Talk:Steven Thrasher

.

NYU controversy
This edit seems wrong. I intend on restoring it unless a good reason is given not to. GHcool (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Both Fettlemap and I indicated we view your preferred version as putting undue weight on that episode. Please do not restore it without consensus. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I promise not to restore it without consensus, however, I believe that the shortened version currently in the article doesn't give enough weight to a fairly important and well-covered part of Mr. Thrasher's life and career. Surely there is a way that we can compromise between undue weight and not enough weight.  Important elements of the story that are currently admitted are:
 * Thrasher's history of posting (allegedly) antisemitic content on Twitter.
 * Northwestern University's response to the NYU speech. --GHcool (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this reply. To be honest I do not think either tweets mentioned in a single source, or the fact that his new employer didn’t take action, rise to the level of significance necessary for inclusion in an encyclopedic bio (would they show up in Encyclopedia Brittannica for instance? doesn’t seem like it). But I will search for more sources to see if it changes my mind. Meanwhile courtesy ping to @Fettlemap; apologies that I mentioned without pinging earlier, I clearly hadn’t had enough coffee. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The tweets are mentioned here and here.
 * The fact that his new employer did not take action was not what I was referring to. What I was referring to was his new employer's criticism of the NYU speech.  --GHcool (talk) 22:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The latter is considered a “generally unreliable” source and “should never be used for information about a living person”; see WP:FORBESCON and WP:GUNREL. As to NU, my point was that “NU admin disagreed with the speech but said Thrasher was protected by academic freedom” is kind of a nothingburger as far as the subject’s overall bio is concerned. It doesn’t really serve to add new information about him (his job did not change), only to prolong the section. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I was unaware that Forbes.com was unreliable until this moment. I retract that source.  The history of antisemitic tweets are still relevant and the Jewish Journal source is reliable for that claim.
 * I disagree that NU response is a nothingburger, but I'm willing to not allow this to be part of the paragraph for the sake of compromise. --GHcool (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The article currently deals with his views on particular topics. Antisemitic is a label and opinion of those comments by a select group. It is not held by all who did not agree with his comments. Wikipedia articles do not include undue content on the opinion of anyone in particular. Fettlemap (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No, that is wrong. Nobody is claiming that Thrasher is antisemitic.  The claim is that his tweets were antisemitic.  It is not libelous to say the president of the school that honored Thrasher said that he was “shocked at NYU Doctoral Graduate and soon-to-be Northwestern University Professor Steven Thrasher’s recently unearthed anti-Semitic tweets and that Thrasher shouldn’t have spoken at the May 20 Graduate School of Art and Sciences (GSAS) convocation ceremony." --GHcool (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow, such a strong reaction even that is not what I said. Fettlemap (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * To me it remains a problem that there’s not more sourcing on this point. The guidance at WP:BLPPUBLIC says "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Emphasis in the original. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is another reliable third-party source. If there are no other complaints, then I will place the information in the article and cite it to those two reliable sources.  --GHcool (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The perennial source list advises, “The Washington Times should generally not be used for contentious claims, especially about living persons.” Also, if you do find more reliable sources, it’d be good to propose your suggested text here since we have an ongoing discussion. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The tweets are also mentioned here. This is my proposed text: "Upon learning that Thrasher had a history of posting allegedly anti-Semitic content on Twitter, Hamilton expressed shock and said, 'Thrasher should never have been a speaker for the doctoral convocation.'" [citation to Aaron Bandler of the Jewish Journal and Bari Weiss's book on Google Books] --GHcool (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hrm: that book seems to have only a single sentence about this. There’s no other RS coverage? Innisfree987 (talk) 03:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to get the impression that you're moving the goalpost. I'm sure that isn't the case, as I assume good faith, but I wonder what would make you completely satisfied enough to accept this inconvenient truth about Mr. Thrasher and allow us all to move on with our lives.  Need I find even more RS's ad infinitum? --GHcool (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Please strike your unfounded accusation. My view has not changed; on the contrary I was trying to avoid repeating myself on the point that WP:BLPPUBLIC excludes allegations that don’t have “multiple” sources. I can’t honestly say I think one good source + one sentence is what that means. I have looked for more, repeatedly, but found only unreliable sources. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Does Inside Higher Ed satisfy you as a reliable source? --GHcool (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * When an editor declares their edits to be an inconvenient truth, it is a clear acknowledgement that they are more interested in inserting something into the article than improving it per Wikipedia standards and guidelines. Editors with a singular focus rather than broad experience in many subjects may also have trouble differentiating between between quality editing and edits that don't improve an article. When an editor says, "I promise not to restore it without consensus..." they should recognize when it is time to stop belaboring the edit insertion if that was actually their intention. Fettlemap (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

In the news in 2024
Florida GOP U.S. House member Carlos Gimenez is now publicly denouncing him for a monthslong campaign of antisemitic social media postings, both on Fox and in a congressional hearing... AnonMoos (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Note that Fox is considered "generally unreliable" for its political coverage and that sources designated GUNREL "should never be used for information about a living person". Innisfree987 (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Whatever -- It's just reporting on the words of Rep. Carlos A. Gimenez. Unless you think it's fabricating what Gimenez said, then your intervention was fairly pointless.  A little Googling shows that Gimenez' remarks were also reported at least on the "FloridianPress" website, which doesn't work with the web browser I'm using at the moment. AnonMoos (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not report everything that happens, especially the words of politicians. If this was significant, it would appear on the article about Rep. Carlos A. Gimenez. -? Adflatuss   o   talk  00:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * An accusation at a Congressional hearing, which will go into the Congressional Record, is a little bit different from a random dude saying a random thing. If it affects the overall public reputation or perception of Thrasher, or is representative of various things that are affecting his reputation, then it should go on this article. AnonMoos (talk) 00:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If there are secondary sources commenting on it, for example about how it affects his public reputation or perception, then I agree it could be included. If not, then that’s a novel synthesis at odds with the policy against WP:Original research. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)