Talk:Alex Morse

UMass Allegations of August 2020

The situation is referenced twice in the article with very similar paragraphs both in the intro and in the 2020 election campaign section. Don't want it to be buried in the article, but would suggest it only needs to be addressed in one location. If it is to be referenced in the intro and a later section, the first reference need not be so detailed. Thoughts? Boredintheevening (talk) 17:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Since I wrote here, Kt5103582944 has edited the article to remove the allegations from the introduction and kept them in the later 'U.S. House of Representatives campaign' section, writing that "These allegations have not been proven to be factually true yet. Featuring this information at the top of a CURRENT candidate's Wikipedia page is deceitful and leads to misinformation. The allegations are vague and do not contain any discernable information of those involved." In terms of how the article layout, this is similar to how Allegations of inappropriate physical contact have been covered on the Joe Biden Article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden#2020_presidential_campaign), where they are a subtopic to his 2020 presidential campaign.Boredintheevening (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

An IP user (71.233.160.111) has now reverted this again. Can we maybe discuss this here on the Talk page rather than edit warring? It's better if we can reach an agreement on how the information should be presented. As the news-story circulates, people will be coming to the Wikipedia page for more info and it's important that we keep this an informative and stable page.Boredintheevening (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

If it's covered in the body of the article with detail, I agree the lead doesn't need that amount of detail, it's getting coverage, including the WaPo, but this is also a biography article, and these allegations don't define him as a person. The amount of detail in the lead is WP:UNDUE. There's one sentence announcing his run for Congress, so a sentence about the allegations and his subsequent statement is enough for the lead. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

So we'll be purging all top sections of allegations from all the current articles about people? Seems like a convenient new policy.71.233.160.111 (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I just moved some of the information from the top section to the later section. The top section still contains plenty of information about the allegations - plenty to show that it is important and to inform Wikipedia visitors - while not having unimportant details. For instance, the fact that he used Grindr and Tinder belongs in the article, but it isn't one of the most important things about him or even about the allegations. Gbear605 (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

It was a set up: https://theintercept.com/2020/08/12/alex-morse-college-democrats-chats/ LamontCranston (talk) 00:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Seems like the section on the allegations needs to be rewritten with new references to reflect the veracity of the allegations. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Mikeblas, definitely. We just need to do it in a way that demonstrates clearly both the allegations and rebuttal per how reliable sources are reporting (so not saying "Morse did thing X" or "in a hoax accusation, the...") etc.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

What if we were to lead with something like "In August 2020, the College Democrats of Massachusetts shared allegations of sexual misconduct against Morse. Later reporting by the Intercept then suggested that the allegations were part of a coordinated effort to attack Morse and support his opponent, incumbent Richard Neal, in the primary." And cite to this Politico piece summarizing.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. But it seems like Morse's admissions should also be described. The WaPo reference seems to cover that. -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

We can't characterize the allegations in Wikipedia's voice as "sexual misconduct". The article's current approach of using a direct quote is preferable, though not perfect. The wording matches what is used in the Politico article. In terms of the acknowledgment that he had had relationships college students, I have updated the quote drawn from his statement to cover that.--Trystan (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2020

The allegations against Alex Morse have been shown to be engineered by College Democrat members according to chat logs received by The Intercept. The paragraph should be updated to include this fact.

Source: https://theintercept.com/2020/08/12/alex-morse-college-democrats-chats/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=theintercept Derannger (talk) 00:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Just did it! LamontCranston (talk) 00:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2020

After: Timothy Ennis, the chief strategist and former president of the UMass Amherst College Democrats, had previously completed a class with Richard Neal and was highlighted as a driving force behind the allegations, with members of the group claiming that he saw Neal as his "in" for a political career.

ADD: Additionally, former UMass College Democrats President Andrew Abramson admitted to "totally leading [Morse] on" over instagram in order to further provoke a scandal.

Source: https://theintercept.com/2020/08/12/alex-morse-college-democrats-chats/ 2601:193:8301:8A30:9488:CDFE:92CA:E14C (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Note to other editors, I'm not answering this request here, just leaving a note: the source given by IP is already referenced in the article, and the full quote from the article is:

Abramson shared a screenshot of the exchange with friends. “Not overt but it’s very clear he’s not talking to me for no reason,” he said. “Like read that message. Also don’t mind me totally leading him on.” He added that he accepted the message request “because why not.”
— https://theintercept.com/2020/08/12/alex-morse-college-democrats-chats/

Seagull123 Φ 18:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Seagull123 Φ 14:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Smear campaign

Hi all - the term smear campaign is the best and most accurate term to describe false information spread to hurt a public figure. It is imperative this be mentioned early on, as only mentioning its dubious nature, not even as solidly as it should be, in the third paragraph is not enough. Most readers won't even read that far into a controversy. Again, it is necessary for misinformation not to take the forefront in a section on a BLP. ɱ (talk) 01:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, it simply is not a 'non-neutral' term, as another editor claims. It simply is the only term used for such an incident, and is used in multiple reliable sources, several of which I have cited. ɱ (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Consensus must be established per WP:ONUS. In the New York Times article, it says "...leading Mr. Morse to accuse Mr. Neal and his allies in the state’s Democratic leadership of having a hand in a homophobic plot to smear him." The use of the term "smear campaign" by the campaign is straight out of Public Relations 101. It certainly shouldn't be said in wiki-voice per WP:NPOV. KidAd talk 01:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

We can and should absolutely report that it has been called a smear campaign. But we are not framing the whole situation using biased framing that isn't used in the majority of reliable sources.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

First off, you are not addressing the fact that the (I'm having a difficult time referring to it concisely because no other term exists) false narrative spread needs to be mentioned first. Secondly, you fail to respond to the fact that this is the predominant term used for such an event, and even though 'smear' seems perhaps hateful, it is in fact the word used to describe such a hateful campaign against someone. Your own opinions on the term contradict its use in reliable sources, and are POV themselves. ɱ (talk) 02:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

We can report that something was alleged and that there was reporting that would counter the allegations. Reliable sources are reporting on that, and we should mirror that. Reliable sources are not all describing this as a "smear campaign," and we should certainly not be doing so as if it is the name of the section, even as we include the claims that it is.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Several reliable sources have used the terms 'smear' or 'smear campaign' as fact. And no, these aren't just allegations and counter-allegations. Most sources originally published that Morse was in the wrong, yet now are writing about the chat logs proving that College Democrats and others tried to harm his campaign and reputation. It is a clear BLP violation to allow the smear campaign any shred of credibility here, and tarnish the name of an innocent person when it's 100% clear these lies were fabricated. ɱ (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

As well, you may not know that most of the local and conservative sources that would be reporting on this new development, now aren't. This article clearly lays out the biases in news reporting here, for instance "When the Republican did cover the scandal, it largely continued to focus on Morse’s alleged wrongdoing." I'm upset that you can't see past the words chosen in biased media and into the facts themselves, which are 100% indisputable - that these were fabricated lies, and we need to say that up-front. Anything else is totally contrary to WP:BLP. ɱ (talk) 02:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps the first sentence could be changed to say something along the lines of

In an August 2020 email, as part of what has been called a smear campaign [citations here that call it a smear campaign], ...

That would avoid using "smear campaign" in wiki-voice while providing the context up front. Gbear605 (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I would support that. ɱ (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Ɱ, I support this but "what has been called a smear campaign" will need in-line attribution to avoid {{by whom}}. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Done. ɱ (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)