Talk:Monty Bennett

Advertisement / Conflict of Interest

This article has major issues. Many parts of it are written like an advertisement ("In 2011, he received the "Top-Performing CEO" award. The award is given to the top hospitality industry CEO, which is measured based on a blend of shareholder value, CEO compensation, stock appreciation, and company growth."), and there may be one or more contributors who are connected to the subject. -Julian (talk) 06:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

advertisement template message

The top template message on the article currently reads "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement." Today I rewrote the article to be written as an encyclopedia article instead of promotional. I'm removing this flag now, please let me know if any concerns. --Sal2017 (talk) 00:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the improvements. I think the COI tag can go now too. Marquardtika (talk) 03:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a huge improvement — thanks for your work. — Julian Bennett Holmes (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

"owned property with Congressman Gooden"

Currently, this article states that he owns land with Congressman Gooden. It cites a 2018 article published by The Texas Tribune. However, a 2020 article by East Central Texas News, which cites another news source - Dallas Cit Wire - indicates that he does not own property with Gooden *anymore*. As such, I am making this change in the text of the article. Biographies of living persons need to be accurate. --Sal2017 (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Dallas City Wire is not a reputable source. It is associated with Metric Media, a "pink slime" network. Correctlee (talk) 23:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, the person who made this talk post and removed the mention of his ownership of property with Lance Gooden has been banned for being a sock puppet. It seems like this edit should be rolled back. Correctlee (talk) 13:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

What do recent WP:BESTSOURCES say about Bennett and Gooden? Llll5032 (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Edit Request

I am counsel for Monty Bennett, its publisher. On February 9, 2022, we wrote to the Wikipedia Information Team a letter detailing the false and defamatory statements contained on the Wikipedia page for Mr. Bennett, and requesting that these false statements be taken down. On February 24, 2022, we received a response, from Bryce Cunningham with the Wikimedia Foundation Legal Department, directing us to pursue our request through this communication channel. I am writing in accordance with Mr. Cunningham's suggestion. It is my client's strong desire to resolve this matter not through legal threats but rather through a good faith dialogue about the problems, outlined below, with the Wikipedia page. Thank you for your consideration of our request.

Mr. Bennett's Wikipedia page contains false material. Wikipedia falsely reports allegations purportedly made by The New York Times by stating that The New York Times reported that Mr. Bennett “paid” for articles reported by a “network of pink-slime outlets run by Brian Timpone.” The New York Times article does not allege that Mr. Bennett “paid” for articles and, in fact, Mr. Bennett did no such thing. All assertions by Wikipedia that Mr. Bennett paid for content are false and should be immediately removed. If requested, Mr. Bennett will provide an affidavit attesting to the fact that he never paid for content about himself, his companies, other news outlets, or his creditors.

Mr. Bennett's Wikipedia page also represents that various publications have portrayed The Dallas Express, an online newspaper published by Mr. Bennett, as being "part of a network of right-wing 'pink-slime' websites." The Dallas Weekly's statements are the subject of defamation litigation in Henderson County. The Henderson County, Texas court just denied a motion to dismiss by The Dallas Weekly and, by doing so, the Court concluded that The Dallas Express and Mr. Bennett established a case of defamation by clear and specific evidence and that The Dallas Weekly could not establish a defense to The Dallas Express's and Mr. Bennett's defamation claims as a matter of law.

And, although the Columbia Journalism Review published an article about various media organizations, including Metric Media, it did not name The Dallas Express as “part of a network of right-wing ‘pink slime’ websites.” See https://www.cjr.org/tow_center_reports/hundreds-of-pink-slime-local-news-outlets-are-distributing-algorithmic-stories-conservative-talking-points.php (last visited Jan. 25, 2022). The statement that The Dallas Express is mentioned in a Columbia Journalism Review article is demonstrably inaccurate. Further, the statement that D Magazine described The Dallas Express as right-wing is false. And the allegation that The Dallas Express is a part of a network of "pink slime" websites is similarly untrue.

Finally, Wikipedia’s description of The Dallas Express as “pink slime” is false by Wikipedia’s own definition of that term. Wikipedia’s “pink slime” page was written by Ms. White, the editor of this page, who described “pink slime” as “a practice in which news outlets which appear to be local publish poor-quality news reports, often to push a right-wing agenda and gather user data.” She further contends that those “reports are either computer-generated or written by poorly-paid outsourced writers, often using fake names,” and “are dedicated news websites that are ostensibly local, but are run by networks creating and sharing pink-slime content.” None of those statements is true about The Dallas Express. It is run by Mr. Bennett—a local Dallas businessman—and contains factual content that is not auto-generated or obtained from a “network creating and sharing pink-slime content.”

As outlined above, I request that Wikipedia remove the false information published on Mr. Bennett's webpage. 209.170.235.35 (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that much of the content you mentioned above was not adequately sourced. I removed some content per WP:BLPRESTORE. Please always, always try the talk page first before threatening legal action. Marquardtika (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for making corrections on this page. At the same time that we requested corrections to Mr. Bennett's page, we also submitted a request for corrections to the Dallas Express (established 2021) Wikipedia page that contained similar errors. We would appreciate it if you would visit the talk page of that Wikipedia page and make similar corrections. Thank you for your consideration of this request. 38.104.36.146 (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

We write again to reurge the request made above on March 10, 2022. We respectfully request that the changes be made to this page no later than May 2, 2022. Thank you in advance for your consideration. 38.104.36.146 (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Failed verification with respect to election fraud investigation

The source provided for the election fraud investigation makes no mention of Bennett. Absent a source finding this subject responsible for involvement in election fraud, this line should be struck. BD2412 T 18:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Concerns regarding independence of reporting by Steven Monacelli

Having found that Steven Monacelli was sued by Bennett for statements authored by Monacelli regarding Bennett's purchase of the Dallas Express website, I am dubious that Monacelli (or Dallas Weekly) can be considered independent of the article subject here in their subsequent converage of the subject. Are there any other sources reporting these assertions? BD2412 T 20:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Hearing no response, I am actioning this concern. BD2412 T 13:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Multiple sources have offered similar assertions:

https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2021/01/dallas-express-historic-black-owned-newspaper-has-become-dubious-news-site/

https://www.cjr.org/tow_center_reports/tow-center-audience-study-reader-perspectives-on-local-partisan-news-sites.php Correctlee (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

A journalist simply being sued does not mean that there was an issue with that journalist's work. It would be a different matter if Bennett prevails on any of his claims, but to my knowledge that has yet to happen. Otherwise it would be trivial for individuals/companies to simply file frivolous lawsuits against journalists/outlets who reported unfavorably on them in order to eliminate those reports as usable sources.

Note that this has been discussed in the past, because there used to be a footnote at WP:V that "material (including but not limited to news reports, books, articles and other publications) involved in or struck down by litigation in any country, or released by parties involved in litigation against other involved parties, during, before or after the litigation" constituted a "conflicted source". This was removed by community consensus in 2020. I've also seen a lot of conversations about this topic at Talk:Project Veritas — namely, whether outlets sued by or targeted for "exposés" by PV should be disqualified as reliable sources on the subject — where consensus routinely finds that that is not sufficient. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Also note "Dallas Weekly Defeats Libel Claims Brought by Conservative Donor". GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I am concerned about this instance primarily because Monacelli has apparently written with an editorial tone condemning Bennett (the defense to the libel suit was basically that Monacelli was expressing opinions rather than reporting facts) rather than a journalistic tone. The Bloomberg piece seems to confirm that. I certainly see no reason to rely on anything written by this individual if there are sources available that do not bear this infirmity. Moreover, the subject of this article is primarily notable as a real estate figure. Their activity as a "publisher" of a website (I see no indication that the "publication" has any existence in print) is rather insignificant in the encyclopedic scheme of things. BD2412 T 20:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The weight it's being given in the article seems appropriate given the amount of sourcing covering Bennett's foray into media. If you think including it in the lead is too much weight, it's fine with me if that sentence is removed; I simply left it there because you added it.

As for "expressing opinions", the court found that "'right wing propaganda' statement was an assertion of opinion and constitutionally protected. Bennett argued that this statement was 'objectively false' rather than a non-actionable opinion, but the court disagreed." That's quite a bit narrower than describing the whole article as opinion, as you're suggesting. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I did add the line to the lede, but just to have the lede better reflect the contents; I did not intend it as an endorsement of the content. In retrospect, I think it's a bit absurd to call Bennett a "publisher" at all; he basically owns a domain name and may as well be a blogger (or, at any rate, a host for guest bloggers). Again, I see no reason to use Monacelli as a source at all when there are better sources reporting on the issue. I feel that if we use Monacelli as a reference, then providing the full picture would also require noting that Bennett sued Monacelli, and that the courts found the complained-of speech to be Monicelli's opinion. It is also noteworthy that Dallas Weekly is a competitor in the same market, and that since the lawsuit Monacelli has focused on Bennett's utterly non-notable website with a fervor that appears rather vitriolic. However, providing that context would render the section grossly disproportionate to the article, which is why I think the best course of action would be to use the better sources that are unconnected with Dallas Weekly or Monacelli. Lastly, I do think that it is better to pull the contested content out of the article while this matter is under discussion. This article is currently averaging 18 page views per day, which for Wikipedia is borderline statistical noise. No one will particularly be missing out for the time it takes to come to a globally agreeable solution. BD2412 T 22:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

It's just a blog? A domain name? The subtitle is "the people's paper". Their 'about' page literally talks about "our journalistic standards" and angles themselves as a publisher. And, as you said, they're competition to Dallas Weekly. It seems like taking both sides of an argument. A sourced paragraph seems more valid all the time, especially after some Streisand effect comes into play. tedder (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I have no objection to the lawsuit being added (and the fact that it was dismissed) since there is quite a solid RS for it (Bloomberg Law). But the rest of your comment seems to be reflection of your own personal opinions rather than anything that (as far as I can see) has been reported in RS. I'm also not really sure why Monacelli's actions post-lawsuit are even particularly relevant here — even if his behavior did change as you claim — given that the sources in question predate that. Surely the lawsuit did not retroactively bias articles that Monacelli had already published. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The "March 2023 report" referenced in the article, post-dating the lawsuit, is also by Monacelli (writing for a different paper). Again, there are plenty of sources that are not this one reporter with motivation that might reasonably be questioned by the reader. I think this also goes to Tedder's objection, as does the fact that literally anyone can buy a domain name and put it under a header calling it a "newspaper" (or an "encyclopedia", if they wish), and make it an aggregator of some kind of content. I expect that Tedder would not consider Dallas Express as a reliable source (or much of a source at all), even though it asserts editorial standards. If a local reporter reacts as if this is a threat, that is beyond our control, but invoking the "Streisand effect" sounds like a suggestion that Wikipedia should make a point of boosting this non-notable website in order to render it notable, which is beyond our purpose. BD2412 T 01:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

(Moving left) Wait, now it needs to be a reliable source to be deemed worthy of mention? And for a paragraph in a bio? tedder (talk) 05:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Tedder: Reread the concern I have raised more carefully. My objection is to relying specifically on the editorial characterizations of a single writer, rather than using more reliable sources for the same point. As for the website, the lawsuit is clearly more noteworthy than the website itself, and our purpose as an encyclopedia is not to foment some sort of Streisand effect to try to promote a forced notability on something run-of-the-mill. BD2412 T 12:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I raised my concerns about this specific journalist at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Concern regarding independence of an editorializing reporter, and it was brought to my attention that their work in this area has required correction by newspapers, and apparently led to their termination from one. I do not think there is any justification for confidence in their potential use as a source. BD2412 T 23:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

That RSN discussion showed me plenty of potential issues with that writer as a source for anything. I restored the page back to where it was prior to introducing the source. Of course it can always be discussed per WP:ONUS but like I said in at RSN, this looks like an off-wiki dispute that is leaking onto Wikipedia. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not clear on the rationale behind your revert — if consensus is that Monacelli's reporting is not usable, that's one thing, but BD2412 had already edited the page to a revision where his reporting was not being used. Your edit removed other additions, from sources including Bloomberg Law. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

It is more like coatracking information about the Dallas Express on a BLP. Having him owning the publication seems appropriate, but we are starting to go down a rabbit hole with their off-wiki back and forth. Do you have a recommendation for different wording? --CNMall41 (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I would leave the sentence: In February 2021, Bennett announced his acquisition of the website Dallas Express, which was identified by D Magazine as having previously been part of Timpone's Metric Media network. The bit about the lawsuit I could take or leave.

Also, User:BD2412 I disagree with this edit: [1]. There seems to be pretty substantial potential for confusion given the prominence of the former publication. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. I am just wondering if it is leading the horse to water with such a statement. My appetite for Wikipedia being a place to air personal grievances is no longer there. I don't see a huge issue per se, but curious as to the reasoning. As far as the diff for the edit by BD2412, it looks like that publication ceased in the 1970s so not sure why it would be confusing or why it would even be our job to distinguish it for people. We already do that by saying it was "launched in 2021." --CNMall41 (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would agree with leaving in that quoted sentence about the acquisition of the website. The lawsuit is typical of the business of news outlets, which sue and get sued all the time over non-notable matters. We generally don't include these matters of fleeting importance. As for the mention of the former newspaper, I think they're basically different animals. The mid-Twentieth century publication was a newspaper, and was only ever in print (there was no other medium then), while the current one is exclusively a website, with no print existence (no matter how it fancies itself). I have seen nothing that suggests that the use of the name is intended as a callback to the newspaper, or has in any way been promoted by the website as such, nor do I imagine anyone coming here and looking at this article on a Trump-supporting realtor and wondering if these things are related. I am not strenuously tied to not having a mention of the past newspaper, I just see it as pointless verbiage. BD2412 T 22:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so now my question is was the website purchased or was it launched as a new website? The reference current states "which launched earlier this year." Is there anything showing if it was purchased from Metric Media or if was launched as a new site. The reference above states "relied on the same technology stack and writers as the Metric Media sites" but does not say it was one of them in that network. I guess I am confused now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CNMall41 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

This helps untangle things a bit. It was (is?) a Metric Media site, but Bennett's involvement as publisher was not originally known. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My thought around explicitly distinguishing them is primarily driven by the fact that RS have felt the need to (e.g. [2], [3]

They have also made the callback/promoted themselves as somehow tied to the original: see this press release where they write, "continue in the goal of the original Dallas Express, founded in 1892.... 'This is a newspaper that has a long history in the community. We seek to continue along that path, and we are happy to have a brand-new team on board! ... We are proud to have reopened such a historic newspaper.'" etc. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Seems they have. However, anyone can say anything in a press release which is why do not use them as sources. I also have concerns with D Magazine as they have corrected one of the references you listed as well as two others relative to this subject. It almost feels like we are looking to include something that then trying to find sources to support instead of the other way around. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Given that press release, it is not unreasonable to mention the absence of an actual relationship, though. BD2412 T 22:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Currently, the paragraph reads, "Bennett is the publisher of the Dallas Express, a daily newspaper launched in 2021 that covers news in Dallas, Texas.[10] In October 2020, The New York Times reported that Bennett had pitched a media network run by Brian Timpone to publish articles about topics ranging from COVID-19 stimulus legislation to U.S.–China policy.[11][12][8]" To make it easier, what would be the proposed wording for that paragraph based on the discussion we are having? Would probably be best to review it as a whole. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest going back to something like what was there before. Such as:

In October 2020, The New York Times reported that Bennett had pitched a media network run by Brian Timpone to publish articles about topics ranging from COVID-19 stimulus legislation to U.S.–China policy. In February 2021, Bennett announced his acquisition of the website Dallas Express (unrelated to the former African American newspaper of the same name), which was identified by D Magazine as having been part of Timpone's Metric Media network.

Although now that I'm reading that first sentence again, we might want to make a tweak to the wording, which at first reads to me as though Bennett pitched the idea of starting a media network to Timpone. That's a bit of a separate matter, though. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

All things considered, I am fine with that. I think there's also a question of whether it goes in the career or the politics section. Alternately, we could just include his politics under personal life. BD2412 T 22:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

"Identified by D Magazine as having been part of Timpone's Metric Media network" is a correct statement as the source does identify it as such. But, it's misleading as this reference says something different. I would remove that line altogether. Also, why are we still saying "unrelated to" when there isn't a need? Are we using it to refute the press release made by the newspaper? --CNMall41 (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I would also keep it under career since it is part of his business dealings.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The press release is kind of an instance of "making your own bed". I still don't think anyone coming to this page will be confused into thinking a relationship exists (we're also not saying "The Dallas Express issued a press release invoking the old newspaper), or really have any idea that there ever was a newspaper by this name. However, I certainly see the case for it. BD2412 T 23:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia used to be a simpler place. I get what you are both saying. We aren't necessarily editorializing it, just distinguishing it. That's fine. I would just do away with the part that says "which was identified by D Magazine as having previously been part of Timpone's Metric Media network" as we have one source saying it (a source that has corrected several articles on this subject) and one source that doesn't. With a BLP, I would rather err on the side of caution. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Which is the source that doesn't? If you're referring to the CJR source, "relied on the same technology stack and writers as the Metric Media sites" seems like it would corroborate that DE is part of the MM network rather than refuting it. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The full quote from the CJR article is "which launched earlier this year and relied on the same technology stack and writers as the Metric Media sites." This seems to conflict as it seems as it is a new website, not one purchased from Timpone. If it had confirmed it was part of the network, it likely would have said so instead of just saying it relied on the same technology. The reference leads readers to a conclusion without actually making it and it probably was part of the network, but I don't see being able to use it in a BLP from a single source that has already run corrections for the subject. Again, better to be more cautious as its BLP. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

This is an awful lot of digital ink to be spilling over a rather picayune point regarding a subject who is just over the line of notability themselves, who averages fewer than two dozen views per day. BD2412 T 00:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I have added the portion of the text above which appears to be undisputed by everyone. As a compromise on the language about the current paper being unrelated to the former one, I have added that as a footnote. BD2412 T 04:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Another data point for confusion between the contemporary and historical papers: a radio broadcast by Texas Public Radio titled "Pink Slime news is spreading in news deserts". At 20:19:

David Martin Davies: In Dallas, there was Dallas Express, which was for over eighty years operated as a black-owned, weekly progressive newspaper that covered the fight for civil rights, Jim Crow, and segregation. And then it went out of business in the seventies but it's been relaunched as a pink slime newspaper. But people think it's somehow connected to the old Dallas Express. Is that a tactic that they're using now, to try to capitalize off of old, earned trust?
Priyanjana Bengani: I can't say for sure, but what I can say is that if you go to Wikipedia and you look up "Dallas Express", it shows you the historic website, it doesn't talk about the new website at all. So if someone were to go onto the Wikipedia page to kind of check what's going on there, they might believe that it still has associations to the old, historic black newspaper.

GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

BD2412, per the March 2023 report from Monacelli which includes information provided exclusively by the Tow Center at Columbia specifically notes a recent article in the Dallas Express in which the new website directly associates itself with the legacy newspaper despite having denied that association in court: https://dallasexpress.com/city/dallas-express-history-champion-of-justice-messenger-of-hope/

Burying this distinction creates confusion for any casual reader who seeks to understand this website relates or does not relate to the legacy publication.

Regarding the alleged unreliability of Monacelli's reporting, he has publicly commented on his dispute with the Dallas Observer over their choice to add an editorial note that does not challenge the underlying facts of Monacelli's reporting on Dallas Express. He was "fired" because he disagreed with the Dallas Observer's language choice for the note and their decision to add it without discussing it with him, not because he had written unreliable reports: https://www.patreon.com/posts/special-update-55589249

There are no other noted examples of Monacelli's reporting being corrected. Monacelli has contributed to many highly reputable outlets. Correctlee (talk) 12:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Correctlee: It frankly seems odd to me that the entire corpus of your sum total of ten Wikipedia edits appear to be geared towards defending the reporting of one Steve Monacelli, citing a post itself previously tweeted by Steve Monacelli. As for the relationship between the papers, that is adequately addressed in a footnote visible to the frankly stunningly low readership of this article (in the past year it has literally averaged one view per day, and that is with the substantial bolstering provided by a handful of now-expired discussions about the page. Even relative to the light and localized coverage of fretting over the website's association with the defunct newspaper, I have yet to see a scintilla of evidence that the website has any reach or influence at all, amidst hte ecosystem of tens of thousands of conservative websites. BD2412 T 20:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

If you read the corpus of my contributions, they are in fact focused on the subject of the Dallas Express, which incidentally relates to Steven Monacelli given he has reported on the subject. I'm not sure how my posts can be construed as "defending" Monacelli other than bringing up relevant pieces of information that I believe you've missed or have claimed do not exist.

If you believe my contributions are not factual or are irrelevant, that's a judgement you're free to make. If I were to so baselessly speculate about your contributions to this subject, I might suggest that you have some bias that leads you to want to bury unflattering facts about this website. But I don't believe you're acting in good faith and I would appreciate reciprocity on the matter.

As for your claim that this website is not influential or notable, they now boast over 884k followers on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/TheDallasExpress?mibextid=ZbWKwL) and 3 million views per month (https://dallasexpress.com/city/dx-crosses-3-million-views-a-month/). These numbers, unless they're fraudulent, suggest that this website has indeed gained traction. Correctlee (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@BD2412 my apologies for a typo in my above reply: I DO believe you're acting in good faith (I don't believe you're acting in bad faith) Correctlee (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The claims made by the website for itself carry no credibility. It's a zero-credibility website in the first place, and even entities that do have a modicum of credibility are known to use all sorts of bookkeeping tricks to inflate what counts as their "views" for marketing purpose. Have a look at the current Wikipedia page view statistics, however. Compared to well-known right-wing sites like The Gateway Pundit and Breitbart News, views for this article and Dallas Express for that matter are barely statistical noise, of the kind you see from bot sweeps indexing the pages and the like. If any appreciable number of readers were looking for the website under the title "Dallas Express", that would tend to reflect in Wikipedia page views, which are generally an excellent gauge of the real-world attention being paid to a topic. BD2412 T 16:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@BD2412 That does help explain why you don't think this is a notable organization, even if its articles are shared by the Dallas Mayor on social media. Many people may not be looking at the Dallas Express Wikipedia page specifically, but that doesn't discount the fact that the Wikipedia page is one of the top results whenever you search "Dallas Express" on Google. Providing accurate and easily accessible information about a website that is currently influencing Dallas politics seems like a reasonable request. Ideally, the information about the new Dallas Express would be either be noted in the article for the historic paper, or split off into its own Wiki.

Aside from the one correction note on an article by Monacelli that doesn't contradict any of his reporting about the Dallas Express, is there a reason you continue to oppose inclusion of his articles? The most recent one specifically notes that all of the information linking the Dallas Express and Metric Media was provided by the Tow Center, which is also linked in this article. Correctlee (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure you are aware that Wikipedia is constantly inundated with small and local businesses trying to get a Wikipedia page about themselves (or a non-salutory page about their competitors) in the encyclopedia. Because of this, we impose substantially higher standards for inclusion of companies, organizations, and providers of services than we do on individuals and many other kinds of topics. One might argue that providing "accurate and easily accessible information" about a beloved local restaurant seems like an equally reasonable request, but the purpose of the encyclopedia is not to serve as a bullhorn for the promotion of local businesses. The website is adequately noted in the historic article with a line stating that they are unrelated, and adequately noted in this article with the existing footnote to this effect. BD2412 T 20:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@BD2412

I am just now seeing that a line has been added to the Dallas Express page indicating the historic paper is not related to the current website, which is certainly an improvement. Would you support the inclusion of the additional links and context that are referenced in this talk page on the Dallas Express Wiki? No need to include the reports but Monacelli, given that @CNMall41 appears particularly adamant in their opposition to those sources being included (although their criticism, if taken as fact, would mean discounting articles from WIRED, Rolling Stone, The Daily Beast, etc). It seems like that would be an adequate compromise that would satisfy my concerns. Correctlee (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy called WP:COATRACK which says that we don't take an article on a notable subject and try to turn it into a page promoting a non-notable subject in order to score points for or against that non-notable subject. The Dallas Express article is and should be, as entirely as possible, about the actually notable historical newspaper. BD2412 T 14:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure the relevance of a blog or website or newspaper being used by a mayor and what this has to do with its presence on Wikipedia. There is something in the Dallas Express article the distinguishes it so at this point I am not sure of what is being asked. As far as Monacelli, I started following him on Twitter when the RSN comments began and will say I would not trust anything he publishes based on his personal POV. Everything would be considered an opinion at best. I would also be leery of any publication that publishes anything based on his writings so I would not use any reference that cites work he has done for his stories. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Content on hospital care of trans minors reliant on reporting by Monacelli

I have moved the following content just added to the article here for discussion:

In May 2023, leaked documents from the American College of Pediatricians revealed a pressure campaign undertaken by Bennett using legal threats to force Dallas-area hospitals to stop treating trans minors.

References

I am beginning to wonder, is it possible to find anything being reported on this subject currently that is not being reported by Monacelli? Also, the sentence added appears to overtake the claims in the source, which itself alleges that Bennett's part in the asserted campaign was "veiled threats implying legal action", against a single hospital. This is not the same as actually "using legal threats". It is also not clear from the language whether "stop treating trans minors" means to stop providing any kind of medical services (e.g., if a trans minor sprains an ankle and needs a splint), or is limited to providing actual gender transition care. BD2412 T 20:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC) BD2412 T 20:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

If by "this subject" you mean Monty Bennett, this recent article about Bennett is not by Monacelli: https://therealdeal.com/magazine/national-may-2023/monty-bennetts-fire-and-brimstone-journey/

If you mean the topic of this specific article Monacelli co-authored, it's been republished here: https://truthout.org/articles/gop-megadonor-partnered-with-hate-group-to-defund-trans-pediatrics-in-texas/

Other than WIRED, it appears no one else has written about these specific documents. Correctlee (talk) 04:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The Real Deal article is based primarily on the "investigation" of Montacelli who we already established is not a neutral person for this subject. The Truthout took the content from the Texas Observer and repurposed it for its own site (even says Montacelli and Texas Observer). Even republished by this blog which doesn't make it any more reliable. We are not here to be a sounding board for a writer who has a beef with someone. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

On what basis are you claiming The Real Deal is based "primarily" on Monacelli's work? Which "investigation" are you referring to? It would be more accurate to say that the Real Deal article contributes its own reporting while summarizing information from a number of sources, one of which happens to be Monacelli. Correctlee (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I understand the passion to WP:RGW and this guy may be the most horrible person on the plant (maybe, I don't know), but Wikipedia needs to be written from a neutral point of view. As stated many times, Wikipedia is not here as a sounding board for an off-Wiki feud. That is the same reason why this wouldn't be used in a page on Monacelli (if he qualified for a Wikipedia page - this I don't know as I haven't checked). The article in TRD looks like a rehash of everything already stated about Bennett which was covered by Monacelli's earlier reporting in various publications (and other reporting based on Monacelli's reporting). He seems like a good journalist but at the same time the motivation seems conflicted. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Seems like an apples-to-oranges comparison to suggest that Monacelli's articles shouldn't be used for the same reason that the Dallas Express article about him.

Here's another recent article about Bennett that may be worth factoring into this page, which also cites Monacelli's reporting: https://www.expressnews.com/politics/article/hill-country-eminent-domain-case-shows-texas-18087051.php Correctlee (talk) 12:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

This section was actually about a different edit but TRD was brought up so let me ask you this. Do you have specific wording you would propose for the page based on TRD article? That may be a better place to start than everyone going back and forth. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Just for clarification, the real estate news article says nothing at all about hospital care for trans minors. BD2412 T 23:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I would recommend the following language from the TRD article, to be culled down and worded to meet Wikipedia standards: "The earliest incarnation of the Express included articles with bylines such as Bella Ferris and Andy Nghiem, writers who still contribute to the Express and whose journalistic output seems mostly confined to other Metric Media network sites. More recently, the paper has run numerous articles from a wire service called the Center Square, a news service run by the Franklin Foundation, which is in turn funded by the Koch Brothers. Media Matters calls Center Square “the latest iteration of an existing propaganda machine that dresses up a biased conservative spin as reliable news.”

Regarding the Dallas Express article you linked that is specifically about Monacelli, have you considered that the article is a part of a pattern of retaliation (including lawsuits) against Monacelli, which appears to be done to create a chilling effect around his reporting?The article includes an allegation claiming Monacelli has an "alleged history of domestic violence" but provides no information to support it. Correctlee (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes. That is the overall point here and is precisely why we would not use it. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I hate to sound like a broken record but everything proposed is about the Dallas Express, not Bennett. What specifically are you requesting to be added about Bennett?--CNMall41 (talk) 23:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I would definitely agree that the Dallas Express is not usable as a source (for anything in Wikipedia, not just this article). I think the TRD article could be used to support reporting on Bennett's political donations, which are public record in primary sources. I am not familiar with TRD as a source, and am somewhat dubious about a real estate news cite reporting on political matters, but not so much that I would object to its use for that purpose. BD2412 T 23:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure about overall excluding it as I haven't looked at its editorial standards, but the point is that we don't bring off-Wiki feuds onto Wikipedia to hash them out which is why that particular article couldn't be used (even if it was decided that Dallas Express was a reliable source). I have seen TRD cited quite a bit and there is nothing at RSN that says they are not reliable, although I haven't looked deeper into its editorial standards. I will see if there are other sources that report on his political donations so maybe we don't need to get that far. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

This may be a possible if you think the donation is significant enough. Texas Tribune also has a couple stories that mention Monacelli's work with Texas Observer and other reporting (thinking Monacelli is possibly notable with some other references I found). --CNMall41 (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

This is another possible. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

What evidence is there to suggest that Monacelli's reporting constitutes an off-wiki feud that should be excluded? The fact that he was sued unsuccessfully by a particularly noteworthy subject of a handful of his articles doesn't suggest that his reporting at reputable outlets is evidence of a holding a personal "beef." Correctlee (talk) 03:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Referencing lawsuit without linking to the article

It seems odd to a reference lawsuit about an article that was critical of the news site without actually referencing the article itself, particularly given that the lawsuit failed and that the facts of the article have not been called into question. Correctlee (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC) — Correctlee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

We also have two perfectly good sources for the lawsuit — The New York Times and the Columbia Journalism Review. If the lawsuit was based on a Facebook post (as some lawsuits are), would anyone expect that we reference the Facebook post as a source? If the direction of the lawsuit was reversed, and was based on content published in the Dallas Express, would we be expected to reference the Dallas Express as a source? BD2412 T 15:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no New York Times reference to the lawsuit, and while the Columbia Journalism Review does have an article that mentions the lawsuit, it is not referenced here.

I see your notation that I have made few edits outside of this topic. True, I've made few edits. But I've sought to engage in talk in good faith, and am one of multiple editors— two who have extensive edit histories —who have tried to reference the factual reporting from D Magazine, Columbia Journalism Review, and Texas Observer regarding the linkages between Metric Media and the Dallas Express. It seems very odd that three reputable sources all pointing to a similar set of facts are not being taken seriously in these talk threads. Correctlee (talk) 00:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

There is a Bloomberg Law article on the lawsuit, which is a reputable national source. If there was no reporting but the same local source that was involved in the lawsuit, it is highly questionable whether it would be noteworthy for inclusion at all.

We frequently note single-purpose accounts because they tend to misunderstand the purpose and function of Wikipedia. This is a general-purpose encyclopedia, and Wikipedia's articles on concepts like Electromagnetism, Tudor architecture, and Neuroptera are of vastly greater encyclopedic significance than businessmen of borderline notability. Nevertheless, dealing with the obsession that political opportunists have with using the encyclopedia to score points against those perceived to be on the "other" side from themselves occupies an absolutely mindboggling proportion of the time of editors trying to build a general-purpose encyclopedia.

When people seeking to right great wrongs of personal interest to them seek my advice, I always advise them to first make a thousand constructive edits to topics entirely outside their interest. By the time they get through doing that, they will often have learned enough about the policies of the encyclopedia to give up trying to make the changes that align with their personal interest. BD2412 T 01:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

While your advice is appreciated, it does not have any relevance to the fact that multiple editors with extensive contribution histories have sought to include a fact supported by multiple reputable outlets. I am speaking in support of their edits, which you have seemingly rejected due to your personal opinions. Correctlee (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

There are all sorts of run-of-the-mill things that get reported in sources that are not encyclopedic as to a WP:BLP. Where a highly reliable source reports something of encyclopedic significance to a WP:BLP subject, we include the relevant information with reference to that source. Here, the information is already included and referenced that the subject launched a website (though this is hardly the basis of notability for the subject, who is primarily notable as a real estate figure), that the website is conservative, that it was unfavorably reported on by a media outlet, and that the subject initiated litigation against the media outlet that was ultimately dismissed. There is not a "fact" asserted to be missing here, but an unnecessary source; there is no need to reference a low-level local source about which questions have been raised where there are higher-level sources available. Per WP:ONUS, there must be a clear consensus to add contested content to a BLP article. BD2412 T 18:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

My apologies for my lack of clarity. When I say "the fact to be asserted" what I'm referring to here is something that you've notably not allowed to be included in either the Dallas Express article (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_Express) or this article — specifically, the linkage of Metric Media, which conspicuously absent and has been removed after multiple editors have tried to make it noteworthy. To your point, there is a higher-level source that asserts this, specifically two Columbia Journalism Review articles

https://www.cjr.org/tow_center_reports/community-newsmaker-metric-media-local-news.php

https://www.cjr.org/tow_center_reports/tow-center-audience-study-reader-perspectives-on-local-partisan-news-sites.php

These articles are further supported by lower-level articles, which as you've noted are not necessary to reference in order to raise the fact that the Dallas Express and it's publisher have been linked to Metric Media in numerous ways. Correctlee (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The article already notes the involvement of Brian Timpone; the title, Metric Media, is merely a redirect to Brian Timpone, so is already covered to the degree that Wikipedia covers it. Neither Bennett's Dallas Express nor Timpone's Metric Media meets our criteria for notability as organizations, so the proposition is that we discuss how one non-notable entity relates to another non-notable entity in the context of the biography of a person who is primarily notable for being in real estate. BD2412 T 17:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Based on the level of coverage that Metric Media has received for its deceptive practices — from reputable local, regional, and national level publications — I'm not sure how it has not crossed the notability threshold. The same goes for the new version of the Dallas Express, which also has been reported on by reputable local, regional, and national public.

Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, both meet the criteria for whether they deserve stand alone pages. Both have received significant coverage from reputable outlets produced independent of the subjects, creating the presumption of notability. Both have been around for several years at this point and show no indication of going away. Correctlee (talk) 13:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Commercial entities, specifically, have a substantially higher bar to be included in the encyclopedia, per WP:NCORP, because we are constantly inundated with people trying to use Wikipedia as free advertising for their company—or as a gripe site against ones they dislike. Again, this is an encyclopedia, not a news site, not a directory. Is there any reliable general-purpose encyclopedia that has articles on Metric Media, or the Dallas Express website? BD2412 T 14:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the criteria you've referenced and it has nothing to do with the standard you've laid out in your last sentence.

When considering notability for these entities, I'm starting with the primary criteria, which reads:

1. Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.

2. Be completely independent of the article subject.

3. Meet the standard for being a reliable source.

4. Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.

Multiple journalists at multiple outlets separately and independently have written about these subjects, meaning each of their unrelated articles should be considered separate sources, even if they are writing about the same event or "story". An accumulation of local, regional, and national outlets have met the four criteria set out above. A frivolous lawsuit filed by one of the subjects doesn't negate that the criteria have been met. The onus on why these criteria are not adequately met should fall on the editors who disagree, not on an imagined criteria based on other encyclopedia

When it comes to commercial entities, I understand "editors should not create articles on commercial organizations for the purpose of overtly or covertly advertising a company. "That's clearly not the case here. In some cases the reports are not flattering, making it unreasonable to construe references to them as marketing. Correctlee (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a gripe site, either. BD2412 T 15:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia certainly is not a gripe site. It's a site with criteria that I'm trying to have a good faith dialogue about. I'm genuinely asking: how does Metric Media or the new Dallas Express not meet the criteria cited above for a stand alone page? Correctlee (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I would add that the opinions of SPA editors are generally given very little weight in determining consensus. I would repeat my advice to make a thousand constructive and substantive edits to topics entirely outside your interest before weighing in on a matter for which you clearly do have an interest. BD2412 T 18:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

First paragraph

Per WP:BRB, I added a version of a sentence about the subject's political activities, which are noted by perhaps all contemporary secondary WP:BESTSOURCES. Llll5032 (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Reference the addition, I am sure he has said a lot of things that are documented in reliable sources, but we do not editorialize it or print everything here. It's an encyclopedia, not a documentary. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

CNMall41, WP:BLPSTYLE says that we are to avoid "both understatement and overstatement", and that articles should "document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects." Does NPOV not say we follow the WP:DUEWEIGHT of secondary reliable sources? Also, can you explain more fully why you reverted the information about January 6, sourced to two RS, in the body of the article? Llll5032 (talk) 02:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm also curious about why these changes were made. Correctlee (talk) 14:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you supply a policy based reason why these quotes and statements from Bennett are more worthy of inclusion than other reliably sourced statements he has made? --CNMall41 (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not the one who added them, but the additions meet standards for biographies of living persons. Given the weight of the focus on the subject's political activities and views, the quotes are relevant. Correctlee (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, in articles we try to match the WP:WEIGHT that the most authoritative sources assign to topics regarding the subject. That is a key part of neutral point of view, which is one of the five pillars. If almost all secondary reliable sources have emphasized the politics, and some secondary reliable sources and the subject himself have noted his January 6 presence, then why would editors downplay or omit them? Llll5032 (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I restored parts but not all of the reverted text, per this discussion, WP:BRB, MOS:LEADBIO ("The lead section should summarise the life and works of the person with due weight"), and WP:ROWN. I omitted the quotation, which appears to be the part that could be questionable per CNMall41's DUEWEIGHT concerns about quotations. Llll5032 (talk) 02:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the new heading as it separates two issues with the additions. Looking closer, I do not see an issue with adding the donation part to the lead. He is a donor, primarily Republican, and it is stated in many references. Since that is part of what he is known for, the WEIGHT would be proper. I did remove the references from the lead as they are not required since it is sourced in the body. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, CNMall41, it is good that we could reach consensus on that addition. Llll5032 (talk) 05:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

January 6

How is "Bennett has said he was outside the Capitol" not a trivial detail? There is no assertion that he engaged in any noteworthy activity (organizing, fighting, entering the building) in connection with January 6. If there is a report that he entered the Capitol, I think that would cross the line into noteworthiness. BD2412 T 13:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

At least one RS devoted a whole article to what he said, and it has been mentioned in others, so it does not appear to be trivial to RS. Llll5032 (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Not particularly high-level sources, though. I don't know that we've ever had the broader discussion on their reliability for BLP reporting. BD2412 T 14:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The Real Deal has been mentioned favorably at RSN, correct? Llll5032 (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The Real Deal is a reputable national level outlet focused on real estate and real estate industry leaders. D Magazine is a reputable local/regional magazine. Neither have been raised as an issue on the RSN. I understand BLP content is scrutinized more closely but I cannot think of specific reasons why they would be viewed as unreliable or inappropriate for BLP content. Correctlee (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The Real Deal is reliable for real estate matters. The D Magazine report here is basically just a transcript of a speech, which is more churnalism than journalism. BD2412 T 17:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The Real Deal is also a reliable source of information about influential people in the real estate industry. If you think there's strong reason to believe otherwise, you should make that argument in the RNS. As for the D Magazine report, it was about a speech given by the subject of this article. Why would the subject of the article give a speech about their experience on January 6 outside the Capitol if they didn't think it was notable or nontrivial? Correctlee (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I am adding a new heading for this specific topic because it does not involve the first paragraph. Llll5032 (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The D Magazine article is NOT about his experience on January 6. It is about the media where Bennett uses that as an example for media bias. The way this is written is an attempt to link Bennett to something nefarious (which it was), but he was not involved. There is no significance to him being at Capitol other than an attempt to lead readers to believing he was involved. So again, unless there is consensus, this shouldn't be placed in the article. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The D Magazine article is indeed about Bennett recounting his experience outside the Capitol on January 6, which he used to make an argument about why he believed the coverage was wrong. It is Bennett's opinion that there is media bias, but it is fact that Bennett was outside the Capitol on January 6.

Bennett said the following, as quoted in the article:

"I was there. I know what happened. You can’t tell me what happened on January 6. I was from here to that wall [points at a wall] from the Capitol steps for two hours, along with my wife and some other friends. So many news publications came out with the most outlandish, outrageous stories." Correctlee (talk) 23:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

He is on audio speaking about his January 6 experience as one of two official speakers at a political event, aware that his words were public. If he says his experience outside the Capitol was relevant, and secondary reliable sources say it was relevant (satisfying WP:DUEWEIGHT), then what BLP interest is served by removing the proportionate sentence with such information? Llll5032 (talk) 05:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Repeating DUEWEIGHT doesn't make it DUEWEIGHT. I am still wondering how this falls under RELEVANCE. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

If you are referring to the WP:RELEVANCE essay, then the answer according to its criteria appears to be that it is of high relevance, because multiple reliable sources are quoting or citing the subject about his own experience: "The highest relevance is objective information directly about the topic of the article. 'John Smith is a member of the XYZ organization' in the 'John Smith' article is an example of this." Llll5032 (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I asked for some third opinions at BLPN. Llll5032 (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Section for Dallas Express?

I repeat from an earlier section, Wikipedia is not a gripe site. It is not a place to grind political axes—in any direction—or a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. It is a general-purpose encyclopedia with a manual of style designed specifically to insure the presentation of information in a way that is useful to readers. The introduction of excess headers, while possibly satisfying to personal desires to inflate the significance of some aspect of an individual's biography, has been objectively weighed as an annoyance to readers. BD2412 T 19:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

BD2412, I am adding a separate Talk heading for your discussion about whether the Dallas Express website merits its own section within this article.

Is the section about the Dallas Express website longer than most other sections in the article? Have a significant number of RS discussed it? I believe that the answer to both questions is yes. Llll5032 (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Is it unrelated to the subject's "political involvement"? If so, then it need not be inflated beyond that. We don't have separate sections for Braemar Hotels & Resorts or Ashford Hospitality Trust under "Real estate career", though either could undoubtedly be better supplied with sources and content. BD2412 T 20:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Is that what third-party RS say? Llll5032 (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not proposing that there should be separate subheads for Braemar Hotels & Resorts or Ashford Hospitality Trust under "Real estate career"; this is a relatively short article by Wikipedia standards, and an article of this length typically only has three or four sections in the body, as this already has. BD2412 T 00:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Removal of widely cited descriptor from lead

Per the Wikipedia manual of style, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."

The addition of the word "conservative" to describe the news site is due to it being widely cited in all top sources, including a newspaper of record. The addition of this single word concisely adds relevant context and summarizes points that are explicated at greater length later in the article without giving undue weight.

I am seeking consensus on this minor addition that I do not believe is COAT and believe is clearly DUE for top lead.

Correctlee (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

You didn't initially put conservative. You put a term that is POV-pushing. The descriptor was removed based on discussions a while back so no need to rehash.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding this talk discussion and the recent edits, the initial term used was "right-leaning," which is the phrase used by the Dallas Morning News, a paper of record.

After you removed it, I responded by changing the word to "conservative," which is effectively synonymous with "right-leaning." You then removed the word "conservative" as well.

These words have been used interchangeably by all top sources. This is neutral, non-POV language that all credible sources use. The word conservative is even used in the body text. It's unclear why this descriptor shouldn't be included in the lead, as it concisely summarizes relevant information that is later mentioned body of the text. The discussion you're referring to is about past edits, not the edits at hand. Correctlee (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

If a short term (including "conservative" or "right-leaning") is widely used by the best available sources about the subject to describe the website, then it is most neutral to include the term. Sometimes those sources can be cited in a top paragraph to confirm due weight; citing in opening paragraphs is encouraged by MOS:LEADCITE for "complex, current, or controversial subjects". Llll5032 (talk) 01:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The question is why it needs to be described as anything other than what it already is. We have already discussed the sources attempting to disparage the individual who owns the publication and why some of them cannot be used (refer to previous discussions about the writer of some of these articles). Conservative would be the best term should it be anything to use, but I still fail to see why we need to describe it more. There have been many, many attempts to get more information about the website into this BLP which is not proper imho. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

If Correctlee cites the sources here, perhaps we can agree about whether they are generally reliable per their own articles and RSN/RSP, and see how prominently they use additional descriptors about the Express. After your edit, the Express is now described in the top as a "news website launched in 2021 in Dallas, Texas"; do the best available independent reliable sources ("basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias, undue weight, and other NPOV disagreements") discussing Bennett most often describe the Express as such, or with other descriptions? Llll5032 (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The sources are as follows. The word "conservative" is also used in the disambiguation page for Dallas Express. None of the sources below were written by the author CNMall41 is referring to

---

"He’s nearly a decadelong donor to Republican Party candidates and is the publisher of the formerly Black-owned progressive newspaper The Dallas Express, now a right-leaning news site."

https://www.dallasnews.com/business/2024/05/22/monty-bennett-speaks-amid-tense-battle-with-nuisance-activist-investor/

"It publishes a mix of right-leaning opinion pieces, excitable crime reporting, and regurgitated press releases. Its editorial stance is laid out in a list of principles that reads like Heritage Foundation talking points"

https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2021/june/the-real-story-behind-the-dallas-express/

"he runs the Dallas Express, an online news outlet that resurrected the name of a historic Black-owned paper and covers general interest stories through a conservative lens."

https://therealdeal.com/magazine/national-may-2023/monty-bennetts-fire-and-brimstone-journey/

"Overall, we rate the Dallas Express as Right Biased based on editorial positions that favor a conservative perspective. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to a lack of transparency and the use of poor sources."

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/dallas-express-bias/ Correctlee (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't have a particular opinion about the change proposed here, but the article does already say in the lede that the subject "is a Republican donor", and the body already multiply describes the subject's "conservative" activities, as a donor to Trump and the RNC, a "supporter of Texas Governor Greg Abbott", "active in the school privatization movement and in efforts to elect more conservatives to school boards" and "publisher of the Dallas Express, a conservative news website". I am very concerned, however, about changes being made to an article by a clear WP:SPA. I am inclined to start tagging SPA comments as SPA comments, for the benefit of reviewers of this discussion. BD2412 T 16:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Which is how it should be. We have a better description in the body and we don't need everything in the lead. For example, Ashford is described as "a company that advises both Braemar Hotels & Resorts and Ashford Hospitality Trust, two publicly traded real estate investment trusts" yet the lead describes it plainly as "a hospitality real estate company." Note that both the Trust and the website publication information should be minimal for the lead as this is a BLP, not a page about them. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Since MOS:LEADREL encourages us to "harmonize coverage in the lead with material in the body of the article", minor repetitions are consistent with policies and guidelines, if the descriptor is common in RS. Llll5032 (talk) 02:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Reconsideration of Steven Monacelli's reporting

Given some recent reporting, the ban on citing Monacelli's work should be reconsidered.

The Texas Observer published an extensive expose into Monty Bennett. It is written by Monacelli. What it reveals is quite extraordinary. The article features quotes from former Dallas Express employees that paint the publication in a very unflattering light. The article also features quotes from former contractors of a company called Crowds on Demand, a company Bennett admitted to retaining via his company Ashford in a statement to the Observer. Those contractors said they were instructed to call Monacelli a racist.

https://www.texasobserver.org/dallas-hero-initiative-monty-bennett-crowds-on-demand/

The local paper of record, Dallas Morning News, and a regional publication, D Magazine, have both cited Monacelli's investigative report.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2024/10/20/coalition-of-elected-officials-go-door-knocking-against-dallas-hero-propositions-s-t-u/

https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2024/10/texas-observer-exposes-monty-bennett/

https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2024/10/monty-bennett-and-the-shadowy-dallas-hero-crew/

In the discussion of Monacelli's reporting, one user claimed that a "correction" added to one of Monacelli's stories was a sign that he should not be considered credible. That story has since had an additional update that exhonerates Monacelli.

https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/whos-behind-dallas-justice-nows-dont-send-white-kids-to-ivy-league-controversy-12098228

The Texas Observer article is extremely well sourced. To claim that Monacelli's tweets somehow undermine his reporting seems reductive. Instead of simply making edits based on his recent reporting, I am raising this here in good faith to encourage a discussion among editors.

Correctlee (talk) 22:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I think this analysis misconstrues the concern. Consider the opposite side of the equation. If an article were published by, for example, Bennett's lawyer, or someone who had been a co-plaintiff or co-defendant with Bennett in a lawsuit, we would immediately dismiss that source as non-neutral. If there is something truly noteworthy to say about the article subject, it should be possible to find reporting on that point by an uninvolved person, one who does not have a personal entanglement with the subject, good or bad. If the assertion is that we need to allow reporting by a particular individual because no one else is covering this, then it seems quite likely that there is a reason no one else is covering it. BD2412 T 00:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Your logic grants an effective chilling effect against any journalist that has ever been subject of a lawsuit, regardless of the legitimacy of the lawsuit. If you're going to make that argument, you cannot avoid engaging with the particulars of the case. Monacelli won that case, per best available sources. His reporting on the subject has been cited by a paper of record.

https://www.dmagazine.com/micropost/monty-bennett-again-loses-in-texas-supreme-court/ Correctlee (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@Correctlee, can the Dallas Morning News be cited for the information you want to add to the article? It should be usable as a secondary RS even if consensus is more difficult to reach about the expose. Llll5032 (talk) 03:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The Dallas Morning News article does not include the level of detail that is included in the Texas Observer. As such, it should not be relied on as the primary source, but it is a clear indicator of the credibility of the Texas Observer report. Correctlee (talk) 12:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

This discussion has become Ad nauseam regarding Monacelli's reporting. If there is a specific edit, please propose the specific wording and we can work on consensus. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I would recommend something along the lines of the following: Per reporting on the Texas Observer, Monty Bennett financially backed a number of advocacy groups in the Dallas area that were created and operated by a California-based publicity firm that orchestrates campaigns and protests called Crowds on Demand. Those groups were repeatedly amplified in the Dallas Express, a nonprofit news website of which Bennett is the publisher, without disclosing their connection to Bennett. The Observer has also interviewed former Dallas Express employees, who describe Bennett using the 501(c)(3) nonprofit news outlet as a mouthpiece for his political and business interests while simultaneously asserting that other media outlets in town cannot be trusted. Experts in nonprofit governance and tax law believe Bennett's use of the Dallas Express has violated IRS restrictions forbidding nonprofit charities from operating “for the benefit of private interests."

https://www.texasobserver.org/dallas-hero-initiative-monty-bennett-crowds-on-demand/

To support the above wording, I will note that the Dallas Morning News citation says "The investigation flagged ethics concerns around groups such as Keep Dallas Safe and media outlet The Dallas Express that have either publicly endorsed or extensively reported on these proposals without ever disclosing Bennett’s influence."

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2024/10/20/coalition-of-elected-officials-go-door-knocking-against-dallas-hero-propositions-s-t-u/ Correctlee (talk) 12:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I just took a look at the Texas Observer reference. Unfortunately, with the tone and slant, I don't think allowing that or any other reporting by Monacelli on the subject to be allowed. These two clearly have an axe to grind against each other and Wikipedia is not here to WP:RGW. Again, if you have "specific" wording you want included, please propose it with a reliable source.--CNMall41 (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

You just claimed that the discussion of Monacelli's reporting has become Ad nauseum, and yet you continue to use that justification to refuse the inclusion of relevant information.

Per Reliable Source (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources) "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

Your perception that the Texas Observer article has a slant is irrelevant to the point that it provides relevant information and has been deemed reliable by its usage by other source: "For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, whereas widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it." As already noted, the article has been cited in the paper of local record, it forced an "update" to a prior correction in the Dallas Observer, and it has seen two citations in D Magazine, another reputable regional outlet.

Your linkage to an article in the Dallas Express draws a false equivalence. The article you link was published in a news website published by Bennett and quotes a group that was apparently funded by Bennett in order to attack a journalist's reputation. Using that as evidence that the two have an "axe to grind" against each other effectively grants a chilling effect against any journalist that who has been attacked by a powerful subject of their reporting. Bennett has an established pattern of making legal threats against journalistic outlets that have covered him, including against the New York Times for their reporting on his usage of Metric Media outlets. A critical observer should be able to see that this is clearly a tactic Bennett has used in attempts to suppress factual reporting, including Monacelli's.

Per the D Magazine follow up on Monacelli's story: "Bennett uses his Dallas Express, the conservative online news publication that is registered as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, to attack his enemies and promote his interests." (https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2024/10/monty-bennett-and-the-shadowy-dallas-hero-crew/) Correctlee (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The D Mag looks like a rehash of Monacelli's reporting, and uses the reporting from the TO as a source.

Using your statement - "A critical observer should be able to see that this is clearly a tactic Bennett has used in attempts to suppress factual reporting, including Monacelli's" - one could say (about Monaceli's reporting) that "a critical observer should be able to see this clearly a tactic [Monacelli]] has used in attempts to.........." This is the reason we would not use the Dallas Express source to report on Monacelli should he be notable for a Wikipedia page (something we should possibly look into).

There have been multiple editors who have looked at this page, edited, participated in discussions, etc. Many of them experienced who know the policies you cite above. The "ad nauseam" part is coming from attempting to explain it to an account who's edit history has solely focused on the reporting of this particular subject by this particular reporter. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

A "rehash" is another way of saying "citation" which is one of the requirements for a reliable source. D Magazine's citation of Monacelli's work is an indicator of its reliability.

The Dallas Morning News, the local paper of record, similarly cited Monacelli's reporting: "The investigation flagged ethics concerns around groups such as Keep Dallas Safe and media outlet The Dallas Express that have either publicly endorsed or extensively reported on these proposals without ever disclosing Bennett’s influence."

And as previously stated, the "correction" that you have noted as a cause of concern with regard to citing Monacelli's work has since been further updated, with the following statement: "For an in-depth look at the links among Keep Dallas Safe, Dallas Justice Now, Dallas Express and right-wing causes supported by Monty Bennett, including proposed Dallas charter amendments coming up for a vote, we recommend Steven Monacelli's recent investigative report in the Texas Observer."

Any citation of Monacelli's reporting on this subject is effectively going to "rehash" what he has reported due to the investigative nature of his articles. That isn't a bad thing. Per Reliable Sources, "outside citation is the main indicator of reliability." Correctlee (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Please do not misinterpret my statement. "Reshash" in this context is meant to mean "WP:CHURNALISM."--CNMall41 (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I am even more confused. Are you suggesting the D Magazine article is somehow a laundered press release? The definition of Churnalism you just linked has no mention of the phrase "rehash." The definition even concedes that "in scientific terms, the "churnalism hypothesis" may be unfalsifiable — it can be defined in a way that could cover virtually all business news, making it impossible to disprove."

What exactly makes the D Magazine piece qualify as "Churnalism?" Correctlee (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Llll5032 Given there are multiple secondary source citations of Monacelli's latest investigative report, what is your interpretation of what Reliable Sources suggests we do here? Correctlee (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

This single-minded SPA effort is beginning to have the distinct feel that it is less about the subject of the article than it is about promoting the profile of one reporter whose identity happens to be defined by antagonism towards the article subject. BD2412 T 00:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Correctlee, when BD2412 raised a question about Monacelli at RSN in 2023, no one there argued for citing Monacelli as a source. But it would be common to cite a generally reliable source such as the Dallas Morning News about the matter in an article, if the Dallas Morning News discussed it at some length. Llll5032 (talk) 07:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Llll5032 How about the D Magazine article? It has been cited by a national outlet, Axios. (https://www.axios.com/local/dallas/2024/10/23/dallas-mayors-oppose-hero-propositions) The discussion is less about Monacelli than it is about Bennett, and I would be glad if the D Magazine article were used as a source here given it goes into more detail than the Dallas Morning News. I couldn't care less about promoting Monacelli's profile. It just so happens that his work on the subject has been cited by reputable sources, and that there has been an unusual blanket ban against him as a source of reporting on a particular subject who has demonstrated a pattern of legal threats against journalists that report on him.

@BD2412, it is beneath you to make accusations of tendentious editing without addressing any of the points made regarding reliable and reputable sourcing. It could easily be argued that you have developed a bias against a reporter whose work has been cited by reliable and credible sources because they have made jokes on Twitter and were subject to a lawsuit that they won. You can check my edit history. My focusing is not promoting Monacelli's work. It would be more accurate to say the through line is related to the Dallas Express. Correctlee (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I have not made accusations of "tendentious editing". I have very specifically raised concerns of SPA conduct that appears to be focused on extolling a specific journalist. I have been an administrator for nearly twenty years, and I have seen just about everything. Certainly every pattern of behavior in this vein that you could possibly imagine. You may notice that I have never asked you whether you have any connection to the matters addressed here. I'm not asking now, either. That is because I would expect you to deny any such connection, which I would not find credible, which would escalate my concerns in ways that would not be conducive to the possibility of your eventually becoming a contributor with respect to matters outside your immediate fixation. BD2412 T 17:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@BD2412 You should consider that there are valid reasons someone might have an SPA account with regard to a subject that has proven to be highly litigious. We would all be better served here to focus on the subject and not the messenger. Why would the D Magazine article cited by national outlet Axios not be considered a reputable or reliable source as it relates to Bennett's involvement in Dallas politics? With regard to journalistic credibility, what reasons do we have to not trust the judgement of editors at places like Axios or D Magazine? You may have valid reasons not to want to link work directly written by Monacelli, but it is not clear why secondary sources that cite his reporting should be likewise prohibited. Correctlee (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

It is certainly almost always possible to articulate a valid reason to have an SPA account, but the problem is that it is impossible to know the actual motivation of an individual. That is why our policies disfavor editors who are only here to make a specific point. BD2412 T 17:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The WP:SPA essay has some suggestions about such situations, Correctlee. About the content, in my opinion a compromise to include some facts should be possible based on the variety of non-Monacelli reliable sources. Llll5032 (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the advice. Those sorts of concerns are exactly why I am seeking to discuss possible changes in Talk instead of unilaterally suggesting changes that likely require discussion to reach consensus. Correctlee (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Correctlee, D Magazine has been cited many times in Wikipedia articles, and in my opinion, WP:USEBYOTHERS could also justify citing this D Magazine article. But citing just the Dallas Morning News and Axios may be more likely to earn consensus with the other editors. Llll5032 (talk) 21:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Llll5032

In my view it would suffice to use Dallas Morning News or D Magazine.

"An investigation by the Texas Observer also highlighted issues with groups advocating for the Dallas Hero proposals. The nonprofit has connections with hotelier Monty Bennett, who has funded other nonprofits, such as Keep Dallas Safe, which publicly endorsed proposals.

The investigation put Bennett’s influence on Dallas Hero under the spotlight, especially since Bennett contributed money and provided office space to the initiative."

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2024/10/18/pensions-on-the-ballot-two-propositions-have-different-impacts-on-dallas-resident/ Correctlee (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The D Magazine article mentions Bennett describing to WFAA his own connections to Dallas Hero. So, some information about that could be cited to the Dallas Morning News, D Magazine, and WFAA, even if Monacelli is not cited. Llll5032 (talk) 03:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

My issue here is that Monacelli is attempting to draw an inference with the reporting. That would be the same as what we would be doing by describing it in the way you propose. "If" the article written by Monacelli would be considered reliable, the most I think we could say is that he donated to specific causes. And that is a big "if" as I still do not consider it reliable. We are not here to WP:POVPUSH. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@CNMall41 What inference are you referring to? All best local sources report Bennett's support of the Dallas HERO Initiative. Bennett himself admitted that his company Ashford retained Crowds on Demand. Reliable sources that are cited widely have since followed up on the reporting in which Bennett admits this. When three local outlets have cited a report about a notable individual (Bennett) who is engaged in local politics, what is the logical and rules based argument for why that reporting cannot be considered reliable and worthy of inclusion? It seems like personal preference is overriding what wiki rules say regarding reputable and reliable sources. I do not see how the citation of multiple secondary sources constitutes POV pushing. We don't need to cite Monacelli's reporting here, there are secondary sources available. Correctlee (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I am unsure of how to respond in a manner that will be heard, as this seems to be a case of WP:NOTGETTINGIT.--CNMall41 (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I WP:BOLDly added a short sentence about Dallas HERO for a few facts that appear to be undisputed, with cites to WFAA's interview with Bennett and articles by the Dallas Morning News and Dallas Business Journal, avoiding any disputed sources. Llll5032 (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I think what you wrote is a great example of NPOV that OP can take note of. No OR, no SYNTH, and no POV-pushing. The only "potential" issue is sourcing if the two references are using Monacelli's reporting as opposed to their own independent research. As it stands, we at least have a third source where Bennett states his support so I don't see a big issue. I will go through the sources a little bit later but again, I don't see an issue with the wording or the selfcite to support the basic statement. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)