User talk:Nicetry8

Welcome!

Hello, Nicetry8, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Greg Kelly, have removed content without an explanation. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and how to develop articles
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• Article wizard for creating new articles
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Flyer22 (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Greg Kelly

Hello Nicetry8. I noticed you keep adding additional material about the BuzzFeed page to the Greg Kelly article. When editing articles, Wikipedia allows editors to include an "Edit summary", which can be used to explain why certain changes are being made to articles. When you look at the history for the article in question, you'll see that I removed some material about the BuzzFeed page for the following reason: "Two paragraphs about the rape accusation is too much. After all, Kelly was not charged. Even mentioning the BuzzFeed article may be too much." Your edits seem to indicate that you disagree with my reasoning. In my opinion summarizing what the BuzzFeed page contains, as you did, is disproportionate. All allegations were dropped and Kelly was not charged. Please share your thoughts. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. But the saga of what happened with Greg Kelly in January/February of 2012 included much more than an investigation and a closed case with him going back to work smelling like roses. People have a right to know who he is, what he did, and who he is associates with. Your submissions make it seem the girl filed a false report, which is what Kelly's camp worked so hard to make sure News Corp outlets conveyed. Jessica Testa's article about Maria conveys exactly what the NY Press was shielding.

If the "saga of what happened" included more than an investigation, you can include information about this in the article, but this would require reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. His accuser is one of the parties involved; not third-party. When you write that people "have a right to know who he is, what he did", you appear to be implying that he did something problematic. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It does not publish original research and material needs to be verifiable. Per WP:BLPCRIME, a person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. There is no room for accusatory statements in Wikipedia. When you write "timeline of events, as remembered by accuser, and the re-victimization of the accuser" you either mean that the accuser feels re-victimized or that BuzzFeed writes she was re-victimized. The text you wrote is suitable for neither. If you mean the former, the phrase needs to be rewritten, because the current text is multi-interpretable and could read as if BuzzFeed writes she was re-victimized. If you mean the latter, that would mean BuzzFeed claims she was re-victimized, which would imply she was a victim in the past. If she was a victim in the past, there was a culprit, and given the context this would be Greg Kelly, and a person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. Equally problematic is your text "most notably by the New York Post. The New York Post and Fox 5 New York WNYW (Kelly's employer) are both owned by News Corp." The main problem is, once again, what you're implying. Another problem is that a (named) reference is missing. If your opinion is that "Kelly's camp worked so hard to make sure News Corp outlets conveyed" something that is either inaccurate or lacks noteworthy information that you believe should be in the article to make the current material about the accusations in the article (more) neutral, you'll need those reliable, third-party sources. "According to the accuser, she was re-victimized [...]", for example, would be more acceptable. Similarly, "The New York Post and Fox 5 New York WNYW (Kelly's employer) are both owned by News Corp." cannot stay in the article, because it implies something that isn't explained nor sourced. I do not want to - and cannot (per WP guidelines/policy) - keep removing your text, so if you choose to not rewrite or remove it, I will ask a for a third opinion from another editor. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, ask for a third opinion. Maria's reputation should not continued to be tarnished and her legacy be that of a "criminal" i.e. reporting a false crime, as articles such as Andrea Peyser's and others by the NY Post (his company) more than suggests. She too is innocent in all of this.

Response to third opinion request (Disagreement about whether material should be included, and if so, if it should be re-written):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on User:Nicetry8 and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

I have read the article and the prior edits carefully. In my opinion, there are several problems with the material that has been added by NiceTry8. First: speaking of "the re-victimization of the accuser in the New York City press" is a possibly libelous statement, since it was never determined that she was in fact victimized a first time. Second: even if "re-victimization" were replaced with another word, it still speaks of "the victimization of the accuser in the press" as if it were a matter of encyclopedic fact, when it is a matter of opinion and subjective interpretation. Such a statement is not appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia-type reference. If the press said "X and Y," then (assuming it were relevant here) it should be stated as a matter of fact what they indeed said. Third: the sentence "The New York Post and Fox 5 New York WNYW (Kelly's employer) are both owned by News Corp" seems like too much of a detour in what is supposed to be a biographic article. It is a clear invitation for the reader to wonder about the involvement (or possible shared bad motives) of these news corporations. A biography of a living person is not really the place to conduct a mini-trial of two news corporations. IMO, that sentence should be removed and the statement about Buzzfeed condensed to one sentence. Keeping a single sentence reference at the end of the paragraph is a good compromise. After all, every person who makes a public accusation has a story to tell, and a biographic article of the person they accused is not ordinarily the place to insert statements bolstering or impeaching either the personal character or believability of the accusers, or the merits of their accusations. To do so will risk having articles devolve into pure "character trials," with a parade of sources lined up on either side, and spilling into the text of the article. I can fully understand and appreciate the desire of Nicetry8 to ameliorate some of the damage that was done to the accuser's personal character as a result of her encounter with the press. That is a noble goal. However, the article on Greg Kelly is not the most appropriate space to do this. For the above reasons, I support reverting the current version of the page back to IP 82.136.210.153's suggested version here: [1]. Xanthis (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree to the compromise. What the third party has said makes prefect sense. Have a great day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicetry8 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 25 January 2015‎ (UTC)

Xanthis, thank you for your third party input. Nicetry8, can you please undo your last edit of the Greg Kelly article to bring it back to the state where it mentions the BuzzFeed article but not the statements about "re-victimization" and such? Thank you in advance. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 06:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)