, StrangerInParadise 21:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources, and external links within articles.[edit]

Wikipedia is not a primary source. Please cite primary news sources... Good article. --Chiacomo (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I see several inline citations. I'll try to put them in the sources section. --Chiacomo (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, again. Most of those are patient's rights orgs. Perhaps we could find some news sources? --Chiacomo (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about you guys cut me some slack. =) The article is full of sources: news, official papers, and yes, press. BTW, what is wrong with patient's rights orgs? Most are themselves citing official documents. The article w:Steve Kubby has even more. I couldn't get the source templates to work. This is happening now, however. I had hoped we could sort out the finer points later. I need this back on the main page, how do I do that? Thanks in advance. StrangerInParadise 03:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on formatting the sources... Let me know if I can assist further. --Chiacomo (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Once you're done, will you publish? StrangerInParadise 03:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, though I'd like to see an obvious source for the bedding statement... I'm sure a new site somewhere has it. --Chiacomo (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't include links to external sites -- source material referenced on external sites should be directly linked from this article. --Chiacomo (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the material comes from deep inside webpages. There is no easy access to this material by links. I edit Wikipedia pages. And it is not a problem to use external links both within the articles and in the sources section. There are already many external links within the article here. The link I added is one of the best compilations on the web concerning this ongoing case. I am sorry for the anonymous entries, but I don't have time now to create an account at WikiNews. Please do not delete my external link within the article. I will refrain from putting it in the sources section. [Timeshifter]
I would rather see it in the sources section, actually. Though if there is source material, it *should* be linked to directly... Wikinews is not Wikipedia. --Chiacomo (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The link to the cannabisculture website does present a pro-cannabis POV. I will remove the link again. Please cite sources directly... I'll try to add a few as well. --Chiacomo (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what. The WikiNews article does not express a point of view. Neither does my reference to the compilation. It is inevitable that news sources have a point of view. Please don't tell me they don't. I want to see some Wikinews rules on this. You are stretching the POV thing way beyond what it is supposed to prevent... which is bias in Wiki articles themselves. I spent several days compiling this info in that compilation. You can not just link to it. Because it comes from deep within huge webpages in many cases. Some of it is breaking news direct from the people involved. What good is Wikinews if it is just another mainstream news source parroting mainstream news? If you want to say that the compilation comes from a pro-cannabis news site, then free to add that addendum, but please don't delete the link again to the compilation. You can put addendums to all the other sources and external links, too if you want. You can say that the Indymedia link is to a pro-cannabis news site. You can say that the links to the corporate news reports are to corporatist news POVs. And so on. I added the link to the article, and not to the sources section. Is Wikinews only reporting corporate news? I want a referee on this. [Timeshifter]
The thread includes lots of links to news articles and other source materials. Please see WN:SG. We attempt to provide content reusers with direct access to source material. We also attempt to avoid direct links to blatantly POV websites. This is simple, really. The manner in which Kubby has been treated are atrocious... You're presented an opportunity to write an article saying anything and everything you wish about his plight -- why not cite sources directly to make it simple for reusers and readers to find exactly what you're citing? It lends more credibility to the story and will better serve Mr. Kubby. --Chiacomo (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I created an account. I added my username to my previous entries. I explained why links wouldn't always work. Plus people need a way to access ongoing coverage. Surely, Wikinews can not have become so corporate as to only allow corporate news sources. And even if the current arbitrators of Wikinews want to emphasize corporate news sources, then they must surely allow exceptions for the several reasons I have given. Do you ban links to Indymedia sources too? There is an Indymedia link in the article. Google News indexes Indymedia sites and some blogs. Even blogs that are pro-cannabis. We can go round and round on this, but most rules have exceptions, and this one cries out for one.--Timeshifter 04:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a link to kubby.com -- which is a primary source. We link to indymedia frequently, but the thread you wish to link includes not only source material but also messages which exhibit a blatant POV. I encourage you to continue covering this story on Wikinews -- if there are additional developments, please write a new article (with citations). --Chiacomo (talk)
I added the link to kubby.com and I can tell you that it does not have much info on the current situation. I did dig up some relevant medical records from deep within huge webpages on that site, and put it in that compilation though. Indymedia also includes messages with a blatant POV. Frequently, in fact. I have posted there for years, for example. :) And in a news story about someone in ill health (Steve Kubby) partly due to lack of access to whole cannabis, it is expected that some of the reports will come from sources who are pro-cannabis. Indymedia allows anybody to comment, and the article that is linked to has many blatantly pro-cannabis comments. Most news and blogs allow comments too. But I think I have a solution to our problem. See the next section.--Timeshifter 05:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the BaySentinel article, and the Wikipedia article has two separate sources. Basically, due to the adrenaline levels, Kubby is shivering violently, chilled, and very susceptable (sp?) to pneumonia. StrangerInParadise 04:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External Links section versus Sources section.[edit]

I checked out the Wikinews:Style guide page. I did not find what you are claiming. I understand though what you are trying to do. There is an easy way to accomodate both of us, and that is to create an external links section. From the style guide:

External links section
Sites listed in the external links are not endorsed by Wikinews, and Wikinews is not responsible for them. Wikinews cannot control what is kept on the pages linked to, either, and there is always a risk a linked-to site might place inappropriate or irrelevant material on the page linked to, or redirect browsers to a different inappropriate or irrelevant page. For these reasons, external links should not be included without good reason.
Link to a central, relevant page, not multiple pages on a single website. Use a small number of external links which are representative of various points of view; do not create comprehensive link lists.

I will create the External Links section, and add the compilation link to the "central, relevant page."

I'm not going to pursue this any further -- but wouldn't it be easier for readers to simply have links to the source material on the article page? One less level of complexity when trying to find additional information... Do you understand that the thread on cannabisculture does contain POV material? --Chiacomo (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Michele Kubby breaking news is also blatantly pro-cannabis. So that link in the Sources section may need to be moved to the External Links section. See also my just-added comment to something you said in the previous section. I agree that the readers need as many direct sources as possible in the sources section. But there are literally dozens. And many are repetitive, though slightly different. And this is a breaking story and I need some sleep. :) And if other people want the big picture fast, then my compilation will save them hours of time, and let them sleep too. Some of the medical stuff took me days to find, and is highly relevant, and it just can't be linked to. It is buried deep on huge webpages.--Timeshifter 05:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article tag has nothing on the talk page[edit]

I'm removing it as there are no actionable concerns stated here. Neutralizer 22:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BrianMc is going to revert back and, with MrM's ok, remove tag,I think, as per our IRC discussion. Neutralizer 22:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Future Edits[edit]

I firmly believe that all future edits to this article should now be discussed here on the talk page prior to their inclusion. Wikinews is not Wikipedia. One of our key aims is to provide a historical record. Following a discussion in IRC the current version of this article was reverted to a noticably earlier one, and a number of inline links were repositioned or removed. The key reason for this was the fact that these inline links pushed a specific position, an action which is contrary to NPOV. Unless there is material in the article that removed links must be provided to source I would strongly recommend that additional material go in a new article that passes the community's scrutiny to ensure it meets NPOV. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ANY new material should go into a new article. This article should not continue to be updated. --Chiacomo (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Brian, for helping so much with the article as I sense the primary writer feels very passionate about the story and put a lot of effort into it; so it would have been a shame to see it stay disputed, imo. Neutralizer 01:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your firm beliefs, Brian, did not entitle you to delete well-sourced details, or leave a trail of broken links and punctuation. I am happy (per previous discussion) to leave the article at this point. Should there be NPOV concerns, I firmly believe they should be raised here first, then addressed, so as to avoid edit warring. I have left a few refinements from yesterday, as they seem unobjectionable. I have also left out the footnotes inline, but will restore them the next time somebody wrongly claims that the text to which they were attached was unsourced, and deletes it. StrangerInParadise 18:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As he shivers in a cold cell in the Sierra foothills, his fears are now being realized.[edit]

This line is POV and sourceless. Not a single one of the sources states that his "his fears are now being realized", in fact the only fear talked about is his wifes'. Also while it is some what nitpickey none of the sources say the cell is cold just that he is. Cold is a subjective measure and should not be used unless we can confirm that the tempature of the cell would actually be universally recognized as cold. --Cspurrier 19:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not nitpickey, ludicrous. It is without question from the sources that it is cold for him, that it puts him at risk of pneumonia, and that he was, at the date of the artcle, in fact cold, shivering, and denied adequate bedding. Further, every single source on this story states this threat to his health (press, official testimony, comments from supporters) as his fears in the matter. It is a fact, perhaps the centralmost fact in the entire story going back years. How can you abuse the anti-POV principle link this?! StrangerInParadise 20:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt he is finding the cell cold and is "at risk of pneumonia". That sentence is designed to be sensationalist and is only loosely supported by fact mostly it is just your analysis of it. A threat to his health does not necessarily represent “ his fears are now being realized”. No source without loosely interpreting it actually says this.--Cspurrier 21:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Cspurrier here, that sentence simply doesn't belong, it expresses an interpretation of a fact that passes judgement. That is editorialising, which you're allowed on Indymedia, but not here. It is leading the reader to a conclusion of your choosing and thus does not meet the NPOV requirement. The edits I carried out on this article that you seem to have a problem with were required as it had been "nickel and dimed" from something acceptable into something that strongly implied Kubby was innocent and being maliciously persecuted through his treatment or lack thereof. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cspurrier (pointed but polite question coming), who are you to infer the design intent of the sentence? Further, how many dots does a rational adult need to connect between,
  • Kubby telling anyone who will listen, "If I am returned, they will put me in a cage, cut off my medication and I will die"
  • "Oh look, here I am in a cage, my system coursing with adrenaline, shivering, blood pressure spiking"
  • "If memory serves, my doctors tell me that this could cause a heart-attack or stroke"
  • "Here is a man with a gun ordering me to take beta-blockers, which also would kill me!"
  • "Isn't this just what I was afraid of?"
This is not a loose interpretation. It is, however, an understatement,

A friend of Steve Kubby's, Fred Colburn, received a call from him early this morning [0730 Monday, January 30, 2006]....He said he is in excruciating pain, vomiting, weak from inability to eat for the last several days, with blood in his urine, and without a blanket or even Tylenol. [1]

Your edit is unwarrented, please restore my sentence.
And, Brian, who are you to characterise well-sourced details as "nickel-and-diming". I said nothing of Kubby's guilt or innocence (oh, but that is a whole other story), nor of malice (plenty of evidence of that, however). The facts do lead there, why is this a problem? Did I leave something out? I did engage in dialog with various people on this page to better understand concerns with limits on story updates (which I acknowledge are necessary, and had in my own mind where that should be).
There is an issue of,
  • The jail does not want anyone to have cannabis
  • The jail believes, per previous testimony, that there is no evidence that cannabis is necessary
...but this was not in evidence at time of press, nor was even that Kubby had asked for cannabis (he did ask for Marinol). It was on my list of things to discuss with Brian, but, alas, along came an admin who started an edit war, then banned me for resisting.
You both need to reflect deeply on your own biases here, not anti-Kubby or anti-cannabis biases (I have no reason to think that you have them), but on what constitutes neutrality here. You have shown bias towards me, by assuming my intent.
StrangerInParadise 21:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This just in,
"Let me tell you from my experience, that jail is cold!"
-Bill McPike, Attorney for Steve Kubby
He practices criminal law in that jurisdiction, so he knows. I want my sentence back.
StrangerInParadise 22:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the sentence is that it is vauge, unspecific, and not in a news style. If we take it literally, it seems to be suggesting that he was shivering at the moment that his fears were realised, although this doesn't make things clearer. What were his fears, exactly, and what was the nature of his "realisation"? How long did it take for his fears to be realised, and was he shivering the entire time? Were some of his fears not also realised back at the airport, where it was probably much warmer and he was unlikely to be shivering? I agree with the sentiment of the sentence, and I have no doubt that it contains a truth that helps us to better understand Kubby's situation, but a Wikinews article is not the place for it. I oppose reinsertion of the sentence. - Borofkin 23:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rally at noon today[edit]

Recent addition: "Actvists concerned with medical marijuana, human rights and prison reform will hold a rally at noon today in front of the Placer County Superior Courthouse" - since the article is dated January 31, can we assume that the rally took place on that day? If this is something that has happened since January 31, then it should be in a new article. - Borofkin 23:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it happened 31 January. Brianmc removed the notice, I restored it. StrangerInParadise 23:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steve_Kubby,_co-author_of_California_Proposition_215,_grows_dangerously_ill_in_US_custody&oldid=203252"