Talk:Chris Hardwick

The text messages are not relevant
Even if Dykstra did contact her ex months after the allegedly abusive relationship ended, this is no evidence that the relationship was not abusive; I have known women who still loved and wanted to be with their abusive ex months after they finally had the strength to end the relationship. I wish the Hollywood gossip rags would not imply otherwise.

It can be a very difficult emotional process to let go of someone who is abusive.

References:
 * http://www.thehotline.org/2017/02/16/supporting-someone-returning-to-abusive-relationship/ “survivors of abuse return to their abusive partners an average of seven times before they leave for good”
 * Why I believe some women are ADDICTED to abusive men
 * People often stay in abusive relationships because of something called 'trauma bonding'

This in mind, I have removed the alleged text messages from the article.

Samboy (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. That whole section is way too long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18A:100:FC70:B0E8:6BF6:7BCB:1CBF (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Sobriety date
Chris Hardwick’s sobriety date is October 8, 2013. However, there are two recent edits where the exact day is considered "not notable". So, to determine whether it is notable, let’s look at how reliable sources describe his sobriety. And they describe it as "October 8, 2003":


 * http://hotlifestylenews.com/celebrities/chris-hardwick-5-facts-amc-host-suspected-accused-sexual-assault/ "He also talks openly about being a recovering alcoholic and has been sober since October 8, 2003."
 * https://hollywoodlife.com/2018/06/15/who-is-chris-hardwick-sexual-assault-claims-chloe-dykstra/ "He has also talked openly about being a recovering alcoholic and has been sober since October 8, 2003."
 * https://www.boomsbeat.com/articles/105754/20151201/50-facts-comedian-actor-tv-host-author-writer-producer-podcaster.htm also mentions the October 8, 2003 date
 * https://twitter.com/hardwick/status/917185382067838976 Chris Hardwick himself considers the October 8 date important.

So, in light of these references, I do not think we can make a reasonable case that his sobriety date is "not notable". Samboy (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING "A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary". There is nothing notable & significant of that specific day thus it doesn't warrant inclusion- month and year is all that's needed. --TheTruthiness (talk) 01:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Notability is established by what reliable sources have to say. The sobriety date is notable because reliable sources and Chris Hardwick himself consider it notable.  If his sobriety date was not notable, there would be not be reliable sources describing it as "October 8, 2003".  For us to have the form be "October 2003", we need to find reliable sources which describes his sobriety date as "October 2003" instead of "October 8, 2003".
 * In terms of WP:NOTEVERYTHING, that article lists what we should not include in the Wikipedia: Dictionary content, original thought, soapbox content, promotional content, mirrored content, blog content, social networking content, etc. Hardwick’s sobriety date does not apply to any of the items listed on that page, so WP:NOTEVERYTHING does not apply here. Samboy (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 'For us to have the form be "October 2003", we need to find reliable sources which describes his sobriety date as "October 2003" instead of "October 8, 2003".' That's a load of crap and you know it.  We don't have to include absolutely everything.  We have the ability to exercise editorial restraint, and we should do so here.--Jorm (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't appreciate the "load of crap" statement but I do appreciate you intervening to give consensus. (Refactor as per WP:RPA) I am glad we discussed the issue on talk and finally come up with a rough consensus. Samboy (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't appreciate you attacking me for what you were doing- buddy, YOU were the lone editor constantly editing without getting consensus. On this site the onus is on the person ADDING the info (you) to argue its relevance, not the person removing it (me). FYI What the subject of the article considers notable isn't relevant. Nor does a reliable source mentioning something make it automatically notable to Wikipedia. People magazine is considered a reliable source yet we're not adding this article that Obama celebrated his 55th birthday on Aug. 4, 2016 at Fiola Mare resturant. Nor would we add all the times a newspaper noted him eating a chilli cheese dog at a state fair. --TheTruthiness (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed what has been perceived as a personal attack as per WP:RPA, and if there was any lack of civility on my part, I apologize for it. As an open source developer in the late 2010s, I now strive to live by the contributor covenant.  Samboy (talk) 05:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That... that's great, man. Goodonye.--Jorm (talk) 05:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Sexual misconduct allegation in the lead
Why is a sexual misconduct allegation against Hardwick in the lead? Per WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME this seems to be a violation of our policies. I am highly unsettled that it states: "In June 2018, Hardwick was accused of emotional and sexual abuse by his ex-girlfriend Chloe Dykstra." I am even more unsettled that there was an investigation, that Hardwick resumed his job after the investigation that Dykstra refused to participate in, and that there was no adjudication in a court of law. If any ex-girlfriend of any public figure makes an accusation that is not backed by evidence we can just put that accusation forever in the lead of a BLP? That does not seem to conform with our policies nor with the tenets of due process and presumption of innocence that is central to any free society. TrueQuantum (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree, there's no need for the misconduct allegations to be featured in the lead. The matter is covered appropriately further in the article, and should be contained to the personal life section. Since there's no arguments to the contrary, I am deleting the fragment. Rostipe (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Texts
I believe the texts should be added back to the abuse allegations section with an addendum including the critical response by abuse victims. MisfitBlitz (talk) 07:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)