Talk:Theresa Flores

Removing false info from BLP

There's some false info in the "Criticisms" section of Theresa Flores put there by a known "foe" of the subject, all unsupported by the cited references. Could an uninvolved editor please look into these proposed changes to that section?

1. Remove first sentence. "Leon" is Theresa's married name, so there is nothing wrong with her operating businesses under this "alias". :) She still goes by Flores in public though, because it's how most people know her.

2. The Secretary of State of Ohio did not "seize" TraffickFree. It was intentionally dissolved and remade because of Flores' marriage and name change. Please remove this sentence as well.

3. The bit regarding SOAP accepting donations illegally is untrue, and also not mentioned in the cited reference. Please remove this as well, nulling out the Criticisms section.

Jake.hoffer (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Is the "drugged and raped" claim backed up by a legal complaint or a criminal conviction - if it is not (which it does not appear to be), the text should not be worded as if this were a proven statement - it is an assertion made by the subject that it happened. The naming and article linking to a specific school is also troubling. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks like there was a conviction of one of her traffickers. I'll see if I can find a reliable source for that. Jake.hoffer (talk) 12:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I believe my criticisms should stand because they are indeed verifiable. She does use aliases. That is not illegal and I never say it is. She did infact say she went to a high school that is not in the area. Whether it was an editorial mistake or not there is not high school with that exact name. A map verifies that Birmingham and Southfield do not have a border. These are facts. And additionally neither SOAP or TraffickFree is on the IRS database of registered 501(c)3 nonprofits. Nor does either provide a federal ID number. The State of Ohio did take custody of the records and dissolve one of her organizations. I can not speak to intentionality of that and neither can anyone else really. I believe we need to let the criticism section stand or this page is just a fan page. BTW Theresa Flores entire story is unverifiable. She says it and a lot of people believe it. I am not a foe, I am a fact checker. And the criticism section had the most references in it. I believe sections that have thorough citations should only be dissolved when they are countered by thorough research not by people who are just "fans" or "friends" of the subjects.

Brownstownbeast (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Train2104 (t • c) 18:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Much of the material you have added seems to be original research and/or synthesis. Wikipedia does not "fact check". Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources say about a subject.

If we are working on an article about John Doe and Doe has a book that states the Moon is made of green cheese, we do not include that in the article unless reliable sources discussing Doe discuss it. We categorically do not look for sources saying the Moon is not made of cheese and "point out" that Doe is wrong. The second source does not say anything about Doe and is off topic here. Combining the two sources to say something neither source says is synthesis.

If a reliable source says that Doe is wrong, we do not say or imply that Doe is wrong. The source does not "point out" something. That phrase is a "weasel word". Nor does the source "refute" (prove wrong) Doe. Rather, we would tend to say that the source. Rarely, if a subject goes against a clear scientific consensus (claiming, for example, that the Earth is flat or humans do not need vitamin B12), we will state that the subject is making a claim contrary to established science.

We generally will not call Doe's claim "grandiose" (excessively grand), as this is a matter of your opinion.

Much of the wording seems to be aimed at narrowing down statements, then providing vague refutations. "In the area" could mean in the neighborhood, in the valley, in the county, in the tri-state area or anything else. "People have noted" does not say who and the word "noted" basically says they are correct. "Refuted by several researchers" again states the researchers (who? how many is "several"?) are right.

"Gotten into several public fights with people from Michigan who point out the discrepancies in her book." "Several"? How many and according to who? "Fights"? Do you mean debates, disputes, fist fights, court challenges? "People"? Public officials, people on the street, Internet trolls...? "Point out"? Again, this characterizes the unnamed people's unspecified claims as simple facts. "Discrepancies"? Again, this says the book is wrong.

There's a lot more. I'm going to take a fresh approach to the section and try to clean up what I can. As WP:BLP applies, I will be fairly stringent as to sourcing and neutrality. I don't know how much, if anything, I can save. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Wow. There was really nothing there I could keep.

At present, I do not have anything close to a conflict of interest in this article, having never worked with or for or written about any of the people or groups named in the article. If I did some serious digging, I might be able to find a person or organization I have worked with/for or written about who has an indirect connection to one or more of the people or organizations mentioned. That's close enough for me, so I'll probably limit my time on this article from here on out.

That said, it is fairly clear that there are some editors involved here who either feel they have an ax to grind with the subject and others who want to build her up. Neither one is appropriate. The article currently listed in the "External links" section should be worked in as a source and the article certainly could use more sources in general. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your feed back. I will use it to make myself a better editor and am happy to get it. Indeed there is a great deal I should cut and indeed I will do just that. Living people are difficult to write about because we all have flaws and such, and I think we are all sort of self conscious about if a biography would be written about us. I will make a better attempt to curb my language so I don't sound like someone with an "ax to grind" so to speak.

Brownstownbeast (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be either not reading the edit summaries I left, do not agree with them or have chosen to ignore them.

This is a WP:BLP issue. Do not restore any version of your claims without discussing them here first.

The report at imaginefreedom.org does not discuss Flores at all. It cannot be used as a source for this article. Additionally, you are saying Flores said one thing, then provide a source to support your claim that she is wrong. This is synthesis: combining information from two or more sources to support a claim neither source directly makes. This is not acceptable.

You are citing a discussion on an Internet forum to support your claims about the discussion. This is a primary source (which should not be used in this fashion) and a self-published source (which generally should not be used as a source at all.

Next you are using a map as a source. The map does not say anything at all about Flores, the subject of this article. It is off-topic for this article and should not be used. Further, you are again using it to claim that something said elsewhere is wrong.

The "Discrepancies..." section is again combining material from two sources to claim something that neither source states directly. Please read WP:SYN.

The "Issues..." section continues the same pattern: synthesis, original research and improper use of primary sources.

If you disagree with any or all of this, I would strongly encourage you to pick what you feel is your strongest case among your additions and discuss it here, before restoring the material to the article. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Very well. I will refrain from all criticisms of Theresa Flores or Leon or whatever her real name maybe. I will however delete what is not sourced or verified. Her education in Michigan is not cited. Apparently she is licensed and that was never validated. And I eliminated the sentence were it says she was part of passing a bill in Ohio. That phrase is far too ambiguous. This has been a learning experience. Thank you!

Brownstownbeast (talk) 12:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I added citations for many of Brownstownbeast's objections, and reworded a few minor things to be more precise, in keeping with WP:BLP. Please discuss any objections here before reverting.

As for the Early Life section, please don't just go deleting information because you object to it. Many Early Life sections are not perfectly verifiable, simply because no reliable sources tend to report on a subject BEFORE they became notable. For many such statements, it is appropriate to take the subject's memoirs at their word, especially when there is little or no formal objection to those statements. In the case of Flores' claims about being trafficked, I added the word "allegedly" to be precise, because the crime mentioned is no longer within the statute of limitations to be researched by a court. However, removal of these statements entirely would remove context from who Theresa Flores IS, and render the article useless. Therefore, they should be left in place.

One thing I had trouble finding were higher education records. There is evidence for them from the websites of the Universities in question - which I cited - but only the graduation year is mentioned, not the specific degree. I'm sure Brownstownbeast will object to that too for some reason, but can we get a consensus on whether education public records are really needed to confirm a thing which is publicly acknowledged and unlikely to be a conspiracy? Jake.hoffer (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

So I deleted the sentence "In 2010 her efforts were a major part of the passing of Senate Bill 235 in Ohio, making human trafficking a felony in the state." It is too vague. You mentioned she addressed congress but not every address leads to a bill and not every bill is addressed by someone. There are three ways someone can help pass a bill; lobby for it, draft it, or vote for it. As far is stuff that cannot be proven about her child hood; In Michigan there are plenty of records to verify school enrollments, place of residence. You name it. You say it makes up a part of who she IS. That is an appeal to motion. I do feel that the higher education was verified by you at least enough so that I will not challenge it. Of course the professional licence thing I will challenge because those can be readily verified by the state. Now let me just say this. Despite unverifiable history she has endeavored hard in the field of social work. Even if the rest cannot be verified for some strange reason I feel that mentioning her graduating and working with sex trafficking victims is noteworthy enough.

Brownstownbeast (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

As you wish, I corrected that sentence to include the word "testimony", the same word used by the (reputable) source. It is not too vague. Those are not the only three ways someone can help pass a bill; testimony heard by voting congressmen is important, and in this case is her connection to the bill, which is acknowledged as being connected to her. You cannot just say "it's too vague" and delete it, when a source says it. Our job is not to police Wikipedia for things we don't like; it's to report what other sources have said. In this case, the sentence accurately reports the cited source. Leave it alone.

In the case of the Michigan bill, bills are named by the congressmen who propose them. In this case that was Senator Judy Emmons. Her own website calls it the "Theresa Flores Act". It is her prerogative to refer to it as she named it, and there is no more reliable source than straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Again, leave it alone. Jake.hoffer (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Also restored the biographical background that is important to the context of who this person is, and with it, the citations that were broken when it was removed. Bits of anyone's history are unverifiable by definition. Public records only go so far. But you cannot just blank entire sections in a WP:BLP when the information is not largely contested. See SummerPhDv2.0's discussion of Doe and green moon cheese above. The burden of proof is on you to cite evidence for the widely believed claims being false, and even then you must tread carefully on a WP:BLP. If you continue to delete that information without discussion, you violate WP:V, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CIVIL, especially if you have not tried to verify its truthfulness or falsehood, and when there is a pretty broad public consensus that those claims are true.

One example of what you could have done is to check public records for licensure which are, as you stated, readily verifiable. DO NOT just delete things without first trying to verify them. In this case, it was easy to verify her licensure, as you suggested, at https://license.ohio.gov/Lookup/SearchDetail.asp?ContactIdnt=3633045&DivisionIdnt=97&Type=L. However, that link is part of a search, and thus is not suitable to be cited on Wikipedia. The claim, however, is obviously true, and you need to leave it alone.

This article has been protected. If you would like to continue discussing your concerns on the talk page, I would be happy to engage in that discussion. If we can reach a consensus, we can submit further revisions to an administrator. Jake.hoffer (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Here's this, btw, Theresa Flores (née Wilson) on a roster at Birmingham Groves HS, as stated on Theresa Flores: https://www.allhighschools.com/alumni-search/wylie-e-groves/theresa-wilson/2787262. This took me only about 5 minutes of Googling to find, and should be sufficient to validate her attendance at that school, as well as her residence in the area. As to her father's occupation and her experiences with human trafficking, those have been discussed at length by reliable news sources, and are not really up for debate at this point. They do not need to be supported additionally by public record, as they have been accepted and reported by the sources referenced in the article itself.

Just thought I would drop off that info here, for posterity. Jake.hoffer (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Non-notable awards

A fairly common problem with subjects whose notability is anything other than huge is the inclusion of minor awards and "awards". The continuum of awards ranges from the Nobel Peace Prize to "The 23 greatest uses of lasers in science fiction fanzines", awarded by Tommy's Science Fiction World blog. The first is clearly worth including, the second is not. My basic shortcut for differentiation the two is this: Is the award notable? Nobel Peace Prize? Yes. 23 greatest uses of lasers in science fiction fanzines? No. A marginal case would be a notable organization and an "award" that isn't an award. Time (magazine' "Person of the Year" is notable. Their article "20 fastest growing economies" is not. In articles with less-than-clear notability (and those written by conflicted editors), these articles become "awards". While it might make sense to draw information from the Time article, the "award" is not worth mentioning unless it is discussed by independent reliable sources. Brownstownbeast (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I have removed several non-notable awards. I left in one notable award, but asked for a cite. A non-notable award from the clearly notable Soroptimist International is there, but needs coverage (which I expect exists). - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)