Talk:Shneur Odze

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

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)[reply]

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)[reply
]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
    Just repeating over and over that "we don't do that here" is
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
The thread is here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Shneur_Odze. Jytdog (talk) 06:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
btw, "there are sources" is not a response to a
WP:V issue. Jytdog (talk) 06:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Do you have a response to the
WP:PUBLICFIGURE point then? Amisom (talk) 07:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
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)[reply
]
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)[reply
]
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)[reply]
That's not what I asked. Amisom (talk) 08:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
What is 'fake'? Amisom (talk) 08:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]
That is exactly what the Jewish media is saying. Rathfelder (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @
    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)[reply
    ]
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)[reply]
  • 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: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)[reply
    ]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply
]
Nope. Jytdog (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep Amisom (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Survey

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  1. ^ "SALFORD UKIP CHAIRMAN RESIGNS FOLLOWING SEX SCANDAL GM MAYOR CANDIDATE REVELATIONS". Salford Star. 2 May 2017. Retrieved 26 May 2017.
  • No Per Jytdog. If sustained coverage of incident, then perhaps. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - Summoned by bot.
    WP:UNDUE at this point and time. Meatsgains (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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: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
WP:WEIGHT was established here. But I'm just not there yet. Snow let's rap 00:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
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)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shneur_Odze&oldid=1195560388"