Talk:Shneur Odze

Daily Mail

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

See the RfC close below. Cunard (talk) 06:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

---

User:Rathfelder about the Daily Mail stuff and similar edits, see the oft discussed Daily Mail RfC. See also WP:NOTTABLOID and WP:BLP. You are correct that we don't censor, but we also demand high quality sourcing for things like this. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Regardless of the veracity of the Daily Mail story, the fact that it has been reported is now widely commented and seems to have political repercussions. I think it merits a mention.Rathfelder (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Nope it is tabloid garbage. If there are actual RS discussing these "repercussions" you could make an argument to discuss those based on those actual RS. If you choose to follow through on that please do so cautiously; you are on thin ice here with repeated BLP violations already. Jytdog (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Odze appears to have just as good a claim to be a UKIP politician as most of those in . Rathfelder (talk) 07:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Not really. Most senior UKIP people are Members of the European Parliament, the Welsh Assembly or the London Assembly. Frankly I have no idea why an article on a guy who got 1% of the vote in a local election was kept... AusLondonder (talk) 03:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Meanwhile, the allegations in the Mail have also been covered in reliable sources such as The Jewish Chronicle AusLondonder (talk) 03:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
      • All that piece does is transmit the gossip, calling it "alleged." The last effort to add this used the following
        • "Manchester voters reject Ukip's Jewish candidate for mayor". Jewish Chronicle. 5 May 2017. Retrieved 21 May 2017.
        • http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/charedi-shneur-website/
        • http://forward.com/fast-forward/370644/ultra-orthodox-british-mayoral-candidate-in-reported-kinky-tryst/
        • http://jennifrazer.com/candidate-wrong-reasons/
      • A bunch of low quality gossip "articles" that just pass on what the Daily Mail said. Not what we do here. Jytdog (talk) 04:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

  Just repeating over and over that "we don't do that here" is not an argument, @Jytdog:. Why don't you read WP:PUBLICFIGURE? I'll even quote one of the examples to you, which is very clearly parallel to this case: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that that the affair actually occurred. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported. That is what we are doing, even if you consider Jewish newspapers to be "low quality gossip". Wikipedia views them as reliable sources.

  Since three of us think this content should be included and only one opposes, I'll re-add it later today if there are no further objections. Amisom (talk) 06:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

  The place to bring this for further input would be BLP. I will post there so we can get wider input. I'll create a link here. Jytdog (talk) 06:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

  Oh, so after fobbing me off on your talkpage by saying I had to come here [1] now things are turning against you here you're saying we have to go somewhere else? GImme a break. Amisom (talk) 06:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The thread is here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Shneur_Odze. Jytdog (talk) 06:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

btw, "there are sources" is not a response to a WP:BLP issue. That is a response to a WP:V issue. Jytdog (talk) 06:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a response to the WP:PUBLICFIGURE point then? Amisom (talk) 07:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah that doesn't say "any gossip that is reported first by the daily mail and that low quality refs run WP:CHURNALISM pieces is fine to use," does it? This is nothing like say Bill Clinton's Monica Lewinsky deal, where the NYT and other major news sources were reporting on it independently. It is far from a slam dunk PUBLICFIGURE thing. Jytdog (talk) 08:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Is there a policy which says that any story first reported by the Mail is henceforth "gossip" even if it is later reported by other reliable sources? Or is that just your POV? Amisom (talk) 08:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Per the RfC linked in the first post above, the community considers the Daily Mail to be generally unreliable. I take it you are using the word "reported" lightly. Churnalism is not really reporting. Jytdog (talk) 08:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

That's not what I asked. Amisom (talk) 08:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Your question was fake; I answered you as authentically as possible. I get it that you think this belongs in WP. We will see what others say. Jytdog (talk) 08:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

What is 'fake'? Amisom (talk) 08:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

There has been no suggestion anywhere that the allegations in the Mail are unfounded. They are repeatedly referred to in the local papers and the Jewish press, and regarded as significant. There is no rule which says that anything reported in the Daily Mail cannot be included in the encyclopedia. Jytdogappears to be in a minority here. Rathfelder (talk) 09:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• The daily mail has been discussed plenty, it is not a usable source for amy kind of controversial content about living people...the reason of this page is now only to attack the subject, a person without any reason to have a wikipedia biography, I will have it deleted as soon as I can. Govindaharihari (talk) 09:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

  You mean that you'll abide by the community's consensus as expressed in the recent AfD, I presume?

  Also, the material in this article doesn't rely on the Mail. It was reported in the Jewish Chronicle, the Times of Israel, the Forward and other sources like that. DO you have a problem with their reilablity? Is there a consensus not to use them? Amisom (talk) 10:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

  Yes @Amisom: I mean that I will abide by the afd result which wasWP:NOCONSENSUS. It is perfectly acceptable practice as I understand under such a close to re-nominate after a respectful aperiod of time. I will wait three months and if there is no continued coverage about him I will renominate for deletion. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

  @Govindaharihari: That's an interesting approach, because notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY, so if he was notable last week (as a majority of editors participating in the AfD found) then he will still be notable in three months whether or not there has been continued coverage. (And, of course, I'm not sure how "respectful" the attitude of "I will have this deleted as soon as I can" is: it sounds more POINT than COLLAB.) Amisom (talk) 08:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Its gossip, where it would stop becoming gossip is if reliable sources have commented that the 'gossip' led to their being rejected by the voters - which would be relevant to their political career. Scandals that have an impact (which is covered by reliable sources) on a politician's career can be documented in their BLP. Provided the sourcing was reliable and it was worded appropriately. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

That is exactly what the Jewish media is saying. Rathfelder (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Only in death: Is 'gossip' actually prohibited under the BLP policiy? On my reading of WP:PUBLICFIGURE (a subsection of BLP) it is positively encouraged, especially looking at the second example. Encouraged, that is, if the allegations ('gossip') have been reported by multiple reliable sources, which in thise case they have: the JC, the TOI and the Forward (you'll notice I didn't say the Daily Mail there). Amisom (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

What OID pointed out is that the reliable sources need to actually show impact - that the scandal mattered somehow. Only the Jewish News ref comes close to that. It says "This revelation is sure to put a further spoke in Ukip’s struggling General Election campaign under new leader Paul Nuttall." but that is just speculation, not a showing of actual impact. (This is one of the ways you can see that these pieces are just tossed off churnalism - little to no independent reporting or follow up. Just quick salacioius hits to draw eyeballs) Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• Gossip is not 'prohibited' as such, but will almost certainly be removed unless impact can be shown. Gossip for its own sake falls foul of both WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. Reliably sourced information does not mean it should be included, just that it can - if there is justification for it. For a politician, a scandal that may or may not be true but that affected their political career is almost certainly 'due', provided it can be reliably sourced. From looking at the sources provided, I concur with Jytdog above. (There is the added issue that this gossip is of a greater interest to the Jewish salacious media because the subject is Orthodox.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• It is not possible to prove that scandal affects politics. Rathfelder (talk) 11:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

  Not true. Bill Clinton was impeached because of what he said about the Monica Lewinsky matter. There are other obvious ways that scandal can affect politicians as OID mentioned explicitly above. Jytdog (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

  This is not relevant. WP:PUBLICFIGURE doesn't say "it has to have affected the course of politics". You're just importing that requirement yourself. Amisom (talk) 12:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

We don't have impeachment in the UK. He wasn't elected. I don't think he would have been elected without the scandal either. The issue is really about an orthodox Rabbi standing for election. I'm not aware of any other case. That is why the Jewish press reaction is interesting.Rathfelder (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The BLP issue here is that the burden is on people wanting to add this, to show impact. Simply being repeated in churnalistic "articles" is not impact. This is why "there are sources discussing it" is not a sufficient reason under BLP. It is a mere V argument. Jytdog (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

This is why "there are sources discussing it" is not a sufficient reason under BLP. That is literally the opposite of what WP:BLP says. Amisom (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Nope. Jytdog (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Yep Amisom (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Is it wise to be insulting about the Jewish media? They seem perfectly respectable sources. Rathfelder (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Because Jytdog is determined to revert any changes that he hasn't personally approved (and to warn others for edit warring when they disagree wit hhim) I'm putting this to RfC. Rathfelder, AusLondoner, Only in death. Amisom (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC

The consensus is against referring at this time to a sex scandal in which the subject was implicated. Cunard (talk) 06:11, 2 July 2017 (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.

---

Should the article refer to a sex scandal in which the subject was implicated, and which has been reported [2] by multiple newspapers both in the UK and in Israel? Amisom (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes per my comments above. Amisom (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The fact that the Daily Mail is a disreputable paper does not imply that everything published by it is untrue and cannot be mentioned.Rathfelder (talk) 22:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Not at this time We have a few churnalism pieces that just recycle what the Daily Mail said, with none of them pointing to any meaning or impact. As it stands, it is just salacious gossip and that is not what WP is for. If some sources emerge that show that this mattered somehow, we can consider it then. Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
• Not at this time and probably never, it is as Jytdog says, it is salacious gossip and about a living person of low notability, there likely will be no continued coverage of him, he holds no wikipedia notable position. The recent AFD link to AFD returned an outcome of no consensus and we are requested to show and take care about what we publish about living people Govindaharihari (talk) 07:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• There is quite a lot more in the Salford Star, which is not in the Mail, and which seems relevant to the collapse of UKIP, which is a significant event in UK politics. Rathfelder (talk) 12:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• No Per Jytdog. If sustained coverage of incident, then perhaps. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
• No - Summoned by bot. WP:UNDUE at this point and time. Meatsgains (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• No. Summoned by bot. Absolutely not unless it receives wider coverage and becomes a larger factor in this person's life. Coretheapple (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
• Comment, leaning no, but for significantly different reasons than most of my fellow editors here. (Meatsgains is the closest to expressing my view with his "UNDUE" comment; it's an atypical and slightly inaccurate use of the policy term but I believe I understand what he is getting at; Core also touches upon the actual issue as I see it). Some of the above editors have suggested that, even though multiple WP:reliable sources have covered this topic, we should not because said editors speculate (in a manner that constitutes WP:Original research) that these sources are just "recycling" the Daily Mail story. This is clearly wrong-headed under Wikipedia policy, in my opinion. We aren't on the editorial boards of those sources, we don't know what their internal journalistic process is or how much they looked into the matter and we are not meant, as Wikipedia editors, to be asking those questions about a particular story; can you imagine what an unmanageable mess each and every discussion would become on this project if editors were able to dismiss otherwise reliable sources because they personally doubted the integrity or capacity of that particular publication, or just doubted it in that particular case?

All of that said, there is a weight(ish) question here about the encyclopedic relevance of this story, judged partly through the number of sources, sure, but also through other policy considerations. Even if we granted that enough sources investigated these "allegations" enough to satisfy W:V, the question is whether sources broadly speaking even treat this as something relevant. It's not for us, of course, to make the determination as to whether kinky activities on the part of a politician who has been labelled a misogynist is particularly newswortyh, but a certain degree of editorial discretion is necessary to decide how much the coverage impacts upon an encyclopedic summary of that man as the subject of one of our own articles. Right now I am seeing at least four sources, each with substantial detail, covering this story which all easily qualify as WP:RS, and I didn't have to leave the current discussion or others linked from it in order to find them, so I presume there are more. It would not take much more for me to feel that WP:WEIGHT was established here. But I'm just not there yet. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Earlier this week Mr Odze was at the centre of a scandal, after the Mail on Sunday published allegations that he had had relationship with a woman he met on a bondage website. ...."Odze participated in consensual sex with the woman on four separate occasions, who described him as possessive and controlling from the very start. “To a certain degree, this was part of our role-playing,” she told the Daily Mail" ....."An Orthodox Jew running for mayor of the English city of Manchester met up for kinky sex with a woman he met on an online bondage website, the Daily Mail reported Saturday".

There is nothing even remotely OR, these sources are repeating the DM. A single source.Pincrete (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

• Not at this time: not enough sources to establish that it's more than gossip. Jonathunder (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2017 (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.

---

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.