Talk:Elisa Hategan

Legal issues

@ToBeFree:@Czello:@Salander2000:@208.98.222.28:@Asheiou:@My Pants Metal:@Hey man im josh:@Smartse:@Bearcat:@1174.119.232.205:@Bkissin:@ForsythiaJo:@Skywatcher68: I see there's been conflict over a "legal issues" section for the article. How should such a section be worded? Hagar the Wonderful (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I can't comment. The only thing I ever did here was find the article in a couple of overly general container categories that aren't supposed to contain individual people at all, and move her to more specific subcategories — I've never even heard of this person otherwise, and the entire "legal issues" thing happened only afterward. Bearcat (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I came across this while patrolling recent changes. I see no reason why simply mentioning that the lawsuit exists, backed up by a reliable source, can't be included. I have no opinion otherwise.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The source in question is this one from Canadian Lawyer which looks to be a reliable source. I see no problems with the way that it was summarised in the article and it was compliant with WP:BLP. Unless someone comes up with a source which demonstrates that that is incorrect, the content should be replaced. I don't think anyone has had issues with the other paragraphs/sources. SmartSE (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@Hagar the Wonderful the source here looks reliable, I don't see why it was removed > Asheiou (they/them • talk) 17:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

It looks like there is a consensus to restore the legal issues section. Can someone re-add this (below) to the article? 208.98.222.16 (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: I rewrote the section to be more concise and focussed on factual reporting. Actualcpscm (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Actualcpscm: Thanks, but please change US$200,000 to Canadian dollars. 208.98.222.83 (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done with a nice  Self-trout. Actualcpscm (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Please change "argued" to "ruled" - lawyers make arguments, judges make rulings. 205.189.56.244 (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Courts do issue rulings, but these rulings are based on arguments. When a judge writes that a law applies to the facts of a case in a certain way, this is an argument that forms part of a ruling. The Court ruled in favour of Moore, but the Justice argued the reasons for this ruling. It's completely clear to any reasonable reader that the cited argument forms part of a judicial process and is not just the Justice's personal opinion. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@Actualcpscm: "The suit was dismissed, with presiding Justice Jane Ferguson arguing that Hategan had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support her claims" makes it sound like the plaintiff has some evidence, just not enough, and that the suit was not devoid of merit. That's a far cry from the judge writing “Instead of providing supporting evidence, Ms. Hategan relies on speculation, unfounded allegations, and conspiracy theories" and saying the case was "frivolous", "vexatious" and a "waste of the time and resources of the courts". In other words, the current version misrepresents the tone and content of the judge's ruling. I think including at least some direct quotation or at least an accurate paraphrasing of what the judge said is required here. 208.98.222.3 (talk) 12:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've added some of that to the article. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

If you look at the actual decision of the Court of Appeal, they did not uphold the ruling of the lower court. It would be more truthful to say that they dismissed her attempt to appeal the judgment on procedural grounds. 104.247.228.245 (talk) 04:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Legal issues

In 2018, Hategan sued former Canadian Jewish Congress CEO Bernie Farber and Elizabeth Moore, a former member of the Heritage Front turned antiracist educator, for $200,000 accusing them of various transgressions including conspiring against Hategan, uttering false statements and "appropriation" of Hategan's life story and personality.

Ontario Superior Court Judge Jane Ferguson dismissed the case calling Hategan's claims speculative, frivolous, and vexatious, based on conspiracy theories, and a “waste of the time and resources of the courts”.

In her ruling, Ferguson wrote: “The contention between the parties rests on Ms. Hategan’s belief that she was the ‘only young woman who played any role whatsoever in the collapse of the Heritage Front’ and that she has therefore ‘earned the right to state unequivocally that I contributed to the shutting down of the Heritage Front'."

Ferguson ruled that “Instead of providing supporting evidence, Ms. Hategan relies on speculation, unfounded allegations, and conspiracy theories.”

Moore countersued Hategan for defamation, invasion of privacy, and appropriation of personality. The court ruled in favour of Moore, awarded her $200,000 in damages and issuing an injunction against Hategan.

In March 2022, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the registrar’s order dismissing Hategan's appeal due to time delays, and refused a motion to grant additional time to file an appeal. In its decision, the appeal court commented that Ferguson's observations that Hategan's claims were "speculative, frivolous, and vexatious" were "well-founded".

References

Adding sources for/removing unsourced claims

This article contains many claims that are unsourced (too many to summarize in a single edit request), and should either be removed or properly sourced. These claims are present in several different sections. I have listed them below. An approved editor should make the appropriate changes.

From the intro:

"She broke with the group and testified against them in court, and has been credited for causing the organization's demise." Source #2 does note that she broke away and testified. However, I can find no reputable source crediting Hategan with "causing the organization's demise". As such, a citation should be added after the first two claims, and the third should be removed (if no source can be found).

From "Early Life":

"She grew up in poverty and was a victim of domestic violence." The only source used in this section does not say either of these, and I cannot find a reputable source that does (only claims from Hategan herself). As such, these claims should be removed (if no source can be found).

From "Education"

"Hategan graduated magna cum laude from the University of Ottawa in 1999 with a degree in criminology and psychology." The source does say that she graduated from the University of Ottawa in 1999 with that degree. However, it does not state that she graduated with any sort of academic honours (and definitely not magna cum laude specifically). As such, the words "magna cum laude" should be removed from this claim (if no source can be found).

From: "Antiracism activism"

"Her book...won grants and awards from the Canada Council for the Arts, the Ontario Arts Council, and the Toronto Arts Council." No source is listed for any of these claims. These claims are not present in the sources cited in this section. As such, these claims should be removed (if no source can be found).

I don't see any issues of this kind in the "Legal issues" or "Personal life" sections, although I do agree that the legal issues section misrepresents the tone of Ferguson's ruling by implying that Ferguson said that Hategan did have some supporting evidence, when Ferguson's words directly contradict this implication ("Instead of providing supporting evidence, Ms. Hategan relies on speculation, unfounded allegations, and conspiracy theories"). 76.66.131.211 (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Sources in lede

@Belladonna2024: I'm hoping to avoid an edit war that will lead to the article becoming a protected page unnecessarily. I've explained the reasons for my most recent edits, but I'll do so again here. The Toronto star article does not say she "has been credited with contributing to the organization's demise." As such, it fails verification. It does say that she testified against the group leading to the imprisonment of certain high-ranking individuals, and that "in the summer of 1994, the organization had all but crumbled," but the star article does not claim she was responsible for the crumbling of the organization. The same goes for the House of Commons transcript; the (reasonable) view that her testimony contributed to the organizations demise doesn't change that the source doesn't claim that she has been credited with doing so. Please review WP:V before you add those sources or remove the tag again.

In one of your edit summaries you claimed that I was deliberately sabotaging the page by trying to undo "every new source added." This is simply false. I have reviewed the sources and, where applicable, I have made edits related to them. I have not touched the majority of the sources that you have added. I have only edited/removed the ones that do not comply with wikipedia guidelines. TBurnout (talk) 03:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

You have persistently - since July 11, to be precise - made bad-faith edits to this page, including repeatedly removing sourced content, or posting "failed verification" even when mainstream media and highly-credible links have been posted. Your latest "failed verification" claim appears to be to contest testimony by Hategan in Canada's House of Commons, where her direct contribution to the Heritage Front's demise is plainly discussed. Every single one of your edits in the past months have been a negative removal of content, reversal of a provided source, or diminishing of links provided.

You also appear to have singled out this page for persistent bad-faith edits, and as such are contributing to a situation where a page protection will become inevitable. Belladonna2024 (talk) 04:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

My edits are not bad faith. If they were, I would have gone after all of the added sources instead of the few that I've edited. Here is a summary of my edits since July 11th. I hope you can see that my edits were not made in bad faith.

On July 11th, I added a citation to the lede and marked claims that didn't have a citation with citation needed as per a previous entry in the talk page (see above). I was not able to easily find a source for those claims.

On August 4th, after looking for a source for her academic honours and finding none, I removed the claim. Since then, you have provided sources for that claim, which I have not touched. You have reliably sourced the claim.

On August 6th, I reviewed the sources you added. I (correctly) marked the Toronto Star article as failing verification, since the claim that she "has been credited for contributing to the organization's demise" is not present in that article. I also (correctly) marked the Newsweek article in the "Early Life" section as requiring a better source. Newsweek articles post-2013 are generally not considered reliable on wikipedia (see WP:NEWSWEEK for an explanation of why this is the case). It's generally handled on a case by case basis. Since you have added corroborating sources, I have not touched that source.

On September 2nd, I added the tag back to the Toronto Star article in the lede. In my edit summary I explained that providing additional sources doesn't change the fact that the Toronto Star article fails verification.

On September 3rd, I added the tag back to the Toronto Star article, and explained myself once more. I also reviewed the transcript from start to finish. As I'm sure you know, the transcript details the events that constitute (in my view and, evidently, yours as well) Hategan contributing to the organization's demise. Unfortunately, nowhere in the transcript is she directly credited (or said to have been credited) with contributing to the organization's demise. To say that the transcript constitutes credit would violate WP:NOR. As such, the transcript is not a suitable source for that claim.

Later on September 3rd, I made these changes again, directing people to my first post in this thread for a detailed explanation.

Despite having explained myself repeatedly, you have not addressed my reasons for any of these changes, instead accusing me of acting in bad-faith. By reverting my edits repeatedly without addressing my reasons, you are contributing to the potential page-protection of this article. I will not add my tags again for the time being as that would constitute WP:EW, but we must build consensus (see WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS)before we start messing around with each other's edits.

Here is my first proposal: I suggest that we remove both the Toronto Star article and the transcript from the page altogether instead of marking them as having failed verification. You seem to feel (please correct me if I'm wrong) that marking one source as having failed verification undermines all of the sources next to it. Since we now have two valid sources for the claim in the lede (let me be as clear as I can, the Romanian source and the Global news source are both good sources for the claim in the lede; the transcript and the Toronto Star article are not and should be removed or marked as having failed verification (which they both have)), we do not need the Toronto Star article or the transcript. This way the other sources stand without being potentially undermined by a nearby tag, and the sources that have failed verification won't be present. Does this sound agreeable to you? TBurnout (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I do not believe that the links you are proposing to be removed are not relevant to this Wikipedia page. After you repeatedly marked “failed verification” and after I sourced nearly a dozen links to satisfy your every challenge – for TWO MONTHS now –, I believe these sources speak to the overall paragraph. I would argue that a direct source to the House of Commons interviewing Hategan about actions she took that directly undermined the Heritage Front, and led directly to Grant Bristow being scrutinized and eventually exposed as a CSIS mole, is a vital part of the assertion that Hategan “directly contributed to the organization’s demise.”

In my view, you wanted additional sources, and I provided them. These are legitimate, credible sources that further attest to the veracity of the statements on the Wikipedia page, which were further backed by Global News and the Romanian national news outlet. To remove them would be taking away further evidence that can resolve similar challenges and attacks on this page in the future.

It appears you are now proposing to REMOVE links, which again goes to my belief that you set up your account to primarily attack this one particular page – to persistently challenge every assertion made to the detriment of Hategan, rather than posit a neutral position, as you are doing now.

You and I both know these events took place in the early-to-mid 1990s. There are DOZENS of media sources from print newspaper that I can provide, which would back every word in the sections you had a problem with. I am not a savvy Wikipedia editor and I don’t know how to add these in. These articles (from Toronto Sun, Toronto Star, Ottawa Citizen, Globe & Mail and others) are NOT on the internet, because they only appeared in print – well before the media outlets that published them had internet websites.

Their existence is common knowledge. And yet you keep trying to delete sections from this Wiki page because you purportedly cannot find live links to “prove” what has already been proven in court and in the press before there was an internet. There are many historical newspaper articles and scans of media clips, plus court transcripts of Hategan’s testimony against HF leaders, that attest to the information you have been challenging since July 11. Surely, if you know anything about this story, you are aware of this. And still, you opted for what I view as persistent bad-faith edits.

Now you claim that I “have not addressed my reasons for any of these changes, instead accusing me of acting in bad-faith”. With all due respect, you were unwilling to concede even the fact that Hategan graduated magna cum laude – what would prompt a new Wiki editor to create an account to try to undo someone’s academic credentials, plus their history of abuse and parental neglect?

Do you expect Hategan to scan her diploma and transcrips, and upload this to Wikipedia to satisfy an anonymous Wiki editor who seems unduly preoccupied with this particular page? In your edit history, I see that you don’t appear to have such a high threshold of verification standards for any other page. How many other public figures are expected to scan and upload their diplomas, or provide police reports of physical and sexual abuse of a minor? I believe that, for whatever reason, you created your account to primarily make bad-faith edits to this particular page.

There are police reports involving Hategan’s parents being abusive when she was a minor. You obviously know that police reports about domestic abuse are confidential, and yet by seeking to remove that information from this page, you appeared to be interested in rewriting history, insofar as challenging statements about Hategan that have never been previously challenged by any courts or any journalists, because they are a matter of record. This is part of what makes your edits appear bad-faith, at least in my eyes.

Hategan’s abuse, and the steps she took in trying to shut down the Heritage Front, were discussed in court testimony and print articles – these are facts to anyone even remotely familiar with the events surrounding the Heritage Front and Bristow Affair / Operation Governor. But suddenly, here comes an anonymous Wiki editor who is seeking to remove information that is has been known about Hategan since 1992-1993.

Then you deleted her history of winning awards and prizes from Canadian Arts councils. Again, bad faith - fortunately some of those notifications were accessible online with those funding bodies, but if you'd had it your way, you would have stripped the page of this information. Just because it's not readily found in a Google search doesn't mean it does not exist.

Case in point - here's another example for why I believe you're doing this in bad faith: even though the Global News article that you now acknowledge is a good source was indexed by Google, you rushed to add yet another "failed verification", until I found and sourced it. In other words, you challenged the Wikipedia page and tried to change it, even though solid, credible sources were available online.

Despite all your reversals and challenges and deletions, the page is even more sourced, now that I’ve added so many additional links. But now that doesn’t satisfy you – you want me to REMOVE the links? First you complained there were no links, now they’re not good enough for you? I disagree. I believe the information is important. And the Toronto Star article you appear desperate to have removed (because it's behind a paywall?) also speaks to the claim you originally wanted to challenge.

So, enough already. If the page gets locked down as a result of your obsessive tampering, so be it. Belladonna2024 (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I found an indexed version of the Toronto Star article that clearly discusses the steps Hategan took in helping to shut down the Heritage Front. If you would like, I am not opposed to adding the indexed link to the Toronto Star, rather than the live (behind Paywall) version). But I absolutely view it as a relevant, and therefore necessary, source. https://web.archive.org/web/20240805191545/https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/former-white-supremacist-probes-the-personal-roots-of-hatred/article_3a68a1ba-a248-5202-8a9b-e4cb3c8d1ac6.html Belladonna2024 (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Belladonna2024 @TBurnout Perharps the two of you would benefit from creating a thread asking for help on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard so other editors who understand more about this type of article can help you solve your differences. @TrashPandaMan may also do that if they wish to. Badbluebus (talk) 23:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I have done just that. This article is clearly being monitored and regularly edited by the subject, who has repeatedly re-inserted irrelevant and poorly-sourced claims. It's questionable if this individual is even notable enough to have a page to begin with. TrashPandaMan (talk) 23:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

TrashPandaMan has removed large chunks of this page, which is verified by highly-credible sources that he is now claiming are "poorly-sourced" and "irrelevant" - GlobalNews is among Canada's leading news networks. The StirileProTV is similarly one of Romania's largest news outlets. Transcripts from the House of Commons similarly attest to the information presented in this page. Removal of verified, sourced content goes against Wikipedia rules which clearly prioritize verifiability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth Belladonna2024 (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit War

Hello, I notice an edit war between @Belladonna2024 and @TrashPandaMan, please stop editing the same information over and over again, it creates disruptive behavior. Please discuss with a neutral point of view and respect for other users regardless of whether they agree with you or not. Please find a consensus that relies on one or more reliable sources to resolve your editing dispute. Thank you. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 23:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest consulting the edit history of this article. There is a very long pattern of @Belladonna2024 reverting edits and has posted on this very talk page justifying why they cannot cite their claims. TrashPandaMan (talk) 23:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

TrashPandaMan has removed large chunks of this page, which is verified by highly-credible sources that he is now claiming are "poorly-sourced" and "irrelevant" - GlobalNews is among Canada's leading news networks. The StirileProTV is similarly one of Romania's largest news outlets. Transcripts from the House of Commons similarly attest to the information presented in this page. Removal of verified, sourced content goes against Wikipedia rules which clearly prioritize verifiability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth Belladonna2024 (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Simply being verifiable does not mean something must be included. If something is found only in primary sources, e.g. transcripts of a government proceeding, and has no secondary coverage it's likely not suitable for inclusion, especially in a BLP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I've full protected the article for a week to stop the edit warring. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello @ScottishFinnishRadish, thanks for your intervention. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I dropped it down to ecp as the edit war is between non-ec accounts. This will allow experienced editors to make any edits that have consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

Edit war is happening in this article. This article needs to be protected As soon as possible. Vedant Katyayan (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I've partial blocked the two editors who were clearly edit warring well beyond what is acceptable. @TrashPandaMan and Belladonna2024:, you still have access to this talk page and WP:BLPN in order to pursue dispute resolution. If the edit warring picks up again post block I'll block you indefinitely. Get consensus for the edits you want to see made to the article please.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

And no one should be using blog posts or links to documents stored on square space to support contentious material in a BLP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)