Talk:Jesselyn Radack

The Volokh Conspiracy

I saw that The Volokh Conspiracy is being used to support several claims in the FitzGibbon criminal and civil cases section. Note that even though TVC runs at reason.com, it is editorially independent and the bloggers "have sole editorial control over the blog". This makes it a self-published source that shouldn't be used for claims about living persons per WP:BLPSPS. (This has come up at BLPN and RSN many times, so this isn't just me having an issue with it.) Are there other sources supporting these claims? If not, they should be removed from the article. I'd rather not edit the article directly—and I don't want to be involved at all, really—after past harassment over this article. Woodroar (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Woodroar: Thank you for alerting us to these WP:BLPSPS violations. I have removed those references, and will further review this section to ensure all statements are supported by acceptable sources. NedFausa (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• NedFausa, here's my response in the correct place. Volokh is a blog, yes, but so is [1], which also has a great deal of independence. In the latter case, their fact checking process isn't mentioned. The Volokh Conspiracy has "editorial independence" (note that I'm fairly certain this is different from being a self published source, contrary to claims above, since Volokh employs more than one source and a credible news publication is at least hosting them on their site, so it isn't some random person on the internet, as WP:SPS describes), so does [2] to a certain extent. In my tentative opinion, I think we should either remove both [3] and the reason site, or keep both, but again I'm very uncertain in this. After looking into this for the greater part of an hour, I'm wondering if it might be worth bringing this section up on the reliable sources noticeboard to clear up confusion. Sam-2727 (talk) 05:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

  The Volokh Conspiracy comes up at RSN and BLPN from time to time (September 2008, November 2014, September 2014, October 2013, January 2015) and there are always concerns about it being self-published as it retains editorial independence wherever it runs. Yes, SPS can sometimes be used when the author is an expert, but both WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS are clear that we should never use them for claims about living persons even if the author is an expert.

  I hadn't noticed the Consumer Law & Policy Blog source before, so thank you for pointing that out. The "ABOUT US" disclaimer on the left suggests that contributors aren't under the editorial control of the blog itself, which suggests to me that we should remove that source as well. Woodroar (talk) 13:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed the disputed source and copy edited the text accordingly. Thanks to Sam-2727 for pointing this out. NedFausa (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Woodroar got it, thanks for the clarification. The techdirt source is technically a blog as well I believe (see author profile: [4]), but it can probably? stay because I don't believe it's editorially independent from the website itself. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Sam-2727: This makes me very uneasy. Wikipedia calls Techdirt "an American Internet blog." WP:BLOGS directs: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. (Emphasis in original.)

WP:BLPSPS confirms: Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable.

In the Fox News section above, Rechtsstreitigkeiten writes: "Mike Masnik has been allowed to be used as a source (via Techdirt) generally on Wikipedia. But Techdirt is basically a blog, written by a notable expert (Masnik)." There is no consensus in the Fox News section approving Techdirt/Masnik as a source in Jesselyn Radack generally, much less in the highly sensitive FitzGibbon litigation section.

Aside from identifying Trevor FitzGibbon, that section relies entirely on a single source: a January 2020 blog by Mike Masnik at Techdirt. Accordingly, until we can sort this out and reach consensus, I have removed that section. This is the biography of a living person, where a user who clicks the Edit source tab sees above all a Notice about sources advising: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. (Again, emphasis in original.) NedFausa (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa, I agree given the particularly contentious nature of this section, it might be best to remove for now, until we (or the broader community) can come to a consensus. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with removing it for now. Personally, I don't have an issue with it being a "blog". I see that as more of a format than a sign of its quality, and there are reliable news blogs. What I do question is how it's published, the editorial process, if there are fact-checkers on staff, etc. When the editor is the one doing the writing, that's a concern as well. So in this case it does appear essentially self-published. Not to mention it's the only source, which raises questions about those claims being UNDUE. So yes, it should probably stay out until (a) someone can positively address concerns about the source, and (b) find other reliable, third-party sources to make it DUE. Woodroar (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Primary sources inline

On 4 December 2020, an editor added a {Primary sources} template and 15 {Primary source inline} tags, with edit summary: "Massive amounts of original research here."

There was one previous discussion that focused on WP:BLPPRIMARY, which advises, Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.

I believe the newly tagged references do not pertain to personal assertions in Wikipedia's voice; rather, they support information stated by individuals within court documents. I request that @Bobfrombrockley: explain his objections to specific references, rather than tagging them all, so that I can address his concerns.

For now, I will remove the template and tags, pending consensus to the contrary. Please give me a chance to clean this up without cluttering the BLP with 15 identical "non-primary source needed" tags. NedFausa (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks NedFausa. I am not specifically refering to BLP issues but general Wikipedia policy on primary sources and original research. Primary sources are obviously not proscribed on WP, hence tagging rather than removing, but we are urged to use them with caution and seek secondary sources where possible, because it is easy to misuse them (see WP:PRIMARY, which says "be cautious about basing large passages on them"). Several sections (e.g. "Congressional questions" has only one secondary source at the very end) rely almost exclusively on primary sources. Our policy (WP:OR says: "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. A very large part of this article is based 100% on primary sources such as court documents, we liberally use the article subjects own YouTube videos and blogposts without clearly attributing, and many of the secondary sources are rather weak (e.g. a college alumni magazine, which might be good for uncontroversial personal details but is it good for this sort of material?). There are places in the article where we basically state that the article is based on original research, e.g. Google searches of the Times website confirm only that in 2003 Times journalist Eric Lichtblau wrote.... Or a citation to her YouTube video with the statement in our words She has implied her being under a gag order - we should not be making our own inferences but only citing other's inferences. So please do go ahead and try to clean this up, and I hope that there are secondary sources for the stuff we say in this article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: Thanks for your detailed guidance. I have completed the following:

• I removed the statement in Wikipedia's words that "She has implied…" because it constituted an interpretation.
• I removed references to YouTube videos and to Radack's blogposts.
• I removed original research based on Google searches of The New York Times website.
  

Regarding subsection 2.7 Congressional questions, as it now stands:

• "Hearings before the Committee on the Judiciary" is cited only once, to substantiate the hearing's date and subject matter. No other content is attributed to this source.
• "Statement of Senator Edward M. Kennedy" is likewise cited only once, to support a 222-word paragraph. Please note that this statement was published not at Kennedy's U.S. Senate webpage but by Vote Smart, which Wikipedia informs us "is a non-profit, non-partisan research organization that collects and distributes information on candidates for public office in the United States." It is therefore not strictly speaking a primary source.
  

As for your generalization that a college alumni magazine "might be good for uncontroversial personal details but is it good for this sort of material?" Alumni magazines come in a variety of flavors. The source here is Brown University, a private Ivy League research university that is the seventh-oldest institution of higher education in the United States. The article in question, "The Woman Who Knew Too Much," is an outstanding 3,952-word piece by Emily Gold Boutilier, who was then the publication's senior writer. Since 2006, Boutilier has worked at Amherst College, where she is now editorial director in the Office of Communications. Her credentials are in order, and we should not dismiss her work casually. Accordingly, I have let stand the seven references to "The Woman Who Knew Too Much," pending consensus that it cannot be used in this BLP of a Brown alumna.

At your convenience, please review my handiwork and advise of further changes needed. NedFausa (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)