This article was nominated for deletion on 25 September 2017. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. 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. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was created and has been edited almost solely by a single-purpose account, AlexVegaEsquire, who appears to be Kevin Deutsch himself. Baltimore free ( talk) 17:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Well-cited information as basic as this person's legal name is being routinely removed by the user AlexVegaEsquire. As noted above, this person clearly appears to be editing with an agenda. The passages he has removed as "libelous" are all backed up by multiple news sources. This should constitute vandalism. Wikihunter6 ( talk) 12:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what your single-minded obsession is here with trying to smear this dude. I feel responsible for maintaining objectivity on this page because I created it last year. It seems this guy has enemies but this is a little much. The administrator has already stated about the first sentence that "Whether or not the investigation should be mentioned in the lede: this is a matter of due weight. There is a section on the investigation in the aticle that takes up the majority of the article." This continues to be the case. I think it's a settled issue, as all the controversies involving thus guy are mentioned in the order they occurred, and have their own section.
Are you one of he reporters writing about Mr. Deutsch? I think it's clear you are editing with an agenda--that of giving undue weight to unproven allegations already chronicled in the article. Guy has published two books that are still being sold and 15 years of news stories. Like he has stated, there have been no retractions or corrections issued on his stories as a result of either of these work reviews. Objectively, this controversy does not appear to define his notability--which existed before the controversies--no matter how badly you seem to want it too. Again, it is given due weight and ample space in this article.
I have no connection to Kevin Deutsch. I am a close observer of his work and have followed all Wikipedia rules and guidelines in writing about it (since before the recent controversies). A majority of the article deals with the controversies. The single minded effort among some here to make nearly the entire article about the controversies is excessive and does not comply with Wikipedia's policy for articles on living persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexVegaEsquire ( talk • contribs) 01:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Ballastpointed:@ SnowFire:If you want to discuss the article, do it here on the talk page, not in a 1,000+ byte series of commented out sections of the article. Tornado chaser ( talk) 02:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
@Ballastpointed: @Snowfire, you must really hate Deutsch! Listen, dude: As I mentioned the last time you made this claim, I've got nothing to do with Deutsch. I've read his work and have followed the scandal closely. I am interested in it, and I'm a news junkie. If that's considered a conflict, then yours is certainly much more serious. I think you're much too invested in these edits--could it be that you yourself are a party to the guy's scandal? If I had to guess, I'd say you might be one of the journalists whose work is cited in the article. More power to you! We all need to get away from work once in a while.
Let me also say, I have no connection to Alex, despite your sockpuppet claim. Could it be possible that you're dislike for the article subject is clouding your objectivity here, and leading you to believe there's an editing conspiracy afoot? I certainly hope not.
If by "deafening silence" you're referring to my "taking care of my kid," then yes, you've nailed me again.
Just to reiterate, you made your first edits to this page only recently, and immediaely began ramming through major changes/reversing other editors' work. What I've done, and what Alex appears to have done, is simply defend the preexisting edits. I would hardly call that "nitpicking." But you're the journalist (probably?), so you tell me.
You say you've "entirely lost any faith that they aren't
WP:COI accounts; we've been talking to Deutsch, I'm sure. His blog has the same superlatives about his "fifteen-year career in journalism" that nobody else has written an article about (well, the non-scandalous parts). Same writer."
Could it be that I saw the "15-year" detail on his blog and in other stories about him [like the Columbia Journalism piece], then cited them, just as one is supposed to cite facts in articles here? Or must everything be so diabolical?
And yes, let's look at the full quotes from the Daily News review:
Sure, I understand that you want to construe the above to mean "there was not anything obviously on fire from a quick check, but we don't really know, checking is expensive and infeasible."
But the fact is, these paragraphs don't say that. Nor do they use the word "inconclusive." The writers spoke in English, and in their own words--not your interpretations of them. It is their actual words, not the way you personally construe them, that count.
Regarding the lede,"involving fabrication" is, actually, English. Two words. Both part of the English language. They're even grammatically correct! But I will tweak to reflect your concerns.
I guess I'd get that D in Professor Snowfire's class. Do you teach journalism, btw? Sounds like you might.
Re: peacocking, that refers to use of superlatives, right? I've stayed away from those, as I don't find anything particularly "super" about this article subject. But I do believe in objectivity, and in insertion of neutral facts like "length of career."
Finally, with regard to the lede, it is factual, it is contextualized, and it is concise. All good tenets of journalism, I thought? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballastpointed ( talk • contribs)
@BallastPointed: I’m not “throwing” around an accusation. I’m merely exploring your possible rationale for ramming through major edits and questioning your motive, as you’ve continuously questioned mine. Let’s agree these questions are not helpful and move on. Or, you can continue to try and question my objectivity, in which case I’ll have every reason to examine your apparent lack of it.
Being a Wikipedia editor for years does not mean you’re not a journalist. And if you are, that’s fine. But your connection to the article ought to be declared.
As for the notable dealer, “Little Melvin” was certainly famous. Preacher described in book is not. The article subject said they’re not the same person. Like much else in here, this is disputed. Perhaps “well known” preacher would work? And maybe “local kingpen?” Note the accuracy and specificity and avoidance of overly broad, generalized language.
Btw, reference to “fabricated sources” in lead covers both the stories and book mentioned in the same sentence.This language is accurate, and I think it’s incredibly clear to anyone reading the article what the controversy is/was all about. If you want to edit my language, please do! But please stop reverting to your own myopic, non neutral version. It’s not helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballastpointed ( talk • contribs)
The book doesn't say he's "nationally famous" and neither does BPD. Should I submit a PDF of the book page as a source? The "famous" language is language the reporter in this story used in a single paragraph--not a police quote. It's one reporter's characterization, and City Paper is hardly credible. Also, I believe they've gone out of business.
There's no vandalism here--it's just you wanting non neutral edits to be forced in. In my view, you are the one doing the vandalizing. Also, what is "promotional" and "rambling" about a line that objectively states what the book is about? There are no superlatives. And no criticisms. It's just a neutral clause. If we can't agree on that, I'm not sure what we can agree on.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ballastpointed (
talk •
contribs)
@alexvegaesquire: @SnowFire(presumably) and @BallastPointed , you both make logical points. But I don't see what's objectionable about the short description of book (an account of "overdoses and homicides" in Baltimore) in lede. That's literally what book is about. What would be the grounds for calling it promotional/peacocking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexVegaEsquire ( talk • contribs)
I see I'm back to talking to myself. I guess it might be time to go back to ANI.
Ballastpointed, let us suppose hypothetically that the NY Daily News gave a full clear to Deutsch - not only did they find nothing, but they found strong evidence that his stories were all legit. No complaints. Well, then... that means Deutsch was just a normal journalist in that period, and there isn't much to talk about. It would adjust the date at which his stories started having sourcing problems is all. There are still zero sources (that aren't Deutsch's website, Deutsch's blog, interviews with Deutsch) that think his journalism career is any more interesting than the many, many other journalists out there. Put things another way, if someone is a tradesman for 20 years and a criminal for 5 years, in general a Wikipedia article will not go into immense detail about the 20 years of being a normal person. It won't talk about how they definitely didn't commit any crimes during that 20 year period and they don't see what the big deal is about because check out these normal years.
Of course, this is somewhat hypothetical, because Deutsch did *not* receive such a strong clear as I described above. The point remains though; not doing anything shady during this period, even if granted to be true, doesn't matter a whit for the accusations elsewhere, and can't be used to cover for them. SnowFire ( talk) 03:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Kevin. I decided to let this page lie fallow for awhile in the hopes others would care, but I see we're at it again. This will be the final new explanation before just heading off to get one of us banned, but it's not hard. Here's the full quote from the edited Rolling Stone article:
So yes. This claim, while in the Rolling Stone article, is from Deutsch (i.e. you). That's what I was referring to in my edit summary, which is clearly, indisputably correct as you can see. Now, here's the part you're referring to:
Okay, fine, clearly RS heard your complaint, but again, this is not really relevant to the article. I'm sure Deutsch was not formally accused of lots of things. This isn't meaningful or relevant, and is outright misleading: it suggests an exoneration when there was none. It merely says a formal accusation didn't happen. That's it. The investigation of his previous stories, the accusations, that's what the Wikipedia article is covering. Finally, if it was included, it's surely not something that goes in the first sentence, narrative flow wise, as the allegations haven't even been explained yet and we're already saying that they didn't turn into formal accusations, as if that was somehow the key point. SnowFire ( talk) 04:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Most of what Snowfire's written in this Talk section is patently and demonstrably untrue. His repeatedly deleting the consensus version of the article - hashed out long ago buy multiple editors - including multiple, credibly sourced details and their sources (like the article subject's nonprofit journalism job, current literary work, and the language of a major magazine's clarification clearly stating Deutsch was never formally accused of fabrication), goes against the spirit of this site and its policies.
- Sincerely, a concerned, independent editor, unconnected to the article subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harringhome1977 ( talk • contribs) 13:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
It’s the latest addition to the article and it’s a direct quote. Obviously an amended correction to an original article’s reporting , particularly in this case and under these circumstances, becomes the thrust. Harringhome1977 ( talk) 16:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
UPDATING: Just to be clear: The RS article LITERALLY states in an update: "Update: This story has been changed to clarify that Deutsch was never formally accused by any major news organization of fabricating sources." This COULD NOT BE CLEARER. It is the most recent journalism on the subject of Deutsch's controversy - a NEW amendment to an OLD article - and should be included in the first sentence or at least paragraph in accordance with the living persons policy and due weight policy, as it is the last word on the matter as far as RS is concerned and, if it doesn't negate the sub headline (which is not in the article text) it sure feels close. Again, I am not a puppet and have no COI. I'm merely concerned with balanced coverage for living/working people. Also, the update makes clear the allegations of fabrication were made NOT by the sourced articles/media organisations, but rather by media members individually. Thus, there is NO source language alleging that "Deutsch fabricated sources and events." That's just SnowFire's faulty/inaccurate synopsis of media coverage. There IS source language in the RS saying article subject was never formally accused of fabrication by any of the sources in this article. And it must be included if this article is to comply with living persons policy + be balanced. Also. let's remove the "has" from the top of article. "Was" is the accurate word for something that happened in 2017. Finally, its improper to describe these kinds of allegations in the first sentence an article subject's article, and then NOT include the fact CORRECTION TO A MAJOR NEWS ARTICLE ON WHICH THE ARTICLE IS BASED states the precise opposite. We have a duty to say what happened at the end of the controversy - and to do so in the first paragraph - not just that a controversy existed. As of right now, the article does not mention the newest/most applicable point: Rolling Stone's clarification/amendment to their piece, and the broader scope of results of all this controversy. Which is that the dude still works in journalism...the article somehow ignores this topical point, particularly in the fake news era. Wheres the lie? Harringhome1977 ( talk) 13:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Source for original consensus version: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kevin_Deutsch&oldid=934462518
Consensus version was restored by Pemilligan in January before snowfire began aggressive editing in violation of living persons policy [1]
Harringhome1977 ( talk) 16:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Also, can we at least honor Freddie Gray by mentioning him in the line in the top where the 2015 Baltimore riots are introduced? They are also known as the Freddie Gray Riots or Freddie Gray Uprising. Thanks.
Harringhome1977 ( talk) 17:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
For now, if we change the top to say the allegations of fabricated sources were made by members of the media (i.e. David Simon) - replacing the current language placed in the top sentence by snowfire- add Deutsch's current position in journalism with Bronx Justice News (a Google News source that does some good investigative stuff) somewhere in the article, and make the top paragraph reflective of the RS clarification/amendment, I'm happy to move on. I've alerted admin to the aggressive editing but would prefer to end this with a compromise. Thanks. Harringhome1977 ( talk) 19:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article should be restored to the consensus version based on actual sources and quoted material from third party RS article and its clarification/amendment/update. SnowFire has repeatedly deleted accurate language agreed upon by consensus of editors. As of right now, the article does not mention the newest/most applicable point: Rolling Stone's clarification/amendment to their piece. See Talk page for history of SnowFire edit agenda.
2604:2000:1200:93AF:9917:7B6C:EA81:92F ( talk) 12:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC) 2604:2000:1200:93AF:9917:7B6C:EA81:92F ( talk) 12:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Additionally, the last two editors removed a source I added to the subject's career section - a pretty interesting piece about Deutsch advocating for use of magic mushrooms
[2]. Why was that removed? It is third party and more recent than the other sources in that section. I'm learning. Thanks for bearing with me.
Harringhome1977 (
talk) 15:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Source for original consensus version: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kevin_Deutsch&oldid=934462518
I understand the policies a little better now. I think the source language in the RS is unambiguous. It literally states "This story has been changed to clarify that Deutsch was never formally accused by any major news organization of fabricating sources." If you don't believe that language negates the RS article's sub headline (which is not reflected in the actual story text of the story), then I think you'll at least agree the story doesn't say anything about Deutsch "fabricating sources, quotes, and events." It says SOURCES. I think "sources" would be a satisfactory compromise for the language lower in the first section of the subject's article, since "fabricating sources" is what the RS subhead says, and what the story was about (prior to the clarification/amendment). The other alleged fabrication would have derived from that, anyway. An easy compromise I think. But I hope the source provided above helps clarify my suggestion we go back to what was hashed out previously. Thanks.
Thanks.
Harringhome1977 (
talk) 16:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
One more question: Why was this information and source removed from the article's "career" section? "Deutsch has been interviewed about American street gangs and drug trafficking,[31][32][33][34][35] and has received prizes for his writing about crime and national news events, including an Associated Press award for justice beat reporting.[36]"
[3] The article subject has apparently won awards which in journalism seems hard? -
[4]-
The aggressive changes by snowfire definitely do not feel compliant with the living persons policy. Thanks.
Harringhome1977 ( talk) 16:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC) Source for original consensus version: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kevin_Deutsch&oldid=934462518
Consensus version was restored by Pemilligan in January before a single user, snowfire, began aggressive editing earlier this week. Other than him, all contributing editors appeared fine with the earlier language.
[5]
Harringhome1977 ( talk) 16:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
References
I mean I can't cite what appear to be years of discussions but this appears to be the consensus reasoning/ruling: /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/100.33.95.243
Harringhome1977 ( talk) 17:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Ok. That discussion appears to have been ongoing, and there appears to have been a very recent version that was fine with the various contributors until a user called snowfire came in and made some very aggressive changes, some of which appear to violate the biography of living persons policy, fair weight policy, and others (I've requested those complaints be addressed in the appropriate threads and trust one or other administrator will address). I definitely want to come to a consensus but snowfire uses some very aggressive and dehumanising language and it's hard communicating with someone like that. It doesn't seem like a fair process if one user, him, gets his absolute way without compromise. Which is what's happened. Could you at least restore the first sentence to its original language before snow fire's recent aggressive edits/evident page vandalism? Thanks. I'm trying to learn but don't want to be bullied.
Harringhome1977 ( talk) 18:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
See my compromise offer on talk page. Thanks. Harringhome1977 ( talk) 19:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Here's the change to the introduction that Harringhome1977 is advocating. I've redlined changes by underlining proposed additions and striking through proposed deletions.
Current version | Version of 6 Jan 2020 [1] |
---|---|
Kevin Deutsch is an American criminal justice journalist References
|
Kevin Deutsch is an American criminal justice journalist, author of two books, and host of the crime podcast "A Dark Turn" on the Authors on the Air Global Radio Network.
[1] He is currently a staff writer for the criminal justice nonprofit Bronx Justice News.
[2] The sourcing and veracity of some of his news articles and his book Pill City became the subject of a high-profile dispute in 2017 involving allegations made by members of the media that Deutsch fabricated sources.
[3]
[4]
[5] Deutsch denied all of the claims and defended his work as accurate, as did his publisher, St. Martins Press.
[6] Deutsch was never formally accused by any major news organization of fabricating sources.
[3] Pill City is an account of how two teens used opioids looted during the
2015 Baltimore riots to sell drugs using an Uber-like app and founded a nationwide criminal syndicate.
[3]
[7]
References
|
The changes of substance are to restore the podcast and staff writing position to the introduction, to temper the allegations by removing the alleged fabrication of quotations and events, and to note that no major news source accused him of fabricating sources. I will note that the podcast and writing position are supported only by primary sources.
Since the article is fully protected, a change in substance should not be made without establishing consensus. I invite all interested editors (and am pinging SnowFire due to his involvement in the recent editing) to explain why the change should or should not be made based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I also invite all participating editors to focus only on the content of the text and not the editors involved—in other words, conflict of interest should have no bearing on the points you're making. — C.Fred ( talk) 19:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
-->
Thank you. The above changes/language should be made because they keep the article in compliance with multiple Wikipedia policies. Take the Biographies of Living Persons Policy tag atop the article, for instance. It states: "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. 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. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard."
The proposed consensus language, based on my desire to resolve this issue, keeps the article in compliance with multiple sections of BLP policy (BLP), Neutral Point of View Policy (NPOV), and Verifiability Policy (V). Whereas the newer, existing version of the article is not compliant with applicable sections of BLP, NPV, and V policies. The changes that brought this article out of compliance with applicable Wikiepdia policies were implemented unitarily this week, without discussion, after months of apparent stability to this article subject's page.
Here is how they violate the aforementioned three policies: First, the unitarily inserted language states "that Deutsch has repeatedly fabricated sources, quotes, and events." It also removes the word "has," a subtle change that, by eliminating the past tense, makes the scandal sound more recent than it is (2017).
These changes demonstrably violate BLP policy. Why: The policy states that "Contentious material about living persons" that is "poorly sourced" or "potentially libelous" must be removed immediately'. The BLP policy also states that: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[a] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity''''The BLP also states: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1]
The existing article language qualifies as "Contentious material" and therefore "requires a high degree of sensitivity" under applicable BLP. The language/material is inherently contentious because we are having contention over it. So is the Rolling Stone newsroom, apparently. The Rolling Stone article's update states, verbatim: "Update: This story has been changed to clarify that Deutsch was never formally accused by any major news organization of fabricating sources." That directly contradicts the current language in the article, and violates both BLP and NPOV policy.
Further, under BLP, whether the material in this story is 'negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable" does not matter. All that matters is that it's contentious. We're debating this right now because the article subject stood by his criticized work in multiple, high value, third-party sources. And so any neutral appraisal of the controversy will be inherently contentious.
This would all matter less if BLP and NPOV didn't exist, or if Deutsch were dead, or not still working in journalism. But he's apparently alive, freelancing and working on staff at a local journalism non-profit called Bronx Justice News, listed on Google News, and podcasting on Apple https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-reporter-podcaster-author-kevin-deutsch/id687959058?i=1000485461932, Spotify https://open.spotify.com/show/1KGygiZffXhMOvz0I9Ch5g, etc. He also wrote a weird story about magic mushrooms and PTSD in a third party source, which seems more interesting to me than an irrelevant, old, boring print journalism controversy. Plus, Wikipedia policy states that: "The first published source for any given fact is always considered a primary source." The mushroom piece counts as primary, and so do the primary sources establishing his podcast and staff journalism job.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/crime-reporting-ptsd-mental-health-stress-magic-mushrooms-recovery-how-a8368946.html https://www.google.com/search?q=kevin+deutsch&client=safari&sxsrf=ALeKk03j1UVTKjr31tK9cFyMxm2PkbYNZg:1595537949346&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi058iFouTqAhWKgnIEHbMDBMcQ_AUoAXoECBMQAw&biw=1440&bih=743 https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3184452/ AND apparently still writing about looted pharmacies at aforementioned staff writer position https://bronxjusticenews.com/exclusive-dea-probing-drug-looting-burglaries-at-over-700-pharmacies-nationally-amid-unrest/
Since NPOV must be maintained as applicable to this living subject, Wikipedia policy says we must be neutral. Inclusion of Deutsch's current media/journalism jobs, as seen in the proposed version, brings article into compliance with both BLP and NPOV.
Moving on: NPOV policy also mandates that all content in Deutsch's article " must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."
There are two parties in contention - Deutsch, and those who questioned his work (primarily David Simon, from what these sources suggest). Since Deutsch is a primary party, his view is undeniably a significant one under NPOV. And so neutrality must be restored, with the proposed language serving to bring article into compliance with both BLP and NPOV and V.
Lastly, regarding Wikipedia's policy of Verifiability (V). As I said on the talk page: Any reasonable compromise must reflect the Rolling Stone update/clarification and incorporate it somehow into the first sentence because It is the most recent journalism on the subject of Deutsch's controversy - a NEW amendment to an OLD article. If it doesn't negate the sub headline about Deutsch having originally been accused of fabrication, it sure feels close. (notably, the sub headline is not in the actual text of the article under story author Jim Rich's byline, thereby creating journalistic credibility and Verifiability issues and making us wonder what the heck RS is even trying to say). If the new RS language in their clarification doesn't negate the sub-headline, it sure feels close. Either way its got to be synthesised, as it is in the proposed revision, in order to comply with Wikipedia's BLP, NPOV, and Verifiability policies. A reminder: V policy states, verbatim: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." Is this RS article verifiable if it has an update/clarification/amendment directly contradicting its subheadline? No, it isn't verifiable, and therefore it violates Verifiability policy in addition to the aforementioned BLP and NPOV policies.
In summary: The current version, as shown above, violates: BLOP, NPOV, and Verifiability.
The proposed, negotiated, consensus version places the article back in compliance with all three. Thanks. Harringhome1977 ( talk) 21:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
-- Re: snowfire's response: While I understand that the unitarily acting editor feels strongly, he has not argued based on Wikipedia policy text, as we have been instructed to. He also relies on apparent outside research in his support of the article's current language, since the allegations/policy violating material are not supported by the sources cited. Thanks.
Harringhome1977 ( talk) 21:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I understand. Apple and Spotify, which I've cited, aren't enough? I'm happy to concede exclusion of podcast mention at this point because there aren't many sources, if absolutely necessary. But I'm not clear on how a fact could be demonstrated further regarding the subject's podcast. With regard to specifying the fabrication allegations that were made by members of the media, that's who the sources cited here show made the allegations of fabrication: David Simon and Twitter users in the media biz, independently of their news outlets. Thus the language "members of the media." No news outlet ever accused Deutsch of "fabrication," the RS update says, as that is not what news outlets do. Here, they merely reported the allegations of others. Thanks.
Harringhome1977 ( talk) 22:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
-- Agreed on the podcast. But not on your statements about the RS article. That story literally states: "Update: This story has been changed to clarify that Deutsch was never formally accused by any major news organization of fabricating sources." We are openly committed on this site to fealty to source text, and there is nothing ambiguous about this highly specific language in RS update. I believe it must be incorporated to bring article into compliance with the text of the aforementioned policies. Thanks. Harringhome1977 ( talk) 22:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
In response to the unilaterally-acting editor's requests re: notability /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Notability asking for reviews about the article subject's books: Here are some from Publishers Weekly, Newsweek and Kirkus: https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-1-4930-0760-8 https://www.newsweek.com/baltimore-riots-launched-uber-drug-dealing-how-two-teens-launched-drug-548075 and https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=kirkus+kevin+deutsch&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 Thanks. Harringhome1977 ( talk) 23:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Also, since the disputed language in the current version of article is demonstrably "contentious" under applicable Wikipedia BLP policy, as argued in my statements above, it is supposed to be removed immediately under that policy. Thanks.
Also applicable to this BLP article: Wikipedia's Reliablity of Sources Policy, the applicable section of which states, verbatim: "This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." Thanks. Harringhome1977 ( talk) 23:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Also, is there a reason this review of the Wikipedia article subject's book called "Pill City" is not included in the first paragraph? "An important story meticulously reported but that nonetheless strains toward novelization in the telling." [1] Seems like a pretty neutral synopsis that complies with the aforementioned policies currently being violated in the article. It's also fully attributable to objective source text, Kirkus. At the very least, it's another source that conflicts with the existing language implemented unitarily. Thanks. Harringhome1977 ( talk) 00:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
-->
Hi everyone. Just following up on this discussion. I also want to cite the Wikipedia page page lock policy which states: "When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators have a duty to avoid protecting a version that contains policy-violating content, such as vandalism, copyright violations, defamation, or poor-quality coverage of living people. Administrators remain uninvolved when exercising their discretion, subject to this proviso, to decide whether to apply protection to the most current version of an article, or to an older, stable, or pre-edit-war version."
As outlined above, the current version of the article contains material that demonstrably violates multiple Wikipedia policies including BLP, NPOV, AND V (see detailed arguments above for each). Given these circumstances, is it possible to have the revisions we've hashed out here made now, in accordance with site policies? Thanks for facilitating this discussion, User:C.Fred. I enjoy contributing and want to do so regularly on other subjects. This process, and being able to communicate in an open forum with civility, has been a great learning experience. Harringhome1977 ( talk) 13:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
× Greetings. I tried to reconcile the disagreement here and had revisions immediately reversed. Please editors, take a look and tell me what’s objectionable and how we can reconcile the dispute. Article obv needs work § — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillieHowardCO67 ( talk • contribs) 00:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh, this a hot one! Looking for examples of how journalists/fabulists were handled by Wikipedia in some other high profile cases I found these and put em to use:
/info/en/?search=Jill_Abramson
Stop fighting and work together y’all. WillieHowardCO67 ( talk) 21:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Tagging for neutrality dispute. FTIIIOhfive ( talk) 02:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Page needs protection from the angry white boy who guards it. We either going to work this out here in community edit a thon or the page needs to be protected. We won’t have this. FTIIIOhfive ( talk) 15:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
C.Fred please see following: Wikipedia admin telling snowfire he is wrong (and creating legal liability)[edit source] “For your part, I discovered that the "no formal charges" sentence was added to both the lead and the text in August 2018, and as far as I can see it was never challenged until you removed it from the lead this month. That makes it longstanding content and I would advise you to let it stay. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC) Yeah, I took the article off my watchlist because I didn't want to spend my Wikipedia career uselessly edit-warring rather than writing actually useful content, only ended up back at it due to coincidence. The "no formal charges" content was put there by the pro-Deutsch crew (and... strictly speaking, I'm not 100% against it, but I am against it in the way that the pro-Deutsch crew deploys it, which is as an exoneration in the lede, which is not accurate to the sources). The original accounts are probably either Ballastpointed or AlexVegaEsquire FWIW. SnowFire (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)” — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillieHowardCO67 (talk • contribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillieHowardCO67 ( talk • contribs)
Some are here for an edit a thon focusing on articles with community impact and we are using GOOD sources. We see what you all are up to all over this site and we will bring it to the press. If you want something changed make an argument! FTIIIOhfive ( talk) 17:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
I've seen this pop up on a couple of noticeboards recently and I find the sock drawer's claims to be quite specious, especially when the This story has been changed to clarify that Deutsch was never formally accused by any major news organization of fabricating sources
claim is actually looked at. I have done a text comparison of the
current Rolling Stone article (which included the said disclaimer) and the
first archived version of the same article (which doesn't include the said disclaimer). Except for the inclusion of comment from Deutsch himself, the changes are
A mainstream reporter accused of fabricating sources in at least five news articleswas changed to
A mainstream reporter accused of fabricating sources in news articles
Look closely at the sources Deutsch is accused of making upwas changed to
Look closely at the sources in question
The second change is the one referred to in the disclaimer, it simply uses slightly more neutral language. What it doesn't do at any point is retract any of the main criticisms which form the basis of the entire article. Ultimately what does Deutsch was never formally accused by any major news organization of fabricating sources
mean anyway? Does it mean they called him into a meeting and said I formally accused you of fabricating sources
? Whether they did or didn't is irrelevant, since they certainly did investigate and find no trace of multiple people claimed to exist. What conclusion can be drawn from that is a matter of opinion. Some would say it's proof he fabricated sources, others would say his sources used fake names and that isn't Deutch's fault. Hence Rolling Stone's clarification, since the investigations didn't, at least on the basis of the available evidence, prove beyond all doubt that Deutsch fabricated sources. The attempt to insert the disclaimer into the lead as an exoneration of Deutch involves drastic cherry-picking of the Rolling Stone article, which is a gross violation of
WP:NPOV in my opnion.
FDW777 (
talk) 21:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Glancing through the article I saw a four-paragraph quote from a New York Times article. Although it is cited, I believe that is too large a quote to qualify for exemption from our copyright policies. We are allowed to use "brief quotations"; [2] IMO that is not brief. Someone should summarize it instead. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
improper language and attacks. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hello MelanieN, we request that the rolling stone “no formal charges” line you recommended be reinserted - because it is consensus content removed by snowfire alone—be put back immediately. FTIIIOhfive ( talk) 20:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Once that correction’s VERBATIM language goes into first paragraph of the article, we will have peace on this page. Otherwise this goes on forever for supporters of the changes agreed on by consensus on this talk page. FTIIIOhfive ( talk) 20:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
“Update: This story has been changed to clarify that Deutsch was never formally accused by any major news organization of fabricating sources.” FTIIIOhfive ( talk) 20:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
It is considered LONG STANDING CONTENT per user:MelanieN and must be restored. FTIIIOhfive ( talk) 20:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
References
I think it’s pretty clear this is no longer good faith opposition, it’s something far more than that, and so there’s no need to indulge this type of behavior. Not for a minute. The accuser here may be a man lacking in honor but his offer is accepted nonetheless. Fred, if you put the line in the first paragraph of this man’s article as proposed, we will stand down unless and until more sources/journalism comes out about the subject. And don’t go doing anything foolish to make us come back, neither. Otherwise, we are good. Bygones once it’s in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillieHowardCO67 ( talk • contribs) 22:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. More coverage though and it’s on. Otherwise, go live in peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FTIIIOhfive ( talk • contribs) 23:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Include the “never”, as agreed, or no deal. Verbatim as proposed by Fred is the deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillieHowardCO67 ( talk • contribs) 00:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Verbatim, meaning you add the “any“ too. Exactly as it looks above. WillieHowardCO67 ( talk) 00:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)You know what verbatim means, don’t you son?
Like we’ve been saying, you don’t have an ounce of honor in you. Let that hate out of your heart and you’ll feel a weight lifting. Fred, can you please implement the changes as agreed? Then we are done with this. WillieHowardCO67 ( talk) 01:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
No deal without the Verbatim language as proposed. He did not honor the agreement. Predictably. That’s not how this works and we are not going away. WillieHowardCO67 ( talk) 01:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
We need some help, admin. FTIIIOhfive ( talk) 02:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
He reverted again. Imagine being that kind of person. FTIIIOhfive ( talk) 02:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Good morning, can you please put that line in the lead the way you did yesterday? That’s the right thing to do and we apologize if we violated any rules. We don’t want this strife. Thank you snowfire. Highflyingkitty ( talk) 14:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Let’s just use the language you had proposed for now and we will be cool unless other sources come up . Lot of raw emotions on this side. Can’t control everybody sorry. But do that and we good.
WillieHowardCO67 ( talk) 03:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Just do it man. Let this be over. Otherwise we here long after you. LaneyJfromHoward ( talk) 02:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Guy thinks he can work his way out of consensus language by smashing this page with his privilege. Not happening. Admins will do the right thing and you’ll be seeing us for next few years at least. FTIIIOhfive ( talk) 02:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
You agreed to the language as proposed. Then you weaseled out of two words. Like some kind of lying Wikipedia lawyer. Who believes your bs other than you? FTIIIOhfive ( talk) 02:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
You all STOP. Cease fire. The man is negotiating. WillieHowardCO67 ( talk) 03:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request that Rolling Stone correction (established language) be included as agreed upon in Kevin Deutsch article (see Talk page thread). It is a simple reversion to the last revision. Things got out of hand but we want to go about this the right way and be respectful. We will check in tomorrow. Thank you. 🙏🏽 WillieHowardCO67 ( talk) 04:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC) WillieHowardCO67 ( talk) 04:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Just following up sir. Can that insert be made in lede? Highflyingkitty ( talk) 14:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Sorry to mess your night up. Tough day for us too. No more fighting please WillieHowardCO67 ( talk) 05:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Also please note the Talk page section where the user we disagreed with was advised to reinsert the Rolling Stone correction language by MelanieN, who called that language established for quite some time. That’s all I want to say. We trust you are fair and good people. Thank you and sorry to snowfire and to you all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillieHowardCO67 ( talk • contribs) 05:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Good morning, Hoping to resolve this today. Thank you sir. Highflyingkitty ( talk) 14:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Here’s the ANI discussion: [3] and the SPI investigation: [4] Result: five socks blocked: LaneyJfromHoward, FTIIIOhfive, Bronxolithic, WillieHowardCO67, and Bevkingcares. Hopefully this should restore calm to this article. -- MelanieN ( talk) 08:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
That’s the outcome of people acting foolishly but it’s not what we are doing the edit a thon for. We mean no disrespect but just want what’s fair and so the user snowfire should put the line in the lede. We are working for change not conflict. Please let’s work together. No disrespect. Highflyingkitty ( talk) 13:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Good morning. I am requesting the line most recently added to the Kevin Deutsch article be added to the lead, instead of the last section where it is now. It is all discussed in the talk section and ongoing dispute pages. I think it’s a just resolution based on your policies and I think snowfire, the user we have clashed with, will agree, as we have apologized for earlier disruption. We thank all of you for your time and patience with this matter. Highflyingkitty ( talk) 14:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Highflyingkitty ( talk) 14:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
It’s not a bully tactic, it’s an edit a thon and the change was endorsed by administrator MelanieN. You are wrong and are using the same bully tactics you accuse us of. You’re saying no compromiseX isn’t this an encyclopedia? How does this man not get that line in his article? That’s crazy.15:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Highflyingkitty ( talk)
I disagree. There has been a lot of discussion and consensus on this line’s inclusion. You are new to the discussion and are asserting some pretty heavy privilege. We request an independent editor to review this and I would ask you to facilitate that based on the ploblematic racial dynamic here. We want an editor of color to look at this. Is this A problem for you? We just want what’s fair and what MelanieN instructed snowfire to place back in the lead. So It’s not just us. I am trying to understand where you are coming from. Won’t you do the same for me? We are both people and want the same things: freedom of information and fairness and a good and an inclusive encyclopedia. That line was a correction to a major source in the story. It should obviously be in the lead. But don’t ask me ask Melanie. Can we work Together? Yesterday was wrong but two wrongs don’t make a right Jorm. Please let’s be civil. Highflyingkitty ( talk) 15:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
You also have to understand, these are people’s lives not just policies in a Wikipedia book. There is a policy for every argument to be argued both ways on here, we all get that. Highflyingkitty ( talk) 15:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Please get another editor, preferably a POC, to look at this Jorn. You are going against MelanieN’s recommendation the line be inserted in the lead. It was considered longstanding consensus language, according to her and others . You’re dismissing me because you are busy doesn’t change that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Highflyingkitty ( talk • contribs) 16:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Bradv: - I prefer the older article structure. The issue is that the problems with Pill City rippled backward into Deutsch's work as a freelance journalist - they caused Deustch's earlier work to be reassessed as well, not merely Pill City itself. Having a "Career" section on his books and then a section on the scandal (which affected Deutsch as a whole) seems preferable to me. Additionally, per Jorm's comments before, unfortunately he really isn't best known for Pill City - you've sourced that to the Rolling Stone article, but the RS article says nothing of the sort that he's best known for Pill City. He's best known for being accused of fabrication. Finally, the bit about St. Martin's press defending Deutsch is sourced to the same Rolling Stone article, so should stay - it's not unsourced. SnowFire ( talk) 21:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
best known for his book Pill Cityto just say he's the author or something that'd be better I think? FDW777 ( talk) 22:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Howdy hello! I realize I probably should have WP:RM'd this move, but wasn't thinking I guess. I know this is a very bold change, but my main concern is thus: his article is overwhelmingly about the 2017 book and controversy. We have almost zero sources that talk about anything else. This is WP:BLP1E territory to me. He is notable only for the controversy, and thus instead of having a WP:COATRACK that does a disservice to the subject, I think we should instead have it be about what its really about: the book and the source controversy. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 02:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
On behalf of the article subject, who is unable to edit the Talk page, I am passing along his request for the following addition:
Geoff | Who, me? 13:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
References
This article was nominated for deletion on 25 September 2017. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. 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. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was created and has been edited almost solely by a single-purpose account, AlexVegaEsquire, who appears to be Kevin Deutsch himself. Baltimore free ( talk) 17:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Well-cited information as basic as this person's legal name is being routinely removed by the user AlexVegaEsquire. As noted above, this person clearly appears to be editing with an agenda. The passages he has removed as "libelous" are all backed up by multiple news sources. This should constitute vandalism. Wikihunter6 ( talk) 12:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what your single-minded obsession is here with trying to smear this dude. I feel responsible for maintaining objectivity on this page because I created it last year. It seems this guy has enemies but this is a little much. The administrator has already stated about the first sentence that "Whether or not the investigation should be mentioned in the lede: this is a matter of due weight. There is a section on the investigation in the aticle that takes up the majority of the article." This continues to be the case. I think it's a settled issue, as all the controversies involving thus guy are mentioned in the order they occurred, and have their own section.
Are you one of he reporters writing about Mr. Deutsch? I think it's clear you are editing with an agenda--that of giving undue weight to unproven allegations already chronicled in the article. Guy has published two books that are still being sold and 15 years of news stories. Like he has stated, there have been no retractions or corrections issued on his stories as a result of either of these work reviews. Objectively, this controversy does not appear to define his notability--which existed before the controversies--no matter how badly you seem to want it too. Again, it is given due weight and ample space in this article.
I have no connection to Kevin Deutsch. I am a close observer of his work and have followed all Wikipedia rules and guidelines in writing about it (since before the recent controversies). A majority of the article deals with the controversies. The single minded effort among some here to make nearly the entire article about the controversies is excessive and does not comply with Wikipedia's policy for articles on living persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexVegaEsquire ( talk • contribs) 01:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Ballastpointed:@ SnowFire:If you want to discuss the article, do it here on the talk page, not in a 1,000+ byte series of commented out sections of the article. Tornado chaser ( talk) 02:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
@Ballastpointed: @Snowfire, you must really hate Deutsch! Listen, dude: As I mentioned the last time you made this claim, I've got nothing to do with Deutsch. I've read his work and have followed the scandal closely. I am interested in it, and I'm a news junkie. If that's considered a conflict, then yours is certainly much more serious. I think you're much too invested in these edits--could it be that you yourself are a party to the guy's scandal? If I had to guess, I'd say you might be one of the journalists whose work is cited in the article. More power to you! We all need to get away from work once in a while.
Let me also say, I have no connection to Alex, despite your sockpuppet claim. Could it be possible that you're dislike for the article subject is clouding your objectivity here, and leading you to believe there's an editing conspiracy afoot? I certainly hope not.
If by "deafening silence" you're referring to my "taking care of my kid," then yes, you've nailed me again.
Just to reiterate, you made your first edits to this page only recently, and immediaely began ramming through major changes/reversing other editors' work. What I've done, and what Alex appears to have done, is simply defend the preexisting edits. I would hardly call that "nitpicking." But you're the journalist (probably?), so you tell me.
You say you've "entirely lost any faith that they aren't
WP:COI accounts; we've been talking to Deutsch, I'm sure. His blog has the same superlatives about his "fifteen-year career in journalism" that nobody else has written an article about (well, the non-scandalous parts). Same writer."
Could it be that I saw the "15-year" detail on his blog and in other stories about him [like the Columbia Journalism piece], then cited them, just as one is supposed to cite facts in articles here? Or must everything be so diabolical?
And yes, let's look at the full quotes from the Daily News review:
Sure, I understand that you want to construe the above to mean "there was not anything obviously on fire from a quick check, but we don't really know, checking is expensive and infeasible."
But the fact is, these paragraphs don't say that. Nor do they use the word "inconclusive." The writers spoke in English, and in their own words--not your interpretations of them. It is their actual words, not the way you personally construe them, that count.
Regarding the lede,"involving fabrication" is, actually, English. Two words. Both part of the English language. They're even grammatically correct! But I will tweak to reflect your concerns.
I guess I'd get that D in Professor Snowfire's class. Do you teach journalism, btw? Sounds like you might.
Re: peacocking, that refers to use of superlatives, right? I've stayed away from those, as I don't find anything particularly "super" about this article subject. But I do believe in objectivity, and in insertion of neutral facts like "length of career."
Finally, with regard to the lede, it is factual, it is contextualized, and it is concise. All good tenets of journalism, I thought? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballastpointed ( talk • contribs)
@BallastPointed: I’m not “throwing” around an accusation. I’m merely exploring your possible rationale for ramming through major edits and questioning your motive, as you’ve continuously questioned mine. Let’s agree these questions are not helpful and move on. Or, you can continue to try and question my objectivity, in which case I’ll have every reason to examine your apparent lack of it.
Being a Wikipedia editor for years does not mean you’re not a journalist. And if you are, that’s fine. But your connection to the article ought to be declared.
As for the notable dealer, “Little Melvin” was certainly famous. Preacher described in book is not. The article subject said they’re not the same person. Like much else in here, this is disputed. Perhaps “well known” preacher would work? And maybe “local kingpen?” Note the accuracy and specificity and avoidance of overly broad, generalized language.
Btw, reference to “fabricated sources” in lead covers both the stories and book mentioned in the same sentence.This language is accurate, and I think it’s incredibly clear to anyone reading the article what the controversy is/was all about. If you want to edit my language, please do! But please stop reverting to your own myopic, non neutral version. It’s not helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballastpointed ( talk • contribs)
The book doesn't say he's "nationally famous" and neither does BPD. Should I submit a PDF of the book page as a source? The "famous" language is language the reporter in this story used in a single paragraph--not a police quote. It's one reporter's characterization, and City Paper is hardly credible. Also, I believe they've gone out of business.
There's no vandalism here--it's just you wanting non neutral edits to be forced in. In my view, you are the one doing the vandalizing. Also, what is "promotional" and "rambling" about a line that objectively states what the book is about? There are no superlatives. And no criticisms. It's just a neutral clause. If we can't agree on that, I'm not sure what we can agree on.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ballastpointed (
talk •
contribs)
@alexvegaesquire: @SnowFire(presumably) and @BallastPointed , you both make logical points. But I don't see what's objectionable about the short description of book (an account of "overdoses and homicides" in Baltimore) in lede. That's literally what book is about. What would be the grounds for calling it promotional/peacocking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexVegaEsquire ( talk • contribs)
I see I'm back to talking to myself. I guess it might be time to go back to ANI.
Ballastpointed, let us suppose hypothetically that the NY Daily News gave a full clear to Deutsch - not only did they find nothing, but they found strong evidence that his stories were all legit. No complaints. Well, then... that means Deutsch was just a normal journalist in that period, and there isn't much to talk about. It would adjust the date at which his stories started having sourcing problems is all. There are still zero sources (that aren't Deutsch's website, Deutsch's blog, interviews with Deutsch) that think his journalism career is any more interesting than the many, many other journalists out there. Put things another way, if someone is a tradesman for 20 years and a criminal for 5 years, in general a Wikipedia article will not go into immense detail about the 20 years of being a normal person. It won't talk about how they definitely didn't commit any crimes during that 20 year period and they don't see what the big deal is about because check out these normal years.
Of course, this is somewhat hypothetical, because Deutsch did *not* receive such a strong clear as I described above. The point remains though; not doing anything shady during this period, even if granted to be true, doesn't matter a whit for the accusations elsewhere, and can't be used to cover for them. SnowFire ( talk) 03:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Kevin. I decided to let this page lie fallow for awhile in the hopes others would care, but I see we're at it again. This will be the final new explanation before just heading off to get one of us banned, but it's not hard. Here's the full quote from the edited Rolling Stone article:
So yes. This claim, while in the Rolling Stone article, is from Deutsch (i.e. you). That's what I was referring to in my edit summary, which is clearly, indisputably correct as you can see. Now, here's the part you're referring to:
Okay, fine, clearly RS heard your complaint, but again, this is not really relevant to the article. I'm sure Deutsch was not formally accused of lots of things. This isn't meaningful or relevant, and is outright misleading: it suggests an exoneration when there was none. It merely says a formal accusation didn't happen. That's it. The investigation of his previous stories, the accusations, that's what the Wikipedia article is covering. Finally, if it was included, it's surely not something that goes in the first sentence, narrative flow wise, as the allegations haven't even been explained yet and we're already saying that they didn't turn into formal accusations, as if that was somehow the key point. SnowFire ( talk) 04:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Most of what Snowfire's written in this Talk section is patently and demonstrably untrue. His repeatedly deleting the consensus version of the article - hashed out long ago buy multiple editors - including multiple, credibly sourced details and their sources (like the article subject's nonprofit journalism job, current literary work, and the language of a major magazine's clarification clearly stating Deutsch was never formally accused of fabrication), goes against the spirit of this site and its policies.
- Sincerely, a concerned, independent editor, unconnected to the article subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harringhome1977 ( talk • contribs) 13:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
It’s the latest addition to the article and it’s a direct quote. Obviously an amended correction to an original article’s reporting , particularly in this case and under these circumstances, becomes the thrust. Harringhome1977 ( talk) 16:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
UPDATING: Just to be clear: The RS article LITERALLY states in an update: "Update: This story has been changed to clarify that Deutsch was never formally accused by any major news organization of fabricating sources." This COULD NOT BE CLEARER. It is the most recent journalism on the subject of Deutsch's controversy - a NEW amendment to an OLD article - and should be included in the first sentence or at least paragraph in accordance with the living persons policy and due weight policy, as it is the last word on the matter as far as RS is concerned and, if it doesn't negate the sub headline (which is not in the article text) it sure feels close. Again, I am not a puppet and have no COI. I'm merely concerned with balanced coverage for living/working people. Also, the update makes clear the allegations of fabrication were made NOT by the sourced articles/media organisations, but rather by media members individually. Thus, there is NO source language alleging that "Deutsch fabricated sources and events." That's just SnowFire's faulty/inaccurate synopsis of media coverage. There IS source language in the RS saying article subject was never formally accused of fabrication by any of the sources in this article. And it must be included if this article is to comply with living persons policy + be balanced. Also. let's remove the "has" from the top of article. "Was" is the accurate word for something that happened in 2017. Finally, its improper to describe these kinds of allegations in the first sentence an article subject's article, and then NOT include the fact CORRECTION TO A MAJOR NEWS ARTICLE ON WHICH THE ARTICLE IS BASED states the precise opposite. We have a duty to say what happened at the end of the controversy - and to do so in the first paragraph - not just that a controversy existed. As of right now, the article does not mention the newest/most applicable point: Rolling Stone's clarification/amendment to their piece, and the broader scope of results of all this controversy. Which is that the dude still works in journalism...the article somehow ignores this topical point, particularly in the fake news era. Wheres the lie? Harringhome1977 ( talk) 13:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Source for original consensus version: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kevin_Deutsch&oldid=934462518
Consensus version was restored by Pemilligan in January before snowfire began aggressive editing in violation of living persons policy [1]
Harringhome1977 ( talk) 16:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Also, can we at least honor Freddie Gray by mentioning him in the line in the top where the 2015 Baltimore riots are introduced? They are also known as the Freddie Gray Riots or Freddie Gray Uprising. Thanks.
Harringhome1977 ( talk) 17:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
For now, if we change the top to say the allegations of fabricated sources were made by members of the media (i.e. David Simon) - replacing the current language placed in the top sentence by snowfire- add Deutsch's current position in journalism with Bronx Justice News (a Google News source that does some good investigative stuff) somewhere in the article, and make the top paragraph reflective of the RS clarification/amendment, I'm happy to move on. I've alerted admin to the aggressive editing but would prefer to end this with a compromise. Thanks. Harringhome1977 ( talk) 19:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article should be restored to the consensus version based on actual sources and quoted material from third party RS article and its clarification/amendment/update. SnowFire has repeatedly deleted accurate language agreed upon by consensus of editors. As of right now, the article does not mention the newest/most applicable point: Rolling Stone's clarification/amendment to their piece. See Talk page for history of SnowFire edit agenda.
2604:2000:1200:93AF:9917:7B6C:EA81:92F ( talk) 12:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC) 2604:2000:1200:93AF:9917:7B6C:EA81:92F ( talk) 12:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Additionally, the last two editors removed a source I added to the subject's career section - a pretty interesting piece about Deutsch advocating for use of magic mushrooms
[2]. Why was that removed? It is third party and more recent than the other sources in that section. I'm learning. Thanks for bearing with me.
Harringhome1977 (
talk) 15:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Source for original consensus version: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kevin_Deutsch&oldid=934462518
I understand the policies a little better now. I think the source language in the RS is unambiguous. It literally states "This story has been changed to clarify that Deutsch was never formally accused by any major news organization of fabricating sources." If you don't believe that language negates the RS article's sub headline (which is not reflected in the actual story text of the story), then I think you'll at least agree the story doesn't say anything about Deutsch "fabricating sources, quotes, and events." It says SOURCES. I think "sources" would be a satisfactory compromise for the language lower in the first section of the subject's article, since "fabricating sources" is what the RS subhead says, and what the story was about (prior to the clarification/amendment). The other alleged fabrication would have derived from that, anyway. An easy compromise I think. But I hope the source provided above helps clarify my suggestion we go back to what was hashed out previously. Thanks.
Thanks.
Harringhome1977 (
talk) 16:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
One more question: Why was this information and source removed from the article's "career" section? "Deutsch has been interviewed about American street gangs and drug trafficking,[31][32][33][34][35] and has received prizes for his writing about crime and national news events, including an Associated Press award for justice beat reporting.[36]"
[3] The article subject has apparently won awards which in journalism seems hard? -
[4]-
The aggressive changes by snowfire definitely do not feel compliant with the living persons policy. Thanks.
Harringhome1977 ( talk) 16:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC) Source for original consensus version: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kevin_Deutsch&oldid=934462518
Consensus version was restored by Pemilligan in January before a single user, snowfire, began aggressive editing earlier this week. Other than him, all contributing editors appeared fine with the earlier language.
[5]
Harringhome1977 ( talk) 16:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
References
I mean I can't cite what appear to be years of discussions but this appears to be the consensus reasoning/ruling: /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/100.33.95.243
Harringhome1977 ( talk) 17:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Ok. That discussion appears to have been ongoing, and there appears to have been a very recent version that was fine with the various contributors until a user called snowfire came in and made some very aggressive changes, some of which appear to violate the biography of living persons policy, fair weight policy, and others (I've requested those complaints be addressed in the appropriate threads and trust one or other administrator will address). I definitely want to come to a consensus but snowfire uses some very aggressive and dehumanising language and it's hard communicating with someone like that. It doesn't seem like a fair process if one user, him, gets his absolute way without compromise. Which is what's happened. Could you at least restore the first sentence to its original language before snow fire's recent aggressive edits/evident page vandalism? Thanks. I'm trying to learn but don't want to be bullied.
Harringhome1977 ( talk) 18:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
See my compromise offer on talk page. Thanks. Harringhome1977 ( talk) 19:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Here's the change to the introduction that Harringhome1977 is advocating. I've redlined changes by underlining proposed additions and striking through proposed deletions.
Current version | Version of 6 Jan 2020 [1] |
---|---|
Kevin Deutsch is an American criminal justice journalist References
|
Kevin Deutsch is an American criminal justice journalist, author of two books, and host of the crime podcast "A Dark Turn" on the Authors on the Air Global Radio Network.
[1] He is currently a staff writer for the criminal justice nonprofit Bronx Justice News.
[2] The sourcing and veracity of some of his news articles and his book Pill City became the subject of a high-profile dispute in 2017 involving allegations made by members of the media that Deutsch fabricated sources.
[3]
[4]
[5] Deutsch denied all of the claims and defended his work as accurate, as did his publisher, St. Martins Press.
[6] Deutsch was never formally accused by any major news organization of fabricating sources.
[3] Pill City is an account of how two teens used opioids looted during the
2015 Baltimore riots to sell drugs using an Uber-like app and founded a nationwide criminal syndicate.
[3]
[7]
References
|
The changes of substance are to restore the podcast and staff writing position to the introduction, to temper the allegations by removing the alleged fabrication of quotations and events, and to note that no major news source accused him of fabricating sources. I will note that the podcast and writing position are supported only by primary sources.
Since the article is fully protected, a change in substance should not be made without establishing consensus. I invite all interested editors (and am pinging SnowFire due to his involvement in the recent editing) to explain why the change should or should not be made based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I also invite all participating editors to focus only on the content of the text and not the editors involved—in other words, conflict of interest should have no bearing on the points you're making. — C.Fred ( talk) 19:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
-->
Thank you. The above changes/language should be made because they keep the article in compliance with multiple Wikipedia policies. Take the Biographies of Living Persons Policy tag atop the article, for instance. It states: "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. 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. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard."
The proposed consensus language, based on my desire to resolve this issue, keeps the article in compliance with multiple sections of BLP policy (BLP), Neutral Point of View Policy (NPOV), and Verifiability Policy (V). Whereas the newer, existing version of the article is not compliant with applicable sections of BLP, NPV, and V policies. The changes that brought this article out of compliance with applicable Wikiepdia policies were implemented unitarily this week, without discussion, after months of apparent stability to this article subject's page.
Here is how they violate the aforementioned three policies: First, the unitarily inserted language states "that Deutsch has repeatedly fabricated sources, quotes, and events." It also removes the word "has," a subtle change that, by eliminating the past tense, makes the scandal sound more recent than it is (2017).
These changes demonstrably violate BLP policy. Why: The policy states that "Contentious material about living persons" that is "poorly sourced" or "potentially libelous" must be removed immediately'. The BLP policy also states that: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[a] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity''''The BLP also states: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1]
The existing article language qualifies as "Contentious material" and therefore "requires a high degree of sensitivity" under applicable BLP. The language/material is inherently contentious because we are having contention over it. So is the Rolling Stone newsroom, apparently. The Rolling Stone article's update states, verbatim: "Update: This story has been changed to clarify that Deutsch was never formally accused by any major news organization of fabricating sources." That directly contradicts the current language in the article, and violates both BLP and NPOV policy.
Further, under BLP, whether the material in this story is 'negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable" does not matter. All that matters is that it's contentious. We're debating this right now because the article subject stood by his criticized work in multiple, high value, third-party sources. And so any neutral appraisal of the controversy will be inherently contentious.
This would all matter less if BLP and NPOV didn't exist, or if Deutsch were dead, or not still working in journalism. But he's apparently alive, freelancing and working on staff at a local journalism non-profit called Bronx Justice News, listed on Google News, and podcasting on Apple https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-reporter-podcaster-author-kevin-deutsch/id687959058?i=1000485461932, Spotify https://open.spotify.com/show/1KGygiZffXhMOvz0I9Ch5g, etc. He also wrote a weird story about magic mushrooms and PTSD in a third party source, which seems more interesting to me than an irrelevant, old, boring print journalism controversy. Plus, Wikipedia policy states that: "The first published source for any given fact is always considered a primary source." The mushroom piece counts as primary, and so do the primary sources establishing his podcast and staff journalism job.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/crime-reporting-ptsd-mental-health-stress-magic-mushrooms-recovery-how-a8368946.html https://www.google.com/search?q=kevin+deutsch&client=safari&sxsrf=ALeKk03j1UVTKjr31tK9cFyMxm2PkbYNZg:1595537949346&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi058iFouTqAhWKgnIEHbMDBMcQ_AUoAXoECBMQAw&biw=1440&bih=743 https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3184452/ AND apparently still writing about looted pharmacies at aforementioned staff writer position https://bronxjusticenews.com/exclusive-dea-probing-drug-looting-burglaries-at-over-700-pharmacies-nationally-amid-unrest/
Since NPOV must be maintained as applicable to this living subject, Wikipedia policy says we must be neutral. Inclusion of Deutsch's current media/journalism jobs, as seen in the proposed version, brings article into compliance with both BLP and NPOV.
Moving on: NPOV policy also mandates that all content in Deutsch's article " must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."
There are two parties in contention - Deutsch, and those who questioned his work (primarily David Simon, from what these sources suggest). Since Deutsch is a primary party, his view is undeniably a significant one under NPOV. And so neutrality must be restored, with the proposed language serving to bring article into compliance with both BLP and NPOV and V.
Lastly, regarding Wikipedia's policy of Verifiability (V). As I said on the talk page: Any reasonable compromise must reflect the Rolling Stone update/clarification and incorporate it somehow into the first sentence because It is the most recent journalism on the subject of Deutsch's controversy - a NEW amendment to an OLD article. If it doesn't negate the sub headline about Deutsch having originally been accused of fabrication, it sure feels close. (notably, the sub headline is not in the actual text of the article under story author Jim Rich's byline, thereby creating journalistic credibility and Verifiability issues and making us wonder what the heck RS is even trying to say). If the new RS language in their clarification doesn't negate the sub-headline, it sure feels close. Either way its got to be synthesised, as it is in the proposed revision, in order to comply with Wikipedia's BLP, NPOV, and Verifiability policies. A reminder: V policy states, verbatim: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." Is this RS article verifiable if it has an update/clarification/amendment directly contradicting its subheadline? No, it isn't verifiable, and therefore it violates Verifiability policy in addition to the aforementioned BLP and NPOV policies.
In summary: The current version, as shown above, violates: BLOP, NPOV, and Verifiability.
The proposed, negotiated, consensus version places the article back in compliance with all three. Thanks. Harringhome1977 ( talk) 21:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
-- Re: snowfire's response: While I understand that the unitarily acting editor feels strongly, he has not argued based on Wikipedia policy text, as we have been instructed to. He also relies on apparent outside research in his support of the article's current language, since the allegations/policy violating material are not supported by the sources cited. Thanks.
Harringhome1977 ( talk) 21:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I understand. Apple and Spotify, which I've cited, aren't enough? I'm happy to concede exclusion of podcast mention at this point because there aren't many sources, if absolutely necessary. But I'm not clear on how a fact could be demonstrated further regarding the subject's podcast. With regard to specifying the fabrication allegations that were made by members of the media, that's who the sources cited here show made the allegations of fabrication: David Simon and Twitter users in the media biz, independently of their news outlets. Thus the language "members of the media." No news outlet ever accused Deutsch of "fabrication," the RS update says, as that is not what news outlets do. Here, they merely reported the allegations of others. Thanks.
Harringhome1977 ( talk) 22:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
-- Agreed on the podcast. But not on your statements about the RS article. That story literally states: "Update: This story has been changed to clarify that Deutsch was never formally accused by any major news organization of fabricating sources." We are openly committed on this site to fealty to source text, and there is nothing ambiguous about this highly specific language in RS update. I believe it must be incorporated to bring article into compliance with the text of the aforementioned policies. Thanks. Harringhome1977 ( talk) 22:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
In response to the unilaterally-acting editor's requests re: notability /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Notability asking for reviews about the article subject's books: Here are some from Publishers Weekly, Newsweek and Kirkus: https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-1-4930-0760-8 https://www.newsweek.com/baltimore-riots-launched-uber-drug-dealing-how-two-teens-launched-drug-548075 and https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=kirkus+kevin+deutsch&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 Thanks. Harringhome1977 ( talk) 23:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Also, since the disputed language in the current version of article is demonstrably "contentious" under applicable Wikipedia BLP policy, as argued in my statements above, it is supposed to be removed immediately under that policy. Thanks.
Also applicable to this BLP article: Wikipedia's Reliablity of Sources Policy, the applicable section of which states, verbatim: "This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." Thanks. Harringhome1977 ( talk) 23:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Also, is there a reason this review of the Wikipedia article subject's book called "Pill City" is not included in the first paragraph? "An important story meticulously reported but that nonetheless strains toward novelization in the telling." [1] Seems like a pretty neutral synopsis that complies with the aforementioned policies currently being violated in the article. It's also fully attributable to objective source text, Kirkus. At the very least, it's another source that conflicts with the existing language implemented unitarily. Thanks. Harringhome1977 ( talk) 00:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
-->
Hi everyone. Just following up on this discussion. I also want to cite the Wikipedia page page lock policy which states: "When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators have a duty to avoid protecting a version that contains policy-violating content, such as vandalism, copyright violations, defamation, or poor-quality coverage of living people. Administrators remain uninvolved when exercising their discretion, subject to this proviso, to decide whether to apply protection to the most current version of an article, or to an older, stable, or pre-edit-war version."
As outlined above, the current version of the article contains material that demonstrably violates multiple Wikipedia policies including BLP, NPOV, AND V (see detailed arguments above for each). Given these circumstances, is it possible to have the revisions we've hashed out here made now, in accordance with site policies? Thanks for facilitating this discussion, User:C.Fred. I enjoy contributing and want to do so regularly on other subjects. This process, and being able to communicate in an open forum with civility, has been a great learning experience. Harringhome1977 ( talk) 13:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
× Greetings. I tried to reconcile the disagreement here and had revisions immediately reversed. Please editors, take a look and tell me what’s objectionable and how we can reconcile the dispute. Article obv needs work § — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillieHowardCO67 ( talk • contribs) 00:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh, this a hot one! Looking for examples of how journalists/fabulists were handled by Wikipedia in some other high profile cases I found these and put em to use:
/info/en/?search=Jill_Abramson
Stop fighting and work together y’all. WillieHowardCO67 ( talk) 21:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Tagging for neutrality dispute. FTIIIOhfive ( talk) 02:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Page needs protection from the angry white boy who guards it. We either going to work this out here in community edit a thon or the page needs to be protected. We won’t have this. FTIIIOhfive ( talk) 15:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
C.Fred please see following: Wikipedia admin telling snowfire he is wrong (and creating legal liability)[edit source] “For your part, I discovered that the "no formal charges" sentence was added to both the lead and the text in August 2018, and as far as I can see it was never challenged until you removed it from the lead this month. That makes it longstanding content and I would advise you to let it stay. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC) Yeah, I took the article off my watchlist because I didn't want to spend my Wikipedia career uselessly edit-warring rather than writing actually useful content, only ended up back at it due to coincidence. The "no formal charges" content was put there by the pro-Deutsch crew (and... strictly speaking, I'm not 100% against it, but I am against it in the way that the pro-Deutsch crew deploys it, which is as an exoneration in the lede, which is not accurate to the sources). The original accounts are probably either Ballastpointed or AlexVegaEsquire FWIW. SnowFire (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)” — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillieHowardCO67 (talk • contribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillieHowardCO67 ( talk • contribs)
Some are here for an edit a thon focusing on articles with community impact and we are using GOOD sources. We see what you all are up to all over this site and we will bring it to the press. If you want something changed make an argument! FTIIIOhfive ( talk) 17:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
I've seen this pop up on a couple of noticeboards recently and I find the sock drawer's claims to be quite specious, especially when the This story has been changed to clarify that Deutsch was never formally accused by any major news organization of fabricating sources
claim is actually looked at. I have done a text comparison of the
current Rolling Stone article (which included the said disclaimer) and the
first archived version of the same article (which doesn't include the said disclaimer). Except for the inclusion of comment from Deutsch himself, the changes are
A mainstream reporter accused of fabricating sources in at least five news articleswas changed to
A mainstream reporter accused of fabricating sources in news articles
Look closely at the sources Deutsch is accused of making upwas changed to
Look closely at the sources in question
The second change is the one referred to in the disclaimer, it simply uses slightly more neutral language. What it doesn't do at any point is retract any of the main criticisms which form the basis of the entire article. Ultimately what does Deutsch was never formally accused by any major news organization of fabricating sources
mean anyway? Does it mean they called him into a meeting and said I formally accused you of fabricating sources
? Whether they did or didn't is irrelevant, since they certainly did investigate and find no trace of multiple people claimed to exist. What conclusion can be drawn from that is a matter of opinion. Some would say it's proof he fabricated sources, others would say his sources used fake names and that isn't Deutch's fault. Hence Rolling Stone's clarification, since the investigations didn't, at least on the basis of the available evidence, prove beyond all doubt that Deutsch fabricated sources. The attempt to insert the disclaimer into the lead as an exoneration of Deutch involves drastic cherry-picking of the Rolling Stone article, which is a gross violation of
WP:NPOV in my opnion.
FDW777 (
talk) 21:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Glancing through the article I saw a four-paragraph quote from a New York Times article. Although it is cited, I believe that is too large a quote to qualify for exemption from our copyright policies. We are allowed to use "brief quotations"; [2] IMO that is not brief. Someone should summarize it instead. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
improper language and attacks. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hello MelanieN, we request that the rolling stone “no formal charges” line you recommended be reinserted - because it is consensus content removed by snowfire alone—be put back immediately. FTIIIOhfive ( talk) 20:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Once that correction’s VERBATIM language goes into first paragraph of the article, we will have peace on this page. Otherwise this goes on forever for supporters of the changes agreed on by consensus on this talk page. FTIIIOhfive ( talk) 20:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
“Update: This story has been changed to clarify that Deutsch was never formally accused by any major news organization of fabricating sources.” FTIIIOhfive ( talk) 20:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
It is considered LONG STANDING CONTENT per user:MelanieN and must be restored. FTIIIOhfive ( talk) 20:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
References
I think it’s pretty clear this is no longer good faith opposition, it’s something far more than that, and so there’s no need to indulge this type of behavior. Not for a minute. The accuser here may be a man lacking in honor but his offer is accepted nonetheless. Fred, if you put the line in the first paragraph of this man’s article as proposed, we will stand down unless and until more sources/journalism comes out about the subject. And don’t go doing anything foolish to make us come back, neither. Otherwise, we are good. Bygones once it’s in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillieHowardCO67 ( talk • contribs) 22:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. More coverage though and it’s on. Otherwise, go live in peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FTIIIOhfive ( talk • contribs) 23:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Include the “never”, as agreed, or no deal. Verbatim as proposed by Fred is the deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillieHowardCO67 ( talk • contribs) 00:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Verbatim, meaning you add the “any“ too. Exactly as it looks above. WillieHowardCO67 ( talk) 00:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)You know what verbatim means, don’t you son?
Like we’ve been saying, you don’t have an ounce of honor in you. Let that hate out of your heart and you’ll feel a weight lifting. Fred, can you please implement the changes as agreed? Then we are done with this. WillieHowardCO67 ( talk) 01:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
No deal without the Verbatim language as proposed. He did not honor the agreement. Predictably. That’s not how this works and we are not going away. WillieHowardCO67 ( talk) 01:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
We need some help, admin. FTIIIOhfive ( talk) 02:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
He reverted again. Imagine being that kind of person. FTIIIOhfive ( talk) 02:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Good morning, can you please put that line in the lead the way you did yesterday? That’s the right thing to do and we apologize if we violated any rules. We don’t want this strife. Thank you snowfire. Highflyingkitty ( talk) 14:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Let’s just use the language you had proposed for now and we will be cool unless other sources come up . Lot of raw emotions on this side. Can’t control everybody sorry. But do that and we good.
WillieHowardCO67 ( talk) 03:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Just do it man. Let this be over. Otherwise we here long after you. LaneyJfromHoward ( talk) 02:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Guy thinks he can work his way out of consensus language by smashing this page with his privilege. Not happening. Admins will do the right thing and you’ll be seeing us for next few years at least. FTIIIOhfive ( talk) 02:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
You agreed to the language as proposed. Then you weaseled out of two words. Like some kind of lying Wikipedia lawyer. Who believes your bs other than you? FTIIIOhfive ( talk) 02:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
You all STOP. Cease fire. The man is negotiating. WillieHowardCO67 ( talk) 03:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request that Rolling Stone correction (established language) be included as agreed upon in Kevin Deutsch article (see Talk page thread). It is a simple reversion to the last revision. Things got out of hand but we want to go about this the right way and be respectful. We will check in tomorrow. Thank you. 🙏🏽 WillieHowardCO67 ( talk) 04:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC) WillieHowardCO67 ( talk) 04:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Just following up sir. Can that insert be made in lede? Highflyingkitty ( talk) 14:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Sorry to mess your night up. Tough day for us too. No more fighting please WillieHowardCO67 ( talk) 05:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Also please note the Talk page section where the user we disagreed with was advised to reinsert the Rolling Stone correction language by MelanieN, who called that language established for quite some time. That’s all I want to say. We trust you are fair and good people. Thank you and sorry to snowfire and to you all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillieHowardCO67 ( talk • contribs) 05:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Good morning, Hoping to resolve this today. Thank you sir. Highflyingkitty ( talk) 14:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Here’s the ANI discussion: [3] and the SPI investigation: [4] Result: five socks blocked: LaneyJfromHoward, FTIIIOhfive, Bronxolithic, WillieHowardCO67, and Bevkingcares. Hopefully this should restore calm to this article. -- MelanieN ( talk) 08:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
That’s the outcome of people acting foolishly but it’s not what we are doing the edit a thon for. We mean no disrespect but just want what’s fair and so the user snowfire should put the line in the lede. We are working for change not conflict. Please let’s work together. No disrespect. Highflyingkitty ( talk) 13:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Good morning. I am requesting the line most recently added to the Kevin Deutsch article be added to the lead, instead of the last section where it is now. It is all discussed in the talk section and ongoing dispute pages. I think it’s a just resolution based on your policies and I think snowfire, the user we have clashed with, will agree, as we have apologized for earlier disruption. We thank all of you for your time and patience with this matter. Highflyingkitty ( talk) 14:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Highflyingkitty ( talk) 14:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
It’s not a bully tactic, it’s an edit a thon and the change was endorsed by administrator MelanieN. You are wrong and are using the same bully tactics you accuse us of. You’re saying no compromiseX isn’t this an encyclopedia? How does this man not get that line in his article? That’s crazy.15:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Highflyingkitty ( talk)
I disagree. There has been a lot of discussion and consensus on this line’s inclusion. You are new to the discussion and are asserting some pretty heavy privilege. We request an independent editor to review this and I would ask you to facilitate that based on the ploblematic racial dynamic here. We want an editor of color to look at this. Is this A problem for you? We just want what’s fair and what MelanieN instructed snowfire to place back in the lead. So It’s not just us. I am trying to understand where you are coming from. Won’t you do the same for me? We are both people and want the same things: freedom of information and fairness and a good and an inclusive encyclopedia. That line was a correction to a major source in the story. It should obviously be in the lead. But don’t ask me ask Melanie. Can we work Together? Yesterday was wrong but two wrongs don’t make a right Jorm. Please let’s be civil. Highflyingkitty ( talk) 15:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
You also have to understand, these are people’s lives not just policies in a Wikipedia book. There is a policy for every argument to be argued both ways on here, we all get that. Highflyingkitty ( talk) 15:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Please get another editor, preferably a POC, to look at this Jorn. You are going against MelanieN’s recommendation the line be inserted in the lead. It was considered longstanding consensus language, according to her and others . You’re dismissing me because you are busy doesn’t change that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Highflyingkitty ( talk • contribs) 16:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Bradv: - I prefer the older article structure. The issue is that the problems with Pill City rippled backward into Deutsch's work as a freelance journalist - they caused Deustch's earlier work to be reassessed as well, not merely Pill City itself. Having a "Career" section on his books and then a section on the scandal (which affected Deutsch as a whole) seems preferable to me. Additionally, per Jorm's comments before, unfortunately he really isn't best known for Pill City - you've sourced that to the Rolling Stone article, but the RS article says nothing of the sort that he's best known for Pill City. He's best known for being accused of fabrication. Finally, the bit about St. Martin's press defending Deutsch is sourced to the same Rolling Stone article, so should stay - it's not unsourced. SnowFire ( talk) 21:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
best known for his book Pill Cityto just say he's the author or something that'd be better I think? FDW777 ( talk) 22:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Howdy hello! I realize I probably should have WP:RM'd this move, but wasn't thinking I guess. I know this is a very bold change, but my main concern is thus: his article is overwhelmingly about the 2017 book and controversy. We have almost zero sources that talk about anything else. This is WP:BLP1E territory to me. He is notable only for the controversy, and thus instead of having a WP:COATRACK that does a disservice to the subject, I think we should instead have it be about what its really about: the book and the source controversy. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 02:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
On behalf of the article subject, who is unable to edit the Talk page, I am passing along his request for the following addition:
Geoff | Who, me? 13:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
References