Talk:Sharyl Attkisson/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

RfC on self-sourcing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

At issue: inclusion of Attkisson's self-sourced repudiations of criticism of anti-vaccinationist themes in her reporting. Guy (help!) 09:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

As you'll see from the above, this has been going on for years. In many/most cases active editors of the article are not pinged to join those discussions and may not notice them, resulting in endless circular argument. I will advertise this RfC at BLPN, FTN and RSN.

The trigger here is the text "Attkisson denied mischaracterizing Zimmerman's statements in her report." The proposed source for this is Attkisson, Sharyl (2019-06-17). "Wikipedia's Pharma Industry Agenda Editors–at it again". sharylattkisson.com. Retrieved 2019-06-28., but this is a wider discussion.

RfC Question

In respect of Attkisson's rebuttals / rejections of sources characterising her reporting as anti-vaccine:

1. We should exclude it (under the Mandy Rice-Davies rule)
2. We should include it only if reported in reliable independent sources
3. We should include it self-sourced but only if published in a reliable source (e.g. a mainstream newspaper, but not her blog, her own microsites or an unreliable source)
4. We should include it from her blog

Opinions

• Prefer 2, accept 1. The other two are not impossible. I'm new in this RFC. I apologise for commenting at the head of the list, but I couldn't find the proper place in the walls of text. Anyone who wishes to move this entry to its proper place, feel welcome. JonRichfield (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
• Prefer 2, also OK with 1. Definitely reject 3 and 4 per WP:PROFRINGE and the well-established problem of "I'm not anti-vaccine but..." among those promoting anti-vax tropes. Guy (help!) 09:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• 2 or 1. Per WP:NPOV in regard to fringe positions "we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world." Without good context for this denial it would be a classic WP:FALSEBALANCE, and NPOV is a non-negotiable pillar of this Project. Alexbrn (talk) 10:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• 4. We recently had this discussion at WP:BLP/N and consensus was to include her denial, so it is disappointing to see this happening again so soon after that discussion. That said, we either leave the claim out or include that she denies it. Per WP:BLP: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. ... If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." (emphasis mine). The subject has specifically denied this allegation, so either we leave the allegation out or include her denial. In regard to whether or not we can use her website per WP:ABOUTSELF, consensus of the RFC above was that we can.- Bilby (talk) 10:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  Bilby, consensus that did not involve known long-standing editors of the article, who were not pinged, for some reason. And we don't work by continuing to ask the question until you get the answer you want then shutting down all further debate. I stand by the rationale above: multiple discussions, inconsistent results, and relying on a debate in which known long-standing editors of the article were not pinged or involved. That's not how we work. Guy (help!) 13:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  JzG, Disagree that's not how we work. Pinging other editors, some who were non-involved, invites a fresher perspective, no? It seems to me this article has a lot of watchers, particularly on one side of the issue, and that's not healthy. Doug Mehus T·C 13:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  So you think that "we do work by continuing to ask the question until you get the answer you want then shutting down all further debate"? That is a remarkable statement. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

  JzG, a) editors on this talk page were notified of the discussion at BLP/N and took part in the discussion; b) we don't specifically ping editors of one side, as that would be canvasing; c) I was happy to accept the consensus at BLPN, whereas it seems to me that it is you who is running multiple discussions until you get the answer you want. - Bilby (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard says "This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons."

  It does not say "This page is for deciding issues regarding biographies of living persons." A noticeboard is a board where you pin notices saying "discussion going on there and there". An article Talk page is, by definition, the place where improvements of the article are talked about. The BLP board cannot just decide what happens elsewhere, until the community explicitly gives the board that power.

  I rarely visit that noticeboard because it is full of tedious discussions with people ignoring WP:IDHT when it comes to issues other that BLP. It is not a representative section of the whole of Wikipedia, but a sub-subculture echo chamber of, probably exaggerating a bit harshly, SPAs who only care about BLP and ignore all the other rules, such as WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV.

  In the same way, the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard should not decide by fiat what happens in an article. But that board already knows its limits, so it will not do it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

  That is an interesting view of the noticeboards, but no, that is not how they work. We regularly use them to raise issues and find consensus. - Bilby (talk) 11:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

  In that case, the intros should be changed accordingly, in order to avoid confusion. (This would also mean that the BLP noticeboard cannot intervene if the FTN or RSN noticeboard already has decided on an issue, right?) --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

  I suspect you need to look at how the noticeboards actually work before stating that they can't discuss issues and try to find a consensus. If you want to change how they function, you are well within your rights to argue that they can't be used in the way that they are, but I don't think you'll find much support. That said, how about we keep this focused on the issue at hand? - Bilby (talk) 12:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

  I note that you sidestepped my question.

  Okay, but it seems to me that this is a bigger issue and needs to be discussed at another venue, higher than this Talk page and higher the noticeboards. If one policy, WP:V, and two guidelines, WP:RS and WP:FRINGE, say we cannot link to a fringey, conspiracist rant on a self-published blog, and another policy, WP:BLP says we need to do that, the policies are in a conflict that will return again and again, and which needs to be resolved. Obviously, it has not been resolved yet, otherwise this discussion would not exist. But judging from previous contributions, you will probably say that your noticeboard has already conveniently decided that your rule beats the other two, right? --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

  We have an easy solution - policies trump guidelines. - Bilby (talk) 13:37, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

  WP:BLPSPS isn't policy - it's when you may use it, not that you must. WP:BLP does not dictate that the subject's reply be included. (If you disagree, please quote the relevant text.) - David Gerard (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

  David Gerard, Question: How is WP:BLPSPS not policy? It's part of the same WP:BLP policy page. Thus, I look at it as instructive guidance on how to either interpret or functionally apply WP:BLP in various circumstances. Taken together, it's a single, comprehensive policy document, no? Doug Mehus T·C 17:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

  As I just said: If you disagree, please quote the relevant text. BLPSPS says you may use the source, not that you must. I suggest the text will be a better guide than personal holistic interpretations - David Gerard (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

  a) WP:BLPSPS is policy. b) This isn't about WP:BLPSPS, but about WP:BLPPUBLIC, which reads "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported". - Bilby (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

  WP:V is also policy, and it says "Articles must be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Which Attkisson's blog is not. As I said above, "If one policy, WP:V, and two guidelines, WP:RS and WP:FRINGE...". No easy solution for you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  You might want to read all of the WP:V policy you refer to, which states "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field". Under BLP we are required to state that she has refuted an allegation; under WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:BLPSPS we can use something she published as a source for that claim; in WP:RS a self published source is also acceptable, and WP:FRINGE states that policies take precedence over the guideline, and that "Wikipedia's verifiability and biographies of living persons policies are not suspended simply because the topic is a fringe theory". Throwing letters around and claiming that they support your position - when they don't - is not the best means of arguing your point. - Bilby (talk) 09:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  "Throwing letters around and claiming that they support your position - when they don't - is not the best means of arguing your point." Quite. So when you say "Under BLP we are required to state that she has refuted an allegation", what text spells out this "requirement"? Alexbrn (talk) 09:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  The one I have refered to multiple times above: "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported". - Bilby (talk) 10:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  So that is a recommendation ("should") rather than a requirement ("must"). Surely the whole point here is whether that recommendation applies in this case? Alexbrn (talk) 10:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  The previous consensus was that it does. However, the issue in this thread is that this isn't pitting one policy against another, or a policy against a guideline, as the other policies and guidelines being refered to support BLP and don't say that we can't use her own words to express her denial of the allegation. As a matter of interest, would it be better if we used someone else? How about David Gorski saying that Zimmerman was not misrepresented? - Bilby (talk) 10:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  My concern was simply that BLP not be misrepresented as having more "requirements" than it actually does. As to Gorski, he is usually a good source for antivax topics, yes. Alexbrn (talk) 10:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  Gorski has an article he published about why Zimmerman was not misrepresented [1]. Perhaps the solution is to reference Gorski's opinion, if for some reason we can't use Attkisson's own words. - Bilby (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  From a quick look it seems more nuanced than that. Gorski is saying the misrepresentation was of the significance of the Zimmermann stuff, so as to use it as propaganda ("That’s where the misrepresentation by Sharyl Attkisson was, her inflating the importance of Dr. Zimmerman to the AOP outcome ...") I'd have no objection to clarifying precisely what happened, using this source. Though we're into SPS waters again. Alexbrn (talk) 10:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  We already use Gorski to criticise Attkisson in that paragraph, so we're in those waters. That said, the Snopes article is also more nuanced than we present - it doesn't say that Attkisson mischaracterized Zimmerman, but that Zimmerman claims he was mischaracterized by Attkisson. Both say that Atkission mischaracterised the significance of Zimmerman, but that isn't what we say in the article. Attkisson saying that she didn't misrepresent Zimmerman is not unsupported. - Bilby (talk) 10:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  Bilby, I'd be happy to do that if it was on Science Based Medicine, but not from his blog, which is just as polemical as Attkisson's, albeit in favour of reality-based medicine. Guy (help!) 11:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  In that case, we should also remove the other content sourced to his blog. - Bilby (talk) 11:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  Hob Gadling, Agree with Bilby above. Just as you found my statement above "remarkable," I, too, find the second paragraph of your comment above remarkable. My understanding is consensus can happen anywhere; on a talkpage of an article, on a noticeboard, at a village pump, on Jimbo Wales' user talkpage, or even on the subpage of a any other editor or administrator. I think you might be too finely parsing the verbiage in the text which you've quoted. Doug Mehus T·C 16:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

  Sure "consensus" can happen everywhere. But that is just an uninteresting semantic question. The real question: is a consensus at some random place binding for everybody who was not involved? You seem to think it is. Probably again only if it works in your favor. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Procedural Close: per Bilby above; the above RfC includes biased, selective, or one-sided options; and WP:BLP already, as I understands it, requires us to be especially careful with negative information on biographies of living persons. Thus, implicitly, per WP:BLP, we are ethically, if not legally, obligated to include the refutation; and,

Support for option 4, though, regardless of the outcome, per WP:BLP, Bilby, The Four Deuces, and the previous consensus provided by administrator Bilby, we can include Attkisson's refutation (indeed, WP:BLP obligates us to).

--Doug Mehus T·C 11:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, No it doesn't. And if you're going to go by argumentum ad sysopium or whatever we might call it, both David and I are also admins so that's 2:1 against inclusion among the admins who have opined so far. "Procedural close" is invalid since we have multiple discussions with differing results, hence the need for an RfC. Guy (help!) 13:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

JzG, I like your contrived Latin phrase. I tried to look it up at first, but when I couldn't find anything, I realized you'd made it up. Very clever! (And I'm being serious here, not sarcastic. I like it.) Bradv has previously commented in support of WP:BLP here and Diannaa is similarly concerned with adhering to WP:BLP, so I'm hoping either of them will consider chiming in here.

Nevertheless, I disagree "argumentum ad sysopsium" isn't a valid reason because WP:BLP, it seems to me, supercedes any RfC or BLP Noticeboard discussion. Doug Mehus T·C 13:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

If you think "argumentum ad sysopsium" is a valid reason, doesn't that mean you just changed sides? Because, you know, David and Guy are two sysops and Bilby is only one? Or is it only a valid reason when it works in your favor? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, No, I didn't say I was using or advocating for "argumentum ad sysopsium" in this case; I was a bit off-topic and maybe shouldn't have included that sentence. I was just saying that I disagree that it isn't a valid reason in some cases. I don't think it's necessary here. Doug Mehus T·C 16:48, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

That is exactly what I expected: it is only a valid reason when it works in your favor. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• 2 at least, leaning toward 1 - David Gerard (talk) 11:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support 1 or 2 per PROFRINGE and also commonsense. BLP subjects are not entitled to an automatic rebuttal of every negative thing said about them, and Wikipedia is not required to publish pseudoscience or fringe material. The source is question is her own, a bizarre Alex Jones-esque rant - not remotely acceptable. Toa Nidhiki05 12:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support 2 for now. But I would have to see the source first before actually supporting it. I cannot support option 1 without evaluating a new source in the future. There may never be a new source in the future though. I can't predict the future. I'd rather avoid including a blog. QuackGuru (talk) 12:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• 4. Atkinson's response must be included per BLP. Note the article is about Atkinson, not vaccines and autism. Readers want to know about her, not medical sciences. Or if they do, they can follow the links and read that article. TFD (talk) 12:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• 2. WP:BLP does not allow us to bypass our sourcing requirements (in fact, it makes them higher.) Denials can only be included when reliably sourced; the line Bilby references clearly means only reliably-sourced denials (WP:RS is likewise non-negotiable and is therefore a given when talking about any material added to articles unless stated otherwise.) --Aquillion (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• 1 or 2. The more I look at Attkisson's blog response, the more it appears she is off the rails with regard to neutral journalism. She is now a full-blown anti-vaxxer. All of which makes her denial ridiculous. Binksternet (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• 1 (or 2). If Attkisson's remarks push a fringe view without correction from the RS that reports her claims (e.g. some RS don't explicitly correct conspiracy theories and falsehoods all the time when they report on them), then I support 1. I don't support giving her a platform to push additional fringe stuff. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• 2 or 1 per Guy and Alexbrn. She is so unreliable that her opinions should receive very limited coverage per due weight, even on her own BLP, and her counterfactual opinions should then be countered by factual information. Those who read her article should not leave without knowing that what she's saying is generally utter BS, and they should also learn what is factual. Due weight requires that we do this. This definitely applies to her political and health opinions. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

To call her "unreliable" seems like a BLP violation. Is this 'fact' supported by RS? petrarchan47คุก 00:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I shouldn’t even have to tell you this, but saying someone is unreliable is not a BLP violation. You seem to interpret any negative comments about her as a BLP violation. Toa Nidhiki05 01:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• 4 but would prefer to address the problem by removing so many of the direct quotes per TFD suggestion. Additional comments below. Springee (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• 2 per WP:FRINGE - or, on second thought, 5 say she rejects the "anti-vax" label, but without giving a source, which is allowed since it is an obvious fact. All the antivaxxers say they are not anti-vax. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
• Content-dependent. If it's about fact (the nature of vaccines, existing evidence etc.) - then WP:MEDRS and 1. If it's about intent (what she believes she is doing, what she meant when she said or did something) - then WP:ABOUTSELF and 2/3/4 (the distinction between the three is not clear under ABOUTSELF, though one could make an argument for #2 and #3 in certain scenarios). François Robere (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

  François Robere, For me, it's about the characterization of her reporting. I've watched Full Measure since virtually it premiered and I've never seen a story by her that attempted to make a link between vaccines and autism. She's done stories critical of the vaccine-producing segment of the biopharmaceutical industry, but has never done stories where she explicitly makes that link nor has she ever said she is "anti-vaccines." I have no problem with including this critical paragraph on her vaccine reporting (though I think the header should be changed to "vaccine reporting" or "disputed reportage of vaccine-related stories" per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP), but we should be, at minimum, evaluating the sources we're using and use only the best of the best (an editorial blog post by one scientist is not a peer-reviewed scholarly journal article; if the Pew Research Centre or ProPublica were critical of her reporting, then those should be the sources we use—these are just examples but our sourcing has to be the greenest of the green, I think). Doug Mehus T·C 16:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

  Dmehus, and for me, it's about the fact that she's a typical antivaxer claiming that she's not antivax, it's all a conspiracy to make her look bad. Guy (help!) 18:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Why not let the readers see that by quoting her, then? petrarchan47คุก 00:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, because the blog post in question is a polemic that incites readers to join her "Wikipedia Correction Project" to "correct" our reality-based "bias" on vaccines, because everyone on Wikipedia who supports vaccines is a pharma shill. Which is bullshit on so many levels that we should not link to it. Guy (help!) 11:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

So, we could link to her denial if we approve of everything else she said or linked to in the article containing her denial? What policy are you referring to here? Smells like WP:FILIBUSTERING. Would you favor instead something like a short and simple tweet (if one exists), to show her denial? petrarchan47คุก 00:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, Perfect. A tweet would be perfect. Tweets are cited in full, and we use them all the time on the Canadian senator biographies, often for more trivial details like, "Proud to join the Canadian Senators Group," etc. Doug Mehus T·C 01:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

No, a tweet would not be perfect. There is a trending consensus here that we are not obligated to post a rebuttal whenever she disagrees with something that is on this page, for a variety of reasons. A tweet does nothing but aggravate the problem. Toa Nidhiki05 01:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

"post a rebuttal whenever she disagrees with something that is on this page" -- Except that's not an accurate summary of the situation. Muddying waters again. petrarchan47คุก 01:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05, No, I disagree there is not a "trending consensus." If anything, there's probably no consensus here. At any rate, editors aligned with your argument have refused to acknowledge the consensus identified by Bilby at WP:BLPN, so it seems to me to be a bit of a double standard to expect to expect those aligned with my view to abide by any consensus here. Doug Mehus T·C 02:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• 4 but would argue that this RfC is premature and biased - 3/4 of the choices have never been seriously suggested (except by OP) as an option at this page heretofore, now they're up for a 'vote'? I also underscore everything TFD has written here as perfectly representing WP:BLP; Drmies gets it too:

"I don't mind a sentence in the vaxx section containing her denial, "I have never expressed any 'anti-vaccine' opinions; I have quoted evidence and scientific studies on various sides of vaccine safety issues". That she said that is true (I just read it on her blog), and I suppose there's plenty of material in the article to give the reader enough food for thought." - Drmies petrarchan47คุก 00:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, Do you mean "premature and biased" or did you mean "premature and based"? If the latter, I'm having trouble figuring how what you mean by based in this context. Doug Mehus T·C 00:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Fixed it. Never try tryping sans glasses when you're over the age of forty. petrarchan47คุก 00:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, Ah, no problem. Makes sense. Thanks! : ) Doug Mehus T·C 01:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Context-dependent. I agree with François Robere that option 1 should be applied to claims that fall under WP:MEDRS, and options 2, 3, or 4 should be applied to Attkisson's denials of the allegations. Among options 2–4, my order of preference from greatest to least is option 2, then option 3, then option 4; for any claim, the most reliable sources should be preferred when available, but the less reliable sources are still usable. When secondary sources are not available, option 4 is supported by WP:WELLKNOWN, which states "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." – our coverage of the denial can be as short as "..., which Attkisson has denied" to avoid being "unduly self-serving" under WP:ABOUTSELF. The disparaging tone of Attkisson's blog post is unwelcome, but Wikipedia is not censored and Attkisson's dislike of us Wikipedia editors does not affect the application of the policies mentioned here. A word of advice to Attkisson: if you are concerned about your public image, it is not a good idea to attack your biographers, since it diminishes our willingness to volunteer time and effort into improving this article. — Newslinger talk 03:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• 1 or 2. It appears that these claims fail clause 1 (too self-serving) of WP:BLPSPS, so we need them to be in reliable sources independent of the subject, not self-published sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• 4 - include with attribution. Denials or comments of WP:LABEL from person should always be present, and if echoed in other coverage that should also be mentioned in DUE proportion per NPOV. Some caution to observe the limits of limiting it per WP:ABOUTSELF that denial and reasons are to be included, but don’t make that too much of the article and do not to present response-attacks as if independent coverage. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

  Markbassett, actually we routinely exclude implausible denials by fringe advocates. We're not a newspaper, we don't give the subject the last word. Guy (help!) 10:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

User:JzG That sounds contrary to NPOV. All significant viewpoints are to be presented in proportion to their prominence. There is no exception to that for ‘plausible’, and there is plenty of guidance re describing controversies and avoiding false balance. Mostly, just make sure independent sources establish that a controversy exists, and that description does not give undue percentage coverage or state fringe as mainstream. I think implausible might have to be allowed or else the narrative simply couldn’t be adequately describing things. (I’m thinking most modern politics couldn’t be described if there was an exclusion for implausible... all sides claim 300% of reality and then throw loaded wordsauce plus fantasy sprinkles on top.). In any case, if there is official determination of ‘implausible’ then it goes in as well. And if there isn’t such, then it should not be excluded or implied false, particularly for key player voices in a narrative. In any case, this is *her* BLP, not a medical article, so I have great difficulty seeing how her side re this label would be left out of her life story. To any kind of accusation, her response would seem a necessary part of the mention. In something where she’s done extensive and public response, seems that also has to be mentioned and citeable. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Markbassett, All significant viewpoints - significance being established by appearance in reliable independent secondary sources. In the years since Wikipedia started me down the road of reading up on quacks, I have yet to find one who does not have a page on their own website denying all accusations against them. In some cases these implaubsible denials are discussed in sources. This debate exists only because in this case not one single reliable independent source has been advanced. Including by Attkisson herself, as far as I can see. Guy (help!) 11:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

User:JzG No, the question is of “repudiations of criticism of anti-vaccinations themes in her reporting”, which means it’s gone beyond just a general DUE situation of ‘2 - only if reported in independent sources’. My response is that if such LABEL are included, then her response belongs and ‘4 - we should include it from her blog’. I agree that if her response has significant third-party evaluation that is DUE inclusion, but that is a different matter than my answer and might be in ***addition*** to including her response. This isn’t talking about a general topic article Vaccination or talking about the views themselves, this is *her* BLP and we’re talking about her response to a LABEL. Highlight that means BLP rules - for disliked allegations WP:BLPPUBLIC “If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.” Limited to her defenses, WP:BLPSELFPUB allows her own material, and in this case she has noted prominence in her self-published and independent works and those even seem WP:BESTSOURCES on her response. I will add that such criticisms should not dominate the article per WP:BLPFRINGE, and basically we do not want the article to be WP:BLPGOSSIP or to include such where they may be ad hominem use of LABEL and not serious discussion. I’m thinking that if you’re not finding significant coverage of the claim such as her repudiation, that is just indicating this should not be large or prominent in her BLP because WP:BALASPS “An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• 4 Per WP:PUBLICFIGURE & WP:ABOUTSELF. I also want to note someone denying an allegation about themselves is does not qualify as unduly self-serving. PackMecEng (talk) 06:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
• 1 or 2 Not suitable unless proper sources found.HAL333 19:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• Prefer 2. (summoned by RFC bot) The argument about ABOUTSELF from blogs is not entirely applicable. It this case the blog is intended to be cited not to support an encyclopedic fact about the author herself, but to support a statement of the author about someone else's claim. Also, her denial has no encyclopedic weight, because she gave no argument beyond "read the freaking affidavit themselves" (i.e., the right to "defend herself" holds no water: there is no defense, just denial). Only a third party may be cited for the conclusion whether she did misrepresent smth. or not. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• 1 It would be noteworthy if she didn't stand behind her reporting, not that she does stand by it. Her reporting has been characterized as irresponsible in regards to vaccines and autism by various other reliable sources, her self defense really doesn't factor in. Now, if one can find a defense of her by a reliable third party, that would be another story. Cynistrategus (talk) 07:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• There's general agreement that we can include Attkisson's rejection of the assessment of various independent commentators if it's mentioned in a reliable source, so #2 at least should be a clear pass. The original question here is whether citing to the identified primary self-published source, a piece which blows many anti-vaccine dog whistles and very obviously includes meta commentary designed to undermine trust in the content of the Wikipedia article itself, is appropriate per WP:PROFRINGE. WP:ABOUTSELF does not cover this, as this is not a minor or uncontroversial fact, it's a full-blown "vaccine shills are taking over Wikipedia" conspiracist rant. In this article, which invokes the "pharma shill gambit" ("Wikipedia’s vaccine industry agenda editors are at it again"), Attkisson promotes the "Wikipedia Correction Project", which invites rebuffed antivaxers to submit content that was rejected, in order to allow Attkisson to "expose" our "bias". I think it is grossly inappropriate to include a self-published source that outright attacks good-faith contributors to Wikipedia as "pharma shills" just because Attkisson would prefer us not to include certain third-party critique of her reporting. Guy (help!) 09:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• David Gerard, This discussion is functionally exemplifying Ms. Attkisson's reporting of Wikipedia, which has been nothing by admirable, critical, and objective, especially her interview with Larry Sanger who describes, accurately, how Wikipedia is based off of a false consensus. Bradv and Diannaa, I am seriously considering leaving Wikipedia and this is one of the reasons why. Doug Mehus T·C 11:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Literally my entire comment was answering the original question with the text "2 at least, leaning toward 1" - it's entirely unclear to me how that makes me a suitable named target for that ramble. Perhaps you need to hold off from personalising the dispute - David Gerard (talk) 12:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

    David Gerard, It was not targeted to you. I was being lazy and replying using reply-link. I'll strike your name from the above comment. No offence intended. Doug Mehus T·C 13:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  Dmehus, are you serious? Her reporting on Wikipedia is a perfect example of motivated reasoning, deliberately collecting grudge-bearers. It might align with your own prejudices, but that is not the same thing as objectivity. Guy (help!) 13:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  JzG, She published "The Dark Side of Wikipedia," another Wikipedia episode, before her interview with Larry Sanger and before her June 2019 editorial dispute with her Wikipedia page. Doug Mehus T·C 13:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  Dmehus, look at the history here. She’s been confirmed to have tried to influence this page since at least 2012. Her 2019 incident here was only the most recent, and she targeted several editors here (myself and Snooganssnoogans) off-wiki. This isn’t new. Toa Nidhiki05 13:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

While I'm not big on arguing that because we don't like the content of a source, we can't use it, there is an alternative article published by Attkisson on her site that also states that she disagrees with the Snopes article [2]. - Bilby (talk) 12:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• I am curious as to whether the anti-vaccination positions of Attkisson's reporting are any more notable than perhaps the conservative bents she has taken (for which she claims to have been forced out of CBSNews, for example). Are we perhaps over-emphasizing her anti-vaccination aspect of her credulity when it is actually simply the way she approaches a lot of controversial subjects (giving the non-establishment view preference)? On the other hand, are there enough third-party sources which actually document this? With vaccination, we have people who are pretty good at spotting problems but with other less high-profile issues there isn't much of a third-party commentariat to fact-check. We can't right that wrong, but we also don't necessarily need to perpetuate it if it seems we are unduly emphasizing one particular contrarian streak in Attkisson over others. I understand that this says nothing about whether we should include her WP:BLPSPS compliant sources in this article, but I thought I would bring this up anyway as it seems related. jps (talk) 12:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Bilby, I find myself wondering why, after all these months and years of bitching about it, nobody's yet presented a reliable independent source that covers her complaints. Doesn't that strike you as... odd? It's not as if there's any shortage of sources looking to boost antivax rhetoric. Guy (help!) 13:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• JzG, I don't see why mainstream news would care about this, for the same reason why mainstream news also didn't cover the allegation that she misrepresented Zimmerman. In regard to BLPN, what we need is to show that she disagrees with the allegation Zimmerman makes, not that mainstream news has covered her view. It would make more sense to argue that we only include Zimmerman's allegation aagainst Attkisson if it was covered by mainstream news, but so be it. - Bilby (talk) 20:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  Bilby, they are interested enough to cover the accusations. For some reason they don't appear to give any credence to her denials. I find that significant. Guy (help!) 12:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  Except they don;t seem to be. Other than Snopes, is there a number of mainstream sources covering this claim regardng Zimmerman? - Bilby (talk) 12:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  Bilby, Also, while Snopes is generally reliable, it is not infallible. It's had a few false positives, which Attkisson has detailed in her books. I'm kind of surprised Snopes is on the WP:RSP list considering it's a one-man band in Tacoma, Wash. Doug Mehus T·C 15:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

JzG, Not at all. Because it simply isn't interesting enough to the "mainstream" news media. News narratives are contrived and scripted to suit the media organizations' and those operatives with whom they're editorially-aligned. Doug Mehus T·C 13:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, the antivax BS has been covered in RS. Such sources almost invariably give the last word to the subject. If they don't repeat her denials, then that is pretty significant. If they do, we can use it from there.Pretty simple IMO. We should never self-source defences by identified antivaxers for the same reason we shouldn't include self-sourced denials by people identified as white supremacists: they have a strong incentive to distance themselves from a community they know to be publicly vilified, even if they are actually quite comfortable being a member of it. Guy (help!) 14:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I think her anti-vax activism is significant in reliable sources, but it has too much weight in this article. I think we could reduce the section by removing repetition. The section contains the words "this contradicts the scientific community...one of the least responsible mainstream journalists...Again and again, she’s parroted anti-vaccine rhetoric long past the point that it’s been decisively disproved....mischaracterized statements...David Gorski was sharply critical...propaganda piece...conspiracy theory." We don't see that type of approach in articles about people like Hitler who had even more controversial and dangerous views. The difference is we're not trying to persuade readers that Hitler was wrong. TFD (talk) 13:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, I don't disagree that it could be shorter, but her antivax activism is certainly significant. That doesn't undermine the fact that her own blog (especially the source under discussion) is a terrible source to rebut serious claims made in reliable sources. Guy (help!) 13:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I’m only open to shortening the anti-vax section if the rebuttals cited to her blog (which should be deprecated, frankly) are removed in their entirety. Otherwise the section should remain at its current length. She is really only known for two things: for her bizarre lawsuit against the government claiming they spied on her (they didn’t) and for her advocacy of FRINGE topics, specifically anti-vax. Toa Nidhiki05 14:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Support shortening the paragraph outlined by The Four Deuces, for his or her well-cited rationale, "[w]e don't see that type of approach in articles about people like Hitler who had even more controversial and dangerous views." Well said.

Disagree with Toa Nidhiki05 (above) that omitting Ms. Attkisson's rebuttal (thanks, JzG; yes, I guess I meant repudiation instead of refutation) is not mutually exclusive of shortening the paragraph. The two are mutually exclusive. Doug Mehus T·C 14:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

If the rebuttals aren’t going to be removed, then it shouldn’t be shortened. End of story. The only reason it’s so long is the bizarre insistence of some people here that Wikipedia is mandated to give her a point-by-point rebuttal of all criticism of her reporting, which is patently ridiculous but apparently widely-shared enough to be approved. I’m sick and tired of people trying to install a false balance here where really there is no balance, because her reporting on this subject is widely regarded as garbage. Toa Nidhiki05 14:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05, couldn't agree more. BLP does NOT mandate this. Wikipedia is nto a newspaper, we are allowed to fall down on the side of reality, regardless of how butthurt this makes antivaxers, climate change deniers, homeopaths and other ne'er-do-wells. Guy (help!) 09:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• If this article includes a source critical of her, an article by Mnookin for example, then we should allow the reply. I do not feel the reply violates WP:ABOUTSELF's "unduly self serving" as she defending her self rather than being the one "bringing up the subject". I think we could avoid the issue by making the anti-vax content more general and avoiding some of the specific quotes. Disclaimer, I'm a "pro-vax" person. I think "The Panic Virus" is an excellent book and I used it to help debunk some anti-vax claims outside of Wikipedia. However, I also think that Wikipedia isn't censored so we shouldn't hide arguments made by the subjects of the article just because we think the message is wrong. We should give the reader the luxury of deciding. That doesn't mean giving a lot of in article text to the counter claim but we can say she has replied an link to the reply. As @Masem: has noted, it's better if we summarize what the sources are saying rather than include long quotes from each. I think something to the effect of:

.. has been criticized for her autism related reporting including stories that link autism to vaccines [citations]. A number of sources have challenged her claims [citations]. We should also avoid phrases like "In fact, the OAP's verdict...". The "in fact" comes across as Wikipedia choosing sides vs simply reporting what others have said. Springee (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC) Updated Springee (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Springee, I agree completely. Well cited rationale. I think it's worth including, but we should reduce the bulk, duplication, and make it more neutral. And, full disclosure, I have been vaccinated, support vaccinations, and my mom thinks I should get tested for Asperger's syndrome. Doug Mehus T·C 18:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Springee, we're taking sides with reality. It is a fact that vaccines don't cause autism. Guy (help!) 12:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• The Four Deuces, Sidebar comment: I love your username, TFD...makes me think of Templates for Discussion. Doug Mehus T·C 13:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  Aquillion, Maybe, but I also think what administrator Bilby meant is the implicit references within WP:BLP with respect to rebuttals and to the broader aims of the policy with respect to contentious material. As written, this section is highly problematic and in contravention of WP:BLP broadly speaking. It, and the entire article, would be worthy of outside peer review. See also The Four Deuces's response. Doug Mehus T·C 15:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  Dmehus, The implicit references don't overcome the explicit requirement for reliable sourcing in canonical policy. BLP does not mandate that we give the subject the last word. It doesn't mandate that we give them any words at all, in fact, other than those noted in reliable independent secondary sources. And invoking Bilby's admin status only works when you don't have other admins dissenting. Both David and I are admins and each have around a hundred thousand more edits than Bilby does - we've both been here longer, too. And I wrote the standard template advice for BLP subjects on OTRS. I think I understand how that policy works. Guy (help!) 17:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  Snooganssnoogans, It's not about pushing fringe stuff, in my view, but merely about allowing her response to state that she refutes or rebuts the allegations. It doesn't need to say more than that, if #2 were to win this RfC, but consistent with WP:BLP, we need to be especially careful with including only one-side to allegations. We need to at least say the subject denies the allegations, with a citation. It's not about assessing the reliability of that author's blog or what have you. If Adolf Hitler were alive today, we should be obligated to permit him to deny the allegations—no matter how preposterous that may be. Doug Mehus T·C 15:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Some editors seem to be confused about the BLP policy of reporting when a subject has denied allegations. The point is not to counter a mainstream view with a fringe one, but merely to report how someone has reacted to an accusation. In that case, the person' website may be the most reliable source that they deny the accusation. TFD (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  The Four Deuces, your arguments are well explained and cogent. Common sense would seem to indicate that an author's blog to be the most reliable source to deny what's been alleged. We don't have to go into much detail, but we should be including a brief sentence. Doug Mehus T·C 20:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  Dmehus, No, "common sense" indicates that we stick with reliable independent secondary sources per policy. WP:ABOUTSELF is an exception top that, and a qualified exception generally understood to apply to uncontroversial facts. These facts are not uncontroversial )or indeed facts). Guy (help!) 10:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  TFD, you do have a point, but it needs to be refined. As the editor who added the requirement at WP:PUBLICFIGURE to include any denials (I should probably have noted they must be found in RS...), the requirement is to document the denial, not their rebuttal. A simple statement of "Attkisson has denied this [whatever]," with the source, is sufficient. Since her rebuttal would be false/pseudoscientific, including it is not necessary and would be unduly self-serving. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  BullRangifer, What about something like Ms. Attkisson rejects the characterization, either of the scientific community, or, crucially, Wikipedia's characterization of said characterization? Doug Mehus T·C 23:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  The first, but definitely not the latter. That would violate our rules against advocacy of fringe views. Don't question what RS say, even on talk pages, as that is what our articles are based on. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  BullRangifer, Right, but sometimes our writing doesn't actually say or adequately summarize what the cited source is saying; that's what I was getting at. Doug Mehus T·C 16:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

  "Denial" and "rebuttal" might be considered interchangeable terms (I am guilty of this), so I'll use direct quotations to see whether this can gain approval. This is her denial of the accusations we have exhaustively covered in her bio: "I have never expressed any “anti-vaccine” opinions; I have quoted evidence and scientific studies on various sides of vaccine safety issues" - simple. (Prior discussion here.) petrarchan47คุก 00:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  Petrarchan47, but RS say she has, and antivaxers tend to insist that they are not antivax. Even genuine out and out antivaxers like Jenny McCarthy claim not to be antivax. Guy (help!) 12:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  JzG, Jenny McCarthy is an obvious antivaxer—that I don't dispute. What I do dispute is the notion that Ms. Attkisson is even against vaccines, let alone being an "antivaxer." The sources I've seen tend to be blog posts by one or more scientists, or churnalism that covers said blog posts or said scientists. Can you point me to a peer-reviewed article in a scholarly journal with a sound methodology and a reasonable control group that has reviewed the collective reporting of Ms. Attkisson's vaccine- or pharmaceutical-related stories that confirms that she is anti-vaccine? If so, then I'll agree, reluctantly, to your #1 or #2 options. Doug Mehus T·C 15:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  So, from Science-Based Medicine (probably the best RS for fringe medicine) we have this, which seems both comprehensive and damning. An assessment of this person's view is obviously something that would not appear in peer-reviewed article in a scholarly journal (which is why we have WP:PARITY of sourcing). Alexbrn (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  Alexbrn, That's one of the sources with which I have issues. It is a weblog of researchers and scientists, principally and presumably. I, note, two that the author is that who was named in Attkisson's report, which is precisely why we must include her counter-argument and why, at least in part, is for this RfC to be procedurally closed. Doug Mehus T·C 16:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  You may take issue with it, but in doing so you are at odds with consensus here. We follow RS, not editors' personal views. Alexbrn (talk) 16:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  Alexbrn, this is one of the fatal flaws of Wikipedia and why we need expanded powers for ArbCom (or a separate content arbitration committee that has expanded powers to override narrowly derived consensus from a number or regularly-involved editors). Heck, I'd even be fine with giving this power to Bureaucrats (those listed have shown themselves to be reasonably neutral and impartial, I think), but I suspect I'm in the minority view here. Doug Mehus T·C 18:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  The result of an RfC on a principal noticeboard is not "narrowly derived consensus"; it's about as broad as can be. Alexbrn (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  Alexbrn, Funny you bring that up because Bilby identified the most recent RfC at the "principal noticeboard", which shows a clear consensus in favour of option 4. Doug Mehus T·C 18:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The overwhelming and clear consensus was to follow the very unambiguous WP:BLP and allow the subject her voice. This RfC is attempt to override that consensus. The hope, it seems, was that by front-loading the RfC with unrelated 'evidence' that she is simply horrible, the community would agree that she should not be afforded the right of denial. petrarchan47คุก 01:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, It would be much easier if any one of those things were true. Meanwhile, back in the real world, we have a conflict across multiple discussions between an interpretation of BLP that gives cranks the last word, and RS/NPOV(UNDUE) etc which mitigate against that. Guy (help!) 01:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comparisons TFD's comment - noting that Attkisson's bio reads as if she was responsible for worse transgressions than Adolf Hitler - should not be overlooked. I realize that the W.H.O. has named vaccine hesitancy as a danger to public health, and I know that Jimmy Wales' vocal support for tamping down on all things "woo", together with the Skeptics group operating on WP, all support the result we have at the Attkisson page. However, as many editors are noting, it's gone too far and is not in compliance with PAGs.

Compare the arguments made here, namely that there is a need for secondary sourcing to include a denial, or that in some cases the subject is just too outrageous to be afforded one, with another RfC at journalist Tim Pool's bio. It is being suggested that his support, as some are calling it, for a conspiracy theory regarding Seth Rich and Hillary Clinton, be added to the page. Note that the suggested allegation is accompanied by his denial (sourced to his site) as if its inclusion goes without question (and it does). No one has asked for secondary sourcing, and some are asking for more sourcing for the allegation itself. Here at Attkisson, the rules are flipped. petrarchan47คุก 00:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Canvassing

Dmehus, if you are going to invite people to discuss here, invite all the regular contributors who have discussed this recently - not just those you think will agree with you. It reeks of canvassing whether you intend it to or not.Toa Nidhiki05 14:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05, I used Twinkle's TB feature, which is permitted, as I understand it. I kept my notification statement neutral. Any other editor is welcome to assist me in inviting previous participants not already here. Doug Mehus T·C 14:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05, Follow up: I invited a number of editors from previous discussions on this page (I did not look through the archived pages), nor did I look in the WP:BLPN noticeboard discussion provided by Bilby, but JzG has notified that board, so we should be good. Doug Mehus T·C 15:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, We are not "good". You selectively pinged or notified individuals. That is forbidden. You have already been warned about this after a previous incident. Guy (help!) 23:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

JzG, See my prior response. I'd assumed if it was built into Twinkle via the talkback feature, that it was okay, so long as I kept the statement neutral and that I balanced out who I pinged. I wouldn't call it a selective ping since I sent messages to editors on both sides, in roughly equal numbers, from previous discussions. Doug Mehus T·C 23:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:TWINKLE editors have full responsibility for their use of the tool. Any false "assumptions" about its operation would not mitigate problematic canvassing. Alexbrn (talk) 09:17, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I scrolled to the only pinging I could find from Dmehus. One was for me, the other for R2, who nearly always agreed with Tao and never agreed with me. I would say that's pretty diverse. petrarchan47คุก 23:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, you missed the talkpage solicitations. Guy (help!) 00:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

JzG, It was R2 (which Petra noted), Atsme, Ca2james, Binksternet, and Drmies—that's it—per this. To be honest, I didn't assess which way they tended to !vote or lean in terms of previous RfC discussions.

Nevertheless, I've learned my lesson. Even though permitted at WP:APPNOTE, I'm going to avoid all user talkpage notifications in the future, even though such is permitted, with respect to potentially controversial discussions—chiefly RfCs, AfDs, and page moves—and will limit my notifications to the village pumps and noticeboards (where applicable). Doug Mehus T·C 00:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

JzG, Feel free to trout my user talkpage, if you wish. Doug Mehus T·C 00:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, Following Guy and Toa objecting to my having pinged you, Bradv, and Diannaa, the latter two for their noted neutrality, and you because you appreciated my alerting you to this discussion in a previous RfC I initiated (see above), I just looked above at the earlier RfCs on this page and tried to send notifications to the other contributors to the discussion regardless of whatever view they took. If it helps, I didn't even read the previous discussions. (Cross-posted from my user talkpage per Petrarchan47.) Doug Mehus T·C 01:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Forgive me, but can you list the names of those you contacted wither by ping or by a visit to their talk page? petrarchan47คุก 00:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC) Dmehus A clear list of names would help us determine where the truth lies here, as each editor's position is pretty easy to discern. petrarchan47คุก 00:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, Thanks for your reply, but that is the full list. Should I state something more? It was those five talkpage notifications, plus a talkpage notification to Bradv, and the pings to you, Bradv, and Diannaa. I don't think there was anyone else. Doug Mehus T·C 09:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Doug said, I sent messages to editors on both sides, in roughly equal numbers, from previous discussions

Is this true, or was he canvassing (showing bias in his invites to game the system)?

Contacts made:

• Petrarchan47 - support for adding Sharyl's two cents
• BradV - had only one comment here, pertaining to fixing a misused source
• Diannaa (declined too participate)
• R2 - has opposed adding Sharyl's side in past, has not weighed in recently
• Atsme - has not weighed in recently, assume she would support
• Ca2james - vehemently opposed to adding Sharyl's denial
• Binksternet - vehemently opposed to adding Sharyl's denial
• Drmies - soft oppose, not interested

Guy, I don't see how you made the determination that Doug was acting in bad faith here. Do you read the positions of those he contacted differently? Even if we assume BradV, Diannaa, and Atsme were staunchly in support of Doug's proposal, the other 50% are on record as being in the other court, so his claim about "equal numbers" is accurate, and your claim that he is a bad actor is false and a personal attack. Worse, you have twice made comments about me on this talk page that paint me as an unreliable editor and have ignored my requests for evidence of claims made. IMO, these are examples of WP:GASLIGHTING, an attempt to "destabilize a discussion by sowing doubt and discord" and nothing more. petrarchan47คุก 01:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The timestamps tell me that Doug canvassed two people on November 15, Petrarchan47 and BradV, at 14:27 and 14:29 UTC. Subsequently, Toa Nidhiki05 came to this talk page and chastised Doug at 14:38. Following this, Doug pinged four more people in the ten minutes before 15:00 UTC. So Doug was headed for a violation of the canvassing policy but then corrected the problem once it was revealed how biased was the action. Binksternet (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Binksternet, The problem with that theory, though, is that I pinged Petra because it seemed like she might have a counter-opinion to offer to the prevailing narrow opinion of the recent editors. I would also add that one ping is not considered "canvassing" by most reasonable stretches of one's imagination, per common sense. I pinged Bradv because of his neutrality and objectivity in serving as an impartial arbiter of editor and content disputes. I was confident he would not bring any preconceived ideas, biases, and the like.

Moreover, I've frequently seen editors make "friendly pings" to regular editors of a page whether they start an informal talkpage discussion or an RfC. While I wouldn't say pinging Petra was a biased action since it was only one editor, it's important to have a fulsome discussion from editors with diverse voices (including those who share our opinion and those who do not). We must be also be mindful to not let a false or narrow consensus develop by a group of editors aligned to a particular position. which is what I was concerned might happen with the edits by Calton, QuackGuru, and JzG—all sharing similar views with respect to inclusion—prior to my requesting full page protection (which may need to be extended, I think). Doug Mehus T·C 13:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Adding multiple categories to RfC

Pinging @Redrose64:, I added other cats to the RfC initiated by JzG, which Legobot seems to have corrected syntax-wise, but it's not showing up in the other cats.

1. Can you you fix?; and,
2. What's the correct syntax?

Thanks,
--Doug Mehus T·C 15:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

First, the RfC has no clear statement (see WP:RFCBRIEF); second, it doesn't have a timestamp that Legobot can find (see WP:RFCST). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Redrose64, Oh, interesting. Thanks for the reply. I didn't format the RfC. JzG? Doug Mehus T·C 23:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, WP:NOTBURO. Guy (help!) 09:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

JzG, ? I pinged Redrose64 because he or she handles a lot of the technical RfC and Legobot questions and is quite helpful at resolving the syntax issues my adding subsequent categories to the RfC, which don't seem to be letting this RfC be publicized there. So, I pinged you to see if you could answer Redrose64's questions as I didn't know and you have been around longer than I. Doug Mehus T·C 16:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, you seem to ping an awful lot of people, but, curiously, none of those who have previously voiced opposition. Odd, that. Guy (help!) 22:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

JzG, Should I cut down on my use of the pings? It seems to be maybe causing problems. (I also use the thank feature a lot, many to you, as you've probably noticed.) Doug Mehus T·C 22:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dmehus: It's nothing to do with adding extra RfC categories - the problem was there from the moment that JzG made this edit, which triggered Legobot to scan for statement and timestamp, and since it could not find either, all it could do was this. Whilst there are timestamps in JzG's edit - two to be exact - they are in the subsections "Opinions" and "Discussion", not after any discernable neutral and brief statement.

@JzG: Whilst asking for neutrality may well be BURO, asking for brevity is not. This is therefore not a matter of BURO, it is a technical issue that causes the RfC not to be publicised. The RfC listings are maintained by Legobot (talk · contribs), which is a bot, and expects RfCs to be formatted in a certain way - it is not flexible enough to apply NOTBURO. Take a look at the RfC box - there is a bulleted list of three items, as follows:

• Society, sports, and culture
• Biographies
• Maths, science, and technology

Follow any of these three links, and look for this RfC. It's not there, other than a simple link to Talk:Sharyl Attkisson near the bottom. Compare it with other RfCs in the same list - all of these have a statement and a timestamp. Those RfCs observed WP:RFCST and in most cases WP:RFCBRIEF as well; this one does neither. So long as that remains the situation, the RfC listings will not show anything useful, and the RfC will not be publicised via WP:FRS. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Redrose64, Thanks. That's what I thought your reply meant. I get Guy's thinking in separating the RfC into distinct headings, sub-headings, and so forth, to separate longer discussions from the !votes, but at the same time, I see how this conflicts with Legobot being able to correct list the RfCs. Thanks again for your reply! Doug Mehus T·C 22:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Redrose64, the bot thing, I get. This was already advertised at three venues so I think it won't make much difference. It wasn't easy to shorten it, I suppose I can manually post. Guy (help!) 23:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Edits like these are absolutely pointless, since these are bot-built pages and Legobot will overwrite your edits when it next runs, in about five minutes time. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Redrose64, didn't know it updated, I thought it was a one-time. So, does it stop at the section header? Guy (help!) 00:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

JzG, Good question. I was wondering if the same thing—that is, if the headers and sub-headers are problematic for RfC formatting. Doug Mehus T·C 00:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

What Legobot is looking for is a valid timestamp, and if it cannot find one within a reasonable time, it gives up and assumes not only that there is no timestamp, but also that there is no statement. This is why WP:RFCBRIEF says what it does, particularly the bit from "Legobot will copy the markup" to the end of the paragraph. Section headings (n.b. not "headers") are ignored, although they do screw the RfC listings.

Newslinger (talk · contribs) has got the idea with this edit - the additional timestamp is found soon after the {{rfc}} tag, and so there is now a statement (of sorts) which is certainly brief, although not entirely meaningful. The effect of that edit is this, similarly for the other two listings. The removal of |soc in this edit had no effect on the listings: once an RfC has been assigned to a category, that category is permanent. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Redrose64, That makes sense. Sorry, I meant section headings but was using "headers" to save time. So they are not the problem, but can still cause issues with the transclusion of part of the RfC. Basically, it's fine to separate an RfC into sections as Guy has done, but the very first thing we should always do is have a brief statement of one to four lines followed by an intermediary signature to provide the timestamp. Then we should go in to our Proposal, Survey, Discussion, and other sections? Doug Mehus T·C 15:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.