Jump to content

Talk:Jesselyn Radack/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

Someone deleted this entry. How to find out who it was? Get-back-world-respect Mar 20, 2004

I'm not entirely clear what this sentence means:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation questioned Lindh alone, and Radack quit at odds when she was given the alternative to get a very bad performance review.

Can you clarify it a little? "At odds" needs an object (at odds with what or who?) and the cause-effect relationship between the two elements of the sentence is not clear. Moncrief 21:13, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

This

morning [Tuesday, 28th], on Democracy Now!, Worldlink, & Pacifica Radio, she described her book: "The Canary in the Coalmine: Blowing the Whistle in the Case of 'American Taliban' John Walker Lindh ".

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 13:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

16
00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • There are many guestlists of people who have appeared on various shows; are there any for Democracy Now!?

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 13:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No-fly

"As a result of these events, Radack was placed on the no-fly list.

I deleted this because it cannot be verified that Jesselyn was placed on the no-fly list for these reasons. There easily could be other reasons, some of which could be classified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrRisk13 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Jesselyn Radack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Reliable Secondary Sources Read the complaint. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4469578/AmendedRadack.pdf It's pretty bad. Including the actual texts and communicaitons.

"Rape List" section

I removed a section with this edit because there were numerous claims about living persons not cited to a source, there are similar claims about living persons cited to primary sources, plus it seems UNDUE to have such a large section with relatively few sources. I'm definitely not opposed to something, but this large section isn't it. At least not without high-quality reliable, third-party sources. I thought this might be controversial so I'm proactively starting a discussion. Woodroar (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for Comments

1. Request for Comments

I request comments on this page. Firstly, the editor, Woodroar had removed a section about Ms. Radack's involvement on a topic which was extremely notable (she was intereviewed in the New York Times, and on the Phil Donahue show). It's mentioned in every article about her life. Secondly, he removed a section about a TV show about a 10 million dollar lawsuit against Radack which was conducted by journalist Sharyl Attkinsson, also having been reported by numerous other journalists.

Two sections of a biography, which included sources such as the New York Times, the Donahue show, and a half-hour television program devoted specifically to Ms. Radack were arbitrarily removed by editor Woodroar.

2. Description

Well sourced section involving television program specifically about the subject was removed.

3. Summary

Removal seems arbitrary. Request discussion. ScotWhaHai (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

4. Action taken

Case is at: RFC/Bio.

"Request discussion"? I started a discussion explaining why I reverted your edits more than 3 hours before your malformed RFC. I also left a message on your Talk page pointing to our relevant policies and guidelines. But here goes:
Your edits added contentious material about living persons that was both unsourced and cited only to primary sources. This violates policies such as WP:V, WP:OR and WP:BLP. You did cite several reliable, third-party sources, but these sources did not support the entirety of your added content. Challenged content must be supported by inline citations of every claim and it is your responsibility to add those citations. Furthermore, your three paragraphs are supported by three independent sources while the rest of the article is averaging three sources per paragraph, meaning you have given too much weight to those three viewpoints. This violates WP:NPOV, especially WP:UNDUE.
And then you restored BLP violations from User:MyRedSchoolHouse based on clearly unreliable sources like shadowproof.com, courtlistener.com, and dailycaller.com. I noticed that you subsequently added claims sourced to shadowproof.com as well.
As I mentioned above, some of this content is likely fine and we can add it to the article. We just have to agree about what gets added first.
I would strongly suggest reading all of the above policies and guidelines as well as those I added on your Talk page. You should also keep in mind that content about living persons falls under discretionary sanctions, which I also noted on your Talk page. That isn't to say that you can't edit this article, but you have to understand that editing articles like this requires a thorough understanding of Wikipedia's policies, especially WP:BLP. Failure to follow these guidelines can result in bans and blocks. My personal suggestion, take it or leave it, is to edit less contentious areas until you understand more about how Wikipedia works.
I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any questions. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Woodroar, I don't have time to do this right now, but for starters, there was a documentary T.V. program about the dispute that you deleted that LRSH wrote about. That's not a primary source: not by a long-shot. Beyond that, there's been numerous articles about her life (2ndary sources, like "MotherJones" which did a several-page article on her inability to work after the Lindh affair. There's been others in New York Times about campus rape-lists (in general) which always mention her, as she's vocal and active as an attorney on that topic. She's written autobiographical pieces in Salon.com - all that mention the rape-list.
For this reason, I don't 'get' how you can just wipe-out the section, even if it's not perfectly written. It's not poorly sourced: it's about as well sourced (with 2ndary and 3rd-level sources as it-gets. But fine, I'll deal with this another day. Just don't get out the big eraser so quickly without actually looking at the sources, because I don't think you did-that.
Also, erasing a section and sticking a note on someone's page, stating they may fall under automatic sanctions isn't a discussion as far-as I'm concerned. But anyways, I'll work on this *again*, and I urge you to re-think your erasure, because "Shadowproof" isn't the only source (and Shadowproof is a legitimate paper: look at the story on Chelsea Manning today: https://shadowproof.com/2019/03/08/defying-wikileaks-grand-jury-chelsea-manning-carries-on-tradition-of-resistance-and-goes-to-jail/
Please have another look at the sources: New York Times, Salon.com, "Full Measure News" (which is an offshoot of CBS News, most of the staff came from CBS, but it's owned by another company) - and "no, not primary sources". A primary source is court-material (for example) and not one reference comes from court material.
ScotWhaHai (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
The majority of your sources were primary: Radack's Just Sex, Radack's claims on The Phil Donahue Show, Radack's Still Unequal, plus her Salon piece. Wikipedia considers all of these primary sources. (See WP:IRS and WP:BLP#Reliable sources for more about that.) In fact, when I mentioned that there were only three independent sources, I overlooked that Radack had written the Salon piece. So that leaves two independent sources, Mother Jones and The New York Times. They're certainly reliable for claims about living persons, but remember that we need to write proportionally with the sources, meaning that we can't support three or more paragraphs on two sources. If we weight those sources similarly to the rest of the article, they would warrant perhaps two sentences. I've said repeatedly that we can certainly look at including this information, but we need to talk about how to do that. If there are more sources, then you should link them and we can discuss them as well.
If you'd like to discuss the merits of Shadowproof, I suggest bringing it to WP:RSN. I doubt that many editors would find it reliable for a variety of reasons. Woodroar (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
So now you're dissing Kevin Gosztola? SMH.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brett Alexander Hunter (talk • contribs)

Reliable Secondary Sources on the Radack rape defamation allegations

This is the complaint, containing the data citing the consensual nature of contact: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4469578/AmendedRadack.pdf

These are the secondary sources which wrote about the data - being reliable media outlets:

* 'Prominent Attorney Accused of Malicious Prosecution'
*In another case this year, Trevor Fitzgibbon, the President of Fitzgibbon Media, filed a defamation and malicious prosecution lawsuit against prominent whistleblower attorney, Jesselyn Radack. In 2015, his public relations firm was forced to close after allegations of widespread sexual assault and harassment were published in the Huffington Post. Radack made claims that Fitzgibbon forcibly sexually assaulted her. Hotel records showed that Fitzgibbon was not in the state during the time of the alleged rape, so he was not prosecuted. Now he is seeking damages of at least $10 million in loss of business, income, pain and suffering, emotional distress and public humiliation. http://mcdanielgroupdc.com/malicious-prosecution-everything-you-need-to-know-from-a-to-z/

NigelRulesFine (talk) 10:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

NigelRulesFine, thanks for posting here. This discussion relates to my removal of the content mentioned above on WP:BLP grounds. I don't think that the sourcing is sufficient for including this content. Of those four sources, none look like reliable, mainstream news outlets to me. One, Daily Caller, is explicitly listed as a source to avoid in the WP:RSN list of perennial sources. I admit, though, that this isn't my usual area, and I've posted to the BLP noticeboard asking for advice. Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 11:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Shadowproof is the progeny of "Firedoglake", which was an expository publication addressing government functioning. NigelRulesFine (talk) 11:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
These sources and those cited in the article are a mix of tabloids, advocacy sites, and primary sources. They are in no way "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", let alone the high-quality sources that we require for content about living persons. I have reverted the edits. Woodroar (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Firedoglake was a partisan political blog, so claiming connection to a past operation doesn't help you. Shadowproof's staff listing contains only two people; the author of the piece in question and another writer. There does not appear to be a significant editorial structure and I would strongly argue that the site cannot be considered a reliable source. Same for "Disobedient Media," which appears to be a publisher of conspiracy theories related to Wikileaks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
The case has now been resolved for the plaintiff. This is part of the settlement - she was so ordered by the court - and the court records should be linked in as well:
https://twitter.com/JesselynRadack/status/1124190421213696001— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brett Alexander Hunter (talk • contribs) 21:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
We'll need reliable, third-party published sources. We don't use primary sources like court documents or social media claims involving third parties. Woodroar (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
But of course. Although one can't do much better than a court document, no? Or an admission from a verified Twitter account, no? The document can surely be found by someone interested in bringing the truth to this website without hint of agenda or partisanship. That seems blatantly obvious, no? Best of luck!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brett Alexander Hunter (talk • contribs) 06:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Of course we can do better than primary documents and an unverified Twitter account. Woodroar (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Sigh. Occam here says he doesn't believe you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brett Alexander Hunter (talk • contribs) 00:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
The first cut is the deepest.
Excellent! We'll all be looking forward to seeing the corrections. (Redacted) Best of luck!Brett Alexander Hunter (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Well what do you know? Part of my contribution has been removed by Mr (Ms) Woodroar. Did you others know that?
I have removed part of your comment at Talk:Jesselyn Radack. Wikipedia is not a forum. We're not here to discuss our own opinions about the subjects. Also note that WP:BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia, including on Talk pages. I strongly suggest reading the Welcome and Discretionary sanctions notification messages above in their entirety before editing articles or Talk pages about living persons. Woodroar (talk) 02:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

You're not fooling anyone, Woodroar.

Opinions about the subjects? And here we all thought this was about the truth - or its (gasp) suppression. There are at least three (3) third party sources available for the above tidbit; if dear Woodroar would go hunt them down and make them available to the public at large instead of trying to hide the truth...
PS. Here's the verdict.
https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/24217627/Fitzgibbon_v_Radack
Note: that's from a rather accredited source, so perhaps it won't pass muster.
Note: seems to be a lot of kerfuffle here about a certain editor who's using rules personally?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brett Alexander Hunter (talk • contribs) 12:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Look, I'm only here because this article was reported at WP:BLPN, so it's on my watchlist. I don't know who the subject is—save for a very cursory skimming of the lead and this section—and I'm not following any news about/involving her, so I really don't know what you're talking about. If you have reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, bring them here. As mentioned, we do not use court documents to support claims about living persons. And please remember to sign your comments on Talk pages. Woodroar (talk) 13:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

An update from PR Week:

https://www.prweek.com/article/1661568/metoo-two-years-on-whats-changed-pr-agencies

Before #MeToo, one of the most notable sexual harassment cases took place at a firm with a few dozen employees. In late 2015, Washington-based progressive political PR firm FitzGibbon Media shut down after allegations of sexual harassment and assault were leveled against its president, Trevor FitzGibbon. He was later reportedly cleared of the charges and opened a new firm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brett Alexander Hunter (talk • contribs) 02:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Not usable here. Trade magazines are fine to cite for non-controversial claims but they're often not objective and almost never suitable for WP:BLPs. PRWeek does cite Variety and Mic, which is great because those are generally reliable sources. But the ultimate issue is that none of these sources name this subject, which would make it WP:SYNTH to cite any claims to them here. Woodroar (talk) 01:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Fox news

I recently removed the recent addition of

The case was part of a Fox Nation investigative journalism segment, "Lara Logan Has No Agenda: Bias in the Media" on April 16, 2020.[91]

However, the person who had added it chose to ignore WP:BRD and just readd it. The source link was to the segment mentioned. While that shows that it is true that there was such a segment, that in no way shows that the existence of the segment was a significant fact. It can't, because it's not a third party to the claim. If other outlets had covered it, then that might be worthy of note. Without that coverage, this might make an interesting entry in the External Link section, but the mere fact that there was a specific piece of coverage is trivial. Does anyone object to its removal? --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I put it back for 'balance'. I note that the other sources (Fresno Bee) had no application of a third-party rule. I note that arbitrary application of a third-party rule, if held-to by all reference-sources, would mean that no references would appear. I'll look at WP:BRD, and what I see is that it doesn't address references (nothing about any third party rule) but what it notes is how consensus is reached. I could counter that you didn't come to my talk page and discuss, you simply deleted, as a fait accompli. Thanks. Rechtsstreitigkeiten (talk) 05:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
So in the spirit of WP:BRD, maybe you can help me here. How does WP:BRD apply, and how can we work to find a consensus. From my POV, many sources don't have 3rd party references for a number of years. This would preclude the adding of any sources. Please discuss. Thanks. Rechtsstreitigkeiten (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Most sources used are third-party sources. If the Camarillo Times reports that "Gertler eats a lot of brownies", they are a third-party source, and a reasonable reliable source for that statement. If, however, they report that "Gertler reads the Camarillo Times", they are not a third-party source for that statement; they are involved. Both the Techdirt and Fresno Bee lines should be trimmed back so they talk only about the facts regarding the subject that is gleaned from the coverage, rather than about the coverage... but the Fox sentence only discussed the coverage, and said nothing that was not about Fox. There are times when coverage itself gets coverage (for example, when Jimmy Carter told Playboy that he had lust in his heart), but in such cases we would have third-party sources talking about that coverage (sources covering the controversy that arose from Carter making that statement to Playboy), and not just source it to Playboy.
  • WP:BRD applies because you were Bold in adding that sentence, I Reverted that addition, and thus your next step should have been to Discuss the change and reach consensus before re-adding the material. You skipped the D. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
So if I’m to understand you correctly, your problem isn’t with the use of Fox, i twas with the wording used about the Fox coverage, i.e. “Techdirt and Fresno Bee lines should be trimmed back so they talk only about the facts regarding the subject that is gleaned from the coverage, rather than about the coverage”. Ok, then I changed the text to read: “Fox news covered the case in relation to media bias which her opponent claims occurred during litigation”. Rechtsstreitigkeiten (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rechtsstreitigkeiten (talk • contribs) 14:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
You are correct, the problem is not with the use of Fox, it's with the use of Fox to cover Fox, and the problem would be the same if it was CNN covering CNN or BBC covering BBC. However, your rewording is still, at heart, talking about Fox News, so they're not a third party source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
No, that's not accurate. The news segment addressed whether or not media bias had occurred, being media bias in prior coverage, by other news-print media. It has ZERO to do with Fox. I have the sense that if I said "Zippy-Do-Da News" covered it, you'd stop what you are doing, and I contend that it's a form of harassment of a legitimate reference. Rechtsstreitigkeiten (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
New sentence: "On April 16, 2020, Fox Nation covered the settlement case in relation to media bias that may-have occurred during litigation." Rechtsstreitigkeiten (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
That's still just tells us that Fox covered the matter. What actual information is conveyed - that bias may or may not have happened? "May or may not" is not actually giving us information. If you feel that the material in the Fox coverage is important, it may be more appropriate to include it in the External Links section rather than trying to find a phrasing that isn't talking about the coverage. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


This is a special situation, whereby she accused the person (currently her adversary in the settlement case) of rape a few years ago. She was taken at face value, partly because she's a very famous lawyer, and in this light, the media published the rape accusation as if it were factual. The press compared the person to Harvey Weinstein, for example, and many such articles were published. Prosecutors stated there was no evidence she was raped (in fact, there's evidence to the contrary), so they dropped the case, and her opponent took her to court and sued her for malicious prosecution. Faced with a jury trial, and a judge ready to hear the case, she offered a settlement and paid-out a six-figure sum to the man. The withdrawal/recant happened, there was no coverage, other than for law-blogs that aren't admissible to Wikipedia, and crowdfunded news sources that would take a month of debate to get-admitted to Wikipedia.
After all that she and a group of friends (including activist-hackers) went on Twitter and continued to defame him - and to threaten journalists who covered the case factually - so he sued her again, and that is the "settlement lawsuit". Last month, a person stepped forward to testify in the case, and the judge in the case had to make a protective order against Radack (who contacted him anyway) and there's an order on-file to forbid Radack to contact him again. One of her friends online threatened violence against her adversary. This is a very dramatic situation, but the progressive media who normally would have covered it in an unbiased manner have been threatened. Threatened with being hacked, or having their hacked documents published, or having their jaw broken (this was the actual threat) i.e. it's a crazy situation all-around it's good that a judge is paying mind to all of it. The settlement case is going to trial in two months (June or July 2020) and God-knows if it's going to get get proper media coverage.
So this second case is a "breach of settlement" case, also for fraud (he dropped a malicious prosecution case for money on the promise she'd withdraw her claim, which he contends is false). The problem is (if you read the court-statements) not only that she repeated the accusation she'd recanted (and settled to stop in a contract/settlement), but she claimed she didn't have money, and claimed that she didn't have insurance to pay-out a settlement, when in fact she had insurance. It was an insurance company that paid the settlement, a fact that came out because her insurance company sued her (an open case right now) for violating the settlement (Travelers insurance is suing her right now - that's a case that's on Pacer). This "whole convoluted situation" was addressed in a lawyer's article (Eugene Volkh) which isn't allowed on Wikipedia, a matter I'll address below. Volkh also noted the pertinent fact that Radack had signed-away her first amendment right with the settlement, so the 2nd lawsuit's defamation elements were no longer first amendment matters, but issues of breach of contract.
The publications which covered the settlement case (Fresno Bee, Twitter) are being sued by her adversary's lawyer, and they have all made claims that her lawyer has committed misconduct, so their articles are focused on (A) Radack's side of the story and (B) lawyerial misconduct, by a guy who is suing them. Fresno Bee and Twitter are both in litigation against her settlement-breach adversary's lawyer.
Even Public Citizen (the other published source) is involved, as they wrote an amicus brief for Radack's side. In the face of all this, the actual facts of the case have been totally obscured, the most important being that Radack withdrew her accusation, recanted, and paid-out a huge sum of money, to compensate the guy, and to avoid a trial for malicious prosecution, a trial that she almost certainly would have lost (hence the six-figure payment to the guy she'd accused). During this procedure (which was last year) she'd been served a restraining order to stop libelling him during the trial, and the judge cited her for violating it. She could have been jailed for violating the restraining order, but she got fined 500 dollars.
The Fox Nation segment was balanced, and addressed the facts on a 'meta' basis: The guy got accused by Radack, there was a huge push-back on any coverage (including reporters being threatened by her twitter friends) of the withdrawn accusation. None of this is being mentioned in the Wikipedia article, because this very dramatic situation hasn't been unpacked by a journalist yet. What I've done is pared-down the basics, in the most neutral manner possible. I think (or I hope) the events of what's unfolded (objectively speaking) comes out in the press eventually, but right now, the sources that even touch on the most important elements are lawyers blogs which you don't admit. That's another point as to the bias I'm seeing in what's allowed as a reference on Wikipedia: The lawyer who blogged about the withdrawn accusation (Eugene Volkh) isn't allowed to be used as a source on Wikipedia, because he published on Reason.com, and there's no review board (I looked-up the justification and there was a long discussion about it). Fine. He's a UCLA professor, and he's published a legal opinion - "and" - after the Wikipedia debate about using his articles posted on Reason.com, he wrote an amicus brief in favor of unsealing the settlement agreement. Fine. Now what's "not fine" is that Wikipedia has allowed an expert that published an opinion on a blog-page (Public Citizen) who is also writing amicus briefs in favor of Radack, to be used as a source. I'd argue that Public Citizen is playing the same role as Eugene Volkh, and the difference is that their unreviewed writings (there's no process review the Public Citizen statements online, which were written by one person, a lawyer). Beyond that, Mike Masnik has been allowed to be used as a source (via Techdirt) generally on Wikipedia. But Techdirt is basically a blog, written by a notable expert (Masnik). So there you have three situations of unreviewed experts, who have published on blogs, two of which are in-favor of Radack (Public Citizen, Techdirt) and one which is unbiased (to my awareness, Volkh doesn't know her adversary) and publishes the facts of the case that journalists have been threatened (literally threatened) not to publish, which is that Radack withdrew her accusation of rape and paid-out a six-figure settlement, and then continued to accuse the guy on twitter (which is really what the settlement case is about). But that lawyer, who only stated that the accusation had been withdrawn, and wrote about the relationship of secrecy to first amendment cases (which is a valid thing to analyze) was refused as a reference by Wikipedia. And now you are arguing that even mentioning Fox as a reference isn't ok, so I change it, and then the wording isn't ok, becuase ....... (fill in the blanks) and what you have as a net result is a bunch of references that don't even allow for the most neutral and unbiased presentation of a situation, because you have limited the sources to ones which don't address the facts. That's what you are doing here. Rechtsstreitigkeiten (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Journalists aren't covering this case very-well for a reason. The one witness who stepped forward in the case had to be put under a protective order: protected from Radack and protected from her friends, some of whom are willing to threaten (and possibly commit) crimes to silence journalists. You can go look on Court Listener docket-page (and I suggest you do) to validate that what I'm writing here is true. This protective order happened last month, and that Radack was specifically admonished to not contact the witness, because she already did - IN VIOLATION OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER, last month. Her friends are also forbidden to contact the witness, by the judge. This settlement-case situation is "out of control". When you can't even bring a witness to testify without judicial protection, it sort-of explains why journalists don't want to get involved. It's not just her friends that are the problem: Radack herself has verbally attacked the journalists who wrote about her case (name calling, requesting that no one do business with them), and the journalists had written stories which are fair and unbiased. She just didn't want it published anywhere that she was being sued for malicious prosecution. That was when the attacks happened. Eventually her opponent had no choice but to sue again, because he was uttterly undefended and the press didn't even write that she'd racanted her accusation. This all comes clear in that a witness in the case had to get a special restraining order from Radack and her supporters. So when I write "out of control situation" I mean "out of control" in a big way. Rechtsstreitigkeiten (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

So to respond to your statement that "I am just saying that Fox covered it": That's untrue. I stated that Fox put the story in an investigative journalism piece on media bias. The Fox story is a "meta story" about how the story isn't being covered by the press. And you want to remove that, along with (Wikipedia previously deciding to) refuse any article which addresses the actual facts. That's a legitimate argument for WP:COI and deserves a debate on ANI, if you want it. Because this is getting ridiculous. There's too many sources (unbiased) sources which are being refused by Wikipedia editors. Rechtsstreitigkeiten (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

"I stated that Fox put the story in an investigative journalism piece on media bias." Yes, exactly. You're using Fox as a source for the fact that Fox did something; without a third-party source, there's no showing of significance. If you want to claim that I have a WP:COI, well, I have no idea what conflict you think I have, but you are certainly free to take it to the relevant noticeboard (which I believe would be WP:COIN.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Your argument isn't valid, nor is it accurate, i.e. You are claiming that I had "Fox [as] a source for that Fox did something without a third-party source". That's not what I wrote. Your allegation is distorsive. This was an investigative journalism segment on how other journalists have covered the case to-date, so Fox Nation was the third-party. This was a classic 'meta' third-party investigative news-piece, so I don't get your point. Fox Nation addressed how the media wasn't covering the case in an unbiased manner, i.e. it was a critique of the way the case was being handled by the press (FoxNation/FoxNews hadn't published anything about the case in the past). Which (again) makes the investigative segment on Fox Nation a third party source.
Secondary point: I'm not accusing you of COI. I'm accusing the overall situation as being de facto COI, because different criteria (for admissibility to Wikipedia as reference-sources) are being applied to unreviewed bloggers (all of the so-called bloggers being notable experts in their field capable of providing valid commentary), and that has bearing on how the facts are presented on Wikipedia. Rechtsstreitigkeiten (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Fox would be a third party for many of the statements of fact that were in their piece. However, that is not what you are using them as a source for. You are using them as a source for the fact that Fox covered the matter, in every version of the sentence you have written. They are the first party for that piece of information. As for WP:COI, you may wish to review what "conflict of interest" on Wikipedia is actually about. If what you're concerned about is the point of view, that's a matter for Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. If you feel that some of the sources that we're using are not reliable, that's a matter for WP:RSN, --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

McClatchy news organizations should not be cited in Settlement Lawsuit subsection

As noted by NatGertler, the American publishing company McClatchy is among the news organizations Devin Nunes is suing. McClatchy operates 29 daily newspapers in 14 states. Wikipedia editors should therefore avoid citing any McClatchy-owned source, such as The Fresno Bee, in regard to the Radack settlement lawsuit, on the basis of being not sufficiently third-party. NedFausa (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Fitzgibbon sued her for malicious prosecution and defamation in the first lawsuit

I realize this is confusing, because the journalist did a bad job of explaining the case. I'll get the settlement and show you. It was unsealed in the second lawsuit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rechtsstreitigkeiten (talk • contribs) 19:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Possible violation of WP:BLPCOI; also EDITWARRING; also definite BLP violations, all reported at ANI

I made a report at ANI for Possible violation of WP:BLPCOI; also EDITWARRING; possible vandalism and BLP violations by editor Whistleblogger.

This is a duplicate of what is on the ANI

Whistleblogger is editing Jesselyn Radack, in apparent violation of WP:BLPCOI.

Editor previously identified herself as the subject of Jesselyn Radack, on June 9. This was done in these notes, to these edits, both from 9 June 2020:

The notes on the edits, as well as the edits themselves, are BLP violations.

If Whistleblogger is actually Jesselyn Radack, is a violation of WP:BLPCOI.

Following edits also problematic:

The edits make criminal claims against a person who is suing the real Jesselyn Radack in court for malicious prosecution and defamation. Whether or not it's her, these edits are WP:BLP violations.

The editor Whistleblogger is also editwarring, having been reverted several times. Editwarring happens here:

NEWFineyoungcannibalsNOW (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

BLPPrimary violations

I will take an axe to the FitzGibbon criminal and civil cases section unless it is fixed within a few days. At the moment it seems to be a major violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY since major parts of it seem to rely exclusively on court documents. Please ensure any claim made is supported by reliable secondary sources. Court documents should only be used as a backup in case editors are interested in reading additional details. If you cannot find secondary sources covering whatever it is you want to mention, then it's likely whatever it is isn't significant. Nil Einne (talk) 06:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Thank you for alerting us to these WP:BLPPRIMARY violations using court records or other public documents to support assertions about a living person. I have removed those references, and will further review this section to ensure all statements are supported by acceptable sources. NedFausa (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Radack's tweets as part of settlement cannot be cited directly

In May 2019 and again in June 2020, the unverified Twitter account @JesselynRadack tweeted retractions and apologies purportedly "as part of the settlement" of litigation between her and Trevor FitzGibbon, which is described in our article space. I believe these tweets cannot be cited directly because they fail the WP:TWITTER exception for references that do not involve claims about third parties. Clearly, Radack's unilateral assertion that her tweets are part of the settlement are claims about third parties, namely Trevor FitzGibbon and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, where their litigation was filed. NedFausa (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa, well I cited an article discussing the tweet, not twitter itself. If the article makes the determination that the tweet is legitimate, then I don't think we can dispute that determination (unless to say that the publication isn't reliable). Sam-2727 (talk) 04:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Sam-2727: Please take a moment to read my edit summary. As explained, I undid your contribution because its source is disputed. I even linked to the appropriate section of this talk page for discussion: Talk:Jesselyn_Radack#The_Volokh_Conspiracy. Instead of replying there, you replied here—where the section topic is Radack's tweets, which have nothing to do with why I reverted your edit. NedFausa (talk) 04:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
NedFausa, I apologize. I guess I went to the wrong section. Replying now. Sam-2727 (talk) 04:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The Volokh Conspiracy

I saw that The Volokh Conspiracy is being used to support several claims in the FitzGibbon criminal and civil cases section. Note that even though TVC runs at reason.com, it is editorially independent and the bloggers "have sole editorial control over the blog". This makes it a self-published source that shouldn't be used for claims about living persons per WP:BLPSPS. (This has come up at BLPN and RSN many times, so this isn't just me having an issue with it.) Are there other sources supporting these claims? If not, they should be removed from the article. I'd rather not edit the article directly—and I don't want to be involved at all, really—after past harassment over this article. Woodroar (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Woodroar: Thank you for alerting us to these WP:BLPSPS violations. I have removed those references, and will further review this section to ensure all statements are supported by acceptable sources. NedFausa (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • NedFausa, here's my response in the correct place. Volokh is a blog, yes, but so is [1], which also has a great deal of independence. In the latter case, their fact checking process isn't mentioned. The Volokh Conspiracy has "editorial independence" (note that I'm fairly certain this is different from being a self published source, contrary to claims above, since Volokh employs more than one source and a credible news publication is at least hosting them on their site, so it isn't some random person on the internet, as WP:SPS describes), so does [2] to a certain extent. In my tentative opinion, I think we should either remove both [3] and the reason site, or keep both, but again I'm very uncertain in this. After looking into this for the greater part of an hour, I'm wondering if it might be worth bringing this section up on the reliable sources noticeboard to clear up confusion. Sam-2727 (talk) 05:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
    The Volokh Conspiracy comes up at RSN and BLPN from time to time (September 2008, November 2014, September 2014, October 2013, January 2015) and there are always concerns about it being self-published as it retains editorial independence wherever it runs. Yes, SPS can sometimes be used when the author is an expert, but both WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS are clear that we should never use them for claims about living persons even if the author is an expert.
    I hadn't noticed the Consumer Law & Policy Blog source before, so thank you for pointing that out. The "ABOUT US" disclaimer on the left suggests that contributors aren't under the editorial control of the blog itself, which suggests to me that we should remove that source as well. Woodroar (talk) 13:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. I removed the disputed source and copy edited the text accordingly. Thanks to Sam-2727 for pointing this out. NedFausa (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Woodroar got it, thanks for the clarification. The techdirt source is technically a blog as well I believe (see author profile: [4]), but it can probably? stay because I don't believe it's editorially independent from the website itself. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
@Sam-2727: This makes me very uneasy. Wikipedia calls Techdirt "an American Internet blog." WP:BLOGS directs: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. (Emphasis in original.)
WP:BLPSPS confirms: Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable.
In the Fox News section above, Rechtsstreitigkeiten writes: "Mike Masnik has been allowed to be used as a source (via Techdirt) generally on Wikipedia. But Techdirt is basically a blog, written by a notable expert (Masnik)." There is no consensus in the Fox News section approving Techdirt/Masnik as a source in Jesselyn Radack generally, much less in the highly sensitive FitzGibbon litigation section.
Aside from identifying Trevor FitzGibbon, that section relies entirely on a single source: a January 2020 blog by Mike Masnik at Techdirt. Accordingly, until we can sort this out and reach consensus, I have removed that section. This is the biography of a living person, where a user who clicks the Edit source tab sees above all a Notice about sources advising: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. (Again, emphasis in original.) NedFausa (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
NedFausa, I agree given the particularly contentious nature of this section, it might be best to remove for now, until we (or the broader community) can come to a consensus. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree with removing it for now. Personally, I don't have an issue with it being a "blog". I see that as more of a format than a sign of its quality, and there are reliable news blogs. What I do question is how it's published, the editorial process, if there are fact-checkers on staff, etc. When the editor is the one doing the writing, that's a concern as well. So in this case it does appear essentially self-published. Not to mention it's the only source, which raises questions about those claims being UNDUE. So yes, it should probably stay out until (a) someone can positively address concerns about the source, and (b) find other reliable, third-party sources to make it DUE. Woodroar (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Primary sources inline

On 4 December 2020, an editor added a {Primary sources} template and 15 {Primary source inline} tags, with edit summary: "Massive amounts of original research here."

There was one previous discussion that focused on WP:BLPPRIMARY, which advises, Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.

I believe the newly tagged references do not pertain to personal assertions in Wikipedia's voice; rather, they support information stated by individuals within court documents. I request that @Bobfrombrockley: explain his objections to specific references, rather than tagging them all, so that I can address his concerns.

For now, I will remove the template and tags, pending consensus to the contrary. Please give me a chance to clean this up without cluttering the BLP with 15 identical "non-primary source needed" tags. NedFausa (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks NedFausa. I am not specifically refering to BLP issues but general Wikipedia policy on primary sources and original research. Primary sources are obviously not proscribed on WP, hence tagging rather than removing, but we are urged to use them with caution and seek secondary sources where possible, because it is easy to misuse them (see WP:PRIMARY, which says "be cautious about basing large passages on them"). Several sections (e.g. "Congressional questions" has only one secondary source at the very end) rely almost exclusively on primary sources. Our policy (WP:OR says: "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. A very large part of this article is based 100% on primary sources such as court documents, we liberally use the article subjects own YouTube videos and blogposts without clearly attributing, and many of the secondary sources are rather weak (e.g. a college alumni magazine, which might be good for uncontroversial personal details but is it good for this sort of material?). There are places in the article where we basically state that the article is based on original research, e.g. Google searches of the Times website confirm only that in 2003 Times journalist Eric Lichtblau wrote.... Or a citation to her YouTube video with the statement in our words She has implied her being under a gag order - we should not be making our own inferences but only citing other's inferences. So please do go ahead and try to clean this up, and I hope that there are secondary sources for the stuff we say in this article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: Thanks for your detailed guidance. I have completed the following:

  • I removed the statement in Wikipedia's words that "She has implied…" because it constituted an interpretation.
  • I removed references to YouTube videos and to Radack's blogposts.
  • I removed original research based on Google searches of The New York Times website.

Regarding subsection 2.7 Congressional questions, as it now stands:

  • "Hearings before the Committee on the Judiciary" is cited only once, to substantiate the hearing's date and subject matter. No other content is attributed to this source.
  • "Statement of Senator Edward M. Kennedy" is likewise cited only once, to support a 222-word paragraph. Please note that this statement was published not at Kennedy's U.S. Senate webpage but by Vote Smart, which Wikipedia informs us "is a non-profit, non-partisan research organization that collects and distributes information on candidates for public office in the United States." It is therefore not strictly speaking a primary source.

As for your generalization that a college alumni magazine "might be good for uncontroversial personal details but is it good for this sort of material?" Alumni magazines come in a variety of flavors. The source here is Brown University, a private Ivy League research university that is the seventh-oldest institution of higher education in the United States. The article in question, "The Woman Who Knew Too Much," is an outstanding 3,952-word piece by Emily Gold Boutilier, who was then the publication's senior writer. Since 2006, Boutilier has worked at Amherst College, where she is now editorial director in the Office of Communications. Her credentials are in order, and we should not dismiss her work casually. Accordingly, I have let stand the seven references to "The Woman Who Knew Too Much," pending consensus that it cannot be used in this BLP of a Brown alumna.

At your convenience, please review my handiwork and advise of further changes needed. NedFausa (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesselyn_Radack/Archive_1&oldid=1260202085"