Talk:Dear White People (TV series)

Satirical
There is no need to write "satirical", we can just write satirical, see: http://imgur.com/a/WKSY1 --William Di Luigi (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Adding IMDB user poll
Hi. Please don't add IMDB user polls to the reception section. Per Manual of Style/Television they are not reliable sources. This is also reiterated on the film equivalent guideline Manual of Style/Film where it says that they are "vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew." Bennv3771 (talk) 06:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on whether Youtube likes/dislikes of preview of trailer should be included
The current controversy section has content on the number and ratio of likes/dislikes the Youtube preview of the trailer for this show received. The sources are to the "famously" unreliable Daily Mail and to the Youtube video itself. I've asked to provide a reliable secondary source to establish relevance of this content and to verify the number of likes/dislikes that the video had on 2 May. I welcome input from other editors on whether the number and ratio of the likes/dislikes on the Youtube video of the preview of the trailer as of 2 May should be included. I think we can agree that the dailymail stuff should be removed as unreliable per the previous Wikipedia consensus. Bennv3771 (talk) 07:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way, my view is that those youtube stats should not be included on the basis that it is WP:OR and unencyclopedic, unless a reliable secondary source can be found. Bennv3771 (talk) 07:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I've included two sources underscoring the relevance of the like/dislike ratio as it relates to the topic of controversy surrounding the film, not that I personally feel they are necessary. It appeared to me obvious that an overwhelmingly negative reception to the show's trailer was germane to the subject of the controversy surrounding the show; that most news articles reference the Youtube trailer's poor performance as evidence of controversy would seem to support my observation. Dbloomer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes you added a source by the unreliable Daily Mail and the unreliable RT, neither of which verifies the youtube numbers you give. Also, it now leads to the problem of undue weight. Do we need three sentences all about the exact number/ratio of likes/dislikes when there are literally only 3 sources cited about this? And mind you, one is a primary youtube source, and two are unreliable DailyMail and RT. Yet that section is now as long as the coverage of the reviews from 34 professional critics on Rotten Tomatoes and 19 professional critics on Metacritic, which is ridiculously unbalanced. Couldn't you summarize it into one concise sentence? Given wikipedia consensus about the DailyMail, that sentence and source should go, and the exact numbers/ratio of likes/dislikes on the preview of the trailer on 2 May is still WP:OR and unverifiable. I'm fine with the RT source remaining, and isn't that enough to convey your point that the youtube video of the preview of the trailer has a lot of dislikes? Bennv3771 (talk) 10:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

You have created the problem of undue weight by refusing to accept any sources, even obviously reasonable sources, as permissible. Let me ask, who determines what secondary source is credible? Is there a committee? Is there a critical number of secondary sources that all observe precisely the same thing about the trailer's poor Youtube performance that would satisfy you? If so, what is that number? It's interesting to me that you call these sources unreliable even though the reader can actually go to the Youtube trailer and confirm precisely what the cited articles are observing for his or herself. I would be happy to remove the Dailymail source altogether and select one of the many other sources observing the exact same thing, but somehow I suspect this will not satisfy you. Dbloomer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you created the undue weight by refusing to sumamrize what the sources say. I didn't ask for a sentence from each source, I asked you to verify the youtube numbers you claimed, i.e. include a citation at the end of that sentence that verifies those numbers. But you couldn't do that, and had to give a sentence from each source, precisely because those exact numbers are not verifiable by reliable sources. And no, you didn't provide "obviously reasonable" sources, you provided a primary source per WP:OR and two generally unreliable sources with DailyMail and RT. How are any of those obvious? Yes the reader can absolutely go to the Youtube trailer themselves, where they will not be able to confirm/verify the 2 May numbers you provided because they are not there anymore. The numbers are constantly changing on Youtube. I've gone ahead and summarized it for you. That's all I wanted from you, for you to provide a passable source and summarize it instead of giving unverifable exact numbers that you (and not reliable sources) saw on 2 May. Bennv3771 (talk) 10:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You seem to have misunderstood what my concern was. My concern was not with you reporting that the sources say the youtube trailer had lots of dislikes. My issue was with you insisting on including Youtube like/dislike numbers/ratio from 2 May that you determined on your own, that is completely unverifiable. Bennv3771 (talk) 11:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

You are rather transparently trying to downplay the negative controversy surrounding the film by dismissing all observations, even those from the secondary sources you yourself demanded, as unreliable. Incidentally, I noticed that you decided to change the caption from 'the series has been accused by some viewers' to 'the trailer has attracted angry responses from alt-right users' as well. What a strange coincidence that you should choose to try and frame the controversy surrounding the film as the work of alt-righters just as I've shown up to elucidate the the magnitude of the controversy surrounding the film. It's almost as though you are looking to mitigate the effect of having the full extent of the controversy surrounding the show exposed. I expect you to either remove your references to Rotten Tomatoes, put my references to the Youtube trailer back up, or explain to me precisely what objective method you used to determine your set of non-static figures are allowed to be included in the entry, while mine are not. Dbloomer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, the first source cited in your alt-right edit doesn't even include the term 'alt-right.' It would be refreshing if you would use the same rigor in your edits you used in mine. As it stands you are engaging in the same sort of 'original interpretation' you wrongfully accused me of. Dbloomer (talk)

I'll also add that the credibility of another one of those sources, namely the Rolling Stone pop culture mag, has also come under fire, after they erroneously published and subsequently re-tracted a false story about a gang rape. See the following article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Rape_on_Campus Will you apply the same exacting standards and remove this source as well, I wonder? Dbloomer (talk)


 * please WP:AGF. Also I am not trying to frame the controversy in any way other than the way reliable sources have reported it. Please read the three reliable sources, they all explicitly says the twitter outrage was from far right/alt right users. The BBC source u say doesn't use alt right uses far right instead. If u think that's different from alt right go ahead and add in "alt right and far right" in the article. Why should we say anything other than that as well then? To frame it any other way would be pushing our own POV instead of that of the reliable sources. And yes, there is a process on Wikipedia that determines if a source is reliable or not. Please read the links I have provided above and you will see the Wikipedia "committee" (aka Wikipedia consensus through an RfC or the like) who decided that the daily mail is not reliable. If u think that rolling stone editor or rolling stone in general is not reliable than go ahead and bring it up with the "committee" and they will access it. Also rotten tomatoes has been accepted by the "committee" aka consensus as a reliable aggregator as seen on the MoS for critical reception ( I provided the link above, please read it). That is a completely different section and not comparable to a controversy section where sources are held to a higher standard. If u think your self-determined YouTube "aggregator" should be accepted as a reliable source as well, please bring it up with the "committee" by starting an RfC or something. Please note I was not the one who decided daily mail is unreliable. It was a Wikipedia consensus and I didn't even participate in that RfC. Bennv3771 (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * and I will add back the 2 May YouTube stats u claimed when Wikipedia accepts it as a reliable source. And no I won't delete the rotten tomatoes critical reception aggregate because Wikipedia has accepted it as a reliable source for critical reception. Note that rotten tomatoes user aggregate on the other hand has been decided to be unreliable and thus shouldn't be included. . Bennv3771 (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you are trying to frame the controversy, which is why you deliberately moved away from the more general statement made in the articles that 'some people are upset' to the more narrow statement 'alt-righters are upset'. Note that both the BBC article and the Huffington post article include the more general statement and only go so far as to acknowledge that SOME subset of those upset are right wing, or alt-right. Your edit omits this, and it is missleading, because it attributes the animosity towards the trailer solely to alt-righters in a way in which two of those articles never did. The merits are not on your side here, and you know it. Dbloomer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * no, both sources say they are mostly alt/far right users. Go ahead and reword it to reflect that. Perhaps "some users, most/many of whom were identified as alt/far right". And those two articles absolutely do attribute it mostly to alt/ far right users. Whoever wrote the initial sentence and provided those three sources somehow failed to mention that even though all 3 sources explicitly bring it up. Bennv3771 (talk) 12:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Additionally, please note that the BBC source literally says "Some Twitter users with far right political views tried to organise a Netflix boycott." and that was what I based my choice of wording of "some alt right users" off. Bennv3771 (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

BBC only goes so far as to say 'Some Twitter users with far right political views tried to organise a Netflix boycott,' and this statement is preceded with the more general statements: 'some people seem to think that the show is in fact prejudiced against white people' and 'The trailer has had nearly 83,000 downvotes on YouTube, compared to 3,000 upvotes at the time of writing.' (Isn't it interesting that they chose to observe the exact same thing I am trying get added in the Wikipedia page? It's really telling to me that you view BBC as a reliable source even though they're referencing Youtube stats in precisely the same way I did, which you find impermissible.) The Huffington Post article says 'some were not OK with the message. Twitter users, many of whom profess their fondness for President Donald Trump or the alt-right in their bios, began tweeting about boycotting Netflix and canceling their subscriptions after the trailer debuted Wednesday, calling it “anti-white” and “racist.”' At best these articles acknowledge that alt-righters are members of the group of people angered by the trailer. Nevermind the fact that 'some', 'many', and 'most', are all pseudo-precise anyway, and are completely vacuous, since they don't refer to actual measured quantities cited in any of the articles. Dbloomer (talk) 12:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I am willing to compromise on "some users, many of whom are alt right" as opposed to my initial "some alt right users" But there is no reason to exclude its mention as reflected in the 3 sources. Please don't omit what the cited reliable sources say. BBC says: "Some Twitter users with far right political views tried to organise a Netflix boycott", Huffpost says: "Twitter users, many of whom profess their fondness for President Donald Trump or the alt-right in their bios" and Rolling Stone says " it unsurprisingly irked members of the so-called alt-right." Why then are you omitting any mention of the alt right entirely when all 3 sources thought it relevant and necessary to bring it up? Bennv3771 (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean by "'The trailer has had nearly 83,000 downvotes on YouTube, compared to 3,000 upvotes at the time of writing.' (Isn't it interesting that they chose to observe the exact same thing I am trying get added in the Wikipedia page? It's really telling to me that you view BBC as a reliable source even though they're referencing Youtube stats in precisely the same way I did, which you find impermissible.)"
 * The numbers cited by the BBC are completely different from the ones you cited?? As I've mentioned several times above, my issue with your youtube WP:OR wasn't whether it should be mentioned that the trailer has a significant number of dislikes...the issue is the numbers YOU (not the BBC) gave are completely unreliable and unverifiable. The BBC source does NOT confirm/verify your numbers at all. How on earth did they "observe the exact same thing"? What you observed was initially "420,641 dislikes, and 57,273 likes, for a ratio of approximately 7.34 dislikes per like" on 1 May. then "420,799 dislikes, and 57,416 likes" on 2 May. Please don't make me explain why 83,000=/= 420,641 or 420,799 and why 3,000=/= 57,273 or 57,416. Do you understand that the exact numbers you gave have to be verifiable by reliable sources and that none of the sources you have provided, including the primary source youtube link, verify those numbers? That's why I removed it as WP:OR because it is unverifiable. Please take the time to understand the difference so I don't have to keep repeating myself. Bennv3771 (talk) 12:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * For reference, these are the verifiable numbers given by the other 2 sources you provided: Daily Mail- More than 250,000 'dislikes'; RT- "and almost a 10:1 ratio of dislikes to likes", neither of which verify the numbers you observed. Bennv3771 (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

What BBC did was illustrate that the trailer was massively disliked, which is indicated by the downvotes they mention in the article. That is the observation I am talking about, and it's the observation I'm trying to elucidate on the wiki page. You are trying to subvert my efforts to make that fact known in the controversy section on a flimsy technicality. What I am pointing out is that this technicality is a non-issue to BBC, a source you deem reputable. BBC knows that users know that those figures are subject to change and that they will verify the figures themselves should they have any doubts. You have also made the rather troubling comment: 'The BBC source u say doesn't use alt right uses far right instead. If u think that's different from alt right go ahead and add in "alt right and far right" in the article.' Is it your contention that far-right and alt-right are synonymous? The wiki entry for alt-right suggests that alt-right is white supremacist, amongst a myriad of other unsavory things. Do you believe that anyone with far-right politics is a white supremacist? You must since you think it's fair to use the term alt-right and far-right interchangeably.Dbloomer (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Trying to derive meaning from the number of likes on a YouTube video (of a trailer, no less!) is ridiculously, embarrassingly, unencyclopedic. Surely we can do better. ColinClark (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I did not attempt to ascribe meaning to the massive number of dislikes on Youtube in my original edit, which is a matter of record. Go back and look at the previous edits to see for yourself. Ironically it's people like Benny trying to ascribe an interpretation to the massive number of dislikes by doing everything in their power to imply that it's primarily a product of the alt-right, even though no effort has been made to quantify or verify that. Dbloomer (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "You are trying to subvert my efforts to make that fact known in the controversy section on a flimsy technicality. " No. Stop these personal attacks and accusations. When did I do such? I only asked you to remove the DailyMail source and your self-observed unverified youtube numbers. Any experienced editor on Wikipedia would have done the same. I did not say you couldn't include content about the Youtube video having lots of dislikes, as long as it was sourced reliably. Adding those (DM source, self-determined youtube stats) are not just against some minor technicality...this is an encyclodedia not your personal blog or WP:SOAPBOX, and neither of those two things should ever be found in an encyclopedia. Please just realise that you misunderstood my intentions despite me explaining myself several times. And no, I haven't read the alt-right article, but as I said, if you think its different go ahead and change it to "alt right and far right" then instead of throwing a fit on wikipedia.Bennv3771 (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Holding you accountable when you are applying your standards inconsistently is not the same as making a personal attack. You cited a source that doesn't mention the alt-right at all to support the claim that alt-righters are angry at the film. You then implicitly tried to equate alt-right with right-wing in an effort to justify the act. Me observing that is not tantamount to a personal attack.Dbloomer (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not the only thing you've accused me of...and yes, I do have an agenda/"double standard" against the DailyMail as a reliable source and against unverifiable original research, because Wikipedia does too. I've been patiently explaining Wikipedia policies to you, and it seems you've come to accept some of them. And I didn't put in those sources, they were already there. Aren't alt-right a subset of the right? If they're not, then I was wrong on that instance. If that's the only issue you have left, then let it go. It's not a discussion furthering Wikipedia's goals anymore. Bennv3771 (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

My problem is not with the sources. My problem is with you going in after the fact and changing the meaning of the statement the sources were meant to support. And yes, you are quite wrong: a group of right-wing people could have no alt-right people in it, so to assume that when an article says 'some right-wing people' it automatically entails 'some alt-right people' is a logical fallacy. You should not assert that an article claims something it doesn't claim. And again, the timing and nature of your edit is obviously suspicious. Dbloomer (talk) 02:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "And yes, you are quite wrong: a group of right-wing people could have no alt-right people in it, so to assume that when an article says 'some right-wing people' it automatically entails 'some alt-right people' is a logical fallacy." It would be a logical fallacy if you only consider that source in isolation. Please note that there are two other sources that outright attribute it to "alt-right". Are the alt right not a subset of the right? I assumed they were, just as I assume alt-left would be a subset of the left. I supposed they may have branched off entirely. And as I said, if that's true then I was wrong in that instance. Anyway that whether they are or not isn't a conversation to be had on this talk page. But, based on one reliable source attributing it to "far right" and two reliable sources attributing it to "alt-right", I then summarized what those three sources said with "some alt-right users", and later "many of whom were identified as alt-right. No logical fallacy involved. You seem to only be focusing on the BBC source and ignoring the existence of the other two that you added. Unless you have something to contribute to Wikipedia's goals, please let it go, this isn't the place to complain or "hold people accountable". Bennv3771 (talk) 03:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

So you are arguing that it's fair to say a news outlet said something that it didn't actually say, provided other news outlets said it. Is that correct?Dbloomer (talk) 03:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm not ignoring the other two sources. By all means, leave them up. What I'm pointing out is that you are only applying exacting standards to my edits, and not your own, and every time I point out that you are failing to adhere to your own standards you try to lawyer your way out of it in really transparent ways.Dbloomer (talk) 03:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I am saying it is fair to summarize what all the sources say as a whole to the best that we can. Again, please take your accusations and personal attacks and complaints to your own personal blog or something, not wikipedia. Bennv3771 (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * While I am all for including the info, using wording like "many of whom were identified as being alt-right" is completely pov. Many? How many? There's no way to prove that. Encyclopedias do not include such language. It also seems suspiciously like a way to deligitimize a point of view of someone that I may not agree with. Casting their views as the views of the alt-right lunatics. it's an effective tactic but again, not for an encyclopedia. 64.229.245.159 (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't need to prove how many. We just need to attribute the claim to reliable sources. As I've quoted above, I think it is a reasonable summary of what the three cited sources say. Wikipedia is about reflecting what reliable sources say, not about "proving"/determining if they are right or not. And please don't call an entire group of people lunatics. Also, we are not here to be concerned that reliable sources are legitmizing/delegitmizing someone or a group, or to determine if some groups are "lunatics" or not. We simply report what the reliable sources report. If reliable sources legitmize/delegitmize someone or a group (regardless of whether you personally think they're right or not), then so does Wikipedia! You seem to have some misconceptions of what wikipedia actually does.
 * All three sources attribute the controversy strongly to the alt-right (or far-right in BBC's case, which is not the same as I've been told multiple times). And sure, it may be POV, but it is the POV of reliable sources. And that is what we do at Wikipedia...summarize and reflect what reliable sources say. Please explain how removing any mention of that is encyclopedic? How is removing any mention at all a good reflection of what the cited sources say? If you disagree with what reliable sources have said, please take it up with those sources directly. Don't use wikipedia as your WP:SOAPBOX. The reasons you've given for removing the reliable sourced content (basically that the alt-right are "lunatics" and that you personally think it delegitimizes something) have no merit based on Wikipedia policy. Bennv3771 (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't mind if the sentence is reworded, but to remove any mention based on your personal views is uneyeclopedic. How about adding "many of whom were identified by commentators as being associated with the alt-right"? Bennv3771 (talk) 06:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Your actions and tone around this topic and entire article is troublesome. Please read Wikipedia's guidelines on 3RR and Article Ownership. You're acting as if you own his article and edits need to be screened by you. You immediately delete and add what you feel is correct without waiting for consensus on the talk page. I think at this point I will ask an admin to review your edits, attitude, and recommendations going forward. 64.229.245.159 (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

People are still trying to minimize the negative controversy surrounding this series. The controversy section has been edited once again to make the more general statement "the trailer has more dislikes than dislikes." This makes the caption less accurate than it previously was, since the new statement is true, for example, when a video has 2 dislikes and 1 like. This video, however, has 424,000 dislikes, and 40,000 likes. Trying to downplay the contrast between the likes and dislikes is a deliberate effort to try and minimize the negative controversy surrounding the trailer. Please let the facts speak for themselves and stop trying to re-frame reality.Dbloomer (talk) 07:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)