Talk:Meredith Russo

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article should adhere to the gender identity guideline because it contains material about one or more trans women. Precedence should be given to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, anywhere in article space, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. Some people go by singular they pronouns, which are acceptable for use in articles. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Former, pre-transition names may only be included if the person was notable while using the name; outside of the main biographical article, such names should only appear once, in a footnote or parentheses.

If material violating this guideline is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other related issues, please report the issue to the LGBTQ+ WikiProject, or, in the case of living people, to the BLP noticeboard.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. 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. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

LGBTQ+ studies: Person

	LGBTQ portal This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles
	This article is supported by the LGBTQ+ Person task force.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Regarding my edits

I have locked the page due to edit warring on both sides.

After protecting the page, I saw some accusations that, per WP:BLP, require strong sources. This blog does not qualify as a strong source. We need mainstream, professionally-published academic or journalistic sources, not a partisan blog. Removing those claims under WP:BLP was a "straightforward case" carried out "purely in an administrative role" and not getting involved. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs sources

Taking a quick glance at the article, I almost reached for Twinkle's XFD button because of the lack of sources.

The only independent source cited is this Times Free Press piece. To verify that the article meets WP:GNG, I decided to check for sources. Ignoring book reviews, I found this interview with Study Breaks and this article from The Washington Post. So, the subject does meet GNG but this article should really just summarize sources.

I am not adding them, however, because I was the one who protected the page due to a content dispute. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Post Millennial article

I move to allow the Post Millenial article as a citation for Russo's personal life. Looking at the talk history, it looks like this page has already been subject to an edit war in the past regarding these same claims of abuse, although it was previously sourced from a blog. Although the Post Millenial is not explicitly verified under WP:RS, I don't understand that it is explicitly banned either, and uniformly dismissing a well-sourced article filled with public documentation seems unnecessary and in bad faith. It's been covered in a widely read online magazine, and it's noteworthy and relevant to her public image when it's a subject of widespread online discussion.

I would like to read and discuss others' opinions on this. Ampersandbrown (talk) 05:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BLPs require high-level sourcing. My initial reaction is that this source does not meet that standard; the entire site reads like tabloid journalism to me. I've left a note at the BLPN to solicit additional opinions. Aoi (青い) (talk) 05:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the spouse of one of the parties and can attest to the validity of all of the documents contained in the article.

Also, this article was reviewed heavily by a legal team prior to its going live because of the seriousness of the allegations.

While TPM could be considered a tabloid site by some, there's also legitimate journalism taking place there. The writer of this article, Anna Slatz, is a freelancer who has in the past helped expose predators in the LGBT community(Redacted). Again, while TPM may be considered a tabloid source, these stories are legitimate and necessary and it's unfortunate that only a page such as theirs is willing to take the risk of running them. Triscious (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Post Millennial lacks the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that we require for controversial or negative claims about living persons, especially if it's the only source making those claims. There should be multiple, high-quality sources before we even think about including this. Woodroar (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted) Triscious (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A couple things here: 1. Wikipedia doesn't adjudicate disputes. We're an encyclopedia and we base our articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (WP:V), weighted in proportion to those sources (WP:NPOV), and we're extra careful with claims about living persons (WP:BLP). So we're here to summarize what reliable sources say, that's all. 2. How we summarize depends on what those sources say, what kind of sources they are, and how many of them there are. If only one, poor-quality source repeats a controversial claim about a living person, then we're not going to cover it. If many reliable sources publish that claim, on the other hand, then we will. It all entirely depends on the sources. Woodroar (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted)

Got it. Triscious (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's an actual arrest record. There are transcripts.

(Redacted) because you don't like which publication was willing to expose the perpetrator. Triscious (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted) Ok, got it. Let all the world proclaim: if it's not in a Wikipedia article, it never happened. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the story is that prominent then why are you rejecting it? Triscious (talk) 02:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We're not the ones claiming it's prominent, you are. We're not "silencing" anyone. Have we taken out a restraining order? No. Nothing stops anyone involved from tweeting, from talking to other media, from going on programs from Rachel Maddow to InfoWars, from creating your own website, or from using any one of dozens of other forms of communications. This privately-owned website has no obligation to publish anyone's accusations. And let's be clear here, that's all they legally are. Arrest records are not convictions. The editors here have been attempting to explain the policies this website has set up. Try reading the links Woodroar gave you above. If you want to continue to ignore them and argue that the truth has to be presented on this page, it will fall on deaf ears. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Eggishorn and Woodroar are correct. When it comes to biographies of living people Wikipedia is required to err on the side of extreme caution. There's nothing that anyone reading this talk page can really do about that, its a rule that we have to obey when editing Wikipedia.

Basically, yes, rapists and domestic abusers need mainstream media coverage in order for it to be included in Wikipedia. We're not denying anything. We just can't repeat it until its picked up by high quality sources. We don't break stories. I appreciate that's not what you were looking to hear and for what its worth I'm sorry about that.

@Eggishorn: Please do not bite the newcomers. --RaiderAspect (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RaiderAspect:, you are correct and I apologize to Triscious and everyone else for my first inappropriately sarcastic post in this section. It was not what is expected of experienced editors. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buzzfeed News versus The Post Millennial

As a point of reference or information, I see that Buzzfeed News is used as a source for a section on Tony Robbins (2019 sexual harassment and abuse allegations), but wonder why Wikipedia rejects The Post Millennial (TPM) as one for a similar section on Russo.

Particularly as Media-Bias/Fact-Check gives something of a higher rating for the latter than for the former.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/buzzfeed/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-post-millennial/

Certainly Robbins is more in the limelight than is Russo. And there does seem to be more *allegations* against Robbins than against Russo.

But still raises a question or two on the criteria Wikipedia editors should be using to assess "verifiable sources".

TillermanJimW (talk) 02:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BuzzFeed (buzzfeed.com) is inconsistent, absolutely. Anybody can create an account, write a listicle, and go viral with little or no editorial oversight. BuzzFeed News (buzzfeednews.com), on the other hand, has an editorial process, fact checkers, and they've won a variety of journalism awards. In Wikipedia terms, they have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". BuzzFeed publishes BuzzFeed News but the news site operates independently, which is why there are two entries at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. The fact that Media Bias/Fact Check lumps the two sources together is pretty bad, actually. We even mention in their article that the Columbia Journalism Review—one of the most reputable publications about journalism—doesn't think very highly of Media Bias/Fact Check. Woodroar (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]