Talk:Meredith Russo

Regarding my edits
I have locked the page due to edit warring on both sides.

After protecting the page, I saw some accusations that, per WP:BLP, require strong sources. This blog does not qualify as a strong source. We need mainstream, professionally-published academic or journalistic sources, not a partisan blog. Removing those claims under WP:BLP was a "straightforward case" carried out "purely in an administrative role" and not getting involved. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Article needs sources
Taking a quick glance at the article, I almost reached for Twinkle's XFD button because of the lack of sources.

The only independent source cited is this Times Free Press piece. To verify that the article meets WP:GNG, I decided to check for sources. Ignoring book reviews, I found this interview with Study Breaks and this article from The Washington Post. So, the subject does meet GNG but this article should really just summarize sources.

I am not adding them, however, because I was the one who protected the page due to a content dispute. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the Post Millennial article
I move to allow the Post Millenial article as a citation for Russo's personal life. Looking at the talk history, it looks like this page has already been subject to an edit war in the past regarding these same claims of abuse, although it was previously sourced from a blog. Although the Post Millenial is not explicitly verified under WP:RS, I don't understand that it is explicitly banned either, and uniformly dismissing a well-sourced article filled with public documentation seems unnecessary and in bad faith. It's been covered in a widely read online magazine, and it's noteworthy and relevant to her public image when it's a subject of widespread online discussion.

I would like to read and discuss others' opinions on this. Ampersandbrown (talk) 05:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * BLPs require high-level sourcing. My initial reaction is that this source does not meet that standard; the entire site reads like tabloid journalism to me. I've left a note at the BLPN to solicit additional opinions. Aoi (青い) (talk) 05:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm the spouse of one of the parties and can attest to the validity of all of the documents contained in the article.
 * Also, this article was reviewed heavily by a legal team prior to its going live because of the seriousness of the allegations.
 * While TPM could be considered a tabloid site by some, there's also legitimate journalism taking place there. The writer of this article, Anna Slatz, is a freelancer who has in the past helped expose predators in the LGBT community. Again, while TPM may be considered a tabloid source, these stories are legitimate and necessary and it's unfortunate that only a page such as theirs is willing to take the risk of running them. Triscious (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The Post Millennial lacks the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that we require for controversial or negative claims about living persons, especially if it's the only source making those claims. There should be multiple, high-quality sources before we even think about including this. Woodroar (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Triscious (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * A couple things here: 1. Wikipedia doesn't adjudicate disputes. We're an encyclopedia and we base our articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (WP:V), weighted in proportion to those sources (WP:NPOV), and we're extra careful with claims about living persons (WP:BLP). So we're here to summarize what reliable sources say, that's all. 2. How we summarize depends on what those sources say, what kind of sources they are, and how many of them there are. If only one, poor-quality source repeats a controversial claim about a living person, then we're not going to cover it. If many reliable sources publish that claim, on the other hand, then we will. It all entirely depends on the sources. Woodroar (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Got it. Triscious (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

There's an actual arrest record. There are transcripts.

because you don't like which publication was willing to expose the perpetrator. Triscious (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, got it. Let all the world proclaim: if it's not in a Wikipedia article, it never happened. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

If the story is that prominent then why are you rejecting it? Triscious (talk) 02:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We're not the ones claiming it's prominent, you are. We're not "silencing" anyone.  Have we taken out a restraining order? No. Nothing stops anyone involved from tweeting, from talking to other media, from going on programs from Rachel Maddow to InfoWars, from creating your own website, or from using any one of dozens of other forms of communications.  This privately-owned website has no obligation to publish anyone's accusations. And let's be clear here, that's all they legally are.  Arrest records are not convictions. The editors here have been attempting to explain the policies this website has set up. Try reading the links  gave you above. If you want to continue to ignore them and argue that the truth has to be presented on this page, it will fall on deaf ears.   Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Eggishorn and Woodroar are correct. When it comes to biographies of living people Wikipedia is required to err on the side of extreme caution. There's nothing that anyone reading this talk page can really do about that, its a rule that we have to obey when editing Wikipedia.


 * Basically, yes, rapists and domestic abusers need mainstream media coverage in order for it to be included in Wikipedia. We're not denying anything. We just can't repeat it until its picked up by high quality sources. We don't break stories. I appreciate that's not what you were looking to hear and for what its worth I'm sorry about that.


 * Please do not bite the newcomers. --RaiderAspect (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , you are correct and I apologize to and everyone else for my first inappropriately sarcastic post in this section.  It was not what is expected of experienced editors. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Buzzfeed News versus The Post Millennial
As a point of reference or information, I see that Buzzfeed News is used as a source for a section on Tony Robbins (2019 sexual harassment and abuse allegations), but wonder why Wikipedia rejects The Post Millennial (TPM) as one for a similar section on Russo.

Particularly as Media-Bias/Fact-Check gives something of a higher rating for the latter than for the former.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/buzzfeed/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-post-millennial/

Certainly Robbins is more in the limelight than is Russo. And there does seem to be more *allegations* against Robbins than against Russo.

But still raises a question or two on the criteria Wikipedia editors should be using to assess "verifiable sources".

TillermanJimW (talk) 02:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * BuzzFeed (buzzfeed.com) is inconsistent, absolutely. Anybody can create an account, write a listicle, and go viral with little or no editorial oversight. BuzzFeed News (buzzfeednews.com), on the other hand, has an editorial process, fact checkers, and they've won a variety of journalism awards. In Wikipedia terms, they have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". BuzzFeed publishes BuzzFeed News but the news site operates independently, which is why there are two entries at Reliable sources/Perennial sources. The fact that Media Bias/Fact Check lumps the two sources together is pretty bad, actually. We even mention in their article that the Columbia Journalism Review—one of the most reputable publications about journalism—doesn't think very highly of Media Bias/Fact Check. Woodroar (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)