Talk:Benjamin Radford

message: I have reverted a series of edits which added unsourced BLP content which appeared to be a commentary on the subject's work, as well as one source described as a phone conversation with an unknown second party who expressed opinions about the subject. We do not say things like "...[i]ndeed, common sense demonstrates the frank ludicrousness and frivolity of his approach" in Wikipedia's voice. Reliably sourced (per WP:RS) coverage of the subject's critical reception should be posted if given appropriate weight (per WP:UNDUE). Unsourced BLP content otherwise runs afoul of the WP:BLP policy. Nmillerche (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing Unsourced BLP content

message: Concerning allegations made by or about the subject concerning secondary parties, I think it's helpful to review Wikipedia policy on the matter, especially for any newer editors on this Talk page, as some have asked about this here.
Consulting WP:BLP (particularly WP:BLPCRIME), if there has been a conviction and the information is coming from a reliable source (reliable news coverage, court documents, etc), then that information should be included. Otherwise "editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." Additionally, if the references come from self-published sources (e.g. blogs or social media, see WP:BLPSPS), or simply refer to an accusation having been made, then its inclusion would run afoul of WP:BLP. 
Furthermore, if the subject has made allegations against another person, it would be inappropriate to include those without meeting the above criteria to avoid WP:BLP violations against the secondary person. The Talk page discussion should observe these policies as well. Again, see WP:RS for policies concerning reliable sources. Wikipedia is not meant to be a newspaper (WP:NOTNEWS), nor is it an investigative journal (WP:NOR). Nmillerche (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Many people have issues over the way Wikipedia is covering this. 80.249.52.108 (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly reasonable for people have concerns or questions about how Wikipedia handles biographical articles (see above regarding how Wikipedia handles allegations in Biographies of Living Persons, or BLPs). Do you have any suggestions or particular concerns about particular edits? Nmillerche (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Can I point out there's a major difference between "serious consideration to not including material" and "never include"? Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions about allegations

message: Pretending that nothing is going on is getting more difficult. It's enough evidence online to report it neutrally.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.20.118.185 (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, especially since it's being continued, a year later, by him: https://life.indiegogo.com/fundraisers/1401485 - Boss1000 (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh really? A indiegogo fundraiser isn't exactly a citation is it? It sounds like Boss1000 you seem to know quite a lot about this? Please enlighten us all about how exactly he is continuing "this". And anon person lets see a neutral example using the online sources you seem to have found. By all means lets get this page in shape.Sgerbic (talk) 00:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the reasoning behind the need for quality citations, and while I haven't edited WP in quite a long time, I know an IGG isn't a part of the standard. I don't have the citation to make this allowable to be included. I simply wanted to address the continuation of this saga of lawsuits in pursuit of harassment claims and note it for the record in case a verifiable source comes out of it. I felt a lot of hostility from you in this message that was a very discouraging welcome back to the site, especially from a leader of a group that's fighting a good fight on here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boss1000 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry for my tone Boss1000, it was intended to be a bit rude. I am frustrated with the desire of people who seem to want to make this into drama and forget that we are dealing with human beings. Your suggestion here that he was continuing this was what I was reacting to. If this becomes something that has good secondary citations, and needs to be on his and her pages, then it will happen. No one will be able to whitewash the page. I was also reacting to your past edit history, it seems that you have disappeared for quite some time only to appear on a talk page with this statement. You have done good work in the past, and as you well know there is good work that needs to be done here all over Wikipedia. I am trying to fight the good fight, I am combating those that believe that we should just look away when no evidence exists for what they believe, but because they believe it, it is so. I'm too busy fighting that fight, I should not have to fight people who should know better, we have to wait for evidence before rushing to judgement.  Let the facts (or as near to them as possible) get reported, when and if that happens then we can deal with it. But the IGG post was very premature. Words typed on a screen seem so much harsher than spoken, so I apologize for what might sound even harsher than I mean. I edit using my name, because I don't want people to think I'm hiding, and because I'm approachable and want to be as clear as possible. Let us hope that some day we will be able to share a drink at a skeptics gathering and you will introduce yourself to me and remind me of this conversation. And clear the air, life is too short and we are too busy to snipe at each other. I apologize.Sgerbic (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that Radford has settled out of court with Stollznow and his threats of defamation suits seem to be resolved, it seems like a good item to present a brief (neutral, obviously) summary of it. Are there editors opposed? Ashmoo (talk) 12:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

text: I guess as long as the information about the settlement is from a reliable source, I wouldn't object. 174.29.207.196 (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't the article include information about a 'case'? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Benjamin Radford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.gradworks.umi.com/1546959.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.smajournalonline.com/pt/re/smj/toc.00007611-200194020-00000.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131421043100/http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/157/lake_champlain_monster.html to http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/157/lake_champlain_monster.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110128225400/http://www.forteantimes.com/features/fbi/5044/hr_gigers_reel_alien.html to http://www.forteantimes.com/features/fbi/5044/hr_gigers_reel_alien.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified