Talk:Lucy Komisar

Sources

• She is a past John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation grantee.

The subject's name does not appear in the list of MacArthur Fellows.[1] I notice that many of th assertions are unsourced. There are two brief biographies online.[2][3] They don't mention the MacArthur grant or the Guggenheim fellowship either. I think we should probably remove the assertions that aren't in those biographies or other reliable sources. The long list of articles should also be trimmed or removed entirely. Probably it should should be limited to those stories that have received some kind of third-party attention.   Will Beback  talk  07:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Done and done :) Article is a bit of a flop really and needs a good rewrite --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 10:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I moved her theatre critic function to the opening paragraph. JohnClarknew (talk) 10:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

A MacArthur grantee is NOT a fellow. This link shows Lucy Komisar was a 1989 MacArthur grantee https://www.macfound.org/grantee/komisar-lucy-2823/

And here is a link to Lucy Komisar as 1991 Guggenheim fellow. https://www.gf.org/fellows/lucy-komisar/

Your moderator should not make disparaging claims without checking them out. 24.193.55.210 (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit request

Ms. Komisar disputes the claim that she sided with Betty Friedan against lesbians in NOW in 1970. Given the standards of biographies of living persons, I would urge the removal of this line. I agree that the entire entry needs a rewrite. It takes random events from Ms. Komisar's career and does not actual present a full biography. But I would specifically urge the material about NOW and lesbians in 1970 to be removed. Robert Self — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbyself68 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Exactly what standard of WP:BLP is being violated here? The statement is cited to a reliable source. You have not stated what is wrong with the cited source. If you feel that a work by a published university historian is not a reliable source, you should get an assessment at WP:RSN.

All a biography on Wikipedia can do is present information that is found in public sources deemed reliable, which are also independent of the subject. It often happens that these sources don't cover the life of a subject, but rather individual events in the subject's career. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for your off-wiki communication and verification. I have removed the sentence. However it leaves the sentence "Komisar was a national vice-president of the National Organization for Women from 1970 to 1971 and was successful, with Legislative VP Ann London Scott, in getting the US government to extend federal contractor and cable TV affirmative action rules to women." Is that still appropriate to cite to your book, or should that also be removed if your book doesn't say that? ~Anachronist (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Change to Eliot Higgins of Bellingcat's defamatory lies about Lucy Komisar

• What I think should be changed:

Eliot Higgins of the Bellingcat invesigative journalism group accused Komisar of writing the article with the help of artificial intelligence and referencing "fictional sources."[8] The article was published in the fringe news website The Grayzone, and later removed; Komisar subsequently published an amended version.[9]

• Why it should be changed:

Bellingcat is funded by the US, UK and other NATO states and acts to support NATO policy. The Navalny story challenged the US version of Navalny's life and death. That is why Eliot Higgins attacked me.

Second, it is a lie that the article was written with the help of artificial intelligence. 5 links to documents out of about a dozen were linked to AI sources that turned out to be not found. Those links were replaced. NOTHING in the article was written or changed. NOTHING was based on artificial or fictional sources. The links were added after the story was completed, and the replacement links changed nothing.

Grayzone is not fringe. It is not mainstream. Fringe is a smear word that suggest unreliable. In fact, it is often more reliable than mainstream media. The version was NOT amended. The only thing changed were the 5 links.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

24.193.55.210 (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

References

 Not done, for the following reasons:

• This request it isn't actionable because it does not propose a specific change in the form "change X to Y" with sources cited in the correct place. Only "X" has been given. The request should propose exactly what would actually be put in the article.
• The Newsweek source reports that Higgins made an accusation, so Wikipedia also reports that he made an accusation. It's an objective fact that the accusation was made, it's right there in the cited source. How should this be changed?
• See the Wikipedia article on The Grayzone. The characterization as a fringe source is supported by citations to five reliable sources including Politico and Coda Media. Wikipedia uses reliable sources to make assertions, not the word of Wikipedia editors. If you disagree it's fringe, then you need to take it up on Talk:The Grayzone and explain the problem with each source cited there.

Please try again with a new, well-formed request. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Lucy Komisar edit request 9/15/2024

• What I think should be changed:

Eliot Higgins of the Bellingcat invesigative journalism group accused Komisar of writing the article with the help of artificial intelligence and referencing "fictional sources."[8] The article was published in the fringe news website The Grayzone, and later removed; Komisar subsequently published an amended version.[9]

change it to

Eliot Higgins of the Bellingcat invesigative journalism group accused Komisar of writing the article with the help of artificial intelligence and referencing "fictional sources."[8] Bellingcat is funded by the U.S., UK and other NATO states and it acts to support their policies. The Navalny story challenged the U.S. version of Navalny's life and death which prompted Eliot Higgins’ attack on the author. In fact, only five source links, which had been added after the article was written, were obtained through AI. They were removed and no text was amended or changed. The article was published by the alternative news website The Grayzone, and later removed[9]

• Why it should be changed:

The charge repeated here does not include the information of who Higgins and Bellingcat are, that they are agents of U.S. and UK intelligence and not simply an independent “investigative journalism group.”

It says Komisar published an amended version which IS NOT TRUE. All that was changed were 5 out of a dozen or more links. Not the article. To say the article was published with the help of AI and then was changed is false, deceptive and defamatory.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Anti-Russian group organizing NGOs said Bellingcat corrupt, “discredited, both by spreading disinformation itself and by being willing to produce reports for anyone willing to pay.” p72

FOI raises further questions about Bellingcat coordination with Western intelligence

BELLINGCAT—Who Funds the Favorite Outlet of NBC & the CIA? Plus: Media Pushes Pentagon Lies as Biden Drones More Innocents

Reuters, BBC, and Bellingcat participated in covert UK Foreign Office-funded programs to “weaken Russia,” leaked docs reveal

Bellingcat joins the Zinc Network, allegedly meddles in North Macedonia’s elections

Bellingcat Can Say What U.S. Intelligence Can’t

Bellingcat author was a full-time Stasi employee

24.193.55.210 (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

References

I oppose this change. The article is not about Bellingcat, it is about you. We do not publish original research. The Grayzone already has been covered in the topic above. Ymblanter (talk) 20:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Ymblanter. Axad12 (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done, partially. The cited source has Grayzone's editor saying (emphasis mine) "We've amended this review, republished from an outside writer that used a few improper sources: 2 claims were removed, 2 were adjusted to include proper sourcing." The word "amended", therefore, is appropriate. There may be some confusion because the article says Komisar republished "a version of it" on her own website after Grayzone removed the article, but doesn't say which version. Therefore, I have changed that sentence to "The article was published in the fringe news website The Grayzone, then amended with corrected sources, and later removed at Komisar's request; she subsequently published a version on her own website." This should summarize better what the cited source actually says. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Lucy Komisar cite, erronious information

• What I think should be changed:

I have changed that sentence to "The article was published in the fringe news website The Grayzone, then amended with corrected sources, and later removed at Komisar's request; she subsequently published a version on her own website."

• Why it should be changed:

Who defines Grayzone as fringe? Is there a link to evidence? She kept the same version on her website but replaced the 5 links with correct links.

To editor: she did not subsequently publish a version, she kept the same version, just changed 5 links.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

24.193.55.210 (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

See The Grayzone. And I thought you were Komisar. Doug Weller talk 08:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. Not actionable because you're just making a comment and asking a question, rather than suggesting any specific change. Your question about being fringe was answered two requests ago. Please read that answer again. You can check all the citations in The Grayzone characterizing it as fringe yourself. If you think that is false and you can convince the community to change that characterization on Talk:The Grayzone then it can be changed here too, but not before then.

As for the 5 links, again, we report what reliable sources say, not what some random editor on a talk page says. The cited source says nothing about keeping the same version and replacing links. If you are not satisfied with how Wikipedia summarizes that source, then please review that source and propose a better way to summarize what it says, without proposing additional information that isn't found in the source. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The cited source was quoting Eliot Higgins. You have persuaded me to do an extensive investigation of Higgins and publish it so it can be added to this entry. And his own. Have you checked out the Eliot Higgins/Belligcat entries. Here is a good source. A 2018 report by anti-Russian group seeking support for organizing NGOs in research and communication discussed possible partners. A concern: Bellingcat lies. P72. It said Bellingcat was “discredited, both by spreading disinformation itself and by being willing to produce reports for anyone willing to pay.” Please include this text and link, which clearly discredits your "source."

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2019/03/22/untitled-pdf-document-1/untitled-pdf-document.pdf 24.193.55.210 (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

That source doesn't mention Higgins at all, describes Bellingcat in a positive light in the beginning (page 13), and says only that Bellingcat was "somewhat discredited" regarding a situation that has no relation to the event described in the Newsweek and Vice sources.

Also, you should be aware of the policy Wikipedia:Synthesis. We cannot synthesize conclusions that aren't stated in reliable sources. While that looks like a useful source for other articles, it isn't clear how it is relevant to this article.

If you would try again proposing a change, please do so in a new section. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, we don't care about anything you wrote. It won't affect your article. Doug Weller talk 07:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, it could still be mentioned that she wrote a rebuttal article, and it could be linked in a citation. There isn't a problem citing an article subject's work for verification of what they say about themselves. However, I think this incident is minor enough that we don't need to devote WP:UNDUE space to it, it should be mentioned as briefly as possible, and I think the article currently does that. ~Anachronist (talk) 08:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I do not think it is ok to call a living person a “proven liar” here. The comment must be removed and possibly revision-deleted. Ymblanter (talk) 09:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Done. Doug Weller talk 09:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Revision deletion doesn't work unless you suppress each diff between the time the edit was made and the time it was removed, else you can still see the versions in between that include the offending text. That isn't necessary here, however, because there is no policy violation. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

oops, forgot! Doug Weller talk 14:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: As far as I know, we don't have any policy against expressing an opinion that (a) isn't done in Wikipedia's narrative voice, (b) is stated in a talk page comment rather than in the article, and (b) isn't about a Wikipedia contributor. Someone simply stated a negative opinion about a notable journalist Eliot Higgins, and stated it in the context of improving the article. It isn't any different about people expressing negative views about the 2024 presidential candidates, which happens on a daily basis on talk pages. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

ok, thanks both. Doug Weller talk 14:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I do not see here a context of improving the article. Just somebody screwed up and now tries to remove this info from Wikipedia using all available means. Higgins, in principle, could sue the WMF. I am fine with the removal though (without the revision deletion), as soon as this one is not going to be reinstated. Ymblanter (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)