Talk:Jesselyn Radack

Primary sources inline

On 4 December 2020, an editor added a {Primary sources} template and 15 {Primary source inline} tags, with edit summary: "Massive amounts of original research here."

There was one previous discussion that focused on WP:BLPPRIMARY, which advises, Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.

I believe the newly tagged references do not pertain to personal assertions in Wikipedia's voice; rather, they support information stated by individuals within court documents. I request that @Bobfrombrockley: explain his objections to specific references, rather than tagging them all, so that I can address his concerns.

For now, I will remove the template and tags, pending consensus to the contrary. Please give me a chance to clean this up without cluttering the BLP with 15 identical "non-primary source needed" tags. NedFausa (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks NedFausa. I am not specifically refering to BLP issues but general Wikipedia policy on primary sources and original research. Primary sources are obviously not proscribed on WP, hence tagging rather than removing, but we are urged to use them with caution and seek secondary sources where possible, because it is easy to misuse them (see WP:PRIMARY, which says "be cautious about basing large passages on them"). Several sections (e.g. "Congressional questions" has only one secondary source at the very end) rely almost exclusively on primary sources. Our policy (WP:OR says: "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. A very large part of this article is based 100% on primary sources such as court documents, we liberally use the article subjects own YouTube videos and blogposts without clearly attributing, and many of the secondary sources are rather weak (e.g. a college alumni magazine, which might be good for uncontroversial personal details but is it good for this sort of material?). There are places in the article where we basically state that the article is based on original research, e.g. Google searches of the Times website confirm only that in 2003 Times journalist Eric Lichtblau wrote.... Or a citation to her YouTube video with the statement in our words She has implied her being under a gag order - we should not be making our own inferences but only citing other's inferences. So please do go ahead and try to clean this up, and I hope that there are secondary sources for the stuff we say in this article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: Thanks for your detailed guidance. I have completed the following:

• I removed the statement in Wikipedia's words that "She has implied…" because it constituted an interpretation.
• I removed references to YouTube videos and to Radack's blogposts.
• I removed original research based on Google searches of The New York Times website.
  

Regarding subsection 2.7 Congressional questions, as it now stands:

• "Hearings before the Committee on the Judiciary" is cited only once, to substantiate the hearing's date and subject matter. No other content is attributed to this source.
• "Statement of Senator Edward M. Kennedy" is likewise cited only once, to support a 222-word paragraph. Please note that this statement was published not at Kennedy's U.S. Senate webpage but by Vote Smart, which Wikipedia informs us "is a non-profit, non-partisan research organization that collects and distributes information on candidates for public office in the United States." It is therefore not strictly speaking a primary source.
  

As for your generalization that a college alumni magazine "might be good for uncontroversial personal details but is it good for this sort of material?" Alumni magazines come in a variety of flavors. The source here is Brown University, a private Ivy League research university that is the seventh-oldest institution of higher education in the United States. The article in question, "The Woman Who Knew Too Much," is an outstanding 3,952-word piece by Emily Gold Boutilier, who was then the publication's senior writer. Since 2006, Boutilier has worked at Amherst College, where she is now editorial director in the Office of Communications. Her credentials are in order, and we should not dismiss her work casually. Accordingly, I have let stand the seven references to "The Woman Who Knew Too Much," pending consensus that it cannot be used in this BLP of a Brown alumna.

At your convenience, please review my handiwork and advise of further changes needed. NedFausa (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Radack statements

Much of the article has been focused on stating things that the subject has claimed or believed, to the degree that it seems to be being built to make her argument, which is not the goal of Wikipedia. I've been trimming out particularly those sourced to Radack's court filings. Court filings are not reliable independent secondary sources; they are primary sources for the claims being made, but even then we would rely on an independent secondary source to show us which claims are being made. They aren't even particularly good statements for what Radack believes, as a court document is not intended to be a full statement of belief but rather than argument being made to pursue an interest in a case. Others should keep an eye on peeling this back. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)