Talk:Marian Price

Name

It is my understanding that the subject's name is Marion Price, not Marian Price.

--> Then your understanding is wrong; her name is Marian.

:Marion Price redirects to this page, every link and mention states the name is Marian, so that's what it most likely will be. Yanksox 01:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

--> You are correct; the interviews with Suzanne Breen and The Blanket, which are linked at the bottom of her page, have the correct spelling of her name, as does the page with the Oration she gave at Joe O'Connor's funeral. The Telegraph article has her name spelled wrong.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1201738.stm

--> This article has both sisters' names incorrectly spelled.

Marion is called Marion in every web search I've done?09:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)~

--> That does not make it her name. A number of reports have it mispelt. At least Wiki can and should get it right. You will note the correct spelling is the religious spelling and you will also note the spelling of her sister's name and observe the same.

Please can you stop changing the name and re-direct the MariOn page to the MariAn one so that others will not continue to make the same mistake. Thank you.

I'm inclined to revert this to Marian as a personal interview with the Guardian has her name as Marian...09:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)~

According to a report, her name is completely different.

"The defendant, whose name was given in court on Monday as Marion McGlinchey, was accused of addressing a meeting encouraging support for a proscribed organisation, the IRA." --81.135.29.171 (talk) 04:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Different name?

The above special contribution, has not considered that Marion McGlinchey, the name given in court on May 16, 2011, is the same person, Marian Price, referred to here, and in the article cited,[1] twice as, Marian Price. The difference in the spelling of her first name, has been addressed, and the difference in surnames, simply implies Marian Price married, and became Marian McGlinchey. See Guardian article from July 22, 2011, cited [2] Irshgrl500 (talk · contribs) 17:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Birthdates

Does anyonjeanne (talk) 16:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)e have accurate birthdates for the two Price sisters?

Description as a militant

Your wiki article mentions M(P) being sentenced to two life sentences; the next that gets bit is about something else, than the thiird piece is about her going 'back to jail'. There is nothing inbetween mentioning how M got released before from that seemingly forever of that 2 life sentences. How? When? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.182.136.84 (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

--> The Guardian article mentions her being freed in 1980, but does not explain why. I've at least added the year to the paragraph. 2001:6B0:36:E2:5184:450F:633:8B22 (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the term militant from opening line as its very bias, she is a member of the 32 County sovereigntry movement, it has not been proved she is a member of any militant organisation. She was in the past a member of the IRA but you cannot put this term on her now as it has not been proved. LIAMLYNCH — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liamlynch1 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Death of Jean McConville

Did not make a change here, but I though it might be worth discussing among those who have a better idea of what sources can be used on Wiki - Marian Price was recently identified in the book "Say Nothing" as the one who pulled the trigger in the death of Jean McConville. Can this be incorporated into the article, or is one book not enough to do so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.152.184.136 (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

It is not acceptable due to WP:BLPCRIME, and I have removed it again. Marian Price has never even been arrested in connection with this, never mind charged or convicted. Patrick Radden Keefe's theory is based on the taped interview with her sister Dolours (which he has never heard, only read a transcript of), and his assumption that in a redacted part of the interview Dolours named her sister as being involved. As experienced Troubles author Ed Moloney states on his own website (also repeated in the Irish News), the redacted part of the interview did not name Marian. He further points out "Unlike Gerry Adams, who was named by Dolours Price in an interview, Marian Price has never been arrested or questioned by the PSNI about the disappearance of Jean McConville". As this is an incredibly serious allegation which she denies and has never been arrested, charged or convicted of, it does not belong in the article based on the guesswork of an author who has made a "major error" (in the words of Ed Moloney) in his guesswork. FDW777 (talk) 10:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

While I concede that Radden Keefe's claim is just speculation on his part, just so there's no misunderstanding here for future reference: Radden Keefe's claim hasn't been fully debunked because he didn't claim that Dolours Price named her sister or that this is what's in the redacted section of the interview. In fact, if you read Say Nothing, Radden Keefe's claim is built off his interview with Anthony McIntyre and a stray unredacted comment in Dolours Price's interview that Marian Price and the shooter shared a common background in that they were both asked by Gerry Adams to serve as his driver. His ultimate conclusion came from speaking with his third, unnamed source (whom because he does not name it's unlikely we can consider anything concrete) who stated that both Price sisters had been at the killing. Again, not completely debunked, but I agree at best it's an allegation with little to back it up to make it worth including. --Muppet321 (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I feel one small correction is needed, Radden Keefe's conclusion was made, or at least potentially made, before speaking to the unnamed source. The relevant passage is There was one more person I wanted to speak to, someone whom Dolours had known and confided in before she died. I explained what I had deduced and asked whether Dolours had ever mentioned Marian playing a role in the McConville killing. Anthony McIntyre had previously refused to confirm the deduction when pressed on the issue, and as documented the redacted text does not name Marian Price either. All we are left with is the claim from the unnamed source, who appears to have been asked a leading question. Questions of that nature led to the acquittal of Ivor Bell on charges relating to the same case, where the judge later ruled the tapes were unreliable and could not be used as evidence against Mr Bell, due to the fact Dr McIntyre had asked leading questions, which tainted the evidential value of the tapes. Ultimately all that is left is speculation that has never been acted upon by law enforcement (or if it has, it has never even led to an arrest), and I do believe such speculation is better off excluded as it related to serious claims about a living person. FDW777 (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Keefe states that he contacted Marian Price's lawyers before publishing and they did not respond. WP:BLPCRIME states that "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". I would say that Marian Price is a public figure due to her activism, but in any event the wording is not an absolute prohibition, as it states "editors must seriously consider not including material" Accordingly it is reasonable to state that Keefe accuses Marian Price of killing Jean McConville as that simply reflects what he states in his book. Mztourist (talk) 03:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I suggest reading what Moloney has written about the subject, Radden Keefe's conclusion is based on a completely false assumption. Guesswork about incredibly serious accusations has no place in a BLP. FDW777 (talk) 07:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Also do not restore material removed on WP:BLP grounds without consensus. FDW777 (talk) 07:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you read Keefe, he contacted Price's lawyers to advise them of his conclusion and they did not respond. As far as I'm aware Price hasn't sued Keefe. It is not guesswork by Keefe and what I have written is simply to state what Keefe accuses Price of in his book. You haven't addressed the WP:BLPCRIME points I raised above, Marian Price is a public figure. The material I restored is not a WP:BLP breach. Mztourist (talk) 08:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

That's irrelevant to WP:BLPCRIME, especially since Price has denied the claims. You are not accusing a living person of a crime she has never been arrested, charged, nor convicted of, based on flawed guesswork. Read what Moloney has said, Radden Keefe guessed that the redacted part of the transcript referred to Marian Price. It did not. FDW777 (talk) 09:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

"Through her attorney Marian Price refused to speak with Radden Keefe and denied any involvement". And "But her solicitor, Peter Corrigan, issued a statement to The Irish Times in which she “vehemently denies that she had any involvement in the murder of Jean McConville”; that she “played no hand or part in her murder”; and that the allegation was “completely untrue”. Price, who has never been charged in connection with Jean McConville’s death, and is understood to have never been questioned by police over the offence, said she would not be elaborating on that statement". And so on. FDW777 (talk) 09:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

How is the fact that Price is a public figure irrelevant to WP:BLPCRIME when the policy specifically states that it only applies to people who aren't public figures? You need to address this first before considering anything else. I'm perfectly happy to include Price's denials and as they are so detailed they clearly belong on the page along with Keefe's accusation, to do otherwise would be censorship. Mztourist (talk) 10:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

It's well established that we don't accuse living people of murder and other serious crimes which they haven't been even formally accused of, especially when the accusation is based on ill-informed guesswork. Radden Keefe isn't even sure of his own accusation any more, since in an article he wrote after his book was published he say "Pat McClure, the I.R.A. member present at the execution, is no longer alive . . . Price does not identify the third I.R.A. member, who may or may not be alive". There's no dispute that Marian Price is most definitely still alive, so why is saying the third person "may or may not be alive"? FDW777 (talk) 10:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Will you please explain what the words "For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures," mean in WP:BLPCRIME given that you seem so willing to ignore them. If you actually read the New Yorker article Keefe clearly states "(I wrote an article about this controversy in 2015, and am working on a book about the murder and its aftermath, “Say Nothing,” which will be published next year.)" so this story came out before his book, not after it, completely undermining your assertion that Keefe isn't sure of his accusation any more. Mztourist (talk) 10:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

There's no need to, since she's not a public figure, and even if she was we don't include discredited guesses that living people committed serious crimes they've never been formally accused of. FDW777 (talk) 10:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Why do you say she's not a public figure? She is described as a "prominent Irish republican and member of the 32 County Sovereignty Movement and spokesperson for the Irish Republican Prisoners Welfare Association" Seems very public to me. Your "even if she was..." argument is entirely conditional on her not being a public figure and as I said before we can present both Keefe's accusation and Price's denial. Mztourist (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

As before, it doesn't matter whether she's a public figure or not. We're not inclduding claims of involvement in serious crimes she's never been formally accused of based on discredited guesswork. FDW777 (talk) 11:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

No, you can't just chose to ignore the wording about public figures. If Price is a public figure none of the following wording is relevant.Mztourist (talk) 03:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC is Marian Price a public figure?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

A close was requested more than two years after this RfC ran its course. Please remember, the lack of a formal close does not mean a lack of consensus, and generally most RfCs do not require formal closes.

No other discussion has been linked and I have not sought out any more recent commentary from editors regarding this topic; this close applies only to the discussion below.

The RfC was widely interpreted in context of the accusations by an individual author, Keefe, mentioned below.

• This discussion resulted in a clear consensus not to include the accusations.
• There was also a rough consensus that the subject was not a public figure for purposes of BLPCRIME

(non-admin closure) —siroχo 00:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Is Marian Price a public figure for the purposes of WP:BLPCRIME? Mztourist (talk) 03:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• Yes she has been convicted in connection with two incidents, is described as "a prominent Republican and member of the 32 County Sovereignty Movement and spokesperson for the Irish Republican Prisoners Welfare Association" and has been extensively covered in the news, by human rights organizations and pressure groups. Mztourist (talk) 03:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
• Yes No The purpose of the stringent guidelines in WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME is to not treat mere accusations as evidence of guilt. We must err on the side of the presumption of innocence as responsible editors, especially where living persons are concerned. But Marian Price was not merely accused. She was tried in a court of law and convicted by a jury of her peers. According to WP:BLPCRIME, convictions in a court of law are fair game to include. TrueQuantum (talk) 04:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit: I changed my vote to "No" because I misunderstood the prompt in this RfC. In my opinion and interpretations of our guidelines, accusations of murder (contentious material) against Price should not be included per WP:BLP. TrueQuantum (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

TrueQuantum no-one is debating her convictions for the Old Baily Bombing and Massareene Barracks attack nor that those should be included. If you look immediately above here there are further accusations against her. If Price is a public figure then those accusations and her denial should be included on the page, if Price is not a public figure then a further debate follows on whether the accusation should be included. Mztourist (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

If there are further accusations against her but she has not been brought before a court of law for these accusations, then it doesn't matter whether she is a public figure or not. Those accusations should not be included in her biography here on Wikipedia. All persons are innocent until proven guilty. This is an encyclopedia not a tabloid magazine. TrueQuantum (talk) 04:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Then how do you explain the wording of WP:BLPCRIME which states: "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."? I read that to mean that if the person is a public figure accusations can be included. Mztourist (talk) 04:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

That's not how I read that. How I interpret it is if the person is not a public figure, then definitely don't include accusations on their Wikipedia page. If someone is a public figure, it doesn't say that you have carte blanche freedom to include any accusations on their biography. It implies that maybe if the person is a clear public figure, say a celebrity like Justin Bieber or a prominent politician like Joe Biden or Donald Trump, then maybe you can include accusations that were widely publicized in high quality sources. But you still have to be careful and prudent about it. "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction." That sentence applies to both public and non-public figures. In fact, it's a basic human right. TrueQuantum (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. The wording clearly states that if someone is not a public figure then "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." but it is not a blanket prohibition and it does not apply in respect of public figures. I don't see where you get the "clear public figure" concept from, the policy does not contain such differentiation. You said originally that Yes Marian Price is a public figure and so on that basis the allegation and Price's denial should be included in line with WP:PUBLICFIGURE. I completely agree with the opening wording of BLPCRIME which you quoted and a suitable neutrally worded statement of Keefe's well-publicized accusation and Price's well-publicized denial does not offend against that or WP:NOTCENSORED. Mztourist (talk) 05:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

The term public figure is not monolithic. There is a spectrum ranging from barely public figures to huge celebrities and politicians. I would argue that Marian Price is barely a public figure compared to someone like Prime Minister Boris Johnson. For those who lie on the other end of the spectrum, we must be even more vigilant about not including accusations in their biography. If the murder accusation has been hotly debated and widely publicized in the greater public sphere, then it may be worth mentioning only to cover what has been so widely publicized. But the accusation against Price is not from a high quality source, she hasn't even been arrested nor prosecuted for it, and it sounds like something from a tabloid magazine. For that reason, I am against its inclusion. TrueQuantum (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

The policy doesn't go into minor and major public figures and you originally said yes she was a public figure. I agree that Price isn't as high profile as Boris or Bieber, but she is still a public figure. The other considerations that you mention like lack of arrest or prosecution don't even come into play if she is a public figure. How did you decide that Keefe is not a "high quality source"? He's a respected writer and the book has been widely praised (including winning the 2019 Orwell Prize) and his story was covered by NBC, Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs, Vanity Fair, LA Times and others. You should also read Say Nothing (book)#Reception. Price's denials of Keefe's accusations have been reported in The Irish Times, Belfast Telegraph and The Times. So hardly tabloids as you say. It is censorship not to include the accusation and denials as they have been so widely published. Mztourist (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• Irrelevant RFC Whether Marian Price is a public figure or not (she isn't by the way) we should absolutely not include allegations of serious crimes made by an author whose work is based on discredited guesswork. She has never been arrested, charged nor convicted of those crimes, they should not be included. FDW777 (talk) 07:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

As I noted in our earlier discussion above, whether or not someone is a public figure is a key distinction made in BLPCRIME, that you choose to ignore. You don't get to cherry-pick the parts of a policy that you agree with. Mztourist (talk) 07:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

You were wrong there, you're wrong here. The accusation itself is a WP:BLP violation. FDW777 (talk) 07:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

You've expressed your views, you and I don't agree which is why I have raised this RfC. Mztourist (talk) 07:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Which is completely irrelevant to whether the content should be included, since that's not the question you're asking. FDW777 (talk) 07:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Again you think I'm wrong, I think you're wrong. In my read of BLPCRIME if Price is a public figure then the accusation and denial should be included, while your read of BLPCRIME completely ignores half the policy. Mztourist (talk) 09:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

And your reading of NOTCENSORED is completely wrong, because it specifically says BLP violations are not covered by that. And as for your stubborn insistence that BLPCRIME doesn't apply, it's also irrelevant since it's a wider BLP violation not just BLPCRIME. And no, BLP does not explicitly say "do not include a discredited hypothesis that accuses a living person of murder they have never been formally accused of", because everyone except you understands the intent of the policy. FDW777 (talk) 11:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I cannot help you with the fact that you can't understand BLPCRIME in its entirety. You are discredited by that and your earlier insistence that Keefe had walked back his accusations. As you seem keen to give warnings as on my Talk Page, I will give you one against making personal attacks, which is what your increasingly hostile comments amount to. Mztourist (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

A reasonable error based on a quick skim of the article by Radden Keefe, since the author blurb at the bottom refers to the book as already being published. FDW777 (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

So you finally admit your mistake, what else have you got wrong? Mztourist (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

If you really want to go down that road, I'll be happy to point out the factual error regarding this that you added to an article. Glass houses and stones... FDW777 (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Go for it. Mztourist (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• No, at least not sufficiently for the question at hand, and I agree that this RFC is improper, since the actual question is whether the article should cover Patrick Radden Keefe's accusations against her - this fits the standard model of an RFC that is asking a question that the creator believes is easier, which they then hope to use (or misuse) as an answer to a more difficult question. If you want to know whether Patrick Radden Keefe's book should be used as a source in the article, ask that question directly. But in any case, to answer the question that was asked in the context in which it was asked: Going over Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual, her convictions have no bearing on the matter; what matters is whether and to what extent she has sought attention. Her political activity and participation in a single protest march are the only things that could remotely be construed as qualifying; and they almost precisely fit ...may have attempted to maintain a high profile unsuccessfully in the past, or successfully for a limited time (and may be notable as a result of either), but has demonstrated a consistent pattern of low-profile activity since then; those two aspects of her life amount to a single sentence each. This isn't sufficiently public to justify giving attention to a single author's accusations against her, especially when Patrick Radden Keefe has been described in reviews of his books as an interested private citizen rather than an expert. That is not the sort of source we want to use for controversial allegations against a WP:BLP. --Aquillion (talk) 05:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Her conviction for two highly-publicized terrorism actions and her early release in both cases make her high-profile for Behavior pattern and activity level. Mztourist (talk) 09:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)​

Which convictions are those? FDW777 (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

The Old Bailey Bombing and the attack on Massereene Barracks as detailed on the page. Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I suggest reading the page more carefully then. FDW777 (talk) 08:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

That's rich given your previous careful reading: [3] and [4]. Are you seriously trying to argue that she was not convicted in relation to both those incidents? Mztourist (talk) 08:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• No - per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out". And numerous book reviews don't count as multiple reliable third-party sources in this instance either, because as the NYT's book review accurately points out – he [Keefe] comes to his own conclusion about who murdered her, and all the other book reviews also cite Keefe alone as the source, so there is only one source, Keefe, and that's not enough for inclusion of serious allegations of a crime being committed (contentious content) in a BLP. I also concur with FDW777 and Aquillion that the question you're really asking is if a single source (Keefe) is enough to warrant inclusion of this disputed content and the answer is no. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

So we have a highly-publicized accusation and a highly publicized denial, but WP shouldn't mention anything about it? Mztourist (talk) 09:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

We don't have an accusation, since the so-called accuser lacks any standing to make it. It's a hypothesis, and a discredited one. FDW777 (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

What do you even mean by "we don't have an accusation"? What else would you call it? You keep claiming the accusation has been discredited, but Keefe maintains his accusation and it was widely publicized. Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Widely publicized accusations of criminal conduct, without any conviction nor any action in a court of law, are considered reliable sources for Wikipedia? Have you looked at CNN, Fox News, Vox Media, and others in this current environment? Anyone anywhere can make an accusation, especially one of a sexual nature, and it will go viral and get picked up by a news outlet. Someone accused Marian Price of murder, without any evidence, and it was picked up by media outlets. Sounds like tabloid garbage that has no place in an encyclopedia. NeneCaretaker (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• No - she is not a politician, actress, or otherwise promoting herself typical of Public figure. So mention convictions, but not allegations. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
• No I agree with many of the editors above. In our current environment, accusations easily get picked up by media outlets without any vetting or consideration of actual evidence. We as editors should not be contributing to witch hunting media culture per WP:BLP.
• Yes She clearly qualifies as a public figure under the criteria given. Through her own actions, she has become someone frequently discussed in RS, and she has multiple convictions. Whether the Keefe accusations should be reported is a separate question, but I'm answering what the RfC asked. Bondegezou (talk) 07:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Radden Keefe's so-called "evidence"

For the benefit of @TrueQuantum: and anyone else. Radden Keefe's book cites three pieces of "evidence" to support his hypothesis that Price was the third person present, and fired the fatal shopt.

1. Anthony McIntyre told him the third person has been asked at one point to be the personal driver for Gerry Adams. In the transcript of an interview with Marian's sister Dolours, she is quoted as saying "Actually, he may have been moved to Brigade at that stage – because he wanted my sister to be his driver"
2. He cites an unidentified associate of Dolours, claiming that this associate was told by Dolours that the killing of McConville was "something that the sisters had done together"
3. Referring to the transcript mentioned earlier, he believes a redacted part of the transcript named Marian.

Point 1 can be dismissed by Radden Keefe himself, who says of the driver point "There must have been other people, over the years, who declined an offer to become Gerry Adams’s chauffeur". Point 2 is impossible to judge, it's hearsay evidence from an unknown person. Point 3 has been completely denied by the person who provided Radden Keefe with the transcript, who knows exactly what's in the redacted part and states that Radden Keefe never even bothered to ask if the redaction referred to, or named, a specific person. That's all the "evidence". This is an incredibly serious allegation, and there is nothing whatsoever to support it other than speculation that Price is the person referred to by Anthony McIntyre (who refused to confirm the identity of the person), or hearsay evidence from an unknown person. FDW777 (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

One would almost think you were acting for Marian Price. The evidence is frankly irrelevant, significant coverage in multiple reliable sources is what matters to WP. Keefe made the accusation in his widely-praised book. NBC, Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs, Vanity Fair, LA Times and others have reported on the book and Keefe's accusations against Price. Price's denials of Keefe's accusations have been reported in The Irish Times, Belfast Telegraph, The Times and the LA Times and others. Price is a public figure, but even if she wasn't given the extent of coverage as we are NOTCENSORED we should report both the accusation and the denial. Mztourist (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out what a non-existence case the sensationalist book makes. FDW777 (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Also I've already told you WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't apply to WP:BLP violations, try and keep up. FDW777 (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

If its public figure, BLPCRIME, which is the relevant part of BLP, doesn't apply, and anyway its not an absolute prohibition, so NOTCENSORED is perfectly valid here, keep up yourself. Mztourist (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

As explained, repeatedly, it's a violation of the wider policy not just BLPCRIME. Therefore it's completely irrelevant whether Marian Price is a public figure or not. FDW777 (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

What wider policy? You have failed repeatedly to explain your understanding of the public figure wording in BLPCRIME, the language is there for a reason so explain what do you think it means? Mztourist (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

The wider BLP policy. Everyone except you understands that we are very careful about how we write about living people, which is why we don't include a discredited hypothesis that a living person took part in a murder. FDW777 (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

You just keep avoiding addressing the public figure wording in BLPCRIME. Do you not understand that BLPCRIME elaborates on the general BLP policy? Mztourist (talk) 03:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't avoid it, I've refuted it as irrelevant. Even if there was support for your claim she is a public figure (which there isn't), that still doesn't change the fact the hypothesis itself is a violation of the wider policy. FDW777 (talk) 08:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

No, you have not refuted it as irrelevant, BLPCRIME is the specific provision. You clearly have difficulty understanding the difference between general and specific policy. Mztourist (talk) 08:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

It is WP:OR for us to judge Keefe's evidence. What matters is how RS judge the claims and how we follow our policies NS guidelines. Bondegezou (talk) 10:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

From the opening paragraph of WP:OR, This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources. FDW777 (talk) 13:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

You are free to discuss your assessment of Keefe all you like, but that doesn't change the criteria for what is in the article. Judgement on Keefe is up to reliable sources, not us. What do RS say about the book and the specific claim? That, along with WP:BLP, is what matters, not what FDW777 thinks of Keefe's claims, or what Mztourist thinks or I think. I haven't taken sides in the question of whether to include coverage of Keefe. I'm just trying to get the discussion to focus on how we're meant to make that decision. Bondegezou (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're wrong. Discussion on whether a reference is acceptable for a claim is very much a matter for editors to decide. FDW777 (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on whether a reference is acceptable should focus on the nature of the source (e.g., a published book vs. a blog post) and how other reliable sources treat it or its arguments. Bondegezou (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2021 (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.