Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Useitorloseit (talk | contribs) at 21:04, 24 April 2014 (→Proposed wording of contentious section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter. Journalism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. United States This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. African diaspora Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Proposed changes

We refer to the subject both as Coates and as Ta-Nehisi, apparently to emphasize his youth in the autobiographical work. I propose that we use Ta-Nehisi only to refer to the character, and show "the young Ta-Nehisi" at first use.

For an encyclopedic approach, I think we need to link or otherwise explain the capitalized Consciousness.

Any objections?

-- Jo3sampl (talk) 11:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

A constructive proposal, though I would pay heed to the Manual of Style's comments on prénom vs surname use. Skomorokh 19:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; you're right on surname use. I haven't yet found a satisfactory link for "Consciousness" as used here. Jo3sampl (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional citations

I have added citations for all the unreferenced biographical details (attendance at Baltimore Polytechnic and Howard University, current residence in Harlem) and removed the "needs additional citations" tag. This is my first "real" edit of an article (i.e. not just fixing broken links), and I think I covered everything necessary, but please let me know if I'm in the wrong here. Mictlantecuhtle (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.164.101 (talk) 04:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Ta Nehisi Coates blog style

I have tried numerous times to edit a section on TNC and the editing of articles. Well, more so on the editing of comment sections of articles. It seems that TNC, himself or others affiliated with him, have been significantly altering his own blog on The Atlantic to change comments. .

.....In violation of Misplaced Pages standard.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.65.50 (talk) 03:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

If you are genuinely confused as to why your edit keeps being deleted see wikipedia's policy on original research — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.185.136 (talk • contribs)

Habit of banning users

On Aug 31 2013 (link), user Agnosticraccoon deleted a link to my post about TNC banning me for disagreeing with him. Agnosticraccoon said, "Those sources are opinion pieces used to bolster what was written as objective fact. I suggest you bring it up on the talk page." I'm having trouble parsing that, but it's a fact that TNC banned me and has banned others. I mean, he says "lawl. ur so banned." to me right here. My post combines opinion with fact, but I'm sure most WP readers aren't so young that they're going to be confused between a fact (that TNC banned me) and my take on it.

Isn't it a fact that TNC banned me and publicly admits that he did so? Isn't it a fact that he's done that in other cases? Shouldn't the negatives about his style be in this article in order to provide some slight balance? ZXY4931 (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

To include such a thing, Misplaced Pages rules require that it be documented by a reliable secondary source, not a primary source like your blog. Gamaliel (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The primary source is The Atlantic website - which has been linked. The proof is there - written words from Ta Nehisi Coates himself. The bigger question is why are you so against including the FACT that TNC bans users for disagreeing with him as a topic on his Wiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.65.50 (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand. We can't include every random fact, so the significance of the fact must be demonstrated by coverage in a reliable secondary source. Gamaliel (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I understand quite clearly. TNC is a blogger. That is his profession. He does something which is actually rather unusual on his blog and participates in discussion and then bans people who disagree with him. So, if you think his profession and the way he conducts it are "every random fact" then that's your personal opinion. It doesn't change the fact that you're disallowing facts on a wikipedia page because of a personal bias. The source is Ta Nehisi Coates himself. How is that less reliable or applicable than a secondary source doing a report on him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.65.50 (talk) 02:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not disallowing anything, Misplaced Pages policies are. They require a secondary source. Gamaliel (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are disallowing direct, sourced material. The fact that the New York Times hasn't done an article about TNC blogging habits does not change the facts of what he does. And you know that. Why are you disallowing this information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.65.50 (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

If you have a specific reliable secondary source for the edit, please cite it here, and we can discuss the issue. A generic reference to atlantic.com is pretty worthless; one may as well claim, "I read it somewhere on the internet". Also repeated insertion of the disputed content will only result in your getting blocked from editing on wikipedia too, which would be ironic considering the subject of dispute! Abecedare (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The direct link to the comments sections where TNC has banned people has been previously provided. It was then deleted by people like you who are trying to hide the truth. Are you denying that Coates bans people from TheAtlantic.com for disagreeing with him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.65.50 (talk) 02:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You can insure that the truth comes to light by providing a reliable secondary source per Misplaced Pages rules. Gamaliel (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a "blog", I'm not a blogger, and I don't want to be associated with either term. Short of the NYT writing an article about what TNC is in the habit of doing, what would be necessary to get something in the wiki article about what TNC is in the habit of doing? The Atlantic's comments don't appear to be indexed, but if I or a bot friend can find X instances of a TNC comment admitting to banning someone, what value of X will result in that being allowed into the article? ZXY4931 (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

None, because of Misplaced Pages's prohibition against original research. A secondary source is required. Gamaliel (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

More to the point, Misplaced Pages is not the place to document your disputes with the subject of an article. §FreeRangeFrog 17:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is a link to all the articles that mention Coates at the Atlantic website. Which of these articles are you referring to as your source?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Removing Link to Coates Living in Harlem.

Sorry, the current link is an article that Coates wrote for The Atlantic. And we've already determined that stuff that Coates write on that website considered "original source." So I'm going to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PJarorbi (talk • contribs) 22:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:POINT Gamaliel (talk) 23:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, so you agree that I made a point. Or that I'm going to. Which is to apply your criteria evenly now and in the future. What is your connection to Coates anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PJarorbi (talk • contribs) 03:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Clicking the "Recent changes" link in the interaction menu on every page will give you a list of all edits in the last few minutes. If you just want to watch for changes to articles you have edited, use your Watchlist. You can add articles to your Watchlist by clicking "Watch this page" tab (starred) at the top of any article (the talk page will be auto-watched, too). You can click "Related changes" in the toolbox menu on any page to see changes made to the pages linked from the one you are viewing. And finally, you can click the "My contributions" link to view a log of your edits; if yours is no longer the edit marked with "top", then someone else has edited the page.

Gamaliel (talk) 03:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Arrest for assault

My edit keeps being reverted by users with no discussion, then they tell me to "go to talk page." Please follow your own advice. This author writes on issues of blacks and crime (among others), and has cited this arrest several times in his writing. Therefore, it is no at all "undue". If the personal section is a little short, then maybe that's because this person is not as notable as other people think. But the length of the section is not relevant here. Please justify your edits on the talk page here, or cease deleting good faith edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Useitorloseit (talk • contribs) 21:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

It's undue weight to include the material as a throwaway line. You're welcome to present a proposal on this page for a non-tendentious, contextual discussion of those incidents in his life. Simply adding a line that says "he was arrested" to his personal life section does not cut it.

Your addition has been reverted multiple times by multiple editors and you have violated the three-revert rule. Please make a proposal here before attempting to add it again. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The fact is that an arrest and/or suspension for minor allegations while underage would not ordinarily be at all encyclopedic for someone's biography on Misplaced Pages.

The incidents may be notable in this case, but only because Coates has discussed them in his writings as a part of his formative experiences. There are no reliable sources discussing the incidents except those that flow from Coates' own writings. Therefore, the incidents are only notable when placed in the context of his writing about them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Your argument only consists of several conclusory statements, offered without supporting evidence. For example, you keep trying to minimize my edit by referring to it as a "throwaway line". According to whom? Is there a WP definition of "throwaway lines" somewhere? If so, what is it and why does it apply here? You call these allegations "minor". That is not a neutral POV, and you need to support your assertion. Assault is a felony in every state I know of; I hardly call that "minor". You yourself admit my edit may be ok "only because Coates has discussed them." That sounds like justification enough to include it to me. Lastly, the page has repeatedly been reverted by other user without trying to discuss or improve my edit first, in violation of WP policy; yet you do not say anything about it. please explain why you ignore the other user's behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Useitorloseit (talk • contribs) 23:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear what I am doing: I am trying to get to a fair temporary page while discussion takes place. Gamaliel violated WP policy at 19:31 20 Feb by reverting my edit. This is the rule that applies here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary#Unacceptable_reversions: Take note of "Never revert an edit because it was made via an improper process." Also, "Don't revert an edit because it is unnecessary — because it does not improve the article. For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse. Misplaced Pages does not have a bias toward the status quo (except in cases of fully developed disputes, while they are being resolved). In fact, Misplaced Pages has a bias toward change, as a means of maximizing quality by maximizing participation. Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit, especially if you are the author of the prior text. The reason for this is that authors and others with past involvement in an article have a natural prejudice in favor of the status quo, so your finding that the article was better before might just be a result of that. Also, Misplaced Pages likes to encourage editing." Also: "This is a strict limit, not a given right; you should not revert any one article more than three times daily." Gamaliel broke these rules, and my reverts are trying to undo it and get to a place where the discussion (if users actually want that) can take place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Useitorloseit (talk • contribs) 00:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I broke no rules. That's not a rule, that's an essay which, as it notes on top of that page "contains the advice or opinions of one or more Misplaced Pages contributor". Per our BLP policies, potentially infringing material should be removed immediately, which is what I did. Gamaliel (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, you decided to actally try discussing; good for you. Perhaps you could have just tried that to start with; the page (which you seem to want to just ignore) does say to let what you think is a minor flaw go to avoid discourgaing editors? A search of BLP page shows nothing about "infringing material", whatever that means. You certainly violated the 3RR rule, so fairness says the page should stand at my edit and let's discuss (if you actually want to). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Useitorloseit (talk • contribs) 00:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I've reviewed the edit history, and Gamaliel has not violated 3RR today. —C.Fred (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The edit war's over, but if anyone has comments about my proposed addition, please discuss. Useitorloseit (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I oppose adding information to a BLP about a juvenile arrest with no evidence provided of a conviction. Describing this as his "criminal" background in an edit summary is incorrect and a BLP violation. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Cullen.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you're making much too much of my shorthand description for my edit, and anyway it's not even in the actual article. You didn't explain why you think it's a BLP violation, but no one is disputing the truth of the arrest, so any possible violation seems like a non-issue. Lastly, I know of no rule that you can't mention an arrest unless it led to a conviction. Think of those celebrities who get arrested protesting then have charges dropped; you don't think that should be allowed to be mentioned in their articles? So I don't support that rule that you are asking for. The synopsis of his book probably should get edited, too; that is not at all up to standards. Useitorloseit (talk) 04:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

its a BLP violation because it violates our WP:BLP policy. read it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Please be aware, Useitorloseit that the BLP policy applies everywhere on Misplaced Pages, which includes talk pages and edit summaries. Here's the specific policy language from WP:BLP that supports my recommendation to exclude mention of this juvenile arrest: "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." This person is notable but relatively unknown, he is not a well-known celebrity: he is a journalist and commentator for a respected magazine of relatively limited circulation. The fact that the arrest occurred when he was a juvenile, and that the juvenile arrest is discussed nowhere that I know other than in his own online commentary on his magazine's website, indicates that this is minor, we have no evidence of a conviction, and inclusion of material that even hints that he is a "criminal" is a policy violation. The edit summary is evidence of your intentions. So I will continue to oppose inclusion unless and until new facts emerge. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from trying to discern my "intentions", unless you want me to start speculating about yours. And on your main point, I think you are missing an important distinction: this issue is closely related with this subject's notability. It's not like we have an article about the 2010 Science Fair winner and I'm trying to add a note about them being busted for underage drinking. This person's notability derives from his writing about blacks and crime and issues thereof, and his upbringing in a crime-ridden inner city school and his own brushes with the law, which he wrote his only book about. So excluding it would be like having an article on a writer about homelessness and not mentioning the fact he was homeless himself once. The arrest dovetails very closely with whatever notability he has, and that's why it should go in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Useitorloseit (talk • contribs) 19:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

You are correct that it has had an impact on his writing. As I have said, mentioning the arrest in the context of Coates' writing and what he has written about the experience is probably proper, in the section about his writing. If someone has a copy of The Beautiful Struggle and can assist with depicting Coates' experience and his perspective, that would be most helpful.

But that is not what is being done here - you have attempted to insert the matter as a throwaway line in his "personal life" section, when it is not a significant or relevant part of his personal life. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I support the approach suggested by NorthBySouthBaranof. Anyone is free to comment on my intentions to the extent that I reveal them in my edit summaries or talk page comments. The same goes for all other editors. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think if we add it to the book section, there's another problem: that section needs to be cut down a lot because it looks like someone just wrote a book review, and once it's cut down to appropriate size (I pruned it just now), the blurb about the arrest might seem over-emphasized if we include it there. I think it's better to mention the arrest in the section of the article dealing with his early life, since that's when it happened and readers can see he used that material in his later writing career themselves. I envision the article going something like "He had some trouble with authority growing up. Later he wrote about it." Useitorloseit (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

There continues to be no consensus for your proposal to insert a mention of a juvenile arrest into the personal life section of this article. It has been explained to you a number of times why the edit is objectionable. You are a single-purpose account with no edits to any other articles, and your continued edits are well into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You have violated good faith by falsely accusing me of being a SPA. Just because I don't contribute much doesn't make me what you claim. I point out that you have failed to address my last comments here, and gone back on your previous statements. Only when you settle on one opinion will we be able to discuss things. You have said you think it "probably" should go in, so I said it should be the biographical section. Again, I note for the record you revert instantly, but you don't truly engage in discussion beyond repeating the same thing. Where is your reply to my post above? You are getting into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory, not me. Please explain yourself for the record and allow me to weigh in, or leave the article alone. Useitorloseit (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

There is not violation of good faith by stating the accurate facts. the only edits you have made outside of Ta-Nehisi Coates have been your spite reversals of people who have not supported your quest against Coates. Your single obsession with Coates makes you an SPA. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

So what if I don't have the urge to edit articles more than once every few years? Maybe I am not as interested in Misplaced Pages editing as you are. Did you or anyone else ever ask me that? No, you just accuse me of bad faith. Stop blaming me for disagreeing with your preferred version of the article. Useitorloseit (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

"My preferred version" of the article is one that is in compliance with our policy about content regarding living people. The fact that you have shown no interest in any other subject would not matter if your interest in the single subject was to improve the quality of the article as per the guidelines and policies. Your complete rejection of the policy that trumps ever other policy is the issue. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Who says your version is "in compliance" and mine isn't? You have an unfortunate tendency to state the "facts" as being whatever you personally think, and everything else being a "violation". I have three users agreeing it's ok to put this in the article. The current debate is WHERE to put it. Have you even read the discussion up above?? Useitorloseit (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Who sez? well so far it has been everyone who has reverted you and every one on this page who has said "No" to your version. so "who sez?" : just about everyone. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It's clear you haven't read the discussion above. NorthbySouth said it should "probably" go in the article "in the context of his writing", and Cullen agreed. So that makes three of use (including me) who think it's relevant in at least SOME section. No one replied when I said if we're including it, it should go in his bio section, so I assumed the discussion was over. Useitorloseit (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion was over. We explained where and how it might be proper to discuss the issue - in a nuanced fashion that does not focus on the totally non-notable and unencyclopedic fact of the arrest, but on what Coates has written about the experience.

You didn't add anything "in the context of his writing," you simply re-added basically the exact same wording in the exact same place that everyone but you has determined is objectionable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages doesn't give biographical details via descriptions of artists' work. Tolstoy's page doesn't say "He wrote a book about Russia (by the way, he was from there)". The same principle applies here. If it's notable for his writing as you said, then it's notable for inclusion - after all, the article only exists due to his writing). And we should include it in the appropriate section, which is his personal life section.Useitorloseit (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

As has been repeatedly explained, being arrested for a minor offense as a minor is not generally a notable, encyclopedic part of a person's biography. This is a rebuttable presumption which you have made no effort to rebut, except by declaration.

Your POV on this matter was made clear by your initial edit summary: you have an ax to grind against Coates and wish to smear him as a "criminal." This you may not do. If you do not accept the consensus and cease the tendentious edits, you'll likely be blocked for disruption. And that's all there is to it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You are the one being "tendentious", amply demonstrated by your dismissive "throwaway line" comments, the attempts to read into my POV, your reverting within 7 minutes after dropping out of the discussion for a week, and your "that's all there is to it". You yourself have admitted it's "probably proper" to include in some context, so beware of your own words. The fact that this is a writer whose main topics are blacks and crime and the issues arising from them, who wrote his only book about his own troubled upbringing, including his troubles with the law, makes this a notable event.Useitorloseit (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no "attempt" to read into your POV. You have made your POV abundantly clear from your first edit and your obsession and your disruptive editing related to your POV. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC: High school incident

The following discussion 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.

Should this author's arrest for assaulting his teacher in high school be included, and if so where? Useitorloseit (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• do not include we are not here to write your slander for you. WP:BLP WP:UNDUE WP:BLPCRIME WP:POINT-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You REALLY need to stop trying to play hall monitor. I added your source so quit arguing about the arrest because it happened. Useitorloseit (talk) 02:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

hall monitors aren't necessary when adults or children follow simple rules. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• We should never include a simple mention of a juvenile arrest without a conviction in a BLP. If the article includes a comprehensive, neutral, well-referenced overview of his writing, and if reliable sources mention that his discussion of his own arrest is a significant aspect of his journalistic output, then the incident could be mentioned as part of that broad overview. I will continue to oppose any content that states or implies that he is a "criminal" because of a juvenile arrest without conviction. Cullen Let's discuss it 02:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Cullen, there is no policy about "never" including an arrest unless there's a conviction, and that's a good thing. No one is trying to add the word "criminal" to the article and I oppose that too if someone did. But the arrest is relevant to his career, despitr being uncomfortable for some people to read about. It happened, he writes about it in his book and blog, it belongs in the article. Useitorloseit (talk) 02:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

That's why I qualified my remark with the important word "juvenile" which you quickly glossed over. There is a strong presumption of privacy with regards to juvenile arrests in many countries including the United States where he lives. Which reliable source says that this arrest is "relevant to his career", or is that your own opinion, which is of negligible value here on Misplaced Pages? Are you arguing that we should include every single theme or biographical incident that occurs in his writing, or only this one? Or is it only the ones that, in your view, reflect negatively on him? Cullen Let's discuss it 03:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You put "never" in italics; you didn't qualify anything. I find your opinions of negligible value as well. Demanding a cite for the arrest being relevant to the career is clear argumentativeness. I demand a cite to a Misplaced Pages rule for you insisting on a cite. Useitorloseit (talk) 03:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

"Read the entire sentence please, not just the word in italics. I included the word "juvenile" for a very good reason which you continue to ignore. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It says never include a juvenile arrest. Of course it's juvenile - hard to write a bok about high school and not mention being a juvenile. Useitorloseit (talk) 04:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

its the same one you have been ignoring before- why the fuck should we think you would read it now? But on the off chance that you are merely really slow and not a troll: WP:BLP -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

you keep making that assertion and proving no support for it. You MUST stop violating BLP. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you for real? I have repeatedly given the link to the source. You simply are refusing to even listen or read.Useitorloseit (talk) 02:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

you have not given any source that establishes " the arrest is relevant to his career," only your assertion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Given that the link isn't in the discussion section above, you may need to give the link one more time, or point to where you gave the link. —C.Fred (talk) 02:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The original link to the author's own blog mentioning the arrest (I know of at least one more blog post also mentioning arrest): . His book The Beautiful Struggle mentions the suspension for assault on p. 172; not sure about citing format. My understanding is that people didn't doubt that the arrest happened, just that it was notable. Useitorloseit (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

And because there was no conviction (or even any indication that he was formally charged) and he was a minor and there is no contemporary news coverage, the incident is non-notable and unencyclopedic outside the context of what Coates wrote about the experience and how it affected his life. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

On any planet, the author's book and blog posts are enough for inclusion. Useitorloseit (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

On Misplaced Pages, everyone else appears to disagree. This is called "consensus." It has been reached. When you repeatedly reject that consensus because you don't like it, you are engaging in disruptive behavior. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The policy does not say "never", true. What policy does say is, "editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." Policy also requires reliable sources, especially with controversial or contentious material. That's why there's a recurring call for the sources to back up the claim. —C.Fred (talk) 02:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I have never said he committed any crime. All I have said in the article is he was arrested for one. Given this author's own mentions of said arrest, the BLP issue is a non-issue. Trying to say the author isn't an authoritative source is not being serious; there is no genuine doubt that this arrest happened. I don't see how mentioning facts that the author himself discusses could be a "smear". It is a relevant episode that adds a level of understanding to this person's limited notability by showing why he might write what he writes, and take the opinions he takes. Just because it's not pleasant to discuss doesn't make it a BLP violation or non-notable. Useitorloseit (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• "editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured

See the "is accused of committing a crime" part? That would cover being arrested. There is no question that the only way this factoid should be included is if you took NorthBySouthBaranof's advice and brought a childhood experience in dialogue with themes in his work. But that's more work. Arrests without conviction are not mentioned on Misplaced Pages unless it is a case that is widely covered by the media in which it would be simple to find third party sources. But even then, it is not always included in biographies of living persons if it is not considered significant. Liz 19:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• As has been repeatedly explained, the only source for this material is Coates' own writings - it was never reported by the media, which makes it irrelevant and unencyclopedic outside the context of the book, in which Coates discusses his life experiences. If the above editor is interested in buying a copy of The Beautiful Struggle and writing an in-depth, contextual section discussing Coates' childhood, it might be possible to write an encyclopedic section including that information in context. Given the above editor's apparent desire to do nothing more than an ineffectual smear job on the writer, this discussion can die a natural death. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's a cite for the relevance: this guy's intro specifically references his troubled past and how he's "learned from it": http://2014.wascarc.org/content/ta-nehisi-coates-why-we-teach-and-why-we-learn Useitorloseit (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Your cite is a summary for a talk that hasn't happened yet, and your use of the phrase "troubled past" is original research, given that it appears nowhere in the summary. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Another cite for arrest: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-littlest-schoolhouse/308132/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Useitorloseit (talk • contribs) 03:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion per WP:BLPCRIME. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for speedy close

Per WP:IAR, I propose a speedy close to this ill conceived RfC. We are being asked to choose between including nothing (because that is what plain readings of WP:BLP / WP:UNDUE / WP:OR require) and including - nothing (because no alternatives have been proposed). Letting such nonsense run is process for process sake and simply giving a banquet to a troll. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support - The initiating user has been blocked for disruption, which is pretty much all that needs to be said about that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed edit for article

User/admin S.G. and I have been talking this over on his Talk page, and he and I feel this proposed edit of the first section and first part of the second section could work. The rest of the article would be unchanged. Any comments?

Personal life

Coates was raised in a working-class family in Baltimore, Maryland. His father, William Paul Coates, was a Vietnam veteran and former Black Panther. His mother, Cheryl, was the breadwinner in the family and his father was a stay-at-home dad where he ran a small publishing house during Ta-Nehisi's childhood. Ta-Nehisi's father had seven children. Ta-Nehisi is an Egyptian name for ancient Nubia.

Coates attended a number of Baltimore-area schools, including Baltimore Polytechnic Institute, before graduating from Woodlawn High School. After high school, he enrolled in Howard University but dropped out to become a journalist. He currently resides in Harlem with his wife and son.

Writing and teaching

In 2009, he published The Beautiful Struggle, a memoir about coming of age in West Baltimore and its impact on him. In it, he discusses the influence of his father, a former Black Panther; the prevailing street crime of the era and its effects on his older brother; his own experience attending Baltimore-area schools, which included by his own later account "two suspensions, two expulsions, and an arrest by school police"; and his eventual graduation and enrollment in "Mecca", as he refers to Howard University.

References

1. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/if-i-were-a-black-kid/276655/
2. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/if-i-were-a-black-kid/276655/
3. Interview with Terry Gross on NPR's radio show Fresh Air
4. Smith, Jeremy Adam. The Daddy Shift: How Stay-at-Home Dads, Breadwinning Moms, and Shared Parenting are Transforming the American Family. Boston: Beacon Press, 2009, ISBN 978-0-8070-2120-0, p. 105.
5. Pride, Felicia. "Manning Up: The Coates Family's Beautiful Struggle in Word and Deed". Baltimore City Paper. Retrieved March 31, 2014.
6. Morton, Paul. "An Interview with Ta-Nehisi Coates". Bookslut. Retrieved March 31, 2014.
7. Coates, Ta-Nehisi. "The Beautiful Struggle". Random House LLC. Retrieved April 5, 2014.
8. Felicia Pride (2007-04-06). "Manning Up: The Coates Family's Beautiful Struggle in Word and Deed". Baltimore City Paper.
9. "The guest list". Vibe, November 2004.
10. Cite error: The named reference 2013Observer was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
11. George, Lynell. "Lessons from Dad". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved April 5, 2014.
12. Smith, Jordan Michael. "Fear of a Black Pundit". New York Observer. Retrieved April 5, 2014.
13. Spalter, Mya. "Ta-Nehisi Coates' 'Beautiful Struggle' to Manhood". National Public Radio. Retrieved April 5, 2014.
14. Coates, Ta-Nehisi. "The Littlest Schoolhouse". The Atlantic. Retrieved April 5, 2014.
15. Coates, Ta-Nehisi. "The Beautiful Struggle". Random House LLC. Retrieved April 5, 2014.
16. Coates, Ta-Nehisi. "The Beautiful Struggle". Random House LLC. Retrieved April 5, 2014.

• Comment I've discussed this a bit with the user on my talk page, and I wonder if an inclusion might be warranted per the following thought process: This subject is notable for his writing -> verifiable content, sourced even to first party sources, on what influences his writing, is therefore notable -> if a first party source states that one of the events of his early life that went on to influence his opinions/writings were early breaches of discipline including an arrest, and that both the event and the idea of it being an influence are taken directly for first party sourced, attributed to the source in quotation marks -> therefore this would not be original research as all inferences come from the source, not Misplaced Pages, and it would not violate BLPCRIME as it evidences why inclusion is notable, and we are simply quoting a sentence from a first-party source, rather than making any statements of "our own" so to speak. Forgive the verbose comment, that's just my working theory. I have indicated several times to the user above that if consensus is against the idea then I will of course defer, but I thought the idea worth exploring. There is, obviously, some history higher in the talk page which took place prior to me speaking to the user. S.G. _ping! 22:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I wouldnt cover the expulsions twice, but that is well on the way to what people have been voicing for above - relating the event to something notable. and yes, the subject himself is an acceptable source to make that connection (although it would be preferred if a third party had noted it as well, so that we know that others think its a notable connection he is making there among the hundreds of items in his book and articles and interviews that he has noted have made impacts on him.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It is redundant to mention the issue in his "personal life" section.

I also think that if this is going to be added, it can only be as part of a significant expansion of the section about the book. Per the book, there were two minor incidents (not five separate ones as implied) - with the incidents and their aftermath taking up perhaps six pages in a 224-page book. (Coates talks far more about his parents' reaction to the incidents than any legal issues.) It is undue weight to have a one-sentence description of the book dominated by reference to the suspensions.

If we are going to keep it to one sentence, then I would not find it acceptable to say more than "his own troubled experience in Baltimore-area schools." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I concur with those saying it should only be mentioned once. S.G. _ping! 11:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I took out the extra mention of expulsions, and added some links I hadn't seen before about the influence on his writing. Let's leave it for comment a while longer but I think we're pretty much there. Useitorloseit (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the only thing left to do is to turn those bare url citations into references using the citation templates. S.G. _ping! 13:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, but I cannot figure out how to do that. Can you do one and I can probably extrapolate from that? Useitorloseit (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Use this template:<ref>{{cite web|last=author last name|first=author first name|title=title|url=url|publisher=publisher|accessdate=access date}}</ref> and just replace the placeholders after the '=' with the right content. Like this: "Climate impacts 'overwhelming' - UN". BBC News. BBC. 31 March 2014. Retrieved 31 March 2014. --S.G. _ping! 12:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I've got the hang of it so I'll finish the rest soon. Useitorloseit (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Update: I changed the rest of the links so hopefully we are good to go now. Thanks for your help. Useitorloseit (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• No. As I stated three weeks ago, any mention beyond "his own troubled experience in Baltimore-area schools" is undue weight, in my opinion - we are describing the book in one sentence, and the sum total of those incidents is 6 pages in a 224-page book. Also, the existing construction implies that there were five separate incidents, which is also not supported by the source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be 3 to 1 in favor of including this edit. I think this is a good compromise. I would have preferred my original idea but I can go along with SGGH's suggested approach. Others wanted more context and that has been provided. So I think this moves the ball forward and improves the article in a way that everyone ought to be able to live with even if I or someone else didn't get 100% of what they want. And in a few months someone else will probably come along and change it further. Useitorloseit (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

If the content above is a direct quote and it is the only mention of the incident(s) in the entire article, I personally would think it was suitable. That seems to be the case at the moment, unless I'm missing something. S.G. _ping! 21:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, no. Extensive consensus rejected including it at all. Three of us have stated that some mention would be acceptable, but there is no consensus for the exact wording you propose absent a significant expansion of the section. As-is, your proposal places undue weight on 6 pages of a 224-page book. "His own troubled experience in Baltimore-area schools" sums up the issue accurately and concisely.

If the section was expanded to several paragraphs, your proposal might be acceptable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Your disagreement was and is noted but other editors are on record here saying they're ok with it. Useitorloseit (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Open an RFC and gain consensus for your proposal. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

You're the one operating against consensus here. Useitorloseit (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think that?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

This section has solicted opinions. Useitorloseit (talk) 02:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

If you keep getting reverted, and by different editors, you probably don't have consensus for actual text, regardless of whether "this section has solicited opinions." Why don't you just slow down and wait till there's actual consensus?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The previous section solicited opinions as well. I can see both sides and I encourage you to open a proper RfC instead of edit warring to expand possibly contentious material in a BLP. --NeilN 02:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

One person said "this is well on its way to being acceptable" but requested some changes - more than a month ago, during which time no substantive changes were made to the proposal and you appeared to entirely drop the matter. I agree that it was well on its way to being acceptable - with the change I made to de-emphasize a section of undue weight making it entirely acceptable to me. Now you reappear and demand to implement your proposal as-is claiming "consensus" out of thin air. If there is a consensus for your changes, open an RFC and demonstrate it. If your version is preferred by an RFC, I will consider the matter closed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that consensus exists for the proposed changes and want to add my concerns about undue weight, and trying to turn two incidents into five. Cullen Let's discuss it 02:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Where were you when I was soliciting opinions these past weeks? It isn't right to ignore a request for debate then accuse people of going against consensus. You never weighed in on the proposed edit. Useitorloseit (talk) 03:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

You have 154 edits as of just now, with exactly 21 of them to mainspace. That doesn't mean your opinion isn't as valid as everyone else's, but it might make you want to ask yourself whether it's just possible that maybe you're less familiar with how things work around here than everybody else that you're disagreeing with? What's your rush? The material you proposed is "well on its way to being acceptable." Keep working with everyone and I'll just bet that eventually you'll all be able to come up with something that has at least part of what everyone thinks is good.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I am a volunteer, not a paid staffer, Useitorloseit, and you are not my boss. I comment if and when I choose to comment, and I remain silent when I so choose. I have already commented on this matter several times in March. Now, I am back to comment again. There is no consensus for the specific language you have proposed. That is not an accusation. That is a fact. Try to come up with better language based on the input you've received. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I gave it several weeks to get opinions but my new edit that SGGH and I worked out had never been commented on by you. Useitorloseit (talk) 03:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed wording of contentious section

The proposed edit above by Useitorloseit is almost entirely acceptable to me, with one and only one change.

I propose that instead of the phrase his own experience attending Baltimore-area schools, which included by his own later account "two suspensions, two expulsions, and an arrest by school police" preferred by Useitorloseit, we simply state his own troubled experience in Baltimore-area schools.

The reasoning is twofold.

Firstly, the entire sum total of the discussion of the incidents in the book is six out of 224 pages. Coates discusses his parents' reaction to the incidents far more than the legal issue. The version preferred by Useitorloseit places undue weight on the incidents by giving them outsized importance and detail in the article relative to their importance in the book. It also places the focus on numbers and legalities rather than Coates' feelings and thoughts about the occurrences. In a one-sentence summation of the book, his juvenile arrest is not important enough to be called out and specifically noted.

Secondly, the quote used implies the existence of five separate incidents, which is simply not true - there were, according to the source, only two separate incidents. This simply cannot stand - it fundamentally misleads readers.

For those reasons, at least, the construction "his own troubled experience at Baltimore-area schools" accurately and concisely describes the section and should be used in the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Reply On your first point, I'd agree if the book was all there was. But in his regular writing gig, he brings this up regularly, over a number of years. I've added links below and they're on my Talk page. Seems like these are events he likes to use in his writing, so I think they are notable enough to be specifically included. On your second point, I doubt the author's own description is as unacceptable as you claim, but I am open to finding another way to phrase it. I think the current "troubled past" violates WP:NPOV by using a euphemism for the incident. I think a compromise would be something that doesn't rub salt in the subject's past while also not trying to shield him from it. Useitorloseit (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Cullen Let's discuss it 03:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Query Just so I'm clear on what we're discussing, you're proposing to replace the current "his own experience attending Baltimore-area schools" with the slightly more detailed "his troubled experience at Baltimore-area schools." Is that your proposal?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - The current version does state "troubled." The word "troubled" is descriptive and concisely sums up the matter without undue detail. I have added Useitorloseit's preferred version to my statement for clarity. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support I think this version gives proportionally due weight to his legal troubles as a juvenile. I am open to reconsidering this issue if independent (or, GG, even more coverage in his own work) reliable sources can be produced to show that these incidents deserve more coverage somehow.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Reply/Question Alf.laylah.wa.laylah, you said you could reconsider if there was more coverage. The author's day job is writing essays at the Atlantic, where he's brought up these incidents repeatedly: in 2009 (), 2010 (), 2012 (), and 2013 (). These all talk about the arrest; some of them also discuss the suspensions/expulsions. And that doesn't include all the references to his past in the inner city and its effects; here's a piece about being tempted to "cold-cock" someone but not doing it because of lessons learned from the street (). So I think given the repeat use of this stuff in his writing over many years, there's good reason to actually mention the incidents (in some form), instead of using a vague euphemism like "troubled past", especially since even the author doesn't hide it. Please tell me what you think. Useitorloseit (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• I take your point. One problem is that without a secondary source explaining how he uses these experiences in his writing we're faced with the necessity of doing original research to explain the relevance of them to his writing career. That being said, the fact that your desired summary (2 this, 2 that, etc.) is a quote from him along with the fact that he does bring it up a lot makes it potentially important. The problem still remains, though, that it's hard to think of what to say about why we're saying it that wouldn't be original research.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It's like a writer about homelessness who was homeless himself once. We could say in the bio section "he was homeless", then in his writing section, mention his books about homelessness. We don't have to say why we're saying it. Any reader would understand the significance. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be just the facts; any discussion of "why" seems like injecting POV into the piece. Why can't we just state what we know are reliable facts? Here we have an author who got in trouble in school, and now writes about troubled youth (among other similar things). There's nothing OR or UNDUE about it, I think. Useitorloseit (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree with this, or if the section was proportionately expanded - if we had a whole paragraph about the book and a whole paragraph about Coates' upbringing, bringing in Coates' thoughts about those experiences would be appropriate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• This is a bio of a writer whose main topics are issues of blacks, crime, inner city problems like violent schools, racism, etc. I think these incidents belong in the article the same way we'd include the fact an author of books about Russia was born in Russia. I think it's relevant and notable.
• The author has discussed the arrest/expulsion enough to demonstrate the influence it had on him (aside from his book, in 2009 (), 2010 (), 2012 (), and 2013 (). If we're including a fact such as his dad was a Black Panther, then this seems of equal or greater relevance to him.
• Looks like he got arrested for assault and suspended from that, may or may not have been expelled the 1st time for that, then got suspended for ANOTHER alleged assault, then was expelled again for a brawl (see the links above). I agree that listing all this is probably WP:UNDUE, but let's not brush over it with a vague euphemism like "troubled past", especially when the author himself doesn't. I like the idea of using the author's own summary of it, but can work to find a suitable half-way point.
• I think the description belongs in the Early Life section where his schooling is discussed. If the majority wants to keep it in the Writing section, I can live with that, although I don't think it's the best choice.
• Hopefully people will concentrate on content, not on any user's history, intent, etc. I pledge to do the same, of course. Useitorloseit (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The author himself did not view it as important enough to take up more than 6 pages of a 224-page book. That's less than 3 percent.

If our discussion of the book is to place due weight on each part of the narrative, the discussion of those incidents should take up no more than 3 percent of our discussion of the book.

Obviously, that's not the case here - one might argue that we are still placing undue weight by giving it as much space as we do. We summarize things, and a duly-weighted summary of that section of the book is no more than a few words - and dominated not by legalistic outcomes but by his thoughts about the events of his childhood.

A full and complete featured-article-quality biography would be several thousand words and have space for a sourced discussion about his school experiences. But that's not what we have here - we have a really brief biographical sketch of just a few sentences. There are no quotations from Coates' discussion of how he moved beyond those troubles and reached a high level of success - the much longer and far more significant story of his journey into and through academia and journalism. In a really brief article, it is very easy to introduce undue weight, and that's the issue here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:53, 24 April 2014

As I said, there's more than just the book. You keep looking at this solely through the book, but he has more writings that discuss it and I've given links to them. This person is not hugely notable which is why his article is not very long, and expanding it significantly would be give undue weight to his importance. Useitorloseit (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course, a highly-motivated NPOV editor, or team of editors, could expand this article, providing much more well-referenced information about his entire life and the full range of his notable writings and their critical reception. Instead, we have to fight an ongoing defensive action against a WP:SPA , Useitorloseit, who has been determined since their very first edit, to besmirch the BLP subject. So, all the efforts that could be dedicated to improving the article have to, instead, be devoted to defending the article against a tendentious, POV pushing, axe-grinding editor obsessed with making the subject look bad. What a pity! Cullen Let's discuss it 06:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

So much for focusing on content. Useitorloseit (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Stub-Class biography articles
• Automatically assessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed Journalism articles
• Unknown-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• Start-Class African diaspora articles
• Low-importance African diaspora articles
• WikiProject African diaspora articles