Talk:Gwen Berry

POV in Controversy section
This joint crazy. Lol natemup (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * There's nothing crazy about the matter. Her claim of prejudice was fictitious and should be noted on her Wikipedia page. Johndvandevert (talk) 11:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Y'all have noted quite a bit more than that at this point. And with incredibly low standards for neutrality and grammar. natemup (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Right. Says the Catholic, Black ZIonist. Johndvandevert (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Why has her racist remarks been removed from her wiki? Alaska Garcia (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * See the below section, when someone tried to add such content, claiming she made racist remarks, and used unreliable sources. Only reliable sources will be acceptable on this page, as is the case on every page on this site.--Historyday01 (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Controversy part Deux. Let's put a fork in this.
Per User:Historyday01's request and incessant need to revert cited, factual and good faith edits - we will discuss this here, and hopefully stop them from violating WP:3RR further.

Firstly - like it or not, foxnews.com is indeed a WP:RS. You can find it's affirmative entry in WP:RSPSOURCES here: WP:FOXNEWS. As such - nothing further to discuss here with regards to that.

Here is the cite for their report on Gwen's old Wordpress page, it's previous content, and it's voluntary removal by her:

Next - totalprosports.com is a well-respected sports-journalism site and meets the criteria as a WP:RS, even though it is not listed in WP:RSPSOURCES. Ironically - it is because it is not listed that it qualifies at this time under the following reasons:


 * WP:RSPSOURCES's own text states in the opening line that it "is a non-exhaustive list of resources". Therefor by definition - the omission (or even presence) of a cited source from the list does not disqualify it from being used as a reliable source.
 * WP:RSPMISSING contained within WP:RSPSOURCES also states very clearly that the omission of a source likely simply means that it has not warranted past discussion or question as to it's reliability. That would indeed be the case here. While it also mentions that a discussion could be opened at WP:RSN - is that really necessary at this point simply because 1 person believes it is while 1 other person (apparently) thinks that it isn't?  In the grand scheme of the Wikiverse does that really warrant an RSN?  If you really prefer to go that route, we can. I have plenty of time to kill, though I think that effort on both our parts could be better used elsewhere, no?
 * Most importantly - WP:RSPSOURCES states that it IS NOT a policy or even a guideline, and that it still needs thorough vetting. As such - it is negating itself as a WP:RS to determine RS's at best, or to be used as a cited guideline or policy in a leveraging fashion to prompt edit reverts and DQing of cited sources at worst.  Consequently there is nothing further to discuss here regarding that, as well.

Here is the cite from totalprosports.com:

Thirdly - while I did remove both the NYP and the Blogspot cites, I am actually inclined to re-establish the cite for Blogspot at this point. My reasoning for this is that in WP:BLPSELFPUB, as well as in WP:SELFSOURCE contained within WP:RS states that self-published articles CAN be used as long as specific criteria can be met. I will list those criteria below, as well my reasoning why each has been met:


 * 1) The material is not unduly self-serving. - Her self-published content on her own Blogspot - and more consequently her removal of it and subsequent removal of all her content is certainly not self-serving, but rather very self-revealing - and not in a positive light.
 * 2) It does not involve claims about third parties. - There are no 3rd parties involved in her self-publishing other than the hosting entity itself.  This includes the naming of any 3rd parties by her in the cited source in question.
 * 3) It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject. - The subject in question is her controversy surrounding the American Flag, and as such her own post including the photo of her holding it and her written statement of having fulfilled her life-long dream to represent the USA in the Rio Olympics is in fact directly related to the aforementioned controversy.
 * 4) There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. - To this there is none and she has made other statements to the press about having removed the post and her page entirely, at the identified address. That too could be cited if necessary, but this starts to tread dangerously into WP:OVERKILL and WP:Rabbit hole.
 * 5) The Wikipedia article is not based primarily on such sources. - The article certainly is not based on this source, this section occupies a very small space, and as a source it is cited only one time.

Here is the cite of her own Blogspot post:

For these reasons I feel there is sufficient ground for the edit referencing her previous, proud display of the American Flag should not only stick, but also should not have to endure further reverts on unfounded claims of WP:RS violations. Claiming such is flatly false and does not WP:AGF. In fact, after Historyday01 had previously reverted this added content by both another user and myself in the grounds of the NYP not being a reliable source - I went through the efforts to find additional sources which do in fact meet the RS criteria and was still reverted. This constitutes a WP:3RR vio as well as initiating in an WP:EDITWAR. If their response to the introduction of multiple, credible cite sources being introduced is to revert them anyway, then it might bring into question WP:AGENDA and WP:WITCHHUNT.

The fact of the matter is these events happened, are indeed factual and a notable part of history surrounding a notable individual. More sites reflecting this could certainly and relatively easily be found - but the effort should not be necessary when the burden of WP:RS has already been met, yet is being categorically and erroneously dismissed. Picard&#39;s Facepalm (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As it states on WP:RSPSOURCES, Fox News is a WP:RS ONLY "for news coverage on topics other than politics and science." I would say that while discussion of Berry's early life and college, professional career, American record, or 2016 US Trials by Fox News would meet this standard, this article does NOT. That is because it:


 * 1) discusses Berry's political positions, including her wearing a shirt with "Activist Athlete" as a label, an interview saying she doesn't dislike the U.S., noting her criticism of a line in The Star-Spangled Banner, and raising a fist at a previous Olympic event, and at the 2019 Pan American Games
 * 2) includes criticism from conservative political figures such as Nick Adams, Brigitte Gabriel, Donald Trump, Jr., and Katrina Pierson, along with columnist for the Washington Times, a conservative publication, named Tim Young


 * Raising a fist is, a "long standing image of mixed meaning, often a symbol of political solidarity," again, a political action. So, I would say that Fox News is not a reliable source here. Furthermore, the RFC for Fox News which concluded last summer said: "...for science and political referencing there is no consensus regarding the reliability of Fox News, and it should be used with caution to verify contentious claims. For other subjects Fox News is generally considered reliable." As I noted earlier, this article does not fall under the "other subjects" but rather under "political referencing." There have been many, many discussions of Fox News on this website, but I would say that citing the RFC is sufficient here. Clearly, this article is about a political topic and has been made as such, as made clear in the framing of the Fox News article.


 * As for totalprosports.com, it is not undoubtedly not a reliable source, as it does not have an editorial staff or anything that talks about what it is, from what I can tell, only a contact us page which lists an unnamed person who has written for the site since 2008, so it makes no sense to call it a "well-respected sports-journalism site." If it is so well-respected, then why has it never been mentioned on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, or even have an article about it?


 * When it comes to Berry's blog (the page cited is no longer available and the whole blog has been taken down), I would also say this violates rules for citing self-published blogs, even if citing the archived page, especially WP:SELFPUB and WP:ABOUTSELF, as this is a self-published blog by all accounts, as you admit yourself. As I said before, considering who Berry is, it would only make sense that this story would be covered by other news outlets. I also stand by removing NY Post as an unreliable source (Its RFC clearly states that it is "generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics, particularly NYC politics") and would argue that the "multiple, credible...sources" which Picard&#39;s Facepalm claims to be introducing are anything but that. I would also not call this a "notable part of history surrounding a notable individual," rather the recent events (and controversy) of her unintentionally turning "away from the U.S. flag during the playing of "The Star-Spangled Banner"," are notable, not whatever is trying to be added here. In closing, I hope more people respond to this, which is why I suggested a post here. I am not engaging in any sort of advocacy or supposed "witch hunt" here, just trying to ensure the page is the best it can be with reliable sources and content which accurately reflects the subject. Historyday01 (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)