Talk:Rich Fellers

BLP:CRIME

See this. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Can you clarify? It appears you may be questioning whether Fellers is notable enough to have a Wikipedia bio, but you created this bio. (It's fine to change your mind of course, I'm just trying to get clarity on where you're coming from.) I'm not deeply familiar or up to date on the notability thresholds for sports figures without doing a bit of reading. -Pete Forsyth (talk)

@Peteforsyth: - He def. should have an article based on his sporting achievements. I raised a query last summer at WP:BLPN when some serious crimal accusations were added] (and then removed). WP:BLPCRIME has more info on this. It's basically about how much weight the crime aspect of his life should have on WP. From reading the additions, it looks like he's been arrested and charged on that. Hope that helps! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

It does, thanks for the quick reply! -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Sources for possible expansion

Here are some clippings that might be helpful:

• LA Times, 1988
• Vancouver Province, 1990
• North American winner, 1998
• His horse Flexible died, 2021

-Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Evisceration

This article has been eviscerated of material relating to the subject's suspensions from the sport by SafeSport (in part). As well as the related legal issues, which arise from the same alleged actions on his part.

This Olympian in two events/former United States Equestrian Federation Equestrian of the Year is a public figure. He has held a position of pre-eminence in a sport, at more than a locally-significant level. This is clear even from a couple of sentences that have not been cut out of the article.

There are a multitude reliable published sources. This would be clear - but one of the four editors, editing in short order here, seems to have chosen to hide those multiple published sources from the readership. We should simply document what these sources say.

Under our rules, when facts are as they are here, it is quite proper to documents what has been deleted from this article, and hidden from public view.

If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject, his wife, and others dislike all mention of it. (If there were not multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation, we would of course leave it out-per our blp standards). --2603:7000:2143:8500:A45B:E4AA:91E9:A3F9 (talk) 07:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

On a gut level, I tend to agree. When a grand jury hands down an indictment on four counts of a felony charge, that seems newsworthy, notworthy, significant. But when I look for news sources, I am surprised: As far as I can tell from searching several databases, general interest newspapers have covered his career since the 1980s or 90s. That includes papers from McMinnville, Coos Bay, and Eugene, Oregon, the LA Times, and papers from Florida, California, New York, Nebraska, and several Canadian provinces. But the indictment, I see covered only in specialized equestrian publications, and I'm not familiar with any of them. It gives me a bit of pause to find that general interest newspapers seem to take no notice of this. They may be wrong, they may be understaffed and under-resourced, but Wikipedia's policies are generally to reflect the way a subject is covered across a range of media. So I'm not sure it makes sense to cover the indictment and related issues in great detail. However, there's plenty of info to expand the article about his career. If the article is expanded to more thoroughly cover his career, to me it would make sense if coverage of the legal issues were expanded along with that. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 08:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Peter. Thanks for your thoughts. Here are some that I have, and I would be interested what policies you are looking at. The deletions were made pursuant to specific policies. I think. Some I can't see, as they have been hidden. And I question whether they were hidden properly - no discussion, no indication on the article page that editor x hid them, and his rationale. It inhibits discussion and ability to build back the article. It looks like over 2,000 bytes, more than a third of the article additions.

The first analytical issue we run into it strikes me, after that operation hurdle that has been set up here, is that WP:BLP has been cited. As often happens, it is easy to focus on the title of an article without carefully considering what it actually says. WP:BLPCRIME says, bolding added, "For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured."

So the first order of business, to see if this section is even applicable (if it were, it would lead to "serious consideration," not to a blanket delete without such consideration-important, as the arrest relates to the same facts as the suspension), is to assess whether the subject is ""not covered by § Public figures. Because BLPCRIME only applies if that is the case (this "seriously consider" directive). To figure that out, we have to click.

When we click through to the section that WP:BLPCRIME points us to, § Public figures, we see this: "

See also: Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."

Well that's helpful The question is whether there are a multitude of reliable published sources which is also referred to as "well documented." Because if the allegation is noteworthy, relevant and well documented "it belongs in the article." Not, maybe it belongs in the, think carefully. It belongs. (I should note, that it focuses on "reliable published sources." Not, what you were thinking about, perhaps thinking about GNG discussions - where those reliable published sources are, and whether they are of one type or another).

Just for fun, let's look at the see also, to see if it gives us any more insight.

Clicking through, and looking for the relevant section (an athlete), we see this language. "High-profile: ... a position of pre-eminence ... in a sport ... usually at more than a locally-significant level." And what about this fellow, an international competitor in his sport. An Olympian, in two different categories. And in addition, he was the 2012 United States Equestrian Federation Equestrian of the Year. He is clearly high profile. By what WP:BLPCRIME points us to .. if editors only click through, read, and have no agenda other than to properly follow WP rules.

Now we know that someone in Oregon is very unhappy about this being known. Because they were suspended themselves for six years relative to this by the equestrian governing body -- for Abuse of Process, Retaliation, Failure to Report.[1] But that's not reason to do what some editors have done here at the project.

I will be a bit busy in real life. But I would appreciate it if you would restore all the RS-supported language that comports with what I have laid out above. The rationale for deletion does not withstand scrutiny. 2603:7000:2143:8500:B8E9:47BF:23A3:5A4B (talk) 10:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

On a separate note, I think that among the material this article reflected, which was deleted, and hidden, is material that does not relate to his arrest. Such as his initial suspension - I believe there were two. But this whole "let's eviscerate the article - and then hide the bodies" makes it difficult to point out specifically what I am referring to. 2603:7000:2143:8500:B8E9:47BF:23A3:5A4B (talk) 11:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

You seem intent on having a conversation, and you're asking for a lot of my time. Sorry, you've demonstrated deep familiarity with certain aspects of Wikipedia, so I'm sure you're able to fill in the blanks yourself. But, it does seem like you missed the fact that all the sources you (or whoever you share an IP address with) included, and nearly all the text you added, does remain in one revision that's visible. see here. The other details are not visible because you, or the person who wrote them, mixed defamatory material in with stuff that's less problematic. It's not my job to sift through it and present the parts you want.

Out of curiosity, are you expending the same amount of energy seeking answers from the editor of the L.A. Times or the Linfield Review? There are plenty of publications that covered Fellers' career in some depth, but have said nothing about his indictment. Maybe their editors will have more patience for a conversation with an anonymous IP address than I do. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I simply went a step deeper than the deleter(s) - and discussed with direcf reference what WP actually says on the subject. And why deletion is inappropriate here - per WP policy. I never mixed in defamatory text - what I did was add text, with refs, that for an inexplicable reason editors have deleted - citing to a policy that supports inclusion.

Plus - you say above “ If the article is expanded to more thoroughly cover his career, to me it would make sense if coverage of the legal issues were expanded along with that.” Well, that’s been done.

Plus, among the obviously inappropriate deletions was reference to the fact that Fellers was temporarily suspended by the SafeSport earlier for alleged misconduct and was issued a no-contact directive. No proper rationale was given for deleting they (either). Not was any rationale give. For the hiding of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.197.67.166 (talk) 05:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll repeat this, but just this once. That material was not hidden. It's here. As for why it was deleted, I'll leave it to whoever deleted to take up that discussion with you. Though, if they have no interest in doing so, I'd hardly blame them. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 06:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

OK, embarrassing mistake, apologies for my exasperated tone, I've now struck that sentence out. I see that I had failed to paste the link properly. Fixed now. (But, I am still a little amazed that you weren't able to find it yourself, given how closely you seem to be looking through the history.) -Pete Forsyth (talk) 06:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTNEWS

This bio should reflect the fact that Fellers has been accused of a serious crime, without convicting him in lieu of a trial in a court of law. It's not okay to insert multiple references to articles of questionable reliability on top of reliable sources that verify content unrelated to his indictment. And no, he's not a high profile person. WP:BLP makes clear editors' responsibilities:

Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

You are edit warring. Without basis. The above conversation is now days old. You have just deleted his first suspension - for no reason. You have deleted the fact that he is suspended from the lede - without reason. You have engaged in a parallel unsupported edits on a number of related pages, without edit summaries even - even as baseless as this, your above assertion - for days.

The above discussion is clear. You in response make a baseless contrary assertion. That is not a proper basis for your effort to delete every fact about fellers that you simply do not like.

He clearly is a notable person. Is your unwarranted deletion of the fact that he won equestrian of the year in his discipline, an effort in your part to hide the fact?

I have started discussion on this and other talk pages. You have until now simply reverted. Typically without edit summaries. Always without responding to talk page discussion. Misstating WP policy- as detailed above.

And I’m top of it - you now, of all things, template warned me for alleged “disruptive” editing.

All of this concerns me. I ask that you consider the policies discussed above. If you still - after all this - do not self-revert, I fear that we will need a third party arms length admin review. I’m prepared to bring this to admins for assistance in that manner, if you do not choose to self-revert. Your edits are not in line with WP policy, but rather fly in the face of WP policy. The purpose of WP is not to have articles written as they would look of the subject of the article himself or a connected editor were to write them. But as if a neutral editor wrote it, conforming to WP policy. — — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.197.67.166 (talk) 03:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Response to 174.197.67.166

As responsible editors, we follow Wikipedia polices that require extra care in writing biographies. I have especially struggled to maintain neutrality while editing the Fellers bio. I'm a "Me, too" survivor of sexual harassment in a former workplace, and I know the heartbreaking stories of 5 people in my large extended family who suffered childhood sexual abuse. All five were marked by disabilities ranging from anxiety disorders, panic attacks, trust issues, loss of self esteem, anger control... Thus, I acknowledge the fierce emotions that sex abuse charges engender as a valid response to allegations of these heinous crimes. Nevertheless, as editors it's not our job to judge Fellers—that's the job of the courts and a jury of his peers. Our job includes suspending judgment, avoiding harm and potential legal action for defamatory content, pending his court case. The Fellers story is not over, yet, and the article can be updated if/when there is a trial.

On the issue of whether Fellers is a "high profile person", several Wikipedia criteria apply. For example, according to WP:NPF:

Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources... Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures.

Does he qualify as a public figure under Wikipedia guidelines? WP:BLPPUBLIC describes the criteria for including information about a public scandal: ...multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. The key here is coverage in "multiple major newspapers". I have not yet seen coverage of the Fellers case in multiple major newspapers. Prominent Olympians earn medal(s) and have have had publicity in national and international reliable sources. Fellers was on the Olympic team but he did not medal — the U.S. equestrian jumping team placed seventh. Fellers is not a "high profile" Olympian. High profile Olympians include people like Michael Phelps, Dorothy Hammil, Bill Shoemaker, Jessie Owens, Muhammad Ali, Nadia Comăneci, Jackie Joyner-Kersee, Greg Louganis, Mary Lou Retton, Simone Biles, Johnny Weissmuller, Apolo Ohno, Olga Korbut, Dick Fosbury, Jim Thorpe... all are Olympians widely covered in multiple major newspapers and other reliable sources.

You wrote, "Is your unwarranted deletion of the fact that he won equestrian of the year in his discipline, an effort in your part to hide the fact?" My edit summary when I removed that sentence:"rem statement duplicated in Awards section''. You will see the statement included under "Awards and honors". Like most other WP editors, I use shorthand abbreviations for most edits (rem=remove, rev=revise, +wls=added wikilcnks, c/e=copy edit, etc.). I apologize if you have not understood these edit summaries, but in fact I have consistently added edit summaries. You can verify my edit summary usage here.

If you want administrative review, I recommend the Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard.

Cordially, Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

All this is well and persuasively argued, thank you Grand'mere Eugene. To the IP, if your goal is to ensure that the charges are more widely known, that's really not the function of Wikipedia (though I'll grant that Wikipedia ends up playing that role). I would strongly urge you to consider writing instead to the editors of the many publications that have covered Fellers' career, which includes papers as substantial as the LA Times, local papers, papers across Canada, papers in Florida and Pennsylvania.

Do you have a theory of why those papers have not touched this? If so, could you share it? One possible explanation is that the indictment and suspensions are not as interesting to the public as you think they are. Do you have another explanation? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Reverted edit citing Palo Alto Weekly → Daily Mail

Yngvadottir, two points:

1. Please see above responses to IP 174.197.67.166. If/when Fellers is convicted is the appropriate time to add details of the case under WP:BLPCRIME, which cautions editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. Fellers has not yet been tried or convicted. Patience!
2. Additionally, the source you cited, Palo Alto Times (Palo Alto online) is based on an article in th Daily Mail, an unreliable tabloid source discussed at length at least 3 times at WP:Reliable Sources Noticeboard:

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_220#Daily_Mail_RfC
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_255#2nd_RfC:_The_Daily_Mail
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Daily_Mail

— Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

That he has yet to be convicted is a valid point, but information on the nature of the charge(s) is important to have since he's been sanctioned by an official body. He is not accused of doping, or absconding with money, and we are already leaving out that his wife was temporarily suspended for failure to report. It's implied by United States Center for SafeSport, but a non-US person might easily miss that. I believe caution about BLP is leading to our giving our readers too little context. The Palo Alto Weekly source also mentions social media backlash; the charges are widely known, this is not a sealed case. I see that the source we were already quoting even names the purported victim; the Palo Alto Weekly doesn't, and the IP appears to have adduced widespread news coverage. Further, the Palo Alto Weekly and its web presence, https://www.paloaltoonline.com/, is in no way affiliated with the Daily Mail. See our article, to which I've linked; it and the Mountain View Voice are independent Silicon Valley local news weeklies published by a small company; note that the main thrust of the story is the accuser's mother's starting a nonprofit. (I was initially working from the paper copy, which I have in front of me now, and searched for the online version for reader convenience.) I've looked briefly above and I can see no reason for your assertion of a Daily Mail connection; the story online is bylined to the Palo Alto Weekly writer, and probably also appears in the Mountain View Voice version (which last time I looked was published in pdf; the Voice moved to a primarily subscription model a while back). I'm puzzled by your writing Palo Alto Times; that was a precursor of the Peninsula Times Tribune, which is itself long gone. The local (small region; Peninsula as far south/east in the valley as Mountain View, for legal reasons) free dailies are the Palo Alto Daily News, now owned by the Mercury News newsgroup and rebranded, and the Daily Post, founded by the Daily News founders, which is indeed a fishwrap but is almost entirely wire service stories—from the Daily News history, I would guess Associated Press. I would be surprised to see anything from the Daily Mail or any other foreign news source in either; it's outside their remit and too expensive. Perhaps the IP had cited the Daily Mail and that's lurking in some link above? Otherwise, I would urge you to consider whether you jumped to an unwarranted conclusion about the nature of the source and that colored your response to my edit; while as I say I appreciate the BLP point, I think too much of what the IP was evidently arguing for us to include has been cut, and perhaps a misplaced concern regarding sources was part of this. I see Peteforsyth arguing above that only equestrian publications covered the story at the time (and instructing the IP to write to editors of major newspapers?). There is probably local Oregon coverage from back then, and the source I cited is, I submit, entirely reliable, especially since I drew all the particulars I cited from the source we are already citing (and left out the accuser's name, which that source published, to my surprise and disapproval). Yngvadottir (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, I apologize I erroneously wrote Palo Alto Times instead of Palo Alto Weekly. Working from the Palo Alto (online) article you cited, this is the sentence that literally links their source of information to the Daily Mail:

"He denied the charges, which stemmed from a monthslong investigation, according to a story published in the Daily Mail last August." It's not clear how much of the rest of the Palo Alto (online) is "fact checked" to the Daily Mail. So far no other sources I have found have included his denial of the charges. The Oregon state court calendar search engine also does not show any related court dates, past or present, so we so far have no reliable, verifiable evidence of any plea he may have entered or any legal representation he might have. If Palo Alto (online) got that wrong based on the Daily Mail article they cited, I'm sorry, can we legitimately conclude that maybe they got the the rest right?

I still have not found "multiple major newspapers" carrying details of the allegations that would justify WP's publication of those details, per the example given in WP:BLPPUBLIC, if "...multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources". We just do not have the major sources, and though Fellers is apparently well-know in horse-jumping circles, he doesn't qualify as a "public figure", even though he is notable in Wikipedia terms, with reliable sources covering his horse-jumping successes.

Whenever the case is adjudicated, his status can be updated with more details. Until then, WP:BLPCRIME is policy we need to observe. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I feel that the crime he is accused of should be named (but not discussed in painstaking detail), and that the Palo Alto Weekly is a good source to use when adding that. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Peteforsyth, I think that's more or less where I'm at. As it stands the article barely mentions that he worked as a riding instructor, I missed it on the first reading, and I think it should be stated that the accuser was a minor. What do you both think of the wording I used? Grand'mere Eugene, I made a search for the publisher name plus "Daily Mail" and when pretty much the only thing that came up was the news story I cited, I compared it to the printed copy I was really working from: that paragraph, with the fact he denies the charges and the detail that there was a monthslong investigation, cited with attribution to the Daily Mail, has been added in the online version, a rare Daily Mail citation there. (Possibly that was the update on February 22; I haven't looked to see whether Wayback captured the earlier online version. I added the url and changed the date, and the headline from After riding coach abused student, mom creates nonprofit for young adults, as a WP:V matter; I had checked that it was the same story and the same details about the accusation and suspension, but had found the source we are already citing in fact gives more specifics; I'd missed that a paragraph with a link had been added.) Note that the print version already had the lower paragraph stating that the paper confirmed his suspension. The story is not dependent on the Daily Mail citation, but I see now why you might have thought that. And his denial should probably be included in our summary. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I found and added an article from The Oregonian and have added some text that perhaps we can all live with? Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 03:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

So there was indeed coverage in Oregon. The wording looks good to me: it no longer specifies second-degree, and it adds his denial. But I don't think the Chronicle of the Horse should have been deleted; that gives his suspension, and the Oregonian is just from the time of his arrest. Otherwise the Palo Alto Weekly needs to be cited twice, since it also has the suspension. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Today I found an AP story that was carried by a handful of local Oregon community newspapers, and a Portland Tribune piece that also didn't show up on my original Google search. The Oregonian source also doesn't show up on Google, and it didn't show up on the first pass using "Fellers" in that paper's online search engine. I'm also puzzled why the stat court's website has no records of his case showing after ~8 months since his indictment-- will keep watching, keep hoping for the perfect search engine to be created. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks for your first-rate research efforts. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks from me, too. I guess pandemic-related or other delays ... I think we cover it adequately now, I agree entirely about not devoting too much space to it. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Just a small update, if I'm reading the records correctly the court date was postponed on March 14, moving it from April 2022 to fall 2022. Case number in Washington County Circuit, for future reference: 21CR26793 -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Removed a category

I just reverted the addition of a category -- as I understand it, Fellers has not been formally "convicted" until a sentence is handed down, which I believe will happen this fall. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography#Seeking guidance|Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Crime_and_Criminal_Biography#Seeking_guidance]]

-Pete Forsyth (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)