Talk:Jason Russell/Archive 2

Grow up
After reading about this on BLPN, and then here, it is obvious that including or not including the word "naked" does not help nor hinder this article in any way whatsoever. This is a BLP, so we require multiple, strongly reliable sources to even being to consider using this, if one considers "naked" being contentious. So let's assume for the moment we do have the sourcing. Is it necessary to use it in the article?

Or is this a case of stalking one's enemies just to mix it up? I've noticed the same usual suspects bickering with each other at BLPN/RSN and at first thought it was subject matter related. But now I think this is personality related, and by that I mean us wee editors. If you are in this camp, please go find something more productive to do with your time, like masturbate into a sock.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I hope I'm not one of your usual suspects but it seems I am the one you are accusing :( When I read this article I saw the phrase "state of undress".  These are weasel words and have no meaning, please let me explain:  Being naked is a state of undress, just as is being in your underwear, or being fully clothed (i.e. not at all undressed).  To say that someone is in a "state of undress" tells you nothing about that state.  If I told you that "Leslie" has a sex, can you tell me if Leslie is Male or Female?  You see what I'm getting at?
 * I performed due diligence and looked through sources to determine what state of undress he was in; I found that he was naked so that is what I edited the article to. If I found that he was in Pajama Bottoms I would have said so.  Multiple, strongly reliable sources have been provided including the Washington Post, the NYT, the WSJ, etc.  There are also primary sources available by which a reasonable person can make a judgement.  If the above were not sufficient there is an interview that Jason Russell did with Oprah on the subject of his breakdown. .  I don't think it is fair to question my motives and call me a stalker :(
 * You do raise a second question of appropriateness which, I agree, should be addressed. To that end, having reviewed the history of this article, I would point out that it was created on May 15, 2012 (the day of the breakdown) and the majority of the editing occurred in the following days and weeks.  It was certainly a notable event, having been noted by a variety of major news outlets all of which have both editors and lawyers who (should have) reviewed all the material before publishing.  It seems to me that Jason Russell is notable for two distinct reasons both of which should be mentioned in this article:  First is his filmography and especially the success of his Kony 2012 movie.  Second is his very public, highly publicized breakdown in San Diego.173.79.251.253 (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, no. The breakdown is not a significant contributor to his notability. The brief flurry of tabloid interest in it existed only because of his pre-existing notability as a director.
 * We can deduce this by noting that many, many people have temporary or lasting mental health issues in public. 99.9% of them are never mentioned in the media, because the person is taken away to receive necessary treatment and the world neither knows nor cares of their medical issue.
 * But because this person had pre-existing notability, he became the subject of negative tabloid attention for 15 seconds, and then was promptly forgotten about.
 * The incident is a minor footnote in the man's life, let alone world history. We have no need of furthering prurient interests in a man's very public suffering. Wikipedia is not here for that purpose. Find somewhere else to exploit it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Bingo. And for the record, I was NOT referring to the ip as one of the "usual suspects".  User:Collect seems to be at the center point of a lot of these disputes, followed or following (I'm not sure which) by others. Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I assure you I "follow" no one, I keep no list of "foes" and my standards at BLP are as consistent as possible no matter who the person is or what they are noted for. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Talk of "stalking one's enemies just to mix it up" and "the usual suspects bickering with each other" at the drama boards, and opinions as to whether the "bickering" is really to do with content or personalities, and who may or may not be involved elsewhere, aren't really conducive to improving the article and will derail the discussion if pursued. (He said, sniffily.) Writegeist (talk) 23:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You can either argue that he is a public figure or that he is not. Above, you have argued that he is.  Wikipedia's BLP policy is pretty clear:  "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.  Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he or she actually did. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported."
 * It is clearly noteworthy (per dozens of newspapers noted it). It was certainly relevant enough that Oprah wanted to interview the guy on national TV!  It is also clearly well documented.
 * I understand the appeals to empathy and, while commendable, they carry no weight per BLP policy. Can we stick please stick to logic?  Having reviewed the BLP policy, we should report report the fact that he was naked.  Further, we should also report the allegations of public masturbation and the fact that, when question by Oprah, he would not deny having masturbated.  That is what a strict reading of the BLP tells me. 173.79.251.253 (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it's apparent that virtually nobody else agrees with you. If you want a clearer demonstration of community consensus, you're welcome to open a formal request for comment. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty confused here. I just quoted Wikipedia's policy on BLP.  Can you please specify what you don't agree with?  Do you not agree that Wikipedia's policy is as I have stated?  Do you not agree that the event is noteworthy enough to be reported by several major papers?  Do you not agree it was relevant enough for Opera to do a national interview on that subject?  Or do you not agree that it is well documented by a multitude of sources?  Not one person has articulated a reason for revert under BLP.  Can a user really just say "BLP Violation" and revert anything they want? 173.79.251.253 (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What I've said is that Wikipedia makes content decisions based on policy as interpreted by community consensus. Community consensus cannot override core policies, but it can and does interpret them.
 * There is no policy which requires us to republish everything that has ever been reported at some place and time. See WP:NOTNEWS. We make editorial judgments, based upon consensus, as to what we should and should not include.
 * There exists a clear community consensus in this case that your preferred version places undue weight on a single incident of mental illness and contains inappropriate and unnecessary details that appeal to salacious and prurient interests while adding nothing of substantive encyclopedic value.
 * Therefore, the material will not be added. Consensus has been reached. If you continue to edit against this consensus, you will be blocked for disruption at some point. If you wish to challenge this consensus, you are welcome to initiate a request for comment on the matter. If the result of the RFC is to reinforce that consensus, then you are out of options and the material will remain out until and unless consensus changes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And consensus should be reached through discussion. I think it is a little premature for a RfC when we've yet to get to the heart of the matter: specifically, what BLP violation occurred? If the revert isn't being made on BLP grounds then what grounds is it based on? How can have a discussion on the merits when noone has been willing to articulate the basis for reverting under the BLP policy? It seems you're reaching consensus by simply refusing to engage.  Edit:  Just to make it clear, that isn't meant to be an accusation.  I actually would like people to engage in a real discussion so that consensus can be reached.  You can't reach consensus by refusing to participate in the conversation.  173.79.251.253 (talk) 01:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain why you think WP:NOTNEWS applies here? This is not journalism, this is not routine news report (e.g. the weather), it is not a who's who, and it is not a diary.  Can you also explain why you think it violates WP:UNDUE which clearly states "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."  Also, can anyone explain to me how WP:BLP was violated?  I still haven't seen anyone articulate a response to that question (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT).  Seems like you're violating WP:POLSHOP.  Man, I'm getting to be a friggin Wikipedia pro reading all of these policies.  173.79.251.253 (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There is lots and lots of discussion on this page. More than enough to define a consensus. At a certain point, prolonging a debate that has been settled is considered disruptive editing behavior. You are rapidly approaching that point, in the opinion of myself and several other editors. You either need to file a formal RFC, or you need to accept that your preferred version is not going to be included. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I did not phrase the language in the RfC. NorthBySouthBaranof did.  What neutral language do you propose if not:  "What level of detail should this article contain about the article subject's mental health issue?" That is about as neutral as you can get and, again,it was written by someone who openly opposes my viewpoint.
 * I just ask that the RfC be opened and allowed to progress. I won't even provide further comments in the talk page or in the RfC beyond the statement I already provided.173.79.251.253 (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * An RfC should take the format where at the end a consensus can be determined and implemented. Phrasing in the manner of Should the article cover X? or Which version is more appropriate and compliant with (these specific) policies version A (link to version A) or version B (link to version B).  or Is Y relevant and appropriate to be included in the article? --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  04:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I rephrased per your advice and reopened: "Is Jason Russell's mental health breakdown relevant and appropriate to be included in his biography?"  Thank you for explaining. 173.79.251.253 (talk) 04:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Is Jason Russell's mental health breakdown relevant and appropriate to be included in his biography?
Is Jason Russell's mental health breakdown relevant and appropriate to be included in his biography? 02:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Survey

 * Include reported facts and allegations per BLP Policy I recognize that the episode is embarrassing and sensitive to Mr. Russell. There are primary sources widely available including both images and videos. The event was widely publicized is a multitude of reliable sources including the Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, the Gaurdian, and numerous others which have been cited. Mr. Russell gave an interview to Oprah specifically in regards to this episode.


 * Wikipedia policy on BLP is clear on public figures:


 * "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. [...]


 * Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he or she actually did. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported."


 * A multitude of reliable sources report that Mr. Russell was irrational, naked, and allegedly masturbating. Oprah held an interview with Mr. Russell in regards to the events.  When asked directly about being naked and masturbating Mr. Russell acknowledged that he was naked and that video of the event was widely available.  He also stated that he did not remember masturbating but that, given his mental state, it was possible.


 * Re BLP: The above statements meet the BLP priniciple of NPOV, Verifiable, and there is no OR.
 * Re UNDUE: The issue was widely reported in dozens of sources. It was relevant enough that Oprah did an interview with Mr. Russell.  Quoting WP:UNDUE: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."
 * Re NOTNEWS: This does not fall into any of the categories of journalism, routine news report (e.g. the weather), a who's who, or a diary. Instead, this event was reported by a number of major, reliable newspapers from multiple countries. 173.79.251.253 (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, we generally don't mention allegations if nothing comes about from them. If the allegations have no impact on anything, including them would only serve to create prurient interest. Silver  seren C 05:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Brief mention, salacious details omitted. The event was widely covered, however the prurient details, if included add no discernible benefit to understanding the subject of this BLP. Just because we can include something, doesn't mean we should, i.e. we are not writing a tabloid. Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Brief mention. When there is doubt, or dispute, and the point in question is trivial, do not include. This edit war has become disruptive and if it weren't a BLP the discussion would be going straight on WP:LAME. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 08:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Brief mention, salacious details omitted. The event is utterly non-notable except for the fact that the person was already a minor celebrity. Of particular sensitivity and import is the fact that the actions were not of a criminal nature, but the result of a diagnosed mental illness. We are under no obligation to permanently record and perpetually repeat the detailed minutia of a person suffering from mental illness - and we are, in fact, under an obligation to strongly consider not including it. I submit that there is no encyclopedic value in it, and that it would simply appeal to prurient interests which can be satisfied at any number of other outlets. Let TMZ and Gawker lower themselves to obsessing over an unwell man's suffering. I'll be damned if that's what Wikipedia is for. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Brief mention The fact is the tabloidizing additions to the stable version which had been here is contrary to WP:BLP policy and WP:CONSENSUS would require a strong consensus for any addition -- but even that can not override the BLP policy, which means the lurid parts would still not be allowed (the "third hand allegations" of committing a crime, etc.) Collect (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * the coverage of the incident as of the current version is appropriate. additional details, particularly unsupported allegations from unnamed sources may NOT be included as clearly indicated by the BLP policy and the fact that Wikipedia is WP:NOT a tabloid. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * To be clear noone is talking about unnamed or third party sources. We're talking about named, reliable sources including the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Gaurdian, etc.  The editors of all of these major papers reviewed the material and determined it was notable enough to include in their publications.  Oprah thought it was notable enough to give an interview specifically on the topic.  173.79.251.253 (talk) 13:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, to be very clear, the version which you have been advocating is based upon including details that come from unnamed and unidentified people on the scene who claimed to see something  which was not verified by either the police nor the newspapers reporting the incident. The newspapers merely re-reported what the unidentified people on the scene claimed - the source of the claim is not the newspapers but the unidentified witnesses.--  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Whether it should be included in the article is debatable. Whether it was widely reported and notable was not.  Even Oprah asked him the masturbation question.  The question at hand is:  Should the information be included at all?  As posted in the thread above IDIDNTHEARTHAT these are just a few of sources I found in the article history but which had been removed by a particular user:
 * NBC: "A co-founder for Invisible Children was detained in Pacific Beach on Thursday for being drunk in public and masturbating, according to the San Diego Police Department.  Jason Russell, 33,  was allegedly found masturbating in public, vandalizing cars and possibly under the influence of something, according to the SDPD. He was detained at the intersection of Ingraham Street and Riviera Road."
 * RT:
 * Wall Street Journal: Mr. Broxtermann said police responded to multiple complaints variously describing a white male “running around the street in his underwear,” “naked and masturbating and screaming” and “banging his hands on the ground and screaming incoherently.” The calls complaining began around 11:30 am.
 * Huffington Post: "After Jason Russell, co-founder of the advocacy charity Invisible Children, was detained by San Diego police at 11:30 am Thursday morning for reportedly masturbating in public, TMZ posted graphic video of his alleged breakdown."173.79.251.253 (talk) 02:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Those are all non-attributed rumors (ie some anonymous person making allegations in a call to the police) or not reliable sources (ie the tabloid monger RT or someone reporting what the scandal mongering TMZ has said) or claims that are false (ie he was not arrested). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Directly from BLP: "Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he or she actually did. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." 173.79.251.253 (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * New York Times: "The police found Jason Russell, the filmmaker behind the video, after responding to calls about a man who was acting irrationally, including one call that alleged he was naked and masturbating, a San Diego police spokeswoman said. He was taken to a hospital for evaluation and treatment, and the police have no plans to charge him. " 173.79.251.253 (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * you really do not get the policy at all do you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  04:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Include the fact he was naked. He has discussed this himself on the Oprah show, it is widely reported on and the video of it went viral. Omit the allegations of him having one off at the wrist. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Brief mention, salacious details omitted, though I question including anything about the event at all, really. It just seems like tabloid nonsense. Regardless, I would go with the police report over the tabloids any day. Silver  seren C 05:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Brief mention of the verifiable facts of reactive psychosis, nakedness and detention. IP editor's interpretation of BLP policy is right- it prevents including gossip, not facts; paraphrasing user NorthBySouthBaranof above, "The event is utterly non-notable except for the fact that it has been noted".
 * Other editors have it right that the media circus of jocular commentary that seem to have developed around the event is unwarranted, and should not be taken into account. Our covering should be based on the facts, and the determination of what facts are relevant should be those that have been noticed by reliable sources, not those that Wikipedia editors deem as decent enough. There's nothing shameful in having a psychic arrest (nor in being nude), so it shouldn't be treated as if it were.
 * I want to note that, not being American, I have never heard of Russell before, so I am not particularly interested in harming nor protecting his reputation in any way. Diego (talk) 08:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The police report stated "underwear" as did other sources -- per WP:BLP such articles are to be written "conservatively" and that is what has been done. Collect (talk) 08:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The article should not imply the verifiably false notion that Russell remained the whole time with his underpants on; that's synthesis. Either accurately report about the nakedness, or don't mention anything at all about it; but you shouldn't be giving false impressions about what happened. Diego (talk) 08:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I object to your attempt to reinsert contentious material in the middle of an RfC discussing that very material and have reverted it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you look at the edits, I actually removed the contentious material; User:Collect is the one who restored it, in a way that produces a misleading impression of the incident. I've tagged the section as not-neutral, discuss below. Diego (talk) 09:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The RfC has not closed, but consensus is clear, and disputing consensus here is not a matter of NPOV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Clear on what? "salacious details omitted" means not mentioning the allegations of wanking, I see no consensus here at all to mention what he himself has said on national TV, that he was nude. BLP does not mean remove something the subject would rather not have happened, we go with the sources, not editors opinions. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * He said that he did not recall precisely what happened - he only specifically recalled being in his underwear -- the reference to "naked" was in the third person, which is not the same as saying "I was naked" at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Brief mention per above. AIR corn (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Brief mention per above. Cwobeel (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Brief mention per above. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Brief mentions of what exactly? The problem in this RfC is not whether to mention at all the incident or not, but to what degree. The comments "salacious details omitted" by several editors above don't clarify what they consider "salacious". As I explain below I would consider mentioning the underwear to be a salacious detail too, but I wouldn't mind including it as long as it's kept brief and balanced (by including a short description of everything that the police report said, ensuring that our description doesn't introduce a slant by selectively omitting facts). Diego (talk) 11:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears that "underwear" is a "brief mention." Extended commentary is the "salacious detail" including accusations of a sex crime under most statutes.   I suggest you read the talk page archives to see just how we ended up here.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would disagree with that, brief mention means he was not wearing them. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Since "brief" is a homonym, Collect's comment is correct with a side of chuckle.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * TKOP was the first to use the phrase in the RfC here.  :)   Collect (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm reverting this overzealous removal of content under discussion by user Collect, which changes the meaning of other user's comments in an ongoing discussion; this is actually against the BLP talk policy, as well as clearly against TPO. If you want to argue that evaluating the content of reliable sources is a BLP violation, feel free to file a consultation at the BLP noticeboard; but BLP is clear that such discussion should only be removed from discussions occurring after the discussion has finished, and the first discussion should be retained. I'm reading the same Survey thread as you, and the only thing everyone agrees to is that the incident should be reported, and the report should be brief; so the position that "there's clear RfC consensus to remove this" is only in your head, and altering other people's comments while trying to decide on the legitimacy of that very content is a very, very big no-no. Please don't do anything like that ever again. Diego (talk) 12:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You are free to do so -- but please note your position is not supported by consensus here, nor by the WP:BLP policy. BLP applies on talk pages as much as any page, and I fear your zealousness in having public masturbation stressed (which is a criminal offence) is contrary to Wikipedia policy.  Cheers, but I gently urge you to reconsider the reasoning behind stressing a crime. Collect (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My position is not "having public masturbation stressed", so please don't misrepresent it. My actual position is documented in my not-vote above. As an aside, a crime requires intent, recklessness or negligence; an act like this committed while being out of mind would not be considered a crime in any sane and caring society. Diego (talk) 06:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And as there is absolutely no call for us to be exploitative or unduly invasive of a person suffering from a mental illness, there is absolutely no encyclopedic reason for us to go into any significant detail about an incredibly minor and apparently completely aberrant moment in that person's life. We are not a tabloid and we are not required to publish anything. IMO, there's actually a decent argument that the entire thing should be omitted from his biography, and I consider any mention of it at all to be a compromise. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would prefer that the article provided some aseptic hint as to why the incident was so widely reported in mass media, which would be satisfied with an accurate description of the police report, but I also would accept a brief mention with no details at all as a valid compromise. However, that's not User:Collect's posture. For some reason, Collect insists on including a mention that Russell was on the street in underwear, which is still a violation of his privacy and misrepresents what happened. Diego (talk) 08:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Brief mention, any salacious details omitted.   (borrowing SillverScreen's wording) Only include the stuff that 90% of the sources on the event say.  North8000  (talk) 02:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The neutrality of underwear
There's a request for comments going on, trying to decide what details of the incident should be reported. Until we have an agreement on what parts of the sources are relevant for the biography, it's not OK to include some details about the level of clothing that Russell wore, and selectively omit others. The article should properly describe what happened or, if it's not deemed relevant for inclusion, remain silent about it; but you can't have it both ways and write the section in that way, pretending that Russell never exposed his genitals in public. Diego (talk) 09:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And again and for the last time -- WP:BLP requires string sourcing for contentious claims, and the strongest sourcing all says "underwear."  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, the strongest sourcing is the guy himself, and he has said in two interviews that he was naked. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And reporting about an adult man in the street in his underwears doesn't raise BLP concerns? BTW the "strongest sourcing" is the police spokesperson who said [Russell] "removed his underwear and was nude", but that's not what you wrote in the article. Diego (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The interview you mention also has him saying he was in his underwear, and he was found in his underwear, so the predominant state he was in was in his underwear. And WP:BLP says we write biographies conservatively, and this apparent desire to show him in a poorer light than many reliable sources state is improper by policy. Collect (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's why I suggested not mentioning anything, and removed the text that you later re-inserted. Selectively omitting relevant information provided by the references while including only the contentious parts with which you agree is definitively a WP:NPOV violation, and a different concern than the one being discussed in the RfC above. Diego (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, he says he started off in his underpants, which he then took off. He says himself he was nude, on national TV, so if he can say that, then so can we. There are no BLP issue here at all in this. And policy actually dictates we report on what the RS say, especially the more recent ones over police reports from the time. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a "fact" tag on the entire article, and a POV tag on this section. Kindly tell us exactly what the accusation of violating WP:NPOV is in the section to which the tag has been (IMO abusively) added? (Please also quote the policy sections asserted to be applicable here) Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It should be obvious how selectively quoting half of the facts reported by the sourcing produces a half-truth, which is as misleading as a lie; but as you request it, here it is an analysis of applicable policy.


 * For a start there's a matter of balancing aspects and undue weight: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject". Reporting about the underwear but not the nudity, when both were reported from the same source, is unduly giving more weight to the first fact than the second. There's also:
 * WP:BALANCE: "when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance". Thus removing one of the facts and including the other breaks balance - if one is included, the other must be too. Also WP:BLPSTYLE: "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects".
 * RS ("Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person") and WP:BLPSOURCES. If the nudity is not considered important enough for the biography, neither is the fact that he was on the street in his underwear (this is also a "salacious detail" of the kind opposed by many above).
 * CENSOR: "some articles may include images, text or links, which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content." Talking about the nudity does not necessarily violate WP:BLP, but if it's deemed not significant enough for inclusion by the RfC above, the same outcome will apply to the underwear, as both are given similar weight by the references (and, if any, the nakedness has been given more space than the underwear - so the latter should go away first).
 * And I already mentioned WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." To someone who has heard about the incident but doesn't know the details, your wording makes it look as if Russell had stood half-dressed the whole time, which is not true. If all details were omitted instead, at least the reader should go to the references to get the gist of the details, and wouldn't arrive to the wrong conclusion.
 * So, in short: it is OK if an accurate report of all the facts is included. It's also OK if consensus determines that details of the incident are not relevant enough for inclusion. What is not OK is reporting only enough details so as to imply the opposite of what really happened, and exclude the clarifications of those details provided by reliable sources. Diego (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * IOW you aver that being in underwear is the opposite of being naked an that is your only cavil? Collect (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, my "cavil" is that inaccurately reporting what the references say is the opposite of accurately reporting what the references say, and doing the first creates a neutrality problem when controversial material is involved. Diego (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * not repeating gossip and unverified allegations is NOT "inaccurate". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So, you basically agree that the part about being in underwear should be removed. Diego (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It is clear (to me) that you are arguing to make some point. I have no idea what that point is, but you are starting to become bothersome.  Please knock it off.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: I just closed the above discussion (consensus is clear), and trimmed the article a bit before I read this section in any detail. I don't see any reason at all to mention more than the fact that he was detained, but that's editorial judgment, not administrative fiat or something like that. I suppose it's not a BLP violation to mention the underwear if it's properly verified (I have no interest in that part of the discussion), but editorially speaking it's simply not necessary. What matters, or what should matter, is not how he was or wasn't dressed, but that he had a mental breakdown--and if the consensus of the above RfC weren't so clear, I'd scrap the entire episode (again, speaking as an editor, not an admin: I closed the RfC but would have opined differently). You all can try to figure this out and revert my edit to the article is there is consensus for it. Let's just keep our eye on the prize: we're not here to sell newspapers. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Content not matching the reference provided
I'm reverting to the Bbb23 version of the Personal life section, as this wording is not supported by it. With respect to the video, the word "viral" does not even appear in the linked article. As for the "out-of-the-body experience", please read the article again with detail: Russel says that it's "hard to explain if people who have never had an out-of-body experience", so he doesn't directly describe the experience itself as such - i.e. he doesn't say "this was an out of body experience", so we can't say that he did. Diego (talk) 09:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The Hollywood reporter says he made that claim (ie, they are making the same interpretation I did), and to be honest, in context that is exactly what he is claiming. The "viral" portion is probably documented, but since you appear to strenuously object about this I left it out for now.Two kinds of pork (talk) 13:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The RfC had a strong consensus that coverage of the event should be minimal, so any attempt to expand the section should be thoroughly and exquisitely sourced, and wording should be as close to the source as possible to avoid WP:OR and lack of WP:NPOV. Diego (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * However in light of the RfC, overlinking the section draws attention to the very thing we are trying to minimize. And I would like to point out that the main thrust of the RfC is that the prurient details were not necessary, but a "brief" mention was.  What is sourced, and what follows the RfC are the following;  A) Russel has an "episode" B) it was widely reported C) Explanations from the family and Russel are provided.  None of this underwear or streaking nonsense that was the cause of the RfC in the first place.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Controversy
So how did this page get sanitized; seems any mention of his MKULTRA-like breakdown was removed and this chapter is ignored, while being the most noteworthy and public. 24.52.231.99 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jason Russell. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120317145702/http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/16/10721745-wife-blames-exhaustion-for-irrational-behavior-by-kony-2012-filmmaker to http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/16/10721745-wife-blames-exhaustion-for-irrational-behavior-by-kony-2012-filmmaker
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425035444/http://www.invisiblechildren.com/our-team.html to http://www.invisiblechildren.com/our-team.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121123181224/http://newenglandfilm.com/news/archives/2007/02/invisible.htm to http://newenglandfilm.com/news/archives/2007/02/invisible.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130317000402/http://www.christianexaminer.com/Articles/Articles%20Oct05/Art_Oct05_09.html to http://www.christianexaminer.com/Articles/Articles%20Oct05/Art_Oct05_09.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jason Russell. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120313030029/http://www.krdo.com/news/30649835/detail.html to http://www.krdo.com/news/30649835/detail.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120206112538/http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/newsitem.asp?ID=26182 to http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/newsitem.asp?ID=26182

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)