Talk:Lunada Bay Boys/Archive 1

Archive 1

Use of lawsuit filing as source

It is totally inappropriate to use a lawsuit filing (a motion in a civil class-action lawsuit) as a source here. A motion is not published, nor is it fact-checked or reliable. It is written by an advocate whose job is to spin the facts in the most favorable way possible for his/her client. The last justification offered for using the motion as a source is that "Sources are being cited as allegations not fact." But that is not how they are being used. E.g. "The gang has also been documented to have hazing rituals of initiation. One of these rituals involves drinking urine to show dedication to 'joining their fraternity'." This is a statement of fact, not a statement of an allegation. And it would be inappropriate per WP:BLP to put mere allegations here when they have not been published in reliable secondary sources. Also, a motion is not an unreliable source that is based on reliable sources, such that we look to the reliable sources that underlie the motion and cite those here. Evidence submitted to a court typically consists of depositions, declarations, original documents, etc.--none of these are acceptable reliable sources for a Wikipedia article. I am inviting comment at WP:RSN and WP:BLPN. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about whether Calliopejen1 has a conflict of interest

I see your profile Jen says you are a big-firm lawyer from Los Angeles. It's work hours in Los Angeles and I wouldn't think a big-firm lawyer would be working from home? Hmm. By your contributions it doesn't appear that you have edited anything related to gangs or surfing before, it appears you been prioritizing this article the past three days. If you have an WP:COI towards the Bay Boys or any of its alleged members, the city of Palos Verdes, or Lunada Bay its considered Wikipedia policy for you to openly state your COI per WP:COIEDIT. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 19:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC) Huh? I saw this because it was a new LA-related stub. My firm isn't involved in this litigation, and I can't imagine that any other big firm is either (not enough $ at stake). I have no COI to declare. I am concerned about this article because I personally know that court filings are not fact-checked, and this is an article that relates to living people. Calliopeje(talk) 19:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC) I spent a little time as a big-firm lawyer in New York (and for about three months in L.A., when I was sent out for a case). I worked from home quite a bit! But mileage may always vary! Dumuzid (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC) Thats peculiar because this isn't a LA-related stub it's actually a Water sports and Organized crime: Start class. It's not a stub at all actually. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 19:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC) Please read WP:AGF and stop insinuating that I'm a liar. I first saw it here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree entirely with the above. There may be times when citing to a motion or other legal papers is appropriate to substantiate the existence of an allegation ("a sued b for jactitation of marriage"), but it is wholly inappropriate to cite to them for the truth of the matters asserted therein. Bearing in mind the general guidance on primary sources, it is a good rule to steer clear of court documents as much as possible. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY says Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I will take this into account Emir. Thanks for the input. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 19:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia and Dumuzid: Qubix continues to revert my deletions of this material. Can you tell him that this should not be restored per WP:BLP and WP:RS? I don't want to be the only one reverting Qubix's edits here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

A legal filing like this is anything but a reliable source. It proves that person A said XYZ, and that's it. It's self-published, and as already noted BPL:PRIMARY says not to use sources like this for claims against other people. What's especially bad is using a bad source like this to make claims in Wikipedia's voice without any attribution. This source should be completely removed from the article, and anything it was used to support should also be removed unless an alternative reliable source can be found. Ravensfire (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely not. As a violation of BLP policy, this should be removed at first sight. And keep in mind that WP:3RR doesn't apply to people who are removing blatant BLP violations like this. If this continues I would suggest reporting this to ANI. Zaereth (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Had no idea. Thanks for the input. I will make significant changes to the article based on this. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 22:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Understood. And thanks for being amiable. Just so you know (in case you don't already) WP:BLP works in accordance with, but ultimately trumps all other policies, so it might be helpful to read through it. Also, it applies to all wiki-spaces, not just article mainspace. (ie: talk pages, user pages, sandboxes, etc... Even to articles that are not BLPs if the information at all involves living persons). Hope that helps, and have a good day. Zaereth (talk) 22:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with the policy Emir of Wikipedia pulled from WP:BLPPRIMARY. Allegations, motions and testimony are all bovine fecal matter and should be rejected. Findings of fact and declaratory judgments over the court's signature are more likely to be true than anything a journalist writes. I would accept them and revert all day long until a superior court agrees to hear an appeal. Rhadow (talk) 01:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

There are many problems with that if you simply step back and look at the forest instead of the individual trees. First, that really becomes original research, of which WP:NOR is a core policy which exist for very good reason. Apply that to any article and suddenly we'd have school children giving their own interpretation of scientific studies or conspiracy theorists filling every article related to their paranoia with their own "facts". That leads me to the other problem, is that when sourcing from primary documents it is far too easy to synthesize information unintentionally, simply because the reader didn't really understand the technicalities or jargon used in a specific field. (I use primary sources all the time, such as flight manuals or scientific studies, but only when I have some direct experience with the subject, and even then I include secondary sources that back-up the primary sources, because I can't expect the reader to be able to interpret the sources without it.) Another reason is that court documents often contain addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, and other personal information which Wikipedia considers private. (See: WP:BLPPRIVACY). I can go on and on, but the simple fact is that's the policy and it's non-negotiable. You can go to the policy page and try to change it, but you'll be in for a Sisyphean task. Zaereth (talk) 02:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Motions and arguments in any matter are, at the best, "self-published" by definition. Wikipedia seeks sources which certainly may refer to court filings, but those filings, on their own, are not a "reliable source for claims of fact" nor, as any lawyer can write anything in a "court filing" are they of value for much of anything except Angel Soft. Collect (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)