This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2010 Pentagon shooting article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is about a current event - it is being filled right now. Please do contribute. Toitoine ( talk) 06:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Appears he had an account (now 'blocked') http://mediaelites.com/2010/03/05/j-patrick-bedell-on-wikipedia/
See User:JPatrickBedell -- 220.101.28.25 ( talk) 11:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
. Patrick BedellMSEE Student
San Francisco Bay Area Contact J. Patrick Bedell Add J. Patrick Bedell to your network
Education San Jose State University University of California, Santa Cruz Connections 25 connections Industry Consumer Electronics Websites My Website http://infoeng.sourceforge.net/
J. Patrick Bedell’s Education San Jose State University none , Biochemistry , 1995 — 1996
University of California, Santa Cruz B.S. , Physics , 1992 — 1994
Additional Information
J. Patrick Bedell’s Websites:
My Website
J. Patrick Bedell’s Groups:
Telecom Professionals Electrical/Electronics and Computer Development Engineers Group Analog Mixed-Signal and RF (AMS/RF) IC Design and Development Group Semiconductor Professional's Group StepBeyond Electronic Industry Network Wireless Telecommunications Worldwide ASIC & FPGA Engineers ASIC CONSULTANTS NETWORK FPGA/CPLD Design Group Fabless Global - ASIC/FPGA/IP (5000+ members) HVL (SystemC/C++/Verilog /Vera/Specman) Experts Southern California Electronics Northern California Electronics HackerDojo Members
J. Patrick Bedell’s Contact Settings Interested In: consulting offers new ventures expertise requests reference requests getting back in touch
AMAZON http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A1S137X4WZFNZO -- 220.101.28.25 ( talk) 11:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
http://en DOT metapedia DOT org/wiki/John_Patrick_Bedell -- 220.101.28.25 ( talk) 11:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
gee, wikipedia being used to smear LRC and LvMI with guilt by association? you don't say. and in the only factoid on the page that have no citation, during the article's first few hours of life, no less. 128.128.98.71 ( talk) 16:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Question: Should a "See Also" with referene to his user page be added? Also, should a redirect be created for "JPatrickBedell"?--v/r - T P 17:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
How best to address the conspiracy theories at the center? This was published a couple of days ago [1] And additionally, the Christian Science Monitor is also explicitly covering the angle here: [2] Interestingly Congress has even enacted legislation [3](Pages: 6, 66, & 102) ordering a formal "Reinvestigation of Death of Col. Sabow". Personally I don't have the desire to write these articles, but there are some quite notable mentions to be found there. Also, some reports indicate they were next door neighbors, but I'm unable to ref that. 99.151.172.170 ( talk) 17:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
All right. The web is being scrubbed of all traces of this guy (his facebook account has been deleted, for example), but references to his beliefs should be kept here. For a screen capture of his facebook page: http://mediaelites.com/2010/03/05/j-patrick-bedell-on-wikipedia/ showing, among other things, his association with the LvMI (see also his postings on the mises institute website: http://blog.mises.org/?p=006071). Wikipedia is not the internet archive, but we do not have to follow the "scrubbers" in deleting valuable information. Toitoine ( talk) 19:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
You mean anybody can "scrub" an article and nobody can recover an archive copy, repost it and semi-protect or protect it outright? Who did the scrubbing? Who decided not to repost the material? On what grounds? Is there public log of other scrubs or do entire articles simply disappear like this? --Arthur Borges 18:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurborges ( talk • contribs)
We generally don't name these sorts of things after the person, but rather after the incident, e.g. Joe Stack is a redirect to 2010 Austin plane crash, Russell Eugene Weston Jr. redirects to United States Capitol shooting incident (1998), and so on. Unless there are better suggestions, 2010 Pentagon shooting would IMO be the most fitting choice. Tarc ( talk) 19:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The current picture (arrest file) is crappy to say the least - and its copyright status is not very clear either (police? Bedell?). His facebook picture is much better:
. What should be the copyright status of a facebook picture of a dead person? Should we restore this picture?
Toitoine ( talk) 20:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Bedell created this project, hosted on google code: http://code.google.com/p/openinsurgent/ It went nowhere, but does contain some valuable information about his beliefs and associations. I think a short blurb would belong in the article. Thoughts? Toitoine ( talk) 20:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Bedell created another google code project: http://code.google.com/p/rothbardix/ Rothbardix Linux is a distribution of which Bedell was the sole contributor. It is also the name of one of his blogs. "Rothbardix Linux realizes the ideas of Murray Rothbard in easy-to-use systems for secure financial cooperation." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.50.6 ( talk) 21:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Under the "Educational Philosophy" section of JPatrickBedell's Wikiversity page, http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:JPatrickBedell/Educational_philosophy, he states "My goal in this development is to implement in free software new economic mechanisms that will validate the truth of scholars such as Murray Rothbard or Ludwig von Mises." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.50.6 ( talk) 21:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
There was (past tense) a wealth of information on Bedell's Wiki page (see Google Cache) to show what his beliefs were. However, it was, for some "unknown" reason, taken down and now we have this page... which lists his beliefs as "Libertarian". 911 Truthers aren't Libertarian.
This whole thing (the sudden appearance of this page and the taking down of Bidell's page) shows so vividly how Wikipedia has violated their own ethics and have ground into dust their reason for existing... they have ceased to be facilitators of knowledge and have become purveyors of what THEY want people to see.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master." cheers, Jamie 24.108.77.192 ( talk) 02:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Sickening... however, a very good example of why people don't trust Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IHiJump ( talk • contribs) 21:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
http://www.bazpedia.com/en/j/p/a/User~JPatrickBedell_18fb.html http://www.bazpedia.com/en/j/p/a/User_talk~JPatrickBedell_9db3.html FYI 173.13.135.101 ( talk) 03:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC) plus don't forget http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/JPatrickBedell **** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.135.101 ( talk) 04:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Do we know for sure that Rothbardix was this guy's site? This article says:
“ | In a separate, rambling blog written in 2006 by a "Patrick" that uses the same themes and phrases as the Bedell on Wikipedia, the author echoes 9/11 "truthers" in saying, "like so many murderous governments throughout history, (the U.S. government) would see the sacrifice of thousands of its citizens, in an event such as the September 11 attacks, as a small cost in order to perpetuate its barbaric control." | ” |
The fact that he posted to the Murray Rothbard-affiliated Mises blog and that his Google Code project has Rothbard's Man, Economy and State with Power and Market (a book that appears in our article on anarcho-capitalist literature) as a download suggests that he may have written that blog. Tisane ( talk) 00:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I just got into an edit conflict with this content deletion while I was about to post this:
“ | He was a poster on the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki and on Wikipedia. His account on Wikipedia was blocked as per standard procedure after the story broke and, for reasons that have not been announced, his user page was expunged from any form of usual access even by administrators in accordance with Wikipedia's "oversight" procedure. [1] Some of his edits on Wikimedia Meta-Wiki were deleted as 'offtopic' a few hours after the story broke. Since then, editors at the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki have been deleting discussion of him and about the deletions. | ” |
I didn't want to proceed to add my change lest it be perceived as edit warring, so I am posting it here in case else wants to comment or add the content. Tisane ( talk) 02:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
References
Alison, who is the editor that removed the page on the Meta Wiki is the one who reverted the page here.
She in engaged in an edit war pattern where discussion of the deletion is itself in turn deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowhare ( talk • contribs)
I'm willing to concede that my edit may not belong on the 2010 Pentagon shooting page (and so will not re-revert it), but I am substantially disturbed by the instant removal of my discussion of the original page deletion from the *Talk* pages of the people involved and the subsequent immediate removal here by the *same* person who removed the original page in question on Wiki Meta.
There is a fundamental dishonesty to the behavior. You can't expect people to trust administrators who appear to be making self-serving edits. Benjamin Franz ( talk) 03:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
cheers, Jamie 24.108.77.192 ( talk) 12:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Tarc: You are being selective in seeing personal attacks. Such as the one against me immediately above where you decided to slice and dice. Benjamin Franz ( talk) 05:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
personal attacks and general commentary not related to article improvement |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Alison is abusing the newly implemented single revision deletion functionality that was enabled into wikipedia with VERY strict usage parameters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revision_deletion Note to admins new to RevisionDelete: RevisionDelete should not be used to redact block logs and admin actions, or to cover up or remove mistakes, poor wordings, "ordinary" incivility, and contentious criticisms (whether or not justified). Such usage without a formal process may lead to arbitration or desysopping even for a first incident. Once she realizes her hunger for deleting is endless and can't be fulfilled she will exert more self control hopefully and not try to control other people's speech, otherwise she should soon lose her privileges. Personally I think the single revision deletion functionality is a really bad idea, just because of this situation, regular people get frustrated by having their access to information, and even the record of the deletions being erased by power freaks like Alison, and then people's manners fall by the wayside. It is a centralization of control in wikipedia that MANY people are going to find extremely annoying if it is allowed to stay, and it will cause more "noise" (offtopic useless posts like this thread) in the wikipedia discussion/history logs than it removes (vulgarity/libel etc). Wikipedia was COMPLETELY FINE before this functionality was added. cheers, Jamie 24.108.77.192 ( talk) 05:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC) |
Tarc I don't appreciate you "hiding" part of this section, the criticisms of Alison and the Wikipedia "single revision deletion" functionality are applicable to this article as the revision delete functionality is being used to remove information from the article. cheers, Jamie 24.108.77.192 ( talk) 05:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I think most people don't like censorship even if it is done with good intentions. And erasing stuff about this guy mentioned in the article seems unnecessary. Why erase his wikipedia user page? You can't erase the sad events that already occurred, people can handle to see the information, and it can help people who are writing the article. cheers, Jamie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.77.192 ( talk) 11:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I boldly added the fact, cited to a RS third party, that the James Sabow quote, came from a Wikipedia page. I could not say exactly where b/c that was not in the cited source. -- mav ( Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 12:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
A lot of media accounts (including some quoted in the article) are describing Bedell as having paranoid ideas about a criminal conspiracy to control the government. It should be noted that "mainstream" anarcho-capitalist theory, which Bedell evidently took an interest in, describes taxation as theft and government as an organization of criminals. Note Rothbard's comments that " the State is nothing more nor less than a bandit gang writ large" and that " the model of government is akin, not to the business firm, but to the criminal organization, and indeed that the State is the organization of robbery systematized and writ large." The idea Bedell set forth of our rulers being criminal conspirators thus should probably be interpreted as a libertarian perspective on the world, rather than Truthism or something along those lines. Tisane ( talk) 03:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
If you pay the fee to buy voter registration lists ( [6]) we might confirm that John Patrick Bedell is/was a registered Democrat.
EMID 15324137 STATESOURCE California DATAACQUIRED 20080121 PrefixTitle MR LASTNAME,FIRSTNAME,MIDDLENAME Bedell,John,Patrick SOURCEIDVOTER 30048 DATEOFBIRTH 5/20/1973 PLACEOFBIRTH CA REGDATE 20051006 GENDER M PARTY Democrat ACTIVECODE ACTIVE STATUS ResAddr1,ResAddr2,ResCity,ResState,ResZip 110 Georges Dr Hollister,CA STATEHOUSE 28 STATESENATE 12 USCONGRESS 17 LASTDATEVOTED 20051108
I added this category per this. When/if the part on John Patrick Bedell becomes its own article, the category should be moved with it. Ks0stm ( T• C• G) 22:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
There was a section on the article about his wikipedia account, that Alison removed from the article (She also removed the info from the Meta-Wiki apparently) so I thought I'd post it here as I think it is notable that this should be included in the main article, but wikipedia appears too self conscious to allow that at the current moment. cheers, Jamie 24.108.77.192 ( talk) 09:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
"Wikipedia / Wikimedia Meta-Wiki
He was a poster on the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki and on Wikipedia. His page on the Wikipedia was blocked as per standard procedure after the story broke. Some of his edits on Wikimedia Meta-Wiki were deleted as 'offtopic' a few hours after the story broke. Since then, editors at the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki have been deleting discussion of him and about the deletions."
Hi Tisane, could you post a link to the oversighting abuse complaint you filed at the audit subcommittee? I couldn't find it. Thanks! cheers, Jamie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.77.192 ( talk) 06:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Tisane, Did the audit subcommittee also look into the abuse of oversight allegation? Since oversight is such a powerful tool, and prone to censorship as shown in this case, when it is abused someone should be accountable. I think suspension of oversight privileges should be considered. cheers, Jamie 24.108.77.192 ( talk) 13:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
cheers, Jamie 24.108.77.192 ( talk) 00:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Has he got one? What about adding it for reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.189.203.203 ( talk) 22:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The event described in this article is not encyclopedic; it fails WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:Notability (events). It is not "enduring", it does not have a "lasting impact", its "geographic scope" is small (not like a hurricane or similar), the "depth of coverage" is typical news coverage: the Five Ws without probing analysis, and the "duration of coverage" is already showing itself to be over. Basically, a lone, mentally ill guy got himself killed in a suicide by cop event. Abductive ( reasoning) 23:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Nah, the talk page is definitely the right place for this. The reason I was against the tag is because this isn't the kind of topic where the notability is unknown or questionable, like for an obscure singer claimed to be popular in Bulgaria but that lacks a reference as to the veracity of that fact; the notability is a very well-established quantity, meaning that the only question is whether it meets Wikipedia standards or not.
Anyway, short version: This is notable because people treated it like it could be the start of something major. It turns out to have been one crazy guy, sure, but that wasn't obvious at the time - maybe it was the start of some coordinated attack? Additionally, Pentagon security is pretty important, and it's quite possible we'll be reading articles 3 months from now on how the Pentagon has changed its security in response. So the location definitely ramps up the notability here. By way of comparison, if an anarchist tossed flaming whiskey bottles onto the White House lawn in 1910 and caused a brief scare, sure, it'd be obscure by today's standards, but it's entirely possible a good encyclopedia article could be written on it. This incident will be obscure in 2110 but still of interest to those studying the time period. Think of it as similar to the 2006 New York City plane crash article, which also had people arguing against its existence at the time, but the fact that it was a plane crash in New York City put the event in an entirely different light (along with carrying a Yankee pitcher). SnowFire ( talk) 00:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Did he have any proposals that were workable/worth implementing, or were they all junk? Tisane talk/ stalk 23:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2010 Pentagon shooting. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
The CSM tried to whitewash this as non-partisan rather than as an example of right wing violence. This was a very common thing for the media to do in the mid-2000s. And while the description of the position of the CSM is fairly neutral and well written, I went back to read the original source and found that much of it doesn’t hold up today and is filled with inaccuracies that most people would laugh at today. We know now, in 2023, that the majority of political violence and extremism in the US is committed by people holding right wing beliefs. In 2010, when Bedell committed these acts, there was a tendency to ignore or whitewash this connection. I would like to see these motives reevaluated. Bedell’s obsession with libertarianism was clearly of the right wing persuasion and his 2004 proposal for smart weapons development was not motivated by his love for peace. This story has a lot of loose ends. I would like to see an update and revision. Viriditas ( talk) 18:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2010 Pentagon shooting article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is about a current event - it is being filled right now. Please do contribute. Toitoine ( talk) 06:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Appears he had an account (now 'blocked') http://mediaelites.com/2010/03/05/j-patrick-bedell-on-wikipedia/
See User:JPatrickBedell -- 220.101.28.25 ( talk) 11:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
. Patrick BedellMSEE Student
San Francisco Bay Area Contact J. Patrick Bedell Add J. Patrick Bedell to your network
Education San Jose State University University of California, Santa Cruz Connections 25 connections Industry Consumer Electronics Websites My Website http://infoeng.sourceforge.net/
J. Patrick Bedell’s Education San Jose State University none , Biochemistry , 1995 — 1996
University of California, Santa Cruz B.S. , Physics , 1992 — 1994
Additional Information
J. Patrick Bedell’s Websites:
My Website
J. Patrick Bedell’s Groups:
Telecom Professionals Electrical/Electronics and Computer Development Engineers Group Analog Mixed-Signal and RF (AMS/RF) IC Design and Development Group Semiconductor Professional's Group StepBeyond Electronic Industry Network Wireless Telecommunications Worldwide ASIC & FPGA Engineers ASIC CONSULTANTS NETWORK FPGA/CPLD Design Group Fabless Global - ASIC/FPGA/IP (5000+ members) HVL (SystemC/C++/Verilog /Vera/Specman) Experts Southern California Electronics Northern California Electronics HackerDojo Members
J. Patrick Bedell’s Contact Settings Interested In: consulting offers new ventures expertise requests reference requests getting back in touch
AMAZON http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A1S137X4WZFNZO -- 220.101.28.25 ( talk) 11:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
http://en DOT metapedia DOT org/wiki/John_Patrick_Bedell -- 220.101.28.25 ( talk) 11:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
gee, wikipedia being used to smear LRC and LvMI with guilt by association? you don't say. and in the only factoid on the page that have no citation, during the article's first few hours of life, no less. 128.128.98.71 ( talk) 16:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Question: Should a "See Also" with referene to his user page be added? Also, should a redirect be created for "JPatrickBedell"?--v/r - T P 17:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
How best to address the conspiracy theories at the center? This was published a couple of days ago [1] And additionally, the Christian Science Monitor is also explicitly covering the angle here: [2] Interestingly Congress has even enacted legislation [3](Pages: 6, 66, & 102) ordering a formal "Reinvestigation of Death of Col. Sabow". Personally I don't have the desire to write these articles, but there are some quite notable mentions to be found there. Also, some reports indicate they were next door neighbors, but I'm unable to ref that. 99.151.172.170 ( talk) 17:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
All right. The web is being scrubbed of all traces of this guy (his facebook account has been deleted, for example), but references to his beliefs should be kept here. For a screen capture of his facebook page: http://mediaelites.com/2010/03/05/j-patrick-bedell-on-wikipedia/ showing, among other things, his association with the LvMI (see also his postings on the mises institute website: http://blog.mises.org/?p=006071). Wikipedia is not the internet archive, but we do not have to follow the "scrubbers" in deleting valuable information. Toitoine ( talk) 19:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
You mean anybody can "scrub" an article and nobody can recover an archive copy, repost it and semi-protect or protect it outright? Who did the scrubbing? Who decided not to repost the material? On what grounds? Is there public log of other scrubs or do entire articles simply disappear like this? --Arthur Borges 18:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurborges ( talk • contribs)
We generally don't name these sorts of things after the person, but rather after the incident, e.g. Joe Stack is a redirect to 2010 Austin plane crash, Russell Eugene Weston Jr. redirects to United States Capitol shooting incident (1998), and so on. Unless there are better suggestions, 2010 Pentagon shooting would IMO be the most fitting choice. Tarc ( talk) 19:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The current picture (arrest file) is crappy to say the least - and its copyright status is not very clear either (police? Bedell?). His facebook picture is much better:
. What should be the copyright status of a facebook picture of a dead person? Should we restore this picture?
Toitoine ( talk) 20:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Bedell created this project, hosted on google code: http://code.google.com/p/openinsurgent/ It went nowhere, but does contain some valuable information about his beliefs and associations. I think a short blurb would belong in the article. Thoughts? Toitoine ( talk) 20:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Bedell created another google code project: http://code.google.com/p/rothbardix/ Rothbardix Linux is a distribution of which Bedell was the sole contributor. It is also the name of one of his blogs. "Rothbardix Linux realizes the ideas of Murray Rothbard in easy-to-use systems for secure financial cooperation." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.50.6 ( talk) 21:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Under the "Educational Philosophy" section of JPatrickBedell's Wikiversity page, http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:JPatrickBedell/Educational_philosophy, he states "My goal in this development is to implement in free software new economic mechanisms that will validate the truth of scholars such as Murray Rothbard or Ludwig von Mises." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.50.6 ( talk) 21:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
There was (past tense) a wealth of information on Bedell's Wiki page (see Google Cache) to show what his beliefs were. However, it was, for some "unknown" reason, taken down and now we have this page... which lists his beliefs as "Libertarian". 911 Truthers aren't Libertarian.
This whole thing (the sudden appearance of this page and the taking down of Bidell's page) shows so vividly how Wikipedia has violated their own ethics and have ground into dust their reason for existing... they have ceased to be facilitators of knowledge and have become purveyors of what THEY want people to see.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master." cheers, Jamie 24.108.77.192 ( talk) 02:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Sickening... however, a very good example of why people don't trust Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IHiJump ( talk • contribs) 21:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
http://www.bazpedia.com/en/j/p/a/User~JPatrickBedell_18fb.html http://www.bazpedia.com/en/j/p/a/User_talk~JPatrickBedell_9db3.html FYI 173.13.135.101 ( talk) 03:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC) plus don't forget http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/JPatrickBedell **** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.135.101 ( talk) 04:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Do we know for sure that Rothbardix was this guy's site? This article says:
“ | In a separate, rambling blog written in 2006 by a "Patrick" that uses the same themes and phrases as the Bedell on Wikipedia, the author echoes 9/11 "truthers" in saying, "like so many murderous governments throughout history, (the U.S. government) would see the sacrifice of thousands of its citizens, in an event such as the September 11 attacks, as a small cost in order to perpetuate its barbaric control." | ” |
The fact that he posted to the Murray Rothbard-affiliated Mises blog and that his Google Code project has Rothbard's Man, Economy and State with Power and Market (a book that appears in our article on anarcho-capitalist literature) as a download suggests that he may have written that blog. Tisane ( talk) 00:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I just got into an edit conflict with this content deletion while I was about to post this:
“ | He was a poster on the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki and on Wikipedia. His account on Wikipedia was blocked as per standard procedure after the story broke and, for reasons that have not been announced, his user page was expunged from any form of usual access even by administrators in accordance with Wikipedia's "oversight" procedure. [1] Some of his edits on Wikimedia Meta-Wiki were deleted as 'offtopic' a few hours after the story broke. Since then, editors at the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki have been deleting discussion of him and about the deletions. | ” |
I didn't want to proceed to add my change lest it be perceived as edit warring, so I am posting it here in case else wants to comment or add the content. Tisane ( talk) 02:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
References
Alison, who is the editor that removed the page on the Meta Wiki is the one who reverted the page here.
She in engaged in an edit war pattern where discussion of the deletion is itself in turn deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowhare ( talk • contribs)
I'm willing to concede that my edit may not belong on the 2010 Pentagon shooting page (and so will not re-revert it), but I am substantially disturbed by the instant removal of my discussion of the original page deletion from the *Talk* pages of the people involved and the subsequent immediate removal here by the *same* person who removed the original page in question on Wiki Meta.
There is a fundamental dishonesty to the behavior. You can't expect people to trust administrators who appear to be making self-serving edits. Benjamin Franz ( talk) 03:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
cheers, Jamie 24.108.77.192 ( talk) 12:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Tarc: You are being selective in seeing personal attacks. Such as the one against me immediately above where you decided to slice and dice. Benjamin Franz ( talk) 05:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
personal attacks and general commentary not related to article improvement |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Alison is abusing the newly implemented single revision deletion functionality that was enabled into wikipedia with VERY strict usage parameters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revision_deletion Note to admins new to RevisionDelete: RevisionDelete should not be used to redact block logs and admin actions, or to cover up or remove mistakes, poor wordings, "ordinary" incivility, and contentious criticisms (whether or not justified). Such usage without a formal process may lead to arbitration or desysopping even for a first incident. Once she realizes her hunger for deleting is endless and can't be fulfilled she will exert more self control hopefully and not try to control other people's speech, otherwise she should soon lose her privileges. Personally I think the single revision deletion functionality is a really bad idea, just because of this situation, regular people get frustrated by having their access to information, and even the record of the deletions being erased by power freaks like Alison, and then people's manners fall by the wayside. It is a centralization of control in wikipedia that MANY people are going to find extremely annoying if it is allowed to stay, and it will cause more "noise" (offtopic useless posts like this thread) in the wikipedia discussion/history logs than it removes (vulgarity/libel etc). Wikipedia was COMPLETELY FINE before this functionality was added. cheers, Jamie 24.108.77.192 ( talk) 05:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC) |
Tarc I don't appreciate you "hiding" part of this section, the criticisms of Alison and the Wikipedia "single revision deletion" functionality are applicable to this article as the revision delete functionality is being used to remove information from the article. cheers, Jamie 24.108.77.192 ( talk) 05:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I think most people don't like censorship even if it is done with good intentions. And erasing stuff about this guy mentioned in the article seems unnecessary. Why erase his wikipedia user page? You can't erase the sad events that already occurred, people can handle to see the information, and it can help people who are writing the article. cheers, Jamie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.77.192 ( talk) 11:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I boldly added the fact, cited to a RS third party, that the James Sabow quote, came from a Wikipedia page. I could not say exactly where b/c that was not in the cited source. -- mav ( Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 12:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
A lot of media accounts (including some quoted in the article) are describing Bedell as having paranoid ideas about a criminal conspiracy to control the government. It should be noted that "mainstream" anarcho-capitalist theory, which Bedell evidently took an interest in, describes taxation as theft and government as an organization of criminals. Note Rothbard's comments that " the State is nothing more nor less than a bandit gang writ large" and that " the model of government is akin, not to the business firm, but to the criminal organization, and indeed that the State is the organization of robbery systematized and writ large." The idea Bedell set forth of our rulers being criminal conspirators thus should probably be interpreted as a libertarian perspective on the world, rather than Truthism or something along those lines. Tisane ( talk) 03:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
If you pay the fee to buy voter registration lists ( [6]) we might confirm that John Patrick Bedell is/was a registered Democrat.
EMID 15324137 STATESOURCE California DATAACQUIRED 20080121 PrefixTitle MR LASTNAME,FIRSTNAME,MIDDLENAME Bedell,John,Patrick SOURCEIDVOTER 30048 DATEOFBIRTH 5/20/1973 PLACEOFBIRTH CA REGDATE 20051006 GENDER M PARTY Democrat ACTIVECODE ACTIVE STATUS ResAddr1,ResAddr2,ResCity,ResState,ResZip 110 Georges Dr Hollister,CA STATEHOUSE 28 STATESENATE 12 USCONGRESS 17 LASTDATEVOTED 20051108
I added this category per this. When/if the part on John Patrick Bedell becomes its own article, the category should be moved with it. Ks0stm ( T• C• G) 22:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
There was a section on the article about his wikipedia account, that Alison removed from the article (She also removed the info from the Meta-Wiki apparently) so I thought I'd post it here as I think it is notable that this should be included in the main article, but wikipedia appears too self conscious to allow that at the current moment. cheers, Jamie 24.108.77.192 ( talk) 09:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
"Wikipedia / Wikimedia Meta-Wiki
He was a poster on the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki and on Wikipedia. His page on the Wikipedia was blocked as per standard procedure after the story broke. Some of his edits on Wikimedia Meta-Wiki were deleted as 'offtopic' a few hours after the story broke. Since then, editors at the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki have been deleting discussion of him and about the deletions."
Hi Tisane, could you post a link to the oversighting abuse complaint you filed at the audit subcommittee? I couldn't find it. Thanks! cheers, Jamie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.77.192 ( talk) 06:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Tisane, Did the audit subcommittee also look into the abuse of oversight allegation? Since oversight is such a powerful tool, and prone to censorship as shown in this case, when it is abused someone should be accountable. I think suspension of oversight privileges should be considered. cheers, Jamie 24.108.77.192 ( talk) 13:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
cheers, Jamie 24.108.77.192 ( talk) 00:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Has he got one? What about adding it for reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.189.203.203 ( talk) 22:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The event described in this article is not encyclopedic; it fails WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:Notability (events). It is not "enduring", it does not have a "lasting impact", its "geographic scope" is small (not like a hurricane or similar), the "depth of coverage" is typical news coverage: the Five Ws without probing analysis, and the "duration of coverage" is already showing itself to be over. Basically, a lone, mentally ill guy got himself killed in a suicide by cop event. Abductive ( reasoning) 23:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Nah, the talk page is definitely the right place for this. The reason I was against the tag is because this isn't the kind of topic where the notability is unknown or questionable, like for an obscure singer claimed to be popular in Bulgaria but that lacks a reference as to the veracity of that fact; the notability is a very well-established quantity, meaning that the only question is whether it meets Wikipedia standards or not.
Anyway, short version: This is notable because people treated it like it could be the start of something major. It turns out to have been one crazy guy, sure, but that wasn't obvious at the time - maybe it was the start of some coordinated attack? Additionally, Pentagon security is pretty important, and it's quite possible we'll be reading articles 3 months from now on how the Pentagon has changed its security in response. So the location definitely ramps up the notability here. By way of comparison, if an anarchist tossed flaming whiskey bottles onto the White House lawn in 1910 and caused a brief scare, sure, it'd be obscure by today's standards, but it's entirely possible a good encyclopedia article could be written on it. This incident will be obscure in 2110 but still of interest to those studying the time period. Think of it as similar to the 2006 New York City plane crash article, which also had people arguing against its existence at the time, but the fact that it was a plane crash in New York City put the event in an entirely different light (along with carrying a Yankee pitcher). SnowFire ( talk) 00:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Did he have any proposals that were workable/worth implementing, or were they all junk? Tisane talk/ stalk 23:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2010 Pentagon shooting. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
The CSM tried to whitewash this as non-partisan rather than as an example of right wing violence. This was a very common thing for the media to do in the mid-2000s. And while the description of the position of the CSM is fairly neutral and well written, I went back to read the original source and found that much of it doesn’t hold up today and is filled with inaccuracies that most people would laugh at today. We know now, in 2023, that the majority of political violence and extremism in the US is committed by people holding right wing beliefs. In 2010, when Bedell committed these acts, there was a tendency to ignore or whitewash this connection. I would like to see these motives reevaluated. Bedell’s obsession with libertarianism was clearly of the right wing persuasion and his 2004 proposal for smart weapons development was not motivated by his love for peace. This story has a lot of loose ends. I would like to see an update and revision. Viriditas ( talk) 18:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)