Talk:Chris Kluwe

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

"Civil rights activism?"[edit]

Really? I fail to see how a vulgar tirade against a black politician qualifies as "civil rights activism." JayHubie (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I fail to see how it is at all relevant that the politician is black. Why do you include that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.193.148.29 (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If he were opposing gay marriage against a black politician supporting it, it would be considered relevant. Don't insult people's intelligences by arguing otherwise. JayHubie (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No it wouldn’t or at least it shouldn’t. That's a strawman argument. His race is of no consequence to the matter at hand. That would be like saying, “a politician who wears size 12 shoes supports gay marriage”. It has no place as it is simply an independent and irrelevant matter. It isn’t that hard to understand why, and the need to explain it is frustrating. Furthermore, though eloquence is subjective, vulgarity CAN be eloquent. You’ve obviously never read Gabriel García Márquez. You should, as he is one of the greatest authors of the 20th century. He finds poignancy through the use of obscene language. --189.139.20.190 (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or, more likely, such people are just simply incapable of forming coherent logical arguments and resort to vulgarities for the whole shock-factor and to distract from the emptiness of their arguments. JayHubie (talk) 05:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are projecting yourself. I asked you why you believed the politician’s ethnicity was of any relevance. You replied with a straw man fallacy and now you simply “forgot” to justify itrationally . Who is unable to formulate coherent logical arguments? And since we are getting all “logical”, you should be aware that dismissing arguments on the basis that they are worded with vulgarity is a flagrant fallacy. If I say “the sky is fucking blue”, does the curse word mean it isn’t so? Does it detract from the statement’s truth? If you believe the arguments are empty, refute them as such. Point out why they are “empty” rather than merely saying they are.
Why am I arguing with the virtually meaningless opinion of an IP sock? JayHubie (talk) 03:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Hubie, allow me to retort. Yeah, really! The caption is unquestionably appropriate. Mr. Kluwe has been consistent, public and eloquent in his support for GLBT rights. To be clear, his recent letter was a vulgar (yes), eloquent and effective retort against an extremely bigoted and offensive politician who seeks to publicly persecute a specific minority group of people, as well as anyone who supports them. Your mention of the ethnicity of the offending individual sounds like nothing more than lame apologia on behalf of said offender. The only reason I can see for sympathy towards this truly dishonorable and despicable individual (Burns) is the fact that he is probably exhibiting signs of early-stage dementia. Jrgilb (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Vulgar tirades are "eloquent?" Since when? Sounds more like your personal opinion, which it is, as is the opinion that it was an "effective retort." I find your labeling of the black politician as "bigoted and offensive" incredibly ironic given Kluwe's screed. As for pointing out that the politician in question is black, isn't that what we do these days when critics go after, say, Obama. In politics, race is king and if you dare attack a black politician, you are racist, right? Or are the people who resort to that just full of it? JayHubie (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A better photo is needed[edit]

No offense to the person responsible for it, but a side view is not particularly useful. JayHubie (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations against Minnesota Vikings[edit]

I've removed this section for a several reasons:

  1. The material is substantially not about Kluwe, but rather about statements purportedly made by Viking special teams coach Mike Priefer, and it is potentially libelous. I note with particular alarm Kluwe's statement: "He said his goal by writing the article was to "make sure" that Mike Priefer never coached again at any level." I offer that Wikipedia should not become a tool to help Kluwe in that endeavor.
  2. Per WP:BLPSOURCES, we cannot use contentious material about a living person (in this case Priefer) without strong sourcing. Here, we rely entirely upon a piece published by Deadspin.com, a subsidiary of Gawker Media, which is essentially an online tabloid. It is unlikely that anything sourced from a Gawker property could be considered RS for this kind of content in a BLP.
  3. "Controversy" sections are strongly discouraged by WP:CSECTION, an essay extracted from the tenets of WP:NPOV. If Kluwe's remarks about Vikings coaching personnel merits inclusion at all (and I've make no assumptions either way at this time), it should be incorporated into the section of the article detailing Kluwe's time with the team.
Roccodrift (talk) 08:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The material is sourced to a statement that Kluwe released nationally. They are his own words. To quote: "If there's one thing I hope to achieve from sharing this story, it's to make sure that Mike Priefer never holds a coaching position again in the NFL, and ideally never coaches at any level." Kluwe's intentions in making his statement are meaningful. There is no issue of libel because it is a direct quotation. Kluwe cannot libel himself. I offer that you need to explain your reasoning on this point of libel in a more supportable way. Who is being libeled by the Kluwe quotation you are objecting to.
  2. Reaching for WP:BLPSOURCES, in this case is questionable. This is a national story. 100 citations could be added beyond the original statement made by Kluwe himself to publications including the New York Times, Washington Post and about every credible journalistic source there is. The personal statement of an individual cannot be dismissed as gossip or tabloid journalism. Again, I think you need to offer clearer reasoning as why a piece by the subject of the article covering material in the article could fail to meet WP:BLPSOURCES.
  3. The controversy section was pre-existing. The placement of the material in the article is meaningless as far as I'm concerned. However, it does not belong in a section on same-sex marriage or in a section on his "writing" as was the case earlier 75.17.126.128 (talk) 08:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not worried about libeling Kluwe; the concern is libeling Priefer, and I think I explained that. If better sources are available, then certainly those are the sources that should have been used, if any at all. BLP policy is quite emphatic about using low-quality sources for contentious claims, and Kluwe's authorship of the original Deadspin piece does not carve out an exception. In any event, sourcing notwithstanding, there is no justification to repeat Kluwe's accusations verbatim, particularly when Kluwe himself outlined his own malicious intent. It might be helpful for you to carefully review this paragraph from the lead section of WP:BLP

Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material.

(emphasis added)
I can't imagine why you think the pre-existence of a Controversy section provides any justification for expanding that section. I'm scratching my head over that one. Roccodrift (talk) 08:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The statements are properly attributed per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Wikipedia voice should not be libelous, but reporting that a person made a potentially libelous statement is OK if it is verifiable. In this case, multiple sources have reported it, including Kluwe himself. It is verifiable that Kluwe accused Preifer of making those statements. It would not be acceptable to say Prefier made those statements without attributing it to Kluwe. —Bagumba (talk) 09:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is utterly irrelevant here. That's part of NPOV and concerns attributing opinions to their sources. Kluwe's statement is an entirely different animal - a statement presented as fact that is potentially damaging to a person's reputation and that is made with malicious intent. Those are the three basic prongs of actionable libel. I suggest you consult the correct policy, which is WP:LIBEL. "It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory." There is no exception provided for instances where the defamation is attributed to its source. Roccodrift (talk) 09:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is a fact that Kluwe made these statements. While his statements themselves may be libelous, it is not libelous to report that he made potentially libelous statements. If the only source was his WP:PRIMARY source from Deadspin, I agree that WP:BLPSPS would apply. However, secondary sources have also reported his making these statements. Per WP:SECONDARY, "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources."—Bagumba (talk) 09:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see no credible reason why this sourced content cannot be in the article. It may be very new news but sports journalism is one of the hallmarks of journalism coverage and this issue will be discussed for its merits again and again. As long as we report neutrally what is reported by the sources, we should be fine. I do suggest that some of the separate lines could be combined in paragraphs for easier reading. Sportfan5000 (talk) 12:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see any libel issue. There are multiple reliable secondary sources that have reported on the matter. The statement is not (and should not be) presented as "fact" or presented in the voice of Wikipedia. "Malicious intent" is not meaningful as it only has relivance to damage claims resulting from libel. If secondary sources are properly referenced and nothing Kluwe said is treated by the article as fact, there does not seem to be any issue or at least I don't quite understand what the issue is. 108.60.192.148 (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This information is highly relevant to the article. We should not directly cite the Deadspin article, which is a primary source, but the secondary sources discussing it. It's not libel for us to report Kluwe's accusations. It's potentially libel on Kluwe's part, unless it is founded. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowrun Returns[edit]

Since the article establishes how Kluwe is a gamer and that he's got a character in X-com, why is there no mention of the character based on him in Shadowrun Returns? I don't want to add any information because I don't know exactly what is required to be counted as valid source, but here's a reference:

http://shadowrun.wikia.com/wiki/Mr._Kluwe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:B81E:EE60:4488:E4A3:552:BC93 (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chris Kluwe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Chris Kluwe. 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:

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) 23:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Friction between Kluwe and team ownership?[edit]

I've removed the reference to "team ownership" in the lead paragraph about friction between Kluwe and coaching staff as a result of his advocacy.

I cannot find any source identifying friction between Kluwe and team ownership, or that Vikings ownership supported the Minnesota "Gay Marriage Amendment."

In Kluwe's Deadspin article[1] (summarized in numerous secondary sources including ESPN[2]), Kluwe said team owner Zygi Wilf supported his activism.

Further, the Vikings' press statement[3] said that Vikings ownership "... supports and promotes tolerance, including on the subject of marriage equality."

Msramming (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kluwe, Chris (January 2, 2014). "I Was an NFL Player Until I Was Fired By Two Cowards and a Bigot". Deadspin.com. Archived from the original on January 3, 2014. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Goessling, Ben (January 2, 2014). "Kluwe: Cut due to outspoken views". ESPN.com. Archived from the original on January 3, 2014. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ Wobschall, Mike (2013-12-31). "Statement From The Vikings Regarding Chris Kluwe". Vikings.com. Retrieved 2014-01-04.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chris_Kluwe&oldid=1208001947"