Talk:Jesse Arreguín

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Subject's self-description[edit]

User 2602:306:834E:5300:593D:F566:F37E:F7CE removed this well-sourced material:

Arreguin has represented himself on his Facebook page as a member of BAMN, a militant antifascist civil-rights group.[1]

References

  1. ^ Ciccotta, Tom (April 21, 2017). "Berkeley Mayor Is Member of Antifa Facebook Group that Organized Riots". Breitbart. Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin is a member of the anti-fascist Facebook group, By Any Means Necessary, which orchestrated the riots that occurred ahead of a scheduled lecture by Milo Yiannopoulos.

The editor wrote, "Removed fake news put in yesterday", suggesting that the subject had misrepresented his affiliation.

I'm restoring the material per WP:PUBLICFIGURE (if the information is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article — even if the subject currently dislikes all mention of it); WP:BLPSELFPUB (not unduly self-serving; no claims about other persons or unrelated events; no reasonable doubt about authenticity); and WP:BLPSOURCES. The information is attributed to a good, reliable source (Breitbart), which attributes it to the source's archived Facebook page and gives additional supporting material.

No one other than this single-edit user is known to have questioned the subject's self-description or called it "fake news". --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The information is also attributed to The Daily Caller, which appears to be (in this context) a reliable source. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Local newssite Berkeleyside has reported that both Mayor Arreguin and BAMN have proven that Arreguin is in fact no way affiliated with BAMN (See article here). Therefore, the allegations that he has been a member of BAMN have undeniably been proven false and should therefore be removed from this page. --24.5.193.53 (talk) 03:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@24.5.193.53: The Mayor, as a politician, appears to care a great deal about whether the allegations have been "proven false". You and I, as Wikipedia editors, do not. We just care whether they're well sourced. (See WP:BLPSOURCES.) You're welcome to discuss this issue further at WP:BLPN.
Thank you for bringing up the Berkeleyside story. It quotes the subject as indicating that yes, he had indeed joined BAMN's Facebook group (and had also 'liked' its FB page). I'm adding that information to the article. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

An editor, citing Breitbart and a local community news source (Berkeleyside), added, in good faith, the information that "conservative news outlets expressed concern..." Neither source made the claim that conservative news outlets had expressed concern. Nor has any such news outlet "expressed" its concern. A reputable publication expresses its concerns in editorials, not news articles. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a confusing comment. I recently removed Breitbart from this bio [1], but looking over the edit history it appears you have restored Breitbart [2]. The content regarding BAMN has been reported by better sources and per BLP, I don't think we should reference Breitbart in this bio for what could be construed as contentious content. The sentence "conservative news outlets expressed concern" seems to be an adequate summary of the Berkeleyside and Fox News sources, but I'm not attached to it. The issue here is the repeated re-adding of Breitbart as a reference to this BLP. --DynaGirl (talk) 23:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DynaGirl: Many thanks for raising this issue. Yes, RSN does say that Breitbart doesn't count as a RS. Yet WP:SOURCE, which is policy, says that the appropriateness of any source depends on the context. This means that Breitbart can be used in the context of directly supporting a claim like, "Breitbart alleged that Arreguin was a member of the Facebook group, By Any Means Necessary".
Also, BLPSOURCES policy emphasizes that poorly sourced material should be removed immediately if it's contentious. Nobody -- including the subject -- has contended that Arreguin wasn't a member of the Facebook group, BAMN. Nor has anybody -- including the subject -- challenged the claim that Breitbart said he was. Rather, the subject himself has supported both claims. By definition, the material isn't contentious.
I'm rewriting the sentence accordingly. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DynaGirl: To clear up the (understandable) confusion: "Expressed concern" means "expressed a feeling of worry". And Berkeleyside did not say that conservative news outlets expressed any concern or worry about the Facebook matter. Rather, it said that those outlets used it "to 'explain' why, from their point of view, Berkeley police did not come down aggressively on the Antifa protesters". Breitbart or TDC may have felt vindicated, but I don't think we want to claim that they expressed any feelings at all. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Further edits welcome.
For now at least, let's try to not to make even the most seemingly inconsequential interpretation of what a source (or the subject) said. In a matter this sensitive, quoting may be better than paraphrasing. Keep it precise.
Also: When you cite a policy, could you please mention the particular section (or paragraph) that you believe is most relevant? --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Increase police funding in Berkeley[edit]

Would like to suggest that the City of Berkeley increase its police funding. Last year my car was stolen twice, and I keep reading about more and more car thefts. We have a wonderful police force, it’s just that we need more funding to get better coverage.

Best, Dr. Sarah Gill Scenic Ave., Berkeley 2601:644:400:17C0:B5B4:2444:9E8:6AE6 (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]