Talk:Pill City/Archive 1

Archive 1

White privilege among these editors

You all need to get real. If you don't do the right thing on this article we will be here every minute fighting for the truth. Won't be good for anybody. LaneyJfromHoward (talk) 02:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

But especially not that hater snowfire! LaneyJfromHoward (talk) 02:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok that’s enough let’s just play by rules and keep going down list tmrw. We definitely making a difference. WillieHowardCO67 (talk) 03:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

This article is hot trash

== List of Kevin Deutsch articles and sources improperly removed from/not reflected in article== https://www.wbal.com/article/219099/3/kevin-deutsch-talks-baltimores-gangland-drug-violence-in-new-book/amp https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/kevin-deutsch/pill-city/

https://www.libraryjournal.com/?authorName=Deutsch%2C%20Kevin

All of Kevin Deutsch’s work for Bronx Justice News, which we read daily and contribute to: https://bronxjusticenews.com/author/kdeutsch/

More than a dozen sources improperly deleted by compromised COI editor (snowfire). And a correction at the bottom of this mess of a Rolling Stone story, which puts the lie to the crux of this article: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/the-fake-news-story-no-ones-talking-about-119523/amp/ If you’re reading this Wikipedia article for info on Kevin Deutsch, don’t believe it. It’s hot trash. WillieHowardCO67 (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Another set of quotes regarding Snow Fire, copied here by WillieHowardCO67

“For your part, I discovered that the "no formal charges" sentence was added to both the lead and the text in August 2018, and as far as I can see it was never challenged until you removed it from the lead this month. That makes it longstanding content and I would advise you to let it stay. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC) Yeah, I took the article off my watchlist because I didn't want to spend my Wikipedia career uselessly edit-warring rather than writing actually useful content, only ended up back at it due to coincidence. The "no formal charges" content was put there by the pro-Deutsch crew (and... strictly speaking, I'm not 100% against it, but I am against it in the way that the pro-Deutsch crew deploys it, which is as an exoneration in the lede, which is not accurate to the sources). The original accounts are probably either Ballastpointed or AlexVegaEsquire FWIW. SnowFire (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)” — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillieHowardCO67 (talk • contribs)

hatting insult. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Notice he hasn’t done as instructed because is what we call a weasel. WillieHowardCO67 (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Above name calling unacceptable. We would like to hash this out with the lede insert without having to keep coming back to ask. I am in activist duty today and happy to work with everyone interested.

Old message copied from another user's talk page by WilliehowardCO67

Hi, SnowFire. I saw your note at Talk:Kevin Deutsch and thought I should respond here. You seem to be making two allegations. First, you believe there is sockpuppetry going on, including some previously blocked editors. In that case you should file a report at WP:SPI. Figure out which is the oldest of the accounts you believe to be sockpuppets, and file a report under that name. List as possible socks the other users you suspect, along with evidence, i.e., diffs showing them making the same or similar edits. That is the appropriate way to deal with suspected socks.

Second and more worrisome, you talk as if you believe that one or more of the editors are Deutsch himself. That is not a good approach for you to take, and unless they have self-disclosed their identity you should drop that kind of talk. If you were to seriously pursue that angle, to try to PROVE that one or more of these editors is Deutsch, you could be get blocked for WP:OUTING. You should not even keep casually saying it - unless one of them has self-disclosed their identity as Deutsch.

Finally, use the talk page for discussing the article content, not for talking about other editors. Maybe start a new discussion about a point of contention, saying what you believe should be in the article or what should not be in the article, and why. Ping the others to come and respond. Be the good guy, the person who is acting according to Wikipedia policy, and use the talk page in an honest attempt to discuss. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC) WillieHowardCO67 (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Melanie, snowfire is still doing his thing. Please help. FTIIIOhfive (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Dispute

@AlexVegaEsquire and Wikihunter6: Stop reverting each other without discussing matters here, Goddammit. Remember, discuss the issues based on site policies and guidelines, not based on accusations. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The main issues I'm seeing to discuss are:

-Whether or not his real name and birthdate should be included: if so, it needs to be sourced.

-Whether or not it should be mentioned that he's been investigated by those different news outlets: the issue here would be whether or not the sources are reliable. From what I've seen, Poynter is generally recognized as reliable, AlexVegaEsquire would need to make a case (based on policies and guidelines such as WP:RS or precedent at WP:RSN) that it isn't. On the other hand, Buzzfeed's reliability is on a case-by-case basis (and due to WP:BLP we always take the side of caution in biographies of living persons), so Wikihunter6 would need to defend it.

-Whether or not the investigation should be mentioned in the lede: this is a matter of due weight. There is a section on the investigation in the aticle that takes up the majority of the article.

-Whether or not "Deutsch's practice of changing the names of individuals and places he documented" should be labelled as "liberal." Although liberal can mean "freely," it can easily be misread as implying political motivation.

-Whether or not to mention that Deutsch has been accused of recycling a story on HuffPo.

Again, the discussion should based on policies and guidelines, not accusations. Both of you have shown no other interest than this article, which is technically not a bad thing in it self but often a sign that an editor is here for reasons other than building the encyclopedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@AlexVegaEsquire and Ian.thomson: A few thoughts on these points:

-To the first point, his real name (before it was removed) was sourced to an article that Deutsch wrote himself in the Miami Herald, so in the interest of accuracy, I don't see why his real name should be left out.

-For the investigation, other outlets than Poynter have reported on it now, including Rolling Stone magazine

-As Baltimore free pointed out, the scale of investigation has thus far been at least as nationally significant as Deutsch's reporting career, so it would make sense to mention in the lede.

-Perhaps liberal can be changed to "routine" or something similar. Some sources now allege he may have fabricated over a dozen sources so it doesn't strike me as an exaggeration. Wikihunter6 (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the current version of the article is extremely fair. A majority of it deals with the controversies and it also includes information about Deutsch's first name. This version also follows all site policies and guidelines. Details of the controversies take up almost the entire article. I don't understand the desire to try and go further and subvert the biography of living persons policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexVegaEsquire (talk • contribs) 02:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Some people are only famous for negative events. It would be non-neutral and prejudicial to downplay them. Put bluntly, Deutsch probably wouldn't be notable enough for a Wikipedia article *without* the controversy over his books and articles. To not cover the reason why he's in the news would be the violation of Wikipedia policies. (This puts no judgement on Deutsch himself. Maybe it's a big frameup. But that's why he's in the news.) SnowFire (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ballastpointed: I don't know if you are Deutsch, or are friends with him, or are just a fan, but I would recommend that Wikipedia is the wrong place to be fighting his battles. All of the press coverage of Deutsch is uniformly negative. Wikipedia must reflect that, as a tertiary source. WP:BLP is about unsourced negative content. Unfortunately, all of the criticism of Deutsch has ample sources. If you wants to "fix" his Wikipedia article, start with the news media. Newsday publishing an article like "Kevin Deutsch exonerated" would be a start. David Simon is a pretty good authority on the Baltimore crime scene. Convince him he was in error, that the events of Pill City really happened. Get a few of those "positive" takes from reliable sources (e.g. not blogs, letters to the editor, indy news sites), and the Wikipedia article will turn itself around quickly. As is, the article is going to stay reflective of the news media, and neutrally report the accusations against Deutsch, and not give a lot of weight to self-published sources other than reporting a general claim of innocence from Deutsch. SnowFire (talk) 00:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedia entry certainly reflects all of the negative coverage and allegations. I'm a reader of his work and many other true crime authors, and am merely attempting to accurately portray the coverage and his responses to the allegations. They are allegations--not proven--and that must be made clear. Since he is a living person, that is crucial. If he were dead, the policy would not apply. From what I've seen, many of the edits have misconstrued the reporting on Deutsch, paraphrasing it inaccurately. If the stories are quoted accurately, I will not attempt to correct them. If the characterizatiosn of the stories are innacurate, I will. That's what Wikipedia is about--truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballastpointed (talk • contribs)

@Ballastpointed: If you are "merely attempting to accurately portray the coverage", you are not succeeding. There are too many examples to list, but I'll just whistle off three real quick:

• You keep adding "award-winning" to the lede. Please read WP:PEACOCK. Lots of journalists win awards. This isn't the inside sleeve of a book. If the likes of Bob Woodward isn't introduced as "award-winning" in the opening of his article, then nobody else needs it either.
• You say, with respect to the veracity of Pill City, that "There was no disputing the riots at the center of the book." To say that this is missing the point is an understatement. If I say that I rescued 12 people from the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, and then when challenged, say "well there's no disputing the September 11 attacks happened", I've pretty well admitted defeat already, no?
• It's certainly fair to cite this article from iMediaEthics, but it isn't fair to act as if it was a vindication of Deutsch; it would have said so if it was ("missing sources found!"). It says that the trail has grown too cold and they weren't able to confirm things either way.

Just as the verification problems against 77 Newsday articles of Deutsch does not in any way mean that only those are compromised, my above three examples are not the only cases of writing in a way inconsistent with Wikipedia's style. If you are truly interested in becoming an editor on Wikipedia, can I suggest you edit a topic of which you care strongly about that is non-controversial? If you keep up as is, you'll just be reverted, which is a waste of your time and mine. SnowFire (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm certain you haven't examined the source materials--books, articles, etc.--as closely as I have. My interest has made me an expert on the controversy, and I'm putting that expertise to use. I don't agree with your suggestions or viewpoints regarding these issues--especially given that this Wikipedia article existed well before these controversies arose. But I respect your opinion and viewpoints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballastpointed (talk • contribs)

I can read linked sources just fine. You are interpreting them all in the most favorable possible light to Deutsch, loudly trumpeting his achievements, and downplaying any mistake or criticism as solely from that specific source and unusual. That is not "neutral" in Wikipedia parlance. A neutral rendition of articles on Deutsch is gonna be pretty harsh. Sorry, that's just the way it is, and it doesn't even necessarily reflect badly on Deutsch - perhaps it's just a media coverage failure. Nevertheless, that is the way the media has done the story, and that's the way Wikipedia covers it as well. SnowFire (talk) 02:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I believe I am interpreting them objectively and neutrally, and that you are interpreting all of the information in the light most detrimental to the article subject. Wikipedia rules state that we should stick to the neutral facts--not opinions or inaccurate paraphrasing of language in news stories. We should also strive for balance. This is not an entry about Davis Simon--he has his own page and you can write about him there. He weighs in on dozens of issues a day--that doesn't mean all his controversial opinions need to be in articles about other people. The media has covered the story in a way that's accurately reflected in this entry, and which this entry has reflected for months. By attempting to include potentially libelous information and inserting questionable details that violate Wiki's living person's policy, you are not being faithful to Wikipedia's values--you're doing just the opposite, in fact. I work in a library and have little else to do but be online, so I hope we can find a compromise here based on the language in the article as it appeared before you came in and started hurling bombs around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballastpointed (talk • contribs)

Read the linked sources. I am leaving out choice quotes like "journalism's most prolific frauds". I'm not sure how you can read these articles as anything other than hit pieces on Deutsch. Like, even if you think Deutsch is totally innocent, you can still grasp that these articles are actually hostile to Deutsch, that I'm not making this up? Take it up with the people who wrote the articles, not me.

And I agree, I wouldn't normally quote Simon at such length, but you modified my original paragraph to entirely defang it compared to the venom in the sources. Fine, perhaps our interpretations are different, so I'll just quote directly, no?

This isn't proceeding anywhere. Please stop wasting our time. Either find reliable and positive sources for your slant, or stop. If you truly feel I am being unfair, we can ask for outside opinions from this noticeboard and the like. SnowFire (talk) 13:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

A few of your changes are fine. Many, however, are still giving too much weight to Deutsch's own personal explanations, and seem to misunderstand the nature of the accusations. If someone is convicted of manslaughter, it is not in general reported on as "John Doe evades second-degree murder charge." The fact that they were convicted of anything is the proper slant. So sure, the NY Daily News didn't find "red flags", but it also didn't do as extensive a review as Newsday did (source: the WaPo article which notes they declined to do so), so it shouldn't be trumpeted as an exoneration. And heck, even if it WAS an exoneration for those articles, it would then just be a distraction from the far more interesting and newsworthy claims elsewhere - having normal articles that aren't challenged is the boring and standard case.

As far as "the dates are not included in the book" for Pill City, as you pointed out before, nobody contests that the Freddie Gray riots happened in April 2015. The BCP is claiming to have looked at every homicide in the relevant period of the months after the riots. Also, it is certainly good to qualify all this with "as reporeted by the City Paper", but that was already done in my version; it doesn't need to be mentioned every line, nor does Deutsch's defense need to be mentioned on a line-by-line basis. Part of what the news stories said is not conflicting with Deutsch's author's note, after all; the news stories were just saying that if this was "anonymized", it was anonymized so well and so completely as to seemingly have nothing to do with actual events. SnowFire (talk) 07:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ballastpointed: There are two ways to go forward here:

• Take this to a third opinion / noticeboard, e.g. the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. This only works if you're willing to discuss or defend your edits.
• Take this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, where this will be reported as vandalism by a WP:SPA.

Up to you which one to do. I recommend the first, but will only do it if you're actually interested in what others have to say... SnowFire (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

for the last time, Alex

I knew this would happen after only Ballast was banned. Alex, stop. Go away. My patience for explaining basic, obvious things has worn thin.

I'll humor you one last time. David Simon is an authority with no particular stake in how Pill City does. He is a neutral source. The publisher of the book is NOT a neutral source, unless they did something surprising like withdraw the book. This is equivalent to citing a crime suspect's lawyer as an authority on whether or not her client did the deed. No. Try again. Also read WP:DUEWEIGHT. SnowFire (talk) 01:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, I created this page long before the controversy, and Wikipedia found Deutsch relevant enough to include his page before any of the stuff that followed regarding his work. Why should I "go away" when I have as much right to be here as anyone? David Simon is not necessarily objective; he's a competitor with a financial interest in being the head honcho in BAL journalism. And St. Martin's is not some mopey lawyer; they're the fifth largest publisher in the world. What they says matters. I'd be happy to bring this to a third party for a ruling. I don't think you have much of a case/argument here. (talk)

As for the substance of your point. No David Simon is not a competitor, unless you count every single journalist as a competitor, which is ludicrous. Citing the publisher when this article already has extensive, extensive citing of Deutsch himself is a non-starter. I will give you an analogy. Suppose a movie is released that flopped. No good reviews can be found. However, there are advertisements from the studio and interviews with the director that all claim the movie is great. WP:DUEWEIGHT says that an article on this movie should not spend half the time on critical reviews trashing the movie, and half the time on the director & studio praising the movie as awesome. SnowFire (talk) 01:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Actually, Snowfire has an iron-clad case here:

• St. Martin's has a DIRECT conflict of interest -- financial and reputational -- since they're Deutsch's publisher
• David Simon has NO direct conflict of interest, nor does your specious and self-serving reasoning make sense as an indirect one: how the hell is Simon "competing" and which is supposed to be gained by his supposedly unfairly denigrating this "competitor"?

Alexvegaesquire doesn't have a leg to stand on here. --Calton | Talk 01:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

That said, the quoted text -- or some form thereof -- seems perfectly fine as an attributed defense of Deutsch by an interested party. --Calton | Talk 01:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

In that, I agree... except for WP:DUEWEIGHT issues. The article already incessantly cites Deutsch's website, interviews with Deutsch, etc. for every little explanation and rebuttal. While having Deutsch's point of view is fine, at some point it gets to be too much; citing both Deutsch and his publisher just seems like a way to double the amount of space for self-interested "Deutsch is innocent" claims. You only need to cite that side so much, especially when it comes down to basically blanket denials, rather than offering up some new piece of evidence that actually confirms anything. (To my knowledge, the publisher, if they confirmed anything, didn't actually release any details on the confirmation, nor convince anyone outside the publisher's office of their clearance, which might change the equation - then it wouldn't just be talk.) SnowFire (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Sea of Citations

The section about Kevin Deutsch's career has a such a sea of citations that I can barely read it without having to skip little bits of it because of the citations, and then realizing I skipped reading actual material.

Or am I not supposed to read Wikipedia articles front-to-back when i'm bored?

Badmonkey717 (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Dispute, part 2

Creating a new section arbitrarily post ANI report.

Ballastpointed, you keep adding in phrases like "The sourcing and veracity of some of his news articles has been questioned." Do journalists have "John Smith didn't fabricate any articles" written in their biographies normally? Or for pilots that they didn't crash any planes? The expectation is that the veracity of none of a journalists articles is seriously doubted. And once there are doubts, it spreads through the rest of the work - if he/she lied here, where we could check, what about all the places they got the benefit of the doubt and it's hard to check? So no. The fact that every single word Deutsch wrote is not under question is not relevant. The fact that at least one thing he wrote is under suspicion is relevant.

In the same way, with respect to the NYT article, fine, Deutsch says he got snookered by his sources and that it was at a 12-step meeting. Sure whatever. If that was the only article under threat, the NYT surely would not have appended the editor's note, and people would shrug and say it was just one of those things. It's that it happened for someone who was accused of fabricating sources in a bunch of other places. In other words, even if Deutsch is 100% telling the truth, it's STILL under suspicion anyway, because of the cloud from his other works. His explanations are not really all that relevant; what matters is that it wasn't something confirmable, and it was from someone who was already being accused of fabrication, so it *might* also be problematic.

Finally, for the NY Daily News article, I've been over it above, but the "no red flags" line is being used out of context. It's far less impressive in the entire article, which says that the Daily News didn't undertake a full investigation, but they couldn't find any extremely obvious problems, and that it would be very difficult to research anyway. I believe my phrasing of "inconclusive" gets that across. So would the following compromise work: you can keep "no red flags" if you truly insist, but leave in my "inconclusive" and "not as extensive a review as Newsday." Sound good? SnowFire (talk) 05:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Re AlexVegaEsquire, your comment at ANI: Again, Deutsch's denials are not that relevant. Deutsch is a reliable source for his own opinions; he isn't a reliable source about what actually happened, for obvious reasons. I've written at length above about the Wikipedia-policy compliant way to get this in the article: If you want to include details on Deutsch's "innocent" explanations, find a source that is NOT Deutsch - not an article he wrote in the Observer, not his own website. Someone else, a secondary-but-reliable source. SnowFire (talk) 16:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I guess I'm just talking to myself since Deutsch/Alex/Ballast don't post here anymore, but.... WP:SELFPUBLISH. From there, material about the subject shouldn't:

• the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Look at the references section. Deutsch himself is already referenced way too much IMO. Deutsch's myriad of explanations, qualifications, and so on violate all three of the above: they are self-serving claims, they involve third-parties (e.g. Deutsch declaring that the Baltimore City Paper only checked the visitor's log of UMD, which is not what the BCP said, or Deutsch claiming that the NYTimes cruelly rejected his offer of proof of his innocence), and AlexVega / Ballastpointed want to make large amounts of the article to be primarily based on such sources. This isn't some special hatred of Deutsch or anything; any accused person is never a reliable source about the allegations against them.

I've said it before, I'll say it again, but as a final, final plea to move in a constructive direction: if Deutsch's "defense" is relevant, then it will be covered in a secondary source, i.e. not by Deutsch himself. Quote that, and that exactly, instead. SnowFire (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I am having a difficult time keeping my sourced information in the article, particularly in the introduction. The information re: the article subject specializing in stories about "gangs and drug trafficking" is at the heart of the article, and had been part of it for months. SnowFire, a user who recently began making major revisions to the article, continues to undo my sourced and accurate revisions without good cause. Can a moderate please resolve our dispute? I work a sixty hour week and consider contributory encyclopedias an interesting/valuable hobby, but having my edits wiped out by someone who seems to have a serious grudge about the article subject is disheartening. I would also ask that a moderator address the other deletions SnowFire made to the article today, and make a final determination re: inclusion of objective language about fact that pseudonymss were used throughout subject's book, and that is why City Paper could not verify. Thank you.

"Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[a] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:

'Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR) We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[b] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material."

My interest in the article is because I saw the article had been edited to be super-favorable to the subject in a non-neutral fashion, likely by associates of the subject itself. And that other editors - who were not me - had been defeated by this. I have, for the sake of argument, been explaining my edits in great detail above, so that if you are acting in good faith, you can see the reasons why. You have failed to respond to that and instead blandly accused me of bias. Again, I am solely reflecting what the sources actually say, and avoiding weird language elements you try to include like saying that only "elements of" the book were challenged. (Sure, is every single sentence in the book a lie? Of course not, Baltimore exists, etc. Have reliable sources suggested that the sourcing and anonymization problems are severe, such that "the book" was challenged rather than two footnotes? Absolutely.)

That said, if you'd like to bring in a third party, great! (Wikipedia doesn't really have "moderators.") Shall I make a posting requesting input at the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard , and will you agree to listen to what others have to say? SnowFire (talk) 23:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Dude,I totally understand where you’re coming from. I just see it a slightly different way. I don’t see any reason we can’t hash this out without the back and forth edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Ballastpointed (talk • contribs) 02:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)