Talk:James Gordon Meek

Where is he after FBI raid?
Interesting nobody cares. Why is he missing? Where is he? 166.181.88.42 (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No reliable sources have revealed that info. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Birthdate
This article, like some published news sources, had Meek's birthdate as 1968. World Biographical Encyclopedia, which cites Marquis Who's Who, gives August 24, 1969. At least the year should be corrected, which I have done. I have gone a bit further in adding the month and day, since the WBE and MWW list those, so the age progresses on the right dates. If this is viewed to transgress the living-persons policy, then by all means remove the additional detail, leaving "1969" intact. Thanks. – •Raven .talk 09:01, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The month and day seem consistent, but I find records online showing 1968, 1969, 1970, not sure which is official - if the FBI lists a specific birthyear shall we assume it is correct? In these cases I tend to assume (which is of course meaningless to how to actually proceed) that the oldest one is likely correct as personal vanity often drives people to drop a year or two from their age as they get older, but no definitive answer yet. LauraIngallsEvenWilder (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

New Daily Beast source
https://www.thedailybeast.com/fbi-raid-on-abc-news-producer-james-gordon-meek-wasnt-tied-to-his-work Legoktm (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Another reminder that Rolling Stone follows pretty terrible journalistic practices. Thriley (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Per WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS, Rolling Stone is generally unreliable for politics and culture. Ditto for Raw Story (which the Salon article reproduced) (WP:RSPS). I have removed both sources, and content sourced exclusively to them (Raw Story merely recaps and amplifies the dubious Rolling Stone article). The gossipiest column of the Daily Beast above isn't much better. Independent notability of Meek may need re-examination. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Good morning. You're right about the previous sourcing, but this one is perfectly good. It throws cold water on some aspects of the previous coverage and clarifies some details. This source can be used to document some facts, claims, and opinions and should be used for a better-written blurb about this important event. It is, after all, what makes him notable, or more correctly (he was previously notable in his own right as an expert and journalist) it's what caught the attention of the editors who then created this article. The Independent is also a RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As it turns out, after the documented announcement of his arrest at the end of January 2023, Rolling Stone was correct (if nonspecific) that the problem was unrelated to his work, i.e. to journalism; and was linked to his personal activities. – •Raven .talk 07:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not surprised. Rolling Stone's political reporting is usually good quality, and the same applies to The Daily Beast. Using them on a case-by-case basis (rather than just rejecting them without examination) usually shows they are good enough. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That's ridiculously funny. You say that because their far-left politics aligns with your own. 2601:547:B05:24CE:E1B4:87E2:8D8B:EF41 (talk) 06:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Updates
I'm just going to work on the article this afternoon, if we can avoid edit conflicts for a day - and then tomorrow I totally welcome efforts to clean it up :) LauraIngallsEvenWilder (talk) 04:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Using this source goes against WP:BLPPRIMARY: " Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." Especially when it's being used 20 times. I've also never seen an arrest warrant image included in a BLP. The "Investigation and Arrest" section seems WP:UNDUE in regards to the size of the overall page, not to mention the manual of style. What do others think?  Mike   Allen   16:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Mike, this is awkward ("I feel like using"). Please reword that so it's clear what you intend. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hopefully you are able to understand clearly now. Do you have any input on my concerns?  Mike  Allen   17:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * WikiCommons has an entire category of Arrest Warrants that are used in people's articles, where it's a single page it doesn't seem extraneous especially where the article is very light on images and the arrest is highly relevant (this isn't like Elvis Presley's arrest for public drunkeness or something). Regarding BLPPRIMARY, all of the facts currently tagged "FBI" are also repeated in the media articles - I've already left a Talk Page question for an admin asking if it's better if I list 2-3 media sources for each fact, 1 media source and 1 FBI source, etc -waiting to hear back. Feel free to swap them out, but all of those facts are notable and are published in the media articles already provided. Where you have major media personalities calling his arrest the biggest news story of the year, it seems unlikely that's "undue weight". LauraIngallsEvenWilder (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Do those third party sources go into detail of each crime he allegedly committed? This Wikipedia page has gotten an average of 25 page views a day in the last 10 days.  The most it has gotten is 7,800 views on Feb 3, when the news broke of his arrest.  I'd hardly call that the biggest news story of the year.  Mike   Allen   22:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes those third party sources go into the same, or more, detail than the Wiki article does. And it's notable that figures like Tucker Carlson and Glenn Beck were calling it the biggest story of the year, even if we feel the viewing stats on his Wikipedia biography suggest otherwise. Ironically of course they were busy decrying "how dare the government arrest him, this is what the Biden crime family does, they just disappear journalists - oh God he might be held in Guantanamo, why don't we save him!?" - and are now a little sheepish as it turns out maybe they shouldn't have been condemning his arrest as proof of some deep state conspiracy lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LauraIngallsEvenWilder (talk • contribs) 22:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Photo
I find it odd I haven't been able to find a photograph of him on the usual military photos websites; he clearly travelled to war zones embedded with US troops - usually it should be possible to find a USMIL or at least USGOV image of him. Anyone have better luck than me? It's possible his Arlington County PD booking photo is PD, no idea what the state's position is - but ideally we could get a more neutral photo at least for at the top. LauraIngallsEvenWilder (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I found the image from the Alexandria Virginia Sheriff's Office. By all appearances it is as suitable as any other image, however am open to correction if need be. --EyeLikePictures (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Why was his photo deleted? Mugshots are publicly available images per VA § 2.2-2822 EyeLikePictures (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Guilty Plea
I see that James Gordon Meek has just filed a motion indicating his intention to plead guilty to the whole "raping a screaming three year old child on-camera and sharing images while grooming others" thing - says it would be conditional on his appeal of the decision that the contents of his four laptops, many phones, hard drives and digital accounts were allowed to be shown to the jury or not - if he wins that appeal, he'll have the right to claim Not Guilty to a jury and have a normal trial. Media hasn't reported on it yet, assume we shouldn't update the Wiki until they do? Virginia Courtsesan (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

"Sexual Abuse Material"
Why does the lede use this term instead of "Child Porn", which is the title of the article the link redirects to? It appears to be an attempt to obscure and sanitize the charge. Also, lede should include he is pending sentencing, as failing to mention this fact appears to reduce the severity of his crimes. An ambiguous charge and a non-sentence loks like a nothing burger12.71.182.66 (talk) 13:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)12.71.182.66 (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * "Child Sex Abuse Material"/CSAM is actually the new term because it allows for things "worse" than pornography; pornography is generally considered to be what people are downloading from the internet - whereas CSAM includes filming yourself committing crimes, etc. In Meek's case it is also the more accurate term for that reason, according to the FBI claims - though technically his plea doesn't acknowledge the penis in his video as being his penis...but that's really a technicality. I understand your point about the lede being outdated (I think from when he was just charged, before the guilty plea) so I tried a minor change in wording. Virginia Courtsesan (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * These newer terms are increasingly common for the material itself regardless of where it comes from or how it's delivered, so this material would be called that regardless of Meek's role. Per Child pornography these newer terms have become more common because the term "pornography" is is considered by many readers as trivializing these crimes. This is in part because "pornography" commonly implies sexual consent. Grayfell (talk) 06:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

No Early Life section?
He seems to fit the criteria for an Early Life section. Can someone with more prowess than myself hook that up? Thanks. 47.4.30.23 (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Overly detailed?
Meek's journalistic career, while decently accomplished, didn't merit a Wikipedia article before he disappeared. He is only well known because he is a prolific pedophile. For this reason, I find it hard to justify some of the more esoteric details-- especially those concerning the content of the child pornography he was in possession of, the details of his trial, the opinions of an Arkansas talk radio outfit, or his juvenile rock band. His page is comparable, if not longer, than the articles for ABC's flagship hosts, for a far less well-known person. While I understand the instinct to intricately document criminals like this, I simply don't see how it belongs on Wikipedia. People looking for the sordid details can consult other sources.

All this being said, the article obviously belongs here. It's just too long, in my opinion. -- Theodore Christopher (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * With respect, I do not think we are approaching such a size as to necessitate concern. Article size references 10k words being the point at which we need to consider splitting down the article so it doesn't take more than 40min to read through - and not only are there no parts of this article easy to split down, but it is only 2k words, not 10k. There are only two sections, both seem reasonably sized, and are appropriately proportioned so as not to give too much/little emphasis on the crime opposed to the non-crime bits. If you know any ABC flagship hosts from Virginia, I'd be happy to work on expanding their articles to discuss more about their careers, etc. Virginia Courtsesan (talk) 00:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I think Theodore Christopher has a valid point. The quantity of WP:UNDUE details and the over-use of WP:PRIMARY is becoming a problem regardless of the byte-size of the article. The point of an encyclopedia is to summarize, not catalog. We should use a reliable, independent source to explain why these details are encyclopedically significant. Even if it seems obvious, that's not enough. We are not a platform for publishing WP:OR. Grayfell (talk) 07:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought the same thing when I first saw this article. Not only is it overdetailed, but the details are given to all the wrong sources. Citing the prosecution of a criminal case to make a point in a BLP, even with attribution, is certainly a violation of Reliable sources. There was even a part of the article which was sourced by an Infowars account from Rumble. Whoever made those edits is not familiar with the way sources are used on Wikipedia.
 * I've trimmed the whole thing. Leaving cleanup tags here makes no sense since no one will be motivated enough to check sentence-for-sentence what is wrong and what is right in the prosecution section.SparklyNights 20:09, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh wow. Per WP:INFOWARS, that site is blacklisted. I wonder if Rumble is being used to bypass that blacklist anywhere else. Grayfell (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I have reverted your large-scale removal of information calling it "Pizzagate" and threatening to block users (I notice you're not an admin), but made a couple changes in-line with your concerns to trim it down. I agree obviously Infowars is not a reliable source of anything other than that Infowars did indeed spread that misinformation which is the only thing it's used for in this article, similarly the only "Pizzagate" references were that a false claim about him went viral in Pizzagate circles, and the Wikipedia article is therefore correcting the false claim and linking to the Reuters fact-check explaining the actual truth. The "bad sources" are there just as examples of the conspiracy theorist viral attention to the claim - they are clearly not endorsed as true or used as sources to establish any fact other than that nut-jobs said crazy stuff leading major news outlets to need to comment on the viral misinformation. "Conspiracy theorists said X[1][2][3], which went viral leading to the clarification that actually just Y[4-Reuters]. You then call this single sentence in the article "undue weight". and somehow use that justification to remove ABC News, Washington Post, Fox News and other mainstream outlets coverage of basic facts like the raid discovering child pornography and other basics of the case. Your efforts to mischaracterize what's on the page appear to border on bad-faith. I have tweaked the wording on the "Pizzagate" sentence to make it clear that Wikipedia is obviously NOT endorsing the conspiracy theories viral attention on a fake quote that was prominent enough to merit a Reuters fact-check - if you have other opinions on specific wording I'm all ears. I'm also open to removing Infowars' footnote, though again it's not being used as anything except evidence they were involved in spreading the misinformation which Wikipedia fact-checks alongside Reuters. It is similar to the line "Media pundits including Tucker Carlson and Glenn Beck reacted by claiming such a federal raid against a journalist was the biggest story of 2022, leading to further "conspiracy theories" that Meek was innocent, and being pursued by a "lawless, corrupt, out-of-control FBI"", we're not endorsing that he was innocent in any way - we're commenting that some major news figures wrongly used the FBI raid as an opportunity to politically smear opponents by claiming Meek was innocent. Their stories suggesting his innocence and that it was barbaric to have investigated him are only included as a record they said that. Virginia Courtsesan (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Per WP:INFOWARS you should not be citing that outlet at all. These are not a new issues.
 * Figuring out how to strike a balance with WP:FRINGE is difficult. As I mentioned last month, the article is far, far too detailed, which is an issue per WP:DUE and WP:PRIMARY. Important information and relatively trivial details are given similar level of attention. This makes the article very difficult to follow and can lead to other problems. Using primary sources (especially court documents) in a WP:BLP is usually a bad approach, to put it mildly. Grayfell (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think there are any primary sources used about the alleged crime except where they are alongside acceptable media stories on the same. On the infowars issue, I'll go remove the link - again its purpose was just to give an example of who was spreading the misinformation that needed Reuters (and others) to debunk their claims about Meek. Virginia Courtsesan (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've opened a BLP/N topic about this issue at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. SparklyNights 01:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Photograph
Does anyone know whether that photograph is actually public domain or not? I cannot find the statute that would make it public domain, but that's not to say it doesn't exist - someone more knowledgable about copyright law might want to double-check...and in the meantime users can look for alternative photographs of Meek that could be used? Virginia Courtsesan (talk) 02:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Prosecutors noted that Meek had tried, at one point, to blame his child victims.[138]
I've included the statement "Prosecutors noted that Meek had tried, at one point, to blame his child victims.[138]" since it's in the Washington Post and I assume it happened - but to be transparent, I haven't actually seen any other reference to that. (Obviously this is all just in the past 24 hours post-sentencing). If people have thoughts on how to word it neutrally or rewrite it or whatever, certainly all ears. Salvador Rizzo is in the courtroom 24/7 seemingly, so is an iron-clad source. Virginia Courtsesan (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Meek wrote a letter to the Alexandria Gazette supporting Becky J. Moore to as Chief Judge
Another user removed the line "Meek wrote a letter to the Alexandria Gazette supporting Becky J. Moore to as Chief Judge of the Virginia General District Court. "; I can see both sides of the argument, I'm not re-adding it myself and leave it to others. The relevance appeared to be that as a prominent journalist writing to a newspaper to offer his support for the Chief Judge of the same court that he would have expected to have any potential sex offence charges heard in, at the same time he knew he was engaging in the crime routinely, would affect his own legal proceedings. Although it didn't, since they used "he carried his cellphone with him when he flew to the Carolinas" as a reason to make it a federal, rather than state, prosecution. Anyways, leaving the comment off the article for now myself, but open to opinions. Virginia Courtsesan (talk) 04:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)


 * That is pure speculation on your behalf, and frankly absurd, for more reasons than I consider worth listing here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Production line
This article says: His production of child sex abuse material dated back to at least 2014. The sources used to make this claim are this and this. None of them support this claim. They say that his possession of illegal material dated to 2014, but nothing is said about production, which is another (even more serious) crime that we don't even know if he was even charged for. I'm reverting this, and many other things, per WP:BLPSOURCE. SparklyNights 16:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've reverted your mass deletion, but left the deletions of other third-party editors in the past 24 hours standing. You are removing lines like "On April 27, 2022, Meek's home was raided by heavily-armed FBI agents in a Lenco BearCat, " claiming it is impossible to verify...the sources are all very clear, one says "heavily-armed FBI agents", the other says "in a Lenco bearcat". It appears to border on bad-faith removals.  On the issue of production. On your point raised here, "production" wasn't intended to be a reference to its definition in 18 U.S.C. § 2251, so perhaps a better word choice is needed - but all the sources are clear, and Meek's guilty plea is clear, he was the person who created the images. He was just charged with the lesser charges. Is there a better word than "production" that wouldn't suggest 18 U.S.C. § 2251 definition to your mind? "Meek's role in the creation of the images" perhaps? Virginia Courtsesan (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I made that revert per WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:NOT3RR-7. Given that the WP:BURDEN to justify contentious alegations in BLPs lies with the person seeking to include those claims, the thing you should have done was to seek consensus on the talk page before making that revert. Putting the disputed information back into the article without reaching consensus, especially when we are talking about a BLP, is plain edit warring. You have been warned about this kind of behavior before.
 * Also, please read WP:BLPCRIME. It clearly says that 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. Meek's plea was not for production of CP, no reliable source has ever said that. The mere fact that the prosecution did not even charge him with production already means that we should not include that crime in the article. SparklyNights 17:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The prosecution clearly says, and Meek admits, he is engaged in the original creation of the image - if not for him, such an image of the child would not exist. That may or may not be what you read into "production", I've asked if you have better wording - you instead prefer to fall back on threats that I'm breaking rules when I'm not. I'm not engaged in an edit-war, I'm compromising and leaving people's edits alone even when I disagree with them - but you are misrepresenting things when you've come to an established article and tried to delete half of it and then claiming you're just "reverting" things. The term "production of child pornography" or "producing child pornography" does not appear in the article - is there a specific phrase which does bother you - and how can we make it better? Keep in mind, Meek and the government bot acknowledge he is involved in the creation of the images, he is widely reported in credible sources to have groomed children online to take pornograpic images to send him, etc (and on a reverse-logic minor point, only one image out of 600 is listed as previously known to law enforcement). You can point out you've warned me that you're going to ban me before, it doesn't change my opinion - you have also gone to other articles I edit and added buzzword templates to words like "conflict" seemingly at random, claimed that the word "Neo-Nazi" is a non-sequitor on an article where WP's short description (not by me) is literally that the subject is a Neo-Nazi, and claimed the whole article needs copyedit and incomprehensibile tags because at one point it said "and and". So I ask again, do you have an actual quote in the article to which you'd like to point and which you'd like to suggest how to improve? Virginia Courtsesan (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Fake Emmy Awards
Meek is listed as having two Emmy Awards. The source for this claim comes from a random news article (probably citogenesis from Wikipedia) and his IMDb awards page. His awards page only gives the 2017 Emmy (not the 2015 Emmy). This is for "Outstanding Breaking News Coverage" with ABC News Special Events for Nightclub Massacre: Terror in Orlando. I looked for a better source than IMDb, and found that he did not receive that award. Deadline's list doesn't give Meek, but the most recent archive of that page is more recent, I looked for another source. I found this similar official list (saved in 2017), which also does not list Meek. So, I removed both citations and awards. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

For that matter, he also didn't win a press freedom award. The infobox provides no source whatsoever. The text says that Margaux Ewen announced that Meek received the 2022 World Press Freedom Award at the 2022 ceremonies. However, according to her LinkedIn, she left the Foley Foundation in January 2022, and the ceremony (according to the YouTube video) was in May 2022. From a quick overview of the video, it does not appear that she spoke. The Foundation's list of awards indicates that no World Press Freedom Award was given out in 2022. The reference to the Foundation's Web-site is to an unrelated press release; the other references are to his last published article(s) with ABC News. I have removed that award from his infobox and the quote from the text. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

rollingstone npr
3MRB1 (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/fbi-raid-abc-news_producer-1234613619
 * https://www.npr.org/2023/03/21/1164360143/rolling-stone-fbi-raid-journalist-james-gordon-meek
 * 3MRB1 (talk)±