Talk:David Leeson

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:David Leeson/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 19:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 12:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on David Leeson. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930194050/http://www.acu.edu/events/news/archives2004/040714_leeson.html to http://www.acu.edu/events/news/archives2004/040714_leeson.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dallasnews.com/cgi-bin/bi/dallas/photography/photographers.cgi?step=BIO&artistID=45

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Multiple unnecessary revisions have been made to Leeson's paragraphs on his arrest and conviction. Please do not revise to remove factual material or sources, as it goes agains the rules and spirit of Wikipedia. Melton Juan (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

:While I personally lean toward including this information since it's been written about pretty publicly, including it might violate WP:BLPCRIME.

In short, the inclusion of this material depends on whether or not you consider Leeson a public figure. I'd argue that since he's won several Pulitzers, he falls pretty close to this category, but is still fairly niche.

I'll let brighter minds than mine weigh in, but I'm on the KEEP side for now. PureRED | talk to me | 00:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Popping back in here to say that since he pled guilty to certain charges, WP:BLPCRIME no longer seems to apply. Firm KEEP from me. PureRED | talk to me | 03:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I am strongly in favor of KEEPing, but I believe it can be written better than it is now. He seems like a public figure, and the arrest did result in a guilty plea. CovetJogs (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

The problem is that it doesn't seem anyone has found reliable secondary sources covering this alleged guilty plea. There are reliable sources from when he was first charged [1] but nothing that seems to cover what happened after. Per WP:BLPPRIMARY we cannot rely on court transcripts etc to establish what happened in the case and it seems the one obituary we have so far chose not to mention the case at all. It's possible one reason there aren't many obituaries is because of the case, I don't know but either way unless we have sources there's no much we can do even if it's true. Nil Einne (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

• This is not really subject to a vote at this time. WP:BLP is fairly firm and straightforward on this. We need two things 1) reliable secondary sources that 2) cover the conviction. Without BOTH of those, the situation needs to remain out of the article. Please focus the talk page discussion on providing such sources, not on trying to find ways to circumvent BLP rules. --Jayron32 12:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

  From research on Dallas County Felony and Misdemeanor Courts Case Information a few things are clear. The charge for which Mr. Leeson was arrested was "dismissed". A lesser charge was added, "INJ_CHILD," which is injury to a child (mental of physical) is classified in his case as "NAOG," which is "NonAdjudication of Guilt (Agreed plea)". A NonAdjudication of Guilt" is defined as,

  "The court does not give a final judgment regarding the case. The defendant is given probation, a program or community service in which they have a specified amount of time to complete. If the defendant complies, the case may be dismissed. If they do not dismiss, then the disposition remains adjudication withheld and the case is closed. However, if the defendant is found in violation, the case disposition may be changed and the defendant can be found guilty."

  In other words, a judgment was pending the completion of probation, and a final judgment was never made. Since Mr. Leeson was in compliance during his probation period (there would be a record if he was not), he was on track to having these charges dismissed. Since he did not live long enough to have the case dismissed, the case will now be "closed," without judgment. It is for this reason that I am strongly in favor of NOT KEEPING this information on Mr. Leeson's page, a page that merits being on Wiki in the first place, only because he was one of the most important and decorated journalistic photographers of the last 50 years, not because of an isolated arrest that never resulted in a conviction. But, there is an issue - since I found this information via search, I am not able to find a link that takes you straight to this page (there is not a unique URL). (I am still learning Wiki editing details, and apologize if I have used improper formatting, here.) User:JohnBlutarsky JohnBlutarsky (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

  This was extremely helpful, thank you for sharing. As Jayron32 mentioned above, it seems like this isn't really a voting topic, but more of a clearcut "do not include" item at present--and the information you've provided cements that case even more.

  Great discussion, y'all. Thanks, PureRED | talk to me | 16:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

  it's probably worth noting that you are a personal friend of the deceased, JohnBlutarsky. CovetJogs (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

  and furthermore, there is no guarantee that anyone complies with their probation. so you cannot assume the case would have been dismissed. CovetJogs (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

• I'm not sure how you know who JohnBlutarsky is, CovetJogs, and even if you do, this is not a matter for discussing openly on Wikipedia. I, on the other hand, never heard of the person before yesterday when I was responding to a post at WP:RFPP, where upon further investigation, I found the BLP-violating content. BLP policy is some of the most stringent on Wikipedia, and is not subject to the normal rules of consensus building, WP:EW, and the like. Policy is clear and unambiguous: Contested material must remain out of a BLP article until we have solid sourcing to back up the text. WP:BLPPRIMARY makes it clear that court documents, as a WP:PRIMARY source, cannot be used in this context. This requires secondary sources where someone else has already done the analysis and written about it. This is not a matter of the truth or not, it's a matter of what is verifiable, not everything that is true is sufficiently verifiable, and with biographies of living people (or recently dead, per policy) things must be scrupulously sourced before we can add them. Court documents, either for (or against) inclusion of the material is not terribly relevant. What we need is a secondary reporting of the court case and its results. Without that, whether it is true or not, policy says we don't include it. --Jayron32 16:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

  oh, no, i'm not arguing with you here. although i pointed out on another administrator's talk page the other day that there's a circular logic to the rules here that is frustrating. but Wikipedia:Conflict of interest applies for some of the people editing this page. CovetJogs (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

  and i'm not Wikipedia:OUTING, just noting a conflict of interest. CovetJogs (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Accusations without evidence are Casting aspersions. Which you should not do. And COI is expressly not an exemption to WP:OUTING: if you have evidence of such, email it privately to WP:ARBCOM and let them handle it. --Jayron32 16:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

  thank you, i had not seen that CovetJogs (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

• I think your problem here is the assumption that the page falls under BLP. It doesn't. Melton Juan (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Not going to go anywhere as it clearly does. It's only been a few days not even 6 months. Nil Einne (talk) 07:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

  I agree with that, but his position as a public figure exempts him from the policy. Melton Juan (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

  And just to point out: The policy says it "can" extend. It doesn't say it automatically extends. The exceptions in that case are for suicide, which is dont the case here, and gruesome crimes, which doesn't really fit the bill (and if it does, we'd have to have consensus that he did indeed commit the crimes that he has pleaded guilty to.) Melton Juan (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

  You're making a lot of unilateral decisions here without seeking consensus. Folks are telling you they don't agree with your assessment. Until there are additional sources beyond direct court records, this material just doesn't seem to cut it. PureRED | talk to me | 20:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

  You're very wrong. Someone being a public figure affects what we can cover. It does not exempt them from BLP. All living persons, and also the recently deceased are protected under BLP. If you want to continue to edit BLPs, you need to accept this. Alternatively stop editing any article concerning living persons. Nil Einne (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

  The policy can extend based on editorial consensus for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would only apply to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime. This clearly applies in this case. --Jayron32 11:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Since there are so many complaints here about my edits (and on my talk page) I'll try to explain again why I think BLP doesn't apply in this case. The one phrase in the BLP that has been offered up as a reason to delete my additions is this (and thanks to Jayron for finally pointing it out):

The policy can [emphasis mine] extend based on editorial consensus for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would only apply to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime.

Emphasis on the word can above. It's not a blanket stipulation of the policy. It's a judgment call that's also based on editorial consensus, which at the moment seems not to favor me—but that is subjective and subject to change if I can build consensus. I also don't think that the objections of three or four people with privileges constitutes editorial consensus.

Even in this case, the application or extension of the policy should only apply to "to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends." Leeson's arrest, admission of guilt, and sentencing aren't contested in this discussion, or anywhere else that I can find. All of the arguments are about BLP. His family is well aware of his legal problems, as is the general public, because the court records are public domain and his arrest was reported in several newspapers.

It has been pointed out that BLP prohibits the use of court records as the sole citation, which I agree with. However, court records are acceptable on this page, because it doesn't fall under the requirements of the BLP for the reasons I mentioned above. Court records are acceptable in any other instance, as far as I can tell.

I've been banned from the page for my additions, but this is not an appeal. I'm merely trying make my reasoning clear. Melton Juan (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

In case someone wonders, Melton Juan's policy-based point above matches the reasons for my previous hesitance to keep the article protected and the user blocked. The bold-formatted text parts and general tone of the WP:BDP section as of today do not justify treating the article as a biography of a living person as a kind of emergency admin action against article-specific editorial consensus. To me, this means that simply saying "BLP applies" ("It clearly does. It's only been a few days") isn't a valid argument by itself. "This is not really subject to a vote at this time" – well yes, it is. And it's perfectly fine to be cautious and keep the material removed unless a clear consensus for inclusion is found, but that's primarily because of WP:ONUS (and/or WP:BURDEN or WP:UNDUE), independently of the applicability of the BLP policy. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

ToBeFree There can't be any consensus to include the material at the moment, because there aren't any reliable sources for it (and this may well be - as is pointed out above - because there never was any actual conviction due to the subject's death.) The single purpose account whose sole edits at Wikipedia have been to try to insert this material has been told this over and over again. I have already had to block them from the article, and I have had to redact numerous times where they simply repeated their comments on talk pages instead (including in their rejected unblock appeal). If they do it again, I am simply going to indef them. Black Kite (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

A couple of things: 1) I'm pretty sure I have the right to build consensus for my points, since editorial consensus is a requirement. 2.) What difference does it make that I'm a new user? 3.) A guilty plea IS a conviction in any court anywhere. Melton Juan (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Are you saying that court documents can't be used on Wikipedia? I really don't understand that point. Melton Juan (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

For your first point, a guilty plea is not always a conviction in cases of deferred adjudication/prosecution, so that's kind of a DOA argument.

To your second, please see WP:PRIMARYCARE, which includes this line: "...court documents, are usually not acceptable primary sources, because it is impossible for the viewer to know whether the person listed on the document is the notable subject rather than another person who happens to have the same name." PureRED | talk to me | 22:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Do you have support for your first point, instead of merely saying that a guilty plea is not a conviction? Your second point includes the word "usually" and the court documents in this instance provide more than enough proof that they concern the subject of this page. I'd be happy to quote from them, but I feel that would make certain people unhappy.

So many times in this discussion, editors merely point to a policy and don't provide the actual language that concerns the issues. Melton Juan (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

And let me say, that because the defendant died before the charges could be deferred, they are still in place. No legal documents have been filed that say otherwise. Melton Juan (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

A plea and a conviction are two very different things. While a guilty plea does often result in a conviction, it doesn't have to, nor does it always. This is detailed better in Texas' Code of Criminal Procedure 42.12, Sec. 5.

Wikipedia policies are often vague and in other cases might fit in some scenarios and not in others. There are also plenty of problems you can dive into that explain why Wikipedia can be WP:NOTSOGREAT. All that to say, that's why consensus building is critical in cases like these.

This debate is becoming circular at this point. If you can find secondary sources for this material, great, I encourage you to add it. ✌️ PureRED | talk to me | 00:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the details. I now see that I was incorrect in my assertion that a guilty plea does not always result in a conviction. I still think that the case hasn't been deferred because Leeson is dead. However, I'd be amenable to revising my edit to say he pleaded guilty to the charges and omit and reference to conviction. I think that is accurate.

I also agree about consensus building, which is what I'm trying to do, as I mentioned above in my response to BK. I think the process tends to be lengthy when talking about critical details that affect transparency. vs policy, especially in this specific case. So I don't agree that it is circular quite yet. I further agree that some of the policies are intentionally vague so that we can discuss individual cases, but I believe the wording of the policies is carefully thought out in order to frame those conversations. (I think we've built some consensus here! lol)

I still think that it is essential to prominently mention Leeson's arrest and admission of guilt to the charge of Injury to a Child with Intentional Bodily Injury. It is as important to his legacy as his photographic and journalistic achievements. Melton Juan (talk) 13:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

We can only do so if it is in line with Wikipedia's unambiguous policy on this; arrests without convictions don't get mentioned in such articles, and we need a secondary source (like newspapers, etc.) to discuss the admission of guilt and/or any conviction. Find those quality secondary sources, and AFTER you do that, we can add the information. --Jayron32 14:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Which policy are you referring to? Melton Juan (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm growing weary of you ignoring the times we've both linked and quoted this policy at you. See WP:BLPPRIMARY, among others, to wit, "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." in combination with WP:BDP, to wit, "policy can extend based on editorial consensus for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would only apply to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime." (bold mine). You've been quoted both of those policies multiple times now. --Jayron32 11:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Jayron32, I and others have described how these policies don't apply in this very thread. Please see above. Melton Juan (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Claiming it doesn't make it true. I wouldn't keep pressing forward unless you actually have the correct sources. Repeatedly ignoring warnings is a bad path to go down. You've been told what the policy is. I am not here to debate that with you. I am telling you that you are wrong. You would be well advised to let the matter rest, if you keep pressing in the direction you seem to want to, which is to say, if you again try to re-insert the same information without the correct sources, it will not go well for you. --Jayron32 15:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

(Redacted)

• As you were told before, they are not. 1) We report on convictions only, not accusations 2) Evidence of convictions requires secondary source reporting. This is the same thing you've been trying to insert into the article; which is a combination of a secondary source about an accusation (can't include because its an accusation and not a conviction) and a primary source about court proceedings (can't include because it is a primary source). Again, it is growing wearisome explaining this to you over and over again. If you put this in the article as you have written above, this is a BLP violation you have been warned about already, and you may be sanctioned for it. Find the right sources, and if you can't, let the matter drop. --Jayron32 15:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

• I think that's pretty much enough now. Blocked sitewide, indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply