Talk:Louise Mensch

BLP Smears

This article is full of BLP smears in the form of poorly-sourced extraordinary claims, POV language, and UNDUE details that portray Ms. Mensch in an unfavourable light. In two recent instances I have removed the offending text, only to see them immediately reinserted.

The term "property speculator" is applied to Ms. Mensch's former husband in a single source, and has been taken out of context to insinuate the negative tenor of "speculator" into the article. By contrast, this gent is widely and accurately described in abundant RS as a "property developer", the well-documented career for which he is known. See [1]. This article is under Discretionary Sanctions and Arbcom expects us not to play around and edit-war BLP smears into these articles. SPECIFICO talk 19:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

So cite the sources and change the language. Jeez. Also, where did you get the idea that this article is under AE? Mensch's own words have earned her significant notoriety (to the point she was asked on BBC primetime whether or not she "has lost her mind") li). Like it or not, that's not something you can do anything about, unless you can find evidence that Putin really did murder Andrew Breitbart.Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I left the DS template on your talk page after you violated BLP, so I suggest you read it. Rapidfire deletions of DS notices are really not comme il faut. SPECIFICO talk 22:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Well what does it have to do with my revert of your unsourced edits? Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@S. Although I think that part can stay after some editing, I have no significant objections to removing it altogether as you did [2]. Just saying. My very best wishes (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's possible that there's a kernel of good content in parts of this article, I agree. There's also other noteworthy and well-sourced content that can be added with some further research. However @Guccisamsclub: should undo the recent reinsertions of BLP violations and be aware that this article falls under DS. Please read WP:BLPSOURCE and do not reinsert content that violates policy. SPECIFICO talk 01:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I am under no obligation to delete well-sourced, notable and uncontroversial material. This material consists of Mensch's own statements, as quoted by numerous RS, which invariably and explicitly characterize them as conspiracy theories. No sane person, never mind a reliable source, has disputed this characterization. Guccisamsclub (talk) 08:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Gucci, you say "no sane person has disputed..." I "disputed" this when I removed the BLP violation and opened the current talk page thread. BLP smear violations may not be reinserted for any reason. Please review this thread. SPECIFICO talk 14:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Just because you called them "BLP smear violations" does not mean they are. You've already had ample time to "dispute" the content. Have you have disputed that these are — as the sources say — "conspiracy theories"? No. Or have you disputed that Mensch actually said those things? No. Have argued that the sources are being misquoted? No. Have you tried to explain why this content might theoretically be contentious? No. Here's what you have done: you have deleted sourced content with a false edit summary; threatened me with DS and then refused to explain why; cried BLP without bringing up a single specific source or claim. None of these are not valid ways of challenging sourced content. Stop wasting my time — I've stopped wasting yours and mine on the "Russian Interference" article. Guccisamsclub (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO is Louise Mensch herself, zealously deleting anything she does not want others to see about herself. SPECIFICO should be barred from further edits of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekaap (talk • contribs) 18:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at BLPN

BLP problems regarding weakly sourced and undue edits are being discussed at BLPN here. SPECIFICO talk 02:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

If you bothered to WP:LISTEN (or cared), you'd know that the discussion was already over. Outcome: your gripe with this content has no merit whatsoever. Guccisamsclub (talk) 03:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Case

@Anthonyhcole: responding to this

• Promote is NOT "right", because these conspiracy theories originate with Mensch. She is not "promoting" or sharing theories invented by others. "Put forth" is right.
• "Believe" is also textually wrong. None of the other statements in the sentence contain the word "belief". If you really what to be precise, it should read "absolutely believe" and be separated from the other statements. As @SlimVirgin: pointed out on BLPN, the distinction between stated and "said that believed" is without a difference. I'll add that this absurd emphasis on "belief" is WP:UNDUE, and sourced to only Mesch's own WP:PRIMARY and confusing self-defense, and thus reflects Mensch's POV that her "belief" in these theories is morally equivalent to religious faith. (This makes Mensch sound even crazier, so I'm not sure what people are trying to accomplish by stressing this aspect.) But Mensch also said she had evidence, and this is the aspect that is stressed by the The Independent piece. So why not put that in too? But this is not the place for semantics: "stated" is both accurate, neutral, and to short. It is therefore preferable.
• Lastly the material from Rolling Stone was both uncontroversially true (it's what Mensch said) and reliably sourced to the Russia expert Matt Taibbi. Yet you removed it with no justification. Guccisamsclub (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

1. The BBC video clearly demonstrates that Mensch was stating a belief, not reporting a confirmed fact as would a journalist. This was discussed and confirmed on RSN, and you should drop the stick on that one, WP:TE and all that.

2 Taibbi is a marginal source in a fringey publication and any content worth putting in a BLP will have better sourcing available. Taibbi has no standing as a "russia expert" among the literate and well-informed public. SPECIFICO talk 21:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

1. Not a response to my objection. 2. Rolling Stone is RS, and Taibbi has worked as a journalist in Russia for a decade and speaks fluent Russian. You calling him "marginal" among the "among the literate and well-informed public" (can't make this shit up) is a fact-free statement that has zero weight. You can call him fried chicken, for all I care. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Fail. SPECIFICO talk 00:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

That's all that you can say? "Fail"? You are flagrantly denying reality right in front of everyone's eyes, while cooking up nonsensical excuses for yourself that lack any justification, evidence, or objectivity. Stop it, Louise. Your lies don't belong polluting Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekaap (talk • contribs) 01:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Taibbi, Russia, conspiracy theories etc

Further to the above section, and this content specifically, it seems suitable for inclusion. Mensch is currently one of the more vocal people pushing a pretty extreme Trump/Putin line. Indeed, it is pretty much all she tweets and blogs about currently. In doing so, she is also quite open in criticising people for purportedly being Russian shills or agents etc, and this, along with her general line on Russia is something that has attracted attention, from Taibbi and plenty of others. Taibbi is a serious and well-known author and journalist, and Rolling Stone is fine as a source. All the Russia stuff actually needs to be better reflected in the lead too, with due weight (it needs expanding as a whole). N-HH talk/edits 20:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

UNDUE weight to denigrating commentary in marginal publications by marginal commentators is a violation of our core BLP policy. BLP is not just saying Mr. X looks like a drunken donkey. Giving disproportionate prominence to sensationalist or recentist negative remarks, without context or balance, is the essence of BLP, and this stuff is an unwarranted smear with vague and disparaging insinuations. I'd hardly call Taibbi a "journalist". But at any rate, if there is a specific documented fact reported in that publication, let's see it and we can discuss putting it in the article. Undocumented, unspecified, smears or references to "her general line" without specifics we can scrutinize don't fit WP policy. SPECIFICO talk 01:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The content in question is not denigrating. It simply documents, in a perfectly reliable source, what she is on record (and it seems not at all ashamed of) openly doing. What "smears" are involved exactly? I'd accept that there would be a problem if we were simply citing empty critical commentary on Mensch – eg comments describing her as a shill or whatever – but this is not what the content consists of. There are no BLP concerns. Your frankly bizarre comment about Taibbi "hardly" being a journalist skirt closer to a problem in that regard. N-HH talk/edits 06:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

ps: I won't die in a ditch for this precise content, but she has an incredibly vocal and aggressive presence on Twitter and her blog on the Trump/Russia/Putin issue, something which is widely recorded in reliable sources. Taibbi's piece itself is quite polemical (and as noted I would not support quoting those elements of it) but, per your request for "specific documented fact", these comments of Mensch's are explicitly singled out and highlighted, and directly verified with cites and links in the article. N-HH talk/edits 07:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that SPECIFICO has fought about this endlessly, both here and on BLPN. Since the material consists entirely of Mensch's own statements as quoted in RS, her concerns got absolutely no traction. But she still keeps trying to delete the content she doesn't like, after the consensus ruled against her. This amounts to vandalism. Guccisamsclub (talk) 10:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@N-HH:Article improvement tags should not be removed until the cited issue is resolved. Contrary to your edit summary when you removed the tag, I did specify the problem, which is still unresolved. You can review WP policy concerning article improvement tags if this is of further concern to you, but please restore the tag and let's work on finding better-sourced and more specific content cited to better sources. Ms. Mensch is a flamboyant figure and an avid blogger, but the content I removed was not informative and has the character of weasel-worded non-specific smear. If you feel that better article text can be cited to that Taibbi piece, please propose it and perhaps the issue can be resolved that way. I do happen to disagree with you about Taibbi. He is not widely respected as a journalist despite a few famous sayings and a relatively small output of high quality writing among a lot of lesser stuff. SPECIFICO talk 12:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

BTW, I'm looking over some of Taibbi's recent work in that publication. Would you put this Taibbi description of Pres. Trump's cabinet in a WP article: "the most fantastic collection of creeps since the "Thriller" video. Many were blunderers and conspiracists whose sole qualification for office appeared to be their open hostility to the missions of the agencies they were tapped to run"? I wouldn't but I think it's in the same tone as much of his writing - possibly entertaining, occasionally on point, but not encyclopedic. It's a genre of punditry and pop-opinion writing that's become widespread in the last decade, but it rarely provides good sources for WP article text. If the material is noteworthy, there will be better sources that can be cited regarding the underlying facts and issues. SPECIFICO talk 13:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

"the most fantastic collection of creeps since the "Thriller" video. Many were blunderers and conspiracists whose sole qualification for office appeared to be their open hostility to the missions of the agencies they were tapped to run". Perfectly accurate and direct statement, backed by FACTS. It merely proves that Taibbi is a journalist who is willing to hold all feet to the fire. But regardless of whether it's the Trumpkins or Mensch, nobody is taking about labeling anybody a "creep" on Wikipedia. We are only citing the notable and uncontroversial FACTS. They are notable because the most prominent reliable sources on this topic say they are. They are uncontroversial because they are her OWN PUBLIC STATEMENTS. If the facts make someone look insane or creepy, that's not Wikipedia's problem. This discussion is totally exhausted and you lost. You should have WP:DROPPEDTHESTICK weeks ago. Guccisamsclub (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

While articles should not denigrate people, they should present them as they are perceived in reliable sources. Mensch has made claims that go beyond what the mainstream media has found credible and characterizes Trump and others in an extemely negative light again, even by the standards of mainstream media. Readers should know that. TFD (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Sweetheart, I know you don't respect Taibbi anywhere near enough to cite his opinion as a noteworthy fact relating to Ms. Mensch. Any more than we'd cite her opinion of Taibbi. As I've repeatedly said, her tweets and blog writings are distinctive and should be covered as they're covered in RS mainstream literature. Rock n' Roll mag snark-style essay copy? Not so good. Maybe there's even a grain of WP article content in that tabloid article? If so The WP:BURDEN to craft policy compliant text is on those who wish to insert. That would be far easier than wasting time defending a blatant weasel-worded BLP smear. SPECIFICO talk 14:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

"anywhere near enough to cite his opinion". Sweetheart, it's not his fucking "opinion" — it's an easily verifiable FACT. Drawing any kind of equivalence between Mensch and Taibbi is completely absurd. Finally Taibbi in Rolling Stone is probably the most notable "commentator" (i.e. journalist) cited in the whole stupid article. Guccisamsclub (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're still going on about "smears" and "opinions". As has been pointed out several times now, the material taken from the Taibbi piece is not his commentary, but an account of Mensch's own comments, explicitly cited and referenced to her own writings by Taibbi. This really isn't a complicated or obscure distinction, generally speaking or in this case. And why bother asking me whether I would include his commentary on Trump's cabinet, when I *explicitly* said, in the comments you were purporting to respond to, that I would not include the "polemical" elements of the piece or indeed any "empty critical commentary" on Mensch? I spend my life here trying to stop people dumping things like that into pages. And fine, you don't rate Taibbi and think Rolling Stone is and always has been simply a "rock and roll" magazine. You're entitled to your opinions. N-HH talk/edits 17:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The article content makes overly general "weasel" comments. As I've repeatedly stated, if there is more encyclopedic text that can be verified by the Taibbi piece, it should be proposed here. I think Taibbi is roughly in a category with, say Keith Oblermann at "GQ Magazine" and its web content, although Oblermann has been presented by well-regarded news organizations in the past. Taibbi is not RS for anything more than his personal opinion, which we could consider if specific well-formulated article text were to be proposed. I have no opinion of him but by his own admission he is erratic and sometimes irresponsible and unduly dramatic. Where there's important material, there's always more than a single questionable source. That's kinda the first rule of due weight and WP sourcing. SPECIFICO talk 18:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I have no opinion of him but by his own admission he is erratic and sometimes irresponsible and unduly dramatic. Yeah these blatant and repeated attacks on a living person (Taibbi) will definitely help your case here. Guccisamsclub (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

There's a Wikipedia article on Matt Taibbi if anyone is interested. He combines news analysis and opinion in a humorous writing style. Astute editors should be able to distinguish the two. The information that she had accused numerous people of being Russian agents is important for readers to know, because it helps them assess her claims. In the article about Joe McCarthy, who was prominent during the last big Russia scare, it says in the lead, "He was noted for alleging large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the federal government and elsewhere." TFD (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Right you are TFD. He is much like Louise M. in that combination of skills and charms. Of course Taibbi's editors at The NY Press did not turn out to be "astute" enough when they fired him over his infamous humour piece on the Death of the Pope. I think however that the comparison of Taibbi to Joe McCarthy is unwarranted. And I would not suggest we copy everything in this Salon article or this bit about his transition to Rolling Stone into Taibbi's WP piece, despite the fact that Salon itself is generally at least as reliable as Rolling Stone. SPECIFICO talk 19:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Taibbi did not falsely accuse anyone of being a Russian spy: that's why the comparison to Joe McCarthy is unwarranted in his case. Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. You can keep repeating that Rolling Stone and/or Taibbi are not "RS", or at least for anything beyond his opinion, but it doesn't make it any truer. Journalists writing for mainstream publications are, in fact, prima facie reliable sources for WP purposes, and you've shown nothing to disprove that assumption in his case. I'm not sure what the fact that he has a somewhat assertive prose style and occasional propensity for causing mild outrage has to do with that, and if you want to swap links, you could try these: this NYT book review describing him as a "meticulous reporter"; or this Post review of the same book, which describes him as "a relentless investigative reporter". Anyway, we seem to be at a cul-de-sac here, with no new or plausible argument against using the factual elements of his piece. N-HH talk/edits 21:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Please don't misattribute views to me. RS depends on content, context, writer, publisher, many things. The easy way for this content to survive scrutiny a) write something clear, verifiable, and factual so that it can be tested. b) prove that the content represents a significant mainstream view by finding much stronger sources for it. SPECIFICO talk 23:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The article currently says "Mensch has also accused numerous people and organizations of being Russian "shills", "moles" and "agents of influence." -- Anyone who thinks that's good encyclopedia text should be able to enumerate for us the people she called "moles" name the people she called "shills" and name the people who are "agents of influence" -- and should be able to verify each of the individuals so identified with specific citations to Taibbi's text. The fact is that can't be done because this content is a weaselly mess and it needs to be improved or removed. If it were defensible, somebody would have improved it by now instead of wasting their time with denials on this talk page. SPECIFICO talk 04:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

In fact, any attempt to "improve" the content as you are demanding will be undone by none other than yourself Specifico, aka Louise Mensch. Multiple sources report that Mensch (that is, you) has said herself that she has a list of over 200 people. How should we improve this content to your standards? Shall we create a complete list with individual tweets from Louise Mensch's verified account as citations? If someone listed 210 names, and had 20 citations on each one, you would flip your shit complaining that it comes across as trivia content! Shall we provide the summaries in multiple sources and cite them? No matter what, you will continue to dream up excuses, even when they contradict your own previous demands. Why don't you just admit that you don't give a shit about any of the excuses you keep giving, you're just obsessively trying to hide the clearly evident truth, constantly coming here and undoing any content that you don't want included. Jesus fucking Christ, you're fucking psychotic!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekap (talk • contribs)

• Whom did she NOT call a Russian shill and what is Russia NOT responsible for is a simpler question. But I did my best here Guccisamsclub (talk) 11:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what views I have "misattribute[d]". You have repeatedly slagged off Taibbi – "hardly a journalist", "not widely respected" – and also explicitly claimed that he "is not RS for anything more than his personal opinion". You keep calling Rolling Stone a "Rock n' Roll mag" publishing "tabloid" copy and "snark". As for the current text, while it could of course, like any text, no doubt be improved, I don't see any fundamental problem. As everyone else keeps repeating to you over and over, it simply describes, following the Taibbi piece, exactly what she has been doing and saying. The statement *is* "clear, verifiable and factual" and is not about "views". Taibbi *specifically cites* her own tweets and blog posts. How many times does this have to be pointed out? And if the text reads oddly, perhaps the problem is with the behaviour rather than the description of it? As for enumeration, the point of encyclopedia text is to summarise, not to list everything. And btw the list would be quite long, as this Buzzfeed (not always a useless source of course) piece – which makes exactly the same broad point as Taibbi about her actions, as its main theme in fact – makes clear. N-HH talk/edits 09:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• Louise Mensch is a conspiracy theorist. Any claim to the contrary is gaslighting, plain and simple. I have put the terminology in, and have cited the Oregonian, which Specifico has argued ad nauseum is a valid source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekaap (talk • contribs) 03:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Why should 'conspiracy theorist' be removed from the lede sentence?

I've seen that 'conspiracy theorist' has been removed from the lede sentence a couple of times without reason, where this has been sourced heavily. There is no denying that she isn't a conspiracy theorist, as someone who pushes conspiracy theories e.g Russia backs ISIS, was behind terrorist attacks, Putin killed Breitbart, is a conspiracy theorist. This has been used to describe other figures on Wikipedia with sources (typically right-wingers with any kind of theory) and so why shouldn't this be here? The article already talks about her putting up conspiracy theories, this appropriately describes her. Mellk (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

As the old saying goes, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... If reliable sources are saying she's a conspiracy theorist then clearly it's ok for us to say that as well. I realise it's a controversial label to give someone, but I can't see the problem here. This is Paul (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I guess that would make sense. The Daily Beast seemed to have labelled her a conspiracy theorist, I would've thought that sources saying that someone making conspiracy theories would've been enough. Mellk (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Slapping a pejorative label on someone at the start of their page, even if that label is used in some sources, as if it is a universally found and factual description is rarely a good idea. The current formulation, which notes slightly further along that she is the subject of criticism for indulging in conspiracy theories is (broadly) fine and more in line with BLP policy and sober encyclopedic style, as well as just as true to the sources. N-HH talk/edits 20:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Ms. Mensch is notable for many achievements and the body of RS reporting on her over the past 20-30 years does not label her primarily with this very broad, pejoritive term. Compare with such notable conspiracy theorists G. Edward Griffin. Not similar in any respect. SPECIFICO talk 20:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I think her promoting conspiracies more closely mirrors that of Glenn Beck, so that's how I organized the "current formulation" as noted by N-HH: avoid contentious labels in the lede sentence and mention them later in the lede. ^Falling_Gravity 21:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't call her statements "theories" so much as speculations. If she defends and embellishes an untrue assertion over an extended period in many forms and forums then she would be closer to what is generally understood as a "conspiracy theorist". SPECIFICO talk 21:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I guess that makes sense in a way, I would've thought that her large number of wild conspiracy theories, which sources have reported on and have made her more known over these theories, would've been appropriate enough. Mellk (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Although she has pretty much made conspiracy theories on just about every event, long before her 'investigation' - I would've thought that it would seem appropriate. I've seen that she's made dozens of theories (not just the few) ranging from Putin behind London terror attacks and hacking her WiFi (among the dozens of others), and this has gotten some attention. I've seen other articles on people where it is just accepted for the person to have 'conspiracy theorist' slapped onto the lede sentence for promoting a single theory, far from being as crazy, despite them doing other things. Mellk (talk) 09:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah but in my view many of those should be expunged too. I just think there has to be quite a high bar before someone is explicitly described as a conspiracy theorist from the outset, in the same way we would say "is a journalist/doctor/whatever". It has to be one of the things they're primarily known for, almost professionally, rather than something they have occasionally been described as. It's a broader problem here: people are too quick to slap labels they personally want to slap on people they dislike and then selectively cite individual sources to justify it. ps: I'm really, really no fan of this person. N-HH talk/edits 09:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Understandable, thanks for the clarification. I've also seen that the summary has been improved, however I would disagree that she has been "accused" of publishing conspiracy theories (this doesn't have any new sourcing), whereas she actually has published conspiracy theories, as sourced, and the section about her comments makes that clear.Mellk (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to Talk to explain your rationale. I feel that your language insinuates that she indeed promotes conspiracy theories, which is a controversial and extraordinary claim. "Accused" is neutral and does not place a heavy burden on the exact meaning of conspiracy theory or on the quality of the sources who label her in that way. Per BLP we must err on the side of caution. I am going to reinstate less declamatory, more descriptive wording. SPECIFICO talk 17:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it makes it neutral, however, such as in The Independent, where it says she "repeated a conspiracy theory", obviously Mensch actually saying 'Putin killed Breitbart' and claiming to have evidence is a conspiracy theory, not something that she can be accused of and possibly not be a theory, don't you think @SPECIFICO:? Mellk (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The only person not thinking is you Specifico, aka Louise Mensch. Utter word salad. You are trying to thread the needle with this idea that believing and spreading conspiracy theories doesn't equate to being a conspiracy theorist. And even after more than a half dozen citations, you still refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of the statement. Knock it off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekaap (talk • contribs) 01:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Alleged ties

The Trump campaign's "connections to Russia" should be written as alleged or possible (as with an investigation still underway). If we look at the BBC for example (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38966846), it writes "the probe includes examining possible links between Mr Trump's campaign and the Russian government". Mellk (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Lead: "report .. confirmed by other sources"

This seems slightly selective for the lead. Firstly, I'm not sure what she originally said has been proven 100% accurate, although the cited Guardian piece is fairly positive. More importantly, AFAIK literally nothing else she has come up with has been verified or proven – and she comes up with an awful lot. She's made claims that a tape of Trump making promises to Putin was flown to Russia, that the Weiner scandal was a Russian plot etc etc. See the full list here (and that's just her blog, not her prolific Twitter feed, or things she has said about BLM/Ferguson, Andrew Breitbart etc). Why not list all those things and say they are not confirmed, something which is noted in the more critical articles about her? Even a stopped clock etc. N-HH talk/edits 17:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Because it's a BLP and nobody has invested the effort to craft a more complete well-sourced and policy-aware treatment of her reporting tweeting and blogging. SPECIFICO talk 18:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

My point was simply a question of drafting/amending current content, ie that we should possibly remove or at least play down the emphasis on the "confirmed" report, rather than that we should seriously start summarising or adding all the "unconfirmed", at least in the lead. I just don't want to dive in and hack it out without others' comments. N-HH talk/edits 18:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

What I meant to say was that a few aggressive editors sought to insinuate various smears into the article and all this "conspiracy theory" stuff was not thought through carefully enough to be acceptable article text. As far as I'm concerned, most of her self-published stuff could be removed from the article because the excellent unimpeachable RS discussion of that work is slim to none. SPECIFICO talk 18:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the current wording provides her with a credibility that reliable sources do not. They say that she routinely writes conspiracy theories, but in one instance was right. Even a blind pig sometimes finds truffles, as one source says. (Don't worry if that metaphor bothers your.) She's basically similar to other right-wing journalists, even working for the Murdoch press, except she doesn't like Trump. That's no reason to give her a free pass. TFD (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think RS consider her a journalist. As to how often her sources give her true information, we'll know that better in the future and it seems OK to back off any judgments for the time being, and btw not pointlessly repeating her stories here. SPECIFICO talk 17:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course they do. Just google her name + journalist and filter on news. While most of the hits are echo chamber sites, the description is used in mainstream sources as well, including the Washington Post. A journalist is merely someone who writes for news media and magazines. She has written for The Times and The Sun. TFD (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

New story about her in Guardian

Here. Better balanced treatment than the tabloid/cable stuff that's been cited in this article. [3] SPECIFICO talk 03:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I genuinely hadn't read that before posting my comment in the section above yesterday and making very similar points about her. FWIW I would say the article simply adds to what we can already see in other, perfectly good sources, but agree it's a notable outlet presenting a good overview of the issue. Plus it is now cited in the lead (as part of the usual cite-bombing, which is being used to justify a bolder wording than agreed above). Still not sure how best to approach this. N-HH talk/edits 10:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Portland Oregonian source

@N-HH: You removed content and citations to two articles from the Portland Oregonian, a long-established and respected American newspaper. I can understand that you may have ideas as to text that you feel better or more fully reflects the sources, but this is entirely RS and I do not think that it should have been deleted due to this being a "weak source." I suggest you consider reinstating a version that you feel is better phrased to reflect the portrayal of Ms. Mensch in those two articles. SPECIFICO talk 14:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's not a respected publication in its own terms, but it's two pieces from a local paper, written by a not particularly notable journalist. The lead, which technically doesn't have to have any sources anyway, already has plenty for this content. And, as I said, the balance of that content suggests most of what she claims has never been confirmed. The way to write an article, especially the lead, is to reflect the balance of serious sources, not to cherry-pick and pile on those you can find which are a bit more favourable – and, as I noted in my edit summary, these two pieces were barely more favourable anyway, as they were pretty critical of much of what she does when read in full. N-HH talk/edits 14:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

ps: at the same time, I'm trying to make the lead a bit more focused on the biographical detail of her longer career and less simply on the Trump controversy. Happy for help with that. It was probably an equally glaring flaw in the lead as it stood. N-HH talk/edits

Please don't accuse me of cherrypicking and piles. This article has had longstanding NPOV and BLP problems, and it's tricky to give proper balance due to the unusual and sometimes sensational nature of the subject. The issue is not what might be considered favourable, it's what is accurately representing the sources within WP policy. I am sure that you or countless others might improve on my effort to write text or find a suitable location in the article. Moreover, the immediate change that prompted me to search for references on this was an recent edit that appeared to suggest that all of Ms. Mensch's speculations and reports are false, rather than conveying what RS say -- which is that she/her reports are erratic and that they need to be characterized in a more detailed or nuanced way.

The Portland Oregonian is not a "local newspaper" in any sense that diminishes its journalistic integrity or reliability and content from this publication is syndicated throughout the USA. It is a local paper just as dozens of other large urban dailies in the USA are "local". SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

It is a local newspaper, whether its content is syndicated or not. And it is not a source at the same level as a national newspaper or magazine. As for the text here, the content as I left it says that she has had one report partly confirmed, and that she has also published a lot of unconfirmed claims. This is true, and this is what all sources, including the Portland Oregonian pieces, say. The piece focused on her also says she is an "aggressive conspiracy theorist" with "very odd notions" whose stories have "gaping holes" and that she is "way out on a journalistic limb" and is "[unsurprisingly] finding journalistic credibility impossible to achieve". The second, earlier piece in passing refers to her getting "aspects" right, but gives no detail and doesn't say explicitly whether any of her specific claims (the other piece, as noted, acknowledges the FISA claim) have been verified or which they might be if they have. I don't think it's unfair to say that you were cherry-picking sources and cherry-picking the content from them in order to suggest in WP's voice that she is having lots of her precise claims confirmed. N-HH talk/edits 15:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The LA Times is a local newspaper. The Chicago Tribune is a local newspaper. etc etc. [4] "Local" is not a pejorative per WP policy. The issue is editorial policy, fact checking, etc. and this reference is better than many that are cited elsewhere in the article. And yes, it is "unfair" to suggest that I'm trying to do anything other than keep this page reasonably within site policy for a BLP. You have been on WP long enough to know that you should confine your talk page comments to content sources and policy and not to impugn the motives of your colleagues here. Please take a closer look and if you care to improve this article, there's plenty of room to add balance from RS including the Oregonian pieces and elsewhere. Many of the cited sources in the current version are sub-par. SPECIFICO talk 16:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying it is pejorative (or that there aren't grades of "local" papers: the same applies in the UK to the Birmingham Mail, Evening Standard etc, which are better than the Chingford Advertiser). I've already made that clear, I would have thought. I simply said it is a lesser source than others which are already in the lead at that point (the Times, Guardian, New Republic etc) and that there are already far too many of them. It is. I also said, explaining this in some detail, that it says much the same as them anyway, not what you tried to make it say. You don't seem to have taken any of that on board or deigned to address those points, which I bothered to enumerate in some, perhaps too much, detail. It's not me who needs to look more closely at anything. I'm not going to keep repeating myself either. As for cherry-picking, I was prepared to accept (and imply) initally that it was not deliberate. N-HH talk/edits 16:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

You may not be familiar with the American journalism sphere, but let me assure you that the Oregonian is a higher journalistic stature than either the New Republic or the Guardian. And certainly better than the likes of Washington Times, GQ, BBC cable chat shows, etc. Our job is to improve the articles, not to delete good sources. You're not obligated to do anything constructive, but we should all be careful what we delete. EOM. SPECIFICO talk 16:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm perfectly familiar with the US media scene thanks, certainly well enough to make a reasoned conclusion in a WP context about what is a good or necessary source for what. Nor of course have I ever relied on or discussed the Washington Times or GQ – or "BBC cable chat shows", whatever they are. And I have been improving the article, which has had a crap lead for ages, including by deleting outright falsehoods from the lead which you seem rather keen to keep in. Again, please look more closely, eg at today's edits. N-HH talk/edits 21:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with SPECIFICO. The Portland Oregonian is a respected and reliable source and the edits should be restored. I've been on Wikipedia for a while now and I've never heard an editor claim a source cannot be used because it is a "local paper." FYI, The Portland Oregonia has won 8 Pulitzer Prizes since 1999. It's a well respected, award winning newspaper and any edit it supports is well sourced and deserves to stand. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

<Sigh> Does no-one actually read or even try to understand the points people are making here? What's the point in commenting to accuse me of taking a position I have never taken in order to refute a point I never made? For about the third time, I am not saying that we cannot use local papers, whether this one or any other. I've never said anything close to that. Please reread, and actually take on board, what I have said about the use of this source in this specific context. And do the same for the other point I have actually made about how the edit in question misrepresented both this source and the balance of sources. People here are so blinded by what they want articles to say that they just dive in and spout off without reading or thinking. N-HH talk/edits 07:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

In baby steps, as I appreciate there's a lot of text now thanks to some pointless arguing: 1) we don't need it, as we already have lots of as-good or better sources in the lead, arguably too many already; 2) it doesn't add any information those sources haven't already given us; 3) despite that, the content added that was purportedly based on it misrepresented what both the PO and those other sources actually say, which is pretty consistently that in fact virtually none of Mensch's myriad claims have ever been verified and that what she does is pretty close to conspiracism. N-HH talk/edits 08:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I think you prefer what the other 'sources' are saying and are making the ridiculous claim that the Portland Oregonian cannot be used because it is a local paper. Please show in reliable sources policy where it is says local papers are to be avoided. Perhaps we should have an RfC to settle the matter on 'local papers' and see what the wider community has to say about it. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, you're just trolling now, unless you're spectacularly stupid. Most people would have the decency to admit when they've misunderstood at least three points in one go and to stop mischaracterising what other people are saying, and I'm not explaining it for the fifth time. N-HH talk/edits 16:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

In order to state in DPs voice that US media did not confirm the existence of the FISA warrant, all you need to do is show us all a RS reference that says that. Otherwise it fails Verification and violates BLP. Show the source. Thx. SPECIFICO talk 00:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Er, it's been there, cited in the lead and multiple times on the talk page, from the beginning of these meandering discussions. And I even quoted the specific passage for you just now. And in the right section for discussing this (as if that one wasn't long enough already, you're now spreading this discussion into this section and the Bataclan one too). Sorry, I don't know whether you're just being lazy when it comes to reading things, stupid or wilfully disruptive, but I'm not taking you seriously any more or responding again. Reasonable disagreement over phrasing or interpretation is one thing, but this is something else. N-HH talk/edits 09:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, of course, the reference to the lack of US media confirmation relates explicitly to the details of the Heat St report as to what any FISA warrant related to, not to the existence of any FISA warrant per se. On top of all the other reading/comprehension problems, you haven't even described the text accurately or framed the question correctly. N-HH talk/edits 19:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Two thoughtful editors disagree with you. I see nobody who agrees with you on this point. If you have an RS citation to propose please quote where it states categorically, the conclusion that @GreyGoose: has identified as a nonexistence assertion which cannot be proved by OR induction and would need to be cited to an unimpeachable RS reference. SPECIFICO talk 16:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi all, I've been busy and have been away from Wikipedia. Since McClatchyDC is an American news source and independently confirmed the October FISA order, I have edited the intro of the article accordingly. I'm not sure what the rest of this thread is about. GreyGoose (talk) 04:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

That's your own reading of a primary source, which does not in fact mention Mensch or Heat Street at all. Glenn Kessler is a secondary source; your attempt to refute him constitutes original research.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I've reworded it to reflect the sources. In my opinion, the lead should probably not even mention all of these details; the reason why the Heat Street report on the FISA warrant is important is because Trump, after the fact, used it as one of his sources for his Twitter claim about Obama ordering his wires to be tapped, and that is what the lead should say (that he erroneously tried to use it to bolster his Twitter claim). It's confirmed by at least three independent sources, one of them American, that there was a FISA warrant issued in October 2016 regarding two Russian banks and that it was in relation to the Trump campaign; the fact that Mensch may have gotten a few details wrong or may have conflated the Slate reports and the FISA rationale is rather incidental. In fact, the WaPo article is a critique and refutation of Trump, not Mensch, so it probably belongs in the Wikipedia article on Trump or the Trump-Russia investigations, rather than in such massive detail here. The fact is, Mensch broke the story of the October 2016 FISA warrant. Whether she got some details wrong is still ultimately unprovable as yet, since it is classified information. GreyGoose (talk) 07:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

FISA report "confirmed"

This is not what the sources, taken as a whole, say, nor is it what the body of the article says. The lead has to reflect that, not what you believe or what your preferred one-off source says. Hence I have reverted your blanket revert of my changes. Fine, we can change "no American news organisations have confirmed the claim" – even though that is *exactly* what the detailed Washington Post review of the coverage says (and btw when it mentions the McClatchy report, it also explicitly says that report is "much different than the Heat St account"; you have to read these things properly, you know) – which is probably a bit emphatic for the lead as a matter of style, but do not simply revert to a bold assertion that it has been confirmed, based on one cherry-picked [sic] source. I have been trying to improve the lead in terms today to better reflect her broader career, more faithfully represent the sources and basically read better. You've just knee-jerk reverted most of that, while going round in circles on the talk page in the section above rathet than engaging constructively with the evident problems here. You "cut it out". Why does everything have to be so complicated here? N-HH talk/edits 21:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you could respond here and discuss this rather than changing this again? And can you also avoid accusations that this is "defamatory", a "BLP smear" or "SYNTH"? For the fourth time, the lead is meant to summarise the body and the sources; the Washington Post fact-check analysis of the Heat St claims (in the context of Trump's later apparent reliance on it) concluded that no US media outlets have endorsed the exact claims being made by Mensch, but that some UK sources appear to have corroborated it. No new source has been added that contradicts that description of reality, and hence my version followed that. Nonetheless, I tweaked my own initial wording to tone down that conclusion. Your edit, and apparently your understanding of the issues, elides over the important distinction between the *existence* of a FISA warrant and when it was approved and what for. The point here is whether Mensch's Heat St report has been confirmed as correct. It has not. The NYT piece you have added refers to a wiretap on Carter Page approved last summer: not surveillance of Russian bank-Trump server contacts approved in October, per Heat St. This is really sloppy and also getting to the point of being disruptive. N-HH talk/edits 14:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The NY Times citation I added states that Ms. Mensch's FISA Warrant scoop was confirmed. Please undo your removal of the sourced text and your reinsertion of this BLP violation. SPECIFICO talk 14:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you quote from the NYT report where it says that? Did you even read the explanation of the problem in my penultimate sentence? N-HH talk/edits 14:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'll help and do this for you (or for anyone else looking). Here's what the NYT says:

• "The wiretap of Mr. Page was reported by The Washington Post. The revelation followed months of speculation about such warrants against associates of Mr. Trump, an idea that was broached in November by Heat Street"

So, "such warrants" .. "an idea that was broached". If you read that as "confirming Mensch's scoop" or as verifying the details of the Heat St report, you're speaking a different language to me. And btw, the original Post report on this doesn't even mention Mensch or Heat St at all. N-HH talk/edits 14:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

And here's a reminder of what my wording on this in the lead, into which I did actually put quite a bit of, you know, reading of the sources and thought, says:

• "The existence of a FISA order was later separately reported by some other media, but American media outlets have not corroborated the details of the claims made in the Heat Street report"

Could you also explain how this is incorrect, or a BLP smear, even when the Page story is factored in? Good luck. N-HH talk/edits 14:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I have repeatedly stated, including in ←t÷his threw above, why the unsourced denigration about "no American media" is false and violates BLP. The WP:BURDEN is on the editor who proposes to include such content. Please undo your repeated reinsertion and seek consensus on talk. SPECIFICO talk 21:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and what you said has, if I say so myself, been utterly refuted by me at great length, with citations and quotes. Please reread my posts above, and the WaPo factcheck article referred to and also directly cited in the lead, and please try to respond to the points. You have, quite literally, totally ignored them. Did you even read them? Here, for info, is the relevant para from that analysis, in March:

• Only one article, with British roots, reported that a FISA court order was granted in October to examine possible activity between two Russian banks and a computer server in the Trump Tower. This claim has not been confirmed by U.S. news organizations.

Beyond that, I'll help also by explaining the point again: the existence of *a* FISA warrant of some sort has been reported in several media outlets, in the UK and US, including since March; however, the exact details of Mensch's claim – eg that it relates to Russian banks, in October etc – only seem to have been confirmed, up to a point, by maybe the Guardian and BBC. It is not clear that anything has changed in that respect since March to supersede the WaPo analysis. Having the lead suggest that the FISA warrant as described by Mensch was confirmed is totally misleading. A child should be able to grasp the distinction here. This is just getting silly and very boring. Maybe that's the plan. N-HH talk/edits 21:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

That appears to concede the point I have tried to articulate here. The 'not confirmed in US media" is too general to convey what RS say and it is clearly UNDUE for the lede. As to the article text, perhaps you can propose content that accurately conveys the entire matter, without WP:SYNTH and without leading the reader to the wrong understanding and denigrating Ms. Mensch. I see that there's a new editor hear, @GreyGoose: who may be able to shed fresh eyes on the subject. SPECIFICO talk 15:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Er, in what way does it concede your point? I've been describing and explaining the same point over and over again – sadly, because I've had to. The current text follows exactly what I've just said above and previously. You just keep ignoring all this, while oddly claiming it is "denigrating" her and/or "SYNTH" and insisting we should ignore what the WaPo analysis and other sources actually say. I have always accepted this is probably too much detail for the lead, and that the broader "partly confirmed" would cover it, but you kept changing it, misleadingly, to simply "confirmed", so the distinction between her report and other reports, and between the existence of a warrant and the warrant as she described it, has been spelled out. N-HH talk/edits 18:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I received a notification about this discussion. In terms of the issue I was queried about above, for one thing Vanity Fair (I can dig the article out upon request) says the NY Times reported the FISA warrant two months after Mensch reported it. (Offhand I'm not sure which NYT article they are referring too, but I can probably dig that out as well.) I believe US media has reported on it in other venues/ways as well; I can look into that upon request. In any case, I don't think we can place a completely unprovable negative claim in the article; that wouldn't be either encyclopedic or neutral. (I hope I am reading this discussion correctly; it's fairly long so someone may need to summarize for me precisely the issue or text in question.) GreyGoose (talk) 06:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

This Vanity Fair piece? Nothing about any NYT report though, and it's actually quite ambivalent about whether what she said has been vindicated. I know the above discussion is quite long, but that's because a simple issue has been made incredibly complicated by failure to engage with the points being made. The basic point – the distinction between whether a FISA warrant of some sort might exist and what exactly Mensch said about one covering Trump computer servers and Russian banks etc – is covered in the last few posts, as is the Washington Post fact-check on which the current lead wording is directly based. If the details of her claim have not been proven – and they have not – there's nothing wrong with WP saying that, while acknowledging her report that a warrant of some sort has been issued, which is exactly what the current text does. By contrast, there would be something very wrong with saying or suggesting that they have been proven. N-HH talk/edits 08:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Goose, that is correct. We would need a source that states the unprovable negative categorically. And of course there is no such source. Otherwise the editor who keeps reinserting this nonsense would simply cite that source. SPECIFICO talk 02:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I have cited and/or quoted that source about six times now on this talk page. It's cited in the lead, to support the text. I am literally at the point now of asking whether I am conversing with a sane person here. N-HH talk/edits 08:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

My error, it was Mother Jones, not Vanity Fair: "The day before the presidential election, Mensch ... reported that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court had granted the FBI a warrant to surveil Americans with ties to Trump as part of its investigation. Another two months would pass before the New York Times confirmed the existence of a warrant from the court in the case of Carter Page." -- GreyGoose (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah, OK. The report about the Page warrant was brought up and discussed near the top of this section. As noted then, it actually of course supports the current wording – ie that the existence of a FISA warrant has been reported, but not one as described by Mensch – rather than providing evidence that Mensch's precise claims on this point have been confirmed. I also can't help noticing that the MJ piece more generally comes down pretty hard on Mensch on the question of reliability ... N-HH talk/edits 17:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Here are some links I've found on a Google search just now. I'd like to point out that the Paul Wood article in the BBC is unimpeachable [5] (as is Wood; he is highly connected and saw the Steele dossier last fall), so asserting that his reporting, as well as the Guardian's [6], have allegedly not been "confirmed" elsewhere doesn't make sense for an encyclopedia to allege, particularly since the info is highly sensitive intelligence, and major outlets also like to do their own original scoops rather than piggyback off of others'. In addition, since a negative is unprovable (and could indeed be disproved at any moment), it makes no sense for Wikipedia to state that. All of that said, here are some relevant articles, which are American:

• http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article127231799.html Confirms the October FISA warrant
• http://circa.com/politics/fbi-probe-of-donald-trump-and-russia-during-election-yielded-no-evidence-of-crimes Confirms the October FISA warrant, and is later cited by National Review (below)
• http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446024/devin-nunes-james-comey-break-no-new-ground-trump-russia-ties Mentions the John F. Solomon report above
• http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445710/fisagate-trump-russian-collusion-questions-will-never-be-resolved Also mentions the John F. Solomon report above
• http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444934/michal-flynn-russia-release-tape-call-russian-ambassador Treats the October FISA warrant as fact
• https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/03/the-kremlins-man-donald-trumps-fisa-paranoia-part.html Gives credence to BBC, Mensch, Guardian

-- GreyGoose (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but I can't see that any of these confirm the Heat St report entirely, or say that they are doing so. Wood's BBC piece seems to, more or less (although I can't see it mentions the Trump server), but that's already been acknowledged, including in the Washington Post round-up/analysis. That analysis also took into account the McClatchy report but described it as "much different" from the Heat St account. AFAICT, the Circa and NR pieces do not tie the FISA warrant to the Trump server. The Paste report explicitly refers only to "corroboration" of "some portion" of Mensch's claims by the BBC et al.

As I keep saying, we have to distinguish between reporting of the existence of one or more FISA warrants, and independent reporting that matches Mensch's exact claims. None of these pieces amount to the latter or contradict the current text, or a briefer, alternative wording that her claims were only "partly confirmed" (or better, "partly corroborated" – confirmation is quite a strong word when dealing with anonymous source-based reporting on this sort of thing, which I think would best be saved in the event of any formal, official confirmation further down the line). N-HH talk/edits 21:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

It is WP:OR 101 for editors to make up their own standard, not stated in RS, then use it to cobble a denigration of a BLP, not stated in RS, and then place it in the lede of the WP page. No RS tells us that every detail of the Gettysburg Address is a mastgerpiece of rhetoric and civics. Lo and behold, we do not see this view stated in the lede of the Abraham Lincoln page. SPECIFICO talk

Throughout this protracted discussion, I've cited and quoted, literally non-stop, explicitly what multiple reliable sources have said, directly, about the Heat St report. There are two such quotes in the post you're purporting to respond to. As for what should be in the lead (leaving aside the bizarre Gettysburg analogy), I've said multiple times too that this may well be too much detail for the lead. The point is that you were insisting it said her report had been "confirmed", which is way closer to OR than anything currently there. That needs to be qualified one way or another. N-HH talk/edits 08:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Good, now that you have conceded that it is undue for the lede, please remove it and stop reinserting it. SPECIFICO talk 14:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I have not "now .. conceded that it is undue". Please stop misrepresenting what is going on here. I simply said, as I have from the outset that arguably it is too much detail. But as I said just now, any suggestion that the report has simply been "confirmed" needs, per multiple cited sources, to be qualified somehow. You, as noted rejected the simpler "partially confirmed/corroborated". You're still, after all these wasted words, not reading, not understanding and not responding to the arguments, to the point of obtuseness. Or offering any alternative or solution yourself having taken those into account. N-HH talk/edits 08:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi all, I've been busy and have been away from Wikipedia. Since McClatchyDC is an American news source and independently confirmed the October FISA order, I have edited the intro of the article accordingly. GreyGoose (talk) 04:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

As discussed ad nauseam above, the Washington Post round-up of evidence explicitly says the McClatchy report is "much different" from the Heat St account. It also says, as the lead used to until it was edited recently, that the Heat St claim "has not been confirmed by U.S. news organizations". Not only does the lead now contain too much detail but it's classic SYNTH, in that it attempts to create a chain, saying, effectively, "the BBC said something a bit like Mensch did .. McClatchy said something a bit like the BBC .. ergo Mensch's claims confirmed". You should have also have proposed your changes here before unilaterally imposing them. N-HH talk/edits 10:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Suggested wording

Further to the above lengthy discussion about what has and has not been "confirmed" (quite a strong word, which doesn't simply mean one or two other people have reported roughly or even exactly the same thing) and about the need for the lead to summarise the issue not go into article-by-article detail – and in the spirit of actually proposing wording here rather than making unilateral changes – how about something like the following:

• "Elements of the report were subsequently corroborated by other media, but the full details have not been independently confirmed"

Unless anyone can explain what is wrong with this as a summary for the lead, or propose amendments to it or something better altogether, I will make that change. N-HH talk/edits 11:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

This still has all the flaws. Don't put your preferred text in there without consensus. NPOV is required and ultimatum is not consensus. SPECIFICO talk 11:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

What flaws? Can't you be more constructive than that? And you did notice, right, that I said I would not put it in if someone disputed it or offered an alternative? That's not an ultimatum, that's asking for people's opinions before doing anything. Also, you don't seem to have objected to someone unilaterally putting in their own preferred wording not only without consensus but without even raising it here? Funny that. N-HH talk/edits 11:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Also of course "NPOV" means trying to find wording that summarises and fairly reflects the position across all sources, not cherry-picking ones that suit our preferred narratice. That is exactly what I am trying to do and what I am asking others to help with. If you can show me that the claims have been declared "proven" in their entirety by the majority of serious sources, I would be more than happy for the lead to say that. N-HH talk/edits 12:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@GreyGoose:, @Anyoneimpartialandintelligent: N-HH talk/edits 22:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Bataclan torture

For the record, here is what Snopes.com says about Mensch's Heat Street "exclusive":

Both outlets single-sourced their claims from a 15 July 2016 article published by the HeatStreet web site. That outlet chose the hours after the Nice attack to dredge up old claims from an inquiry that occurred in March 2016, with the only marginal relevance to the claims being another outbreak of carnage and a frightened public. Nothing more occurred between the March 2016 inquiry and the July 2016 spate of claims to warrant republication of unvetted rumor in a time of international grief and worry. The portion in question originated via an inquiry published (not suppressed) by the French government, based on 21 March 2016 testimony in which investigators were asked about rumors of torture or propaganda creation at the Bataclan. A translated version of the inquiry’s minutes revealed that investigators soundly debunked the claims on record.

Yes, Snopes doesn't name Mensch as the author of the piece, and thus you wouldn't find her name with a simple ctrl + f search, but that hardly means this content is "primary sourced ... No mention of Mensch's work in secondary source regarding this." If @SPECIFICO: believes Mensch's views on the Bataclan are WP:UNDUE in the context of her broader career, I'm not even going to argue with that user's ruthless yet selective interpretation of that policy, but we should at least be able to agree on certain basic facts, rather than purging text based on a false pretense.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Even if reliably sourced, this her comment does not seem significant. She said a lot of things. We should not include them all.My very best wishes (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the recent UNDUE edits that disparage Ms. Mensch appear to relate to her blogging and twitter posting about topics related to American Politics, the 2016 election, and the Trump campaign and associates. WP should not cherry-pick bits from her extensive output and should not misapply tags such as "conspiracy theorist" in the lede, when RS give more detailed, nuanced, and accurate characterizations of her work -- both her correct reporting and her occasionally erratic speculations. This has been discussed on talk and should not be repeated. The talk page is available for policy-based discussion, but not to push disparagement. There will always be more than one or two marginal sources to confirm the noteworthiness of valid article content. SPECIFICO talk 11:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

This is the same Heat Street that spread Murder of Seth Rich conspiracy theories[7] while run by Mensch. Over on that article you are calling it propaganda, while here you are defending the same sort of theory. TFD (talk) 22:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Aside from smearing Mensch thereby violating BLP, what's your point? Here that Bataclan bit is UNDUE to the topic. What's that got to do with Seth Rich and HS? Or me, for that matter. Anyway the FISA bit was confirmed by McClatchy, WaPo, and many other US media, so this article can't claim it wasn't. I'm sure you agree. SPECIFICO talk 22:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

How is citing Mensch's own claims, and a secondary-source debunking of them, a "BLP" violation or smear? Please stop just flinging these accusations around about every bit of content you want excluded for whatever reason. This content is arguably undue, as it has not been given much attention, and I'm not convinced it needs including, but part of the point of a biography is to explain someone's views and any genuine controversies. As for the FISA report, that discussion is in the thread above, and your position on it is literally untenable. I've wasted ages explaining this in detail, quoting what multiple outlets have actually said on this, and you just keep repeating, without providing any evidence or responding to any of the evidence provided the other way, a flat-out lie about it having been "confirmed". N-HH talk/edits 09:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Strawman. The statements of other editors clearly reject your preferred narrative. Unless you have an improvement that does not insert this undue cherrypicked pov aside into the article, you are not going to get to yes on this. P.S. please don't disparage other editors. Your frustration is yours alone. SPECIFICO talk 17:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure who the above is addressed to, or what it is even talking about, but it literally makes no sense regardless. N-HH talk/edits 21:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

It's 4U, you raised the FISA thing out of position so I replied under your message. Yes, the FISA thingy belongs in the preceding thread. SPECIFICO talk 23:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

NPOV account of Mensch's twitter ups and downs needed

There are increasing numbers of balanced RS discussions of what many call Ms. Mensch's erratic writings on her blog and on twitter. These can be used to source a balanced account of her self-published ruminations. We cannot, however cherrypick a narrow statement and express it in a context and words that readers will take as a disparagement of Ms. Mensch. That is a violation of BLP and this sort of cobbled insinuation must not be in this or any other WP article. There are many RS discussions of Ms. Mensch's writings in the past few months. SPECIFICO talk 02:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The content you insist must be removed is sourced to this piece and based largely on simple observation and her own, verifiable words as cited in that piece. Yes it's critical of Mensch, but that doesn't mean it cannot be used, for BLP reasons or any other. I agree that relying on "balanced RS discussions" of her – eg overall biography/profile-style and from somewhere other than Buzzfeed – would as ever be better, but that doesn't mean this kind of piece, from a perfectly good source by WP standards nonetheless, is barred. And "cherry-picking" only applies as a problem when there are lots of other texts that say something radically different about her. Are there? As for the "many RS discussions" that you say you would prefer to use, could you link to some of them? N-HH talk/edits 08:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)