Talk:Shaun King/Archive 2

The North Star
I was surprised to find we have no article about The North Star (modern newspaper) (not sure that's the best title). Of course, this would be a somewhat challenging article to write from a NPOV, given the strong views and the ongoing emergence of the site and facts about its short history. Has there been any effort to start such an article yet? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I moved the the bits of king's website on the north star page here becasue ti was out of place. But i agree tehre should be a separate page for it the north star (website) maybe? Blindlynx (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2020
Reference not made to his numerous calls for violence and recent calls for the destruction of churches and Jesus statues. Extremely biased to paint him as a hero with little context to support said bias. Role in initiating riots also not mentioned 71.215.128.35 (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Please find a reliable source for the changes you wish to be made. Britmax (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Removing "pastor" designation
It seems appropriate at this moment to remove any mention of Shaun King as a pastor. After his open calling to violently "rip down" religious statues, he would not qualify as a pastor, all of whom are designated teachers of moral compassion and understanding. Calls to violence against any religion is sacrilegious to religion itself. For the sake of accuracy, the "pastor" title needs to be removed.

https://nypost.com/2020/06/23/shaun-kings-calls-to-remove-jesus-statues-lead-to-death-threats/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by MiamiTimmyTurner (talk • contribs) 22:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We did not give him the title pastor, and neither is it in our gift to take it away. If reliable sources say he is one, or that he is no longer one, we go with what they say here. Britmax (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2020
Shaun White has tweeted to smash church windows as Jesus was a white guy. This should be reflected in his Wikipedia profile Kathy1gail (talk) 00:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  JTP (talk • contribs) 01:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: The material is already in the article at Shaun King StAnselm (talk) 06:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2020
Current text reads:

"Although the name of Jeffrey Wayne King appears on King's birth certificate, his mother told him that his actual biological father is a light-skinned black man."

It should read:

"Although the name of Jeffrey Wayne King appears on King's birth certificate, King claims his mother told him that his actual biological father is a light-skinned black man."

That is what the reference document say. 71.120.2.107 (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Done. The cited source is King himself, not King's mother. I phrased it "stated" instead of "claimed", to be a bit more neutral:
 * "Although the name of Jeffrey Wayne King appears on King's birth certificate, King stated in 2015 that his mother told him his actual biological father is a light-skinned black man.[3][4]"
 * - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 23:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

No mention of his "7 mountains" scam?
He pocketed $100,000 by telling people to donate to his "climb 7 mountains" scam. He did I trial run in Washington and failed the screening. Went to the emergency room for "exhaustion". Never actually climbed a mountain. Did not return any of the (essentially stolen) money. Also, his biological race is swept under the rug real fast on his wiki. This certainly doesn't appear to be a balanced page.

Conservative as a pejorative
I have just clarified something about the recent white Jesus claim. I have no intention of getting involved in the barmy world of US politics and social justice activists. Nonetheless, this article does seem to use "conservative" as a pejorative term & it is important to note explicitly that his white Jesus theory is not just disliked by conservative twitterati but is also academically dodgy. (I do wish the demagogic flashpan of inanity that is social media could be put back in the bottle but that bird has flown - mixed metaphor) No need to inform me of the ArbCom sanctions regime - I know of it and in any case see my opening statement here. - Sitush (talk) 07:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Someone reverted me claiming irrelevance. I have reinstated purely because I presume they have not seen the above explanation. There is clear relevance in my mind but I'm prepared to let it slide if a proper response is given. - Sitush (talk) 03:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * So "someone" is me and I didn't say the info was irrelevant. I said "That's all relevant for the article on white Jesus, which is linked here, but not for King.". This is an article about King, not the concept of the white Jesus or academic opinions about it. King isn't even an academic or produced scholarly works about the topic. If people want that sort of information, they click on the wikilink that is provided and go to that article, where is correctly belongs. To use your theory, shouldn't we have a paragraph or so about the history of Morehouse College when it's mentioned? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Born and raised?
If he was born and raised in Versailles, why does the "born" thing in the table say he was born in Franklin County? Versailles is in Woodford County. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John K (talk • contribs) 18:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Why no "Controversies" section?
Plenty of public figures with this kind of record end up with a "Controversies" section on Wikipedia and it's interesting that Shaun King has dodged this. There's a vague mentioning of fundraising concerns tucked under a "fundraising" section, but for someone who has lied about rape and is now facing scrutiny over a grift in the fashion industry, it seems "Controversies" is a due section.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.103.119 (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * FOX 4 Dallas-Forth Worth TV Report
 * FOX 4 Dallas-Forth Worth TV Report
 * FOX 4 Dallas-Forth Worth TV Report
 * FOX 4 Dallas-Forth Worth TV Report
 * FOX 4 Dallas-Forth Worth TV Report
 * Agreed, the plethora of controversies surrounding him certainly warrants inclusion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blindlynx (talk • contribs) 20:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


 * No. They do not. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 13:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If there is relevant content sourced to reliable sources (and also WP:NOTNEWS), then it should simply be incorporated into the main article sections. As per WP:CSECTION, controversy sections should be avoided. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Robert Paul Cantrell
There are two paragraphs talking about this individual, who seems to be tangentially related to the subject. If there was a separate article on the shooting of Jazmine Barnes, maybe his inclusion would be noteworthy as one of the subjects, but otherwise, mentioning him here in this much detail is WP:COATRACK. His only connection to Shaun King is that he was one of the two suspects King helped apprehend, and of the two, he was not the perpetrator of this particular crime. Including this much detail about King's comments on him, and the circumstances of his suicide seems to insinuate that King was somehow responsible for his death, and that he was an innocent victim of some kind of witchhunt orchestrated by King, which is not the case. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 13:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * "insinuate that King was somehow responsible for his death" - This linkage is directly made by Cantrell, and repeated by repliable sources "Bond said Cantrell told him before he died, he was very concerned about the death threats he and his family were receiving because he was thought to be linked to Jazmine's murder."


 * "that he was an innocent victim of some kind of witchhunt orchestrated by King" - That _IS_ the case. His only involvement in this case was that King incorrectly identified him, and tweeted about him to a million people, resulting in threats against him and his family. ResultingConstant (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * "that he was an innocent victim of some kind of witchhunt orchestrated by King" - That _IS_ the case. - Is it? That is a serious accusation, and needs more than two local news outlets to determine wether it's WP:DUE, let alone in line with WP:BLP. Especially since the sources only say what Cantrell said, not that his claim is factually correct.
 * His only involvement in this case was that King incorrectly identified him, and tweeted about him to a million people, resulting in threats against him and his family - that is objectively false and contradicts what's written in the article. King's involvement in this case is helping the authorities apprehend TWO potential suspects. One of the suspects was the culprit. The other turned out to be not guilty of this particular crime. WP:BLP applies to talk pages, and avoid making demonstrably false remarks about BLP subjects should be avoided. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 10:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The "his involvement" I was referring to was Cantrell's. That King provided a useful tip does not erase the fact that he started a witch hunt against someone else. As for "this particular crime", I'm sure thats an argument that you would disagree with being used in many other situations. Don't use it here. ResultingConstant (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Cantrell's involvement is that he was one of two suspects in this case. Also, maybe I should reiterate that accusations such as ...does not erase the fact that he started a witch hunt against someone else aimed at BLP subjects go against site policy. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 09:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Twitter comments on depictions of Jesus
Since NorthBySouthBaranof and Wes sideman have deleted the section Twitter comments on depiction of Jesus placed into the article by 3Kingdoms and later restored by me (with added sources), I am following their advice and taking the disagreement to the Talk page. Having said that, however, I really don't see the issue. King's comments received lots of coverage, and not just by plenty of right-leaning sources but also by centrist and left-leaning sources. Those sources include the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Snopes, TheGrio, The Root and Newsweek. So what's the debate about? Certainly not due weight! Goodtablemanners (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You're conflating "reliable source" arguments with WP:WEIGHT arguments, and they're not the same thing. Sure, the AJC is a reliable source (the others, not so much), but that doesn't mean that a single tweet, later deleted, that was covered by one reliable source, is significant enough of an event to where it should be in an encyclopedia. I get it, you don't like Shaun King, and you perceive the white Jesus tweet as painting him in a negative light, so you want it included, but that doesn't carry much water here. Wes sideman (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The story was also mentioned in the Associated Press . It's pretty cut and dry that this received significant coverage in the context of King's career. Also, Wes you are making the assumption that GTM "dislikes Shaun King." and that is the only reason they want it included. It would be unfair if someone said the only reason you object to its inclusion is because you like King and do not want something that could in your words paint him in a negative light. So, lets instead focus on merit and not question motives. 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There's one sentence, out of that entire article, that mentions King, and it doesn't even mention the tweet directly. If you're pointing to that as an indicator of whether that tweet deserves a mention in an encyclopedia, and that's the best you can do, it's now pretty evident that it doesn't. Wes sideman (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * King is addressed in 3 sentences and his comments were the rationale for the entire article.
 * It's not even an article. It's an opinion piece. No one cares. There's no WP:WEIGHT here, no matter how much you try to make it happen. If you insist on pursuing your quest to make Shaun King look as bad as possible over a deleted tweet, I suggest you start an RfC and see just how many editors point out that you're wrong. I've done it enough already. Wes sideman (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Questioning the motive for why people believe something should be included in not persuasive. This event is mentioned on other pages and has been mentioned in plenty of reliable sources Left, Right, and Center. Secular and Religious. If you wish to make an RFC go for it, but I am going to stop engaging here and walk away. I don't see the point of discussing this further when you won't be respectful to people. 3Kingdoms (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. I'd just like to mention that two sources doesn't fit any definition of the word "plenty" that I've ever seen. Wes sideman (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Request for Comment
Question: Should King's tweet regarding depictions of "White Jesus" and the response to tweet be included on his page? 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose While this is reliably sourced it doesn't appear to have received enough coverage to be included in King's biography. Just because something has sources doesn't automatically justify inclusion. A good thing to remember on content questions for WP:BLP is the twenty year test.
 * Will someone ten or twenty years from now be confused about how this article is written? In ten or twenty years will this addition still appear relevant? If I am devoting more time to it than other topics in the article, will it appear more relevant than what is already here?
 * It seems unlikely this will matter twenty years from now. However, I am open to inclusion if it could proved there was significant coverage of the incident. That doesn't appear to be the case. - Nemov (talk) 05:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong agree The tweet created lots of controversy and lots of coverage. It received at least mention, and often detailed discussion from such outlets as The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, the Associated Press, Fox News, Newsweek, Snopes, The New Zealand Herald, Premier Christian Radio. TheGrio, The Root, Religion Dispatches, etc. Sources in the USA, England, India, and New Zealand; and sources left, right and center. Goodtablemanners (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: the above comment vastly exaggerates the coverage. Only the AJC actually had an article about the now-deleted tweet. WP wrote one sentence that mentioned Shaun King. AP was even less, one sentence fragment. There's a reason Goodtablemanners didn't include links to the so-called "lots of coverage" - it would illustrate exactly how insignificant the coverage was. Wes sideman (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * King is mentioned in 3 sentences in the first paragraph. Also since King’s tweet was the catalyst for the two article, I think that should at the very least show that it generated discussion.
 * Again - one article. One tweet. "Will someone ten or twenty years from now be confused about how this article is written? In ten or twenty years will this addition still appear relevant?"Wes sideman (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I was just correcting the claim. 3Kingdoms (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes. It was covered in the news a lot, and although I agree that not all news should be added to Wikipedia, this one in particular seems to stand out considerably. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * In what way does it "stand out considerably"? Wes sideman (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * No: A single tweet, later deleted, that was covered by one reliable source (an Atlanta newspaper), is not significant enough of an event to where it should be in an encyclopedia. Ask yourself: will this pass WP:10YEARTEST? Of course not. Wes sideman (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * An editor is entitled to his (her) own opinions but not to his own facts. Besides the Atlanta Constitution that you are referring to. it was covered as news by Snopes, and the New Zealand Herald, which are specifically listed as reliable perennial sources; mentioned in the Washington Post and covered as either news and/or discussion topics in all sorts of other outlets that are often used as sources in Wikipedia; examples: the Associated Press, TheGrio, The Root, Fox News, Newsweek, etc. Goodtablemanners (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Again - one article, in the local Atlanta newspaper. Wes sideman (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ] Would you like some more? Goodtablemanners (talk)
 * Local radio station coverage, Christian Post , The Grio [ ] , TN Star , Mediaite , Forbes gives it a paragraph in a bigger article . It was also covered by a ton of outlets that don't meet the RS criteria. It may not have the most overwhelming number of sources that I've seen, but pretending like it was only covered by 1 paper in 1 article is clearly incorrect. I would say Keep. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The "Tennessee Star" is not a WP:RS - it's a right-wing opinion website that tries (and apparently succeeds) to fake people into thinking it's a newspaper site. The local radio station hit is an unattributed editorial. All of the mentions come from one 24-hour period and there's no way this deleted tweet passes the twenty year test. Wes sideman (talk) 13:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I see some editors discussed the TN Star.... that doesn't make it a non-RS and a discussion isn't really a consensus that we can rely on as a guide. They are quite upfront about the fact that they are conservative. Are we now trying to say that conservative-leaning sites can not be reliable? Oddly, much of your opposition is that the sites are biased or unreliable, while at the same time, the fact that he did actually say what is being quoted is irrefutable. And the local radio station editorial being "unattributed"...is that an actual problem? Many news outlets use unattributed editorials or just say it's from the editorial board. Do you have any evidence that this radio station lacks oversight? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes. And compare this to items in the article that are sourced by only one outlet such as The Daily Kos which is specifically disapproved by Wikipedia; Goodtablemanners (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * as seen here, footnote #25, used in second paragraph in the section on Journalism. Goodtablemanners (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes (invited by the bot) From a Wikipedia standpoint, appears to be prominent and covered in lots of sources.   From a "Make the article informative" standpoint, assumiong that he didn't retract it or walk it back, it is informative about him and what he has to say. North8000 (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes As others have said I feel that enough evidence has been provided to show that this event warrants mention.3Kingdoms (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak yes as a very brief mention, in the greater scheme of things it's not that relevant.--Ortizesp (talk) 07:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes but keep it brief. Three RS have done in-depth discussion of this: AJC, NZ Herald, and Snope. Furthermore, the AP and The Washington Post have mentioned it in their coverage. This is enough to warrant some inclusion in this article; WP:V is certainly met and WP:WEIGHT appears to be as well. I understand the NOTNEWS argument but I think it's somewhat defeated when you acknowledge that the AP was still talking about the tweet a couple of weeks later. I could see this failing 10YEARTEST for more high profile people (e.g. Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Barack Obama, etc.), but King is not that case. NOTNEWS would be something like mentioning King had the flu for a couple days, not a little controversy about his views and statements. With that said, the RS coverage is still not massive, so I'm thinking no more than two sentences or so; a subsection would be unwarranted.  Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 16:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, for some people, rightly or wrongly, this is what King is best known for. StAnselm (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion
Is there any need to go farther with this? Perhaps someone who knows more than I do about closing these RFC's can do it. Is an administrator required? In any case, I suggest that we restore the small section on King's "White Jesus" tweet and the reaction to it; perhaps with additional sources, although I thought the sourcing it last had was perfectly adequate. Goodtablemanners (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion. The default length of a formal request for comment is 30 days. At the end of 30 days a request for close can be made. - Nemov (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe the 30-day discussion period should be honored. Wes sideman (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I wish there was another way than having a whole subsection because I think that would be undue. See my !vote above.  Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 16:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That "whole subsection" is really quite brief and to the point. Let's face it, having an article at all on someone as unimportant as Shaun King probably doesn't pass a ten year test and the same goes for literally hundreds of thousands of articles here. That said, since there is an article on him, and since the "white Jesus" thing got about as much publicity as anything the guy has done, it deserves a small section. Goodtablemanners (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting characterization of Shaun King as unimportant. As well as how the "'white Jesus' thing got about as much publicity as anything the guy has done" - you must be joking. There's no way one deleted tweet, that's discussed in one Atlanta newspaper and one New Zealand news website, deserves a whole subsection. Wes sideman (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I've requested for this discussion to be closed at WP:Close requests.  Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 16:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Using $40k of PAC Funding for purebred dog
Hi all, I tried to add the notorious incident of his use of his PAC funding on what was presumably a family pet. It was rolled back by an admin for not needing its own paragraph, so I wanted to inquire on how this should be included in the article. Below was the edit that removed references to deprecated sources and left only the factual, publicly reported campaign information.

''In 2022, King used of $40,650 of Grassroots PAC funds to purchase a purebred Mastiff from a breeder in California. '' Jovitz (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I cannot see how this gets included without a reliable secondary source. Wes sideman (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The dog is already mentioned in the article with an appropriate source. It doesn't merit it's own section with a primary source. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Jamie, I feel like quite an idiot but I didn't see it being referenced earlier in the article -- I assumed it was chronological, so when I didn't see anything on it near the bottom I felt compelled to add it. Apologies for all the confusion! Jovitz (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It wasn't originally mentioned, I just added the sentence to where the source was being cited; would be easy to mix in the flurry of edits (I hit a few edit conflicts when I was trying to replace the source). Cheers, OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)