This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I have pinged you on talk. Discuss, don't edit war. There's a reason her Stonewall claims have been re-evaluated. - CorbieVreccan☊☼ 18:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
CorbieVreccan, I am discussing this on the Talk page, and I also ask for you to please stop restoring content that is disputed according to WP:BLP policy and WP:ONUS. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Who is disputing it besides you? You are removing stable content against consensus. There wasn't much engagement on talk, but over the years on MMGG and Stonewall talk, there has been agreement that every single source came back to a self-claim by MMGG. Not a single source that has interviewed the known and documented veterans of the rebellion has ever mentioned MMGG. When MMGG showed up in recent years, she not only made extraordinary claims with zero supporting evidence or witnesses, but all investigations showed her version of events simply did not hold up. I know it's disappointing for those new to all of this who like her, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia can print these things. We have to evaluate sources based on the entire field of reporting, not just interviews by people who don't know the field and didn't do due diligence. You are clearly trying to protect this BLP's reputation. But the problem is, what do we do when the BLP was not truthful? - CorbieVreccan☊☼ 19:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
I think we are talking about two separate issues:
1) I am trying to review available sources, and when I did, I did not find support for the paragraph of text that I removed [1], [2], [3], [4]. And this was in the midst of reviewing a variety of sources, including some that appear to directly conflict with the assertions made in the paragraph of text that was removed, including a source I noted on the article Talk page (e.g. her statement to The Advocate). From my view, this is an application of WP:BLP policy, which requires removal of unsourced and poorly-sourced contentious claims about a living person.
2) It also seems clear that she is widely-reported to be a 'Stonewall veteran', so I also have some concerns about what may seem like original research-style attempts to characterize her as lacking credibility, instead of applying NPOV policy to the sources that are available. However, I did review the article Talk page, and felt the recent Guardian source helped resolve the concern about a need for sources related to her presence there; you have disputed this, but I am optimistic that we can develop a way to present the available reliable sources in a way that reflects core content policies, although I think this discussion will be best continued at the article Talk page. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
You need to go deeper. Every. Single. Report. Comes back to her statements. Every single one. I don't know when you started following this or how old you are, but those of us who were alive during Stonewall, who have known the Veterans group in all the decades since and know the vetrans (and knew the ones who are no longer with us).... she's not one. Yes, this is OR. But we know who was there and who wasn't. You're being fooled. - CorbieVreccan☊☼ 20:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
You didn't find a source for her claim that Marsha P. Johnson wasn't at the Stonewall Rebellion? You didn't see the screenshot Bob Kohler posted? Or you want to pretend the source doesn't exist because you deleted it? - CorbieVreccan☊☼ 20:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
I also am keen about assessing sources and evidence, and did not find the Will Kohler screenshot to support the paragraph of text nor that she claimed Johnson wasn't at the Stonewall Rebellion - "I did not run into them that night" does not support stating in wikivoice that she claims Johnson wasn't there; especially when there appears to be at least one RS where she states, "Many who took part in the Stonewall Rebellion died way before their time, like my sisters Sylvia Rivera and Marsha P. Johnson," explains Miss Major." (Advocate) Beccaynr (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
There's more leeway for discussion than you are allowing on talk with these reversions. (Redacted) The information and opinion the IP is posting is relevant. Yes, they could be more respectful, but they are correct about the inaccuracies in MMGG's statements. What you're doing is coming off more like censorship of information you just don't like rather than policy. I'm not going to edit war over an IPs opinions, but this is really too much. - CorbieVreccan☊☼ 14:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi CorbieVreccan, I have redacted the links to the comment from my Talk page, for the same WP:BLP policy reason, along with WP:TALKNO and WP:NOTFORUM. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
CorbieVreccan, you know we are editing in a topic area covered by the contentious topics rules [5], and you were previously aware that these topics were covered by discretionary sanctions rules [6]. My edits are an attempt to be careful, constructive, and cautious with regard to the application of the WP:BLP and WP:NOTFORUM policies, which apply to Talk pages. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
The second addition by the IP was completely civil. Some discussion of the context and milieu of the events around Stonewall are completely acceptable for talk pages, especially as younger editors don't understand what life was like back then. By removing their comment you are being far too controlling about this. People don't have to cite a source every single time they agree or disagree in a discussion on a talk page. The user's contribs are about article content and what you are doing is silencing an opposing viewpoint. - CorbieVreccan☊☼ 19:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
CorbieVreccan, I encourage you to review the WP:BLPTALK section of BLP policy. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
This is still a problem. We have an unreliable witness, that all the sources are using as their primary source. The person has a bio on Wikipedia, but everyone who knows the history knows the BLP subject is. not. credible. If we werent' able to have opinions on talk, we wouldn't have RfCs and third opinions. This really feels like you are simply silencing dissent for a POV push,[7] and abusing the BLPtalk guidelines as an excuse. - CorbieVreccan☊☼ 19:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I am going to try to address this with some context.
On 18:36, 23 June 2023, I noted on the article Talk page I added sources and removed "somewhat astounding BLP violations" [8]. As I had reviewed sources, I had made a series of edits to remove sources that did not support content that appeared to characterize her in a negative way, and then removed the unsupported content [9]; [10]; [11]; [12] (citing WP:BLP in this 15:14, 23 June 2023 edit summary).
At 18:29, 23 June 2023, CorbieVreccan restored the paragraph of unsupported text that appears to be a BLP violation, citing a blog that does not appear to support the text. [13]
At 18:32, 23 June 2023, I removed the paragraph and source with the edit summary "rm unsourced and poorly-sourced WP:BLP violation" [14]
At 18:34, 23 June 2023, CorbieVreccan restored some of the unsupported text, adding the Guardian as a source, which also does not appear to support the text, and the blog that does not appear to support the text. [15]
At 18:38, 23 June 2023, I removed the unsupported text with the edit summary "rm unsourced and poorly-sourced WP:BLP violation" [16]
At 18:43, 23 June 2023, CorbieVreccan restored the unsupported text with the edit summary "Stop edit-warring. Take it to talk" [17]
At 18:45, 23 June 2023, CorbieVreccan opened a discussion at my Talk page titled Edit-warring on Miss Major Griffin-Gracy, and proceeded to post the same comments both at my talk page and the article talk page in a section titled Recent changes including after I said it would be better to discuss the content issues on the article Talk page.
At 19:37, 23 June 2023, I removed the unsupported text with the edit summary "Rm per WP:ONUS and WP:BLP" [18]
As background, there was also some back-and-forth early on after my first attempt to add text based on the Guardian and another source was reverted by CorbieVreccan [19], but I stopped after my one attempt to re-add the reverted content [20], after it became clear to me that the sourcing I added was not what had been requested on the article Talk page by CorbieVreccan [21].
During discussion on the article Talk page, in response to concerns about the use of OR, CorbieVreccan makes a comment at 20:18, 23 June 2023 that includes "Yes, this is OR. But we know who was there and who wasn't." (as well as "I don't know when you started following this or how old you are"). [22]
At 02:23, 24 June 2023, I opened an article Talk section titled Stonewall rebellion content to explore possible compromise wording.
At 17:14, 25 June 2023, CorbieVreccan appears to continue to rely on OR [23], and then clarified the comment to add attribution to apparent OR Denaar had brought to the discussion [24].
At 18:19, 25 June 2023, CorbieVreccan went to another section of the article Talk page and added text from the article that was not supported by the sources [25] and added further unsourced (and implicitly negative) statements about Griffin-Gracy, and the comment "Make it make sense."
At 02:34, 26 June 2023, I note that I had revised the article, which had included multiple sources that did not support any text, and text that was not supported by any sources. And please cite sources to support what she may have previously said, or later said. Thank you,[26]
At 16:47, 26 June 2023, I added CT notices (GENSEX and BLP) and a note Hi CorbieVreccan, I am adding these notices only as a formality with regard to the Miss Major Griffin-Gracy article. However, I continue to expect that we can resolve issues at the article Talk page. Thank you, to CorbieVreccan's Talk page; these were reverted by CorbieVreccan with the edit summary "Quite aware. User who placed this was edit-warring on this page." [27]
At 03:11, 27 June 2023, an IP adds an unsourced comment to the article Talk page with multiple negative statements and allegations about Majors and others [28]. I removed it at 03:20, 27 June 2023, with the edit summary "Rm per WP:TALKNO/WP:NOTFORUM and WP:BLP" [29].
At 14:49, 27 June 2023, CorbieVreccan restores the IPs comment with the edit summary "The IP's opinion is actually relevant, even if not particularly respectful. This is talk, not article space." [30]. I reverted CorbieVreccan at 14:51, 27 June 2023, again noting WP:BLP etc in my edit summary [31].
I used IRC to request review of the IP comment for revdel, because I had wondered if it was within RD2. The responding admin did not find sufficient basis to revdel the comment.
At 14:58, 27 June 2023, CorbieVreccan opened a section titled Deleting comments on Talk page at my Talk page, and linked diffs of the IP comment I had removed. I redacted these diffs from my talk page; in response to CorbieVreccan's reply [32], my comment included a reminder to CorbieVreccan of the CT alerts and their past awareness of the DS rules [33].
At 22:46, 27 June 2023, the IP added a shorter unsourced comment [34]. I reverted it as a good faith edit at 01:08, 28 June 2023, with the edit summary, "Rm per WP:NOTFORUM - this Talk page is not for general discussion about the subject of the article, negative statements about the subject, etc." [35]
At 18:57, 28 June 2023, CorbieVreccan restored the IP comment with the edit summary, "Beccanyr this is too extreme. Civil discussion like this is acceptable," [36] and commented in the article Talk discussion about the removal [37], referring to me as "far too extreme and controlling."
I removed the IP comment again, with the edit summary "rm per WP:BLPTALK; and per WP:NOTFORUM as explained to IP at their user Talk page." As 19:30, 28 June 2023, CorbieVreccan added another comment to the article Talk page, stating "People are allowed to present their opinions of the sources." [38]. From my view, I removed contentious material about a living person that is unsourced.
At 19:33, 28 June 2023, CorbieVreccan comments at my Talk page, including "This really feels like you are simply silencing dissent for a POV push" and referring to Griffin-Gracy as "an unreliable witness" and stating "everyone who knows the history knows the BLP subject is. not. credible." [39]
CorbieVreccan, I think it seems past time to pull back from the WP:BRINK. My hope is for us to avoid escalating to further dispute resolution options, so I continue to ask for consideration of the contentious topic areas and core content policies, including WP:BLP. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
There is no reason or violation of WP:ONUS to include the length of someone's sentence. It's sourced. - CorbieVreccan☊☼ 20:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
CorbieVreccan, in my previous comment to you on this Talk page [40], I suggested that it is past time to pull back from the WP:BRINK. I also continue to think it is best to discuss article content on the article Talk page, instead of having parallel discussions on this Talk page and the article Talk page. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I posted on article talk, but this is an issue with your user conduct. - CorbieVreccan☊☼ 21:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
CorbieVreccan, from my view, you have now repeatedly restored disputed content that has been referred to on the article Talk page as part of the apparent WP:OR suggested in an apparent attempt to disparage the subject of this BLP. And this is not the first time, as I outlined in my comment noted above. I suggest that you self-revert your third addition of the disputed content until there is consensus about how and whether to include this potentially misleading and incomplete detail that is already accounted for in the article in summary form - while it appears BLUESKY to me as an attorney that '5-year sentence' does not support the original research being suggested on the article Talk page to disparage this BLP subject, we do not have to rely on common knowledge about how sentences generally work, and instead have a source stating she has also discussed her experiences with parole. Beccaynr (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I think you need to read the sources. That's why I included the quote. I also updated the url because you had reverted my addition of a readable archive. There was no consensus around the parole issue. I am the one posting on article talk; you have not. You are once again misrepresenting what happened. The sources discuss the five year sentence. It is not OR and it is inappropriate for you to try to characterize it that way. - CorbieVreccan☊☼ 21:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Please discuss article content issues on the article Talk page, so we avoid splitting the discussion and repeating ourselves. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Draft, Bill Carmody
Hi! I see you are a member of WikiProject Law. I am seeking feedback on a draft I created about trial attorney Bill Carmody, of Susman Godfrey, who has been profiled in the press several times because of the size and prominence of his cases. I have explained more here: User talk:Backyard116/sandbox/Bill Carmody/Seeking feedback. He’s a personal connection of mine, so impartial advice on notability and neutral point of view would be greatly appreciated. Backyard116 (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
July 2023
Hello. I’ve seen your message on my Talk Page, suggesting that my edit to Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull “seemed less than neutral”. Having been editing on Wikipedia since 2013 (some time before you became a regular contributor), I have to say I do not appreciate your apparently glib assumption that I am unaware of Wikipedia’s fundamental principles and editorial conventions. May I respectfully point out that just because you disagree with someone’s edit that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are the one lacking in neutrality and objectivity. Best regards. -- Blurryman (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate your patience and understanding, Blurryman, and I apologize for causing offense, which was not intended. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, which is much appreciated. -- Blurryman (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red 8th Anniversary
Women in Red 8th Anniversary
In July 2015 around 15.5% of the English Wikipedia's biographies were about women. As of July 2023, 19.61% of the English Wikipedia's biographies are about women. That's a lot of biographies created in the effort to close the gender gap. Happy 8th Anniversary! Join us for some virtual cake and add comments or memories and please keep on editing to close the gap!
--Lajmmoore (talk) 11:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
I wanted to thank you for assuming good faith, and continuing to work and improve the article - because good Wikipedia articles should be the goal of every editor. Denaar (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Denaar, and for your contributions as well! I look forward to working with you in the future :) Beccaynr (talk) 02:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red August 2023
Women in Red August 2023, Vol 9, Iss 8, Nos 251, 252, 277, 278, 279, 280
