Talk:Kevin Deutsch

Adding COI tag
This article was created and has been edited almost solely by a single-purpose account, AlexVegaEsquire, who appears to be Kevin Deutsch himself.Baltimore free (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Well-cited information as basic as this person's legal name is being routinely removed by the user AlexVegaEsquire. As noted above, this person clearly appears to be editing with an agenda. The passages he has removed as "libelous" are all backed up by multiple news sources. This should constitute vandalism. Wikihunter6 (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what your single-minded obsession is here with trying to smear this dude. I feel responsible for maintaining objectivity on this page because I created it last year. It seems this guy has enemies but this is a little much. The administrator has already stated about the first sentence that "Whether or not the investigation should be mentioned in the lede: this is a matter of due weight. There is a section on the investigation in the aticle that takes up the majority of the article." This continues to be the case. I think it's a settled issue, as all the controversies involving thus guy are mentioned in the order they occurred, and have their own section.

Are you one of he reporters writing about Mr. Deutsch? I think it's clear you are editing with an agenda--that of giving undue weight to unproven allegations already chronicled in the article. Guy has published two books that are still being sold and 15 years of news stories. Like he has stated, there have been no retractions or corrections issued on his stories as a result of either of these work reviews. Objectively, this controversy does not appear to define his notability--which existed before the controversies--no matter how badly you seem to want it too. Again, it is given due weight and ample space in this article.

I have no connection to Kevin Deutsch. I am a close observer of his work and have followed all Wikipedia rules and guidelines in writing about it (since before the recent controversies). A majority of the article deals with the controversies. The single minded effort among some here to make nearly the entire article about the controversies is excessive and does not comply with Wikipedia's policy for articles on living persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexVegaEsquire (talk • contribs) 01:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

please discuss on talk page
If you want to discuss the article, do it here on the talk page, not in a 1,000+ byte series of commented out sections of the article. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * My apologies.I’ll keep everything here going forward. unsigned comment by User:Ballastpointed


 * I've written a novel above this on the talk page about my changes. Ballastpointed / Alex have not really engaged, at least not lately.  The deafening silence after offering to bring in a third opinion is rather telling I believe.  I am entirely happy to discuss the matter here...  would prefer to do it...  but if the other editors repeatedly ignore my comments here but drive their edits through anyway, there's no point in further talking here, which is why I took to detailing in-line against the ludicrous nitpicks that Alex / Ballastpointed were making, nitpicks that could not possibly be done in good faith by anyone who has read the sources (e.g. arguing that Deutsch was only accused of malfeasance for his book, or that he only made up "sources" but not "quotes" (what, real quotes from fake sources?) or "events" (despite that being the entire point of the allegations against Pill City) diff.  I am of course thrilled if Ballastpointed / Alex decide to chime in here, but they haven't to any substantive degree.
 * I've also entirely lost any faith that they aren't WP:COI accounts; we've been talking to Deutsch, I'm sure. His blog has the same superlatives about his "fifteen-year career in journalism" that nobody else has written an article about (well, the non-scandalous parts).  Same writer.
 * Anyway, as a show of good faith... despite being bit time and time again when I explained in detail my edits as if Alex / Ballast had good faith as well to be ignored causing me to believe I am wasting my time...  Alex/Ballast are currently removing the bit that NY Daily News's review was "inconclusive".  Let's just look at the full quote from the source:
 * “From September, 2009 through March, 2012, Kevin Deutsch had 688 bylines in the Daily News. In a highly competitive media environment, the stories raised no red flags about possible fabrications. Two factors have ruled out comprehensively documenting every fact and source attributable to Deutsch. First, the passage of five to seven years heightens the difficulty of locating individuals who were identified only by name in the tumult of New York and who were peripheral to the main thrust of a piece – for example, witnesses at breaking news events. Second, many of the stories carried multiple bylines. Five to seven years later, after significant staff turnover, determining what reporter contributed what quote or factual material to each story would be prohibitively time consuming if not impossible.”
 * And from the Washington Post article:
 * (New York Daily News Editor Arthur Browne said his paper decided not to undertake a similar review of the 688 articles Deutsch wrote for the paper as a staff writer between 2009 and 2012 because of “the passage of time” and because many of his stories carried multiple bylines).
 * Where "a similar review" refers to the more extensive, months-long check Newsday made.
 * I am certainly amenable to different wordings here, but to put this in plain English, The Daily News is saying "there was not anything obviously on fire from a quick check, but we don't really know, checking is expensive and infeasible." And both iMediaEthics and the WaPo confirm that Newsday did a more extensive check.
 * As far as the lede, "involving fabrication" is not English, sorry. As I said above, I am open to other wordings, but that wording is unclear and wrong and gets a D minus in journalism class.  In the same way, trying to bury the lede - literally - by extensively WP:PEACOCK rambling about his non-notable journalism career is very obvious.  Again, I've said it before a zillion times, but Wikipedia is not actually judging the truth or falsity of the accusations.  You can't just wish the accusations away, though; they happened, they're the most notable thing about Deutsch, they are his claim to fame at the moment.  They should feature very prominently in the lede of the article.  SnowFire (talk) 03:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ballastpointed: @Snowfire, you must really hate Deutsch! Listen, dude: As I mentioned the last time you made this claim, I've got nothing to do with Deutsch. I've read his work and have followed the scandal closely. I am interested in it, and I'm a news junkie. If that's considered a conflict, then yours is certainly much more serious. I think you're much too invested in these edits--could it be that you yourself are a party to the guy's scandal? If I had to guess, I'd say you might be one of the journalists whose work is cited in the article. More power to you! We all need to get away from work once in a while.

Let me also say, I have no connection to Alex, despite your sockpuppet claim. Could it be possible that you're dislike for the article subject is clouding your objectivity here, and leading you to believe there's an editing conspiracy afoot? I certainly hope not.

If by "deafening silence" you're referring to my "taking care of my kid," then yes, you've nailed me again.

Just to reiterate, you made your first edits to this page only recently, and immediaely began ramming through major changes/reversing other editors' work. What I've done, and what Alex appears to have done, is simply defend the preexisting edits. I would hardly call that "nitpicking." But you're the journalist (probably?), so you tell me.

You say you've "entirely lost any faith that they aren't WP:COI accounts; we've been talking to Deutsch, I'm sure. His blog has the same superlatives about his "fifteen-year career in journalism" that nobody else has written an article about (well, the non-scandalous parts).  Same writer."

Could it be that I saw the "15-year" detail on his blog and in other stories about him [like the Columbia Journalism piece], then cited them, just as one is supposed to cite facts in articles here? Or must everything be so diabolical?

And yes, let's look at the full quotes from the Daily News review:


 * “From September, 2009 through March, 2012, Kevin Deutsch had 688 bylines in the Daily News. In a highly competitive media environment, the stories raised no red flags about possible fabrications. Two factors have ruled out comprehensively documenting every fact and source attributable to Deutsch. First, the passage of five to seven years heightens the difficulty of locating individuals who were identified only by name in the tumult of New York and who were peripheral to the main thrust of a piece – for example, witnesses at breaking news events. Second, many of the stories carried multiple bylines. Five to seven years later, after significant staff turnover, determining what reporter contributed what quote or factual material to each story would be prohibitively time consuming if not impossible.”
 * And from the Washington Post article:
 * (New York Daily News Editor Arthur Browne said his paper decided not to undertake a similar review of the 688 articles Deutsch wrote for the paper as a staff writer between 2009 and 2012 because of “the passage of time” and because many of his stories carried multiple bylines).
 * Where "a similar review" refers to the more extensive, months-long check Newsday made."

Sure, I understand that you want to construe the above to mean "there was not anything obviously on fire from a quick check, but we don't really know, checking is expensive and infeasible."

But the fact is, these paragraphs don't say that. Nor do they use the word "inconclusive." The writers spoke in English, and in their own words--not your interpretations of them. It is their actual words, not the way you personally construe them, that count.

Regarding the lede,"involving fabrication" is, actually, English. Two words. Both part of the English language. They're even grammatically correct! But I will tweak to reflect your concerns.

I guess I'd get that D in Professor Snowfire's class. Do you teach journalism, btw? Sounds like you might.

Re: peacocking, that refers to use of superlatives, right? I've stayed away from those, as I don't find anything particularly "super" about this article subject. But I do believe in objectivity, and in insertion of neutral facts like "length of career."

Finally, with regard to the lede, it is factual, it is contextualized, and it is concise. All good tenets of journalism, I thought? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballastpointed (talk • contribs)


 * If you think throwing an accusation back on me will work, it won't. I've been a Wikipedia editor since 2004.  I have no idea who Deutsch or any of the journalists writing articles were two weeks ago.  I read a news article.  I looked up the Wikipedia article out of curiosity, and went to add in new data, as I've done non-controversially with zillions of other topics.  After I was reverted, I saw your edit war with Wikihunter6 and others above where you "won" by diligently editing in your perspective.  I figured I'd add in the more recent sources.  If you look at my contribution history, you'll see it's been to a zillion different topics, so no, I'm not biased, I don't have an axe to grind here.  You & Alex, however?  You have only showed up to edit on Deutsch.  We call those single-purpose accounts around here.  Now I realize of course that you're just someone interested in accuracy, but you can surely believe that a problem Wikipedia has is with other people who edit their own biographies to be super-favorable, correct?  And that's not good?  As it happens, because these people are only interested in making themselves look favorable and don't give a damn about encyclopedia writing, they have edit patterns that look a lot like yours, solely editing a single article to make it as positive as possible.  And even if you aren't Deutsch or a friend...  it really doesn't matter.  You are still editing in a non-neutral fashion on a single topic.
 * As for what the paragraphs say, I don't know what to say other than we are clearly reading different news articles.
 * Okay, great, objective facts. Just so you know, the vast majority of other biographies don't include this data, or if they do, it's for some reason like a surprise change in career - e.g. someone becoming a famous actor at the age of 45.  Albert Einstein does not introduce the subject as someone with a 55-year career in physics.
 * For your other changes, you're just intentionally interpreting everything in a way that isn't what's actually in the article. As far as "drug lords" vs. "drug dealers", and omitting "famous" from preachers...  see, this is why I can't accept good faith anymore.  Read the source.  A random drug dealer?  Sure, maybe that was anonymization for why the BCP couldn't find him.  A huge player in the drug market who's been around for decades?  That really can't be anonymized very well, there's only a very few people who could possibly fit that description.  In the same way, you removed "famous" from preacher, which makes it more understandable that the BCP might have missed him.  But...  that is explicitly contradicted by the source:


 * "This is the street where he sold his first bag of dope," writes Deutsch, who never mentions Little Melvin Williams, the infamous gangster who actually did control that scene back in those days. A guy with Grier's past—even if obscured by Deutsch—would be well known far beyond Upton and Sandtown. But none of the addiction specialists, doctors, community leaders, or violence interrupters City Paper spoke with had an idea who he might have been.  "We do not have any evidence that corroborates the book," BPD spokesman T.J. Smith wrote, after City Paper sent detailed character sketches of Grier and Jimmy Masters.


 * "People from all over Maryland come to pay their respects to Marvin Grier: clergy members, cops, Black Lives Matter activists, and, of course, his fellow interrupters," Deutsch writes. "They trade stories about the fallen preacher, marveling at all he's given this wounded city—his time, his fortune, and, finally, his life."


 * Something like this large funeral did happen with Little Melvin Williams in December 2015. But Williams died of stomach cancer, and Deutsch is adamant that he did not model any "Pill City" characters on Little Melvin or create any composites. He also says that Grier was not an accountant. City Paper asked Deutsch to put us in touch with anyone who might have known the real Grier. He refused, citing his promise to protect his sources.


 * Now, again, maybe the BCP is wrong. But that's what the BCP says, unquestionably, right there, and that's part of their argument: that Grier is portrayed as - I quote - "nationally famous", as having a large funeral, etc.  I'll take another shot at writing this with lots of quotes from the sources and less summation if you insist... take a look. SnowFire (talk) 07:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

@BallastPointed: I’m not “throwing” around an accusation. I’m merely exploring your possible rationale for ramming through major edits and questioning your motive, as you’ve continuously questioned mine. Let’s agree these questions are not helpful and move on. Or, you can continue to try and question my objectivity, in which case I’ll have every reason to examine your apparent lack of it.

Being a Wikipedia editor for years does not mean you’re not a journalist. And if you are, that’s fine. But your connection to the article ought to be declared.

As for the notable dealer, “Little Melvin” was certainly famous. Preacher described in book is not. The article subject said they’re not the same person. Like much else in here, this is disputed. Perhaps “well known” preacher would work? And maybe “local kingpen?” Note the accuracy and specificity and avoidance of overly broad, generalized language.

Btw, reference to “fabricated sources” in lead covers both the stories and book mentioned in the same sentence.This language is accurate, and I think it’s incredibly clear to anyone reading the article what the controversy is/was all about. If you want to edit my language, please do! But please stop reverting to your own myopic, non neutral version. It’s not helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballastpointed (talk • contribs)


 * I'm not a journalist. I have no idea what your point even is.
 * As for the idea that "the Preacher described in book is not", read the source. Read the source.  This idea that he wasn't famous is your own original research.  The BCP says he was famous, in black and white, quoted.  "Nationally famous."  Let me repeat it for like the fourth time: you are free to disagree with the BCP.  You are not free to claim that they wrote something that they didn't.
 * This is going around in circles. I'm glad you're actually responding on the talk page, but if this is your "explanation" of your edits, I don't buy it.  Are you willing to let a third opinion in, and listen to their input?  Because I am. (You'll note that I was aggressively removing Deutsch's WP:SELFPUB defenses but stopped after User:Tornado chaser decided to put it back in himself, if you think I'm not sincere.  I disagree with that, but I'll let it pass.)  Note that if you do this and then just ignore the input, it'll be back to treating this as a vandalism issue and going to WP:ANI again...  SnowFire (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The book doesn't say he's "nationally famous" and neither does BPD. Should I submit a PDF of the book page as a source? The "famous" language is language the reporter in this story used in a single paragraph--not a police quote. It's one reporter's characterization, and City Paper is hardly credible. Also, I believe they've gone out of business. There's no vandalism here--it's just you wanting non neutral edits to be forced in. In my view, you are the one doing the vandalizing. Also, what is "promotional" and "rambling" about a line that objectively states what the book is about? There are no superlatives. And no criticisms. It's just a neutral clause. If we can't agree on that, I'm not sure what we can agree on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballastpointed (talk • contribs)

@alexvegaesquire: @SnowFire(presumably) and @BallastPointed, you both make logical points. But I don't see what's objectionable about the short description of book (an account of "overdoses and homicides" in Baltimore) in lede. That's literally what book is about. What would be the grounds for calling it promotional/peacocking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexVegaEsquire (talk • contribs)


 * First, a procedural note. Normally you sign at the end of your comments.  When you write @(Username), you are addressing them, not claiming to be them.
 * I'm just going to copy - paste what I wrote above. Again.
 * As for the idea that "the Preacher described in book is not (famous)", read the source. Read the source.  This idea that he wasn't famous is your own original research.  The BCP says he was famous, in black and white, quoted.  "Nationally famous."  Let me repeat it for like the fourth time: you are free to disagree with the BCP.  You are not free to claim that they wrote something that they didn't.
 * You cannot quote the book itself. It doesn't matter what your interpretation of the book is.  You can upload the whole book if you like.  What matters is what the secondary source said (WP:SECONDARY).  You said the "BPD"; actually, according the BCP, the Baltimore Police Department couldn't make heads or tails of this book and couldn't find any analogues, and the crime spree it described was largely news to them.  If the BPD *did* release a statement endorsing the book or some such, please link it!  (If you are curious why Wikipedia has this rule, it is because certain people like to do things like quote the Constitution directly and make up their own interpretations that no historian or judge would agree with.  In the same way, it is extremely easy to misleadingly quote primary sources...  imagine a murder mystery where someone quotes an alibi from the first half of the book that is shown to be bogus in the second half.)
 * As for why I keep removing the longer description of the book. The book itself is only of borderline notability; the scandal, much more so.  It's because it'd be like extensively describing Stephen Glass's articles before mentioning oh by the way he was at the center of a scandal.  There are vastly more and stronger sources on the scandal than on the book itself.  Sorry, that's just a fact.  If you disagree...  wait, you know what's coming...  find some sources.  I don't mean a single line in a "here is Booklist's list of 20 books that were released last month and Pill City is on the list."  I mean stuff like what you can find at https://www.nytimes.com/section/books .  Big, long-form reviews in major publications that show the book hit the cultural zeitgeist and were a thing that was talked about.  I'm pretty sure that these sources don't exist, but maybe I'm wrong.  Go find them!  If you can find them, we can put the longer description back in the lede.  SnowFire (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I see I'm back to talking to myself. I guess it might be time to go back to ANI.

Ballastpointed, let us suppose hypothetically that the NY Daily News gave a full clear to Deutsch - not only did they find nothing, but they found strong evidence that his stories were all legit. No complaints. Well, then... that means Deutsch was just a normal journalist in that period, and there isn't much to talk about. It would adjust the date at which his stories started having sourcing problems is all. There are still zero sources (that aren't Deutsch's website, Deutsch's blog, interviews with Deutsch) that think his journalism career is any more interesting than the many, many other journalists out there. Put things another way, if someone is a tradesman for 20 years and a criminal for 5 years, in general a Wikipedia article will not go into immense detail about the 20 years of being a normal person. It won't talk about how they definitely didn't commit any crimes during that 20 year period and they don't see what the big deal is about because check out these normal years.

Of course, this is somewhat hypothetical, because Deutsch did *not* receive such a strong clear as I described above. The point remains though; not doing anything shady during this period, even if granted to be true, doesn't matter a whit for the accusations elsewhere, and can't be used to cover for them. SnowFire (talk) 03:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I think it's definitely time to go back to ANI. Pemilligan (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Ayup.
 * Ballastpointed, re your edit summary of " if you have a source stating that allegations exist that Deutsch "fabricated events and quotes," please include.", well that's exactly the references after that line. I *had* included some hidden text before Tornado Chaser declared "article is not a talk page", that you surely read before, but for the record, I guess I'll paste it again:
 * This summation in the lede has been contested. Just to repeat the subtitle of this article: "Reporter Kevin Deutsch has been accused of fabricating sources in stories for major publications."  In the title!  So...  yes, it is accurate to say that he has been accused of fabricating sources in stories.  Incredibly, the "quotes" and "events" part has been challenged as well.  See the iMediaNewsStory where Deutsch is directly accused of making up quotes from alleged sources Eric Baumer and Aahil Khan.  See the Baltimore City Paper articles on Pill City for fabricating events.
 * https://www.imediaethics.org/exclusive-572-stories-fmr-ny-daily-news-crime-reporter-review-nyt-admits-source-fail/, http://www.citypaper.com/blogs/the-news-hole/bcpnews-inconsistencies-raise-questions-about-pill-city-a-baltimore-tale-of-drugs-and-murder-20170217-story.html .  SnowFire (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit war du jour
Hi Kevin. I decided to let this page lie fallow for awhile in the hopes others would care, but I see we're at it again. This will be the final new explanation before just heading off to get one of us banned, but it's not hard. Here's the full quote from the edited Rolling Stone article:
 * For his part, last month Deutsch penned an unapologetic defense of his work. Pill City publisher St. Martin’s Press has remained steadfast in support of Deutsch’s reporting for the book. (At the time of publication, Deutsch declined to comment for this story. In August 2018, Deutsch got in touch with Rolling Stone to issue a statement: “Despite the false and baseless accusations made by a handful of competing journalists who targeted some of my work,” it reads, in part, “including the author of this very piece, none of the more than 1,500 news articles, briefs, features, or books I’ve published in my 16-year crime reporting career has ever been retracted, nor a single factual correction or clarification issued, as a result of these attacks.” )

So yes. This claim, while in the Rolling Stone article, is from Deutsch (i.e. you). That's what I was referring to in my edit summary, which is clearly, indisputably correct as you can see. Now, here's the part you're referring to:
 * Update: This story has been changed to clarify that Deutsch was never formally accused by any major news organization of fabricating sources.

Okay, fine, clearly RS heard your complaint, but again, this is not really relevant to the article. I'm sure Deutsch was not formally accused of lots of things. This isn't meaningful or relevant, and is outright misleading: it suggests an exoneration when there was none. It merely says a formal accusation didn't happen. That's it. The investigation of his previous stories, the accusations, that's what the Wikipedia article is covering. Finally, if it was included, it's surely not something that goes in the first sentence, narrative flow wise, as the allegations haven't even been explained yet and we're already saying that they didn't turn into formal accusations, as if that was somehow the key point. SnowFire (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Most of what Snowfire's written in this Talk section is patently and demonstrably untrue. His repeatedly deleting the consensus version of the article - hashed out long ago buy multiple editors - including multiple, credibly sourced details and their sources (like the article subject's nonprofit journalism job, current literary work, and the language of a major magazine's clarification clearly stating Deutsch was never formally accused of fabrication), goes against the spirit of this site and its policies.

- Sincerely, a concerned, independent editor, unconnected to the article subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harringhome1977 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


 * No, it's not a "consensus" version, unless you mean the consensus of WP:SPAs and IP addresses who only ever edit Kevin Deutsch article. Read the damn Rolling Stone article.  In its totality, it's talking about accusations against Deutsch.  A single sentence about Deustsch not being formally accused is not the main thrust of the article.  SnowFire (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

It’s the latest addition to the article and it’s a direct quote. Obviously an amended correction to an original article’s reporting, particularly in this case and under these circumstances, becomes the thrust. Harringhome1977 (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Admin note I have full-protected the article for four days. This is to get you people to stop edit warring (you can get blocked for that, you know) and come back to the talk page (where no one has posted for two days, even while the warring continued in the article). Try to work it out; ideally try to focus on finding wording that everyone can accept. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for stepping in. Unfortunately, I don't think it's likely for there to be a long-term solution here other than banning Deutsch's socks and semi-protecting the article for a long time.
 * Before in 2018, I attempted several times to get a compromise version of an article, to walk away for a bit... but Deutsch's socks would never leave, and he'd never stop at whatever minor edit he's attempting at the moment.  For example, Deutsch's most recent edits have been more minor - but if I walked away for a month, based on previous edit histories, he'd just keep at it until the article turned into an apologia.  I'd love for there to be a compromise!  Unfortunately the article has been at the very, very edge of being pro-Deutsch for a long time, allowing highly borderline content such as weakly or primary-sourced bits in the "Career" section and awards (User:Unforgettableid cleaned up some of this).   Harringhome1977 is still attempting to source things to Deutsch's author guild's blurb - a complete primary source written by Deutsch himself, something that would be useless normally, and only used to source an utterly non-notable career as a blogger that no secondary source cares about.  Anyway, the largest area of disagreement is still the blurb Harrinhome1977 continues to try to include about a non-event directly in the lede - that Deutsch was not directly or "formally" charged with fabrication.  He is claiming that this is the key take away from the Rolling Stone article, so important it should be quoted prominently, despite the Rolling Stone article being literally about how Deutsch was charged with fabrication.  I couldn't disagree more, and it's something that would never be allowed elsewhere: a tricky moving of the goalposts, not remotely the main takeaway from the source, and not WP:DUEWEIGHT when the preponderance of all the sources, as well as the Rolling Stone article itself, are about the problems with Deutsch's writings.  I'm happy to be wrong, but I'd rather have that discussion with another Wikipedia editor in good standing, not one of Deutsch's WP:SPA, several of which were banned in the past before recurring now.  SnowFire (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

UPDATING: Just to be clear: The RS article LITERALLY states in an update: "Update: This story has been changed to clarify that Deutsch was never formally accused by any major news organization of fabricating sources." This COULD NOT BE CLEARER. It is the most recent journalism on the subject of Deutsch's controversy - a NEW amendment to an OLD article - and should be included in the first sentence or at least paragraph in accordance with the living persons policy and due weight policy, as it is the last word on the matter as far as RS is concerned and, if it doesn't negate the sub headline (which is not in the article text) it sure feels close. Again, I am not a puppet and have no COI. I'm merely concerned with balanced coverage for living/working people. Also, the update makes clear the allegations of fabrication were made NOT by the sourced articles/media organisations, but rather by media members individually. Thus, there is NO source language alleging that "Deutsch fabricated sources and events." That's just SnowFire's faulty/inaccurate synopsis of media coverage. There IS source language in the RS saying article subject was never formally accused of fabrication by any of the sources in this article. And it must be included if this article is to comply with living persons policy + be balanced. Also. let's remove the "has" from the top of article. "Was" is the accurate word for something that happened in 2017. Finally, its improper to describe these kinds of allegations in the first sentence an article subject's article, and then NOT include the fact  CORRECTION TO A MAJOR NEWS ARTICLE ON WHICH THE ARTICLE IS BASED states the precise opposite. We have a duty to say what happened at the end of the controversy - and to do so in the first paragraph - not just that a controversy existed. '''As of right now, the article does not mention the newest/most applicable point: Rolling Stone's clarification/amendment to their piece, and the broader scope of results of all this controversy. Which is that the dude still works in journalism...the article somehow ignores this topical point, particularly in the fake news era. Wheres the lie?''' Harringhome1977 (talk) 13:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Source for original consensus version:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Deutsch&oldid=934462518

Consensus version was restored by Pemilligan in January before snowfire began aggressive editing in violation of living persons policy

Harringhome1977 (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, can we at least honor Freddie Gray by mentioning him in the line in the top where the 2015 Baltimore riots are introduced? They are also known as the Freddie Gray Riots or Freddie Gray Uprising. Thanks.

Harringhome1977 (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

For now, if we change the top to say the allegations of fabricated sources were made by members of the media (i.e. David Simon) - replacing the current language placed in the top sentence by snowfire- add Deutsch's current position in journalism with Bronx Justice News (a Google News source that does some good investigative stuff) somewhere in the article, and make the top paragraph reflective of the RS clarification/amendment, I'm happy to move on. I've alerted admin to the aggressive editing but would prefer to end this with a compromise. Thanks. Harringhome1977 (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 23 July 2020
The article should be restored to the consensus version based on actual sources and quoted material from third party RS article and its clarification/amendment/update. SnowFire has repeatedly deleted accurate language agreed upon by consensus of editors. As of right now, the article does not mention the newest/most applicable point: Rolling Stone's clarification/amendment to their piece. See Talk page for history of SnowFire edit agenda.

2604:2000:1200:93AF:9917:7B6C:EA81:92F (talk) 12:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC) 2604:2000:1200:93AF:9917:7B6C:EA81:92F (talk) 12:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The whole point of locking the article is to get editors here to talk to each other, clarify the issues and reach a decision AMONG YOURSELVES what the article should say. There are not going to be "outside arbitrators" coming in to issue a ruling or decide what version should be in the article; that's not how Wikipedia works. Discussion at the talk page among contributors is the way these things are worked out. Consensus here doesn't have to be unanimous, but it does have to be based on policy and sources. If there is a previous consensus, provide links to it. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, the last two editors removed a source I added to the subject's career section - a pretty interesting piece about Deutsch advocating for use of magic mushrooms. Why was that removed? It is third party and more recent than the other sources in that section. I'm learning. Thanks for bearing with me.Harringhome1977 (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Source for original consensus version:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Deutsch&oldid=934462518

I understand the policies a little better now. I think the source language in the RS is unambiguous. It literally states "This story has been changed to clarify that Deutsch was never formally accused by any major news organization of fabricating sources." If you don't believe that language negates the RS article's sub headline (which is not reflected in the actual story text of the story), then I think you'll at least agree the story doesn't say anything about Deutsch "fabricating sources, quotes, and events." It says SOURCES. I think "sources" would be a satisfactory compromise for the language lower in the first section of the subject's article, since "fabricating sources" is what the RS subhead says, and what the story was about (prior to the clarification/amendment). The other alleged fabrication would have derived from that, anyway. An easy compromise I think. But I hope the source provided above helps clarify my suggestion we go back to what was hashed out previously. Thanks.

Thanks.Harringhome1977 (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

One more question: Why was this information and source removed from the article's "career" section? "Deutsch has been interviewed about American street gangs and drug trafficking,[31][32][33][34][35] and has received prizes for his writing about crime and national news events, including an Associated Press award for justice beat reporting.[36]" The article subject has apparently won awards which in journalism seems hard? - -

The aggressive changes by snowfire definitely do not feel compliant with the living persons policy. Thanks.

Harringhome1977 (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC) ''' Source for original consensus version:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Deutsch&oldid=934462518

Consensus version was restored by Pemilligan in January before a single user, snowfire, began aggressive editing earlier this week. Other than him, all contributing editors appeared fine with the earlier language.'''

Harringhome1977 (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * @Harringhome1977: Where is the discussion that established this consensus? —C.Fred (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I mean I can't cite what appear to be years of discussions but this appears to be the consensus reasoning/ruling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/100.33.95.243

Harringhome1977 (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * @Harringhome1977: That may indicate the status quo version, but it doesn't show a consensus among editors after discussion. If there is now dispute about inserting or omitting certain items, then there needs to be a discussion to establish consensus. —C.Fred (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok. That discussion appears to have been ongoing, and there appears to have been a very recent version that was fine with the various contributors until a user called snowfire came in and made some very aggressive changes, some of which appear to violate the biography of living persons policy, fair weight policy, and others (I've requested those complaints be addressed in the appropriate threads and trust one or other administrator will address). I definitely want to come to a consensus but snowfire uses some very aggressive and dehumanising language and it's hard communicating with someone like that. It doesn't seem like a fair process if one user, him, gets his absolute way without compromise. Which is what's happened. Could you at least restore the first sentence to its original language before snow fire's recent aggressive edits/evident page vandalism? Thanks. I'm trying to learn but don't want to be bullied.

Harringhome1977 (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I replied to Harringhome1977 at the BLP board, since he decided to open a discussion there. If you're attempting to cite this talk page, note that I was responding to earlier pro-Deutsch single-purpose accounts edit summaries largely in attempting to reach a consensus.  No, you can't source Deutsch's personal web blurb on Wikipedia, that's a primary source.  I'm a perfectly normally editor 99% of the time, and if you propose changes that actually reflect the sources, then that's fine.  However, no, you can't represent an article about how Kevin Deutsch was credibly accused of fabrication as a because of your unique interpretation of an addendum is secretly overturning the entire article, rather than - as the addendum says - already being integrated into the article, and thus the article-as-a-whole is still fine to cite.  But hell, even if we threw the Rolling Stone article out completely, it wouldn't change much from my preferred version - there's still other sources that discuss the allegations, and in no way say that Deutsch was "cleared" of suspicion somehow.  SnowFire (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

See my compromise offer on talk page. Thanks. Harringhome1977 (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Change to intro
Here's the change to the introduction that is advocating. I've redlined changes by underlining proposed additions and striking through proposed deletions.

The changes of substance are to restore the podcast and staff writing position to the introduction, to temper the allegations by removing the alleged fabrication of quotations and events, and to note that no major news source accused him of fabricating sources. I will note that the podcast and writing position are supported only by primary sources.

Since the article is fully protected, a change in substance should not be made without establishing consensus. I invite all interested editors (and am pinging due to his involvement in the recent editing) to explain why the change should or should not be made based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I also invite all participating editors to focus only on the content of the text and not the editors involved—in other words, conflict of interest should have no bearing on the points you're making. —C.Fred (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for organizing this, User:C.Fred. I endorse the current version.  Deutsch was accused of more than just fabricating sources: he is alleged to have invented quotes from whole-cloth, as well as fabricating the events of Pill City, and was alleged to have done this many, many times.  "In July, the paper said it found 109 people whose existence it could not confirm in 77 articles, out of roughly 600 written by Deutsch... if one assumes that the people Newsday couldn't find are made up, the number is shocking. Most mainstream news organizations would fire a journalist for a single instance of inventing a source or a quote, let alone dozens and dozens of them."  So yes, repeatedly.  See this diff for references directly backing this, so I support keeping the full "repeatedly fabricated sources, quotes, and events."
 * For the additions: The podcast is sourced to Medium, a WP:SPS self-published source. It should not be included.  "Bronx Justice News" is a WordPress blog of no importance.  Even if it had importance, Deutsch's work for it does not appear to be secondarily notable; if it was, there'd be an article written in a WP:RS reliable source about Deutsch specifically.  It's suitable for a LinkedIn profile, but not for Wikipedia.  For journalists / bloggers, you can't just cite their own stories on Wikipedia; you need a source about the author themself and their work.  For example, Jason Schreier is a minor journalist, but can have claims in their Wikipedia article be cited from articles not written by him such as https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2020/04/16/jason-schreier-is-leaving-kotaku-citing-go-media-reason/ ; WP:PRIMARY indicates that primary sources are not preferred.  There's no need to narrow the scope of the allegations to say they're from "members of the media;" Wikipedia doesn't use that kind of phrasing for other articles about people / organizations who were the target of hostile media coverage.  If it was one expose specifically, maybe, but that wasn't the case for Deutsch.  Finally, the line about "Deutsch was never formally accused by any major news organization of fabricating sources" - okay, so there is a source behind that one.  However, it is being misrepresented here.  The key word is "formally".  Deutsch WAS accused of fabricating source, was investigated by major news organizations, had disclaimers put on his articles, and had some of this articles modified post-publication to remove unverifiable bits.  Yet the only thing that Harringhome wants to talk about was that there wasn't a "formal" accusation, something I'm sure Rolling Stone was happy to concede to Deutsch's complaints because it's not particularly relevant.  It's not the main thrust of the Rolling Stone article, which is still about Deutsch being accused of fabricating fake news.  It's like writing an article about a suspected criminal who went into exile or died before a trial, and calling that as "never formally convicted".  Yes, it's true, it might even be relevant to bring up, but it should not be portrayed as an exoneration.  Nor is it portrayed as an exoneration, or anything close, by the Rolling Stone article.  So as a matter of source fidelity, it should not be included in the lede IMO.  SnowFire (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

-->

Thank you. The above changes/language should be made because they keep the article in compliance with multiple Wikipedia policies. Take the Biographies of Living Persons Policy tag atop the article, for instance. It states: "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard."

The proposed consensus language, based on my desire to resolve this issue, keeps the article in compliance with multiple sections of BLP policy (BLP), Neutral Point of View Policy (NPOV), and Verifiability Policy (V). Whereas the newer, existing version of the article is not compliant with applicable sections of BLP, NPV, and V policies. The changes that brought this article out of compliance with applicable Wikiepdia policies were implemented unitarily this week, without discussion, after months of apparent stability to this article subject's page.

Here is how they violate the aforementioned three policies: First, the unitarily inserted language states "that Deutsch has repeatedly fabricated sources, quotes, and events." It also removes the word "has," a subtle change that, by eliminating the past tense, makes the scandal sound more recent than it is (2017).

These changes demonstrably violate BLP policy. Why: The policy states that "Contentious material about living persons"  that is "poorly sourced" or "potentially libelous" must be removed immediately. The BLP policy also states that: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[a] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivityThe BLP also states: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.'''[1]

The existing article language qualifies as "Contentious material" and therefore "requires a high degree of sensitivity" under applicable BLP. The language/material is inherently contentious because we are having contention over it. So is the Rolling Stone newsroom, apparently. The Rolling Stone article's update states, verbatim: "Update: This story has been changed to clarify that Deutsch was never formally accused by any major news organization of fabricating sources." That directly contradicts the current language in the article, and violates both BLP and NPOV policy.

Further, under BLP, whether the material in this story is 'negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable" does not matter. All that matters is that it's contentious. We're debating this right now because the article subject stood by his criticized work in multiple, high value, third-party sources. And so any neutral appraisal of the controversy will be inherently contentious.

This would all matter less if BLP and NPOV didn't exist, or if Deutsch were dead, or not still working in journalism. But he's apparently alive, freelancing and working on staff at a local journalism non-profit called Bronx Justice News, listed on Google News, and podcasting on Apple https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-reporter-podcaster-author-kevin-deutsch/id687959058?i=1000485461932, Spotify https://open.spotify.com/show/1KGygiZffXhMOvz0I9Ch5g, etc. He also wrote a weird story about magic mushrooms and PTSD in a third party source, which seems more interesting to me than an irrelevant, old, boring print journalism controversy. Plus, Wikipedia policy states that: "The first published source for any given fact is always considered a primary source." The mushroom piece counts as primary, and so do the primary sources establishing his podcast and staff journalism job.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/crime-reporting-ptsd-mental-health-stress-magic-mushrooms-recovery-how-a8368946.html https://www.google.com/search?q=kevin+deutsch&client=safari&sxsrf=ALeKk03j1UVTKjr31tK9cFyMxm2PkbYNZg:1595537949346&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi058iFouTqAhWKgnIEHbMDBMcQ_AUoAXoECBMQAw&biw=1440&bih=743 https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3184452/ AND apparently still writing about looted pharmacies at aforementioned staff writer position  https://bronxjusticenews.com/exclusive-dea-probing-drug-looting-burglaries-at-over-700-pharmacies-nationally-amid-unrest/

Since NPOV must be maintained as applicable to this living subject, Wikipedia policy says we must be neutral. Inclusion of Deutsch's current media/journalism jobs, as seen in the proposed version, brings article into compliance with both BLP and NPOV.

Moving on: NPOV policy also mandates that all content in Deutsch's article " must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

There are two parties in contention - Deutsch, and those who questioned his work (primarily David Simon, from what these sources suggest). Since Deutsch is a primary party, his view is undeniably a significant one under NPOV. And so neutrality must be restored, with the proposed language serving to bring article into compliance with both BLP and NPOV and V.

Lastly, regarding Wikipedia's policy of Verifiability (V). As I said on the talk page: Any reasonable compromise must reflect the Rolling Stone update/clarification and incorporate it somehow into the first sentence because It is the most recent journalism on the subject of Deutsch's controversy - a NEW amendment to an OLD article. If it doesn't negate the sub headline about Deutsch having originally been accused of fabrication, it sure feels close. (notably, the sub headline is not in the actual text of the article under story author Jim Rich's byline, thereby creating journalistic credibility and Verifiability issues and making us wonder what the heck RS is even trying to say). If the new RS language in their clarification doesn't negate the sub-headline, it sure feels close. Either way its got to be synthesised, as it is in the proposed revision, in order to comply with Wikipedia's BLP, NPOV, and Verifiability policies. A reminder: V policy states, verbatim: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." Is this RS article verifiable if it has an update/clarification/amendment directly contradicting its subheadline? No, it isn't verifiable, and therefore it violates Verifiability policy in addition to the aforementioned BLP and NPOV policies.

In summary: The current version, as shown above, violates: BLOP, NPOV, and Verifiability.

The proposed, negotiated, consensus version places the article back in compliance with all three. Thanks. Harringhome1977 (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

-- Re: snowfire's response: While I understand that the unitarily acting editor feels strongly, he has not argued based on Wikipedia policy text, as we have been instructed to. He also relies on apparent outside research in his support of the article's current language, since the allegations/policy violating material are not supported by the sources cited. Thanks.

Harringhome1977 (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * @Harringhome1977: I'm not seeing exactly what your position is for supporting the inclusions in the proposed change. You're arguing to include that he's the producer of a podcast based only a byline in an op-ed piece that he wrote which mentions the podcast. That's a prime example of a self-published source, and we're supposed to avoid primary sources like that. I would understand better with a concise explanation of why we should use that source so that I may better understand your rationale. —C.Fred (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)



I understand. Apple and Spotify, which I've cited, aren't enough? I'm happy to concede exclusion of podcast mention at this point because there aren't many sources, if absolutely necessary. But I'm not clear on how a fact could be demonstrated further regarding the subject's podcast. With regard to specifying the fabrication allegations that were made by members of the media, that's who the sources cited here show made the allegations of fabrication: David Simon and Twitter users in the media biz, independently of their news outlets. Thus the language "members of the media." No news outlet ever accused Deutsch of "fabrication," the RS update says, as that is not what news outlets do. Here, they merely reported the allegations of others. Thanks.

Harringhome1977 (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Uncounted thousands of people have Spotify podcasts. The vast majority of them don't have any Wikipedia coverage of said podcast, because that podcast is not significant or WP:N notable, and thus it's impossible to write sourced content.  When someone is notable for a Spotify podcast, there will be secondary sources about it - see https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/may/24/spotify-podcast-deal-the-joe-rogan-experience for an example.  More to the point, when a topic is Wikipedia-notable for unrelated reasons but happens to also have a Spotify podcast on the side, this is unlikely to be discussed in the Wikipedia article (maybe they get it indirectly in an External link to their personal website).  If it is discussed, it's not in the very first sentence in the lede, it's a side sentence in the body - again, unless they were "notable" for their podcast.  You can see this in the earlier talk page discussions above about Deutsch's other books: if you want to claim Deutsch was notable as an author, then show things like reviews on  https://www.nytimes.com/section/books .  In the same way, if Deutsch is notable as a podcaster, find a secondary, reliable source that shows this (read: not some random blog review).  Finally, your interpretation of the Rolling Stone story is completely incorrect in a fashion that serves Deutsch well, but we've been over that already.  SnowFire (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

-- Agreed on the podcast. But not on your statements about the RS article. That story literally states: "Update: This story has been changed to clarify that Deutsch was never formally accused by any major news organization of fabricating sources." We are openly committed on this site to fealty to source text, and there is nothing ambiguous about this highly specific language in RS update. I believe it must be incorporated to bring article into compliance with the text of the aforementioned policies. Thanks. Harringhome1977 (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

In response to the unilaterally-acting editor's requests re: notability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability asking for reviews about the article subject's books: Here are some from Publishers Weekly, Newsweek and Kirkus: https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-1-4930-0760-8 https://www.newsweek.com/baltimore-riots-launched-uber-drug-dealing-how-two-teens-launched-drug-548075 and https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=kirkus+kevin+deutsch&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 Thanks. Harringhome1977 (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, since the disputed language in the current version of article is demonstrably "contentious" under applicable Wikipedia BLP policy, as argued in my statements above, it is supposed to be removed immediately under that policy. Thanks.

Also applicable to this BLP article: Wikipedia's Reliablity of Sources Policy, the applicable section of which states, verbatim: "This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." Thanks. Harringhome1977 (talk) 23:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, is there a reason this review of the Wikipedia article subject's book called "Pill City" is not included in the first paragraph? "An important story meticulously reported but that nonetheless strains toward novelization in the telling." Seems like a pretty neutral synopsis that complies with the aforementioned policies currently being violated in the article. It's also fully attributable to objective source text, Kirkus. At the very least, it's another source that conflicts with the existing language implemented unitarily. Thanks. Harringhome1977 (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

-->

Hi everyone. Just following up on this discussion. I also want to cite the Wikipedia page page lock policy which states: "When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators have a duty to avoid protecting a version that contains policy-violating content, such as vandalism, copyright violations, defamation, or poor-quality coverage of living people. Administrators remain uninvolved when exercising their discretion, subject to this proviso, to decide whether to apply protection to the most current version of an article, or to an older, stable, or pre-edit-war version."

As outlined above, the current version of the article contains material that demonstrably violates multiple Wikipedia policies including BLP, NPOV, AND V (see detailed arguments above for each). Given these circumstances, is it possible to have the revisions we've hashed out here made now, in accordance with site policies? Thanks for facilitating this discussion, User:C.Fred. I enjoy contributing and want to do so regularly on other subjects. This process, and being able to communicate in an open forum with civility, has been a great learning experience. Harringhome1977 (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * @Harringhome1977: IMO, none of those situations apply. There is coverage of the person; the question is on how to use the coverage that exists in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Full-protection-unlocked.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 06:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Good afternoon everyone. My name is Sasha Gonzales and I am a colleague of Kevin Deutsch’s at Bronx Justice News, a local nonprofit news website in the New York City borough of the Bronx. I can’t begin to tell u how little those who work with Kevin feel articles like this one accurately reflect his career, accomplishments, and who he is. This is supposed to be edited by people who are dispassionate and have no stake in outcome of article, that is not happening here as u can see. I hope you will make the article changes because he does not deserve this and the article is not balanced, sincerely, Sasha G. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bronxolithic (talk • contribs) 11:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * A) If you think that the reason for the resistance to the pro-Deutsch sock's requested changes is because I and other Wikipedia editors have a "stake in the outcome of the article", you are badly mistaken. Nobody cares about this, aside from normal Wikipedia editors interested in basic accuracy.  There isn't some "competitor" of Deutsch that is worried that Deutsch is going to steal their job, so feel a desperate need to slander him with made-up accusations, as was explained above to the socks from 2 years ago.
 * B) I doubt that you're a real person, for reasons I won't go into here. SnowFire (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

× Greetings. I tried to reconcile the disagreement here and had revisions immediately reversed. Please editors, take a look and tell me what’s objectionable and how we can reconcile the dispute. Article obv needs work § — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillieHowardCO67 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * As I said in my edit summary - please read WP:RS. We don't say in the first sentence of an article that someone authors posts on a blog, because that's utterly non-notable, unless reliable sources have commented on it.  Is Deutsch notable as a blog author?  Show us a Washington Post story on his blog activities, and maybe.  Otherwise, no, just like an article on a sports player who retired in 2017 isn't going to say "Jones is a publicist for the local used car shop" in the first sentence.  SnowFire (talk) 02:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, this a hot one! Looking for examples of how journalists/fabulists were handled by Wikipedia in some other high profile cases I found these and put em to use:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Abramson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair

Stop fighting and work together y’all. WillieHowardCO67 (talk) 21:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Tagging for neutrality dispute. FTIIIOhfive (talk) 02:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Page needs protection from the angry white boy who guards it. We either going to work this out here in community edit a thon or the page needs to be protected. We won’t have this. FTIIIOhfive (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Given how some newly-created accounts have been editing the article, I'm thinking that long-term semi-protection of the article may be necessary...possibly even a 500/30 restriction. —C.Fred (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

C.Fred please see following: Wikipedia admin telling snowfire he is wrong (and creating legal liability)[edit source] “For your part, I discovered that the "no formal charges" sentence was added to both the lead and the text in August 2018, and as far as I can see it was never challenged until you removed it from the lead this month. That makes it longstanding content and I would advise you to let it stay. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC) Yeah, I took the article off my watchlist because I didn't want to spend my Wikipedia career uselessly edit-warring rather than writing actually useful content, only ended up back at it due to coincidence. The "no formal charges" content was put there by the pro-Deutsch crew (and... strictly speaking, I'm not 100% against it, but I am against it in the way that the pro-Deutsch crew deploys it, which is as an exoneration in the lede, which is not accurate to the sources). The original accounts are probably either Ballastpointed or AlexVegaEsquire FWIW. SnowFire (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)” — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillieHowardCO67 (talk • contribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillieHowardCO67 (talk • contribs)

Some are here for an edit a thon focusing on articles with community impact and we are using GOOD sources. We see what you all are up to all over this site and we will bring it to the press. If you want something changed make an argument! FTIIIOhfive (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * @FTIIIOhfive: Please keep Wikipedia concerns on Wikipedia. While your comment about taking this matter to the press is not a legal threat, it has the same chilling effect. Accounts that indicate they are considering outside processes (civil suit, criminal charges, press involvement) to influence an article run the risk of being blocked from editing. —C.Fred (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The new editors in this section and at least the one above are socks, see Sockpuppet investigations/AlexVegaEsquire — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 14:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I've seen this pop up on a couple of noticeboards recently and I find the sock drawer's claims to be quite specious, especially when the This story has been changed to clarify that Deutsch was never formally accused by any major news organization of fabricating sources claim is actually looked at. I have done a text comparison of the current Rolling Stone article (which included the said disclaimer) and the first archived version of the same article (which doesn't include the said disclaimer). Except for the inclusion of comment from Deutsch himself, the changes are The second change is the one referred to in the disclaimer, it simply uses slightly more neutral language. What it doesn't do at any point is retract any of the main criticisms which form the basis of the entire article. Ultimately what does Deutsch was never formally accused by any major news organization of fabricating sources mean anyway? Does it mean they called him into a meeting and said I formally accused you of fabricating sources? Whether they did or didn't is irrelevant, since they certainly did investigate and find no trace of multiple people claimed to exist. What conclusion can be drawn from that is a matter of opinion. Some would say it's proof he fabricated sources, others would say his sources used fake names and that isn't Deutch's fault. Hence Rolling Stone's clarification, since the investigations didn't, at least on the basis of the available evidence, prove beyond all doubt that Deutsch fabricated sources. The attempt to insert the disclaimer into the lead as an exoneration of Deutch involves drastic cherry-picking of the Rolling Stone article, which is a gross violation of WP:NPOV in my opnion. FDW777 (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A mainstream reporter accused of fabricating sources in at least five news articles was changed to A mainstream reporter accused of fabricating sources in news articles
 * Look closely at the sources Deutsch is accused of making up was changed to Look closely at the sources in question

About that NYT excerpt
Glancing through the article I saw a four-paragraph quote from a New York Times article. Although it is cited, I believe that is too large a quote to qualify for exemption from our copyright policies. We are allowed to use "brief quotations"; IMO that is not brief. Someone should summarize it instead. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree - I chopped it from 4 paragraphs to 2. My vague recollection was using more quotes than normal because AlexVegaEsquire had a habit of "interpreting" any source in unique ways, so a straight quote was harder to argue with.  SnowFire (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * 1) Is this y’alls idea of community editing, letting one sorry  white man with a grudge edit the article and decide what gets in or out? That’s sad. Trump would do something like that. WillieHowardCO67 (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello MelanieN, we request that the rolling stone “no formal charges” line you recommended be reinserted - because it is consensus content removed by snowfire alone—be put back immediately. FTIIIOhfive (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The Rolling Stone correction to their Kevin Deutsch story
Once that correction’s VERBATIM language goes into first paragraph of the article, we will have peace on this page. Otherwise this goes on forever for supporters of the changes agreed on by consensus on this talk page. FTIIIOhfive (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

“Update: This story has been changed to clarify that Deutsch was never formally accused by any major news organization of fabricating sources.” FTIIIOhfive (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

It is considered LONG STANDING CONTENT per user:MelanieN and must be restored. FTIIIOhfive (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Is there objection to adding the following sentence (back) to the intro?
 * Deutsch was never formally accused by any major news organization of fabricating sources.


 * Not pinging any editors, but waiting to see if concerns are raised. It's normal to wait at least a couple of days to see if people respond. If there are no objections, I'll add it. —C.Fred (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I oppose including the line. It's a moving of goalposts.  The fact is that Deutsch was accused of fabricating sources, but he wasn't "formally" accused by "a major news organization".  That's a very narrow disclaimer.  Deutsch lost his freelancing jobs, had his articles modified post-publication, had disclaimers stuck on his articles after the fact, and had many figures acting as normal people accuse him of fabrication, yes, but the nature of the claim - proving a negative about articles that were written years ago - was such that who knows?  The big newspapers apparently didn't want to wade into that swamp.  Now, if the Wikipedia article hinted or "accused" Deutsch of being "formally accused", then yes, it'd be necessary to bring up, but the Wikipedia article doesn't do that - it describes what did happen, things like Deutsch being unable to provide proof that sources he wrote about existed when pressed by The New York Times and critics of Pill City.
 * Basically, the analogy I'd argue is that if a truck driver was pulled over for speeding on a highway at night, nearly caused an accident, and lost his license, and the police report said he seemed a bit tipsy at the time. The lede of that article shouldn't say "Mr. Hypothetical Truck Driver was never formally accused of drunk driving," barring significant backup in reliable sources (maybe the lack of a charge caused a scandal).  The Rolling Stone article has a lot of sentences, Deutsch's sockpuppets like to focus only on the sentences that portray Deutsch in the nicest possible light.  Why should this one minor note, that doesn't contradict the article at all, be so significant it should be in the lede, when many other lines from the Rolling Stone piece are not included?
 * Incidentally, since our sockpuppets hate this so, so very much, I might actually be willing to concede on your proposed line solely if they agreed, enforcably, to go away and never mess with the rest of the article again (like Harringhome1977 promised, above). It's rewarding harassment but might be good for everyone's sanity.  That said, per above comments, when attempting to do this before - to allow some level of pro-Deustch pap to pile up - it just never stopped and kept continuing.  So I'm not confident that our friends would be willing to take the offer. SnowFire (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it’s pretty clear this is no longer good faith opposition, it’s something far more than that, and so there’s no need to indulge this type of behavior. Not for a minute. The accuser here may be a man lacking in honor but his offer is accepted nonetheless. Fred, if you put the line in the first paragraph of this man’s article as proposed, we will stand down unless and until more sources/journalism comes out about the subject. And don’t go doing anything foolish to make us come back, neither. Otherwise, we are good. Bygones once it’s in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillieHowardCO67 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. More coverage though and it’s on. Otherwise, go live in peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FTIIIOhfive (talk • contribs) 23:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * "More coverage?" In the event Deutsch gets notable, reliably sourced coverage in the future, that's certainly fair game to include, but that could just as easily be positive for Deutsch as well as negative, so I'm not sure why that'd be a bad thing.  I'm happy with the current coverage of the "Questions about sources" section in the article if that's what you're asking.
 * You deleted the comment so I won't go into detail, but as a point of order, I was not the editor who removed those non-notable awards; That would be Unforgettableid. Happy to move on if you've decided it's not an issue.  SnowFire (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Include the “never”, as agreed, or no deal. Verbatim as proposed by Fred is the deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillieHowardCO67 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Verbatim, meaning you add the “any“ too. Exactly as it looks above. WillieHowardCO67 (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)You know what verbatim means, don’t you son?


 * What is this, editing by way of I'll shoot the hostage with further harassment demands? You got your wish, they're synonyms in this context, it's perfectly normal paraphrasing.  I'll leave further edits up to future editors, convince them if you must that "never" is better with your charming habit of calling people "son" and "boy", I won't stand in the way.  SnowFire (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Like we’ve been saying, you don’t have an ounce of honor in you. Let that hate out of your heart and you’ll feel a weight lifting. Fred, can you please implement the changes as agreed? Then we are done with this.WillieHowardCO67 (talk) 01:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

No deal without the Verbatim language as proposed. He did not honor the agreement. Predictably. That’s not how this works and we are not going away. WillieHowardCO67 (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

We need some help, admin. FTIIIOhfive (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

He reverted again. Imagine being that kind of person. FTIIIOhfive (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I reverted myself because of your comments here on the talk page, so why are you blaming me? You said you weren't happy with my addition to the lede, so of course I reverted.  Make up your mind.
 * I was hoping that you'd stop your endless harassment, something that's a basic courtesy that shouldn't even have to be requested, or for you to at least pretend to be collegial. Rather than simply register your disagreement politely and request your preferred version - which would have been fine, and maybe gotten results - instead you continued your campaign of harassment with further insults.  Apparently being willing to concede anything has caused you to conclude that only insults and harassment work.  Well, fine, I won't help then.  A reading suggestion for you: wikt:you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.  SnowFire (talk) 02:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Good morning, can you please put that line in the lead the way you did yesterday? That’s the right thing to do and we apologize if we violated any rules. We don’t want this strife. Thank you snowfire. Highflyingkitty (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Let’s just use the language you had proposed for now and we will be cool unless other sources come up. Lot of raw emotions on this side. Can’t control everybody sorry. But do that and we good. WillieHowardCO67 (talk) 03:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Just do it man. Let this be over. Otherwise we here long after you. LaneyJfromHoward (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Guy thinks he can work his way out of consensus language by smashing this page with his privilege. Not happening. Admins will do the right thing and you’ll be seeing us for next few years at least. FTIIIOhfive (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

You agreed to the language as proposed. Then you weaseled out of two words. Like some kind of lying Wikipedia lawyer. Who believes your bs other than you? FTIIIOhfive (talk) 02:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

You all STOP. Cease fire. The man is negotiating.WillieHowardCO67 (talk) 03:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 August 2020
Request that Rolling Stone correction (established language) be included as agreed upon in Kevin Deutsch article (see Talk page thread). It is a simple reversion to the last revision. Things got out of hand but we want to go about this the right way and be respectful. We will check in tomorrow. Thank you. 🙏🏽WillieHowardCO67 (talk) 04:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC) WillieHowardCO67 (talk) 04:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm marking this answered, but the issue is still in the air. It is indeterminate what to do yet b/c an "agreement" between meat or sock puppets isn't a consensus, so we're not going to go with your "consensus" and instead apply policy.--Jorm (talk) 05:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Just following up sir. Can that insert be made in lede? Highflyingkitty (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to mess your night up. Tough day for us too. No more fighting please WillieHowardCO67 (talk) 05:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Also please note the Talk page section where the user we disagreed with was advised to reinsert the Rolling Stone correction language by MelanieN, who called that language established for quite some time. That’s all I want to say. We trust you are fair and good people. Thank you and sorry to snowfire and to you all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillieHowardCO67 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Good morning, Hoping to resolve this today. Thank you sir.Highflyingkitty (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Bad faith request by a now blocked sock.--Jorm (talk) 15:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

The outcome
Here’s the ANI discussion: and the SPI investigation:  Result: five socks blocked: LaneyJfromHoward, FTIIIOhfive, Bronxolithic, WillieHowardCO67, and Bevkingcares. Hopefully this should restore calm to this article. -- MelanieN (talk) 08:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: Highflyingkitty also blocked as a sock. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

That’s the outcome of people acting foolishly but it’s not what we are doing the edit a thon for. We mean no disrespect but just want what’s fair and so the user snowfire should put the line in the lede. We are working for change not conflict. Please let’s work together. No disrespect.Highflyingkitty (talk) 13:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The requested edit is WP:UNDUE for the lede and smells like whitewashing.--Jorm (talk) 15:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 August 2020
Good morning. I am requesting the line most recently added to the Kevin Deutsch article be added to the lead, instead of the last section where it is now. It is all discussed in the talk section and ongoing dispute pages. I think it’s a just resolution based on your policies and I think snowfire, the user we have clashed with, will agree, as we have apologized for earlier disruption. We thank all of you for your time and patience with this matter.Highflyingkitty (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Highflyingkitty (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No. This is undue. It will not be re-instated.  As a note, bully tactics are never looked upon favorably and nearly always indicate that the requested edits are a bad idea.  You have lost this; it will not happen.  Go with whatever deity you follow.--Jorm (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

It’s not a bully tactic, it’s an edit a thon and the change was endorsed by administrator MelanieN. You are wrong and are using the same bully tactics you accuse us of. You’re saying no compromiseX isn’t this an encyclopedia? How does this man not get that line in his article? That’s crazy.15:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Highflyingkitty (talk)
 * You are going to have to show why that language needs due weight for the lede. It may have been what you call an "edit a thon" from your perspective; from our perspective it looks like the same two or three people cranking out grievance without understanding our policies. He doesn't get the line in his article because it doesn't really rise to the importance of the heavy inclusion that we look for. Other editors may disagree with me, but I am definitely not alone. Either way, you have all burned your allotment of "good faith" in this area.--Jorm (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. There has been a lot of discussion and consensus on this line’s inclusion. You are new to the discussion and are asserting some pretty heavy privilege. We request an independent editor to review this and I would ask you to facilitate that based on the ploblematic racial dynamic here. We want an editor of color to look at this. Is this A problem for you? We just want what’s fair and what MelanieN instructed snowfire to place back in the lead. So It’s not just us. I am trying to understand where you are coming from. Won’t you do the same for me? We are both people and want the same things: freedom of information and fairness and a good and an inclusive encyclopedia. That line was a correction to a major source in the story. It should obviously be in the lead. But don’t ask me ask Melanie. Can we work Together? Yesterday was wrong but two wrongs don’t make a right Jorm. Please let’s be civil.Highflyingkitty (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

You also have to understand, these are people’s lives not just policies in a Wikipedia book. There is a policy for every argument to be argued both ways on here, we all get that.Highflyingkitty (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "Consensus" created by puppets is not "consensus," and we are well aware of our policies, especially about living people. This is all I'm going to say about the matter; I've got other things to work on today.--Jorm (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Please get another editor, preferably a POC, to look at this Jorn. You are going against MelanieN’s recommendation the line be inserted in the lead. It was considered longstanding consensus language, according to her and others. You’re dismissing me because you are busy doesn’t change that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Highflyingkitty (talk • contribs) 16:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Correction

 * I keep being cited as having said the line should be in the lead. That is incorrect. That recommendation was not in any way intended as my opinion on the value of the material as content. I have no opinion on that. I was just pointing out that the line had been in the article for quite a while, so per usual Wikipedia process it needed consensus to be removed. If we eliminate all the sockpuppets (that includes Highflyingkitty), whose !votes don't count, there may well be consensus to leave it out of the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Article structure
- I prefer the older article structure. The issue is that the problems with Pill City rippled backward into Deutsch's work as a freelance journalist - they caused Deustch's earlier work to be reassessed as well, not merely Pill City itself. Having a "Career" section on his books and then a section on the scandal (which affected Deutsch as a whole) seems preferable to me. Additionally, per Jorm's comments before, unfortunately he really isn't best known for Pill City - you've sourced that to the Rolling Stone article, but the RS article says nothing of the sort that he's best known for Pill City. He's best known for being accused of fabrication. Finally, the bit about St. Martin's press defending Deutsch is sourced to the same Rolling Stone article, so should stay - it's not unsourced. SnowFire (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the reader is best served by introducing the context before the controversy. Encyclopedia articles are not structured like newspaper articles, in that we don't put the most sensational items first. That said, the entire lead needs to be reworked, the article needs a biographical section, and Pill City should probably be split out into its own article. I addressed what I consider to be the low-hanging fruit, but there's still more work to be done. – bradv  🍁  22:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd probably say the content in the lead is in the right order, as it's better to introduce the book then the controversy. However I'm not convinced he's best known for the book, probably the controversy about the book. So if we can reword best known for his book Pill City to just say he's the author or something that'd be better I think? FDW777 (talk) 22:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've restored the text about St. Martins Press defending him and attributed it to Rolling Stone. I share the doubts about him being best known for Pill City, which appears to be unsupported. -- Pemilligan (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm very late to this discussion, and I get the impression there might not be much appetite to modify this page any further. I did strongly agree with the idea here that the spat over Pill City in this page really overshadows the larger narrative about his career, though.
 * I remember first coming across Deutsch in my own work as a journalist before Pill City from his reporting on high-profile cases like the Boston marathon bombing and the Pulse Nightclub shooting. His name kept popping up with these miraculous scoops in which he turned up friends, associates, and close contacts of various criminals. It later turned out that more than a dozen of those seem totally fictional, which is why I recently added the line or two about Omar Mateen.
 * Over his career, Deutsch had a not-insignificant run covering major terrorism cases and many of the people he quoted for those could have been located by even a cursory check of public records. His work also had a real effect on the coverage of these events elsewhere. Even now, the Wikipedia page about Omar Mateen says he cheered when he heard about the attacks on 9/11, citing a Washington Post article that subsequently refers to Deutsch's reporting. The supposed person who provided that anecdote has never been found. The Post story re-reported it, only adding "the recollections of Mateen’s actions could not be independently verified."
 * In short, there's still questionable or most likely false information online that traces back to Deutsch's writing, and I think this page greatly understates that. I think there's a narrative here from David Simon et. al that all Deutsch's dubious sourcing came from essentially undocumented people living on the periphery of society who could be easily missed, like in Pill City, and I'm not sure that's true at.
 * I just wonder whether the career section should be more than just a few sentences listing his past employers followed by a huge history of how Pill City was exposed and the fallout from that controversy. I also think the main reason the page is structured this way is that it seems to have been originally created as another arm of Deutsch's PR effort to plug the book. All of Deutsch's main social handles and his website are dedicated to Pill City, and the original page was primarily a verbatim blurb about his book that was used in other publicity.
 * I'd be interested in building out the career section and trying to flag questionable facts on other pages that originated from Deutsch's reporting. CQthis (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Move
Howdy hello! I realize I probably should have WP:RM'd this move, but wasn't thinking I guess. I know this is a very bold change, but my main concern is thus: his article is overwhelmingly about the 2017 book and controversy. We have almost zero sources that talk about anything else. This is WP:BLP1E territory to me. He is notable only for the controversy, and thus instead of having a WP:COATRACK that does a disservice to the subject, I think we should instead have it be about what its really about: the book and the source controversy. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Per earlier discussion (see Pemilligan's comments just above as well), this is not the case. I'm not sure what to say, but read the voluminous sourcing about the investigations into Deutsch's other work as a freelance journalist.  The problem was not restricted to Pill City, but rather reflected on all of Deutsch's work.  This wasn't one book with sourcing problems, it was "this author has been accused of untrustworthiness in general".  I don't understand the claim of this being a coatrack, unless the term is stretched so much as to refer to any article; the article is about Deutsch's notability, and accurately reflects the thrust and content of the sources.
 * To pick one source at random, see the Washington Post article A journalist on the crime beat becomes the subject of some skeptical journalism. The first sentence is "Kevin Deutsch's professional life has become a hash of denials and self-justification, a running argument with his doubters."  The article goes on to discuss Deutsch, which includes Pill City, but Pill City is only ~3 paragraphs of a ~8-10 paragraph article.  The WaPo article tracks largely with the existing Wikipedia article, not one that would focus only on Pill City.
 * A coatrack article is where you go hunting for passing mentions out of context to construct an artificial article that no source would ever consider writing. That's not the case at all here; the Wikipedia article is reflecting exactly what the sources do and their focus.  Now, I do agree that Deutsch's notability almost entirely rests on the controversy as a whole, so I could maybe see an article titled "Kevin Deutsch journalistic misconduct allegations" with essentially no changes to content (note that coatrack is a content issue, not a titling issue), but that kind of strained formulation isn't necessary here - other journalists only notable for controversies are also titled as simple biographies, like Janet Cooke.  SnowFire (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree, the move was in error.--Pemilligan (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

COI Edit Request
On behalf of the article subject, who is unable to edit the Talk page, I am passing along his request for the following addition:


 * What I think should be changed: Please add to the career section the fact that I have worked as a staff writer at The Miami Times, an African American newspaper in Miami, Florida.


 * References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): Please see the following references in support of this request:



Geoff &#124; Who, me? 13:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ Spintendo  13:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)