User:Psychonaut/Sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user page is actively undergoing a major edit for a short while. As a courtesy, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed. The user who added this notice will be listed in the page history. If this page has not been edited for several hours, please remove this template, or replace it with {{underconstruction}}. This message is intended to help reduce edit conflicts; please remove it between editing sessions to allow others to edit the page.

[edit] Margita Bangová

This article was about a Czech woman, Margita Bangova, who immigrated to Toronto and became a street beggar. The article asserted notability on two grounds:

1. She was featured in a Czech television documentary urging members of her ethnic group to immigrate to Canada. According to referenced news reports, that documentary was responsible for an immigration wave, and that immigration wave was in turn responsible for Canada implementing visa restrictions on Czech citizens.
2. According to tabloid journalist Mike Strobel, Bangova misled passersby into believing that she was disabled and impoverished, when in fact she was healthy and well-off. This allegation attracted considerable attention; it and the ensuing events were covered not just by the tabloid that broke the story but by mainstream local and national newspapers such as the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail, as well as national television networks such as CTV, CBC, and CityTV. Bangova herself participated by holding a press conference. Coverage continued sporadically over a period of five years, up to and including last month.

The Wikipedia article reported on the documentary and visa issue, as well as the begging exposé. It summarized both the allegations and Bangova's response to them, as well as the published criticism directed at the tabloid and at Bangova. (That is, not only Bangova but the exposé itself were the subject of multiple published works.)

The article was originally nominated for deletion on the grounds that it was racist, a charge that was not taken seriously by most participants in the discussion. However, a number of editors did raise the issue of possible WP:BLP violations. Various editors addressed these concerns by rewording the text, adding or removing information, and including further sources. The result of the deletion discussion was to keep the article. However, some editors remained unhappy with it, and particularly with the fact that many of the references were either to foreign-language sources or to the tabloid that broke the story. The article was then speedy-deleted by an administrator as "Local news story masquerading as a biography, nothing but a vehicle for bigotry".

I'd like this deletion to come under review as I'm not convinced that the accusations levelled at the article are correct, or where they are correct, that they are sufficient grounds for deletion.

In particular:

"Bangova is of local interest only, or notable for only one event."

Bangova has been featured not only in the Toronto press, but in the national print and television media. She was featured in a Czech television documentary and reported on in Czech and American newspapers. Coverage has included her allegedly deceptive begging, the visa/immigration issue, and a criminal conviction for assault.

"Tabloids shouldn't be used as sources."

This is generally true. But just because a tabloid breaks a story doesn't mean it isn't reliable, factually correct, or notable. Tabloids occasionally break major stories or propel people to fame (or to notoreity) with their coverage. For example, Rebecca Loos initially became famous (and was covered in Wikipedia) because of her coverage in the News of the World; James McAuley and Harold Stewart were first exposed as hoaxers in the Adelaide Daily Mail, and the Khmer Rouge atrocities were first reported by John Pilger, a correspondent for the Daily Mirror. In short, one cannot discount the only primary source for an event simply on the basis that that source is a tabloid, because otherwise some notable topics wouldn't have any primary sources at all. In fact, in this particular case it's largely the tabloid story itself that's notable, because it attracted significant national and international coverage and criticism.

"Foreign-language sources are not to be used."

At least one editor has alleged this, which I think is a pretty blatant misrepresentation of Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources in languages other than English. If we do not allow primary sources in foreign languages, we might as well delete most articles on foreign and historical topics.

"The article is sensationalist."

WP:BLP states that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and as such it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." There is no denying that the original articles published by Strobel were sensationalist. However, Strobel's sensationalism was in the style of his articles; the facts he reported in sensationalistic language were still facts. Subsequent coverage of Bangova in more reputable papers and in the television news was by no means sensationalist, and neither was the Wikipedia article. The article summarized Strobel's allegations, Bangova's response, and the surrounding controversy in neutral language. In writing the article I aimed to create a piece where people interested in the Bangova case could get a basic summary of the facts. People who are interested only in "titillating claims" and editorializing can stick with the original Strobel articles.

"The article is a vehicle for racism or bigotry."

Can we please assume good faith here? I don't condone what Strobel did, and for all I know he is a racist bigot, but that doesn't mean that summarizing the events he set into motion makes me a racist bigot. The Bangova coverage had terrible repercussions for the homeless population of Toronto; newspapers reported that people no longer felt comfortable giving money to beggars because they were afraid of being deceived. I deplore this in the strongest possible terms, but I also deplore having to say this in the first place. I shouldn't have to defend my motives for writing an article which, while it had some legitimate WP:BLP issues, was by no means an overt attack piece. This article, like many others I started, arose because I was looking for comprehensive factual information on a person or event I had read about. Finding nothing but primary sources (many of which liberally mixed opinion and editorializing with novel facts), I set out to distill the information into something concise and useful. If I failed to do so, I can only attribute this to honest incompetence.

Perhaps the article should not be restored in its most recent form, but I do sincerely believe that Bangova, or at least the controversy surrounding her, easily meets our notability criteria. The main issue that needs consensus, though, is to what extent we can reference the tabloids as verifiable sources. I should emphasize that in this case I am not saying that we must accept or present Strobel's claims about Bangova as true. Rather, I am saying that what Strobel wrote (regardless of its veracity) became notable by virtue of its coverage in mainstream media, and is therefore an encyclopedic topic. It's impossible to discuss Strobel's notable allegations without citing the newspaper in which they were originally published, tabloid or otherwise. If we can agree that such citations are permissible in this case, then we can move on to constructing an article which adheres to WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. —Psychonaut 23:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)