Talk:Model Mugging

message: Potential conflict of interest alert:  I did not create the article found here, but I have begun to add material to it.  However, I am a director and board secretary of Impact Bay Area, an organization that teaches
model mugging.  I hope to add to and clarify the usage of the
terms "model mugging" and "Impact", provide neutral descrpitons of the terms and techniques
embodied in "model mugging", and am also researching the history of model mugging and hope
to include more information on same.  It is not my intent to advertise my organization in
particular, but I also realize that, like anyone involved in model mugging, I bring a potential
bias to my thinking about the subject.  Because I recognize the ptotential for a conflict of
interest there, I welcome and encourage any appropriate criticism to my contributions.
Joe Decker 13:17, 11 Mar 2005    (Update:  While I no longer work at Impact, I still believe that the conflict-of-interest notice is worth keeping up.  --Joe Decker (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Potential conflict of interest alert

message: Permission has been given to post history info from
http://www.impactbayarea.org/impact.php?About/history3.html
given by Joe Decker, Secretary and Board of Director, Impact Bay Area in email of Friday, March 11, 2005 1:27 PM Petersam 04:43, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Permission to post copyright material given

message: *Generally wikipedia does not like external links within the article so I converted it to the prefered inline citations.  
*If the site is in the references it should not be under the external links (so I removed the Bay area site).
*External Links should be one or two that add to the overall article.  I would suggest trimming to perhaps one that gives a list of all locations.  Maybe even getting rid of the section entirely and including a statement where the program has spread to with an appropriate citation.
*It is not enough to say you have permission - there is a complicated proceedure to go through and until then it is a copyright violation.  I would just rewrite that small paragraph (in your own words).  The reference takes you to the original in any case.
Hope this helps.Peter Rehse 05:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fixes and Suggestions

message: It looks like very much of this article (at least the beginning) is very much a copy of the material found at http://www.modelmugging.org/evolution.htm (and cited in the first reference).
Have the proper procedures been followed to get the permission of the copyright holder?  (I mean, afaik, such permission is required in addition to citing the source.)
Rhkramer (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright Violation? 

message: The Matt Thomas in Wikipedia is not the Matt Thomas of Model Mugging, so I've removed the internal link in the article.  Does anyone know enough about the relevant Matt Thomas to start an article? 75.15.158.143 (talk) 12:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which Matt Thomas? 

message: Why is this marked speedy delete?  The earlier discussion this month was to keep, not delete.  Petersam (talk) 03:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Origin section was taken from http://www.modelmugging.org/evolution.htm. That section has been removed due to copyright issues.  Original History section of 2 Feb 08 has been returned. Petersam (talk) 04:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedy Delete

message: I think in the past few years a lot more resources have become available via Google Books, etc., I've added some additional citations.  I have no doubt that in some sense I've overly-referenced the article, but there's enough material through the links to support potential future expansion of this article, so I think it's a good groundwork.  Despite having left my involvement with a Model Mugging chapter some years back, I still suspect I'm not the right person to actually take on that expansion, but I figure adding a few refs can't hurt.  Have a great day. --j⚛e deckertalk 04:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added refs 

message: The IP repeatedly removing the material was partially right, in a sense. The "allegations of sexual misconduct" part of the source is an accusation by a person in the first part of the article, while the creation of separate programs is mentioned in the second part, but as a result of "swagger" in the Model mugging program and whatnot. So there's no problem adding that to the article with the same citation, as long as we say what the source says. Also, going back to the (serious) allegations, I would omit them from the article given they are direct accusations from one person to the founder of the program and are not particularly central to the story. Unless we get some supporting sources, that's just hearsay reported by a single source. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies 

message: There is no encyclopedic value in listing a "publicity" section per WP:NOTADVERTISING.  The relevant info will be rolled into a "academic research" but we don't need to just randomly list a bunch of different magazines that mention "Model Mugging".  Notability has already been established so there is zero value add.  Nefariousski (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Recently,  has reintroduced the section several times without discussion. He's also gotten rid of the controversy section and placed that information within Publicity, now with a largely positive tone that characterizes those who have criticized the subject in a negative light. I've placed a POV tag while this is resolved. I encourage Wikiipedia-posting to discuss these changes instead of continuously reverting. ~ RobTalk 18:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  changing publicity to academic research 

message: This has the appearance of whitewashing contentious material.  Material that isn't complimentary is perfectly proper if it is cited which this was.  Wikipedia is not here to advertise any entity but to provide information - the subjects own website has that advert function.  There is some duplication between the publicity section and controversy and there should be a better heading than Publicity which does suggest advertising.  I suggest History.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As an FYI, the person removing this section has a claimed COI with this topic. They work for or are otherwise affiliated with the organization:  ~ RobTalk 20:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That is also pretty clear from the persistent single purpose editing and some of the edit summary comments but lets see if they can understand the thinking behind wikipedia.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:    There is no undue weight in the allegations - a reasonable person would read the allegation in historical context.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

text: I've re-added the content you removed. A featured article in a major publication accusing the organization of wrongdoing is worth a mention. Wikipedia reports historical information, not just what has happened right now. I have, however, kept it under the history heading to avoid using the title of controversy, as that was a valid concern. Please note that this change would have occurred much earlier if you had discussed your issues with the article on the talk page from the start instead of reverting without discussion. So far, three experienced editors have supported the coverage of this content in the article, and only one editor (you) with a claimed affiliation with this organization has opposed it. There is consensus at this time to keep the information in the article. Please do not act against this consensus without further discussion. Again, I urge you to review WP:COI as well as WP:CONSENSUS, WP:OWN, and WP:V for important information on how Wikipedia works. In particular, the subject of the article does not dictate what may be contained in it. We merely repeat what is covered in reliable sources, both positive and negative. ~ RobTalk 00:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately your professional / personal experience with Peri or the organization can't be used to justify the inclusion or exclusion of valid source material and being that you are in some way affiliated with the subject of the article and are evidently the only editor trying to downplay or remove or narrate away any negativity is... problematic.  The Peri article clearly meets criteria for use as a source and nothing in the page is hyperbolic or says more than the actual source material itself.  Nefariousski (talk) 15:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Change of inaccurate material

message: The source article doesn't only have one accusation, it names multiple accusers Peri, Sacco, Carlson with Matt Thomas himself being quoted in article as confirming some of the events did in fact happen although he felt that the actions were misinterpreted.  The article is very clear in its statements, there is nothing hyperbolic about what is being said in the article that isn't clearly sourced.  You can't just water down or disregard valid source material because you don't like what it has to say or we find it questionable.  It's a single source and as such only has two short sentences attributable to it.  There's certainly no undue weight given to the source and there are again no hyperbolic phrases or wording insinuating these allegations are anything more than allegations.  However, These are first hand accounts reported on in a nationally recognized source.  Whether they are true or false is not being determined in this article hence why we liberally use the word "accusation".  Much of the article specifically recounts these three women's experiences directly with Matt Thomas.  If anyone has a rebuttal to these accusations published in any source that's admissible on Wikipedia I'll be the very first editor to edit the article to show to include that information in the article.  Nefariousski (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: We dont care that you claim inaccuracy. You need to provide reliable sources that support such a claim. see WP:V and WP:OR.  -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy Failure of MJ Article