This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
To editor Tuckerlieberman: The first seven citations are about this legal issue. The other twenty citations are specifically about one former President who still lives rent-free in the minds of many. Note how Valjean brazenly spammed user talk pages with an announcement about this screed. I am well aware of the political leanings of the average editor on this website, but I decry such shameful partisanship. We cannot write an actual encyclopedia when we tolerate such slant. Chris Troutman (talk)19:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The number of citations doesn't seem relevant to me. The section about Trump discusses a rumor, so that explains why those sentences are heavily sourced. Some types of information need more sourcing than others.
However, to me, the original length of the paragraphs about Trump seemed disproportionate. They had some unnecessary details (e.g., exactly what he is alleged to have done with the sex workers). Nonetheless, this does provide a clear real-life example of a certain type of deliberate misrepresentation and attention redirection (e.g., when someone is asked if he was at the scene when the incident happened, he says only that he was at the scene a different night). It effectively illustrates the article topic.
So, I shortened the section on Trump to focus on the type of lie. Take a look now and see if this is any better.
@Tuckerlieberman: Your edit is much better than the original though I prefer removing the section entirely because, as you can see from Valjean's user page and user talk page, the point of the article was the Trump section hence my accusation about COATRACK. Chris Troutman (talk)20:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chris, you have clearly formulated your objection as an assumption of bad faith and clear personal attack: Using an editors political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing their edits. You should be ashamed of yourself. Not only did you make a personal attack, then you protected Trump from mention. Not good, and not at all wikipedian.
I invited and welcomed improvements, and I'm not at all surprised at some reduction of that part. That's fine. (BTW, Trump didn't do anything "with" the hookers.) That anyone would even suggest total deletion of the Trump content is baffling. It's an excellent current and very notable example of the concept. In fact, most people probably learned of the concept from Comey's application of it, which was highly publicized. Deletion of highly publicized RS content is not what we do here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the root of the problem is that Chris Troutman has a guilty conscience, or in legal terms, a consciousness of guilt. So, of course this particular article triggered a defense mechanism, which resulted in a strong reaction to this page title. Then the focus changed to the subconscious desire to wear a "coat" fresh off the "rack." This is a classic case of "article envy". I believe this can be seen in the DSM-5, if one were to look it up. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 01:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I am uncomfortable with the Trump example in this article. To me, it seems there is an agenda involved. And it makes an uncontroversial subject instead contentious. Is it worth it? I think Trump should be removed and perhaps replaced with another literary example or a historical figure.---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the most notable and best-documented contemporary example, one related to national security, and our personal discomfort is not a PAG justification for any edit. In fact, it's a clear NPOV violation to allow such considerations to affect our editing, just as a young earth creationist scientist's personal beliefs should not be allowed to affect their research. If it happens, then the scientist is engaged in pseudoscience. Editors need to bow to the RS and document what they say without allowing their personal opinions and feelings to get in the way. Feelings-based and politically-based editing isn't good. Also, the "agenda" comment is an assumption of bad faith. You're better than this. If it were a comment without proper sourcing, your suspicion would be justified, but it's not. It's extremely well-sourced, as is our requirement for BLP sensitive content, per WP:Public figure. Otherwise, feel free to add other examples. We are here to build, not tear down. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me put this another way: you provided a stack of content specific to Trump which was undue. As you say, some might think this was the most obvious/ best cited example. The problem is that the example is subject to partisan bickering and one could argue that the sources cited are themselves, partisan. The example is supposed to illustrate the concept, not the concept illustrating the example. The further problem is that you haven't approached this with clean hands. Your own editing reveals your political leanings, so it's not a personal attack to say that your revealed preference shows through your editing here, in violation of WP:NPOV. I'm not trying to tell you what's true and what's not. I'm suggesting that while this topic seems notable, your approach violates COATRACK and this article should probably face deletion if not for the larger editing community, many of whom are fellow travellers. I don't have a dog in this fight except to insist on professionalism. Also, we're not here to build attack pages. Chris Troutman (talk)15:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not against a refactoring of that content. I am against complete removal. RS and notability, not partisan bickering, are what determines inclusion or exclusion. (And sources are never required to be "neutral".) The topic of this article is obviously notable enough for its own article, so an AFD would be a bad faith, unwikipedian, move. Don't throw around concepts like "attack page" that do not remotely apply.
I would appreciate it if you focused on content and not on editors. You know better. We all have our opinions and backgrounds. No one is truly neutral, even though we try to be so when editing. You have admitted the same, so look in the mirror. Your accusations rebound on yourself. Please AGF and stop casting aspersions. Your quarrel is with RS, not me. I did not add any of my own opinions. I added very carefully sourced content, and expected that other editors would help to improve that content. They are doing so, and that's fine. I do not own this article, and I invited a broad group of editors to improve it, if they felt like doing so. I did not invite unwikipedian sabotage and personal attacks. You are better than this. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to your claims: "an AFD would be a bad faith, unwikipedian, move" We routinely have deletion discussions so long as criterion is met. "Don't throw around concepts like "attack page" that do not remotely apply."Wikipedia:Attack page is a policy. It applies to all articles. "I would appreciate it if you focused on content and not on editors." I'm focused on your COATRACK. Your editing is germane to the point. "No one is truly neutral, even though we try to be so when editing. You have admitted the same, so look in the mirror." Unlike you, I don't bring my personal beliefs and preferences into editing. "Your accusations rebound on yourself." A childish reply, guy who cannot admit wrongdoing. "Please AGF and stop casting aspersions. Your quarrel is with RS, not me." I'm not going to assume that even though you announce on your user page and user talk page your partisan derangement that surely that had nothing to do with the slanted way you constructed this article. Don't claim that the sources made you write it. "I did not add any of my own opinions. I added very carefully sourced content, and expected that other editors would help to improve that content." You chose sources to feed your preferred narrative and then you spammed a dozen talk pages in misplaced triumphalism. "You are better than this." No, I'm not. Don't appeal as if you hold the superior moral position, because my integrity is not compromised. Chris Troutman (talk)19:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the Trump example is UNDUE. With undue, sources can be available, as with this article, but the UNDUE item does not carry the weight to be included in the topic. Since Trump is undue then I think he needs to be removed. So, that is two editors versus one at this time. Also, WP:NOTADVOCACY applies. And if this goes to AfD as an attack page or a Coatrack, so be it. I will support deletion. I know we get along Valjean, but on this we disagree. --Steve Quinn (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I didn't point fingers and say you have an agenda. I said I think there is an agenda involved. As a long-time Wikipedia editor in good standing (although I don't like saying that) I am allowed to assess a situation as I see it. I am not and did not accuse you of anything. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, at present, the number of citations for the Trump example still inordinately exceed the number of citations for the other examples. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although far more citations are required by BLP for a controversial living person than for the other content, I have removed quite a few refs and significantly reduced the size of the coverage, while keeping enough context and cites to not violate BLP. We're still dealing with the most notable, highly publicized, and solidly documented and sourced example in contemporary history, so complete removal is not justified, especially citing a rubber guideline like DUE. It's obviously due per many criteria and PAG, and it would seem strange to leave it out. We don't want to be viewed as engaging in partisan whitewashing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's compare the examples. First there is Dostoyevsky's Rodion Raskolnikov. Next is Hamlet. After that is who? Such a deep, complex, and opaquely dark character that he is sure to be a classical lesson for the ages (hardly). These three things do not go together. And you are the only one mentioning "national security threat," "partisan whitewashing," and the like. What does partisan whitewashing and national security threat have to do with this topic? Give me a break. Please. He is indeed UNDUE. And he needs to be returned to his Bio and Presidency pages. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although none of the wikilawyering, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, or lack of a consensus to exclude are convincing, in the interests of calming the waters, I'm removing the mention of Trump. The Trump exception rule prevails, yet again. Continuation of this thread is unlikely to shed more light, only heat, and that's not good. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
