Talk:Mark Riley (journalist)

Removal

A user has removed a block of text claiming it is malicious and false, although it is sourced. I'm starting this section to gain consensus on whether it should stay or go. Till then, I am restoring the text. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The statement "His journalistic tactics have been widely criticised in the media" is simply untrue and is unsupported by the sourced article. The source article refers to unnamed twitter users complaining about one story. This does not equate to "wide criticism" in the media. The addition has been made maliciously to damage the individual's reputation and should be removed immediately. The second statement regarding reporting of the murder of schoolgirl Leigh Leigh, hangs on the views of a social justice campaigner, made in a report in an obscure feminist law review, which were strongly disputed and refuted. Neither of these sources support the malicious and damaging reflections made on the character and professionalism of the subject. Rumbleseat (talk) 05:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Rumbleseat

Needs more eyes, I'm pinging @Materialscientist: and @Yunshui: who have helped in the past. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I would also direct you to the section in your terms that states "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous." This material is libellous. Rumbleseat (talk) 06:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Rumbleseat

My opinion, since it was requested:

[1] does not support the phrase "His journalistic tactics have been widely criticised in the Australian media", though it could support the phrase, "His journalistic approach came under fire yet again in 2011, when he was accused of ambushing the then Leader of the Opposition" ("yet again" is somewhat dubious and should probably be struck). The way the lead is currently structured also gives undue weight to this criticism (which is a single line in the article body). I'd therefore recommend leaving the sentence out of the lead, but including it in the article body.

[2] uses Riley as a source but does not appear to discuss his work, and therefore doesn't support the statement that he "was said to focus on blaming Leigh for her own sexual assault and murder".

I'm not able to view either of the Carrington sources used, as they don't seem to be available online. I can't therefore comment on whether they verify the claims made or not.

As I said, this is my opinion; you can take it or leave it. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@Yunshui: The Sydney Law Review DOES discuss his work, the prose just does not mention Riley by name. Quote from the article "even more disturbingly, the article married parental blame with the well-documented notion that the rape victim herself is presumably to blame for her attack". The article being referred to is one written by Riley, however, the only way to find out that he is the author is to check the articles footnotes. All the information criticising him is there though. Freikorp (talk) 09:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

You're right, I missed that reference (I ran document searches on Riley's name, but he isn't mentioned in that statement). I'm not convinced that the passage quoted form Riley actually supports the claim made in the SLR article, but that's neither here nor there. I would still support rephrasing the statement in the Wikipedia article to deal with the weasel wording "was said to" and the inaccurate use of "focus" (nothing in the SLR indicates that victim-blaming was the overall focus of Riley's piece). Yunshui ^雲_水 07:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'd already removed the wording "was said to" and "focus" before you replied though. :) Freikorp (talk) 09:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Yunshui that neither the Sydney Law Review article nor either of the Carrington sources support the inclusion of this criticism and, therefopre, the paragraph on "controversy on victim blaming" should be removed. It is an unsupported allegation that is given undue and improper emphasis in defining a 36-year journalistic career. 203.4.237.211 (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)Rumbleseat

I've reverted to a previous version of the criticism. I added the criticism regarding victim blaming, which originally consisted of two sentences without any specific heading. I do not support giving the criticism its own sub-section on the grounds of undue weight over a long career. I also do not support describing the criticism as "wide spread", though the fact remains he was criticised by three notable publishers and it is irresponsible to completely cover this up. Describing a university professor as a "social justice campaigner" does not invalidate her publications, nor does describing a notable journal as "obscure".

Unless you read "Representations of crime, guilt and sexuality in the Leigh Leigh rape/ murder case" and "Who Killed Leigh Leigh", it is not supportable for you to say neither source supports this inclusion of criticism. Please provide evidence for your statement that the criticism was "strongly disputed and refuted", otherwise you simply do not have a leg to stand on. Please also do not make outright lies by putting words in other people mouths; Yunshui never said either of the Carrington sources did not support the inclusion, rather he simply said could not comment on whether they verify the claims made or not as he could not access the sources. I have also politely pointed out to Yunshui that his statement that the Sydney Law Review "does not appear to discuss his work" is incorrect. I can email the Carrington journal source to anybody on request. Freikorp (talk) 09:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The criticism was comprehensively refuted and rebutted by the subject in Newcastle and Sydney radio interviews. There is no criticism of the journalist in the Sydney Law Review article. Only a reference back to the same single source. 203.4.237.211 (talk)Rumbleseat — Preceding undated comment added 04:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that the criticism "was comprehensively refuted and rebutted by the subject in Newcastle and Sydney radio interviews". Simply stating that is not helping your cause. Where is a transcript of the interview? What date did it air? On what radio station? Unless you can provide evidence of these interviews you still do not have a leg to stand on. And even if you can provide a source that he refuted the claims, you would still not be able to remove the criticism itself (wikipedia doesn't work that way), you would simply be able to add information on his refutation to the criticism. Also once again you are incorrect; there is criticism of the journalist in the Sydney Law Review - even Yunshui agrees (see his new comments above). Considering you used Yunshui's comments as your justification for removing the criticism in the first place now that he realises he was incorrect you cannot have it both ways and choose to ignore him now. Oh and your edit summary here [3] is grossly incorrect as well; the criticism is NOT from one individual. Riley was criticised by Kerry Carrington, Andrew Johnson, Jonathan Morrow and Mehera San Roque (senior lecturer at UNSW). Furthermore two notable publishers chose to publish Carrington's criticism. Your outright deletion of these notable sources with insufficient justification is simply not acceptable. Please do not removed referenced content from wikipedia without obtaining consensus on the talk page. Freikorp (talk) 08:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Riley has described Dr Carrington's criticism as "utterly absurd" and "defamatory". I think we should consult Yunshi on your claim that he agrees with you that the Sydney Law Review contains direct criticism of Riley. Yunshi writes above "I'm not convinced that the passage quoted form Riley actually supports the claim made in the SLR article." Could you also kindly provide source material for the claim that the Australian Feminist Law Journal criticised Riley's reporting, and source material for the criticism you refer to from Andrew Johnson, Jonathon Morrow and Mehera San Roque, assuming you are referring to something other than their authorship of the contended Sydney Law Review article. I will search for a transcript of the ABC radio interview with Riley. If unavailable, I will seek a statement from Riley himself. I acknowledge your advice on how to conduct conversation on wiki pages. I believe wiki conversation should be conducted in a collegiate tone. It is, after all, a shared endeavour to ensure information is accurate, balanced and free of libelous imputation - in accordance with the Wikipedia guidelines on WP:PROCESSES, WP:LIBEL and WP:VERIFIABILITY. My earlier advice in this regard stands. The information you are so spiritedly defending is highly defamatory and actionable and, as such, clearly in breach of Wiki rules. 203.4.237.211 (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Rumbleseat

Once again, you are grossly incorrect. The criticism I am defending is clearly NOT in breach of any rules. It is verifiable, it is not given undue weight (3 sources are used to add only 1 sentence of criticism), and it comes from reliable established sources. I'm not doubting for a single second that Riley described the criticism as "utterly absurd" and "defamatory", but a) you need reliable source to add that information to the article and b) the fact that Riley does not like the criticism against him is not grounds to remove the criticism. Criticism has been made from several reliable sources, therefore it is more than acceptable to add one sentence of criticism to the article, stating what he was criticised for and where. I said it before, and now I will say it again. If anyone wants a copy of the Australian Feminist Law Journal article, please provide me with an email address, and I will email it to you, however i am not required to do this. I have clearly stated where the criticism appears, therefore it is not my problem if you do not have access to the books/articles. And just so it is clear, no, I am not referring to anything other than the SLR article, the AFLJ article, and the book published by Random House, as these 3 sources are more than adequate. The Sydney Law Review article is only contended by you, someone who clearly has a vested interest in deleting any criticism of the subject and completely ignoring wikipedia guidelines in the process. I believe Yunshui was referring to the version of the article that had a sub-section for criticism when he stated "I'm not convinced that the passage quoted form Riley actually supports the claim made in the SLR article."

@Yunshui: Sorry to bother you again, but as this editor is still trying to remove all referenced criticism from the article, can you please confirm whether or not you think the single sentence of criticism in the current version of the article is acceptable? I can email you the journal article and the pages of the book you do not have access to if you like. Freikorp (talk) 06:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The current wording (Riley's extended coverage of Leigh's murder received criticism, including from the Sydney Law Review and The Australian Feminist Law Journal, on the grounds that he was blaming Leigh for her own sexual assault and murder.) is, in my opinion, a fairly accurate representation of the sources. However, in the interests of finding a compromise that all parties can be satisfied with, I'd like to propose a couple of slightly altered alternatives for consideration:

1. "Riley's extended coverage of Leigh's murder received criticism from the Sydney Law Review and The Australian Feminist Law Journal, on the grounds that he was blaming Leigh for her own sexual assault and murder." Removing the word "including" specifies where the criticism originated, and avoids giving the impression that such criticism was widespread.
2. Riley's extended coverage of Leigh's murder received criticism, including from the Sydney Law Review and The Australian Feminist Law Journal." Removing the analysis of the reasons for criticism avoids any possibility of original interpretation of the sources.
3. Riley's extended coverage of Leigh's murder received criticism from the Sydney Law Review and The Australian Feminist Law Journal." Combines the two amendments above.

I should point out that I personally don't have a problem with the current wording, but in the interests of stabilising the article I offer these alternatives to see if some agreement can be reached. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and suggestions. I have no problems with the first alt, which I think is a good compromise. I don't like the second or third as they do not give any indication of why he was criticised, which I think would just leave the reader confused and wondering what the criticism could of been about. Freikorp (talk) 10:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Temporary removal

I've commented out the disputed claim, temporarily, pending Freikorp's furnishing of the material used to support it. I will restore it without fuss once it has been verified that we are repeating what the sources say and nothing more. I am not casting aspersions at anyone here, but this is a BLP and this is a serious claim, with potentially serious repercussions. Lacking immediately verifiable sources (which is to me a red flag, honestly) we should be very cautious. If the given sources support these claims then I will restore the material. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I must say I am disturbed by the justification of this edit of yours: [4]. As I explained above to the last editor who made the exact same error, "The Sydney Law Review DOES discuss his work, the prose just does not mention Riley by name. Quote from the article "even more disturbingly, the article married parental blame with the well-documented notion that the rape victim herself is presumably to blame for her attack". The article being referred to is one written by Riley, however, the only way to find out that he is the author is to check the articles footnotes. All the information criticising him is there though." I am currently emailing the requested documents to you; I am confident that you will reinstate all 3 sources once you review them. Freikorp (talk) 03:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Freikorp: I've restored the material, per the sources you provided via email to me. Thank you for that. I can vouch for the claim made in the article regarding Riley's coverage of the case, per the book but not the journal. I would like to propose a rewording here in the next day or two (busy with real life), but for now we return to the status ante editus or whatever it's called. As to the first edit I made, my worry here is essentially that you're advocating including something where you "know" that it is related, but the source realistically does not advance or support the claim. Which is the same problem with the Australian Feminist Law Journal citation - the only reference to Riley is this:

The crime attracted a large volume of local and national media coverage

With this footnote:

The Newcastle Herald has published at least 39 stories about the Leigh Leigh murder case, 23 on the front page. Front page stories about the crime have also appeared the Sydney newspapers. Ten other articles about the case have appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald which also published an eight page feature story a month after Webster's conviction. This article was written by Mark Riley, former police reporter for the Newcastle Herald. The sustained coverage of this case has been immense compared to the average coverage of sex crimes (see Soothill, K. Walby, S., Sex Crime in the Nt'ltJs, London: Routledge, 1991,29).

Quite frankly I do not see that this constitutes criticism by the journal in any shape or form. It takes a lot of original research to go from that to specifically saying Riley was victim-blaming Leigh. If as you say the journal does not criticize Riley by name because of libel concerns that's fine, but it does not mean we get to synthesize what we think or wish they were saying. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

When I was reading over the AFLJ right before I sent it to you it did occur to me that I was stretching it a bit with that source, so I'll accept that one being removed, but as you can see the book does criticise him by name in a fair amount of detail, and I also think the SLR journal is acceptable for the sentence I had - it's much much less of a stretch connecting the criticism to Riley directly. Anyway take your time for the rewording propositions, i'm not in any rush. Freikorp (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

The BLP noticeboard discussion of this article can be found here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive226#Mark Riley (journalist). Freikorp (talk) 13:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

As indicated by the above discussion, consensus was not reached to remove the contested statement. I am accordingly restoring it. Freikorp (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)