Talk:Ana Kasparian/Archive 1

Archive 1

This article is a travesty

For those of us who actually care about the integrity of Wikipedia, the page is absolutely despicable. I'm not addressing the delete/keep issue, just the content. Those in favor of keeping it should at least attempt to ensure the content is up to par. Those in favor of deleting it, simply put - should make arguments that actually lead to a reason for deletion, "she is irrelevant" is just as foolish as "she is part of TYT". The article serves to demonstrate all of what Wiki's critics assert.

24.60.214.65 (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't even appear to be current. I just watched an episode dated dec 13, 2013 and evidently she's some kind of professor of journalism now. 65.43.175.130 (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I've heard her mention something about that on the show too. I'm not sure how much we can mention because there seems to be a lack of coverage of this subject, to the point where people aren't even sure if this passes the WP:GNG. Regardless, I've placed at tag on the article because I share your concerns of this being out of date.LM2000 (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I really don't think that being out of date is the main concern here. She taught a class at a university, part time, while she hosted the show, so I don't think it's a travesty that it isn't mentioned. The main problem continues to be the lack of secondary sources and over-reliance on citing TYT itself. Peregrine981 (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

This is Ana (the person who this page is about) and I'm sorry if I'm posting in the wrong section. I'm not in the business of editing wikipedia pages, but I have a lot of issues with this one. First and foremost, I DO teach upper division journalism at Cal State University Northridge every Fall semester. The frequency of me teaching (part-time/full-time) shouldn't take away from the fact that I teach. I know there's an obsession with making me seem like an unaccomplished pair of boobs on an internet show, but unfortunately for them, I do teach and it should be included in my bio. Here is the CSUN website with the syllabus for the first class I taught two years ago: --AnaKas (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Everything else on the page is true. If you need confirmation on anything else, please let me know and I'll provide sources.

Hi Ana. Thanks for the information. To be clear, there is absolutely no intention to denigrate you in any way in this article. You should know that wikipedia has a strict policy about factual accuracy and neutrality in articles on living people. The problem with this article is that wikipedia policy is that all articles should be based on secondary sources, not primary research. Some primary sources can be used, but the bulk of information should come from reliable secondary sources, independent of the subject. The theory behind that is to make the information in wikipedia at least more accountable and verifiable. The problem in this article is that it is almost entirely based on self-reported information from you/TYT. It probably is all true, I don't doubt that, but it simply isn't wikipedia policy to take people's self reported "word for it" in articles about themselves because it's harder to double check the validity/neutrality of the information. See policies on WP:verifiability and WP:Secondary sources for more information if you want. On that note, it would be really useful for this article if you could point us in the direction of any media coverage (independent of TYT) that has focused on you. That would give us a much more solid basis for this article. In theory the article should only report information that has been reported in independent media coverage; that's why the information on teaching a class was not included, not out of malice. But if it is reported somewhere then we should certainly include it. Peregrine981 (talk) 10:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

One further note, I have no problem with including the info on the class based on a primary source, as it isn't a particularly controversial claim. What we need is just more secondary sources for the article in general.Peregrine981 (talk) 11:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

No one at any point in the history of this article has made anything that could be considered a sexist comment about the subject even in the most remote sense. The fact someone claiming to be the subject felt the need to comment with the "pair of boobs" comment, marks the first. Unfortunately, claiming sexist attacks is an equally insufficient justification for having a wikipedia article to the ones already mentioned. The subject of this article simply lacks the notability required by Wikipedia to be featured. Being an adjunct professor at a university does not meet this standard. This article must be deleted. 107.107.62.146 (talk) 04:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment

Please help with this page. There is still a lot of info that is missing, but I think this is a relevant page in the Young Turks domain.

Image

Should there be an Image of Ana on TYT? I don't have one of those that I have directly taken, but I do have this one of Ana from her earlier career as a dancer. I'm new to wikipedia, so which is more appropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichelleSBernard (talk • contribs) 21:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hell, yes. :) Viriditas (talk) 12:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Prod

I nom'd this with Prod because the subject seems totally non-notable. She works as a minor functionary for some obscure radio talk-show and hasn't even earned a Masters in her chosen field. If the Prod fails I will certainly take it to AfD. 67.173.185.224 (talk) 05:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• How can The Young Turks be "obscure" when it's in the top 100 most viewed channels on YouTube and is well-known enough in the media world to be in-the-running for a spot on the MSNBC network? This may seem to be a minor quibble but "obscure" is the wrong word to describe the show in light of it's rapidly increasing popularity. Sstteevvee (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
• She has the Master's now. Quark1005 (talk) 06:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Nom nom nom nom nom type out words correctly; don't make up ridiculous abbreviations on the spot just because you're lazy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.175.214 (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

A top 100 internet tv show can be very obscure. I dare you to name 5 internet tv shows off the top of your head. Top 100 may sound notable but obviously this is an underdeveloped medium and making the top 100 with an internet tv show is a bit like getting a participation trophy for a little league sport. Merge this with the Young Turks article. None of this is notable enough to justify multiple wikipedia pages on the subject! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.129.240 (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Kardashian

Someone added the sentence "She has made several on-air death threats to Kim Kardashian." but did not provide a reference. When you see the video [1] it's clear that:

1. There is no feud between these two Armenian women.
2. If there was such a feud rumour, it would be publicity for TheYoungTurks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor Tournesol (talk • contribs) 23:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Religion?

I don't have a horse in this race, but I notice that in addition to her ethnicity being listed as 'Armenian' Ana's religion is listed as 'Armenian' as well. First, I could be wrong but wouldn't there need to be something else included there as well, such as 'Armenian Orthodox' or 'Armenian Christianity' or something? Second, and perhaps more importantly, the main text of the article notes that she considers herself an agnostic. I appreciate that people might wish to stress her connection to her Armenian heritage, but even if she was raised in the faith - which itself would need some kind of citation - is there any reason to believe she practices as an 'Armenian __'? If she's quoted as saying she considers herself an agnostic on religion, isn't that good reason to put her religious views either as agnosticism or simply leave it blank? 94.193.220.27 (talk) 02:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Controversy

As per the discussion on the Talk:The Young Turks (talk show) page, I'm also removing the unsourced controversy section here. There sems to be no reliable source showing this is a notable controversy for her. Youtube comments certainly don't apply, and original research about why what she said didn't apply also don't belong here. Feel free to join the discussion either here or on the Turks page. Dayewalker (talk) 07:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Being able to talk into a microphone is apparently noteworthy to wikipeida? I'm firmly in the deletionist camp now. Kraekan (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Then nominate it for deletion. That's a separate point however, if the article exists, it needs to follow WP guidelines. Dayewalker (talk) 06:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That Ana Kasparian was quoted in the international news [2] is somewhat notable. Obviously if anything is added to the article it should stick to saying that she was quoted, with perhaps a brief overview of what she said. There really aren't any mainstream references I can find that state she started, or was even involved in, a controversy. (This web article is very critical [3] - I'm not so certain it qualifies as a credible source.) We can't say here that Kasparian herself was involved in the controversy without a credible external source that states that she was. Format (talk) 06:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes to be fair she is notable now for the controversy. This marketmag link from your search quotes her and refers to the "controversy" over the ad. [4] Kraekan (talk) 02:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Too bad this one is so blog like. It mentions the other guy and links to the TYTs. [5] Kraekan (talk) 02:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This is bringing us back to the discussion we've been having over at the talk page for the show. The sources you've given above, Kraeken, both show the KFC commercial was controversial. I have no problems with that whatsoever, but other than being quoted in the article, what connection does Ana Kasparian have with the controversy? The sources don't say she's responsible for it, so why is merely being quoted in the articles enough to tag that onto her page? Dayewalker (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge

Per the last AFD. Going to start start trimming article down in preperation for a merge, unless sources outside the context The Young Turks (talk show) can be provided.--Otterathome (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• I am opposed to a merge and see no consensus for one in any event.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

There's was no chance of a consensus as nobody decided to add their views despite the article being tagged 2 weeks ago. Are you ready to disclose the additional sources, or would prefer it go to AFD again?--Otterathome (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Go ahead and start a new AFD so you can be blocked for disruption, if that's your desire. Two editors have already shown they are opposed to a merge.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yet neither have explained why.--Otterathome (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you notice a prior AfD, that you started, and which failed? You never seem to notice your inability to gain consensus, and then you simply go around trying to do what you like as if God himself has endorsed your actions. This incivility on your part is extremely tiring.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

So are you going to justify your reasons not to merge or not? Otherwise I will assume this discussion is over and will invite User:Wikien2009's views.--17:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• You won't listen, so I refuse to engage any further. Go look at the prior 2 AfDs.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why there's even controversy about this. WP notability criteria are pretty clear (See WP:BASIC): "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." (my emphasis)

I'm sorry, but that's clearly not the case here. She has been quoted in many articles, but she is not the subject of any independent articles, except possibly the one in Armenian (which I can't really judge). Even if that one is relevant, it still fails the "multiple, intellectually independent" sources. This article is almost entirely dependent on information from the subject herself. Is there something I'm missing? Peregrine981 (talk) 09:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I don't have an opinion on if it should be merged, deleted e.t.c. My only concern is to ensure this page and any page which it re-directs to remains free of serious WP:BLP violations. For the moment at least, I'm leaving the indefinite semi-protection in place. CT Cooper · talk 15:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Ana Kasparian and genocides

I'm invoking WP:BLP here, and removing the content per WP:GRAPEVINE - I'm brining it here for discussion, but no attempt should be made to restore such content until the issue is resolved. People's biographies are not the place to push links between people and genocides, and even implying a link or support for such activity, which this clearly is, is in violation of this policy, unless there is high quality sourcing and neutrality is maintained - neither of which have been fulfilled here. As has been established at Talk:The Young Turks, there are multiple dictionary definitions of the term the young turks and no source has ever been provided claiming that the show was named after the Turkish group, meaning claims otherwise violate WP:NOR; in fact the talk show have released statements implying denial of this claim. Editors are free to decide for themselves what they think is important, but policies always trump personal views and emotion, no matter how strong they are, even on issues of this nature. CT Cooper · talk 20:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Armenian script

Kasparian is an Armenian American born in the US, and not an Armenian citizen. IPA serves the purpose well, and there is no need to re-add the Armenian script. If someone still wishes to, please be good enough to provide a reliable source that says "she knows Armenian" & that "she holds a dual(American+Armenian) citizenship", otherwise it's pointless. TheEnterpreneur (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

She was born in 1986?? give me a break.

She is clearly older than 26-27. Much older. I know wikipedia has to work with the available information but being the mouthpiece for a transparent PR attempt is not great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.129.240 (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Claiming that someone is not telling the truth about their age is a serious accusation to make and is clearly a WP:BLP issue. As has been alluded to, unless there are reliable sources to work with, there is no purpose for raising it here. CT Cooper · talk 15:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

merge

I really think this article should be merged unless some more reliable sources can be found. At the moment it clearly fails WP:BASIC. Just because she is quoted in many articles and hosts a popular show does not make her notably by usual wiki standards. We would have to find at least a couple more independent sources dealing with Kasparian as their subject. They may well exist, but as it stands now, this article should clearly be merged. Unless someone comes up with some, or a compelling counter-argument, I'm going to move it. The last AfD declared that we should consider merging the article into TYT, it wasn't a simple "keep". Peregrine981 (talk) 11:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• (Inserting comment from my talk page with is responded to below: In my opinion the subject crosses the threshold of notability. I realize that her notability is subject to debate, which is why we have had AfDs. Personally I also consider the popularity of the article an positive indicator of notability in cases like this. E.g., cf. Zane B. Stein (currently in a drawn out AfD despite obvious lack of notability), which gets minimal views, to Kasparian, which has 25,000 views in the past 30 days. I see no overriding reason why the article should not exist, its part of a coherent scheme for coverage of the young turks and primary involved persons.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC))

The problem to me is not so much that she isn't well known, as with the sources we have. You'll not that WP:GNG says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria." That is simply not the case here. We have a lot of trivial coverage of fairly dubious to somewhat reliable quality. But we don't have even a single article focusing primarily on the subject here (unless we accept the Armenian article as such, but it's hard for me to judge). The information we have is almost entirely sourced directly from Kasparian herself. I don't think it meets encyclopedic standards yet if the objective standards used by the community are to be applied. Peregrine981 (talk) 15:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• I understand you believe she doesn't meet GNG, but that doesn't mean that's a consensus opinion.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

At least try to make an argument based on the sources we are using. You can't just wave your hands in the air and say "there's no consensus," and leave it at that. The onus is on the side of those who want to keep, to prove that the article meets the notability criteria, not the other way around. At the moment there is precisely 1 source that could, kind of, sort of, be considered a reliable secondary source for this article. Thus it plainly fails one of the most basic criteria for notability. I don't preclude that there may be other sources out there, but that has not been clearly established yet. In the AfD ruling, it was clearly indicated that editors should now decide whether to redirect or not. Since no one is making an argument based on the sources in the article, and more than a year has passed, I think it is more than reasonable to redirect until better sources can be found. If not, we are making a mockery of the most basic inclusion criteria. See WP:WHYN for why I think this is important. I'm not just trying to be difficult. Peregrine981 (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

clean up

I think it was generally accepted during the merge discussion that this article is in bad shape. There are just barely enough sources to justify the notability of the subject. At the moment this article is almost entirely sourced by Kasparian herself, mostly from clips on the show. That's ok for a few basic facts, but it just isn't reliable enough for a whole wiki article. A user objected that we should just add more secondary sources rather than deleting the primary sources. I disagree. See WP:PRIMARY for background. The fact is that there are very few reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject as such (hence my initial proposal to merge). Peregrine981 (talk) 09:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

With regards to the RT/RT America blurb in her bio section: I would like to rephrase the wording to clarify that her appearances on RT were in her capacity as a TYT anchor, and not as RT presenter in her own right. I'm not sure how to word this without bringing up the allegations of RT's politically-influenced stories (not trying to start a debate on them here) but I know I misinterpreted that sentence first time through, and think it is in the interest of neutrality to convey her true status.. neutrally -- if possible. Suggestions? I'll update here if I come up with something. Also, re: the "citation needed", how do you go about citing video available online? A search provides plenty of her interviews, but I haven't found a credible source aggregating that info that could be used. Thanks. Matthias Alexander Jude Shapiro (talk) 02:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

How about something like "As the co-host of TYT, Ana Kasparian has appeared frequently as a correspondent on the English version of the Russian-based channel RT and RT America."? Matthias Alexander Jude Shapiro (talk) 02:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

"Religion = None" vs. "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (atheist)" in infoboxes.

Per WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT, This comment concerns this edit and this revert.

(Please note that nobody has a problem with the use of "Atheist" in the article text. This only concerns infoboxes.)

"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby." --Penn Jillette

"Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position." --Bill Maher

There are many reasons for not saying "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (atheist)" in Wikipedia infoboxes. They include:

It implies something that is not true

Saying "Religion = Atheist" in Wikipedia infoboxes implies that atheism is a religion. It is like saying "Hair color = Bald", "TV Channel = Off" or "Type of shoe = Barefoot". "Religion = None (atheist)" is better -- it can be read two different ways, only one of which implies that atheism is a religion -- but "Religion = None" is unambiguous.

It is highly objectionable to many atheists.

Many atheists strongly object to calling atheism a religion,[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] and arguments such as "atheism is just another religion: it takes faith to not believe in God" are a standard argument used by religious apologists.[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]

It goes against consensus

This was discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 142#Changing "Religion = none" to "Religion = Atheist" on BLP infoboxes. Opinions were mixed, but the two positions with the most support were "Religion = None" or removing the Religion entry entirely.

More recently, it was discussed at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?, and again the consensus was for "Religion = None".

On article talk pages and counting the multiple "thank you" notifications I have recieved, there are roughly ten editors favoring "Religion = None" for every editor who opposes it. Of course anyone is free to post an WP:RFC on the subject (I suggest posting it at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion) to get an official count.

It is unsourced

If anyone insists on keeping "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (Atheist)" in any Wikipedia infobox, they must first provide a citation to a reliable source that established that the individual is [A] An atheist, and [B] considers atheism to be a religion. There is at least one page that does have such a source: Ian McKellen. Because we have a reliable source that establishes that Ian McKellen considers atheism to be a religion, his infobox correctly says "Religion: Atheist". In all other cases, the assertion that atheism is a religion is an unsourced claim.

It attempts to shoehorn too much information into a one-word infobox entry

In the article, there is room for nuance and explanation, but in the infobox, we are limited to concise summaries of non-disputed material. Terms such as "atheist", "agnostic", "humanist", "areligious", and "anti-religion" mean different things to different people, but "Religion = None" is perfectly clear to all readers, and they can and should go to the article text to find out which of the subtly different variations of not belonging to a religion applies.

It violates the principle of least astonishment.

Consider what would happen if Lady Gaga decided to list "Banana" as her birth date. We would document that fact in the main article with a citation to a reliable source (along with other sources that disagree and say she was born on March 28, 1986). We would not put "Birth date = Banana" in the infobox, because that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Banana is not a birth date...". Likewise we should not put anything in an infobox that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Atheism is not a religion..."

In many cases, it technically correct, but incomplete to the point of being misleading.

When this came up on Teller (magician), who strongly self-identifies as an atheist, nobody had the slightest problem with saying that Teller is an atheist. It was the claim that atheism is a religion that multiple editors objected to. Penn Jillette wrote "Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby", so we know that Penn objects to having atheism identified as a religion.

In the case of Penn, Teller and many others, they are atheists who reject all theistic religions, but they also reject all non-theistic religions, and a large number of non-religious beliefs. See List of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episodes for an incomplete list. Atheism just skims the surface of Penn & Teller's unbelief.

In my opinion, "Religion = None" is the best choice for representing the data accurately and without bias. I also have no objection to removing the religion entry entirely. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Edited 05:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

As an atheist, I agree with you that atheism is not a religion; the only reason I reverted your was that I didn't really think that putting atheism in parantheses would necessarily imply the otherwise. I still don't think so. However, I will still support the other points you brought up; let's keep it as just "none." Myxomatosis57 (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

"None (atheist)" has a pretty clear meaning to me. It means Ana has no religion, and that this is the case because she is an atheist, so the source back-ups the content sufficiently. It neither states nor implies that atheism is a religion and I don't regard two words are excessive information in a infobox entry. I note also that similar styles are used in plenty of other articles including Cenk Uygur and Nick Clegg, so if there's a community wide consensus for only having "None" then it's a very weak one. CT Cooper · talk 21:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

At the risk of opening a huge philosophical discussion, what is the difference between not having a religion and being an atheist? Peregrine981 (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The technical answer is that there are religions that you can belong to without believing in a god or gods. Examples include reformed judaism, unitarianism, and some branches of quakerism. It works the other way as well; you can believe in a god or gods that nobody else believes in without belonging to any religion.

The technical answer, however, ignores the fact that many people use "atheist" as a shorthand for "no religion" even though they have no idea that there are theistic and nontheistic religions, or that "adeist" might better describe them.

On a practical level -- and this is why so many atheists strongly object to anything even hinting at "religion = atheism" -- most outspoken atheists have been told again and again by christian fundamentalists that "atheism is just another religion. It takes faith to not believe in God". The fundamentalist do not say "no religion is just another religion" -- probably because it would sound silly -- and thus "Religion = None" is far less objectionable to atheists. Why piss people off when we don't have to? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

By the way, is it possible that you wikilink to this particular discussion (or other related discussions) on your edit summaries for the related biographical articles? It would be more beneficial for other users to see this Wikipedia discussion which provides all the reasons/arguments for the change, rather than a quote by Penn Jilette, which does not cover all of the arguments that you've presented here. Thank you. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

In roughly 97 out of 100 cases, the editors working on the pages are satisfied with the edit summary and have no objections to the edit, and I get a flurry of thanks in my notifications. In roughly 3 cases out of 100, someone objects or reverts, and I leave the page the way they reverted it an open up a discussion on the talk page explaining my reasoning. About half the time that convinces the person who objected or reverted, and about half the time the discussion continues, as it has here. I have never undone a revert of one of these edits -- I am a big believer in WP:BRD -- and if anyone wishes they can revert and keep the page the way they like it while we discuss it. This method is working out well for me, and I am not inclined to change it. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Many editors may well disagree but consider it too trivial to bother challenging it, or may otherwise miss the change, so that's a problematic way of measuring consent. As for the views of atheists, I suspect only a very small group see "Religion = None (atheist)" as somehow meaning that atheism is a religion; the meaning of "None" will be pretty clear to most readers. I sympathise with the not "why piss people off when we don't have to?" argument, as at face value, avoiding upset is a good way of determining the content of articles with out much fuss, except that one soon finds that by not upsetting one group of people you've managed to upset another. And I wouldn't be surprised if someone else in a year's time starts complaining of how people's atheism has been "censored" from infoboxes or similar... CT Cooper · talk 23:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

That is a concern, but still, "Religion = None (atheist)" can be read two different ways, one of which implies that atheism is a religion, while "Religion = None" is unambiguous. The information is still right there in the article, so nothing is lost. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

5 out of 16 sources are primary

I don't think the sourcing is as bad as it was in Jan, removing one of the tags. -- Aronzak (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Kicking fourteen year old in ribs story

Regarding this segment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0h7t5B2_7Y would it be worth mentioning in the article how she claims to have assaulted a minor (pushing him to ground off bicycle then repeatedly kicking in ribs, "I couldn't stop", agrees with others calling it a "beatdown") in response to a butt-slap? 174.92.134.248 (talk) 07:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Not unless it's discussed in a reliable secondary source. As it stands it's an entirely self-reported, anecdotal story. Cannot be considered encyclopedic. Peregrine981 (talk) 09:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

sources

This article still doesn't cite any independent third party sources except for the Armenian community newspaper. There's an interview with her, but from a sister show on the TYT network, so I'm fairly dubious we can count that as independent. IMO that is not good enough for a wiki article. It would be nice if one of all the many people who voted not to merge or delete this page would take the time to add a couple of these supposedly plentiful independent sources about her to the article. In my internet searches I find nothing that isn't just parroting what Cenk and Ana said in a segment of TYT, or an interview with her about some other topic. We need something that discusses her as a subject. Peregrine981 (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I would draw attention to the relevant policy page WP:ABOUTSELF, which says:

"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

• The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
• It does not involve claims about third parties.
• It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source.
• There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
• The article is not based primarily on such sources." Currently it is clearly based overwhelmingly on such self-published/self-declared sources. Peregrine981 (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't notice that source was connected to the subject. AFD it again, and an admin should close it as delete per policy-based arguments, and ignore the fan-keep!-votes. Two AFDs is more than enough notice for editors to sort it out. --Otterathome (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Self published sources are when the subject pays for, and publishes stuff about themselves, such as in a blog or if she paid for a book herself. TYT probably does not constitute self publishing in this case, since they're presumably owned by other people, she doesn't own it, and the owners should have ultimate control.GliderMaven (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

She is an employee of TYT. Like any company with a public face, they do promotional articles, on line resumes about their people. As perhaps their number 2 talent, she gets a lot of exposure from the millions of viewers TYT has. Trackinfo (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Yup, so TYT refs are not self published, but they're not independent, so that's how I've tagged it.GliderMaven (talk) 00:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2016

I think it should be mentioned in the article that Christian Lopez is Ana Kasparian's boyfriend. If you watch this YouTube video at 0:13, Ana says Christian Lopez is her boyfriend.

71.163.81.242 (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Terra (T) @ 01:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2016

The section should be renamed to "2016 RNC Incident", since there's little substance to the story involving actual fat-shaming. This altercation has more to do with Alex Jones, internet conspiracy theorist and professional troll, provoking the TYT hosts to the point of using expletives. Furthermore, in the same instance Ana also referred to Jones as a "bitch" despite her being for both trans and animal rights. Does this comment make her a hypocrite? Not anymore than saying, "Get off the stage, you fat fuck!" The reporting of this incident was focused solely on this one blurt, rather than observing the overall situation. When one takes a step back, one realizes that calling this a "fat-shaming controversy" is ridiculous. This isn't a controversy. It's a manufactroversy, if anything. I'm sure you can sense my bias, but if we're to be neutral, include the moments leading up to the supposed "fat-shaming" (like Jones bringing a shirt with Clinton's face on it with "rape" underneath), instead of writing the section in a misleading way that makes Ana's comments seem unprovoked and out-of-the-blue, harbored feelings.

EddyNair (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. MediaKill13 (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

2016 RNC Incident

And so we begin. I once again removed this section as it does not, in my view conform to WP:BLP. Generally I'm happy when any citation is given to information within an article, but biographies of living persons must be given special attention. They are to be written extremely conservative so as to not assassinate someone's character on a website millions of people visit daily. Again, this is primary sourced and an incident so unimportant in nature that it surely should not be included. I look forward to your discussion on this matter.--WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 08:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Keep removing it for the reasons I stated in the last thread. I have seen her briefly mentioned in articles about the incident from WP:RS but they make her role seem so small I'm not sure if it's worth mentioning. The "fat shaming" allegations come from infowars which is not WP:RS and a primary source from the other party involved in the conflict.LM2000 (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Probably worthwhile to at least make a mention of the incident. Kasparian usually presents herself as quite level headed, and an incident of such an individual having a meltdown and screaming obscenities at another well-known talk show host certainly requires a note. Cenk Uygur and Alex Jones both have a section devoted to the incident and there's no reason why Ms. Kasparian should not have one as well. The event was caught on videotape, so WP:RS is likely not relevant, here. Also I don't know if anyone is willing to argue that referring to an overweight person as a "fat fuck" does not qualify as fat-shaming. The Info Wars source isn't required.Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2016

Kasparian is an atheist.

Please change to

"Ana Kasparian said in August of 2016 that she is an atheist. Contradicting what she said while being interviewed by Dave Rubin on December 24, 2013 where she explained why she is an agnostic and not an atheist.

Reason for,

Ana Kasparian Explains why she is an Agnostic and Not an Atheist in an Interview with Dave Rubin on the Rubin Report, in a Video titled "Ana Kasparian Tells Dave Rubin Why She's Agnostic, Not Atheist" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvsZZnjrubk  date=December 24, 2013

PhishNChimps (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. YouTube is not a reliable source. -- Dane2007 ^talk 04:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide

Although Ana does acknowledge the Armenian Genocide Ana's co-worker in the Young Turks, Cenk Uygur has yet to openly acknowledge it. As there has been some question about this for the past several years, his views were made clear in letter Ana wrote to an Armenian blogger on 3/30/2012. Since that letter was written there has been no substantial evidence that he has changed his views.

After a mass of Troll attacks on the Cenk Uygur article, we had an extensive discussion about the subject here to negotiate the mention of the subject in that article. You'll note I still dissent. The Trolling continues, probably at the directive of the same special interest sites. WP:BLP Its all an effort to assassinate the character of Uygur and now they are trying to expand their point of attack to other articles. It has no business in this article. Trackinfo (talk) 06:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The word "Troll" and "Trolling" are not capitalized -also, define trolling? You will find it doesn't state articles with reliable sources..

Armenian Genocide

Armenian_GenocideAlthough Ana does acknowledge the Armenian Genocide Ana's co-worker in the Young Turks, Cenk Uygur has yet to openly acknowledge it. As there has been some question about this for the past several years, his views were made clear in letter Ana wrote to an Armenian blogger on 3/30/2012. Since that letter was written there has been no substantial evidence that he has changed his views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanakalanian (talk • contribs) 13:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The trolling might not be exactly the correct word, however these are people coming here with a character assassination agenda which violates WP:BLP. The supposed WP:RS mentioned here is actually a wordpress blog by a person with the same name as the poster. That is self-promotion in the least. Certainly not an unbiased voice. Uygur is a competitor to mainstream media. If there were any dirt to throw at him, certainly this would be picked up and thrown. Instead this repeating issue is coming from a special Armenian interest. As I have pointed out elsewhere, this is not a subject, positively or negatively, of Uygur's normal content. Its not even a microscopic part of what he is famous for. Its not mentioned. Under pressure from this special interest, he wrote one recent response posted on his website countering the article he wrote 25 years ago. Its mentioned in HIS article. And Kasparian has nothing to do with that. She has Armenian ancestry and sits next to him at the TYT desk almost daily. That's the total association. They don't talk about this subject on the air. It doesn't belong in this article. Trackinfo (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

It is too bad you have not a shred of proof to back up any of your claims. I have been a user here for many years and my blogs are just as old, but yet not once have I promoted my site here or elsewhere. You are so far off base. This woman is subject to criticism, controversy, and scandal just like any other person in the limelight. This letter that just happens to be the source is on my blog site, it is as simply as that.

Furthermore, you nor anyone else has the right to decide when Genocide denial is pertinent. Where I am sitting being a Genocide/Holocaust denier or working with one is very much relevant especially in ones character.

I do agree that denial of the Armenian Genocide is noteworthy but I'm not sure how that's relevant here, Ana Kasparian does not deny the genocide. WP:RS and WP:COI would prevent us from making mention of the fact that someone she is associated with once held those views.LM2000 (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

If what you're suggesting when you said "once held those views" that Cenk Uygur no longer denies the Armenian Genocide, I would like to see your evidence. As far as I know he still denies it was a Genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanakalanian (talk • contribs) 12:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Alanakalanian, The fact that you need to be pointed to the letter, from 8 months ago, where Uygur rescinded his 1991 op ed means you are not sufficiently informed about the subject you are so fervently promoting, by using your own blog as a source. And you are using your ill informed POV to attack Uygur by posting the information on Kasparian's article. This is wrong from a wikipedia perspective in so many ways. You have no case. Trackinfo (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately he still has not acknowledged it. He is only in my opinion stalling to keep people who care about Genocide denial away. It is unacceptable how you are so untouched by those in denial. By making others aware is only a defense against Genocide denial, and nothing personal. Anyone who challenges, or defends Genocide denial or those who knowingly are aware of one who is in denial and does nothing to disassociate themselves from them, against those trying to expose them than I have no choice but to believe they support Genocide denial, Was not aware this was standard practice of WP. supporting Genocide denial that is ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanakalanian (talk • contribs) 19:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

You tried to insert this content. I reverted it. This is a violation of WP:BLP and I will take further action to protect this article if you persist. Trackinfo (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Are you in denial of this Genocide? Is that the problem here?

Again, I will give you one more opportunity to provide evidence that Cenk has publicly recognized this genocide. Otherwise, I will take further action against you. Now, if someone without bias could kindly tell me how I can go about doing that I certainly would appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanakalanian (talk • contribs) 00:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks aren't welcome here. Please stick to discussing the encyclopedia.LM2000 (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, talking about an interview that she is insulted for her boob size is a discussion you'd find in the encyclopedia, and far more important than Genocide denial. Deny Genocides much? How do you feel about the Holocaust? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanakalanian (talk • contribs) 01:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Alanakalanian, you are skirting very close to WP:NOTHERE. This a BLP article, there are far more stringent rules with regards to content on articles about living people than in many other areas of Wikipedia. Contentious edits to BLP articles require stong, verifiable, reliable sources. They will not be accepted into the article without a much better source than a blog - your blog or anybody elses per WP:BLOGS - or indeed without a source at all. Your comments here do not help your case, insults and casting aspersions about the motives of other editors is not acceptable behaviour. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually I was not discussing this with you and I specifically do not appreciate your threats and false accusations. If you choose to be more civilized in the future when directing your comments to me I will be more obliged to take them into consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanakalanian (talk • contribs) 16:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Should I point you to your AN/I thread? or did you not receive the required notification? (You did just so you know it's prominently displayed on your talk page). Alright, let's try this again; Now, if someone without bias could kindly tell me how I can go about doing that I certainly would appreciate it. Yes sure, find yourself a well respected and reliable source that makes the claim you wish to insert into the article. If you find a couple that's better and more solid than a single one. Blogs are unacceptable, because our policies dictate that they are unacceptable. Per WP:BLOGS; Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer - the emphasis is not mine. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The Cenk Uygur wiki page could easily be used a source. It doesn't say he acknowledges, in a paragraph about the Armenian Genocide. That should be all you need to state this woman is working with a well known Genocide denier. Alanakalanian 01:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanakalanian (talk • contribs)

I"m still not convinced that the rules are followed when something like this "Protestant fundamentalist pastor, during which he said "your contributions to this show [the Young Turks] are your boobs, and not your brains" is noted, and the fact she works side by side with a Genocide denier is questioned for its importance. Alanakalanian 01:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanakalanian (talk • contribs)

I removed Pastor Manning's comments because I don't think they pass the WP:BLP requirements. BLP requirements are very strict and require content to be backed up by reliable sources. No reliable sources have been provided to suggest her connection to Uygur and genocide denial is a notable controversy.LM2000 (talk) 02:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I fixed the link for you. To sign your comments use ~~~~ at the end of your post. The Wikipedia page itself cannot be used as a source for reliability reasons, rather "The Daily Pennslyvanian" and "TYT Network" can. Both of which are primary sources in this case - they are written by the subject no less; WP:PRIMARY applies. You can use them, but, only for straightforward declaration of facts. I read his OP-ed ages ago, so I can't remember what he's actually written. This applies to Cenk's opinions on the genocide, which from their own article appears to be that he used to believe the Armenian Genocide was not a genocide and has changed to presently reflect that he doesn't know enough about it to comment on the subject. In other words you could argue ignorance, not necessarily continued denial. That still leaves two issues; a) where does Kasparian acknowledge the genocide (yes we all know she does but it still requires a source) and b) how is this relevant to the article on Kasparian. I.e. What does Cenk's views on the genocide have to do with Kasparian? That would need to be self-evident within the article. Though the current "interviews" section lacks significant context as well. Cheers LM2000. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

In the letter Ana wrote to me that I posted in a blog on my page is directly linked to TYT Network website where it was originally posted does state her recognition. The letter is very much a reliable source because of its linkage to TYT. It also is a given he does not recognize because of the 2 sources posted on his page. Both letters written by him speaking on the subject and his reason for not acknowledging. As in his recent letter he specifically points out he does not have enough info on the subject to do so. It is not ignorance when there is a huge amount of info literarily at his fingertips that he refuses to absorb. I also disagree about there being no connection between Ana and Cenk's position on the Armenian Genocide. She is a direct descendent of Genocide survivors. Her choosing to work with someone that believes this Genocide was not a genocide is very much relevant. Alanakalanian 13:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanakalanian (talk • contribs)

Whatever letter you received from Ana and posted on your blog is not considered reliable, it may even be reliable, but, Wikipedia will not accept it. One of the main reasons for this is that the Wikimedia Foundation does not want a lawsuit. Further, TYT is a primary source on TYT matters - this means that it is an inferior, not superior, source. This may be counter-intuative but its like this for a reason. TYT could easily aggrandize itself or make claims about itself that are not true. Secondary sources exist to vet these claims, or at least the reliable ones do - some just parrot misinformation like its nobody's business. By "ignorant" I do not mean that they don't know that the genocide happened, but, that his stance now is that he doesn't know enough about it. The huge amount of info on the genocide, and you're right that it exists, also includes those sources of information which denies it - Turkish scholarly literature and the Turkish Government themselves. Her choosing to work with someone that believes this Genocide was not a genocide is very much relevant. That is the overarching question. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

"Born in Los Angeles, Kasparian is the daughter of Armenian immigrant parents. Her great grandparents on her father's side experienced first hand the Armenian genocide in 1915.[5]" - this makes her connection to the Armenian Genocide very relevant.Alanakalanian 14:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Add this to her page.

Her commentary is widely polarizing, being seen as both "self righteous and rousing or obnoxious and infuriating." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.126.77 (talk) 05:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2017

Ana Kasparian has recently been criticized for openly stating that she "...is fucking better" than people who disagree with her politically and that those opposing her are "deplorable... piece[s] of shit". 2601:801:4100:DE0:E515:8683:E014:E2E3 (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Please use the format "Change X to Y". Include reasoning and wp:citations Jim1138 (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Left wing?

Where are the sources to support that statement? Supply them or please remove POV statement. 90.17.95.239 (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Removed immediately without discussion, per WP:BLPREMOVE, pending sources. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ana Kasparian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121203043439/http://dev.theyoungturks.com/member/AnaKasparian to http://dev.theyoungturks.com/member/AnaKasparian

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

July 21 Alex Jones Physical Altercation

There should be a new section added to Ana Kasparian's page: "Controversies." This section should make mention of her part in fat shaming radio host Alex Jones, screaming at Mr. Jones to "get off the stage you fat fuck" and suggesting that he "shut the fuck up, bitch!" The controversy has already been included on the page of Alex Jones, and should certainly be included here as well.

I agree there should be some coverage of the event. "Controversies" is not a good term, but the entire incident obviously happened and should be covered. There will probably be a name of the incident to place coverage under. There are currently just biased sources coming from the left and the right, but when some neutral true reporting can be produced as a source, each of the component characters to the incident, the entire TYT and Infowars characters who participated, should have a mention of their roles in this. The best source I have seen so far is the Huffington piece but even that has been accused of not being a WP:RS. Trackinfo (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

The incident is not covered in Cenk Uygur, and barely mentioned (with WP:DUE weight) on Alex Jones (radio host) and Roger Stone. A whole paragraph, with no WP:RS (infowars is not RS) on this article, is unacceptable. It's WP:OR to include a "fat shaming" angle without RS having covered it.LM2000 (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, the only source cited on the fat shaming angle is Alex Jones' own site, and the current version of the article even refers to her boss Cenk Uygur as "obese," which is absurd. Kasamashirou (talk) 08:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Video footage of the altercation is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvkRXi00p8c 203.213.60.157 (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Why is "despite of being provoked to the point of physical confrontation was respectful, and Alex Jones are overweight and similar in constitution" ther

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. MediaKill13 (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Per wikipedia rules, PRIMARY sources can be used about themselves. It is explicitly said that "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met: The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities). It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. The article is not based primarily on such sources. These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook." [25]

Ana Kasparian on her twitter page has following admission of guilt: "I would shame Alex Jones any day, in anyway. You come to our stage and interrupt our show for publicity, you get called out." https://twitter.com/anakasparian/status/756330370602143744?lang=en [26] [27] [28] Case closed!Biblescola (talk) 09:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Clearly, just like most businesses and sites, Wikipedia is a left-leaning organization. This incident is reported on the Alex Jones page, but not the Ana Kasparian or Jimmy Dore pages. This is obviously because the liberals don't want anything negative (i.e. the truth) on their hero's pages. It was just a matter of time before Wikipedia showed their true colors and intentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PNH es corrupto (talk • contribs) 06:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

This is not mentioned on Alex Jones' article.LM2000 (talk) 06:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

And I've removed it from Roger Stone and Cenk Uygur. This was not a major incident in the lives of any of the players involved. Especially Ana Kasparian and Jimmy Dore, who were never even named in reliable sources.LM2000 (talk) 06:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, Kasparian had previously (on TYT) complained about 'fat shaming'. Therefore, her fat shaming a person (Alex Jones) later on, is hypocritical on her part. GoodDay (talk) 05:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2017

You may add this photo of Cenk and Ana on set of the Young Turks.

Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian on the set of The Young Turks

--Heroes of Robloxia (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Article is too short to add multiple photos SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 20:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Article is no longer too short. I have added the photo in the journalism section. RexxiA —Preceding undated comment added 15:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Changing the main profile photo

The main profile photo changed to the one on Ana's official Facebook page as it's a lot better Partha9797 (talk) 04:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

"Movement: Progressive" liberal bias

Why is wikipedia using as a euphemism and tries to sell it as an objective point? Socialism seems to be the right term or marxism.91.22.159.9 (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Two reasons. First, Wikipedia does not (or is not supposed to) make its own judgements about what words to use to describe someone, it should only use the descriptions (or acceptable synonyms and rewordings) that are used in the published reliable sources on which everything in every article is supposed to be based. Where such sources (that are not Fringe) disagree Wikipedia can and should present both (or all three, or four, etc.) descriptions, so if you can find published reliable sources that describe this subject's views, etc. as "socialist" or "marxist" then you are welcome to add that information to the article provided that you cite it properly, but you must not use it to replace any existing cited material that does not agree.

Second, what you understand by the terms "liberal", "socialist" or "marxist" may be very different from what most others, particularly outside the USA (where I presume you are since you care about the article's subject), understand by those terms. Wikipedia – an international resource – aims to use any such terms in their internationally accepted academic senses, not those deployed and possibly misused by a particular political faction in a particular country. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.218.14.42 (talk) 11:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

newsworthy

One of her most prominent moments, of being talked about media-wide, was her response to Trump's election. Example: her comments about being smarter and better than others who had voted for Trump. There was widespread coverage about it. I just think it could be included in this article because it was considered relevant by multiple media sources and it is part of her public image at this point. We can include this in a non-biased way. Just talk about it as something that happened and observe the reaction to her words, on both sides of the political dichotomy. --Geekyroyalaficionado (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Needs updates

Since TYT network has been added to YouTube TV, she's back on television again. She's also doing #NoFilter on YouTube TV, so she has her own personal television show now. Also her Rate My Professor rating is now 4.1. JuniBug (talk)

I don't know if My Professor rating passes WP:10YT so I'd probably leave it out. I personally don't find it notable for an Encyclopedia. PrecociousPeach (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Young Turks name issues.

This recently-added section has serious BLP issues; I tried to address them with more minor edits, but since someone reverted I've killed the entire section for now per WP:STATUSQUO given the severity of the problem. Do not restore it without an unambiguous consensus. My specific issues are:

• The sources focus entirely on the name of the Young Turks; "Criticism on the Armenian genocide" does not accurately reflect the sources. Additionally, it violates WP:CSECTION. Accusing someone of genocide denial, even implicitly, is a WP:BLP-sensitive claim that requires high-quality sourcing saying so unambiguously.
• This text claims the name was "taken from a Turkish political movement", which is nowhere in the source. The activists in question merely objected because it reminded them of that movement. Since this is being used to implicate Kasparian, it is a BLP-sensitive claim without a proper source (ie. the implication is that she intentionally chose the name based on that movement, which has no cite.)
• This line has clear WP:SAY problems; "accused" casts doubt on what she's saying.
• This uses WP:SYNTH to imply that Kasparian has been accused of something equivalent to supporting Nazis. The source only says Kasparian may be at peace with the name, but other Armenians feel differently. Note the "may"; it doesn't even fully support the first part (Kasparian has indicated she is fine with the use of the name... But combining it with the second part (...which a spokesman for the Armenian National Committee of America equated to a show broadcasting under the name "The Young Nazis"), which isn't even in that source, is severe WP:SYNTH in a way that clearly violates BLP. Implicitly comparing someone to a Nazi requires extremely high-quality sourcing.
• This source is an opinion-piece from a non-expert, so it should not be used to make controversial claims about WP:BLPs in the first place (and obviously complacency in genocide denial is a severe accusation that requires better sourcing.) Worse, the source itself does not say that. Ignoring the headline (which is unusable per WP:HEADLINES and which, in any case, does not mention genocide denial), it accuses Ugyhr, not her, and even then only implicitly For example, she is first to ridicule conservatives for being immoral swine yet she sits next to a Uygur, who’s famous for remarks like “women want to be lied to,” his contempt for intellectuals like Sam Harris and his silence on the Armenian Genocide. As we know, silence is considered the final phase of genocide denial, as it signals acceptance. Again, this is an extremely serious accusation and requires a far better source than this.

I tried to address these issues, but since the changes were reverted and the section is both relatively recent and contains multiple serious BLP issues, I've killed it for now; we cannot workshop so many serious BLP issues in the article itself (especially given that the WP:SYNTH one in particular is extremely severe; every part of that sentence has problems, both individually and as a whole, and the sum total of it is a severe BLP-sensitive accusation which is for all practical purposes not meaningfully sourced.) If you have any fixed versions, propose them here and gain consensus for restoring them per WP:BLP. If you disagree that this is a BLP issue we can take it to BLPN, but it seems unambiguous to me. --Aquillion (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I've restored the section with these concerns addressed. Pinging ZaniGiovanni in case he objects to the rewritten section. Chetsford (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Chetsford thank you for the effort and actually trying to address the issues, and not removing entire parts of the article. One concern I have:

"Kasparian may be at peace with the name, but other Armenians feel differently.".

Could you please restore this with source that was lost in the edits? with wording in accordance to the source of course. Best regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 04:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Have just come across this discussion and I'm wondering whether it should include what the founder, Cenk Uyger, says is the origin of the name The Young Turks? Ref: https://www.pastemagazine.com/politics/the-young-turks/why-cenk-uygur-is-getting-confronted-about-the-nam (this link is used as a source in the Naming Controversy section on the Young Turks page Scorpiousdelectus (talk) 06:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Recent controversies

Subject's recent actions, including her outbursts on twitter, which were widely as transphobic, and her appearance on a right-wing podcast, where she spread misinformation about gender-affirming care, made disparaging comments about the unhoused and expressed views sympathetic towards the Kenosha shooter have attracted a lot of criticism, and even caused TYT employees to resign. This is a relevant controversy, which will need to be covered at one point. 46.97.170.32 (talk) 08:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

As always, this must wait for WP:RS coverage. Especially given the number of quote excerpts with missing context floating around. Connor Behan (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how appearing on a right wing podcast qualifies as a "quote excerpt with missing context". 46.97.170.32 (talk) 09:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

You are correct that podcast appearances and quote excerpts (taken either from Twitter, said podcast, or TYT) are different things. Connor Behan (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what further context is needed for her saying that if she had been in Kyle RIttenhouse's place, she would've done the same thing. That sentence alone speaks for itself. So is her claim that puberty blockers are not reversible and medical professionals are lying. These are things she said, in the context of giving her honest opinion to a pair of right wing influencers during a podcast. And then there are the statements made by concerned TYT employees in interviews. 46.97.170.32 (talk) 09:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say anyone took her Kyle Rittenhosue quotation out of context. I simply said some quotations have been taken out of context. If you start from the assumption that this statement must be wrong (because it came from someone who didn't applaud your comment) it will lead to a pointless guessing game. So I'll save you the trouble and link you to a discussion about a certain tweet which fits my description. This is good practice by the way. If you edited the article to replace "The Young Turks" with "a left wing news show", it would be reverted. Connor Behan (talk) 00:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course it would be, seeing as it's a straight up lie. TYT are neoliberal at best. But just out of curiosity, have you read the comments on that video you linked? 46.97.170.32 (talk) 10:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

This controversy was only covered by unreliable sources. Even the article's only paragraph on that is sourced only by Twitter. SparklyNights 22:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)