Talk:Kathleen Newman-Bremang

WP:SPS quote
There has been some edit warring over a quote] in an article written by Newman-Bremang. There needs to be independent coverage of that quote to give it any significance to be mentioned in the article. Of the 2,347 words in her article, why are those 19 words quoted and what is their significance to a biography in an encyclopedia? Schazjmd  (talk)  18:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The cast of this show is very diverse with many persons identifying as 'Black'. Newman-Bremang chose to single out an actor based on skin tone being darker than other Blacks on this show which is discriminatory.  The quote accurately highlights Newman-Brebang's take.  Many of the other 2,347 words are a plot summary of the show. JaySunJay (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You fail to provide any argument for why this quote is WP:DUE. Schazjmd   (talk)  18:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies JaySunJay, but you are, in essence, giving us a WP:OR sort of rationalization for why the proposed quote belongs in the article. Can you show us that anyone else (reliable sources in particular) took note of that language?  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies as I'm new to editing wikipages. To say "the only dark-skinned Black person in the entire show." is a factual representation of the author's  ideas on pigmentocracy.  There are numerous examples of those that have wiki citations for statements of anti-Semitism, white superiority and other biases.  Biographies are subject to the public statements the subject makes.
 * Here is an excellent essay on pigmentocracy: http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/freedom/1865-1917/essays/pigmentocracy.htm JaySunJay (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a fine personal critique of the article subject that you are entitled to make, but it's not fit for Wikipedia inclusion unless it is WP:DUE. In order for it to fit that definition, you would need to show us that it appears in reliable sources of some ilk.  That's what you're missing here.  You have yet to point to anything that shows that anyone other than you paid attention to this particular language.  Without that, it does not belong in the article.  Apologies. Dumuzid (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's probably true that very few people read the article as it was a tough read for anyone who enjoyed the show.
 * So, in essence, you're saying that if I forward this article to my fellow POCs and have them weigh in on it on a website that can be cited and they too are taken aback and find this sort of language and opinion to be inflammatory, then I can post this article and quote along with those viewpoints? Of course, also citing anyone who agrees for balance, yes?
 * Perhaps you would like to post something online on a reliable sourced website that states how you feel about Kathleen Newman-Bremang's article that doesn't find the rest of the Blacks on 'The Wilds' to be dark enough? JaySunJay (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If you could get discussion of this quote into, say, a major Canadian newspaper or perhaps the work of an eminent media critic or scholar, then yes, you would have a good argument for inclusion. That's how Wikipedia runs; if we were simply here to argue about what's "best" in the article we would go around in circles endlessly.  By requiring outside verification, we at least have some objective referents (though the process certainly still has subjective elements).  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but JaySunJay is wikilawyering to one end: to add their opinion to an article about a published sentence that ticks them off. No, you may not drum up opinions on another website and use that as a WP:RELIABLE source. I'm not disagreeing with the premise of Jay's offense, but that's not the issue. They restored problematic content to a WP:BLP four times, accused me of being Ms. Newman-Bremang and threatened me with user sanctions, and are engaging in a lengthy debate here, without interest in the way an encyclopedia functions. This isn't their personal blog. How many times ways does it need be said that we do not publish original research? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As I stated, I'm new to editing, this is my first attempt at it, and I fully appreciate the input I've received here! I do have great interest in Wiki policies, community and function and to that point, actually altered the repost 4 times to try and satisfy the editor in question who, although the count of views on this page is under 10, seemed to be eyeing it hawkishly. The threats were, for the record, first levied at me from this impassioned page editor to ban me after my first edit which seems quite aggressive.
 * Beyond my cited article which I do understand needs a wider audience of solid feedback to deem what is obvious to most a racist remark, I also edited the inaccurate statement that Ms. Newman-Bremang was a 'frequent' contributor to two different outlets. Nothing was cited to indicate that she was 'frequent' by any means.  In fact, very few postings I could fine online substantiate this overstatement of contribution.  This should have remained as I edited it.
 * Finally, this whole experience has prompted me to think about writing on the topic of pigmentocracy and reference the article in question. But, I will endeavor first to see if I can procure some form of pigment test to perhaps try and benchmark my skin tone in an attempt to prove to Kathleen that I'm 'black enough' to write on the topic. JaySunJay (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We currently have a redirect for "pigmentocracy" that goes to Discrimination based on skin color. If that is a subject that you're interested in, you could look at improving that article. Schazjmd   (talk)  21:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks but was thinking of a freelance article in a prominent publication allowing reader feedback. Then, the article in question can be reposted and substantiated with a reference from the prominent source.  I will check out the wiki page on pigmentocracy. JaySunJay (talk) 21:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @JaySunJay, please take the time to read through WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Although we don't include information that isn't sourced or that is cited to an unreliable source, just because something is printed in a reliable source doesn't mean it should necessarily be included in a Wikipedia article. Schazjmd   (talk)  22:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * From the very start, it's been clear that JaySunjay is here to exercise an agenda vis-a-vis a sentence written by Ms. Newman-Bremang, and is now openly musing over gaming the system to make their point: Thanks but was thinking of a freelance article in a prominent publication allowing reader feedback. Then, the article in question can be reposted and substantiated with a reference from the prominent source. This is a new one on me. I think we're increasingly reaching an ANI situation. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Influencing RSes is actually the right way to bring about change in a Wikipedia article in a situation like this. While I of course agree with Schazjmd's cautions above, there is no issue with someone trying to pursue advocacy off-wiki that might subsequently change an article.  Publishers of original thought are entitled to publish advocacy--so, if JaySunJay were remarkably successful and managed to get his story on the front page of several major newspapers, of course we would include it.  Nothing wrong with that.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Clearly stated, thanks! JaySunJay (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)