Talk:Cameron Whitten

Deletion and restoration
This article was deleted as non-notable after a discussion: Articles for deletion/Cameron Whitten. However, the subject has been covered extensively in the news over several years, so I have restored it and instead just added more references to demonstrate notability.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 12:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, he is notable. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent changes
Please stop removing the image of Whitten. I have reverted some of your other changes as well. Feel free to discuss and propose specific improvements here. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Allegations
I’ve copied part my response from my talk page to an IP user wanting to insert the substance of the allegations here:

"There is however a fine line between giving additional detail of the allegations, and breaching BLP:People accused of a crime. These allegations have been tested once and declared unfounded (You could say there’s potential bias and COI in that declaration because the report was requisitioned by his company and we only have the chairman’s statement of what that report said or that the investigation even happened. I can’t find any actual public report. So we have to rely on the sources reporting what the chairperson said.) So all we have about the allegations are a limited number of reports of the law suite (stating the allegations) which mainly seem to be copies of each other are one report on on the lawsuits (stating the allegations). I don’t think this meets the requirements of the BLP Public Figures exception. So until the suit is complete I don’t think it’s appropriate to report the allegations. If you think there are good WP:RS to do so, I suggest you start a conversation on the talk page to reach agreement rather than possibly breach WP:BLP. You’re welcome to quote my response. [In an excess of caution I’ve removed the allegations from your post above]. Ayenaee🟡 [?] (talk) 3:04 pm, 14 November 2023, Tuesday (14 days ago) (UTC+2)"
 * I’m stating that discussion. The article discusses the allegations in the Cameron Whitten section, without mentioning the substance of the allegations in terms of WP:BLP as explained above. The substantial allegations should not be included, and should be reverted as WP:VAND, until/if reported by WP:RS in a way which allows reporting in the article per BLP as determined by consensus here. Ayenaee (talk) 14:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

he's a public figure, so it doesn't violate BLP. " If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." as you said yourself, there are a multitude of reports about the allegations. please stop the unreasonable, excessive caution that is breaking WP policy. 27.125.249.102 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I didn’t say there were a "multitude of statements". I said there "…are a limited number of reports…which mainly seem to be copies of each other…" And I seem to have been incorrect when I said that. When I looked now there was only one article containing the allegations in the lawsuits - the one you referenced your statement to, the Willamette Weekly. I’ve struck and corrected my incorrect statement above to reflect this. In any event that statement didn’t support the inclusion. There aren’t "multiple, 3rd part sources" so the public figure exception does not apply (as I said). I’m using policy not "unreasonable caution". I also don’t think not including the allegations is breaking Wik, it seems more robust than that. That last statement seems like a personal attack, but I’ll assume good faith. Ayenaee (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)