Talk:Carlos Maza
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Carlos Maza article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days ![]() |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New York Post article
good article on his family history and upbringing. --2001:8003:4085:8100:F54D:C5A5:4142:50B5 (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- WP:NOTFORUM. If you wanted to make an edit request, you'll need a better source than one article from the New York Post, which is a tabloid. Benny White (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)]
So, we're supposed to only use sources that Benny White approves? A tabloid format newspaper is perfectly capable of finding out truth. In fact, Maza has admitted the story is accurate. Any more facts that your want to dispute, Benny? 47.37.56.179 (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- WP:BLPSOURCE: "...The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." Benny White (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)]
Benny, please see
- Because the quote snippet used omits relevant context, and appears to be designed as a "gotcha." The full quote is
I have lived a life of tremendous privilege, and I am trying to use that privilege to push for a fairer, more just world.
What was the reasoning for intentionally omitting the second part of the sentence? Probably to omit that context. If we decide that his mother & family being wealthy is relevant based on a single article in the New York Post, we would need to include all the context surrounding it. Because yes,as you said, context matters. And the context here is that someone with a wealthy family is advocating for policies which would result in his family becoming less wealthy, because he believes that a broader wealth distribution is]fairer
andmore just
. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Jeff5102: Thanks for providing the context that it was based on a first-party Twitter statement. @NorthBySouthBaranof: I agree that if we include the information, we would need to follow the true context.
- I looked up the WP:RSP) is that tabloid. I think we should skip this addition unless it is covered in more RS. Benny White (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)]
- I looked up the
- Inclusion of socioeconomic background is not out of place in a biography and I find the context welcome: "I have lived a life of tremendous privilege, and I am trying to use that privilege to push for a fairer, more just world." Bus stop (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Maza says in that Twitter post that this is not something he wants to talk about. We shouldn't be including quotes on Wikipedia that article subjects are forced to make because of a tabloid piece in a low quality source. If reliable sources discuss Maza's socioeconomic background, then I think it may be appropriate to include. – ]
- Inclusion of socioeconomic background is not out of place in a biography and I find the context welcome: "I have lived a life of tremendous privilege, and I am trying to use that privilege to push for a fairer, more just world." Bus stop (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- The Twitter post is simply to provide more information. It isn't to deny information about to be published by the New York Post. They are not
"forced"
to make a statement via Twitter providing information that is supplemental to the New York Post article and they are not denying the information in the New York Post article. Bus stop (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)- Neither the New York Post article nor the Twitter post are appropriate to include. The one is a tabloid article in a low quality source, and the other is a Twitter post where the author of the post says they don't want to be discussing this. The relevance of the information would need to be shown by inclusion in better sources. – ]
- The Twitter post is simply to provide more information. It isn't to deny information about to be published by the New York Post. They are not
- I think he is just about confirming the accuracy of the information in the New York Post article. He is saying that he wants to "get out ahead of it". He issues no denials of what is about to be published. "Get[ting] out a head of it" to me means providing additional information relevant to what is about to be published. And that is all that he does. He does not deny anything. I am perfectly OK with including his additional information such as "I have lived a life of tremendous privilege, and I am trying to use that privilege to push for a fairer, more just world." Bus stop (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- If you think we should include a quote from Twitter post where the author says "This all feels uncomfortably personal to talk about" and "I dread having to talk about this", then you will have to find a better reason than a sensationalist tabloid article. – ]
- I think he is just about confirming the accuracy of the information in the New York Post article. He is saying that he wants to "get out ahead of it". He issues no denials of what is about to be published. "Get[ting] out a head of it" to me means providing additional information relevant to what is about to be published. And that is all that he does. He does not deny anything. I am perfectly OK with including his additional information such as "I have lived a life of tremendous privilege, and I am trying to use that privilege to push for a fairer, more just world." Bus stop (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- The subject is not saying the information in that article is inaccurate. The subject says "there's going to be a shitty article about my family in the New York Post pretty soon". Bus stop (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- As Benny White has also said, the information is not ]
- Damned if I can find dueness in a tabloid (ironically owned by a billionaire) drumming up controversy over the fact that, in their minds, one born to money can't criticize inequality. If an excellent source can be found (not Twitter), go for it in full context. O3000 (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- The subject is not saying the information in that article is inaccurate. The subject says "there's going to be a shitty article about my family in the New York Post pretty soon". Bus stop (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Wallyfromdilbert—I don't think there is a question concerning due and undue weight. It is standard to include socioeconomic information in biographies, if known. In this instance Maza is providing information via Twitter that is supplemental to the New York Post article. Do you feel that anything Maza says via Twitter conflicts with anything in the New York Post article? Bus stop (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)]
- Wallyfromdilbert—I don't think there is a question concerning
- I don't get it, sorry. Someone's socioeconomic background is WP:IDONTLIKEIT is at play here. As a second point: the phrase "I have lived a life of tremendous privilege, and I am trying to use that privilege to push for a fairer, more just world." looks rather silly if it is followed by a statement of his fondness of playing video games. Moreover, the latter part was not notable enough to be inserted in the Post-article, so why would it be notable enough here? After all, it doesnt change the status of his upbringing.Jeff5102 (talk) 06:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)]
- If information about his parents' wealth is due, then why isn't it covered in reliable sources? – ]
- I don't get it, sorry. Someone's socioeconomic background is
- It would be undue weight if we excessively explored the subject's socioeconomic background, but at this time there is nothing in the article about the subject's socioeconomic background, so how can the edit in question be an instance of undue weight? Bus stop (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Wally, this newspaper quotes the words Maza uses on Twitter. I checked it, and it, and the words were indeed taken over correctly by the Post. I gave you the exact link, so you can check it yourself. Why then should there be a problem with reliability?Jeff5102 (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- A low quality source is not reliable enough to be used to establish the information should be included. If it was important enough information to be included, it would be covered in multiple sources. Benny White already quoted several rules, including ]
- I don't think we are discussing
"contentious material"
. What do you see as being "contentious" about the material in this edit? Bus stop (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)- Two editors have removed it, and four editors have objected to it here. Only you and Jeff5102 have argued for its inclusion. Unless you can find better sources, there doesn't seem to be anymore to discuss. – ]
- I don't think we are discussing
- You are saying you are removing
"contentious material"
. I am looking at the same material and not seeing anything"contentious"
. Therefore I am simply asking you—what is"contentious"
about the material that you are removing? Bus stop (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- You are saying you are removing
- Wally, WP:VOTE tells us that "polls are generally not used for article development. Remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy; even when polls appear to be "votes", most decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis of consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule. In summary, polling is not a substitute for discussion."
- That said, your argument would have some merit if we really only had the Post, article. However, you ignore Maza's own tweet that confirms the used part of the reference word for word. Quoting someone directly is not "contentious." Therefore, the appeal to the questionable reliability falls flat, and with that the problem of notability. After all, it is published by a major news source with editorial oversight, which makes it notable.
- Also, when you willanswer Bus Stop's question, please also answer this one: why is the fact that this 1988-born person frequently played video games as a child noteworthy enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia, while his socioeconomic status is not?Jeff5102 (talk) 05:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Wally,
I took another look at
- Sounds good to me. O3000 (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- I feel we should wait until the information is covered by a reliable source. – ]
- I would suggest the following for inclusion in the article:
Maza has said "I grew up living between two very different households, experiencing two very different economic classes...I know what it's like to enjoy incredible wealth. And I know what it's like to struggle to make ends meet...I have lived a life of tremendous privilege, and I am trying to use that privilege to push for a fairer, more just world".
Bus stop (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)- We are proposing to include long quotes from a Twitter post where the author of the post says, "This all feels uncomfortably personal to talk about" and "I dread having to talk about this" when the material has not been covered in any reliable sources? If we wanted to include random quotes from Maza, we would have a thousand, which is why we rely on reliable sources to determine what is due. – ]
- I would suggest the following for inclusion in the article:
- These are not
"random quotes from Maza"
. This is Maza explaining his socioeconomic background. Most biographies—if the information is known—shed some light on the circumstances of one's life especially one's upbringing. We know that material circumstances are often pertinent to lives. Poverty tends to have its impact as does privilege. I totally accept that he may find discussing his background uncomfortable. But he made the post. You can still read it here. His purpose in making the Twitter post is to "get out ahead of it". He wishes to explain his own circumstances in advance of the New York Post explaining it for him. I have chosen those excerpts from his Twitter post that I feel explains to the reader of our article just what his background is vis-à-vis material wellbeing and especially in his upbringing. I have avoided most but not all passages that involve interpretation. For instance I did not include "the experience of growing up across a class divide deeply informs my politics and ideas of economic justice". In another section of the article that assertion would very well be a good addition. But in an early life section I think we want just the facts, without interpretation. Bus stop (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)- "I have chosen those excerpts from his Twitter post that I feel explains to the reader of our article" is why we are supposed to be guided by reliable sources for what is ]
- These are not
- You are just tossing out policy acronyms. Shouldn't you be explaining how ]
- The policy explicitly says article content should "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". If no independent reliable sources have published certain information about Maza and the only source for content is a Twitter post where Maza says he does not want to be discussing the information, then how is that complying with ]
- You are just tossing out policy acronyms. Shouldn't you be explaining how ]
- Can you please tell me what the "viewpoints" are? You are saying
article content should "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources"
. Bus stop (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)- Whether or not the information is noteworthy/significant enough for inclusion, the point of the policy. – ]
- Can you please tell me what the "viewpoints" are? You are saying
- I think more than one sentence is excessive. I would not normally use social media as a source, but since it is allowable under policy, it seems like a good point of compromise. WP:DUE says "...in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Since there's really only one BLP-acceptable source here (Maza's post), I think you could make the case for including one sentence, but not more. Benny White (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)]
- I think more than one sentence is excessive. I would not normally use social media as a source, but since it is allowable under policy, it seems like a good point of compromise.
- Why
"one sentence, but not more"
? Bus stop (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- Why
- Since there's only one acceptable source for this content (and not an especially strong one), it's not very prominent in the RS, so proportionally it should be minimally covered. More than one sentence would be disproportionate. If readers are interested in seeing more of what the subject has to say, they could still click the source link. Benny White (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- wallyfromdilbert—no, that is not the
"point of the policy"
. Policy reads as follows:Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)]
- wallyfromdilbert—no, that is not the
- 1. I do not believe the compromise will work. WP:SOCIALMEDIAsays that the used material shouldn't be "unduly self-serving." It is quite obvious that a defense against an upcoming attack-piece is self-serving.
- 2. The twitter-quote of Maza in the New York Post-story has been taken over by other news outlets. However, given the conservative-leaning nature of them, I do not believe the articles of The Daily Caller and Townhall will be judged as "reliable" by some of the involved editors here.
- 3.Isn't it a better compromise to start the biography with "Maza graduated from Wake Forest University in 2010 with a BA in political science..." and erase everything before that? That prevents us from further heated discussion. When all aspects of Maza's youth will be discussed in a source that is acceptable for all we can recreate/reinsert the paragraph again. Would that be an acceptable compromise to all?Jeff5102 (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- What reason would there be for removing content properly sourced to a reliable source, such as his birth year? That is also a completely separate topic from whether or not to include information from a New York Post article or his Twitter feed about his parents' income, and should probably be raised in a new section. – ]
- His birth year is still present in the infobox. And for the rest, just stating that he was a child of Cuban immigrants, had some siblings and loved debating and video games - that gives a false impression of the conditions he grew up in.Jeff5102 (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- wallyfromdilbert—an article aims to provide a balanced presentation of a topic it addresses. The conspicuous absence of material expected to be present can be seen as misleading the reader. You are asking
"What reason would there be for removing content properly sourced to a reliable source, such as his birth year?"
Because we are not interested in misleading readers. The information under discussion would be conspicuously absent. A biography would be expected to shed light on socioeconomic background, if known, and especially in this case, as Maza addresses issues pertaining to the contrast between those, even in America, who are relatively impoverished, and those with ample access to advantages that sometimes contribute to life satisfaction. Bus stop (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)- Covering what is presented in reliable sources is "misleading" and give a "false impression"? Seems like you should contact those sources then, rather than trying to put your own perspective into the article when it hasn't been covered by reliable sources. We don't remove information just because you don't like it or include information based on your opinion about what is noteworthy. We use reliable sources to determine what to include, which neither of you have presented for the information you want to include. – ]
- wallyfromdilbert—an article aims to provide a balanced presentation of a topic it addresses. The conspicuous absence of material expected to be present can be seen as misleading the reader. You are asking
"when it hasn't been covered by reliable sources"
But it has been covered by reliable sources. The New York Post and Maza's Twitter post corroborate one another. Bus stop (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)- And it is also covered by The Daily Caller,Townhall and the International Business Times. That is plenty coverage. As you said:
"The relevance of the information would need to be shown by inclusion in better sources.
Here you have them. I know that at least two of those sources have a conservative bias. However, since a) they merely confirm what Maza is saying, and b) no media outlet has proven them wrong, I see no reason for not using them all. At least, if nobody agrees with my compromise.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)- The Daily Caller is deprecated as a source and not to be used for anything. O3000 (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- The New York Post is not reliable and the International Business Times is unreliable per ]
- The Daily Caller is deprecated as a source and not to be used for anything. O3000 (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- And it is also covered by The Daily Caller,Townhall and the International Business Times. That is plenty coverage. As you said:
- Why would Maza's
"not want to be discussing the information"
have any bearing on whether we apprise the reader of Maza's socioeconomic background? We include information that is reliably sourced and relevant to a biography even if a subject of aWP:BLP would rather that information not be in our articles. Why would we make an exception in this instance? Bus stop (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)]- Including information from individual's Twitter posts is the exception, and I see no reason to do so when the individual would object. If it was noteworthy information for this individual, then it would be in more reliable sources. You should find those. – ]
- (edit conflict)These sources are garbage, and we don't use garbage sources to included loaded trivia in a BLP without a very, very good reason. We would be making an "exception" by emphasizing bad sources. Grayfell (talk) 00:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Why would Maza's
- Grayfell—according to WP:TWITTER, information such as this would be usable—or do you know of any reason why it might not be usable? Bus stop (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)]
- It is rather weird that the Townhall-article is disqualifed for being an opinion-piece, since WP:TWITTERsays that the used material shouldn't be "unduly self-serving." As I said above, it is quite obvious that a defense against an upcoming attack-piece is self-serving. And as I said before: what is notable about Maza writing about Maza on the Twitter-page of Maza?
- Thus, we have the bizarre situation that "garbage sources" provide "good information" on Maza's youth (backed up by Maza's own tweet), while "reliable sources" give "garbage information." That is why I proposed to delete the youth-part altogether. The article can do without it, and it will prevent us from more repetitive discussion.Jeff5102 (talk) 09:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- It is rather weird that the Townhall-article is disqualifed for being an opinion-piece, since
- Grayfell—according to
- This Twitter post should not be considered "self-serving" in the sense found at reliable source for straightforward facts that do not deviate in any way from Maza's own assertions and are not interpretive in any way—were the New York Post to say for instance that Maza was not a "good person"—that would be "interpretive" and thus not allowable on that basis. Bus stop (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)]
- I don't mind to include both the tweet and the New York Post-article - and insert the facts both agree on. I would however like to insert the fact that his mother and fiancé works/worked for Ultimate Software. Not because I like or dislike that company or Maza, but because that company has only 13 links from other articles to it, and one of the good features of Wikipedia is that it can teach us that everything and everyone can be linked to eachother.Jeff5102 (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- This Twitter post should not be considered "self-serving" in the sense found at
- I tend to favor the wording I suggested above. Sourcing is more than adequate for the wording I suggested. I feel that the corroborative relation between the two sources provides good support for the inclusion of the material I'm suggesting. I don't think it is likely that the New York Post got the company name wrong (Ultimate Software) but for that fact we don't have corroboration between the two sources, because Maza doesn't mention Ultimate Software. I'd still say the suggestion I made here would be my first choice. Bus stop (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ Maza, Carlos (2020-03-07). "Carlos Maza 🌹 on Twitter: 'Hey, It looks like there's going to be...'". Twitter. Retrieved 2020-04-04.
Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2020
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Harrasment by Steven Crowder" to "Cotroversies", as there was a response that might be considered controversial 2600:100F:B02A:AF38:A118:E213:86E9:E5AF (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Reliable sources agree that it was harassment; see previous discussions. Benny White (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
RfC: Socialist
Should the article contain the text Maza is a socialist.
, sourced to a February 2020 New York Times article about him in which he is described as a socialist? The quote from the article is ... Mr. Maza, who is a New York-based socialist, decided to seize the means of his own video production. "I’m going to use the master’s tools to destroy the master’s house" ...
. @IHateAccounts:, @Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: and @Benny White: have been going back and forth over this; its inclusion seems pretty straightforward to me, but I figure other people's eyes should be on this (I don't like to get too political with my editing). jp×g 19:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
*Oppose including the wording. The language, especially as the edit puts it in (distilling an entire bio piece to "X is a socialist") has major ]
- Banned sock Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 21:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- RfC not needed: There's been no talk-page discussion of this proposal, so I think it's premature to start an RfC, per WP:RFCBEFORE. Especially since the article already mentions Maza's "leftist" politics. If an editor wants to make a case for including this statement, they are welcome to start a discussion, but I think we should cancel this RfC. Benny White (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)]
- I agree that an RfC is premature here, and that regular discussion would be more beneficial. I'm not sure why ]
- @Wallyfromdilbert: An actual, full representation of his political positions would be one thing. The "personal life" section at the moment looks more like an attempt to justify the attacks on him by Steven Crowder and others; I'm not too happy with the bare sentence "Maza is openly gay" lacking any details either and seemingly cited as a throwaway to AdWeek; since it's paywalled, I can't tell whether it's an opinion column, or someone else's analysis of the main article by Maza [1].
- Regardless, simply flagging the "personal life" section with a single sentence "he's a socialist" is a WP:BLP. A detailed analysis of his political positions/leanings/beliefs would be fine to replace the pejorative sentence, and I'm sure someone could do so from the source provided. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)]
- How is "socialist" pejorative? It's reliably sourced information about his political identity. I don't really understand what you mean by "an attempt to justify the attacks on him" when Maza appears to be proud about these aspects of his identity. Are you claiming the New York Times is somehow part of a conspiracy to make Maza look bad? I am not sure how ]
- I know a number of socialists, and none of them consider the term an insult; there are currently 404 people in Category:American_socialists; and the article on socialism describes it pretty clearly as an adherent of specific political beliefs. Do you have any source for the claim that it's "pejorative"? While I am not a socialist myself (and I disagree with many of my socialist friends' opinions), I don't think we should be trying to cover up people's beliefs. This is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. Moreover, on Twitter, his username is @gaywonk and he further describes himself as queer in his bio. Likewise, I don't think we should be in the business of denying people's expression of their sexuality (this has political implications as well). jp×g 22:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- @
- "Socialist" may not be inherently pejorative, but it has an awkward and almost pejorative tone when it's included as a short sentence in the "Personal life" section. If we're going to include it, it might make more sense to place it in the "leftist" sentence:
In an interview with
leftist propaganda" by returning to the platform as an independent creator.[2] Benny White (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)]
- "Socialist" may not be inherently pejorative, but it has an awkward and almost pejorative tone when it's included as a short sentence in the "Personal life" section. If we're going to include it, it might make more sense to place it in the "leftist" sentence:
References
- ^ Roose, Kevin (February 12, 2020). "A Thorn in YouTube’s Side Digs In Even Deeper." The New York Times. Retrieved February 23, 2020.
- ^ INSIDER, Connor Perrett. "Journalist Carlos Maza who feuded with YouTube over anti-gay harassment and free speech is rejoining the platform to 'flood its airwaves with leftist propaganda'". Business Insider. Retrieved June 30, 2020.
- I disagree that the term is pejorative at all, and I don't see how it is anymore awkward than any other single-word description of an individual's personal political beliefs in a biographical Wikipedia article on them, which is common on many BLPs. I don't see how there could be any argument that "socialist" is more pejorative in our Wikipedia article than it is in the New York Times's article or its subheading. Further, if the term was pejorative by itself, it would be just as pejorative to use it in a larger sentence. See ]
- Yeah, it needs better context, is what I'm getting at. I think putting it in the "Career" section would actually make sense since it informs his career so heavily. I don't think it's inherently a problem to include it in the same sentence—it's pretty clear which source says what. Maybe using parentheses for the "socialist" info would make it even clearer that it's not from the Business Insider source. But I would also be OK with including it somewhere else with a reasonable amount of context. Benny White (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree that the term is pejorative at all, and I don't see how it is anymore awkward than any other single-word description of an individual's personal political beliefs in a biographical Wikipedia article on them, which is common on many BLPs. I don't see how there could be any argument that "socialist" is more pejorative in our Wikipedia article than it is in the New York Times's article or its subheading. Further, if the term was pejorative by itself, it would be just as pejorative to use it in a larger sentence. See ]
*Include per reasoning by wallyfromdilbert GMPX1234 (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC) — GMPX1234 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs).
- Include the wording. I agree that this RfC is a little premature, but no matter. I can't fathom how this is a BLP concern. Maza is a self-described socialist [2], [3], who makes videos on Noam Chomsky: [4]. The NY Times unequivocally refers to him as a socialist multiple times in the article. It would be a BLP issue to not include the wording since it's central to his identity. The only problem is that I'm not sure where to include it. I originally put it in the Personal Life section, but maybe putting it in the lead is more appropriate? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 04:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- Information in the ]
- Include. No reason not to. BLP is for unsourced or poorly sourced content. This is neither, and there's nothing derogatory about being called a socialist, especially when you publicly self-identify that way. As for procedure, although it might have been helpful to discuss the matter first, there's no rule that you can't go straight to RfC. ]
- Definitely include, having seen his Youtube channel. Maza is not subtle about his socialist views nor does he appear to consider the fact that he is a socialist pejorative in any way. Loki (talk) 01:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Include The references demonstrate that he is a Socialist and that this is highly relevant to what he does. There might be a case for omitting it if it was a fact unconnected to his work but that is not the case here. We should mention it in a way that makes this relevance clear otherwise it isn't very informative and invites questions such as the one we are discussing here. As such, the Personal Life section is not the best place for it. Also, I feel that the "openly" in "openly gay" is archaic and unnecessary. I'll remove that. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
This discussion is unhelpful and clearly devolved into comments on contributors rather than content. Therefore, I am closing this. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed by MJL. Please do not modify it. |
@IHateAccounts: Why are you making false accusations? In what way, shape, or form did I insert a "slur" or "pejorative" into this page? Maza self-describes himself as a "Marxist Pig" on his Twitter page, and that's exactly what the source states. If the source gave a reason why Maza inserted that phrase, then I would have included it. Another user pointed out that Maza may have been sarcastic [6]. I agreed, that's why I replaced "Marxist Pig" with "socialist," which better reflects his views. DanielRigal is exactly correct--"gay" is not a "slur." Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
@] |
- I agree that neither "gay" nor "socialist" are perjorative. Taking sourced information about a person's sexual orientation out of the page because some people have anti-gay prejudices is self-defeating. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. There is some good information that can be used to flesh out the personal life section from MEL magazine. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Include as it is reliably sourced and does not consistute WP:UNDUE weight, in addition to the other reasons provided above. Regards Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 22:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)]
Quote in Lead
How does everyone feel about: The Columbia Journalism Review described him as "Brian Stelter meets NowThis"
in the lead? I realize it's attributed, but it still seems way too
- That quote seems far more informative than promotional, and I think it helps in a short article about a relatively non-notable person. It's the overall summary of a long profile by a reliable source (and the most cited source in the article), and so I do not see how it is "cherrypicked" and "misrepresenting what the source says" or even what other sources would disagree with that characterization. ]
- I don't have much to add to what Wallyfromdilbert said. I think the quote is relevant and useful, unless/until some good language can be proposed for a replacement rather than just removing it. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps I was too imprecise. I never suggested immediate deletion. And I think it would be too premature to completely delete the sentence until we have consensus on a replacement. However, I believe the sentence lacks a great deal of context and clarity. How exactly is Maza "Brian Stelter meets NowThis"? What does that even mean? Is it some sort of testament to Maza's journalistic skills? The Bob Dylan article describes at length how Dylan was a counterculture figure. How does this article describe Maza's success as a journalist (which is what I think the quote is trying to say)? Leads should always summarize articles, and I feel like this quote fails to do so. In essence, I agree with
- If it is not in the body then tag with template:not in body. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Due weight for Crowder section
I don't think it's particularly undue. A quick Google news search for Maza suggests that it remains a significant aspect of his notability, and the sourcing is fairly broad. The incident is still being mentioned as a reference point for discussions of YouTube harassment or similar controversies today (eg. [8][9][10]) and is generally brought up prominently in articles on Maza or Crowder (eg. [11][12][13]) - note that all these sources are just from the first page of that Google News search for Maza. The last one in particular implies that it's a significant aspect of his career. There isn't much more that we could do to condense the paragraph while keeping it in, and this level of sustained sourcing makes it clear we need to keep it. There's actually more we could add based on these sources, but it would probably be best to expand other parts of the article first. --Aquillion (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. The imbalance here is that we are not going in depth enough about other stuff, not that we are over-covering this. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)