Wikipedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Grooming gang moral panic in the United Kingdom

2024-10-08T15:33:27Z

Bluetik: /* Challenge of "Moral Panic" title change closure moved to user talk page. */ Reply

{{talk header}}
{{Old AfD multi |date=26 August 2024 |result='''keep''' |page=Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom}}
{{Old DRV
| date = 4 September 2024
| result = '''no consensus'''
| page = Log/2024 September 4
| oldid =
}}
{{Old prod
| nom = Lp9mm8g
| nomdate = 2024-08-16
| nomreason = disinformation (article title and introduction not supported by content)
| 2nd =
| 2nddate = 2024-08-16
| 2ndreason =
| con = Jonathan Deamer
| condate = 2024-08-16
| conreason = [[WP:DEPROD]] - this should be discussed / improvements to the article should be sought first.
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell |blpo=yes |class=C |collapsed=yes |1=
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject United Kingdom |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Discrimination}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Islam}}
}}
{{Annual readership}}
{{Press
| date = 8 October 2024
| title = Outrage as Wikipedia changes grooming gangs article to ‘moral panic’ from the 'Far-Right'
| url = https://www.gbnews.com/news/outrage-as-wikipedia-changes-grooming-gangs-article-to-moral-panic-from-the-far-right
| org = GB News
}}
{{old move|date1=16 August 2024|name1=South Asian Muslim grooming gang panic|destination1=Ethnicity and grooming gangs in the United Kingdom|result1=moved to [[Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom]]|link1=Special:Permalink/1242065526#Requested move 16 August 2024|date2=3 September 2024|from2=Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom|destination2=Grooming Gang Moral Panic in UK|result2=moved|link2=Special:Permalink/1249693953#Requested move 3 September 2024}}

== Proposed Deletion ==

When "84% of researchers say that grooming gang members were Asian" it is important that we do not try to hide uncomfortable facts and history. <ref>https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/quilliam-grooming-gangs-report-asian-abuse-rotherham-rochdale-newcastle-a8101941.html</ref>

I vote not to delete this page. [[User:Johnmars3|Johnmars3]] ([[User talk:Johnmars3|talk]]) 05:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

:They were Muslim, mainly Pakistani. Asian gives the impression that they might be Chinese or Thai. [[Special:Contributions/79.155.74.100|79.155.74.100]] ([[User talk:79.155.74.100|talk]]) 15:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
::"Asian" in the UK includes middle eastern and south Asian people. [[Special:Contributions/2603:9001:2900:4D01:F0A8:C2FF:5F56:F19B|2603:9001:2900:4D01:F0A8:C2FF:5F56:F19B]] ([[User talk:2603:9001:2900:4D01:F0A8:C2FF:5F56:F19B|talk]]) 15:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Just so new comments don't keep getting added to this two month old discussion, the deletion was contested, there was a discussion about it and ultimately the article was kept.
:::If you're looking to comment on the article as it currently looks you should look to the thread lower down in the page. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°'' 15:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

This page is a rather blatant attempt to manufacture a narrative, whitewashing/minimizing the phenomenon of Asian/Muslim grooming gangs in the UK with a misleading title and introduction which are not supported by the rest of the page or the majority of sources. Only a single source refers to this as a "panic" of any sort. It is telling that the first reference to any actual data, in the second paragraph, reads "Some statistical analysis...", meanwhile the rest of the article indicates that the majority of "statistical analyses" unambiguously imply that Asian Muslims are overrepresented among group-based child sexual abuse perpetrators, including the Home Office study which, as detailed in the article, was misleadingly interpreted in line with the false narrative of this page. In modern parlance, this page is misinformation/disinformation and therefore should be deleted. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Lp9mm8g|Lp9mm8g]] ([[User talk:Lp9mm8g#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Lp9mm8g|contribs]]) 15:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC) 

:Support. This page is worse than pointless. It seeks to obfuscate. [[User:Riposte97|Riposte97]] ([[User talk:Riposte97|talk]]) 20:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}

== Renamed page ==

The title of this page has been changed from 'Muslim grooming gang panic' to 'South Asian Muslim grooming gang panic'. However, the sources referred to throughout the article do not refer this phenomenon as "South Asian Muslim grooming gangs"' but rather "Asian grooming gangs", "Muslim grooming gangs" or "Pakistani grooming gangs". After a quick Google search, I was also unable to find the term 'South Asian grooming gang' receiving mass usage. I believe this may be because Asian typically already refers to South Asians in the UK so it does not need further specification. The term is also inappropriate as it excludes perpetrators from [https://theliberal.ie/police-in-scotland-took-down-large-asylum-seeker-grooming-gang-in-glasgow-but-allegedly-kept-it-quiet/ regions outside of South Asia] such as Afghans, Iranians, Iraqis, Kurds, Turks, Egyptians, Moroccans and Albanians who have been involved in [[Newcastle sex abuse ring|notable cases]]. Given this, changing the page name may be in breach of [[WP:NOR]] or [[WP:NPOV]]. [[User:Kioj156|Kioj156]] ([[User talk:Kioj156|talk]]) 19:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

:Get the title changed back to what is was, a gang of Muslims grooming children. Anything other than the truth is an insult to the victims. [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23EE:1768:16CE:8DCE:64D3:B5BD:F6ED|2A00:23EE:1768:16CE:8DCE:64D3:B5BD:F6ED]] ([[User talk:2A00:23EE:1768:16CE:8DCE:64D3:B5BD:F6ED|talk]]) 14:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
::Agreed, it's not a moral panic, the facts support justifed concern. Moral panic implies there is nothing to be outraged about [[User:Rootless Co$mopolitan|Rootless Co$mopolitan]] ([[User talk:Rootless Co$mopolitan|talk]]) 15:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
:::This thread is two month out of date, new discussion about the article are happy lower down in the page. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°'' 15:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

== Requested move 16 August 2024 ==

<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. '''Please do not modify it.''' Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''

The result of the move request was: '''moved to [[Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom]]''' ([[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Closure by a page mover|closed by non-admin page mover]]) [[User talk:Reading Beans|'''Reading Beans''']] 12:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
----

[[:South Asian Muslim grooming gang panic]] → {{no redirect|Ethnicity and grooming gangs in the United Kingdom}} – As discussed above, "South Asian" is not commonly used by sources. I don't think "moral panic" is unanimous/sourced enough to meet [[WP:NPOVTITLE]]. Taking a cue from this BBC article on the topic: [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65174096 "Grooming gangs and ethnicity: What does the evidence say?"] [[User:Jonathan Deamer|Jonathan Deamer]] ([[User talk:Jonathan Deamer|talk]]) 19:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

:Thank you for starting this. Whilst I think the title is a step in the right direction, I am not sure it captures the religious element that has been reported to take place across numerous cases. I understand the controversy surrounding the term 'Asian grooming gangs' - on one end, the perception that it is a 'dog whistle' term that will only stoke community tensions and on the other by Sikh and Hindu groups who feel that it paints their entire demographic in a negative light when perpetrators are mostly neither Sikh or Hindu. However, one reason why the phenomenon has gained so much coverage is due to the perception that there is an over-representation of a certain demographic in the crime, and I do not believe the proposed title of 'Ethnicity and grooming gangs in the United Kingdom' accurately captures this. The 'moral panic' claim has also not received widespread adoption so I would not be in favour of it being included in a page title.
:Multiple inquiries, investigations and victims have publicly spoken out that fears of linking race and religion to grooming gangs have prevented public discourse on this topic and I hope that we can learn from their failures. Therefore, I propose the title of ''''Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom''''. This would capture the phenomenon of the over-representation with most of the Asian perpetrators involved in the numerous cases hailing from Pakistan as well as other Muslim-majority countries such as Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Egypt, Morocco, Bangladesh etc., and is supported by the Bhatti-Sinclair and Sutcliffe study.
:If the title is renamed as so, a new section can be created to stress that Muslim organisations in the United Kingdom have spoken out against the practice. [[User:Kioj156|Kioj156]] ([[User talk:Kioj156|talk]]) 12:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' [[Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom]] per above. The term "South Asian" isn't commonly used in the UK, where "Asian" usually only means people from South Asia. [[Asian grooming gangs in the United Kingdom]] would be okay, as most of them have been dominated by Asians, but it is true that the vast majority of the perpetrators have been Muslims, so omitting the religion would be odd and also could be construed as offensive to other Asians (although still entirely accurate). [[Asian Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom]] would also be okay, but the vast majority of Muslims in the UK are Asian so it's pretty unnecessary. The proposed title is pretty meaningless. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 11:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
**Of course, simple [[Grooming gangs in the United Kingdom]] may be even better. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 09:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
**:I also wondered that about [[Grooming gangs in the United Kingdom]], but think that's served by [[Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom#Group based child sexual exploitation]] and would change the scope of the article a bit. [[User:Jonathan Deamer|Jonathan Deamer]] ([[User talk:Jonathan Deamer|talk]]) 14:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
**::But that section is almost entirely about Asian Muslim grooming gangs just like this article is. I'm not sure why it would change the scope of the article. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 09:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support''' any of the suggestions so far as better than current. The current title is a rather egregious framing that doesn't accurately reflect either the coverage in RS or, for that matter, the reality in the UK. Both the grooming gangs and the panic that they triggered are real phenomena, though one is clearly a consequence of the other, and it doesn't make sense to frame the article just in terms of the reaction. [[User:Woshiwaiguoren|Woshiwaiguoren]] ([[User talk:Woshiwaiguoren|talk]]) 06:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support''' for Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom or simply Grooming gangs in the United Kingdom, the <nowiki>''panic''</nowiki> part is an egregious POV issue. [[User:Killuminator|Killuminator]] ([[User talk:Killuminator|talk]]) 11:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div>
</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div>

== Another article created for the sole purpose of pushing a biased POV ==

Whether you agree with this article or not, this article's title contains the biased premise that concerns about immigrant rape is "moral panic". This article asserts that "White perpetrators have been shown to be more represented in sexual assault and group-based sexual abuse crimes than any other ethnicity in the United Kingdom." This statement as well as all of the news sources fail to make it clear whether whites in the United Kingdom commit more sexual assault and group-based sexual abuse crimes in total, or per capita.

This article indirectly cites "Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation: Characteristics of Offending". This paper cites CEOP (2011), which finds 30% of offenders were of unknown ethnicity, 30% of offenders were white and 28% were "Asian" (likely South Asian). Since there are more whites than Asians in Britain, this would indicate that "Asians" commit more sexual assault per capita than whites. CEOP (2013) finds that of the 52 groups where data provided was useable, half of the groups consisted of all Asian offenders, 11 were all White offenders, 4 were all Black, and 2 were exclusively Arab. There were nine groups where offenders came from a mix of ethnic backgrounds. Looking at the offenders across all groups, of the 306 offenders 75% were Asian. This suggests that "Asians" commit 10.71x the rate of group sexual assault. The Children’s Commissioner for England carried out work in 2014 looking at police data on CSE offenders (Berelowitz et al., 2015). Data was provided by 19 out of 43 police forces, showing nearly 4,000 offenders, 1,200 of whom were involved in group-based CSE. This study found that 42% were White or White British, 17% were Black or Black British, 14% were Asian or Asian British, and 4% had another ethnicity. No data on ethnicity was recorded in 22% of cases. This would suggest that "Asians" commit sexual assault at twice the rate you'd expect given their share of the population. Lastly, the Police Foundation (Skidmore, 2016) looked at group-based CSE in Bristol, and found that those from ethnic minority backgrounds were overrepresented compared to the local area.

This article directly cites ''Group Localised Child Sexual Exploitation Offenders: Who and Why?'' which finds that Muslims made up 83% of prosecutions for Group Localised Child Sexual Exploitation, with Pakistani origin being a better statistical predictor of GLCSE than Muslim religious belief. This contradicts the statement made in the second paragraph of this article, that British whites are the "most represented" in sexual assault and group-based sexual abuse crimes. [[User:Noobnubcakes|Noobnubcakes]] ([[User talk:Noobnubcakes|talk]]) 05:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

:[[WP:FORUM]]. Also, a single article sourcing a primary source from the Anti-Asian Quillam institute isn't worth much. [[User:Bluethricecreamman|Bluethricecreamman]] ([[User talk:Bluethricecreamman|talk]]) 12:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
::Quilliam was, by no reasonable definition, "anti-Asian". It was explicitly "anti-Islamism"—which you might be able to convincingly argue ended up being "anti-Islam", but that certainly isn't just the entire British Asian identity.
::Besides, where even is the Quilliam article here? [[User:Hoixw1|Hoixw1]] ([[User talk:Hoixw1|talk]]) 23:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

== Requested move 3 September 2024 ==

<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #efe); color: var(--color-base, #000); margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted var(--border-color-subtle, #AAAAAA);">
:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. '''Please do not modify it.''' Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''

The result of the move request was: '''moved.''' To [[Grooming gang moral panic in the United Kingdom]]. There is a consensus that, if the article is to be kept (and for the meanwhile, it is to be kept), that "moral panic" should be included in the article title to reflect how the subject is dealt with in reliable sources.

There was a late discussion about the possible title of "Ethnicity and…", but concerns relating to [[WP:AND]] (as brought up by [[User:Sirfurboy]] and the comparative lack of input means I cannot find a consensus for that inclusion yet. Nor can I find a consensus for the inclusion of the word "Muslim". However, if after informal – and possible formal – discussion such a consensus emerges, that can easily be revisited.

The move as proposed runs issues with [[WP:TITLEFORMAT]], so I've gone with a format that, to my reckoning, is unlikely to be objectionable to those in the discussion who form the consensus for the move.

Additionally, I would like to remind editors that accusing others of wanting to [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS]] may be construed as a failure to [[WP:AGF{{!}}assume other editors are operating in good faith]]. There ''are'' major issues with this article as it stands that are evident to any reader, and I would like to assume we all want to work together to fix those however much we can. ([[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Closure by a page mover|closed by non-admin page mover]]) '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 19:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
----

[[:Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom]] → {{no redirect|Grooming Gang Moral Panic in UK}} – Last RM was a mess, had only three folks discussing a POV mess of an article. Now that we reverted back before all these POV edits, and more folks have their eyes on this, we should consider appropriate, less inflammatory, names [[User:Bluethricecreamman|Bluethricecreamman]] ([[User talk:Bluethricecreamman|talk]]) 16:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC) — '''''Relisting.''''' [[User_talk:Asukite| ASUKITE]] 16:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
*NB: This is a successor discussion to [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom]], which was closed immediately before this RM started.—[[User:S Marshall|S Marshall]] [[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]
*'''Support renaming to a title that describes the topic as a moral panic''', such as '''[[Grooming gang moral panic in UK]]''' or '''[[UK grooming gang moral panic]]''', per [[MOS:TITLECAPS]]. If we do not [[WP:TNT]] the article, then we certainly shouldn't title the article so that it registers as if from within the non-neutral point of view of the moral panic itself but rather should be naming the panic itself, which is the subject of academic coverage. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] | [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 16:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''', its not just Muslims, its not just nonwhites, it's not just immigrants. We can't single out one group over this. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 16:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''', although in sentence case rather than title case. Yeah, singling out a religion like this and asserting it as fact in the title is iffy. [[User:Chaotic Enby|Chaotic Enby]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 17:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. I prefer '''[[UK grooming gang moral panic]]'''. This makes the nature of the subject clear even to people who see the article linked and do not click through to read it. It also frees the article from talking exclusively about the panic directed at Muslims. That will probably always be the largest single part of this but we can also cover how they also try to rope other minorities into it too, most notably non-Muslim south Asians and LGBT people. --[[User:DanielRigal|DanielRigal]] ([[User talk:DanielRigal|talk]]) 18:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
*I think it's complicated and bears a lot of thinking about. Arguably OwenX misclosed the AfD as "keep", because what the community actually wants to keep is different content with a different title, and it takes quite a bit of mental gymnastics to make a "keep" out of that. But here we are, and this isn't an unreasonable venue for the discussion part deux.
:I think there are actually two topics here and the way to carve the subject at the joints is to write separate articles about each.
:Firstly, there's a need for an umbrella topic covering the [[Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal|Rotherham CSE scandal]], the [[Rochdale child sex abuse ring|Rochdale CSE scandal]], the [[Banbury child sex abuse ring]], the [[Bristol child sex abuse ring]], the [[Peterborough sex abuse case]], the [[Telford child sexual exploitation scandal]], the [[Derby child sex abuse ring]], the [[Halifax child sex abuse ring]], the [[Huddersfield grooming gang]], the [[Newcastle sex abuse ring]], and the [[Oxford child sex abuse ring]], where the common factor is that the perpetrators were (not exclusively, but overwhelmingly) British-Pakistani men with recognizably Muslim names, which plays into narratives that the far right want to promote to you. Those were separate events, but they were taking place either concurrently or else with significant overlap in time. An article about them collectively should be given a title that includes the phrases "UK" and "grooming gang" (or preferably "paedophile ring", which is what these were). The title of this umbrella topic should ''not'' include the phrase "[[moral panic]]", because they weren't moral panics. They were catastrophic failings of police and social workers leading to an appalling amount of child rape, including rape of pre-teens.
:Secondly, there's ''also'' an article to be written about the media coverage of the first topic. Journalists in general, and Andrew Norfolk in particular, said things about the crime statistics which were inaccurate, unhelpful, misleading, and promoted far right narratives. People like Tommy Robinson are chuffed that the Times published all that rubbish. There are academic sources about this too (for example [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epub/10.1177/0306396813475983 here], [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epub/10.1177/0306396819895727 here], and [https://policinginsight.com/feature/analysis/when-bad-evidence-is-worse-than-no-evidence-quilliams-grooming-gangs-report-and-its-legacy/ here]). This second article is the one that needs a title including all the phrases "UK", "grooming gang"/"paedophile ring", and "moral panic". I'm relaxed about what order to put those phrases in.
:It's possible that thirdly, there's ''also'' an article to be written about the whole sorry history of paedophilia in the UK in the early 2000s. This article would take a higher-level view of the connections between the South Asian grooming gangs, [[Jimmy Savile]], various care homes for children, and a disgustingly large number of Christian priests. We might be able to accomplish that within [[Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom]], though.
:Anyway, I commend this multi-article structure to you all.—[[User:S Marshall|S Marshall]] [[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]] 22:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
:Note: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|WikiProject Sexology and sexuality]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam|WikiProject Islam]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discrimination|WikiProject Discrimination]], and [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United Kingdom|WikiProject United Kingdom]] have been notified of this discussion. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|TarnishedPath]]''[[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]] 03:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose move''' - I've read the support votes with great interest, and also noticed that this article was previously nominated for deletion. It seems to me that, [[WP:I don't like it|I don't like it or it's too offensive to me/others]] (i.e., trying to be politically correct so not to offend certain groups) are at play here, and I ask the community to be weary of changing the article's title on those grounds. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We report on what reliable and verifiable secondary sources say. Trying to change the title or inserting our own POV in order to appease a certain community is nothing more than [[WP:Original research]] in my opinion. If sources say "Muslim/Asian grooming gangs", then we should leave it as is. It is irrelevant what the far-right groups say or how it might or might not play into their narrative. I see this as a major reason for these requests to move/delete. We report on [[WP:RS]] secondary sources for the general reader. Far-right groups/individuals are also members of the general reader. Provided we have done our job as editors as per Wiki policy, what they chose to do with the informantion contained in the article is up to them. We are a community of editors, and not activists trying to sanitize information for political correctness or to appease certain communities. I assume Black people do not appreciate the article [[Nigger]], Mexicans do not appreciate the [[Mexican Mafia]] article, and Germans do not appreciate the [[Nazi Germany]] article, etc... yet we have articles on them as they are in RS secondary sources. Playing activism on Wikipedia would defeat the whole purpose of this project and questions the credibility of this article and others. I also oppose the use of the term "moral panic". That is not in any credible sources (save 1) as stated above on this talk page. Using the term would be nothing more than original research. We also have to remember that there are true victims of these abuses/phenomenon. Trying to minimise/sugar coat this article so not to offend would be a disservice to the facts, and the actual victims - which are not based on hearsay or our biased opinions but from reliable and verifiable sources. I hope the person closing this request would take these into account. The article has already been so severely edited and sanitized that it makes this article meaningless to the general reader. More effort, it seems, has been spent trying to sanitize/discredit the article than reporting the facts as per our [[WP:NPOV]] policy. That is a topic for another day. [[User:Tamsier|Tamsier]] ([[User talk:Tamsier|talk]]) 03:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
*:{{tq|If sources say "Muslim/Asian grooming gangs", then we should leave it as is.}} But the [[WP:BESTSOURCES|best sources]] don't say that. The best sources—academic sources—say that it's [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0306396819895727 sensationalist Orientalism], that it's a [https://www.crimejusticejournal.com/article/view/756 'folk devil'] narrative, that it is, plainly, a [https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/978-1-83867-781-720201011/full/html moral panic]. It is not original research, as you accuse, to summarize what trained scholars have said. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] | [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 04:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
*::Open-access articles with few citations in journals which allow (if not encourage) biased content—eg pro racial justice (in flagrant violation of WP:NPOV) are not the best sources available.
*::This is consistently referred to in ways similar, or identical to the title in reputable media outlets. It should stay, and whether it is "sensationalist Orientalism" is for discussion in the body. [[User:H6xy|H6xy]] ([[User talk:H6xy|talk]]) 23:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::Our reliable sources guideline holds that [[WP:BIASED|reliable sources are not required to be neutral or unbiased]] and may at times be the best sources. Academic, peer-reviewed sources are the [[WP:BESTSOURCES|best sources]] for this topic involving sociology and the sociology of race, religion, etc. Journalistic sources can be reliable for many topics, but for this topic they lack the discipline-specific training of sociology, media studies, etc. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] | [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 06:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

*'''Support''' renaming to a title that clearly describes the topic as a moral panic such as [[Grooming gang moral panic in UK]] or [[UK grooming gang moral panic]] with no predujice against slight variations from those. We need to ensure correct use of capitlaisatoin per [[MOS:TITLECAPS]]. Additionally any future title needs to be better conform with [[WP:POVTITLE]] and the current does not. Lastly per [[WP:PRECISION]] "{{tq|titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that}}". ''[[User:TarnishedPath|TarnishedPath]]''[[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]] 03:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
*:Just to make it abundantly clear to any closer, I have no prejudice with the replacement of UK with United Kingdom in a title change. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|TarnishedPath]]''[[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]] 13:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

*'''Oppose'''. Oftentimes, the left manages to publicly frame an issue in language conducive to their goals, and sometimes the right manages to do the same. Again, Wikipedia is ''absolutely not'' a place to [[WP:rightgreatwrongs|rightgreatwrongs]]. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Biohistorian15|Biohistorian15]] ([[User talk:Biohistorian15#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Biohistorian15|contribs]]) 07:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
:* It's nothing to do with left or right, it's the fact the article's title doesn't match its content. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 09:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

<s>::Ironically, the original POV mess was indeed trying to rightgreatwrongs. [[User:TwinkleStarzz|TwinkleStarzz]] ([[User talk:TwinkleStarzz|talk]]) 10:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)</s>
*'''Support''' The current title is clearly not what the article is about, this is an obvious problem which needs fixing. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 09:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per [[WP:NPOV]]. The proposed title is neutral and consistent with the article content. The suggested minor variations would also be okay. [[User:NightHeron|NightHeron]] ([[User talk:NightHeron|talk]]) 10:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I was the one who started the now wrongly closed as "keep" AFD. Personally I find it incredible that Owenx - a long standing editor and admin, could dismiss delete votes with this comment: "A few !votes were discarded as irrelevant, mostly those that called for deletion based solely on the content being offensive; the article doesn't qualify as an "attack page"."
<s>:Not a single one of those votes were "based solely on the content being offensive" - not a single one. To dismiss those votes but not have a comment on the various bad-faith "keep" votes is suspect to me, and reeks of some personal bias.
:The subject is particularly charged and even on this page here we have people trying to claim censorship without evidence as they did on the AFD. It is likely that the page after the move will need to also be protected to stop the absolute mess of a POV article that recently existed from existing again. In any case, support the name change since a moral panic is exactly what reliable sources say it is, but a TNT is still better in my opinion. Thank you to Hydrangeans and Black Kite for their dillegent attention here.[[User:TwinkleStarzz|TwinkleStarzz]] ([[User talk:TwinkleStarzz|talk]]) 10:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)</s>
*'''Support''' move, prefer less clumsy title e.g. UK grooming gang moral panic. [[User:Daveosaurus|Daveosaurus]] ([[User talk:Daveosaurus|talk]]) 11:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Move to [[Ethnicity and grooming gangs in the United Kingdom]]''' as proposed previously; I'm strongly against title case and "in UK" as opposed to "in the United Kingdom" or similar. "Grooming gang moral panic" reads as if grooming gangs in general in the UK (whose members, according to research, are [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65174096 most commonly white]) are a fabrication. I can't find any other article titles on specific cases that use the term "moral panic" (though [[Missing children panic]], [[Texas slave insurrection panic of 1860]] and [[Satanic panic]] come close – and that last one seems closer to a proper name like [[Red Scare]] or [[Lavender Scare]]). [[Ethnicity and grooming gangs in the United Kingdom]] would allow both the discourse and the combination of cases which gave rise to it to be covered, together with the academic consensus, and would remove the contentious association with Islam. [[User:Ham II|Ham II]] ([[User talk:Ham II|talk]]) 11:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
*:Probably the best target in my opinion, doesn't single out a specific religion, and still implies that it is a topic of discourse rather than a fact. It avoids the potentially controversial term "moral panic", on which I am neutral, but which is probably less necessary if the title already doesn't present the allegation as a fact. [[User:Chaotic Enby|Chaotic Enby]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 14:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
*:I'm putting my support behind this very reasonable proposal. The title "[[Ethnicity and grooming gangs in the United Kingdom]]" provides a balanced view, addressing the issue without focusing on a specific religion, while sidestepping the contentious term "moral panic," which can imply that the issue itself is not real or is being blown out of proportion. It allows for a more thorough discussion of the topic and aligns with the broader academic coverage on the whole subject. [[User:Mooonswimmer|Mooonswimmer]] 12:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' the move pending outcome of the deletion review I have just started [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_September_4#Muslim_grooming_gangs_in_the_United_Kingdom], which may either make this moot, impossible, or - if no consensus prevails - right. The title should not use title case. If we move to that, someone will come along and change it soon enough per [[MOS:CAPS]]. This support does, of course, mean we change the title and content of the article from what was nominated for deletion, which appears to be backdoor deletion if the keep close is upheld. I am not sure if policy permits that in the face of a consensus to keep. Nevertheless I would argue [[WP:IAR]] on this one. The proposed change is better for the encyclopaedia. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 12:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per the others. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 13:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support:''' Per the other replies. [[User:Mer764Wiki|'''mer764''KCTV5''''' / '''Cospaw the Wolf''']] (''He/Him | [[User Talk: Mer764Wiki|'''Talk!''']] • [[Special:Contributions/Mer764Wiki|'''Contributions''']]'') 14:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support''' The proposed title (or minor proposed variations) is a much better match for the article. [[User:BrightVamp|BrightVamp]] ([[User talk:BrightVamp|talk]]) 19:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
:*'''Support''' renaming to a title that is more in line with [[WP:NPOV]] and actually represents the contents of the article, i.e, that it is a moral panic.
:[[User:BrocadeRiverPoems|Brocade River Poems]] 00:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' move as the current title clearly gives the panic more credence than it deserves, but would prefer a move to [[Grooming gang moral panic in the United Kingdom]] or [[United Kingdom grooming gang moral panic]]. [[User:Esolo5002|Esolo5002]] ([[User talk:Esolo5002|talk]]) 00:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Support [[Grooming gangs in the United Kingdom]] and widen the scope of the article. The proposed title is POV, incorrectly capitalised and poorly named (for a start, per usual Wikipedia naming conventions, it should be "in the United Kingdom, not "in UK"). "Moral panic" suggests an incorrect and ignorant judgement, which is clearly POV: "Aren't those people stupid, ''we'' know best!". While some smug left-wing academics may indeed label it as a "moral panic", that is not generally how it has been labelled in the massive media coverage by reliable news outlets, so cherrypicking sources to support the proposed title is not helpful or in the spirit of Wikipedia. Too much [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS]] and [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] here. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 11:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
*:Agreed, '''Support''' [[Grooming gangs in the United Kingdom]]. The lede can still discuss the moral panic POV and the media’s impact [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]]) 11:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
*:"smug left-wing academics" is not how we usually refer to reliable sources, of which academic publications are perhaps the most important. How can you address alleged POV issues whilst simultaneously making an extraordinary politically-motivated attack like that? [[User:AusLondonder|AusLondonder]] ([[User talk:AusLondonder|talk]]) 14:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
*::We can refer to whatever we like however we like. It's called an opinion. And there's nothing "politically motivated" about it. Cherrypicking sources to support your POV is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Reliable media sources are as valid as academic sources. Only people who have an opposing POV to push claim they're not. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 15:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::Scholarly sources are usually weighted above news sources in most cases, as per [[WP:SOURCETYPES]], which says:
*:::"When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." [[User:Lewisguile|Lewisguile]] ([[User talk:Lewisguile|talk]]) 16:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
*: I'm unconvinced that a hundred ''Mail'', ''Express'' and ''Sun'' headlines really fall into the concept of "massive media coverage by reliable news outlets". But, regardless, I actually think [[Grooming gangs in the United Kingdom]] is sort of OK, as long as the article doesn't end up parroting false racist tropes like it did before it was fixed. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 14:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
*::I'm not referring to tabloids here. They're not reliable sources. I'm referring to broadsheets and the BBC, among others. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 15:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::Please refer to [[WP:TALKPOV]]: "Talk pages are not a place for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue." Your comments referring to academic sources you reject as "smug left-wing academics" are highly inappropriate. It's quite telling that you prefer media coverage from the ''Daily Express'' or ''Sun'' ahead of academic research. [[User:AusLondonder|AusLondonder]] ([[User talk:AusLondonder|talk]]) 12:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::You know very well I've just said I don't (unless you really don't know the difference between a broadsheet and a tabloid). I wouldn't touch those rags with a bargepole. Please try to stop misrepresenting what I say. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 14:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::The editor you are responding to has done no such thing as express a personal opinion on the topic you mention, and instead has brought up reliable sources. You have now repeatedly made personal attacks on editors in this TALK page. Refrain from doing so again, as it is against WP policy. - [[Special:Contributions/2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:96B1:D553:8295:7D86|2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:96B1:D553:8295:7D86]] ([[User talk:2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:96B1:D553:8295:7D86|talk]]) 05:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:* '''Comment''' moral panic heavily implies irrationality and paints a pejorative picture, therefore being POV
:[[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]]) 11:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
::Bear in mind that the members of the public consuming those media and reacting angrily aren’t acting irrationally, it’s a rational and understandable reaction based on the impression they’re given. Moving to [[Grooming gangs in the United Kingdom]] would allow us to inform broadly rather than just document and refute, which would turn many readers off as it looks apologetic [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]]) 14:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
:::It's only an understandable reaction if you assume they have been exposed to morally-questionable systemic racism, to even think such an absurd thing was a possibility. One could have an article about "BBC grooming gangs in the UK" - and we KNOW it's happened. But it still doesn't mean it's a thing. [[User:Nfitz|Nfitz]] ([[User talk:Nfitz|talk]]) 03:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
::::[https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0306396819895727 Journal article on the media narrative]. [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]]) 06:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
::I suggest we have a section on Media coverage which includes a count of the headlines on the main cases per publication, and contrast that with the abundance of cases given by the Home Office in the lede [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]]) 14:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support move''' due to [[WP:SPADE]], [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:PRECISION]]. The title should use sentence case and "in the United Kingdom" is better than "in the UK", but otherwise, it's fine. Scholarly consensus reflects that there's a media panic, moral panic, or scapegoating of Muslim men going on. Most RSes approach the topic through this lens.
:This shouldn't prejudice any potential future decision to cover the issue of grooming by gangs (of any ethnic or racial background) in the UK, if someone decides to write an article on that. But the focus in this article, with its specific and narrow attention to Muslim men, should reflect what RSes have to say on that, otherwise the entire article risks being [[WP:UNDUE]] and [[WP:BIAS]]. [[User:Lewisguile|Lewisguile]] ([[User talk:Lewisguile|talk]]) 16:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. The "moral panic" terminology is an NPOV description of the situation. Other suggestions (eg "Grooming gangs in the United Kingdom" or "South Asian grooming gangs in the United Kingdom") would be appropriate here. [[User:Dclemens1971|Dclemens1971]] ([[User talk:Dclemens1971|talk]]) 03:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per BK and others. [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 12:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
*:I think {{U|Nfitz}} makes a good point below; paranoia is better, perhaps?
*:Also, I hope that closers ignore manifestly incorrect readings of POV policy. The [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view policy]] defines neutrality as {{xt|representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant [[Point of view (philosophy)|views]] that have been [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|published by reliable sources]] on a topic}}. This means that {{Xt|if ''many'' reliable sources have a negative opinion of a subject, the article will ''most likely'' be negative}}. So far, '''none''' has made the case that the mainstream view on the subject is anything except that this is a full-blown moral panic / paranoia / ... [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 15:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
*::This is incorrect, as per Necrothesp and others. Please refrain from lying about other editors' statements for or against this move instead of putting forth arguments for whether you agree or disagree with this proposed change. - [[Special:Contributions/2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:96B1:D553:8295:7D86|2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:96B1:D553:8295:7D86]] ([[User talk:2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:96B1:D553:8295:7D86|talk]]) 05:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' use of "moral panic" in title, with adjustments for [[MOS:TITLECAPS]] and grammar - Per many arguments above. The current title is too vague and is functionally misleading. [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 05:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

:*'''Oppose''', echoing most issues above.
:[[User:Just10A|Just10A]] ([[User talk:Just10A|talk]]) 20:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' proposal as is, but '''strongly support''' renaming this article. The current article title and proposed renaming are both highly problematic and violate [[WP:POVTITLE]]. The simple solution is to remove any qualification and simply move the article to something like '''[[Grooming gangs in the United Kingdom]]'''. Then the article is not held hostage to issues around religion, ethnicity or morality, but these issues can be freely covered in the article body subject to the usual editing discussions, and reader can draw their own conclusions from there. The article would also fit more logically among the other articles within [[:Category:Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom]] - notice there are many articles about crimes committed by white guys, without the need to focus on religion or ethnicity in the article title. [[User:Cnbrb|Cnbrb]] ([[User talk:Cnbrb|talk]]) 14:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

:'''Relisting comment''': Relisted to give time for closure of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 September 4|deletion review]] which will affect this move, and looks like it could go either way as of now. Discussion appears to be torn on whether to use the words "moral panic" or expand the scope of the article to avoid its use. [[User_talk:Asukite| ASUKITE]] 16:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' the completely bigoted title needs to be renamed for sure - and preferably immediately. But "moral panic"? That's a phrase that's unfamiliar to most of the English-speaking world, that only comes up if you dig into technical literature. We are supposed to use commonly-used (and understandable) titles. The equivlent of that would be '''Fear about Muslim grooming gangs in the UK''' or '''Paranoia about Muslim grooming gangs in the UK''' or '''Conspiracy Theories about Muslim grooming gangs in the UK'''. Also, what type of grooming - with Muslim in the title, my thought is about radicalization (grooming to be terrorists). But this is actually about sex (WTAF?) (the paranoia and racism to think that this is actually a Muslim thing is beyond me). My suggestion is [[Fear about pedophilic sexual grooming by gangs in the UK]]. [[User:Nfitz|Nfitz]] ([[User talk:Nfitz|talk]]) 02:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
*:What is and isn’t a Muslim thing is not for us to decide or assume. We only note what is observed and noted by reliable sources. [[User:DangalOh|DangalOh]] ([[User talk:DangalOh|talk]]) 03:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Would anyone have a major objection if I moved the article to "Grooming gangs in the UK" as a temporary measure, just to get rid of this racist title while the discussion continues? It's been here far too long. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 09:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
*:Yes, I have significant objections. Additionally, 'Muslim' is not a race. If you still choose to remove it, feel free to do so, but please refrain from using the misguided argument of racism—no one buys it anymore. Most South Asians belong to three racial groups: Indo-Aryan, Iranian, and Dravidian. Any of these racial groups can include Muslims. Moreover, most sources here specifically refer to Pakistani South Asians. And if your argument is for racism against Muslim Indo-Aryans, but not Hindu, Buddhist, or Sikh Indo-Aryans, then it still would not be valid, as it would still fall under religious discrimination. Otherwise, racism doesn't apply here. You could only remove it on the grounds that it might contribute to the already rampant Islamophobia, but would that justify censorship? I'm not sure. Whatever you decide [[User:DangalOh|DangalOh]] ([[User talk:DangalOh|talk]]) 13:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
::* Well, you probably ''would'' have significant objections, judging by stuff like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_Bangladesh_anti-Hindu_violence&diff=prev&oldid=1245488843 this]. I'll wait for unbiased editors to chime in. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 17:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Muslim is not a race. Jewish is not a race. You know what else is not a race? All of the alleged "races". The point in calling this racism is not to claim that race is real. Race is a set of theoretical abstractions often built on top of (at best) half understood concepts of ethnicity for various political purposes, none of them good. The point is that people who think that race is real discriminate on that basis. Racism is real even though race isn't. Islamophobia and antisemitism are both racism, even if the false racial theories that they are built on are even more obviously nonsensical than those of the average false racial theory. So, is this moral panic aimed at Muslims, Pakistanis or south Asian people in general? Yes! All three! The emphasis shifts depending on the need to rouse the uneducated to simple anger or to split hairs in order to confuse the more educated into thinking that this is more complicated than it is. We ''will'' be removing "Muslim" from the article title because it ''does'' serve to legitimise racism. And with that, I return you to our regularly scheduled programming discussing how best to achieve that. --[[User:DanielRigal|DanielRigal]] ([[User talk:DanielRigal|talk]]) 18:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
::I have mixed feelings about this. I feel that there might be a completely separate article that should exist at "Grooming gangs in the UK". Despite the racist moral panic, there ''have'' been some examples of grooming gangs in the UK. We probably should have an article about that at that or a similar title. It is a topic that goes back further than people realise, certainly far further back than the UK has had a significant Pakistani population. Whether we have the sources to write that yet is unclear. Britain isn't great at excavating its past misdeeds. Look at the way the National Trust gets it head bitten off every time it tries.
::I don't object to the proposed temporary move but we need to make sure that this article doesn't get stuck there. We will also have to fend off even more people blustering that we should take "moral panic" out of the article because grooming gangs are sometimes real. I am very disappointed that this discussion has taken so long that a temporary measure is seen as necessary. As such I think I can '''cautiously support''' the temporary move. -- [[User:DanielRigal|DanielRigal]] ([[User talk:DanielRigal|talk]]) 18:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
::: {{tq|We probably should have an article about that}} We do. Three of them. [[Telford child sexual exploitation scandal]], [[Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal]], [[Rochdale child sex abuse ring]], but strangely not the [[Camborne grooming gang]], nor the [[Glasgow grooming gang]] nor any of the other grooming gangs that have ''not'' been exploited by media induced moral panic (because the perpetrators were white). We don't need any more pages that pander to this false narrative. The pages we have describe the ring. Anything else there is to say about this is about moral panic and racism. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 19:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Part of the issue is the scale of reporting, the level of reporting on the grooming gang case doesn't match it's significance matched to the statistics. For instance the 539 perpetrators of abuse in the Jesus Army that was reported earlier this week[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0qejd0njpeo] that basically didn't move the needle amongst most news outlets.
:::That there has been actual real events and analysis of how those events have been reported need to be in the same article. The scale of reporting on this horrific events just isn't replicated in other equally horrific events. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°'' 19:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:I came to this article to understand generalities of child abuse in the last 2 decades. The numbers of victims and perpetrators and the causes. Are any groups overrepresented in the victims or the perpetrators. If Pakistani or Muslim men are then there is a difficult but very valuable role to be played by Wikipedia.
:I support Wikipedia to get accurate reflection, aggregation and assimilation of what reliable sources report. I would follow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muslim_grooming_gangs_in_the_United_Kingdom#c-Tamsier-20240904033500-Bluethricecreamman-20240903162800 [[Special:Contributions/31.94.22.76|31.94.22.76]] ([[User talk:31.94.22.76|talk]]) 07:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
::If you want to understand the generalities of child abuse in the last two decades then you should understand that grooming by groups of Pakistani's or Muslim's is a small part of that. Unfortunately our media focuses on specific scandals and not the real horrific details. The most accurate reflection of sources is from the works highlighting this, and how over representing certain scandals only serves to hides the abuse going on elsewhere. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°'' 10:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' this move so that the title actually matches the content of the article (the only reason we have the current article name is because of historic POV edits to the article, and the debacle of the previous move). [[User talk:Memphisto|memphisto]] 11:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' move to [[Grooming Gang Moral Panic in UK]], '''support''' move to [[Ethnicity and grooming gangs in the United Kingdom]] per [[User:Ham II|Ham II]]. The title "[[Ethnicity and grooming gangs in the United Kingdom]]" provides a balanced view, addressing the issue without focusing on a specific religion, while sidestepping the contentious term "moral panic," which can imply that the issue itself is not real or is being blown out of proportion. It allows for a more thorough discussion of the topic and aligns with the broader academic coverage on the whole subject.[[User:Mooonswimmer|Mooonswimmer]] 12:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' this proposed move to [[Grooming Gang Moral Panic in UK]] - the title implies that the underlying phenomenon isn't real, which is false; there is clearly a real phenomenon here, as the article's body text acknowledges. Framing it was simply a moral panic is confusing and clearly POV. It is also currently frustrating that there's no article connecting the cases in [[Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal|Rotherham]], [[Telford child sexual exploitation scandal|Telford]], [[Halifax child sex abuse ring|Halifax]], [[Rochdale child sex abuse ring|Rochdale]], etc. There's like a dozen articles on this phenomenon and the premise of this article's proposed name is that it doesn't exist. [[User:Woshiwaiguoren|Woshiwaiguoren]] ([[User talk:Woshiwaiguoren|talk]]) 18:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
*:What do you think of [[Ethnicity and grooming gangs in the United Kingdom]] per [[User:Ham II|Ham II]]'s suggestion? [[User:Mooonswimmer|Mooonswimmer]] 23:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
*::I would be concerned about [[WP:AND]] with any "Ethnicity and..." formulation. If the article must exist, it is about the moral panic. That title is not more neutral, it makes the article actually about the relationship of ethnicity with grooming gangs, rather than about the media narrative of the same. It changes the article scope. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 07:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::I think there might be some confusion about policy/norms here, but I'd like to direct you towards [[WP:VNT]] and [[WP:NOTRIGHT]]. We are an encyclopedia. We have to go off of secondary sources and the media. The fact that you ''think'' there is a {{tq|"media narrative"}} doesn't really play a part in the analysis I'm afraid. Now, of course we have to represent the entire range of views, and give everything due weight. But at the end of the day, reliable sources are reliable sources. And even if one half of "the media" says it's true, while the other half of "the media" says it's a moral panic/narrative, we still have to represent the entire media, which in that case would be split. We don't get to self-classify things as a {{tq|"media narrative"}}. We have to go off of what sources/"the media" says. [[User:Just10A|Just10A]] ([[User talk:Just10A|talk]]) 14:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::That true but not all sources are equal, and academic sources are [[WP:BESTSOURCES|preferred]] over news media. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°'' 16:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::{{tq|We are an encyclopedia. We have to go off of secondary sources}} splendid. We agree. {{tq|and the media.}} Hmm. You misphrased that part. You probably meant "including media secondary sources", rather than suggesting we go of secondary sources and all media sources regardless. And even then, as above, we would still be looking for [[WP:BESTSOURCES]]. But in any case, that is meta, because the subject of this article is already the moral panic. That is how it was created, before it was subverted, and that is what the text has been restored to. And yes, that is what the best sources describe. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 21:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::I mean there does seem to be a real, widely-reported phenomenon of South Asian grooming gangs in England? There are hundreds of articles on the phenomenon and multiple government investigations and reports, and a dozen articles of city grooming rings on this site. "Moral Panic" frames the topic ''exclusively'' as an established falsity, when that's not the case. If anything, a middle ground would be something like [[Grooming gangs controversy in the United Kingdom]]. [[User:Woshiwaiguoren|Woshiwaiguoren]] ([[User talk:Woshiwaiguoren|talk]]) 04:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::Widely reported, yes. Real, no. {{tqb|There are a significant proportion of perpetrators for whom ethnicity is either unknown or unrecorded.}} And other caveats about the data, but, for the very specific definition of gang based CSE {{tqb|42% of these were White or White British, 14% are Asian or Asian British, 17% are Black or Black British and 22% are of unrecorded ethnicity.}} and {{tqb|When perpetrators of all models of CSE are included in the analysis the picture is slightly different. In total, 25 police forces reported 3,968 perpetrators. 59% were White or White British, 10% are Asian or Asian British, 8% are Black or Black British, 2% are of another category and 20% are of unrecorded ethnicity.[https://assets.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/wpuploads/2017/07/If-its-not-better-its-not-the-end.pdf]{{rp|21}} }} This is broadly in line with the size of the British Asian population. So no, it is not ''real''. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 10:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Same issue as before. Refer to [[WP:NOTRIGHT]] and [[WP:OR]] in this specific instance. [[User:Just10A|Just10A]] ([[User talk:Just10A|talk]]) 14:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Your issue before was that you said {{tq|I think there might be some confusion about policy/norms here}}. I agree there is confusion. [[WP:NOTRIGHT]] is not a policy, it is an essay. The policy you cite, then, is [[WP:OR]]. This states {{tq|Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists}}. If you do not see how that policy precludes us from having an article about any of the formulations of "[south] asian [muslim] grooming gangs" then you have not paid sufficient attention to the sources, such as the one quoted above. Perhaps because you are confusing the primary sources (reporting, editorials, opinion, op-eds) with the secondary sources (analysis). The allegations do not have reliable sources. The subject that we have here is not the ethnicity of grooming gangs themselves, it is the media fuelled narrative and moral panic about the ethnicity of such gangs. So yes, you are confused about the policy/norms here, but in your defence, you are quite new here. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 15:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::It is one of the many essays ''about norms'' as reflected right under it's title lol. It's why i said "policy/norms" instead of just "policy." [[WP:VNT]] and [[WP:NOTRIGHT]] are widely used by the community. I'm sorry but you're just incorrect.
*:::::::Secondly, your source cited (that you are using for OR, because it never states your conclusion) doesn't even support you:
*:::::::1.) I don't know how to tell you this, but "Asian/South Asian"≠ Muslim and "Not Asian/South Asian" ≠ Not Muslim. Many white people are muslim. Many people of all ethnicities are Muslim. Muslims are not addressed at all in the report. South Asians specifically are not even addressed in the report. The word "muslim" is only even mentioned twice, and its for a link to a totally different paper about how many muslim women are abused. However, you are clearly making jumps to use it to support your conclusion about Muslims or south asians. That is OR.
*:::::::2.) Even allowing your assumptions, your statement that {{tq|"This is broadly in line with the size of the British Asian population."}} is laughably false based on your source. According to the the most recent census on wikipedia demographics [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Kingdom#Ethnicity], "Asian/Asian British" make up ~8% of the population, yet according to your ''own'' source, they make up ~14% of the gang cse cases. That is not {{tq|"broadly in line with the size of the British Asian population."}} On the contrary, they are '''overrepresented by 75% in the cases''', a giant number. Your own source doesn't even support your conclusion.
*:::::::Now, should any of what I said be in the article? Of course not, because its blatant [[WP:OR]] from a source that does not even address muslims in the first place. But if you're gonna try to do OR, at least make it ''somewhat'' correct. I've already explained numerous times why your position is contrary to policy/norms. If you don't want to listen, that's your prerogative. But don't get whiny when people dismiss your proposals then. [[User:Just10A|Just10A]] ([[User talk:Just10A|talk]]) 15:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::All the discussion above and in media reporting is about south Asian muslims. If you have read the sources, you should know that. The source states the actual figures, after the introduction that there remains a belief that these crimes are only being perpetrated by Asian men. I am not sure how it could be any clearer. It shows that this is false. The British Asian population is 9.3% of the total according to the ONS [https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/ethnicity#:~:text=Ethnic%20group%2C%20England%20and%20Wales%3A%20Census%202021&text=The%20next%20most%20common%20high,%25%20(4.2%20million%20people).] which is broadly in line with the 10% figure there, and although 14% might appear slightly elevated for group based CSE (in those very highly caveated figures), there is a rather huge elephant in the room there that I chose not to highlight. Let me know when you spot it. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 16:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::Cool, so the source you cited 1.) Does not even specifically address South Asians nor Muslims; and 2.) Never states anything close to your conclusion that {{tq|"This is broadly in line with the size of the British Asian population".}} (because, by their own data, they are overrepresented) So your statement is OR. Good talk. [[User:Just10A|Just10A]] ([[User talk:Just10A|talk]]) 17:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::Personally I think the more important point is that 86% of cases aren't commited by South Asians/Muslims yet those cases receive little reporting. Why the media fails to report the vast majority of abuse but fixates on reporting these cases is the real question. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°'' 18:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::: That's not a difficult one to work out when the major purveyors of the "evil asian gangs" stories are the ''Daily Mail'', ''Express'', ''Telegraph'', GB News, etc etc. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 19:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::[[WP:NOTAFORUM]] but it gets people to vote for right wing parties which benefits the business interests of the media owners [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]]) 19:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::Similarly minorities make up 18.3% of the the UK's population, but only commit 11% of all child sex abuse. Meaning that the non-minority population is over represented in child sex offences, again under reported by our news media. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°'' 20:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::So in general the majority of child sex offences are not commited by South Asians / Muslims, and in the specific case of grooming practices the majority are not commited by South Asians / Muslims. Mass media would have you believe the opposite was true, but that is a distortion introduces by unequal reporting. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°'' 20:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::Agreed, I really think [[Grooming gangs in the UK]] would be the best move because then we could talk about the phenomenon generally, and have a section on media coverage. [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]]) 20:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Christ this article title is bad. It's clearly WP:POV and I support a change to pretty much anything else. 'Grooming' is clearly a dogwhistle nowadays and I'm upset we're giving it wikivoice here. [[User:Sock-the-guy|Sock-the-guy]] ([[User talk:Sock-the-guy|talk]]) 21:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
*:Sad thing is that grooming is a real and very serious thing but the term has been taken up as a racist and homophobic dogwhistle so widely and aggressively that it is depriving the word of its impact when people need to use it to talk about real cases of grooming. [[User:DanielRigal|DanielRigal]] ([[User talk:DanielRigal|talk]]) 21:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
*:Agreed that grooming is the incorrect terminology.
*:'''Support ''' moving article to 'Muslim rape gangs in the United Kingdom' to better describe the topic at hand. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:C7C:7CCC:7A00:1DF3:75AE:BF3E:D21C|2A02:C7C:7CCC:7A00:1DF3:75AE:BF3E:D21C]] ([[User talk:2A02:C7C:7CCC:7A00:1DF3:75AE:BF3E:D21C|talk]]) 09:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' and strongly support keeping '''Muslim''' in the title. That was a major aspect of the [[moral panic]] here.'''[[User talk:Vice regent|VR]]''' (Please [[Template:Ping|ping]] on reply) 15:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
:* Was it really? Wasn't it just that they had dark skin? This is after all the ''Mail'' and its cohorts we're talking about (and actually, most of the ''Mail'' headlines used "Asian" (i.e. [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5163281/84-men-convicted-grooming-young-white-girls-Asian.html this]). [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 18:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
::*Yes, it was really. Most articles mentioned muslims. In fact, the one, singular article you link to does so as well, proving the point. - [[Special:Contributions/2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:1494:3C39:1A80:5C35|2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:1494:3C39:1A80:5C35]] ([[User talk:2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:1494:3C39:1A80:5C35|talk]]) 07:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
:::*I do think that Tommy Robinson and his lovely friends have made it about Muslims. In the case of the Rotherham and Rochdale gangs at least, the majority of the perpetrators had recognizably Muslim names, and that's a fact which helps the alt-right narrative.—[[User:S Marshall|S Marshall]] [[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]] 07:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
*I started to close this (per the proposal but in sentence case), but I have a real problem with the lack of sources supporting the "moral panic" part of the title. So my first choice would be to move to '''Grooming gangs in the United Kingdom'''.
:As a second choice I'd accept '''Grooming gang moral panic in UK''' as that is a huge improvement over the current title and from there we can discuss another rename as desired. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 21:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''': This article is not about Muslim grooming gangs. This article is about the panic surrounding them and should be named as such. [[User:Pluckyporo|pluckyporo]] ([[User talk:Pluckyporo|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pluckyporo|contribs]]) 03:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div>
</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div>

== Revert by M.Bitton ==

My edit was reverted, even though I provided an inline quotation from the sources that are being misrepresented in the opening statement. The user claimed there is an RFC on this matter, but the only RFC I see pertains to a title change, not the article body. First of all, why mention South Asia and Pakistan separately, and then 'Muslim' again separately? Is Pakistan not in South Asia? Or is 'Muslim' a geographic region? This is nonsense. We cannot vilify the entire South Asian community when all the sources specifically refer to 'Muslims' or 'Pakistanis' in the context of South Asians. No other South Asian community has even been "alleged." You may choose to identify as South Asian, Pakistani, or Muslim as per your convenience, but there is no rule that justifies changing the info in sources for the sake of political correctness. Other communities exist too. I was polite enough to mention 'predominantly Pakistani,'. There is no other nationality indicated.I hope responsible admins will look into this. I do not engage in edit wars, especially when I know I am going to be the target of a mob revert attack. I hope responsible editors and admins will take note of what's going on in here. But considering the support above whitewashing rfc is getting, i understand if my request is ignored. [[User:DangalOh|DangalOh]] ([[User talk:DangalOh|talk]]) 15:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

:the way this works is even if its pakistanis in particular , everyone will get lumped in.
:much of the sourcing talks about asian and south asian and often muslim and pakistani after that fact. the conflation is a key part of the panic. [[User:Bluethricecreamman|Bluethricecreamman]] ([[User talk:Bluethricecreamman|talk]]) 16:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
::Sources are extremely specific, and that’s why I used the term 'South Asian Muslims.' South Asia is rarely used without context. No other South Asian community has ever been accused of grooming gangs. The POV of the editors in favor of removing 'Muslim' and keeping only 'South Asian' is — 'In this scenario, I will identify as a South Asian, neither Pakistani nor Muslim. And if I’m going down, I’m taking everyone from South Asia down with me. Either it’s for the entire South Asian community or for no one.' And this isn’t a one-off issue where this logic has been applied. Hopeless Wikipedia. As I said, if there is any rational human admin left on Wikipedia, they will see through this. Otherwise, what’s one more whitewashed article on Wikipedia? Not like it will be anything unique. I dont wish to argue anymore or explain one thing again and again. I am not getting paid for acting as a representative of non pakistani south asian community. I’m out of here. Happy editing. [[User:DangalOh|DangalOh]] ([[User talk:DangalOh|talk]]) 18:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

== Grooming gangs ==

Grooming gang moral panic in the United Kingdom - Right-wing and far-right activists. is an incorrect title as 'gangs have been found guilty of thee offence
"A report from the Home Office was unable to prove any link between sexual assault and South Asian ethnicity. White perpetrators, who make up the majority race in the UK, have been shown to be more represented in sexual assault and group-based sexual abuse crimes than any other ethnicity in the United Kingdom. The report suggests there is likely no connection between ethnic groups and child sexual abuse. Despite the lack of evidence, British media outlets have reinforced the stereotype by disproportionately reporting on South Asian group-based sexual assault crimes at the expense of other similar cases involving White abusers"
This is untrue [[Special:Contributions/2A0A:EF40:915:4D01:F4A0:EF8E:630D:85EC|2A0A:EF40:915:4D01:F4A0:EF8E:630D:85EC]] ([[User talk:2A0A:EF40:915:4D01:F4A0:EF8E:630D:85EC|talk]]) 14:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

== Challenge of "Moral Panic" title change closure moved to user talk page. ==

Can be found here. [[User talk:Sceptre#c-Bluetik-20241008143000-Contesting Grooming Gangs "Moral Panic" Closure]]

Also worth noting:
https://www.gbnews.com/news/outrage-as-wikipedia-changes-grooming-gangs-article-to-moral-panic-from-the-far-right [[User:Bluetik|Bluetik]] ([[User talk:Bluetik|talk]]) 14:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

:I'll put this on the talk page press template. [[User:Bluethricecreamman|Bluethricecreamman]] ([[User talk:Bluethricecreamman|talk]]) 14:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
::Perhaps someone should explain to GB news that "panic" was in the original title of this article. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 14:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
:I didn't take part in the last move discussion but I would have support some kind of change, as the article had been hijacked. It was originally on the moral panic about these events, but was hijacked to be about the events themselves. There are already articles about Rotherham, Telford and sexual abuse in the UK, it's not like the details of them are being surpressed in anyway whatsoever. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°'' 14:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
:Also, I'm pretty sure that's the wrong place to contest a move? its a somewhat new user attempting to contest, so does it really matter? [[User:Bluethricecreamman|Bluethricecreamman]] ([[User talk:Bluethricecreamman|talk]]) 14:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
::It's just a notification that it's been contested on the talk page of the closer, which is the correct place to first contest the close. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°'' 14:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
:::oh. i'm a bit of a newbie/intermediate user too.. guess i should stop throwing rocks while i live in a glass castle or however that saying goes [[User:Bluethricecreamman|Bluethricecreamman]] ([[User talk:Bluethricecreamman|talk]]) 14:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
*The gbnews article explains the recent surge in disruption. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 14:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
*:And it's tone. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°'' 14:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
*::Yeah, that people take GB News as a serious news source and not as a British attempt to replicate Fox News – which is what it was founded to be! – has always been beyond me. Indeed, I'm surprised that it's not listed at [[WP:RSPS]] as unreliable, although I suspect anytime it's been up at WP:RSN people have been like "yeah, it's shit". '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 14:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy to have the informal post-close discussion here, FWIW. Anyway: we already have articles about specific incidents; e.g. [[Rochdale child sex abuse ring]]. We also have an article which talks about CSA in general; e.g. [[Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom]]. Throughout the AFD and the RMs, there was also a large undercurrent of concern that, without great care, the article would end up as a [[WP:COATRACK|coatrack]] compiling cases where the gangs were Muslim but not where the gangs were of another ethnicity, which would run counter to how the subject of "Muslim grooming gangs" is treated in RSes; i.e. gang-based child sexual abuse happens regardless of ethnicity, and the focus on ethnicity is what forms a moral panic. I know the close wouldn't have been popular with the online far-right, and my Twitter mentions are a trash-fire of transphobic harassment at the moment, but we have ''never'' closed discussions on Wikipedia based on how external forces would take it. I feel my close is one that, even if you don't agree with it, is one that's well-reasoned and neutral. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 14:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

:from the move discussion: ''Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. ''
:Maybe they can be separate articles, one on the issues with the media response described as a "Moral Panic," and one on the events themselves. [[User:Bluetik|Bluetik]] ([[User talk:Bluetik|talk]]) 15:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
::and this is not in response to the article. It is in response to seeing the changes. [[User:Bluetik|Bluetik]] ([[User talk:Bluetik|talk]]) 15:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Grooming gang moral panic in the United Kingdom

2024-10-08T15:32:28Z

Bluetik: /* Challenge of "Moral Panic" title change closure moved to user talk page. */ Reply

Talk:Grooming gang moral panic in the United Kingdom

2024-10-08T14:32:34Z

Bluetik: /* Challenge of "Moral Panic" title change closure moved to user talk page. */ new section

{{talk header}}
{{Old AfD multi |date=26 August 2024 |result='''keep''' |page=Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom}}
{{Old DRV
| date = 4 September 2024
| result = '''no consensus'''
| page = Log/2024 September 4
| oldid =
}}
{{Old prod
| nom = Lp9mm8g
| nomdate = 2024-08-16
| nomreason = disinformation (article title and introduction not supported by content)
| 2nd =
| 2nddate = 2024-08-16
| 2ndreason =
| con = Jonathan Deamer
| condate = 2024-08-16
| conreason = [[WP:DEPROD]] - this should be discussed / improvements to the article should be sought first.
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell |blpo=yes |class=C |collapsed=yes |1=
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject United Kingdom |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Discrimination}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Islam}}
}}
{{Annual readership}}
{{old move|date1=16 August 2024|name1=South Asian Muslim grooming gang panic|destination1=Ethnicity and grooming gangs in the United Kingdom|result1=moved to [[Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom]]|link1=Special:Permalink/1242065526#Requested move 16 August 2024|date2=3 September 2024|from2=Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom|destination2=Grooming Gang Moral Panic in UK|result2=moved|link2=Special:Permalink/1249693953#Requested move 3 September 2024}}

== Proposed Deletion ==

When "84% of researchers say that grooming gang members were Asian" it is important that we do not try to hide uncomfortable facts and history. <ref>https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/quilliam-grooming-gangs-report-asian-abuse-rotherham-rochdale-newcastle-a8101941.html</ref>

I vote not to delete this page. [[User:Johnmars3|Johnmars3]] ([[User talk:Johnmars3|talk]]) 05:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

This page is a rather blatant attempt to manufacture a narrative, whitewashing/minimizing the phenomenon of Asian/Muslim grooming gangs in the UK with a misleading title and introduction which are not supported by the rest of the page or the majority of sources. Only a single source refers to this as a "panic" of any sort. It is telling that the first reference to any actual data, in the second paragraph, reads "Some statistical analysis...", meanwhile the rest of the article indicates that the majority of "statistical analyses" unambiguously imply that Asian Muslims are overrepresented among group-based child sexual abuse perpetrators, including the Home Office study which, as detailed in the article, was misleadingly interpreted in line with the false narrative of this page. In modern parlance, this page is misinformation/disinformation and therefore should be deleted. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Lp9mm8g|Lp9mm8g]] ([[User talk:Lp9mm8g#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Lp9mm8g|contribs]]) 15:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC) 

:Support. This page is worse than pointless. It seeks to obfuscate. [[User:Riposte97|Riposte97]] ([[User talk:Riposte97|talk]]) 20:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}

== Renamed page ==

The title of this page has been changed from 'Muslim grooming gang panic' to 'South Asian Muslim grooming gang panic'. However, the sources referred to throughout the article do not refer this phenomenon as "South Asian Muslim grooming gangs"' but rather "Asian grooming gangs", "Muslim grooming gangs" or "Pakistani grooming gangs". After a quick Google search, I was also unable to find the term 'South Asian grooming gang' receiving mass usage. I believe this may be because Asian typically already refers to South Asians in the UK so it does not need further specification. The term is also inappropriate as it excludes perpetrators from [https://theliberal.ie/police-in-scotland-took-down-large-asylum-seeker-grooming-gang-in-glasgow-but-allegedly-kept-it-quiet/ regions outside of South Asia] such as Afghans, Iranians, Iraqis, Kurds, Turks, Egyptians, Moroccans and Albanians who have been involved in [[Newcastle sex abuse ring|notable cases]]. Given this, changing the page name may be in breach of [[WP:NOR]] or [[WP:NPOV]]. [[User:Kioj156|Kioj156]] ([[User talk:Kioj156|talk]]) 19:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

== Requested move 16 August 2024 ==

<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. '''Please do not modify it.''' Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''

The result of the move request was: '''moved to [[Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom]]''' ([[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Closure by a page mover|closed by non-admin page mover]]) [[User talk:Reading Beans|'''Reading Beans''']] 12:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
----

[[:South Asian Muslim grooming gang panic]] → {{no redirect|Ethnicity and grooming gangs in the United Kingdom}} – As discussed above, "South Asian" is not commonly used by sources. I don't think "moral panic" is unanimous/sourced enough to meet [[WP:NPOVTITLE]]. Taking a cue from this BBC article on the topic: [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65174096 "Grooming gangs and ethnicity: What does the evidence say?"] [[User:Jonathan Deamer|Jonathan Deamer]] ([[User talk:Jonathan Deamer|talk]]) 19:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

:Thank you for starting this. Whilst I think the title is a step in the right direction, I am not sure it captures the religious element that has been reported to take place across numerous cases. I understand the controversy surrounding the term 'Asian grooming gangs' - on one end, the perception that it is a 'dog whistle' term that will only stoke community tensions and on the other by Sikh and Hindu groups who feel that it paints their entire demographic in a negative light when perpetrators are mostly neither Sikh or Hindu. However, one reason why the phenomenon has gained so much coverage is due to the perception that there is an over-representation of a certain demographic in the crime, and I do not believe the proposed title of 'Ethnicity and grooming gangs in the United Kingdom' accurately captures this. The 'moral panic' claim has also not received widespread adoption so I would not be in favour of it being included in a page title.
:Multiple inquiries, investigations and victims have publicly spoken out that fears of linking race and religion to grooming gangs have prevented public discourse on this topic and I hope that we can learn from their failures. Therefore, I propose the title of ''''Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom''''. This would capture the phenomenon of the over-representation with most of the Asian perpetrators involved in the numerous cases hailing from Pakistan as well as other Muslim-majority countries such as Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Egypt, Morocco, Bangladesh etc., and is supported by the Bhatti-Sinclair and Sutcliffe study.
:If the title is renamed as so, a new section can be created to stress that Muslim organisations in the United Kingdom have spoken out against the practice. [[User:Kioj156|Kioj156]] ([[User talk:Kioj156|talk]]) 12:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' [[Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom]] per above. The term "South Asian" isn't commonly used in the UK, where "Asian" usually only means people from South Asia. [[Asian grooming gangs in the United Kingdom]] would be okay, as most of them have been dominated by Asians, but it is true that the vast majority of the perpetrators have been Muslims, so omitting the religion would be odd and also could be construed as offensive to other Asians (although still entirely accurate). [[Asian Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom]] would also be okay, but the vast majority of Muslims in the UK are Asian so it's pretty unnecessary. The proposed title is pretty meaningless. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 11:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
**Of course, simple [[Grooming gangs in the United Kingdom]] may be even better. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 09:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
**:I also wondered that about [[Grooming gangs in the United Kingdom]], but think that's served by [[Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom#Group based child sexual exploitation]] and would change the scope of the article a bit. [[User:Jonathan Deamer|Jonathan Deamer]] ([[User talk:Jonathan Deamer|talk]]) 14:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
**::But that section is almost entirely about Asian Muslim grooming gangs just like this article is. I'm not sure why it would change the scope of the article. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 09:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support''' any of the suggestions so far as better than current. The current title is a rather egregious framing that doesn't accurately reflect either the coverage in RS or, for that matter, the reality in the UK. Both the grooming gangs and the panic that they triggered are real phenomena, though one is clearly a consequence of the other, and it doesn't make sense to frame the article just in terms of the reaction. [[User:Woshiwaiguoren|Woshiwaiguoren]] ([[User talk:Woshiwaiguoren|talk]]) 06:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support''' for Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom or simply Grooming gangs in the United Kingdom, the <nowiki>''panic''</nowiki> part is an egregious POV issue. [[User:Killuminator|Killuminator]] ([[User talk:Killuminator|talk]]) 11:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div>
</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div>

== Another article created for the sole purpose of pushing a biased POV ==

Whether you agree with this article or not, this article's title contains the biased premise that concerns about immigrant rape is "moral panic". This article asserts that "White perpetrators have been shown to be more represented in sexual assault and group-based sexual abuse crimes than any other ethnicity in the United Kingdom." This statement as well as all of the news sources fail to make it clear whether whites in the United Kingdom commit more sexual assault and group-based sexual abuse crimes in total, or per capita.

This article indirectly cites "Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation: Characteristics of Offending". This paper cites CEOP (2011), which finds 30% of offenders were of unknown ethnicity, 30% of offenders were white and 28% were "Asian" (likely South Asian). Since there are more whites than Asians in Britain, this would indicate that "Asians" commit more sexual assault per capita than whites. CEOP (2013) finds that of the 52 groups where data provided was useable, half of the groups consisted of all Asian offenders, 11 were all White offenders, 4 were all Black, and 2 were exclusively Arab. There were nine groups where offenders came from a mix of ethnic backgrounds. Looking at the offenders across all groups, of the 306 offenders 75% were Asian. This suggests that "Asians" commit 10.71x the rate of group sexual assault. The Children’s Commissioner for England carried out work in 2014 looking at police data on CSE offenders (Berelowitz et al., 2015). Data was provided by 19 out of 43 police forces, showing nearly 4,000 offenders, 1,200 of whom were involved in group-based CSE. This study found that 42% were White or White British, 17% were Black or Black British, 14% were Asian or Asian British, and 4% had another ethnicity. No data on ethnicity was recorded in 22% of cases. This would suggest that "Asians" commit sexual assault at twice the rate you'd expect given their share of the population. Lastly, the Police Foundation (Skidmore, 2016) looked at group-based CSE in Bristol, and found that those from ethnic minority backgrounds were overrepresented compared to the local area.

This article directly cites ''Group Localised Child Sexual Exploitation Offenders: Who and Why?'' which finds that Muslims made up 83% of prosecutions for Group Localised Child Sexual Exploitation, with Pakistani origin being a better statistical predictor of GLCSE than Muslim religious belief. This contradicts the statement made in the second paragraph of this article, that British whites are the "most represented" in sexual assault and group-based sexual abuse crimes. [[User:Noobnubcakes|Noobnubcakes]] ([[User talk:Noobnubcakes|talk]]) 05:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

:[[WP:FORUM]]. Also, a single article sourcing a primary source from the Anti-Asian Quillam institute isn't worth much. [[User:Bluethricecreamman|Bluethricecreamman]] ([[User talk:Bluethricecreamman|talk]]) 12:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
::Quilliam was, by no reasonable definition, "anti-Asian". It was explicitly "anti-Islamism"—which you might be able to convincingly argue ended up being "anti-Islam", but that certainly isn't just the entire British Asian identity.
::Besides, where even is the Quilliam article here? [[User:Hoixw1|Hoixw1]] ([[User talk:Hoixw1|talk]]) 23:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

== Requested move 3 September 2024 ==

<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #efe); color: var(--color-base, #000); margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted var(--border-color-subtle, #AAAAAA);">
:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. '''Please do not modify it.''' Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''

The result of the move request was: '''moved.''' To [[Grooming gang moral panic in the United Kingdom]]. There is a consensus that, if the article is to be kept (and for the meanwhile, it is to be kept), that "moral panic" should be included in the article title to reflect how the subject is dealt with in reliable sources.

There was a late discussion about the possible title of "Ethnicity and…", but concerns relating to [[WP:AND]] (as brought up by [[User:Sirfurboy]] and the comparative lack of input means I cannot find a consensus for that inclusion yet. Nor can I find a consensus for the inclusion of the word "Muslim". However, if after informal – and possible formal – discussion such a consensus emerges, that can easily be revisited.

The move as proposed runs issues with [[WP:TITLEFORMAT]], so I've gone with a format that, to my reckoning, is unlikely to be objectionable to those in the discussion who form the consensus for the move.

Additionally, I would like to remind editors that accusing others of wanting to [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS]] may be construed as a failure to [[WP:AGF{{!}}assume other editors are operating in good faith]]. There ''are'' major issues with this article as it stands that are evident to any reader, and I would like to assume we all want to work together to fix those however much we can. ([[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Closure by a page mover|closed by non-admin page mover]]) '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 19:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
----

[[:Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom]] → {{no redirect|Grooming Gang Moral Panic in UK}} – Last RM was a mess, had only three folks discussing a POV mess of an article. Now that we reverted back before all these POV edits, and more folks have their eyes on this, we should consider appropriate, less inflammatory, names [[User:Bluethricecreamman|Bluethricecreamman]] ([[User talk:Bluethricecreamman|talk]]) 16:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC) — '''''Relisting.''''' [[User_talk:Asukite| ASUKITE]] 16:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
*NB: This is a successor discussion to [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom]], which was closed immediately before this RM started.—[[User:S Marshall|S Marshall]] [[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]
*'''Support renaming to a title that describes the topic as a moral panic''', such as '''[[Grooming gang moral panic in UK]]''' or '''[[UK grooming gang moral panic]]''', per [[MOS:TITLECAPS]]. If we do not [[WP:TNT]] the article, then we certainly shouldn't title the article so that it registers as if from within the non-neutral point of view of the moral panic itself but rather should be naming the panic itself, which is the subject of academic coverage. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] | [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 16:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''', its not just Muslims, its not just nonwhites, it's not just immigrants. We can't single out one group over this. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 16:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''', although in sentence case rather than title case. Yeah, singling out a religion like this and asserting it as fact in the title is iffy. [[User:Chaotic Enby|Chaotic Enby]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 17:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. I prefer '''[[UK grooming gang moral panic]]'''. This makes the nature of the subject clear even to people who see the article linked and do not click through to read it. It also frees the article from talking exclusively about the panic directed at Muslims. That will probably always be the largest single part of this but we can also cover how they also try to rope other minorities into it too, most notably non-Muslim south Asians and LGBT people. --[[User:DanielRigal|DanielRigal]] ([[User talk:DanielRigal|talk]]) 18:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
*I think it's complicated and bears a lot of thinking about. Arguably OwenX misclosed the AfD as "keep", because what the community actually wants to keep is different content with a different title, and it takes quite a bit of mental gymnastics to make a "keep" out of that. But here we are, and this isn't an unreasonable venue for the discussion part deux.
:I think there are actually two topics here and the way to carve the subject at the joints is to write separate articles about each.
:Firstly, there's a need for an umbrella topic covering the [[Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal|Rotherham CSE scandal]], the [[Rochdale child sex abuse ring|Rochdale CSE scandal]], the [[Banbury child sex abuse ring]], the [[Bristol child sex abuse ring]], the [[Peterborough sex abuse case]], the [[Telford child sexual exploitation scandal]], the [[Derby child sex abuse ring]], the [[Halifax child sex abuse ring]], the [[Huddersfield grooming gang]], the [[Newcastle sex abuse ring]], and the [[Oxford child sex abuse ring]], where the common factor is that the perpetrators were (not exclusively, but overwhelmingly) British-Pakistani men with recognizably Muslim names, which plays into narratives that the far right want to promote to you. Those were separate events, but they were taking place either concurrently or else with significant overlap in time. An article about them collectively should be given a title that includes the phrases "UK" and "grooming gang" (or preferably "paedophile ring", which is what these were). The title of this umbrella topic should ''not'' include the phrase "[[moral panic]]", because they weren't moral panics. They were catastrophic failings of police and social workers leading to an appalling amount of child rape, including rape of pre-teens.
:Secondly, there's ''also'' an article to be written about the media coverage of the first topic. Journalists in general, and Andrew Norfolk in particular, said things about the crime statistics which were inaccurate, unhelpful, misleading, and promoted far right narratives. People like Tommy Robinson are chuffed that the Times published all that rubbish. There are academic sources about this too (for example [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epub/10.1177/0306396813475983 here], [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epub/10.1177/0306396819895727 here], and [https://policinginsight.com/feature/analysis/when-bad-evidence-is-worse-than-no-evidence-quilliams-grooming-gangs-report-and-its-legacy/ here]). This second article is the one that needs a title including all the phrases "UK", "grooming gang"/"paedophile ring", and "moral panic". I'm relaxed about what order to put those phrases in.
:It's possible that thirdly, there's ''also'' an article to be written about the whole sorry history of paedophilia in the UK in the early 2000s. This article would take a higher-level view of the connections between the South Asian grooming gangs, [[Jimmy Savile]], various care homes for children, and a disgustingly large number of Christian priests. We might be able to accomplish that within [[Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom]], though.
:Anyway, I commend this multi-article structure to you all.—[[User:S Marshall|S Marshall]] [[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]] 22:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
:Note: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|WikiProject Sexology and sexuality]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam|WikiProject Islam]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discrimination|WikiProject Discrimination]], and [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United Kingdom|WikiProject United Kingdom]] have been notified of this discussion. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|TarnishedPath]]''[[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]] 03:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose move''' - I've read the support votes with great interest, and also noticed that this article was previously nominated for deletion. It seems to me that, [[WP:I don't like it|I don't like it or it's too offensive to me/others]] (i.e., trying to be politically correct so not to offend certain groups) are at play here, and I ask the community to be weary of changing the article's title on those grounds. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We report on what reliable and verifiable secondary sources say. Trying to change the title or inserting our own POV in order to appease a certain community is nothing more than [[WP:Original research]] in my opinion. If sources say "Muslim/Asian grooming gangs", then we should leave it as is. It is irrelevant what the far-right groups say or how it might or might not play into their narrative. I see this as a major reason for these requests to move/delete. We report on [[WP:RS]] secondary sources for the general reader. Far-right groups/individuals are also members of the general reader. Provided we have done our job as editors as per Wiki policy, what they chose to do with the informantion contained in the article is up to them. We are a community of editors, and not activists trying to sanitize information for political correctness or to appease certain communities. I assume Black people do not appreciate the article [[Nigger]], Mexicans do not appreciate the [[Mexican Mafia]] article, and Germans do not appreciate the [[Nazi Germany]] article, etc... yet we have articles on them as they are in RS secondary sources. Playing activism on Wikipedia would defeat the whole purpose of this project and questions the credibility of this article and others. I also oppose the use of the term "moral panic". That is not in any credible sources (save 1) as stated above on this talk page. Using the term would be nothing more than original research. We also have to remember that there are true victims of these abuses/phenomenon. Trying to minimise/sugar coat this article so not to offend would be a disservice to the facts, and the actual victims - which are not based on hearsay or our biased opinions but from reliable and verifiable sources. I hope the person closing this request would take these into account. The article has already been so severely edited and sanitized that it makes this article meaningless to the general reader. More effort, it seems, has been spent trying to sanitize/discredit the article than reporting the facts as per our [[WP:NPOV]] policy. That is a topic for another day. [[User:Tamsier|Tamsier]] ([[User talk:Tamsier|talk]]) 03:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
*:{{tq|If sources say "Muslim/Asian grooming gangs", then we should leave it as is.}} But the [[WP:BESTSOURCES|best sources]] don't say that. The best sources—academic sources—say that it's [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0306396819895727 sensationalist Orientalism], that it's a [https://www.crimejusticejournal.com/article/view/756 'folk devil'] narrative, that it is, plainly, a [https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/978-1-83867-781-720201011/full/html moral panic]. It is not original research, as you accuse, to summarize what trained scholars have said. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] | [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 04:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
*::Open-access articles with few citations in journals which allow (if not encourage) biased content—eg pro racial justice (in flagrant violation of WP:NPOV) are not the best sources available.
*::This is consistently referred to in ways similar, or identical to the title in reputable media outlets. It should stay, and whether it is "sensationalist Orientalism" is for discussion in the body. [[User:H6xy|H6xy]] ([[User talk:H6xy|talk]]) 23:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::Our reliable sources guideline holds that [[WP:BIASED|reliable sources are not required to be neutral or unbiased]] and may at times be the best sources. Academic, peer-reviewed sources are the [[WP:BESTSOURCES|best sources]] for this topic involving sociology and the sociology of race, religion, etc. Journalistic sources can be reliable for many topics, but for this topic they lack the discipline-specific training of sociology, media studies, etc. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] | [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 06:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

*'''Support''' renaming to a title that clearly describes the topic as a moral panic such as [[Grooming gang moral panic in UK]] or [[UK grooming gang moral panic]] with no predujice against slight variations from those. We need to ensure correct use of capitlaisatoin per [[MOS:TITLECAPS]]. Additionally any future title needs to be better conform with [[WP:POVTITLE]] and the current does not. Lastly per [[WP:PRECISION]] "{{tq|titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that}}". ''[[User:TarnishedPath|TarnishedPath]]''[[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]] 03:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
*:Just to make it abundantly clear to any closer, I have no prejudice with the replacement of UK with United Kingdom in a title change. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|TarnishedPath]]''[[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]] 13:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

*'''Oppose'''. Oftentimes, the left manages to publicly frame an issue in language conducive to their goals, and sometimes the right manages to do the same. Again, Wikipedia is ''absolutely not'' a place to [[WP:rightgreatwrongs|rightgreatwrongs]]. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Biohistorian15|Biohistorian15]] ([[User talk:Biohistorian15#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Biohistorian15|contribs]]) 07:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
:* It's nothing to do with left or right, it's the fact the article's title doesn't match its content. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 09:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

<s>::Ironically, the original POV mess was indeed trying to rightgreatwrongs. [[User:TwinkleStarzz|TwinkleStarzz]] ([[User talk:TwinkleStarzz|talk]]) 10:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)</s>
*'''Support''' The current title is clearly not what the article is about, this is an obvious problem which needs fixing. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 09:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per [[WP:NPOV]]. The proposed title is neutral and consistent with the article content. The suggested minor variations would also be okay. [[User:NightHeron|NightHeron]] ([[User talk:NightHeron|talk]]) 10:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I was the one who started the now wrongly closed as "keep" AFD. Personally I find it incredible that Owenx - a long standing editor and admin, could dismiss delete votes with this comment: "A few !votes were discarded as irrelevant, mostly those that called for deletion based solely on the content being offensive; the article doesn't qualify as an "attack page"."
<s>:Not a single one of those votes were "based solely on the content being offensive" - not a single one. To dismiss those votes but not have a comment on the various bad-faith "keep" votes is suspect to me, and reeks of some personal bias.
:The subject is particularly charged and even on this page here we have people trying to claim censorship without evidence as they did on the AFD. It is likely that the page after the move will need to also be protected to stop the absolute mess of a POV article that recently existed from existing again. In any case, support the name change since a moral panic is exactly what reliable sources say it is, but a TNT is still better in my opinion. Thank you to Hydrangeans and Black Kite for their dillegent attention here.[[User:TwinkleStarzz|TwinkleStarzz]] ([[User talk:TwinkleStarzz|talk]]) 10:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)</s>
*'''Support''' move, prefer less clumsy title e.g. UK grooming gang moral panic. [[User:Daveosaurus|Daveosaurus]] ([[User talk:Daveosaurus|talk]]) 11:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Move to [[Ethnicity and grooming gangs in the United Kingdom]]''' as proposed previously; I'm strongly against title case and "in UK" as opposed to "in the United Kingdom" or similar. "Grooming gang moral panic" reads as if grooming gangs in general in the UK (whose members, according to research, are [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65174096 most commonly white]) are a fabrication. I can't find any other article titles on specific cases that use the term "moral panic" (though [[Missing children panic]], [[Texas slave insurrection panic of 1860]] and [[Satanic panic]] come close – and that last one seems closer to a proper name like [[Red Scare]] or [[Lavender Scare]]). [[Ethnicity and grooming gangs in the United Kingdom]] would allow both the discourse and the combination of cases which gave rise to it to be covered, together with the academic consensus, and would remove the contentious association with Islam. [[User:Ham II|Ham II]] ([[User talk:Ham II|talk]]) 11:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
*:Probably the best target in my opinion, doesn't single out a specific religion, and still implies that it is a topic of discourse rather than a fact. It avoids the potentially controversial term "moral panic", on which I am neutral, but which is probably less necessary if the title already doesn't present the allegation as a fact. [[User:Chaotic Enby|Chaotic Enby]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 14:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
*:I'm putting my support behind this very reasonable proposal. The title "[[Ethnicity and grooming gangs in the United Kingdom]]" provides a balanced view, addressing the issue without focusing on a specific religion, while sidestepping the contentious term "moral panic," which can imply that the issue itself is not real or is being blown out of proportion. It allows for a more thorough discussion of the topic and aligns with the broader academic coverage on the whole subject. [[User:Mooonswimmer|Mooonswimmer]] 12:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' the move pending outcome of the deletion review I have just started [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_September_4#Muslim_grooming_gangs_in_the_United_Kingdom], which may either make this moot, impossible, or - if no consensus prevails - right. The title should not use title case. If we move to that, someone will come along and change it soon enough per [[MOS:CAPS]]. This support does, of course, mean we change the title and content of the article from what was nominated for deletion, which appears to be backdoor deletion if the keep close is upheld. I am not sure if policy permits that in the face of a consensus to keep. Nevertheless I would argue [[WP:IAR]] on this one. The proposed change is better for the encyclopaedia. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 12:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per the others. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 13:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support:''' Per the other replies. [[User:Mer764Wiki|'''mer764''KCTV5''''' / '''Cospaw the Wolf''']] (''He/Him | [[User Talk: Mer764Wiki|'''Talk!''']] • [[Special:Contributions/Mer764Wiki|'''Contributions''']]'') 14:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support''' The proposed title (or minor proposed variations) is a much better match for the article. [[User:BrightVamp|BrightVamp]] ([[User talk:BrightVamp|talk]]) 19:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
:*'''Support''' renaming to a title that is more in line with [[WP:NPOV]] and actually represents the contents of the article, i.e, that it is a moral panic.
:[[User:BrocadeRiverPoems|Brocade River Poems]] 00:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' move as the current title clearly gives the panic more credence than it deserves, but would prefer a move to [[Grooming gang moral panic in the United Kingdom]] or [[United Kingdom grooming gang moral panic]]. [[User:Esolo5002|Esolo5002]] ([[User talk:Esolo5002|talk]]) 00:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Support [[Grooming gangs in the United Kingdom]] and widen the scope of the article. The proposed title is POV, incorrectly capitalised and poorly named (for a start, per usual Wikipedia naming conventions, it should be "in the United Kingdom, not "in UK"). "Moral panic" suggests an incorrect and ignorant judgement, which is clearly POV: "Aren't those people stupid, ''we'' know best!". While some smug left-wing academics may indeed label it as a "moral panic", that is not generally how it has been labelled in the massive media coverage by reliable news outlets, so cherrypicking sources to support the proposed title is not helpful or in the spirit of Wikipedia. Too much [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS]] and [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] here. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 11:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
*:Agreed, '''Support''' [[Grooming gangs in the United Kingdom]]. The lede can still discuss the moral panic POV and the media’s impact [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]]) 11:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
*:"smug left-wing academics" is not how we usually refer to reliable sources, of which academic publications are perhaps the most important. How can you address alleged POV issues whilst simultaneously making an extraordinary politically-motivated attack like that? [[User:AusLondonder|AusLondonder]] ([[User talk:AusLondonder|talk]]) 14:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
*::We can refer to whatever we like however we like. It's called an opinion. And there's nothing "politically motivated" about it. Cherrypicking sources to support your POV is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Reliable media sources are as valid as academic sources. Only people who have an opposing POV to push claim they're not. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 15:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::Scholarly sources are usually weighted above news sources in most cases, as per [[WP:SOURCETYPES]], which says:
*:::"When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." [[User:Lewisguile|Lewisguile]] ([[User talk:Lewisguile|talk]]) 16:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
*: I'm unconvinced that a hundred ''Mail'', ''Express'' and ''Sun'' headlines really fall into the concept of "massive media coverage by reliable news outlets". But, regardless, I actually think [[Grooming gangs in the United Kingdom]] is sort of OK, as long as the article doesn't end up parroting false racist tropes like it did before it was fixed. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 14:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
*::I'm not referring to tabloids here. They're not reliable sources. I'm referring to broadsheets and the BBC, among others. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 15:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::Please refer to [[WP:TALKPOV]]: "Talk pages are not a place for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue." Your comments referring to academic sources you reject as "smug left-wing academics" are highly inappropriate. It's quite telling that you prefer media coverage from the ''Daily Express'' or ''Sun'' ahead of academic research. [[User:AusLondonder|AusLondonder]] ([[User talk:AusLondonder|talk]]) 12:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::You know very well I've just said I don't (unless you really don't know the difference between a broadsheet and a tabloid). I wouldn't touch those rags with a bargepole. Please try to stop misrepresenting what I say. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 14:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::The editor you are responding to has done no such thing as express a personal opinion on the topic you mention, and instead has brought up reliable sources. You have now repeatedly made personal attacks on editors in this TALK page. Refrain from doing so again, as it is against WP policy. - [[Special:Contributions/2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:96B1:D553:8295:7D86|2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:96B1:D553:8295:7D86]] ([[User talk:2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:96B1:D553:8295:7D86|talk]]) 05:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:* '''Comment''' moral panic heavily implies irrationality and paints a pejorative picture, therefore being POV
:[[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]]) 11:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
::Bear in mind that the members of the public consuming those media and reacting angrily aren’t acting irrationally, it’s a rational and understandable reaction based on the impression they’re given. Moving to [[Grooming gangs in the United Kingdom]] would allow us to inform broadly rather than just document and refute, which would turn many readers off as it looks apologetic [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]]) 14:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
:::It's only an understandable reaction if you assume they have been exposed to morally-questionable systemic racism, to even think such an absurd thing was a possibility. One could have an article about "BBC grooming gangs in the UK" - and we KNOW it's happened. But it still doesn't mean it's a thing. [[User:Nfitz|Nfitz]] ([[User talk:Nfitz|talk]]) 03:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
::::[https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0306396819895727 Journal article on the media narrative]. [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]]) 06:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
::I suggest we have a section on Media coverage which includes a count of the headlines on the main cases per publication, and contrast that with the abundance of cases given by the Home Office in the lede [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]]) 14:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support move''' due to [[WP:SPADE]], [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:PRECISION]]. The title should use sentence case and "in the United Kingdom" is better than "in the UK", but otherwise, it's fine. Scholarly consensus reflects that there's a media panic, moral panic, or scapegoating of Muslim men going on. Most RSes approach the topic through this lens.
:This shouldn't prejudice any potential future decision to cover the issue of grooming by gangs (of any ethnic or racial background) in the UK, if someone decides to write an article on that. But the focus in this article, with its specific and narrow attention to Muslim men, should reflect what RSes have to say on that, otherwise the entire article risks being [[WP:UNDUE]] and [[WP:BIAS]]. [[User:Lewisguile|Lewisguile]] ([[User talk:Lewisguile|talk]]) 16:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. The "moral panic" terminology is an NPOV description of the situation. Other suggestions (eg "Grooming gangs in the United Kingdom" or "South Asian grooming gangs in the United Kingdom") would be appropriate here. [[User:Dclemens1971|Dclemens1971]] ([[User talk:Dclemens1971|talk]]) 03:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per BK and others. [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 12:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
*:I think {{U|Nfitz}} makes a good point below; paranoia is better, perhaps?
*:Also, I hope that closers ignore manifestly incorrect readings of POV policy. The [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view policy]] defines neutrality as {{xt|representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant [[Point of view (philosophy)|views]] that have been [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|published by reliable sources]] on a topic}}. This means that {{Xt|if ''many'' reliable sources have a negative opinion of a subject, the article will ''most likely'' be negative}}. So far, '''none''' has made the case that the mainstream view on the subject is anything except that this is a full-blown moral panic / paranoia / ... [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 15:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
*::This is incorrect, as per Necrothesp and others. Please refrain from lying about other editors' statements for or against this move instead of putting forth arguments for whether you agree or disagree with this proposed change. - [[Special:Contributions/2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:96B1:D553:8295:7D86|2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:96B1:D553:8295:7D86]] ([[User talk:2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:96B1:D553:8295:7D86|talk]]) 05:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' use of "moral panic" in title, with adjustments for [[MOS:TITLECAPS]] and grammar - Per many arguments above. The current title is too vague and is functionally misleading. [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 05:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

:*'''Oppose''', echoing most issues above.
:[[User:Just10A|Just10A]] ([[User talk:Just10A|talk]]) 20:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' proposal as is, but '''strongly support''' renaming this article. The current article title and proposed renaming are both highly problematic and violate [[WP:POVTITLE]]. The simple solution is to remove any qualification and simply move the article to something like '''[[Grooming gangs in the United Kingdom]]'''. Then the article is not held hostage to issues around religion, ethnicity or morality, but these issues can be freely covered in the article body subject to the usual editing discussions, and reader can draw their own conclusions from there. The article would also fit more logically among the other articles within [[:Category:Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom]] - notice there are many articles about crimes committed by white guys, without the need to focus on religion or ethnicity in the article title. [[User:Cnbrb|Cnbrb]] ([[User talk:Cnbrb|talk]]) 14:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

:'''Relisting comment''': Relisted to give time for closure of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 September 4|deletion review]] which will affect this move, and looks like it could go either way as of now. Discussion appears to be torn on whether to use the words "moral panic" or expand the scope of the article to avoid its use. [[User_talk:Asukite| ASUKITE]] 16:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' the completely bigoted title needs to be renamed for sure - and preferably immediately. But "moral panic"? That's a phrase that's unfamiliar to most of the English-speaking world, that only comes up if you dig into technical literature. We are supposed to use commonly-used (and understandable) titles. The equivlent of that would be '''Fear about Muslim grooming gangs in the UK''' or '''Paranoia about Muslim grooming gangs in the UK''' or '''Conspiracy Theories about Muslim grooming gangs in the UK'''. Also, what type of grooming - with Muslim in the title, my thought is about radicalization (grooming to be terrorists). But this is actually about sex (WTAF?) (the paranoia and racism to think that this is actually a Muslim thing is beyond me). My suggestion is [[Fear about pedophilic sexual grooming by gangs in the UK]]. [[User:Nfitz|Nfitz]] ([[User talk:Nfitz|talk]]) 02:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
*:What is and isn’t a Muslim thing is not for us to decide or assume. We only note what is observed and noted by reliable sources. [[User:DangalOh|DangalOh]] ([[User talk:DangalOh|talk]]) 03:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Would anyone have a major objection if I moved the article to "Grooming gangs in the UK" as a temporary measure, just to get rid of this racist title while the discussion continues? It's been here far too long. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 09:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
*:Yes, I have significant objections. Additionally, 'Muslim' is not a race. If you still choose to remove it, feel free to do so, but please refrain from using the misguided argument of racism—no one buys it anymore. Most South Asians belong to three racial groups: Indo-Aryan, Iranian, and Dravidian. Any of these racial groups can include Muslims. Moreover, most sources here specifically refer to Pakistani South Asians. And if your argument is for racism against Muslim Indo-Aryans, but not Hindu, Buddhist, or Sikh Indo-Aryans, then it still would not be valid, as it would still fall under religious discrimination. Otherwise, racism doesn't apply here. You could only remove it on the grounds that it might contribute to the already rampant Islamophobia, but would that justify censorship? I'm not sure. Whatever you decide [[User:DangalOh|DangalOh]] ([[User talk:DangalOh|talk]]) 13:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
::* Well, you probably ''would'' have significant objections, judging by stuff like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_Bangladesh_anti-Hindu_violence&diff=prev&oldid=1245488843 this]. I'll wait for unbiased editors to chime in. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 17:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Muslim is not a race. Jewish is not a race. You know what else is not a race? All of the alleged "races". The point in calling this racism is not to claim that race is real. Race is a set of theoretical abstractions often built on top of (at best) half understood concepts of ethnicity for various political purposes, none of them good. The point is that people who think that race is real discriminate on that basis. Racism is real even though race isn't. Islamophobia and antisemitism are both racism, even if the false racial theories that they are built on are even more obviously nonsensical than those of the average false racial theory. So, is this moral panic aimed at Muslims, Pakistanis or south Asian people in general? Yes! All three! The emphasis shifts depending on the need to rouse the uneducated to simple anger or to split hairs in order to confuse the more educated into thinking that this is more complicated than it is. We ''will'' be removing "Muslim" from the article title because it ''does'' serve to legitimise racism. And with that, I return you to our regularly scheduled programming discussing how best to achieve that. --[[User:DanielRigal|DanielRigal]] ([[User talk:DanielRigal|talk]]) 18:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
::I have mixed feelings about this. I feel that there might be a completely separate article that should exist at "Grooming gangs in the UK". Despite the racist moral panic, there ''have'' been some examples of grooming gangs in the UK. We probably should have an article about that at that or a similar title. It is a topic that goes back further than people realise, certainly far further back than the UK has had a significant Pakistani population. Whether we have the sources to write that yet is unclear. Britain isn't great at excavating its past misdeeds. Look at the way the National Trust gets it head bitten off every time it tries.
::I don't object to the proposed temporary move but we need to make sure that this article doesn't get stuck there. We will also have to fend off even more people blustering that we should take "moral panic" out of the article because grooming gangs are sometimes real. I am very disappointed that this discussion has taken so long that a temporary measure is seen as necessary. As such I think I can '''cautiously support''' the temporary move. -- [[User:DanielRigal|DanielRigal]] ([[User talk:DanielRigal|talk]]) 18:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
::: {{tq|We probably should have an article about that}} We do. Three of them. [[Telford child sexual exploitation scandal]], [[Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal]], [[Rochdale child sex abuse ring]], but strangely not the [[Camborne grooming gang]], nor the [[Glasgow grooming gang]] nor any of the other grooming gangs that have ''not'' been exploited by media induced moral panic (because the perpetrators were white). We don't need any more pages that pander to this false narrative. The pages we have describe the ring. Anything else there is to say about this is about moral panic and racism. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 19:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Part of the issue is the scale of reporting, the level of reporting on the grooming gang case doesn't match it's significance matched to the statistics. For instance the 539 perpetrators of abuse in the Jesus Army that was reported earlier this week[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0qejd0njpeo] that basically didn't move the needle amongst most news outlets.
:::That there has been actual real events and analysis of how those events have been reported need to be in the same article. The scale of reporting on this horrific events just isn't replicated in other equally horrific events. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°'' 19:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:I came to this article to understand generalities of child abuse in the last 2 decades. The numbers of victims and perpetrators and the causes. Are any groups overrepresented in the victims or the perpetrators. If Pakistani or Muslim men are then there is a difficult but very valuable role to be played by Wikipedia.
:I support Wikipedia to get accurate reflection, aggregation and assimilation of what reliable sources report. I would follow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muslim_grooming_gangs_in_the_United_Kingdom#c-Tamsier-20240904033500-Bluethricecreamman-20240903162800 [[Special:Contributions/31.94.22.76|31.94.22.76]] ([[User talk:31.94.22.76|talk]]) 07:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
::If you want to understand the generalities of child abuse in the last two decades then you should understand that grooming by groups of Pakistani's or Muslim's is a small part of that. Unfortunately our media focuses on specific scandals and not the real horrific details. The most accurate reflection of sources is from the works highlighting this, and how over representing certain scandals only serves to hides the abuse going on elsewhere. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°'' 10:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' this move so that the title actually matches the content of the article (the only reason we have the current article name is because of historic POV edits to the article, and the debacle of the previous move). [[User talk:Memphisto|memphisto]] 11:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' move to [[Grooming Gang Moral Panic in UK]], '''support''' move to [[Ethnicity and grooming gangs in the United Kingdom]] per [[User:Ham II|Ham II]]. The title "[[Ethnicity and grooming gangs in the United Kingdom]]" provides a balanced view, addressing the issue without focusing on a specific religion, while sidestepping the contentious term "moral panic," which can imply that the issue itself is not real or is being blown out of proportion. It allows for a more thorough discussion of the topic and aligns with the broader academic coverage on the whole subject.[[User:Mooonswimmer|Mooonswimmer]] 12:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' this proposed move to [[Grooming Gang Moral Panic in UK]] - the title implies that the underlying phenomenon isn't real, which is false; there is clearly a real phenomenon here, as the article's body text acknowledges. Framing it was simply a moral panic is confusing and clearly POV. It is also currently frustrating that there's no article connecting the cases in [[Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal|Rotherham]], [[Telford child sexual exploitation scandal|Telford]], [[Halifax child sex abuse ring|Halifax]], [[Rochdale child sex abuse ring|Rochdale]], etc. There's like a dozen articles on this phenomenon and the premise of this article's proposed name is that it doesn't exist. [[User:Woshiwaiguoren|Woshiwaiguoren]] ([[User talk:Woshiwaiguoren|talk]]) 18:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
*:What do you think of [[Ethnicity and grooming gangs in the United Kingdom]] per [[User:Ham II|Ham II]]'s suggestion? [[User:Mooonswimmer|Mooonswimmer]] 23:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
*::I would be concerned about [[WP:AND]] with any "Ethnicity and..." formulation. If the article must exist, it is about the moral panic. That title is not more neutral, it makes the article actually about the relationship of ethnicity with grooming gangs, rather than about the media narrative of the same. It changes the article scope. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 07:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::I think there might be some confusion about policy/norms here, but I'd like to direct you towards [[WP:VNT]] and [[WP:NOTRIGHT]]. We are an encyclopedia. We have to go off of secondary sources and the media. The fact that you ''think'' there is a {{tq|"media narrative"}} doesn't really play a part in the analysis I'm afraid. Now, of course we have to represent the entire range of views, and give everything due weight. But at the end of the day, reliable sources are reliable sources. And even if one half of "the media" says it's true, while the other half of "the media" says it's a moral panic/narrative, we still have to represent the entire media, which in that case would be split. We don't get to self-classify things as a {{tq|"media narrative"}}. We have to go off of what sources/"the media" says. [[User:Just10A|Just10A]] ([[User talk:Just10A|talk]]) 14:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::That true but not all sources are equal, and academic sources are [[WP:BESTSOURCES|preferred]] over news media. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°'' 16:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::{{tq|We are an encyclopedia. We have to go off of secondary sources}} splendid. We agree. {{tq|and the media.}} Hmm. You misphrased that part. You probably meant "including media secondary sources", rather than suggesting we go of secondary sources and all media sources regardless. And even then, as above, we would still be looking for [[WP:BESTSOURCES]]. But in any case, that is meta, because the subject of this article is already the moral panic. That is how it was created, before it was subverted, and that is what the text has been restored to. And yes, that is what the best sources describe. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 21:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::I mean there does seem to be a real, widely-reported phenomenon of South Asian grooming gangs in England? There are hundreds of articles on the phenomenon and multiple government investigations and reports, and a dozen articles of city grooming rings on this site. "Moral Panic" frames the topic ''exclusively'' as an established falsity, when that's not the case. If anything, a middle ground would be something like [[Grooming gangs controversy in the United Kingdom]]. [[User:Woshiwaiguoren|Woshiwaiguoren]] ([[User talk:Woshiwaiguoren|talk]]) 04:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::Widely reported, yes. Real, no. {{tqb|There are a significant proportion of perpetrators for whom ethnicity is either unknown or unrecorded.}} And other caveats about the data, but, for the very specific definition of gang based CSE {{tqb|42% of these were White or White British, 14% are Asian or Asian British, 17% are Black or Black British and 22% are of unrecorded ethnicity.}} and {{tqb|When perpetrators of all models of CSE are included in the analysis the picture is slightly different. In total, 25 police forces reported 3,968 perpetrators. 59% were White or White British, 10% are Asian or Asian British, 8% are Black or Black British, 2% are of another category and 20% are of unrecorded ethnicity.[https://assets.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/wpuploads/2017/07/If-its-not-better-its-not-the-end.pdf]{{rp|21}} }} This is broadly in line with the size of the British Asian population. So no, it is not ''real''. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 10:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Same issue as before. Refer to [[WP:NOTRIGHT]] and [[WP:OR]] in this specific instance. [[User:Just10A|Just10A]] ([[User talk:Just10A|talk]]) 14:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Your issue before was that you said {{tq|I think there might be some confusion about policy/norms here}}. I agree there is confusion. [[WP:NOTRIGHT]] is not a policy, it is an essay. The policy you cite, then, is [[WP:OR]]. This states {{tq|Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists}}. If you do not see how that policy precludes us from having an article about any of the formulations of "[south] asian [muslim] grooming gangs" then you have not paid sufficient attention to the sources, such as the one quoted above. Perhaps because you are confusing the primary sources (reporting, editorials, opinion, op-eds) with the secondary sources (analysis). The allegations do not have reliable sources. The subject that we have here is not the ethnicity of grooming gangs themselves, it is the media fuelled narrative and moral panic about the ethnicity of such gangs. So yes, you are confused about the policy/norms here, but in your defence, you are quite new here. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 15:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::It is one of the many essays ''about norms'' as reflected right under it's title lol. It's why i said "policy/norms" instead of just "policy." [[WP:VNT]] and [[WP:NOTRIGHT]] are widely used by the community. I'm sorry but you're just incorrect.
*:::::::Secondly, your source cited (that you are using for OR, because it never states your conclusion) doesn't even support you:
*:::::::1.) I don't know how to tell you this, but "Asian/South Asian"≠ Muslim and "Not Asian/South Asian" ≠ Not Muslim. Many white people are muslim. Many people of all ethnicities are Muslim. Muslims are not addressed at all in the report. South Asians specifically are not even addressed in the report. The word "muslim" is only even mentioned twice, and its for a link to a totally different paper about how many muslim women are abused. However, you are clearly making jumps to use it to support your conclusion about Muslims or south asians. That is OR.
*:::::::2.) Even allowing your assumptions, your statement that {{tq|"This is broadly in line with the size of the British Asian population."}} is laughably false based on your source. According to the the most recent census on wikipedia demographics [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Kingdom#Ethnicity], "Asian/Asian British" make up ~8% of the population, yet according to your ''own'' source, they make up ~14% of the gang cse cases. That is not {{tq|"broadly in line with the size of the British Asian population."}} On the contrary, they are '''overrepresented by 75% in the cases''', a giant number. Your own source doesn't even support your conclusion.
*:::::::Now, should any of what I said be in the article? Of course not, because its blatant [[WP:OR]] from a source that does not even address muslims in the first place. But if you're gonna try to do OR, at least make it ''somewhat'' correct. I've already explained numerous times why your position is contrary to policy/norms. If you don't want to listen, that's your prerogative. But don't get whiny when people dismiss your proposals then. [[User:Just10A|Just10A]] ([[User talk:Just10A|talk]]) 15:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::All the discussion above and in media reporting is about south Asian muslims. If you have read the sources, you should know that. The source states the actual figures, after the introduction that there remains a belief that these crimes are only being perpetrated by Asian men. I am not sure how it could be any clearer. It shows that this is false. The British Asian population is 9.3% of the total according to the ONS [https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/ethnicity#:~:text=Ethnic%20group%2C%20England%20and%20Wales%3A%20Census%202021&text=The%20next%20most%20common%20high,%25%20(4.2%20million%20people).] which is broadly in line with the 10% figure there, and although 14% might appear slightly elevated for group based CSE (in those very highly caveated figures), there is a rather huge elephant in the room there that I chose not to highlight. Let me know when you spot it. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 16:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::Cool, so the source you cited 1.) Does not even specifically address South Asians nor Muslims; and 2.) Never states anything close to your conclusion that {{tq|"This is broadly in line with the size of the British Asian population".}} (because, by their own data, they are overrepresented) So your statement is OR. Good talk. [[User:Just10A|Just10A]] ([[User talk:Just10A|talk]]) 17:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::Personally I think the more important point is that 86% of cases aren't commited by South Asians/Muslims yet those cases receive little reporting. Why the media fails to report the vast majority of abuse but fixates on reporting these cases is the real question. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°'' 18:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::: That's not a difficult one to work out when the major purveyors of the "evil asian gangs" stories are the ''Daily Mail'', ''Express'', ''Telegraph'', GB News, etc etc. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 19:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::[[WP:NOTAFORUM]] but it gets people to vote for right wing parties which benefits the business interests of the media owners [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]]) 19:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::Similarly minorities make up 18.3% of the the UK's population, but only commit 11% of all child sex abuse. Meaning that the non-minority population is over represented in child sex offences, again under reported by our news media. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°'' 20:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::So in general the majority of child sex offences are not commited by South Asians / Muslims, and in the specific case of grooming practices the majority are not commited by South Asians / Muslims. Mass media would have you believe the opposite was true, but that is a distortion introduces by unequal reporting. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' ''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°'' 20:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::Agreed, I really think [[Grooming gangs in the UK]] would be the best move because then we could talk about the phenomenon generally, and have a section on media coverage. [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]]) 20:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Christ this article title is bad. It's clearly WP:POV and I support a change to pretty much anything else. 'Grooming' is clearly a dogwhistle nowadays and I'm upset we're giving it wikivoice here. [[User:Sock-the-guy|Sock-the-guy]] ([[User talk:Sock-the-guy|talk]]) 21:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
*:Sad thing is that grooming is a real and very serious thing but the term has been taken up as a racist and homophobic dogwhistle so widely and aggressively that it is depriving the word of its impact when people need to use it to talk about real cases of grooming. [[User:DanielRigal|DanielRigal]] ([[User talk:DanielRigal|talk]]) 21:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
*:Agreed that grooming is the incorrect terminology.
*:'''Support ''' moving article to 'Muslim rape gangs in the United Kingdom' to better describe the topic at hand. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:C7C:7CCC:7A00:1DF3:75AE:BF3E:D21C|2A02:C7C:7CCC:7A00:1DF3:75AE:BF3E:D21C]] ([[User talk:2A02:C7C:7CCC:7A00:1DF3:75AE:BF3E:D21C|talk]]) 09:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' and strongly support keeping '''Muslim''' in the title. That was a major aspect of the [[moral panic]] here.'''[[User talk:Vice regent|VR]]''' (Please [[Template:Ping|ping]] on reply) 15:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
:* Was it really? Wasn't it just that they had dark skin? This is after all the ''Mail'' and its cohorts we're talking about (and actually, most of the ''Mail'' headlines used "Asian" (i.e. [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5163281/84-men-convicted-grooming-young-white-girls-Asian.html this]). [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 18:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
::*Yes, it was really. Most articles mentioned muslims. In fact, the one, singular article you link to does so as well, proving the point. - [[Special:Contributions/2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:1494:3C39:1A80:5C35|2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:1494:3C39:1A80:5C35]] ([[User talk:2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:1494:3C39:1A80:5C35|talk]]) 07:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
:::*I do think that Tommy Robinson and his lovely friends have made it about Muslims. In the case of the Rotherham and Rochdale gangs at least, the majority of the perpetrators had recognizably Muslim names, and that's a fact which helps the alt-right narrative.—[[User:S Marshall|S Marshall]] [[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]] 07:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
*I started to close this (per the proposal but in sentence case), but I have a real problem with the lack of sources supporting the "moral panic" part of the title. So my first choice would be to move to '''Grooming gangs in the United Kingdom'''.
:As a second choice I'd accept '''Grooming gang moral panic in UK''' as that is a huge improvement over the current title and from there we can discuss another rename as desired. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 21:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''': This article is not about Muslim grooming gangs. This article is about the panic surrounding them and should be named as such. [[User:Pluckyporo|pluckyporo]] ([[User talk:Pluckyporo|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pluckyporo|contribs]]) 03:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div>
</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div>

== Revert by M.Bitton ==

My edit was reverted, even though I provided an inline quotation from the sources that are being misrepresented in the opening statement. The user claimed there is an RFC on this matter, but the only RFC I see pertains to a title change, not the article body. First of all, why mention South Asia and Pakistan separately, and then 'Muslim' again separately? Is Pakistan not in South Asia? Or is 'Muslim' a geographic region? This is nonsense. We cannot vilify the entire South Asian community when all the sources specifically refer to 'Muslims' or 'Pakistanis' in the context of South Asians. No other South Asian community has even been "alleged." You may choose to identify as South Asian, Pakistani, or Muslim as per your convenience, but there is no rule that justifies changing the info in sources for the sake of political correctness. Other communities exist too. I was polite enough to mention 'predominantly Pakistani,'. There is no other nationality indicated.I hope responsible admins will look into this. I do not engage in edit wars, especially when I know I am going to be the target of a mob revert attack. I hope responsible editors and admins will take note of what's going on in here. But considering the support above whitewashing rfc is getting, i understand if my request is ignored. [[User:DangalOh|DangalOh]] ([[User talk:DangalOh|talk]]) 15:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

:the way this works is even if its pakistanis in particular , everyone will get lumped in.
:much of the sourcing talks about asian and south asian and often muslim and pakistani after that fact. the conflation is a key part of the panic. [[User:Bluethricecreamman|Bluethricecreamman]] ([[User talk:Bluethricecreamman|talk]]) 16:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
::Sources are extremely specific, and that’s why I used the term 'South Asian Muslims.' South Asia is rarely used without context. No other South Asian community has ever been accused of grooming gangs. The POV of the editors in favor of removing 'Muslim' and keeping only 'South Asian' is — 'In this scenario, I will identify as a South Asian, neither Pakistani nor Muslim. And if I’m going down, I’m taking everyone from South Asia down with me. Either it’s for the entire South Asian community or for no one.' And this isn’t a one-off issue where this logic has been applied. Hopeless Wikipedia. As I said, if there is any rational human admin left on Wikipedia, they will see through this. Otherwise, what’s one more whitewashed article on Wikipedia? Not like it will be anything unique. I dont wish to argue anymore or explain one thing again and again. I am not getting paid for acting as a representative of non pakistani south asian community. I’m out of here. Happy editing. [[User:DangalOh|DangalOh]] ([[User talk:DangalOh|talk]]) 18:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

== Grooming gangs ==

Grooming gang moral panic in the United Kingdom - Right-wing and far-right activists. is an incorrect title as 'gangs have been found guilty of thee offence
"A report from the Home Office was unable to prove any link between sexual assault and South Asian ethnicity. White perpetrators, who make up the majority race in the UK, have been shown to be more represented in sexual assault and group-based sexual abuse crimes than any other ethnicity in the United Kingdom. The report suggests there is likely no connection between ethnic groups and child sexual abuse. Despite the lack of evidence, British media outlets have reinforced the stereotype by disproportionately reporting on South Asian group-based sexual assault crimes at the expense of other similar cases involving White abusers"
This is untrue [[Special:Contributions/2A0A:EF40:915:4D01:F4A0:EF8E:630D:85EC|2A0A:EF40:915:4D01:F4A0:EF8E:630D:85EC]] ([[User talk:2A0A:EF40:915:4D01:F4A0:EF8E:630D:85EC|talk]]) 14:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

== Challenge of "Moral Panic" title change closure moved to user talk page. ==

Can be found here. [[User talk:Sceptre#c-Bluetik-20241008143000-Contesting Grooming Gangs "Moral Panic" Closure]]

Also worth noting:
https://www.gbnews.com/news/outrage-as-wikipedia-changes-grooming-gangs-article-to-moral-panic-from-the-far-right [[User:Bluetik|Bluetik]] ([[User talk:Bluetik|talk]]) 14:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

User talk:Sceptre

2024-10-08T14:30:54Z

Bluetik: /* Contesting Grooming Gangs "Moral Panic" Closure */

{{User talk:Sceptre/header}}
==Orphaned non-free image File:Doomsday (Doctor Who).jpg==
[[File:Ambox warning blue.svg|35px|text-top|left|⚠|link=]] Thanks for uploading '''[[:File:Doomsday (Doctor Who).jpg]]'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a [[Wikipedia:Non-free content|claim of fair use]]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see [[Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy|our policy for non-free media]]).

Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in [[wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#F5|section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion]]. Thank you. --[[User:TedEdwards|Ted]][[User talk:TedEdwards#top|Edwards]] 20:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

==RM of 90377 Sedna ==
Hello {{u|Sceptre}},

Thanks for taking the time to assess the RM of [[Talk:90377_Sedna#Requested_move_14_November_2022|90377 Sedna]]. Please don't forget to move back [[Quaoar]]. [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 01:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
:Hi Sceptre, Please could you reopen and relist the RM? There wasn't that much participation, !votes were pretty split and I think there was a lot more to be discussed about the matter, warranting a relist. I would certainly vote in favour of the move, as the [[WP:COMMONNAME]] in sources is not "90377 Sedna" as far as I can see.  — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 23:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
::{{re|Amakuru}} FWIW, there's a larger discussion over whether Sedna ''is'' definitively a dwarf planet or not going on at the talk page, and I didn't want to tip the scales one way or the other with the closure. The predominant view in the RM was against moving, so I could've closed it as "not moved", but "no consensus to change how we've done stuff, therefore we stick with the status quo ante" is also a valid closure, and FWIW, I don't think another few days of discussion would've created a consensus. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 07:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

== ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message ==

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px;">[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|40px]]</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2022|2022 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2022|end}}-1 day}}. All '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022#Election timeline|eligible users]]''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|Wikipedia arbitration process]]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022/Candidates|the candidates]] and submit your choices on the '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2022|poll}}|voting page]]'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 00:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

</div>
</div>


== Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter ==

{| style="position: relative; margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color: #dfeff3; border: 2px solid #bddff2; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 );"

| '''[[WP:GOCE|Guild of Copy Editors]] December 2022 Newsletter'''

<div style="float:right; width: 75px; height: 60px;"></div>
<div style="position: absolute; top: -20px; right: -12px;">[[File:Writing Magnifying.PNG|100px|link=]]</div>
<hr style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 );" />
[[File:Copyeditors progress.png|right|thumb]]

Hello and welcome to our latest newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since October. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.

'''Blitz:''' Our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/October 2022|''' October Copy Editing Blitz''']] focused on July and August 2022 request months; and articles tagged for c/e in December 2021 and January 2022. Seventeen of those who signed up claimed at least one copy-edit, and between them copy-edited forty-six articles. Barnstars awarded are [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/October 2022/Barnstars|'''here''']].

'''Drive:''' In the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/November 2022|''' November Backlog Elimination Drive''']], thirty editors signed up, twenty-two of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Both target months—December 2021 and January 2022—were cleared, and February was added to the target months. Sixteen requests were copy-edited and 239 articles were removed from the backlog. Barnstars awarded are [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/November 2022/Barnstars|'''here''']].

'''Blitz:''' Our seven-day-long [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/December 2022|''' December 2022 Copy Editing Blitz''']] begins on 17 December at 00:01 (UTC)*. It will focus on articles tagged for copy-edit in February 2022, and pending requests from September and October. Barnstars awarded will be available [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/December 2022/Barnstars|'''here''']].

'''Progress report:''' As of 22:40, 8 December 2022, GOCE copyeditors have processed 357 requests since 1 January, there were seventy-four requests outstanding and the backlog stands at 1,791 articles. We always need skilled copy-editors; please help out if you can.

'''Election news:''' Nomination of candidates for the GOCE's [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators/2023/1|Election of Coordinators]] for the first half of 2023 is open and continues until 23:59 on 15 December. Voting begins at 00:01 on 16 December and closes at 23:59 on 31 December. All editors in good standing (not under ArbCom or community sanctions) are eligible and self-nominations are welcomed. Coordinators serve a six-month term that ends at 23:59 on June 30. If you've thought about helping out at the Guild, please nominate yourself or any editor you consider suitable—with their permission, of course!. It's ''your'' Guild and it doesn't coordinate itself.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers and best seasonal wishes from your GOCE coordinators, {{noping|Baffle gab1978}}, {{noping|Dhtwiki}}, {{noping|Miniapolis}}, {{noping|Tenryuu}}, and {{noping|Zippybonzo}}.

{{center
| *All times and dates on this newsletter are UTC. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Mailing List|our mailing list]].
}}
|}
Sent by [[User:Baffle gab1978|Baffle gab1978]] via [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 00:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


== Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter error ==

The GOCE [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Newsletters/December 2022|December 2022 newsletter]], as sent on 9 December, contains an erroneous start date for our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/December 2022|December Blitz]]. The Blitz will start on 11 December rather than on 17 December, as stated in the newsletter. I'm sorry for the mistake and for disrupting your talk page; thanks for your understanding. Sent by [[User:Baffle gab1978|Baffle gab1978]] via [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 21:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


== Palestinian exodus close ==

Hi, I must take issue with the recent close. It states:

{{tq|the closer stated the discussion and arguments were fairly balanced}} when what the closer actually said was

{{tq|While the discussion and arguments seem fairly balanced in number.....my decision that those who support the move have a better understanding of the article and what its title should be}}

Furthermore, the review closure also stated

{{tq|Please do note that the community takes issue with UtherSRG's method, not his outcome. It will be in order for someone else to re-close this requested move as move if that is their assessment of the consensus}}

Afaics, the current close amounts to a vote count that takes no account of the quality of the arguments in support of either the original or the proposed title, the "better understanding", I request that you take another look.

Thank you. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 11:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
:{{re|Selfstudier}} At the same time, I cannot create a consensus where there clearly is none. Nothing happened in the RM after it was re-opened. At the MRV, overturning to no consensus was supported by a good proportion of people, and I agree with them. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 14:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
::Agree with {{u|Selfstudier}}, Sceptre, because far too many editors agreed that the first closure, which did find a consensus to move, was correct. You say you did not see a consensus, but you don't say why? The support args far outweighed the oppose args, which is the main reason the first closure's review ended in "vacate" rather than in "overturn to no consensus". Please reassess the arguments to find what we say here is true. That article needs to be renamed as proposed. '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|P.I. Ellsworth]]''''' , [[Editor|ed.]] [[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|put'r there]] 06:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
:::Yes, agreed. I noted at the MRV that there was consensus to close, ''just that the previous closer gave a spurious reason'' for seeing consensus there. Closure is supposed to be viewed through the lens of policy, not by counting heads, and in this case there was strong evidence by those in support, invoking the [[WP:NPOV]] policy, that the term "expulsion and flight" is better and more neutral wording than the status quo. I wish I'd cast another "support" !vote at the discussion now, because the arguments to move were vastly more persuasive and rooted in evidence than those in opposition, and I didn't really expect a no-consensus closure after all that had been said at the MRV, it was simply that a more clear close was required than that previously given. Cheers  — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 15:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

=== Palestinian exodus move ===

Your close doesnt seem to address the merits of the arguments at all, and ask that you reconsider by either relisting (it had only been relisted for three days prior to your close) or address the merits of the arguments. When one group provides sources and the other side just says POV that should not result in no consensus. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 14:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
:I see this has already been requested, if you are going to refuse can you say so in order to open a new move review? '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 14:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

::::{{re|Paine Ellsworth|Amakuru|Nableezy}} Hey all. Having a second look at the RM, although the arguments to move were more detailed than those opposing the move, I still cannot create a consensus where there is none. I'm sympathetic to the argument, and ''personally'' I believe the people arguing in favour of a move are right. But as a closer, my role is to evaluate the discussion, and I cannot see a consensus either way. Nor was it likely that a consensus was going to develop; there was no participation in the RM after it was reopened. In such circumstances, I can't do anything but close as "no consensus". '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 17:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
:::::Yes, you can, you can not close a move that was relisted for 3 days, especially when experienced closers and admins are telling you that you are incorrect in your reading of the discussion and of "consensus". But fine, Ill open a move review. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 17:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
==Move review for [[:1948 Palestinian exodus]]==
An editor has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Move review#1948 Palestinian exodus|Move review]] of [[:1948 Palestinian exodus]]. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review.  '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 17:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

== Closure of Maori Party RM ==

Hi,

I request that you reopen and relist your [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Te_P%C4%81ti_M%C4%81ori#Requested_move_3_December_2022 recent closure] of this RM. To close this RM based on counting !votes is inappropriate. Consensus is not based on just counting the number of heads.

In addition, in my opinion your closing statement does not address the arguments raised during the RM. Did you consider [[WP:CRITERIA]]-based arguments? Did you consider that the party does not use one name over the other on it's website, when at least three support !votes stated that they do? -[[User:Spekkios|Spekkios]] ([[User talk:Spekkios|talk]]) 23:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
:{{re|Spekkios}} I did consider WP:CRITERIA, and found arguments for "Māori Party" and "Te Pāti Maori" to be relatively equal in weight. At such a point, I have to fall back on the direction of the discussion, which was clearly in favour of the move. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 17:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
::If the arguments are relatively equal in weight, that would imply a "no consensus" closure instead of a "move" closure. How does the discussion "direction" or the number of !votes matter if the policy based arguments are equal in weight? --[[User:Spekkios|Spekkios]] ([[User talk:Spekkios|talk]]) 21:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
:::==Move review for [[:Te Pāti Māori]]==
:::An editor has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Move review#Te Pāti Māori|Move review]] of [[:Te Pāti Māori]]. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review.  [[User:Spekkios|Spekkios]] ([[User talk:Spekkios|talk]]) 23:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
=== Introducing arguments in closures ===
Hi, um, slightly awkward to pile on like this, but I don’t actually have any issue with the {{em|decision}} of your closure. Rather I came to advise on a less central detail: you should avoid introducing new arguments in your closures. In this case, the point about NZ English being quick to adopt Māori vocab seems to come out of nowhere and doesn’t reflect the discussion. I think a better summary would have mentioned something like “proponents emphasised that the party refers to itself as te Pāti Māori (in English)”, which seems to be one of two dominant arguments (along with commonness). — [[User:HTGS|HTGS]] ([[User talk:HTGS|talk]]) 01:17, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
:{{re|HTGS}} In hindsight, you're right about the wording. I didn't think the comment came out of nowhere; there is a propensity in NZ-related RMs for people less familiar with NZEng to treat Māori vocabulary as "not English enough", which I felt was being introduced in this RM. But yes, the key point is that the use ''in'' English, not the use ''of'' English (see also also: [[Senedd]]), for which I was satisfied "Te Pāti Māori" was common enough to be a COMMONNAME. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 17:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

== [[Day of reckoning]] ==

I don't notice any objection to moving that to {{-r|Day of Reckoning (disambiguation)}}. I think that could have been the outcome, rather than "no consensus". —⁠ ⁠[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 17:33, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

== Should no consensus mean reverting to previous title? ==
I see you recently closed a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pakistani_Taliban&diff=1126652943&oldid=1126584929 requested move] as no consensus. I agree there wasn't any consensus. Should this mean that the article should revert back to its previous long-term and stable title? the article was called "Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan" from 2008 to May 2022, when it was moved after [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pakistani_Taliban/Archive_1#Requested_move_6_May_2022 this discussion]. But this discussion doesn't seem to have enough participation to constitute consensus (2 supports and 1 oppose). This rationale was also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pakistani_Taliban&diff=1120650502&oldid=1120648631 mentioned] by {{u|Paine Ellsworth}}. '''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|talk]] 16:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
:For what it's worth, move requests don't need to have a certain magnitude of participation for them to be regarded as legitimate (vide [[WP:RMNOMIN]]), as decisions are made by a consensus process, which factors in the policy-based reasoning of participants, and not vote-counting; and an absence of objection does contribute to the consensus too. As someone who participated in the discussion, I find the above bid to solicit a move indirectly without notifying the editors on the talk page to be quite discourteous inasmuch as the magnitude to which it was vehemently opposed (being eloquent of disagreement) by a laundry list of long-term contributors (including {{U|Andrewa}} and {{U|Amakuru}}), who argued against the move on policy grounds, in contrast to the support it garnered from a considerable number of SPAs, block-evading socks, and topic banned users who trivialized the consensus process by construing the discussion to be some sort of a votestacking contest; not to mention the fact that the title had been stable for about half a year until a block-evading IP began, and thereupon tainted the RM with more socks. In my view, the foregoing quite clearly forecloses the possibility of a revert back to old title. [[User:MBlaze Lightning|MBlaze Lightning]] ([[User talk:MBlaze Lightning|talk]]) 22:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
::{{to|Vice regent|s1=VR|MBlaze Lightning}} might have handled this differently; however, the outcome in this case is a reasonable one. And this due to ML's argument above for a set new consensus being in place long enough to matter. And I trust Andrewa's and Amakuru's opinions beyond words. So in the end there's a good possibility I would have closed the same way Sceptre did. '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|P.I. Ellsworth]]''''' , [[Editor|ed.]] [[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|put'r there]] 23:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
{{Outdent}}
On an incidental note, Sceptre, and I say this with all due respect for your prior experience in evaluating consensus-building discussions, and having elucidated the context above, I am curious to understand how you construed the discussion to be resulting in a ''no consensus''. The chief argument of the chief proponent of the move (also the OP arguing for the restoration of old title above) was that the existing title adverted to more than a solitary subject, which was debunked by a reference to [[WP: PRIMARY TOPIC]] categorically by at least three editors (who had to presuppose that this was the case in the first place in view of disagreement on this contention). Amakuru, who chimed in late into the discussion and who would have been on the mark and justified in closing the discussion to boot, encapsulated his recapitulation of the discussion as: {{talk quote block|text='''Oppose''' - it has been clearly demonstrated above, using Google hits as well as G-books hits, that the common name for this group is "Pakistani Taliban". It's also clearly the primary topic for that term, compared to the topic of other Taliban who hail from Pakistan or other groups operating there. Although the !vote here looks split, I think this is a "consensus against move" scenario because the policy arguments for the present title are a lot stronger than those for the alternative|by=Amakuru|oldid=1122466090|ts=12:00, 28 November 2022}}{{pb}} Likewise, Andrewa reiterated the underlying essence of his argument, when he proffered: {{Tq|.. If that term is ambiguous and the current article is not the Primary Topic (''about which I am not convinced''), should it be a DAB?}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pakistani_Taliban&diff=1121839721&oldid=1121831543 Andrewa (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)]. I too had recapitulated the essence of my argument a day before your closure[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APakistani_Taliban&diff=1126432849&oldid=1126419677]. In consequence, I don't think putting these quality arguments grounded in policies upon the same footing as those advanced by proponents of the move (whose chief reasoning was debunked, with the residual taking the form of rehash, primarily from socks and SPAs) was justified or meticulous. I did give it a food for thought before voicing my dissent, because a few months down the road this is likely to become an issue again with socks crawling out of the woodwork all over once again, and some of us may not be around (as much) on Wikipedia for it. [[User:MBlaze Lightning|MBlaze Lightning]] ([[User talk:MBlaze Lightning|talk]]) 11:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
:Yes, thanks {{ping|MBlaze Lightning}} for this thoughtful response, and that would be my viewpoint as well. There are two separate issues here, firstly whether the May RM was sufficient to establish a "new status quo" to be the baseline default in the event of a subsequent "no consensus", and secondly whether the close of no consensus was itself valid. On the first, I'd say it's borderline; if the RM was very recent, I'd probably include its findings in and amongst the !votes for the second RM; but 6+ months, for an RM which was conclusively decided (i.e. not just moved without discussion) is getting to the point where it should be binding. So (with my obviously biased hat on) I wouldn't fault Sceptre for not moving back to the original name. On the second issue, I agree that it definitely should have been a "consensus against moving" close, when evaluating through the strength of argument, WP policy and evidence. Furthermore, in a contentious and close RM such as this, I would expect a summary from the closer as to why they've come to the conclusion they have... not just a single-line "no consensus"... as indeed was the case at the [[Talk:1948_Palestinian_exodus#Requested_move_8_September_2022]] RM mentioned in the sections above and now at move review. [[WP:CONSENSUS]] is formed by viewing !votes through the lens of policy, and both supporters and opposers need to know why a closer reached the conclusion they did. Cheers  — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 11:51, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
::{{re|MBlaze Lightning}} this is a rehash of the argument in made during the RM, but you are confusing two different topics here. Just because a title has a [[WP:PRIMARY TOPIC]] doesn't mean that that topic unambiguously refers to only that primary topic. A great example is given in policy itself[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#cite_ref-6], at [[WP:COMMONNAME]], and that is [[Heart attack]]. The Primary topic of [[Heart attack]], and the page it redirects to, is [[Myocardial Infarction]]. However, heart attack can also refer to [[cardiac arrest]]. '''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|talk]] 19:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
:::[[User:Vice regent]], yeah, thanks for recollecting that you conceded to Amakuru on their primary topic contention in the discussion ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pakistani_Taliban&diff=1125417534&oldid=1124538292]). ''This'' consensus then should have informed Sceptre's close, for the policy left no room for doubt that the title had to reflect the primary topic (as discerned by common usage in English RS). The guidline is perspicuous: if an expression has a primary topic, then that is what it leads to, ''per'' its dictates. This is not to say that its application is ubiquitous: as with any other MOS, exceptions ''do'' exist; and medicine domain embodies the niche where the nomenclature is conditioned by the ''scientific or recognised medical name'' commonly occuring in "recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name)[1] or an historical eponym that has been superseded" (''vide'' [[WP:NCMED]]). This is why the colloquial term, ''Heart attack'', redirects to MI, despite being the primary topic. However, such exceptions do not impeach the rule itself; the latter is the established norm; whereas the former, a narrowly carved out exception to suffice the specific needs of a niche community. [[User:MBlaze Lightning|MBlaze Lightning]] ([[User talk:MBlaze Lightning|talk]]) 21:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
::::Again, I think you're mistaken about Primarytopic. You seem to implying that if a title X has a primary topic Y, then our article on Y must necessarily be called X. But that's not true. The only thing the primary topic implies is that X must point to the article Y, whatever it is called. In fact, we have a whole template ([[Template:Redirect]]) that deals with such cases. Besides the "heart attack" example above, other examples include:
::::*The primary topic for "Soccer" is [[Association football]]. And "soccer" has 647M google hits, vs only 10M hits for "Association Football", yet we pick the less common name.
::::*The primary topic for "Western Allies" (2.3M hits) is [[Allies of World War II]] (0.2M hits), but we avoid the title that is ambiguous.
::::*The primary topic for "Midwest" (171M hits) is [[Midwestern United States]] (only 1.2M hits), but again we avoid the ambiguous title. I could go on and on with dozens more examples.
::::*The primary topic for "Pakistani Taliban" is indeed "Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan". In this case too, we should avoided the ambiguous name even if it gave somewhat more google hits.
::::Likewise many times during the discussion I argued that "Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan" was more precise, because scholarly sources used the term "Pakistani Taliban" to refer to groups/individuals that were not TTP ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pakistani_Taliban&type=revision&diff=1121115293&oldid=1120835211&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pakistani_Taliban&diff=1122298849&oldid=1122279161][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pakistani_Taliban&diff=1121551805&oldid=1121540805]), for example splinter groups from TTP, groups similar to the TTP but never a part of it, as well as Pakistani members of the (Afghan) Taliban. '''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|talk]] 00:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
::::: Merely rehashing that some expression is ambiguous doesn't cut it for an argument where you have acknowledged that there is a primary topic. Matters end right there for all intents and purposes. The redirects embody an exception scenario to the aforesaid guideline, and they occur when any of the conditions set forth in [[WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT]] hold good, which wasn't remotely the case with this article; indeed, it was no one's argument, forget an effort that convinced others. The results were lopsided and weighed in favour of the existing title. Your filibustering to derail the efforts to solicit Sceptre's construction of a "no consensus" (which didn't account for the strong policy and evidence based reasoning in oppose) is getting to the point of being unconstructive; this isn't a new RM, where you rehash and even dwell on the issue anew with previously unmentioned examples; desist, please. [[User:MBlaze Lightning|MBlaze Lightning]] ([[User talk:MBlaze Lightning|talk]]) 06:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

== [[Sorbonne]] ==

Please fix the many incoming links to this dab page, which previously pointed to the page now at "(building)". Thanks. [[User:PamD|'''''Pam''''']][[User talk:PamD|'''''D''''']] 05:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

==Orphaned non-free image File:Doomsday (Doctor Who).jpg==
[[File:Ambox warning blue.svg|35px|text-top|left|⚠|link=]] Thanks for uploading '''[[:File:Doomsday (Doctor Who).jpg]]'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a [[Wikipedia:Non-free content|claim of fair use]]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see [[Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy|our policy for non-free media]]).

Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in [[wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#F5|section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion]]. Thank you. --[[User:TedEdwards|Ted]][[User talk:TedEdwards#top|Edwards]] 03:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

== Happy New Year, Sceptre! ==
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em; height:auto; min-height:173px; border-radius:1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">
[[File:Fuochi d'artificio.gif|left|x173px]][[File:Happy new year 01.svg|x173px|right]]
{{Paragraph break}}
{{Center|{{resize|179%|'''''[[New Year|Happy New Year]]!'''''}}}}
'''Sceptre''', Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable [[New Year]], and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
 — [[User:Moops|Moops]] ⋠[[User talk:Moops|'''T''']]⋡ 17:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC) 
</div>
   ''{{resize|88%|Send New Year cheer by adding {{tls|Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.}}''
{{clear}} — [[User:Moops|Moops]] ⋠[[User talk:Moops|'''T''']]⋡ 17:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

== Closure of Prinz von Preussen RM ==

Hello!

I was curious to know why you closed the recent RM [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Franz_Wilhelm_Prinz_von_Preussen&action=edit&section=4] on [[Franz Willem Prinz von Preussen]] in favor of the move? The majority (albeit 7-6, by my count) were opposed to the move. Further, the official website of the princes of Prussia [https://www.preussen.de/en/] refers to "Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia" not the current article title. I would suggest revisiting this RM, as it does not even seem reliable ''english'' sources use the title. I would also argue the discouragement of hypothetical titles in [[WP:NCROY]] doesn't apply because reliable sources do in fact use the title. Here are some: [https://www.cnn.com/style/article/hohenzollern-prince-georg-prussia/index.html] [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-royals-idUSKBN2AI2RI] [https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/did-germanys-royal-family-help-hitler-to-power-n3tbjrpsm][https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/15/descendants-german-kaisers-bid-reclaim-artworks-palaces/] [[User:Estar8806|Estar8806]] ([[User talk:Estar8806|talk]]) 23:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

== FAR for Partners in Crime (Doctor Who) ==

I have nominated [[Partners in Crime (Doctor Who)]] for a [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/Partners in Crime (Doctor Who)/archive1|featured article review here]]. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the [[Wikipedia:What is a featured article?|featured article criteria]]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are [[Wikipedia:Featured article review|here]]. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 16:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

== Mergers ==

Hello @[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]!

I had never proposed mergers until recently, and most of my proposals haven't been gaining much traction. I would appreciate your insight on these 3 proposals of mine: [[Talk:Subsidiary protection#Merger proposal|1]], [[Talk:The Times of India/Archives/2023/March#Merger proposal|2]], [[Talk:Cephalometric analysis#Merger proposal|3]]

Any insight is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time! [[User:Mooonswimmer|Mooonswimmer]] 21:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
:{{re|Mooonswimmer}} If nobody objects to the proposal after a decent amount of time, just feel free to do the merge yourself. :) '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 21:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

==1948 Palestinian exodus close==
Why would you close this when you were involved with a previous near-identical close that was challenged and which came up with no consensus on the quality of your close? Part of the complaint was that you did a vote count and didn't expand on the arguments or policy. Now you have closed an almost identical RM (with yourself now arguably involved in the overall imbroglio) and performed what appears to be another vote count without any mention of the arguments or policy, and in part referred to the previous close with which you were involved. In the most unflattering light, this close could even be interpreted as you returning with the specific intent of reiterating your own previous, challenged verdict to make a point. I would strongly suggest that you re-open and leave it to a closer that is more obviously uninvolved. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 05:04, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
:[[WP:INVOLVED]] explicitly does not apply to actions taken in a purely administrative role. As I've said, if there was truly a consensus to move the article, I would be perfectly happy to do so. But if anything about the past six months of discussion over three extended RM periods and two MRV periods has shown, it's not only that there isn't a consensus, but also that there won't ''be'' a consensus forthcoming. If you disagree, you can go for a ''third'' move review of this RM, but honestly, I think we'd all be better off if we let the matter rest for a while. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 05:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
::Regardless of the letter of the law, your involvement at this stage was unwise to the say the least given your past involvement in a similar case and the subsequent contention. In addition, the combined lack of policy/argument reflection and similarly off-topic reflections on past closes used to justify the close (''again'') was of course almost guaranteed to raise recurring questions. If you don't have the energy to engage fully with a subject of this nature, don't engage with it. The handling of contentious topic discussions is often best left to administrators. I think you closing this almost guarantees another move review, but if that is an outcome you are happy with, so be it. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 06:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

That is an absurd close, and you emphatically do not have authority to impose a moratorium. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 16:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
:Please see [[Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2023_February#1948_Palestinian_exodus]] '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 17:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

== Royal Rumble 2023 ==

Thank you for undoing my edits. Yes, at the article [[Royal Rumble (2023)]], WWE officially lists Rhea Ripley as staying in the women's Royal Rumble match 1 second longer than Liv Morgan, although other sources say that the match ended as soon as Morgan was eliminated, and Ripley and Morgan set the record. If you have further issues, please discuss it in the article's talk page. [[User:GodofDemonwars|GodofDemonwars]] ([[User talk:GodofDemonwars|talk]]) 00:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

== Guild of Copy Editors 2022 Annual Report ==

{| style="position: relative; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color: #dfeff3; border: 2px solid #bddff2; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 );"

| '''[[WP:GOCE|Guild of Copy Editors]] 2022 Annual Report'''

<div style="float:right; width: 75px; height: 60px;"></div>
<div style="position: absolute; top: -20px; right: -12px;">[[File:Writing Magnifying.PNG|100px|link=]]</div>
<hr style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 );" />

<div class="center" style="width:auto; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto;">Our '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Membership/News/2022 Annual Report|2022 Annual Report]]''' is now ready for review.</div>

'''Highlights:'''
*Overview of Backlog-reduction progress
*Summary of Drives, Blitzes, and the Requests page
*Membership news and results of elections
*Closing words

<div class="center" style="width:auto; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto;">– Your Guild coordinators:
{{noping|Baffle gab1978|Dhtwiki|Miniapolis|Zippybonzo}}</div>
{{center
| To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Mailing List|our mailing list]].
}}
|}

Sent by [[User:Baffle gab1978|Baffle gab1978]] using [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 00:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

==Orphaned non-free image File:Doctor Who series 2 soundtrack.jpg==
[[File:Ambox warning blue.svg|35px|text-top|left|⚠|link=]] Thanks for uploading '''[[:File:Doctor Who series 2 soundtrack.jpg]]'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a [[Wikipedia:Non-free content|claim of fair use]]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see [[Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy|our policy for non-free media]]).

Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in [[wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#F5|section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion]]. Thank you. --[[User:B-bot|B-bot]] ([[User talk:B-bot|talk]]) 18:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

== Recent move ==

Hi there,

How did you determine that the consensus for [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Te_Whatu_Ora#Requested_move_1_February_2023 this] move was not the proposed title? [[User:Spekkios|Spekkios]] ([[User talk:Spekkios|talk]]) 21:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
:{{re|Spekkios}}: {{u|HTGS}}'s argument was the most persuasive, both to me and other editors in the discussion. When it comes to NZEng, there's no bright line to go to for the English, Māori, or dual names and it ultimately comes down to which has the most evidence to go with. In this case, based mostly on HTGS's comment, I determined it was the Māori one. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 14:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
::How are you determining that the argument presented by HTGS was persuasive to other editors? Unless I am mistaken, no other editors are referencing their argument. --[[User:Spekkios|Spekkios]] ([[User talk:Spekkios|talk]]) 18:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
:::Since you haven't clarified further, please see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2023_February#Health_New_Zealand here]. --[[User:Spekkios|Spekkios]] ([[User talk:Spekkios|talk]]) 08:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

== Requested move at WikiProject Ukraine ==

Regarding the close at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ukraine#Requested move 7 February 2023]]. The statement about the decision completely ignores the important point about the difference between the names in article titles and parenthetic disambiguation strings, as well as the cited precedent, citing examples that are not analogies for this at all (on top of that, Istanbul and Constantinople are completely different names, not just a spelling variation in a city name that hasn’t changed in over a millennium). It seems a completely unsatisfactory rationale, as in it gives no indication that you read the proposal or considered the points made in it.source]
]]  —''[[user:Mzajac|Michael]] [[user_talk:Mzajac|Z]].'' 20:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
:{{re|Mzajac}} although Constantinople may arguably be or not be an adequate comparison, I believe that Calcutta/Kolkata is; they’re both changes in (Western) English orthography to the local orthography, where the local orthography is more common. However, it’s not always the case that the change is consistent when talking retrospectively; although "Mumbai" is almost universally used these days, usage is split on the [[1993 Bombay bombings]]. Regardless, there isn’t a consensus for a move anyway, and the retrospectivity (or lack thereof) of COMMONNAME ''was'' brought up in the discussion. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 23:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
:: That’s all academic because the change was to the parenthetic disambiguation text, not the name. COMMONNAME doesn’t apply to disambiguation text.
:: [[WP:PRECISION]] says to use the least-precise version sufficient to disambiguate. The main-article-title spelling of the city is good enough, and there’s no point in narrowing it to a historical spelling that is only used in restricted contexts.
:: [[WP:TITLEDAB]] reinforces the idea: “use only as much additional detail as necessary.” The examples there make it clear to use the broadest term possible, not one that applies only in a specific context, like a historical one.
:: And [[WP:CONSISTENCY]] is violated, because the new decision conflicts with the precedent cited in the proposal: the consensus move of a similar article to [[Folkstsaytung (Kyiv)]].
:: And there is no consensus to use the dated spelling ''Kharkov'' in historical contexts.
:: It’s not the end of the world if these are not moved, but it seems to be contrary to best practices. I urge you to reconsider the decision or even reopen it to get more input, but I’ve had my say and I won’t belabour it further if you choose not to. Thanks for closing the RM anyway. Cheers. —''[[user:Mzajac|Michael]] [[user_talk:Mzajac|Z]].'' 04:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

== Maize -> Corn RM ==

Thanks for taking the time to read that novel. I'd just like to know what arguments you found most compelling, so I can understand more about Wikipedia guidelines.

Your reasoning on the talk page itself is that the common name may change from Maize to Corn, but it hasn't yet, similar to Iroquois → Haudenosaunee. However, the arguments used to show that Iroquois is still the most commonly used name is the exact sort used to show why Corn is the most commonly used name. Most relevantly, even in scientific and scholarly papers Maize is used about 1/3rd as much as Corn, as shown in the RM.

Could you explain the differences between the two situations? Without knowing more about your point of view, one could look at these two examples and assume that the default is 'no consensus' when a tough decision needs to be made. [[User:OuroCat|OuroCat]] ([[User talk:OuroCat|talk]]) 23:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

== FYI ==

[[File:Commons-emblem-notice.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] You have recently made edits related to the [[Arab–Israeli conflict]]. This is a standard message to inform you that the [[Arab–Israeli conflict]] is a designated contentious topic. This message ''does '''not''' imply that there are any issues with your editing.'' Additionally editors must be logged-in have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this topic. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics]].  '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 13:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

==RM closure==
Hello, Sceptre. Regarding your closure at [[Talk:Aguascalientes City#Requested_move_29_January_2023|Aguascalientes City]], I notice you wrote that "documentary evidence has been provided to the contrary" only for Chihuahua City, which you exempted... but an even greater volume of documentary evidence was provided for Oaxaca City, which you didn't. Was that intentional, and if so could you share the rationale? Thanks for any clarification. [[User:Huwmanbeing|╠╣uw]] <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Huwmanbeing|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> 17:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll add that a lot of evidence was introduced for [[Queretaro City]], as well. [[User:Red Slash|Red]] [[User talk:Red Slash|Slash]] 17:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
:{{re|Huwmanbeing|Red Slash}}: It was completely unintentional, but from looking further at the discussion, I can see there's no reason to not apply that exemption for Oaxaca and Querétaro. I'll happily reverse those moves and amend my closure in those cases. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 17:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
::Thank you. Chihuahua City, Oaxaca City, and Querétaro City were the only ones actually tested for evidence of common usage; that they all showed it suggests the others are likely the same. I feel like it would've been preferable for the nominator to investigate this ''before'' making the bulk proposal, but it sounds like individual RMs or a second bulk RM will be needed for these now. [[User:Huwmanbeing|╠╣uw]] <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Huwmanbeing|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> 19:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
::Yes, I didn't test all the other ones, because it would have been exhausting, but I think you probably would've found the same for all the others (possible exceptions might include Colima, which is--slight exaggeration--basically a microstate, or maybe some extremely small cities/states like Aguascalientes itself that don't have much of any English-language coverage at all, but no evidence was offered in the move request whatsoever). Thanks for putting the accent in Querétaro City, btw--my bad for being lazing and omitting it. [[User:Red Slash|Red]] [[User talk:Red Slash|Slash]] 17:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
:::RS: Yes, I think it just comes down to the original bulk request being poorly formed, in that it wrongly assumed that none of the listed cities commonly use the "City" form, whereas spot checks showed that wasn't true for several (and suggested it might not be true for any). I think ideally those that haven't been checked wouldn't be moved until they have, but it's not the end of the world either way and I'm fine with whatever solution's easiest. Recommendations, Scepter? [[User:Huwmanbeing|╠╣uw]] <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Huwmanbeing|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> 18:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

{{U|Sceptre}}, I must applaud you for your efforts. But I think there’s a bit of confusion lurking here. There is no community consensus, nor local consensus in this RM, that says that demonstration of some common usage of a given natural disambiguation for a topic means that this natural disambiguation, and not parenthetic disambiguation of the undisputed most common name, must be used as the title. As noted in the discussion, NATURAL merely notes that the natural disambiguation ''may'' be preferred. Well, in all of these cases, without any exceptions, consensus in this RM clearly prefers the parenthetic disambiguation. Please close according to community and local consensus. Thank you. —[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 02:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
: {{U|Sceptre}}, hello? Would you prefer to address this in an MR? —[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 06:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
::Funnily enough, I was considering a move review as well, since no evidence was provided for the vast majority of the cities that the X City name was ''not'' common; I provided several counterexamples for Chihuahua and Queretaro specifically (and I believe Huw did the same for Oaxaca), and I think I provided enough evidence to show that if those two or three were off, than everything was off.

::Frankly, I think the move request should've been dropped as no consensus, and then people individually could've made proposals at each one to look at how much English-language usage the X City form had for each one individually. Most likely Chihuahua would've failed (stayed at City); perhaps Aguascalientes itself would've succeeded; in any case, I was thinking of a move review. (Also, B2C, I have so much respect for you, even ywith this disagreement, but like... you gave Spectre 28 hours to respond, give her a bit more time <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">[[File:Face-smile.svg|18px|link=]]</abbr>) [[User:Red Slash|Red]] [[User talk:Red Slash|Slash]] 17:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
:::I repeat, even if evidence of common usage of ''Name'' City was shown for every city on the list that wouldn’t be sufficient to override the consensus to move them ''all'' to parenthetic disambiguation, as proposed, nonetheless. While lack of common usage is sufficient reason to not use a given alternative name, evidence of common usage is not sufficient to use it rather than parenthetic disambiguation. There are other considerations to be made and ultimately it’s decided by consensus, not the closer. The closer is only supposed to decide what the consensus is. Otherwise it’s a [[WP:SUPERVOTE]]. Here, the closer’s unilateral decision to exclude first 1, then 2 then 3, from the list, ''when consensus for/against the move of each was equal for all'', is a super vote. —-[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 18:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
::::Bizarre as it may seem, I'd say exactly the opposite. Got lots of respect for you, B2C, but to me, saying "yeah the amount of supports for Durango City vis-a-vis Chihuahua City were the same, but Chihuahua City had actual evidence presented and Durango didn't, so I'm going to treat them differently" sounds like something a good closer would do.
::::But of course that ignores the more important point that '''there was no evidence provided whatsoever that Durango City ''isn't'' a common name for the city'''. Which is why we're going to go to Move Review. [[User:Red Slash|Red]] [[User talk:Red Slash|Slash]] 17:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

:{{re|Born2cycle|Huwmanbeing}}: I think this is a problem with these multi-page RMs; indeed, I went into the closing process hoping that I wouldn't have to move the pages. But as it was, the RM was balancing on the scales of "move" vs "no consensus"; the consistency argument isn't as strong given the examples of other cities (in Mexico, Japan, and of course, Cork). I also agree that "X City" would be a decent enough [[WP:NATURAL|NATURAL]] disambiguation, were it not for the "don't use natural disambiguations that are obscure" part of WP:NATURAL"; except for the three cases I exempted, I didn't see anything in the RM that adequately rebutted that argument. With all that said, I don't oppose starting new singular RMs if the evidence for "X City" can be shown for the other cities in the list. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 19:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
::If you don’t see anything in the RM that adequately rebutted that, it’s because you’re ignoring my rebuttal (in the last comment in the RM discussion) which points out that the "don't use natural disambiguations that are obscure" part of WP:NATURAL simply points out an extreme limit to where natural disambiguations are not to be used. It’s quite a leap not supported by local or community consensus to interpret that to mean, “if the natural disambiguation in question is not obscure then it '''must''' be used.” Yet you are inexplicably interpreting it to mean that. The key question here is not about whether the natural disambiguation ''may'' be used. I mean, in those cases where it’s obscure it may not be used, of course. But in any case where it’s (at least arguably) not obscure that just means it ''may'' be used, not that it ''must'' be. So, in those cases where the natural disambiguation is not obscure the key question is which disambiguation form is ''preferred''. And, again, consensus was the same for every city in the list: parenthetic disambiguation is preferred to ''Name'' City disambiguation in each of these cases. Whether natural disambiguation is allowed or not by NATURAL due to level of obscurity is entirely besides the point. Yet you chose to take that into account. That’s a SUPERVOTE. —[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 21:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

==Move review for [[:Aguascalientes City]]==
An editor has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Move review#Aguascalientes City|Move review]] of [[:Aguascalientes City]]. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review.  [[User:Red Slash|Red]] [[User talk:Red Slash|Slash]] 19:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

== Your userpage ==

Hi @[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]! I landed on your userpage following a recent ANI post of yours and I just wanted to say that I am really quite impressed with the visual structure. I am sure you get this a lot, but it's such a pleasure to read through. I've probably spent more time editing my userpage than I care to admit (lmao) and it's always nice to see some inspirations. [[User:Ppt91|Ppt91]][[User talk:Ppt91|talk]] 20:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

==[[Murder of Michelle Confait]]==
Hi. I would ask you to reconsider this close. The nomination and support votes were based on a flawed premise, that Confait identified as a trans woman. As I said in the discussion, there is no reliable evidence for this. An editor added it to the article a few years ago and the editors who supported the nomination clearly just supported without checking the evidence (or lack of). In any case, this is a well-known murder in British criminal history and the victim is invariably referred to as Maxwell Confait. We cannot apply modern ideas to something that happened fifty years ago. The rename is a clear violation of [[WP:COMMONNAME]]. Thanks. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 11:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
:{{re|Necrothesp}} The relevant guideline here is [[MOS:GENDERID]], which applies to anyone whose gender ''might'' (operative word) be questioned. There's no dispute that there's a question about Confait's gender, and furthermore, it's not disputed that they preferred to be known as "Michelle". Additionally, [[WP:COMMONNAME]] allows divergence if the most common name is problematic; the amount of "per nom" comments indicate a general agreement that that's the case. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 11:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
::Yes, but, as I said, the whole nomination seems based on an unsourced edit made to the article some years ago that has clearly been taken as true without any evidence. The supporters have merely accepted that it is true without any knowledge of the situation (note they all came before I pointed this out). Nobody fifty years ago would have referred to themselves as a trans woman. We cannot change history to what we think it ''should'' be. We can only report what it ''was''. This is a famous murder case and is invariably referred to as the murder of ''Maxwell'' Confait. How is it helping our users to use a name that was never actually used in the many reliable sources on the case? -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 13:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
:::{{re|Necrothesp}} Whether Confait would've used the phrase "trans woman" or not isn't within the spirit of MOS:GENDERID; indeed, I have a suspicion that the "might be questioned" line was to catch historical cases such as [[Sylvia Rivera]] (et. al) where the line between "homosexual transvestite" and "trans woman" are blurred. I've found two other sources further to what was mentioned in the RM which also talk about Confait in the context of being transgender: ''[https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/reclaiming-genders-9781474292825/ Reclaiming Genders]'' by Whittle et al, and [https://www.salon.com/2001/06/20/milan/ this ''Salon'' article] about [[Amanda Milan]], which talks about Confait's murder being at the top of a long list of murdered trans sex workers. As far as I'm concerned, the Gianassi book, alongside those two sources I've listed in this reply, should be enough to meet the "might be questioned" part of GENDERID. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 14:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
==Move review for [[:Murder of Michelle Confait]]==
An editor has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Move review#Murder of Michelle Confait|Move review]] of [[:Murder of Michelle Confait]]. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review.  -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 14:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
==Happy Birthday!==

{{ombox
| name = Happy Birthday
| image = [[File:Twemoji12 1f382.svg{{!}}alt=Birthday cake emoji|50px]]
| imageright = [[File:Twemoji2 1f389.svg{{!}}alt=Party popper emoji|50px]]
| style = border: 2px solid SlateBlue; background: linear-gradient(300deg, AliceBlue, LavenderBlush 30%, LavenderBlush 70%, AliceBlue);
| textstyle = padding: 0.75em; text-align:center;
| text = <big>'''Happy birthday!'''</big> Hi Sceptre! On behalf of the [[WP:Birthday Committee|Birthday Committee]], I'd like to wish you a very happy birthday! Enjoy this special day! [[User:CAPTAIN RAJU|'''CAPTAIN RAJU''']][[User_talk:CAPTAIN RAJU|(T)]] 22:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
}}

== [[Talk:1896 Summer Olympics#Requested move 9 February 2023]] ==

Please rethink or undo this close. Closers ought to know how to intepret policy and assess arguments under the lens of policy, but your closing summary indicates you don't know how to do that, and instead [[WP:CONLEVEL|ignored policy based on the local consensus]]. TITLECHANGES can't be used to oppose change just for the sake of opposing change, and all the other policy-based arguments (COMMONNAME, CONCISE) supported the move. [[User:Avilich|Avilich]] ([[User talk:Avilich|talk]]) 00:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
:{{re|Avilich}} I did take those into account those policies, and also the previous RM. I did not see a consensus to move the article, just like the previous RM. I'd be happy to relist if you'd like, but in my opinion, it'll probably be closed again in a week with the same result. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 21:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
::I respectfully disagree. I won't ask you to relist since it has been a while already, so I'm posting this on move review [[Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2023 March#1896 Summer Olympics]]. [[User:Avilich|Avilich]] ([[User talk:Avilich|talk]]) 16:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

== Guild of Copy Editors March 2023 Newsletter ==

{| style="position: relative; margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color: #dfeff3; border: 2px solid #bddff2; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 );"

| '''[[WP:GOCE|Guild of Copy Editors]] March 2023 Newsletter'''

<div style="float:right; width: 75px; height: 60px;"></div>
<div style="position: absolute; top: -20px; right: -12px;">[[File:Writing Magnifying.PNG|100px|link=]]</div>
<hr style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 );" />
[[File:Copyeditors progress.png|right|thumb]]

Hello and welcome to the March 2023 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Newsletters/December 2022|December]] and our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Membership/News/2022 Annual Report|Annual Report for 2022]]. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. We extend a warm welcome to all of our new members, including those who have signed up for our current March Backlog Elimination Drive. We wish you all happy copy-editing.

'''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators/2023/1|Election results]]:''' In our December 2022 coordinator election, Reidgreg and Tenryuu stepped down as coordinators; we thank them for their service. Incumbents Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo were returned as coordinators until 1 July. For the second time, no lead coordinator was chosen. Nominations for our mid-year [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Coordinators#How_are_we_selected?|Election of Coordinators]] open on 1 June (UTC).

'''Drive:''' 21 editors signed up for our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/January 2023|'''January Backlog Elimination Drive''']], 14 of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 170 articles totaling 389,737 words. Barnstars awarded are [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/January 2023/Barnstars|'''here''']].

'''Blitz:''' Our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/February 2023|'''February Copy Editing Blitz''']] focused on October and November 2022 requests, and the March and April 2022 backlogs. Of the 14 editors who signed up, nine claimed at least one copy-edit; and between them, they copy-edited 39,150 words in 22 articles. Barnstars awarded are [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/February 2023/Barnstars|'''here''']].

'''Drive:''' Sign up now for our month-long [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/March 2023|'''March Backlog Elimination Drive''']]. Barnstars awarded will be posted [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/March 2023/Barnstars|'''here''']] after the drive closes.

'''Progress report:''' As of 12:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 73 requests since 1 January 2023, all but five of them from 2022, and the backlog stands at 1,872 articles.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators {{noping|Baffle gab1978|Dhtwiki|Miniapolis|Zippybonzo}}.

{{center
| To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Mailing List|our mailing list]].
}}
|}

== [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|Proposed deletion]] of [[:Combat (Torchwood)]] ==
[[File:Ambox warning yellow.svg|left|link=|alt=Notice|48px|]]

The article [[:Combat (Torchwood)]] has been [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed for deletion]] because of the following concern:
<blockquote>'''Appears to fail notability, nothing found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2011'''</blockquote>

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be [[WP:DEL#REASON|deleted for any of several reasons]].

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your [[Help:edit summary|edit summary]] or on [[Talk:Combat (Torchwood)|the article's talk page]].

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed deletion process]], but other [[Wikipedia:deletion process|deletion process]]es exist. In particular, the [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedy deletion]] process can result in deletion without discussion, and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|articles for deletion]] allows discussion to reach [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for deletion. [[User:Donaldd23|DonaldD23]] [[User talk:Donaldd23|talk to me]] 16:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
== Nomination of [[:Combat (Torchwood)]] for deletion ==
<div class="afd-notice">
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">[[File:Ambox warning orange.svg|48px|alt=|link=]]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article [[:Combat (Torchwood)]] is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to [[Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines|Wikipedia's policies and guidelines]] or whether it should be [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deleted]].

The article will be discussed at '''[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Combat (Torchwood)]]''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
</div> [[User:Donaldd23|DonaldD23]] [[User talk:Donaldd23|talk to me]] 02:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
== "[[:Weapons of resident evil 4]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
[[File:Information.svg|30px]]
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weapons_of_resident_evil_4&redirect=no Weapons of resident evil 4] has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|redirects for discussion]] to determine whether its use and function meets the [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect guidelines]]. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 21#Weapons of resident evil 4}}''' until a consensus is reached.  [[User:Steel1943|'''''Steel1943''''']] ([[User talk:Steel1943|talk]]) 20:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

== Always precious ==
[[File:Yogo2783 Close crop.JPG|frameless|right|upright=0.5]]
Ten years ago, [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Precious#{{BASEPAGENAME}}|you]] were found precious. That's what you are, always. --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 07:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

== Guild of Copy Editors June 2023 Newsletter ==

{| style="position: relative; margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color: #dfeff3; border: 2px solid #bddff2; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 );"

| '''[[WP:GOCE|Guild of Copy Editors]] June 2023 Newsletter'''

<div style="float:right; width: 75px; height: 60px;"></div>
<div style="position: absolute; top: -20px; right: -12px;">[[File:Writing Magnifying.PNG|100px|link=]]</div>
<hr style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 );" />
[[File:Copyeditors progress.png|right|thumb]]

Hello and welcome to the June 2023 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since March. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.

'''Election news:''' Fancy helping out at the Guild? Nominations for our half-yearly [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators/2023/2|Election of Coordinators]] are open until 23:59 on 15 June (UTC)*. Starting immediately after, the voting phase will run until 23:59 on 30 June. All Wikipedians in [[WP:STANDING|good standing]] are eligible and self-nominations are welcomed; it's ''your'' Guild and it doesn't organize itself!

'''Blitz:''' Of the 17 editors who signed up for our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/April_2023|April Copy Editing Blitz]], nine editors completed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 24 articles totaling 53,393 words. Barnstars awarded are [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/April_2023/Barnstars|'''here''']].

'''Drive:''' 51 editors signed up for the month-long [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/May_2023| May Backlog Elimination Drive]], and 31 copy-edited at least one article. 180 articles were copy-edited. Barnstars awarded are posted [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/May_2023/Barnstars|'''here''']].

'''Blitz:''' [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/June_2023#signup|'''Sign up here''']] for our week-long June Copy Editing Blitz, which runs from 11 to 17 June. Barnstars awarded will be posted [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/June_2023/Barnstars|'''here''']].

'''Progress report:''' As of 03:09 on 6 June 2023, GOCE copyeditors have processed 91 requests since 1 January and the backlog stands at 1,887 articles.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators {{noping|Baffle gab1978}}, {{noping|Dhtwiki}}, {{noping|Miniapolis}} and {{noping|Zippybongo}}.

<nowiki>*</nowiki>All times and dates in this newsletter are in [[Coordinated Universal Time|UTC]], and may significantly vary from your local time.
{{center
| To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Mailing List|our mailing list]].
}}
|}
Sent by [[User:Baffle gab1978|Baffle gab1978]] using [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 03:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)


== Move review ==

I strongly disapprove of your move of a relatively unknown person to [[Albert von Sachsen]]. That person is by no stretch of the imagination the common name or primary topic for such a term, and if the move is not reverted, I will be taking it to move review. [[User:DrKay|DrKay]] ([[User talk:DrKay|talk]]) 07:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
:{{re|DrKay}} I think you've got things backwards here. As there isn't another article that should be at [[Albert von Sachsen]] (other than the 18th-century Duke of Teschen, where NCROY applies differently), then the man born in 1934 can be assumed to be the primary topic.
:On the subject of COMMONNAME – as has been brought up in several German ex-nobility RMs since the abortive coup attempt last year, the use of princely titles in pretence is a [[WP:POVTITLE]] issue, and NCROY's discouragement of the use of such titles has particular weight; the use of these titles has gone from harmless [[althist]] nerdery to a far-right shibboleth.
:NPOV – as a [[WP:5P|fundament of the encyclopedia]] – clearly requires that in the that a POVTITLE's COMMONNAME status is evidenced. It is not enough to say "X is the common name" to oppose moving away from "X" when it has problems; it must be demonstrated through evidence that the name is overwhelmingly ''the'' most common name to the point where POVTITLE is met, and in the majority of these RMs, not even the "evidence it's the common name" bar is met. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 09:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
::Ouch, I have to confess I'm a little baffled here. How can you possibly find consensus for a move in such a discussion, when the voting numbers are so clearly not in favour of a move, and the overarching policy argument of [[WP:COMMONNAME]] a powerful rationale not to move. Your rationale for closing this, and indeed the previous RM (which I voted against, but then didn't notice it has been closed as moved) rest on the assertion that the long-standing names were "problematic", but the participants in the RM were far from convinced by that argument. As such, your determination as closer doesn't override multiple opinions that thy weren't problematic, which unfortunately makes your close against the numbers a good faith [[WP:SUPERVOTE]]. The whole thing is trying to [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS]] in a way that isn't supported by sources. Please could you look at both of these RMs again and consider objectively whether there's any way it's a consensus to move?  — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 10:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
:::{{re|Amakuru}} COMMONNAME is not an absolute. As I’ve mentioned here and elsewhere, COMMONNAME allows us to use other article titles if the most common name is problematic, and in none of the ex-German nobility RMs that I’ve closed since then have I been convinced by the arguments the princely titles are not problematic. Mostly, it’s a sea of “per COMMONNAME” arguments without evidence. The onus is on people to prove that COMMONNAMEs pass the higher muster if they’re problematic, and that proof hasn’t been met, and [[WP:NOTVOTE|numerical majorities are not a substitute]] for proof in that regard. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 10:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
::::{{xt|"COMMONNAME is not an absolute"}} - of course, there are some exceptions but on the other hand, COMMONNAME is listed on a policy page and is widely accepted in countless RM discussions down the years as the standard we use, absent strong reason against, and is a close proxy to Wikipedia's philosophy that we reflect the world as it is, through [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NPOV]], rather than attempting to chart a course that editors think is more "correct" than real world usage. In this case, where (a) the common name was clearly for the old title, (b) the numbers in the discussion were clearly for the old title, and (c) the old title was the longstanding status quo, there can be no objective reason for choosing something else. Your interpretation of what's problematic above is ''your opinion'', but you know it's not one of which other editors in good standing such as myself and others share. As such, it is your duty to either close in line with consensus, or simply cast a vote yourself. You don't have the right to impose an alternative view on us in this way. Cheers  — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 10:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
:::::Yes, and NPOV – as one of the [[WP:5P|five pillars]] – overrides the "use the common name" shorthand. Like I said, in the case of non-neutral titles, it is incumbent on those wishing to use them to provide evidence that it's the common name – as POVTITLE says, in a "significant majority of English-language sources" — and in the related RMs that I've closed, the evidence – when provided – is sorely lacking. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 11:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Btw, what do you mean by "German ex-nobility" which I've seen you use here and there about people whose families were royalty, not nobility? --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 12:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

==Move review for [[:Albert von Sachsen]]==
An editor has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Move review#Albert von Sachsen|Move review]] of [[:Albert von Sachsen]]. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review.  [[User:DrKay|DrKay]] ([[User talk:DrKay|talk]]) 10:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
:{{ping|DrKay}} it would be useful to let the discussion above play out before starting a MRV. I also think we should include the December 2022 RM in the mix too, as that also seems to lack consensus and is probably sufficiently recent to challenge.  — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 10:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
:{{ping|Sceptre}}, are you sure you can !vote on your own contested move? It seems to me that your explanation should be prefixed with "Closer's response" or similar, not "Endorse"... [[User:Rosbif73|Rosbif73]] ([[User talk:Rosbif73|talk]]) 12:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
== Nomination of [[:Cult of Skaro]] for deletion ==
<div class="afd-notice">
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">[[File:Ambox warning orange.svg|48px|alt=|link=]]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article [[:Cult of Skaro]] is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to [[Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines|Wikipedia's policies and guidelines]] or whether it should be [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deleted]].

The article will be discussed at '''[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cult of Skaro]]''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
</div> [[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 03:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

== Oppenheimer ==
There is no longer any ambiguity regarding the surname when it is at "Oppenheimer (surname)". The primary topic does not need to be mentioned in the lede. The thing you're referring to would apply to [[Oppenheimer (disambiguation)]], which I already changed. —[[User:Xezbeth|Xezbeth]] ([[User talk:Xezbeth|talk]]) 13:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
:{{re|Xezbeth}} At the same time, JRO does need to be in {{la|Oppenheimer (surname)}}. I'm relaxed on where it is, but given the prominence of the primary topic… the lede seemed more appropriate than buried in the weeds; some people might still get to the page by that page! '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 13:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

== Minor request ==

{{FPER|User talk:Sceptre/Archive 13|answered=yes}}

Hello, I'm cleaning up the dwindling number of fostered content [[WP:LINT]] errors on Wikipedia, and only 8 remain within user talk space. One of those is on your [[User talk:Sceptre/Archive 13]] within the "Awww Will!" section. If you would be willing, would you please make the following adjustment?

{{Collapse top|portion to change}}
Change this
<pre>
{| style="vertical-align:top" |
<div id="Awardbar" class="noprint" style="border:1px solid #000000; background:#fff; margin:0.5em 0.5em 0.5em 1em; text-align:center; padding:6px; float:right; font-size: 0.9em; width: 110px; ">This Barnstar is presented to [[Image:Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar.png|110px]] ''''''Will'''''' for always being close to me and willing to make me smile and cheer me up when I need it the most. Thank you! :) [[User:Phaedriel|Phaedriel]] </div>
|}That's ''such'' a beautiful cat, my dear Will - thank you so much! My talk page seems to be filling lately with pictures of lovely cats, how did you even knew I love them? Anyway, hun, I didn't want to go to bed before thanking you - the 4th of July has been tough on me, and I've hardly had any sleep in the last day; but in the meantime, beutiful messages have appeared in my talk page and I "always" reply, even if it takes me some time. I hope you're doing great, and enjoy this - you deserve it! Hugs, [[User:Phaedriel|Phædriel]] ♥ [[User talk:Phaedriel|'''tell me''']] - 00:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
</pre>

to this:

<pre>
{| style="vertical-align:top; float:right;"
|<div id="Awardbar" class="noprint" style="border:1px solid #000000; background:#fff; margin:0.5em 0.5em 0.5em 1em; text-align:center; padding:6px; font-size: 0.9em; width: 110px; ">This Barnstar is presented to [[Image:Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar.png|110px]] '''Will''' for always being close to me and willing to make me smile and cheer me up when I need it the most. Thank you! :) [[User:Phaedriel|Phaedriel]] </div>
|}That's ''such'' a beautiful cat, my dear Will - thank you so much! My talk page seems to be filling lately with pictures of lovely cats, how did you even knew I love them? Anyway, hun, I didn't want to go to bed before thanking you - the 4th of July has been tough on me, and I've hardly had any sleep in the last day; but in the meantime, beutiful messages have appeared in my talk page and I "always" reply, even if it takes me some time. I hope you're doing great, and enjoy this - you deserve it! Hugs, [[User:Phaedriel|Phædriel]] ♥ [[User talk:Phaedriel|'''tell me''']] - 00:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
</pre>
{{Collapse bottom}}

This will correct this fostered content issue, and replace the fonts for span style to address the neighboring obsolete tag issues.
Thank you! [[User:Zinnober9|Zinnober9]] ([[User talk:Zinnober9|talk]]) 01:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
:{{re|Zinnober9}} The page is full-protected so I've added a FPER tag so an admin can do it instead. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 20:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
::{{done}} [[User:Legoktm|Legoktm]] ([[User talk:Legoktm|talk]]) 02:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
::Sorry, I missed that you weren't able to access the page, Sceptre. Thank you for the assist, Legoktm. [[User:Zinnober9|Zinnober9]] ([[User talk:Zinnober9|talk]]) 02:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

== RM close ==

Your close at [[Talk:Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (classified documents case)]] was way too early; it has literally been only a day and a half since the indictment, which is not enough time for discussion to evolve. Furthermore, the existing !votes don't support that there is any consensus either way yet, especially since the original proposer stated that they no longer exclusively support their original title and is open to further discussion. Please reverse the close and let the RM play out over a normal timeframe. Thanks. [[User:Antony-22|Antony–'''''22''''']] ([[User talk:Antony-22|talk]]⁄[[Special:Contributions/Antony-22|contribs]]) 04:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
:{{re|Antony22}} From my reading there's a general consensus that the articles about the two indictments should be similarly titled, and I have no opinion on what form this should take, and no objection to an immediate further RM encompassing both. That said, I don't think the timing of the election interference indictment is that relevant; it had been inevitable for some time, and I don't think there was a dearth of discussion warranting it being deliberately kept in the RM backlog. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 20:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
::I see. I'd appreciate it if you could clarify your close that the consensus only applies to there being a parenthetical "government documents" to "classified documents" while discussion was actively ongoing between the two possibilities, and if there was no consensus, then that change shouldn't have been made. I'd rather not have to do another RM over that if possible. Thanks. [[User:Antony-22|Antony–'''''22''''']] ([[User talk:Antony-22|talk]]⁄[[Special:Contributions/Antony-22|contribs]]) 05:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

== [[Llywelyn ab Iorwerth]] ==

Please review your close here. It does not seem to me reflect the actual consensus or evidence. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 20:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
:{{re|Srnec}} See the discussion section of the move request. It's very clear from the evidence provided by {{u|Ham II}} that the version with the patronymic are the COMMONNAME. The English form is ''very slightly'' than with either of the Welsh forms alone, but I don't think it's reasonable to argue that the English form "wins" because of people having different opinions on [[Voice (phonetics)|how much the vocal folds need to vibrate before you use a specific consonant]]. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 20:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

== Page move ==

you closed the moving discussion thing in [[Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi]] but the page didn't get moved '''[[User:Abo Yemen|Abo Yemen]][[User talk:Abo Yemen|✉]]''' 16:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

== Septermber GOCE newsletter ==

{| style="position: relative; margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color: #dfeff3; border: 2px solid #bddff2; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 );"
| '''[[WP:GOCE|Guild of Copy Editors]] September 2023 Newsletter'''
<div style="float:right; width: 75px; height: 60px;"></div>
<div style="position: absolute; top: -20px; right: -12px;">[[File:Writing Magnifying.PNG|100px|link=]]</div>
<hr style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 );" />
[[File:Copyeditors progress.png|right|thumb]]

Hello and welcome to the September 2023 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since June. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.

'''David Thomsen:''' Prolific Wikipedian and Guild member David Thomsen ({{noping|Dthomsen8}}) died in November 2022. He was a regular copy editor who took part in many of our Drives and Blitzes. An obituary was published in the mid-July issue of ''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-07-17/Obituary|The Signpost]]''. Tributes can be left on David's [[User_talk:Dthomsen8|talk page]].

'''Election news:''' In our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators/2023/2|mid-year Election of Coordinators]], {{noping|Dhtwiki}} was chosen as lead coordinator, {{noping|Miniapolis|Zippybonzo}} continue as assistant coordinators, and {{noping|Baffle gab1978}} stepped down from the role. If you're interested in helping out at the GOCE, please consider nominating yourself for our next election in December; it's ''your'' WikiProject and it doesn't organize itself!

'''June Blitz:''' Of the 17 editors who signed up for our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/June_2023|''' June Copy Editing Blitz''']], 12 copy-edited at least one article. 70,035 words comprising 26 articles were copy-edited. Barnstars awarded are [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/June_2023/Barnstars|'''here''']].

'''July Drive:''' 34 of the 51 editors who took part in our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/July_2023|'''July Backlog Elimination Drive''']] copy-edited at least one article. They edited 276 articles and 683,633 words between them. Barnstars awarded are [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/July_2023/Barnstars|'''here''']].

'''August Blitz:''' In our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/August_2023|'''August Copy Editing Blitz''']], 13 of the 16 editors who signed up worked on at least one article. Between them, they copy-edited 79,608 words comprising 57 articles. Barnstars awarded are available [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/August_2023/Barnstars|'''here''']].

'''September Drive:''' [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/September_2023#Signing_up|'''Sign up here''']] for our month-long '''September Backlog Elimination Drive''', which is now underway. Barnstars awarded will be posted [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/September_2023/Barnstars|'''here''']].

'''Progress report:''' As of 14:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC), GOCE copy editors have processed 245 [[WP:GOCER|requests]] since 1 January. The backlog of tagged articles stands at 2,066. 

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, {{noping|Dhtwiki|Miniapolis|Zippybonzo}}.
{{center
| To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Mailing List|our mailing list]].
}}
|}

[[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 13:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)


== User category renamed ==

Hi, please update the category code in your boxes.css page from Wikipedia AfC reviewers to Wikipedia Articles for Creation reviewers. – [[User:Fayenatic london|Fayenatic]] [[User talk:Fayenatic london|'''L'''ondon]] 07:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

== ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message ==

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px">[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|40px]]</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2023|2023 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|end}}-1 day}}. All '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023#Election timeline|eligible users]]''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|Wikipedia arbitration process]]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Candidates|the candidates]] and submit your choices on the '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|poll}}|voting page]]'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

</div>
</div>


== Guild of Copy Editors December 2023 Newsletter ==

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
{| style="position: relative; margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color: #dfeff3; border: 2px solid #bddff2; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 );"
| '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|Guild of Copy Editors]] December 2023 Newsletter'''
<div style="float:right; width: 75px; height: 60px;"></div>
<div style="position: absolute; top: -20px; right: -12px;">[[File:Writing Magnifying.PNG|100px|link=]]</div>
<hr style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 );" />
[[File:Copyeditors progress.png|right|thumb]]

Hello, and welcome to the December 2023 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since September. Don't forget that you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.

'''Election news:''' The Guild needs coordinators! If you'd like to help out, you may nominate yourself or any suitable editor—with their permission—for the '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators/2024/1|Election of Coordinators]]''' for the first half of 2024. Nominations will close at 23:59 on 15 December (UTC). Voting begins immediately after the close of nominations and closes at 23:59 on 31 December. All editors in good standing (not under current sanctions) are eligible, and self-nominations are welcome. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term that ends at 23:59 on 30 June.

'''Drive:''' Of the 69 editors who signed up for the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/September 2023|'''September Backlog Elimination Drive''']], 40 copy-edited at least one article. Between them, they copy-edited 661,214 words in 290 articles. Barnstars awarded are listed [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/September_2023/Barnstars|'''here''']].

'''Blitz:''' Of the 22 editors who signed up for the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/October_2023|'''October Copy Editing Blitz''']], 13 copy-edited at least one article. Between them, they copy-edited 109,327 words in 52 articles. Barnstars awarded are listed [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/October_2023/Barnstars|'''here''']].

'''Drive:''' During the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/November_2023|'''November Backlog Elimination Drive''']], 38 of the 58 editors who signed up copy-edited at least one article. Between them, they copy-edited 458,620 words in 234 articles. Barnstars awarded are listed [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/November_2023/Barnstars|'''here''']].

'''Blitz:''' Our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/December_2023|'''December Copy Editing Blitz''']] will run from 10 to 16 December. Barnstars awarded will be posted [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/December_2023/Barnstars|'''here''']].

'''Progress report:''' As of 20:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 344 requests since 1 January, and the backlog stands at 2,191 articles.

'''Other news:''' Our Annual Report for 2023 is planned for release in the new year.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators {{noping|Dhtwiki|Miniapolis|Zippybonzo}}.

{{center
| To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Mailing List|our mailing list]].
}}
|}
</div>
Message sent by [[User:Baffle gab1978|Baffle gab1978]] using [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 20:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


== You've been mentioned at administrators' noticeboard ==

[[File:Information icon4.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 07:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

==Disambiguation link notification for January 18 ==

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited [[Revolution (2024)]], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page [[Mike Bennett]].

([[User:DPL bot|Opt-out instructions]].) --[[User:DPL bot|DPL bot]] ([[User talk:DPL bot|talk]]) 05:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
==Happy Birthday!==

{{ombox
| name = Happy Birthday
| image = [[File:Twemoji12 1f382.svg{{!}}alt=Birthday cake emoji|50px]]
| imageright = [[File:Twemoji2 1f389.svg{{!}}alt=Party popper emoji|50px]]
| style = border: 2px solid SlateBlue; background: linear-gradient(to left, #c6ffdd, #fbd786, LightPink);
| textstyle = padding: 0.75em; text-align:center;
| text = <big>'''Happy birthday!'''</big> Hi Sceptre! On behalf of the [[WP:Birthday Committee|Birthday Committee]], I'd like to wish you a very happy birthday! Enjoy this special day! [[User:The Herald|The Herald (Benison)]] ([[User talk:The Herald|talk]]) 01:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
}}

== March 2024 ==

[[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello, I'm [[User:Cassiopeia|Cassiopeia]]. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, [[:Dustin Poirier]], but you didn't provide a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]]. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|include a citation]] and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at [[Help:Referencing for beginners|referencing for beginners]]. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on [[User talk:Cassiopeia|my talk page]]. Thank you.  [[User:Cassiopeia| Cassiopeia]] [[User talk:Cassiopeia|'''talk''']] 02:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

:: Hi Sceptre, you are welcome to put back the info if you can provide independent, reliable source to support the claim for verification.[[User:Cassiopeia| Cassiopeia]] [[User talk:Cassiopeia|'''talk''']] 02:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

== Guild of Copy Editors 2023 Annual Report ==

{| style="position: relative; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color: #dfeff3; border: 2px solid #bddff2; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 );"

| '''[[WP:GOCE|Guild of Copy Editors]] 2023 Annual Report'''

<div style="float:right; width: 75px; height: 60px;"></div>
<div style="position: absolute; top: -20px; right: -12px;">[[File:Writing Magnifying.PNG|100px|link=]]</div>
<hr style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 );" />

<div class="center" style="width:auto; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto;">Our '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Membership/News/2023_Annual_Report|2023 Annual Report]]''' is now ready for review.</div>

'''Highlights:'''
*Introduction
*Membership news, obituary and election results
*Summary of Drives, Blitzes and the Requests page
*Closing words

<div class="center" style="width:auto; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto;">– Your Guild coordinators:
{{noping|Dhtwiki|Miniapolis|Wracking}}.</div>
{{center
| To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Mailing List|our mailing list]].
}}
|}


== Edelman Family Foundation ==

Hi @[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]

I am reaching out to you because of your previous participation in one of the discussions regarding the reliability and neutrality of ''HuffPost/Pink News/ProPublica'' as sources used on Wikipedia.

Currently, there is an ongoing issue with the [[Joseph Edelman#Edelman Family Foundation|Edelman Family Foundation section]] in the [[Joseph Edelman]] Wikipedia article. The section appears to be biased and lacks a balanced representation of the foundation's activities, as it primarily focuses on a single controversial donation while neglecting to mention the organization's numerous other significant contributions to various causes.

I would like to invite you to participate in the [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Suspected_bias_on_Joseph_Edelman's_page|discussion on the BLP Noticeboard]] to address the concerns surrounding the section's neutrality and explore ways to improve its content. [[User:Llama Tierna|Llama Tierna]] ([[User talk:Llama Tierna|talk]]) 18:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

== Category:Wikipedia Good Article contributors ==

Please would you update your relevant user sub-page from [[:Category:Wikipedia Good Article contributors]] to lowercase? – [[User:Fayenatic london|Fayenatic]] [[User talk:Fayenatic london|'''L'''ondon]] 14:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
:Sorry, I meant to [[:Category:Wikipedia good article contributors]] – lowercase g too. – [[User:Fayenatic london|Fayenatic]] [[User talk:Fayenatic london|'''L'''ondon]] 21:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

== Leeds Wikipedia meetup on Saturday 4th May ==

Hello there! Interested in having a chat with fellow Wikipedians? There's a meetup in '''Leeds''' on '''Saturday 4th May 2024''', at the [[Leeds Central Library|Tiled Hall Café at Leeds Central Library]].

[[:meta:Meetup/Leeds/6|Full details here]].

You're receiving this one-off message as you're either a member of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Yorkshire|WikiProject Yorkshire]], you've expressed an interest in a [[:meta:Meetup/Leeds/6|previous Leeds meetup]] years ago, or (for about 4 of you), we've met :)

I plan to organise more in future, so if you'd like to be notified next time, please say so over on the [[meta:Meetup/Leeds/6|meetup page]].

Please also invite any Wikimedia people you know (or have had wiki dealings with) – '''spread the word'''! Hope to see you there.

[[User:Jonathan Deamer|Jonathan Deamer]] ([[User talk:Jonathan Deamer|talk]])

20:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


== Guild of Copy Editors April 2024 Newsletter ==

{| style="position: relative; margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color: #dfeff3; border: 2px solid #bddff2; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 );"

| '''[[WP:GOCE|Guild of Copy Editors]] April 2024 Newsletter'''

<div style="float:right; width: 75px; height: 60px;"></div>
<div style="position: absolute; top: -20px; right: -12px;">[[File:Writing Magnifying.PNG|100px|link=]]</div>
<hr style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 );" />
[[File:Copyeditors progress.png|right|thumb]]

Hello and welcome to the April 2024 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Newsletters/December 2023|December]]. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. We extend a warm welcome to all of our new members. We wish you all happy copy-editing.

'''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators/2024/1|Election results]]:''' In our December 2023 coordinator election, Zippybonzo stepped down as coordinator; we thank them for their service. Incumbents Dhtwiki and Miniapolis were reelected coordinators, and Wracking was newly elected coordinator, to serve through 30 June. Nominations for our mid-year [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Coordinators#How_are_we_selected?|Election of Coordinators]] will open on 1 June (UTC).

'''Drive:''' 46 editors signed up for our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/January 2024|'''January Backlog Elimination Drive''']], 32 of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 289 articles totaling 626,729 words. Barnstars awarded are [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/January 2024/Barnstars|'''here''']].

'''Blitz:''' 23 editors signed up for our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/February 2024|'''February Copy Editing Blitz''']]. 18 claimed at least one copy-edit and between them, they copy-edited 100,293 words in 32 articles. Barnstars awarded are [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/February 2024/Barnstars|'''here''']].

'''Drive:''' 53 editors signed up for our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/March 2024|'''March Backlog Elimination Drive''']], 34 of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 300 articles totaling 587,828 words. Barnstars awarded are [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/March 2024/Barnstars|'''here''']].

'''Blitz:''' Sign up for our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/April 2024|'''April Copy Editing Blitz''']], which runs from 14 to 20 April. Barnstars will be awarded [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/April 2024/Barnstars|'''here''']].

'''Progress report:''' As of 23:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 109 requests since 1 January 2024, and the backlog stands at 2,480 articles.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from {{noping|Baffle gab1978}} and your GOCE coordinators {{noping|Dhtwiki|Miniapolis|Wracking}}.

{{center
| To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Mailing List|our mailing list]].
}}
|}


== A continuous map f:X->Y between topological spaces is said to be null-homotopic if it is homotopic to a constant map ==

Hello there.

It's been a strange year. I let our relationship lapse and I'm sorry. It's mostly, but not entirely, because I abjectly refuse to use Discord anymore and I forgot my Matrix credentials.

Email would be good. Jitsi coffee dates would be good. I still think of you. But if you don't want to anymore, I completely understand.

[[User:Sasha foxxo|Sasha foxxo]] ([[User talk:Sasha foxxo|talk]]) 00:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

== Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C ==

<section begin="announcement-content" />
:''[[m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024/Announcement – vote reminder|You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.]] [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Translate&group=page-{{urlencode:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024/Announcement – vote reminder}}&language=&action=page&filter= {{int:please-translate}}]''

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the [[m:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024|voting page on Meta-wiki]] to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please [[m:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Charter|review the U4C Charter]].

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,<section end="announcement-content" />

[[m:User:RamzyM (WMF)|RamzyM (WMF)]] 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


==secondhand notification==
Per a request by {{user|SnowFire}}, because of your participation in [[Talk:Michael Larson#Requested move 22 March 2024]], you are being brought up to date on developments. After the article "[[Press Your Luck scandal|''Press Your Luck'' scandal]]" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Press_Your_Luck_scandal&diff=prev&oldid=1221402725 was written], "[[Michael Larson]]" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Larson&diff=prev&oldid=1221402756 was turned into a redirect]. That redirect has since been undone (though mischaracterized as a "stealth copy & paste move"), and there are now two active discussions in which you may wish to participate, but might otherwise be unaware of:
* [[Talk:Press Your Luck scandal#Separate articles]] is discussing [[WP:BIO1E]], the article title, and more.
* [[Talk:Michael Larson (disambiguation)#Requested move 1 May 2024]] is discussing which page should be the primary topic and more.
I'm certainly involved in these discussions and will be happy to converse with you there if you're inclined. My apologies if this is undue, but [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMichael_Larson_%28disambiguation%29&diff=1221872854&oldid=1221872320 it was implied] that I have been negligent in my canvassing. — '''[[user:fourthords|Fourthords]] | [[user talk:fourthords|=Λ=]] |''' 00:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

== [[WP:RMNAC]] explanations needed ==

Sceptre, at [[Talk:1933 NFL Championship Game#Requested move 3 May 2024]] and [[Talk:AFC Championship Game#Requested move 29 April 2024]] you simply said "not moved", without saying how you weighed the arguments, and without indicating whether you saw a consensus for uppercase, versus no consensus. Could you please expand on those closing statements? [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 22:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
:{{re|Gonzo fan2007}} et al had the correct interpretation of [[MOS:SPORTSCAPS]]. The pre-Super Bowl championship games (and the conference championships, for that matter) are more often capitalised than not, especially as they're trademarked. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 23:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
::Will you be adding those rationales to the close statements, please? [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 02:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
:::Interesting. Is NFL Draft trademarked? Not that I'd necessarily reopen that can of brain-worms (and, importantly, and unlike the conference championship games, uppercasing does not "lead" in its n-gram derby). [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 04:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
::::@Sceptre: I don't think the trademark rationale was used by anyone, was it? And I have some doubt whether it really is trademarked. Consider striking it from your close.—[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 23:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
::Sceptre, I think I'll need to call a move review if you don't re-list these. Your reasoning sounds too much like a super-vote based on non-facts and unsupported opinions, as opposed to a reasonable weighing of the positions articulated. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 23:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
:::I see you haven't edited since before this; I'll be patient (sort of). [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 05:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
::::{{re|Dicklyon}} Apologies, I was off-wiki yesterday. I've added the above rationale to each closure, but I strongly dispute the idea that they're supervotes. Sometimes, the consensus just isn't there. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 15:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
:Sceptre, I've no problem with your closures & will endorse them if they're challenged. But, I recommend that you elaborate on your closures at the two RMs, to avoid it being challenged. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 00:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

==Move review for [[:AFC Championship Game]]==
An editor has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Move review#AFC Championship Game|Move review]] of [[:AFC Championship Game]]. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review.  [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 14:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
==Move review for [[:1933 NFL Championship Game]]==
An editor has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Move review#1933 NFL Championship Game|Move review]] of [[:1933 NFL Championship Game]]. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review.  [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 14:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

== Guild of Copy Editors June 2024 Newsletter ==

{| style="position: relative; margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color: #dfeff3; border: 2px solid #bddff2; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 );"

| '''[[WP:GOCE|Guild of Copy Editors]] June 2024 Newsletter'''

<div style="float:right; width: 75px; height: 60px;"></div>
<div style="position: absolute; top: -20px; right: -12px;">[[File:Writing Magnifying.PNG|100px|link=]]</div>
<hr style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 );" />
[[File:Copyeditors progress.png|right|thumb]]

Hello and welcome to the June 2024 newsletter, a quarterly-ish digest of Guild activities since April. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.

'''Election news:''' Wanted: new Guild coordinators! If you value and enjoy the GOCE, why not help out behind the scenes? Nominations for our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators/2024/2|mid-year coordinator election]] are now open until 23:59 on 15 June (UTC). Self-nominations are welcome. Voting commences at 00:01 on 16 June and continues until 23:50 on 30 June. Results will be announced at the election page.

'''Blitz:''' Nine of the fourteen editors who signed up for the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/April_2024|'''April 2024 Copy Editing Blitz''']] copy edited at least one article. Between them, they copy edited 55,853 words comprising twenty articles. Barnstars awarded are available [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/April_2024/Barnstars|here]].

'''Drive:''' 58 editors signed up for our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/May_2024|'''May 2024 Backlog Elimination Drive''']] and 33 of those completed at least one copy edit. 251 articles and 475,952 words were copy edited. Barnstars awarded are [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/May_2024/Barnstars|here]].

'''Blitz:''' Our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/June_2024|'''June 2024 Copy Editing Blitz''']] will begin on 16 June and finish on 22 June. Barnstars awarded will be posted [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/June_2024/Barnstars|'''here''']].

'''Progress report:''' As of 05:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC) , GOCE copyeditors have completed 161 requests since 1 January and the backlog stands at 2,779 articles.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from {{noping|Baffle gab1978}} and your GOCE coordinators {{noping|Dhtwiki|Miniapolis|Wracking}}.

{{center
| To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Mailing List|our mailing list]].
}}
|}


== Updates to Brookfield Properties Locations ==

Hi Sceptre, I work for [[Brookfield Properties]], and I am trying to update the page to include that the company operates in 9 locations. You made helpful contributions to the Brookfield Properties article a few years ago, and I'm hoping you will take a look at my [[Talk:Brookfield_Properties#Updates to Brookfield Properties locations|edit request]] and consider making the edit . Thanks for your help, [[User:Claudiailagan|Claudiailagan]] ([[User talk:Claudiailagan|talk]]) 15:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

== WIkiProject ''Doctor Who'' Newsletter: July 2024 ==

{| style="position: relative; margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color:#CAF1FF; border: 2px solid #bddff2; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 );"

| {{center|1=<big>'''The Space-Time Telegraph'''</big> '''Volume II, Issue I — July 2024 '''Brought to you by the editors of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who|WikiProject ''Doctor Who'']]}}

<div style="float:right; width: 75px; height: 60px;"></div>
<div style="position: absolute; top: -20px; left: -12px;">[[Image:The Twelfth Doctor's Sonic Screwdriver transparent background.png|65px]]</div>
<div style="position: absolute; top: -20px; right: -12px;">[[Image:TARDIS-trans.png|40px]]</div>
<hr style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 );" />
Okay–ooh. New <s>teeth</s> newsletter. That's weird...

<big>'''Hello!'''</big>

:Welcome to the first regenerated issue of The Space-Time Telegraph, the official newsletter of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who|WikiProject ''Doctor Who'']]. We hope it finds you well in your safe travels across the Whoniverse! This newsletter was founded in 2008 and seemed to get lost in the time vortex quite quickly. Thanks to the Doctor dragging Sutekh through the time vortex and bringing life by bringing death to death (''yeah... I'm a little confused too''), it seems to have regenerated. The writing staff hopes to bring you future editions quarterly.

:For this first edition, we have created an updated version of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Newsletter/Mailing list|our mailing list]] that includes any active editors who previously had their usernames included in [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Participants/Active participants|our participants list]]. If you do not wish to receive future editions, please remove your name from the mailing list. If you no longer wish to participate in the project, please also remove your name from the participants list.

:I think that's enough about the newsletter for now. Let's dive into interesting things happening within the ''Doctor Who'' side of Wikipedia. Geronimooooo.....

{{columns-start|num=2}}

<big>'''Big Spike in Productivity'''</big>
:During 2024, the project has scored 8 GAs, 2 FLs and a GT, up from last year's 4 GAs and a GT. Several additional things are in the pipeline, with a bunch of things currently having been nominated with some mix of [[User:OlifanofmrTennant|OlifanofmrTennant]], [[User:TheDoctorWho|TheDoctorWho]], and [[User:Pokelego999|Pokelego999]] having their names attached to them. Allow me to look into the nominees.

# Series 14: As of July 18th, every single episode has been sent to GAN, with "[[Boom (Doctor Who)|Boom]]", "[[73 Yards]]", and "[[The Devil's Chord]]" having made it to GA.
# 2023 Specials: Early in the year, as part of trying to not lose the WikiCup, Ollie sent "[[The Star Beast (Doctor Who episode)|The Star Beast]]" (still salty about the move) to GAN. It was reviewed by [[User:Bilorv|frequent collaborator]] (fly high) of hers, but failed. She then fixed it up and sent it back where it passed. Later "[[The Giggle]]" was expanded and sent to GA, followed shortly by "[[Wild Blue Yonder (Doctor Who)|Wild Blue Yonder]]". WBY received help by [[User:JustAnotherCompanion|JustAnotherCompanion]], a pretty fresh user. This other companion chose not to be listed as co-nom. A page was created for "[[Destination: Skaro]]" and quickly got GA status.
# ''[[The Daleks' Master Plan]]'' was also sent to GAN by [[User:Rhain|Rhain]]. It passed to join Rhain's other First Doctor content, being the fourth season three article to get the green check.
# Peter Capaldi: The [[Peter Capaldi filmography |filmography]] and newly created [[List of awards and nominations received by Peter Capaldi|awards]] of Capaldi were both sent to FLC and passed. Capaldi's main page was sent to GA, though due to some minor incompetence on the part of the nominator it was failed.
{{column}}

<big>'''Proposals to the WikiProject'''</big>
:A recent proposal at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who]] suggested potential improvements and suggestions for the main page of the project, as well as discussions about the project overall. The proposals are as follows:
# The Task Forces section should be removed due to inactivity in the Torchwood Task Force, and a lack of significant interest in creating further Task Forces.
# The freenode channel no longer works and should be removed due to most discussion taking place on site.
# Due to the low quality of ''[[Lungbarrow]]'' and ''[[Jubilee (audio drama)|Jubilee]]'' despite being sample articles, these articles should either be removed as samples or improved. Additionally, the "sample device" has a very small application field, and should be removed from the sample articles section.
# An updates infobox should be included, similarly to those used by [[Wikipedia:VGCHAR]].
# ''[[Radio Times]]''{{'}}s ''Doctor Who'' sections should be included in the references section due to their benefits for the project sourcing wise.
# The Deletion Discussion archive should be removed, or have work invested in updating it, due to its lack of updates.

If you feel you have any thoughts or suggestions on these matters, or on any other matters pertaining to the project and its main page, feel free to chime in the ongoing discussion.

{{columns-end}}

<big>'''Discussions of Note'''</big>

A move discussion is [[Talk:Doctor_Who_series_14#Second_requested_move|currently underway]] on whether or not [[Doctor Who series 14|''Doctor Who'' series 14]] should be moved to [[Doctor Who season 1 (2024)|''Doctor Who'' season 1 (2024)]]. The discussion also involves conversation on a few other adjacent articles. If you have an opinion on the matter please read over the discussion or leave comments.

<big>'''Contributors'''</big>

*[[User:TheDoctorWho|'''The''''''Doctor''''''Who''']] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]]
*[[User:Pokelego999|Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]])
*[[User talk:OlifanofmrTennant|Questions?]] [[Fourth Doctor|four]] [[User:OlifanofmrTennant|Olifanofmrtennant (she/her)]]

{{center|If you wish to contribute to future editions of the newsletter, leave a message on the [[WT:WHO|WikiProject talk page]] or reach out to one of the current contributors listed above.}}
{{center
| If you do not wish to receive future editions of the Space-Time Telegraph, please remove your name from our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Newsletter/Mailing list|our mailing list]].
}}
|}

[[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 04:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


== Removing redirects (re-creating pages) ==

There is an ongoing discussion taking place at the following articles, regarding whether the current redirects should be removed, which may be of interest to this user:
# [[Talk: A109 road]]
# [[Talk: A110 road]]
# [[Talk: A111 road]]
# [[Talk: A112 road (England)]]:
# [[Talk: A124 road]]:
# [[Talk: A129 road]]:
# [[Talk: A134 road]]:
# [[Talk: A157 road]]:
# [[Talk: A159 road]]:
# [[Talk: A177 road]]:
# [[Talk: A182 road]]:
# [[Talk: A189 road]]:
# [[Talk: A1011 road]]:
# [[Talk: A1066 road]]:
# [[Talk: A1151 road]]:
# [[Talk: A1200 road]]:
# [[Talk: A1231 road]]:
# [[Talk: A1260 road]]:
# [[Talk: A1303 road]]:
# [[Talk: A213 road]]:
# [[Talk: A222 road]]:
# [[Talk: A225 road]]:
# [[Talk: A227 road]]:
# [[Talk: A230 road]]:
# [[Talk: A235 road]]:
# [[Talk: A236 road]]:
# [[Talk: A237 road]]:
# [[Talk: A2217 road]]:
# [[Talk: A346 road]]:
# [[Talk: A3400 road]]:
# [[Talk: A425 road]]:
# [[Talk: A435 road]]:
# [[Talk: A461 road]]:
# [[Talk: A472 road]]:
# [[Talk: A480 road]]:
# [[Talk: A484 road]]:
# [[Talk: A488 road]]:
# [[Talk: A497 road]]:
# [[Talk: A4012 road]]:
# [[Talk: A4037 road]]:
# [[Talk: A4040 road]]:
# [[Talk: A4067 road]]:
# [[Talk: A4110 road]]:
# [[Talk: A4133 road]]:
# [[Talk: A4173 road]]
# [[Talk: A4212 road]]:
# [[Talk: A4217 road]]:
# [[Talk: A5183 road]]:
# [[Talk: A828 road]]:
Please see the necessary talk pages for more information. Regards, [[User:Roads4117|Roads4117]] ([[User talk:Roads4117|talk]]) 13:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
:A discussion is taking place centrally at [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#Removing_redirects_(re-creating_pages)]] rather than at each individual article talk page. [[User:10mmsocket|10mmsocket]] ([[User talk:10mmsocket|talk]]) 14:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

== Guild of Copy Editors September Newsletter ==

{| style="position: relative; margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color: #dfeff3; text-color: #000000; border: 2px solid #bddff2; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 );"

| '''[[WP:GOCE|Guild of Copy Editors]] September Newsletter'''
<div style="float:right; width: 75px; height: 60px;"></div>
<div style="position: absolute; top: -20px; right: -12px;">[[File:Writing Magnifying.PNG|100px|link=]]</div>
<hr style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 );" />
[[File:Copyeditors progress.png|right|thumb]]

Hello and welcome to the September newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since June. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.

'''Election news:''' Project coordinators play an important role in our WikiProject. Following the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators/2024/2|mid-year Election of Coordinators]], we welcomed {{noping|Mox Eden}} to the coordinator team. {{noping|Dhtwiki}} remains as Lead Coordinator, and {{noping|Miniapolis|Wracking}} returned as assistant coordinators. If you'd like to help out behind the scenes, please consider taking part in our December election – watchlist our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|ombox]] for updates. Information about the role of coordinators can be found [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators|here]].

'''Blitz:''' 13 of the 24 editors who signed up for the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/June 2024|June 2024 Copy Editing Blitz]] copy edited at least one article. Between them, they copy edited 169,404 words comprising 41 articles. Barnstars awarded are [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/June 2024/Barnstars|here]].

'''Drive:''' 38 of the 59 editors who signed up for the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/July_2024|July 2024 Backlog Elimination Drive]] copy edited at least one article. Between them, they copy edited 482,133 words comprising 293 articles. Barnstars awarded are [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/July_2024/Barnstars|here]].

'''Blitz:''' 10 of the 15 editors who signed up for the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/August 2024|August 2024 Copy Editing Blitz]] copy edited at least one article. Between them, they copy edited 71,294 words comprising 31 articles. Barnstars awarded are [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/August 2024/Barnstars|here]].

'''Drive:''' [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/September_2024#Signing_up|'''Sign up here''']] to earn barnstars in our month-long, in-progress September Backlog Elimination Drive.

'''Progress report:''' As of 05:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 233 [[WP:GOCER|requests]] since 1 January, and the backlog of tagged articles stands at 2,824 articles.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we do without you! Cheers from {{noping|Baffle gab1978}} and your GOCE coordinators {{noping|Dhtwiki|Miniapolis|Mox Eden|Wracking}}.
{{center
| To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Mailing List|our mailing list]].
}}
|}

Message sent by [[User:Baffle gab1978|Baffle gab1978]] ([[User talk:Baffle gab1978|talk]]) using [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 05:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)


== WIkiProject ''Doctor Who'': September 2024 Newsletter ==

{| style="position: relative; margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color:#CAF1FF; border: 2px solid #bddff2; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 );"

| {{center|1=<big>'''The Space-Time Telegraph'''</big> '''Volume II, Issue II — September 2024 '''Brought to you by the editors of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who|WikiProject ''Doctor Who'']]}}

<div style="position: absolute; top: -20px; left: -12px;">[[Image:The Twelfth Doctor's Sonic Screwdriver transparent background.png|65px]]</div>
<div style="position: absolute; top: -20px; right: -12px;">[[Image:TARDIS-trans.png|40px]]</div>
<hr style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 );" />
{{center|
You like Doctor Who? What's his name then?

<big>'''Welcome'''</big>

:Hello and welcome to the second issue of the new newsletter! Following the success of the first newsletter we are back to write more stuff.}}

{{columns-start|num=2}}

<big>'''Articles for deletion'''</big>
 Several articles have been nominated for deletion, such as [[Time War (Doctor Who)]], and several articles have been deleted, or merged or redirected, especially those relating to books, due to lack of [[WP:SIGCOV]] and [[WP:NBOOK]]. Editors can always help either by participating in the deletion discussions (which are noted on the project page), adding to such articles, or bringing attention to other such articles through AfD or the WikiProject talk page, to aid in clean-up.

<big>'''Notice of Draft Articles'''</big>
 A new ''Doctor Who'' spin-off was announced at the 2024 San Diego Comic-Con, called ''[[The War Between the Land and the Sea]]'', and will feature old and new [[Whoniverse]] characters working for [[UNIT]] as they battle the [[Sea Devil (Doctor Who)|Sea Devils]]. The main space article currently redirects to Whoniverse, but collaboration is [[Draft:The War Between the Land and the Sea|currently underway in a draft article]]. As filming on this miniseries has recently begun, its relocation to the mains space will presumably take place soon per the recommendations laid out at [[WP:NTV]].

 There is also a [[Draft:Joy to the World (Doctor Who)|draft article in progress for the upcoming 2024 Christmas special]]. While this article won't be moved until the episode airs, any new contributions are welcome.

<big>'''Doctor Who News'''</big>
 A small number of editors have recently raised questions regarding the reliability of [https://www.doctorwhonews.net/ Doctor Who News]. This website is particularly used for information regarding viewing figures and the [[Appreciation Index]] of most episodes as well as some news information. If there is a better source for any information supported by this website, it should be replaced in good faith.

 A full consensus on whether or not to remove the information that can't be supported by a different source has not yet been reached. Any editor who has opinions on this matter should contribute to the discussion on the [[WT:WHO|WikiProject talk page]].

{{column}}

<big>'''Continued Progress Towards Good/Featured Content'''</big>
 There has been lots of progress made towards recognized articles in the last two months, related to such diverse categories as series, specials, lists and episodes A [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Doctor_Who/Goals|sub-page]] has also been added to the WikiProject, to list any possible goals we can aim towards.

<big>'''Proposals Regarding the State of Fictional Elements Articles in the WikiProject'''</big>
:Several proposals have been laid out regarding fictional elements in the WikiProject, which includes fictional characters, locations, and more. Due to a concerning quality state regarding the large majority of them, several methods of tackling them in order to improve these articles' quality for the future have been proposed. The primary three proposals are as follows:
:1. A priority list should be made to determine what articles are most pressing and in need of improvement in the WikiProject overall. Focus would be put onto important subjects and articles in a state of dubious notability that would make them viable for deletion processes such as AfD.

:2. A group of articles is selected for improvement, which are ones deemed most relevant to the WikiProject for the future. Any lesser important subjects can be sidelined and worked on as editors see fit.

:3. A long term goal is made to improve all elements. This will come at the caveat of taking significantly longer and requiring more heavy participation than the above two proposals, but would guarantee a slow and steady way to solve the issue.

:If any editors are interested in chiming into the conversation and sharing their piece on how this should be handled, or if any editors wish to help with this proposal and improve fictional elements articles, then feel free to share thoughts at the discussion's section on [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Doctor_Who#On_the_Subject_of_Fictional_Elements_in_this_WikiProject|the article's talk page]].
{{columns-end}}

<big>'''Contributors'''</big>

*[[User:TheDoctorWho|'''The''''''Doctor''''''Who''']] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]]
*[[User:Pokelego999|Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]])
*[[User talk:OlifanofmrTennant|Questions?]] [[Fourth Doctor|four]] [[User:OlifanofmrTennant|Olifanofmrtennant (she/her)]]
* [[User:DoctorWhoFan91|DoctorWhoFan91]] ([[User talk:DoctorWhoFan91|talk]])

"I'm not appalled by it" - ''The New New York Times''

{{center|If you wish to contribute to future editions of the newsletter or have any feedback, leave a message on the [[WT:WHO|WikiProject talk page]] or reach out to one of the current contributors listed above.}}
{{center
| If you do not wish to receive future editions of the Space-Time Telegraph, please remove your name from our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Newsletter/Mailing list|our mailing list]].
}}
|}

[[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 04:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

== "[[:Template:Test3a]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
[[File:Information.svg|30px]]
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Test3a&redirect=no Template:Test3a] has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|redirects for discussion]] to determine whether its use and function meets the [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect guidelines]]. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 20#Template:Test3a}}''' until a consensus is reached.  [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 08:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

== Contesting Grooming Gangs "Moral Panic" Closure ==

I'd like to initiate a contest of this closing decision: [[Talk:Grooming gang moral panic in the United Kingdom#c-Sceptre-20241007193500-Requested move 3 September 2024]]

That does not appear like consensus. The reasoning was very weak. The subject of "Moral Panic" is a separate issue from whether these incidents happened, which they did, and which the well published facts show was actually suppressed by both media and law enforcement. If there should be a page on moral panic. It should be a separate page, not a very clear re-characterization of the facts themselves. [[User:Bluetik|Bluetik]] ([[User talk:Bluetik|talk]]) 14:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

User talk:Sceptre

2024-10-08T14:30:39Z

Bluetik: /* Contesting Grooming Gangs "Moral Panic" Closure */ new section

{{User talk:Sceptre/header}}
==Orphaned non-free image File:Doomsday (Doctor Who).jpg==
[[File:Ambox warning blue.svg|35px|text-top|left|⚠|link=]] Thanks for uploading '''[[:File:Doomsday (Doctor Who).jpg]]'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a [[Wikipedia:Non-free content|claim of fair use]]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see [[Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy|our policy for non-free media]]).

Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in [[wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#F5|section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion]]. Thank you. --[[User:TedEdwards|Ted]][[User talk:TedEdwards#top|Edwards]] 20:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

==RM of 90377 Sedna ==
Hello {{u|Sceptre}},

Thanks for taking the time to assess the RM of [[Talk:90377_Sedna#Requested_move_14_November_2022|90377 Sedna]]. Please don't forget to move back [[Quaoar]]. [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 01:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
:Hi Sceptre, Please could you reopen and relist the RM? There wasn't that much participation, !votes were pretty split and I think there was a lot more to be discussed about the matter, warranting a relist. I would certainly vote in favour of the move, as the [[WP:COMMONNAME]] in sources is not "90377 Sedna" as far as I can see.  — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 23:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
::{{re|Amakuru}} FWIW, there's a larger discussion over whether Sedna ''is'' definitively a dwarf planet or not going on at the talk page, and I didn't want to tip the scales one way or the other with the closure. The predominant view in the RM was against moving, so I could've closed it as "not moved", but "no consensus to change how we've done stuff, therefore we stick with the status quo ante" is also a valid closure, and FWIW, I don't think another few days of discussion would've created a consensus. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 07:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

== ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message ==

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px;">[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|40px]]</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2022|2022 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2022|end}}-1 day}}. All '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022#Election timeline|eligible users]]''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|Wikipedia arbitration process]]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022/Candidates|the candidates]] and submit your choices on the '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2022|poll}}|voting page]]'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 00:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

</div>
</div>


== Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter ==

{| style="position: relative; margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color: #dfeff3; border: 2px solid #bddff2; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 );"

| '''[[WP:GOCE|Guild of Copy Editors]] December 2022 Newsletter'''

<div style="float:right; width: 75px; height: 60px;"></div>
<div style="position: absolute; top: -20px; right: -12px;">[[File:Writing Magnifying.PNG|100px|link=]]</div>
<hr style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 );" />
[[File:Copyeditors progress.png|right|thumb]]

Hello and welcome to our latest newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since October. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.

'''Blitz:''' Our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/October 2022|''' October Copy Editing Blitz''']] focused on July and August 2022 request months; and articles tagged for c/e in December 2021 and January 2022. Seventeen of those who signed up claimed at least one copy-edit, and between them copy-edited forty-six articles. Barnstars awarded are [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/October 2022/Barnstars|'''here''']].

'''Drive:''' In the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/November 2022|''' November Backlog Elimination Drive''']], thirty editors signed up, twenty-two of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Both target months—December 2021 and January 2022—were cleared, and February was added to the target months. Sixteen requests were copy-edited and 239 articles were removed from the backlog. Barnstars awarded are [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/November 2022/Barnstars|'''here''']].

'''Blitz:''' Our seven-day-long [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/December 2022|''' December 2022 Copy Editing Blitz''']] begins on 17 December at 00:01 (UTC)*. It will focus on articles tagged for copy-edit in February 2022, and pending requests from September and October. Barnstars awarded will be available [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/December 2022/Barnstars|'''here''']].

'''Progress report:''' As of 22:40, 8 December 2022, GOCE copyeditors have processed 357 requests since 1 January, there were seventy-four requests outstanding and the backlog stands at 1,791 articles. We always need skilled copy-editors; please help out if you can.

'''Election news:''' Nomination of candidates for the GOCE's [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators/2023/1|Election of Coordinators]] for the first half of 2023 is open and continues until 23:59 on 15 December. Voting begins at 00:01 on 16 December and closes at 23:59 on 31 December. All editors in good standing (not under ArbCom or community sanctions) are eligible and self-nominations are welcomed. Coordinators serve a six-month term that ends at 23:59 on June 30. If you've thought about helping out at the Guild, please nominate yourself or any editor you consider suitable—with their permission, of course!. It's ''your'' Guild and it doesn't coordinate itself.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers and best seasonal wishes from your GOCE coordinators, {{noping|Baffle gab1978}}, {{noping|Dhtwiki}}, {{noping|Miniapolis}}, {{noping|Tenryuu}}, and {{noping|Zippybonzo}}.

{{center
| *All times and dates on this newsletter are UTC. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Mailing List|our mailing list]].
}}
|}
Sent by [[User:Baffle gab1978|Baffle gab1978]] via [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 00:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


== Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter error ==

The GOCE [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Newsletters/December 2022|December 2022 newsletter]], as sent on 9 December, contains an erroneous start date for our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/December 2022|December Blitz]]. The Blitz will start on 11 December rather than on 17 December, as stated in the newsletter. I'm sorry for the mistake and for disrupting your talk page; thanks for your understanding. Sent by [[User:Baffle gab1978|Baffle gab1978]] via [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 21:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


== Palestinian exodus close ==

Hi, I must take issue with the recent close. It states:

{{tq|the closer stated the discussion and arguments were fairly balanced}} when what the closer actually said was

{{tq|While the discussion and arguments seem fairly balanced in number.....my decision that those who support the move have a better understanding of the article and what its title should be}}

Furthermore, the review closure also stated

{{tq|Please do note that the community takes issue with UtherSRG's method, not his outcome. It will be in order for someone else to re-close this requested move as move if that is their assessment of the consensus}}

Afaics, the current close amounts to a vote count that takes no account of the quality of the arguments in support of either the original or the proposed title, the "better understanding", I request that you take another look.

Thank you. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 11:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
:{{re|Selfstudier}} At the same time, I cannot create a consensus where there clearly is none. Nothing happened in the RM after it was re-opened. At the MRV, overturning to no consensus was supported by a good proportion of people, and I agree with them. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 14:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
::Agree with {{u|Selfstudier}}, Sceptre, because far too many editors agreed that the first closure, which did find a consensus to move, was correct. You say you did not see a consensus, but you don't say why? The support args far outweighed the oppose args, which is the main reason the first closure's review ended in "vacate" rather than in "overturn to no consensus". Please reassess the arguments to find what we say here is true. That article needs to be renamed as proposed. '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|P.I. Ellsworth]]''''' , [[Editor|ed.]] [[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|put'r there]] 06:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
:::Yes, agreed. I noted at the MRV that there was consensus to close, ''just that the previous closer gave a spurious reason'' for seeing consensus there. Closure is supposed to be viewed through the lens of policy, not by counting heads, and in this case there was strong evidence by those in support, invoking the [[WP:NPOV]] policy, that the term "expulsion and flight" is better and more neutral wording than the status quo. I wish I'd cast another "support" !vote at the discussion now, because the arguments to move were vastly more persuasive and rooted in evidence than those in opposition, and I didn't really expect a no-consensus closure after all that had been said at the MRV, it was simply that a more clear close was required than that previously given. Cheers  — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 15:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

=== Palestinian exodus move ===

Your close doesnt seem to address the merits of the arguments at all, and ask that you reconsider by either relisting (it had only been relisted for three days prior to your close) or address the merits of the arguments. When one group provides sources and the other side just says POV that should not result in no consensus. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 14:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
:I see this has already been requested, if you are going to refuse can you say so in order to open a new move review? '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 14:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

::::{{re|Paine Ellsworth|Amakuru|Nableezy}} Hey all. Having a second look at the RM, although the arguments to move were more detailed than those opposing the move, I still cannot create a consensus where there is none. I'm sympathetic to the argument, and ''personally'' I believe the people arguing in favour of a move are right. But as a closer, my role is to evaluate the discussion, and I cannot see a consensus either way. Nor was it likely that a consensus was going to develop; there was no participation in the RM after it was reopened. In such circumstances, I can't do anything but close as "no consensus". '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 17:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
:::::Yes, you can, you can not close a move that was relisted for 3 days, especially when experienced closers and admins are telling you that you are incorrect in your reading of the discussion and of "consensus". But fine, Ill open a move review. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 17:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
==Move review for [[:1948 Palestinian exodus]]==
An editor has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Move review#1948 Palestinian exodus|Move review]] of [[:1948 Palestinian exodus]]. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review.  '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 17:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

== Closure of Maori Party RM ==

Hi,

I request that you reopen and relist your [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Te_P%C4%81ti_M%C4%81ori#Requested_move_3_December_2022 recent closure] of this RM. To close this RM based on counting !votes is inappropriate. Consensus is not based on just counting the number of heads.

In addition, in my opinion your closing statement does not address the arguments raised during the RM. Did you consider [[WP:CRITERIA]]-based arguments? Did you consider that the party does not use one name over the other on it's website, when at least three support !votes stated that they do? -[[User:Spekkios|Spekkios]] ([[User talk:Spekkios|talk]]) 23:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
:{{re|Spekkios}} I did consider WP:CRITERIA, and found arguments for "Māori Party" and "Te Pāti Maori" to be relatively equal in weight. At such a point, I have to fall back on the direction of the discussion, which was clearly in favour of the move. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 17:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
::If the arguments are relatively equal in weight, that would imply a "no consensus" closure instead of a "move" closure. How does the discussion "direction" or the number of !votes matter if the policy based arguments are equal in weight? --[[User:Spekkios|Spekkios]] ([[User talk:Spekkios|talk]]) 21:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
:::==Move review for [[:Te Pāti Māori]]==
:::An editor has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Move review#Te Pāti Māori|Move review]] of [[:Te Pāti Māori]]. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review.  [[User:Spekkios|Spekkios]] ([[User talk:Spekkios|talk]]) 23:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
=== Introducing arguments in closures ===
Hi, um, slightly awkward to pile on like this, but I don’t actually have any issue with the {{em|decision}} of your closure. Rather I came to advise on a less central detail: you should avoid introducing new arguments in your closures. In this case, the point about NZ English being quick to adopt Māori vocab seems to come out of nowhere and doesn’t reflect the discussion. I think a better summary would have mentioned something like “proponents emphasised that the party refers to itself as te Pāti Māori (in English)”, which seems to be one of two dominant arguments (along with commonness). — [[User:HTGS|HTGS]] ([[User talk:HTGS|talk]]) 01:17, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
:{{re|HTGS}} In hindsight, you're right about the wording. I didn't think the comment came out of nowhere; there is a propensity in NZ-related RMs for people less familiar with NZEng to treat Māori vocabulary as "not English enough", which I felt was being introduced in this RM. But yes, the key point is that the use ''in'' English, not the use ''of'' English (see also also: [[Senedd]]), for which I was satisfied "Te Pāti Māori" was common enough to be a COMMONNAME. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 17:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

== [[Day of reckoning]] ==

I don't notice any objection to moving that to {{-r|Day of Reckoning (disambiguation)}}. I think that could have been the outcome, rather than "no consensus". —⁠ ⁠[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 17:33, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

== Should no consensus mean reverting to previous title? ==
I see you recently closed a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pakistani_Taliban&diff=1126652943&oldid=1126584929 requested move] as no consensus. I agree there wasn't any consensus. Should this mean that the article should revert back to its previous long-term and stable title? the article was called "Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan" from 2008 to May 2022, when it was moved after [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pakistani_Taliban/Archive_1#Requested_move_6_May_2022 this discussion]. But this discussion doesn't seem to have enough participation to constitute consensus (2 supports and 1 oppose). This rationale was also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pakistani_Taliban&diff=1120650502&oldid=1120648631 mentioned] by {{u|Paine Ellsworth}}. '''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|talk]] 16:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
:For what it's worth, move requests don't need to have a certain magnitude of participation for them to be regarded as legitimate (vide [[WP:RMNOMIN]]), as decisions are made by a consensus process, which factors in the policy-based reasoning of participants, and not vote-counting; and an absence of objection does contribute to the consensus too. As someone who participated in the discussion, I find the above bid to solicit a move indirectly without notifying the editors on the talk page to be quite discourteous inasmuch as the magnitude to which it was vehemently opposed (being eloquent of disagreement) by a laundry list of long-term contributors (including {{U|Andrewa}} and {{U|Amakuru}}), who argued against the move on policy grounds, in contrast to the support it garnered from a considerable number of SPAs, block-evading socks, and topic banned users who trivialized the consensus process by construing the discussion to be some sort of a votestacking contest; not to mention the fact that the title had been stable for about half a year until a block-evading IP began, and thereupon tainted the RM with more socks. In my view, the foregoing quite clearly forecloses the possibility of a revert back to old title. [[User:MBlaze Lightning|MBlaze Lightning]] ([[User talk:MBlaze Lightning|talk]]) 22:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
::{{to|Vice regent|s1=VR|MBlaze Lightning}} might have handled this differently; however, the outcome in this case is a reasonable one. And this due to ML's argument above for a set new consensus being in place long enough to matter. And I trust Andrewa's and Amakuru's opinions beyond words. So in the end there's a good possibility I would have closed the same way Sceptre did. '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|P.I. Ellsworth]]''''' , [[Editor|ed.]] [[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|put'r there]] 23:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
{{Outdent}}
On an incidental note, Sceptre, and I say this with all due respect for your prior experience in evaluating consensus-building discussions, and having elucidated the context above, I am curious to understand how you construed the discussion to be resulting in a ''no consensus''. The chief argument of the chief proponent of the move (also the OP arguing for the restoration of old title above) was that the existing title adverted to more than a solitary subject, which was debunked by a reference to [[WP: PRIMARY TOPIC]] categorically by at least three editors (who had to presuppose that this was the case in the first place in view of disagreement on this contention). Amakuru, who chimed in late into the discussion and who would have been on the mark and justified in closing the discussion to boot, encapsulated his recapitulation of the discussion as: {{talk quote block|text='''Oppose''' - it has been clearly demonstrated above, using Google hits as well as G-books hits, that the common name for this group is "Pakistani Taliban". It's also clearly the primary topic for that term, compared to the topic of other Taliban who hail from Pakistan or other groups operating there. Although the !vote here looks split, I think this is a "consensus against move" scenario because the policy arguments for the present title are a lot stronger than those for the alternative|by=Amakuru|oldid=1122466090|ts=12:00, 28 November 2022}}{{pb}} Likewise, Andrewa reiterated the underlying essence of his argument, when he proffered: {{Tq|.. If that term is ambiguous and the current article is not the Primary Topic (''about which I am not convinced''), should it be a DAB?}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pakistani_Taliban&diff=1121839721&oldid=1121831543 Andrewa (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)]. I too had recapitulated the essence of my argument a day before your closure[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APakistani_Taliban&diff=1126432849&oldid=1126419677]. In consequence, I don't think putting these quality arguments grounded in policies upon the same footing as those advanced by proponents of the move (whose chief reasoning was debunked, with the residual taking the form of rehash, primarily from socks and SPAs) was justified or meticulous. I did give it a food for thought before voicing my dissent, because a few months down the road this is likely to become an issue again with socks crawling out of the woodwork all over once again, and some of us may not be around (as much) on Wikipedia for it. [[User:MBlaze Lightning|MBlaze Lightning]] ([[User talk:MBlaze Lightning|talk]]) 11:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
:Yes, thanks {{ping|MBlaze Lightning}} for this thoughtful response, and that would be my viewpoint as well. There are two separate issues here, firstly whether the May RM was sufficient to establish a "new status quo" to be the baseline default in the event of a subsequent "no consensus", and secondly whether the close of no consensus was itself valid. On the first, I'd say it's borderline; if the RM was very recent, I'd probably include its findings in and amongst the !votes for the second RM; but 6+ months, for an RM which was conclusively decided (i.e. not just moved without discussion) is getting to the point where it should be binding. So (with my obviously biased hat on) I wouldn't fault Sceptre for not moving back to the original name. On the second issue, I agree that it definitely should have been a "consensus against moving" close, when evaluating through the strength of argument, WP policy and evidence. Furthermore, in a contentious and close RM such as this, I would expect a summary from the closer as to why they've come to the conclusion they have... not just a single-line "no consensus"... as indeed was the case at the [[Talk:1948_Palestinian_exodus#Requested_move_8_September_2022]] RM mentioned in the sections above and now at move review. [[WP:CONSENSUS]] is formed by viewing !votes through the lens of policy, and both supporters and opposers need to know why a closer reached the conclusion they did. Cheers  — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 11:51, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
::{{re|MBlaze Lightning}} this is a rehash of the argument in made during the RM, but you are confusing two different topics here. Just because a title has a [[WP:PRIMARY TOPIC]] doesn't mean that that topic unambiguously refers to only that primary topic. A great example is given in policy itself[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#cite_ref-6], at [[WP:COMMONNAME]], and that is [[Heart attack]]. The Primary topic of [[Heart attack]], and the page it redirects to, is [[Myocardial Infarction]]. However, heart attack can also refer to [[cardiac arrest]]. '''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|talk]] 19:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
:::[[User:Vice regent]], yeah, thanks for recollecting that you conceded to Amakuru on their primary topic contention in the discussion ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pakistani_Taliban&diff=1125417534&oldid=1124538292]). ''This'' consensus then should have informed Sceptre's close, for the policy left no room for doubt that the title had to reflect the primary topic (as discerned by common usage in English RS). The guidline is perspicuous: if an expression has a primary topic, then that is what it leads to, ''per'' its dictates. This is not to say that its application is ubiquitous: as with any other MOS, exceptions ''do'' exist; and medicine domain embodies the niche where the nomenclature is conditioned by the ''scientific or recognised medical name'' commonly occuring in "recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name)[1] or an historical eponym that has been superseded" (''vide'' [[WP:NCMED]]). This is why the colloquial term, ''Heart attack'', redirects to MI, despite being the primary topic. However, such exceptions do not impeach the rule itself; the latter is the established norm; whereas the former, a narrowly carved out exception to suffice the specific needs of a niche community. [[User:MBlaze Lightning|MBlaze Lightning]] ([[User talk:MBlaze Lightning|talk]]) 21:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
::::Again, I think you're mistaken about Primarytopic. You seem to implying that if a title X has a primary topic Y, then our article on Y must necessarily be called X. But that's not true. The only thing the primary topic implies is that X must point to the article Y, whatever it is called. In fact, we have a whole template ([[Template:Redirect]]) that deals with such cases. Besides the "heart attack" example above, other examples include:
::::*The primary topic for "Soccer" is [[Association football]]. And "soccer" has 647M google hits, vs only 10M hits for "Association Football", yet we pick the less common name.
::::*The primary topic for "Western Allies" (2.3M hits) is [[Allies of World War II]] (0.2M hits), but we avoid the title that is ambiguous.
::::*The primary topic for "Midwest" (171M hits) is [[Midwestern United States]] (only 1.2M hits), but again we avoid the ambiguous title. I could go on and on with dozens more examples.
::::*The primary topic for "Pakistani Taliban" is indeed "Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan". In this case too, we should avoided the ambiguous name even if it gave somewhat more google hits.
::::Likewise many times during the discussion I argued that "Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan" was more precise, because scholarly sources used the term "Pakistani Taliban" to refer to groups/individuals that were not TTP ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pakistani_Taliban&type=revision&diff=1121115293&oldid=1120835211&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pakistani_Taliban&diff=1122298849&oldid=1122279161][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pakistani_Taliban&diff=1121551805&oldid=1121540805]), for example splinter groups from TTP, groups similar to the TTP but never a part of it, as well as Pakistani members of the (Afghan) Taliban. '''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|talk]] 00:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
::::: Merely rehashing that some expression is ambiguous doesn't cut it for an argument where you have acknowledged that there is a primary topic. Matters end right there for all intents and purposes. The redirects embody an exception scenario to the aforesaid guideline, and they occur when any of the conditions set forth in [[WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT]] hold good, which wasn't remotely the case with this article; indeed, it was no one's argument, forget an effort that convinced others. The results were lopsided and weighed in favour of the existing title. Your filibustering to derail the efforts to solicit Sceptre's construction of a "no consensus" (which didn't account for the strong policy and evidence based reasoning in oppose) is getting to the point of being unconstructive; this isn't a new RM, where you rehash and even dwell on the issue anew with previously unmentioned examples; desist, please. [[User:MBlaze Lightning|MBlaze Lightning]] ([[User talk:MBlaze Lightning|talk]]) 06:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

== [[Sorbonne]] ==

Please fix the many incoming links to this dab page, which previously pointed to the page now at "(building)". Thanks. [[User:PamD|'''''Pam''''']][[User talk:PamD|'''''D''''']] 05:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

==Orphaned non-free image File:Doomsday (Doctor Who).jpg==
[[File:Ambox warning blue.svg|35px|text-top|left|⚠|link=]] Thanks for uploading '''[[:File:Doomsday (Doctor Who).jpg]]'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a [[Wikipedia:Non-free content|claim of fair use]]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see [[Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy|our policy for non-free media]]).

Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in [[wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#F5|section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion]]. Thank you. --[[User:TedEdwards|Ted]][[User talk:TedEdwards#top|Edwards]] 03:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

== Happy New Year, Sceptre! ==
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em; height:auto; min-height:173px; border-radius:1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">
[[File:Fuochi d'artificio.gif|left|x173px]][[File:Happy new year 01.svg|x173px|right]]
{{Paragraph break}}
{{Center|{{resize|179%|'''''[[New Year|Happy New Year]]!'''''}}}}
'''Sceptre''', Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable [[New Year]], and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
 — [[User:Moops|Moops]] ⋠[[User talk:Moops|'''T''']]⋡ 17:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC) 
</div>
   ''{{resize|88%|Send New Year cheer by adding {{tls|Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.}}''
{{clear}} — [[User:Moops|Moops]] ⋠[[User talk:Moops|'''T''']]⋡ 17:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

== Closure of Prinz von Preussen RM ==

Hello!

I was curious to know why you closed the recent RM [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Franz_Wilhelm_Prinz_von_Preussen&action=edit&section=4] on [[Franz Willem Prinz von Preussen]] in favor of the move? The majority (albeit 7-6, by my count) were opposed to the move. Further, the official website of the princes of Prussia [https://www.preussen.de/en/] refers to "Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia" not the current article title. I would suggest revisiting this RM, as it does not even seem reliable ''english'' sources use the title. I would also argue the discouragement of hypothetical titles in [[WP:NCROY]] doesn't apply because reliable sources do in fact use the title. Here are some: [https://www.cnn.com/style/article/hohenzollern-prince-georg-prussia/index.html] [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-royals-idUSKBN2AI2RI] [https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/did-germanys-royal-family-help-hitler-to-power-n3tbjrpsm][https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/15/descendants-german-kaisers-bid-reclaim-artworks-palaces/] [[User:Estar8806|Estar8806]] ([[User talk:Estar8806|talk]]) 23:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

== FAR for Partners in Crime (Doctor Who) ==

I have nominated [[Partners in Crime (Doctor Who)]] for a [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/Partners in Crime (Doctor Who)/archive1|featured article review here]]. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the [[Wikipedia:What is a featured article?|featured article criteria]]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are [[Wikipedia:Featured article review|here]]. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 16:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

== Mergers ==

Hello @[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]!

I had never proposed mergers until recently, and most of my proposals haven't been gaining much traction. I would appreciate your insight on these 3 proposals of mine: [[Talk:Subsidiary protection#Merger proposal|1]], [[Talk:The Times of India/Archives/2023/March#Merger proposal|2]], [[Talk:Cephalometric analysis#Merger proposal|3]]

Any insight is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time! [[User:Mooonswimmer|Mooonswimmer]] 21:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
:{{re|Mooonswimmer}} If nobody objects to the proposal after a decent amount of time, just feel free to do the merge yourself. :) '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 21:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

==1948 Palestinian exodus close==
Why would you close this when you were involved with a previous near-identical close that was challenged and which came up with no consensus on the quality of your close? Part of the complaint was that you did a vote count and didn't expand on the arguments or policy. Now you have closed an almost identical RM (with yourself now arguably involved in the overall imbroglio) and performed what appears to be another vote count without any mention of the arguments or policy, and in part referred to the previous close with which you were involved. In the most unflattering light, this close could even be interpreted as you returning with the specific intent of reiterating your own previous, challenged verdict to make a point. I would strongly suggest that you re-open and leave it to a closer that is more obviously uninvolved. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 05:04, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
:[[WP:INVOLVED]] explicitly does not apply to actions taken in a purely administrative role. As I've said, if there was truly a consensus to move the article, I would be perfectly happy to do so. But if anything about the past six months of discussion over three extended RM periods and two MRV periods has shown, it's not only that there isn't a consensus, but also that there won't ''be'' a consensus forthcoming. If you disagree, you can go for a ''third'' move review of this RM, but honestly, I think we'd all be better off if we let the matter rest for a while. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 05:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
::Regardless of the letter of the law, your involvement at this stage was unwise to the say the least given your past involvement in a similar case and the subsequent contention. In addition, the combined lack of policy/argument reflection and similarly off-topic reflections on past closes used to justify the close (''again'') was of course almost guaranteed to raise recurring questions. If you don't have the energy to engage fully with a subject of this nature, don't engage with it. The handling of contentious topic discussions is often best left to administrators. I think you closing this almost guarantees another move review, but if that is an outcome you are happy with, so be it. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 06:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

That is an absurd close, and you emphatically do not have authority to impose a moratorium. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 16:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
:Please see [[Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2023_February#1948_Palestinian_exodus]] '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 17:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

== Royal Rumble 2023 ==

Thank you for undoing my edits. Yes, at the article [[Royal Rumble (2023)]], WWE officially lists Rhea Ripley as staying in the women's Royal Rumble match 1 second longer than Liv Morgan, although other sources say that the match ended as soon as Morgan was eliminated, and Ripley and Morgan set the record. If you have further issues, please discuss it in the article's talk page. [[User:GodofDemonwars|GodofDemonwars]] ([[User talk:GodofDemonwars|talk]]) 00:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

== Guild of Copy Editors 2022 Annual Report ==

{| style="position: relative; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color: #dfeff3; border: 2px solid #bddff2; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 );"

| '''[[WP:GOCE|Guild of Copy Editors]] 2022 Annual Report'''

<div style="float:right; width: 75px; height: 60px;"></div>
<div style="position: absolute; top: -20px; right: -12px;">[[File:Writing Magnifying.PNG|100px|link=]]</div>
<hr style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 );" />

<div class="center" style="width:auto; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto;">Our '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Membership/News/2022 Annual Report|2022 Annual Report]]''' is now ready for review.</div>

'''Highlights:'''
*Overview of Backlog-reduction progress
*Summary of Drives, Blitzes, and the Requests page
*Membership news and results of elections
*Closing words

<div class="center" style="width:auto; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto;">– Your Guild coordinators:
{{noping|Baffle gab1978|Dhtwiki|Miniapolis|Zippybonzo}}</div>
{{center
| To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Mailing List|our mailing list]].
}}
|}

Sent by [[User:Baffle gab1978|Baffle gab1978]] using [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 00:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

==Orphaned non-free image File:Doctor Who series 2 soundtrack.jpg==
[[File:Ambox warning blue.svg|35px|text-top|left|⚠|link=]] Thanks for uploading '''[[:File:Doctor Who series 2 soundtrack.jpg]]'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a [[Wikipedia:Non-free content|claim of fair use]]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see [[Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy|our policy for non-free media]]).

Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in [[wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#F5|section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion]]. Thank you. --[[User:B-bot|B-bot]] ([[User talk:B-bot|talk]]) 18:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

== Recent move ==

Hi there,

How did you determine that the consensus for [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Te_Whatu_Ora#Requested_move_1_February_2023 this] move was not the proposed title? [[User:Spekkios|Spekkios]] ([[User talk:Spekkios|talk]]) 21:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
:{{re|Spekkios}}: {{u|HTGS}}'s argument was the most persuasive, both to me and other editors in the discussion. When it comes to NZEng, there's no bright line to go to for the English, Māori, or dual names and it ultimately comes down to which has the most evidence to go with. In this case, based mostly on HTGS's comment, I determined it was the Māori one. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 14:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
::How are you determining that the argument presented by HTGS was persuasive to other editors? Unless I am mistaken, no other editors are referencing their argument. --[[User:Spekkios|Spekkios]] ([[User talk:Spekkios|talk]]) 18:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
:::Since you haven't clarified further, please see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2023_February#Health_New_Zealand here]. --[[User:Spekkios|Spekkios]] ([[User talk:Spekkios|talk]]) 08:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

== Requested move at WikiProject Ukraine ==

Regarding the close at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ukraine#Requested move 7 February 2023]]. The statement about the decision completely ignores the important point about the difference between the names in article titles and parenthetic disambiguation strings, as well as the cited precedent, citing examples that are not analogies for this at all (on top of that, Istanbul and Constantinople are completely different names, not just a spelling variation in a city name that hasn’t changed in over a millennium). It seems a completely unsatisfactory rationale, as in it gives no indication that you read the proposal or considered the points made in it.source]
]]  —''[[user:Mzajac|Michael]] [[user_talk:Mzajac|Z]].'' 20:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
:{{re|Mzajac}} although Constantinople may arguably be or not be an adequate comparison, I believe that Calcutta/Kolkata is; they’re both changes in (Western) English orthography to the local orthography, where the local orthography is more common. However, it’s not always the case that the change is consistent when talking retrospectively; although "Mumbai" is almost universally used these days, usage is split on the [[1993 Bombay bombings]]. Regardless, there isn’t a consensus for a move anyway, and the retrospectivity (or lack thereof) of COMMONNAME ''was'' brought up in the discussion. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 23:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
:: That’s all academic because the change was to the parenthetic disambiguation text, not the name. COMMONNAME doesn’t apply to disambiguation text.
:: [[WP:PRECISION]] says to use the least-precise version sufficient to disambiguate. The main-article-title spelling of the city is good enough, and there’s no point in narrowing it to a historical spelling that is only used in restricted contexts.
:: [[WP:TITLEDAB]] reinforces the idea: “use only as much additional detail as necessary.” The examples there make it clear to use the broadest term possible, not one that applies only in a specific context, like a historical one.
:: And [[WP:CONSISTENCY]] is violated, because the new decision conflicts with the precedent cited in the proposal: the consensus move of a similar article to [[Folkstsaytung (Kyiv)]].
:: And there is no consensus to use the dated spelling ''Kharkov'' in historical contexts.
:: It’s not the end of the world if these are not moved, but it seems to be contrary to best practices. I urge you to reconsider the decision or even reopen it to get more input, but I’ve had my say and I won’t belabour it further if you choose not to. Thanks for closing the RM anyway. Cheers. —''[[user:Mzajac|Michael]] [[user_talk:Mzajac|Z]].'' 04:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

== Maize -> Corn RM ==

Thanks for taking the time to read that novel. I'd just like to know what arguments you found most compelling, so I can understand more about Wikipedia guidelines.

Your reasoning on the talk page itself is that the common name may change from Maize to Corn, but it hasn't yet, similar to Iroquois → Haudenosaunee. However, the arguments used to show that Iroquois is still the most commonly used name is the exact sort used to show why Corn is the most commonly used name. Most relevantly, even in scientific and scholarly papers Maize is used about 1/3rd as much as Corn, as shown in the RM.

Could you explain the differences between the two situations? Without knowing more about your point of view, one could look at these two examples and assume that the default is 'no consensus' when a tough decision needs to be made. [[User:OuroCat|OuroCat]] ([[User talk:OuroCat|talk]]) 23:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

== FYI ==

[[File:Commons-emblem-notice.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] You have recently made edits related to the [[Arab–Israeli conflict]]. This is a standard message to inform you that the [[Arab–Israeli conflict]] is a designated contentious topic. This message ''does '''not''' imply that there are any issues with your editing.'' Additionally editors must be logged-in have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this topic. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics]].  '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 13:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

==RM closure==
Hello, Sceptre. Regarding your closure at [[Talk:Aguascalientes City#Requested_move_29_January_2023|Aguascalientes City]], I notice you wrote that "documentary evidence has been provided to the contrary" only for Chihuahua City, which you exempted... but an even greater volume of documentary evidence was provided for Oaxaca City, which you didn't. Was that intentional, and if so could you share the rationale? Thanks for any clarification. [[User:Huwmanbeing|╠╣uw]] <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Huwmanbeing|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> 17:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll add that a lot of evidence was introduced for [[Queretaro City]], as well. [[User:Red Slash|Red]] [[User talk:Red Slash|Slash]] 17:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
:{{re|Huwmanbeing|Red Slash}}: It was completely unintentional, but from looking further at the discussion, I can see there's no reason to not apply that exemption for Oaxaca and Querétaro. I'll happily reverse those moves and amend my closure in those cases. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 17:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
::Thank you. Chihuahua City, Oaxaca City, and Querétaro City were the only ones actually tested for evidence of common usage; that they all showed it suggests the others are likely the same. I feel like it would've been preferable for the nominator to investigate this ''before'' making the bulk proposal, but it sounds like individual RMs or a second bulk RM will be needed for these now. [[User:Huwmanbeing|╠╣uw]] <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Huwmanbeing|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> 19:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
::Yes, I didn't test all the other ones, because it would have been exhausting, but I think you probably would've found the same for all the others (possible exceptions might include Colima, which is--slight exaggeration--basically a microstate, or maybe some extremely small cities/states like Aguascalientes itself that don't have much of any English-language coverage at all, but no evidence was offered in the move request whatsoever). Thanks for putting the accent in Querétaro City, btw--my bad for being lazing and omitting it. [[User:Red Slash|Red]] [[User talk:Red Slash|Slash]] 17:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
:::RS: Yes, I think it just comes down to the original bulk request being poorly formed, in that it wrongly assumed that none of the listed cities commonly use the "City" form, whereas spot checks showed that wasn't true for several (and suggested it might not be true for any). I think ideally those that haven't been checked wouldn't be moved until they have, but it's not the end of the world either way and I'm fine with whatever solution's easiest. Recommendations, Scepter? [[User:Huwmanbeing|╠╣uw]] <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Huwmanbeing|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> 18:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

{{U|Sceptre}}, I must applaud you for your efforts. But I think there’s a bit of confusion lurking here. There is no community consensus, nor local consensus in this RM, that says that demonstration of some common usage of a given natural disambiguation for a topic means that this natural disambiguation, and not parenthetic disambiguation of the undisputed most common name, must be used as the title. As noted in the discussion, NATURAL merely notes that the natural disambiguation ''may'' be preferred. Well, in all of these cases, without any exceptions, consensus in this RM clearly prefers the parenthetic disambiguation. Please close according to community and local consensus. Thank you. —[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 02:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
: {{U|Sceptre}}, hello? Would you prefer to address this in an MR? —[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 06:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
::Funnily enough, I was considering a move review as well, since no evidence was provided for the vast majority of the cities that the X City name was ''not'' common; I provided several counterexamples for Chihuahua and Queretaro specifically (and I believe Huw did the same for Oaxaca), and I think I provided enough evidence to show that if those two or three were off, than everything was off.

::Frankly, I think the move request should've been dropped as no consensus, and then people individually could've made proposals at each one to look at how much English-language usage the X City form had for each one individually. Most likely Chihuahua would've failed (stayed at City); perhaps Aguascalientes itself would've succeeded; in any case, I was thinking of a move review. (Also, B2C, I have so much respect for you, even ywith this disagreement, but like... you gave Spectre 28 hours to respond, give her a bit more time <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">[[File:Face-smile.svg|18px|link=]]</abbr>) [[User:Red Slash|Red]] [[User talk:Red Slash|Slash]] 17:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
:::I repeat, even if evidence of common usage of ''Name'' City was shown for every city on the list that wouldn’t be sufficient to override the consensus to move them ''all'' to parenthetic disambiguation, as proposed, nonetheless. While lack of common usage is sufficient reason to not use a given alternative name, evidence of common usage is not sufficient to use it rather than parenthetic disambiguation. There are other considerations to be made and ultimately it’s decided by consensus, not the closer. The closer is only supposed to decide what the consensus is. Otherwise it’s a [[WP:SUPERVOTE]]. Here, the closer’s unilateral decision to exclude first 1, then 2 then 3, from the list, ''when consensus for/against the move of each was equal for all'', is a super vote. —-[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 18:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
::::Bizarre as it may seem, I'd say exactly the opposite. Got lots of respect for you, B2C, but to me, saying "yeah the amount of supports for Durango City vis-a-vis Chihuahua City were the same, but Chihuahua City had actual evidence presented and Durango didn't, so I'm going to treat them differently" sounds like something a good closer would do.
::::But of course that ignores the more important point that '''there was no evidence provided whatsoever that Durango City ''isn't'' a common name for the city'''. Which is why we're going to go to Move Review. [[User:Red Slash|Red]] [[User talk:Red Slash|Slash]] 17:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

:{{re|Born2cycle|Huwmanbeing}}: I think this is a problem with these multi-page RMs; indeed, I went into the closing process hoping that I wouldn't have to move the pages. But as it was, the RM was balancing on the scales of "move" vs "no consensus"; the consistency argument isn't as strong given the examples of other cities (in Mexico, Japan, and of course, Cork). I also agree that "X City" would be a decent enough [[WP:NATURAL|NATURAL]] disambiguation, were it not for the "don't use natural disambiguations that are obscure" part of WP:NATURAL"; except for the three cases I exempted, I didn't see anything in the RM that adequately rebutted that argument. With all that said, I don't oppose starting new singular RMs if the evidence for "X City" can be shown for the other cities in the list. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 19:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
::If you don’t see anything in the RM that adequately rebutted that, it’s because you’re ignoring my rebuttal (in the last comment in the RM discussion) which points out that the "don't use natural disambiguations that are obscure" part of WP:NATURAL simply points out an extreme limit to where natural disambiguations are not to be used. It’s quite a leap not supported by local or community consensus to interpret that to mean, “if the natural disambiguation in question is not obscure then it '''must''' be used.” Yet you are inexplicably interpreting it to mean that. The key question here is not about whether the natural disambiguation ''may'' be used. I mean, in those cases where it’s obscure it may not be used, of course. But in any case where it’s (at least arguably) not obscure that just means it ''may'' be used, not that it ''must'' be. So, in those cases where the natural disambiguation is not obscure the key question is which disambiguation form is ''preferred''. And, again, consensus was the same for every city in the list: parenthetic disambiguation is preferred to ''Name'' City disambiguation in each of these cases. Whether natural disambiguation is allowed or not by NATURAL due to level of obscurity is entirely besides the point. Yet you chose to take that into account. That’s a SUPERVOTE. —[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 21:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

==Move review for [[:Aguascalientes City]]==
An editor has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Move review#Aguascalientes City|Move review]] of [[:Aguascalientes City]]. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review.  [[User:Red Slash|Red]] [[User talk:Red Slash|Slash]] 19:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

== Your userpage ==

Hi @[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]! I landed on your userpage following a recent ANI post of yours and I just wanted to say that I am really quite impressed with the visual structure. I am sure you get this a lot, but it's such a pleasure to read through. I've probably spent more time editing my userpage than I care to admit (lmao) and it's always nice to see some inspirations. [[User:Ppt91|Ppt91]][[User talk:Ppt91|talk]] 20:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

==[[Murder of Michelle Confait]]==
Hi. I would ask you to reconsider this close. The nomination and support votes were based on a flawed premise, that Confait identified as a trans woman. As I said in the discussion, there is no reliable evidence for this. An editor added it to the article a few years ago and the editors who supported the nomination clearly just supported without checking the evidence (or lack of). In any case, this is a well-known murder in British criminal history and the victim is invariably referred to as Maxwell Confait. We cannot apply modern ideas to something that happened fifty years ago. The rename is a clear violation of [[WP:COMMONNAME]]. Thanks. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 11:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
:{{re|Necrothesp}} The relevant guideline here is [[MOS:GENDERID]], which applies to anyone whose gender ''might'' (operative word) be questioned. There's no dispute that there's a question about Confait's gender, and furthermore, it's not disputed that they preferred to be known as "Michelle". Additionally, [[WP:COMMONNAME]] allows divergence if the most common name is problematic; the amount of "per nom" comments indicate a general agreement that that's the case. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 11:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
::Yes, but, as I said, the whole nomination seems based on an unsourced edit made to the article some years ago that has clearly been taken as true without any evidence. The supporters have merely accepted that it is true without any knowledge of the situation (note they all came before I pointed this out). Nobody fifty years ago would have referred to themselves as a trans woman. We cannot change history to what we think it ''should'' be. We can only report what it ''was''. This is a famous murder case and is invariably referred to as the murder of ''Maxwell'' Confait. How is it helping our users to use a name that was never actually used in the many reliable sources on the case? -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 13:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
:::{{re|Necrothesp}} Whether Confait would've used the phrase "trans woman" or not isn't within the spirit of MOS:GENDERID; indeed, I have a suspicion that the "might be questioned" line was to catch historical cases such as [[Sylvia Rivera]] (et. al) where the line between "homosexual transvestite" and "trans woman" are blurred. I've found two other sources further to what was mentioned in the RM which also talk about Confait in the context of being transgender: ''[https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/reclaiming-genders-9781474292825/ Reclaiming Genders]'' by Whittle et al, and [https://www.salon.com/2001/06/20/milan/ this ''Salon'' article] about [[Amanda Milan]], which talks about Confait's murder being at the top of a long list of murdered trans sex workers. As far as I'm concerned, the Gianassi book, alongside those two sources I've listed in this reply, should be enough to meet the "might be questioned" part of GENDERID. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 14:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
==Move review for [[:Murder of Michelle Confait]]==
An editor has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Move review#Murder of Michelle Confait|Move review]] of [[:Murder of Michelle Confait]]. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review.  -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 14:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
==Happy Birthday!==

{{ombox
| name = Happy Birthday
| image = [[File:Twemoji12 1f382.svg{{!}}alt=Birthday cake emoji|50px]]
| imageright = [[File:Twemoji2 1f389.svg{{!}}alt=Party popper emoji|50px]]
| style = border: 2px solid SlateBlue; background: linear-gradient(300deg, AliceBlue, LavenderBlush 30%, LavenderBlush 70%, AliceBlue);
| textstyle = padding: 0.75em; text-align:center;
| text = <big>'''Happy birthday!'''</big> Hi Sceptre! On behalf of the [[WP:Birthday Committee|Birthday Committee]], I'd like to wish you a very happy birthday! Enjoy this special day! [[User:CAPTAIN RAJU|'''CAPTAIN RAJU''']][[User_talk:CAPTAIN RAJU|(T)]] 22:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
}}

== [[Talk:1896 Summer Olympics#Requested move 9 February 2023]] ==

Please rethink or undo this close. Closers ought to know how to intepret policy and assess arguments under the lens of policy, but your closing summary indicates you don't know how to do that, and instead [[WP:CONLEVEL|ignored policy based on the local consensus]]. TITLECHANGES can't be used to oppose change just for the sake of opposing change, and all the other policy-based arguments (COMMONNAME, CONCISE) supported the move. [[User:Avilich|Avilich]] ([[User talk:Avilich|talk]]) 00:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
:{{re|Avilich}} I did take those into account those policies, and also the previous RM. I did not see a consensus to move the article, just like the previous RM. I'd be happy to relist if you'd like, but in my opinion, it'll probably be closed again in a week with the same result. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 21:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
::I respectfully disagree. I won't ask you to relist since it has been a while already, so I'm posting this on move review [[Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2023 March#1896 Summer Olympics]]. [[User:Avilich|Avilich]] ([[User talk:Avilich|talk]]) 16:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

== Guild of Copy Editors March 2023 Newsletter ==

{| style="position: relative; margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color: #dfeff3; border: 2px solid #bddff2; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 );"

| '''[[WP:GOCE|Guild of Copy Editors]] March 2023 Newsletter'''

<div style="float:right; width: 75px; height: 60px;"></div>
<div style="position: absolute; top: -20px; right: -12px;">[[File:Writing Magnifying.PNG|100px|link=]]</div>
<hr style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 );" />
[[File:Copyeditors progress.png|right|thumb]]

Hello and welcome to the March 2023 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Newsletters/December 2022|December]] and our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Membership/News/2022 Annual Report|Annual Report for 2022]]. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. We extend a warm welcome to all of our new members, including those who have signed up for our current March Backlog Elimination Drive. We wish you all happy copy-editing.

'''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators/2023/1|Election results]]:''' In our December 2022 coordinator election, Reidgreg and Tenryuu stepped down as coordinators; we thank them for their service. Incumbents Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo were returned as coordinators until 1 July. For the second time, no lead coordinator was chosen. Nominations for our mid-year [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Coordinators#How_are_we_selected?|Election of Coordinators]] open on 1 June (UTC).

'''Drive:''' 21 editors signed up for our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/January 2023|'''January Backlog Elimination Drive''']], 14 of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 170 articles totaling 389,737 words. Barnstars awarded are [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/January 2023/Barnstars|'''here''']].

'''Blitz:''' Our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/February 2023|'''February Copy Editing Blitz''']] focused on October and November 2022 requests, and the March and April 2022 backlogs. Of the 14 editors who signed up, nine claimed at least one copy-edit; and between them, they copy-edited 39,150 words in 22 articles. Barnstars awarded are [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/February 2023/Barnstars|'''here''']].

'''Drive:''' Sign up now for our month-long [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/March 2023|'''March Backlog Elimination Drive''']]. Barnstars awarded will be posted [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/March 2023/Barnstars|'''here''']] after the drive closes.

'''Progress report:''' As of 12:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 73 requests since 1 January 2023, all but five of them from 2022, and the backlog stands at 1,872 articles.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators {{noping|Baffle gab1978|Dhtwiki|Miniapolis|Zippybonzo}}.

{{center
| To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Mailing List|our mailing list]].
}}
|}

== [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|Proposed deletion]] of [[:Combat (Torchwood)]] ==
[[File:Ambox warning yellow.svg|left|link=|alt=Notice|48px|]]

The article [[:Combat (Torchwood)]] has been [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed for deletion]] because of the following concern:
<blockquote>'''Appears to fail notability, nothing found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2011'''</blockquote>

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be [[WP:DEL#REASON|deleted for any of several reasons]].

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your [[Help:edit summary|edit summary]] or on [[Talk:Combat (Torchwood)|the article's talk page]].

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed deletion process]], but other [[Wikipedia:deletion process|deletion process]]es exist. In particular, the [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedy deletion]] process can result in deletion without discussion, and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|articles for deletion]] allows discussion to reach [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for deletion. [[User:Donaldd23|DonaldD23]] [[User talk:Donaldd23|talk to me]] 16:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
== Nomination of [[:Combat (Torchwood)]] for deletion ==
<div class="afd-notice">
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">[[File:Ambox warning orange.svg|48px|alt=|link=]]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article [[:Combat (Torchwood)]] is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to [[Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines|Wikipedia's policies and guidelines]] or whether it should be [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deleted]].

The article will be discussed at '''[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Combat (Torchwood)]]''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
</div> [[User:Donaldd23|DonaldD23]] [[User talk:Donaldd23|talk to me]] 02:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
== "[[:Weapons of resident evil 4]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
[[File:Information.svg|30px]]
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weapons_of_resident_evil_4&redirect=no Weapons of resident evil 4] has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|redirects for discussion]] to determine whether its use and function meets the [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect guidelines]]. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 21#Weapons of resident evil 4}}''' until a consensus is reached.  [[User:Steel1943|'''''Steel1943''''']] ([[User talk:Steel1943|talk]]) 20:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

== Always precious ==
[[File:Yogo2783 Close crop.JPG|frameless|right|upright=0.5]]
Ten years ago, [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Precious#{{BASEPAGENAME}}|you]] were found precious. That's what you are, always. --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 07:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

== Guild of Copy Editors June 2023 Newsletter ==

{| style="position: relative; margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color: #dfeff3; border: 2px solid #bddff2; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 );"

| '''[[WP:GOCE|Guild of Copy Editors]] June 2023 Newsletter'''

<div style="float:right; width: 75px; height: 60px;"></div>
<div style="position: absolute; top: -20px; right: -12px;">[[File:Writing Magnifying.PNG|100px|link=]]</div>
<hr style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 );" />
[[File:Copyeditors progress.png|right|thumb]]

Hello and welcome to the June 2023 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since March. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.

'''Election news:''' Fancy helping out at the Guild? Nominations for our half-yearly [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators/2023/2|Election of Coordinators]] are open until 23:59 on 15 June (UTC)*. Starting immediately after, the voting phase will run until 23:59 on 30 June. All Wikipedians in [[WP:STANDING|good standing]] are eligible and self-nominations are welcomed; it's ''your'' Guild and it doesn't organize itself!

'''Blitz:''' Of the 17 editors who signed up for our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/April_2023|April Copy Editing Blitz]], nine editors completed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 24 articles totaling 53,393 words. Barnstars awarded are [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/April_2023/Barnstars|'''here''']].

'''Drive:''' 51 editors signed up for the month-long [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/May_2023| May Backlog Elimination Drive]], and 31 copy-edited at least one article. 180 articles were copy-edited. Barnstars awarded are posted [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/May_2023/Barnstars|'''here''']].

'''Blitz:''' [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/June_2023#signup|'''Sign up here''']] for our week-long June Copy Editing Blitz, which runs from 11 to 17 June. Barnstars awarded will be posted [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/June_2023/Barnstars|'''here''']].

'''Progress report:''' As of 03:09 on 6 June 2023, GOCE copyeditors have processed 91 requests since 1 January and the backlog stands at 1,887 articles.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators {{noping|Baffle gab1978}}, {{noping|Dhtwiki}}, {{noping|Miniapolis}} and {{noping|Zippybongo}}.

<nowiki>*</nowiki>All times and dates in this newsletter are in [[Coordinated Universal Time|UTC]], and may significantly vary from your local time.
{{center
| To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Mailing List|our mailing list]].
}}
|}
Sent by [[User:Baffle gab1978|Baffle gab1978]] using [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 03:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)


== Move review ==

I strongly disapprove of your move of a relatively unknown person to [[Albert von Sachsen]]. That person is by no stretch of the imagination the common name or primary topic for such a term, and if the move is not reverted, I will be taking it to move review. [[User:DrKay|DrKay]] ([[User talk:DrKay|talk]]) 07:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
:{{re|DrKay}} I think you've got things backwards here. As there isn't another article that should be at [[Albert von Sachsen]] (other than the 18th-century Duke of Teschen, where NCROY applies differently), then the man born in 1934 can be assumed to be the primary topic.
:On the subject of COMMONNAME – as has been brought up in several German ex-nobility RMs since the abortive coup attempt last year, the use of princely titles in pretence is a [[WP:POVTITLE]] issue, and NCROY's discouragement of the use of such titles has particular weight; the use of these titles has gone from harmless [[althist]] nerdery to a far-right shibboleth.
:NPOV – as a [[WP:5P|fundament of the encyclopedia]] – clearly requires that in the that a POVTITLE's COMMONNAME status is evidenced. It is not enough to say "X is the common name" to oppose moving away from "X" when it has problems; it must be demonstrated through evidence that the name is overwhelmingly ''the'' most common name to the point where POVTITLE is met, and in the majority of these RMs, not even the "evidence it's the common name" bar is met. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 09:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
::Ouch, I have to confess I'm a little baffled here. How can you possibly find consensus for a move in such a discussion, when the voting numbers are so clearly not in favour of a move, and the overarching policy argument of [[WP:COMMONNAME]] a powerful rationale not to move. Your rationale for closing this, and indeed the previous RM (which I voted against, but then didn't notice it has been closed as moved) rest on the assertion that the long-standing names were "problematic", but the participants in the RM were far from convinced by that argument. As such, your determination as closer doesn't override multiple opinions that thy weren't problematic, which unfortunately makes your close against the numbers a good faith [[WP:SUPERVOTE]]. The whole thing is trying to [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS]] in a way that isn't supported by sources. Please could you look at both of these RMs again and consider objectively whether there's any way it's a consensus to move?  — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 10:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
:::{{re|Amakuru}} COMMONNAME is not an absolute. As I’ve mentioned here and elsewhere, COMMONNAME allows us to use other article titles if the most common name is problematic, and in none of the ex-German nobility RMs that I’ve closed since then have I been convinced by the arguments the princely titles are not problematic. Mostly, it’s a sea of “per COMMONNAME” arguments without evidence. The onus is on people to prove that COMMONNAMEs pass the higher muster if they’re problematic, and that proof hasn’t been met, and [[WP:NOTVOTE|numerical majorities are not a substitute]] for proof in that regard. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 10:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
::::{{xt|"COMMONNAME is not an absolute"}} - of course, there are some exceptions but on the other hand, COMMONNAME is listed on a policy page and is widely accepted in countless RM discussions down the years as the standard we use, absent strong reason against, and is a close proxy to Wikipedia's philosophy that we reflect the world as it is, through [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NPOV]], rather than attempting to chart a course that editors think is more "correct" than real world usage. In this case, where (a) the common name was clearly for the old title, (b) the numbers in the discussion were clearly for the old title, and (c) the old title was the longstanding status quo, there can be no objective reason for choosing something else. Your interpretation of what's problematic above is ''your opinion'', but you know it's not one of which other editors in good standing such as myself and others share. As such, it is your duty to either close in line with consensus, or simply cast a vote yourself. You don't have the right to impose an alternative view on us in this way. Cheers  — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 10:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
:::::Yes, and NPOV – as one of the [[WP:5P|five pillars]] – overrides the "use the common name" shorthand. Like I said, in the case of non-neutral titles, it is incumbent on those wishing to use them to provide evidence that it's the common name – as POVTITLE says, in a "significant majority of English-language sources" — and in the related RMs that I've closed, the evidence – when provided – is sorely lacking. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 11:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Btw, what do you mean by "German ex-nobility" which I've seen you use here and there about people whose families were royalty, not nobility? --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 12:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

==Move review for [[:Albert von Sachsen]]==
An editor has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Move review#Albert von Sachsen|Move review]] of [[:Albert von Sachsen]]. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review.  [[User:DrKay|DrKay]] ([[User talk:DrKay|talk]]) 10:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
:{{ping|DrKay}} it would be useful to let the discussion above play out before starting a MRV. I also think we should include the December 2022 RM in the mix too, as that also seems to lack consensus and is probably sufficiently recent to challenge.  — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 10:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
:{{ping|Sceptre}}, are you sure you can !vote on your own contested move? It seems to me that your explanation should be prefixed with "Closer's response" or similar, not "Endorse"... [[User:Rosbif73|Rosbif73]] ([[User talk:Rosbif73|talk]]) 12:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
== Nomination of [[:Cult of Skaro]] for deletion ==
<div class="afd-notice">
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">[[File:Ambox warning orange.svg|48px|alt=|link=]]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article [[:Cult of Skaro]] is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to [[Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines|Wikipedia's policies and guidelines]] or whether it should be [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deleted]].

The article will be discussed at '''[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cult of Skaro]]''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
</div> [[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus| reply here]] 03:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

== Oppenheimer ==
There is no longer any ambiguity regarding the surname when it is at "Oppenheimer (surname)". The primary topic does not need to be mentioned in the lede. The thing you're referring to would apply to [[Oppenheimer (disambiguation)]], which I already changed. —[[User:Xezbeth|Xezbeth]] ([[User talk:Xezbeth|talk]]) 13:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
:{{re|Xezbeth}} At the same time, JRO does need to be in {{la|Oppenheimer (surname)}}. I'm relaxed on where it is, but given the prominence of the primary topic… the lede seemed more appropriate than buried in the weeds; some people might still get to the page by that page! '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 13:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

== Minor request ==

{{FPER|User talk:Sceptre/Archive 13|answered=yes}}

Hello, I'm cleaning up the dwindling number of fostered content [[WP:LINT]] errors on Wikipedia, and only 8 remain within user talk space. One of those is on your [[User talk:Sceptre/Archive 13]] within the "Awww Will!" section. If you would be willing, would you please make the following adjustment?

{{Collapse top|portion to change}}
Change this
<pre>
{| style="vertical-align:top" |
<div id="Awardbar" class="noprint" style="border:1px solid #000000; background:#fff; margin:0.5em 0.5em 0.5em 1em; text-align:center; padding:6px; float:right; font-size: 0.9em; width: 110px; ">This Barnstar is presented to [[Image:Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar.png|110px]] ''''''Will'''''' for always being close to me and willing to make me smile and cheer me up when I need it the most. Thank you! :) [[User:Phaedriel|Phaedriel]] </div>
|}That's ''such'' a beautiful cat, my dear Will - thank you so much! My talk page seems to be filling lately with pictures of lovely cats, how did you even knew I love them? Anyway, hun, I didn't want to go to bed before thanking you - the 4th of July has been tough on me, and I've hardly had any sleep in the last day; but in the meantime, beutiful messages have appeared in my talk page and I "always" reply, even if it takes me some time. I hope you're doing great, and enjoy this - you deserve it! Hugs, [[User:Phaedriel|Phædriel]] ♥ [[User talk:Phaedriel|'''tell me''']] - 00:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
</pre>

to this:

<pre>
{| style="vertical-align:top; float:right;"
|<div id="Awardbar" class="noprint" style="border:1px solid #000000; background:#fff; margin:0.5em 0.5em 0.5em 1em; text-align:center; padding:6px; font-size: 0.9em; width: 110px; ">This Barnstar is presented to [[Image:Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar.png|110px]] '''Will''' for always being close to me and willing to make me smile and cheer me up when I need it the most. Thank you! :) [[User:Phaedriel|Phaedriel]] </div>
|}That's ''such'' a beautiful cat, my dear Will - thank you so much! My talk page seems to be filling lately with pictures of lovely cats, how did you even knew I love them? Anyway, hun, I didn't want to go to bed before thanking you - the 4th of July has been tough on me, and I've hardly had any sleep in the last day; but in the meantime, beutiful messages have appeared in my talk page and I "always" reply, even if it takes me some time. I hope you're doing great, and enjoy this - you deserve it! Hugs, [[User:Phaedriel|Phædriel]] ♥ [[User talk:Phaedriel|'''tell me''']] - 00:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
</pre>
{{Collapse bottom}}

This will correct this fostered content issue, and replace the fonts for span style to address the neighboring obsolete tag issues.
Thank you! [[User:Zinnober9|Zinnober9]] ([[User talk:Zinnober9|talk]]) 01:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
:{{re|Zinnober9}} The page is full-protected so I've added a FPER tag so an admin can do it instead. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 20:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
::{{done}} [[User:Legoktm|Legoktm]] ([[User talk:Legoktm|talk]]) 02:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
::Sorry, I missed that you weren't able to access the page, Sceptre. Thank you for the assist, Legoktm. [[User:Zinnober9|Zinnober9]] ([[User talk:Zinnober9|talk]]) 02:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

== RM close ==

Your close at [[Talk:Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (classified documents case)]] was way too early; it has literally been only a day and a half since the indictment, which is not enough time for discussion to evolve. Furthermore, the existing !votes don't support that there is any consensus either way yet, especially since the original proposer stated that they no longer exclusively support their original title and is open to further discussion. Please reverse the close and let the RM play out over a normal timeframe. Thanks. [[User:Antony-22|Antony–'''''22''''']] ([[User talk:Antony-22|talk]]⁄[[Special:Contributions/Antony-22|contribs]]) 04:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
:{{re|Antony22}} From my reading there's a general consensus that the articles about the two indictments should be similarly titled, and I have no opinion on what form this should take, and no objection to an immediate further RM encompassing both. That said, I don't think the timing of the election interference indictment is that relevant; it had been inevitable for some time, and I don't think there was a dearth of discussion warranting it being deliberately kept in the RM backlog. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 20:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
::I see. I'd appreciate it if you could clarify your close that the consensus only applies to there being a parenthetical "government documents" to "classified documents" while discussion was actively ongoing between the two possibilities, and if there was no consensus, then that change shouldn't have been made. I'd rather not have to do another RM over that if possible. Thanks. [[User:Antony-22|Antony–'''''22''''']] ([[User talk:Antony-22|talk]]⁄[[Special:Contributions/Antony-22|contribs]]) 05:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

== [[Llywelyn ab Iorwerth]] ==

Please review your close here. It does not seem to me reflect the actual consensus or evidence. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 20:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
:{{re|Srnec}} See the discussion section of the move request. It's very clear from the evidence provided by {{u|Ham II}} that the version with the patronymic are the COMMONNAME. The English form is ''very slightly'' than with either of the Welsh forms alone, but I don't think it's reasonable to argue that the English form "wins" because of people having different opinions on [[Voice (phonetics)|how much the vocal folds need to vibrate before you use a specific consonant]]. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 20:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

== Page move ==

you closed the moving discussion thing in [[Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi]] but the page didn't get moved '''[[User:Abo Yemen|Abo Yemen]][[User talk:Abo Yemen|✉]]''' 16:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

== Septermber GOCE newsletter ==

{| style="position: relative; margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color: #dfeff3; border: 2px solid #bddff2; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 );"
| '''[[WP:GOCE|Guild of Copy Editors]] September 2023 Newsletter'''
<div style="float:right; width: 75px; height: 60px;"></div>
<div style="position: absolute; top: -20px; right: -12px;">[[File:Writing Magnifying.PNG|100px|link=]]</div>
<hr style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 );" />
[[File:Copyeditors progress.png|right|thumb]]

Hello and welcome to the September 2023 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since June. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.

'''David Thomsen:''' Prolific Wikipedian and Guild member David Thomsen ({{noping|Dthomsen8}}) died in November 2022. He was a regular copy editor who took part in many of our Drives and Blitzes. An obituary was published in the mid-July issue of ''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-07-17/Obituary|The Signpost]]''. Tributes can be left on David's [[User_talk:Dthomsen8|talk page]].

'''Election news:''' In our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators/2023/2|mid-year Election of Coordinators]], {{noping|Dhtwiki}} was chosen as lead coordinator, {{noping|Miniapolis|Zippybonzo}} continue as assistant coordinators, and {{noping|Baffle gab1978}} stepped down from the role. If you're interested in helping out at the GOCE, please consider nominating yourself for our next election in December; it's ''your'' WikiProject and it doesn't organize itself!

'''June Blitz:''' Of the 17 editors who signed up for our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/June_2023|''' June Copy Editing Blitz''']], 12 copy-edited at least one article. 70,035 words comprising 26 articles were copy-edited. Barnstars awarded are [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/June_2023/Barnstars|'''here''']].

'''July Drive:''' 34 of the 51 editors who took part in our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/July_2023|'''July Backlog Elimination Drive''']] copy-edited at least one article. They edited 276 articles and 683,633 words between them. Barnstars awarded are [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/July_2023/Barnstars|'''here''']].

'''August Blitz:''' In our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/August_2023|'''August Copy Editing Blitz''']], 13 of the 16 editors who signed up worked on at least one article. Between them, they copy-edited 79,608 words comprising 57 articles. Barnstars awarded are available [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/August_2023/Barnstars|'''here''']].

'''September Drive:''' [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/September_2023#Signing_up|'''Sign up here''']] for our month-long '''September Backlog Elimination Drive''', which is now underway. Barnstars awarded will be posted [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/September_2023/Barnstars|'''here''']].

'''Progress report:''' As of 14:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC), GOCE copy editors have processed 245 [[WP:GOCER|requests]] since 1 January. The backlog of tagged articles stands at 2,066. 

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, {{noping|Dhtwiki|Miniapolis|Zippybonzo}}.
{{center
| To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Mailing List|our mailing list]].
}}
|}

[[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 13:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)


== User category renamed ==

Hi, please update the category code in your boxes.css page from Wikipedia AfC reviewers to Wikipedia Articles for Creation reviewers. – [[User:Fayenatic london|Fayenatic]] [[User talk:Fayenatic london|'''L'''ondon]] 07:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

== ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message ==

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px">[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|40px]]</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2023|2023 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|end}}-1 day}}. All '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023#Election timeline|eligible users]]''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|Wikipedia arbitration process]]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Candidates|the candidates]] and submit your choices on the '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|poll}}|voting page]]'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

</div>
</div>


== Guild of Copy Editors December 2023 Newsletter ==

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
{| style="position: relative; margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color: #dfeff3; border: 2px solid #bddff2; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 );"
| '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|Guild of Copy Editors]] December 2023 Newsletter'''
<div style="float:right; width: 75px; height: 60px;"></div>
<div style="position: absolute; top: -20px; right: -12px;">[[File:Writing Magnifying.PNG|100px|link=]]</div>
<hr style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 );" />
[[File:Copyeditors progress.png|right|thumb]]

Hello, and welcome to the December 2023 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since September. Don't forget that you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.

'''Election news:''' The Guild needs coordinators! If you'd like to help out, you may nominate yourself or any suitable editor—with their permission—for the '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators/2024/1|Election of Coordinators]]''' for the first half of 2024. Nominations will close at 23:59 on 15 December (UTC). Voting begins immediately after the close of nominations and closes at 23:59 on 31 December. All editors in good standing (not under current sanctions) are eligible, and self-nominations are welcome. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term that ends at 23:59 on 30 June.

'''Drive:''' Of the 69 editors who signed up for the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/September 2023|'''September Backlog Elimination Drive''']], 40 copy-edited at least one article. Between them, they copy-edited 661,214 words in 290 articles. Barnstars awarded are listed [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/September_2023/Barnstars|'''here''']].

'''Blitz:''' Of the 22 editors who signed up for the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/October_2023|'''October Copy Editing Blitz''']], 13 copy-edited at least one article. Between them, they copy-edited 109,327 words in 52 articles. Barnstars awarded are listed [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/October_2023/Barnstars|'''here''']].

'''Drive:''' During the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/November_2023|'''November Backlog Elimination Drive''']], 38 of the 58 editors who signed up copy-edited at least one article. Between them, they copy-edited 458,620 words in 234 articles. Barnstars awarded are listed [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/November_2023/Barnstars|'''here''']].

'''Blitz:''' Our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/December_2023|'''December Copy Editing Blitz''']] will run from 10 to 16 December. Barnstars awarded will be posted [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/December_2023/Barnstars|'''here''']].

'''Progress report:''' As of 20:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 344 requests since 1 January, and the backlog stands at 2,191 articles.

'''Other news:''' Our Annual Report for 2023 is planned for release in the new year.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators {{noping|Dhtwiki|Miniapolis|Zippybonzo}}.

{{center
| To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Mailing List|our mailing list]].
}}
|}
</div>
Message sent by [[User:Baffle gab1978|Baffle gab1978]] using [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 20:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


== You've been mentioned at administrators' noticeboard ==

[[File:Information icon4.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 07:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

==Disambiguation link notification for January 18 ==

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited [[Revolution (2024)]], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page [[Mike Bennett]].

([[User:DPL bot|Opt-out instructions]].) --[[User:DPL bot|DPL bot]] ([[User talk:DPL bot|talk]]) 05:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
==Happy Birthday!==

{{ombox
| name = Happy Birthday
| image = [[File:Twemoji12 1f382.svg{{!}}alt=Birthday cake emoji|50px]]
| imageright = [[File:Twemoji2 1f389.svg{{!}}alt=Party popper emoji|50px]]
| style = border: 2px solid SlateBlue; background: linear-gradient(to left, #c6ffdd, #fbd786, LightPink);
| textstyle = padding: 0.75em; text-align:center;
| text = <big>'''Happy birthday!'''</big> Hi Sceptre! On behalf of the [[WP:Birthday Committee|Birthday Committee]], I'd like to wish you a very happy birthday! Enjoy this special day! [[User:The Herald|The Herald (Benison)]] ([[User talk:The Herald|talk]]) 01:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
}}

== March 2024 ==

[[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello, I'm [[User:Cassiopeia|Cassiopeia]]. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, [[:Dustin Poirier]], but you didn't provide a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]]. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|include a citation]] and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at [[Help:Referencing for beginners|referencing for beginners]]. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on [[User talk:Cassiopeia|my talk page]]. Thank you.  [[User:Cassiopeia| Cassiopeia]] [[User talk:Cassiopeia|'''talk''']] 02:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

:: Hi Sceptre, you are welcome to put back the info if you can provide independent, reliable source to support the claim for verification.[[User:Cassiopeia| Cassiopeia]] [[User talk:Cassiopeia|'''talk''']] 02:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

== Guild of Copy Editors 2023 Annual Report ==

{| style="position: relative; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color: #dfeff3; border: 2px solid #bddff2; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 );"

| '''[[WP:GOCE|Guild of Copy Editors]] 2023 Annual Report'''

<div style="float:right; width: 75px; height: 60px;"></div>
<div style="position: absolute; top: -20px; right: -12px;">[[File:Writing Magnifying.PNG|100px|link=]]</div>
<hr style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 );" />

<div class="center" style="width:auto; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto;">Our '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Membership/News/2023_Annual_Report|2023 Annual Report]]''' is now ready for review.</div>

'''Highlights:'''
*Introduction
*Membership news, obituary and election results
*Summary of Drives, Blitzes and the Requests page
*Closing words

<div class="center" style="width:auto; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto;">– Your Guild coordinators:
{{noping|Dhtwiki|Miniapolis|Wracking}}.</div>
{{center
| To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Mailing List|our mailing list]].
}}
|}


== Edelman Family Foundation ==

Hi @[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]

I am reaching out to you because of your previous participation in one of the discussions regarding the reliability and neutrality of ''HuffPost/Pink News/ProPublica'' as sources used on Wikipedia.

Currently, there is an ongoing issue with the [[Joseph Edelman#Edelman Family Foundation|Edelman Family Foundation section]] in the [[Joseph Edelman]] Wikipedia article. The section appears to be biased and lacks a balanced representation of the foundation's activities, as it primarily focuses on a single controversial donation while neglecting to mention the organization's numerous other significant contributions to various causes.

I would like to invite you to participate in the [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Suspected_bias_on_Joseph_Edelman's_page|discussion on the BLP Noticeboard]] to address the concerns surrounding the section's neutrality and explore ways to improve its content. [[User:Llama Tierna|Llama Tierna]] ([[User talk:Llama Tierna|talk]]) 18:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

== Category:Wikipedia Good Article contributors ==

Please would you update your relevant user sub-page from [[:Category:Wikipedia Good Article contributors]] to lowercase? – [[User:Fayenatic london|Fayenatic]] [[User talk:Fayenatic london|'''L'''ondon]] 14:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
:Sorry, I meant to [[:Category:Wikipedia good article contributors]] – lowercase g too. – [[User:Fayenatic london|Fayenatic]] [[User talk:Fayenatic london|'''L'''ondon]] 21:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

== Leeds Wikipedia meetup on Saturday 4th May ==

Hello there! Interested in having a chat with fellow Wikipedians? There's a meetup in '''Leeds''' on '''Saturday 4th May 2024''', at the [[Leeds Central Library|Tiled Hall Café at Leeds Central Library]].

[[:meta:Meetup/Leeds/6|Full details here]].

You're receiving this one-off message as you're either a member of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Yorkshire|WikiProject Yorkshire]], you've expressed an interest in a [[:meta:Meetup/Leeds/6|previous Leeds meetup]] years ago, or (for about 4 of you), we've met :)

I plan to organise more in future, so if you'd like to be notified next time, please say so over on the [[meta:Meetup/Leeds/6|meetup page]].

Please also invite any Wikimedia people you know (or have had wiki dealings with) – '''spread the word'''! Hope to see you there.

[[User:Jonathan Deamer|Jonathan Deamer]] ([[User talk:Jonathan Deamer|talk]])

20:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


== Guild of Copy Editors April 2024 Newsletter ==

{| style="position: relative; margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color: #dfeff3; border: 2px solid #bddff2; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 );"

| '''[[WP:GOCE|Guild of Copy Editors]] April 2024 Newsletter'''

<div style="float:right; width: 75px; height: 60px;"></div>
<div style="position: absolute; top: -20px; right: -12px;">[[File:Writing Magnifying.PNG|100px|link=]]</div>
<hr style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 );" />
[[File:Copyeditors progress.png|right|thumb]]

Hello and welcome to the April 2024 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Newsletters/December 2023|December]]. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. We extend a warm welcome to all of our new members. We wish you all happy copy-editing.

'''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators/2024/1|Election results]]:''' In our December 2023 coordinator election, Zippybonzo stepped down as coordinator; we thank them for their service. Incumbents Dhtwiki and Miniapolis were reelected coordinators, and Wracking was newly elected coordinator, to serve through 30 June. Nominations for our mid-year [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Coordinators#How_are_we_selected?|Election of Coordinators]] will open on 1 June (UTC).

'''Drive:''' 46 editors signed up for our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/January 2024|'''January Backlog Elimination Drive''']], 32 of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 289 articles totaling 626,729 words. Barnstars awarded are [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/January 2024/Barnstars|'''here''']].

'''Blitz:''' 23 editors signed up for our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/February 2024|'''February Copy Editing Blitz''']]. 18 claimed at least one copy-edit and between them, they copy-edited 100,293 words in 32 articles. Barnstars awarded are [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/February 2024/Barnstars|'''here''']].

'''Drive:''' 53 editors signed up for our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/March 2024|'''March Backlog Elimination Drive''']], 34 of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 300 articles totaling 587,828 words. Barnstars awarded are [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/March 2024/Barnstars|'''here''']].

'''Blitz:''' Sign up for our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/April 2024|'''April Copy Editing Blitz''']], which runs from 14 to 20 April. Barnstars will be awarded [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/April 2024/Barnstars|'''here''']].

'''Progress report:''' As of 23:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 109 requests since 1 January 2024, and the backlog stands at 2,480 articles.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from {{noping|Baffle gab1978}} and your GOCE coordinators {{noping|Dhtwiki|Miniapolis|Wracking}}.

{{center
| To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Mailing List|our mailing list]].
}}
|}


== A continuous map f:X->Y between topological spaces is said to be null-homotopic if it is homotopic to a constant map ==

Hello there.

It's been a strange year. I let our relationship lapse and I'm sorry. It's mostly, but not entirely, because I abjectly refuse to use Discord anymore and I forgot my Matrix credentials.

Email would be good. Jitsi coffee dates would be good. I still think of you. But if you don't want to anymore, I completely understand.

[[User:Sasha foxxo|Sasha foxxo]] ([[User talk:Sasha foxxo|talk]]) 00:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

== Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C ==

<section begin="announcement-content" />
:''[[m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024/Announcement – vote reminder|You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.]] [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Translate&group=page-{{urlencode:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024/Announcement – vote reminder}}&language=&action=page&filter= {{int:please-translate}}]''

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the [[m:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024|voting page on Meta-wiki]] to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please [[m:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Charter|review the U4C Charter]].

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,<section end="announcement-content" />

[[m:User:RamzyM (WMF)|RamzyM (WMF)]] 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


==secondhand notification==
Per a request by {{user|SnowFire}}, because of your participation in [[Talk:Michael Larson#Requested move 22 March 2024]], you are being brought up to date on developments. After the article "[[Press Your Luck scandal|''Press Your Luck'' scandal]]" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Press_Your_Luck_scandal&diff=prev&oldid=1221402725 was written], "[[Michael Larson]]" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Larson&diff=prev&oldid=1221402756 was turned into a redirect]. That redirect has since been undone (though mischaracterized as a "stealth copy & paste move"), and there are now two active discussions in which you may wish to participate, but might otherwise be unaware of:
* [[Talk:Press Your Luck scandal#Separate articles]] is discussing [[WP:BIO1E]], the article title, and more.
* [[Talk:Michael Larson (disambiguation)#Requested move 1 May 2024]] is discussing which page should be the primary topic and more.
I'm certainly involved in these discussions and will be happy to converse with you there if you're inclined. My apologies if this is undue, but [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMichael_Larson_%28disambiguation%29&diff=1221872854&oldid=1221872320 it was implied] that I have been negligent in my canvassing. — '''[[user:fourthords|Fourthords]] | [[user talk:fourthords|=Λ=]] |''' 00:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

== [[WP:RMNAC]] explanations needed ==

Sceptre, at [[Talk:1933 NFL Championship Game#Requested move 3 May 2024]] and [[Talk:AFC Championship Game#Requested move 29 April 2024]] you simply said "not moved", without saying how you weighed the arguments, and without indicating whether you saw a consensus for uppercase, versus no consensus. Could you please expand on those closing statements? [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 22:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
:{{re|Gonzo fan2007}} et al had the correct interpretation of [[MOS:SPORTSCAPS]]. The pre-Super Bowl championship games (and the conference championships, for that matter) are more often capitalised than not, especially as they're trademarked. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 23:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
::Will you be adding those rationales to the close statements, please? [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 02:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
:::Interesting. Is NFL Draft trademarked? Not that I'd necessarily reopen that can of brain-worms (and, importantly, and unlike the conference championship games, uppercasing does not "lead" in its n-gram derby). [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 04:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
::::@Sceptre: I don't think the trademark rationale was used by anyone, was it? And I have some doubt whether it really is trademarked. Consider striking it from your close.—[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 23:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
::Sceptre, I think I'll need to call a move review if you don't re-list these. Your reasoning sounds too much like a super-vote based on non-facts and unsupported opinions, as opposed to a reasonable weighing of the positions articulated. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 23:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
:::I see you haven't edited since before this; I'll be patient (sort of). [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 05:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
::::{{re|Dicklyon}} Apologies, I was off-wiki yesterday. I've added the above rationale to each closure, but I strongly dispute the idea that they're supervotes. Sometimes, the consensus just isn't there. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 15:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
:Sceptre, I've no problem with your closures & will endorse them if they're challenged. But, I recommend that you elaborate on your closures at the two RMs, to avoid it being challenged. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 00:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

==Move review for [[:AFC Championship Game]]==
An editor has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Move review#AFC Championship Game|Move review]] of [[:AFC Championship Game]]. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review.  [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 14:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
==Move review for [[:1933 NFL Championship Game]]==
An editor has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Move review#1933 NFL Championship Game|Move review]] of [[:1933 NFL Championship Game]]. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review.  [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 14:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

== Guild of Copy Editors June 2024 Newsletter ==

{| style="position: relative; margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color: #dfeff3; border: 2px solid #bddff2; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 );"

| '''[[WP:GOCE|Guild of Copy Editors]] June 2024 Newsletter'''

<div style="float:right; width: 75px; height: 60px;"></div>
<div style="position: absolute; top: -20px; right: -12px;">[[File:Writing Magnifying.PNG|100px|link=]]</div>
<hr style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 );" />
[[File:Copyeditors progress.png|right|thumb]]

Hello and welcome to the June 2024 newsletter, a quarterly-ish digest of Guild activities since April. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.

'''Election news:''' Wanted: new Guild coordinators! If you value and enjoy the GOCE, why not help out behind the scenes? Nominations for our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators/2024/2|mid-year coordinator election]] are now open until 23:59 on 15 June (UTC). Self-nominations are welcome. Voting commences at 00:01 on 16 June and continues until 23:50 on 30 June. Results will be announced at the election page.

'''Blitz:''' Nine of the fourteen editors who signed up for the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/April_2024|'''April 2024 Copy Editing Blitz''']] copy edited at least one article. Between them, they copy edited 55,853 words comprising twenty articles. Barnstars awarded are available [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/April_2024/Barnstars|here]].

'''Drive:''' 58 editors signed up for our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/May_2024|'''May 2024 Backlog Elimination Drive''']] and 33 of those completed at least one copy edit. 251 articles and 475,952 words were copy edited. Barnstars awarded are [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/May_2024/Barnstars|here]].

'''Blitz:''' Our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/June_2024|'''June 2024 Copy Editing Blitz''']] will begin on 16 June and finish on 22 June. Barnstars awarded will be posted [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/June_2024/Barnstars|'''here''']].

'''Progress report:''' As of 05:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC) , GOCE copyeditors have completed 161 requests since 1 January and the backlog stands at 2,779 articles.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from {{noping|Baffle gab1978}} and your GOCE coordinators {{noping|Dhtwiki|Miniapolis|Wracking}}.

{{center
| To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Mailing List|our mailing list]].
}}
|}


== Updates to Brookfield Properties Locations ==

Hi Sceptre, I work for [[Brookfield Properties]], and I am trying to update the page to include that the company operates in 9 locations. You made helpful contributions to the Brookfield Properties article a few years ago, and I'm hoping you will take a look at my [[Talk:Brookfield_Properties#Updates to Brookfield Properties locations|edit request]] and consider making the edit . Thanks for your help, [[User:Claudiailagan|Claudiailagan]] ([[User talk:Claudiailagan|talk]]) 15:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

== WIkiProject ''Doctor Who'' Newsletter: July 2024 ==

{| style="position: relative; margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color:#CAF1FF; border: 2px solid #bddff2; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 );"

| {{center|1=<big>'''The Space-Time Telegraph'''</big> '''Volume II, Issue I — July 2024 '''Brought to you by the editors of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who|WikiProject ''Doctor Who'']]}}

<div style="float:right; width: 75px; height: 60px;"></div>
<div style="position: absolute; top: -20px; left: -12px;">[[Image:The Twelfth Doctor's Sonic Screwdriver transparent background.png|65px]]</div>
<div style="position: absolute; top: -20px; right: -12px;">[[Image:TARDIS-trans.png|40px]]</div>
<hr style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 );" />
Okay–ooh. New <s>teeth</s> newsletter. That's weird...

<big>'''Hello!'''</big>

:Welcome to the first regenerated issue of The Space-Time Telegraph, the official newsletter of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who|WikiProject ''Doctor Who'']]. We hope it finds you well in your safe travels across the Whoniverse! This newsletter was founded in 2008 and seemed to get lost in the time vortex quite quickly. Thanks to the Doctor dragging Sutekh through the time vortex and bringing life by bringing death to death (''yeah... I'm a little confused too''), it seems to have regenerated. The writing staff hopes to bring you future editions quarterly.

:For this first edition, we have created an updated version of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Newsletter/Mailing list|our mailing list]] that includes any active editors who previously had their usernames included in [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Participants/Active participants|our participants list]]. If you do not wish to receive future editions, please remove your name from the mailing list. If you no longer wish to participate in the project, please also remove your name from the participants list.

:I think that's enough about the newsletter for now. Let's dive into interesting things happening within the ''Doctor Who'' side of Wikipedia. Geronimooooo.....

{{columns-start|num=2}}

<big>'''Big Spike in Productivity'''</big>
:During 2024, the project has scored 8 GAs, 2 FLs and a GT, up from last year's 4 GAs and a GT. Several additional things are in the pipeline, with a bunch of things currently having been nominated with some mix of [[User:OlifanofmrTennant|OlifanofmrTennant]], [[User:TheDoctorWho|TheDoctorWho]], and [[User:Pokelego999|Pokelego999]] having their names attached to them. Allow me to look into the nominees.

# Series 14: As of July 18th, every single episode has been sent to GAN, with "[[Boom (Doctor Who)|Boom]]", "[[73 Yards]]", and "[[The Devil's Chord]]" having made it to GA.
# 2023 Specials: Early in the year, as part of trying to not lose the WikiCup, Ollie sent "[[The Star Beast (Doctor Who episode)|The Star Beast]]" (still salty about the move) to GAN. It was reviewed by [[User:Bilorv|frequent collaborator]] (fly high) of hers, but failed. She then fixed it up and sent it back where it passed. Later "[[The Giggle]]" was expanded and sent to GA, followed shortly by "[[Wild Blue Yonder (Doctor Who)|Wild Blue Yonder]]". WBY received help by [[User:JustAnotherCompanion|JustAnotherCompanion]], a pretty fresh user. This other companion chose not to be listed as co-nom. A page was created for "[[Destination: Skaro]]" and quickly got GA status.
# ''[[The Daleks' Master Plan]]'' was also sent to GAN by [[User:Rhain|Rhain]]. It passed to join Rhain's other First Doctor content, being the fourth season three article to get the green check.
# Peter Capaldi: The [[Peter Capaldi filmography |filmography]] and newly created [[List of awards and nominations received by Peter Capaldi|awards]] of Capaldi were both sent to FLC and passed. Capaldi's main page was sent to GA, though due to some minor incompetence on the part of the nominator it was failed.
{{column}}

<big>'''Proposals to the WikiProject'''</big>
:A recent proposal at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who]] suggested potential improvements and suggestions for the main page of the project, as well as discussions about the project overall. The proposals are as follows:
# The Task Forces section should be removed due to inactivity in the Torchwood Task Force, and a lack of significant interest in creating further Task Forces.
# The freenode channel no longer works and should be removed due to most discussion taking place on site.
# Due to the low quality of ''[[Lungbarrow]]'' and ''[[Jubilee (audio drama)|Jubilee]]'' despite being sample articles, these articles should either be removed as samples or improved. Additionally, the "sample device" has a very small application field, and should be removed from the sample articles section.
# An updates infobox should be included, similarly to those used by [[Wikipedia:VGCHAR]].
# ''[[Radio Times]]''{{'}}s ''Doctor Who'' sections should be included in the references section due to their benefits for the project sourcing wise.
# The Deletion Discussion archive should be removed, or have work invested in updating it, due to its lack of updates.

If you feel you have any thoughts or suggestions on these matters, or on any other matters pertaining to the project and its main page, feel free to chime in the ongoing discussion.

{{columns-end}}

<big>'''Discussions of Note'''</big>

A move discussion is [[Talk:Doctor_Who_series_14#Second_requested_move|currently underway]] on whether or not [[Doctor Who series 14|''Doctor Who'' series 14]] should be moved to [[Doctor Who season 1 (2024)|''Doctor Who'' season 1 (2024)]]. The discussion also involves conversation on a few other adjacent articles. If you have an opinion on the matter please read over the discussion or leave comments.

<big>'''Contributors'''</big>

*[[User:TheDoctorWho|'''The''''''Doctor''''''Who''']] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]]
*[[User:Pokelego999|Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]])
*[[User talk:OlifanofmrTennant|Questions?]] [[Fourth Doctor|four]] [[User:OlifanofmrTennant|Olifanofmrtennant (she/her)]]

{{center|If you wish to contribute to future editions of the newsletter, leave a message on the [[WT:WHO|WikiProject talk page]] or reach out to one of the current contributors listed above.}}
{{center
| If you do not wish to receive future editions of the Space-Time Telegraph, please remove your name from our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Newsletter/Mailing list|our mailing list]].
}}
|}

[[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 04:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


== Removing redirects (re-creating pages) ==

There is an ongoing discussion taking place at the following articles, regarding whether the current redirects should be removed, which may be of interest to this user:
# [[Talk: A109 road]]
# [[Talk: A110 road]]
# [[Talk: A111 road]]
# [[Talk: A112 road (England)]]:
# [[Talk: A124 road]]:
# [[Talk: A129 road]]:
# [[Talk: A134 road]]:
# [[Talk: A157 road]]:
# [[Talk: A159 road]]:
# [[Talk: A177 road]]:
# [[Talk: A182 road]]:
# [[Talk: A189 road]]:
# [[Talk: A1011 road]]:
# [[Talk: A1066 road]]:
# [[Talk: A1151 road]]:
# [[Talk: A1200 road]]:
# [[Talk: A1231 road]]:
# [[Talk: A1260 road]]:
# [[Talk: A1303 road]]:
# [[Talk: A213 road]]:
# [[Talk: A222 road]]:
# [[Talk: A225 road]]:
# [[Talk: A227 road]]:
# [[Talk: A230 road]]:
# [[Talk: A235 road]]:
# [[Talk: A236 road]]:
# [[Talk: A237 road]]:
# [[Talk: A2217 road]]:
# [[Talk: A346 road]]:
# [[Talk: A3400 road]]:
# [[Talk: A425 road]]:
# [[Talk: A435 road]]:
# [[Talk: A461 road]]:
# [[Talk: A472 road]]:
# [[Talk: A480 road]]:
# [[Talk: A484 road]]:
# [[Talk: A488 road]]:
# [[Talk: A497 road]]:
# [[Talk: A4012 road]]:
# [[Talk: A4037 road]]:
# [[Talk: A4040 road]]:
# [[Talk: A4067 road]]:
# [[Talk: A4110 road]]:
# [[Talk: A4133 road]]:
# [[Talk: A4173 road]]
# [[Talk: A4212 road]]:
# [[Talk: A4217 road]]:
# [[Talk: A5183 road]]:
# [[Talk: A828 road]]:
Please see the necessary talk pages for more information. Regards, [[User:Roads4117|Roads4117]] ([[User talk:Roads4117|talk]]) 13:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
:A discussion is taking place centrally at [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#Removing_redirects_(re-creating_pages)]] rather than at each individual article talk page. [[User:10mmsocket|10mmsocket]] ([[User talk:10mmsocket|talk]]) 14:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

== Guild of Copy Editors September Newsletter ==

{| style="position: relative; margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color: #dfeff3; text-color: #000000; border: 2px solid #bddff2; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 );"

| '''[[WP:GOCE|Guild of Copy Editors]] September Newsletter'''
<div style="float:right; width: 75px; height: 60px;"></div>
<div style="position: absolute; top: -20px; right: -12px;">[[File:Writing Magnifying.PNG|100px|link=]]</div>
<hr style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 );" />
[[File:Copyeditors progress.png|right|thumb]]

Hello and welcome to the September newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since June. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.

'''Election news:''' Project coordinators play an important role in our WikiProject. Following the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators/2024/2|mid-year Election of Coordinators]], we welcomed {{noping|Mox Eden}} to the coordinator team. {{noping|Dhtwiki}} remains as Lead Coordinator, and {{noping|Miniapolis|Wracking}} returned as assistant coordinators. If you'd like to help out behind the scenes, please consider taking part in our December election – watchlist our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|ombox]] for updates. Information about the role of coordinators can be found [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators|here]].

'''Blitz:''' 13 of the 24 editors who signed up for the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/June 2024|June 2024 Copy Editing Blitz]] copy edited at least one article. Between them, they copy edited 169,404 words comprising 41 articles. Barnstars awarded are [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/June 2024/Barnstars|here]].

'''Drive:''' 38 of the 59 editors who signed up for the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/July_2024|July 2024 Backlog Elimination Drive]] copy edited at least one article. Between them, they copy edited 482,133 words comprising 293 articles. Barnstars awarded are [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/July_2024/Barnstars|here]].

'''Blitz:''' 10 of the 15 editors who signed up for the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/August 2024|August 2024 Copy Editing Blitz]] copy edited at least one article. Between them, they copy edited 71,294 words comprising 31 articles. Barnstars awarded are [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/August 2024/Barnstars|here]].

'''Drive:''' [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/September_2024#Signing_up|'''Sign up here''']] to earn barnstars in our month-long, in-progress September Backlog Elimination Drive.

'''Progress report:''' As of 05:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 233 [[WP:GOCER|requests]] since 1 January, and the backlog of tagged articles stands at 2,824 articles.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we do without you! Cheers from {{noping|Baffle gab1978}} and your GOCE coordinators {{noping|Dhtwiki|Miniapolis|Mox Eden|Wracking}}.
{{center
| To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Mailing List|our mailing list]].
}}
|}

Message sent by [[User:Baffle gab1978|Baffle gab1978]] ([[User talk:Baffle gab1978|talk]]) using [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 05:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)


== WIkiProject ''Doctor Who'': September 2024 Newsletter ==

{| style="position: relative; margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color:#CAF1FF; border: 2px solid #bddff2; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 );"

| {{center|1=<big>'''The Space-Time Telegraph'''</big> '''Volume II, Issue II — September 2024 '''Brought to you by the editors of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who|WikiProject ''Doctor Who'']]}}

<div style="position: absolute; top: -20px; left: -12px;">[[Image:The Twelfth Doctor's Sonic Screwdriver transparent background.png|65px]]</div>
<div style="position: absolute; top: -20px; right: -12px;">[[Image:TARDIS-trans.png|40px]]</div>
<hr style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 );" />
{{center|
You like Doctor Who? What's his name then?

<big>'''Welcome'''</big>

:Hello and welcome to the second issue of the new newsletter! Following the success of the first newsletter we are back to write more stuff.}}

{{columns-start|num=2}}

<big>'''Articles for deletion'''</big>
 Several articles have been nominated for deletion, such as [[Time War (Doctor Who)]], and several articles have been deleted, or merged or redirected, especially those relating to books, due to lack of [[WP:SIGCOV]] and [[WP:NBOOK]]. Editors can always help either by participating in the deletion discussions (which are noted on the project page), adding to such articles, or bringing attention to other such articles through AfD or the WikiProject talk page, to aid in clean-up.

<big>'''Notice of Draft Articles'''</big>
 A new ''Doctor Who'' spin-off was announced at the 2024 San Diego Comic-Con, called ''[[The War Between the Land and the Sea]]'', and will feature old and new [[Whoniverse]] characters working for [[UNIT]] as they battle the [[Sea Devil (Doctor Who)|Sea Devils]]. The main space article currently redirects to Whoniverse, but collaboration is [[Draft:The War Between the Land and the Sea|currently underway in a draft article]]. As filming on this miniseries has recently begun, its relocation to the mains space will presumably take place soon per the recommendations laid out at [[WP:NTV]].

 There is also a [[Draft:Joy to the World (Doctor Who)|draft article in progress for the upcoming 2024 Christmas special]]. While this article won't be moved until the episode airs, any new contributions are welcome.

<big>'''Doctor Who News'''</big>
 A small number of editors have recently raised questions regarding the reliability of [https://www.doctorwhonews.net/ Doctor Who News]. This website is particularly used for information regarding viewing figures and the [[Appreciation Index]] of most episodes as well as some news information. If there is a better source for any information supported by this website, it should be replaced in good faith.

 A full consensus on whether or not to remove the information that can't be supported by a different source has not yet been reached. Any editor who has opinions on this matter should contribute to the discussion on the [[WT:WHO|WikiProject talk page]].

{{column}}

<big>'''Continued Progress Towards Good/Featured Content'''</big>
 There has been lots of progress made towards recognized articles in the last two months, related to such diverse categories as series, specials, lists and episodes A [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Doctor_Who/Goals|sub-page]] has also been added to the WikiProject, to list any possible goals we can aim towards.

<big>'''Proposals Regarding the State of Fictional Elements Articles in the WikiProject'''</big>
:Several proposals have been laid out regarding fictional elements in the WikiProject, which includes fictional characters, locations, and more. Due to a concerning quality state regarding the large majority of them, several methods of tackling them in order to improve these articles' quality for the future have been proposed. The primary three proposals are as follows:
:1. A priority list should be made to determine what articles are most pressing and in need of improvement in the WikiProject overall. Focus would be put onto important subjects and articles in a state of dubious notability that would make them viable for deletion processes such as AfD.

:2. A group of articles is selected for improvement, which are ones deemed most relevant to the WikiProject for the future. Any lesser important subjects can be sidelined and worked on as editors see fit.

:3. A long term goal is made to improve all elements. This will come at the caveat of taking significantly longer and requiring more heavy participation than the above two proposals, but would guarantee a slow and steady way to solve the issue.

:If any editors are interested in chiming into the conversation and sharing their piece on how this should be handled, or if any editors wish to help with this proposal and improve fictional elements articles, then feel free to share thoughts at the discussion's section on [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Doctor_Who#On_the_Subject_of_Fictional_Elements_in_this_WikiProject|the article's talk page]].
{{columns-end}}

<big>'''Contributors'''</big>

*[[User:TheDoctorWho|'''The''''''Doctor''''''Who''']] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]]
*[[User:Pokelego999|Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]])
*[[User talk:OlifanofmrTennant|Questions?]] [[Fourth Doctor|four]] [[User:OlifanofmrTennant|Olifanofmrtennant (she/her)]]
* [[User:DoctorWhoFan91|DoctorWhoFan91]] ([[User talk:DoctorWhoFan91|talk]])

"I'm not appalled by it" - ''The New New York Times''

{{center|If you wish to contribute to future editions of the newsletter or have any feedback, leave a message on the [[WT:WHO|WikiProject talk page]] or reach out to one of the current contributors listed above.}}
{{center
| If you do not wish to receive future editions of the Space-Time Telegraph, please remove your name from our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Newsletter/Mailing list|our mailing list]].
}}
|}

[[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 04:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

== "[[:Template:Test3a]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
[[File:Information.svg|30px]]
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Test3a&redirect=no Template:Test3a] has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|redirects for discussion]] to determine whether its use and function meets the [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect guidelines]]. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 20#Template:Test3a}}''' until a consensus is reached.  [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 08:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

== Contesting Grooming Gangs "Moral Panic" Closure ==

I'd like to initiate a contestation of this closing decision: [[Talk:Grooming gang moral panic in the United Kingdom#c-Sceptre-20241007193500-Requested move 3 September 2024]]

That does not appear like consensus. The reasoning was very weak. The subject of "Moral Panic" is a separate issue from whether these incidents happened, which they did, and which the well published facts show was actually suppressed by both media and law enforcement. If there should be a page on moral panic. It should be a separate page, not a very clear re-characterization of the facts themselves. [[User:Bluetik|Bluetik]] ([[User talk:Bluetik|talk]]) 14:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Grooming gang moral panic in the United Kingdom

2024-10-08T14:23:42Z

Bluetik: /* Origins */

{{pp|small=yes}}

{{Short description|Moral panic in the United Kingdom}}
{{EngvarB|date=September 2024}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=August 2024}}
The '''Muslim grooming gang panic''' is a [[moral panic]] alleging that [[Asian people|Asian]] (specifically [[South Asian diaspora|South Asian]], [[Pakistanis|Pakistani]] and [[Muslims|Muslim)]] men are sexually abusing young White girls in the United Kingdom. Right-wing and far-right activists, as well as more mainstream individuals, helped popularise the terminology in the 2010s.<ref name=":4">{{Citation |mode=cs1 |last1=Gill |first1=Aisha K. |title=Moral Panic in the Media: Scapegoating South Asian Men in Cases of Sexual Exploitation and Grooming |date=2020-11-30 |work=Gendered Domestic Violence and Abuse in Popular Culture |pages=171–197 |editor-last=Ramon |editor-first=Shulamit |url=https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/978-1-83867-781-720201011/full/html |access-date=2024-06-27 |publisher=Emerald Publishing Limited |doi=10.1108/978-1-83867-781-720201011 |isbn=978-1-83867-782-4 |last2=Day |first2=Aviah Sarah |editor2-last=Lloyd |editor2-first=Michele |editor3-last=Penhale |editor3-first=Bridget}}</ref><ref name=":3">{{Cite journal |last=Cockbain |first=Ella |date=2013 |title=Grooming and the 'Asian sex gang predator': the construction of a racial crime threat |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0306396813475983 |journal=Race & Class |language=en |volume=54 |issue=4 |pages=22–32 |doi=10.1177/0306396813475983 |issn=0306-3968}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last1=Gill |first1=Aisha K |last2=Harrison |first2=Karen |date=2015-07-01 |title=Child Grooming and Sexual Exploitation: Are South Asian Men the UK Media's New Folk Devils? |url=https://www.crimejusticejournal.com/article/view/756 |journal=International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy |volume=4 |issue=2 |pages=34–49 |doi=10.5204/ijcjsd.v4i2.214 |issn=2202-8005 |quote=The British media’s construction of a specifically South Asian notion of hegemonic masculinity began long before the recent spate of high-profile cases of child sexual exploitation and grooming. The Ouseley report on the Bradford race riots (Ouseley 2001),and the Cantle Report on the Oldham, Burnley and Bradford riots (Cantle 2001), focused on cultural difference as the primary causal factor for these events, maintaining that British South Asians and white Britons led ‘parallel lives’. Media coverage of the riots described angry young men who were alienated from society and their own communities, and had become entangled in a life of crime and violence, a vision that provided the bedrock for the construction of what Claire Alexander calls the ‘new Asian folk devil’ (2000).}}</ref><ref name=":1">{{Cite news |last1=Cockbain |first1=Ella |last2=Tufail |first2=Waqas |date=2020-12-19 |title=A new Home Office report admits grooming gangs are not a 'Muslim problem' |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/19/home-office-report-grooming-gangs-not-muslim |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref>

Public concerns about South Asian grooming gangs began after multiple high-profile child sex abuse scandals perpetrated primarily by South Asian men, including the [[Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal|Rotherham child sexual abuse scandal]] in late 2010, in which 1,400 girls as young as 11 were found to have been raped, trafficked, abducted, beaten, and intimidated by men predominantly of Pakistani heritage over a period of 15 years with limited prosecution.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2022-06-22 |title=Rotherham abuse scandal: How we got here |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-61868863 |access-date=2024-10-08 |language=en-GB}}</ref> . It was later exacerbated by the [[Rochdale child sex abuse ring|Rochdale child sex abuse case]] and the [[Telford child sexual exploitation scandal]].<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":0" />

A report from the [[Home Office]] was unable to prove any link between sexual assault and South Asian ethnicity. White perpetrators, [[Demographics of the United Kingdom#Ethnicity|who make up the majority race in the UK]], have been shown to be more represented in sexual assault and group-based sexual abuse crimes than any other ethnicity in the United Kingdom.<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":42">{{Cite web |date=2020-12-15 |title=Grooming gangs come from 'diverse backgrounds', says Home Office as review finally published |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/grooming-gangs-review-race-religion-home-office-b1774161.html |access-date= |website=The Independent |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":52">{{Cite news |date=2023-09-29 |title=Suella Braverman UK-Pakistani grooming claim misleading, says press regulator |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-66960890 |work=BBC News |language=en-GB}}</ref> The report suggests there is likely no connection between ethnic groups and [[Child sexual abuse|child sexual abuse.]]<ref>{{Cite news |last=Symonds |first=Tom |date=2023-04-04 |title=Grooming gangs and ethnicity: What does the evidence say? |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65174096 |access-date=2024-08-31 |work=BBC |language=en-GB |quote="it is likely that no one community or culture is uniquely predisposed to offending"}}</ref> Despite the lack of evidence, British media outlets have reinforced the stereotype by disproportionately reporting on South Asian group-based sexual assault crimes at the expense of other similar cases involving White abusers.<ref name=":0" />

== Origins ==
[[File:Alexis Jay s300.jpg|thumb|Jay in 2016]]
Public concerns for South Asian "grooming gangs" began in the United Kingdom following the conviction and imprisonment of five Asian men for [[Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal|child sex crimes in November 2010 in Rotherham]], [[South Yorkshire]].<ref>{{cite news|title=Five men guilty in Rotherham Asian grooming case|url=http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/local-stories/five-men-guilty-in-rotherham-asian-grooming-case-1-3024198|work=The Yorkshire Post|date=4 November 2010|access-date=27 August 2014|archive-date=20 September 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150920183330/http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/local-stories/five-men-guilty-in-rotherham-asian-grooming-case-1-3024198|url-status=dead}}</ref> While other similar crimes have been reported by the British media in previous years, past reports of Asian crimes were comparatively low-profile and less focused on the race of the suspects.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":3" />

The Rotherham incident was labelled the "Asian grooming case" by [[The Yorkshire Post|''The Yorkshire Post'']] in 2010, with the Conservative broadsheet [[The Times|''The Times'']] further using the term "on-street grooming" in a 2011 article about the scandal.<ref name=":3" /><ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2" /> The case was brought back into public attention in 2012 after ''The Times'' reported, based on confidential sources, that public authorities were reluctant to investigate the mostly South Asian suspects in the case due to concerns that doing so would exacerbate community tensions. The report led a growing number of people to believe that there was a widespread trend of sexual abuse of girls in the UK and contributed to a growth of British right-wing groups such as the [[British National Party]] and [[UKIP]] in later years. Public outrage was further exacerbated when professor [[Alexis Jay]] published a report in 2014 which stated that at least 1,400 children were sexually abused in Rotherham between 1997 and 2013. The report, which partially focused on issues related of race, especially in its section titled "Issues of Ethnicity", led the general public to debate the role of race, ethnicity, gender and institutional failures in the facilitation of child sexual abuse.<ref name=":3" /><ref name=":2">{{Cite journal |last=Tufail |first=Waqas |date=2015-10-05 |title=Rotherham, Rochdale, and the Racialised Threat of the 'Muslim Grooming Gang' |url=https://www.crimejusticejournal.com/article/view/766 |journal=International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy |volume=4 |issue=3 |pages=30–43 |doi=10.5204/ijcjsd.v4i3.249 |issn=2202-8005|doi-access=free }}</ref>

Following Jay's report, ''The'' ''Daily Express'' railed against alleged "Muslim gangs" that operated in Rotherham. In an article published by ''The Telegraph'', [[Allison Pearson]] criticised the Muslim and Pakistani community for their alleged roles in sexual abuse crimes. In her article, Pearson stated that the "leaders of the Pakistani Muslim community – essentially a Victorian society that has landed like Doctor Who’s [[TARDIS|Tardis]] on a liberal, permissive planet it despises – are at pains to deny that the grooming gang's behavior has anything to do with ethnic origin or contemptible attitudes towards women". Another article by ''The Daily Mail'' criticised [[BBC News|''BBC News'']] for not bringing enough attention to the fact that the Rotherham suspects were Asian. Ultimately, both [[Tabloid journalism|tabloid]] and [[broadsheet]] outlets have focused on the ethnic aspect of Jay's 2014 report, the Rotherham scandal grew to receive international attention and the controversy contributed to the racialisation of child sexual abuse in Britain, with South Asian and Pakistani men being perceived as a threat to White and South Asian girls.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":3" />

Aside from the Rotherham case, other crimes involving group-based sexual assault have also contributed to public concerns about South Asian grooming gangs, such as the [[Rochdale child sex abuse ring|Rochdale child sex abuse case]]<ref name=":2" /> and the [[Telford child sexual exploitation scandal]].<ref name=":0" />

== Analysis ==

=== Media coverage ===
British media has previously been accused of perpetuating [[Islamophobia]] by "conflating the faith of Islam with criminality, such as the headlines 'Muslim sex grooming'", as well as pursuing sensationalist coverage.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2016-04-04 |title=Why the British media is responsible for the rise in Islamophobia in Britain |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/why-the-british-media-is-responsible-for-the-rise-in-islamophobia-in-britain-a6967546.html |access-date=2024-09-03 |website=The Independent |language=en}}</ref> In one academic paper, media outlets, including ''[[The Times]]'', [[Daily Mail|''The Daily Mail'']]'s [[MailOnline|''Mail Online'']], [[The Guardian|''The Guardian'']] and [[The Daily Telegraph|''The Telegraph'']], were accused of boosting the moral panic by creating "[[Folk devil|Folk devils]]" from a perceived masculine threat in young South Asian men, especially in the wake of various high profile sex abuse scandals.<ref name=":0" />

=== Statistics ===
A study published by the [[Home Office]] in 2020 stated that "research has found that group-based child sexual exploitation offenders are most commonly white". The research further added that, although some studies pointed to an over-representation of Black and Asian offenders, it was not possible to conclude that those studies were representative of all group-based crimes. The study also said that it was "difficult to draw conclusions about the ethnicity of offenders as existing research is limited and data collection is poor", and that, "based on the existing evidence, and our understanding of the flaws in the existing data, it seems most likely that the ethnicity of group-based child sexual exploitation offenders is in line with child sexual abuse more generally and with the general population, with the majority of offenders being white."<ref name=":42"/><ref name=":8">{{Cite web |last=Dearden |first=Lizzie |date=2022-02-06 |title=Fight against grooming gangs hindered by fear of being branded racist, says official |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grooming-gangs-iicsa-racist-fears-b2007649.html |access-date=2024-09-07 |website=The Independent |language=en}}</ref>

One report from the [[Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse]] argued that the lack of good-quality data into the ethnicity of sex abusers prevented concrete conclusions.<ref name=":8" /> The report found "a misplaced sense of political correctness or the sheer complexity of the problem" were likely preventing high quality data on the ethnicity of the abusers from being well characterized.<ref name=":8" />

[[Suella Braverman]] wrote in a 2023 opinion piece that "grooming gang" members in the United Kingdom were "groups of men, almost all British-Pakistani, who hold cultural attitudes completely incompatible with British values". In response, the [[Independent Press Standards Organisation]] issued a correction stating that Braverman's article was "misleading", since it did not make it explicit that she was talking about the Rotherham, Rochdale and Telford child sexual abuse scandals in particular.<ref name=":52"/>

== Political reactions ==
[[The Muslim Council of Britain]] has called on investigations to "adhere to the facts of the matter, rather than deploying deeply divisive, racially charged rhetoric that amplifies far-right narratives and demonises an entire community."<ref name=":6">{{Cite web |title=Suella Braverman describes grooming gang comments as 'unfashionable facts' after backlash |url=https://news.sky.com/story/suella-braverman-describes-grooming-gang-comments-as-unfashionable-facts-after-backlash-12861676 |access-date=2024-08-31 |website=Sky News |language=en}}</ref>

[[Rishi Sunak]] has called arguments against using the term "grooming gangs" as political correctness that fails victims.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2023-04-03 |title=Rishi Sunak criticises political correctness over grooming gangs |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65160429 |access-date=2024-08-31 |language=en-GB}}</ref> Other [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative Party]] politicians, such as [[Home Secretary]] [[Suella Braverman]], argue that use of the phrase "grooming gang" is simply "unfashionable facts."<ref name=":6" /> In response, many organisations called on her to withdraw her comments due to amplifying far-right ideologies.<ref name=":6" />

In response, researchers and organisations, including the [[NSPCC|National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC)]] have argued that focusing primarily on South Asian men simply fuels "misinformation, racism and division.”<ref name=":6" /><ref name=":7">{{Cite news |last=Walker |first=Peter |date=2023-05-25 |title='Inaccurate' grooming gang claims putting children at risk, Sunak and Braverman told |url=https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/may/25/inaccurate-grooming-gang-claims-putting-children-at-risk-sunak-and-braverman-told |access-date=2024-08-31 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> NSPCC argues that “a singular focus on groups of male abusers of British-Pakistani origin draws attention away from so many other sources of harm”.<ref name=":7" />

== Etymology ==
The word "grooming" is loosely used to describe "the tactics used by child sex offenders in their efforts to sexually abuse children", although it has no universal definition.<ref name=":4" /> The term "grooming gang" is a media construct and does not correspond to any legal or scientific concept. It is most often used in a "racially loaded" manner to describe groups of child sexual abusers.<ref name=":5">{{Cite journal |last1=Cockbain |first1=Ella |last2=Tufail |first2=Waqas |date=2020 |title=Failing victims, fuelling hate: challenging the harms of the 'Muslim grooming gangs' narrative |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0306396819895727 |journal=Race & Class |language=en |volume=61 |issue=3 |pages=3–32 |doi=10.1177/0306396819895727 |issn=0306-3968}}</ref>

== See also ==

* [[Superpredator]]
* [[Black Horror on the Rhine]]
* [[LGBT grooming conspiracy theory]]

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:Gang rape in Europe]]
[[Category:Moral panic]]
[[Category:Race relations in the United Kingdom]]

Grooming gang moral panic in the United Kingdom

2024-10-08T14:22:40Z

Bluetik: /* Origins */

{{pp|small=yes}}

{{Short description|Moral panic in the United Kingdom}}
{{EngvarB|date=September 2024}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=August 2024}}
The '''Muslim grooming gang panic''' is a [[moral panic]] alleging that [[Asian people|Asian]] (specifically [[South Asian diaspora|South Asian]], [[Pakistanis|Pakistani]] and [[Muslims|Muslim)]] men are sexually abusing young White girls in the United Kingdom. Right-wing and far-right activists, as well as more mainstream individuals, helped popularise the terminology in the 2010s.<ref name=":4">{{Citation |mode=cs1 |last1=Gill |first1=Aisha K. |title=Moral Panic in the Media: Scapegoating South Asian Men in Cases of Sexual Exploitation and Grooming |date=2020-11-30 |work=Gendered Domestic Violence and Abuse in Popular Culture |pages=171–197 |editor-last=Ramon |editor-first=Shulamit |url=https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/978-1-83867-781-720201011/full/html |access-date=2024-06-27 |publisher=Emerald Publishing Limited |doi=10.1108/978-1-83867-781-720201011 |isbn=978-1-83867-782-4 |last2=Day |first2=Aviah Sarah |editor2-last=Lloyd |editor2-first=Michele |editor3-last=Penhale |editor3-first=Bridget}}</ref><ref name=":3">{{Cite journal |last=Cockbain |first=Ella |date=2013 |title=Grooming and the 'Asian sex gang predator': the construction of a racial crime threat |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0306396813475983 |journal=Race & Class |language=en |volume=54 |issue=4 |pages=22–32 |doi=10.1177/0306396813475983 |issn=0306-3968}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last1=Gill |first1=Aisha K |last2=Harrison |first2=Karen |date=2015-07-01 |title=Child Grooming and Sexual Exploitation: Are South Asian Men the UK Media's New Folk Devils? |url=https://www.crimejusticejournal.com/article/view/756 |journal=International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy |volume=4 |issue=2 |pages=34–49 |doi=10.5204/ijcjsd.v4i2.214 |issn=2202-8005 |quote=The British media’s construction of a specifically South Asian notion of hegemonic masculinity began long before the recent spate of high-profile cases of child sexual exploitation and grooming. The Ouseley report on the Bradford race riots (Ouseley 2001),and the Cantle Report on the Oldham, Burnley and Bradford riots (Cantle 2001), focused on cultural difference as the primary causal factor for these events, maintaining that British South Asians and white Britons led ‘parallel lives’. Media coverage of the riots described angry young men who were alienated from society and their own communities, and had become entangled in a life of crime and violence, a vision that provided the bedrock for the construction of what Claire Alexander calls the ‘new Asian folk devil’ (2000).}}</ref><ref name=":1">{{Cite news |last1=Cockbain |first1=Ella |last2=Tufail |first2=Waqas |date=2020-12-19 |title=A new Home Office report admits grooming gangs are not a 'Muslim problem' |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/19/home-office-report-grooming-gangs-not-muslim |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref>

Public concerns about South Asian grooming gangs began after multiple high-profile child sex abuse scandals perpetrated primarily by South Asian men, including the [[Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal|Rotherham child sexual abuse scandal]] in late 2010. It was later exacerbated by the [[Rochdale child sex abuse ring|Rochdale child sex abuse case]] and the [[Telford child sexual exploitation scandal]].<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":0" />

A report from the [[Home Office]] was unable to prove any link between sexual assault and South Asian ethnicity. White perpetrators, [[Demographics of the United Kingdom#Ethnicity|who make up the majority race in the UK]], have been shown to be more represented in sexual assault and group-based sexual abuse crimes than any other ethnicity in the United Kingdom.<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":42">{{Cite web |date=2020-12-15 |title=Grooming gangs come from 'diverse backgrounds', says Home Office as review finally published |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/grooming-gangs-review-race-religion-home-office-b1774161.html |access-date= |website=The Independent |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":52">{{Cite news |date=2023-09-29 |title=Suella Braverman UK-Pakistani grooming claim misleading, says press regulator |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-66960890 |work=BBC News |language=en-GB}}</ref> The report suggests there is likely no connection between ethnic groups and [[Child sexual abuse|child sexual abuse.]]<ref>{{Cite news |last=Symonds |first=Tom |date=2023-04-04 |title=Grooming gangs and ethnicity: What does the evidence say? |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65174096 |access-date=2024-08-31 |work=BBC |language=en-GB |quote="it is likely that no one community or culture is uniquely predisposed to offending"}}</ref> Despite the lack of evidence, British media outlets have reinforced the stereotype by disproportionately reporting on South Asian group-based sexual assault crimes at the expense of other similar cases involving White abusers.<ref name=":0" />

== Origins ==
[[File:Alexis Jay s300.jpg|thumb|Jay in 2016]]
Public concerns for South Asian "grooming gangs" began in the United Kingdom following the conviction and imprisonment of five Asian men for [[Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal|child sex crimes in November 2010 in Rotherham]], [[South Yorkshire]]<ref>{{cite news|title=Five men guilty in Rotherham Asian grooming case|url=http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/local-stories/five-men-guilty-in-rotherham-asian-grooming-case-1-3024198|work=The Yorkshire Post|date=4 November 2010|access-date=27 August 2014|archive-date=20 September 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150920183330/http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/local-stories/five-men-guilty-in-rotherham-asian-grooming-case-1-3024198|url-status=dead}}</ref>, in which 1,400 girls as young as 11 were found to have been raped, trafficked, abducted, beaten, and intimidated by men predominantly of Pakistani heritage over a period of 15 years with limited prosecution.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2022-06-22 |title=Rotherham abuse scandal: How we got here |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-61868863 |access-date=2024-10-08 |language=en-GB}}</ref> While other similar crimes have been reported by the British media in previous years, past reports of Asian crimes were comparatively low-profile and less focused on the race of the suspects.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":3" />

The Rotherham incident was labelled the "Asian grooming case" by [[The Yorkshire Post|''The Yorkshire Post'']] in 2010, with the Conservative broadsheet [[The Times|''The Times'']] further using the term "on-street grooming" in a 2011 article about the scandal.<ref name=":3" /><ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2" /> The case was brought back into public attention in 2012 after ''The Times'' reported, based on confidential sources, that public authorities were reluctant to investigate the mostly South Asian suspects in the case due to concerns that doing so would exacerbate community tensions. The report led a growing number of people to believe that there was a widespread trend of sexual abuse of girls in the UK and contributed to a growth of British right-wing groups such as the [[British National Party]] and [[UKIP]] in later years. Public outrage was further exacerbated when professor [[Alexis Jay]] published a report in 2014 which stated that at least 1,400 children were sexually abused in Rotherham between 1997 and 2013. The report, which partially focused on issues related of race, especially in its section titled "Issues of Ethnicity", led the general public to debate the role of race, ethnicity, gender and institutional failures in the facilitation of child sexual abuse.<ref name=":3" /><ref name=":2">{{Cite journal |last=Tufail |first=Waqas |date=2015-10-05 |title=Rotherham, Rochdale, and the Racialised Threat of the 'Muslim Grooming Gang' |url=https://www.crimejusticejournal.com/article/view/766 |journal=International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy |volume=4 |issue=3 |pages=30–43 |doi=10.5204/ijcjsd.v4i3.249 |issn=2202-8005|doi-access=free }}</ref>

Following Jay's report, ''The'' ''Daily Express'' railed against alleged "Muslim gangs" that operated in Rotherham. In an article published by ''The Telegraph'', [[Allison Pearson]] criticised the Muslim and Pakistani community for their alleged roles in sexual abuse crimes. In her article, Pearson stated that the "leaders of the Pakistani Muslim community – essentially a Victorian society that has landed like Doctor Who’s [[TARDIS|Tardis]] on a liberal, permissive planet it despises – are at pains to deny that the grooming gang's behavior has anything to do with ethnic origin or contemptible attitudes towards women". Another article by ''The Daily Mail'' criticised [[BBC News|''BBC News'']] for not bringing enough attention to the fact that the Rotherham suspects were Asian. Ultimately, both [[Tabloid journalism|tabloid]] and [[broadsheet]] outlets have focused on the ethnic aspect of Jay's 2014 report, the Rotherham scandal grew to receive international attention and the controversy contributed to the racialisation of child sexual abuse in Britain, with South Asian and Pakistani men being perceived as a threat to White and South Asian girls.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":3" />

Aside from the Rotherham case, other crimes involving group-based sexual assault have also contributed to public concerns about South Asian grooming gangs, such as the [[Rochdale child sex abuse ring|Rochdale child sex abuse case]]<ref name=":2" /> and the [[Telford child sexual exploitation scandal]].<ref name=":0" />

== Analysis ==

=== Media coverage ===
British media has previously been accused of perpetuating [[Islamophobia]] by "conflating the faith of Islam with criminality, such as the headlines 'Muslim sex grooming'", as well as pursuing sensationalist coverage.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2016-04-04 |title=Why the British media is responsible for the rise in Islamophobia in Britain |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/why-the-british-media-is-responsible-for-the-rise-in-islamophobia-in-britain-a6967546.html |access-date=2024-09-03 |website=The Independent |language=en}}</ref> In one academic paper, media outlets, including ''[[The Times]]'', [[Daily Mail|''The Daily Mail'']]'s [[MailOnline|''Mail Online'']], [[The Guardian|''The Guardian'']] and [[The Daily Telegraph|''The Telegraph'']], were accused of boosting the moral panic by creating "[[Folk devil|Folk devils]]" from a perceived masculine threat in young South Asian men, especially in the wake of various high profile sex abuse scandals.<ref name=":0" />

=== Statistics ===
A study published by the [[Home Office]] in 2020 stated that "research has found that group-based child sexual exploitation offenders are most commonly white". The research further added that, although some studies pointed to an over-representation of Black and Asian offenders, it was not possible to conclude that those studies were representative of all group-based crimes. The study also said that it was "difficult to draw conclusions about the ethnicity of offenders as existing research is limited and data collection is poor", and that, "based on the existing evidence, and our understanding of the flaws in the existing data, it seems most likely that the ethnicity of group-based child sexual exploitation offenders is in line with child sexual abuse more generally and with the general population, with the majority of offenders being white."<ref name=":42"/><ref name=":8">{{Cite web |last=Dearden |first=Lizzie |date=2022-02-06 |title=Fight against grooming gangs hindered by fear of being branded racist, says official |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grooming-gangs-iicsa-racist-fears-b2007649.html |access-date=2024-09-07 |website=The Independent |language=en}}</ref>

One report from the [[Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse]] argued that the lack of good-quality data into the ethnicity of sex abusers prevented concrete conclusions.<ref name=":8" /> The report found "a misplaced sense of political correctness or the sheer complexity of the problem" were likely preventing high quality data on the ethnicity of the abusers from being well characterized.<ref name=":8" />

[[Suella Braverman]] wrote in a 2023 opinion piece that "grooming gang" members in the United Kingdom were "groups of men, almost all British-Pakistani, who hold cultural attitudes completely incompatible with British values". In response, the [[Independent Press Standards Organisation]] issued a correction stating that Braverman's article was "misleading", since it did not make it explicit that she was talking about the Rotherham, Rochdale and Telford child sexual abuse scandals in particular.<ref name=":52"/>

== Political reactions ==
[[The Muslim Council of Britain]] has called on investigations to "adhere to the facts of the matter, rather than deploying deeply divisive, racially charged rhetoric that amplifies far-right narratives and demonises an entire community."<ref name=":6">{{Cite web |title=Suella Braverman describes grooming gang comments as 'unfashionable facts' after backlash |url=https://news.sky.com/story/suella-braverman-describes-grooming-gang-comments-as-unfashionable-facts-after-backlash-12861676 |access-date=2024-08-31 |website=Sky News |language=en}}</ref>

[[Rishi Sunak]] has called arguments against using the term "grooming gangs" as political correctness that fails victims.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2023-04-03 |title=Rishi Sunak criticises political correctness over grooming gangs |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65160429 |access-date=2024-08-31 |language=en-GB}}</ref> Other [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative Party]] politicians, such as [[Home Secretary]] [[Suella Braverman]], argue that use of the phrase "grooming gang" is simply "unfashionable facts."<ref name=":6" /> In response, many organisations called on her to withdraw her comments due to amplifying far-right ideologies.<ref name=":6" />

In response, researchers and organisations, including the [[NSPCC|National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC)]] have argued that focusing primarily on South Asian men simply fuels "misinformation, racism and division.”<ref name=":6" /><ref name=":7">{{Cite news |last=Walker |first=Peter |date=2023-05-25 |title='Inaccurate' grooming gang claims putting children at risk, Sunak and Braverman told |url=https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/may/25/inaccurate-grooming-gang-claims-putting-children-at-risk-sunak-and-braverman-told |access-date=2024-08-31 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> NSPCC argues that “a singular focus on groups of male abusers of British-Pakistani origin draws attention away from so many other sources of harm”.<ref name=":7" />

== Etymology ==
The word "grooming" is loosely used to describe "the tactics used by child sex offenders in their efforts to sexually abuse children", although it has no universal definition.<ref name=":4" /> The term "grooming gang" is a media construct and does not correspond to any legal or scientific concept. It is most often used in a "racially loaded" manner to describe groups of child sexual abusers.<ref name=":5">{{Cite journal |last1=Cockbain |first1=Ella |last2=Tufail |first2=Waqas |date=2020 |title=Failing victims, fuelling hate: challenging the harms of the 'Muslim grooming gangs' narrative |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0306396819895727 |journal=Race & Class |language=en |volume=61 |issue=3 |pages=3–32 |doi=10.1177/0306396819895727 |issn=0306-3968}}</ref>

== See also ==

* [[Superpredator]]
* [[Black Horror on the Rhine]]
* [[LGBT grooming conspiracy theory]]

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:Gang rape in Europe]]
[[Category:Moral panic]]
[[Category:Race relations in the United Kingdom]]

Passage Publishing

2024-09-23T19:19:37Z

Bluetik: Reverting until subject resolved, addressed on talk page. Undid revision 1247160998 by Reflord (talk)

{{Short description|American Publishing house}}
{{Notability|1=Companies|date=August 2024}}
{{Infobox publisher
| founded = 2021
| country = United States
| imprints = ''Passage Classics'', ''[[Man's World (2021 magazine)|Man's World (magazine)]]''
| url=https://passage.press/
| publications=Books, magazines
| image=Passage Publishing logo, black.png
| founder=Jonathan Keeperman <ref name=“guardian-may”/>
|predecessor=Passage Prize}}

'''Passage Publishing''' is an American [[New Right|new right]]<ref name=“guardian-may”>{{Cite news |last=Wilson |first=Jason |date=2024-05-14 |title=Revealed: US university lecturer behind far-right Twitter account and publishing house |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/14/far-right-twitter-identity-revealed |access-date=2024-05-14 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> independent publisher, founded in 2021 and led by former [[University of California, Irvine|University of California, Irvine (UCI)]] lecturer Jonathan Keeperman. Passage Publishing produces works from various online communities, reprints and new translations of fiction and historical nonfiction, and has stated plans to publish new fiction and nonfiction.

== History ==
Passage Publishing was founded in 2021 out of the Passage Prize, an online writing and arts competition offering a $20,000 prize for selected works.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Wilson |first1=Kit |title=The rise of the neoclassical reactionaries |url=https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-rise-of-the-neoclassical-reactionaries/ |access-date=9 May 2024 |publisher=The Spectator |date=24 November 2021}}</ref> It received over 2,000 submissions.<ref name="canonic-prize-1">{{cite web |title=Passage Prize Volume I |url= https://archive.today/20240509004526/https://canonic.xyz/p/1BJ7EeQyQaQLY1VhAjZzsP2Keu4aWJyocZ |website=Canonic |access-date=9 May 2024}}</ref>

In 2023, Passage Prize was rebranded as “Passage Publishing,” and has expanded through acquisitions of both Mystery Grove Publishing,<ref>{{cite web |author1=Passage Publishing |title=Announcement |url=https://twitter.com/PassagePress/status/1734249838680985740 |website=Twitter |access-date=9 May 2024 |date=11 December 2023}}</ref> and a magazine, ''[[Man's World (2021 magazine)|Man’s World]].''

In 2024, Keeperman was revealed to have run a [[Twitter]] account, L0m3z, in which he used anti-gay and anti-Asian slurs, referenced white nationalist memes, proposed journalists should be lynched, and claimed that [[Barack Obama]] is gay.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Beauchamp |first=Zack |date=2024-08-27 |title=An inside look at how the far right is mainstreaming itself |url=https://www.vox.com/politics/368884/online-right-l0m3z-jonathan-keeperman-interview-razib-khan |access-date=2024-09-23 |website=Vox |language=en-US}}</ref>

== Publishing ==
Passage Publishing has published three books resulting from its Passage Prize writing and art competitions. Hardcover editions range from $300 to $400.<ref>{{cite web |title=Passage Publishing |url=https://passage.press/ |website=Passage Publishing |access-date=9 May 2024}}</ref>

Passage also works with prominent online authors by publishing compendiums of their works. As of May 2024, this has included [[Nick Land]], [[Steve Sailer]], and [[Curtis Yarvin]].{{cn|date=August 2024}}

Through its imprint, ''Passage Classics'', Passage Publishing also offers works by [[Ernst Jünger]], [[Peter Kemp (writer)|Peter Kemp]], [[Pyotr Wrangel]], [[Serge Obolensky]] and [[Joseph Conrad]].<ref>{{cite web |title=Passage Classics |url=https://passage.press/collections/passage-classics |website=Passage Publishing |access-date=9 May 2024}}</ref>

== Arts and culture ==
Passage Publishing also engages in cultural projects, including sponsoring events,<ref name="nyt-nyfw-velez">{{cite news |last1=Friedman |first1=Vanessa |title=Post-Pandemic Dressing Finally Takes Shape |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/14/style/tory-burch-willy-chavarria-new-york-fashion-week.html |access-date=9 May 2024 |work=The New York Times |date=14 September 2023}}</ref><ref name="nyt-velez-long">{{cite news |last1=Testa |first1=Jessica |title=Should Making It in Fashion Be This Hard? |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/25/style/elena-velez-fashion.html |access-date=9 May 2024 |work=The New York Times |date=13 September 2023}}</ref><ref name="wapo-gwtw">{{cite news |last1=Tashjian |first1=Rachel |title=Fashion's problematic fave is Elena Velez |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/fashion/2024/02/12/fashions-problematic-fave-is-elena-velez/ |access-date=9 May 2024 |newspaper=Washington Post |date=12 February 2024 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20240411205333/https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/fashion/2024/02/12/fashions-problematic-fave-is-elena-velez/ |archive-date=11 April 2024}}</ref> and with fashion designer [[Elena Velez]], citing the Passage Publishing and its founder as inspiration.<ref name="first-things-nyfw">{{cite news |last1=Lee |first1=Justin |title=What I saw at the Longhouse Fashion Show |url=https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2023/09/what-i-saw-at-the-longhouse-fashion-show |access-date=9 May 2024 |publisher=First Things |date=19 September 2023}}</ref><ref name="wwd-gwtw">{{cite news |last1=Moore |first1=Booth |title=Elena Velez Fall 2024 Ready-to-Wear: Finding Opportunity Beyond the Runway |url=https://wwd.com/runway/fall-2024/new-york/elena-velez/review/ |access-date=9 May 2024 |publisher=Women’s Wear Daily |date=13 February 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240213154501/https://wwd.com/runway/fall-2024/new-york/elena-velez/review/ |archive-date=13 February 2024}}</ref> Passage Publishing also hosts in-person events alongside its book releases, in cities such as [[Austin, Texas|Austin]], [[Miami]], [[Los Angeles]], and [[New York City]].

== References ==

{{reflist}}

==External links==
* {{official website|https://passage.press/}}

[[Category:Book publishing companies of the United States]]
[[Category:Publishing companies established in 2021]]

Talk:Passage Publishing

2024-09-23T19:04:46Z

Bluetik: /* “New Right” not “Far Right” */ Reply

== Vietnam Book ==

I compiled a book, written by 59 Vietnam Veterans. I’m getting low on them. Do you print, bind and ship books? I can get all the layouts. The price I’m paying is far too much. I saw Lomez on tv a while ago. I hope you can help me. Thank you.
Gary Gullickson
Sgt.USMC 67-70
Vietnam Veteran. [[Special:Contributions/97.91.91.76|97.91.91.76]] ([[User talk:97.91.91.76|talk]]) 19:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
:You might want to contact Passage Press themselves -- this is a Wikipedia page, unaffiliated with the publisher. [https://passage.press/pages/contact Here is their contact page.] [[User:Havoc Crow|Havoc Crow]] ([[User talk:Havoc Crow|talk]]) 22:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

== Keeperman, own page? ==

There was an article used as a source in this page that emphasized the founder, Jonathan Keeperman, although the publishing house is more significant. Opening up section if others have thoughts on if the founder warrants a separate page or not - I made a redirect to here for now. The person-focused coverage may just be short-term/tabloid/human interest, but I could also see it being helpful to have information about publishers of high-interest works (particularly classics such as Junger and Joseph Conrad) [[User:Bluetik|Bluetik]] ([[User talk:Bluetik|talk]]) 14:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

== “New Right” not “Far Right” ==

Per my note in a recent [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Passage_Publishing&oldid=1246779272 edit] The [https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/14/far-right-twitter-identity-revealed Guardian] describes, in the first sentence of the article: ‘ prominent “new right” publishing house Passage Press’

I also think the term “new right” is specifically helpful, given the organizations distinction of being close to internet culture.

I lastly think the term “far right” is specifically unhelpful, given that it is a blanket term and includes groups as fringe as violent terrorists.[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/nana.12860]

Even if none of those three things were true, and I don’t know how Wikipedia considers this, but in the article, the author, Jason Wilson, describes Ernst Jünger as a “radical German Nationalist” which per his page would be pretty unsupported, and seems to indicate perhaps a tendency to typify ideology as more extremely right wing than consensus has found. Not sure if this is as relevant as previous points, though.

Happy and interested to discuss. [[User:Bluetik|Bluetik]] ([[User talk:Bluetik|talk]]) 01:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

:Agreeing with the New right label. It's broad enough. [[User:Biohistorian15|Biohistorian15]] ([[User talk:Biohistorian15|talk]]) 08:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:Reflord|Reflord]] I opened a talk section for this. The source literally says “new right.” [[User:Bluetik|Bluetik]] ([[User talk:Bluetik|talk]]) 19:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The American Spectator

2024-09-21T06:41:24Z

Bluetik: Clearly not defunct

{{Short description|Conservative American magazine}}
{{About|the conservative political magazine|the 20th-century literary magazine|American Spectator (literary magazine)}}
{{Infobox magazine
| title = The American Spectator
| logo = The American Spectator.webp
| logo_size =
| image_file = Amsp1211.jpg
| image_size =
| image_alt =
| image_caption =
| editor = [[Emmett Tyrrell|R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr.]]
| editor_title =
| previous_editor =
| staff_writer =
| photographer =
| category = Politics
| frequency =
| circulation =
| publisher =
| founder = [[George Jean Nathan|George Nathan]] and [[Truman Handy Newberry|Truman Newberry]]
| founded =
| firstdate = {{start date and age|1967}}
| company = American Spectator Foundation
| country = [[United States]]
| based = [[Alexandria, Virginia|Alexandria]], [[Virginia]], [[United States|U.S.]]
| language = English
| website = {{URL|https://spectator.org}}
| issn = 0148-8414
| oclc =
}}

'''''The American Spectator''''' is a [[Conservatism in the United States|conservative]] [[United States|American]] magazine covering news and politics, edited by [[R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr.]] and published by the [[non-profit]] American Spectator Foundation. It was founded in 1967 by Tyrrell (the current editor-in-chief) and [[Wladyslaw Pleszczynski]] (its editorial director as of 1980). {{Citation needed|date=August 2024|reason=No source for founding of publication or current editorial board}}

The magazine has featured the writings of the several authors such as [[Malcolm Gladwell]], [[Greg Gutfeld]] and [[Dinesh D'Souza]]. Current frequently contributing writings include [[Daniel J. Flynn|Daniel Flynn]], [[Paul Kengor]], [[Robert Stacy McCain]], [[Scott McKay]], George Neumayr, and [[George Parry (MP)|George Parry]]. {{Citation needed|date=August 2024}}

It gained popularity in the 1990s during its investigation of [[Bill Clinton]] under what became known as its [[Arkansas Project]]. During this same time period, ''The American Spectator'' received a $1.8 million donation from [[Richard Mellon Scaife]].<ref>{{cite web|author-link=Neil Lewis (journalist)|first=Neil A.|last=Lewis|url=https://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30F16FF3D580C768DDDAD0894D0494D81|title=Almost $2 Million Spent in Magazine's Anti-Clinton Project, but on What?|work=[[The New York Times]]|date=April 15, 1998|access-date=February 13, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070311133618/http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30F16FF3D580C768DDDAD0894D0494D81|archive-date=March 11, 2007|url-status=live}}</ref> Despite this success, the magazine has not been able to maintain the circulation it reached at this time and has since been accused of "hit jobs",<ref name=":0">{{cite book |last=Brock |first=David |title=Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative |publisher=Random House, Inc. |year=2003 |isbn=978-1-4000-4728-4}} An entire chapter (Chapter 5) is devoted to describing Brock's experience writing "The Real Anita Hill" article and book in the early 1990s. The "hit jobs" quote is from p. 110.</ref> lack of corroboration,<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |title=American Journalism Review – Archives |url=https://ajrarchive.org/Article.asp?id=1608&id=1608 |access-date=August 11, 2024 |website=ajrarchive.org}}</ref> and denial of what its supporters think is the scientific consensus around global warming.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |date=June 26, 2015 |title=American Spectator Foundation – Greenpeace USA |url=https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/fighting-climate-chaos/climate-deniers/front-groups/american-spectator-foundation/ |access-date=August 11, 2024}}</ref>

== History ==
The magazine ''American Spectator'' is published by the nonprofit media organization American Spectator Foundation. The foundation itself was founded in 1969, with "the stated goal of bringing quality journalism to the forefront of the national political conversation".<ref>{{Cite web |title=The American Spectator Foundation {{!}} About |url=https://www.amspecfoundation.org/about.html |access-date=August 11, 2024 |website=amspecfoundation.org}}</ref>

The magazine's circulation increased tenfold during the investigation of [[Bill Clinton]] and [[Hillary Clinton]] under what became known as its "[[Arkansas Project]]".<ref name=":1" />

However, American political commentator [[Rush Limbaugh]] has been credited for the popularity of ''The American Spectator'', due to his free promotion of the magazine and the paid advertisements on Limbaugh's radio and TV shows, which reached an audience of 20 million.<ref name=":1" />

Following financial shortfalls, including a resistance from Tyrell to have the Arkansas Project [[Financial audit|audited]], ''The American Spectator'' was sold to [[George Gilder]], leading to layoffs and a relocation to [[Great Barrington, Massachusetts]].<ref name=":3">{{Cite news |last=York |first=Byron |date=November 1, 2001 |title=The Life and Death of The American Spectator |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/11/the-life-and-death-of-the-american-spectator/302343/ |access-date=August 11, 2024 |work=The Atlantic|issn=2151-9463}}</ref> Circulation has not returned to the near 300,000 that the magazine saw during its investigation of the Clintons.<ref name=":3" />

== Controversies ==
In the early 1990s, ''The American Spectator'' published two lengthy essays by writer [[David Brock]], "The Real Anita Hill" and the [[Troopergate (Bill Clinton)|"Troopergate story"]], both of alleged inappropriate behavior by then-President Bill Clinton.<ref name=":1" /> Brock has since denounced the former article in the 2003 book ''[[Blinded by the Right|Blinded by the Right: the Conscience of an Ex-Conservative]]'', in which he states that the article caused the magazine's content to move "away from thoughtful essays and scholarly reviews and humor pieces" to "hit jobs".<ref name=":0" />

In 2011, Assistant Editor [[Patrick Howley]] published a piece detailing his infiltration of a [[protest]] in Washington, D.C. In the article, Howley asserts his aim to "mock and undermine" the protest against [[American imperialism]], and writes in the first person about his experiences protesting at the [[National Air and Space Museum]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://spectator.org/archives/2011/10/08/standoff-in-dc|archive-url=https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20111023221209/http://spectator.org/blog/2011/10/08/standoff-in-dc|url-status=dead|archive-date=October 23, 2011|title=The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Standoff in D.C}}</ref> This article, and the methods detailed within, was condemned by ''[[The Guardian]]'', ''[[The Atlantic|The Atlantic's]]'' "Atlantic Wire" blog, and ''[[The Economist]]'', because they believed the correspondents who worked on the story had conflated journalism and politics.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/10/washington-protest-american-spectator-patrick-howley?newsfeed=true|title=Washington protest: American Spectator condemned over article|last=McVeigh|first=Karen|work=The Guardian|date=October 10, 2011|access-date=December 17, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170312194611/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/10/washington-protest-american-spectator-patrick-howley?newsfeed=true|archive-date=March 12, 2017|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/10/journalist_poses_at_protester.html|title='Journalist' Poses As Protester, Gets Pepper-Sprayed for a Story|work=Daily Intelligencer|last=Coscarelli|first=Joe|access-date=October 10, 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111011191909/http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/10/journalist_poses_at_protester.html|archive-date=October 11, 2011|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/10/this-is-why-we-cant-have-nice-things/246417/|title=This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things|work=The Atlantic|last=Coates|first=Ta-Nehisi|date=October 10, 2011|access-date=March 11, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170312200457/https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/10/this-is-why-we-cant-have-nice-things/246417/|archive-date=March 12, 2017|url-status=live}}</ref> Matt Steinglass of ''The Economist'' wrote that Howley "winds up offering a vision of politics as a kind of self-focused performance art, or perhaps (to say the same thing) a version of ''[[Jackass (TV series)|Jackass]]''."<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2011/10/11/conservative-jackass|title=Conservative "Jackass"|date=October 11, 2011|access-date=July 10, 2019|newspaper=The Economist}}</ref>

In September 2020, the American Spectator Foundation filed a lawsuit in federal court against Press Holdings Media Group, a for-profit company that owns the British conservative magazine ''The Spectator''. The lawsuit alleged that the company used ''American Spectator''<nowiki/>'s trademark name and imagery when publishing the Spectator USA website and the U.S. version of their magazine.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brittain |first=Blake |date=September 2, 2020 |title=American Spectator Alleges Spectator Magazine Infringes Mark |url=https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/american-spectator-alleges-spectator-magazine-infringes-mark |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240622210613/https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/american-spectator-alleges-spectator-magazine-infringes-mark |archive-date=June 22, 2024 |access-date=June 22, 2024 |publisher=Bloomberg Law}}</ref>

''The American Spectator'' has been criticized for its "hype and hysteria" and "out-of-control screeds that attack the obvious suspects and lack corroboration".<ref name=":1" /> The radical green organization [[Greenpeace]] claims that the magazine is part of a supposed "conservative media network with clear [[Koch Industries|Koch]] influence [that] serves as a reliable platform for attacks on the scientific consensus of global warming".<ref name=":2" />

==Online publication==
{{update section|date=August 2016}}
The magazine's final monthly print publication was released in July/August 2014. While ''The American Spectator'' did issue a September/October [[PDF]]-only version late in mid-November 2014, the masthead still claimed that it was "published monthly, except for combined July/Aug and Jan/Feb issues." A note from Editorial Director [[Wladyslaw Pleszczynski]] admitted that "...we have some problems of our own."<ref>{{cite magazine |url=http://cdn.spectator.org/SEPTOCT2014.pdf |magazine=The American Spectator |title=The Defiant Ones |department=About This Month |first=Wlady |last=Pleszczynski |page=2 |volume=47 |issue=6–7 |date=September–October 2014 |issn=0148-8414 |access-date=January 8, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150703234315/http://cdn.spectator.org/SEPTOCT2014.pdf |archive-date=July 3, 2015 |url-status=live}}</ref> Pleszczynski added that the issue "was ready for release well over a month ago but for reasons affecting many a print publication these days couldn't be published on actual pages and after considerable delay is now being released in digital form only." Subsequently, online publications have become permanent and available.<ref>{{cite web|title=The American Spectator {{!}} USA News and PoliticsThe American Spectator {{!}} USA News and Politics|url=https://spectator.org/|access-date=October 17, 2021|website=The American Spectator {{!}} USA News and Politics}}</ref>

The latest editions of the magazine:

* Summer 2021 Magazine "The Biden Economy"<ref>{{Cite web|title=Magazine {{!}} The American Spectator {{!}} USA News and PoliticsThe American Spectator {{!}} USA News and Politics|url=https://spectator.org/magazine/|access-date=October 17, 2021|website=The American Spectator {{!}} USA News and Politics}}</ref>
* Winter 2020 Magazine "Liberty in Crisis"<ref>{{Cite journal|last=R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr|first=Wladyslaw Pleszczynski|date=Winter 2020|title=THE AMERICAN SPECTATOR "Liberty in Crisis"|url=https://spectator.org/|journal=E.g.The American Spectator|pages=122}}</ref>
* Summer 2020 Magazine "Make America Great – Yet Again"<ref>{{Cite journal|last=R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.|first=Wladyslaw Pleszczynski|date=Summer 2020|title=THE AMERICAN SPECTATOR "Make Amerika great – yet again"|url=https://spectator.org/|journal=E.g.The American Spectator|pages=87}}</ref>
* Fall 2019 Magazine "Technical Difficulties"<ref>{{Cite journal|last=R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.|first=Wlady Pleszczynski|date=Fall 2019|title=The American Spectator "TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES"|url=https://spectator.org/|journal=E.g.The American Spectator|pages=71}}</ref>

==Return to print==
The magazine returned to print in the fall of 2017 under the direction of Hannah Rowan. It is published in the winter and summer.<ref>{{cite news |title=American Spectator Foundation |url=https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/american-spectator-foundation/ |work=InfluenceWatch}}</ref>

==Core editorial staff==
*Editor in Chief: [[R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr.]]
*Editorial Director: [[Wladyslaw Pleszczynski]]
*Publisher: [[Melissa Mackenzie]]
*Managing Editor: [[Hannah Rowan]]
*Senior Editors: F. H. Buckley, [[Daniel J. Flynn]], [[Paul Kengor]], George Neumayr, Grover C. Norquist, [[Ben Stein]]
*Contributing Editors: [[Jed Babbin]], David Catron, Dov Fischer, Shmuel Klatzkin, [[Jeffrey Lord]], [[Robert Stacy McCain]], [[George Parry (MP)|George Parry]], Arnold Steinberg, Larry Thornberry

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==Further reading==
*David Brock, ''Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative'', [[Crown Publishing Group|Crown]], 2002. {{ISBN|0-8129-3099-1}}
*R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. (ed.), ''Orthodoxy: The American Spectator's 20th Anniversary Anthology'', [[Harper & Row]], 1987. {{ISBN|0-06-015818-2}}

==External links==
*{{official website|https://spectator.org}}
*{{cite magazine |first= Byron |last= York |author-link= Byron York |url= https://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200111/york/ |title= The Life and Death of ''The American Spectator'' |magazine= [[The Atlantic Monthly]] |date= November 2001}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:American Spectator}}
[[Category:Conservative magazines published in the United States]]
[[Category:Monthly magazines published in the United States]]
[[Category:News magazines published in the United States]]
[[Category:Online magazines published in the United States]]
[[Category:Magazines established in 1924]]
[[Category:Magazines disestablished in 2014]]
[[Category:Magazines published in Virginia]]
[[Category:New Right (United States)]]
[[Category:Online magazines with defunct print editions]]

Dimes Square

2024-09-21T01:59:13Z

Bluetik: Replacing opinion column with reliable source

{{Use mdy dates|date=May 2023}}
{{Short description|Area in New York City}}

'''Dimes Square''' is a so-called "microneighborhood"<ref>{{cite news |last1=Dai |first1=Serena |title=Do You Need to Care About Dimes Square? Probably Not |url=https://www.bonappetit.com/story/dimes-square-restaurants-nyc |access-date=September 1, 2022 |work=Bon Appétit |date=August 10, 2022}}</ref> of [[New York City]], located between the [[Chinatown, Manhattan|Chinatown]] and [[Lower East Side]] neighborhoods of [[Manhattan]]. The exact perimeter and nature of the neighborhood is debated.

The term ''Dimes Square'' has become a [[metonym]] for a number of associated [[reactionary]] aesthetic movements centered in the area. Media associated with the area include the podcast ''[[Red Scare (podcast)|Red Scare]]'', pirate radio station Montez Press Radio, and print newspaper ''[[The Drunken Canal]]''.<ref name="smith">{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/07/business/media/the-drunken-canal-media-nyc.html|title=They Had a Fun Pandemic. You Can Read About It in Print.|first1=Ben|last1=Smith|work=The New York Times|date=March 7, 2021}}</ref> An online Dimes zine named ''Byline'' was also established in 2023 by Gutes Guterman and Megan O'Sullivan [https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/08/style/the-drunken-canal-byline-media.]{{Dead link|date=January 2024}}.

The neighborhood's name, a play on "[[Times Square]]", refers to [[Dimes (restaurant)|Dimes]], a restaurant located at the intersection of [[Canal Street (Manhattan)|Canal Street]] and [[Division Street (Manhattan)|Division Street]] on the Lower East Side. According to [[Marisa Meltzer]] of ''[[The New York Times]]'', the nickname has transitioned from a term used "jokingly" to one used "semi-seriously".<ref>{{cite news |last1=Meltzer |first1=Marisa |title=Dimes Square Gets the Hotel It Deserves |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/25/style/dimes-square-nine-orchard-hotel.html |access-date=September 1, 2022 |work=The New York Times |date=July 25, 2022}}</ref>

[[Ben Smith (journalist)|Ben Smith]] cited the neighborhood's emergence as a lockdown-flouting cultural hub during the [[COVID-19 pandemic]] in a 2021 ''New York Times'' piece.<ref name="smith" /> In 2022, ''Times'' journalist Julia Yost identified the neighborhood and associated podcasters such as [[Dasha Nekrasova]] of ''Red Scare'' as the center of a [[Post-irony|post-ironic]] revival of [[traditionalist Catholicism]] in New York and among “skaters, artists, models, writers and telegenic 20-somethings.”<ref>{{Cite news |last=Vadukul |first=Alex |date=March 31, 2022 |title=A Playwright Makes the Scene in New York’s Living Rooms |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/31/style/matthew-gasda-dimes-square.html |access-date=September 21, 2024 |work=[[The New York Times]]}}</ref>

The American indie-pop band [[Bleachers (band) |Bleachers]] reference Dimes Square in their 2024 song "Jesus is Dead", from their self-titled album, ''[[Bleachers (album)|Bleachers]]''.<ref>{{cite news |title=Jack Antonoff: “I’ve never made anything hoping everyone would like… |url=https://theface.com/music/jack-antonoff-interview-taylor-swift-bleachers-lana-del-rey-dirty-hit |work=The Face |date=29 September 2023 |language=en-gb}}</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{Manhattan}}

[[Category:Catholicism in New York City]]
[[Category:Lower Manhattan]]
[[Category:Chinatown, Manhattan]]
[[Category:Lower East Side]]
[[Category:Traditionalist Catholicism in the United States]]
[[Category:2020s in Manhattan]]

{{NYC-stub}}

The 65 Project

2024-09-21T01:48:36Z

Bluetik: Short desc

{{Short description|Legal activism}}
{{Infobox organization
| website = The65project.com
| name = The 65 Project
| image = 65 Project dark wide 2024.webp
| alt = “The 65 Project” [Dark background, squared serious font, gavel silhouette cutout of bottom curve of “5” in “65”]
| founder = [[David Brock]], Melissa Moss
| origins = Media and legal activist network with Facts First USA
| methods = Disciplinary Bar Complaints, Negative Publicity
| key_people = Michael Teter
| parent_organization = Law Works
| affiliations =
}}
The '''65 Project''' is a legal activism campaign<ref name=":6">{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=October 12, 2022 |title=Lawyer group says Trump attorney broke ethics rules in fake elector plan |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/lawyer-group-says-trump-attorney-broke-ethics-rules-fake-elector-plan-2022-10-12/ |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> seeking to “disbar and discredit”<ref name=":2" /> Trump-affiliated<ref>{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=July 20, 2022 |title=Group lodges more ethics complaints against Trump-affiliated lawyers |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/group-lodges-more-ethics-complaints-against-trump-affiliated-lawyers-2022-07-20/ |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> lawyers who worked on post-election lawsuits.<ref name=":1" /> The earliest reporting on the 65 Project repeatedly described it as a “dark money group.”<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":1" /><ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite web |last=Beals |first=Monique |date=2022-03-07 |title=Group trying to disbar lawyers who worked on Trump’s post-election lawsuits |url=https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/597163-group-trying-to-disbar-lawyers-who-worked-on-trumps-post-election/ |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}</ref>

The group is advised by [[David Brock]], the founder of [[opposition research]] groups [[Media Matters for America]] and [[American Bridge 21st Century]], who described the idea of the 65 Project as bringing attorney bar complaints, and to “shame them and make them toxic in their communities and in their firms."<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Durkee |first=Alison |title=Campaign Targets 111 Trump-Linked Election Lawyers. Here’s Some Already Facing A Backlash. |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/03/07/campaign-targets-111-trump-linked-election-lawyers-heres-some-already-facing-a-backlash/ |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=Forbes |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=Rogers |first=Zachary |date=2022-03-07 |title=Democrat-tied dark-money group seeks to disbar over 100 Trump-linked lawyers, says report |url=https://katv.com/news/nation-world/democrat-tied-dark-money-group-seeks-to-disbar-over-100-trump-linked-lawyers-says-report-the65project-donald-election-overturn-axios-clinton-melissa-moss-david-brock |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=[[American Broadcasting Company|ABC]] KATV |language=en}}</ref> In the same 2022 interview with ''[[Axios (website)|Axios]],'' Brock emphasized “threatening the livelihoods” and reputations <ref name=":1">{{Cite news |last=Markay |first=Lachlan |last2=Swan |first2=Jonathan |date=March 7, 2022 |title=Scoop: High-powered group targets Trump lawyers’ livelihoods |url=https://www.axios.com/2022/03/07/trump-election-lawyers-disbar |access-date=September 19, 2024 |work=[[Axios (website)]]}}</ref> of the attorneys.

The 65 Project's Managing Director is [[Michael Teter]],<ref name=":3">{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=October 12, 2022 |title=Lawyer group says Trump attorney broke ethics rules in fake elector plan |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/lawyer-group-says-trump-attorney-broke-ethics-rules-fake-elector-plan-2022-10-12/ |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> an attorney suing [[Fox News]] as counsel for [[Ray Epps (military veteran)|Ray Epps]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-07-14 |title=Former Trump supporter sues Fox News over Jan. 6 conspiracy theory |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/former-trump-supporter-sues-fox-news-over-jan-6-conspiracy-theory |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=PBS News |language=en-us}}</ref> The project was also devised by [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] political consultant Melissa Moss, a former senior Clinton administration official, and operates through a not-for-profit named “[[Law Works]].”<ref name=":1" />

== Methods ==
In line with the group's mission, the 65 project files ethics complaints with bar associations, some of which have been dismissed for lack of evidence.<ref name=":1" /> These complaints have included high-profile figures, such as [[Ted Cruz]], [[John Eastman]] and [[Cleta Mitchell]].<ref name=":1" /> The 65 Project has also stated its interest in changing lawyers's professional rules, including placing limits on lawyers’s public statements about elections.<ref name=":3" /><ref>{{Cite news |last=Skolnick |first=Sam |date=October 12, 2022 |title=Trump Lawyer Targeting Push Opens New Front With Bar Rules |url=https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/trump-lawyer-targeting-effort-opens-new-strategy-with-bar-rules |work=Bloomberg Law}}</ref>

The group stated in early 2022 it planned to take action against 111 attorneys.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Cassens-Weiss |first=Debra |date=March 9, 2022 |title=Sidney Powell faces ethics charges over election litigation; group seeks discipline against other lawyers |url=https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/sidney-powell-faces-ethics-charges-over-election-litigation-group-seeks-discipline-against-other-lawyers |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=Journal of the American Bar Association}}</ref>
As of July 2023, all but one of the 65 Project’s concluded complaints had been dismissed or found no punishable offense.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Khardori |first=Ankush |date=July 26, 2023 |title=Trump’s ‘Elite Strike Force Team’ Falls on Hard Times |url=https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/07/26/trump-lawyers-65-project-00108120 |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=Politico}}</ref> In 2022, attorneys pursued by the group said they had received additional attempts after previous complaints were unsuccessful.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Sneed |first=Tierney |date=2022-03-10 |title=Inside the effort to disbar attorneys who backed bogus election lawsuits {{!}} CNN Politics |url=https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/10/politics/ethics-complaints-attorney-misconduct-trump-election-reversal/index.html |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=CNN |language=en}}</ref>

== Reactions ==
Concerns over the methods of The 65 project have been raised since at least March 2022.<ref name=":4">{{Cite news |last=Sneed |first=Tierney |date=March 10, 2022 |title=Inside the effort to disbar attorneys who backed bogus election lawsuits |url=https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/10/politics/ethics-complaints-attorney-misconduct-trump-election-reversal/index.html |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[CNN]]}}</ref> Bruce Green, the director of [[Fordham University School of Law|Fordham Law School]]’s Louis Stein Center for Law and Ethics, emphasized that the 65 Project’s complaints were “designed to embarrass” lawyers, discouraging political work “even if they’re playing by the rules.”<ref name=":4" /> CNN noted that the investigations sought by the 65 Project “unfold in secret” until claims are found meritorious in most states, but that, as Green raised concerns about, the 65 Projects “heavily publicized allegations” would harm lawyers reputations before claims were reviewed.<ref name=":4" /> Complaints filed by The 65 Project have been dismissed since the groups first public announcements, beginning with Georgia attorney Brad Carver,<ref name=":1" /> but has continued publish adversarial media targeting lawyers’s professional communities, planning to run advertisements in law journals in late fall 2024.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Feuer |first=Alan |date=September 19, 2024 |title=Legal Watchdog Group Warns Pro-Trump Lawyers Against Subverting Democracy in November |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/19/us/politics/trump-lawyers-election-results.html |work=New York Times}}</ref>

[[Alan Dershowitz]], whose sanctions for “frivolous” election litigation<ref>{{Cite web |last=Robertson |first=Nick |date=2023-07-15 |title=Kari Lake’s team ordered to pay more than $122K in sanctions over Maricopa lawsuit |url=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4098759-kari-lakes-team-ordered-to-pay-more-than-122k-in-sanctions-over-maricopa-lawsuit/#:~:text=Kari%20Lake%E2%80%99s%20legal%20team,%20including%20lawyer%20Alan%20Dershowitz,%20must%20pay |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}</ref> followed complaints by Marc Elias’s firm<ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-12-26 |title='Enough Really Is Enough': Arizona Governor-Elect Katie Hobbs Seeks More Than $500,000 in Sanctions for Kari Lake and Her Lawyers |url=https://lawandcrime.com/2022-midterms/enough-really-is-enough-arizona-governor-elect-katie-hobbs-asks-judge-to-sanction-defeated-rival-kari-lake-and-her-lawyers/ |access-date=2024-09-21 |website=Law & Crime |language=en}}</ref>, compared the results of its work as similar to the “ridicule” faced by suspected communists during [[McCarthyism]]<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Klayman |first=Larry |date=April 14, 2023 |title=Petition For A Writ Of Mandamus To The District Of Columbia Court Of Appeals In The Matter Of Larry E. Klayman |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-619/263615/20230414161904073_43664%20pdf%20Peer.pdf |journal=Supreme Court Docket |pages=2}}</ref> and Texas Congressman [[Lance Gooden]] described the 65 Project as “a far-left activist group of lawyers actively engaging in partisan tactics.”<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-01-24 |title=RELEASE: Congressman Lance Gooden Calls for Immediate Action Against the Partisan Legal Tactics of the 65 Project |url=https://gooden.house.gov/2024/1/release-congressman-lance-gooden-calls-for-immediate-action-against-the-partisan-legal-tactics-of-the-65-project |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=Congressman Lance Gooden |language=en}}</ref> The 65 Project describes itself as “bipartisan,” and “defending democracy and the rule of law.”<ref>{{Cite web |date=September 19, 2024 |title=65 Project website |url=https://the65project.com/ |website=65 Project}}</ref> The 65 Project elicited criticism from ethics complaint respondent Cleta Mitchell for not also pursuing attorney Marc Elias<ref name=":2" /> who had challenged the Iowa election results of Republican [[Mariannette Miller-Meeks]] previously.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Grayer |first=Annie |date=2021-03-22 |title=House Democrats face backlash on both sides for investigating Iowa House race won by a Republican {{!}} CNN Politics |url=https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/22/politics/iowa-house-race-democrats-backlash/index.html |access-date=2024-09-21 |website=CNN |language=en}}</ref>

The 65 Project controversially described attorney Kenneth Cheseboro, who the Guardian described as having a “liberal past”<ref name=":5">{{Cite news |last=Pilkington |first=Ed |date=2023-08-19 |title=‘It baffles me’: what drew a mild lawyer with a liberal past into Trump’s election plot? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/19/kenneth-chesebro-trump-georgia-indictment-fake-electors |access-date=2024-09-20 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> and who lawyer and commentator Jeffrey Toobin described as the “least likely”<ref name=":5" /> to commit misconduct, as the “central mind” and “legal power” behind election challenges<ref>{{Cite news |last=Pilkington |first=Ed |date=2023-08-19 |title=‘It baffles me’: what drew a mild lawyer with a liberal past into Trump’s election plot? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/19/kenneth-chesebro-trump-georgia-indictment-fake-electors |access-date=2024-09-20 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> and also filed complaints over his alleged conduct.<ref name=":6" /> The Wall Street Journal editorial board described the series of misconduct investigations, which came after complaints filed by The 65 Project,<ref>{{Cite web |date=August 31, 2022 |title=Group files complaint against attorneys involved in lawsuits seeking to overturn 2020 election – WisPolitics |url=https://www.wispolitics.com/2022/group-files-complaint-against-attorneys-involved-in-lawsuits-seeking-to-overturn-2020-election/ |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=WisPolitics |language=en-US}}</ref> including into Cheseboro as “Lawfare at its most dishonest.”<ref>{{Cite news |last=WSJ |first=Editorial Board |date=September 16, 2024 |title=Lawfare at its Most Dishonest |url=https://www.wsj.com/opinion/lawfare-at-its-most-dishonest-wisconsin-doj-electors-2020-cd3e76c7# |work=[[The Wall Street Journal]]}}</ref>

== References ==
<references />

== External links ==

* [https://the65project.com/ Official website]

[[Category:Legal advocacy organizations in the United States]]
[[Category:Political advocacy groups in the United States]]

Talk:Passage Publishing

2024-09-21T01:05:34Z

Bluetik: /* “New Right” not “Far Right” */ new section

Man's World (periodical)

2024-09-21T00:54:02Z

Bluetik: Source says in first sentence: ‘ prominent “new right” publishing house Passage Press’

{{Short description|Men's magazine}}
{{distinguish| MW (Indian magazine)}}
{{Infobox magazine
| title = Man′s World
| image_file = Man's World cover, May 2024.webp
| image_caption = Cover of print edition of Man's World, Spring 2024
| editor = Raw Egg Nationalist
| category = [[List of men's magazines|Men's magazine]]
| frequency = Ongoing (online), biannual <ref name=":0"/> (print)
| format = Online, print
| publisher = [[Passage Publishing]]
| founded = Early 2021<ref>{{cite web |title=Homepage |url=https://mansworldmag.online/# |website=Man’s World Magazine |date=21 April 2024 |access-date=15 May 2024}}</ref>
| language = English
| website = https://mansworldmag.online/
}}

'''''Man's World''''' is a bi-annual [[List of men's magazines|men's magazine]] founded in January 2021. Aiming to "make men great again," it is published by [[Passage Publishing]], a “new right” publishing house.<ref name=":0">{{Cite news |last=Wilson |first=Jason |date=2024-05-14 |title=Revealed: US university lecturer behind far-right Twitter account and publishing house |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/14/far-right-twitter-identity-revealed |access-date=2024-05-15 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> Due to its emphasis on health and natural foods, it has been described as "[[New Age|new age]]".<ref>{{Cite magazine |last=Singh |first=Manvir |date=2023-09-25 |title=Is an All-Meat Diet What Nature Intended? |url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/02/is-an-all-meat-diet-what-nature-intended |access-date=2024-05-15 |magazine=The New Yorker |language=en-US |issn=0028-792X}}</ref>

In an investigative report in ''[[The Guardian]]'', Scott Burnett, an African studies and women's, gender and sexuality studies professor said: "''Man's World'' represents a paradigm case of how masculinity is being articulated at the heart of rightwing politics."<ref name=":0" /> He continued: "[t]here's stuff in Man's World that is fascist, sometimes bordering on neo-Nazi," but that it is draped in "an ironic gauze."<ref name=":0" />

The magazine is led by a [[Pseudonymous Literature and Writers|pseudonymous]] online personality named Raw Egg Nationalist, who ''The Guardian'' described as one of the "prominent members of the so-called '[[New Right|new right]].'"<ref name=":0" />

== References ==

{{reflist}}

== External links ==

* [https://mansworldmag.online/ ''Man's World'' website]

{{mens-mag-stub}}
[[Category:Conservative magazines published in the United States]]
[[Category:Far-right publications in the United States]]
[[Category:Men's magazines published in the United States]]
[[Category:Conservative media in the United States]]

Passage Publishing

2024-09-21T00:52:31Z

Bluetik: Source says in first sentence: ‘ prominent “new right” publishing house Passage Press’ - Undid revision 1243529466 by Reflord (talk)

{{Short description|American Publishing house}}
{{Notability|1=Companies|date=August 2024}}
{{Infobox publisher
| founded = 2021
| country = United States
| imprints = ''Passage Classics'', ''[[Man's World (2021 magazine)|Man's World (magazine)]]''
| url=https://passage.press/
| publications=Books, magazines
| image=Passage Publishing logo, black.png
| founder=Jonathan Keeperman <ref name=“guardian-may”/>
|predecessor=Passage Prize}}

'''Passage Publishing''' is an American [[New Right|new right]]<ref name=“guardian-may”>{{Cite news |last=Wilson |first=Jason |date=2024-05-14 |title=Revealed: US university lecturer behind far-right Twitter account and publishing house |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/14/far-right-twitter-identity-revealed |access-date=2024-05-14 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> independent publisher, founded in 2021 and led by former [[University of California, Irvine|University of California, Irvine (UCI)]] lecturer Jonathan Keeperman. Passage Publishing produces works from various online communities, reprints and new translations of fiction and historical nonfiction, and has stated plans to publish new fiction and nonfiction.

== History ==
Passage Publishing was founded in 2021 out of the Passage Prize, an online writing and arts competition offering a $20,000 prize for selected works.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Wilson |first1=Kit |title=The rise of the neoclassical reactionaries |url=https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-rise-of-the-neoclassical-reactionaries/ |access-date=9 May 2024 |publisher=The Spectator |date=24 November 2021}}</ref> It received over 2,000 submissions.<ref name="canonic-prize-1">{{cite web |title=Passage Prize Volume I |url= https://archive.today/20240509004526/https://canonic.xyz/p/1BJ7EeQyQaQLY1VhAjZzsP2Keu4aWJyocZ |website=Canonic |access-date=9 May 2024}}</ref>

In 2023, Passage Prize was rebranded as “Passage Publishing,” and has expanded through acquisitions of both Mystery Grove Publishing,<ref>{{cite web |author1=Passage Publishing |title=Announcement |url=https://twitter.com/PassagePress/status/1734249838680985740 |website=Twitter |access-date=9 May 2024 |date=11 December 2023}}</ref> and a magazine, ''[[Man's World (2021 magazine)|Man’s World]].''

== Publishing ==
Passage Publishing has published three books resulting from its Passage Prize writing and art competitions. Hardcover editions range from $300 to $400.<ref>{{cite web |title=Passage Publishing |url=https://passage.press/ |website=Passage Publishing |access-date=9 May 2024}}</ref>

Passage also works with prominent online authors by publishing compendiums of their works. As of May 2024, this has included [[Nick Land]], [[Steve Sailer]], and [[Curtis Yarvin]].{{cn|date=August 2024}}

Through its imprint, ''Passage Classics'', Passage Publishing also offers works by [[Ernst Jünger]], [[Peter Kemp (writer)|Peter Kemp]], [[Pyotr Wrangel]], [[Serge Obolensky]] and [[Joseph Conrad]].<ref>{{cite web |title=Passage Classics |url=https://passage.press/collections/passage-classics |website=Passage Publishing |access-date=9 May 2024}}</ref>

== Arts and culture ==
Passage Publishing also engages in cultural projects, including sponsoring events,<ref name="nyt-nyfw-velez">{{cite news |last1=Friedman |first1=Vanessa |title=Post-Pandemic Dressing Finally Takes Shape |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/14/style/tory-burch-willy-chavarria-new-york-fashion-week.html |access-date=9 May 2024 |work=The New York Times |date=14 September 2023}}</ref><ref name="nyt-velez-long">{{cite news |last1=Testa |first1=Jessica |title=Should Making It in Fashion Be This Hard? |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/25/style/elena-velez-fashion.html |access-date=9 May 2024 |work=The New York Times |date=13 September 2023}}</ref><ref name="wapo-gwtw">{{cite news |last1=Tashjian |first1=Rachel |title=Fashion's problematic fave is Elena Velez |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/fashion/2024/02/12/fashions-problematic-fave-is-elena-velez/ |access-date=9 May 2024 |newspaper=Washington Post |date=12 February 2024 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20240411205333/https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/fashion/2024/02/12/fashions-problematic-fave-is-elena-velez/ |archive-date=11 April 2024}}</ref> and with fashion designer [[Elena Velez]], citing the Passage Publishing and its founder as inspiration.<ref name="first-things-nyfw">{{cite news |last1=Lee |first1=Justin |title=What I saw at the Longhouse Fashion Show |url=https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2023/09/what-i-saw-at-the-longhouse-fashion-show |access-date=9 May 2024 |publisher=First Things |date=19 September 2023}}</ref><ref name="wwd-gwtw">{{cite news |last1=Moore |first1=Booth |title=Elena Velez Fall 2024 Ready-to-Wear: Finding Opportunity Beyond the Runway |url=https://wwd.com/runway/fall-2024/new-york/elena-velez/review/ |access-date=9 May 2024 |publisher=Women’s Wear Daily |date=13 February 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240213154501/https://wwd.com/runway/fall-2024/new-york/elena-velez/review/ |archive-date=13 February 2024}}</ref> Passage Publishing also hosts in-person events alongside its book releases, in cities such as [[Austin, Texas|Austin]], [[Miami]], [[Los Angeles]], and [[New York City]].

== References ==

{{reflist}}

==External links==
* {{official website|https://passage.press/}}

[[Category:Book publishing companies of the United States]]
[[Category:Publishing companies established in 2021]]

The 65 Project

2024-09-21T00:39:24Z

Bluetik: /* Reactions */ clearer language

{{Infobox organization
| website = The65project.com
| name = The 65 Project
| image = 65 Project dark wide 2024.webp
| alt = “The 65 Project” [Dark background, squared serious font, gavel silhouette cutout of bottom curve of “5” in “65”]
| founder = [[David Brock]], Melissa Moss
| origins = Media and legal activist network with Facts First USA
| methods = Disciplinary Bar Complaints, Negative Publicity
| key_people = Michael Teter
| parent_organization = Law Works
| affiliations =
}}
The '''65 Project''' is a legal activism campaign<ref name=":6">{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=October 12, 2022 |title=Lawyer group says Trump attorney broke ethics rules in fake elector plan |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/lawyer-group-says-trump-attorney-broke-ethics-rules-fake-elector-plan-2022-10-12/ |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> seeking to “disbar and discredit”<ref name=":2" /> Trump-affiliated<ref>{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=July 20, 2022 |title=Group lodges more ethics complaints against Trump-affiliated lawyers |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/group-lodges-more-ethics-complaints-against-trump-affiliated-lawyers-2022-07-20/ |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> lawyers who worked on post-election lawsuits.<ref name=":1" /> The earliest reporting on the 65 Project repeatedly described it as a “dark money group.”<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":1" /><ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite web |last=Beals |first=Monique |date=2022-03-07 |title=Group trying to disbar lawyers who worked on Trump’s post-election lawsuits |url=https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/597163-group-trying-to-disbar-lawyers-who-worked-on-trumps-post-election/ |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}</ref>

The group is advised by [[David Brock]], the founder of [[opposition research]] groups [[Media Matters for America]] and [[American Bridge 21st Century]], who described the idea of the 65 Project as bringing attorney bar complaints, and to “shame them and make them toxic in their communities and in their firms."<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Durkee |first=Alison |title=Campaign Targets 111 Trump-Linked Election Lawyers. Here’s Some Already Facing A Backlash. |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/03/07/campaign-targets-111-trump-linked-election-lawyers-heres-some-already-facing-a-backlash/ |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=Forbes |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=Rogers |first=Zachary |date=2022-03-07 |title=Democrat-tied dark-money group seeks to disbar over 100 Trump-linked lawyers, says report |url=https://katv.com/news/nation-world/democrat-tied-dark-money-group-seeks-to-disbar-over-100-trump-linked-lawyers-says-report-the65project-donald-election-overturn-axios-clinton-melissa-moss-david-brock |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=[[American Broadcasting Company|ABC]] KATV |language=en}}</ref> In the same 2022 interview with ''[[Axios (website)|Axios]],'' Brock emphasized “threatening the livelihoods” and reputations <ref name=":1">{{Cite news |last=Markay |first=Lachlan |last2=Swan |first2=Jonathan |date=March 7, 2022 |title=Scoop: High-powered group targets Trump lawyers’ livelihoods |url=https://www.axios.com/2022/03/07/trump-election-lawyers-disbar |access-date=September 19, 2024 |work=[[Axios (website)]]}}</ref> of the attorneys.

The 65 Project's Managing Director is [[Michael Teter]],<ref name=":3">{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=October 12, 2022 |title=Lawyer group says Trump attorney broke ethics rules in fake elector plan |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/lawyer-group-says-trump-attorney-broke-ethics-rules-fake-elector-plan-2022-10-12/ |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> an attorney suing [[Fox News]] as counsel for [[Ray Epps (military veteran)|Ray Epps]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-07-14 |title=Former Trump supporter sues Fox News over Jan. 6 conspiracy theory |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/former-trump-supporter-sues-fox-news-over-jan-6-conspiracy-theory |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=PBS News |language=en-us}}</ref> The project was also devised by [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] political consultant Melissa Moss, a former senior Clinton administration official, and operates through a not-for-profit named “[[Law Works]].”<ref name=":1" />

== Methods ==
In line with the group's mission, the 65 project files ethics complaints with bar associations, some of which have been dismissed for lack of evidence.<ref name=":1" /> These complaints have included high-profile figures, such as [[Ted Cruz]], [[John Eastman]] and [[Cleta Mitchell]].<ref name=":1" /> The 65 Project has also stated its interest in changing lawyers's professional rules, including placing limits on lawyers’s public statements about elections.<ref name=":3" /><ref>{{Cite news |last=Skolnick |first=Sam |date=October 12, 2022 |title=Trump Lawyer Targeting Push Opens New Front With Bar Rules |url=https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/trump-lawyer-targeting-effort-opens-new-strategy-with-bar-rules |work=Bloomberg Law}}</ref>

The group stated in early 2022 it planned to take action against 111 attorneys.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Cassens-Weiss |first=Debra |date=March 9, 2022 |title=Sidney Powell faces ethics charges over election litigation; group seeks discipline against other lawyers |url=https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/sidney-powell-faces-ethics-charges-over-election-litigation-group-seeks-discipline-against-other-lawyers |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=Journal of the American Bar Association}}</ref>
As of July 2023, all but one of the 65 Project’s concluded complaints had been dismissed or found no punishable offense.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Khardori |first=Ankush |date=July 26, 2023 |title=Trump’s ‘Elite Strike Force Team’ Falls on Hard Times |url=https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/07/26/trump-lawyers-65-project-00108120 |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=Politico}}</ref> In 2022, attorneys pursued by the group said they had received additional attempts after previous complaints were unsuccessful.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Sneed |first=Tierney |date=2022-03-10 |title=Inside the effort to disbar attorneys who backed bogus election lawsuits {{!}} CNN Politics |url=https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/10/politics/ethics-complaints-attorney-misconduct-trump-election-reversal/index.html |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=CNN |language=en}}</ref>

== Reactions ==
Concerns over the methods of The 65 project have been raised since at least March 2022.<ref name=":4">{{Cite news |last=Sneed |first=Tierney |date=March 10, 2022 |title=Inside the effort to disbar attorneys who backed bogus election lawsuits |url=https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/10/politics/ethics-complaints-attorney-misconduct-trump-election-reversal/index.html |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[CNN]]}}</ref> Bruce Green, the director of [[Fordham University School of Law|Fordham Law School]]’s Louis Stein Center for Law and Ethics, emphasized that the 65 Project’s complaints were “designed to embarrass” lawyers, discouraging political work “even if they’re playing by the rules.”<ref name=":4" /> CNN noted that the investigations sought by the 65 Project “unfold in secret” until claims are found meritorious in most states, but that, as Green raised concerns about, the 65 Projects “heavily publicized allegations” would harm lawyers reputations before claims were reviewed.<ref name=":4" /> Complaints filed by The 65 Project have been dismissed since the groups first public announcements, beginning with Georgia attorney Brad Carver,<ref name=":1" /> but has continued publish adversarial media targeting lawyers’s professional communities, planning to run advertisements in law journals in late fall 2024.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Feuer |first=Alan |date=September 19, 2024 |title=Legal Watchdog Group Warns Pro-Trump Lawyers Against Subverting Democracy in November |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/19/us/politics/trump-lawyers-election-results.html |work=New York Times}}</ref>

[[Alan Dershowitz]], whose sanctions for “frivolous” election litigation<ref>{{Cite web |last=Robertson |first=Nick |date=2023-07-15 |title=Kari Lake’s team ordered to pay more than $122K in sanctions over Maricopa lawsuit |url=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4098759-kari-lakes-team-ordered-to-pay-more-than-122k-in-sanctions-over-maricopa-lawsuit/#:~:text=Kari%20Lake%E2%80%99s%20legal%20team,%20including%20lawyer%20Alan%20Dershowitz,%20must%20pay |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}</ref> followed complaints by Marc Elias’s firm<ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-12-26 |title='Enough Really Is Enough': Arizona Governor-Elect Katie Hobbs Seeks More Than $500,000 in Sanctions for Kari Lake and Her Lawyers |url=https://lawandcrime.com/2022-midterms/enough-really-is-enough-arizona-governor-elect-katie-hobbs-asks-judge-to-sanction-defeated-rival-kari-lake-and-her-lawyers/ |access-date=2024-09-21 |website=Law & Crime |language=en}}</ref>, compared the results of its work as similar to the “ridicule” faced by suspected communists during [[McCarthyism]]<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Klayman |first=Larry |date=April 14, 2023 |title=Petition For A Writ Of Mandamus To The District Of Columbia Court Of Appeals In The Matter Of Larry E. Klayman |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-619/263615/20230414161904073_43664%20pdf%20Peer.pdf |journal=Supreme Court Docket |pages=2}}</ref> and Texas Congressman [[Lance Gooden]] described the 65 Project as “a far-left activist group of lawyers actively engaging in partisan tactics.”<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-01-24 |title=RELEASE: Congressman Lance Gooden Calls for Immediate Action Against the Partisan Legal Tactics of the 65 Project |url=https://gooden.house.gov/2024/1/release-congressman-lance-gooden-calls-for-immediate-action-against-the-partisan-legal-tactics-of-the-65-project |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=Congressman Lance Gooden |language=en}}</ref> The 65 Project describes itself as “bipartisan,” and “defending democracy and the rule of law.”<ref>{{Cite web |date=September 19, 2024 |title=65 Project website |url=https://the65project.com/ |website=65 Project}}</ref> The 65 Project elicited criticism from ethics complaint respondent Cleta Mitchell for not also pursuing attorney Marc Elias<ref name=":2" /> who had challenged the Iowa election results of Republican [[Mariannette Miller-Meeks]] previously.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Grayer |first=Annie |date=2021-03-22 |title=House Democrats face backlash on both sides for investigating Iowa House race won by a Republican {{!}} CNN Politics |url=https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/22/politics/iowa-house-race-democrats-backlash/index.html |access-date=2024-09-21 |website=CNN |language=en}}</ref>

The 65 Project controversially described attorney Kenneth Cheseboro, who the Guardian described as having a “liberal past”<ref name=":5">{{Cite news |last=Pilkington |first=Ed |date=2023-08-19 |title=‘It baffles me’: what drew a mild lawyer with a liberal past into Trump’s election plot? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/19/kenneth-chesebro-trump-georgia-indictment-fake-electors |access-date=2024-09-20 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> and who lawyer and commentator Jeffrey Toobin described as the “least likely”<ref name=":5" /> to commit misconduct, as the “central mind” and “legal power” behind election challenges<ref>{{Cite news |last=Pilkington |first=Ed |date=2023-08-19 |title=‘It baffles me’: what drew a mild lawyer with a liberal past into Trump’s election plot? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/19/kenneth-chesebro-trump-georgia-indictment-fake-electors |access-date=2024-09-20 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> and also filed complaints over his alleged conduct.<ref name=":6" /> The Wall Street Journal editorial board described the series of misconduct investigations, which came after complaints filed by The 65 Project,<ref>{{Cite web |date=August 31, 2022 |title=Group files complaint against attorneys involved in lawsuits seeking to overturn 2020 election – WisPolitics |url=https://www.wispolitics.com/2022/group-files-complaint-against-attorneys-involved-in-lawsuits-seeking-to-overturn-2020-election/ |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=WisPolitics |language=en-US}}</ref> including into Cheseboro as “Lawfare at its most dishonest.”<ref>{{Cite news |last=WSJ |first=Editorial Board |date=September 16, 2024 |title=Lawfare at its Most Dishonest |url=https://www.wsj.com/opinion/lawfare-at-its-most-dishonest-wisconsin-doj-electors-2020-cd3e76c7# |work=[[The Wall Street Journal]]}}</ref>

== References ==
<references />

== External links ==

* [https://the65project.com/ Official website]

[[Category:Legal advocacy organizations in the United States]]
[[Category:Political advocacy groups in the United States]]

The 65 Project

2024-09-21T00:36:58Z

Bluetik: /* Reactions */ clarity and cite, iowa challenge

{{Infobox organization
| website = The65project.com
| name = The 65 Project
| image = 65 Project dark wide 2024.webp
| alt = “The 65 Project” [Dark background, squared serious font, gavel silhouette cutout of bottom curve of “5” in “65”]
| founder = [[David Brock]], Melissa Moss
| origins = Media and legal activist network with Facts First USA
| methods = Disciplinary Bar Complaints, Negative Publicity
| key_people = Michael Teter
| parent_organization = Law Works
| affiliations =
}}
The '''65 Project''' is a legal activism campaign<ref name=":6">{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=October 12, 2022 |title=Lawyer group says Trump attorney broke ethics rules in fake elector plan |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/lawyer-group-says-trump-attorney-broke-ethics-rules-fake-elector-plan-2022-10-12/ |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> seeking to “disbar and discredit”<ref name=":2" /> Trump-affiliated<ref>{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=July 20, 2022 |title=Group lodges more ethics complaints against Trump-affiliated lawyers |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/group-lodges-more-ethics-complaints-against-trump-affiliated-lawyers-2022-07-20/ |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> lawyers who worked on post-election lawsuits.<ref name=":1" /> The earliest reporting on the 65 Project repeatedly described it as a “dark money group.”<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":1" /><ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite web |last=Beals |first=Monique |date=2022-03-07 |title=Group trying to disbar lawyers who worked on Trump’s post-election lawsuits |url=https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/597163-group-trying-to-disbar-lawyers-who-worked-on-trumps-post-election/ |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}</ref>

The group is advised by [[David Brock]], the founder of [[opposition research]] groups [[Media Matters for America]] and [[American Bridge 21st Century]], who described the idea of the 65 Project as bringing attorney bar complaints, and to “shame them and make them toxic in their communities and in their firms."<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Durkee |first=Alison |title=Campaign Targets 111 Trump-Linked Election Lawyers. Here’s Some Already Facing A Backlash. |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/03/07/campaign-targets-111-trump-linked-election-lawyers-heres-some-already-facing-a-backlash/ |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=Forbes |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=Rogers |first=Zachary |date=2022-03-07 |title=Democrat-tied dark-money group seeks to disbar over 100 Trump-linked lawyers, says report |url=https://katv.com/news/nation-world/democrat-tied-dark-money-group-seeks-to-disbar-over-100-trump-linked-lawyers-says-report-the65project-donald-election-overturn-axios-clinton-melissa-moss-david-brock |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=[[American Broadcasting Company|ABC]] KATV |language=en}}</ref> In the same 2022 interview with ''[[Axios (website)|Axios]],'' Brock emphasized “threatening the livelihoods” and reputations <ref name=":1">{{Cite news |last=Markay |first=Lachlan |last2=Swan |first2=Jonathan |date=March 7, 2022 |title=Scoop: High-powered group targets Trump lawyers’ livelihoods |url=https://www.axios.com/2022/03/07/trump-election-lawyers-disbar |access-date=September 19, 2024 |work=[[Axios (website)]]}}</ref> of the attorneys.

The 65 Project's Managing Director is [[Michael Teter]],<ref name=":3">{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=October 12, 2022 |title=Lawyer group says Trump attorney broke ethics rules in fake elector plan |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/lawyer-group-says-trump-attorney-broke-ethics-rules-fake-elector-plan-2022-10-12/ |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> an attorney suing [[Fox News]] as counsel for [[Ray Epps (military veteran)|Ray Epps]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-07-14 |title=Former Trump supporter sues Fox News over Jan. 6 conspiracy theory |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/former-trump-supporter-sues-fox-news-over-jan-6-conspiracy-theory |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=PBS News |language=en-us}}</ref> The project was also devised by [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] political consultant Melissa Moss, a former senior Clinton administration official, and operates through a not-for-profit named “[[Law Works]].”<ref name=":1" />

== Methods ==
In line with the group's mission, the 65 project files ethics complaints with bar associations, some of which have been dismissed for lack of evidence.<ref name=":1" /> These complaints have included high-profile figures, such as [[Ted Cruz]], [[John Eastman]] and [[Cleta Mitchell]].<ref name=":1" /> The 65 Project has also stated its interest in changing lawyers's professional rules, including placing limits on lawyers’s public statements about elections.<ref name=":3" /><ref>{{Cite news |last=Skolnick |first=Sam |date=October 12, 2022 |title=Trump Lawyer Targeting Push Opens New Front With Bar Rules |url=https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/trump-lawyer-targeting-effort-opens-new-strategy-with-bar-rules |work=Bloomberg Law}}</ref>

The group stated in early 2022 it planned to take action against 111 attorneys.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Cassens-Weiss |first=Debra |date=March 9, 2022 |title=Sidney Powell faces ethics charges over election litigation; group seeks discipline against other lawyers |url=https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/sidney-powell-faces-ethics-charges-over-election-litigation-group-seeks-discipline-against-other-lawyers |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=Journal of the American Bar Association}}</ref>
As of July 2023, all but one of the 65 Project’s concluded complaints had been dismissed or found no punishable offense.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Khardori |first=Ankush |date=July 26, 2023 |title=Trump’s ‘Elite Strike Force Team’ Falls on Hard Times |url=https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/07/26/trump-lawyers-65-project-00108120 |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=Politico}}</ref> In 2022, attorneys pursued by the group said they had received additional attempts after previous complaints were unsuccessful.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Sneed |first=Tierney |date=2022-03-10 |title=Inside the effort to disbar attorneys who backed bogus election lawsuits {{!}} CNN Politics |url=https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/10/politics/ethics-complaints-attorney-misconduct-trump-election-reversal/index.html |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=CNN |language=en}}</ref>

== Reactions ==
Concerns over the methods of The 65 project have been raised since at least March 2022.<ref name=":4">{{Cite news |last=Sneed |first=Tierney |date=March 10, 2022 |title=Inside the effort to disbar attorneys who backed bogus election lawsuits |url=https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/10/politics/ethics-complaints-attorney-misconduct-trump-election-reversal/index.html |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[CNN]]}}</ref> Bruce Green, the director of [[Fordham University School of Law|Fordham Law School]]’s Louis Stein Center for Law and Ethics, emphasized that the 65 Project’s complaints were “designed to embarrass” lawyers, discouraging political work “even if they’re playing by the rules.”<ref name=":4" /> CNN noted that the investigations sought by the 65 Project “unfold in secret” until claims are found meritorious in most states, but that, as Green raised concerns about, the 65 Projects “heavily publicized allegations” would harm lawyers reputations before claims were reviewed.<ref name=":4" /> Complaints filed by The 65 Project have been dismissed since the groups first public announcements, beginning with Georgia attorney Brad Carver,<ref name=":1" /> but has continued publish adversarial media targeting lawyers’s professional communities, planning to run advertisements in law journals in late fall 2024.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Feuer |first=Alan |date=September 19, 2024 |title=Legal Watchdog Group Warns Pro-Trump Lawyers Against Subverting Democracy in November |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/19/us/politics/trump-lawyers-election-results.html |work=New York Times}}</ref>

[[Alan Dershowitz]], whose sanctions for “frivolous” election litigation<ref>{{Cite web |last=Robertson |first=Nick |date=2023-07-15 |title=Kari Lake’s team ordered to pay more than $122K in sanctions over Maricopa lawsuit |url=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4098759-kari-lakes-team-ordered-to-pay-more-than-122k-in-sanctions-over-maricopa-lawsuit/#:~:text=Kari%20Lake%E2%80%99s%20legal%20team,%20including%20lawyer%20Alan%20Dershowitz,%20must%20pay |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}</ref> followed complaints by Marc Elias’s firm<ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-12-26 |title='Enough Really Is Enough': Arizona Governor-Elect Katie Hobbs Seeks More Than $500,000 in Sanctions for Kari Lake and Her Lawyers |url=https://lawandcrime.com/2022-midterms/enough-really-is-enough-arizona-governor-elect-katie-hobbs-asks-judge-to-sanction-defeated-rival-kari-lake-and-her-lawyers/ |access-date=2024-09-21 |website=Law & Crime |language=en}}</ref>, compared the results of its work as similar to the “ridicule” faced by suspected communists during [[McCarthyism]]<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Klayman |first=Larry |date=April 14, 2023 |title=Petition For A Writ Of Mandamus To The District Of Columbia Court Of Appeals In The Matter Of Larry E. Klayman |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-619/263615/20230414161904073_43664%20pdf%20Peer.pdf |journal=Supreme Court Docket |pages=2}}</ref> and Texas Congressman [[Lance Gooden]] described the 65 Project as “a far-left activist group of lawyers actively engaging in partisan tactics.”<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-01-24 |title=RELEASE: Congressman Lance Gooden Calls for Immediate Action Against the Partisan Legal Tactics of the 65 Project |url=https://gooden.house.gov/2024/1/release-congressman-lance-gooden-calls-for-immediate-action-against-the-partisan-legal-tactics-of-the-65-project |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=Congressman Lance Gooden |language=en}}</ref> The 65 Project describes itself as “bipartisan,” and “defending democracy and the rule of law.”<ref>{{Cite web |date=September 19, 2024 |title=65 Project website |url=https://the65project.com/ |website=65 Project}}</ref> Separately, the 65 Project elicited criticism from ethics complaint respondent Cleta Mitchell for not also pursuing election challenges by Marc Elias<ref name=":2" /> who had challenged the Iowa election results of Republican [[Mariannette Miller-Meeks]] previously.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Grayer |first=Annie |date=2021-03-22 |title=House Democrats face backlash on both sides for investigating Iowa House race won by a Republican {{!}} CNN Politics |url=https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/22/politics/iowa-house-race-democrats-backlash/index.html |access-date=2024-09-21 |website=CNN |language=en}}</ref>

The 65 Project controversially described attorney Kenneth Cheseboro, who the Guardian described as having a “liberal past”<ref name=":5">{{Cite news |last=Pilkington |first=Ed |date=2023-08-19 |title=‘It baffles me’: what drew a mild lawyer with a liberal past into Trump’s election plot? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/19/kenneth-chesebro-trump-georgia-indictment-fake-electors |access-date=2024-09-20 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> and who lawyer and commentator Jeffrey Toobin described as the “least likely”<ref name=":5" /> to commit misconduct, as the “central mind” and “legal power” behind election challenges<ref>{{Cite news |last=Pilkington |first=Ed |date=2023-08-19 |title=‘It baffles me’: what drew a mild lawyer with a liberal past into Trump’s election plot? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/19/kenneth-chesebro-trump-georgia-indictment-fake-electors |access-date=2024-09-20 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> and also filed complaints over his alleged conduct.<ref name=":6" /> The Wall Street Journal editorial board described the series of misconduct investigations, which came after complaints filed by The 65 Project,<ref>{{Cite web |date=August 31, 2022 |title=Group files complaint against attorneys involved in lawsuits seeking to overturn 2020 election – WisPolitics |url=https://www.wispolitics.com/2022/group-files-complaint-against-attorneys-involved-in-lawsuits-seeking-to-overturn-2020-election/ |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=WisPolitics |language=en-US}}</ref> including into Cheseboro as “Lawfare at its most dishonest.”<ref>{{Cite news |last=WSJ |first=Editorial Board |date=September 16, 2024 |title=Lawfare at its Most Dishonest |url=https://www.wsj.com/opinion/lawfare-at-its-most-dishonest-wisconsin-doj-electors-2020-cd3e76c7# |work=[[The Wall Street Journal]]}}</ref>

== References ==
<references />

== External links ==

* [https://the65project.com/ Official website]

[[Category:Legal advocacy organizations in the United States]]
[[Category:Political advocacy groups in the United States]]

The 65 Project

2024-09-21T00:25:31Z

Bluetik: /* Reactions */ complaint detail and response

{{Infobox organization
| website = The65project.com
| name = The 65 Project
| image = 65 Project dark wide 2024.webp
| alt = “The 65 Project” [Dark background, squared serious font, gavel silhouette cutout of bottom curve of “5” in “65”]
| founder = [[David Brock]], Melissa Moss
| origins = Media and legal activist network with Facts First USA
| methods = Disciplinary Bar Complaints, Negative Publicity
| key_people = Michael Teter
| parent_organization = Law Works
| affiliations =
}}
The '''65 Project''' is a legal activism campaign<ref name=":6">{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=October 12, 2022 |title=Lawyer group says Trump attorney broke ethics rules in fake elector plan |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/lawyer-group-says-trump-attorney-broke-ethics-rules-fake-elector-plan-2022-10-12/ |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> seeking to “disbar and discredit”<ref name=":2" /> Trump-affiliated<ref>{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=July 20, 2022 |title=Group lodges more ethics complaints against Trump-affiliated lawyers |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/group-lodges-more-ethics-complaints-against-trump-affiliated-lawyers-2022-07-20/ |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> lawyers who worked on post-election lawsuits.<ref name=":1" /> The earliest reporting on the 65 Project repeatedly described it as a “dark money group.”<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":1" /><ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite web |last=Beals |first=Monique |date=2022-03-07 |title=Group trying to disbar lawyers who worked on Trump’s post-election lawsuits |url=https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/597163-group-trying-to-disbar-lawyers-who-worked-on-trumps-post-election/ |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}</ref>

The group is advised by [[David Brock]], the founder of [[opposition research]] groups [[Media Matters for America]] and [[American Bridge 21st Century]], who described the idea of the 65 Project as bringing attorney bar complaints, and to “shame them and make them toxic in their communities and in their firms."<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Durkee |first=Alison |title=Campaign Targets 111 Trump-Linked Election Lawyers. Here’s Some Already Facing A Backlash. |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/03/07/campaign-targets-111-trump-linked-election-lawyers-heres-some-already-facing-a-backlash/ |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=Forbes |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=Rogers |first=Zachary |date=2022-03-07 |title=Democrat-tied dark-money group seeks to disbar over 100 Trump-linked lawyers, says report |url=https://katv.com/news/nation-world/democrat-tied-dark-money-group-seeks-to-disbar-over-100-trump-linked-lawyers-says-report-the65project-donald-election-overturn-axios-clinton-melissa-moss-david-brock |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=[[American Broadcasting Company|ABC]] KATV |language=en}}</ref> In the same 2022 interview with ''[[Axios (website)|Axios]],'' Brock emphasized “threatening the livelihoods” and reputations <ref name=":1">{{Cite news |last=Markay |first=Lachlan |last2=Swan |first2=Jonathan |date=March 7, 2022 |title=Scoop: High-powered group targets Trump lawyers’ livelihoods |url=https://www.axios.com/2022/03/07/trump-election-lawyers-disbar |access-date=September 19, 2024 |work=[[Axios (website)]]}}</ref> of the attorneys.

The 65 Project's Managing Director is [[Michael Teter]],<ref name=":3">{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=October 12, 2022 |title=Lawyer group says Trump attorney broke ethics rules in fake elector plan |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/lawyer-group-says-trump-attorney-broke-ethics-rules-fake-elector-plan-2022-10-12/ |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> an attorney suing [[Fox News]] as counsel for [[Ray Epps (military veteran)|Ray Epps]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-07-14 |title=Former Trump supporter sues Fox News over Jan. 6 conspiracy theory |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/former-trump-supporter-sues-fox-news-over-jan-6-conspiracy-theory |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=PBS News |language=en-us}}</ref> The project was also devised by [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] political consultant Melissa Moss, a former senior Clinton administration official, and operates through a not-for-profit named “[[Law Works]].”<ref name=":1" />

== Methods ==
In line with the group's mission, the 65 project files ethics complaints with bar associations, some of which have been dismissed for lack of evidence.<ref name=":1" /> These complaints have included high-profile figures, such as [[Ted Cruz]], [[John Eastman]] and [[Cleta Mitchell]].<ref name=":1" /> The 65 Project has also stated its interest in changing lawyers's professional rules, including placing limits on lawyers’s public statements about elections.<ref name=":3" /><ref>{{Cite news |last=Skolnick |first=Sam |date=October 12, 2022 |title=Trump Lawyer Targeting Push Opens New Front With Bar Rules |url=https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/trump-lawyer-targeting-effort-opens-new-strategy-with-bar-rules |work=Bloomberg Law}}</ref>

The group stated in early 2022 it planned to take action against 111 attorneys.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Cassens-Weiss |first=Debra |date=March 9, 2022 |title=Sidney Powell faces ethics charges over election litigation; group seeks discipline against other lawyers |url=https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/sidney-powell-faces-ethics-charges-over-election-litigation-group-seeks-discipline-against-other-lawyers |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=Journal of the American Bar Association}}</ref>
As of July 2023, all but one of the 65 Project’s concluded complaints had been dismissed or found no punishable offense.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Khardori |first=Ankush |date=July 26, 2023 |title=Trump’s ‘Elite Strike Force Team’ Falls on Hard Times |url=https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/07/26/trump-lawyers-65-project-00108120 |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=Politico}}</ref> In 2022, attorneys pursued by the group said they had received additional attempts after previous complaints were unsuccessful.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Sneed |first=Tierney |date=2022-03-10 |title=Inside the effort to disbar attorneys who backed bogus election lawsuits {{!}} CNN Politics |url=https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/10/politics/ethics-complaints-attorney-misconduct-trump-election-reversal/index.html |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=CNN |language=en}}</ref>

== Reactions ==
Concerns over the methods of The 65 project have been raised since at least March 2022.<ref name=":4">{{Cite news |last=Sneed |first=Tierney |date=March 10, 2022 |title=Inside the effort to disbar attorneys who backed bogus election lawsuits |url=https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/10/politics/ethics-complaints-attorney-misconduct-trump-election-reversal/index.html |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[CNN]]}}</ref> Bruce Green, the director of [[Fordham University School of Law|Fordham Law School]]’s Louis Stein Center for Law and Ethics, emphasized that the 65 Project’s complaints were “designed to embarrass” lawyers, discouraging political work “even if they’re playing by the rules.”<ref name=":4" /> CNN noted that the investigations sought by the 65 Project “unfold in secret” until claims are found meritorious in most states, but that, as Green raised concerns about, the 65 Projects “heavily publicized allegations” would harm lawyers reputations before claims were reviewed.<ref name=":4" /> Complaints filed by The 65 Project have been dismissed since the groups first public announcements, beginning with Georgia attorney Brad Carver,<ref name=":1" /> but has continued publish adversarial media targeting lawyers’s professional communities, planning to run advertisements in law journals in late fall 2024.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Feuer |first=Alan |date=September 19, 2024 |title=Legal Watchdog Group Warns Pro-Trump Lawyers Against Subverting Democracy in November |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/19/us/politics/trump-lawyers-election-results.html |work=New York Times}}</ref>

[[Alan Dershowitz]], whose sanctions for “frivolous” election litigation<ref>{{Cite web |last=Robertson |first=Nick |date=2023-07-15 |title=Kari Lake’s team ordered to pay more than $122K in sanctions over Maricopa lawsuit |url=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4098759-kari-lakes-team-ordered-to-pay-more-than-122k-in-sanctions-over-maricopa-lawsuit/#:~:text=Kari%20Lake%E2%80%99s%20legal%20team,%20including%20lawyer%20Alan%20Dershowitz,%20must%20pay |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}</ref> followed complaints by Marc Elias’s firm<ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-12-26 |title='Enough Really Is Enough': Arizona Governor-Elect Katie Hobbs Seeks More Than $500,000 in Sanctions for Kari Lake and Her Lawyers |url=https://lawandcrime.com/2022-midterms/enough-really-is-enough-arizona-governor-elect-katie-hobbs-asks-judge-to-sanction-defeated-rival-kari-lake-and-her-lawyers/ |access-date=2024-09-21 |website=Law & Crime |language=en}}</ref>, compared the results of its work as similar to the “ridicule” faced by suspected communists during [[McCarthyism]]<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Klayman |first=Larry |date=April 14, 2023 |title=Petition For A Writ Of Mandamus To The District Of Columbia Court Of Appeals In The Matter Of Larry E. Klayman |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-619/263615/20230414161904073_43664%20pdf%20Peer.pdf |journal=Supreme Court Docket |pages=2}}</ref> and Texas Congressman [[Lance Gooden]] described the 65 Project as “a far-left activist group of lawyers actively engaging in partisan tactics.”<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-01-24 |title=RELEASE: Congressman Lance Gooden Calls for Immediate Action Against the Partisan Legal Tactics of the 65 Project |url=https://gooden.house.gov/2024/1/release-congressman-lance-gooden-calls-for-immediate-action-against-the-partisan-legal-tactics-of-the-65-project |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=Congressman Lance Gooden |language=en}}</ref> The 65 Project describes itself as “bipartisan,” and “defending democracy and the rule of law.”<ref>{{Cite web |date=September 19, 2024 |title=65 Project website |url=https://the65project.com/ |website=65 Project}}</ref> Separately, the 65 Project elicited criticism from ethics complaint respondent Cleta Mitchell for not also pursuing election challenges by Marc Elias<ref name=":2" /> who had challenged Iowa election results the previous year.

The 65 Project controversially described attorney Kenneth Cheseboro, who the Guardian described as having a “liberal past”<ref name=":5">{{Cite news |last=Pilkington |first=Ed |date=2023-08-19 |title=‘It baffles me’: what drew a mild lawyer with a liberal past into Trump’s election plot? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/19/kenneth-chesebro-trump-georgia-indictment-fake-electors |access-date=2024-09-20 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> and who lawyer and commentator Jeffrey Toobin described as the “least likely”<ref name=":5" /> to commit misconduct, as the “central mind” and “legal power” behind election challenges<ref>{{Cite news |last=Pilkington |first=Ed |date=2023-08-19 |title=‘It baffles me’: what drew a mild lawyer with a liberal past into Trump’s election plot? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/19/kenneth-chesebro-trump-georgia-indictment-fake-electors |access-date=2024-09-20 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> and also filed complaints over his alleged conduct.<ref name=":6" /> The Wall Street Journal editorial board described the series of misconduct investigations, which came after complaints filed by The 65 Project,<ref>{{Cite web |date=August 31, 2022 |title=Group files complaint against attorneys involved in lawsuits seeking to overturn 2020 election – WisPolitics |url=https://www.wispolitics.com/2022/group-files-complaint-against-attorneys-involved-in-lawsuits-seeking-to-overturn-2020-election/ |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=WisPolitics |language=en-US}}</ref> including into Cheseboro as “Lawfare at its most dishonest.”<ref>{{Cite news |last=WSJ |first=Editorial Board |date=September 16, 2024 |title=Lawfare at its Most Dishonest |url=https://www.wsj.com/opinion/lawfare-at-its-most-dishonest-wisconsin-doj-electors-2020-cd3e76c7# |work=[[The Wall Street Journal]]}}</ref>

== References ==
<references />

== External links ==

* [https://the65project.com/ Official website]

[[Category:Legal advocacy organizations in the United States]]
[[Category:Political advocacy groups in the United States]]

The 65 Project

2024-09-21T00:15:11Z

Bluetik: WP:COPYQUOTE Undid revision 1246770108 by Jurisprudence2 (talk)

{{Infobox organization
| website = The65project.com
| name = The 65 Project
| image = 65 Project dark wide 2024.webp
| alt = “The 65 Project” [Dark background, squared serious font, gavel silhouette cutout of bottom curve of “5” in “65”]
| founder = [[David Brock]], Melissa Moss
| origins = Media and legal activist network with Facts First USA
| methods = Disciplinary Bar Complaints, Negative Publicity
| key_people = Michael Teter
| parent_organization = Law Works
| affiliations =
}}
The '''65 Project''' is a legal activism campaign<ref name=":6">{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=October 12, 2022 |title=Lawyer group says Trump attorney broke ethics rules in fake elector plan |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/lawyer-group-says-trump-attorney-broke-ethics-rules-fake-elector-plan-2022-10-12/ |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> seeking to “disbar and discredit”<ref name=":2" /> Trump-affiliated<ref>{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=July 20, 2022 |title=Group lodges more ethics complaints against Trump-affiliated lawyers |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/group-lodges-more-ethics-complaints-against-trump-affiliated-lawyers-2022-07-20/ |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> lawyers who worked on post-election lawsuits.<ref name=":1" /> The earliest reporting on the 65 Project repeatedly described it as a “dark money group.”<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":1" /><ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite web |last=Beals |first=Monique |date=2022-03-07 |title=Group trying to disbar lawyers who worked on Trump’s post-election lawsuits |url=https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/597163-group-trying-to-disbar-lawyers-who-worked-on-trumps-post-election/ |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}</ref>

The group is advised by [[David Brock]], the founder of [[opposition research]] groups [[Media Matters for America]] and [[American Bridge 21st Century]], who described the idea of the 65 Project as bringing attorney bar complaints, and to “shame them and make them toxic in their communities and in their firms."<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Durkee |first=Alison |title=Campaign Targets 111 Trump-Linked Election Lawyers. Here’s Some Already Facing A Backlash. |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/03/07/campaign-targets-111-trump-linked-election-lawyers-heres-some-already-facing-a-backlash/ |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=Forbes |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=Rogers |first=Zachary |date=2022-03-07 |title=Democrat-tied dark-money group seeks to disbar over 100 Trump-linked lawyers, says report |url=https://katv.com/news/nation-world/democrat-tied-dark-money-group-seeks-to-disbar-over-100-trump-linked-lawyers-says-report-the65project-donald-election-overturn-axios-clinton-melissa-moss-david-brock |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=[[American Broadcasting Company|ABC]] KATV |language=en}}</ref> In the same 2022 interview with ''[[Axios (website)|Axios]],'' Brock emphasized “threatening the livelihoods” and reputations <ref name=":1">{{Cite news |last=Markay |first=Lachlan |last2=Swan |first2=Jonathan |date=March 7, 2022 |title=Scoop: High-powered group targets Trump lawyers’ livelihoods |url=https://www.axios.com/2022/03/07/trump-election-lawyers-disbar |access-date=September 19, 2024 |work=[[Axios (website)]]}}</ref> of the attorneys.

The 65 Project's Managing Director is [[Michael Teter]],<ref name=":3">{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=October 12, 2022 |title=Lawyer group says Trump attorney broke ethics rules in fake elector plan |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/lawyer-group-says-trump-attorney-broke-ethics-rules-fake-elector-plan-2022-10-12/ |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> an attorney suing [[Fox News]] as counsel for [[Ray Epps (military veteran)|Ray Epps]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-07-14 |title=Former Trump supporter sues Fox News over Jan. 6 conspiracy theory |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/former-trump-supporter-sues-fox-news-over-jan-6-conspiracy-theory |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=PBS News |language=en-us}}</ref> The project was also devised by [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] political consultant Melissa Moss, a former senior Clinton administration official, and operates through a not-for-profit named “[[Law Works]].”<ref name=":1" />

== Methods ==
In line with the group's mission, the 65 project files ethics complaints with bar associations, some of which have been dismissed for lack of evidence.<ref name=":1" /> These complaints have included high-profile figures, such as [[Ted Cruz]], [[John Eastman]] and [[Cleta Mitchell]].<ref name=":1" /> The 65 Project has also stated its interest in changing lawyers's professional rules, including placing limits on lawyers’s public statements about elections.<ref name=":3" /><ref>{{Cite news |last=Skolnick |first=Sam |date=October 12, 2022 |title=Trump Lawyer Targeting Push Opens New Front With Bar Rules |url=https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/trump-lawyer-targeting-effort-opens-new-strategy-with-bar-rules |work=Bloomberg Law}}</ref>

The group stated in early 2022 it planned to take action against 111 attorneys.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Cassens-Weiss |first=Debra |date=March 9, 2022 |title=Sidney Powell faces ethics charges over election litigation; group seeks discipline against other lawyers |url=https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/sidney-powell-faces-ethics-charges-over-election-litigation-group-seeks-discipline-against-other-lawyers |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=Journal of the American Bar Association}}</ref>
As of July 2023, all but one of the 65 Project’s concluded complaints had been dismissed or found no punishable offense.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Khardori |first=Ankush |date=July 26, 2023 |title=Trump’s ‘Elite Strike Force Team’ Falls on Hard Times |url=https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/07/26/trump-lawyers-65-project-00108120 |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=Politico}}</ref> In 2022, attorneys pursued by the group said they had received additional attempts after previous complaints were unsuccessful.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Sneed |first=Tierney |date=2022-03-10 |title=Inside the effort to disbar attorneys who backed bogus election lawsuits {{!}} CNN Politics |url=https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/10/politics/ethics-complaints-attorney-misconduct-trump-election-reversal/index.html |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=CNN |language=en}}</ref>

== Reactions ==
Concerns over the methods of The 65 project have been raised since at least March 2022.<ref name=":4">{{Cite news |last=Sneed |first=Tierney |date=March 10, 2022 |title=Inside the effort to disbar attorneys who backed bogus election lawsuits |url=https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/10/politics/ethics-complaints-attorney-misconduct-trump-election-reversal/index.html |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[CNN]]}}</ref> Bruce Green, the director of [[Fordham University School of Law|Fordham Law School]]’s Louis Stein Center for Law and Ethics, emphasized that the 65 Project’s complaints were “designed to embarrass” lawyers, discouraging political work “even if they’re playing by the rules.”<ref name=":4" /> CNN noted that the investigations sought by the 65 Project “unfold in secret” until claims are found meritorious in most states, but that, as Green raised concerns about, the 65 Projects “heavily publicized allegations” would harm lawyers reputations before claims were reviewed.<ref name=":4" /> Complaints filed by The 65 Project have been dismissed since the groups first public announcements, beginning with Georgia attorney Brad Carver,<ref name=":1" /> but has continued publish adversarial media targeting lawyers’s professional communities, planning to run advertisements in law journals in late fall 2024.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Feuer |first=Alan |date=September 19, 2024 |title=Legal Watchdog Group Warns Pro-Trump Lawyers Against Subverting Democracy in November |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/19/us/politics/trump-lawyers-election-results.html |work=New York Times}}</ref>

[[Alan Dershowitz]], who was sanctioned for a “frivolous” lawsuit contesting voting methods on behalf of [[Kari Lake]],<ref>{{Cite web |last=Robertson |first=Nick |date=2023-07-15 |title=Kari Lake’s team ordered to pay more than $122K in sanctions over Maricopa lawsuit |url=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4098759-kari-lakes-team-ordered-to-pay-more-than-122k-in-sanctions-over-maricopa-lawsuit/#:~:text=Kari%20Lake%E2%80%99s%20legal%20team,%20including%20lawyer%20Alan%20Dershowitz,%20must%20pay |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}</ref> compared the results of its work as similar to the “ridicule” faced by suspected communists during [[McCarthyism]]<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Klayman |first=Larry |date=April 14, 2023 |title=Petition For A Writ Of Mandamus To The District Of Columbia Court Of Appeals In The Matter Of Larry E. Klayman |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-619/263615/20230414161904073_43664%20pdf%20Peer.pdf |journal=Supreme Court Docket |pages=2}}</ref> and Texas Congressman [[Lance Gooden]] described the 65 Project as “a far-left activist group of lawyers actively engaging in partisan tactics.”<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-01-24 |title=RELEASE: Congressman Lance Gooden Calls for Immediate Action Against the Partisan Legal Tactics of the 65 Project |url=https://gooden.house.gov/2024/1/release-congressman-lance-gooden-calls-for-immediate-action-against-the-partisan-legal-tactics-of-the-65-project |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=Congressman Lance Gooden |language=en}}</ref> The 65 Project describes itself as “bipartisan,” and “defending democracy and the rule of law.”<ref>{{Cite web |date=September 19, 2024 |title=65 Project website |url=https://the65project.com/ |website=65 Project}}</ref>

The 65 Project controversially described attorney Kenneth Cheseboro, who the Guardian described as having a “liberal past”<ref name=":5">{{Cite news |last=Pilkington |first=Ed |date=2023-08-19 |title=‘It baffles me’: what drew a mild lawyer with a liberal past into Trump’s election plot? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/19/kenneth-chesebro-trump-georgia-indictment-fake-electors |access-date=2024-09-20 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> and who lawyer and commentator Jeffrey Toobin described as the “least likely”<ref name=":5" /> to commit misconduct, as the “central mind” and “legal power” behind election challenges<ref>{{Cite news |last=Pilkington |first=Ed |date=2023-08-19 |title=‘It baffles me’: what drew a mild lawyer with a liberal past into Trump’s election plot? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/19/kenneth-chesebro-trump-georgia-indictment-fake-electors |access-date=2024-09-20 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> and also filed complaints over his alleged conduct.<ref name=":6" /> The Wall Street Journal editorial board described the series of misconduct investigations, which came after complaints filed by The 65 Project,<ref>{{Cite web |date=August 31, 2022 |title=Group files complaint against attorneys involved in lawsuits seeking to overturn 2020 election – WisPolitics |url=https://www.wispolitics.com/2022/group-files-complaint-against-attorneys-involved-in-lawsuits-seeking-to-overturn-2020-election/ |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=WisPolitics |language=en-US}}</ref> including into Cheseboro as “Lawfare at its most dishonest.”<ref>{{Cite news |last=WSJ |first=Editorial Board |date=September 16, 2024 |title=Lawfare at its Most Dishonest |url=https://www.wsj.com/opinion/lawfare-at-its-most-dishonest-wisconsin-doj-electors-2020-cd3e76c7# |work=[[The Wall Street Journal]]}}</ref>

== References ==
<references />

== External links ==

* [https://the65project.com/ Official website]

[[Category:Legal advocacy organizations in the United States]]
[[Category:Political advocacy groups in the United States]]

The 65 Project

2024-09-20T23:30:40Z

Bluetik: /* Reactions */

{{Infobox organization
| website = The65project.com
| name = The 65 Project
| image = 65 Project dark wide 2024.webp
| alt = “The 65 Project” [Dark background, squared serious font, gavel silhouette cutout of bottom curve of “5” in “65”]
| founder = [[David Brock]], Melissa Moss
| origins = Media and legal activist network with Facts First USA
| methods = Disciplinary Bar Complaints, Negative Publicity
| key_people = Michael Teter
| parent_organization = Law Works
| affiliations =
}}
The '''65 Project''' is a legal activism campaign<ref name=":6">{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=October 12, 2022 |title=Lawyer group says Trump attorney broke ethics rules in fake elector plan |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/lawyer-group-says-trump-attorney-broke-ethics-rules-fake-elector-plan-2022-10-12/ |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> seeking to “disbar and discredit”<ref name=":2" /> Trump-affiliated<ref>{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=July 20, 2022 |title=Group lodges more ethics complaints against Trump-affiliated lawyers |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/group-lodges-more-ethics-complaints-against-trump-affiliated-lawyers-2022-07-20/ |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> lawyers who worked on post-election lawsuits.<ref name=":1" /> The earliest reporting on the 65 Project repeatedly described it as a “dark money group.”<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":1" /><ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite web |last=Beals |first=Monique |date=2022-03-07 |title=Group trying to disbar lawyers who worked on Trump’s post-election lawsuits |url=https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/597163-group-trying-to-disbar-lawyers-who-worked-on-trumps-post-election/ |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}</ref>

The group is advised by [[David Brock]], the founder of [[opposition research]] groups [[Media Matters for America]] and [[American Bridge 21st Century]], who described the idea of the 65 Project as bringing attorney bar complaints, and to “shame them and make them toxic in their communities and in their firms."<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Durkee |first=Alison |title=Campaign Targets 111 Trump-Linked Election Lawyers. Here’s Some Already Facing A Backlash. |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/03/07/campaign-targets-111-trump-linked-election-lawyers-heres-some-already-facing-a-backlash/ |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=Forbes |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=Rogers |first=Zachary |date=2022-03-07 |title=Democrat-tied dark-money group seeks to disbar over 100 Trump-linked lawyers, says report |url=https://katv.com/news/nation-world/democrat-tied-dark-money-group-seeks-to-disbar-over-100-trump-linked-lawyers-says-report-the65project-donald-election-overturn-axios-clinton-melissa-moss-david-brock |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=[[American Broadcasting Company|ABC]] KATV |language=en}}</ref> In the same 2022 interview with ''[[Axios (website)|Axios]],'' Brock emphasized “threatening the livelihoods” and reputations <ref name=":1">{{Cite news |last=Markay |first=Lachlan |last2=Swan |first2=Jonathan |date=March 7, 2022 |title=Scoop: High-powered group targets Trump lawyers’ livelihoods |url=https://www.axios.com/2022/03/07/trump-election-lawyers-disbar |access-date=September 19, 2024 |work=[[Axios (website)]]}}</ref> of the attorneys.

The 65 Project's Managing Director is [[Michael Teter]],<ref name=":3">{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=October 12, 2022 |title=Lawyer group says Trump attorney broke ethics rules in fake elector plan |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/lawyer-group-says-trump-attorney-broke-ethics-rules-fake-elector-plan-2022-10-12/ |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> an attorney suing [[Fox News]] as counsel for [[Ray Epps (military veteran)|Ray Epps]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-07-14 |title=Former Trump supporter sues Fox News over Jan. 6 conspiracy theory |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/former-trump-supporter-sues-fox-news-over-jan-6-conspiracy-theory |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=PBS News |language=en-us}}</ref> The project was also devised by [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] political consultant Melissa Moss, a former senior Clinton administration official, and operates through a not-for-profit named “[[Law Works]].”<ref name=":1" />

== Methods ==
In line with the group's mission, the 65 project files ethics complaints with bar associations, some of which have been dismissed for lack of evidence.<ref name=":1" /> These complaints have included high-profile figures, such as [[Ted Cruz]], [[John Eastman]] and [[Cleta Mitchell]].<ref name=":1" /> The 65 Project has also stated its interest in changing lawyers's professional rules, including placing limits on lawyers’s public statements about elections.<ref name=":3" /><ref>{{Cite news |last=Skolnick |first=Sam |date=October 12, 2022 |title=Trump Lawyer Targeting Push Opens New Front With Bar Rules |url=https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/trump-lawyer-targeting-effort-opens-new-strategy-with-bar-rules |work=Bloomberg Law}}</ref>

The group stated in early 2022 it planned to take action against 111 attorneys.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Cassens-Weiss |first=Debra |date=March 9, 2022 |title=Sidney Powell faces ethics charges over election litigation; group seeks discipline against other lawyers |url=https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/sidney-powell-faces-ethics-charges-over-election-litigation-group-seeks-discipline-against-other-lawyers |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=Journal of the American Bar Association}}</ref>
As of July 2023, all but one of the 65 Project’s concluded complaints had been dismissed or found no punishable offense.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Khardori |first=Ankush |date=July 26, 2023 |title=Trump’s ‘Elite Strike Force Team’ Falls on Hard Times |url=https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/07/26/trump-lawyers-65-project-00108120 |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=Politico}}</ref> In 2022, attorneys pursued by the group said they had received additional attempts after previous complaints were unsuccessful.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Sneed |first=Tierney |date=2022-03-10 |title=Inside the effort to disbar attorneys who backed bogus election lawsuits {{!}} CNN Politics |url=https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/10/politics/ethics-complaints-attorney-misconduct-trump-election-reversal/index.html |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=CNN |language=en}}</ref>

== Reactions ==
Concerns over the methods of The 65 project have been raised since at least March 2022.<ref name=":4">{{Cite news |last=Sneed |first=Tierney |date=March 10, 2022 |title=Inside the effort to disbar attorneys who backed bogus election lawsuits |url=https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/10/politics/ethics-complaints-attorney-misconduct-trump-election-reversal/index.html |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[CNN]]}}</ref> Bruce Green, the director of [[Fordham University School of Law|Fordham Law School]]’s Louis Stein Center for Law and Ethics, emphasized that the 65 Project’s complaints were “designed to embarrass” lawyers, discouraging political work “even if they’re playing by the rules.”<ref name=":4" /> CNN noted that the investigations sought by the 65 Project “unfold in secret” until claims are found meritorious in most states, but that, as Green raised concerns about, the 65 Projects “heavily publicized allegations” would harm lawyers reputations before claims were reviewed.<ref name=":4" /> Complaints filed by The 65 Project have been dismissed since the groups first public announcements, beginning with Georgia attorney Brad Carver,<ref name=":1" /> but has continued publish adversarial media targeting lawyers’s professional communities, planning to run advertisements in law journals in late fall 2024.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Feuer |first=Alan |date=September 19, 2024 |title=Legal Watchdog Group Warns Pro-Trump Lawyers Against Subverting Democracy in November |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/19/us/politics/trump-lawyers-election-results.html |work=New York Times}}</ref>

[[Alan Dershowitz]], who was sanctioned for a “frivolous” lawsuit contesting voting methods on behalf of [[Kari Lake]],<ref>{{Cite web |last=Robertson |first=Nick |date=2023-07-15 |title=Kari Lake’s team ordered to pay more than $122K in sanctions over Maricopa lawsuit |url=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4098759-kari-lakes-team-ordered-to-pay-more-than-122k-in-sanctions-over-maricopa-lawsuit/#:~:text=Kari%20Lake%E2%80%99s%20legal%20team,%20including%20lawyer%20Alan%20Dershowitz,%20must%20pay |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}</ref> compared the results of its work as similar to the “ridicule” faced by suspected communists during [[McCarthyism]]<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Klayman |first=Larry |date=April 14, 2023 |title=Petition For A Writ Of Mandamus To The District Of Columbia Court Of Appeals In The Matter Of Larry E. Klayman |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-619/263615/20230414161904073_43664%20pdf%20Peer.pdf |journal=Supreme Court Docket |pages=2}}</ref> and Texas Congressman [[Lance Gooden]] described the 65 Project as “a far-left activist group of lawyers actively engaging in partisan tactics.”<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-01-24 |title=RELEASE: Congressman Lance Gooden Calls for Immediate Action Against the Partisan Legal Tactics of the 65 Project |url=https://gooden.house.gov/2024/1/release-congressman-lance-gooden-calls-for-immediate-action-against-the-partisan-legal-tactics-of-the-65-project |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=Congressman Lance Gooden |language=en}}</ref> The 65 Project describes itself as “bipartisan,” and “defending democracy and the rule of law.”<ref>{{Cite web |date=September 19, 2024 |title=65 Project website |url=https://the65project.com/ |website=65 Project}}</ref>

The 65 Project controversially described attorney Kenneth Cheseboro, who the Guardian described as having a “liberal past”<ref name=":5">{{Cite news |last=Pilkington |first=Ed |date=2023-08-19 |title=‘It baffles me’: what drew a mild lawyer with a liberal past into Trump’s election plot? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/19/kenneth-chesebro-trump-georgia-indictment-fake-electors |access-date=2024-09-20 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> and who lawyer and commentator Jeffrey Toobin described as the “least likely”<ref name=":5" /> to commit misconduct, as the “central mind” and “legal power” behind election challenges<ref>{{Cite news |last=Pilkington |first=Ed |date=2023-08-19 |title=‘It baffles me’: what drew a mild lawyer with a liberal past into Trump’s election plot? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/19/kenneth-chesebro-trump-georgia-indictment-fake-electors |access-date=2024-09-20 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> and also filed complaints over his alleged conduct.<ref name=":6" /> The Wall Street Journal editorial board described the series of misconduct investigations, which came after complaints filed by The 65 Project,<ref>{{Cite web |date=August 31, 2022 |title=Group files complaint against attorneys involved in lawsuits seeking to overturn 2020 election – WisPolitics |url=https://www.wispolitics.com/2022/group-files-complaint-against-attorneys-involved-in-lawsuits-seeking-to-overturn-2020-election/ |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=WisPolitics |language=en-US}}</ref> including into Cheseboro as “Lawfare at its most dishonest.”<ref>{{Cite news |last=WSJ |first=Editorial Board |date=September 16, 2024 |title=Lawfare at its Most Dishonest |url=https://www.wsj.com/opinion/lawfare-at-its-most-dishonest-wisconsin-doj-electors-2020-cd3e76c7# |work=[[The Wall Street Journal]]}}</ref>

== References ==
<references />

== External links ==

* [https://the65project.com/ Official website]

[[Category:Legal advocacy organizations in the United States]]
[[Category:Political advocacy groups in the United States]]

The 65 Project

2024-09-20T23:29:19Z

Bluetik: /* Reactions */

{{Infobox organization
| website = The65project.com
| name = The 65 Project
| image = 65 Project dark wide 2024.webp
| alt = “The 65 Project” [Dark background, squared serious font, gavel silhouette cutout of bottom curve of “5” in “65”]
| founder = [[David Brock]], Melissa Moss
| origins = Media and legal activist network with Facts First USA
| methods = Disciplinary Bar Complaints, Negative Publicity
| key_people = Michael Teter
| parent_organization = Law Works
| affiliations =
}}
The '''65 Project''' is a legal activism campaign<ref name=":6">{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=October 12, 2022 |title=Lawyer group says Trump attorney broke ethics rules in fake elector plan |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/lawyer-group-says-trump-attorney-broke-ethics-rules-fake-elector-plan-2022-10-12/ |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> seeking to “disbar and discredit”<ref name=":2" /> Trump-affiliated<ref>{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=July 20, 2022 |title=Group lodges more ethics complaints against Trump-affiliated lawyers |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/group-lodges-more-ethics-complaints-against-trump-affiliated-lawyers-2022-07-20/ |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> lawyers who worked on post-election lawsuits.<ref name=":1" /> The earliest reporting on the 65 Project repeatedly described it as a “dark money group.”<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":1" /><ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite web |last=Beals |first=Monique |date=2022-03-07 |title=Group trying to disbar lawyers who worked on Trump’s post-election lawsuits |url=https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/597163-group-trying-to-disbar-lawyers-who-worked-on-trumps-post-election/ |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}</ref>

The group is advised by [[David Brock]], the founder of [[opposition research]] groups [[Media Matters for America]] and [[American Bridge 21st Century]], who described the idea of the 65 Project as bringing attorney bar complaints, and to “shame them and make them toxic in their communities and in their firms."<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Durkee |first=Alison |title=Campaign Targets 111 Trump-Linked Election Lawyers. Here’s Some Already Facing A Backlash. |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/03/07/campaign-targets-111-trump-linked-election-lawyers-heres-some-already-facing-a-backlash/ |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=Forbes |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=Rogers |first=Zachary |date=2022-03-07 |title=Democrat-tied dark-money group seeks to disbar over 100 Trump-linked lawyers, says report |url=https://katv.com/news/nation-world/democrat-tied-dark-money-group-seeks-to-disbar-over-100-trump-linked-lawyers-says-report-the65project-donald-election-overturn-axios-clinton-melissa-moss-david-brock |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=[[American Broadcasting Company|ABC]] KATV |language=en}}</ref> In the same 2022 interview with ''[[Axios (website)|Axios]],'' Brock emphasized “threatening the livelihoods” and reputations <ref name=":1">{{Cite news |last=Markay |first=Lachlan |last2=Swan |first2=Jonathan |date=March 7, 2022 |title=Scoop: High-powered group targets Trump lawyers’ livelihoods |url=https://www.axios.com/2022/03/07/trump-election-lawyers-disbar |access-date=September 19, 2024 |work=[[Axios (website)]]}}</ref> of the attorneys.

The 65 Project's Managing Director is [[Michael Teter]],<ref name=":3">{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=October 12, 2022 |title=Lawyer group says Trump attorney broke ethics rules in fake elector plan |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/lawyer-group-says-trump-attorney-broke-ethics-rules-fake-elector-plan-2022-10-12/ |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> an attorney suing [[Fox News]] as counsel for [[Ray Epps (military veteran)|Ray Epps]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-07-14 |title=Former Trump supporter sues Fox News over Jan. 6 conspiracy theory |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/former-trump-supporter-sues-fox-news-over-jan-6-conspiracy-theory |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=PBS News |language=en-us}}</ref> The project was also devised by [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] political consultant Melissa Moss, a former senior Clinton administration official, and operates through a not-for-profit named “[[Law Works]].”<ref name=":1" />

== Methods ==
In line with the group's mission, the 65 project files ethics complaints with bar associations, some of which have been dismissed for lack of evidence.<ref name=":1" /> These complaints have included high-profile figures, such as [[Ted Cruz]], [[John Eastman]] and [[Cleta Mitchell]].<ref name=":1" /> The 65 Project has also stated its interest in changing lawyers's professional rules, including placing limits on lawyers’s public statements about elections.<ref name=":3" /><ref>{{Cite news |last=Skolnick |first=Sam |date=October 12, 2022 |title=Trump Lawyer Targeting Push Opens New Front With Bar Rules |url=https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/trump-lawyer-targeting-effort-opens-new-strategy-with-bar-rules |work=Bloomberg Law}}</ref>

The group stated in early 2022 it planned to take action against 111 attorneys.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Cassens-Weiss |first=Debra |date=March 9, 2022 |title=Sidney Powell faces ethics charges over election litigation; group seeks discipline against other lawyers |url=https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/sidney-powell-faces-ethics-charges-over-election-litigation-group-seeks-discipline-against-other-lawyers |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=Journal of the American Bar Association}}</ref>
As of July 2023, all but one of the 65 Project’s concluded complaints had been dismissed or found no punishable offense.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Khardori |first=Ankush |date=July 26, 2023 |title=Trump’s ‘Elite Strike Force Team’ Falls on Hard Times |url=https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/07/26/trump-lawyers-65-project-00108120 |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=Politico}}</ref> In 2022, attorneys pursued by the group said they had received additional attempts after previous complaints were unsuccessful.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Sneed |first=Tierney |date=2022-03-10 |title=Inside the effort to disbar attorneys who backed bogus election lawsuits {{!}} CNN Politics |url=https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/10/politics/ethics-complaints-attorney-misconduct-trump-election-reversal/index.html |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=CNN |language=en}}</ref>

== Reactions ==
Concerns over the methods of The 65 project have been raised since at least March 2022.<ref name=":4">{{Cite news |last=Sneed |first=Tierney |date=March 10, 2022 |title=Inside the effort to disbar attorneys who backed bogus election lawsuits |url=https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/10/politics/ethics-complaints-attorney-misconduct-trump-election-reversal/index.html |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[CNN]]}}</ref> Bruce Green, the director of [[Fordham University School of Law|Fordham Law School]]’s Louis Stein Center for Law and Ethics, emphasized that the 65 Project’s complaints were “designed to embarrass” lawyers, discouraging political work “even if they’re playing by the rules.”<ref name=":4" /> CNN noted that the investigations sought by the 65 Project “unfold in secret” until claims are found meritorious in most states, but that, as Green raised concerns about, the 65 Projects “heavily publicized allegations” would harm lawyers reputations before claims were reviewed.<ref name=":4" /> Complaints filed by The 65 Project have been dismissed since the groups first public announcements, beginning with Georgia attorney Brad Carver,<ref name=":1" /> but has continued publish adversarial media targeting lawyers’s professional communities, planning to run advertisements in law journals in late fall 2024.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Feuer |first=Alan |date=September 19, 2024 |title=Legal Watchdog Group Warns Pro-Trump Lawyers Against Subverting Democracy in November |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/19/us/politics/trump-lawyers-election-results.html |work=New York Times}}</ref>

[[Alan Dershowitz]], who was sanctioned for a “frivolous” lawsuit contesting voting methods on behalf of [[Kari Lake]],<ref>{{Cite web |last=Robertson |first=Nick |date=2023-07-15 |title=Kari Lake’s team ordered to pay more than $122K in sanctions over Maricopa lawsuit |url=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4098759-kari-lakes-team-ordered-to-pay-more-than-122k-in-sanctions-over-maricopa-lawsuit/#:~:text=Kari%20Lake%E2%80%99s%20legal%20team,%20including%20lawyer%20Alan%20Dershowitz,%20must%20pay |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}</ref> compared the results of its work as similar to the “ridicule” faced by suspected communists during [[McCarthyism]]<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Klayman |first=Larry |date=April 14, 2023 |title=Petition For A Writ Of Mandamus To The District Of Columbia Court Of Appeals In The Matter Of Larry E. Klayman |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-619/263615/20230414161904073_43664%20pdf%20Peer.pdf |journal=Supreme Court Docket |pages=2}}</ref> and Texas Congressman [[Lance Gooden]] described the 65 Project as “a far-left activist group of lawyers actively engaging in partisan tactics.”<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-01-24 |title=RELEASE: Congressman Lance Gooden Calls for Immediate Action Against the Partisan Legal Tactics of the 65 Project |url=https://gooden.house.gov/2024/1/release-congressman-lance-gooden-calls-for-immediate-action-against-the-partisan-legal-tactics-of-the-65-project |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=Congressman Lance Gooden |language=en}}</ref> The 65 Project describes itself as “bipartisan,” and “defending democracy and the rule of law.”<ref>{{Cite web |date=September 19, 2024 |title=65 Project website |url=https://the65project.com/ |website=65 Project}}</ref>

The 65 Project controversially described attorney Kenneth Cheseboro, who the Guardian described as having a “liberal past”<ref name=":5">{{Cite news |last=Pilkington |first=Ed |date=2023-08-19 |title=‘It baffles me’: what drew a mild lawyer with a liberal past into Trump’s election plot? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/19/kenneth-chesebro-trump-georgia-indictment-fake-electors |access-date=2024-09-20 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> and who lawyer and commentator Jeffrey Toobin described as the “least likely”<ref name=":5" /> to commit misconduct, as the “central mind” and “legal power” behind election challenges<ref>{{Cite news |last=Pilkington |first=Ed |date=2023-08-19 |title=‘It baffles me’: what drew a mild lawyer with a liberal past into Trump’s election plot? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/19/kenneth-chesebro-trump-georgia-indictment-fake-electors |access-date=2024-09-20 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> and also filed complaints over his alleged conduct.<ref name=":6" /> The Wall Street Journal editorial board described the series of misconduct investigations, which came after complaints filed by The 65 Project,<ref>{{Cite web |title=Group files complaint against attorneys involved in lawsuits seeking to overturn 2020 election – WisPolitics |url=https://www.wispolitics.com/2022/group-files-complaint-against-attorneys-involved-in-lawsuits-seeking-to-overturn-2020-election/ |access-date=2024-09-20 |language=en-US}}</ref> including into Cheseboro as “Lawfare at its most dishonest.”<ref>{{Cite news |last=WSJ |first=Editorial Board |date=September 16, 2024 |title=Lawfare at its Most Dishonest |url=https://www.wsj.com/opinion/lawfare-at-its-most-dishonest-wisconsin-doj-electors-2020-cd3e76c7# |work=[[The Wall Street Journal]]}}</ref>

== References ==
<references />

== External links ==

* [https://the65project.com/ Official website]

[[Category:Legal advocacy organizations in the United States]]
[[Category:Political advocacy groups in the United States]]

The 65 Project

2024-09-20T23:25:52Z

Bluetik: /* Methods */ numbers

{{Infobox organization
| website = The65project.com
| name = The 65 Project
| image = 65 Project dark wide 2024.webp
| alt = “The 65 Project” [Dark background, squared serious font, gavel silhouette cutout of bottom curve of “5” in “65”]
| founder = [[David Brock]], Melissa Moss
| origins = Media and legal activist network with Facts First USA
| methods = Disciplinary Bar Complaints, Negative Publicity
| key_people = Michael Teter
| parent_organization = Law Works
| affiliations =
}}
The '''65 Project''' is a legal activism campaign<ref name=":6">{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=October 12, 2022 |title=Lawyer group says Trump attorney broke ethics rules in fake elector plan |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/lawyer-group-says-trump-attorney-broke-ethics-rules-fake-elector-plan-2022-10-12/ |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> seeking to “disbar and discredit”<ref name=":2" /> Trump-affiliated<ref>{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=July 20, 2022 |title=Group lodges more ethics complaints against Trump-affiliated lawyers |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/group-lodges-more-ethics-complaints-against-trump-affiliated-lawyers-2022-07-20/ |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> lawyers who worked on post-election lawsuits.<ref name=":1" /> The earliest reporting on the 65 Project repeatedly described it as a “dark money group.”<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":1" /><ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite web |last=Beals |first=Monique |date=2022-03-07 |title=Group trying to disbar lawyers who worked on Trump’s post-election lawsuits |url=https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/597163-group-trying-to-disbar-lawyers-who-worked-on-trumps-post-election/ |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}</ref>

The group is advised by [[David Brock]], the founder of [[opposition research]] groups [[Media Matters for America]] and [[American Bridge 21st Century]], who described the idea of the 65 Project as bringing attorney bar complaints, and to “shame them and make them toxic in their communities and in their firms."<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Durkee |first=Alison |title=Campaign Targets 111 Trump-Linked Election Lawyers. Here’s Some Already Facing A Backlash. |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/03/07/campaign-targets-111-trump-linked-election-lawyers-heres-some-already-facing-a-backlash/ |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=Forbes |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=Rogers |first=Zachary |date=2022-03-07 |title=Democrat-tied dark-money group seeks to disbar over 100 Trump-linked lawyers, says report |url=https://katv.com/news/nation-world/democrat-tied-dark-money-group-seeks-to-disbar-over-100-trump-linked-lawyers-says-report-the65project-donald-election-overturn-axios-clinton-melissa-moss-david-brock |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=[[American Broadcasting Company|ABC]] KATV |language=en}}</ref> In the same 2022 interview with ''[[Axios (website)|Axios]],'' Brock emphasized “threatening the livelihoods” and reputations <ref name=":1">{{Cite news |last=Markay |first=Lachlan |last2=Swan |first2=Jonathan |date=March 7, 2022 |title=Scoop: High-powered group targets Trump lawyers’ livelihoods |url=https://www.axios.com/2022/03/07/trump-election-lawyers-disbar |access-date=September 19, 2024 |work=[[Axios (website)]]}}</ref> of the attorneys.

The 65 Project's Managing Director is [[Michael Teter]],<ref name=":3">{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=October 12, 2022 |title=Lawyer group says Trump attorney broke ethics rules in fake elector plan |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/lawyer-group-says-trump-attorney-broke-ethics-rules-fake-elector-plan-2022-10-12/ |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> an attorney suing [[Fox News]] as counsel for [[Ray Epps (military veteran)|Ray Epps]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-07-14 |title=Former Trump supporter sues Fox News over Jan. 6 conspiracy theory |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/former-trump-supporter-sues-fox-news-over-jan-6-conspiracy-theory |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=PBS News |language=en-us}}</ref> The project was also devised by [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] political consultant Melissa Moss, a former senior Clinton administration official, and operates through a not-for-profit named “[[Law Works]].”<ref name=":1" />

== Methods ==
In line with the group's mission, the 65 project files ethics complaints with bar associations, some of which have been dismissed for lack of evidence.<ref name=":1" /> These complaints have included high-profile figures, such as [[Ted Cruz]], [[John Eastman]] and [[Cleta Mitchell]].<ref name=":1" /> The 65 Project has also stated its interest in changing lawyers's professional rules, including placing limits on lawyers’s public statements about elections.<ref name=":3" /><ref>{{Cite news |last=Skolnick |first=Sam |date=October 12, 2022 |title=Trump Lawyer Targeting Push Opens New Front With Bar Rules |url=https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/trump-lawyer-targeting-effort-opens-new-strategy-with-bar-rules |work=Bloomberg Law}}</ref>

The group stated in early 2022 it planned to take action against 111 attorneys.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Cassens-Weiss |first=Debra |date=March 9, 2022 |title=Sidney Powell faces ethics charges over election litigation; group seeks discipline against other lawyers |url=https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/sidney-powell-faces-ethics-charges-over-election-litigation-group-seeks-discipline-against-other-lawyers |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=Journal of the American Bar Association}}</ref>
As of July 2023, all but one of the 65 Project’s concluded complaints had been dismissed or found no punishable offense.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Khardori |first=Ankush |date=July 26, 2023 |title=Trump’s ‘Elite Strike Force Team’ Falls on Hard Times |url=https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/07/26/trump-lawyers-65-project-00108120 |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=Politico}}</ref> In 2022, attorneys pursued by the group said they had received additional attempts after previous complaints were unsuccessful.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Sneed |first=Tierney |date=2022-03-10 |title=Inside the effort to disbar attorneys who backed bogus election lawsuits {{!}} CNN Politics |url=https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/10/politics/ethics-complaints-attorney-misconduct-trump-election-reversal/index.html |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=CNN |language=en}}</ref>

== Reactions ==
Concerns over the methods of The 65 project have been raised since at least March 2022.<ref name=":4">{{Cite news |last=Sneed |first=Tierney |date=March 10, 2022 |title=Inside the effort to disbar attorneys who backed bogus election lawsuits |url=https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/10/politics/ethics-complaints-attorney-misconduct-trump-election-reversal/index.html |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[CNN]]}}</ref> Bruce Green, the director of [[Fordham University School of Law|Fordham Law School]]’s Louis Stein Center for Law and Ethics, emphasized that the 65 Project’s complaints were “designed to embarrass” lawyers, discouraging political work “even if they’re playing by the rules.”<ref name=":4" /> CNN noted that the investigations sought by the 65 Project “unfold in secret” until claims are found meritorious in most states, but that, as Green raised concerns about, the 65 Projects “heavily publicized allegations” would harm lawyers reputations before claims were reviewed.<ref name=":4" /> Complaints filed by The 65 Project have been dismissed since the groups first public announcements, beginning with Georgia attorney Brad Carver,<ref name=":1" /> but has continued publish adversarial media targeting lawyers’s professional communities, planning to run advertisements in law journals in late fall 2024.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Feuer |first=Alan |date=September 19, 2024 |title=Legal Watchdog Group Warns Pro-Trump Lawyers Against Subverting Democracy in November |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/19/us/politics/trump-lawyers-election-results.html |work=New York Times}}</ref>

[[Alan Dershowitz]], who was sanctioned for a “frivolous” lawsuit contesting voting methods on behalf of [[Kari Lake]],<ref>{{Cite web |last=Robertson |first=Nick |date=2023-07-15 |title=Kari Lake’s team ordered to pay more than $122K in sanctions over Maricopa lawsuit |url=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4098759-kari-lakes-team-ordered-to-pay-more-than-122k-in-sanctions-over-maricopa-lawsuit/#:~:text=Kari%20Lake%E2%80%99s%20legal%20team,%20including%20lawyer%20Alan%20Dershowitz,%20must%20pay |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}</ref> compared the results of its work as similar to the “ridicule” faced by suspected communists during [[McCarthyism]]<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Klayman |first=Larry |date=April 14, 2023 |title=Petition For A Writ Of Mandamus To The District Of Columbia Court Of Appeals In The Matter Of Larry E. Klayman |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-619/263615/20230414161904073_43664%20pdf%20Peer.pdf |journal=Supreme Court Docket |pages=2}}</ref> and Texas Congressman [[Lance Gooden]] described the 65 Project as “a far-left activist group of lawyers actively engaging in partisan tactics.”<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-01-24 |title=RELEASE: Congressman Lance Gooden Calls for Immediate Action Against the Partisan Legal Tactics of the 65 Project |url=https://gooden.house.gov/2024/1/release-congressman-lance-gooden-calls-for-immediate-action-against-the-partisan-legal-tactics-of-the-65-project |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=Congressman Lance Gooden |language=en}}</ref> The 65 Project describes itself as “bipartisan,” and “defending democracy and the rule of law.”<ref>{{Cite web |date=September 19, 2024 |title=65 Project website |url=https://the65project.com/ |website=65 Project}}</ref>

The 65 Project controversially described attorney Kenneth Cheseboro, who the Guardian described as having a “liberal past”<ref name=":5">{{Cite news |last=Pilkington |first=Ed |date=2023-08-19 |title=‘It baffles me’: what drew a mild lawyer with a liberal past into Trump’s election plot? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/19/kenneth-chesebro-trump-georgia-indictment-fake-electors |access-date=2024-09-20 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> and who lawyer and commentator Jeffrey Toobin described as the “least likely”<ref name=":5" /> to commit misconduct, as the “central mind” and “legal power” behind election challenges<ref>{{Cite news |last=Pilkington |first=Ed |date=2023-08-19 |title=‘It baffles me’: what drew a mild lawyer with a liberal past into Trump’s election plot? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/19/kenneth-chesebro-trump-georgia-indictment-fake-electors |access-date=2024-09-20 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> and also filed complaints over his alleged conduct.<ref name=":6" /> The Wall Street Journal editorial board described misconduct investigations into Cheseboro as “Lawfare at its most dishonest.”<ref>{{Cite news |last=WSJ |first=Editorial Board |date=September 16, 2024 |title=Lawfare at its Most Dishonest |url=https://www.wsj.com/opinion/lawfare-at-its-most-dishonest-wisconsin-doj-electors-2020-cd3e76c7# |work=[[The Wall Street Journal]]}}</ref>

== References ==
<references />

== External links ==

* [https://the65project.com/ Official website]

[[Category:Legal advocacy organizations in the United States]]
[[Category:Political advocacy groups in the United States]]

The 65 Project

2024-09-20T23:10:42Z

Bluetik: /* Methods */ attempts

{{Infobox organization
| website = The65project.com
| name = The 65 Project
| image = 65 Project dark wide 2024.webp
| alt = “The 65 Project” [Dark background, squared serious font, gavel silhouette cutout of bottom curve of “5” in “65”]
| founder = [[David Brock]], Melissa Moss
| origins = Media and legal activist network with Facts First USA
| methods = Disciplinary Bar Complaints, Negative Publicity
| key_people = Michael Teter
| parent_organization = Law Works
| affiliations =
}}
The '''65 Project''' is a legal activism campaign<ref name=":6">{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=October 12, 2022 |title=Lawyer group says Trump attorney broke ethics rules in fake elector plan |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/lawyer-group-says-trump-attorney-broke-ethics-rules-fake-elector-plan-2022-10-12/ |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> seeking to “disbar and discredit”<ref name=":2" /> Trump-affiliated<ref>{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=July 20, 2022 |title=Group lodges more ethics complaints against Trump-affiliated lawyers |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/group-lodges-more-ethics-complaints-against-trump-affiliated-lawyers-2022-07-20/ |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> lawyers who worked on post-election lawsuits.<ref name=":1" /> The earliest reporting on the 65 Project repeatedly described it as a “dark money group.”<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":1" /><ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite web |last=Beals |first=Monique |date=2022-03-07 |title=Group trying to disbar lawyers who worked on Trump’s post-election lawsuits |url=https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/597163-group-trying-to-disbar-lawyers-who-worked-on-trumps-post-election/ |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}</ref>

The group is advised by [[David Brock]], the founder of [[opposition research]] groups [[Media Matters for America]] and [[American Bridge 21st Century]], who described the idea of the 65 Project as bringing attorney bar complaints, and to “shame them and make them toxic in their communities and in their firms."<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Durkee |first=Alison |title=Campaign Targets 111 Trump-Linked Election Lawyers. Here’s Some Already Facing A Backlash. |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/03/07/campaign-targets-111-trump-linked-election-lawyers-heres-some-already-facing-a-backlash/ |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=Forbes |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=Rogers |first=Zachary |date=2022-03-07 |title=Democrat-tied dark-money group seeks to disbar over 100 Trump-linked lawyers, says report |url=https://katv.com/news/nation-world/democrat-tied-dark-money-group-seeks-to-disbar-over-100-trump-linked-lawyers-says-report-the65project-donald-election-overturn-axios-clinton-melissa-moss-david-brock |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=[[American Broadcasting Company|ABC]] KATV |language=en}}</ref> In the same 2022 interview with ''[[Axios (website)|Axios]],'' Brock emphasized “threatening the livelihoods” and reputations <ref name=":1">{{Cite news |last=Markay |first=Lachlan |last2=Swan |first2=Jonathan |date=March 7, 2022 |title=Scoop: High-powered group targets Trump lawyers’ livelihoods |url=https://www.axios.com/2022/03/07/trump-election-lawyers-disbar |access-date=September 19, 2024 |work=[[Axios (website)]]}}</ref> of the attorneys.

The 65 Project's Managing Director is [[Michael Teter]],<ref name=":3">{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=October 12, 2022 |title=Lawyer group says Trump attorney broke ethics rules in fake elector plan |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/lawyer-group-says-trump-attorney-broke-ethics-rules-fake-elector-plan-2022-10-12/ |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> an attorney suing [[Fox News]] as counsel for [[Ray Epps (military veteran)|Ray Epps]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-07-14 |title=Former Trump supporter sues Fox News over Jan. 6 conspiracy theory |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/former-trump-supporter-sues-fox-news-over-jan-6-conspiracy-theory |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=PBS News |language=en-us}}</ref> The project was also devised by [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] political consultant Melissa Moss, a former senior Clinton administration official, and operates through a not-for-profit named “[[Law Works]].”<ref name=":1" />

== Methods ==
In line with the group's mission, the 65 project files ethics complaints with bar associations, some of which have been dismissed for lack of evidence.<ref name=":1" /> These complaints have included high-profile figures, such as [[Ted Cruz]], [[John Eastman]] and [[Cleta Mitchell]].<ref name=":1" /> The 65 Project has also stated its interest in changing lawyers's professional rules, including placing limits on lawyers’s public statements about elections.<ref name=":3" /><ref>{{Cite news |last=Skolnick |first=Sam |date=October 12, 2022 |title=Trump Lawyer Targeting Push Opens New Front With Bar Rules |url=https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/trump-lawyer-targeting-effort-opens-new-strategy-with-bar-rules |work=Bloomberg Law}}</ref>

As of July 2023, all but one of the 65 Project’s concluded complaints had been dismissed or found no punishable offense.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Khardori |first=Ankush |date=July 26, 2023 |title=Trump’s ‘Elite Strike Force Team’ Falls on Hard Times |url=https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/07/26/trump-lawyers-65-project-00108120 |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=Politico}}</ref> In 2022, attorneys pursued by the group said they had received additional attempts after previous complaints were unsuccessful.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Sneed |first=Tierney |date=2022-03-10 |title=Inside the effort to disbar attorneys who backed bogus election lawsuits {{!}} CNN Politics |url=https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/10/politics/ethics-complaints-attorney-misconduct-trump-election-reversal/index.html |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=CNN |language=en}}</ref>

== Reactions ==
Concerns over the methods of The 65 project have been raised since at least March 2022.<ref name=":4">{{Cite news |last=Sneed |first=Tierney |date=March 10, 2022 |title=Inside the effort to disbar attorneys who backed bogus election lawsuits |url=https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/10/politics/ethics-complaints-attorney-misconduct-trump-election-reversal/index.html |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[CNN]]}}</ref> Bruce Green, the director of [[Fordham University School of Law|Fordham Law School]]’s Louis Stein Center for Law and Ethics, emphasized that the 65 Project’s complaints were “designed to embarrass” lawyers, discouraging political work “even if they’re playing by the rules.”<ref name=":4" /> CNN noted that the investigations sought by the 65 Project “unfold in secret” until claims are found meritorious in most states, but that, as Green raised concerns about, the 65 Projects “heavily publicized allegations” would harm lawyers reputations before claims were reviewed.<ref name=":4" /> Complaints filed by The 65 Project have been dismissed since the groups first public announcements, beginning with Georgia attorney Brad Carver,<ref name=":1" /> but has continued publish adversarial media targeting lawyers’s professional communities, planning to run advertisements in law journals in late fall 2024.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Feuer |first=Alan |date=September 19, 2024 |title=Legal Watchdog Group Warns Pro-Trump Lawyers Against Subverting Democracy in November |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/19/us/politics/trump-lawyers-election-results.html |work=New York Times}}</ref>

[[Alan Dershowitz]], who was sanctioned for a “frivolous” lawsuit contesting voting methods on behalf of [[Kari Lake]],<ref>{{Cite web |last=Robertson |first=Nick |date=2023-07-15 |title=Kari Lake’s team ordered to pay more than $122K in sanctions over Maricopa lawsuit |url=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4098759-kari-lakes-team-ordered-to-pay-more-than-122k-in-sanctions-over-maricopa-lawsuit/#:~:text=Kari%20Lake%E2%80%99s%20legal%20team,%20including%20lawyer%20Alan%20Dershowitz,%20must%20pay |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}</ref> compared the results of its work as similar to the “ridicule” faced by suspected communists during [[McCarthyism]]<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Klayman |first=Larry |date=April 14, 2023 |title=Petition For A Writ Of Mandamus To The District Of Columbia Court Of Appeals In The Matter Of Larry E. Klayman |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-619/263615/20230414161904073_43664%20pdf%20Peer.pdf |journal=Supreme Court Docket |pages=2}}</ref> and Texas Congressman [[Lance Gooden]] described the 65 Project as “a far-left activist group of lawyers actively engaging in partisan tactics.”<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-01-24 |title=RELEASE: Congressman Lance Gooden Calls for Immediate Action Against the Partisan Legal Tactics of the 65 Project |url=https://gooden.house.gov/2024/1/release-congressman-lance-gooden-calls-for-immediate-action-against-the-partisan-legal-tactics-of-the-65-project |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=Congressman Lance Gooden |language=en}}</ref> The 65 Project describes itself as “bipartisan,” and “defending democracy and the rule of law.”<ref>{{Cite web |date=September 19, 2024 |title=65 Project website |url=https://the65project.com/ |website=65 Project}}</ref>

The 65 Project controversially described attorney Kenneth Cheseboro, who the Guardian described as having a “liberal past”<ref name=":5">{{Cite news |last=Pilkington |first=Ed |date=2023-08-19 |title=‘It baffles me’: what drew a mild lawyer with a liberal past into Trump’s election plot? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/19/kenneth-chesebro-trump-georgia-indictment-fake-electors |access-date=2024-09-20 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> and who lawyer and commentator Jeffrey Toobin described as the “least likely”<ref name=":5" /> to commit misconduct, as the “central mind” and “legal power” behind election challenges<ref>{{Cite news |last=Pilkington |first=Ed |date=2023-08-19 |title=‘It baffles me’: what drew a mild lawyer with a liberal past into Trump’s election plot? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/19/kenneth-chesebro-trump-georgia-indictment-fake-electors |access-date=2024-09-20 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> and also filed complaints over his alleged conduct.<ref name=":6" /> The Wall Street Journal editorial board described misconduct investigations into Cheseboro as “Lawfare at its most dishonest.”<ref>{{Cite news |last=WSJ |first=Editorial Board |date=September 16, 2024 |title=Lawfare at its Most Dishonest |url=https://www.wsj.com/opinion/lawfare-at-its-most-dishonest-wisconsin-doj-electors-2020-cd3e76c7# |work=[[The Wall Street Journal]]}}</ref>

== References ==
<references />

== External links ==

* [https://the65project.com/ Official website]

[[Category:Legal advocacy organizations in the United States]]
[[Category:Political advocacy groups in the United States]]

The 65 Project

2024-09-20T23:07:50Z

Bluetik: /* Methods */

{{Infobox organization
| website = The65project.com
| name = The 65 Project
| image = 65 Project dark wide 2024.webp
| alt = “The 65 Project” [Dark background, squared serious font, gavel silhouette cutout of bottom curve of “5” in “65”]
| founder = [[David Brock]], Melissa Moss
| origins = Media and legal activist network with Facts First USA
| methods = Disciplinary Bar Complaints, Negative Publicity
| key_people = Michael Teter
| parent_organization = Law Works
| affiliations =
}}
The '''65 Project''' is a legal activism campaign<ref name=":6">{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=October 12, 2022 |title=Lawyer group says Trump attorney broke ethics rules in fake elector plan |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/lawyer-group-says-trump-attorney-broke-ethics-rules-fake-elector-plan-2022-10-12/ |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> seeking to “disbar and discredit”<ref name=":2" /> Trump-affiliated<ref>{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=July 20, 2022 |title=Group lodges more ethics complaints against Trump-affiliated lawyers |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/group-lodges-more-ethics-complaints-against-trump-affiliated-lawyers-2022-07-20/ |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> lawyers who worked on post-election lawsuits.<ref name=":1" /> The earliest reporting on the 65 Project repeatedly described it as a “dark money group.”<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":1" /><ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite web |last=Beals |first=Monique |date=2022-03-07 |title=Group trying to disbar lawyers who worked on Trump’s post-election lawsuits |url=https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/597163-group-trying-to-disbar-lawyers-who-worked-on-trumps-post-election/ |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}</ref>

The group is advised by [[David Brock]], the founder of [[opposition research]] groups [[Media Matters for America]] and [[American Bridge 21st Century]], who described the idea of the 65 Project as bringing attorney bar complaints, and to “shame them and make them toxic in their communities and in their firms."<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Durkee |first=Alison |title=Campaign Targets 111 Trump-Linked Election Lawyers. Here’s Some Already Facing A Backlash. |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/03/07/campaign-targets-111-trump-linked-election-lawyers-heres-some-already-facing-a-backlash/ |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=Forbes |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=Rogers |first=Zachary |date=2022-03-07 |title=Democrat-tied dark-money group seeks to disbar over 100 Trump-linked lawyers, says report |url=https://katv.com/news/nation-world/democrat-tied-dark-money-group-seeks-to-disbar-over-100-trump-linked-lawyers-says-report-the65project-donald-election-overturn-axios-clinton-melissa-moss-david-brock |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=[[American Broadcasting Company|ABC]] KATV |language=en}}</ref> In the same 2022 interview with ''[[Axios (website)|Axios]],'' Brock emphasized “threatening the livelihoods” and reputations <ref name=":1">{{Cite news |last=Markay |first=Lachlan |last2=Swan |first2=Jonathan |date=March 7, 2022 |title=Scoop: High-powered group targets Trump lawyers’ livelihoods |url=https://www.axios.com/2022/03/07/trump-election-lawyers-disbar |access-date=September 19, 2024 |work=[[Axios (website)]]}}</ref> of the attorneys.

The 65 Project's Managing Director is [[Michael Teter]],<ref name=":3">{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=October 12, 2022 |title=Lawyer group says Trump attorney broke ethics rules in fake elector plan |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/lawyer-group-says-trump-attorney-broke-ethics-rules-fake-elector-plan-2022-10-12/ |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> an attorney suing [[Fox News]] as counsel for [[Ray Epps (military veteran)|Ray Epps]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-07-14 |title=Former Trump supporter sues Fox News over Jan. 6 conspiracy theory |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/former-trump-supporter-sues-fox-news-over-jan-6-conspiracy-theory |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=PBS News |language=en-us}}</ref> The project was also devised by [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] political consultant Melissa Moss, a former senior Clinton administration official, and operates through a not-for-profit named “[[Law Works]].”<ref name=":1" />

== Methods ==
In line with the group's mission, the 65 project files ethics complaints with bar associations, some of which have been dismissed for lack of evidence.<ref name=":1" /> These complaints have included high-profile figures, such as [[Ted Cruz]], [[John Eastman]] and [[Cleta Mitchell]].<ref name=":1" /> The 65 Project has also stated its interest in changing lawyers's professional rules, including placing limits on lawyers’s public statements about elections.<ref name=":3" /><ref>{{Cite news |last=Skolnick |first=Sam |date=October 12, 2022 |title=Trump Lawyer Targeting Push Opens New Front With Bar Rules |url=https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/trump-lawyer-targeting-effort-opens-new-strategy-with-bar-rules |work=Bloomberg Law}}</ref>

As of July 2023, all but one of the 65 Project’s concluded complaints had been dismissed or found no punishable offense.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Khardori |first=Ankush |date=July 26, 2023 |title=Trump’s ‘Elite Strike Force Team’ Falls on Hard Times |url=https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/07/26/trump-lawyers-65-project-00108120 |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=Politico}}</ref>

== Reactions ==
Concerns over the methods of The 65 project have been raised since at least March 2022.<ref name=":4">{{Cite news |last=Sneed |first=Tierney |date=March 10, 2022 |title=Inside the effort to disbar attorneys who backed bogus election lawsuits |url=https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/10/politics/ethics-complaints-attorney-misconduct-trump-election-reversal/index.html |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[CNN]]}}</ref> Bruce Green, the director of [[Fordham University School of Law|Fordham Law School]]’s Louis Stein Center for Law and Ethics, emphasized that the 65 Project’s complaints were “designed to embarrass” lawyers, discouraging political work “even if they’re playing by the rules.”<ref name=":4" /> CNN noted that the investigations sought by the 65 Project “unfold in secret” until claims are found meritorious in most states, but that, as Green raised concerns about, the 65 Projects “heavily publicized allegations” would harm lawyers reputations before claims were reviewed.<ref name=":4" /> Complaints filed by The 65 Project have been dismissed since the groups first public announcements, beginning with Georgia attorney Brad Carver,<ref name=":1" /> but has continued publish adversarial media targeting lawyers’s professional communities, planning to run advertisements in law journals in late fall 2024.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Feuer |first=Alan |date=September 19, 2024 |title=Legal Watchdog Group Warns Pro-Trump Lawyers Against Subverting Democracy in November |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/19/us/politics/trump-lawyers-election-results.html |work=New York Times}}</ref>

[[Alan Dershowitz]], who was sanctioned for a “frivolous” lawsuit contesting voting methods on behalf of [[Kari Lake]],<ref>{{Cite web |last=Robertson |first=Nick |date=2023-07-15 |title=Kari Lake’s team ordered to pay more than $122K in sanctions over Maricopa lawsuit |url=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4098759-kari-lakes-team-ordered-to-pay-more-than-122k-in-sanctions-over-maricopa-lawsuit/#:~:text=Kari%20Lake%E2%80%99s%20legal%20team,%20including%20lawyer%20Alan%20Dershowitz,%20must%20pay |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}</ref> compared the results of its work as similar to the “ridicule” faced by suspected communists during [[McCarthyism]]<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Klayman |first=Larry |date=April 14, 2023 |title=Petition For A Writ Of Mandamus To The District Of Columbia Court Of Appeals In The Matter Of Larry E. Klayman |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-619/263615/20230414161904073_43664%20pdf%20Peer.pdf |journal=Supreme Court Docket |pages=2}}</ref> and Texas Congressman [[Lance Gooden]] described the 65 Project as “a far-left activist group of lawyers actively engaging in partisan tactics.”<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-01-24 |title=RELEASE: Congressman Lance Gooden Calls for Immediate Action Against the Partisan Legal Tactics of the 65 Project |url=https://gooden.house.gov/2024/1/release-congressman-lance-gooden-calls-for-immediate-action-against-the-partisan-legal-tactics-of-the-65-project |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=Congressman Lance Gooden |language=en}}</ref> The 65 Project describes itself as “bipartisan,” and “defending democracy and the rule of law.”<ref>{{Cite web |date=September 19, 2024 |title=65 Project website |url=https://the65project.com/ |website=65 Project}}</ref>

The 65 Project controversially described attorney Kenneth Cheseboro, who the Guardian described as having a “liberal past”<ref name=":5">{{Cite news |last=Pilkington |first=Ed |date=2023-08-19 |title=‘It baffles me’: what drew a mild lawyer with a liberal past into Trump’s election plot? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/19/kenneth-chesebro-trump-georgia-indictment-fake-electors |access-date=2024-09-20 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> and who lawyer and commentator Jeffrey Toobin described as the “least likely”<ref name=":5" /> to commit misconduct, as the “central mind” and “legal power” behind election challenges<ref>{{Cite news |last=Pilkington |first=Ed |date=2023-08-19 |title=‘It baffles me’: what drew a mild lawyer with a liberal past into Trump’s election plot? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/19/kenneth-chesebro-trump-georgia-indictment-fake-electors |access-date=2024-09-20 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> and also filed complaints over his alleged conduct.<ref name=":6" /> The Wall Street Journal editorial board described misconduct investigations into Cheseboro as “Lawfare at its most dishonest.”<ref>{{Cite news |last=WSJ |first=Editorial Board |date=September 16, 2024 |title=Lawfare at its Most Dishonest |url=https://www.wsj.com/opinion/lawfare-at-its-most-dishonest-wisconsin-doj-electors-2020-cd3e76c7# |work=[[The Wall Street Journal]]}}</ref>

== References ==
<references />

== External links ==

* [https://the65project.com/ Official website]

[[Category:Legal advocacy organizations in the United States]]
[[Category:Political advocacy groups in the United States]]

Talk:The 65 Project

2024-09-20T22:49:39Z

Bluetik: /* Suggestions for expansion */ Reply

{{WikiProject banner shell |class=Start |1=
{{WikiProject Politics |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Law |importance=Low}}
}}

== Suggestions for expansion ==

@[[User:Bluetik|Bluetik]] 
Couple of suggestions for improvement.
#[[Wikipedia:LEADCITE]], not a huge issue, but could use attention.
#A few more links from other articles would help alot, again, not a huge issue, takes time.
#If you can find a reliable source for it, a list of these lawsuits/complaints and the results could help.
#<nowiki>{{Infobox organization}}</nowiki> could be added.
Let me know if you need/want any help! [[User:Geardona|Geardona]] ([[User talk:Geardona|talk to me?]]) 00:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

:Very helpful, thank you! On it. Once I’m finished I’ll follow up, and I’ll stop with any Qs.
:On 3, I can do a better job of sourcing this, but the complaints filed can cause bar associations or regulators to take action, so the 65 project won’t necessarily get “wins” in the way SPLC strategies might. That said, I can at least get more substantiation!
:Starting point for 4 is in. Thanks for pointing me to #1 - I have the inclines in the first sentence, but for redundancy, went to sentence-level citations after. Will update!
:Thank you! [[User:Bluetik|Bluetik]] ([[User talk:Bluetik|talk]]) 02:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
::I’ve made several updates, and cleaned up some not so great edits made last night, definitely open to feedback [[User:Bluetik|Bluetik]] ([[User talk:Bluetik|talk]]) 22:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Next is to try to find an account of the complaint outcomes. [[User:Bluetik|Bluetik]] ([[User talk:Bluetik|talk]]) 22:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:The 65 Project

2024-09-20T22:48:41Z

Bluetik: /* Suggestions for expansion */ Reply

The 65 Project

2024-09-20T22:47:30Z

Bluetik: /* Methods */

{{Infobox organization
| website = The65project.com
| name = The 65 Project
| image = 65 Project dark wide 2024.webp
| alt = “The 65 Project” [Dark background, squared serious font, gavel silhouette cutout of bottom curve of “5” in “65”]
| founder = [[David Brock]], Melissa Moss
| origins = Media and legal activist network with Facts First USA
| methods = Disciplinary Bar Complaints, Negative Publicity
| key_people = Michael Teter
| parent_organization = Law Works
| affiliations =
}}
The '''65 Project''' is a legal activism campaign<ref name=":6">{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=October 12, 2022 |title=Lawyer group says Trump attorney broke ethics rules in fake elector plan |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/lawyer-group-says-trump-attorney-broke-ethics-rules-fake-elector-plan-2022-10-12/ |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> seeking to “disbar and discredit”<ref name=":2" /> Trump-affiliated<ref>{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=July 20, 2022 |title=Group lodges more ethics complaints against Trump-affiliated lawyers |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/group-lodges-more-ethics-complaints-against-trump-affiliated-lawyers-2022-07-20/ |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> lawyers who worked on post-election lawsuits.<ref name=":1" /> The earliest reporting on the 65 Project repeatedly described it as a “dark money group.”<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":1" /><ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite web |last=Beals |first=Monique |date=2022-03-07 |title=Group trying to disbar lawyers who worked on Trump’s post-election lawsuits |url=https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/597163-group-trying-to-disbar-lawyers-who-worked-on-trumps-post-election/ |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}</ref>

The group is advised by [[David Brock]], the founder of [[opposition research]] groups [[Media Matters for America]] and [[American Bridge 21st Century]], who described the idea of the 65 Project as bringing attorney bar complaints, and to “shame them and make them toxic in their communities and in their firms."<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Durkee |first=Alison |title=Campaign Targets 111 Trump-Linked Election Lawyers. Here’s Some Already Facing A Backlash. |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/03/07/campaign-targets-111-trump-linked-election-lawyers-heres-some-already-facing-a-backlash/ |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=Forbes |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=Rogers |first=Zachary |date=2022-03-07 |title=Democrat-tied dark-money group seeks to disbar over 100 Trump-linked lawyers, says report |url=https://katv.com/news/nation-world/democrat-tied-dark-money-group-seeks-to-disbar-over-100-trump-linked-lawyers-says-report-the65project-donald-election-overturn-axios-clinton-melissa-moss-david-brock |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=[[American Broadcasting Company|ABC]] KATV |language=en}}</ref> In the same 2022 interview with ''[[Axios (website)|Axios]],'' Brock emphasized “threatening the livelihoods” and reputations <ref name=":1">{{Cite news |last=Markay |first=Lachlan |last2=Swan |first2=Jonathan |date=March 7, 2022 |title=Scoop: High-powered group targets Trump lawyers’ livelihoods |url=https://www.axios.com/2022/03/07/trump-election-lawyers-disbar |access-date=September 19, 2024 |work=[[Axios (website)]]}}</ref> of the attorneys.

The 65 Project's Managing Director is [[Michael Teter]],<ref name=":3">{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=October 12, 2022 |title=Lawyer group says Trump attorney broke ethics rules in fake elector plan |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/lawyer-group-says-trump-attorney-broke-ethics-rules-fake-elector-plan-2022-10-12/ |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> an attorney suing [[Fox News]] as counsel for [[Ray Epps (military veteran)|Ray Epps]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-07-14 |title=Former Trump supporter sues Fox News over Jan. 6 conspiracy theory |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/former-trump-supporter-sues-fox-news-over-jan-6-conspiracy-theory |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=PBS News |language=en-us}}</ref> The project was also devised by [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] political consultant Melissa Moss, a former senior Clinton administration official, and operates through a not-for-profit named “[[Law Works]].”<ref name=":1" />

== Methods ==
In line with the group's mission, the 65 project files ethics complaints with bar associations, some of which have been dismissed for lack of evidence.<ref name=":1" /> These complaints have included high-profile figures, such as [[Ted Cruz]], [[John Eastman]] and [[Cleta Mitchell]].<ref name=":1" /> The 65 Project has also stated its interest in changing lawyers's professional rules, including placing limits on lawyers’s public statements about elections.<ref name=":3" /><ref>{{Cite news |last=Skolnick |first=Sam |date=October 12, 2022 |title=Trump Lawyer Targeting Push Opens New Front With Bar Rules |url=https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/trump-lawyer-targeting-effort-opens-new-strategy-with-bar-rules |work=Bloomberg Law}}</ref>

== Reactions ==
Concerns over the methods of The 65 project have been raised since at least March 2022.<ref name=":4">{{Cite news |last=Sneed |first=Tierney |date=March 10, 2022 |title=Inside the effort to disbar attorneys who backed bogus election lawsuits |url=https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/10/politics/ethics-complaints-attorney-misconduct-trump-election-reversal/index.html |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[CNN]]}}</ref> Bruce Green, the director of [[Fordham University School of Law|Fordham Law School]]’s Louis Stein Center for Law and Ethics, emphasized that the 65 Project’s complaints were “designed to embarrass” lawyers, discouraging political work “even if they’re playing by the rules.”<ref name=":4" /> CNN noted that the investigations sought by the 65 Project “unfold in secret” until claims are found meritorious in most states, but that, as Green raised concerns about, the 65 Projects “heavily publicized allegations” would harm lawyers reputations before claims were reviewed.<ref name=":4" /> Complaints filed by The 65 Project have been dismissed since the groups first public announcements, beginning with Georgia attorney Brad Carver,<ref name=":1" /> but has continued publish adversarial media targeting lawyers’s professional communities, planning to run advertisements in law journals in late fall 2024.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Feuer |first=Alan |date=September 19, 2024 |title=Legal Watchdog Group Warns Pro-Trump Lawyers Against Subverting Democracy in November |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/19/us/politics/trump-lawyers-election-results.html |work=New York Times}}</ref>

[[Alan Dershowitz]], who was sanctioned for a “frivolous” lawsuit contesting voting methods on behalf of [[Kari Lake]],<ref>{{Cite web |last=Robertson |first=Nick |date=2023-07-15 |title=Kari Lake’s team ordered to pay more than $122K in sanctions over Maricopa lawsuit |url=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4098759-kari-lakes-team-ordered-to-pay-more-than-122k-in-sanctions-over-maricopa-lawsuit/#:~:text=Kari%20Lake%E2%80%99s%20legal%20team,%20including%20lawyer%20Alan%20Dershowitz,%20must%20pay |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}</ref> compared the results of its work as similar to the “ridicule” faced by suspected communists during [[McCarthyism]]<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Klayman |first=Larry |date=April 14, 2023 |title=Petition For A Writ Of Mandamus To The District Of Columbia Court Of Appeals In The Matter Of Larry E. Klayman |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-619/263615/20230414161904073_43664%20pdf%20Peer.pdf |journal=Supreme Court Docket |pages=2}}</ref> and Texas Congressman [[Lance Gooden]] described the 65 Project as “a far-left activist group of lawyers actively engaging in partisan tactics.”<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-01-24 |title=RELEASE: Congressman Lance Gooden Calls for Immediate Action Against the Partisan Legal Tactics of the 65 Project |url=https://gooden.house.gov/2024/1/release-congressman-lance-gooden-calls-for-immediate-action-against-the-partisan-legal-tactics-of-the-65-project |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=Congressman Lance Gooden |language=en}}</ref> The 65 Project describes itself as “bipartisan,” and “defending democracy and the rule of law.”<ref>{{Cite web |date=September 19, 2024 |title=65 Project website |url=https://the65project.com/ |website=65 Project}}</ref>

The 65 Project controversially described attorney Kenneth Cheseboro, who the Guardian described as having a “liberal past”<ref name=":5">{{Cite news |last=Pilkington |first=Ed |date=2023-08-19 |title=‘It baffles me’: what drew a mild lawyer with a liberal past into Trump’s election plot? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/19/kenneth-chesebro-trump-georgia-indictment-fake-electors |access-date=2024-09-20 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> and who lawyer and commentator Jeffrey Toobin described as the “least likely”<ref name=":5" /> to commit misconduct, as the “central mind” and “legal power” behind election challenges<ref>{{Cite news |last=Pilkington |first=Ed |date=2023-08-19 |title=‘It baffles me’: what drew a mild lawyer with a liberal past into Trump’s election plot? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/19/kenneth-chesebro-trump-georgia-indictment-fake-electors |access-date=2024-09-20 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> and also filed complaints over his alleged conduct.<ref name=":6" /> The Wall Street Journal editorial board described misconduct investigations into Cheseboro as “Lawfare at its most dishonest.”<ref>{{Cite news |last=WSJ |first=Editorial Board |date=September 16, 2024 |title=Lawfare at its Most Dishonest |url=https://www.wsj.com/opinion/lawfare-at-its-most-dishonest-wisconsin-doj-electors-2020-cd3e76c7# |work=[[The Wall Street Journal]]}}</ref>

== References ==
<references />

== External links ==

* [https://the65project.com/ Official website]

[[Category:Legal advocacy organizations in the United States]]
[[Category:Political advocacy groups in the United States]]

The 65 Project

2024-09-20T22:46:50Z

Bluetik: /* Methods */

{{Infobox organization
| website = The65project.com
| name = The 65 Project
| image = 65 Project dark wide 2024.webp
| alt = “The 65 Project” [Dark background, squared serious font, gavel silhouette cutout of bottom curve of “5” in “65”]
| founder = [[David Brock]], Melissa Moss
| origins = Media and legal activist network with Facts First USA
| methods = Disciplinary Bar Complaints, Negative Publicity
| key_people = Michael Teter
| parent_organization = Law Works
| affiliations =
}}
The '''65 Project''' is a legal activism campaign<ref name=":6">{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=October 12, 2022 |title=Lawyer group says Trump attorney broke ethics rules in fake elector plan |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/lawyer-group-says-trump-attorney-broke-ethics-rules-fake-elector-plan-2022-10-12/ |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> seeking to “disbar and discredit”<ref name=":2" /> Trump-affiliated<ref>{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=July 20, 2022 |title=Group lodges more ethics complaints against Trump-affiliated lawyers |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/group-lodges-more-ethics-complaints-against-trump-affiliated-lawyers-2022-07-20/ |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> lawyers who worked on post-election lawsuits.<ref name=":1" /> The earliest reporting on the 65 Project repeatedly described it as a “dark money group.”<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":1" /><ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite web |last=Beals |first=Monique |date=2022-03-07 |title=Group trying to disbar lawyers who worked on Trump’s post-election lawsuits |url=https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/597163-group-trying-to-disbar-lawyers-who-worked-on-trumps-post-election/ |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}</ref>

The group is advised by [[David Brock]], the founder of [[opposition research]] groups [[Media Matters for America]] and [[American Bridge 21st Century]], who described the idea of the 65 Project as bringing attorney bar complaints, and to “shame them and make them toxic in their communities and in their firms."<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Durkee |first=Alison |title=Campaign Targets 111 Trump-Linked Election Lawyers. Here’s Some Already Facing A Backlash. |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/03/07/campaign-targets-111-trump-linked-election-lawyers-heres-some-already-facing-a-backlash/ |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=Forbes |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=Rogers |first=Zachary |date=2022-03-07 |title=Democrat-tied dark-money group seeks to disbar over 100 Trump-linked lawyers, says report |url=https://katv.com/news/nation-world/democrat-tied-dark-money-group-seeks-to-disbar-over-100-trump-linked-lawyers-says-report-the65project-donald-election-overturn-axios-clinton-melissa-moss-david-brock |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=[[American Broadcasting Company|ABC]] KATV |language=en}}</ref> In the same 2022 interview with ''[[Axios (website)|Axios]],'' Brock emphasized “threatening the livelihoods” and reputations <ref name=":1">{{Cite news |last=Markay |first=Lachlan |last2=Swan |first2=Jonathan |date=March 7, 2022 |title=Scoop: High-powered group targets Trump lawyers’ livelihoods |url=https://www.axios.com/2022/03/07/trump-election-lawyers-disbar |access-date=September 19, 2024 |work=[[Axios (website)]]}}</ref> of the attorneys.

The 65 Project's Managing Director is [[Michael Teter]],<ref name=":3">{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=October 12, 2022 |title=Lawyer group says Trump attorney broke ethics rules in fake elector plan |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/lawyer-group-says-trump-attorney-broke-ethics-rules-fake-elector-plan-2022-10-12/ |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> an attorney suing [[Fox News]] as counsel for [[Ray Epps (military veteran)|Ray Epps]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-07-14 |title=Former Trump supporter sues Fox News over Jan. 6 conspiracy theory |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/former-trump-supporter-sues-fox-news-over-jan-6-conspiracy-theory |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=PBS News |language=en-us}}</ref> The project was also devised by [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] political consultant Melissa Moss, a former senior Clinton administration official, and operates through a not-for-profit named “[[Law Works]].”<ref name=":1" />

== Methods ==
In line with the group's mission, the 65 project files ethics complaints with bar associations, some of which have been dismissed for lack of evidence.<ref name=":1" /> These complaints have included high-profile attorneys, such as [[John Eastman]] and [[Cleta Mitchell]].<ref name=":1" /> The 65 Project has also stated its interest in changing lawyers's professional rules, including placing limits on lawyers’s public statements about elections.<ref name=":3" /><ref>{{Cite news |last=Skolnick |first=Sam |date=October 12, 2022 |title=Trump Lawyer Targeting Push Opens New Front With Bar Rules |url=https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/trump-lawyer-targeting-effort-opens-new-strategy-with-bar-rules |work=Bloomberg Law}}</ref>

== Reactions ==
Concerns over the methods of The 65 project have been raised since at least March 2022.<ref name=":4">{{Cite news |last=Sneed |first=Tierney |date=March 10, 2022 |title=Inside the effort to disbar attorneys who backed bogus election lawsuits |url=https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/10/politics/ethics-complaints-attorney-misconduct-trump-election-reversal/index.html |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[CNN]]}}</ref> Bruce Green, the director of [[Fordham University School of Law|Fordham Law School]]’s Louis Stein Center for Law and Ethics, emphasized that the 65 Project’s complaints were “designed to embarrass” lawyers, discouraging political work “even if they’re playing by the rules.”<ref name=":4" /> CNN noted that the investigations sought by the 65 Project “unfold in secret” until claims are found meritorious in most states, but that, as Green raised concerns about, the 65 Projects “heavily publicized allegations” would harm lawyers reputations before claims were reviewed.<ref name=":4" /> Complaints filed by The 65 Project have been dismissed since the groups first public announcements, beginning with Georgia attorney Brad Carver,<ref name=":1" /> but has continued publish adversarial media targeting lawyers’s professional communities, planning to run advertisements in law journals in late fall 2024.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Feuer |first=Alan |date=September 19, 2024 |title=Legal Watchdog Group Warns Pro-Trump Lawyers Against Subverting Democracy in November |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/19/us/politics/trump-lawyers-election-results.html |work=New York Times}}</ref>

[[Alan Dershowitz]], who was sanctioned for a “frivolous” lawsuit contesting voting methods on behalf of [[Kari Lake]],<ref>{{Cite web |last=Robertson |first=Nick |date=2023-07-15 |title=Kari Lake’s team ordered to pay more than $122K in sanctions over Maricopa lawsuit |url=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4098759-kari-lakes-team-ordered-to-pay-more-than-122k-in-sanctions-over-maricopa-lawsuit/#:~:text=Kari%20Lake%E2%80%99s%20legal%20team,%20including%20lawyer%20Alan%20Dershowitz,%20must%20pay |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}</ref> compared the results of its work as similar to the “ridicule” faced by suspected communists during [[McCarthyism]]<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Klayman |first=Larry |date=April 14, 2023 |title=Petition For A Writ Of Mandamus To The District Of Columbia Court Of Appeals In The Matter Of Larry E. Klayman |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-619/263615/20230414161904073_43664%20pdf%20Peer.pdf |journal=Supreme Court Docket |pages=2}}</ref> and Texas Congressman [[Lance Gooden]] described the 65 Project as “a far-left activist group of lawyers actively engaging in partisan tactics.”<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-01-24 |title=RELEASE: Congressman Lance Gooden Calls for Immediate Action Against the Partisan Legal Tactics of the 65 Project |url=https://gooden.house.gov/2024/1/release-congressman-lance-gooden-calls-for-immediate-action-against-the-partisan-legal-tactics-of-the-65-project |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=Congressman Lance Gooden |language=en}}</ref> The 65 Project describes itself as “bipartisan,” and “defending democracy and the rule of law.”<ref>{{Cite web |date=September 19, 2024 |title=65 Project website |url=https://the65project.com/ |website=65 Project}}</ref>

The 65 Project controversially described attorney Kenneth Cheseboro, who the Guardian described as having a “liberal past”<ref name=":5">{{Cite news |last=Pilkington |first=Ed |date=2023-08-19 |title=‘It baffles me’: what drew a mild lawyer with a liberal past into Trump’s election plot? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/19/kenneth-chesebro-trump-georgia-indictment-fake-electors |access-date=2024-09-20 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> and who lawyer and commentator Jeffrey Toobin described as the “least likely”<ref name=":5" /> to commit misconduct, as the “central mind” and “legal power” behind election challenges<ref>{{Cite news |last=Pilkington |first=Ed |date=2023-08-19 |title=‘It baffles me’: what drew a mild lawyer with a liberal past into Trump’s election plot? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/19/kenneth-chesebro-trump-georgia-indictment-fake-electors |access-date=2024-09-20 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> and also filed complaints over his alleged conduct.<ref name=":6" /> The Wall Street Journal editorial board described misconduct investigations into Cheseboro as “Lawfare at its most dishonest.”<ref>{{Cite news |last=WSJ |first=Editorial Board |date=September 16, 2024 |title=Lawfare at its Most Dishonest |url=https://www.wsj.com/opinion/lawfare-at-its-most-dishonest-wisconsin-doj-electors-2020-cd3e76c7# |work=[[The Wall Street Journal]]}}</ref>

== References ==
<references />

== External links ==

* [https://the65project.com/ Official website]

[[Category:Legal advocacy organizations in the United States]]
[[Category:Political advocacy groups in the United States]]

The 65 Project

2024-09-20T22:43:49Z

Bluetik: /* Methods */ addl citation

{{Infobox organization
| website = The65project.com
| name = The 65 Project
| image = 65 Project dark wide 2024.webp
| alt = “The 65 Project” [Dark background, squared serious font, gavel silhouette cutout of bottom curve of “5” in “65”]
| founder = [[David Brock]], Melissa Moss
| origins = Media and legal activist network with Facts First USA
| methods = Disciplinary Bar Complaints, Negative Publicity
| key_people = Michael Teter
| parent_organization = Law Works
| affiliations =
}}
The '''65 Project''' is a legal activism campaign<ref name=":6">{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=October 12, 2022 |title=Lawyer group says Trump attorney broke ethics rules in fake elector plan |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/lawyer-group-says-trump-attorney-broke-ethics-rules-fake-elector-plan-2022-10-12/ |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> seeking to “disbar and discredit”<ref name=":2" /> Trump-affiliated<ref>{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=July 20, 2022 |title=Group lodges more ethics complaints against Trump-affiliated lawyers |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/group-lodges-more-ethics-complaints-against-trump-affiliated-lawyers-2022-07-20/ |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> lawyers who worked on post-election lawsuits.<ref name=":1" /> The earliest reporting on the 65 Project repeatedly described it as a “dark money group.”<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":1" /><ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite web |last=Beals |first=Monique |date=2022-03-07 |title=Group trying to disbar lawyers who worked on Trump’s post-election lawsuits |url=https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/597163-group-trying-to-disbar-lawyers-who-worked-on-trumps-post-election/ |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}</ref>

The group is advised by [[David Brock]], the founder of [[opposition research]] groups [[Media Matters for America]] and [[American Bridge 21st Century]], who described the idea of the 65 Project as bringing attorney bar complaints, and to “shame them and make them toxic in their communities and in their firms."<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Durkee |first=Alison |title=Campaign Targets 111 Trump-Linked Election Lawyers. Here’s Some Already Facing A Backlash. |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/03/07/campaign-targets-111-trump-linked-election-lawyers-heres-some-already-facing-a-backlash/ |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=Forbes |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=Rogers |first=Zachary |date=2022-03-07 |title=Democrat-tied dark-money group seeks to disbar over 100 Trump-linked lawyers, says report |url=https://katv.com/news/nation-world/democrat-tied-dark-money-group-seeks-to-disbar-over-100-trump-linked-lawyers-says-report-the65project-donald-election-overturn-axios-clinton-melissa-moss-david-brock |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=[[American Broadcasting Company|ABC]] KATV |language=en}}</ref> In the same 2022 interview with ''[[Axios (website)|Axios]],'' Brock emphasized “threatening the livelihoods” and reputations <ref name=":1">{{Cite news |last=Markay |first=Lachlan |last2=Swan |first2=Jonathan |date=March 7, 2022 |title=Scoop: High-powered group targets Trump lawyers’ livelihoods |url=https://www.axios.com/2022/03/07/trump-election-lawyers-disbar |access-date=September 19, 2024 |work=[[Axios (website)]]}}</ref> of the attorneys.

The 65 Project's Managing Director is [[Michael Teter]],<ref name=":3">{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=October 12, 2022 |title=Lawyer group says Trump attorney broke ethics rules in fake elector plan |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/lawyer-group-says-trump-attorney-broke-ethics-rules-fake-elector-plan-2022-10-12/ |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> an attorney suing [[Fox News]] as counsel for [[Ray Epps (military veteran)|Ray Epps]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-07-14 |title=Former Trump supporter sues Fox News over Jan. 6 conspiracy theory |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/former-trump-supporter-sues-fox-news-over-jan-6-conspiracy-theory |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=PBS News |language=en-us}}</ref> The project was also devised by [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] political consultant Melissa Moss, a former senior Clinton administration official, and operates through a not-for-profit named “[[Law Works]].”<ref name=":1" />

== Methods ==
In line with the group's mission, the 65 project files ethics complaints with bar associations, some of which have been dismissed for lack of evidence.<ref name=":1" /> These complaints have included high-profile attorneys, such as [[John Eastman]] and [[Cleta Mitchell]].<ref name=":1" /> The 65 Project has also stated its interest in changing lawyers's professional rules.<ref name=":3" /><ref>{{Cite news |last=Skolnick |first=Sam |date=October 12, 2022 |title=Trump Lawyer Targeting Push Opens New Front With Bar Rules |url=https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/trump-lawyer-targeting-effort-opens-new-strategy-with-bar-rules |work=Bloomberg Law}}</ref>

== Reactions ==
Concerns over the methods of The 65 project have been raised since at least March 2022.<ref name=":4">{{Cite news |last=Sneed |first=Tierney |date=March 10, 2022 |title=Inside the effort to disbar attorneys who backed bogus election lawsuits |url=https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/10/politics/ethics-complaints-attorney-misconduct-trump-election-reversal/index.html |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[CNN]]}}</ref> Bruce Green, the director of [[Fordham University School of Law|Fordham Law School]]’s Louis Stein Center for Law and Ethics, emphasized that the 65 Project’s complaints were “designed to embarrass” lawyers, discouraging political work “even if they’re playing by the rules.”<ref name=":4" /> CNN noted that the investigations sought by the 65 Project “unfold in secret” until claims are found meritorious in most states, but that, as Green raised concerns about, the 65 Projects “heavily publicized allegations” would harm lawyers reputations before claims were reviewed.<ref name=":4" /> Complaints filed by The 65 Project have been dismissed since the groups first public announcements, beginning with Georgia attorney Brad Carver,<ref name=":1" /> but has continued publish adversarial media targeting lawyers’s professional communities, planning to run advertisements in law journals in late fall 2024.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Feuer |first=Alan |date=September 19, 2024 |title=Legal Watchdog Group Warns Pro-Trump Lawyers Against Subverting Democracy in November |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/19/us/politics/trump-lawyers-election-results.html |work=New York Times}}</ref>

[[Alan Dershowitz]], who was sanctioned for a “frivolous” lawsuit contesting voting methods on behalf of [[Kari Lake]],<ref>{{Cite web |last=Robertson |first=Nick |date=2023-07-15 |title=Kari Lake’s team ordered to pay more than $122K in sanctions over Maricopa lawsuit |url=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4098759-kari-lakes-team-ordered-to-pay-more-than-122k-in-sanctions-over-maricopa-lawsuit/#:~:text=Kari%20Lake%E2%80%99s%20legal%20team,%20including%20lawyer%20Alan%20Dershowitz,%20must%20pay |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}</ref> compared the results of its work as similar to the “ridicule” faced by suspected communists during [[McCarthyism]]<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Klayman |first=Larry |date=April 14, 2023 |title=Petition For A Writ Of Mandamus To The District Of Columbia Court Of Appeals In The Matter Of Larry E. Klayman |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-619/263615/20230414161904073_43664%20pdf%20Peer.pdf |journal=Supreme Court Docket |pages=2}}</ref> and Texas Congressman [[Lance Gooden]] described the 65 Project as “a far-left activist group of lawyers actively engaging in partisan tactics.”<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-01-24 |title=RELEASE: Congressman Lance Gooden Calls for Immediate Action Against the Partisan Legal Tactics of the 65 Project |url=https://gooden.house.gov/2024/1/release-congressman-lance-gooden-calls-for-immediate-action-against-the-partisan-legal-tactics-of-the-65-project |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=Congressman Lance Gooden |language=en}}</ref> The 65 Project describes itself as “bipartisan,” and “defending democracy and the rule of law.”<ref>{{Cite web |date=September 19, 2024 |title=65 Project website |url=https://the65project.com/ |website=65 Project}}</ref>

The 65 Project controversially described attorney Kenneth Cheseboro, who the Guardian described as having a “liberal past”<ref name=":5">{{Cite news |last=Pilkington |first=Ed |date=2023-08-19 |title=‘It baffles me’: what drew a mild lawyer with a liberal past into Trump’s election plot? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/19/kenneth-chesebro-trump-georgia-indictment-fake-electors |access-date=2024-09-20 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> and who lawyer and commentator Jeffrey Toobin described as the “least likely”<ref name=":5" /> to commit misconduct, as the “central mind” and “legal power” behind election challenges<ref>{{Cite news |last=Pilkington |first=Ed |date=2023-08-19 |title=‘It baffles me’: what drew a mild lawyer with a liberal past into Trump’s election plot? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/19/kenneth-chesebro-trump-georgia-indictment-fake-electors |access-date=2024-09-20 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> and also filed complaints over his alleged conduct.<ref name=":6" /> The Wall Street Journal editorial board described misconduct investigations into Cheseboro as “Lawfare at its most dishonest.”<ref>{{Cite news |last=WSJ |first=Editorial Board |date=September 16, 2024 |title=Lawfare at its Most Dishonest |url=https://www.wsj.com/opinion/lawfare-at-its-most-dishonest-wisconsin-doj-electors-2020-cd3e76c7# |work=[[The Wall Street Journal]]}}</ref>

== References ==
<references />

== External links ==

* [https://the65project.com/ Official website]

[[Category:Legal advocacy organizations in the United States]]
[[Category:Political advocacy groups in the United States]]

The 65 Project

2024-09-20T22:41:59Z

Bluetik: /* Reactions */ complaint

{{Infobox organization
| website = The65project.com
| name = The 65 Project
| image = 65 Project dark wide 2024.webp
| alt = “The 65 Project” [Dark background, squared serious font, gavel silhouette cutout of bottom curve of “5” in “65”]
| founder = [[David Brock]], Melissa Moss
| origins = Media and legal activist network with Facts First USA
| methods = Disciplinary Bar Complaints, Negative Publicity
| key_people = Michael Teter
| parent_organization = Law Works
| affiliations =
}}
The '''65 Project''' is a legal activism campaign<ref name=":6">{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=October 12, 2022 |title=Lawyer group says Trump attorney broke ethics rules in fake elector plan |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/lawyer-group-says-trump-attorney-broke-ethics-rules-fake-elector-plan-2022-10-12/ |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> seeking to “disbar and discredit”<ref name=":2" /> Trump-affiliated<ref>{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=July 20, 2022 |title=Group lodges more ethics complaints against Trump-affiliated lawyers |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/group-lodges-more-ethics-complaints-against-trump-affiliated-lawyers-2022-07-20/ |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> lawyers who worked on post-election lawsuits.<ref name=":1" /> The earliest reporting on the 65 Project repeatedly described it as a “dark money group.”<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":1" /><ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite web |last=Beals |first=Monique |date=2022-03-07 |title=Group trying to disbar lawyers who worked on Trump’s post-election lawsuits |url=https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/597163-group-trying-to-disbar-lawyers-who-worked-on-trumps-post-election/ |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}</ref>

The group is advised by [[David Brock]], the founder of [[opposition research]] groups [[Media Matters for America]] and [[American Bridge 21st Century]], who described the idea of the 65 Project as bringing attorney bar complaints, and to “shame them and make them toxic in their communities and in their firms."<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Durkee |first=Alison |title=Campaign Targets 111 Trump-Linked Election Lawyers. Here’s Some Already Facing A Backlash. |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/03/07/campaign-targets-111-trump-linked-election-lawyers-heres-some-already-facing-a-backlash/ |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=Forbes |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=Rogers |first=Zachary |date=2022-03-07 |title=Democrat-tied dark-money group seeks to disbar over 100 Trump-linked lawyers, says report |url=https://katv.com/news/nation-world/democrat-tied-dark-money-group-seeks-to-disbar-over-100-trump-linked-lawyers-says-report-the65project-donald-election-overturn-axios-clinton-melissa-moss-david-brock |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=[[American Broadcasting Company|ABC]] KATV |language=en}}</ref> In the same 2022 interview with ''[[Axios (website)|Axios]],'' Brock emphasized “threatening the livelihoods” and reputations <ref name=":1">{{Cite news |last=Markay |first=Lachlan |last2=Swan |first2=Jonathan |date=March 7, 2022 |title=Scoop: High-powered group targets Trump lawyers’ livelihoods |url=https://www.axios.com/2022/03/07/trump-election-lawyers-disbar |access-date=September 19, 2024 |work=[[Axios (website)]]}}</ref> of the attorneys.

The 65 Project's Managing Director is [[Michael Teter]],<ref name=":3">{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=October 12, 2022 |title=Lawyer group says Trump attorney broke ethics rules in fake elector plan |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/lawyer-group-says-trump-attorney-broke-ethics-rules-fake-elector-plan-2022-10-12/ |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> an attorney suing [[Fox News]] as counsel for [[Ray Epps (military veteran)|Ray Epps]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-07-14 |title=Former Trump supporter sues Fox News over Jan. 6 conspiracy theory |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/former-trump-supporter-sues-fox-news-over-jan-6-conspiracy-theory |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=PBS News |language=en-us}}</ref> The project was also devised by [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] political consultant Melissa Moss, a former senior Clinton administration official, and operates through a not-for-profit named “[[Law Works]].”<ref name=":1" />

== Methods ==
In line with the group's mission, the 65 project files ethics complaints with bar associations, some of which have been dismissed for lack of evidence.<ref name=":1" /> These complaints have included high-profile attorneys, such as [[John Eastman]] and [[Cleta Mitchell]].<ref name=":1" /> The 65 Project has also stated its interest in changing lawyers's professional rules.<ref name=":3" />

== Reactions ==
Concerns over the methods of The 65 project have been raised since at least March 2022.<ref name=":4">{{Cite news |last=Sneed |first=Tierney |date=March 10, 2022 |title=Inside the effort to disbar attorneys who backed bogus election lawsuits |url=https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/10/politics/ethics-complaints-attorney-misconduct-trump-election-reversal/index.html |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[CNN]]}}</ref> Bruce Green, the director of [[Fordham University School of Law|Fordham Law School]]’s Louis Stein Center for Law and Ethics, emphasized that the 65 Project’s complaints were “designed to embarrass” lawyers, discouraging political work “even if they’re playing by the rules.”<ref name=":4" /> CNN noted that the investigations sought by the 65 Project “unfold in secret” until claims are found meritorious in most states, but that, as Green raised concerns about, the 65 Projects “heavily publicized allegations” would harm lawyers reputations before claims were reviewed.<ref name=":4" /> Complaints filed by The 65 Project have been dismissed since the groups first public announcements, beginning with Georgia attorney Brad Carver,<ref name=":1" /> but has continued publish adversarial media targeting lawyers’s professional communities, planning to run advertisements in law journals in late fall 2024.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Feuer |first=Alan |date=September 19, 2024 |title=Legal Watchdog Group Warns Pro-Trump Lawyers Against Subverting Democracy in November |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/19/us/politics/trump-lawyers-election-results.html |work=New York Times}}</ref>

[[Alan Dershowitz]], who was sanctioned for a “frivolous” lawsuit contesting voting methods on behalf of [[Kari Lake]],<ref>{{Cite web |last=Robertson |first=Nick |date=2023-07-15 |title=Kari Lake’s team ordered to pay more than $122K in sanctions over Maricopa lawsuit |url=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4098759-kari-lakes-team-ordered-to-pay-more-than-122k-in-sanctions-over-maricopa-lawsuit/#:~:text=Kari%20Lake%E2%80%99s%20legal%20team,%20including%20lawyer%20Alan%20Dershowitz,%20must%20pay |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}</ref> compared the results of its work as similar to the “ridicule” faced by suspected communists during [[McCarthyism]]<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Klayman |first=Larry |date=April 14, 2023 |title=Petition For A Writ Of Mandamus To The District Of Columbia Court Of Appeals In The Matter Of Larry E. Klayman |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-619/263615/20230414161904073_43664%20pdf%20Peer.pdf |journal=Supreme Court Docket |pages=2}}</ref> and Texas Congressman [[Lance Gooden]] described the 65 Project as “a far-left activist group of lawyers actively engaging in partisan tactics.”<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-01-24 |title=RELEASE: Congressman Lance Gooden Calls for Immediate Action Against the Partisan Legal Tactics of the 65 Project |url=https://gooden.house.gov/2024/1/release-congressman-lance-gooden-calls-for-immediate-action-against-the-partisan-legal-tactics-of-the-65-project |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=Congressman Lance Gooden |language=en}}</ref> The 65 Project describes itself as “bipartisan,” and “defending democracy and the rule of law.”<ref>{{Cite web |date=September 19, 2024 |title=65 Project website |url=https://the65project.com/ |website=65 Project}}</ref>

The 65 Project controversially described attorney Kenneth Cheseboro, who the Guardian described as having a “liberal past”<ref name=":5">{{Cite news |last=Pilkington |first=Ed |date=2023-08-19 |title=‘It baffles me’: what drew a mild lawyer with a liberal past into Trump’s election plot? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/19/kenneth-chesebro-trump-georgia-indictment-fake-electors |access-date=2024-09-20 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> and who lawyer and commentator Jeffrey Toobin described as the “least likely”<ref name=":5" /> to commit misconduct, as the “central mind” and “legal power” behind election challenges<ref>{{Cite news |last=Pilkington |first=Ed |date=2023-08-19 |title=‘It baffles me’: what drew a mild lawyer with a liberal past into Trump’s election plot? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/19/kenneth-chesebro-trump-georgia-indictment-fake-electors |access-date=2024-09-20 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> and also filed complaints over his alleged conduct.<ref name=":6" /> The Wall Street Journal editorial board described misconduct investigations into Cheseboro as “Lawfare at its most dishonest.”<ref>{{Cite news |last=WSJ |first=Editorial Board |date=September 16, 2024 |title=Lawfare at its Most Dishonest |url=https://www.wsj.com/opinion/lawfare-at-its-most-dishonest-wisconsin-doj-electors-2020-cd3e76c7# |work=[[The Wall Street Journal]]}}</ref>

== References ==
<references />

== External links ==

* [https://the65project.com/ Official website]

[[Category:Legal advocacy organizations in the United States]]
[[Category:Political advocacy groups in the United States]]

The 65 Project

2024-09-20T22:39:44Z

Bluetik: Paragraph spacing

{{Infobox organization
| website = The65project.com
| name = The 65 Project
| image = 65 Project dark wide 2024.webp
| alt = “The 65 Project” [Dark background, squared serious font, gavel silhouette cutout of bottom curve of “5” in “65”]
| founder = [[David Brock]], Melissa Moss
| origins = Media and legal activist network with Facts First USA
| methods = Disciplinary Bar Complaints, Negative Publicity
| key_people = Michael Teter
| parent_organization = Law Works
| affiliations =
}}
The '''65 Project''' is a legal activism campaign<ref>{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=October 12, 2022 |title=Lawyer group says Trump attorney broke ethics rules in fake elector plan |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/lawyer-group-says-trump-attorney-broke-ethics-rules-fake-elector-plan-2022-10-12/ |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> seeking to “disbar and discredit”<ref name=":2" /> Trump-affiliated<ref>{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=July 20, 2022 |title=Group lodges more ethics complaints against Trump-affiliated lawyers |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/group-lodges-more-ethics-complaints-against-trump-affiliated-lawyers-2022-07-20/ |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> lawyers who worked on post-election lawsuits.<ref name=":1" /> The earliest reporting on the 65 Project repeatedly described it as a “dark money group.”<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":1" /><ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite web |last=Beals |first=Monique |date=2022-03-07 |title=Group trying to disbar lawyers who worked on Trump’s post-election lawsuits |url=https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/597163-group-trying-to-disbar-lawyers-who-worked-on-trumps-post-election/ |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}</ref>

The group is advised by [[David Brock]], the founder of [[opposition research]] groups [[Media Matters for America]] and [[American Bridge 21st Century]], who described the idea of the 65 Project as bringing attorney bar complaints, and to “shame them and make them toxic in their communities and in their firms."<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Durkee |first=Alison |title=Campaign Targets 111 Trump-Linked Election Lawyers. Here’s Some Already Facing A Backlash. |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/03/07/campaign-targets-111-trump-linked-election-lawyers-heres-some-already-facing-a-backlash/ |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=Forbes |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=Rogers |first=Zachary |date=2022-03-07 |title=Democrat-tied dark-money group seeks to disbar over 100 Trump-linked lawyers, says report |url=https://katv.com/news/nation-world/democrat-tied-dark-money-group-seeks-to-disbar-over-100-trump-linked-lawyers-says-report-the65project-donald-election-overturn-axios-clinton-melissa-moss-david-brock |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=[[American Broadcasting Company|ABC]] KATV |language=en}}</ref> In the same 2022 interview with ''[[Axios (website)|Axios]],'' Brock emphasized “threatening the livelihoods” and reputations <ref name=":1">{{Cite news |last=Markay |first=Lachlan |last2=Swan |first2=Jonathan |date=March 7, 2022 |title=Scoop: High-powered group targets Trump lawyers’ livelihoods |url=https://www.axios.com/2022/03/07/trump-election-lawyers-disbar |access-date=September 19, 2024 |work=[[Axios (website)]]}}</ref> of the attorneys.

The 65 Project's Managing Director is [[Michael Teter]],<ref name=":3">{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=October 12, 2022 |title=Lawyer group says Trump attorney broke ethics rules in fake elector plan |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/lawyer-group-says-trump-attorney-broke-ethics-rules-fake-elector-plan-2022-10-12/ |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> an attorney suing [[Fox News]] as counsel for [[Ray Epps (military veteran)|Ray Epps]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-07-14 |title=Former Trump supporter sues Fox News over Jan. 6 conspiracy theory |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/former-trump-supporter-sues-fox-news-over-jan-6-conspiracy-theory |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=PBS News |language=en-us}}</ref> The project was also devised by [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] political consultant Melissa Moss, a former senior Clinton administration official, and operates through a not-for-profit named “[[Law Works]].”<ref name=":1" />

== Methods ==
In line with the group's mission, the 65 project files ethics complaints with bar associations, some of which have been dismissed for lack of evidence.<ref name=":1" /> These complaints have included high-profile attorneys, such as [[John Eastman]] and [[Cleta Mitchell]].<ref name=":1" /> The 65 Project has also stated its interest in changing lawyers's professional rules.<ref name=":3" />

== Reactions ==
Concerns over the methods of The 65 project have been raised since at least March 2022.<ref name=":4">{{Cite news |last=Sneed |first=Tierney |date=March 10, 2022 |title=Inside the effort to disbar attorneys who backed bogus election lawsuits |url=https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/10/politics/ethics-complaints-attorney-misconduct-trump-election-reversal/index.html |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[CNN]]}}</ref> Bruce Green, the director of [[Fordham University School of Law|Fordham Law School]]’s Louis Stein Center for Law and Ethics, emphasized that the 65 Project’s complaints were “designed to embarrass” lawyers, discouraging political work “even if they’re playing by the rules.”<ref name=":4" /> CNN noted that the investigations sought by the 65 Project “unfold in secret” until claims are found meritorious in most states, but that, as Green raised concerns about, the 65 Projects “heavily publicized allegations” would harm lawyers reputations before claims were reviewed.<ref name=":4" /> Complaints filed by The 65 Project have been dismissed since the groups first public announcements, beginning with Georgia attorney Brad Carver,<ref name=":1" /> but has continued publish adversarial media targeting lawyers’s professional communities, planning to run advertisements in law journals in late fall 2024.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Feuer |first=Alan |date=September 19, 2024 |title=Legal Watchdog Group Warns Pro-Trump Lawyers Against Subverting Democracy in November |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/19/us/politics/trump-lawyers-election-results.html |work=New York Times}}</ref>

[[Alan Dershowitz]], who was sanctioned for a “frivolous” lawsuit contesting voting methods on behalf of [[Kari Lake]],<ref>{{Cite web |last=Robertson |first=Nick |date=2023-07-15 |title=Kari Lake’s team ordered to pay more than $122K in sanctions over Maricopa lawsuit |url=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4098759-kari-lakes-team-ordered-to-pay-more-than-122k-in-sanctions-over-maricopa-lawsuit/#:~:text=Kari%20Lake%E2%80%99s%20legal%20team,%20including%20lawyer%20Alan%20Dershowitz,%20must%20pay |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}</ref> compared the results of its work as similar to the “ridicule” faced by suspected communists during [[McCarthyism]]<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Klayman |first=Larry |date=April 14, 2023 |title=Petition For A Writ Of Mandamus To The District Of Columbia Court Of Appeals In The Matter Of Larry E. Klayman |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-619/263615/20230414161904073_43664%20pdf%20Peer.pdf |journal=Supreme Court Docket |pages=2}}</ref> and Texas Congressman [[Lance Gooden]] described the 65 Project as “a far-left activist group of lawyers actively engaging in partisan tactics.”<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-01-24 |title=RELEASE: Congressman Lance Gooden Calls for Immediate Action Against the Partisan Legal Tactics of the 65 Project |url=https://gooden.house.gov/2024/1/release-congressman-lance-gooden-calls-for-immediate-action-against-the-partisan-legal-tactics-of-the-65-project |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=Congressman Lance Gooden |language=en}}</ref> The 65 Project describes itself as “bipartisan,” and “defending democracy and the rule of law.”<ref>{{Cite web |date=September 19, 2024 |title=65 Project website |url=https://the65project.com/ |website=65 Project}}</ref>

The 65 Project controversially described attorney Kenneth Cheseboro, who the Guardian described as having a “liberal past”<ref name=":5">{{Cite news |last=Pilkington |first=Ed |date=2023-08-19 |title=‘It baffles me’: what drew a mild lawyer with a liberal past into Trump’s election plot? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/19/kenneth-chesebro-trump-georgia-indictment-fake-electors |access-date=2024-09-20 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> and who lawyer and commentator Jeffrey Toobin described as the “least likely”<ref name=":5" /> to commit misconduct, as the “central mind” and “legal power” behind election challenges.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Pilkington |first=Ed |date=2023-08-19 |title=‘It baffles me’: what drew a mild lawyer with a liberal past into Trump’s election plot? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/19/kenneth-chesebro-trump-georgia-indictment-fake-electors |access-date=2024-09-20 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> The Wall Street Journal editorial board described misconduct investigations into Cheseboro as “Lawfare at its most dishonest.”<ref>{{Cite news |last=WSJ |first=Editorial Board |date=September 16, 2024 |title=Lawfare at its Most Dishonest |url=https://www.wsj.com/opinion/lawfare-at-its-most-dishonest-wisconsin-doj-electors-2020-cd3e76c7# |work=[[The Wall Street Journal]]}}</ref>

== References ==
<references />

== External links ==

* [https://the65project.com/ Official website]

[[Category:Legal advocacy organizations in the United States]]
[[Category:Political advocacy groups in the United States]]

The 65 Project

2024-09-20T22:38:55Z

Bluetik: Funding

{{Infobox organization
| website = The65project.com
| name = The 65 Project
| image = 65 Project dark wide 2024.webp
| alt = “The 65 Project” [Dark background, squared serious font, gavel silhouette cutout of bottom curve of “5” in “65”]
| founder = [[David Brock]], Melissa Moss
| origins = Media and legal activist network with Facts First USA
| methods = Disciplinary Bar Complaints, Negative Publicity
| key_people = Michael Teter
| parent_organization = Law Works
| affiliations =
}}
The '''65 Project''' is a legal activism campaign<ref>{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=October 12, 2022 |title=Lawyer group says Trump attorney broke ethics rules in fake elector plan |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/lawyer-group-says-trump-attorney-broke-ethics-rules-fake-elector-plan-2022-10-12/ |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> seeking to “disbar and discredit”<ref name=":2" /> Trump-affiliated<ref>{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=July 20, 2022 |title=Group lodges more ethics complaints against Trump-affiliated lawyers |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/group-lodges-more-ethics-complaints-against-trump-affiliated-lawyers-2022-07-20/ |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> lawyers who worked on post-election lawsuits.<ref name=":1" /> The earliest reporting on the 65 Project repeatedly described it as a “dark money group.”<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":1" /><ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite web |last=Beals |first=Monique |date=2022-03-07 |title=Group trying to disbar lawyers who worked on Trump’s post-election lawsuits |url=https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/597163-group-trying-to-disbar-lawyers-who-worked-on-trumps-post-election/ |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}</ref>

The group is advised by [[David Brock]], the founder of [[opposition research]] groups [[Media Matters for America]] and [[American Bridge 21st Century]], who described the idea of the 65 Project as bringing attorney bar complaints, and to “shame them and make them toxic in their communities and in their firms."<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Durkee |first=Alison |title=Campaign Targets 111 Trump-Linked Election Lawyers. Here’s Some Already Facing A Backlash. |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/03/07/campaign-targets-111-trump-linked-election-lawyers-heres-some-already-facing-a-backlash/ |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=Forbes |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=Rogers |first=Zachary |date=2022-03-07 |title=Democrat-tied dark-money group seeks to disbar over 100 Trump-linked lawyers, says report |url=https://katv.com/news/nation-world/democrat-tied-dark-money-group-seeks-to-disbar-over-100-trump-linked-lawyers-says-report-the65project-donald-election-overturn-axios-clinton-melissa-moss-david-brock |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=[[American Broadcasting Company|ABC]] KATV |language=en}}</ref> In the same 2022 interview with ''[[Axios (website)|Axios]],'' Brock emphasized “threatening the livelihoods” and reputations <ref name=":1">{{Cite news |last=Markay |first=Lachlan |last2=Swan |first2=Jonathan |date=March 7, 2022 |title=Scoop: High-powered group targets Trump lawyers’ livelihoods |url=https://www.axios.com/2022/03/07/trump-election-lawyers-disbar |access-date=September 19, 2024 |work=[[Axios (website)]]}}</ref> of the attorneys.

The 65 Project's Managing Director is [[Michael Teter]],<ref name=":3">{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=October 12, 2022 |title=Lawyer group says Trump attorney broke ethics rules in fake elector plan |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/lawyer-group-says-trump-attorney-broke-ethics-rules-fake-elector-plan-2022-10-12/ |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> an attorney suing [[Fox News]] as counsel for [[Ray Epps (military veteran)|Ray Epps]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-07-14 |title=Former Trump supporter sues Fox News over Jan. 6 conspiracy theory |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/former-trump-supporter-sues-fox-news-over-jan-6-conspiracy-theory |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=PBS News |language=en-us}}</ref> The project was also devised by [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] political consultant Melissa Moss, a former senior Clinton administration official, and operates through a not-for-profit named “[[Law Works]].”<ref name=":1" />

== Methods ==
In line with the group's mission, the 65 project files ethics complaints with bar associations, some of which have been dismissed for lack of evidence.<ref name=":1" /> These complaints have included high-profile attorneys, such as [[John Eastman]] and [[Cleta Mitchell]].<ref name=":1" /> The 65 Project has also stated its interest in changing lawyers's professional rules.<ref name=":3" />

== Reactions ==
Concerns over the methods of The 65 project have been raised since at least March 2022.<ref name=":4">{{Cite news |last=Sneed |first=Tierney |date=March 10, 2022 |title=Inside the effort to disbar attorneys who backed bogus election lawsuits |url=https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/10/politics/ethics-complaints-attorney-misconduct-trump-election-reversal/index.html |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[CNN]]}}</ref> Bruce Green, the director of [[Fordham University School of Law|Fordham Law School]]’s Louis Stein Center for Law and Ethics, emphasized that the 65 Project’s complaints were “designed to embarrass” lawyers, discouraging political work “even if they’re playing by the rules.”<ref name=":4" /> CNN noted that the investigations sought by the 65 Project “unfold in secret” until claims are found meritorious in most states, but that, as Green raised concerns about, the 65 Projects “heavily publicized allegations” would harm lawyers reputations before claims were reviewed.<ref name=":4" /> Complaints filed by The 65 Project have been dismissed since the groups first public announcements, beginning with Georgia attorney Brad Carver,<ref name=":1" /> but has continued publish adversarial media targeting lawyers’s professional communities, planning to run advertisements in law journals in late fall 2024.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Feuer |first=Alan |date=September 19, 2024 |title=Legal Watchdog Group Warns Pro-Trump Lawyers Against Subverting Democracy in November |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/19/us/politics/trump-lawyers-election-results.html |work=New York Times}}</ref>

[[Alan Dershowitz]], who was sanctioned for a “frivolous” lawsuit contesting voting methods on behalf of [[Kari Lake]],<ref>{{Cite web |last=Robertson |first=Nick |date=2023-07-15 |title=Kari Lake’s team ordered to pay more than $122K in sanctions over Maricopa lawsuit |url=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4098759-kari-lakes-team-ordered-to-pay-more-than-122k-in-sanctions-over-maricopa-lawsuit/#:~:text=Kari%20Lake%E2%80%99s%20legal%20team,%20including%20lawyer%20Alan%20Dershowitz,%20must%20pay |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}</ref> compared the results of its work as similar to the “ridicule” faced by suspected communists during [[McCarthyism]]<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Klayman |first=Larry |date=April 14, 2023 |title=Petition For A Writ Of Mandamus To The District Of Columbia Court Of Appeals In The Matter Of Larry E. Klayman |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-619/263615/20230414161904073_43664%20pdf%20Peer.pdf |journal=Supreme Court Docket |pages=2}}</ref> and Texas Congressman [[Lance Gooden]] described the 65 Project as “a far-left activist group of lawyers actively engaging in partisan tactics.”<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-01-24 |title=RELEASE: Congressman Lance Gooden Calls for Immediate Action Against the Partisan Legal Tactics of the 65 Project |url=https://gooden.house.gov/2024/1/release-congressman-lance-gooden-calls-for-immediate-action-against-the-partisan-legal-tactics-of-the-65-project |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=Congressman Lance Gooden |language=en}}</ref> The 65 Project describes itself as “bipartisan,” and “defending democracy and the rule of law.”<ref>{{Cite web |date=September 19, 2024 |title=65 Project website |url=https://the65project.com/ |website=65 Project}}</ref>

The 65 Project controversially described attorney Kenneth Cheseboro, who the Guardian described as having a “liberal past”<ref name=":5">{{Cite news |last=Pilkington |first=Ed |date=2023-08-19 |title=‘It baffles me’: what drew a mild lawyer with a liberal past into Trump’s election plot? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/19/kenneth-chesebro-trump-georgia-indictment-fake-electors |access-date=2024-09-20 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> and who lawyer and commentator Jeffrey Toobin described as the “least likely”<ref name=":5" /> to commit misconduct, as the “central mind” and “legal power” behind election challenges.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Pilkington |first=Ed |date=2023-08-19 |title=‘It baffles me’: what drew a mild lawyer with a liberal past into Trump’s election plot? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/19/kenneth-chesebro-trump-georgia-indictment-fake-electors |access-date=2024-09-20 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> The Wall Street Journal editorial board described misconduct investigations into Cheseboro as “Lawfare at its most dishonest.”<ref>{{Cite news |last=WSJ |first=Editorial Board |date=September 16, 2024 |title=Lawfare at its Most Dishonest |url=https://www.wsj.com/opinion/lawfare-at-its-most-dishonest-wisconsin-doj-electors-2020-cd3e76c7# |work=[[The Wall Street Journal]]}}</ref>

== References ==
<references />

== External links ==

* [https://the65project.com/ Official website]

[[Category:Legal advocacy organizations in the United States]]
[[Category:Political advocacy groups in the United States]]

The 65 Project

2024-09-20T22:34:34Z

Bluetik: /* Reactions */

{{Infobox organization
| website = The65project.com
| name = The 65 Project
| image = 65 Project dark wide 2024.webp
| alt = “The 65 Project” [Dark background, squared serious font, gavel silhouette cutout of bottom curve of “5” in “65”]
| founder = [[David Brock]], Melissa Moss
| origins = Media and legal activist network with Facts First USA
| methods = Disciplinary Bar Complaints, Negative Publicity
| key_people = Michael Teter
| parent_organization = Law Works
| affiliations =
}}
The '''65 Project''' is a legal activism campaign<ref>{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=October 12, 2022 |title=Lawyer group says Trump attorney broke ethics rules in fake elector plan |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/lawyer-group-says-trump-attorney-broke-ethics-rules-fake-elector-plan-2022-10-12/ |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> seeking to “disbar and discredit”<ref name=":2" /> Trump-affiliated<ref>{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=July 20, 2022 |title=Group lodges more ethics complaints against Trump-affiliated lawyers |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/group-lodges-more-ethics-complaints-against-trump-affiliated-lawyers-2022-07-20/ |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> lawyers who worked on post-election lawsuits.<ref name=":1" /> The group is advised by [[David Brock]], the founder of [[opposition research]] groups [[Media Matters for America]] and [[American Bridge 21st Century]], who described the idea of the 65 Project as bringing attorney bar complaints, and to “shame them and make them toxic in their communities and in their firms."<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Durkee |first=Alison |title=Campaign Targets 111 Trump-Linked Election Lawyers. Here’s Some Already Facing A Backlash. |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/03/07/campaign-targets-111-trump-linked-election-lawyers-heres-some-already-facing-a-backlash/ |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=Forbes |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=Rogers |first=Zachary |date=2022-03-07 |title=Democrat-tied dark-money group seeks to disbar over 100 Trump-linked lawyers, says report |url=https://katv.com/news/nation-world/democrat-tied-dark-money-group-seeks-to-disbar-over-100-trump-linked-lawyers-says-report-the65project-donald-election-overturn-axios-clinton-melissa-moss-david-brock |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=[[American Broadcasting Company|ABC]] KATV |language=en}}</ref> In the same 2022 interview with ''[[Axios (website)|Axios]],'' Brock emphasized “threatening the livelihoods” and reputations <ref name=":1">{{Cite news |last=Markay |first=Lachlan |last2=Swan |first2=Jonathan |date=March 7, 2022 |title=Scoop: High-powered group targets Trump lawyers’ livelihoods |url=https://www.axios.com/2022/03/07/trump-election-lawyers-disbar |access-date=September 19, 2024 |work=[[Axios (website)]]}}</ref> of the attorneys.

The 65 Project's Managing Director is [[Michael Teter]],<ref name=":3">{{Cite news |last=Thomas |first=David |date=October 12, 2022 |title=Lawyer group says Trump attorney broke ethics rules in fake elector plan |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/lawyer-group-says-trump-attorney-broke-ethics-rules-fake-elector-plan-2022-10-12/ |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> an attorney suing [[Fox News]] as counsel for [[Ray Epps (military veteran)|Ray Epps]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-07-14 |title=Former Trump supporter sues Fox News over Jan. 6 conspiracy theory |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/former-trump-supporter-sues-fox-news-over-jan-6-conspiracy-theory |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=PBS News |language=en-us}}</ref> The project was also devised by [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] political consultant Melissa Moss, a former senior Clinton administration official, and operates through a not-for-profit named “[[Law Works]].”<ref name=":1" />

== Methods ==
In line with the group's mission, the 65 project files ethics complaints with bar associations, some of which have been dismissed for lack of evidence.<ref name=":1" /> These complaints have included high-profile attorneys, such as [[John Eastman]] and [[Cleta Mitchell]].<ref name=":1" /> The 65 Project has also stated its interest in changing lawyers's professional rules.<ref name=":3" />

== Reactions ==
Concerns over the methods of The 65 project have been raised since at least March 2022.<ref name=":4">{{Cite news |last=Sneed |first=Tierney |date=March 10, 2022 |title=Inside the effort to disbar attorneys who backed bogus election lawsuits |url=https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/10/politics/ethics-complaints-attorney-misconduct-trump-election-reversal/index.html |access-date=September 20, 2024 |work=[[CNN]]}}</ref> Bruce Green, the director of [[Fordham University School of Law|Fordham Law School]]’s Louis Stein Center for Law and Ethics, emphasized that the 65 Project’s complaints were “designed to embarrass” lawyers, discouraging political work “even if they’re playing by the rules.”<ref name=":4" /> CNN noted that the investigations sought by the 65 Project “unfold in secret” until claims are found meritorious in most states, but that, as Green raised concerns about, the 65 Projects “heavily publicized allegations” would harm lawyers reputations before claims were reviewed.<ref name=":4" /> Complaints filed by The 65 Project have been dismissed since the groups first public announcements, beginning with Georgia attorney Brad Carver,<ref name=":1" /> but has continued publish adversarial media targeting lawyers’s professional communities, planning to run advertisements in law journals in late fall 2024.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Feuer |first=Alan |date=September 19, 2024 |title=Legal Watchdog Group Warns Pro-Trump Lawyers Against Subverting Democracy in November |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/19/us/politics/trump-lawyers-election-results.html |work=New York Times}}</ref>

[[Alan Dershowitz]], who was sanctioned for a “frivolous” lawsuit contesting voting methods on behalf of [[Kari Lake]],<ref>{{Cite web |last=Robertson |first=Nick |date=2023-07-15 |title=Kari Lake’s team ordered to pay more than $122K in sanctions over Maricopa lawsuit |url=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4098759-kari-lakes-team-ordered-to-pay-more-than-122k-in-sanctions-over-maricopa-lawsuit/#:~:text=Kari%20Lake%E2%80%99s%20legal%20team,%20including%20lawyer%20Alan%20Dershowitz,%20must%20pay |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}</ref> compared the results of its work as similar to the “ridicule” faced by suspected communists during [[McCarthyism]]<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Klayman |first=Larry |date=April 14, 2023 |title=Petition For A Writ Of Mandamus To The District Of Columbia Court Of Appeals In The Matter Of Larry E. Klayman |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-619/263615/20230414161904073_43664%20pdf%20Peer.pdf |journal=Supreme Court Docket |pages=2}}</ref> and Texas Congressman [[Lance Gooden]] described the 65 Project as “a far-left activist group of lawyers actively engaging in partisan tactics.”<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-01-24 |title=RELEASE: Congressman Lance Gooden Calls for Immediate Action Against the Partisan Legal Tactics of the 65 Project |url=https://gooden.house.gov/2024/1/release-congressman-lance-gooden-calls-for-immediate-action-against-the-partisan-legal-tactics-of-the-65-project |access-date=2024-09-19 |website=Congressman Lance Gooden |language=en}}</ref> The 65 Project describes itself as “bipartisan,” and “defending democracy and the rule of law.”<ref>{{Cite web |date=September 19, 2024 |title=65 Project website |url=https://the65project.com/ |website=65 Project}}</ref>

The 65 Project controversially described attorney Kenneth Cheseboro, who the Guardian described as having a “liberal past”<ref name=":5">{{Cite news |last=Pilkington |first=Ed |date=2023-08-19 |title=‘It baffles me’: what drew a mild lawyer with a liberal past into Trump’s election plot? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/19/kenneth-chesebro-trump-georgia-indictment-fake-electors |access-date=2024-09-20 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> and who lawyer and commentator Jeffrey Toobin described as the “least likely”<ref name=":5" /> to commit misconduct, as the “central mind” and “legal power” behind election challenges.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Pilkington |first=Ed |date=2023-08-19 |title=‘It baffles me’: what drew a mild lawyer with a liberal past into Trump’s election plot? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/19/kenneth-chesebro-trump-georgia-indictment-fake-electors |access-date=2024-09-20 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> The Wall Street Journal editorial board described misconduct investigations into Cheseboro as “Lawfare at its most dishonest.”<ref>{{Cite news |last=WSJ |first=Editorial Board |date=September 16, 2024 |title=Lawfare at its Most Dishonest |url=https://www.wsj.com/opinion/lawfare-at-its-most-dishonest-wisconsin-doj-electors-2020-cd3e76c7# |work=[[The Wall Street Journal]]}}</ref>

== References ==
<references />

== External links ==

* [https://the65project.com/ Official website]

[[Category:Legal advocacy organizations in the United States]]
[[Category:Political advocacy groups in the United States]]

The 65 Project

2024-09-20T22:27:08Z

Bluetik: /* Reactions */ beginning of dismissals

The 65 Project

2024-09-20T22:24:15Z

Bluetik: /* Reactions */

The 65 Project

2024-09-20T22:21:04Z

Bluetik: /* Reactions */ Cheseboro

The 65 Project

2024-09-20T22:04:04Z

Bluetik: /* Reactions */ cnn & scholar complaint, 65 project media approach

The 65 Project

2024-09-20T21:49:20Z

Bluetik: Not a reliable source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_294#Capital_Research_Center_%2F_InfluenceWatch_%2F_Dangerous_Documentaries

The 65 Project

2024-09-20T21:46:10Z

Bluetik: Fixing ref

The 65 Project

2024-09-20T21:45:35Z

Bluetik: /* Reactions */ addl source, subject article, CNN, on concerns

The 65 Project

2024-09-20T21:32:51Z

Bluetik: /* Reactions */ links, language, and actually using the information in the source

The 65 Project

2024-09-20T21:24:14Z

Bluetik: /* Reactions */ source doesn’t mention anything about bar, 65 project

The 65 Project

2024-09-20T21:18:55Z

Bluetik: Cleaned reference, the 3rd that User:Jurisprudence2 used to add a lead sentence with only a url

The 65 Project

2024-09-20T21:14:23Z

Bluetik: Inline citation from detailed, subject-focused article from adequately referenced reliable source (Axios) in lead

The 65 Project

2024-09-20T21:12:25Z

Bluetik: Inline citation from subject-focused article from adequately referenced reliable source (Reuters) in lead

The 65 Project

2024-09-20T21:09:32Z

Bluetik: Inline citation from subject-focused article from reliable source (ABC) in lead

The 65 Project

2024-09-20T20:59:09Z

Bluetik: Description from Reuters with inline citation, which was removed elsewhere by @Jurisprudence2

The 65 Project

2024-09-20T20:51:08Z

Bluetik: All references, which were inline citations to reliably sourced, full articles on the subject, were removed and replaced by @Jurisprudence2 citing political disagreement. Sources were replaced with two references as simple links with no further information. The first was a link to a podcast by a different political activist group, from which the editor copied the exact full language from the podcast description. No information from the other source was used, which was a one sentence blurb.

The 65 Project

2024-09-20T20:34:28Z

Bluetik: Not a reliable source

Talk:The 65 Project

2024-09-20T02:07:38Z

Bluetik: /* Suggestions for expansion */ Reply

{{WikiProject banner shell |class=Stub |1=
{{WikiProject Politics |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Law |class=Stub |importance=Low}}
}}

== Suggestions for expansion ==

@[[User:Bluetik|Bluetik]] 
Couple of suggestions for improvement.
#[[Wikipedia:LEADCITE]], not a huge issue, but could use attention.
#A few more links from other articles would help alot, again, not a huge issue, takes time.
#If you can find a reliable source for it, a list of these lawsuits/complaints and the results could help.
#<nowiki>{{Infobox organization}}</nowiki> could be added.
Let me know if you need/want any help! [[User:Geardona|Geardona]] ([[User talk:Geardona|talk to me?]]) 00:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

:Very helpful, thank you! On it. Once I’m finished I’ll follow up, and I’ll stop with any Qs.
:On 3, I can do a better job of sourcing this, but the complaints filed can cause bar associations or regulators to take action, so the 65 project won’t necessarily get “wins” in the way SPLC strategies might. That said, I can at least get more substantiation!
:Starting point for 4 is in. Thanks for pointing me to #1 - I have the inclines in the first sentence, but for redundancy, went to sentence-level citations after. Will update!
:Thank you! [[User:Bluetik|Bluetik]] ([[User talk:Bluetik|talk]]) 02:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)