Talk:Janice Turner

Libel action against the Times - Notability

I believe that being involved in a libel action against The Times, some say Britain’s preeminent newspaper, qualifies as notabilty, even notoriety.Alterrabe (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Recent removal

I recently removed the section entitled "Alleged Tommy Robinson libel"

In full disclosure, I am in OTRS agent working on a related ticket. ticket:2018080610007014

Here is my rationale:

• A phrase (which I choose not to repeat) is purported to have been in an opinion piece The Times. My use of the term purported is not because I disbelieve it but because I did not see it
• A key part of the phrase was purported to be removed. I've read the opinion piece and can confirm that it is not currently in there
• This phrase may have led to a threat of a libel suit. It is important to note the distinction between an actual filed libel suit and a verbal claim that one will be filed. While I don't have any data, I think it is a reasonable guess that there are far more threats than actual filings.
• Whether or not an actual filed libel suit qualifies as worth mentioning in an article (see section above), it is far less clear that an assertion that a suit will be filed reaches that same level
• The source supporting the claim that a suit may be filed is a Facebook claim which is high on a list of reliable sources. I'll confess some ignorance of exactly how Facebook works (despite barely having an account); I thought there was some sort of green checkmark to identify verified accounts which I do not see. I could be mistaken on whether this is a verified account I still think statement in a Facebook account falls far short of our usual sourcing requirements

If an actual libel suit is filed, and reported upon by responsible media, we might revisit this incident.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

false assertions used to justify removal

• Parts of your rationale are flat out wrong, and at the very least portray the linked to sources in a false light. On Robinson’s Facebook Page, there are before and after pictures of the times online article. So there is no doubt it happened. If it’s verifiable, it meets Wikipedia’s criteria.

• as the Facebook page posts private videos of Robinson and consistent updates with detailed insider information, there’s no doubt he’s affiliated with it. Furthermore it would be contrary to Facebook policy for someone else to control an account in his name, and accounts representing controversial people with hundreds of thousands of followers are rigorously policed.

• thirdly, Robinson has just emerged from 2 month’s solitary confinement and can’t be expected to file an action immediately. WP:paper applies. Furthermore even out of court libel settlements and accommodations are newsworthy, and Wikipedia worthy.

• This incident provides invaluable, verified, insight into her professionalism and credibility and must stay.Alterrabe (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I do appreciate that you contributed to this talk page. That's the first step in working out what belongs in this article and how it should be written.

You've made two related strong statements, first that I used "false assertions" and second parts of my rationale are "flat out wrong".

You stated that there are "before and after pictures of the Times online article". If may well be the phrase was in the original online article before being removed. I never said otherwise. Nothing in my rationale is built upon the belief that the phrase was never in the article. I assumed it was; I was simply pointing out that I hadn't seen it.

Robinson may well be associated with that Facebook page. Many people are associated with Facebook pages in their own name. My understanding is that there are also Facebook pages where multiple people have the ability to add content. While I have very limited Facebook knowledge, I know this from personal experience. We aren't here to debate Facebook's policies. If we assume that the content on the Facebook page was controlled by Robinson or people in his employ it doesn't qualify as an independent source. (Sources that are controlled by the subject can be used for limited purposes.)

The third comment is that Robinson just emerged from solitary confinement. Presumably, this is no longer a quote false assertion" and is included for another purpose. I haven't yet discern the purpose. You stated that "even out-of-court libel settlements and accommodations are newsworthy". I don't know that this is universally true, I suspect some are and some aren't but it's a moot point unless you are asserting that there is an out-of-court settlement.

If your rationale for reversion is that I made false assertions, you haven't identified a single one. Let's see if an actual libel suit is filed over a three word phrase in an online source that was corrected promptly. Maybe if that happens, and it gets reported by reliable independent sources, it will be worth reporting. I'm still not convinced but I think we need to at least get to that point.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)