Talk:Jean Kasem/Archives/2013

IP edits
An IP-jumping anon IP has at least twice now reverted to a version of passage with inflammatory language, replacing one with a neutral tone, justifying it by saying, "The story _is_ one of heated emotion," and so apparently the language should be heated and emotional. He then compounds this non-constructive behavior by accusing a veteran registered editor as somehow being "personally acquainted" with Jean Kasem. A neutral tone is not "spin," as he claims. If this IP-jumping editor reverts again, I will need to ask that this page be protected. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Please note: my tone has been completely neutral and matter of fact. The story is that the family and friends of Casey Kasem have made some very strong accusations against the subject of this page. Additionally, they staged a very public protest that was well covered in the media. I am simply listing what has happened. I am not using inflammatory speech -- the family is. That's the gist of story!

Further, editor Tenebrae has tried to downplay the story as much as possible. First, he makes the lead element Casey Kasem's illness, which is secondary to the family's contentions that Casey is being held incommunicado. Second, he seems to want to hide the subject's age -- her year of birth is widely reported to be 1954, yet he has deleted this fact repeatedly.

Tenebrae implies above that I was the first to revert his edits. Examination of the page history will show this to be untrue -- rather just the opposite.

I object to his ad-hominem criticisms, to wit: degrading my posts as "IP-jumping", "inflammatory", "non-constructive", and "accusing". I politely asked that a consensus be developed on this talk page before he again reverted my contributions. He has opted not to do so. I am thus restoring my edit, and any further reversion of this well-sourced (and quite neutral) paragraph should be considered vandalism. An act beneath a "veteran registered editor".

In short: I'm just reporting the story -- don't shoot the messenger. -- 91.10.17.149 (talk) 12:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

POV TONE
Just because the family uses heated rhetoric by no means indicates that an encyclopedia should. Your non-neutral tone clearly takes sides and give sympathy to the family. While perhaps laudable in real-life, an encyclopedia has to be neutral.

Here are the two versions:

ORIGINAL
 * In October 2013, Kerri Kasem, one of Casey Kasem's three children from his first marriage, said her father was suffering from Parkinson's disease.[7] On October 1, Kerri Kasem, her siblings and Casey Kasem's brother protested in front of Casey and Jean Kasem's home, saying Jean Kasem had been preventing contact with Casey Kasem for three months.[7][8]

YOURS
 * On October 1, 2013, the children of Casey Kasem's first marriage publicly claimed that Jean Kasem was holding their father incommunicado inside their Holmby Hills, California estate, and staged a demonstration outside the mansion demanding access to their father. CBS in Los Angeles reported that Jean Kasem has also cut off Casey's brother, his agent, and other long-term friends from the broadcaster, who has Parkinson's disease.[7]

Here are your heated terms that in no way are proper encyclopedia terms:
 * "holding their father incommunicado"
 * "demanding access"
 * "staged a demonstration outside the mansion"

"Holding incommunicado" is a loaded phrase, one much less neutral than "has been preventing contact."

"Demanding access"? "Demand" is POV &mdash; the family never once used the term "demand." A less-heated, more neutral word might be "requesting" or "desiring". It's also superfluous: The family is protesting Jean Kasem preventing access &mdash; it's intrinsic that the family wants access. That's what they're protesting for. Redundancy and stating the obvious is bad writing.

"Staged a demonstration outside the mansion" is less neutral than "protested in front of [their] home," although you're right than "outside" is less wordy than "in front of," so "protested outside [their] home" is both more neutral and less wordy.

(Also, just in terms of logical writing, one has to state first that he has Parkinson's or else the rest doesn't make sense: It initially suggests she's "holding" an able-bodied man "incommunicado." And we don't need to say "CBS reports" in text when CBS is cited in footnote.)

In any event, your heated rhetoric violates WP:NPOV and WP:TONE, and as I said before, its time to get an admin to step in. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)