Talk:Touré (journalist)/Archive 5

Discussion of former surname
Hello again, watchers of this Talk page. As I have briefly mentioned above, I would like to start a discussion about the number of times Touré's former surname is mentioned in this article. Given that mentioning the surname at all is an issue that has been discussed at length before, I am keen to open this discussion up to editors to see if we can find consensus on how often the name is given and where.

To begin with, I should mention that Touré himself does not like his surname to be mentioned in this article at all. He does, however, understand that it is Wikipedia's community consensus, based on its standards and guidelines, that have led to the surname's inclusion at present. What I would like to ask on his behalf is whether its use can be limited to just one or two mentions.

At the moment, the name is shown in three places within in the article: the lead, infobox, and Early life section. Very very few sources have ever mentioned his surname. The sources used to support the surname in the article are: a press release from an obscure entertainment group, and a book review republished by the Huffington Post, but originally published on Loop21.com, which appears to no longer exist (the site is now a food blog...). These are hardly the strongest of sources on which to base three inclusions of a previous name that Touré has purposefully distanced himself from, and never used professionally. What do editors here think about reducing mentions of the surname to just the lead and infobox? Or perhaps just within Early life? WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 14:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it's historical, factual, and encyclopedic the way it is. And I think the hard fought consensus debate need not be revisited nor stirred up again by your client. TuckerResearch (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Appreciate where you're coming from entirely, TuckerResearch. Knowing how much this means to Touré, I had to ask. I've left a note over at BLP/N to see if anyone there wants to comment. If other editors take the same view as you, I'll leave this be. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 21:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Mentions are far from excessive, and we would ill-serve readers to excise more than we have already done. Collect (talk) 14:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not excessive. When Touré first broached the subject, he didn't want his last name mentioned at all since he not only doesn't use it but (one gathers) has active enmity to everything it represents, similar to how Malcolm Little abjured Little as his "slave name" and renamed himself Malcolm X. Since he asked very nicely, and since he had a reasonable point, and since his last name was scarcely published anywhere (although it was in a few places) I supported his request.


 * But the point was lost. And since the horse is out the door and his last name is going to be in the article, there's little to be gained by restricting ourselves much. It's not like we're going "Neblet! Neblet! Neblet!" or trying to deliberately annoy him.


 * Since he's hired a PR rep to represent him here -- something I'm not too fond of, although for BLPs I'm willing to bend somewhat in some cases -- I'm not well-disposed personally toward him as I formerly was. My advice in a situation like would be to advise the agent to take his client aside and explain to him that he's more likely to get ahead in life -- including getting good press -- by concentrating on continuing to learn and grow as a writer and thinker than by worrying about the details of his Wikipedia article to the point of hiring a professional to work it. Just saying. Herostratus (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the time you've taken to comment, Herostratus, Collect, and TuckerResearch. Figured I had to ask, but all of your points are taken well, and I will leave this alone. Best, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 13:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Career section issues
Hello to anyone watching this page! I'm looking for some help in addressing various issues with the content of this article, particularly within the Career section. Up front, I would like to say that I'm here on behalf of Touré and, due to this financial conflict of interest, I will not make any direct edits to this article.

While there are several issues I'd ultimately like to address, first I'd like to get some input on the first paragraph of the Writing career section. Right now, this paragraph details criticism from conservative web publications The Daily Caller and The Blaze regarding the student publication started by Touré (The Fire This Time) as well as some related events while he was a student at Emory. In my view, undue weight has been given to these views, particularly considering media coverage of these topics was limited to just these two publications.

To break it down, here are the specific issues I see with the current wording:
 * The first sentence currently reads "While a student at Emory University, Touré founded the school's black student newspaper, The Fire This Time, which has been criticized for being militantly anti-white." This makes it sound like The Fire This Time and Touré have received widespread criticism, which is not the case, only The Daily Caller has made such claims, which were then repeated in a post on The Blaze.
 * The current wording also says that the publication's articles "praised noted anti-Semites, black supremacists, and conspiracy theorists such as H. Rap Brown and Frances Cress Welsing, whom Touré invited to Emory's campus." I haven't been able to find any other sources mentioning the visit or saying that Touré had invited Welsing, nor any other critical coverage of The Fire This Time's interview with H. Rap Brown, nor any other specifics.
 * The paragraph includes The Caller's criticism of Touré's statement in relation to an incident at Emory, where a black college student named Sabrina Collins had claimed to be the victim of racist vandalism in her dorm room, which was later said to be a hoax. Touré was not involved; he simply wrote about it in The Fire This Time.
 * Lastly, the only reporting here is from The Caller, and its first bylined reporter is Charles C. Johnson, who has been frequently criticized in reliable sources for producing unreliable reporting (for example, Dave Weigel writing for Slate). Frankly, I would be very cautious about using this story in any way.

It's my view that much of the above detail does not belong in the article. It generally relates to things that happened while Touré was a student, well before his career was established. Regarding the general criticism, I'm more open to the idea of keeping a summary statement about this but I'm interested to hear what others think. At the very least, this should be tightened up and made clear the criticism originated with The Daily Caller. It's worth noting that Touré and The Caller are at different ends of the political spectrum and the latter often writes critically of progressive media figures.

Below, I've offered an updated version of this paragraph for editors to review and consider as a basis for replacing the current section. You'll see that I have offered a potential summary of the criticism from The Daily Caller, but otherwise removed the details listed above. This is just a suggested draft, so I'd be happy to discuss other ways the paragraph could be rewritten.

Again, I'm looking to discuss the above issues and hopefully find a way to resolve them in the article. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 16:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks to Alanscottwalker, the paragraph has been edited to remove everything sourced to The Daily Caller. I'm very happy with this outcome, so thank you very much! This request is now complete, but I will be returning soon to discuss one more issue and propose some general updates to the article. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 19:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I actually found User:Alanscottwalker's edit too drastic. I think User:WWB_Too's suggested text was quite pithy, fair, even-handed, and fine.  So I have added it as suggested.  I think the Daily Caller source and the Yahoo! source are fine.  (PS, when all Wikipedia references to the Huffington Post are removed, I'll stand by a removal of all references to the Daily Caller.)  I agree with User:WWB_Too (and, presumably, Touré) that it was too harsh as written before this.  I think the article in this section is fine as it stands. TuckerResearch (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You pinged me? I disagree that my edit was "drastic" see WP:BLP, removal is the proper choice - and as your edit apparently did not restore the writing that I removed than it appears certain I did the right thing. I have not formulated an opinion on the new text you added, nor the source use for it.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi TuckerResearch and Alanscottwalker. Since there's disagreement between you as to what, if anything, should be included regarding the coverage from The Daily Caller, I wanted to clarify that I am in favor of removing all of the information because of the unreliability of the source. As I mentioned above, the only reporting is by a writer who has specifically been criticized in the past for his unreliable and inaccurate reporting. The summary I offered was a potential compromise if editors feel that the information absolutely has to stay. Does that change your feeling on including the wording about The Fire This Time sourced to The Daily Caller, TuckerResearch? WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 15:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Howdy! (And thank you for being so amicable an editor!)  I think your first suggested edit was quite reasonable and even-handed.  I think that Alanscottwalker's removal of everything was too much.  Now that I've put in your reasonable suggested edit, you want a more drastic edit?!  As mentioned above I don't think a sourced mention (even if it is from a right-wing website), if it doesn't place undue wait, is alright.  As it was originally written, and I think you were right, it did place undue wait.  As written now, I think it's fine.  If anyone else wants to comment, we can hash it out.  Full disclosure, I'm a conservative and not Touré's biggest fan when it comes to politics (his music writing is pretty good, though), but I'd like to think I'm giving him a fair shake here on Wikipedia.  I don't think his article should be one long list of attacks and screeds against him, but I also don't think it should be scrubbed of all information he finds odious.  (I think it borders on WP:COI, and we must find a way to balance WP:BLP, WP:COI, and WP:UNDUE.)  I consider that unfair to Wikipedia readers of all political stripes.  I think we can best be helped by further comments from editors (and I think there are several who watch and/or lurk on this page).  Comments please!  TuckerResearch (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi again, TuckerResearch, thanks for the reply explaining your thinking on this issue, and volunteering your personal views as well. Looking back I see that my initial request wasn't clear, but it was my intention to first suggest that the material to be removed entirely—as User:Alanscottwalker did—and only second to offer the proposed summary as a compromise if editors felt the mention did have to stay in the article.


 * Below I see you've compared The Daily Caller with The Daily Beast (a source used elsewhere in the article). It is not The Caller I object to as a source per se, but the unreliability of this particular author, per the explanation above. (Most relevant, this writer has previously been criticized for misinterpreting student publication archives to score political points.)


 * Hence my preference to see this information cut entirely. I think it's very important for this article to provide relevant career information. Touré having founded and edited this paper certainly counts. A writer for The Caller having an opinion about this paper, however, is not a necessary part of Touré's biography. What do you think? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 18:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Just one last time, I'd like to ping this discussion to see if any other editors would like to weigh in on the inclusion of the criticism from The Daily Caller piece. Also, pinging Alanscottwalker and Anthonyhcole to see if either of you have any (further) thoughts on this issue. I stand by my argument that the source can't be considered "reliable" due to its author specifically having been criticized for his inaccurate and inflammatory reporting, and would like to see it removed as a source from the article. However, if editors prefer to keep the source and language in the article, I'll accept the consensus and simply note my objection. (Also, just to note: I'm still working on getting copyright permission recorded for a new photo of Touré and will return here when that's sorted to ask if someone can add that.) Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 21:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This is beginning to get tedious, I think, this advocacy for your client on the same two-sentence issue, over-and-over. Here you've cherry-picked the names of two editors to try to solicit their comments in your favor.  (Why these two?  Why not editors Herostratus or Collect?  Or why not ping me?)  I think I have been fair and impartial to you and your client Touré, trying to make this article better (maybe you don't think that).  I've worked with you and other editors to create compromise, balanced points-of-view, and a non-partial, informative text.  These mere two sentences accompanied by this citation gives important info on Touré's early career and both Mr. Touré's own words and an editorial commentary (or, "criticism," if you prefer) on it.  Two sides.  NPOV.  I don't see the problem.  I don't see any inaccuracies or inflammatory statements in these two sentences.  If Mr. Touré is so worked up about his own eleven words in this article ("an important black voice on campus" and "a form of community building") and its complement, a four-word description of The Fire This Time ("'militant' African-American publication"), I think he should withdraw from the public eye. TuckerResearch (talk) 06:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * TuckerResearch, as mentioned above, this is the final time of asking and I am only doing so because no one had replied previously, aside from yourself. Your note, "Comments please!", suggested you'd also be interested in what others had to say. Since you'd already commented, I pinged Anthonyhcole because he had been most involved in the other discussions on this page, and Alanscottwalker had said earlier that he was thinking about this issue, but had not returned yet. You're right, I could have pinged Collect and Herostratus on this topic, but it just didn't occur to me to do so, since they'd only briefly weighed in re: the surname and didn't seem inclined to discuss the page further.


 * Anyway, with no-one else replying it seems like this is going nowhere and I by no means wish to keep flogging a dead horse. On a different note, OTRS finally received the copyright permission for the new profile image of Toure. Since this is a more recent and higher quality image, what do you think about adding it to the infobox? WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 22:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much, TuckerResearch, for adding the photo to that article. With that, I will conclude my requests here. I'd like to thank everyone who weighed in on this page. Although we did not always agree in our discussions here, I appreciate the perspectives that you each brought and hope we can agree that the article is much improved by the changes that have been made. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 14:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of "controversies"
Hello again, following my last request, I would now like to turn to the second major issue that I can see in the Career section, this time under the Television section. The main issue as I see it is that the majority of this section currently covers a few small "controversies" that could be summarized into one to two sentences. Right now, over one third of the section is dedicated to a discussing a single tweet by Touré that was taken out of context. A further one third covers two other events where Touré was involved in short-lived debates.

Similar to the coverage from The Daily Caller, it seems like relatively minor events are being given undue weight within the article. In each case, while the individual event received some news coverage (mainly within publications that discuss the media) at the time, it is not an ongoing or major controversy. What do editors here think about reducing the second and third paragraphs of this section down to a short summary?

Here's a suggestion for what that might look like:

Does the above summary work? If not, I'm open to other options to address this section. Let me know what you think. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 22:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * (I saw this mentioned at WP:BLPN. permanent link I supported leaving his "slave name" out of this article per his request a few years back.)


 * I prefer the existing text, actually. Speaking as someone who knows almost nothing about the man (I live in Australia), I found those little vignettes quite informative. They give me an impression of his polemical style, and leave me thinking he's someone who can own up when he makes a gaffe. They kind of fill in something about his personality that a plain list of achievements and career moves can't. Perhaps there's something I'm not getting, though, that is apparent in the USA context. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I stand with User:Anthonyhcole here. TuckerResearch (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I understand why you both prefer there being this information in the article, but it's simply too much detail on these blink-and-you'll-miss-it events versus the coverage of the rest of his career. Currently the latter is described concisely, whereas these "controversies" are given considerably more space. Altogether the amount of detail on these events seems clearly WP:UNDUE, and the point by point description of them surely goes against the spirit of WP:SUMMARY. Unlike the information from The Daily Caller, I'm not saying that the details should be removed entirely, but instead summarized. The wording I suggested above is a starting point and I'd be open to suggestions for an alternative. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 15:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm open to some editing, some concision, but I think your suggested edit here removes too much info and detail. I don't think as it stands it goes against WP:SUMMARY to mention the exact words Touré used.  I also think, and I mean this with all due respect, that the sentence: "During Touré's career he has made several controversial statements including ones made on Twitter in response to tweets directed at him" are weasel words (WP:WEASEL).  (And, on my own personal soapbox here, to me it is just as bad to use a story from The Daily Beast as The Daily Caller.  One is liberal [I think], one is conservative [I think].  I'm an inclusionist: the more information the better on Wikipedia, let the reader decide.)  Might I suggest the following, and let's see what everyone thinks, and I welcome your input:


 * I know it's not much of a reduction, but I think it's better than your suggestion. What do our fellow editors think?


 * P.S. - I'd like to see more comments and reviews of his writing career ADDED to the article, to balance out the television stuff. How can we do that!?!? TuckerResearch (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I understand your concerns with my draft and appreciate your comments. I have now taken a close look at your suggestion, but I still disagree with keeping so much detail. Meanwhile, I totally get that you and User:Anthonyhcole find this interesting, but I submit that interestingness is not the proper threshold for inclusion. A biographical article should provide a concise overview of a notable person's career, and needn't go in-depth on a given sub-topic just because sources exist. That Touré has had contentious words with other media personalities is noteworthy; the particulars of each incident is not.


 * Consider, the issue here is really a larger one that impacts Wikipedia—the "if it bleeds, it leads" aspect of news coverage. Should we let the content of this encyclopedia be so heavily influenced by the preoccupations of a pageview-driven media culture that turns brief Twitter exchanges into "controversies"? I suggest that we do not, and that we take the long view instead: this should be a broad overview of his career. (Related to which, I must respectfully disagree that my version violates WP:WEASEL. Classic cases of weasel words are "some people say" and "research has shown". Rather, I chose words that broadly described the events.)


 * I am certainly in favor of including more information about other aspects of his career, for example, more can be said about the books he has written. However, even with that information added, this section would still be unduly weighted toward details of minor incidents. Regardless of the wording we eventually agree upon, I believe we should be mindful of limiting detail. Readers who want to know more can always follow the citations. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 18:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * WWB Too, it's not just "interesting", it's informative - it tells me something about the subject's political stance, whom he stands against, (and, as I said) his polemical style and his ability to acknowledge when he's gone too far. If your concern is that it's unduly negative, from this distance it doesn't look unduly negative - it's just the argy-bargy that politically engaged writers do. From here, that's how it looks.


 * All that said, though, it's a pretty slim and fragmentary biography. A more complete, better-written piece may well convey what the disputed segments convey without needing to go into detail - or even mention the incidents - but that will depend on good sources doing the same.


 * (The problem here - as with most of our biographies - is that the article is cobbled together based on primary sources, mostly news reports and journalistic commentary. In our other most sensitive field, medicine, our articles are based on secondary (peer-reviewed overviews by experts) and tertiary (graduate-level textbooks, other encyclopedias, etc.) sources, so we can take our lead on what/how to report from those expert overviews. Wikipedia should slash its "biography of living persons" offering back to only those subjects who have been well-covered in independent, reliable biographies. Until then, this.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I think a summary could be just as informative, and I don't think this level of detail is necessary to describe his polemical style—at this point I think it's very nearly a WP:PROSELINE (minus the bullets). Now, I realize I'm swimming upstream here, and I do have other points to make, so I don't want to wear out either of you with an interminable argument. Indeed, I appreciate you continuing to discuss the matter. I want to try another version of the wording, aiming to find a middle ground between what I and TuckerResearch had proposed. I should have another version of compromise wording to share tomorrow. Best, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 22:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi again Anthonyhcole and TuckerResearch. I've thought a bit further about my problems with these two paragraphs. It's actually not just that they are too long, though the second paragraph is, definitely. Additionally, the first one doesn't really explain what was going on in the Piers Morgan debate, while the circumstances of the Romney situation is difficult to follow (i.e. "caused a controversy by stating that by calling..."). With that in mind, here's another version for consideration. I have aimed to:

Full text, and markup:
 * Include some explanation for the basis of Touré's dispute with Piers Morgan
 * Moving mentions of Mitt Romney and the phrase "racial coding" to earlier in the sentence, while moving use of the n-word back, putting it in full context
 * Explaining circumstances in which Touré used the phrase "power of whiteness", and quoting just the key part of his apology

I still think this is rather more than is really necessary—the Morgan debate especially seems not that interesting—but so long as there is support to retain this level of detail, I think the version I've offered is both more efficient and more informative. What do either of you think? WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 18:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with that - it's better prose. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I find the first paragraph quite acceptable, and the second paragraph mostly so. For the latter I'd suggest the following minor tweaks:

"In May 2014, Touré was criticized for his response to a tweet comparing the African American experience following slavery with the experience of Holocaust survivors in the U.S. following World War II. A blogger from the website Yo, Dat's Racis'!! tweeted at Touré, 'My family survived a concentration camp, came to the US w/ nothing, LEGALLY, and made it work' and Touré replied that this was accomplished due to 'the power of whiteness.' This drew criticism from the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Touré apologized for his comment, saying he had 'used a shorthand that was insensitive and wrong.'"
 * Just a few minor tweaks. TuckerResearch (talk) 04:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Glad to hear you're both generally happy with the wording I proposed. TuckerResearch, I'm on the fence about one of the changes that you suggested above, specifically adding "that this was accomplished due to" before the quote of Touré's tweet. Here's my concern: the full extent of Touré's reply was "the power of whiteness", but saying he "replied that this was accomplished due to 'the power of whiteness'" makes it sound like there was more to the reply that isn't quoted here. Do you see what I mean? I think due to that, I would prefer to just say "and Touré replied, 'the power of whiteness'." What do you think? WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 15:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, I get your trepidation that it seems there was more to Touré's reply, but I worry that without some sort of editorial emendation, the reply might seem like a non sequitur. I don't want to make the paragraph any longer.  So how about this (it also removes the passive voice): "In May 2014, Touré drew criticism from the Simon Wiesenthal Center for implying Holocaust succeeded in the U.S. after the Second World War because they were white. A blogger from the website Yo, Dat's Racis'!! tweeted at Touré, 'My family survived a concentration camp, came to the US w/ nothing, LEGALLY, and made it work' and Touré replied, 'the power of whiteness.' Touré later apologized for his comment, saying he had 'used a shorthand that was insensitive and wrong.'"
 * Cool? (And it's even shorter.) TuckerResearch (talk) 03:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I think I prefer your previous version here, TuckerResearch. The newer proposed wording now doesn't mention the fact that the Twitter conversation was about comparing the experience of post-slavery African Americans with Holocaust survivor immigrants in the U.S. Without mentioning that this comparison was being made, it now sounds like Touré was included on a conversation about Holocaust survivors and out of the blue decided to bring race into it. While I feel like it would be better to just quote Touré's tweet without editorialization, and allow readers to form their own conclusions, I'm open to compromise and would be OK with your previous wording. As I said before, I'm on the fence about it, but overall I prefer it to your most recent suggestion. Does that work for you? WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 16:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

To be frank, User:WWB_Too, Touré did decide "out of the blue" to "bring race into it." But, I also understand your concern that Touré was trying to instigate a wider discussion about race relations post-1945. Thus, how about this version, now combined into one short paragraph instead of two, a few minor word changes, and a lengthier quotation from Touré to show he was trying to open up a discussion on race, viz.:

What do you think of this? Which version do other editors (User:Anthonyhcole?) think is best? (Although, right now, this seems like a three-person conversation... which is disappointing.) (And, I thank you again for being a patient and thoughtful editor.  So very often such debates on Wikipedia turn vitriolic.  So, this sort of restores my faith in mankind.) TuckerResearch (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * PS - Added word "survivors" to suggestion above - otherwise it made no sense! Oops!  TuckerResearch (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Seems OK. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Since Anthonyhcole gave his thumbs up, I went ahead and edited the section on Touré's page. I hope you don't think that's too drastic?  I think the article looks better now, and is not so needlessly long or critical.  I thank you both, WWB_Too and Anthonyhcole, for going through this process.  I am serious, however, that more should be added about his writing career. TuckerResearch (talk) 00:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delayed reply, I've been traveling since the weekend. I'm fine with the wording you added TuckerResearch; I would have loved to get this shorter but I understand why you prefer a little more verbiage here. Also, I completely agree about there needing to be more on his career. I'm working on that now (as well as a new photo that I've uploaded to Commons and am waiting for the copyright release to be confirmed by OTRS).


 * In the meantime, Anthonyhcole I wonder if you have any thoughts on the inclusion of the coverage and criticism of The Fire This Time from The Daily Caller, as discussed above? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 19:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Stance on Taxes
Why was this censored? They are both factual and newsworthy.

On January 21st, 2014 Touré mentioned in a Tweet that tax-avoidance is one of the things that has fueled inequality more than hard work. Touré has nearly $60,000 in tax liens due to unpaid taxes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CPA Mann (talk • contribs) 20:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, for starters, claiming that info is being "censored" is not a good way to start off the discussion. It's inflammatory and untrue: I redacted your contribution, but I am not an agent of any government or other entity with police powers and so I am not able to censor anything.


 * Next, please read WP:BLP and WP:BRD, and then we perhaps we can have a reasonable discussion. Per WP:BLP you should not continue to insist on inserting the material; this is looked on rather poorly. Convince us first, or let's reach some compromise, or whatever.


 * Now on to the merits. Putting two facts together like this is absolutely and totally the main and core reason why original research and synthesis is proscribed (see WP:OR. You, I, and everyone else reading this knows what you are trying to do: you are trying to put into the mind of the reader "Toure is a hypocrite" without saying those words exactly.


 * Individual tweets that a person makes are quite simply not notable. The Washington Times is not a good source for contentious political material. Twitter is a primary source. Adweek, not familiar with that one.


 * Whether this is helpful for the reader in understanding the subject I don't know, but I'm not willing to take those sources as sufficiently notable and fairminded to convince me that this is something we want to have in the article, especial considering that the person is alive.


 * I don't want to edit war with you over this, but this material needs to be removed. You'd be the best person do that I think. Read WP:BRD and I think you'll see your way to clear to doing that. After that, I've stated my case. Refute it to the satisfaction of me and other people watching this page and we can take it from there. Herostratus (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not having recieved the courtesy of a reply, I've rolled back the material. Herostratus (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Question, @Herostratus. I know I just thanked you for your last edit (the rollback) but upon reflection, I do wonder about "'The Washington Times' is not a good source for contentious political material". Is the same true of The Washington Post or Salon.com? I certainly agree about using Twitter and Facebook, which are far from reliable, in my opinion. Quis separabit?  22:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well it's a difficult question, and there are basically two takes on that. One is that there are publications on the "left" (The Nation, Mother Jones, the Washington Monthly, and so forth) which are basically unreliable for most contentious statements involving politics because they are inherently biased and prone to cherry-pick their facts at the least, and there are publications on the "right" (the National Review, the Washington Times, Reason, and so forth) which are also basically unreliable for most contentious statements involving politics because they are inherently biased and prone to cherry-pick their facts at the least, and then there are high-end, well-regarded "centrist" or "moderate" publications which have good fact-checking operations and no particular bias, such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Atlantic magazine, Time magazine, and so forth.


 * The other take is that there are no such things as "centrist" or "moderate" publications, and the New York Times, Washington Post, Atlantic magazine, Time magazine and so forth are liberal publications, little different from and just as suspect as The Nation, Mother Jones, the Washington Monthly, and so forth.


 * It depends partly on how you define "liberal", I guess.


 * I would say it's definitely a false equivalence to say "You have the left-wing Washington Post and the right-wing Washington Times and they're more or less in balance." In point of fact the Washington Post is a moderate centrist establishment paper with a good reputation for fact-checking and for reporting straight news, and the Washington Times is a right-wing rag. It's owned by the Unification Church or was, operates on a relative shoestring and loses money, has not got a good reputation for accuracy, and exists essentially as a propaganda rag.


 * There's nothing inherently wrong with being a rag. Rags definitely have a place in society. Most rags are right-wing but the New York Daily News is sometimes cited as an example of a left-wing rag. But rags, left-wing or right, are sources we want to pretty selective and careful about using. Herostratus (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you bring up the New York Times, which I did not mention, in my opinion it is biased and actively partisan. I have never had anything to do directly with the Washington Times but I guess I have read it when used as a link to something else. I know it was owned by the Moonies but I don't think it is anymore. Funny about the New York Daily News (owned by Mort Zuckerman, and which also apparently loses tens of millions yearly), my father, grandfather, at least one great uncle and my brother (briefly) all worked for the paper. The NYDN was once considered right wing for New York (when the New York Post was liberal under Dorothy Schiff), and is now a weird messy editorially unstable mix amalgam of hardline populism, leftist columnists (Denis Hamill, Jim Warren, Mike Lupica), and a bipolar editorial page. But what is your opinion regarding HuffPo, Salon.com, National Review, New Republic, etc? Quis separabit?  23:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Well these are interesting questions and I'll address them presently. In the meantime we have a behavioral problem as the editor is continuing to restore the material. I've reverted twice so I have 5 fouls (so to speak) and have no intention of being maneuvered into being blocked, so I'm the bench. If you (Rms125a) or anyone else watching this page wants to revert again, that'd be fine as regardless of the merits of the material (an argument could certainly be made for including it) I'm opposed on principal to material being forced into articles in this manner. Herostratus (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think this is fair. What do you think? Quis separabit?  13:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's useful, no. We have to keep in mind what we are trying to do here. With any article, we are trying to help the reader answer the question "What is this entity?". For Toure, the main answer is "He is a writer and media personality and so forth, and this is what he writes and says". Supporting material and secondary answers include "Here's his background" and "Here's his personal life" and "Here's some interesting things that some notable and informed people have said about his work" and stuff like that.


 * Whether or not he has tax liens is just not any part of that. Lots of people have tax liens. My neighbor had a tax lien: he got tired of paying property tax on some worthless property. So? What does that have to do with anything? It doesn't have anything to do with anything. People have tax liens for lots of reasons. Unless and until tax-lien-ghazi erupts into the general national conversation, I'm not seeing this as helpful to the reader. Much better would be to spend the bytes on his actual career. I think there are essays such as WP:WEIGHT which address these sort of questions also.


 * If we want to have a section titled "Toure is a bad person, and here's some examples" that'd be different. Stuff like this would fit in fine. Even then though I'd question the notability (which is NOT the same as reliablity) of AdWeek as being the source for this. If the Chicago Tribune or Time or CBS News &c. have not seen fit to even mention this, why should we? And anyway we don't have a section titled "Toure is a bad person, and here's some examples" and I don't think we should. Herostratus (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict from before):The editor (User:CPA Mann, not Rms125) is new and doesn't get that we're supposed to engage on the talk page rather than through edit summaries. This is perfectly understandable and I'll engaged him on his talk page. No points against him for not knowing that. (He may be a WP:SPA since this is all he's done so far, but no way to know that yet.) It's not like he's reverting without summaries. Here's his summary for his last edit:
 * NOT an attack. There are 2 indisputable and noteworthy facts - his own quote about taxes and his publicly published $60,000 tax liens for not paying his taxes. Is this Wikipedia or We can't have facts if they make people look bad epedia?
 * This is both reasonable and amusing. Maybe he's right. I remain unconvinced. If other editors want to weigh in that'd be good. If not, we can take this to Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and get some more eyes on it there. As I say, I'm out of reverts so I guess this'd be the next step. Herostratus (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * (1) I think we do need to, as always, watch out for WP:BLP here.


 * (2) I think the tweet is definitely not a good source.


 * (3) I think that this tax bit is not really that significant, but if we decide to include it, the story might should be added to the "personal" section.


 * (4) As a political conservative, I too wonder at Wikipedia editors who jump to remove right wing sources and leave left wing sources as citations. If Washington Times is a "right-wing rag," what think us of Politico: http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/04/four-msnbc-hosts-plagued-by-tax-debt-205942.html?


 * (5) I agree that User:CPA Mann is a newbie who also appears to be a WP:single-purpose account. So, be wary of this too.


 * (6) I think that we can reach a consensus here before we rush off to the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and start a firestorm of editors who don't really watch this page.


 * (7) In the meantime, I've edited the page to add a better source for the story, add the source of the factoid, and remove a silly subsection.


 * (8) I'm all for removing it entirely and discussing more if you think that's best. I'm also ambivalent on not adding it at all, until and unless it becomes a bigger story with more sources.  (Maybe the whole MSNBC hosts not paying taxes thing would better go on the MSNBC page?)


 * Hope this helps. TuckerResearch (talk) 03:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

BLP violation
An editor has inserted this material, and now another editor  has doubled down on that, so we have a conflict. So

First, everybody needs to read thru WP:BLP at least to get the general drift of the policy. It's an important policy and one of the few that we take really seriously. OK, done? So now then we have that:


 * 1) It's negative info, clearly.
 * 2) It's part of the person's private life. It doesn't have anything do do with his career or public notaility.
 * 3) It's fairly trivial. The amount described is small in the scheme of things. We don't know what's going on, a mistake or what, and according to the source the matter is under discussion/negotiation between the subject and the State of New York.
 * 4) The source is unacceptable. First of all, it is a blog. However, the blog was published under the aegis of Politico, and the writer, Dylan Byers, is bluelinked, so it's not just some random person's blog, so OK. But Byer's underlying source is a partisan hatchet job. Byers says his sole source is a National Review article, which the National Review is a poor source since it is a partisan opinion journal. National Review says that its source is public records, but the trail goes cold there. It's quite likely that National Review is not making this up out of whole cloth, but we can't trust them not to cherry-pick data. Anyway, the National Review piece is highly partisan (among other things, they call him "Neblett" which is insulting, quite possibly on purpose), and Byers himself, notwithstanding that he is a notable talking head, is himself not exactly a Fair Witness (see Dylan Byers) so this is not good enough.

All in all, this is not acceptable material for contentious material in a WP:BLP, and the source is not good enough for such contentious and (at best) marginal material. So I've deleted it and will continue to do so as I am not only allowed but required to under Wikipedia rules, until such time as consensus to include it is achieved, at least. Editors are advised not to continue to re-insert the material but instead to engage here and make their case first. Herostratus (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Whoa buddy! Get your facts straight.  I didn't add this, an editor named  did way back in April 2015, see diff.  That editor appears to be a single-purpose account.  So, we must take that into account.  You act like this hasn't been hashed out before, but it has.  Back in 2015.  See the talk page Archive 5 above.  As you can see from that talk page archive, I'm ambivalent on the issue.  Remove it, keep it, I don't care.  But, I do worry about what I see as bias on Wikipedia.  Websites that lean left are considered good sources for tidbits like this when the article is about a conservative, while websites that lean right are considered biased sources and such tidbits are removed from articles about liberals.  But, to discuss your points: (1) it's not negative info, it's neutral, he hasn't paid his taxes; (2) it is personal, and maybe it doesn't affect his career, but other people might point out his stance on taxes, saying that high-income earners should pay more and then he doesn't; (3) it is fairly trivial; (4) I wonder why Politico is deemed acceptable as a source but National Review, a well-respected journal of conservative thought founded in 1955, is declared a mere opinion journal and poor source.  This is the cherry-picking of sources I worry about on Wikipedia, where liberal/left voices are trumpeted (because most Wikipedia editors lean that way) and conservative/right voices are muted (because fewer Wikipedia editors lean that way).  I don't think it's a violation of WP:BLP.  On the issue at hand (as I already said back in Archive 5), if the consensus is remove it as a pointless tidbit, okey-dokey; if consensus is it's important, okey-dokey.  I really don't mind either way on this one. TuckerResearch (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * PS - I'm leaning toward remove, by the way. TuckerResearch (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * PPS - And, I mean no disrespect, but acting like you are doing only what is required by Wikipedia, like it's an objective issue, is a tad melodramatic. It is a subjective issue that should be hashed out.  I really mean no disrespect.  Say you believe it is the best policy to remove this, not that it is required.  The latter implies any editor who disagrees with you must be, ipso facto and objectively, wrong. (Please don't view this as an attack. I am really trying to be ecumenical and give you my forthright opinion.  Before this devolves into the acrimony and name-calling as it often has on this talkpage.) TuckerResearch (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Right, I saw this later, it goes back a while.


 * I mean, WP:BLP says to act first and talk later on issues like this ("Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion", also seeWP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE). It's something that can hashed out, right, as long the material isn't in the article in the interim.


 * I don't know about bias in the articles. I'm sure there's some, we're human beings here. I haven't seen it. I watch Mark Steyn and have defended it a couple times, it hasn't been hard tho. I don't know much about Toure and care less. My stance on all this is just that I take WP:BLP pretty seriously and I think we are supposed to. By all means if you see anything like this in another article you should redact it. Call me if you get any flak, I'll help.


 * But I mean an RfC to settle the question once and for all might be good, since it's lowkey been going on for a few years. Herostratus (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)