Talk:Michael Rapaport

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2023

He is a proud zionist (look at his posts on social media) 2A02:AA1:1046:E7C8:A00E:A169:9939:F3CE (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see WP:No original research. Tollens (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

it's not original research. Michael himself has openly said in writing and videos that he is a zionist. I'm happy to source clips 2600:6C50:4D00:282:30DE:CD:8880:42CE (talk) 08:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Removal of Accurate Political Info

Can someone explain why accurate information regarding this actor's political views is allowed to be removed? He has been extremely vocal about his support of Israel and the genocide they are committing in Gaza. However, when we look at the edit logs it seems information about this topic gets removed and now the page is in some kind of protected status. If the information is accurate and supported, why is it being removed? Kikidoll13 (talk) 01:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Bump Teenyplayspop (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Kikidoll13 has four edits to the encyclopaedia. Three on my talk page, and this one here. Their only contribution thus far to Wikipedia is to ask for reinstatement of an edit made by a banned sockpuppet. That edit was deleted with an edsum that pointed out it was WP:UNDUE and why. It also failed WP:10YEARTEST and WP:NOTNEWS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, Teenyplayspop, do you know how Wikipedia talk pages work? It is not a forum and there is no need to 'bump'. Regardless, Kikidoll13 started this discussion yesterday. You are free to comment. Saying 'bump' and nothing else is pointless. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

and I see that you deleted all of the comments I made on your page citing the multiple points in the reading you recommended to me that contradicted you. So you delete posts on your page that prove you are wrong and then hunt down my comment on the topic page (which YOU told me to post) to attempt to try to discredit my inquiries? You are abusing this platform and your power. Kikidoll13 (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

In the future when trying to be helpful, you might try giving the information about the difference between Wikipedia talk pages and other forums without calling the poster's interaction pointless. Kikidoll13 (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I really dont know or care about the wikipedia nomenclature and coloquialisms. Teenyplayspop (talk) 05:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Whether this is a forum or not, it has nothing to do with the core substance at hand: a celebrity who's been completely adamant about his political views for the past several months. Its just weird - even though he's very entrenched in political-activist work he doesnt have a politics section on him where as other celebrities have every political quote listed. The leaded singer of the Dead Kennedy's wiki page is a great example... Teenyplayspop (talk) 05:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The nomenclature are links to essays and guidelines, which you can read to allow discussion in talk pages to be kept succinct. Here's another one for you: WP:OTHERCONTENT. And another point: this is a WP:BLP, a biography of a living person. It has particular sourcing requirements. In order to write about his political views, we need secondary sources that discuss those views. Newspaper accounts are primary sources. Sorry, but I have to give you one more link just to make that point: Please see WP:PRIMARYNEWS. So when you have read through these policies and guidelines, the question is this: what secondary sources do we have that discuss his political views? Those would form the core of any such section you wish to write. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Newspaper accounts are not always primary sources according to the very link you provided:

"A newspaper article is a primary source if it reports events, but a secondary source if it analyses and comments on those events"

As far as the OtherContent in regards with using "comparative pages" as an argument, all i need to do is provide an example of A listed article of a BLP with their politics listed - per the link you provided. The only thing ive technically done wrong is, knowingly, providing a bad source. Teenyplayspop (talk) 04:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

No, the link was also a primary source. If you don't understand that, you have a bit of reading to do. Perhaps start with WP:PSTS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, i know exactly the link i reported was not only a primary source, but also not a credible source. Again, i think its you missing the point and the entire angle of what i did Teenyplayspop (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Another bit of reading for you. WP:POINT. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Why are you so insistent that my number of contributions tonwikipedia somehow add/detract from the validity of my statements and questions?

You did not cite any of the above reasons as your cause when deleting the information from the now banned account. You stated that the section should include any and all of the actor's political beliefs. Is it not your job as an editor to, "try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone."

2601:285:400:3930:FC1C:A1D3:7C6E:BB10 (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

New views section

AFter I added some info on his hostages work, some of ot was removed, due to a claim that it did not belong in careers and that politics was alredy under discussion. I propose to add the following new section immediately below the one line in careers about his shorts regarding the hostages.

Why is this different and supportable when previous edits by a number of editors have not been?

• It is a general views section, not just about Israel. It cnludes both his oft=stated love of hip-hop, his left-leaning positions and recent modification of those positions, as well as Israel.
• It uses a number of clear secondary sources (news with commentary or analysis is considered seconary per WP:PRIMARY), and limited allowable uses of news-as-primary-source (allowed generally where he content is a clear, simple reading of the news content, and also referred to obliquely as acceptable in WP:BLP)

Here is the prposed content, plus the one remaining line in Carrer

Career[...]

After the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, Rapaport appeared in many independent activitist shorts supporting the release of hostages taken by Hamas and its affiliates.

Views

Rappaport is a fan of hip-hop music. His interest led to involvement in two projects, Beats, Rhymes & Life: The Travels of a Tribe Called Quest (director) and The New Edition Story (actor).

Though Rapaport has a "trash talk," politically incorrect style, he uses Donald Trump as an example of how politically incorrect can also be false. He was very critical of Trump during his term as president, calling him "the worst New Yorker ever.. However, in 2024, with Joe Biden in office, Rapaport modified his viewpoint due to perceived issues with the economy and antisemitism, and became more open to voting for Trump.

Rappaport became very involved the Israel-Hamas hostage situation after the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. He spoke at a pro-Israel rally in Vovember 2023, and appeared in many independent short films supporting the release of hostages. He as also lent moral encouragement to the hostages' families, and received thanks from them in turn. Dovid (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Dovid. Thanks for this section. I don't oppose such a section, but I would suggest proceeding with caution. What you propose here selects some views that you, as an editor, feel fairly represents the subject. Other editors may have other ideas about what views should be there, such as this edit [1] or, indeed, what this editor wanted to add [2]. In order to ensure that the section is neutral and balanced, we should not, I think, build this from individual news sources that describe his view on this thing or that, but rather a biographical piece that discusses his views and interests.

On that, I don't think news sources generally are secondary. See note d of WP:PRIMARY and the essay WP:PRIMARYNEWS. But we don't have to get into that in too much depth, because the point here is that we want a source that is in some sense biographical of Rapaport, to provide that information in the round, rather than a series of reports of individual views that we would cheryypick.

If we have such a source, a views section can follow it, and I'd be happy to support it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Note that WP:PRIMARYNEWS is not policy. Regardless, any news report about Michael Rapaport written by a journalist not associated with Michael Rapaport would be WP:SECONDARY to Michael Rapaport, because as WP:SECONDRAY (which is official policy) says, it would be "at least one step removed from" from Michael Rapaport.
Up the Walls (talk) 05:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC) sock strike

Two quick points:

1. You apparently didn't read note d of WP:PRIMARY (which is policy)
2. WP:PRIMARYNEWS is an essay which is exactly what I called it. It is also correct.

From that essay: Many editors—especially those with no training in historiography—call these newspaper articles "secondary sources". Most reliable sources in academia name typical contemporary newspaper stories as primary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I cannot see anything in that footnote saying that news reports are considered WP:PRIMARY. Up the Walls (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC) sock strike

A primary source is a first-hand account of an event. Primary sources may include newspaper articles, letters, diaries, interviews, laws, reports of government commissions, and many other types of documents. My emphasis. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Key word is "may", and you conveniently left out the context that only the Duke University Libraries offer this definition. Up the Walls (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC) sock strike

It should also be noted that there is no blanket prohibition to using WP:PRIMARY. So even if in your mind you think newspaper articles are primary sources, that does not mean that they cannot be used. Up the Walls (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC) sock strike

If you want to probe the bounds of the word "may", you will look for guidance in WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Or, of course, you could just do a bit of reading. For instance Donnelly & Norton (2021) have a chapter on sources, in which they say, Discursive primary sources include other people’s accounts of what happened, such as reports of meetings, handbooks, guides, diaries, pamphlets, newspaper articles, sermons and literary and artistic sources. They are not alone, of course. Again, PRIMARYNEWS is not wrong. Have a read of it.

Now let's cut the meta discussion and get back on track here. The point of this talk section is that, if we want to write a section in the article about Rapaport's views, then what we need is some secondary source that gives us a broad overview of his views, so that we can write a neutral and balanced section. If we don't base it off a secondary source, but simply grab a bunch of news reports as primary sources, then we are not telling the reader about his views per se. Rather, we are taking a bunch of occasioned pronouncements, applying editor selection, and presenting that information as though these were his views. We might do a good job of it, but we equally might skew his views to comport with the views of us, the editors, and the slant we want to give him. Again, take a look at the slant that this editor wants to give him.[3] Can you see a problem? Such a section, if it is based on our selection and not some secondary source, will be our Original research. That, of course, is what historians do all the time. Historians prefer the primary sources. But historians are writing the secondary sources, we are not. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and we are not historians (well most of us aren't), we are writing an encyclopaedia. We write based on what has already been written about him. So we look for secondary sourcing to work from. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. However, if we wait for a general biographical source, we may be waiting forever. While as editors we are supposed to be careful with BLP and with synthesis, I think we can use reasonable judgement to include things that the subject seems siginficantly involved in over time, which is why I selected these three particular items. Sometimes leaving things out distorts a picture more than adding hings in. I agree with your sentiment, but I don't think it precludes my proposal.Dovid (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Sources on his views already exist, although this one [4] is a bit old so has nothing on his recent comments about Israel, nor the migrant crisis and politics. It also is not quite about political views in the round, but does touch on them. But I expect other such sources that are more up to date may exist. This might be a good one to start the section with. Note that if you start with primary sourced statements about the issue of the day then you would be WP:COATRACKing. But it is an issue he has spoken of (and we do have a line in the career section on it already). It would belong in a views section, as long as the views article looked at all his views in the round and was not dominated by the single issue. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  agreed Dovid (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Father in Law Wrongly Cited

Under Early Life and Education there is an error about his sister and her stepfather. His sister's mother remarried Mark Lownow. Michael's mother did not marry him. "After his parents divorced, Rapaport's mother married comic Mark Lonow, who owned The Improv with Budd Friedman." 2A02:C7C:6D23:700:2823:3E75:5961:95E1 (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)