Talk:Zuby

Untitled
This new article was rejected by GoingBatty because it lacked references that: "show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject"

So.... I've added more sources, all of which fulfill the above criteria:

a) the new sources are articles dedicated to Zuby (not just passing mentions), and, b) the new sources are some of the largest newspapers in the world (and, presumably, are published, reliable, secondary sources, independent of Zuby).

The_Sun_(United_Kingdom) (largest newspaper in the UK) wrote article dedicated to Zuby:

The Times wrote article dedicated to Zuby:

Washington Examiner wrote article dedicated to Zuby:

RT_(TV_network) (Russian TV network) wrote article dedicated to Zuby.

Sky News dedicated article:

Spiked_(magazine) dedicated article:

BBC dedicated article:

All of these references are very large news organizations, and independent of Zuby. Thus, this article should now be included in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisefroggy (talk • contribs) 23:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 17 June 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Wrong forum. If you believe he does not meet notability guidelines, nominate the article for deletion at WP:AFD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Zuby (rapper) → ? – This page does not meet notability guidelines, all information and sources relate to one controversial story, and one news report of an incident that does not relate to him as a person. I have done a good faith search and he has released music, but isn't notable for it (not reviewed in the press, or talked about in general) He does however have a large twitter following, but this isn't necessarily notable in itself unless he was noted for it in other secondary sources. For that reason I believe the title should be changed according to the notability guidelines to reflect the incident, not the person.- Benakt (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems like he passes WP:GNG, and he is referred to as Zuby, and rapper by profession in the references. I say leave as is, unless someone has another disambiguator that makes more sense.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think he does, in notability guidelines it says that they can't only be notable for one specific event, with the example of if someone were to be murdered it should be titled "The murder of Jane Doe." not "Jane Doe (Musician)" even if she was. All but one of the articles use rapper as a qualifier rather than an absolute ('Nzube Udezue, a rapper' rather than 'Zuby, the rapper') and one of the sources specifically says "Zuby, who shot to internet fame after tweeting a video last year in which he claimed he was identifying as a woman in order to "destroy" the British women's deadlifting record". If the incident itself isn't notable enough to warrant a specific new title (which I'm inclined to agree with you about) I don't believe that we should keep a non-notable person as a notability figure and after this discussion is up, put it up for a deletion debate. Or maybe to change the name to the incident he is known for, then assess that article on its own (about whether it should stay or go). Either way I do think the WP:GNG says you can't be known for one incident- and he is. One other thought is maybe merging into an article more closely related to Trans Men and Women in sports? 81.98.50.184 (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi 81.98.50.184: the article Zuby (rapper) has had substantial material and sources added since you last voiced your opinion.  Please re-evaluate the latest version so we can include your opinion.  Thanks!  Wisefroggy (talk) 04:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Leave as-is. Seems to easily pass WP:GNG - as a person he is notable - he has had articles written specifically about him by large news organizations, and is interviewed at least semi-regularly.  As Benakt pointed out, he does have a large twitter following, and his tweets are quoted by large newspapers (Washington Post, for example ).  Further, material has been added to the article since the original requested move - the current article should be re-evaluated by anyone proposing a move. Wisefroggy (talk) 04:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I completely disagree with the statement that the articles are dedicated to him- as mentioned above, they are dedicated to incidents, not to him (which is specifically mentioned as not passing WP:GNG)- he isn’t famous in his own right. As a person he is not notable for his body of work- something which notability specifically mentions. At the very least he does not meet the guidelines to be posted as a musician, and when posting him as a media personality (which would be far more appropriate given the sources Wisefroggy just added) it would be more appropriate to name an/the article about specific incidents, but then I feel these incidents aren’t specifically notable in their own right either, and should be added to articles relating to their subject matter. There isn’t one singular interview with Zuby that is a piece just about him, or even about his music, that I could find. I think deletion is most appropriate. Benakt (talk) 10:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Benakt said "There isn’t one singular interview with Zuby that is a piece just about him". Here is one, from the largest news organization (perhaps? not sure) in USA:, where he is interviewed on a range of various topics including race, Kanye West, and politics. Importantly, this interview does not even mention the transgender weightlifting incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisefroggy (talk • contribs) 04:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I looked at the additional sources added by Wisefroggy and I don’t believe they are about him as a figure, they are about incidents (incidents which I don’t believe merit their own article). I would say that this page should be deleted with the relevant incidents incorporated into a Discrimination in Sport/Discrimination within the police article or something 81.98.50.184 (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is one example "about him as a figure".Wisefroggy (talk) 03:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Current Consensus:
 * Wisefroggy(contribs): Leave as-is. Note this user (me) has hundreds of edits spanning many years.
 * Ortizesp(contribs): Leave as-is.  Note this user has untold thousands (or even tens of thousands!?) of edits.
 * User:Benakt(contribs): Change to '?'  - Benakt is the originator of this renaming request, but did not propose a new name (only suggested a question mark - see top of this section).  Further:
 * user Benakt is a SPA (see contribs))
 * user Benakt appears to have engaged in sockpuppetry with 81.98.50.184 - evidence of puppetry:
 * Both users are SPA (see contribs here and here)
 * Both users were created on the same day
 * Both users have their very first edits 29 minutes apart
 * Both users forward the same arguments (see above: 'this article is all "about incidents"' not "the person", and similar such), and have similar WP:SIM.
 * for the above reasons, Benakt's opinion should be either ignored, or at least weighted less.
 * User 81.98.50.184: this anonymous user (and likely sockpuppet) should be ignored completely.

Wisefroggy I don’t really have any way of disproving your accusations, (also I’m new, what does SPA mean- I tried googling but it only came up with a health spa) but I do think accusing me of sock-puppetry instead of finding a single article about Zuby as a rapper, not as part of a controversy unrelated to his supposed music career is an admission that whatever happens, the deletion of the page is appropriate. When I signed up I was under the impression that it wasn’t about how many edits you had made, it was about the facts, and about meeting the notability guidelines. This article clearly doesn’t meet said guidelines and surely the fact you have made thousands of edits in the past should not allow you to bend the rules. I think that destroys the sanctity of Wikipedia. Looking through the article History it seems you tried for ages to get this page created too, and many others disagreed with the initial creation. You threw sources at the wall, mischaracterised them to create a page which according to the guidelines shouldn’t have been made, a rapper page for a commentator and controversialist who wants to be known as a rapper. I joined Wikipedia because I was trying to find a source for claims Zuby made on twitter and it turned out that his Wikipedia was filled with unsubstantiated claims too, so I tried to help rectify that. I don’t know why you’re so invested in an article that shouldn’t be here according to Wikipedia’s own guidelines but you’re very welcome to it- just know that I think that wanting your article to be up, maybe because of your ego, does damage to Wikipedia and lends credit to the argument to those who say “anyone could edit it” when discussing credibility of the site as a whole. If things like this are upheld I think they will be the eventual cause of distrust of Wikipedia. I’m disappointed but not surprised. Benakt (talk) 08:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lead size
Please see MOS:LEADLENGTH article size fewer than 15,000 characters one or two paragraphs. Also, we don't start by stating what an individual is "known for," notable aspects speak for themselves. Additionally, biographical information peripheral to why the subject is notable - such as place of birth, education etc. is not relevant to the lead. Also, struggling with the "rapper" description, there is no evidence of notability in this field, and all of his recorded material is self-published, no records of sale, charting, release press coverage etc. Acous</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 10:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * BBC News, Sky News, The Times, Entertainment Weekly, The Washington Post, CTV News all describe him as a "rapper".
 * The Guardian, The Telegraph, "hip hop musician" and The Independent as "musician and author".
 * Fine he is not recieved much media coverage in regards to his actual rapping career but that is what most RSs describe him as.
 * I am not bothered about cutting it down to two paragraphs but I disagree about the twice added "identifying" as in quote marks as if he did not identify as such (sowing doubt which does not appear in RSs). Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 17:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * On "identification" point, the initial source for the claim was the tweet "P.S. I identified as a woman whilst lifting the weight. Don't be a bigot. - Face with tears of joy" and a number of other sources cited in the article stem from there: for example. You should also be very conscious of sensitivity surrounding gender identification, and the fact that people in the transgender community found this "joke" offensive. We should frame the "identification" aspect accurately, and we should also consider that there is a 'tears of joy' smiley face after the statement.<b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 19:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * So he said he identified as a woman whilst doing it with RSs like Sky News saying he did as well He claimed to identify as a woman while doing it. His word and identification is final, see MOS:GENDERID. Using a single emoiji, in a separate sentence, to counteract completely what he and other RSs just said seems like WP:OR. Whether or not people found it offensive is not really relevant unless it is signicantly sourced it can be added to the article.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 20:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The primary source for the claim was the tweet, that's indisputable. The emoji closes the statement, that's rather obvious.
 * Note also, in the Times interview cited he states: “It was done in a humorous way" & "I posted it being a bit tongue-in-cheek, showing what I think is the obvious absurdity of their argument.”
 * And why do you feel a source is usable for statements concerning his claims but not acceptable for detailing criticism such as "'Just deciding on a whim that Zuby says he’s identifying as a woman, that’s not how it works, said Dawn Ennis, managing editor of Outsports News, an LGBTQ sports publication." or "'What Zuby did was disappointing because it mocks the trans experience and I think that Zuby has fans who are LGBT who are not going to want to be his fans,' said Ennis, 'and he risks losing both LGBT and allies as fans.'" I'm sure we can find additional commentary if required.
 * Can you explain how - Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns, "man/woman", "waiter/waitress") that reflect the person's latest expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources applies to Zuby? <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 21:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Scare quotes are not the right way to summarise the situation as they are not encyclopedic and the reader will raise more questions than are resolved by their usage. If it meets NPOV to discredit the identification then say "claimed to identify" or "pretended to identify" or similar. If it doesn't then the status quo is fine.
 * , please don't upload copyright violations. I've removed the image from this page and see Spy-cicle correctly tagged it at Commons. Screenshots should never be claimed as "own work" because they are not. To take something I uploaded recently, File:Lichess Puzzle Streak.png is how you do it in the extremely rare cases of a website being freely licensed. If the claim is that the image doesn't show enough original content to meet copyright, such that it's in the public domain by default (not true here because of the profile picture and screenshot of the embedded video), then PD would be the right copyright. — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Quotes are used prominently in references the article uses, so we should follow suit.
 * Times: The rapper, whose stage name is Zuby, was filmed last week smashing the British women’s deadlift record, in which the weights are raised from the ground to thigh level, while he said he was “identifying as a woman”.
 * WQAD8: In the tweet Zuby said that he “identified as a woman whilst lifting the weight,” ultimately trolling the debate of transgender people competing in athletic events.
 * Spiked: He has produced several viral videos in which he breaks British women’s weightlifting records while ‘identifying’ as a woman.<b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 11:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * re:image - That was an error on my part, I had meant to use the fair use option, too much detail required, assumed for the purposes of discussion would could quickly claim as own - owning to screenshot nature. <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 22:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * fair use version now added. <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 10:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm quite happy with 's edits to the lead here. I think the sources chose to use those quotes for a reason, searching for more sources than the ones listed above I haven't yet found one that doesn't say he "identified as a woman" in quotes. Just stating that he identified as a woman in wikivoice would be deriving meaning out of sources where that meaning doesn't exist, or in other words, original research. There's also perhaps commentary on doubt over the sincerity of his identification to be made, but honestly most sources don't seem to really go into it explicitly. Where such commentary exists it would be helpful context for the body of the article, but if sources typically just leave it as a quote the commentary that exists over the sincerity wouldn't be due for the lead. For instance, stating in the lead that he "pretended to identify" or "claimed to identify" as a woman would be inserting an explicit expression of doubt that is comparatively rare for sources to make. Both of those two ends of the spectrum have issues, but I fail to see a an issue with just quoting Zuby directly like sources do, it's not an unencyclopedic instance of a scare quote, it's a literal quote. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * stating "identification" in wikivoice is the main issue, it's clear we shouldn't. We could also, based on the Times interview (“It was done in a humorous way" & "I posted it being a bit tongue-in-cheek, showing what I think is the obvious absurdity of their argument”) and the emoji in the primary source, write "he jokingly identified as a woman." I agree with the WQAD8 view that this was "ultimately trolling." It seems the subject then tried to recast it as "serious" commentary when it garnered wider attention. <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 14:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree too that it's true that he was joking, but I don't think it would be due to state that in the lead if it's relatively rare for sources to explicitly claim. You could emphasize that it's a literal quote even more if you explicitly said that he said that he "identified as a woman", though that's kind of already implied in the sentence already: with a statement saying he broke the British women's deadlift record while "identifying as a woman." Commentary about the sincerity of his statement would make sense in the body of the article though. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I do somewhat see where you coming across in regards the quoting but why do sources like Sky News do not. They say claimed to identify which does sow doubt in a different way which I think is more approriate than quotes.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 20:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * as evidenced, multiple sources use quotes, and the primary source, the tweet, is clearly someone joking/trolling/whatever you want to call it. We shouldn't use wikivoice, it lends credence to a dubious claim. <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 20:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I’ve got a problem with “he broke the record” in the last paragraph - it’s not a record recognised by UK Powerlifting (https://www.britishpowerlifting.org/documents/1012_female_classic_records_30-06-21.pdf) and so shouldn’t be acknowledged as such. I propose “he performed the stunt” instead, although the edit has been reverted.
 * The full sentence is Udezue said he does not think trans women should be allowed to compete in women's sport and that he broke the record to demonstrate the flaws of the arguments of those on the other side of the debate. The article is not trying to say "Udezue said he broke the record to ...". I have added another "said" to reinforce we are qualifying his claim to him, not in wikivoice.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 19:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Categories
On 29 April 2021, an IP editor Added two categories Category:Criticism of political correctness and Category:Discrimination against transgender people without sources or an edit summary. Minutes later, this was reverted by per "WP:CATPOV, WP:BLP, WP:LABEL". Today these categories were readded without sources to the article by with the summary "not sure why these categories were removed". I shortly reverted with the summary "Criticism of political correctness" is not mentioned at all in this article. Nor the explict use of "discrimination" against transgender people. If RSs state he is discriminating against transgender people then we can readd the cat" . Acousmana then reverted me saying "was suspended from Twitter over transgender spat, it's sourced, it's in the article" . This was then reverted by saying "As spy-cicle said, I see nothing in the article about a criticism of political correctness. Regarding the twitter ban, I don't think violating Twitter TOS allows us to state that a living person is discriminating against transgender people unless reliable sources do" . Acousmana then readded the Category:Discrimination against transgender people saying "both World Athletics and the IOC have provisions for the inclusion of transgender competitors, there are regulations, if adhered to, no issue - Zuby's pronouncements, per sources, discriminate against said competitors" . Categories have to be defining and verifiable not A said B mean C hence add the C category. Nothing on the article explcitly states he is Discriminating against transgender people. Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 17:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It may be useful to quote WP:CATDEFINING here: a defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having. Regarding the the first category, he's clearly a critic of political correctness (he certainly talks about it a lot: ), if RS were to talk about what he's been doing post-viral tweet (ranting against political correctness or whatever else) we can add it to the article and the category would be fine to include, though I'm not sure anyone's really cared that much about his attempts to milk his 15 minutes of fame. Regarding the second, it matters little what we think discrimination is and what we think discrimination isn't, if reliable sources don't commonly and consistently describe Zuby as being a discriminator of trans people then it shouldn't be a category – we should be careful also to not rub up against WP:CATPOV here. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Concur.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 18:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I also agree that that the second category about transgender discrimination is not appropriate for these reasons, and per WP:BLP, such dubious categories should be excluded, not edit warred in. I consider the first category a questionable as well; I think both of them are meant to contain concepts, not people. Crossroads -talk- 02:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * think it's pretty clear what category this guy is in re:PC, appearing on conservative Christian news satire channel The Babylon Bee with the title "Political Correctness is Deadly” Tweeting, "Political correctness is garbage," Youtube videos with titles like "The Dangers of Political Correctness, Cancel Culture, and “Wokeness” or "The Hidden Dangers of 'Political Correctness, any number of sources with him railing against "PC culture," it's text book alt-right garbage with a large smattering of Christian fundamentalist nonsense. Whether or not he's transphobic is more difficult to pin down, according to LGBT sources, and Twitter, his actions have been viewed as such, he claims he isn't, but I'm not sure how Tweeting "I'm a trans woman of colour myself. I can't be transphobic" supports this. <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 20:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have any reliable secondary sources that demonstrate his criticism of political correctness is a defining characteristic? Same goes for "alt-right"?  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 21:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * there are secondary sources, unfortunately the majority are of the variety we don't use, for obvious reasons, instead primary suffices here, his Twitter feed is a veritable goldmine of wingnut proclamations, most recently of the anti-vax/anti-mask/government conspiracy variety. Probably best move this to an RFC, we include a ton of similar attention seeking personalities on the page. <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 11:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not believe primary sources in this case suffice for this. We need reliable, secondary sources for this kind of infomation. Moreover, you have the order the wrong way around. In this case, the content in the article should become first before the category rather than the other way around. But in this case since it is all primary sourced infomation it is not due for inclusion in the first place. See WP:CATV Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. Use the template if you find an article in a category that is not shown by sources to be appropriate or if the article gives no clear indication for inclusion in a category. You are welcome to start in RfC if you wish. Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 02:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * per WP:BLPSPS: Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. Zuby's primary statements on political correctness qualify as sources because they are clearly written and published by the subject of the article and conform to WP:BLPSELFPUB caveats 1 through 5. <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 13:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not saying that Zuby SPS (Twitter) is not reliable for his own opinions. The article content comes before categorisation per WP:CATV. So do you agree (yes or no) that per WP:CATV that the article content has be laid out well in the article first before any kind of categorization? Next if yes, why do you think using a solely primary source is it a due inclusion relating to his views of political correctness for it to be added in the article? If there were reliable secondary sources perhaps I could understand.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 03:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Transgender views and later podcast appearances
More as a curiosity than a content dispute, is it fair to state the following:
 * "After Udezue expressed his views on transgender people in sports, he has been featured on many podcasts including:"

Seems like it could be SYNTH to draw this causality even though it seems superficially evident. As a new editor I'm just wondering when we can make inferences like this and when we cannot in the absence of a secondary source that explicitly draws the connection. Thanks for any input. SmolBrane (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We can't make inferences like these without secondary sources, you're right to be concerned about that. I'm not really a fan of the "has appeared on many podcasts/many publications/many [whatever]s" with a link to a bunch of primary source videos either, but I guess it's not the end of the world. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 22:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. SmolBrane (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Credulous reporting of an obviously false claim
I have a lot to say here, but first, I want to clarify this: are you of the opinion that Zuby did factually break the British women's deadlift record? -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 15:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not see what is wrong the wording as is. It does not imply or suggest that he did break the record.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 15:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't see how In March 2019, Udezue received media attention after posting a video on Twitter of himself performing a deadlift of 238 kg (525 lb), with a statement saying he had broken the British women's deadlift record while "identifying as a woman". and In March 2019, Udezue received media attention after posting on Twitter a video of himself performing a deadlift of 238 kg (525 lb), and subsequently stating he had broken the British women's deadlift record while "identifying as a woman". could be taken to mean that he broke the record? Whenever describing false claims in the encyclopedia's voice, we must take pains not to give readers the impression that those claims are true. That's why I added the citation to the reliable source saying he didn't break the record, and why I changed "statement saying" and "stating" to "claimed". They are less ambiguous. Usually, our articles are even less ambiguous about such things: The article on Donald Trump, for instance, says "falsely claimed" five times. But in this context I think a simple "claimed" is, just barely, enough to make clear it's not a thing that actually happened. But the current wording implies that, at best, Wikipedia is neutral as to whether he broke the record.Would you please self-revert? I would like to work with you to fix the major problems this article had at the time it passed GAN, issues that I would like to AGF are the result of you just not paying enough attention to whether the article was skewing toward a particular POV, which is an easy enough mistake to make if you get lost in all the sources; but if you're going to stonewall me on that, then I think it will have to go to a GACR. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 04:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * But that wording does not reflect what the sources say look at The Times for instance . We never say he broke it in our voice, just that he said he broke it. FWIW if I were here to OWN/STONEWALL I would have been doing wholesale reversions, which I have not been doing.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 17:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So your position is, because The Times doesn't use the word "claim", we can't use that word, even though he said a thing that is demonstrably false, and which even The Times doesn't seriously assert to be true? [T]he weightlifting hip-hop artist and Oxford graduate who set out to demonstrate that athletes who are genetically male should not be competing alongside women are not the words of a publication describing a genuine breaking of a record. They're the words of a publication signal-boosting a publicity stunt by a public figure whose POV they're known to be sympathetic to. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 20:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I want to jump in here to say that it seems clear from the text that Zuby identifying as a woman was done as a sort of protest, not in earnest. The tweet and the seriousness thereof is also discussed in a section called "View [on] Transgender people", in which it is clear that Zuby opposes the ideas expressed by the trans movement. (There's also the stickiness of Wikipedia having to defer to reliable sourcing, and not what we think is true.) That said,, given that the tweet was widely condemned as transphobic, do you think that this aspect could be added (with sources) to make it clear that this was controversial?--<b style="background:#8B0000;color:#FFF;padding:1px;">Gen. Quon</b><b style="background:#2F4F4F;color:#FFF;padding:1px;">[Talk]</b> 16:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * As an addendum: I don't know anything about his spreading Covid misinformation (but I don't doubt it, given the guy's predictably partisan views), but if that's true, I think that warrants a mention with a note that it is misinformation. From a public health perspective, I think it is imperative that we categorize false medical information as such, and make a note of where it is coming from (I'm broadly pulling from Identifying reliable sources (medicine) with regard to this assertion).--<b style="background:#8B0000;color:#FFF;padding:1px;">Gen. Quon</b><b style="background:#2F4F4F;color:#FFF;padding:1px;">[Talk]</b> 16:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * To reply to both of your comments: To your first point, could you provide the secondary RSs that state the incident was 'widely condemned as transphobic'? Otherwise I do not think we can add it. To your second point, this was mentioned in the GA review however the only mentions surrounding his views on COVID-19 / misinformation reported in secondary RSs were 1 or 2 very brief mentions as part of a larger article relating to an incident of misinformation online. Thus it adding it would be WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTNEWS, that would fail the WP:10Y test. Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 19:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well partly. Because our wording has to broadly reflect what is said in the most reliable sources (though of course context matters). But at the same time the meaning does not change too much whether we say claim/state. Fundamentally, as long we of course do not say he did in wikivoice that he broke it we should be fine. The lead wording has been adjusted by Mhawk. I'm not certain it is better or worse yet I'll have to do some more thinking though I do think the wikilink to transgender people in sports is important (since that is the wider subject/debate).  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 19:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC) Actually just noticed the wikilink is still there.   Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 19:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Adding of interviews to lead
The addition of a one sentence summary of who the subject has been interviewed by has been repeatedly deleted by user:acousmana. The reasons for the multiple deletions vary (please see history for summaries.

User::acousmana, there are primary sources, I've added seconday sources per your suggestion, and all are WP:RS. As for notability: the interviews listed have audiences in the tens of millions. That is notable. Also, please ensure you do not violate 3RR. Wisefroggy (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * editor adding a string of dubious WP:PRIMARY to support the statement "He has been interviewed on...'xyz'" is WP:OR. Why is any of this notable? no WP:SECONDARY that notes the fact that the subject has been interview on 'xyz'. Why is it being placed prominently in the lead? Appears WP:PROMOTIONAL. <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 10:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Overly detailed
This article seems overly detailed to me. I'll try and give it a trim to make it more concise. Seaweed (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Not overly detailed. It succinctly summarises all the key details. See the GA review for further details.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 20:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)