| Revision as of 21:11, 3 December 2018 editTuckerresearch (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,135 edits →BLP violation← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 22:05, 15 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,639 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] |
| (11 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes }} |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|blp=yes|class=Start|listas=Toure| |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography |a&e-work-group=yes }} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Journalism}} |
|
⚫ |
}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
| Line 12: |
Line 16: |
|
|mask=Talk:Touré (journalist)/Archive <#> |
|
|mask=Talk:Touré (journalist)/Archive <#> |
|
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes}} |
|
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes}} |
|
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I |age=1 |units=month }} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
| ⚫ |
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|blp=yes|1= |
|
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Biography |living=yes |class=Start |a&e-work-group=yes |listas=Toure }} |
|
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Journalism}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Connected contributor (paid)|User1=WWB Too|U1-employer=Beutler Ink|U1-client=Touré}} |
|
{{Connected contributor (paid)|User1=WWB Too|U1-employer=Beutler Ink|U1-client=Touré}} |
|
__TOC__ |
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
== BLP violation == |
|
|
|
|
|
An editor {{ping|User:Tuckerresearch}} has inserted , and now another editor {{ping|134.42.240.3}} has doubled down on that, so we have a conflict. So |
|
|
|
|
|
First, everybody needs to read thru ] at least to get the general drift of the policy. It's an important policy and one of the few that we take really seriously. OK, done? So now then we have that: |
|
|
|
|
|
# It's negative info, clearly. |
|
|
# It's part of the person's private life. It doesn't have anything do do with his career or public notaility. |
|
|
# It's fairly trivial. The amount described is small in the scheme of things. We don't know what's going on, a mistake or what, and according to the source the matter is under discussion/negotiation between the subject and the State of New York. |
|
|
# The source is unacceptable. First of all, it is a blog. However, the blog was published under the aegis of '']'', and the writer, ], is bluelinked, so it's not just some random person's blog, so OK. But Byer's underlying source is a partisan hatchet job. Byers says his sole source is a '']'' article, which the ''National Review'' is a poor source since it is a partisan opinion journal. ''National Review'' says that ''its'' source is public records, but the trail goes cold there. It's quite likely that ''National Review'' is not making this up out of whole cloth, but we can't trust them not to cherry-pick data. Anyway, the ''National Review'' piece is highly partisan (among other things, they call him "Neblett" which is insulting, quite possibly on purpose), and Byers himself, notwithstanding that he is a notable talking head, is himself not exactly a ] (see ]) so this is not good enough. |
|
|
|
|
|
All in all, this is not acceptable material for contentious material in a ], and the source is not good enough for such contentious and (at best) marginal material. So I've deleted it and will continue to do so as I am not only allowed but ''required'' to under Misplaced Pages rules, until such time as consensus to include it is achieved, at least. Editors are advised not to continue to re-insert the material but instead to engage here and make their case first. ] (]) 20:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Whoa buddy! Get your facts straight. I didn't add this, an editor named {{ping|User:CPA Mann}} did way back in April 2015, see . That editor appears to be a ]. So, we must take that into account. You act like this hasn't been hased out before, but it has. See the talk page above. <u>The consensus back then said keep it</u>. As you can see from that talk page archive, I'm ambivalent on the issue. Remove it, keep it, I don't care. But, I do worry about what I see as bias on Misplaced Pages. Websites that lean left are considered good sources for tidbits like this when the article is about a conservative, while websites that lean right are considered biased sources and such tidbits are removed from articles about liberals. But, to discuss your points: (1) it's not negative info, it's neutral, he hasn't paid his taxes; (2) it is personal, and maybe it doesn't affect his career, but other people might point out his stance on taxes, saying that high-income earners should pay more and then he doesn't; (3) it is fairly trivial; (4) I wonder why ''Politico'' is deemed acceptable as a source but ''National Review'', a well-respected journal of conservative thought founded in 1955, is declared a mere opinion journal and poor source. This is the cherry-picking of sources I worry about on Misplaced Pages, where liberal/left voices are trumpeted (because most Misplaced Pages editors lean that way) and conservative/right voices are muted (because fewer Misplaced Pages editors lean that way). I don't think it's a violation of ]. On the issue at hand (as I already said back in Archive 5), if the consensus is remove it as a pointless tidbit, okey-dokey; if consensus is it's important, okey-dokey. I really don't mind either way on this one. ] (]) 21:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC) |
|
