User talk:Frederick Gore

August 2021
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Virginia Roberts Giuffre, you may be blocked from editing. Serols (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Virginia Roberts Guiffre. As far as I can see the only difference between the version you reverted to and the previous version is that it included some bad URL links. You appear to be engaged in edit warring (see WP:EDITWAR) I suggest that you discuss any changes on the talk page before making them. I also suggest you read WP:BLP. PatGallacher (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC)


 * This clearly is not true given that these now include the original court documents including her statements which were repeated by courthousenews. You are clearly biased against Prince Andrew and have no business removing these primary sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederick Gore (talk • contribs) 08:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources are needed rather than publicly available court documents. It is important to note the distinction between them as they are not the same thing. Courthouse News may be the webhost for some publicly availlable court documents but that is entirely different than a published news article by Courthouse News that covers the events. A news aricle written by a specific reporter is a useable secondary source whereas the raw court documents are a primary source and should be avoided by editors as this would be WP:OR. The article on Giuffre is sourced to many secondary sources such as the Miami Herrald, ABC News, etc where the publisher may refer to court documents but it is not sourced directly from raw court documents sans analysis. See WP:PSTS for how Wikipedia classifies sources as primary, secondary, tertiarty. Cedar777 (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)


 * So you are claiming that Wikipedia views court documents with sworn statements as less reliable than press reports which have a tendency to be biased in one way or another. The policy on primary sources obviously cannot really be said to apply to the courts and to sworn statements. As the policy on the page you linked to states "Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages"It also states "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Her statement fits into this category — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederick Gore (talk • contribs) 11:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Frederick, I was going to block you for 24 hours as you went on past the last warning above but ... I saw this discussion and instead decided it would be more productive to weigh in myself on this issue since I know something about it. You are correct, I feel, in seeing the disconnect between preferring news media accounts of court documents and legal proceedings over those documents themselves as sources ... but only on the surface. Per WP:BLPPRIMARY, not all court documents are equally reliable. Depositions and trial testimony ... well, they are as you say sworn, but does that keep people from lying under oath? Or ensure that their recollections, as accurate as they believe them to be, are in fact accurate? No. They are acceptable sources for the "X says that Y ..." type of fact, but not for "Y is ..." Final court decisions, of course, are closer to secondary sources and more acceptable. Daniel Case (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, well I am blocked and there was no reason to block me and moreover it is known there is no reason to block me. The only reason can be is that there is a clear and deliberate bias against and wish to slander Prince Andrew and for reasons I will not go into here but for which there is proof, much but not all of this occurs at the behest of the foreign office in London in conjunction with their US counterparts. 1) There is an attempt (since corrected, thanks) to delete perfectly acceptable sources in relation to this case and for this I receive a warning (the Mail on Sunday addition was in fact an error on my part).  2) It is obvious that a recorded statement in a court document is not going to be inaccurate and, as you yourself state, court documents are acceptable sources for the "X says that Y ..." type of fact" and that is what the document was.

.... I have provided just a small amount of evidence but it is perhaps worth remembering and this isn't aimed at editors here, I am documenting all of this. Frederick Gore (talk) 09:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No court documents are not acceptable to be used as the sole source for anything about living persons per WP:BLPPRIMARY. If the details of these court documents were not covered in reliable secondary sources, then they irrelevant to us. Clearly no one gives a fuck about them so nor do we. A lot of the other stuff seems to be WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If you have a problem with what some government has done or not done, take it up with that government. It's of zero concern to us. If you want to make silly arguments about how someone not saying something in 2011 proves they are lying in 2013, take that to a forum. If sufficient secondary sources found it a compelling argument we could potentially mention, but you've provided no such sources and frankly it's very unlikely since it's a silly argument since people do that all the time. P.S. While Daniel Case means well, they're mistaken about final court decisions. From my experience at BLPN, these are (rightfull IMO) still treated as primary sources and rejected if they are the sole source for any information on a living person. Again if no reliable secondary source thought these details were important enough to cover, we don't either. The only case where we may make an exception would be when we cover an earlier result e.g. someone being found guilty based on reliable secondary sources but are unable to find any which cover a lot result which changed the first result e.g. the verdict being over turned. In that case we may be forced to WP:IAR and accept the court documents as the sole source. Nil Einne (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment, or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button OOjs UI icon signature-ltr.svg located above the edit window.

Thank you. PatGallacher (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I am afraid that I have deleted some material because it raises serious BLP and legal issues, and I am about to raise this with the Oversight Committee. PatGallacher (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)