Talk:Nepotism

Redundancy removal?
I am not 100% comfortable playing around with references, so would someone more familiar with them please review this, and consider changing §1¶1 to something akin to the following:

Borrowed from the French term 'Nepotisme', which in turn was derived from Italian 'Nepotismo' and the Latin 'nepōs' (nephews), nepotism refers to the practice of popes appointing relatives during the Middle Age and Renaissance.

Thanks. DLWylie (talk) 06:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Entertainment examples
I removed examples of nepotism from In entertainment section that aren't called nepotistic by sources. User:AncapOgre reverted claiming that "it gave examples of people accuses of benefitting from nepotism - not judging that they were indeed benefitting from nepotism". However, the examples I removed didn't give sources to people accusing them of nepotism just vaguely saying they were given jobs in the same workplaces as family members which seems like editors engaging in WP:SYNTH at the very least.

For example, for Peaches Geldof the given source doesn't say anything about nepotism. The source for Hasan Piker doesn't mention nepotism. Tori Spelling doesn't even give a source.

It seems extremely WP:OR for the editors of this article to just declare somebody has been accused of being nepotistic without a WP:RS specifically saying that they have been, and possibly raises WP:BLP problems. I would like to get others opinions on the matter. Cakelot1 (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * First of all, you are stubbornly removing information you dislike while pretending to want to "engage in a discussion". If you wanted that, you'd start by talking about it on talk page. Now to the point of it - the paragraph provides examples of people in entertainment industry being given jobs and positions by someone they are closely related to. That is what the sources do, establish that fact. It is impossible for someone to be incapable of recognizing how that can lead to accusations of nepotism, and therefore for that someone to not understand the relevance of that information to this wiki article, you are clearly upset by one of the figures being mentioned there. That is all there is to this blatant bad-faith behaviour. And stop coming to my talk page, I will blank it as many times as you leave me your useless comments. --AncapOgre (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I engaged in pretty standard WP:BRD. I was Bold you reverted and now we're discussing it. I gave clear explanations about my reasoning in the edit summary. I don't feel it's appropriate to use sources saying they have jobs in the same work place as family and extrapolating that they have been accused of nepotism. The article doesn't say here's a list of people who worked with family members, it says "Outside of national politics, accusations of "nepotism" are made in instances of prima facie favoritism to relatives, in such cases as"[Emphasis added by me]. Where are the accusations ? Who's making them? certainly not the sources listed. I don't think it's acceptable to just say that we think that because they work with a family member that that means they've automatically been accused (I think that extremely WP:SYNTH). Your assumptions about people being called nepotistic might be correct but they would be original research and so not allowed on Wikipedia.


 * The reasons above are why I didn't remove the info about Coppola family, because there is a source which says that accusations of nepotism have been made. If there are other examples in the article who don't have sources saying that they've been called nepotistic I think they should be removed.


 * Finally please Assume good faith. I'm not tying to save a particular person, I'm trying to improve the article by removing what seems to me to be pretty clear instances of WP:OR. I unbanked your talk page so I could notify you of further of my thoughts and direct you to this discussion so that we could properly work it out. Cheers Cakelot1 (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I have added a source for all 3 of the previously uncited accused individuals - an article each for Peaches Geldof and Tori Spelling, and a direct dismissve (warranted approach, as the accusation was made with no real substance behind it - clarifying this so there is no accusation towards me interpreting this in a negative manner) response from Hasan Piker's own social media account towards nepotism accusations regarding him and his career. Am I safe to assume that these instances of nepotism accusations being raised against the mentioned individuals, to the point of them issuing responses, is enough to warrant the keeping of this paragraph? --AncapOgre (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I think it looks at lot better now, great job User:AncapOgre. I would prefer a better source than twitter but I think it'll be the best we get for now. Same goes for the article citing imdb. I'm going to add Template:Better source needed to both of them so that people can be on the lookout for better sources in the future. Cheers Cakelot1 (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Better source needed
User:AncapOgre I have added a Better source needed tag, as I said I would above (and to which you didn't object). This is a maintenance tag which will let others know that we are on the look out for a better source because we really need a better one than twitter in the long run (see WP:RSPTWITTER). Again, I am not advocating it's removal only making it clear to others that their is room for improvement in sourcing.

Please discuss here first before reverting. Tank you Cakelot1 (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Also regarding the assertion that "The source shows the mentioned person directly responding to nepotism accusations with their personal social media account that they run themselves. That clerly ought to be sufficient source that accusations against them exist.", no the source isn't really sufficient. Wikipedia ideally needs 3rd party sources (see WP:INDEPENDENT) to prevent us from inserting our own analysis of the topic (which is not allowed under WP:OR). A better source is needed, although the twitter post is acceptable for now, until a better source can be found (which is what the tag is saying). Cakelot1 (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Very rich of you to ask for discussion before making changes, when you were the one who started this debacle by removing whole paragraphs without starting any discussions. As for the question at hand, any other source would simply cite Hasan Piker themselves, as is the case in news articles for other individuals in that short list. Wiki would be citing an article citing a tweet, instead of citing a tweet. If you somehow believe that is superior, then do as you wish. I'm not going to police this wiki page.--AncapOgre (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I engaged in WP:BRD, standard practice as has been pointed out before. As for the tag, and if others want more explanation, wikipedia's policy is citing 3rd party sources and any such source wouldn't just be printing this tweet (that's more WP:PRIMARY) it would be saying that others have called him Nepotistic. At current we are interpreting that's what the tweet means, which I think is a form WP:OR. Again this is only maintenance tag much like a and is about letting others know that there is still work to do. Cakelot1 (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I want to second @Cakelot1. A tweet is a primary source, which really isn't good practice for WP:BLP.  The question is not just whether Piker has ever been accused of nepotism, but whether those accusations are notable.  People make vague spurious accusations against public figures all the time.  We should not be in the habit of repeating those accusations unless they're relevant enough that reliable sources are covering them.  Of the universe (talk) 04:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to remove the statement about Piker because the source does not live up to WP:BLP standards, but I will wait for others to weigh in. Of the universe (talk) 04:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I Would support it's removal for the reason I mentioned before. I think I gave up on it last because I was tired of other editors calling my motives in to question, but looking back I probably should have pushed harder to get it removed.
 * I agree with everything that you said, Of the universe, and concur this seems like a BLP violation and should be removed. However, I'm going to ping @AncapOgre to see if they have anything to add, as they were the editor most set against it before. Cakelot1 (talk) 10:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've washed my hands of this topic. As per my last communication on this page, "do as you wish".--AncapOgre (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's frankly irrelevant whether he admits to it or not. This isn't a list of every single person in history who got a job from a family member. I question whether this article needs examples at all, but if there are going to be examples, they should be top-level government officials, not random TV show interns. Wikipedia is not platform for public shaming. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Linguistics in the Digital Age
— Assignment last updated by AmyFou (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)