![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This whole article needs editing to lift it above the level of the tabloid press.
Just for starters:
“Maxwell had a flamboyant lifestyle, living in Headington Hill Hall in Oxford, from which he often flew in his helicopter, and sailed in his luxury yacht, the Lady Ghislaine.”
He sailed a yacht from Headington Hill Hall ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:3102:BB00:6D28:1395:B502:BF1D ( talk) 06:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I came across this article by accident and reacted to that the legal term "fraud" and "fraudster" was used to describe Robert Maxwell. I tried to make a few changes but these were immediately un-done by a fellow Wikipedia contributor. However as I am a person of principle (and I want Wikipedia to remain a serious encyclopedia) I feel that I must take a stand for what is appropriate language and what kind of statements/accusations a encyclopedia can make about a person. The term "fraud", see: /info/en/?search=Fraud, clearly states that: "Proving fraud in a court of law is often said to be difficult.[citation needed] That difficulty is found, for instance, in that each and every one of the elements of fraud must be proven, that the elements include proving the states of mind of the perpetrator and the victim, and that some jurisdictions require the victim to prove fraud by clear and convincing evidence". The term "fraud" is a legal conclusion, verdict, concerning an individuals guilt of having committed this offence. Until a court of law has arrived at the verdict that the accused person is guilty as charged, the person is not fraud guilty of fraud, nor is he a fraudster. This is not about Robert Maxwell, this applies to everyone, and I have seen this mistake in other Wikipedia articles so I think it's something worthy of a higher opinion in the Wikipedia "universe". What I write here is really not a matter of opinion, but a matter of semantics and law. The word fraud has a meaning. Just because a Wikipedia editor believes it to be so - doesn't make it so until proven in a court of law. In this case we can not say more than that Robert Maxwell was suspected of fraud after his death. Maybe he had an explanation to give why taking the money wasn't wrong, illegal or his fault. But we will never know this since he died. The sources that the "fraud" reference is basing its fraud-claims on are still not more than a one-sided opinion by the accusing side, the defense as it may have existed, is not presented because these are books and articles written about a contemporary financial scandal and such books are almost always one-sided and made to sell as many books as possible before the news cycle moves to other topics. Ubbe nationell ( talk) 14:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I still don't agree with the idea that it's acceptable to write that someone is guilty of a crime if a court has not determined that it was a crime and the person was guilty. It's not being a "high court" for an encyclopedia to demand that there must be grounds for claiming that a person has committed a crime. That is in my view a minimum that is expected of a encyclopedia. I was hoping that higher ranking editors would step in and move this discussion from Robert Maxwell to discussion the concept of calling people criminals without a court verdict on Wikipedia more generally. In cases such as Robert Maxwell's there are other ways to describe that he was accused/suspect of etc fraud, without making it a definite conclusion. Ubbe nationell ( talk) 10:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I am sorry, I really don't follow your logic here: Do you really mean that if a fraud happened it's not necessary with a court verdict to decide who did it!?? Do you know why we don't write that his sons were fraudsters, though they were very involved in their fathers business? Because there was a trial and they were not found guilty, that's why. But with your logic, we should call them fraudsters because a fraud happened. If we don't write "fraudster" after a court verdict of "not guilty" how can we write about someones guilt without a court verdict of "guilty"? Or is a person supposed to be considered guilty until proven innocent on Wikipedia? This doesn't make sense and I hope this can be decided on a principle level by higher ups on Wikipedia. It's a Rabbit Hole and someone really should decide on this. Ubbe nationell ( talk) 10:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I have searched for a Wikipedia policy on claiming that people are guilty of crimes and I have found the following: "This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.". However, this is written in Wikipedia Article: "Biographies of living persons" regarding guidelines when writing a biography about a living person. I intend to seek further clarification on this subject. Ubbe nationell ( talk) 19:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Fred West [1] Martinevans123 Ianmacm Snow Rise FriendlyRiverOtter Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 20:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I think you wanted to prove me wrong, but if you read the article about Fred West you can read the following about Rose: "Rose is believed to have killed Charmaine shortly before Fred's prison release date of 24 June 1971. She is known to have taken Charmaine, Anna Marie and Heather to visit Fred on 15 June. It is believed to be on or very shortly after this date that Charmaine was murdered." It says "believe to have killed..." which is what I also think is the correct way to describe a situation if you don't have a verdict that it's a established fact. It also fits with the guidelines I referenced below. Thank you. Ubbe nationell ( talk) 21:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
The case you sent me was a very long and complicated case. I am sorry, but it doesn't change my position at all, no one should be called a criminal unless a court has ruled. It's not the end of the world to add a few "suspected of", "believed to have" when describing a person who is possibly or even likely guilty - but no court has ruled. I honestly don't understand why you are insisting that claiming someone is guilty when a court hasn't ruled is such a important thing? Why not err on the side of caution? I see that some of you who signed off on this are experienced editors but that doesn't mean that I can't be right about this. It's not personal to me, am a lawyer by trade, so I think these matters are important on a principle level. And I would love to hear from higher ranking Wikipedia members on the issue as I think it's really important. Ubbe nationell ( talk) 21:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I have searched for a Wikipedia policy on claiming that people are guilty of crimes and in Wikipedia article about "Biography of living people" I have found the following:
"This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.". "Public figures In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.
Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is the divorce important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. If so, avoid use of "messy" and stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe divorced."
Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred. If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported." (this last example seems to be close to the situation about suspicion of having committed a crime)
However, as I have noted above, the above is written about living persons, and in the case of Robert Maxwell he obviously isn't that. However I intend to seek further clarification on this subject. Ubbe nationell ( talk) 20:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure the precise reason why I was pinged, but I will give my perspective on the policy issues nevertheless. I'll preface this by saying that I do believe Ubbe nationell does appear to be engaging in a good faith effort to try to argue this point within policy, and that there has been a paucity of response to his arguments. This then, is an effort to try to get everyone on the same page: I don't have a firm conclusion as yet as to whether the description is appropriate, but it suffices to start by addressing the project's policies and editorial norms. Ubbe, you are correct that the policy subsection WP:BLPCRIME does ask editors to consider the necessity and appropriateness of a particular label, particularly when we are writing prose in Wikipedia's voice. However, the very reason that language is written in that kind of tone of suggestion is that editorial decisions here are more directly governed by other, much older and more fundamental policies, such as WP:NPOV ( WP:WEIGHT in particular), WP:NOR and WP:RS.
In short, while BLPCRIME (and BLP generally) advise editors to carefully consider what is being said in a piece of prose in a particular context, that advice is somewhat a redundancy in that it is a mental calculus experienced editors always try to keep in mind. At the end of the day, however, the project's editorial guidelines make overwhelmingly clear that whether a particular label is appropriate (especially to be said without in-text attribution) is a call that must be made based on what the weight of the opinions of the sources suggest. There need not be an absolute consensus, but any label that can be reasonably viewed as contentious should only be used if it is fairly representative of what the WP:reliable sources say about a matter--what you or I deduce or determine to be the truth based on the given facts is irrelevant under our editorial process, which rejects editors arguing their own interpretations of matters (and the endless deadlock and rampant editorializing that would result in any contentious article) and instead adopts a model with a focus on an external standard: what the sources say, roughly, in their aggregate.
So, as I said before, I have not reached a firm conclusion on whether or not the "fraudster" label is appropriate. I will say that this is a label that clearly needs to meet a decently high burden of proof in the sourcing (this is where WP:BLPCRIME does exert its influence), but there are occasions in other BLPs before where the label is used and I would more or less support that decision. I'll review the content and sourcing in more detail, but if anyone more familiar wants to make a WP:WEIGHT argument here based on the sources (either current relied on in the article or more broadly), I'll be all ears. Snow let's rap 08:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 12:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This whole article needs editing to lift it above the level of the tabloid press.
Just for starters:
“Maxwell had a flamboyant lifestyle, living in Headington Hill Hall in Oxford, from which he often flew in his helicopter, and sailed in his luxury yacht, the Lady Ghislaine.”
He sailed a yacht from Headington Hill Hall ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:3102:BB00:6D28:1395:B502:BF1D ( talk) 06:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I came across this article by accident and reacted to that the legal term "fraud" and "fraudster" was used to describe Robert Maxwell. I tried to make a few changes but these were immediately un-done by a fellow Wikipedia contributor. However as I am a person of principle (and I want Wikipedia to remain a serious encyclopedia) I feel that I must take a stand for what is appropriate language and what kind of statements/accusations a encyclopedia can make about a person. The term "fraud", see: /info/en/?search=Fraud, clearly states that: "Proving fraud in a court of law is often said to be difficult.[citation needed] That difficulty is found, for instance, in that each and every one of the elements of fraud must be proven, that the elements include proving the states of mind of the perpetrator and the victim, and that some jurisdictions require the victim to prove fraud by clear and convincing evidence". The term "fraud" is a legal conclusion, verdict, concerning an individuals guilt of having committed this offence. Until a court of law has arrived at the verdict that the accused person is guilty as charged, the person is not fraud guilty of fraud, nor is he a fraudster. This is not about Robert Maxwell, this applies to everyone, and I have seen this mistake in other Wikipedia articles so I think it's something worthy of a higher opinion in the Wikipedia "universe". What I write here is really not a matter of opinion, but a matter of semantics and law. The word fraud has a meaning. Just because a Wikipedia editor believes it to be so - doesn't make it so until proven in a court of law. In this case we can not say more than that Robert Maxwell was suspected of fraud after his death. Maybe he had an explanation to give why taking the money wasn't wrong, illegal or his fault. But we will never know this since he died. The sources that the "fraud" reference is basing its fraud-claims on are still not more than a one-sided opinion by the accusing side, the defense as it may have existed, is not presented because these are books and articles written about a contemporary financial scandal and such books are almost always one-sided and made to sell as many books as possible before the news cycle moves to other topics. Ubbe nationell ( talk) 14:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I still don't agree with the idea that it's acceptable to write that someone is guilty of a crime if a court has not determined that it was a crime and the person was guilty. It's not being a "high court" for an encyclopedia to demand that there must be grounds for claiming that a person has committed a crime. That is in my view a minimum that is expected of a encyclopedia. I was hoping that higher ranking editors would step in and move this discussion from Robert Maxwell to discussion the concept of calling people criminals without a court verdict on Wikipedia more generally. In cases such as Robert Maxwell's there are other ways to describe that he was accused/suspect of etc fraud, without making it a definite conclusion. Ubbe nationell ( talk) 10:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I am sorry, I really don't follow your logic here: Do you really mean that if a fraud happened it's not necessary with a court verdict to decide who did it!?? Do you know why we don't write that his sons were fraudsters, though they were very involved in their fathers business? Because there was a trial and they were not found guilty, that's why. But with your logic, we should call them fraudsters because a fraud happened. If we don't write "fraudster" after a court verdict of "not guilty" how can we write about someones guilt without a court verdict of "guilty"? Or is a person supposed to be considered guilty until proven innocent on Wikipedia? This doesn't make sense and I hope this can be decided on a principle level by higher ups on Wikipedia. It's a Rabbit Hole and someone really should decide on this. Ubbe nationell ( talk) 10:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I have searched for a Wikipedia policy on claiming that people are guilty of crimes and I have found the following: "This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.". However, this is written in Wikipedia Article: "Biographies of living persons" regarding guidelines when writing a biography about a living person. I intend to seek further clarification on this subject. Ubbe nationell ( talk) 19:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Fred West [1] Martinevans123 Ianmacm Snow Rise FriendlyRiverOtter Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 20:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I think you wanted to prove me wrong, but if you read the article about Fred West you can read the following about Rose: "Rose is believed to have killed Charmaine shortly before Fred's prison release date of 24 June 1971. She is known to have taken Charmaine, Anna Marie and Heather to visit Fred on 15 June. It is believed to be on or very shortly after this date that Charmaine was murdered." It says "believe to have killed..." which is what I also think is the correct way to describe a situation if you don't have a verdict that it's a established fact. It also fits with the guidelines I referenced below. Thank you. Ubbe nationell ( talk) 21:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
The case you sent me was a very long and complicated case. I am sorry, but it doesn't change my position at all, no one should be called a criminal unless a court has ruled. It's not the end of the world to add a few "suspected of", "believed to have" when describing a person who is possibly or even likely guilty - but no court has ruled. I honestly don't understand why you are insisting that claiming someone is guilty when a court hasn't ruled is such a important thing? Why not err on the side of caution? I see that some of you who signed off on this are experienced editors but that doesn't mean that I can't be right about this. It's not personal to me, am a lawyer by trade, so I think these matters are important on a principle level. And I would love to hear from higher ranking Wikipedia members on the issue as I think it's really important. Ubbe nationell ( talk) 21:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I have searched for a Wikipedia policy on claiming that people are guilty of crimes and in Wikipedia article about "Biography of living people" I have found the following:
"This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.". "Public figures In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.
Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is the divorce important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. If so, avoid use of "messy" and stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe divorced."
Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred. If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported." (this last example seems to be close to the situation about suspicion of having committed a crime)
However, as I have noted above, the above is written about living persons, and in the case of Robert Maxwell he obviously isn't that. However I intend to seek further clarification on this subject. Ubbe nationell ( talk) 20:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure the precise reason why I was pinged, but I will give my perspective on the policy issues nevertheless. I'll preface this by saying that I do believe Ubbe nationell does appear to be engaging in a good faith effort to try to argue this point within policy, and that there has been a paucity of response to his arguments. This then, is an effort to try to get everyone on the same page: I don't have a firm conclusion as yet as to whether the description is appropriate, but it suffices to start by addressing the project's policies and editorial norms. Ubbe, you are correct that the policy subsection WP:BLPCRIME does ask editors to consider the necessity and appropriateness of a particular label, particularly when we are writing prose in Wikipedia's voice. However, the very reason that language is written in that kind of tone of suggestion is that editorial decisions here are more directly governed by other, much older and more fundamental policies, such as WP:NPOV ( WP:WEIGHT in particular), WP:NOR and WP:RS.
In short, while BLPCRIME (and BLP generally) advise editors to carefully consider what is being said in a piece of prose in a particular context, that advice is somewhat a redundancy in that it is a mental calculus experienced editors always try to keep in mind. At the end of the day, however, the project's editorial guidelines make overwhelmingly clear that whether a particular label is appropriate (especially to be said without in-text attribution) is a call that must be made based on what the weight of the opinions of the sources suggest. There need not be an absolute consensus, but any label that can be reasonably viewed as contentious should only be used if it is fairly representative of what the WP:reliable sources say about a matter--what you or I deduce or determine to be the truth based on the given facts is irrelevant under our editorial process, which rejects editors arguing their own interpretations of matters (and the endless deadlock and rampant editorializing that would result in any contentious article) and instead adopts a model with a focus on an external standard: what the sources say, roughly, in their aggregate.
So, as I said before, I have not reached a firm conclusion on whether or not the "fraudster" label is appropriate. I will say that this is a label that clearly needs to meet a decently high burden of proof in the sourcing (this is where WP:BLPCRIME does exert its influence), but there are occasions in other BLPs before where the label is used and I would more or less support that decision. I'll review the content and sourcing in more detail, but if anyone more familiar wants to make a WP:WEIGHT argument here based on the sources (either current relied on in the article or more broadly), I'll be all ears. Snow let's rap 08:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 12:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)