Talk:R v Elliott/Archive 1

Editorial source
Question regarding citations for Wikipedia. Is using a Commentary/Editorial page with regards to an event considered a poor reference? This page uses a Christie Blatchford article, which was posted in the National Post as a commentary/editorial. It is clearly written as such (not that there is anything wrong with opinion/editorial articles). Isn't there better articles out there that don't inject their own personal opinion into the event? As well, the entire article on this wikipedia is incorrectly titled. In Canada, Criminal Cases which are charges brought before the court from the Crown (kind of like the DA in the USA), aren't titled with the name of the accuser. The name of the court case should actually be "R. v. Elliot", not "Guthrie v. Elliot" which implies a civil court case. Nothing-Significant-to-Report (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Editorials can present facts in support of opinions; those facts are under the same requirements to avoid libel as any newspaper content. Whether something is fact or opinion has to be judged at the granularity of a claim. In this case, the source in question is used for the opinion, cited as an opinion, that the case has implications for free speech. Opinions are also part of the points of view which there is a duty to cover under NPOV policy, and this one is multiply attested by different articles and publishers. If there is a reliable source for the name of the case, that would be beneficial. Rhoark (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with this analysis here in the reply comment, that the source used for the opinion that the case has significant implications for freedom of speech in Canada, is appropriate within this context for use. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Edits in lede
There's been an editor warring to insert "falsely accused" in the lede of the article, but that phrasing is POV-loaded and not supported by any of the sources. A few editors (including myself) have changed "falsely accused" to "accused", and it has just been changed to "charged with" which I agree is better and neutral, and follows sourced info in the body of the article. I noticed someone also changed "several women" to "two women" so I want to open the question about that edit. Elliott was charged with harassing three women originally but one of the charges was dropped. Is it appropriate to say "charged with ... accusing two women" then, or should it be three, or something else? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with the "charged with" language and think it's appropriate to say two, as those are the charges that carried through. If the defendant here were independently notable, it might be worth going in to the background, but he's not.  As such, I think the final disposition of the trial is what should control.  Then again, my allegiance is to western Canada, so my bias is overwhelming.  Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I made the edit from several to two. I based it on a CBC article that I added at the same time, but now I'm questioning if maybe "several" is better. I've self-reverted that change for now. — Strongjam (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Tangential question: at this point, can we all agree that the edit warring in the lead is vandalism and we can roll it back as such? I try very hard to obey the dictates of 3RR, but we have here a dedicated non-discusser apparently.  Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think these particular edits are vandalism per se, but I would continue to revert under the 3RR exemption enabled by WP:BLPREMOVE if SPAs and socks continue to target this article. (See also WP:3RRNO Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Vandalism per quod it is, then! (Yours is a better rationale). Dumuzid (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree here that in this particular circumstance it would be best to be as specific with the wording as possible, so as to avoid potential for things to be misconstrued by the readers and subsequent editors. Therefore, "two" and "charged with" sound best, per consensus of other editors, as discussed, above. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 13:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Linked in
I would argue that LinkedIn is a valid source considering it is Stephanie Guthrie's own material. Regardless, her formation of a political group composed of active Toronto politicians is relevant, particularly given the allegations of a conspiracy reaching the prosecutor's office. The website of this organization IS a valid source vis-a-vis its existence and it's mission statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.157.123 (talk) 10:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a primary source. The formation of the group is only relevant if covered in secondary sources. As for the conspiracy allegations, those only seem to be covered in one opinion piece, and not given an credence by any other secondary sources. It would be undue to cover it in such detail, and great care would have to be taken as it involves claims of a conspiracy involving living people. — Strongjam (talk) 10:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree here that for this type of article best to be as high quality as possible as we can with the sources and stick in the utmost wherever possible to secondary sources. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 13:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

PC reviewing question - 18 February 2016
I see that you accepted two edits by an IP here which I just partially reverted for adding unsourced BLP info. I reverted before I noticed you approved, so I thought I should ask. While both women's names appear in the sources, I don't see where it's indicated that they're affiliated with Guthrie's organization or the Toronto Police in any way, so I removed those parts. Did you review the sources and find something different? If so, feel free to revert me. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi - thanks for catching this, I assumed the edit was mostly restructuring the paragraph, saw that there was a source attached to the new information, and to be honest, probably flew a little bit too quickly on this one - my bad - looking at the source now, there's no mention of the information so a definite BLP violation that I missed for some reason - thanks again for seeing this  Olly say hi 15:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree here with analysis by Ivanvector, above, best practice with this sort of type of topic involving controversy is to make sure every single fact and every single sentence is backed up to secondary sources, and if there is a question that information is not, remove it pending further discussion of the secondary sources on the talk page. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 13:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Ben[d[a|i]lin] Spurr
What is this person's actual name? We have "Bendalin" in the article, which seems to be wrong either way. His Twitter handle is (was?) "Bendilin", but it appears that his real name is just "Ben". In the court records and various sources he's called "Bendilin Spurr". Which should we use? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request 23 March 2016 (1)
Under the subheading "Trial", please change:

On March 4, 2016, Judge Knazan amended his original ruling which claimed Elliott’s tweets were "obscene and homophobic in at least two instances" were actually made by an account impersonating him. The judge issued a correction saying "Mr. Elliott never wrote homophobic tweets, used homophobic language or was homophobic." and stated the fake account could be considered the criminal offense of "impersonation with intent to cause mischief."

to:

On March 4, 2016, Judge Knazan amended his original ruling which claimed Elliott’s tweets were "obscene and homophobic in at least two instances" when it was discovered that the tweets were actually made by an account impersonating Elliott. The judge issued a correction saying "Mr. Elliott never wrote homophobic tweets, used homophobic language or was homophobic." He further stated that the fake account could be considered the criminal offense of "impersonation with intent to cause mischief."

This should be an uncontroversial copyedit. The references are list-defined in the article and I'm not sure how to repopulate them on a talk page. Note that this could also be a COI edit request but I can't use both templates. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅. Although page no longer protected. Strongjam (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request 23 March 2016 (2)
In the lede, please change:

Charges involving one of the women were dropped before trial. On January 22, 2016, Ontario Court of Justice judge Brent Knazan dismissed the remaining charges of criminal harassment. Elliott soon returned to Twitter after having been restricted from using the Internet as a bail condition.

to:

Charges involving one of the women were dropped before trial. On January 22, 2016, Ontario Court of Justice judge Brent Knazan dismissed the remaining charges of criminal harassment. Elliott soon returned to Twitter after having been restricted from using the Internet as a bail condition.

--

The "metronewsHadARight" source does not back up the sentence that it cites and should not be used here. I am of the opinion that material in a lede does not need to be referenced when it is properly cited within the article body (and this statement is) but if leaving the sentence unreferenced is considered controversial, then the reference can instead be replaced by the "metroBail" source. As in the request above, this could be a COI request but I can't do both, and ditto with the list-defined references. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've removed it as it fails verification. The metroBail ref doesn't say anything about returning to Twitter. No objection if someone can find the ref that supports that and wants to re-add it. — Strongjam (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * metroBail contains "", and sourcing the fact that bail conditions are lifted when a trial concludes is calling the sky blue, I think. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more whether he returned to Twitter. I think it's obvious that he may, I'm not sure if we have sourcing that he did (he may have, I haven't checked. Not a twitter user myself.) I don't think it's really important for the lead anyway. — Strongjam (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well yeah, if reliable sources aren't bothering to mention that he returned to Twitter then it's probably not important. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request 23 March 2016 (3)
Under the subheading "Background", please change:

Stephanie Guthrie, a Toronto-based feminist activist, was among those who objected to Spurr's game, and contacted news organizations and potential employers of Spurr in his hometown. Gregory Alan Elliott, a Toronto artist, criticized Guthrie's actions as "every bit as vicious as the face-punch game". In response, Guthrie and others blocked him on Twitter, and reported his account to Twitter, who found he wasn't violating their terms of service. Elliott continued tweeting criticism to their accounts and commenting on their online and offline activities. An investigating officer later found that none of Elliott's messages threatened harm against any of the women.

to:

Stephanie Guthrie, a Toronto-based feminist activist, was among those who objected to Spurr's game, and contacted news organizations and potential employers in Spurr's hometown. Gregory Alan Elliott, a Toronto artist, criticized Guthrie's actions as "every bit as vicious as the face-punch game". In response, Guthrie and others blocked him on Twitter and reported his account to the site's operators, who found he wasn't violating their terms of service. Elliott continued tweeting criticism to their accounts and commenting on their online and offline activities. An investigating officer later found that none of Elliott's messages threatened harm against any of the women.

Should be uncontroversial: copyedit to an awkward sentence which mentioned Twitter by name twice. As above, could be COI, list-defined refs, yadda yadda yadda. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. Agree it reads better. — Strongjam (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Remove COI and POV tags?
Leaving them intact can mislead a reader into believing that someone is connected to involved parties of the subject, which can be nonexistent. Right? --George Ho (talk) 04:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: I've had a look at the COI noticeboard thread, and while it is clear that there is some sort of social-media relationship between Ivanvector and some of the parties in the case, it is a lot less clear whether this meets the level required by the COI policy, and I really don't think it warrants a big banner across the top of the article. On the other hand, it seems there are still neutrality issues being discussed that have some basis in Wikipedia policies, so I have left the POV tag in the article for now. If a consensus is found, or if discussion fizzles out, it can be removed. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 13:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)