This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Articles for creation Start‑class This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article was accepted from this draft on 14 December 2016 by reviewer Ramaksoud2000 (talk · contribs). Biography Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Crime and Criminal Biography Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Journalism Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Adding COI tag

This article was created and has been edited almost solely by a single-purpose account, AlexVegaEsquire, who appears to be Kevin Deutsch himself.Baltimore free (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well-cited information as basic as this person's legal name is being routinely removed by the user AlexVegaEsquire. As noted above, this person clearly appears to be editing with an agenda. The passages he has removed as "libelous" are all backed up by multiple news sources. This should constitute vandalism. Wikihunter6 (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what your single-minded obsession is here with trying to smear this dude. I feel responsible for maintaining objectivity on this page because I created it last year. It seems this guy has enemies but this is a little much. The administrator has already stated about the first sentence that "Whether or not the investigation should be mentioned in the lede: this is a matter of due weight. There is a section on the investigation in the aticle that takes up the majority of the article." This continues to be the case. I think it's a settled issue, as all the controversies involving thus guy are mentioned in the order they occurred, and have their own section.

Are you one of he reporters writing about Mr. Deutsch? I think it's clear you are editing with an agenda--that of giving undue weight to unproven allegations already chronicled in the article. Guy has published two books that are still being sold and 15 years of news stories. Like he has stated, there have been no retractions or corrections issued on his stories as a result of either of these work reviews. Objectively, this controversy does not appear to define his notability--which existed before the controversies--no matter how badly you seem to want it too. Again, it is given due weight and ample space in this article.

I have no connection to Kevin Deutsch. I am a close observer of his work and have followed all Wikipedia rules and guidelines in writing about it (since before the recent controversies). A majority of the article deals with the controversies. The single minded effort among some here to make nearly the entire article about the controversies is excessive and does not comply with Wikipedia's policy for articles on living persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexVegaEsquire (talk • contribs) 01:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexVegaEsquire and Wikihunter6: Stop reverting each other without discussing matters here, Goddammit. Remember, discuss the issues based on site policies and guidelines, not based on accusations. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The main issues I'm seeing to discuss are:

-Whether or not his real name and birthdate should be included: if so, it needs to be sourced.

-Whether or not it should be mentioned that he's been investigated by those different news outlets: the issue here would be whether or not the sources are reliable. From what I've seen, Poynter is generally recognized as reliable, AlexVegaEsquire would need to make a case (based on policies and guidelines such as WP:RS or precedent at WP:RSN) that it isn't. On the other hand, Buzzfeed's reliability is on a case-by-case basis (and due to WP:BLP we always take the side of caution in biographies of living persons), so Wikihunter6 would need to defend it.

-Whether or not the investigation should be mentioned in the lede: this is a matter of due weight. There is a section on the investigation in the aticle that takes up the majority of the article.

-Whether or not "Deutsch's practice of changing the names of individuals and places he documented" should be labelled as "liberal." Although liberal can mean "freely," it can easily be misread as implying political motivation.

-Whether or not to mention that Deutsch has been accused of recycling a story on HuffPo.

Again, the discussion should based on policies and guidelines, not accusations. Both of you have shown no other interest than this article, which is technically not a bad thing in it self but often a sign that an editor is here for reasons other than building the encyclopedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexVegaEsquire and Ian.thomson: A few thoughts on these points:

-To the first point, his real name (before it was removed) was sourced to an article that Deutsch wrote himself in the Miami Herald, so in the interest of accuracy, I don't see why his real name should be left out.

-For the investigation, other outlets than Poynter have reported on it now, including Rolling Stone magazine

-As Baltimore free pointed out, the scale of investigation has thus far been at least as nationally significant as Deutsch's reporting career, so it would make sense to mention in the lede.

-Perhaps liberal can be changed to "routine" or something similar. Some sources now allege he may have fabricated over a dozen sources so it doesn't strike me as an exaggeration. Wikihunter6 (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current version of the article is extremely fair. A majority of it deals with the controversies and it also includes information about Deutsch's first name. This version also follows all site policies and guidelines. Details of the controversies take up almost the entire article. I don't understand the desire to try and go further and subvert the biography of living persons policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexVegaEsquire (talk • contribs) 02:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some people are only famous for negative events. It would be non-neutral and prejudicial to downplay them. Put bluntly, Deutsch probably wouldn't be notable enough for a Wikipedia article *without* the controversy over his books and articles. To not cover the reason why he's in the news would be the violation of Wikipedia policies. (This puts no judgement on Deutsch himself. Maybe it's a big frameup. But that's why he's in the news.) SnowFire (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ballastpointed: I don't know if you are Deutsch, or are friends with him, or are just a fan, but I would recommend that Wikipedia is the wrong place to be fighting his battles. All of the press coverage of Deutsch is uniformly negative. Wikipedia must reflect that, as a tertiary source. WP:BLP is about unsourced negative content. Unfortunately, all of the criticism of Deutsch has ample sources. If you wants to "fix" his Wikipedia article, start with the news media. Newsday publishing an article like "Kevin Deutsch exonerated" would be a start. David Simon is a pretty good authority on the Baltimore crime scene. Convince him he was in error, that the events of Pill City really happened. Get a few of those "positive" takes from reliable sources (e.g. not blogs, letters to the editor, indy news sites), and the Wikipedia article will turn itself around quickly. As is, the article is going to stay reflective of the news media, and neutrally report the accusations against Deutsch, and not give a lot of weight to self-published sources other than reporting a general claim of innocence from Deutsch. SnowFire (talk) 00:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia entry certainly reflects all of the negative coverage and allegations. I'm a reader of his work and many other true crime authors, and am merely attempting to accurately portray the coverage and his responses to the allegations. They are allegations--not proven--and that must be made clear. Since he is a living person, that is crucial. If he were dead, the policy would not apply. From what I've seen, many of the edits have misconstrued the reporting on Deutsch, paraphrasing it inaccurately. If the stories are quoted accurately, I will not attempt to correct them. If the characterizatiosn of the stories are innacurate, I will. That's what Wikipedia is about--truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballastpointed (talk • contribs)

@Ballastpointed: If you are "merely attempting to accurately portray the coverage", you are not succeeding. There are too many examples to list, but I'll just whistle off three real quick:

• You keep adding "award-winning" to the lede. Please read WP:PEACOCK. Lots of journalists win awards. This isn't the inside sleeve of a book. If the likes of Bob Woodward isn't introduced as "award-winning" in the opening of his article, then nobody else needs it either.
• You say, with respect to the veracity of Pill City, that "There was no disputing the riots at the center of the book." To say that this is missing the point is an understatement. If I say that I rescued 12 people from the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, and then when challenged, say "well there's no disputing the September 11 attacks happened", I've pretty well admitted defeat already, no?
• It's certainly fair to cite this article from iMediaEthics, but it isn't fair to act as if it was a vindication of Deutsch; it would have said so if it was ("missing sources found!"). It says that the trail has grown too cold and they weren't able to confirm things either way.

Just as the verification problems against 77 Newsday articles of Deutsch does not in any way mean that only those are compromised, my above three examples are not the only cases of writing in a way inconsistent with Wikipedia's style. If you are truly interested in becoming an editor on Wikipedia, can I suggest you edit a topic of which you care strongly about that is non-controversial? If you keep up as is, you'll just be reverted, which is a waste of your time and mine. SnowFire (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certain you haven't examined the source materials--books, articles, etc.--as closely as I have. My interest has made me an expert on the controversy, and I'm putting that expertise to use. I don't agree with your suggestions or viewpoints regarding these issues--especially given that this Wikipedia article existed well before these controversies arose. But I respect your opinion and viewpoints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballastpointed (talk • contribs)

I can read linked sources just fine. You are interpreting them all in the most favorable possible light to Deutsch, loudly trumpeting his achievements, and downplaying any mistake or criticism as solely from that specific source and unusual. That is not "neutral" in Wikipedia parlance. A neutral rendition of articles on Deutsch is gonna be pretty harsh. Sorry, that's just the way it is, and it doesn't even necessarily reflect badly on Deutsch - perhaps it's just a media coverage failure. Nevertheless, that is the way the media has done the story, and that's the way Wikipedia covers it as well. SnowFire (talk) 02:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I am interpreting them objectively and neutrally, and that you are interpreting all of the information in the light most detrimental to the article subject. Wikipedia rules state that we should stick to the neutral facts--not opinions or inaccurate paraphrasing of language in news stories. We should also strive for balance. This is not an entry about Davis Simon--he has his own page and you can write about him there. He weighs in on dozens of issues a day--that doesn't mean all his controversial opinions need to be in articles about other people. The media has covered the story in a way that's accurately reflected in this entry, and which this entry has reflected for months. By attempting to include potentially libelous information and inserting questionable details that violate Wiki's living person's policy, you are not being faithful to Wikipedia's values--you're doing just the opposite, in fact. I work in a library and have little else to do but be online, so I hope we can find a compromise here based on the language in the article as it appeared before you came in and started hurling bombs around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballastpointed (talk • contribs)

Read the linked sources. I am leaving out choice quotes like "journalism's most prolific frauds". I'm not sure how you can read these articles as anything other than hit pieces on Deutsch. Like, even if you think Deutsch is totally innocent, you can still grasp that these articles are actually hostile to Deutsch, that I'm not making this up? Take it up with the people who wrote the articles, not me.

And I agree, I wouldn't normally quote Simon at such length, but you modified my original paragraph to entirely defang it compared to the venom in the sources. Fine, perhaps our interpretations are different, so I'll just quote directly, no?

This isn't proceeding anywhere. Please stop wasting our time. Either find reliable and positive sources for your slant, or stop. If you truly feel I am being unfair, we can ask for outside opinions from this noticeboard and the like. SnowFire (talk) 13:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few of your changes are fine. Many, however, are still giving too much weight to Deutsch's own personal explanations, and seem to misunderstand the nature of the accusations. If someone is convicted of manslaughter, it is not in general reported on as "John Doe evades second-degree murder charge." The fact that they were convicted of anything is the proper slant. So sure, the NY Daily News didn't find "red flags", but it also didn't do as extensive a review as Newsday did (source: the WaPo article which notes they declined to do so), so it shouldn't be trumpeted as an exoneration. And heck, even if it WAS an exoneration for those articles, it would then just be a distraction from the far more interesting and newsworthy claims elsewhere - having normal articles that aren't challenged is the boring and standard case.

As far as "the dates are not included in the book" for Pill City, as you pointed out before, nobody contests that the Freddie Gray riots happened in April 2015. The BCP is claiming to have looked at every homicide in the relevant period of the months after the riots. Also, it is certainly good to qualify all this with "as reporeted by the City Paper", but that was already done in my version; it doesn't need to be mentioned every line, nor does Deutsch's defense need to be mentioned on a line-by-line basis. Part of what the news stories said is not conflicting with Deutsch's author's note, after all; the news stories were just saying that if this was "anonymized", it was anonymized so well and so completely as to seemingly have nothing to do with actual events. SnowFire (talk) 07:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ballastpointed: There are two ways to go forward here:

• Take this to a third opinion / noticeboard, e.g. the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. This only works if you're willing to discuss or defend your edits.
• Take this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, where this will be reported as vandalism by a WP:SPA.

Up to you which one to do. I recommend the first, but will only do it if you're actually interested in what others have to say... SnowFire (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a new section arbitrarily post ANI report.

Ballastpointed, you keep adding in phrases like "The sourcing and veracity of some of his news articles has been questioned." Do journalists have "John Smith didn't fabricate any articles" written in their biographies normally? Or for pilots that they didn't crash any planes? The expectation is that the veracity of none of a journalists articles is seriously doubted. And once there are doubts, it spreads through the rest of the work - if he/she lied here, where we could check, what about all the places they got the benefit of the doubt and it's hard to check? So no. The fact that every single word Deutsch wrote is not under question is not relevant. The fact that at least one thing he wrote is under suspicion is relevant.

In the same way, with respect to the NYT article, fine, Deutsch says he got snookered by his sources and that it was at a 12-step meeting. Sure whatever. If that was the only article under threat, the NYT surely would not have appended the editor's note, and people would shrug and say it was just one of those things. It's that it happened for someone who was accused of fabricating sources in a bunch of other places. In other words, even if Deutsch is 100% telling the truth, it's STILL under suspicion anyway, because of the cloud from his other works. His explanations are not really all that relevant; what matters is that it wasn't something confirmable, and it was from someone who was already being accused of fabrication, so it *might* also be problematic.

Finally, for the NY Daily News article, I've been over it above, but the "no red flags" line is being used out of context. It's far less impressive in the entire article, which says that the Daily News didn't undertake a full investigation, but they couldn't find any extremely obvious problems, and that it would be very difficult to research anyway. I believe my phrasing of "inconclusive" gets that across. So would the following compromise work: you can keep "no red flags" if you truly insist, but leave in my "inconclusive" and "not as extensive a review as Newsday." Sound good? SnowFire (talk) 05:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re AlexVegaEsquire, your comment at ANI: Again, Deutsch's denials are not that relevant. Deutsch is a reliable source for his own opinions; he isn't a reliable source about what actually happened, for obvious reasons. I've written at length above about the Wikipedia-policy compliant way to get this in the article: If you want to include details on Deutsch's "innocent" explanations, find a source that is NOT Deutsch - not an article he wrote in the Observer, not his own website. Someone else, a secondary-but-reliable source. SnowFire (talk) 16:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm just talking to myself since Deutsch/Alex/Ballast don't post here anymore, but.... WP:SELFPUBLISH. From there, material about the subject shouldn't:

• the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Look at the references section. Deutsch himself is already referenced way too much IMO. Deutsch's myriad of explanations, qualifications, and so on violate all three of the above: they are self-serving claims, they involve third-parties (e.g. Deutsch declaring that the Baltimore City Paper only checked the visitor's log of UMD, which is not what the BCP said, or Deutsch claiming that the NYTimes cruelly rejected his offer of proof of his innocence), and AlexVega / Ballastpointed want to make large amounts of the article to be primarily based on such sources. This isn't some special hatred of Deutsch or anything; any accused person is never a reliable source about the allegations against them.

I've said it before, I'll say it again, but as a final, final plea to move in a constructive direction: if Deutsch's "defense" is relevant, then it will be covered in a secondary source, i.e. not by Deutsch himself. Quote that, and that exactly, instead. SnowFire (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am having a difficult time keeping my sourced information in the article, particularly in the introduction. The information re: the article subject specializing in stories about "gangs and drug trafficking" is at the heart of the article, and had been part of it for months. SnowFire, a user who recently began making major revisions to the article, continues to undo my sourced and accurate revisions without good cause. Can a moderate please resolve our dispute? I work a sixty hour week and consider contributory encyclopedias an interesting/valuable hobby, but having my edits wiped out by someone who seems to have a serious grudge about the article subject is disheartening. I would also ask that a moderator address the other deletions SnowFire made to the article today, and make a final determination re: inclusion of objective language about fact that pseudonymss were used throughout subject's book, and that is why City Paper could not verify. Thank you.

"Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[a] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:

'Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR) We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[b] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material."

My interest in the article is because I saw the article had been edited to be super-favorable to the subject in a non-neutral fashion, likely by associates of the subject itself. And that other editors - who were not me - had been defeated by this. I have, for the sake of argument, been explaining my edits in great detail above, so that if you are acting in good faith, you can see the reasons why. You have failed to respond to that and instead blandly accused me of bias. Again, I am solely reflecting what the sources actually say, and avoiding weird language elements you try to include like saying that only "elements of" the book were challenged. (Sure, is every single sentence in the book a lie? Of course not, Baltimore exists, etc. Have reliable sources suggested that the sourcing and anonymization problems are severe, such that "the book" was challenged rather than two footnotes? Absolutely.)

That said, if you'd like to bring in a third party, great! (Wikipedia doesn't really have "moderators.") Shall I make a posting requesting input at the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard , and will you agree to listen to what others have to say? SnowFire (talk) 23:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dude,I totally understand where you’re coming from. I just see it a slightly different way. I don’t see any reason we can’t hash this out without the back and forth edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Ballastpointed (talk • contribs) 02:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The section about Kevin Deutsch's career has a such a sea of citations that I can barely read it without having to skip little bits of it because of the citations, and then realizing I skipped reading actual material.

Or am I not supposed to read Wikipedia articles front-to-back when i'm bored?

Badmonkey717 (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ballastpointed:@SnowFire:If you want to discuss the article, do it here on the talk page, not in a 1,000+ byte series of commented out sections of the article. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies.I’ll keep everything here going forward.unsigned comment by User:Ballastpointed

@Tornado chaser: I've written a novel above this on the talk page about my changes. Ballastpointed / Alex have not really engaged, at least not lately. The deafening silence after offering to bring in a third opinion is rather telling I believe. I am entirely happy to discuss the matter here... would prefer to do it... but if the other editors repeatedly ignore my comments here but drive their edits through anyway, there's no point in further talking here, which is why I took to detailing in-line against the ludicrous nitpicks that Alex / Ballastpointed were making, nitpicks that could not possibly be done in good faith by anyone who has read the sources (e.g. arguing that Deutsch was only accused of malfeasance for his book, or that he only made up "sources" but not "quotes" (what, real quotes from fake sources?) or "events" (despite that being the entire point of the allegations against Pill City) diff. I am of course thrilled if Ballastpointed / Alex decide to chime in here, but they haven't to any substantive degree.

I've also entirely lost any faith that they aren't WP:COI accounts; we've been talking to Deutsch, I'm sure. His blog has the same superlatives about his "fifteen-year career in journalism" that nobody else has written an article about (well, the non-scandalous parts). Same writer.

@Ballastpointed: Anyway, as a show of good faith... despite being bit time and time again when I explained in detail my edits as if Alex / Ballast had good faith as well to be ignored causing me to believe I am wasting my time... Alex/Ballast are currently removing the bit that NY Daily News's review was "inconclusive". Let's just look at the full quote from the source:

“From September, 2009 through March, 2012, Kevin Deutsch had 688 bylines in the Daily News. In a highly competitive media environment, the stories raised no red flags about possible fabrications. Two factors have ruled out comprehensively documenting every fact and source attributable to Deutsch. First, the passage of five to seven years heightens the difficulty of locating individuals who were identified only by name in the tumult of New York and who were peripheral to the main thrust of a piece – for example, witnesses at breaking news events. Second, many of the stories carried multiple bylines. Five to seven years later, after significant staff turnover, determining what reporter contributed what quote or factual material to each story would be prohibitively time consuming if not impossible.”

And from the Washington Post article:

(New York Daily News Editor Arthur Browne said his paper decided not to undertake a similar review of the 688 articles Deutsch wrote for the paper as a staff writer between 2009 and 2012 because of “the passage of time” and because many of his stories carried multiple bylines).

Where "a similar review" refers to the more extensive, months-long check Newsday made.

I am certainly amenable to different wordings here, but to put this in plain English, The Daily News is saying "there was not anything obviously on fire from a quick check, but we don't really know, checking is expensive and infeasible." And both iMediaEthics and the WaPo confirm that Newsday did a more extensive check.

As far as the lede, "involving fabrication" is not English, sorry. As I said above, I am open to other wordings, but that wording is unclear and wrong and gets a D minus in journalism class. In the same way, trying to bury the lede - literally - by extensively WP:PEACOCK rambling about his non-notable journalism career is very obvious. Again, I've said it before a zillion times, but Wikipedia is not actually judging the truth or falsity of the accusations. You can't just wish the accusations away, though; they happened, they're the most notable thing about Deutsch, they are his claim to fame at the moment. They should feature very prominently in the lede of the article. SnowFire (talk) 03:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ballastpointed: @Snowfire, you must really hate Deutsch! Listen, dude: As I mentioned the last time you made this claim, I've got nothing to do with Deutsch. I've read his work and have followed the scandal closely. I am interested in it, and I'm a news junkie. If that's considered a conflict, then yours is certainly much more serious. I think you're much too invested in these edits--could it be that you yourself are a party to the guy's scandal? If I had to guess, I'd say you might be one of the journalists whose work is cited in the article. More power to you! We all need to get away from work once in a while.

Let me also say, I have no connection to Alex, despite your sockpuppet claim. Could it be possible that you're dislike for the article subject is clouding your objectivity here, and leading you to believe there's an editing conspiracy afoot? I certainly hope not.

If by "deafening silence" you're referring to my "taking care of my kid," then yes, you've nailed me again.

Just to reiterate, you made your first edits to this page only recently, and immediaely began ramming through major changes/reversing other editors' work. What I've done, and what Alex appears to have done, is simply defend the preexisting edits. I would hardly call that "nitpicking." But you're the journalist (probably?), so you tell me.

You say you've "entirely lost any faith that they aren't WP:COI accounts; we've been talking to Deutsch, I'm sure. His blog has the same superlatives about his "fifteen-year career in journalism" that nobody else has written an article about (well, the non-scandalous parts). Same writer."

Could it be that I saw the "15-year" detail on his blog and in other stories about him [like the Columbia Journalism piece], then cited them, just as one is supposed to cite facts in articles here? Or must everything be so diabolical?

And yes, let's look at the full quotes from the Daily News review:

“From September, 2009 through March, 2012, Kevin Deutsch had 688 bylines in the Daily News. In a highly competitive media environment, the stories raised no red flags about possible fabrications. Two factors have ruled out comprehensively documenting every fact and source attributable to Deutsch. First, the passage of five to seven years heightens the difficulty of locating individuals who were identified only by name in the tumult of New York and who were peripheral to the main thrust of a piece – for example, witnesses at breaking news events. Second, many of the stories carried multiple bylines. Five to seven years later, after significant staff turnover, determining what reporter contributed what quote or factual material to each story would be prohibitively time consuming if not impossible.”

And from the Washington Post article:

(New York Daily News Editor Arthur Browne said his paper decided not to undertake a similar review of the 688 articles Deutsch wrote for the paper as a staff writer between 2009 and 2012 because of “the passage of time” and because many of his stories carried multiple bylines).

Where "a similar review" refers to the more extensive, months-long check Newsday made."

Sure, I understand that you want to construe the above to mean "there was not anything obviously on fire from a quick check, but we don't really know, checking is expensive and infeasible."

But the fact is, these paragraphs don't say that. Nor do they use the word "inconclusive." The writers spoke in English, and in their own words--not your interpretations of them. It is their actual words, not the way you personally construe them, that count.

Regarding the lede,"involving fabrication" is, actually, English. Two words. Both part of the English language. They're even grammatically correct! But I will tweak to reflect your concerns.

I guess I'd get that D in Professor Snowfire's class. Do you teach journalism, btw? Sounds like you might.

Re: peacocking, that refers to use of superlatives, right? I've stayed away from those, as I don't find anything particularly "super" about this article subject. But I do believe in objectivity, and in insertion of neutral facts like "length of career."

Finally, with regard to the lede, it is factual, it is contextualized, and it is concise. All good tenets of journalism, I thought? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballastpointed (talk • contribs)

If you think throwing an accusation back on me will work, it won't. I've been a Wikipedia editor since 2004. I have no idea who Deutsch or any of the journalists writing articles were two weeks ago. I read a news article. I looked up the Wikipedia article out of curiosity, and went to add in new data, as I've done non-controversially with zillions of other topics. After I was reverted, I saw your edit war with Wikihunter6 and others above where you "won" by diligently editing in your perspective. I figured I'd add in the more recent sources. If you look at my contribution history, you'll see it's been to a zillion different topics, so no, I'm not biased, I don't have an axe to grind here. You & Alex, however? You have only showed up to edit on Deutsch. We call those single-purpose accounts around here. Now I realize of course that you're just someone interested in accuracy, but you can surely believe that a problem Wikipedia has is with other people who edit their own biographies to be super-favorable, correct? And that's not good? As it happens, because these people are only interested in making themselves look favorable and don't give a damn about encyclopedia writing, they have edit patterns that look a lot like yours, solely editing a single article to make it as positive as possible. And even if you aren't Deutsch or a friend... it really doesn't matter. You are still editing in a non-neutral fashion on a single topic.

As for what the paragraphs say, I don't know what to say other than we are clearly reading different news articles.

Okay, great, objective facts. Just so you know, the vast majority of other biographies don't include this data, or if they do, it's for some reason like a surprise change in career - e.g. someone becoming a famous actor at the age of 45. Albert Einstein does not introduce the subject as someone with a 55-year career in physics.

For your other changes, you're just intentionally interpreting everything in a way that isn't what's actually in the article. As far as "drug lords" vs. "drug dealers", and omitting "famous" from preachers... see, this is why I can't accept good faith anymore. Read the source. A random drug dealer? Sure, maybe that was anonymization for why the BCP couldn't find him. A huge player in the drug market who's been around for decades? That really can't be anonymized very well, there's only a very few people who could possibly fit that description. In the same way, you removed "famous" from preacher, which makes it more understandable that the BCP might have missed him. But... that is explicitly contradicted by the source:

"This is the street where he sold his first bag of dope," writes Deutsch, who never mentions Little Melvin Williams, the infamous gangster who actually did control that scene back in those days. A guy with Grier's past—even if obscured by Deutsch—would be well known far beyond Upton and Sandtown. But none of the addiction specialists, doctors, community leaders, or violence interrupters City Paper spoke with had an idea who he might have been. "We do not have any evidence that corroborates the book," BPD spokesman T.J. Smith wrote, after City Paper sent detailed character sketches of Grier and Jimmy Masters.

"People from all over Maryland come to pay their respects to Marvin Grier: clergy members, cops, Black Lives Matter activists, and, of course, his fellow interrupters," Deutsch writes. "They trade stories about the fallen preacher, marveling at all he's given this wounded city—his time, his fortune, and, finally, his life."

Something like this large funeral did happen with Little Melvin Williams in December 2015. But Williams died of stomach cancer, and Deutsch is adamant that he did not model any "Pill City" characters on Little Melvin or create any composites. He also says that Grier was not an accountant. City Paper asked Deutsch to put us in touch with anyone who might have known the real Grier. He refused, citing his promise to protect his sources.

Now, again, maybe the BCP is wrong. But that's what the BCP says, unquestionably, right there, and that's part of their argument: that Grier is portrayed as - I quote - "nationally famous", as having a large funeral, etc. I'll take another shot at writing this with lots of quotes from the sources and less summation if you insist... take a look. SnowFire (talk) 07:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BallastPointed: I’m not “throwing” around an accusation. I’m merely exploring your possible rationale for ramming through major edits and questioning your motive, as you’ve continuously questioned mine. Let’s agree these questions are not helpful and move on. Or, you can continue to try and question my objectivity, in which case I’ll have every reason to examine your apparent lack of it.

Being a Wikipedia editor for years does not mean you’re not a journalist. And if you are, that’s fine. But your connection to the article ought to be declared.

As for the notable dealer, “Little Melvin” was certainly famous. Preacher described in book is not. The article subject said they’re not the same person. Like much else in here, this is disputed. Perhaps “well known” preacher would work? And maybe “local kingpen?” Note the accuracy and specificity and avoidance of overly broad, generalized language.

Btw, reference to “fabricated sources” in lead covers both the stories and book mentioned in the same sentence.This language is accurate, and I think it’s incredibly clear to anyone reading the article what the controversy is/was all about. If you want to edit my language, please do! But please stop reverting to your own myopic, non neutral version. It’s not helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballastpointed (talk • contribs)

I'm not a journalist. I have no idea what your point even is.

As for the idea that "the Preacher described in book is not", read the source. Read the source. This idea that he wasn't famous is your own original research. The BCP says he was famous, in black and white, quoted. "Nationally famous." Let me repeat it for like the fourth time: you are free to disagree with the BCP. You are not free to claim that they wrote something that they didn't.

This is going around in circles. I'm glad you're actually responding on the talk page, but if this is your "explanation" of your edits, I don't buy it. Are you willing to let a third opinion in, and listen to their input? Because I am. (You'll note that I was aggressively removing Deutsch's WP:SELFPUB defenses but stopped after User:Tornado chaser decided to put it back in himself, if you think I'm not sincere. I disagree with that, but I'll let it pass.) Note that if you do this and then just ignore the input, it'll be back to treating this as a vandalism issue and going to WP:ANI again... SnowFire (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The book doesn't say he's "nationally famous" and neither does BPD. Should I submit a PDF of the book page as a source? The "famous" language is language the reporter in this story used in a single paragraph--not a police quote. It's one reporter's characterization, and City Paper is hardly credible. Also, I believe they've gone out of business. There's no vandalism here--it's just you wanting non neutral edits to be forced in. In my view, you are the one doing the vandalizing. Also, what is "promotional" and "rambling" about a line that objectively states what the book is about? There are no superlatives. And no criticisms. It's just a neutral clause. If we can't agree on that, I'm not sure what we can agree on.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballastpointed (talk • contribs)

@alexvegaesquire: @SnowFire(presumably) and @BallastPointed , you both make logical points. But I don't see what's objectionable about the short description of book (an account of "overdoses and homicides" in Baltimore) in lede. That's literally what book is about. What would be the grounds for calling it promotional/peacocking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexVegaEsquire (talk • contribs)

First, a procedural note. Normally you sign at the end of your comments. When you write @(Username), you are addressing them, not claiming to be them.

I'm just going to copy - paste what I wrote above. Again.

As for the idea that "the Preacher described in book is not (famous)", read the source. Read the source. This idea that he wasn't famous is your own original research. The BCP says he was famous, in black and white, quoted. "Nationally famous." Let me repeat it for like the fourth time: you are free to disagree with the BCP. You are not free to claim that they wrote something that they didn't.

You cannot quote the book itself. It doesn't matter what your interpretation of the book is. You can upload the whole book if you like. What matters is what the secondary source said (WP:SECONDARY). You said the "BPD"; actually, according the BCP, the Baltimore Police Department couldn't make heads or tails of this book and couldn't find any analogues, and the crime spree it described was largely news to them. If the BPD *did* release a statement endorsing the book or some such, please link it! (If you are curious why Wikipedia has this rule, it is because certain people like to do things like quote the Constitution directly and make up their own interpretations that no historian or judge would agree with. In the same way, it is extremely easy to misleadingly quote primary sources... imagine a murder mystery where someone quotes an alibi from the first half of the book that is shown to be bogus in the second half.)

As for why I keep removing the longer description of the book. The book itself is only of borderline notability; the scandal, much more so. It's because it'd be like extensively describing Stephen Glass's articles before mentioning oh by the way he was at the center of a scandal. There are vastly more and stronger sources on the scandal than on the book itself. Sorry, that's just a fact. If you disagree... wait, you know what's coming... find some sources. I don't mean a single line in a "here is Booklist's list of 20 books that were released last month and Pill City is on the list." I mean stuff like what you can find at https://www.nytimes.com/section/books . Big, long-form reviews in major publications that show the book hit the cultural zeitgeist and were a thing that was talked about. I'm pretty sure that these sources don't exist, but maybe I'm wrong. Go find them! If you can find them, we can put the longer description back in the lede. SnowFire (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see I'm back to talking to myself. I guess it might be time to go back to ANI.

Ballastpointed, let us suppose hypothetically that the NY Daily News gave a full clear to Deutsch - not only did they find nothing, but they found strong evidence that his stories were all legit. No complaints. Well, then... that means Deutsch was just a normal journalist in that period, and there isn't much to talk about. It would adjust the date at which his stories started having sourcing problems is all. There are still zero sources (that aren't Deutsch's website, Deutsch's blog, interviews with Deutsch) that think his journalism career is any more interesting than the many, many other journalists out there. Put things another way, if someone is a tradesman for 20 years and a criminal for 5 years, in general a Wikipedia article will not go into immense detail about the 20 years of being a normal person. It won't talk about how they definitely didn't commit any crimes during that 20 year period and they don't see what the big deal is about because check out these normal years.

Of course, this is somewhat hypothetical, because Deutsch did *not* receive such a strong clear as I described above. The point remains though; not doing anything shady during this period, even if granted to be true, doesn't matter a whit for the accusations elsewhere, and can't be used to cover for them. SnowFire (talk) 03:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowFire: I think it's definitely time to go back to ANI. Pemilligan (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ayup.

Ballastpointed, re your edit summary of " if you have a source stating that allegations exist that Deutsch "fabricated events and quotes," please include.", well that's exactly the references after that line. I *had* included some hidden text before Tornado Chaser declared "article is not a talk page", that you surely read before, but for the record, I guess I'll paste it again:

This summation in the lede has been contested. Just to repeat the subtitle of this article: "Reporter Kevin Deutsch has been accused of fabricating sources in stories for major publications." In the title! So... yes, it is accurate to say that he has been accused of fabricating sources in stories. Incredibly, the "quotes" and "events" part has been challenged as well. See the iMediaNewsStory where Deutsch is directly accused of making up quotes from alleged sources Eric Baumer and Aahil Khan. See the Baltimore City Paper articles on Pill City for fabricating events.

https://www.imediaethics.org/exclusive-572-stories-fmr-ny-daily-news-crime-reporter-review-nyt-admits-source-fail/ , http://www.citypaper.com/blogs/the-news-hole/bcpnews-inconsistencies-raise-questions-about-pill-city-a-baltimore-tale-of-drugs-and-murder-20170217-story.html . SnowFire (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I knew this would happen after only Ballast was banned. Alex, stop. Go away. My patience for explaining basic, obvious things has worn thin.

I'll humor you one last time. David Simon is an authority with no particular stake in how Pill City does. He is a neutral source. The publisher of the book is NOT a neutral source, unless they did something surprising like withdraw the book. This is equivalent to citing a crime suspect's lawyer as an authority on whether or not her client did the deed. No. Try again. Also read WP:DUEWEIGHT. SnowFire (talk) 01:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I created this page long before the controversy, and Wikipedia found Deutsch relevant enough to include his page before any of the stuff that followed regarding his work. Why should I "go away" when I have as much right to be here as anyone? David Simon is not necessarily objective; he's a competitor with a financial interest in being the head honcho in BAL journalism. And St. Martin's is not some mopey lawyer; they're the fifth largest publisher in the world. What they says matters. I'd be happy to bring this to a third party for a ruling. I don't think you have much of a case/argument here. (talk)

As for the substance of your point. No David Simon is not a competitor, unless you count every single journalist as a competitor, which is ludicrous. Citing the publisher when this article already has extensive, extensive citing of Deutsch himself is a non-starter. I will give you an analogy. Suppose a movie is released that flopped. No good reviews can be found. However, there are advertisements from the studio and interviews with the director that all claim the movie is great. WP:DUEWEIGHT says that an article on this movie should not spend half the time on critical reviews trashing the movie, and half the time on the director & studio praising the movie as awesome. SnowFire (talk) 01:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit conflict] Actually, Snowfire has an iron-clad case here:

• St. Martin's has a DIRECT conflict of interest -- financial and reputational -- since they're Deutsch's publisher
• David Simon has NO direct conflict of interest, nor does your specious and self-serving reasoning make sense as an indirect one: how the hell is Simon "competing" and which is supposed to be gained by his supposedly unfairly denigrating this "competitor"?

Alexvegaesquire doesn't have a leg to stand on here. --Calton | Talk 01:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That said, the quoted text -- or some form thereof -- seems perfectly fine as an attributed defense of Deutsch by an interested party. --Calton | Talk 01:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that, I agree... except for WP:DUEWEIGHT issues. The article already incessantly cites Deutsch's website, interviews with Deutsch, etc. for every little explanation and rebuttal. While having Deutsch's point of view is fine, at some point it gets to be too much; citing both Deutsch and his publisher just seems like a way to double the amount of space for self-interested "Deutsch is innocent" claims. You only need to cite that side so much, especially when it comes down to basically blanket denials, rather than offering up some new piece of evidence that actually confirms anything. (To my knowledge, the publisher, if they confirmed anything, didn't actually release any details on the confirmation, nor convince anyone outside the publisher's office of their clearance, which might change the equation - then it wouldn't just be talk.) SnowFire (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kevin. I decided to let this page lie fallow for awhile in the hopes others would care, but I see we're at it again. This will be the final new explanation before just heading off to get one of us banned, but it's not hard. Here's the full quote from the edited Rolling Stone article:

For his part, last month Deutsch penned an unapologetic defense of his work. Pill City publisher St. Martin’s Press has remained steadfast in support of Deutsch’s reporting for the book. (At the time of publication, Deutsch declined to comment for this story. In August 2018, Deutsch got in touch with Rolling Stone to issue a statement: “Despite the false and baseless accusations made by a handful of competing journalists who targeted some of my work,” it reads, in part, “including the author of this very piece, none of the more than 1,500 news articles, briefs, features, or books I’ve published in my 16-year crime reporting career has ever been retracted, nor a single factual correction or clarification issued, as a result of these attacks.” )

So yes. This claim, while in the Rolling Stone article, is from Deutsch (i.e. you). That's what I was referring to in my edit summary, which is clearly, indisputably correct as you can see. Now, here's the part you're referring to:

Update: This story has been changed to clarify that Deutsch was never formally accused by any major news organization of fabricating sources.

Okay, fine, clearly RS heard your complaint, but again, this is not really relevant to the article. I'm sure Deutsch was not formally accused of lots of things. This isn't meaningful or relevant, and is outright misleading: it suggests an exoneration when there was none. It merely says a formal accusation didn't happen. That's it. The investigation of his previous stories, the accusations, that's what the Wikipedia article is covering. Finally, if it was included, it's surely not something that goes in the first sentence, narrative flow wise, as the allegations haven't even been explained yet and we're already saying that they didn't turn into formal accusations, as if that was somehow the key point. SnowFire (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of what Snowfire's written in this Talk section is patently and demonstrably untrue. His repeatedly deleting the consensus version of the article - hashed out long ago buy multiple editors - including multiple, credibly sourced details and their sources (like the article subject's nonprofit journalism job, current literary work, and the language of a major magazine's clarification clearly stating Deutsch was never formally accused of fabrication), goes against the spirit of this site and its policies.

- Sincerely, a concerned, independent editor, unconnected to the article subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harringhome1977 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a "consensus" version, unless you mean the consensus of WP:SPAs and IP addresses who only ever edit Kevin Deutsch article. Read the damn Rolling Stone article. In its totality, it's talking about accusations against Deutsch. A single sentence about Deustsch not being formally accused is not the main thrust of the article. SnowFire (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It’s the latest addition to the article and it’s a direct quote. Obviously an amended correction to an original article’s reporting , particularly in this case and under these circumstances, becomes the thrust. Harringhome1977 (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Admin note I have full-protected the article for four days. This is to get you people to stop edit warring (you can get blocked for that, you know) and come back to the talk page (where no one has posted for two days, even while the warring continued in the article). Try to work it out; ideally try to focus on finding wording that everyone can accept. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]