User talk:Hope1275

November 2012
Hello, I'm GoShow. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Red states and blue states because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.  GoShow (............................)   16:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Michael W. Fitzgerald edits
I'm a newbie, and I'm really hoping someone can help me here because I have no idea why what I'm doing is wrong, or what is going on. I don't even know what Talk page to bring this to because I've been unable to get any help or clarification either by posting the issue on what looked like a "submit your questions here if you need help" Wiki user page, or by posting this on the user's talk page (the only response was to remove a part of my comments.) This is incredibly frustrating, because if I don't know what I'm doing wrong, I can't stop doing it. So, I'm just going to put it all out there, warts and all, hoping to learn a thing or two.

Basically, my attempts to add comments under Fitzgerald's career section re: a controversial ruling of his that made national news keep being removed. Undo comments have included "quote is misleading, it's really an article quote not a legal team quote".... "not neutrally worded"..."sources don't fit our definition of reliable sources, and the claimed Washington Post source links to MSN, take this to the talk page" Yet, a) the sources I included are legitimate and reputable, b) the statements are true, fact-based and sourced, and c) this is directly related to his career as a judge, so I'm not sure why it should be considered inappropriate. Since I've seen things added to Wikipedia with no sources whatsoever, the sourcing issue is very confusing to me.

1) I can't find what I had written originally, but it is my understanding that referring to a journalist's reporting of the interview with/observed press conference/public statement from the attorneys directly involved in the case is appropriate. While the defendant's legal team chose not to comment publicly, the plaintiff's did. That is a fact which I specifically noted in the original edit, and is neither a biased opinion of mine nor a deliberate choice to leave out of the defendant's side of the story, so I'm unclear as to how presenting that factual reality is somehow misleading.

Could someone please explain (if possible) what I did wrong here, and what would have been acceptable for me to do instead?

2) I removed that section referring to the attorneys' statements, but the same user still undid the change I made saying that the following language was "not neutral" (comment did not specify which part s/he thought was biased/not neutral):

"On September 20, 2016, he made national headlines with his controversial ruling that a rape victim would be required to publicly reveal her identity in a high profile case involving NBA basketball player Derrick Rose. [9] [10] The ruling was controversial because pseudonyms are often given to alleged rape and assault victims in order to help avoid re-victimizing them, especially in cases where the accused has a high public profile. [11] [12]"

Where and how is that language not neutral?

If someone believed that it was "not neutral", why delete the entire section altogether instead of editing it to make it neutral? Is that a common practice?

(In case the "non-neutral" issue is the phrase "rape victim", check this out, then replace rape with any other crime and see how many results you get. Accuser is actually not a neutral term as it's used almost exclusively to describe victims of rape, while victims of other crimes are called victims, not accusers.) https://www.bing.com/search?q=%22rape+accuser%22+-accuse+-accuses+-accused+-accusing&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&pq=%22rape+accuser%22&sc=0-14&sk=&cvid=3C515CC93D434E608BCFB4736906F1E3 (Or check this out:) http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/02/07/georgia.rape.law/index.html

3) After I added a sports lawyer's article as a source (in response to the comment that indicated to me that I needed a legal source rather than a news source for legal isssues,) the entire section was again removed - this time by a different user - with this comment: "sources don't fit our definition of reliable sources, and the claimed Washington Post source links to MSN, take this to the talk page"

If you go to the MSN page you will see that it's a Washington Post article MSN posted to their sports section in its entirety. (This is the link in question: http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nba/gang-rape-accuser-of-nba%E2%80%99s-derrick-rose-must-reveal-her-name-at-upcoming-civil-trial-judge-rules/ar-BBwqDaK?OCID=ansmsnnews11)

Obviously it would be preferable to include the link directly to the Washington Post article (though the WP will block further articles if you view too many and don't subscribe to them, which MSN does not do as far as I know), but in what way was this not a reliable source?

4) How is an attorney writing a legal opinion on a legal issue regarding the reason said legal issue was considered newsworthy and controversial not a reliable source?

The attorney in question is Dan Werly, a sports lawyer and editor-in-chief of TheWhiteBronco.com, a sports law website. "Dan has been quoted as a sports law expert in numerous media publications, including USA Today, Bleacher Report, MSNBC, and NBC, among others. During law school at Georgetown University, Dan interned for a NBA Agent, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and a D.C. Superior Court Judge."

The other attorney (in my proposed edit below) is Julie DiCaro, a columnist for CBSChicago.com. Per their site, she studied journalism at Indiana University, then earned her JD at DePaul’s College of Law. After 15 years working in criminal and family courts she she became a sports writer.

According to WP:NEWSORG, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author." Also in the guideline: "The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint"

Would reference to or quotes from their articles be against these or some other guidelines? Would I only be able to quote the attorneys directly involved in a case on any legal issue?

5) This is what I would like to post, but because I've been able to get any constructive feedback or any help with this issue, I have no idea what may make someone remove the section again. So.... if I do try again, I'd like feedback on this, if someone wouldn't mind:

''On September 20, 2016, he made national headlines with his controversial ruling that a rape victim would be required to publicly reveal her identity in a high profile case involving NBA basketball player Derrick Rose.

According to Julie DiCaro, attorney and journalist with CBS Chicago: "In the case at hand, the judge believed that allowing Doe to proceed anonymously could give the jury the idea that the court gives more credibility to her claims than to Rose’s defense, which is a valid and fair concern. Certainly, Rose is entitled to a fair trial, and that includes not allowing the jury to make false inferences about either side. However, the concern about jury assumptions could likely by cured with a proper jury instruction, telling the jury not to draw any conclusions from Doe’s anonymity. Certainly, public policy seems to demand that plaintiffs in sexual assault cases be afforded some protection by the courts, particularly in cases with a high-profile defendant."

As for the potential impact of this ruling, Dan Werly, an attorney and sports law expert, said that "[i]f the judge rules that she cannot remain anonymous at trial, Doe’s settlement negotiation position will significantly weaken. In that scenario, her identity would not be revealed until trial, giving her a 7-10 day window to settle the case or have her identity appear on the front page of every tabloid."

DiCaro pointed to another legal implication of the ruling: "Watching accusers endure a public assault prevents other women coming forward in cases of sexual assault." ''

6) Finally, I understand why his sexual orientation would be noteworthy relevant to the history of the role of federal judge. What I don't understand is why that would be noteworthy, but not his national news-making ruling made while in that role. Am I missing something?

Thank you! Hope1275 (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking for help! This appears to be a content dispute and I really can't help you with this here. What you must do is take it to the article talk page and ping the editors who u did your edits. Ask them what's wrong. If you don't receive a reply say within two weeks, do the edit again and if it's reverted again, you can ask the editor to discuss it on the talk page. See WP:DISCFAIL which provides for the situation when no editor responds to your request. Thanks! Yashovardhan (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)