Talk:David McGimpsey

Allegations of sexual misconduct

As per the WP:BLP "Public figures" instructions, I am waiting for multiple sources before I include the sexual harassment allegations currently under investigation at Concordia University.

Here's the first source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/prominent-montreal-writers-investigated-in-concordia-sexual-misconduct-allegations-inquiry-1.4552716

Allanaaaaaaa (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Here's another: http://theconcordian.com/2018/03/complaints-filed-two-creative-writing-professors/ Grumblegromit (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

And another: https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/transcona-bred-prof-under-investigation-475620603.html Grumblegromit (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David McGimpsey. 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/20110611092248/http://www.brokenpencil.com/artist/artist.php?i=41 to http://www.brokenpencil.com/artist/artist.php?i=41

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 06:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

removed contentious content

It gives undo weight to a matter that is still under investigation. It is premature to include it in the article till it gets sorted out.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

There's no basis in policy for waiting until it gets "sorted out". Stick to our core policies of WP:V and WP:RS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The content removed was: In January 2018 his classes were reassigned as he is currently under investigation for sexual assault, following a larger inquiry into sexual misconduct and assault at Concordia University. It does not say he committed sexual assault, just that he is under investigation. This may fall under WP:BLPCRIME, as they are currently just allegations. _{Vermont | reply here} 12:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Note: There is a discussion at WP:BLPN. _{Vermont | reply here} 12:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• As I commented at BLPN, it would be a complete perversion of our BLP policy to allow the implication of criminal matters (which sexual assault fundamentally is) when no charges have been filed, but to suddenly have to remove it once charges have been filed. I blocked as an uninvolved administrator, but having looked at this further, I am inclined to agree with Dlohcierekim on the content dispute at issue here. We would need much more significant sourcing for these claims as they are undue, and certainly run against the intent of BLPCRIME. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

We wouldn't have to remove anything at all -- we would simply (continue to) cover the noncriminal aspect and omit any coverage of criminal charges, etc. This is a simple matter of going with what the policy says. You are extrapolating from the policy, asking it to do something that isn't stated. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

See Collect's response at BLPN (pinging here since more discussion seems to be happening on this talk page). Sexual assault is fundamentally criminal. I am extrapolating from policy, yes, but considering that we are not a bureaucracy and that the BLP policy is a set of principles that we generally read in the most cautious approach, that is in my view the correct course of action here. We don't read a giant loophole into the BLP policy that has real potential to damage people's lives longterm, and even if BLPCRIME did not apply, we would have to consider issues of whether this was undue weight. The obligation is on those wanting to include information to make a case for inclusion once challenged(WP:ONUS), and simply being verifiable is not enough, especially in light of the BLP principles at stake here. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Sexual assault exists even when it is not criminal. There's no loophole here -- just reading the policy as it is written. We're sure to continue disagreeing about this... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

In terms of disagreement, yes, we likely are, but under ONUS to restore the information, we need consensus. Currently the consensus at BLPN and here seems to be against inclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, stick to our core policies. Do not use primary sources in biographies, and remember that news reports are primary sources for the events that they report. Ask any professional librarian, or any historian, if you don't believe me. Nyttend (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Good lord. If we're not meant to use news reports in biographies, then we have a fuck of a lot of work to do around here... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

---

Please see the conversation between myself and TonyBallioni (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC) below --13ab37 (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the scary template, it is just to let you know that we have a special set of rules around biographies of living people and our policy that applies to them (WP:BLP). The issue on David McGimpsey is that the current consensus is that the accusations should not be a part of the article as per WP:BLPCRIME and because the reporting on it is based on one primary source (the CBC, which is high quality, but consensus is currently it isn't enough to include it under our policy.) This is because we are very conservative with our treatment of living persons, and typically a new report about an administrative investigation by an employer about criminal matters where no charges, much less a conviction, will not make it into a BLP except in exceptional circumstances. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, TonyBallioni I appreciate your feedback. There is not just the one CBC article. Please see: https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/transcona-bred-prof-under-investigation-475620603.html http://theconcordian.com/2018/03/complaints-filed-two-creative-writing-professors/ http://theconcordian.com/2018/03/complaints-filed-two-creative-writing-professors/ Moreover, I believe that it is our role to challenge guidelines and policies, on and off of Wikipedia, which uphold the patriarchy and which make permissible the type of silencing of voices that has allowed perpetrators of sexual violence to continue unimpeded for so long. --13ab37 (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Except you make the assumption that he is actually a perpetrator of sexual violence, which Wikipedia considers a problem since he has not been convicted. Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. A report of one instance of opening an investigation by two papers (again, same instance), and then the paper of the university itself, are not enough to merit inclusion in the article. He is a private individual in the eyes of our BLP policy, and thus we are very cautious about what we include. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

How is a public intellectual a private individual, especially when considering that the allegations were made by his students? I understand the BLP policy and who it wants to protect and I urge you to understand how that same policy upholds implicit and explicit bias on this site and in society. --13ab37 (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Simply being notable does not make one a public figure. If that was the case, the BLP policy would be much more week than it currently is. He is not well known and is a private individual: not a celebrity, not a well known politician at the provincial or national level: just an author and an academic. Our biographies of living person policy puts the individual person first: as I said before, we do not exist to right great wrongs. If you wish to publish information about how horrible he is on your own or to advocate for reform of laws on how we convey this information to the public, then that is an effort you have the right to make. Wikipedia is not the place for it, however, as the first bullet point in RGW makes clear. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm inclined to support what TonyBallioni said. Although McGimpsey has (probably, he's not convicted yet) committed terrible acts, he has not yet been proven in court to be guilty of such crimes. I recognize that there are many sources about this, and I recognize the importance of WP:IAR to make Wikipedia the great place that it is (or should be, that's a whole other discussion). But, when it comes to BLP's, we must be extremely careful. If someone is looking to research this person, they will find these accusations through Google, but Wikipedia is not the place to publish them (yet). _{Vermont | reply here} 21:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

He is under administrative investigation at his place of employment for something that is a criminal offense. That's multiple steps removed from what the BLP policy wants before we would report on stuff like this. It's simply too early to have it on Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)