Talk:Carole Cadwalladr

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carole Cadwalladr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071022072745/http://www.metacritic.com:80/books/authors/cadwalladrcarole/familytree to http://www.metacritic.com/books/authors/cadwalladrcarole/familytree

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Retractions

I don't have the time myself, but can't help but think to make this article more balanced someone should research/catalogue all the nonsense this so-called journalist has published and posted on social media and had to retract because it was made up. Blondielightning (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, that would constitute WP:OR, which isn't acceptable in WP. You would need to find a WP:RS which identifies examples of fabrication. I agree with your underlying point though - the article is presently overly reverential given that CC is a controversial journalist who has received considerable criticism from some quarters. We do have to be careful with WP:BLP articles though. --Ef80 (talk) 11:11, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Protection

May I suggest that due the amount of trolling of this page, that this page is protected. 159753 (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@159753: Not done – This is not the place to request protection of pages. Please post a request on this page: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection MadGuy7023 (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Just done that. I was a little confused on how to do it. 159753 (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

It is already semi-protected. Edits by anonymous and newly-registered contributors do not appear, which takes care of most attempts at disruptive editing. Any trolling you see is being done by established editors who may be suspended or blocked for inappropriate editing per WP:BLP. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Deleted my reply as it appears that a temporary block has expired. I shall attempt to get it renewed. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I see that you have already requested renewal of the block. I have indicated my support. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theorist"

I see an IP editor reverted the edit by SalisburySyndrome that called her a conspiracy theorist, supported by (mostly) RS citations. It was the right response, but for the wrong reason. We should not use wp:wikivoice to call her a conspiracy theorist. Apart from the WP:BLP violation, the citations do not demonstrate a broad consensus across a broad spectrum of sources in support that contention. (Compare, for example, David Icke.) It is an opinion, must be described as such and attributed as such.

If something like this is to be included in the article, it needs to say something like "Conservative media such as The Daily Telegraph and The Spectator have described her as a "liberal conspiracy theorist". Or words to that effect. And it would be WP:UNDUE to put that in the lead. And the citations given need to actually support the claim made: at least one did not. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring

@DanielRigal and Wojacks:, there is nothing to be gained by your mutual revert warring in main space. You need to resolve your differences here at the talk page. The Pulitzer nomination credits her with being party to the exposure so it seems to me that you need to come up with an agreed wording that recognises her contribution without implying exclusivity. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

"contributed to" seems fine. Wojacks (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The oddest thing about the change was the removal of "international". I struggle to see any logic to it, hence my preference for the status quo. Anyway, I'm perfectly happy with the current version by John Maynard Friedman which takes the status quo position and adds clarification rather than removing anything. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

His version is exactly the same, just with a reference added. The "international prominence" thing just seems a bit much, "prominence" does the same job. The lead is also just repeating the same info on the very next line so I've removed it, let me know if this isn't fine now. Wojacks (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Why are you doing this? Please just stop. The Pulitzer is a prominent international prize and her work was internationally prominent. Sure, she didn't do it single handedly but she was one of the journalists that broke the Cambridge Analytica story. Why are you so bizarrely keen to minimise this? This is disruptive and is beginning to look like a grudge against the subject of the article. I don't mind running the two paragraphs together but I'm reverting the removal of "exposed" and "international". It is the status quo version of the article and it will take a better explanation than "a bit much" to justify removing it. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I will agree about it being slightly too repetitive. I've brought those words back in a way that avoids the repetition and also avoids inadvertently suggesting she broke the story alone. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Aaron Banks February 2023 libel challenges

Making a note here, as I had to revert a partial update by an IP editor and don't have time to properly update the content now.

In the last few hours sources (The Guardian, Sky News, The Independent) have stated that Banks lost two of the three challenges in his appeal against the June 2022 High Court ruling. This will need to be worked into that section in a way that respects the prior content. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Also we may want to look at making that section a bit more cohesive narratively and a little less proseline like with the various new additions that have been made over time as the case developed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

This is an obscure and complicated case (by which I mean I don’t understand what’s been going on). But we need to record that Arron Banks won on one of his legal challenges, and that, therefore, it looks like Ms Cadwalladr will be liable to pay him damages. I suggest as a wording In February 2023 the Court of Appeal rejected two of Banks’ legal challenges, but ruled on one issue that “publication of the Ted Talk after 29 April 2020 caused serious harm to the reputation of the claimant” and that damages for this should be assessed.

Any comments? Sweet6970 (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sweet6970: Looks OK to me, though maybe we could paraphrase the quotation into wikivoice as it seems largely non controversial? Which source(s) would be used for this? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I don’t want to paraphrase the quote, for fear that this might change the meaning. For instance, I think that ‘serious harm’ has a technical legal meaning in relation to defamation. I would like to keep that wording in quotes: it’s actually a quote from the judgment. Also, I was recently told that using a couple of phrases from a news report was a copyvio, and keeping the wording in quotes should avoid such a problem. I would use the Guardian report as the source – that is what I based the suggested wording on. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

While serious harm does have a specific technical legal meaning, we do have have content on that meaning in relation to English defamation law that we could easily wikilink. The issue with paraphrasing content is that we need to be careful to avoid close paraphrasing. We are generally encouraged by multiple policies and guidelines to paraphrase content, as excessive quotations, both in individual quotation length and overall quotation volume, can also be a copyright violation. We just have to be mindful when paraphrasing content into wikivoice that it's core content policy compliant, and to avoid close paraphrasings.

How would you feel about In February 2023 the Court of Appeal rejected two of Banks' three legal challenges. On the third challenge the court ruled that continuing publication of the April 2019 TED Talk, after the Electoral Commission published a report on 29 April 2020 that found no evidence of Banks breaking the law in relation to campaign donations, had caused serious harm to Banks' reputation. The Court ordered that damages should be assessed for the harm incurred between 29 April 2020 and the date of the High Court ruling in June 2022. It's a bit lengthier, doesn't have the quotation, but it adds a wikilink that clarifies what serious harm means in this context that we wouldn't be able to add in a wikilink, and has slightly more detail on the exact period in which a future court will assess damages owed to Banks. Citation wise, this would be cited to both The Guardian and Independent sources, with the later being necessary for the clarification as to the period for which damages will be assessed (ie April 2020-June 2022). Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that the problem with paraphrasing is that if it’s not close, then it alters the meaning, and if it is close, then it may be a copyvio. I prefer explicit quotes, to avoid this, and I don’t think that the short quote I suggested could possibly be a copyvio – it is part of an extract from the judgment that is quoted by the Guardian. That said, I have no objection to your version, and it’s useful to have the ‘serious harm’ link – thanks for finding this. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Like a lot of things, it's subject matter dependent. For some subjects/topics there are multiple ways to describe a thing without substantially altering the meaning. For others, there are only a couple of ways to describe it without altering meaning. In the case of the latter, the close paraphrase guidance actually has a section for how to handle content when there is a limited number of ways to say the same thing, and there are situations where there are such limited ways of conveying the same meaning that close paraphrasing is allowed. It's just a bit of a practice and experience to determine when you should quote, versus when you should paraphrase a quote, versus when it's acceptable to close paraphrase. It's also important to remember that an individual short quotation might not be a copyright violation on its own, but when you add all of the short quotations in an article it's possible for the entirety of an article to be one.

Content is installed now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Public interest defence

I have made a start on broadening the scope of the article Public interest defence and rapidly hit the bottom of my (zero) expertise. Would anyone more familiar with the topic please contribute a section on journalism? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)