Talk:Scott Adams/Archive 4

RfC : Use "racist" in Wikipedia's voice?
There's been a debate about how to describe recent controversial remarks about race from cartoonist Scott Adams. The debate centers around whether his comments should be described as "racist" in a narrative/Wikipedia voice, or whether the adjective should be attributed.

Should the desription in lead read as either;

Option A : "...after Adams published a video which included racist comments about Black people."

or

Option B : "...after Adams published a video which included comments about Black people that were widely characterized as racist."

or

ALT1 (as proposed by DFlhb) "...after he characterized Black Americans as a "hate group""

or

ALT2 (as proposed by Rhododendrites) "...after he characterized Black Americans as a "hate group" and said that white people should "get the hell away from Black people""

Please tell us what you think below! If you could format your response in the following way, it would be helpful.


 * Support Option A
 * Support Option B
 * Support Alternative

Thanks in advance for your input. NickCT (talk) 03:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Threaded discussion (racist)

 * Support Option A - We have to be extremely careful w/ WP:CONTENTIOUS labels especially as they relate to WP:BLPs. The only appropriate time to use them in an unqualified way (i.e. a Wikipedia voice way) is when they are used in unqualified way in a wide array of RS's, and there are no RS's that dispute or contradict the accuracy of the labels. That's the case here. Dozens of outlets described his words as "racist", and no source offered a counterpoint. It would be WP:UNDUE for us to qualify the wording, when qualification is not present in RS. NickCT (talk) 03:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @NickCT, please sign your RfC statement above (after Thanks in advance for your input). It is required. Thank you. Stoarm (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Issue resolved. An administrator signed the statement for NickCT with this edit. (NickCT then relocated it about 24 hours later.) Stoarm (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You've invoked WP:CONTENTIOUS (which coinicidentally addresses using the term "racist") but your interpretation of it is actually the opposite of what it says to do. It says: Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Read that last part. So, it's stating very clearly that even if it's widely used in reliable sources and you're therefore going to use the contentious label, you must use attribution. This issue is not about due or undue. It's simply about attribution or no attribution. Stoarm (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok. So 1) actually reading the full sentence, the rule is for "calling an organization, ... an individual, or a sexual practice.....". We're not calling Adams racist. We're calling his comments racist. I don't know (and I don't think sources know) if Adams is racist. Sometimes non-racist folks say racist things. Sometimes smart people say dumb things (which is why I figure you could be smart despite this conversation).
 * So 2) even pretending you're right and the "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution" rule applies here. By that logic, we essentially can never use "racist" in an unattributed way. So, granting that this is WP:OTHERCONTENT, how do you feel about Nazi racial theories being described as "racist Scientific and Philosophical racial classifications". Should the we attribute the word "racist" there? If not, why doesn't your logic apply to that? NickCT (talk) 01:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yet another unprovoked, personal attack (which is why I figure you could be smart despite this conversation). What is wrong with you? Again, please stop your uncivil behavior and focus on content. Please strike that comment.
 * You say, "actually reading the full sentence..." but then go on to quote only a small portion of it. I quoted it in its entirety, and regardless of the frankly, non-sensical spin you just put on it, any editor can see exactly what it's referring to and how it should be handled with regard to attribution. It's unambiguous. It says any value-laden labels. You don't actually believe that the rule applies only to organizations, individuals, and sexual practices, do you? I'll assume you saw that the content was prefaced with the words "such as", indicating they were merely examples. It doesn't matter one bit whether we're calling Adams's comments or Adams himself a racist. The only issue is whether we should be stating it in Wikipedia's voice or not.
 * You're correct, it is WP:OTHERCONTENT and it's disappointing that you'd even invoke that example. I'll let that essay speak for itself. Any of us can find examples in other articles (Wilkipedia has over six million of them) to fit a specific argument we're making. None of us can control what other editors do in millions of articles. But what we can, and must, do is look at any policies and guidelines that are relevant to the discussion at hand. For this one, we can also look at WP:VOICE, part of a core policy, which tells us "racist" should be be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views.
 * Stoarm (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure it's non-sensical spin. The policy mentions using contentious terms in relations to inviduals and groups, right? We're not doing that.
 * Answer the question; should Nazi racial theories be described as "racist Scientific and Philosophical racial classifications" or "Scientific and Philosophical racial classifications that many sources have described as racist"? NickCT (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Once again, I'm asking you to please tone down the uncivil communication ("Answer the question").
 * In the words of two fine editors below:
 * 1. I do appreciate a good straw man
 * 2. Surely you don't think an empirically-verifiable fact and a value judgment (even an obvious one) are the same thing?
 * Responsible editors stay on-topic and look to the relevant policies and guidelines to show them the way.
 * Stoarm (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Your little pearls of wisdom about good behavior are always appreciated.
 * So I take it that you'd call "Nazi racial theories were racist" an empirically verifiable fact, and "Scott Adams comments were racist" a value judgement. Let's expand on that. How do we know the distinction? NickCT (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll take a hack at this.
 * Leaving aside BLP, Nazi racial theories (if you want to call them that, I would describe racial science as the consensus for much of the 19th and 20th centuries, i.e. not exclusively belonging to the Nazi ideology) were racist, as such -- here it is necessary to draw a distinction between racism or racialism, i.e. the belief in a kind of innate difference between races vs. racism as prejudice and discrimination. Using the first definition we can not only describe Nazi racial theories as "racist" without argument but indeed racial science as the origin of "racism".
 * Using the second definition we enter much murkier waters, I think, deserving of more consideration about the meaning of the word. "Racist" has taken on an insulting character, it's not a factual distinction, but one from which the "correct" response is to flee and deny at all costs (compare heretic, communist and so on) ... as you can see, even though newsmen are happy to throw around such labels (insults ?) they are applied only at great cost. If Scott Adams gets a few black people on his show and takes out the caliper and the food scale and measures their skull size and brain density, then we can fairly call him a racist. Fishing Publication (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm having a little trouble following your line of reasoning. Is it important what you or I consider "racism" or "racialism" to be? Aren't the sources what we're meant to be looking to? NickCT (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, you write in your original comment at the top of the thread: RS's that (...) – this is proscribed usage of the apostrophe; what you have written does not indicate the plural but rather the possessive. Compare the more common error CD's as in rack full of CD's Fishing Publication (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh man. Punctuation critic, huh? :-p NickCT (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Option A. Obviously the sourcing requirements to put something like this in the article voice are high, but they are clearly met here, eg. NPR: ..during a racist rant on his online video program last week...; CNN: Newspapers across the country dropped the "Dilbert" comic strip over the weekend after the creator of the satirical cartoon went on a racist tirade... Per WP:NPOV, avoid stating facts as opinions applies in a situation like this; and per WP:NOTCENSORED, we cannot omit something that is well-sourced, relevant, and accurately summarizes the sources simply because some people might find it offensive or may personally disagree. The implicit argument being made here seems to be that nothing can ever be described as objectively racist, which some editors may personally believe but which does not reflect the sources. Similarly, WP:WTW (a guideline, whereas NPOV is core policy) says at the top that it specifically does not forbid any wording, just that they must be used with caution; the sourcing requirements for this sort of language are met here. If people have sourcing to indicate that this description is seriously contested that is of course another matter, but removing it simply because people personally disagree with calling individuals' words as racist as a universal matter, with complete disregard for the level of sourcing, is completely inappropriate to the point of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS - if you feel it is inappropriate for so many high-quality sources to outright describe his comments as racist, the thing to do is to contact those sources and request corrections or retractions, not to try and use Wikipedia to "correct the record" on what WP:RSes say. --Aquillion (talk) 05:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You're citing the wrong subsection of WP:VOICE. What applies here is "Avoid stating opinions as facts", not "Avoid stating facts as opinions", which only applies to uncontested and uncontroversial assertions. Also, WP:NOTCENSORED is not relevant to this discussion; the only issue under dispute is simply whether or not the term "racist" should be in Wikipedia's voice or attributed. Stoarm (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Option B Support alternative proposed by DFlhb and Strongly oppose A - My personal belief is that the comments were clearly racist, but that's irrelevant. I must put my personal beliefs aside, as should all editors, and look to policy for guidance. It is not being debated that most reliable sources have desribed Adams's comments as racist. But that doesn't change the fact that it's still subjective (an opinion), regardless of how strongly I, or anyone else, agrees with that opinion. The relevant core policy, WP:VOICE (a subsection of NPOV), tells us unequivocally that we are to attribute this type of characterization to the sources, and not say it in Wikipedia 's voice: Avoid stating opinions as facts - ...opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action" but may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil.'" This is why Genocide says, Genocide, especially large-scale genocide, is widely considered to signify the epitome of human evil. Widely considered. I doubt anyone here would disagree that genocide is evil. But we do not say it in Wikipedia's voice because a core policy tells us not to. Finally, WP:CONTENTIOUS tells us that if a contentious term like racist is going to be used, it must be attributed. Stoarm (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have changed my support to the wise alternative proposed by DFlhb (...after he characterized Black Americans as a "hate group") because not only is it fully in line with with relevant policies and guidelines, it is also fair and undisputably accurate. I do believe, however, that it could be expanded a bit since the hate group characterization wasn't the only noteworthy comment that led to his strip being canceled. I commend DFlhb for what I feel is a very reasonable compromise that maintains the credibility of the article. Stoarm (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Option A per Aquillion and NickCT. NPOV does not require us to pretend to be unable to read the sources. NPOV does not require us to bothsides this. In fact, given the lack of RS supporting the existence of another side, the only way to bothsides this would be to construct the appearance of an other side ourselves out of non-RS material and that's definitely not allowed. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Option B Support Alternative proposed by DFlhb. Agree with Stoarm. We shouldn't state opinions as facts even if we agree with them because that's the core policy. Nemov (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * When all the RS we have is stating it as a fact we are not required to call it an "opinion". Would that not render every fact in the entire universe a mere opinion? Why would we indulge this and not, say, flat earth theories which say that the approximately spherical Earth is "just an opinion"? DanielRigal (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I read your comment and it wasn't as convincing as Stoarm's policy based argument about how the project discusses genocide which plenty of reliable sources call evil. I do appreciate a good straw man though. Nemov (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Surely you don't think an empirically-verifiable fact and a value judgment (even an obvious one) are the same thing? DFlhb (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * DanielRigal, please carefully read what DFlhb is asking you, then reply to them. This is really getting to the heart of the matter. And I'm not talking about the great Don Henley song. Stoarm (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Alternative These discussions are always frustrating, because they setup a false choice between pretending MOS:LABEL doesn't exist and using one of the "words to watch" without in-text attribution, or following MOS:LABEL by using clunky attribution wording. How about: after he characterized Black Americans as a "hate group"? It swaps an (utterly obvious, but inherently subjective) value judgment for a precise and encyclopedic statement that no one, not even Adams or his supporters, could possibly dispute. And it's not whitewashing, since he's being held accountable for his own words.Where did this silly idea come from, that because the media commonly uses a word, so must we? There are many things we do differently from media outlets, like avoiding honorifics and aggrandizing claims (which the media use liberally). So why is this being turned into a question of POV, when we're really discussing word choice? Value judgments are not encyclopedic unless attributed, period. For the same reason we can't say "one of the greatest and most influential physicists of all time" without attribution, even though hundreds of sources said it. DFlhb (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I support DFlhb's proposed wording with equal weight to my support for option A above. NickCT (talk) 01:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Slight possible variation to User:DFlhb's to add context : after he refered to Black people as a "hate group" on his online video program. NickCT (talk) 01:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * thank you, thank you, a voice of reason .. not to echo the Fry and Laurie sketch but this is true .. people remove fawning praise like that from articles or insert Template:Advert for the same reason that they (should) oppose the inclusion of this kind of thing in Wikipedia's voice .. it's not hard to understand, I thought Fishing Publication (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Option A - Wikipedia is based on sources. It's role should not be to "soften" the language used by RSs just to confirm to some unattainable standard of neutrality, which only serves to cast doubt on what is unequivocally stated in the cited sources. I understand that "racist" is a very loaded term and there are plenty of examples of it being thrown around as an insult or unfounded accusation, but this is not up for debate when it is clearly used by RSs. PraiseVivec (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Re: "role should not be to soften the language used by RSs just to confirm [sic] to some unattainable standard of neutrality"
 * Leaving aside your hit-and-run about neutrality being unattainable, well, perfection is unattainable too, I mean, what are you proposing, you know, what is the meaning or purpose of life, really, should we throw out the principle of neutrality like WP:NPOV altogether?
 * I mean, what is this really, these "reliable sources" are committing libel. Again I think it's a difference between reporting statements of fact i.e. Scott Adams is the creator of Dilbert vs. statements of opinion from reliable sources favored by contributors to this discussion such as even Slate (!!!) something like Scott Adams is a racist jackass, the man's crazy or whatever, these are written in reliable sources, if you will admit 'reliable', but are neither factual nor encyclopedic. I mean, if we're going to echo them completely why not clear all Wikipedia pages and redirect to pertinent NYT or WaPo articles ? Fishing Publication (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Alternative proposed by DFlhb. We use reliable sources, but can use discretion on which words. Many sources used the phrase "racist rant", I suspect because alliteration makes for a memorable headline. But quoting that in wikivoice isn't even on the table. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a memorable headline for sure but as you state & as editors have discussed it borders on mockery and slander. Not useful from a factual, encyclopedic perspective. I really can't understand why some would want to see it added Fishing Publication (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Alternative as proposed by User:DFlhb, 'racist' is clearly a value judgment. I should like these people who insist on echoing the New York press (don't you think there's a difference between a newspaper and an encyclopedia ?) to define 'racist' for us. Don't you see that these 'reliable sources' which you take to mean mainstream media in the Western world (all privately owned, by the way – for example the Washington Post which you cite is owned by Jeff Bezos – and with explicitly political mission statements) push the boundary between fact and opinion – which some here seem to have trouble distinguishing ( !!! ) Fishing Publication (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support DFlhb’s alternative. An elegant solution that complies with MOS:LABEL and leaves the reader to make the value judgement. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Option A. While DFlhb's alternative is better than B, I don't think it's sufficient. If there's strong reliable sourcing for a contentious label, WP:NPOV and WP:V demand that we follow the sources and use the label. MOS:LABEL is a guideline, and guidelines say right out at the top that occasional exceptions may apply. On the other hand, WP:NPOV and WP:V are policies, and not just policies but core content policies. Loki (talk) 04:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I won't belabor the point by providing counterarguments (and forcing you to counter-counter-argue), but I decided, for shits and giggles, to check Britannica, and after pretty deep searching, it seems they only label two people "racist" in their own voice: Himmler, and Houston Stewart Chamberlain (on another guy's page but not his own). Every other use of "racist" in their voice is attributed, or about institutions. not providing this as rationale for anything, just thought it was interesting ;) DFlhb (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We're not Britannica. How many things do they call "pseudoscientific"? Because we have strong guidelines to specifically call theories pseudoscientific if there's sourcing to support it. Loki (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The point is that NPOV and V (name dropped, but not argued) don't "require" this, they oppose it. Option A engages in a dispute rather than describing it. WP:YESPOV #1 and #4 (from NPOV) require that we avoid subjective value judgments in encyclopedic voice. FALSEBALANCE (ValarianB) is also misapplied, in both text and spirit, since it's concerned with theories discredited by scholarship, not with subjective BLP labels applied by news sources. We're not a news source, and there's no other situation where we "must" violate our policies to imitate news sources which don't (and shouldn't) follow our policies. I'll give you the last word here. DFlhb (talk) 11:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * A follows the sources, the only bar needed. enough with the both-sidesing and false balancing. ValarianB (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm curious what specific opposing arguments here that you would characterize as "both-sidesing" or "false-balancing?" The arguments in favor of the alternative all have been based reasonably on MOS:LABEL. Nemov (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * A While we should be careful with characterizations, where reliable sources do not equivocate, we should not either. The comments appear to be nearly universally described as racist, so we don't need to equivocate either.  -- Jayron 32 14:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alternative as far as I can tell but this is a pretty messed-up RfC and the alternative doesn't seem to have been stated clearly. StAnselm (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * DFlhb's "after he characterized Black Americans as a "hate group"" wording seems clear to me. NickCT (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It wasn't when I made this !vote. The alternative listed was "Why not say that Dilbert was a hater?" StAnselm (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alternative per DFlhb. Strongly oppose A as a blatant attempt to circumvent WP:NPOV by presenting an opinion in wikivoice. Even if this RfC leaned toward option A, I would expect the closer to consider rejecting the arguments in its favor on a policy basis. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 18:25, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Other Alternative (ALT2) as first choice, option A or the above alternative (ALT1) tied for second choice, and option B as third choice. This RfC is about the lead, and I'm sympathetic to the idea behind the alternative (that the "racist" label isn't needed beyond the statements themselves). The thing is, all of the sources we cite pull out two quotes to highlight above the rest. One of the quotes is the "hate group" comment which is included in the alternative. The other is the advice for white people "to get the hell away from Black people". ALT1 only includes one of those, and I'm not so sure it's the one to go with even if we were only going to include one, based on a cursory search for sources which include one or the other. ALT2 is to include both of these, i.e. after he characterized Black Americans as a "hate group" and said that white people should "get the hell away from Black people". &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 21:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I concur w/ some of Rhod's thoughts here. I think ALT2 is probably better than the initial alternative (alt1). I think I'm currently leaning towards Support Option A & ALT2 > ALT1.
 * BTW Rhododendrites, don't be jealous of my comedic gold. NickCT (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I said this about ALT1 and I'll repeat it here, that it would be nice to add context with "after Adams published a video in which he characterized Black Americans as a "hate group" and said that white people should "get the hell away from Black people"" NickCT (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I like ALT2 as well. DFlhb (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Option B, although I think ALT1 or ALT2 could also be good. I suppport option B because the notable thing here is not only the content of the remarks, but also the response to them, and by saying "widely characterized as racist" we're essentially conveying two important pieces of information - the nature of the remarks (racist), and the reception of the remarks. I do not support option A because I think using "racist" in wikivoice sounds odd and unencyclopedic (and may fail WP:IMPARTIAL in terms of tone), as well as being unnecessary (WP:LABEL applies here) --Tristario (talk) 23:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Option A is succinct and compliant with NPOV, as noted; at some point, not calling a tirade "racist" in wiki-voice is failing to follow the sources. Yes, we should use caution before applying such descriptions, but now and then, after all the caution has been applied, the blunt word is the right one to use. ALT2 has the appeal of specificity and would be my second choice overall. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I. If nearly half of all Blacks are not OK with White people -- according to this poll, not according to me, according to this poll -- that's a hate group…. and also said: II. Based on the current way things are going, the best advice I would give to White people is to get the hell away from Black people Obviously, statement “I” is conditional. It’s an “if-then” statement. So “I” doesn’t really imply anything if the condition is not fulfilled (e.g. because Rasmussen screwed up). I’m also not sure whether statement “I” meant all blacks might be a hate group, or instead meant only that the “nearly half” of blacks might be a hate group, and I don’t see how the latter could be racist (it could make sense to get away from any group if 49% are racist against you and you’re not sure who is and who isn’t). On top of all that, the words “not OK” are vague and could mean or imply lots of different things, for example it’s not okay being white merely because the person answering the poll prefers being black (for cultural or other reasons) rather than because he dislikes or hates white people. Anyway, even assuming Adams is definitely racist, MOS:RACIST requires in-text attribution. Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Option B. Whether Adams was being racist or not, it’s important to read his comments in context.  According to CNN, he said:
 * Option A with the caveat that it includes in-text attribution as per WP:CONTENTIOUS Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.Kerdooskis (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you realize this, but your "!vote" and reasoning contradict each other. This discussion is solely about whether or not the racist characterization should be in Wikipedia's voice (Option A) or have in-text attribution (Option B, or one of the current alternatives which support attribution but with different wording). All the other editors supporting option A are arguing that the "racist" characterization should be in Wikipedia's voice. I understand your confusion, though, because the Rfc statement is not clear (even after some editors made a few changes in an attempt to improve it). The portion you quoted from WP:CONTENTIOUS is on the money for attribution, and WP:VOICE #1 ("Avoid stating opinions as facts"), a policy, gets directly to the core of the matter. Stoarm (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Option B for reasons laid out most clearly by Stoarm, and largely agree with Anythingyouwant. These were foolish conditionals by Adams rather than explicit conclusions, so the alternatives seem at least as problematic as Option A, though I could support the actual words if presented in context (if/then). Newspapers regularly express opinion as fact "most beautiful woman/film/painting" … "greatest leader/film/actor/athlete" etc, because their readers are likely to share their reaction. That doesn't turn the opinions into facts. This transitory reaction is wholly different from verifiable facts like the shape of the earth - or long, calmly examined issues like Nazi attitude to race, for which there is almost no possible rational alternative interpretation. The first two sources I read (inc Slate) seemed to think that Adams was being dumb in taking the polls at face value, rather than clearly racist in his response. Pincrete (talk) 07:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)


 * SUPPORT ALT1, deferring to specification and clarity. It's easy for a reader to read the word "racist" and form their own opinions on what Adams likely said, forming opinions on whether or not Wikipedia is encyclopedic or opinionated. But if we simply (and neutrally) put exactly what Adams said, the facts speak for themselves, quite blatantly in this case. Penguino35 (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Note - I just discovered that NickCT restored the contentious content with this edit, 21 hours into this RfC. I have just reverted that edit as no changes to the content is permitted during an active RfC. Stoarm (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Am I going nuts or did you do the exact same thing you're accusing me of? NickCT (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The article is now properly in the status it was when the RfC began, without the contentious label. You should be happy you weren't sanctioned for that completely inappropriate revert. You claimed that I changed it during the RfC, which the time stamps prove is totally false. I won't even ask why you chose to restore the controversial wording almost a full day after the RfC started. It's moot now since we seem to be progressing quickly to a resolution. Stoarm (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Totally false? You reverted at 23:26, 28 March 2023. This is the talkpage w/ RfC at that time. So by your logic we should be sanctioning you? re "progressing quickly to a resolution" - That resolution being DFlhb's alternative? Are you supporting that? NickCT (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Just noticed this. That's what happens when an editor again restores contentious content, that is the very subject of the RfC, back into an article (a BLP, no less) and does so literally at the same time they add the RfC. Your two edits happened within seconds of each other. The diff you provided proves that the RfC was not active at the time; it had just been posted and there were zero replies. The edit summary of my revert even suggested you start the RfC, and Legobot didn't even add the RfC ID until 35 minutes after that. But when you restored the content the next time, it was almost 24 hours later, when the RfC was very active and already had 8 "!votes". Stoarm (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Snow? - I count 7 for the alternative wording, 5 for Option A, and 0 for B. Seems like we can safely declare B the loser. Unless there are objections, I'm going to swap the current wording (i.e. B) with the alternative. We can always switch to A later if that's how the closer sees it. NickCT (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Nice try, but that's not how it works. Per WP:RFCEND, making a temporary edit and then continuing the RfC is not an option. You cannot make such a change based on non-objections; there would need to be an affirmative consensus among participants to end the RfC, which would require removing the template and then changing the wording to the chosen option.
 * You said, "I count..." Well, we don't simply count "!votes". Per WP:CONSENSUS, consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight. Per WP:!VOTE, the communal norm that it is "not the vote" that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important. While we do often seem to "vote" on things, the conclusion is almost never reached by simply counting votes, as the strength of argument is also very important. A "vote" that doesn't seem to be based on a reasonable rationale may be completely ignored or receive little consideration.
 * Claiming SNOW is absurd; even more so if you're basing it on the numbers alone. The snowball clause obviously does not apply, at least at this point, because there are three options, not just two, and there is no consensus (yet) among the two (unless an uninvolved editor determines it's undoubtedly clear based on the arguments and numbers). We will put aside the fact that you have inappropriately "!voted" twice – for options A and Alternative (by DFlhb), and confusingly state equal support for both even though they are on the complete opposite sides of the sole issue being debated (attribution vs. no attribution). Although you characterize option B as "the loser", the clear fact is that all those voting for the alternative wording (except you), some who originally supported option B, flatly reject option A (stating in Wikipedia's voice). So, we have option A on one side, and options B and DFlhb's alternative on the other; the only difference between B and the alternative is the wording. AS Dflhb pointed out, Value judgments are not encyclopedic unless attributed, period.
 * Relax, this RfC has only existed for a few days.
 * Stoarm (talk) 10:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And there I was thinking that if anyone would be good at identifying a loser, it would be you.
 * Obviously we're not continuing with B. No sense in keeping it. Just accept and move on. NickCT (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I would support a close if there are no more substantive contributions or even a second vote between Option A and the alternative Fishing Publication (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You mean a run-off? I guess we could do that..... but frankly I'd be inclined just to let the closer pick the two. NickCT (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I would support a close based on consensus, as I say, discussion seems to have petered out Fishing Publication (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've requested additional input given the serious implication of using the term "racist" in wiki-voice at WP:BLPN and linked this discussion. If the general trajectory of the RfC doesn't change over the next few days, I will consider closing it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate your good work and I am sure that your involvement in this matter will help to moderate the discussion and keep it in line with reasonable interpretations of policy. Fishing Publication (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * FWIW; as of right now I don't think we have a clear consensus, so I am currently disinclined to close this discussion early. However I will check in periodically to see how things are going. Happy Easter all. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Recent personal statements about ancestry and diet
Adams made a couple recent WP:ABOUTSELF statements that might be relevant here. In this tweet he says he's pescatarian. In this vlog post he gives some context for claiming Native American ancestry and says he has none, at least according to 23andMe. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We would need secondary sources demonstrating this information is WP:DUE inclusion, even if it is verifiably from Adams. not everything a guy says is meant to be in his wikipedia article. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, except in this case it relates to what's already here, namely "a small amount of Native American ancestry" and "Adams said he was a vegetarian". 70.163.208.142 (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅. If he flip flops on this or we have secondary more reputable sources that disagree on these things, we should probably just remove all the content related to either claim, or just go with what those sources say. At this point, I agree it's easier to just clarify since it takes up so little space. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I couldn't have phrased it better, thanks. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

"Dilbert guy" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dilbert_guy&redirect=no Dilbert guy] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Edward-Woodrow •  talk  22:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)