Talk:Doug TenNapel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Should this be mentioned?

Should it be mentioned that Doug is big blogger on Big Hollywood, a conservative blogging website?PokeHomsar (talk) 07:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, TenNapel's extreme homophobic views should be mentioned. --86.145.239.141 (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind the included information, but being Christian is not homophobic. It is you who shows real intolerance - to his beliefs/opinions.
Here are a series of facts, to show that I am not taking a side about gay marriage on Wikipedia. 1.) The implication probably isn't that he's homophobic because he's christian. 2) Doug TenNapel has said that he opposes gay marriage, and has made some comparisons that people have found crass, most notably present in this conversation: http://gaygamer.net/2011/05/on_ratfist_doug_tennapel_and_w.html. A complex argument took place, and Wikipedia should strive to cover the proceedings objectively. Minorfixaccount (talk) 03:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.29.168 (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to point this out, but gaygamer.net is hardly a reputable source, and the cited article is a second-hand opinion piece. Regardless, it hardly has any business being included in this entry at all. Furthermore, something like that is better suited to being a footnote, after his career. After all, Doug doesn't have a Wikipedia entry because he's known as antihomosexual; he's here because he's a well known artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.211.144 (talk) 04:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth mentioning, but yes, the source is not reliable - it also just quotes an exchange TenNapel had on a comment thread on another site. Also, the way it was worded was poor. TenNapel's comments clearly show he's not for same-sex marriage, but he never says he's against homosexuality or gays. Cleaned it up per
WP:BLP. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

He seems to be very transphobic too, as mentioned at NeoGAF#Industry response. -- Kazerniel (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

His homophobia and transphobia is entirely substantiated even by himself, it is not libelous in any way. Nobody has said it has to do with his christianity. Next time you defend someone's bigotry, please come up with a better excuse than persecution complex. Dragonzeanse (talk) 13:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that I don't think that "has opinions and has been criticised for them" really passes the notability test. If he was an anti LGBT activist sure, but just getting into a twitter fight with a journalist doesn't really count. This is not knmowyourmeme, encyclopediadramatica or rationalwiki. Duckwalk71 (talk) 09:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have removed the reference to the criticisms of his behavior on twitter, as this really does pass the notability test:
WP:NOTROUTINE. There is a difference between someone like Tennapel and, for example, Graham Linehan who has made his twitter account a specific space for his gender activism. Duckwalk71 (talk) 15:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:NOTROUTINE relates in the slightest to this case? PeterTheFourth (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Doug's recently claimed that the backlash to his (outspoken) positions has cost him work, so that's probably relevant. Mockingbus (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category of Dutch descent

Can we find a source for this and add it to the early life section?--Malerooster (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective language

Can somebody please explain why my latest edit was reverted and why my corrections are considered edit warring, but removing my edits is not? Anime20XX (talk) 02:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit: Among other issues, nowhere do any of the multiple sources say anything about any specific phrase. Articles summarize
original research, and Wikipedia isn't a platform for public relations. You had previously been blocked for edit-warring to remove this sourced content, and these edits are a continuation of that edit war. Grayfell (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

There is no evidence that Doug TenNapel misgendered the journalist in question: There are multiple definitions of the word "man" and "woman", and "he" and "she". The terms can be used to refer to a person's psychological gender, and they can also be used to refer to a person's biological gender.

It is very likely that TenNapel was simply referring to the journalist's biological gender: There is no evidence that TenNapel was making any claims regarding the journalist's psychological gender.

It is not appropriate to use Wikipedia as a platform to push any particular viewpoint or use of language. That is why it is important to use objective descriptions rather than subjective ones.

BoiledAlaska (talk) 05:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again,

There is no evidence to suggest that TenNapel was referring to the journalist's psychological gender or gender identity when using the word "man".

The word "man" has several definitions, including:

  • A person who is psychologically male.
  • A person who is biologically male.

Many people (likely including TenNapel) use the term "man" to mean "person who is biologically male". Using the term in this way makes no judgement or assumption about whether the person is psychcologically male or whether or not they identify as a man.

So there is no evidence that any misgendering occurred.

Now, if TenNapel had insisted that the journalist was psychcologically male, or that they identified as a man, then misgendering would have indeed occurred.

It is vital to understand that words have multiple meanings, and that not all people use the word "man" to mean the same thing.

BoiledAlaska (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly, more care needs to be taken to adhere to a neutral point of view in order to avoid Wikipedia:Libel. Any accusations against TenNapel must be accompanied by a substantive source that has given TenNapel the right of reply.

I feel there is the possibility here that the editors' personal opinions of TenNapel are affecting their judgement with respect to these two considerations.

BoiledAlaska (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the new wording that describes TenNapel referring to the birth-assigned gender of the journalist is a big improvement on the previous assumption that he mis-gendered the journalist.

So although I think it is far more likely that TenNapel was simply referring to the biological gender of the journalist, I can accept "birth-assigned gender" as a proxy for this concept.

BoiledAlaska (talk) 10:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are fundamentally mistaken about the purpose of Wikipedia, and specifically the purpose of this talk page. The goal is to summarize reliable sources, not to extrapolate from those sources. This page is not a platform for providing TenNapel's public relations efforts.
Wikipedia is not the place to share
original research on the difference between sex (which is based on biology, but is still more complicated than you are describing) and gender
(which is a social construct, and is also more complicated than you are describing). Reliable sources have already discussed this in exhaustive depth. Your over-simplification of these topics is at odds with mainstream science, but more importantly, your opinions on these issues are totally irrelevant to this article.
Clumsy euphemisms such as "birth assigned gender" are not
formal tone expected of Wikipedia articles. Grayfell (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Also, as for libel, this term has legal implications.
Wikipedia doesn't allow editors to make legal threats on talk pages. Talk pages are not the proper channel for this. If you don't intend to bring legal action, bringing it up here will only be seen as an attempt to cause a chilling effect, and will also be seen as disruptive. Grayfell (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

You are fundamentally mistaken about the purpose of Wikipedia, and specifically the purpose of this talk page. The goal is to summarize reliable sources, not to extrapolate from those sources. This page is not a platform for providing TenNapel's public relations efforts.

What type of assumption is this? I would say that you have no idea about basic logic or the English language. But out opinions of each others' abilities are irrelevant, and I expect you to keep those sorts of comments to yourself, as I will mine from now on.

Your over-simplification of these topics is at odds with mainstream science, ...

I *agree* with mainstream science: And I believe TenNapel was referring to the biological gender of the journalist. There is no evidence that TenNapel was making any judgement about any other aspect of the journalist's gender.

Clumsy euphemisms such as "birth assigned gender" are not

formal tone
expected of Wikipedia articles.

It is also important not to use clumsy dis-phemisms such as "mis-gendered". I vote that we simply stick with the observed facts, and state that TenNapel referred to the "biological gender" of the journalist.
The rest of your comment is completely baseless.
In summary, there is no evidence that TenNapel was using the term "he" to refer to anything other than biological gender. No reputable sources have attempted to contact him to clarify his stance. If it turns out that TenNapel was using the word "he" to delineate the person as a man in every sense of the word, I would agree that TenNapel had misidentified the gender of the journalist.
BoiledAlaska (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some sources where TenNapel has made his replies and position abundantly clear. Regarding @Grayfell's point, "referring to the birth-assigned gender" is definitely awkward, though I think "birth-assigned gender" is not completely wrong (though in retrospect it should really be "birth-assigned sex"); sex assignment is an accepted term and "assigned X at birth" is pretty common in the literature. "Misgendered" strikes me as better (it is also a standard term both in the subject-related literature and beyond; as an example, see this discussion in the UCLA Law Review) and I've defended it, but this seemed like a reasonable temporary stopgap to prevent edit warring while it's discussed.

there is no evidence that TenNapel was using the term "he" to refer to anything other than biological gender.

Point of clarification: TenNapel didn't use "he" to refer to anyone; his comment was much more directed and specific than that (see my cites in the article if you'd like, they go into the unpleasant details). All this said, Doug seems pretty dedicated to Angie and his family in general; I doubt that he was sleeping with the journalist and it seems like a pretty big stretch to assume that he had any reason to refer to her "biology" except as a snipe to invalidate her. Mockingbus (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia linking to "
This isn't a forum for discussion of the topic
, this is for proposing improvements to the page.
TenNapel is not qualified to discuss gender or sexuality at all, and reliable sources are not seeking his opinion on these things. If he holds misconceptions about "biological gender", that's his problem, not Wikipedia's, but this isn't even the place to explain this. TenNapel has said that "transphobia" and "homophobia" are made-up words designed to slander conservatives. The only reason to mention any of this in the article is because he misgendered someone who was critical of a game he made decades earlier. He is not qualified to discuss anyone's "biological gender" other than his own. We can speculate about what he really meant, but this doesn't change that he misgendered someone. He has made it clear this wasn't a mistake. He chose to misgendered a person based on nothing but his own non-expert opinion of another person's identity.
Speculation about what his true motives is utterly pointless. Grayfell (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted to something closer to the earlier wording. As far as I can tell, no reliable sources are discussing the journalist's "birth-assigned sex". It is extremely presumptuous to discuss this without a reliable source. Her being trans isn't a license for editors to speculate on her personal history, nor would this even matter in the slightest. For this and other reasons, using this term in the article is not an appropriate compromise. Grayfell (talk) 03:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for writing all of that out; the phrasing felt like a bad compromise even in the best case and I wasn't sure how to express why. e: This said, the journalist in question is quite public about her trans status, so that may be relevant-enough to mention as the cause of Doug's comments (without going to the specifics, as you discussed). Mockingbus (talk) 04:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there,
I believe the misunderstanding arises from the fact that TenNapel uses a different definition of the word "he" from the one that you might use. A common usage of the word "he" refers to the biological sex (to use the more specific term) of a person.
When used in this sense, the word "he" makes no assumptions about a person's gender identity: It is simply describing a person's biological sex.
Without giving TenNapel the right-of-reply to clarify what he meant by using the word "he", there is no evidence that TenNapel was making any reference to the journalist's gender, and therefore it is incorrect to assume he was mis-gendering the journalist.
Please keep in mind that TenNapel may not share your opinions on the meaning of any given word, and it is presumptuous to assume that he does: To to so is effectively putting words into his mouth.
BoiledAlaska (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is probably important in this instance to provide a source for the specific definition of the word "he" that I describe, if not to prove that it is in common usage, then at least to provide a sound argument.

He: a male person or animal. — https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/he

Male: an individual of the sex that is typically capable of producing small, usually motile gametes (such as sperm or spermatozoa) which fertilize the eggs of a female. — https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/male

It is not at all rational to assume that TenNapel's use of the word "he" implies anything beyond that. And if a journalist wishes to build a case against TenNapel's character, they must give him the right-of-reply to clarify the meaning of what TenNapel was saying.
But proceeding regardless, and assuming TenNapel's use of an ambiguous word happens to match that which supports the case they're making against him is an act of unethical journalism, and thus falls far short of the standard that Wikipedia requires.
BoiledAlaska (talk) 01:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per
independent sources. Context must also be provided by those sources, not editors. Grayfell (talk) 02:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
That source made no effort to clarify with TenNapel what he meant by the word "He".
Again, the problem seems to be that you think that TenNapel should use the same definition of the word "he" as you do. But in this instance, it's clear that TenNapel is using the word "He" in reference to biological sex, and not in reference to any other aspect of gender.
Therefore, TenNapel did not mis-gender the journalist: TenNapel simply referred to a different aspect of gender than the one you refer to when you use the word "he".
At best, given the multiple definitions of the word "he", TenNapel potentially mis-gendered the journalist. Though in that sense of the word "he", TenNapel would still be mis-gendering the journalist, just in relation to the other definition of the word.
BoiledAlaska (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've tried to amend the wording such that it describes exactly what TenNapel did (referred to a journalist as "he"), in addition to pointing out why the journalist was offended by it. This wording does so in a way that doesn't make any unfounded accusations against TenNapel based on a selective interpretation on his use of the word "he".
BoiledAlaska (talk) 04:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a reliable source that describes the events using terminology that excludes "misgendered", instead using terminology that affirms the ambiguity of the word "man": "Journalist" Chris Scullion Doesn't Want Doug TenNapel Involved in Upcoming Earthworm Jim Game - Bounding Into Comics.
BoiledAlaska (talk) 04:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per

WP:MOS
issue has already been discussed in extensive detail, many time, and you will find that there is very little patience for rehashing this for the billionth time. Do not restore this change again.

There is nothing "potential" about it. Sources are clear, so this is

WP:EDITORIALIZING
, which is inappropriate. TenNapel has made it very clear that this wasn't a mistake. It was, according to sources and a neutral assessment of the facts, misgendering.

Bounding into comics is not a reliable source. Take it to

WP:RSN if you disagree, but again, don't be surprised if patience is thin for this kind of thing. Grayfell (talk) 04:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Please don't remove sourced information. Bear in mind that a source that you disagree with is not the same thing as an unreliable source.
As I demonstrated before, the word "he" has multiple meanings, and you are assuming that TenNapel shares your preferred definition of the word. This would be clear to you if you would take the time to read the dictionary definitions I quoted above.
You seem to be have the mistaken view that because Wikipedia uses certain definitions of words, TenNapel must also use those definitions: But Wikipedia's style guidelines apply only for content written in the encyclopedia.
BoiledAlaska (talk) 00:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the source fails
WP:BOOMERANGs
back at you, though.
I have read your comments, and the dictionary definitions. I assure you, your application of these definitions is not novel or difficult to understand, but it is subjective and easily disputed.
More importantly, these sources are not usable for this content. The dictionary entries do not mention TenNapel at all, much less discuss his use of these words. Using sources to indirectly support a point is
WP:OR
, and is irrelevant to how Wikipedia discusses issues. If you have a reliable source discussing TenNapel's "definition" of these words, propose it here for discussion, but understand that these sources must have a positive reputation for accuracy and fact checking, and must be summarized neutrally in accordance with BLP for both TenNapel, and the journalist he misgendered.
Reliable sources are clear that TenNapel intentionally misgendered this journalist. This is the reason sources are discussing the issue, so this is what should be proportionately summarized in the article. Grayfell (talk) 00:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with
WP:SYNTH
: I provided a reliable source (though I accept that you disagree with it).
Your Wikipedia edit history consists of a long chain of controversial edits and pushing your point of view, but to removed sourced information because it doesn't suit your ideals takes that behaviour a step further into the territory of
WP:HOLYWAR
.
BoiledAlaska (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I edit articles on controversial topics and revert disruptive edits. This is another example of that. Your edit history is a little over a hundred edits, all within the last few months. By all means, take this to a noticeboard if you think my behavior is inappropriate, but as a more experienced editor, consider that I might know what I'm talking about when I say that you're on the wrong path. Regardless,
WP:Comment on content, not on the contributor
.
The dictionary sources are
WP:SYNTH because they do not discuss TenNapel. Bounding Into Comics is not a reliable source, since it lacks a positive reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Therefore, it cannot be used to challenge the fact that TenNapel intentionally used the wrong gender when referring to someone. That person was a professional critic who said some mildly unflattering things about his work decades earlier. These are the facts. Wildly off-topic digressions about "motile gametes" are inappropriate, offensively intrusive, and irrelevant to this topic. Grayfell (talk) 02:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Definitely agree that we cannot cite BiC for anything about a
WP:BLP or anything remotely controversial. It's essentially a group blog, with no reputation, run by people with culture-war axes to grind about the stuff it covers; rando blogs aren't reliable news sources. --Aquillion (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doug_TenNapel&oldid=1205548715"