Talk:Lindsay Shepherd

Aug 2022 lead changes

Fred Zepelin, your changes to the lead (restored here [1]) are problematic. Adding "what she is called" to the lead without it being part of the body violates WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Additionally, using such labels, which can be viewed as loaded, instead of the factual description violates IMPARTIAL. Rather than applying those labels to the lead the reasons for those labels, assuming they are DUE, should be in the article body. Since this is a BLP we need to err on the side of not including such content, especially when there isn't a consensus to make such changes. For those reasons I've restored the lead from before those changes were made. Springee (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I've edited this article in the past and have it on my watch list, and Fred Zepelin has asked me to chime in now.

Springee, It's pretty weird that you would cite BLP as a justification for restoring the medium.com blog source to the lead. Grayfell (talk) 02:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I was only restoring the long term stable lead. I'm not specifically endorsing that version so much as rejecting a series of changes. However, you are correct, medium shouldn't be cited. Kyohyi fixed the issue with this edit[2]. I will redo that removal which makes no changes to the text of the lead. Springee (talk) 04:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@Fred Zepelin and Springee: I'm a bit late to the party here, but starting the first sentence of the lead of a biography with a list of quotes which are critical of the article's subject is a bizarre thing to do for any biography on Wikipedia. Following it up with a very long quote from the subject of the article about her own political beliefs is also bizarre. The sources those quotes are pulled from are bad too -- I've never heard of Canadian Dimension before (looks to be a small left wing/socialist magazine?) but it doesn't look to be a reliable source, Vice is really not great, and the quote in the Toronto Sun only appears in the WP:HEADLINE so is not usable.

The lead should be summarising the body, and should start off with why's she's notable and related context (e.g. nationality), not start off by litigating how right-wing or left-wing she is. Endwise (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Canadian Dimension is a very well-established mainstream Canadian publication and is, AFAICT, an impeccably reliable source. Newimpartial (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

MBFC says it's pretty far left but the reporting is mostly fact [3]. It doesn't seem like a "mainstream" source but not a total throw away either. Regardless, using it to apply a subjective label to someone (alt-right folk hero) in the second sentence of a BLP article is not OK. Endwise is spot on here. Springee (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

September changes to lead

‎Horse Eye's Back, thank you for working on that lead! There was way too much play by play in there! Springee (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome, its a weird article all around... In parts it feels much more like an article about the scandal and not the person, which makes sense because the person doesn't actually appear to be independently notable suggesting that we should perhaps have an article on the scandal instead of a bio on its key figure. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Lawsuits

What happened with the lawsuits? van Lustig (talk) 03:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The most recent update that I can find is from May 2021 that says the suit "is still pending." MartinezMD (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Does this warrant WP:Undue Weight tag?

I was researching this incident for some work on academic non-attribution, since I was familiar with the case but not involved. I was surprised that the overwhelming bulk of the page is about the academic incident, with the remaining content largely minor biographical details. This to me seems like undue weight for a page that is a BLP. Perhaps the bio page should be linked to a narrowly-scoped incident page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.128.30 (talk) 01:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

To be honest, that's really the only thing she's notable for. Wellington Bay (talk) 03:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

More importantly, the article should mention that Shepherd and Peterson's legal cases were dismissed. Wellington Bay (talk) 04:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Are these sources acceptable given that they're not publicly available? Additionally the case links seem to be referring to the same source, despite apparently referring to two different sources? Perhaps the status of the counter suits made by the defendants in these cases should also be included in this summary.

Shepherd's lawsuit was dismissed on November 8, 2024. Peterson's lawsuit was dismissed the day before. Tauraamuix (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

The link is where you go to search. Anyone can create an account to use the site, it's on the public record. Wellington Bay (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

And yes we accept JSTOR and Lexis-Nexis as sources even though they aren't publicly available. The sources, the official court case website, is 1) reliable, and 2) verifiable. Wellington Bay (talk) 23:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Why is Peterson's lawsuit mentioned. Unless Peterson's actions are legally tied to one another I don't see why one warrants mention of the other. Springee (talk) 00:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Because his lawsuit is a direct result of the conflict between WLU and Shepherd. "Jordan Peterson sues Wilfrid Laurier University for defamation following Lindsay Shepherd case"[4]. Wellington Bay (talk) 01:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I have found the cases referenced and can see/verify that they have been dismissed. The claim about the two professors Pimlott and Rambukkana filing a counter suit doesn't seem very well supported in the referenced sources used to support these claims. Shepards lawyer clearly states in the article that they haven't seen any actual legal filing paperwork, there's a quote from the university in response:

> “Wilfrid Laurier University is not aware of a legal action commenced by the professors against Ms. Shepherd, and the university itself has not advanced any legal claims against Ms. Shepherd,” the email, sent by the school’s communication director, Kevin Crowley, read.

And I cannot find any evidence of a suit ever being filed using the same court case search facility. I would suggest that your inclusion of these flaky claims are a reflection of your negative bias towards Shepard and not really to serve the truth. 2A0A:EF40:34:B902:D037:89D:90DA:CDD6 (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I added the information that Shepherd's and Peterson's lawsuits had been dismissed and you yourself "verify that they have been dismissed" so what "flaky claims" are you claiming I included? Wellington Bay (talk) 02:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

> "In December 2018, Rambukkana and Pimlott filed a third-party claim against Shepherd, alleging she had had control over the recording and should therefore be liable for any damages Peterson suffered as a result of its publication."

This is what I am referring to, not the cases raised by Peterson and Lindsay being dismissed. 2A0A:EF40:1442:5402:C149:F593:9E87:3C30 (talk) 09:01, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

And I am referring to this claim by you "I would suggest that your inclusion of these flaky claims are a reflection of your negative bias towards Shepard and not really to serve the truth." My inclusion? Do you often make accusations against people without checking the facts? On what basis are you claiming that I added the information about the counterclaim to the article? Did you bother to check the article's editing history? Or are you so eager to toss around accusations of bias that you don't bother to check the facts first? Wellington Bay (talk) 12:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I've found the related diff using `WikiBlame` https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lindsay_Shepherd&diff=prev&oldid=876159802 which attributes the changes to 'Trystan' but based on an original statement entered in by 'Eleanor Vladinsky'. I do not agree with anon's approach in raising this but I agree with the conclusion regardless. Perhaps this statement should be amended to make it clear the cases existence have never been substantiated or supported by evidence despite being mentioned briefly in two articles, or potentially simply remove the claims altogether. Tauraamuix (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

A March 2019 article discusses the third-party claim. Seems it did exist. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

This referenced article itself does not substantiate these claims nor attributes this statement with any source. Conversely within the actual referred articles used to support this assertion within this Wiki article are a higher frequency of counter points suggesting this does not exist. For example, within: https://globalnews.ca/news/4799671/wildred-laurier-lindsay-shephard-sued-professors/

Points for:

1. "Former Wilfrid Laurier University teaching assistant Lindsay Shepherd is being sued by two professors who say she should bear the responsibility of a defamation suit against them, according to her lawyer."

Points against:

1. "Levitt said he has not seen the actual legal document."

2. "“We have not seen the claim yet but understand that it has indeed been filed,” he said in an email."

3. “Wilfrid Laurier University is not aware of a legal action commenced by the professors against Ms. Shepherd, and the university itself has not advanced any legal claims against Ms. Shepherd,” the email, sent by the school’s communication director, Kevin Crowley, read.

Further: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/wilfrid-laurier-professors-sue-lindsay-shepherd-1.4960938

Points for:

1. Nathan Rambukkana and Herbert Pimlott, who teach at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ont., maintain their comments about Peterson were not defamatory but argue in a third-party claim that they could not have known the statements would be recorded or disseminated outside the November 2017 meeting.

Points against:

1. The allegations have not been proven in court and Shepherd's lawyer says the young woman has not yet been served with the document.

Howard Levitt says that while he has not seen the claim, his client will defend herself against the allegations.

None of the articles mentioning the alleged 3rd party claim provide any citation or evidence of the existence of said claim, and in addition these same articles also suggest that no claim or suit has or ever was presented to Shepherd nor her lawyer. Tauraamuix (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

References