Talk:Charles Haywood

Libel and Personal Bias

It's clear that User Zenomonoz has a personal bias against the subject of the article. Not only does he use tendentious, libelous opinion to describe the subject in the first sentence, his exclusive source is a tabloid journal with a single stringer author who is an Antifa member. Moreover, it is my understanding that the subject of the article has filed multiple lawsuits against both the tabloid and the author of the articles about him.

Zenomonoz's version violated WP's policies regarding biographies of living persons in multiple ways.

In any case, it's very obvious that all my additions are appropriate. If other users want to add to those, using other sources, that might make sense. Vandal reversion such as Zenomonoz is engaging is seems unwise (and likely to get him, and Wikipedia, added to the lawsuits). Zardoz0893 (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Zardoz0893, you're really threatening me and Wikipedia with a lawsuit? Zenomonoz (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Your most recent edit seems like a clear attempt at WP:WHITEWASHING. Why have you replaced reliable sources with self published blog posts? And why did you remove critique of Haywood by other conservative figures, which were published in appropriate sources? Zenomonoz (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Given that Haywood has filed multiple lawsuits (including against Amazon), and has bankrupted at least one individual as a result, and that Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living persons are explicitly designed to ward off lawsuits against Wikipedia, yes, it seems like you personally facing a lawsuit for libel is a real possibility.

"Self-published blog posts" are entirely appropriate for inclusion an article where the subject is the publisher of the posts. See WP:BLPSPS. "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article."

Given that Haywood is primarily known as a writer, it would be silly not to mention those writings, both his own and those published in various journals. Zardoz0893 (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Zardoz0893, this appears to be your second legal threat. You may wish to provide a explanation on the administrators noticeboard here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Zardoz0893 reported by Zenomonoz: legal threats. Thanks. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Zardoz0893, Wikipedia is a collaborative project and "libel" and use of "vandalism" for edits with which you disagree are both highly inadvisable under policy. Accusing a fellow editor of "personal bias" is a personal attack and editors are required to be civil. Your rewrite was heavily dependent on Haywood's own writings; policy is to base articles on third-party independent sources. The Guardian is not a tabloid and is a generally reliable source, and the article most cited here is not tagged as opinion; the author appears to be a staff political journalist. However, our article is over-reliant on The Guardian. After seeing the section at AN/I, I have rewritten it a bit more tightly (keeping your change to the short description, from "extremist" to "right-wing political commentator") but tagged it as needing improvement to the referencing. See also below after edit conflict. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, thanks. I think you have improved the article from its original version.

I don't think the rewrite was "heavily dependent on Haywood's own writings." Rather, it cited the existence of his writings, for which he is primarily known. It did not cite his writings for facts contained therein, which I agree would not be appropriate. As I say, WP:BLPSPS specifically calls for this use. I think the section with the citations to both his site and to the journal articles published should be retained, as well as the references to Haywood's educational/professional background.

Similarly, I think the actual link to Haywood's appearance on Claremont, rather than a third-party reference to it, is a better source. Zardoz0893 (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Linking to Haywood's appearance on Claremont would be use of a WP:PRIMARY source and would constitute WP:UNDUE weight. Wikipedia is written using independent secondary sources. We use them so that Wikipedia pages do not become promotional indexes of everything a person is done. If it's mentioned in reliable media outlets, books etc (all of which are independent), it can be included. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Zardoz0893, to clarify, WP:BLPSPS does not "call for" the use of self published sources. Your version was written heavily with self published sources which we discourage using. People might occasionally use a self published blog post to get something like a date of birth for a person. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Not citing any of Haywood's writings, but rather only citing attacks on Haywood by his political opponents, without any explanation of why or for what they would attack Haywood, is nonsensical. The article has to contain references to the work for which Haywood has known, or the reader cannot understand the context. This is obviously the point of the rule on self-published items, not dates of birth. Zardoz0893 (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Zardoz0893, it might help if you head over to the BLP noticeboard here: WP:BLPN and open a new request. That way you are getting more input since you think I am being unreasonable. That is typically where you go for concerns/disputes about libel and sourcing. There is a box and blue button near the top where you can type the name of the article to get started. Explain there your problem with the article and why you want to use Haywood's blog. It might be useful to link to your version of the article too. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I may do that. It'd seem more appropriate for it to be restored, and anyone objecting to open the new request. Zardoz0893 (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Zardoz0893, that could be taken as edit warring and violate WP:3RR. There are exemptions to this rule detailed in WP:NOT3RR, which don't seem to apply here, which allow users to revert edits including contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced. Cheers. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Partial improvement

Yngvadottir, your edit is a partial improvement to restore the article. However, I am curious why you excluded his reception by Glenn Beck, arguing it is "over-reliant on articles in The Guardian". Is that a valid reason supported by policy? I don't think so. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Also why remove WP:RS and then tag it with "additional sources needed"? This seems unusual. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Zenomonoz, see above on the tag. I don't believe I removed any RS; the Glenn Beck passage is still there, reordered for chronology, to my knowledge the only reference I removed after reverting was the Daily Beast external link, mentioned in my edit summary. Thanks for your edit cleaning up after me, but I'm going to reinstate the mangled reference "1:", which was taken from that point in the intro. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh my apologies Yngvadottir! Missed that you just rearranged the Beck passage. I was comparing the diffs and the paragraph looked entirely deleted. I will strike my comments on that. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Looks better Yngvadottir, although I am going to suggest the "This article needs additional citations for verification" template is removed. There is nothing on the article that lacks a source to verify it. Typically, the template comes in handy when an article has a series of paragraphs/statements without a source. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

My latest reworking of the article

Starting a new section since this edit responds to concerns raised in both the above sections. I went looking for other third-party sources about Haywood, and also looked at the content of Zardoz0893's version. Zenomonoz is correct that the policy allowing personally published sources for personal information (WP:BLPSELFPUB does not override the requirement for independent sources; our use even of interviews should be limited. But we do traditionally have the individual's personal website at the top of the external links section, in large part so that the reader can find their writings there, so I've added it. I don't think we can use You Are Current as a source in a biography of a living person any more than The Daily Beast, but this article gave me useful search terms and I found an article by an academic affiliated with the Illiberalism Studies Program at George Washington University that independently verified his previous career as a lawyer and added to the referencing of his political views. So I added back the mergers and acquisitions law, his University of Chicago studies, and Foundationalism, with 2 refs to his website per BLPSELFPUB. I also added the local political activity in education, the focus of the You Are Current article, with a news ref; I was unable to give credit to the reporter because of the Indianapolis Star's rigid paywall, and someone with a subscription may be able to track down more coverage of Haywood there.

I have left the readded references in the intro, although in my opinion, provided that everything in the body is sourced and that the statements about January 6 in intro and body do not differ too much, the only thing in the intro that is sufficiently challengeable as to require a reference is his characterization as "far-right". However, I understand that Wikipedians disagree on references in the intro, probably because mobile readers see only the intro unless they tap to open other sections. I have however removed the point about alliances with dictators from the intro as mentioned by few sources. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Looks like a good revision. Good work finding sources on his legal career. I can agree to the trimming since that’s a minor comment he made. Zardoz0893 has been blocked for making two legal threats. Cheers again. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Also I appreciate you left the reintroduction of references in the lead. I only tend to do this on contentious articles and BLPS because the lack of refs tends to attract ire and vandalism from IP editors MOS:LEADCITE. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Haywood's primary source writing

@JasonWilsonPortland I have reverted your inclusion of Haywood's writing for several outlets. Wikipedia is not a CV or soapbox. It is based upon secondary sources which discuss Haywood and his activities. We don't need lists of articles he has written for other outlets. If his writing is discussed in _other secondary sources_ then they are generally fit for mention. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

JasonWilsonPortland, hello, please see the discussion here: Wikipedia:Teahouse#BLP Charles Haywood – citing the subjects own writing just to mention he wrote for them?. I have removed your addition to avoid original research. If you could please discuss that, it would be helpful, otherwise further reverts will mean I will take this to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Thank you. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Zenomonoz Thanks. It's clearly not original research, because it cites reliable, published sources and is wholly verifiable through those sources. Nor is it self-published, as suggested in the discussion you pointed to. (Nor is it, as originally claimed, a link repository.) Rather, it seems beneficial to show (a) the subject of the article publishes outside of his own site in mainstream publications and (b) to add balance to the immediately-previous long paragraph citing right-wing journalists who have strongly criticized the subject, which in isolation seems to imply the subject is persona non-grata among right wing publications.JasonWilsonPortland (talk) 10:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

JasonWilsonPortland it would be best to reply to the discussion I linked to on the tea house page and make your case. That way independent input is made from people who have no interest in the article. Best. Zenomonoz (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)