Talk:Maureen White

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

Johnsaavn (talk · contribs) has been paid by unknown.

Dubious?

@Johnsaavn: What do you find dubious about all that sourced material you tagged? Largoplazo (talk) 02:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've already removed the tags as there is nothing dubious about them. Johnsaavn already tried to remove the drunk driving charge, and it appears that since he can't do that, he wantrs to cast doubt on the sourcing. His talk page reveals a history of users warning him about potential COI, and I imagine this is relevant. PaulCHebert (talk) 04:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)----[reply]

Hello - hope and trust that you are well.

Happy to explain why I added the dubious tags (see below).

Will stand down if you feel I am in error - but please hear me out.

RE: JURY DISCUSSIONS/AFGHAN REFUGEE COMMENTS

Regarding the jury discussions, the exact article you cite states that different jurors have very different opinions of what was actually said. Read the actual story. I did.

These aren't "facts" at all - it's hearsay.

In fact, the jury foreman - in the very article you cite - says that the exchange you've put on Ms. White's page never happened, and that the witness you cited isn't credible.

So we have a claim, from a deemed "not credible" witness, denied by many.

Dubious?

ALLEGED .17 DUI COMMENTS

Regarding the DUI .17 you again cite an article that has ONLY a hearsay statement (unnamed "sources say").

Understand the gravity of the allegation here: a .17 DUI.

For a charge so grave, surely there must be an actual legal document you can cite?

How about any person who goes on the record that says this from actual law enforcement?

Seems that a claim like that should have more backup than an "unnamed source" in one article cited.

Please read the article you cited - there is no actual, named source for the info here.

Dubious?

CONCLUSION

I don't think these questions are unfair.

Perhaps there are better citations for this information, from actual, on-record sources?

I absolutely trust the judgment of other editors - and if I am out of line here, I will absolutely back off and table the objections.

I'll leave the matter to your judgment.

Thank you for hearing me out.

Warm Regards,

Johnsaavn (talk) 12:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)johnsaavn[reply]

White acknowledged losing her temper, so what difference does it make if another juror claims it didn't happen? "White ... conceded yesterday that she lost her patience, complained that she needed to get back to the refugees and called Cohen a “child” in the heat of deliberations". If the complaining juror said that this speech by White that White later confirmed made him feel "bullied", who is another juror to say either that White didn't act the way she acted or that the complaining juror didn't feel bullied by it? Largoplazo (talk) 12:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, when you post a {{dubious}} tag, please take the time to explain on the Talk page what you find dubious. A tag is a request for others to consider the possible problem you have raised and to consider whether they agree and perhaps take next steps or else remove the tags if they consider it a non-issue. If you don't explain what you find dubious about sourced content, how is anybody else supposed to know what issue you want us to address? Largoplazo (talk) 12:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Answering your question...

The reason I tagged the content as dubious is this... Dubious means "not to be relied upon, suspect."

In the article you cited... three people commented about the alleged exchange; two of them (White and the Jury Foreman) say the exchange never happened.

If 2/3 of the people say it did not happen - isn't that dubious?

I don't believe that's an unfair question.

But if you truly disagree, I'll stand down. Up to you. Thanks.

Johnsaavn (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)johnsaavn[reply]

@Johnsaavn: How is it that after reading the passage I quoted about how White conceded that she behaved as stated, you're still asserting that White said "the exchange never happened"? You realize "concede" is the opposite of "deny", right? Largoplazo (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please keep this disagreement civil? I do know "concede" and "deny" are antonyms (to answer your question). My $.02 is this: the article essentially discredits the witness you cite; there's quite a bit more in there about the alleged accuser being a "crackpot" and worse. That was my objection; you clearly disagree, and that's ok. If you truly feel this should be on this page, I'll stand down. I'll accept your judgment on this matter. Let's drop it.Johnsaavn (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)johnsaavn[reply]

To be clear, Maureen White disagreed with you, according to that article. Largoplazo (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]