Talk:Kevin Deutsch: Difference between revisions
m Signing comment by AlexVegaEsquire - "→Dispute: " |
No edit summary |
||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
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. [[User:Wikihunter6|Wikihunter6]] ([[User talk:Wikihunter6|talk]]) 12:50, 5 May 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. [[User:Wikihunter6|Wikihunter6]] ([[User talk: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. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:AlexVegaEsquire|AlexVegaEsquire]] ([[User talk:AlexVegaEsquire#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/AlexVegaEsquire|contribs]]) 01:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
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. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:AlexVegaEsquire|AlexVegaEsquire]] ([[User talk:AlexVegaEsquire#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/AlexVegaEsquire|contribs]]) 01:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Revision as of 11:34, 24 July 2017
Articles for creation Start‑class | ||||||||||
|
Biography Start‑class | |||||||
|
Crime and Criminal Biography Start‑class | ||||||||||
|
Journalism Start‑class | ||||||||||
|
Adding COI tag
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)
Dispute
@AlexVegaEsquire and Wikihunter6: Stop reverting each other without discussing matters here, Goddammit. Remember, discuss the issues based on site policies and guidelines, not based on accusations. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- The main issues I'm seeing to discuss are:
- -Whether or not his real name and birthdate should be included: if so, it needs to be sourced.
- -Whether or not it should be mentioned that he's been investigated by those different news outlets: the issue here would be whether or not the sources are reliable. From what I've seen, Poynter is generally recognized as reliable, AlexVegaEsquire would need to make a case (based on policies and guidelines such as WP:RS or precedent at WP:RSN) that it isn't. On the other hand, Buzzfeed's reliability is on a case-by-case basis (and due to WP:BLP we always take the side of caution in biographies of living persons), so Wikihunter6 would need to defend it.
- -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.
- -Whether or not "Deutsch's practice of changing the names of individuals and places he documented" should be labelled as "liberal." Although liberal can mean "freely," it can easily be misread as implying political motivation.
- -Whether or not to mention that Deutsch has been accused of recycling a story on HuffPo.
- Again, the discussion should based on policies and guidelines, not accusations. Both of you have shown no other interest than this article, which is technically not a bad thing in it self but often a sign that an editor is here for reasons other than building the encyclopedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
@AlexVegaEsquire and Ian.thomson: A few thoughts on these points:
- -To the first point, his real name (before it was removed) was sourced to an article that Deutsch wrote himself in the Miami Herald, so in the interest of accuracy, I don't see why his real name should be left out.
- -For the investigation, other outlets than Poynter have reported on it now, including Rolling Stone magazine
- -As Baltimore free pointed out, the scale of investigation has thus far been at least as nationally significant as Deutsch's reporting career, so it would make sense to mention in the lede.
- -Perhaps liberal can be changed to "routine" or something similar. Some sources now allege he may have fabricated over a dozen sources so it doesn't strike me as an exaggeration. Wikihunter6 (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I think the current version of the article is extremely fair. A majority of it deals with the controversies and it also includes information about Deutsch's first name. This version also follows all site policies and guidelines. Details of the controversies take up almost the entire article. I don't understand the desire to try and go further and subvert the biography of living persons policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexVegaEsquire (talk • contribs) 02:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
- Start-Class AfC articles
- AfC submissions by date/14 December 2016
- Accepted AfC submissions
- Start-Class biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Start-Class Crime-related articles
- Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- Start-Class Journalism articles
- Unknown-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles