Talk:Lucy DeCoutere

BLP note
A reminder to all editors that Wikipedia is not a forum for expressing editors' personal opinions about our article topics. It is up to the trial judge to decide whether DeCoutere's testimony is credible or not, and whether the "love letter" issue discredits her or not — Wikipedia is not a forum for you to make your own pronouncements on that one way or the other. Our article must comply with WP:BLP, and we are not at liberty to make our own presumptions about who's telling the truth and who's lying in a matter that is still before the courts.

This is not a matter of "protecting" DeCoutere or "attacking" Ghomeshi, either — I don't know either of them personally, I'm quite sure that none of the other editors who've removed the content from the article know either of them personally either — and none of us knows for sure what did or didn't happen, or why. It is the up to the trial judge to determine guilt or innocence; it is not up to Wikipedia to express our own judgements or opinions on the matter. Wait for the judge's ruling; Wikipedia is not a venue for anybody else's opinions, in either direction, in the meantime. Bearcat (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Non-neutral editing on page
has been selectively adding quotes and content that is designed to attack DeCoutere. Much of what has been added is irrelevant to the page and a clear example of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. Someone is going to have to clean up this page, it's in poor shape right now. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

While I appreciate 's concerns about potential WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, I disagree that content has been selectively added and designed to attack DeCoutere. There was a lack of information describing the high-profile court case that users will appreciate being included. Tamuren (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Most of it should just go in the R. v. Ghomeshi, 2016 ONCJ 155 article, this article is supposed to be a biography of DeCoutere, not about the case. — Strongjam (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think users will appreciate the blatantly false things you've been adding to this article, such as this line: "The court stated DeCoutere "... co-ordinated a covert network of women who have spent the last seven months sharing their assault stories with each other". No such line exists in the decision. It seems obvious to me you have some axe to grind with DeCoutere and are trying to add negative information about her here, as opposed to building an encyclopedia. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Page protection
I've added full protection for three days because of the reverting. I did that out of respect for the fact that this is a content dispute, rather than adding semi-protection to lock out, but the issue does seem to be SPAs or IPs arriving to add negative material.

The additions are correctly sourced, but there are other issues to consider, such as WP:DUE and WP:BLP, and whether the material belongs instead in the article about the trial, R. v. Ghomeshi, 2016 ONCJ 155. Those issues are best discussed carefully with experienced editors, rather than being the subject of an edit war. SarahSV (talk) 15:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)