Talk:Justin Fairfax

Semi Protection Status?

Since this person could likely be assuming the office of governor soon as the result of a scandal involving the incumbent, this article should receive protection from potential vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.190.183.221 (talk) 04:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Assault allegations widely reported

An edit about allegations against Fairfax was reverted on grounds of poor sourcing violating WP:BLP. While the allegations are unconfirmed, they are being widely reported, as supported by inline citations to the Washington Post and Richmond (Va.) Times-Dispatch (the newspaper of record in the Virginia state capitol). Per WP:BLP, "When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." This has now occurred. While the allegation of assault has not been corroborated, the Post, the Times-Dispatch, and Lt. Gov. Fairfax (as quoted) all confirm that the allegation has been made and that Fairfax had a sexual encounter with the woman making the allegation. This is no more (or less) verified than many other public claims of sexual assault. I am restoring the edit, as the edit does not indicate that the assault actually happened. If further wording is needed to clarify the section, then please improve it. GeoGreg (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• GeoGreg, do NOT restore that edit. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• I'm telling you, that won't end well. The Post reports that allegations are made but cannot corroborate them; that should be enough for us to exclude the content for now. If we report everything that's alleged, there's no end to it. I suggest you post at WP:BLPN to find consensus, but in the meantime, there is no rush (because NOTNEWS), and I will not hesitate to revert and lock the article. UPDATE: I reverted and locked the article, obviously. Next time, please pay attention when an admin invokes the BLP. Drmies (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Drmies I didn't see that you were an admin before I reverted. Apologies for that; I've been an editor for over 15 years, and I always try to respect the process. As you suggest, I will take the question elsewhere while the story continues to blow up in various mainstream sources. GeoGreg (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
    • That's alright. The story, or the story of the story, is indeed all over the interwebs, but in cases such as this it's better to be safe then to be sorry. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
      • I wish we had shown the same restraint for Judge Kavanaugh. We are at the point where this article needs some mention of this story, albeit worded very conservatively. I suppose if Northam does not resign this story may die, but if Fairfax becomes Governor then right wing groups will not let it go. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
        • The sexual assault allegations have been reported by HuffPost[1], CNN[2], Daily Beast[3], Slate[4], and Vox[5]. CBS, The New York Times, The Hill and many other mainstream reliable sources also report on it. Why is there no mention of it in the article? D.Belford (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
          • Personally I don't think unsubstantiated sexual misconduct allegations should ever feature in a biographical article unless they are particularly notable (say, causing someone to resign). Unfortunately that's not really the de facto standard that has emerged on Wikipedia. Take this content at Steve Watkins (politician), which was actually restored by an administrator. When it comes to whether sexual misconduct allegations will be included or removed from an article, it looks like the article subject's political party may be a factor. Yuck. Marquardtika (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

            Marquardtika, since the administrator you're referring to is me, I will have to state that Watkins' political affiliation had nothing to do with that revert. I would lean towards including the allegation on this page, and Fairfax is a member of the other party. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

            • That was a disgusting edit Muboshgu. To elaborate, we now have a prominent mention on a BLP describing someone as a predator, according to only one uncorroborated report, with zero evidence. BLP requires better of us. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

              • My point is that Wikipedia evidently lacks an objective standard when it comes to whether or not we should include uncorroborated claims of sexual misconduct against article subjects. Each case seems to be treated differently, at the whim of whoever is editing a particular page. If someone wants to remove something, it's "BLP! BLP!" but if someone wants to include something, it's "RS! RS! RS!" We need to deal with the fact that yes, things can be reported in RS, but no, that doesn't mean we need to include all of these things in articles, and we certainly don't need to do it right this minute! Marquardtika (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

                Marquardtika, that is a fair point. It's difficult to bridge the "BLP vs RS' divide on this issue here in the days of the Me too movement. This is the sort of thing that requires a larger community discussion on the village pump or BLP/N. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@D.Belford:, regarding the "fuck that bitch" anecdote, he denies it, his chief of staff denies it. There's no benefit to including it that would override the WP:BLP concerns. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The "fuck that bitch" comment has not just been widely reported, it has also been widely reported in various mainstream reliable sources, there is no reason to not include it in the article. Like an admin said above, once the story begins being reported in various mainstream sources it's fine to include the information. D.Belford (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment on including sexual assault allegation

Should this article include a mention of the sexual assault allegation against Justin Fairfax? Instaurare (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. The allegation is being widely covered by dozens of reputable sources, including the Washington Post, New York Times, Fox News, CNN, and many others. Fairfax himself has commented on it, which I think seals the deal for including it in the article. Any mention of it should closely mirror what the citations say about the situation. Instaurare (talk) 08:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes but very short and worded conservatively, emphasizing the denial by Fairfax. And with much better sourcing than Washington Times - here's WaPo, BBC, and NYT. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes Fairfax denials should be included alongside the fact the alleged victim approached the Washington Post with her story back in 2017 between Fairfax's election in November and his inauguration in January of 2018. D.Belford (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes justin fairfaxs accuser hires law-firm that represented christine blasey-ford during Bret Kavanaugh's Supreme Court confirmation process

https://nypost.com/2019/02/05/justin-fairfaxs-accuser-hires-law-firm-that-represented-christine-blasey-ford/ 108.12.52.29 (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yes More recent than the Kavanaugh allegations and those were added and are still on his page, and more credible as he admits to having sex with the woman albeit consensual. Psalms79;6-7 (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes per Mr Ernie and D.Belford. This has been reported in mainstream sources and Fairfax's denial (and allegations against the Washington Post) should be included as well. Can't see any reasons to make this page yet another extension of the DNC. - DoubleCross (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)