Talk:Lee Chatfield

In the news

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2018/07/31/lawmaker-apologizes-loaded-gun-airport/875199002/

2606:6000:FECD:1400:A059:E5E4:C1B9:8830 (talk)

Page Potentially Subject to Vandalism

I'm counting 20 edits this morning. One eliminated nearly all biographical information other than firearms violation and 2020 white house visit.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Needs to have a more professional objective view point

Whenever edits are again allowed on the page, there are several references to the subject that are simply "too familiar" and should be corrected. The references to "Lee" are conversational, not encyclopediatic. That needs to be dealt with. This isn't a PR piece, it's not a campaign orientated publication, it is an entry into Wikipedia. SJKHBalto (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

COI/UPE editing on this page

I'm convinced that there has been COI or UPE editing on this page, not necessarily recently. With the recent news there seems to be something of a slow-speed edit war and some whitewashing. I do believe that the recent news should be mentioned briefly in the lede, in order to summarize the body of the text. That section is likely to only get larger with his admission of having several affairs and the investigation of the criminal complaint. .

So I'll put something short back in the lede. I'll ask everybody to carefully avoid anything that looks like COI editing, whitewashing, etc. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't do that, Smallbones; it would simply get reverted again. Its just common sense that when you encounter resistance to an edit, to head to the discussion page, ping the disputing party/parties and get to talking about how to proceed. Doing anything less than that is edit-warring.

As well, this is a BLP, so very, very different rules are in place when a real live person is being written about. The Lede is an even shorter summary of the article, which is itself a short summary of the subject of the BLP. As the current investigation has not been concluded, we don't know if the accusations are going to amount to an arrest or conviction. Until they do, they do NOT belong in the Lede.

Richard Jewell was accused of being the Olympic Park Bomber and - while uncharged - underwent a Trial by media for almost three months, during which time his entire life and livelihood were annihilated. After the actual bomber Eric Rudolph confessed and was arrested and convicted for the crime, not a single person or media outlet apologized for the harm they had done to Jewell. If I accuse you of being a pedophile based upon seeing you pushing a child on a swing, even if I withdraw the accusation, the suspicion will never, ever leave you.

This is why we are so very careful with BLP articles, and why we offer nothing destructive in such articles until it is a matter of public record. There is ABSOLUTELY NO RUSH to add this to the article.

That he is being investigated is a matter of public record, and can be enclosed in a subsection. If he is arrested, the arrest record is forever, and can sourced then. And not one second before. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I started this discussion and you're now the 2nd person to say I should start a discussion!? I'm very well aware of WP:BLP and I think you are wrong if you are saying things like we have to wait until he is arrested, or until he is indicted, or he is convicted, or he resigns (from what?). The allegations are clear, made in public and a serious investigation is taking place. He's been accused of sexual abuse of his sister-in-law in the Michigan Capitol building while he was the Michigan Speaker of the House. There's coverage from multiple reliable sources that these allegations were made in public by a named person and that the official investigations are under way. He is a public figure who held high public office at the time many of the alleged acts were said to have occured. And then there are his admissions that he has had multiple affairs with women, including his accuser. And the there is the problem that she says she was a minor when the alleged sexual abuse began.

About 4 editors have inserted this documented material. About 3 have removed it.

And finally there's a problem with a possible COI/UPE editor on the page. I'm just letting folks know to be careful what they delete here. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, I have no horse in this particular race; if anything, I am known to be particularly cynical of anything related to the GOP. So I am going to insist that you practice some more AGF here. If you think that someone has a conflict of interest, there is a noticeboard to report that; mentioning it here doesn't 'let folks know,' it poisons the well of good faith that is supposed to be in the article and makes it that much harder to find a solution. It can also be seen tendentious editing and can get you blocked.

And again, you are just plain wrong when it comes to the extent that we talk about negative information being introduced or emphasized in a BLP article. Being accused is one thing; it means that someone has been accused of something; unless its been covered by RS, we can't even mention it. Being investigated by law enforcement is another thing; it is usually covered by multiple RS and we can mention it in its own section (ie. 'Legal troubles'). It is not yet a major part of the BLP's story; therefore, it doesn't warrant a mention in the Lede. If he is arrested or convicted for any crimes, then - and only then - does it become a major part of the person's life story and warrants mentioning in the Lede. Until that time, you don't get to add your moral outrage to the article. If you are having some trouble maintaining a NPOV, take a break, have some tea and follow your bliss elsewhere.

But clearly, you doubt my logic and grasp of wiki policy in this matter. Feel free to ask around. Post a query on the BLP noticeboard and get more insight (and hopefully, more eyes on this article, which is always a good thing) into how to proceed with this article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Just flat out assuming that this section is about me--but regardless of who this is about, how is there a possible COI? If you could provide some clarity for this that would be appreciated. Thanks! --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 05:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be preferable for inter-user disagreements to be handled in your respective userspaces or at the appropriate noticeboard, and not here in article or article talk space. Stay on target, guys. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@PerpetuityGrat: - no, I'm not accusing you of COI or UPE editing. I do strong;y believe that there has been such editing by one of the major contributors to the article. I simply have not wanted anybody to get accidentally involved when they don't need to. I've been waiting for an email response from the major contributor, but haven't received one so I will proceed according to the usual procedures, which may take some time until you see results.

As far as the interpretations of WP:BLP that I see above, I have to say they are simply wrong. See, in particular, the section WP:BLPPUBLIC. Chatfield has made himself a very public figure by running for office, serving as Speaker of the Michigan House of Representatives, etc. His lawyer has made a statement on his behalf saying that he did have an affair with his accuser, and multiple (other) women. The relevant text from WP:BLPPUBLIC is:

"If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. ...
Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred.
If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported, while adhering to appropriate due weight of all sources covering the subject and avoiding false balance."

The false balance here would be to omit the incident in the lede. It's clearly one of the major events in his political career. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

You should feel entirely free to argue that this investigation belongs in the Lede. No one is arguing that it should not be in the article; it is, and even has its own subsection to do so. And the only reason we would mention it at all is the same reason why the subject has an article - they are noteworthy. But we protect subjects of BLPs because a single source - and if you actually look at the 'sources', you will see they all were based upon the original AP article - is not enough to warrant a single item overrunning the entire article. And that - as has been explained in earlier posts - is precisely what would happen if we gave the accusation merit before decisions were made at the prosecutorial level. We will not create another Richard Jewell here.

The very fact that you are arguing that a police investigation is (somehow) a part of his political career suggests that you might need to step back and re-evaluate your own reasons for pushing this so hard - especially since you are so very clearly wrong.

As I noted in the first sentence, you are free to argue that it belongs in the Lede, but not here. Either create an RfC regarding your opinion, or take it to the BLP noticeboard. Your argument is contrary to both the spirit and the letter of Wikipedia's policy regarding the biographies of living people. Those are the current avenues you should pursue to garner support for your desired change; you have not succeeded in altering my view of the matter. Maybe by widening the circle, you will find more support. Go find out. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: Read WP:BLPPUBLIC which I already quoted above. It not only allows this material, it encourages it. Please don't repeat your denial of policy again.

Also you are wrong about the sources - there were 58 articles about this in google news last time I checked. They were not all repeating the AP story, which was about the 3rd or 4th story to come out. See these stories:

• https://www.lansingcitypulse.com/stories/chatfield-headline,19456 cited by AP
• https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2022/01/06/lee-chatfield-sexual-abuse-allegations-michigan-state-police-investigating-baptist-church/9124052002/
• https://www.bridgemi.com/children-families/sister-law-ex-mi-house-speaker-lee-chatfield-sexually-assaulted-me-teen had full interview ready
• https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2022/01/06/former-house-speaker-lee-chatfield-accused-sexual-assault/9123657002/
• https://apnews.com/article/michigan-lansing-sexual-assault-f8853df649cb7b15a2024f2f5e59e149 cited Pulse story.

It's hard to say who was 2nd after the pulse - but you can't say everybody was just copying AP! Others had additional facts on the same date.

It is also not the case that just one accuser is providing all the facts.

• His sister-in-law has provided many of the facts, via an interview and her lawyer
• Lee Chatfield, thru his lawyer, has denied some of the accusations but confirmed that he had multiple extramarital sexual affairs, including with the accuser.
• His brother Aaron, supports his wife, and has made additional accusations against Lee (e,g Lee attending strip clubs and meeting women in hotels)
• Another brother has given luke-warm support to Lee
• His father Pastor Rusty Chatfield preached a sermon in public about the nasty people attacking his son.
• The new Michigan Speaker of the House and his official counsel have send emails, telling the representatives to preserve evidence.
• Several representative have given their reactions to the affair.
• The Lansing Police and Michigan State police have stated that they are both investigating a criminal complaint.

So whatever you say - there are multiple sources to the story. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Smallbones, Jack is correct. Putting these accusations in the lead is undue. If you think Jack is wrong you might take this to the BLPN or perhaps NPOVN. Either of those should give you a lot more feedback (and might say you are correct afterall). Springee (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Smallbones:I am glad that you were able to find more sources than the initial AP one that was copied by others. It would appear that the news story is being covered by more outlets which is excellent; it provides us with a number of different choices to detail - but not infinitesimally - the various comments. That said, the original caveat remains - until he is arrested or convicted, there is no way that info is going to be allowed in the Lede, as per the Richard Jewell example I noted previously. And in case you might be under the mistaken impression that I am defending the guy, I'm not. I am defending the Wiki-En, and every BLP within it.

You now have two different, experienced editors suggesting that you formally address your concerns via RfC, BLPN or - as @Springee: suggested - NPOVN, though I think that last one is addressing the vigor with which you want the subject set on fire. I would suggest you explore those other avenues of enquiry. I only ask that when/if you do, you post a link to the discussion here. Thanks. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)