Talk:Karen Stollznow/Archive 1

Archive 1

Tim I found an article by her while looking for something else. I'm sure you would already have this but I want to try to cite it correctly.

Stollznow, Karen (November/December 2009). "Skepticism and Blogging". Skeptical Inquirer. 33 (6). Committee for Skeptical Inquiry: 41–42. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) Text is supposed to go in this area that I want to appear. If I want it to be blank then do I erase the ref or leave it?</ref>

Sgerbic (talk) 03:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Where to Start?

Just listed all her publications but need to get them in correct citation. Need to get proof that she graduated from the universities she said she did, as well as proof that she worked where she said she did.

Lots of work to go. Sgerbic (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Got many of the selected publications all cited. Was considering making two areas one for skeptical topics and the other for academic publications. But then I realized that sometimes the articles are both linguistic and skeptical. LOL Also if you make an academic area then it makes anything not under that category non-academic. So not good. Sgerbic (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Ran out of time before going to work this morning. Took a stab at her biography. I liked the press release from CFI how it listed all kinds of pseudoscience that she has investigated. They also mention that she is now working with their new peer-reviewed journal Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice. Need to also get that in the bio. Sgerbic (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Tim I changed the picture per Karen. I also deleted the skeptbitch and the bad language links at the bottom of the article as she said she has deleted the accounts. I added her website at the bottom and tired to add it in the "info box" | website = http://www.karenstollznow.com like Mark Edward has but it isn't showing up on the changes. Maybe you can fix and I can learn?

I also asked her if she could come up with one of those clever thingys to show how to pronounce her last name, because she is a linguist I thought it might make her page kinda special. Her answer is this..."I'll look into one of those phonemic descriptions - I don't know how to make them myself, but I could create an IPA description myself." So no idea what that means but I suppose it is one of those thingys that show you how to pronounce something. LOL I'm helpless with that.

As far as I'm concerned I think I'm done with her page. If you need help with something time consuming but easy for me to do I will gladly do it, just ask. But I'm passing her on to you now. Sgerbic (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

There should be a post of her age

Since there is a reference to her being the voice of the younger generation her age would be helpful (Birth date). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.205.32.90 (talk) 18:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Third-party sources

This article seems to cite a lot of Stollznow's own work, which is fine, but it needs to be balanced with third-party sources about her. Cnilep (talk) 11:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Out of 32 citations in the article, there are 5 unambiguously third-party sources right now (notes 6,8,30-32). There are a four more that are arguably third party (notes 4,5, 28 and 29) - she's associated with those orgs, but she did not write the source. How many more do you think we need? --Krelnik (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't really suggest a specific number – and by the way, I hadn't noticed that there were 5+; I only noticed two before I added the tag. WP:THIRDPARTY suggests, "These reliable third-party sources should verify enough facts to write a non-stub article about the subject, including a statement explaining its significance. Once an article meets this minimal standard, additional content can be verified using any reliable source." So by that rationale, maybe I'm asking too much. THIRDPARTY is an essay, though, not a policy. Policy page WP:V states, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.... Content related to living people or medicine should be sourced especially carefully." (I've left out most of that paragraph, so editors may want to read the original.) Do other editors have opinions on the subject? Cnilep (talk) 03:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Pronouncation thingy

Still think she should have one of those citations that shows how to pronounce her last name. She is a linguist after all. I hear her last name pronounced several different ways. SGerbic (talk) 06:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that would be an excellent touch, but I'm not skilled enough to write it, unfortunately. --Krelnik (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you know how to use the IPA? Then use the {{IPAc-en|icon|I|P|A|h|e|r|e}}. You can look up similar words in the dictionary which uses IPA like the OED. Why not just email Stallznow and ask her for the IPA transcription of her name. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 12:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we did just that. As a linguist she's familiar with IPA so she should be able to send us an accurate representation. Thanks! --Krelnik (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Karen is a close friend, and I happen to know that her last name is pronounced STOLZ-no. The first part rhymes with coals, and the last part rhymes with blow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheldonhelms (talk • contribs) 19:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Who was the accused?

There is loads of evidence about who was accused (let's call him Ben). Ben was at least accused of sexual harassment. It's all over well-respected sites. Shouldn't we at least mention that Ben is the presumed perpetrator? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.138.250.193 (talk) 11:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Consulting WP:BLP (particularly WP:BLPCRIME), if there has been a conviction and the information is coming from a reliable source (reliable news coverage, court documents, etc), then that information should be included. However, if the "loads of evidence" to which you refer come from self-published sources (e.g. blogs, see WP:BLPSPS), or simply refer to an accusation having been made, then its inclusion would run afoul of WP:BLP. This answer would also seem to apply to your adjacent question in another BLP talk page. Nmillerche (talk) 14:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sexual harassment section doesn't make sense

In 2013, Stollznow wrote about her experience at the Scientific American Mind blog with sexual harassment, in which she also criticized the response of her employer.[41] Ron Lindsay, the head of the Center for Inquiry (the organization mentioned in Stollznow's article), contacted the blog's publisher, Scientific American, disputing secondary claims by Stollznow concerning the organization's history and policies on sexual harassment.[42] Scientific American has since removed the article.[42] Although Stollznow did not provide a name in the original article, the individual concerned has since opened legal proceedings alleging defamation.[43]

The blog post cited (http://web.archive.org/web/20130806183622/http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/2013/08/06/im-sick-of-talking-about-sexual-harassment/) does not contain the words "Center for Inquiry." --24.97.201.230 (talk) 09:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

"In 2013 Karen Stollznow accused [xxx] of stalking, sexual harassment, and both physical and sexual assault. She made these accusations in a complaint to [xxx]’s employer (the Center for Inquiry), in a guest blog written for the Scientific American Mind website and to various individuals in private communications." (from http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2014/03/25/radford-stollznow-defamation-case-what-we-know-and-what-we-can-infer-or-extrapolate-reasonably/)

Is it true that the blog post Stollznow wrote was a complaint directed towards the Center for Inquiry? Is that why Ron Lindsay contacted the blog's publisher (Scientific American)? That would make more sense. No? --24.97.201.230 (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)--24.97.201.230 (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Sexual Harassment

I have edited the sexual harassment section on the page to add more information. I added the direct wording from the president of the Center for Inquiry regarding Stollznow's claims in her article. It was removed because 'self-published' blogs are to be avoided. Under the WP:SELFPUB, it states: "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control."

I argue that the Center for Inquiry is a long standing reputable scientific organization that responded to Scientific American regarding 3 false claims made by Stollznow. My edit was not about a living person, but a direct response from the president of the Center for Inquiry regarding the claims to its organization that were blogged via Scientific American. It should not be removed. Ronald Lindsay PhD is the president and CEO of the Center for Inquiry and he made public his concern with the blog created at Scientific American by Stollznow - a public concern that was issued directly on the Center of Inquiry's website (http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/what_i_wrote_to_scientific_american/P50/). The direct response by the president of the Center for Inquiry and published on its official website is a reputable source that addresses some of Stollznow's claims.

This is an important piece to be attached via the sexual harassment section as it 1) informs the reader with the response of the Center for Inquiry, 2) there is speculation that Scientific American removed Stollznow blog post due to the Center of Inquiry reaching out to them and the Center's response allow the reader to see the Center for Inquiry's objective stance, and 3) sexual harassment is a serious matter and Stollznow's claims may have hurt the Center for Inquiry's reputation; allowing the edit will correctly inform the reader of the Center for Inquiry's harassment policy.

NaturaTek (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I have reworded the edit slightly. My concern is that stating "Smith's claim was unsubstantiated" (vice "[s]he argued Smith's claims were unsubstantiated") is speaking in Wikipedia's voice about the matter, and while the edit is related to CFI's policy and the organization's response, parts of it are still about a living person (Stollznow). Please do not mistake my BLP conservatism for bad faith. Nmillerche (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

There is some recent back-and-forth going on with the text in this section. It seems to me the main difference is that, depending on how the paragraph is worded, it could be interpreted that the CFI response had shown or inferred that the primary claim of sexual harassment was false, or that they did not directly address that claim in their response, or that the claim was intentionally not disputed, and so on. And that further the Scientific American article was taken down as a result of the CFI response inferred above, or for some other reason, of that they removed the article with no comment. I think this is tricky in how it can affect the BLP issues here. Hopefully this can be made as clear as possible to remove the possibility of unintentional colorings. If not I'd suggest removing the section. Rjmail (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The sources are highly credible and speak for themselves. 1) Stollznow published her harassment article on SciAm that also made claims against the center, 2) the center's CEO/President wrote a letter to SciAm and published it on his website that correctly informed the public about Stollznow's claims against the center, 3) SciAm removed the article, 4) Radford (a writer/investigator for the center) has placed a lawsuit against Stollznow for fraud and defamation. The Stollznow harassment article is properly cited using a Wikipedia approved web archiving site. The CEO/President response is cited directly from the credible Center's site. The lawsuit against Stollznow for fraud/defamation by Radford was cited directly from his personal facebook page ( https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10202374705143238&set=pb.1061027523.-2207520000.1394333901.&type=3&src=https%3A%2F%2Fscontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ash3%2Ft31.0-8%2F1900695_10202374705143238_2085903440_o.jpg&smallsrc=https%3A%2F%2Fscontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ash3%2Ft1.0-9%2F1912263_10202374705143238_2085903440_n.jpg&size=1269%2C1044 ) but was removed. I'm ok with leaving out Radford's personal Facebook page to link the lawsuit as a proper source to cite. The State of New Mexico doesn't list the lawsuit on its site to use as a credible cite source. The lawsuit against Stollznow nevertheless is genuine. Anyone can verify this by calling the state's clerk office and refer to the following docket number: D-1329-CV-2014-00221. Therefore, concerning Rjmail request to remove the entire "Sexual Harassment" section is not merit based, since this matter commenced from Stollznow and was read by countless people. The article contained inflated claims and misinformed readers. It was removed by Scientific American. The sources are correctly cited, therefore this section is relevant and need to stay on Stollznow's page on Wikipedia. That said, it seems that someone is editing the wording in such a way that it gives Stollznow every benefit. I do not take sides and like many Wiki readers, we want to see unbiased truth and citations (which is done on this article). The "tabloid/sensationalist feel" that Rjmail claimed and used to remove the entire section is fallacious in itself. Kindly leave the section in place and not twist any of the wording.68.54.143.240 (talk) 06:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I have removed unsourced material regarding what may be an outcome of an ongoing case concerning the subject. The editor who added the material reverted its removal, stating that the material was "verified" on a secondary party's "known Facebook page" in the edit summary. This may indeed have come from a document provided by one of the parties to a case in which the subject has been involved. However, something being posted to Facebook does not make it "verified," nor does it relieve us of the responsibility to cite a reliable source per Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. Furthermore, we cannot cite self-published secondary sources (such as Facebook profiles) for information in a BLP article, per WP:BLPSPS. I applaud the good-faith efforts of fellow editors, even newer ones here, as we are all trying to ensure the information is as accurate and up-to-date as can be reliably sourced. If such a time comes (as is likely) that a reliable source per WP:RS can be cited as to the case's outcome, then the information should be reflected in the article here. Until then, we need to be patient and understand that Wikipedia is not a newspaper (WP:NOTNEWSPAPER). Nmillerche (talk) 04:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

If there are relevant court documents that can be cited, Template:Cite_court may be used.

{{cite court
|litigants=
|vol=
|reporter=
|opinion=
|pinpoint=
|court=
|date=
|url=
|accessdate=
|quote=
}}

Hopefully this will be helpful. Nmillerche (talk) 04:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, Nmillerche is correct. Regardless of the fact we saw a official document on FB, Wikipedia does not work that way. We need a citation to prove the statement. Otherwise we can start allowing the psychics to say they found a missing person, and for evidence they point to their own website. Everything has to be backed up with something that is possible for others (not on FB) to see. A court document would be good. Please be patient, we have to get this right and not over-react. These are real people we are talking about.Sgerbic (talk) 06:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: PZ Myers blog support, @ Proxima Centauri (talk · contribs) Perhaps your entry would be more helpful if you mention and reference the money raised by the blog members for her legal fees. BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done it. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Self-published sources, Conservative BLP and WP Advocacy

I have condensed the section as follows below to better comply with Wikipedia policy on Biographies of Living Persons (BLP):

• In August 2013, Stollznow published an article in the Scientific American Mind blog about her experience with sexual harassment.

• This statement and source are in full compliance with Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons, and furthermore does not run afoul of any rules against self-published secondary sources, and does not specifically include any potentially defamatory information about secondary biographical subjects.

• The CEO of the Center for Inquiry contacted Scientific American regarding secondary claims by Stollznow, which he argued were unsubstantiated such as the accused suspension coinciding with his vacation time and her claim that CFI "has a history of sexual harassment claims," which he claims are false.

• I am hesitant about this source, as it is semi-self-published, and includes second-party claims about the subject of the article. However, Lindsay does speak for the organization, and as NaturaTek answered my objections, the WP:SELFPUB policy does make allowances for organizational blogs of reliable publishing sources.

However, as Rjmail pointed out, covering this kind of back-and-forth exchange of claims and counterclaims gets very sticky where biographical policy is concerned on Wikipedia. I have attempted to condense the paragraph to communicate clearly that he disputed secondary claims, primarily tied to CFI's handling of the matter, as opposed to the harassment claim itself. As editors, we want to summarize by enumerating what we judge in good faith to be the most salient points, but it's better to err on the side of biographical conservativism and merely point to reliable sources.

• Lindsay, who is the head of CFI, did not directly dispute Stollznow's harassment claims against the other person.

While technically true, we should focus on what Lindsay did say, not list the things he didn't. Wikipedia has a policy against reading between the lines of a source.

• Scientific American has since removed the article.

This is another tricky one. we don't want to infer that this had anything to do with Lindsay's response, as at least I can't find any information that speaks to that definitively. Still, we want to make sure the article maintains verifiability, and this also explains to the reader why we're linking to an archived copy. If anybody has any suggestions for better wording that we can cite, help would be appreciated.

• PZ Myers and others involved with the Pharyngula website have supported Stollznow over the harassment allegations. The accused party started Defamation proceedings, later Myers and others connected with Pharyngula publicised a fund helping Karen Stollznow pay legal fees. This fund, promoted by Indiegogo has raised over $57,000 as of the second week in April 2014.

I am reverting this addition because Indiegogo is essentially self-published outside of a reliable source (like Scientific American), but I'm also concerned this good-faith addition may inadvertently transgress Wikipedia's policies against advocacy, for the same reason that Wikipedia disallows citations of many petition sites, even including petitions.whitehouse.gov.

For the same reasons, if an opposing fundraising drive (against the subject) were added to this or another biography, it would need to be (and will be) reverted.

Covering ongoing legal cases (especially those not being covered by at least quasi-reliable sources in the news media) is a sticky proposition, and we need to remember that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Nmillerche (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)\

The harassment issue has been resolved out of court, according to first person accounts by Radford and coverage by a number of bloggers who covered the original complaint. The page should address the outcome of the complaint but all sources are either primary or blogs. I attempted to add a very basic reference to the outcome but was reverted by Rjmail. While I agree that a secondary, mainstream source would be preferable, the two other sources currently used in the paragraph are primary sources too. Perhaps the entire episode should not be included since it is not covered by mainstream media? Allecher (talk) 03:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to the talk page Allecher. I think the primary source of the twitter, which looks like Ben Radford's twitter, would be ok to quote for a citation on Ben Radford's wikipedia page, because the primary source guidance, especially for a WP:BLP, says "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject". The other cites in that paragraph seem to be self-published by KS, so that would be ok. But the whole sexual harassment episode seems to me not very relevant to a encyclopedic article, and maybe removing the whole thing as you propose wouldn't be a bad idea. Rjmail (talk) 03:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Since there doesn't seem to be any notable secondary source coverage, I am in agreement with Rjmail that the entire matter doesn't seem very encyclopedic in a way that we could cover it further than it's already been without running afoul of WP:BLPCRIME by mentioning allegations in a BLP. Both parties settled their grievances out of court without notable or reliable secondary source coverage. While the original blog piece (SciAm Mind blog) seemed okay as a self-published source without making any specific identifying claims, it has since been removed. Now that the civil matter has been settled out of court, I am especially glad that this article's coverage has largely shown restraint up to this point. But whether its continued inclusion merits its weight or is encyclopedic, I'm not certain. Nmillerche (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Plus the content seems more like a poorly sourced news item now than a biographical one. Given the uncertainty now of this item, and BLP's direction to remove such contents under such doubts, and our talk here, it sounds like we have consensus to drop it. If there is objection, rather than putting it back, I'd recommend bringing the situation to the Village Pump or some other higher power. Rjmail (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

So after our discussion here, I deleted the section. But I see user @Yppieyei: has added it back, with the comment that one of the missing references is still accessible via archives. That wasn't really the reason it was removed though. It just seems to be a pretty shaky section in a BLP: she wrote an article, someone complained about the claims in it, and it got removed. All true, but it kind of seems like trivia, and I am not sure of the appropriateness of it to an encyclopedic BLP article. Anyone else still feel this way? Rjmail (talk) 01:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

As the one who added it back, nope. The whole skeptical community was discussing this topic for months. It was mostly through blogs, true, but these were well-established blogs. Maybe, it should not be re-added in the form as it is, but at least, it has to be mentioned that the story captured the attention of many. Being Stollnow strongly related to the skeptics community, I don't see how this could be indifferent to her article. Just being settle out of court does not mean the polemic did not happened. Entering in the details would be speculative and horrible style for a BLP, but in general there is enough objective information out there to mention it.

--Yppieyei (talk) 02:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

To this day, people are still trying to scrub the article of the harassment allegations she made against her colleague. Even if you can't use court documents as a source, I see no reason to wipe the article clean. -R00b07 (talk) 10:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

"Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable. **When an anonymous editor blanks all or part of a BLP, this might be the subject attempting to remove problematic material. Edits like this by subjects should not be treated as vandalism; instead, the subject should be invited to explain their concerns.** The Arbitration Committee established the following principle in December 2005"

It does seem t be a contentious section that continues to get pounded. Let me see if I can get an RFC going to get some other comments (wish me luck: it's my first time). Rjmail (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Sexual Harassment section Rfc

The "Harassment Allegations" section was removed here per the consensus in the discussion. Consensus is that the material should be excluded under WP:BLPCRIME. Editors found the cited sources weak because they are primary sources (one is by Karen Stollznow and the second is by her employer). There is no prejudice against a new discussion about including the material if high-quality secondary sources cover the allegations.

Cunard (talk) 05:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The sexual harassment section of this BLP continues to be contentious on certain points. Currently there seem to be 2 citations in question. The first is to a blog article at Scientific American, where the Living Person (Karen Stollznow) made claims about sexual harassment. That is the foundation of this section. But Scientific American deleted that blog article shortly after publishing it without comment and it exists now only at internet archive. So does that source still meet the BLP-level requirements for a reliable source, especially considering Scientific Amercican no longer stands behind it?

The second is a response citation to this article, where the head of the organization she accused gives his response. Is that a self-published source, and does it meet the same requirements needed?

And finally, the whole section is basically about Stollznow making this claim, and the claim being denied. There have been other links to court documents and twitter documents, which have been removed due to their ineligibility here. So is what is left a reasonable item for this BLP? Does the weak sourcing lean toward WP:BLPGOSSIP or WP:BLPCRIME? It would be great to get some other comments here! Rjmail (talk) 23:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a talk page, and this section is a RfC, so let's talk. This article is a mess. This article is a prime example of why editing non-celebrity living people's arguments in the 21st Century is next to impossible, save for a few basic sentences about who she is and where she is from. When someone like Karen makes [Removed] there is no way to mention that important bit of her life on Wikipedia, the job of whom is to collect important information.

For the record, I completely understand why this article is unable to mention that important bit of her life. Besides the protections that are on articles similar to this, like Anita Sarkeesian, Rebecca Watson, and GamerGate, it is nearly impossible to properly cite the internet campaigns that pointed out that [Removed].

So where is the legitimate, non-biased source that you can cite for this article? I sure as hell can't find it, and I'm sure you can't either.

No legitimate news outlet is ever going to report on this, and I wonder why, seeing is this is rated "Start-class, Low-importance". I doubt this article will ever reach higher than "Start-class, Low-importance", so I have changed my mind, and I recommend removing the whole thing about her Harassment Campaign until a credible news organization comes along and randomly decides to report on a case that happened a year ago. Like that's going to happen. R00b07 (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well! Pincrete (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I heavily redacted my comment to comply to WP:BLP. R00b07 (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Now, let's discuss the fact that there is not enough non-biased sources that can be properly cited about the Harassment allegations. I recommend tearing the whole thing down (the allegations part, not the article), per WP:IRS. "If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." R00b07 (talk) 22:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• I know this comment is late, but this is more inline with WP:BLPCRIME considering that Stollznow had to settle with a signed written statement. (http://benjaminradford.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Radford_Stollznow-Joint-Statement-pic.jpg). We know what happened, we just don't know of any relevant sources to back it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R00b07 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

It's been a week, and other than the thoughts here, the actual RFC pages (at those links in the RFC) have not yet had a response. It's my first time doing one of these, so I don't know how long that takes. At some point, I think we should add an auto-archiver to this talk page, maybe with the standard 90 day setting? But I'd recommend we wait a bit so any RFCers can see the full current talk content, if they are so inclined. Rjmail (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

FYI I had moved the harassment section father down the page. I grabbed a few names off the news sites this that I thought would have current articles (Roger Ailes, Glenn Beck, Donald Trump), and where the page was not organized almost purely chronologically, and where legal matters appear they are always farther down on the page. Seems to help better balance a BLP, especially here where this section is disputed one way or the other. Thanks Rjmail (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Remove the section This is a BLP article. A section with claims of criminal nature require high quality reliable sources for one. Secondly, these accusations are made for someone who is not a public figure, and even though the article does not mention any names, it should be removed per WP:BLPCRIME. Darwinian Ape ^talk 05:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
• The RFC template expired with no comments on that template page. So far the opinion given here is to remove the section. Rjmail (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
• Ok given the CURRENT consensus (by R00b07, me, and Darwinian Ape), lack of RFC input, and BLP strictures, I am going to remove this section. If it comes back, I will continue this dispute resolution at the despute resolution boards or via mediation. Rjmail (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.