Talk:Steven Crowder/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Please discuss changes before editing

This article has been significantly researched, debated, rewritten, and some of the content put through resolution over the course of several months. Finally an eventual arduous consensus was achieved. Recently it was extensively rewritten without discussion, introducing a lot of material that had previously been determined to be too detailed for this biography page (and more appropriate/relevant for a possible separate page about the Union Protest), and other material with a sense of non-neutral POV. Since it was so thoroughly rewritten, I couldn't just edit without rewriting the page again,so I reverted it to the most recent consensus. Due to the months of hard work by many dedicated and experienced users to finally arrive at a consensus, please respect their work and propose any changes here on the talk page before editing the article. Thank you!JohnKAndersen (talk) 10:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)JohnKAnderson

John, there is no blanket ban on editing this page. The requests we've made for people to be cautious with their editing were done to prevent the repeated edit wars on this article and to keep it from being officially locked down. Your revert of the edits was inappropriate, especially as the edits done were well-referenced and topical. As such, I am reverting your revert. If you think the changes are wrong, please discuss them with us before reverting them. 5minutes (talk) 19:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

5minutes, I didn't reference a ban, just the normal discussion on the talk page that has been the accepted process. Maybe a lockdown is appropriate if people who wish to slant an article can completely rewrite it after months of work and debate of other experienced users, resulting in a article all could live with. You made several statements defending the consensus that had been reached when the user who completely rewrote tried to get it deleted...twice. You defended the current article that you had worked so hard on as well as others. So a complete rewrite with all sources and language skewing to a negative slant was not only unnecessary but its relation to a user who vigorously tried to have it eliminated completely cannot be ignored. Also, the "editing" was a complete rewrite of the article with a lot of irrelevant information that was deemed by all editors (at the time) to be too much material for a biography on Crowder. If someone wants to write an article on the Protest, they are free to do so. I fully explained it my reversion, and since you were part of the creation of this article over many months I would expect you to understand and respect that long arduous consensus process. If someone wants to change it from the consensus page, they should propose such changes here first, out of respect to everyone who worked so hard on it, as you and I did, to avoid multiple reversions or an edit war. Otherwise, anyone could extensively rewrite it every day. I am REVERTING it to the last consensus arrived at by many instead of this complete reconstruction by one, and hopefully we will hear from him and he can discuss any changes he'd like here. JUST like everyone else was compelled to do. I am not going to be drawn into another weeks-long debate, dissecting this article word for word to get it back to the consensus achieved months ago. Been there, done that. A "free for all daily edit" is non-productive, and more importantly, disrespectful to the subject person. I don't thinks it's too much to ask for proposed changes be discussed here; I believe that is the point of talk pages; to work out issues. We largely agree, let's focus on common ground in the spirit of preserving a neutral, accurate article while edits are considered via normal procedure. [User:JohnKAndersen|JohnKAndersen]] (talk) 05:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)JohnKAnderson

Frankly, I don't think that there was a consensus. I think that people just got tired of dealing with you and gave up. Wearing everyone else down isn't quite the same thing as establishing a consensus. There's a real issue with ownership here. MastCell ^Talk 05:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

A consensus was clearly made, as people conceded on each side, it went through issue resolution, a version acceptable to all sides version was created. I will not respond to the personal jabs, which have been par for the course, albeit disappointing. Please keep it about the article. If there was an issue of WPOWN, the article would be as originally created. It clearly is not, the users involved came to an agreement after much discussion and triple checking of sources, ect. I have not touched or even visited it for months (while others continued). I could find multiple comments of satisfaction with various edits, wording, compromises on details, etc, but it's all here. The consensus article was defended by OTHER users who were involved in that consensus at the deletion debate. If someone is tired, they certainly can concentrate on things that interest them more instead obsessing on the biography of a living person they do not care about or possibly actively dislike.JohnKAndersen (talk) 07:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)JohnKAnderson

• I'd like to point out before there are any changes, that the same person who completely rewrote (and effectively deleting the consensus) article is the same person who nominated the page for actual DELETION, MULTIPLE times; cited the subject person as not "notable enough" to have an article and vigorously debated to eliminate his entry entirely, on that basis. This same person, failing getting the article deleted, rewrites the entire page with as many negative leaning sources and as much negative POV language as possible. Why would someone take the time to rewrite an entire page for someone whom they think is not even worthy of an article? He couldn't get his article deleted, so NOW he is notable enough to consume his attention with an article with heavy negative POV, a "virtual" deletion of the consensus reached? Of course, suggestions for edits should always be considered, but a complete rewrite from scratch eliminating others' hard work seems like overkill, especially if that user does not think the person is even notable enough to rate an article in the first place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steven_Crowder JohnKAndersen (talk) 07:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)JohnKAnderson

• So what? He has just as much right to edit the page as you do. 5minutes (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• So I shall. Since you see no problem in someone basically vandalising the article with all-biased, negatively slanted POV and sources after claiming it doesn't even DESERVE an article, even after you vigorously defended its inclusion, you're still okay with it being completely ripped apart in an obvious attempt of "if I can't delete it, I'll make it as negative as possible". Your prerogative of course. It seems that you simply will disagree because I'm saying something. It's not personal to ME, it's about the article. To restore the article to a more neutral, factual state without unnecessary detail that is irrelevant to his biography, reverting to last consensus, please discuss new edits here, AS EVERYONE ELSE WAS COMPELLED TO DO.JohnKAndersen (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

• John, the actions that you are undertaking could be viewed as edit warring by board administrators. You really, really need to back off of this page and walk away or someone is going to report you to the admins and you could get banned. As for his edits, it doesn't matter that he proposed the page be deleted in the past (he and I have discussed this repeatedly). What matters is what he's doing now, and that's all. 5minutes (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Changes July 2013

Added "writer" to list of accomplishments, deleted "conservative" adjective from his media exposure as he has contributed to a number of news outlets (his non-political writing about marriage and married life is one example), just as we wouldn't say "Rachael Maddow from Liberal media outlets". Removed conjecture by article author, such as making conclusions about motivations and using words like "apparently" to assume rationale or implications for actions instead of just stating them without editorializing; and also conjecture from the prosecutor while retaining the pertinent fact that he decided not to prosecute. The politically motivated quotes from everyone involved in the less and less relevant event need not be included (none of Crowder's are, and this his page). Maybe a separate page focusing on the protest is warranted, but one incident should not be such a major part of a person's biography, especially if it is to be minimized as not resulting in any action. Actually, the section could be further lessened in importance and summed up in a few succinct sentences rather than the back and forth disparaging accusations (BLP).JohnKAndersen (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

• You're welcome to add quotes that you feel are relevant. However, I disagree with your arguments about removing relevant information. Rogerthat94 (talk) 07:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Rogerthat94. Glad to see you giving input here. I summarized the union protest because at this point it is so far back in history that I felt it was unfairly weighting Crowder's page to be "'all about that". Retained the basic details, (event happened, people fought, prosecutor found no evidence to prosecute). Short, sweet,accurate,and NPOV. If the protest is assumed to be very important to some, then I feel it should have its own stub article. As it was, it was heavily weighting his biography as if it is was the only significant event in his public life due to the detail added that we had pruned down. Would look forward to hearing your ideas on this, and/or possibly writing an article about the protest itself. I appreciate your making a note here and being open to changes. Thanks,JohnKAndersen (talk) 04:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen
  • The issue here comes down to sources. This incident has received a significant amount of coverage (New York Times, Forbes, local papers, etc.), which is not the case with any other aspect of Crowder's life. That's why I nominated the article to AfD. If you compare the section on the December 2012 incident to any other section on a BLP about an event that has received a similar degree of coverage, I don't think you'll find this section has an unreasonable degree of detail. I agree that this section somewhat dominates the article, but that is due to a lack of sources on other aspects about Crowder (not any sort of unfair treatment by me or any of the other editors who are disagreeing with you). While I'm not opposed to the creation of a separate article on the protest incident, I am opposed to the removal of relevant sourced information from the article on Crowder. This section is not out of line with other section in BLPs, even sections on events which have standalone articles Rogerthat94 (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Greetings, Rogerthat94! I generally agree with the point you're making (and further agree that a separate article either on the overall Michigan Capitol incident itself should be written -- or my own preference, given the context of the times and the movements of several state governors on right-to-work, a much broader article capturing the issue as a whole across the USA). I'm ambivalent on the sourcing issue (and this goes for any article on any overtly controversial figure or incident): The author(s) of such articles for a public encyclopedia either struggle to maintain a completely NPOV tone (which is especially difficult on any matter of politics), or alternatively the author(s) implicitly admit that neutrality doesn't exist on such persons or events and therefore the sourcing pulls as evenhandedly as possible from the entire spectrum of available media (from recognized liberal reportage to recognized conservative reportage). The other issue, concerning the recent version of Michigan Capitol incident in the article, was (IMO) its lack of dryness -- its tone had more of a TMZ or TheSmokingGun tone to it, almost gossipy, rather than a coolheaded and circumspect approach more in line with an attempted scholarly endeavor. On the latter, my view is to either keep it short and sweet and as NPOV as possible (as I endeavored to do with my own revision), but if the broad range of liberal-to-conservative source material editorializing is preferred, than fine, but the section by necessity to be properly representational of all POVs on the issue will need to be even fatter than it already is...making it even more (IMO, inappropriately) dominant in the greater context of the bio article. (and that's irrespective of my view that the section's written style itself needed scrubbing.) Sorry about being so longwinded about this!SaharaCez (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Before making changes, PLEASE discuss the proposed edits here

The article was worked on over several months and several users to arrive at a neutral, factual article. To completely rewrite and delete the others' work is disrespectful of those who spent so much time in that effort. "I was just editing the article to reflect the CLEAR CONSENSUS on the Talk Page as the PRIMARY EDITORS of the article had all weighed in. While consensus is an ongoing process, the article SHOULD REFLECT THE CURRENT WORKING CONSENSUS. I've edited many other articles and dealt with similar disputes, which is why I feel I have a good sense of what fits the guidelines."-MaxiumusVeritas, April 3, 2013 [emphasis mine] Completely gutting the article and starting from scratch clearly does NOT reflect the current working consensus. That is the value of the talk page, to prevent daily reversions/edit wars, etc. Additionally, remember this is a biography of a living person and has special guidelines that apply, not the least of which is " Patience is low for problematic editing even in a possible good cause. Work with others, rather than ignore them, and in a productive rather than disruptive manner."-WikiGuide/Biographies/Living Persons. Also, "These include edit warring and other disruptive behavior, threats, games, REFUSING TO DISCUSS OR LISTEN, or editing to an agenda that does not match that of a NEUTRAL encyclopedia." So let's work together and improve the consensus article if needed, not trash it and start completely over with a new one that is clearly from a negative POV. We have yet to hear from that editor once. Anxious to hear his input.JohnKAndersen (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

It isn't necessary to obtain consensus before making an edit. The usual cycle is bold edit, revert, discuss. The remainder of your comment here (and your comments above) doesn't seem particularly helpful; if you could identify specific WP:BLP concerns, then we can address them, but demanding that everyone pre-clear all of their edits with you isn't a productive approach. MastCell ^Talk 23:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it is just respectful and has been the process I was compelled to follow. The continual changing of the rules depending on who is doing the editing is ridiculous. I was warned that I "better not" edit, among other things including attacks of profanity, and it's just so unprofessional. I demanded NOTHING, used polite and appropriate language and NEVER said that it had to be cleared with ME; that is a blatant misrepresentation; again par for the course. I asked politely to propose changes here for discussion, as everyone else did.

I see so much of people using WikiPolicy as loopholes to attack and manipulate when common sense should prevail, and currently there is a marked lack of WP:UCS and WP:CIVIL, but plenty of WP:LAWYERING. You admitted you had bias in editing an article concerning the Tea Party, which has a similar political POV as Crowder. I do not feel you can be unbiased here either. I could find DOZENS of examples where I was bullied or restricted and ganged up on making for even minor edits until DISCUSSED ON THE TALK PAGE. That was the process established for this article in order to obtain an arduous consensus; I agreed to abide by it and we worked through it. I only suggest that the standard for editing be the same for all.

BLP? How about "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy" and "Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when THEY APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN CREATED TO DISPARAGE THE SUBJECT, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to; see below. Non-administrators should tag them with (b-attack). CREATION OF SUCH PAGES, especially when repeated or in BAD FAITH, is grounds for immediate blocking." And that's just two. The new article was staggeringly slanted, the person tried to get the entire article deleted twice because of his obvious expressed dislike for Crowder, but failed at that so in my opinion turned it into a hit piece, undoing all the work we had done to find a neutral, factual article without lots of implications and irrelevant information. "When in doubt, biographies should be PARED BACK to a version that is completely sourced, NEUTRAL, and ON-TOPIC."

As noted above, Maximus stated that the article should reflect the consensus of the users who had invested time and research. Of course anyone can boldly edit, including me, what is sorely MISSING is the "discussion" phase of your recommendation. That author has yet to make any contribution to this talk page whatever. So, reverting, let's TALK about edits and changes to the long-debated consensus page that every one settled on until someone rewrote the entire thing without the courtesy of suggesting changes or getting input. JohnKAndersen (talk) 02:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

I think you're demanding a level of respect that you're not willing to show others. You've made little or no effort to actually engage what other people are saying. Instead, you've ignored the substance of other editors' posts while accusing them of various and sundry biases and ulterior motives. As a result, I don't think you have a good grasp of the policies you're citing (like WP:BLP). Your "polite request" boils down to "put back my version of the article, and then give me veto power over any changes". That's not quite how it works. MastCell ^Talk 04:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• You are free to think what you like. I am demanding nothing, I deserve the level of respect as everyone else, and have said repeatedly that any edits would/should be discussed here. Not for MY approval, for discussion from the group per precedent. No one has made any comments regarding the consensus version for me to respond to, so that's another random accusation. I put it back to you; you said cite examples of BLP, I have, you refuse to discuss them out of hand rather than say WHY you don't think they are valid.

Common sense is all it takes to see that if someone repeatedly tries to get a article deleted and can't, then completely rewrites it in the most negative tone possible ignoring others' hard work, that it violates the "creation of a page for the purpose to disparage a living person". No one has addressed why if he feels Crowder is not notable enough to qualify for an article why he would then write what amounts to a "hit piece" about him, and those who are inclined to politically agree with him apparently can't see the bias. All of that was wrung out of the consensus version resulting is as neutral an article/quotes/source as possible. So I have no choice but to conclude that it's a personal issue due to your admitted bias as shown on your talk page.

I also said nothing about veto power or any other ridiculous accusation; it's so tiresome to defend against attacks that have no basis in fact. Anyone reading can see that the requests have been for it to be DISCUSSED in an effort to achieve/retain consensus (which by definition means agreement of a GROUP) while preserving what had been already accomplished. Also not addressed is the supporting quote from a moderator regarding respecting the work of those who achieved that consensus. You've put words in my mouth, claim I don't understand, made implications about my intelligence, etc. Please keep it NON personal and about the article and avoid the heavy-handed Wiki-bullying.

It's not about you, or me, it's about a fair, accurate, NPOV article about a living person. Please keep your opinions about me out of it, or feel free to put them on my talk page. "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was PRIOR to the proposal or bold edit." That's the policy. Why aren't we adhering to it?JohnKAndersen (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

If I may, let me try to be helpful here. It seems to my reading the entirety of the Crowder article that the Michigan Capitol incident is unnecessarily long/dominant. It obviously needs to be told, but the paragraph needed better focus on its original context (the proposed bill itself), without needing all the blow-by-blow/he-said-they-said incidentals. Therefore, as a starting point, I'd like to propose the following:

"During a December 11, 2012 rally at the Michigan State Capitol concerning right-to-work legislation signed into law that day by Gov. Rick Snyder[link to bill - http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/publicact/pdf/2012-PA-0349.pdf], members of Americans for Prosperity in support of the bill were involved in an altercation with pro-union demonstrators, during which union activists eventually succeeded in tearing down the lawn tent occupied by the Americans for Prosperity supporters.[6] During the incident, Crowder, who was present in his capacity as a contributor for Fox News, was punched several times by a union activist. The incident, captured on video, was initially released by Fox News in edited form, then later released by the network in its unedited form that included previously unseen footage of Crowder's alleged assailant falling to the ground. On March 8, 2013, following a review of both versions of the video footage, Ingham County Prosecutor Stuart Dunnings determined that no charges would be filed against any party involved in the altercation, stating that in the view of his office "It's pretty clear the person that they wanted to charge was acting in self-defense," also questioning the network's decision to initially released an edited version of the footage.[13]"

The one thing I'm not clear about is whether Crowder ever openly protested Dunnings' decision not to file charges. If he did, that would make an additional sentence to conclude the paragraph. Frankly, this paragraph can be shorter IMO, if a proper article focusing on the Michigan law and the subsequent demonstrations were to be well-written to include the Dec 11 incident.--SaharaCez (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• SaharaCez, I like your proposed wording if it is to be included in the article, with the possible exception of the Prosecutor's conjecture that Crowder threw the first punch. There are other quotes that simply state "the prosecutor did not find sufficient evidence to pursue the case", which I think is much more NPOV than the Prosecutor's "guessing" at what happened. Also, Crowder did openly criticize Dunnings' decision, but facing the political realities of a Democratic prosecutor and the political machine surrounding him, felt he could not win no matter what evidence and eye witness accounts he provided.

So he felt it wasn't worth his effort due to an unlikely fair hearing in his opinion and the risk of danger to his family (he claimed to have gotten death threats and other violent threats to his family), yet another indicator that its weight here was way too much, as the Prosecutor didn't feel it was worth prosecuting, and Crowder didn't feel the need to pursue it. So the issue kinda burnt itself out. Therefore what once was a "hot topic", has become a bit moot since all parties have moved on from that event, so its importance has also greatly been lessened with on need to dwell on it in such detail. Agreed, that is someone thinks this "old news" is still relevant despite this and requires a "blow by blow" account, so to speak, it should be in a separate article.JohnKAndersen (talk) 04:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

• Hello, John. The aftermath, if it can be sourced, would potentially wrap a bow on the incident. It seems like a footnote type of addition, however -- better in keeping with the idea to keep the proposed revised section as NPOV as possible (to add it to the body of the section turns the section back into an increasingly bloated he-said/he-said kind of thing, which seems counterproductive to the idea of both "NPOV" as well as contextual brevity). Simply said: source it as a footnote, and move on from this incidental old news. In any case, the event itself was always considerably better suited for colorful blow-by-blow treatment on TMZ or TheSmokingGun (and not Wikipedia), and not the dominant event in an attempted scholarly bio of living person. I also maintain my opinion that the modern-day picture of the rocky evolution of right-to-work being played out across the US being pushed by several governors and legislatures RICHLY deserves its own dedicated article; and of course the Crowder incident would certainly merit passing reference in such an article. But that's a whole other discussion.SaharaCez (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

RFC: Crowder and Union Member Conflict Issues

Guys, I am requesting 3rd party intervention. This edit war has to stop.

Since July 7, this page has undergone 6 massive re-writes and reverts, mostly related to how the conflict between Crowder and a union protester went down. I am requesting external review of the previous edits to determine both fair treatment and proper sourcing. 5minutes (talk) 13:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

Most of our conflicts have come because of one user (JohnKAndersen) who believes that Crowder is not being treated fairly by the current (as of right now) edit of the article. If we are being unfair to him, and if his edits are fair, sourced, and within WP policy, we need to know. Thanks! 5minutes (talk) 13:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Without knowing much about the situation, removing Crowder's challenge (which is trivial at best) and the resulting response by the State Police spokesperson could help trim the fat. †TE†Talk 14:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• A lot of sources mention the challenge. Rogerthat94 (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• I never claimed sources did or didn't blow this out of proportion. I just pointed it out for the obvious. †TE†Talk 23:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• I have repeatedly gave examples of unfair/slanted comments and received no discussion in return. The entire page violates BLP in my opinion, as the author only wrote it after failing to get it deleted twice. (Creating a page with the express intent to disparage a person; so the neutral quotes were replace with conjecture and opinion quotes that are not neutral.) The entire union protest event is now a non-issue, as the prosecutor declined to bring charges and Crowder declined to pursue the case . Since it is not an issue for either of the primary people involved, I think it becomes MUCH more of a "footnote" than the over-riding content of a living person's biography it was expanded to. Maybe a stub about the protest is warranted, but it no longer carries the relevance it did when it was "fresh news". As time goes on, articles change, and events lose relevance, as this one has. Many other political activities had been excised, or reduced to one or two lines (like the Dunham event, details of the music video, etc). As those have been reduced GREATLY in detail, so should this now irrelevant issue. Time to update and keep the article current, as many of RogerThat94's additions have about updating his career info. But the union protest event ended up amounting to nothing, and doesn't belong on a biography page with the intent to disparage the subject with carefully, negatively sourced quotes.JohnKAndersen (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

• I have restored some of the content John blanked, minus the suggested edit by ThinkEnemies to remove the challenge and police response to "trim the fat". John, please do not revert these well-sourced edits again without further consultation from the third party editors I requested earlier. I have asked you nicely to stop the edit warring. Consider this my final request on that matter. 5minutes (talk) 00:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Hey now, you have a winner in my world. Addition by subtraction. Look at this article, getting more like a real BLP. I'll be watching you. †TE†Talk 01:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• RfC Comment - (Summoned by the RfC bot) - I'm not going to comment on the content being disputed, but simply say that looking over the history of this article makes JohnKAndersen look like an WP:SPA engaged in a slow motion edit war against four or more editors. If this continues much longer, there may be reason for Admin intervention or enforcement here. NickCT (talk) 13:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• Current edit of article seems substantially neutral and representative of the sources. Agree with others that JohnKAndersen looks like an SPA and should be kept an eye on with regard to this article. Factchecker25 (talk) 13:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Also randomly selected for RFC, a quick review of the article tends to indicate to me that the edits as currently stored should remain, the edit war should be declared ended in favor of the current edits. As to the possible WP:SPA one could ask the individual if his/her WP account was created just to address this issue and, if so, suggest that the account be terminated. BiologistBabe (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• I looked into his account history to explore this exact issue. I discovered that his account has been around for a few years, but has mostly been used on this one page. He previously edited Daniel Allen Cox and quickly got blocked. He later blanked his own talk page for whatever reason and began his edit war here at this page. Honestly, I've tried working with him because I was once an eager young Wikipedian who didn't understand the rules and, sometimes, I still get frustrated by some of the things that go on here, but at this point, I'd be OK if someone wants to nominate his account for deletion or blocking for WP:SPA. 5minutes (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• (Invited by the bot) The question in the RFC is so broad/vague that a real answer would require a total assessment of the article, article editing history and topic. I doubt anyone has done that. I have spent only 15 minutes on it so neither have I. The question should be about article content, and so ad hominem topics about editors should not have much weight here. During my review I didn't seen anything done by anyone that looked seriously. I read the article; with a disclaimer that limited knowledge of the subject and what is and isn't in sources means that I can't solidly evaluate it,the version as of this minute looks OK to me, albeit having a bit of a spotty series-of-factoids look that is inevitable on disputed articles. I guess that JohnKAndersen's edits have a pattern of working to make it more positive or less negative regarding the subject. This may be good or bad depending on whether such efforts are to pull a biased "hit piece" to neutral ground vs. pulling a neutral article towards a POV. At the moment the article at first glance seems neutral. North8000 (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• RFC comment First, we don't delete user accounts, and we do not block people for being single-purpose accounts. That's a misconception that really must die. :-)

If you're interested in this editor's conduct, RFC/USER is your next step if/when he returns. This is a really slow edit war, one of the slowest I've ever seen. But it seems like consensus has been reached on this version, so if the problematic editor returns and resumes his conduct, I'd bring it to BLPN first. If it continues, a topic ban could be considered, and lastly the RFC/USER. - KrakatoaKatie 01:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Blanking of sections

I don't think that blanking of sections is justified just because it's 'old news' or 'no news' to some people. It's borderline on the I don't like it doctrine, which is not an argument. Wikipedia is not censored. We are not going to censor content just because one or more users wish to have it omitted. It was covered by reliable sources, not synthesized, and has been given its proper due weigiht. Please discuss on why you think it's appropriate to remove these sections. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 14:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

JohnKAnderson has been warned about this before. 5minutes (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Was there a beseechment on the warning? Something like, "If this user does X once again, then it will result in a block."? If so, could you point me towards that? Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

More along the lines of "this guy's conducting a slow-motion edit war and if it continues, he needs to be referred to the administrators". See above conversation. His tendency is to push the limits until he's at the edge, back off for a few months, and then come back and do exactly the same thing over again. 5minutes (talk) 02:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

In the interest of keeping the article up to date and unbiased, I deleted an event that led to nothing. Just as we don't include every possible controversial event in a person's life, some things just become irrelevant over time. There seems to be a general attitude that it is irrelevant because it isn't on the entries for the other people involved. Also there appeared to be a bias towards identifying one side's political leanings and not the other. It shouldn't be included unless is an important part of a story or bio. Also, there was an undocumented cause-effect that was a jump of assumption. (Subject isn't a contributor for Fox due to comments about one of its hosts. It has been denied by both parties, and the sources quoted are 3rd party speculation/opinion.) Making these modifications not only brings the article up to date but omits unsubstantiated or slanted language. With BLP in mind, keeping to bio facts is important and fair. Opinion(s) about events are important in their own articles about those specific incidents, unless they are an integral part of a person's bio, ie, Nixon and impeachment, they shouldn't be used to vandalize a person's bio. If someone can demonstrate that an incident, which in this case may have been self-promotional (another reason for omission), is a uniquely defining moment in the subject's life, then it should be included. In this case, quotes appear cherry picked and demonstrate bias by not balancing them with other information or quotes from other POVs. Since this became a non-event with all charges dropped and everyone on all sides refusing to pursue any action of any kind, its inclusion appears to only be intended to put the subject in a negative light. Conversely, omitting it does not put the subject in a positive light, it just makes it neutral, which I hope is everyone's goal. Would appreciate feedback. Thank youNeutralNed (talk) 06:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)NeutralNed

Recent edits

Perhaps someone could explain the concerns with my recent edits, and the reasons they were reverted? I formatted and corrected a number of citations, and now someone (presumably me) has to go back and re-correct them. If there's a specific concern about my edits, I'm happy to discuss it.

By the way, in response to the WP:NPOVN thread, I think you're getting pretty clear feedback that it's inappropriate to assert Dunnings' party affiliation in the way you guys are doing. It's textbook original synthesis and is clearly an editorial effort to draw a connection which appears to be absent in reliable secondary sources. Ironically, we fail to convey the actual content of reliable sources (no charges were filed because the video didn't support them), instead preferring to insinuate that it was a politically motivated decision despite the lack of secondary sources to support such a claim. That's a borderline WP:BLP violation.

I'm not going to re-revert those changes, but I suppose I'll go through and at least try to salvage the reference fixes. Could someone explain, by the way, why editors here have made up their own titles for newspaper articles (e.g. [1])? Let's just use the actual titles of the sources. MastCell ^Talk 18:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Mastcell has made some edits. Some are good removal of peacock terms while others have gone against the consensus of the editors at this page. I've corrected them accordingly, removing most of the edits, but allowing the removal of self-promotional language (although I admittedly left out some of the reference changes). 5minutes (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Which edits, specifically, go against the consensus of this page? If the consensus on this talkpage is to ignore our content policies forbidding original synthesis, then that's sort of a problem. Also, if we cite a reliable source, then we're obligated to tell the reader what it actually says. Here and here, we failed to do that. What is the objection to conveying to the reader what these sources actually say about the incident? MastCell ^Talk 18:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the reference edits and the peacock edits. They were good, clarifying edits that should've been done earlier (plus, I suck at references). I've addressed the other issues on your talk page. 5minutes (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I appreciate your work on putting those fixes back. I'm wondering why we're still including the party-affiliation information. There seems to be pretty clear outside feedback at WP:NPOV/N that it's inappropriate in this context. Perhaps someone who's strongly defended its inclusion could comment? MastCell ^Talk 18:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

MastCell, I know with this much material it can be a lot to digest, but your initial comment about party affiliation had already been settled by consensus by the editors. It was the matter of his union affiliation that was the topic that we could not come to a consensus on and taken to the NPOV thread. The rest had been worked and reworked over a period of many months, it was this final point that was the remaining issue of contention. Although I didn't make the edit on this specific political affiliation, the consensus was that he is an elected public official, this information is usually included for politicians as a matter of full disclosure and agreement was reached that this is NPOV since it implies nothing, just part of his basic biographical information, like the elected office he holds. Normally any story about any elected official includes this information as an honorific to their name, sometimes in the form "John Smith (D), Illinois". Also, other people's affiliations throughout the article are included.JohnKAndersen (talk) 04:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

Unsurprisingly, that summary is about as accurate as the author's understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines like WP:RS, WP:BRD, WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, WP:BLP, and WP:Consensus.

There has been no consensus established to include party affiliation. IIRC – and the full TLDRagain discussion can be found above – one editor suggested that, unlike the union endorsements or contributions, it is more usual to show the party of an elected official; another editor demurred on the grounds that mentioning the party of a District Attorney in relation to a case is not the norm, but left that part of a recent edit intact pending further discussion. Since this is Crowder's biography, not Dunnings', biographical information about Dunnings is all irrelevant unless some relevance to this "controversy" (which seems to be a controversy surprisingly devoid of secondary sources describing it) has been reported in reliable sources. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes - as Fat&Happy says, I don't see the "consensus" John is referring to. I see a wide range of experienced editors telling John that he's off base, and John absolutely refusing to listen to them. If there are reliable sources indicating that Dunnings' party affiliation is somehow relevant to this biography, John needs to produce them. Otherwise, he needs to stop ignoring everyone else and stop edit-warring. MastCell ^Talk 04:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, if (I emphasize "IF") this article is now up for a complete overhaul, and you pose the question "What is the objection to conveying to the reader what these sources actually say about the incident?" (some reporting POV opinions rather than facts), I assume we could then also include quotes from Crowder via RS, RS critical of the Prosecutor's union ties, etc as well? I think most would prefer a reversion to the version we had spent so much time working on and get additional input regarding Dunnings/Union ties.JohnKAndersen (talk) 04:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

First of all, the article is always up for an overhaul, because this is Wikipedia. Secondly, instead of posing questions about hypothetical reliable sources, just produce the actual sources. Right now, there are basically only one or two actual reliable sources in this entire article; one of them is the New York Times piece whose content you're apparently determined to avoid conveying to the reader. Finally, I don't know what you mean about "additional input" - you've gotten plenty of input already, both here and at the NPOV noticeboard, but chosen to disregard it. MastCell ^Talk 04:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion the article totally fails NPOV without mention of the prosecutor's union ties. A number of reputable media outlets (including the one I added in a ref which 5minutes subsequently removed) noted this connection as relevant. The connection seems obvious to me and clearly goes to a political motive. I think that removing it adds bias. Datavortex (talk) 04:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

There has been a long, drawn-out discussion regarding the inclusion of this event. The reason I removed it is because it was the consensus of the editors on this page to leave it off. If you'd like to re-instate it, please start a discussion to see if the mood has changed. 5minutes (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

MastCell-My misunderstanding.(And you might have caught me "mid-edit"; I restored the gist of everything, did some minor cleanup, etc.)

I was left with the impressions that despite the wiki guidelines, once something had been brought to consensus, or their opinion as such, it was off limits. Any attempts to edit were met with immediate multiple reversion, threats, profanity and arbitrary rule-making, rules that just apply to me. (If you've read the interactions, including profanity on this page and my talk page you would see how I might get that impression that I could not further improve the article.

I did ask for additional input about the union link, I got NO additional input here, just the same refusal to compromise from essentially 2 editors; that's why I sought input over at NPOV; to get a wider opinion (assume good faith). And I did get additional people who agreed that the UNION affiliation is relevant when ruling on a union felony case(s). As I said, I was essentially restricted from making any more edits once "it was decided". Glad to know that as new/better/fairer information becomes available or is discovered, that the article can be improved. Not sure why you feel our sources are not RS. I'm actually trying to use one I believe added by you, Washington Post, to provide a direct quote from the Prosecutor that was closer to the time of the decision not to charge, and relating just the facts without then going on to editorialize or speculation, as we only need the quote that he did feel the charges merited further action, also changing the language from "charges dropped" as was pointed out by Millowent, he blocked any charges from being made, so nothing to dismiss, which is technically correct, and cleaned up some of my OWN language that read funny with all the subsequent edits. This is why I'm glad to know that it can still be edited, and that it is not owned by anyone; I didn't like some of the wording and felt it needed polishing but was bullied, threatened, and intimidated into leaving inferior language in the article. I think the WashPo quote that was earlier, original, less POV lessens the need to tie him to the unions since it doesn't end with him speculating on Crowder's intentions, which slanted the article. His original, factual statement contains facts, reasons, without additional editorializing.JohnKAndersen (talk) 06:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

Fat&Happy,we just have a difference of opinion that's tangled in semantics. I have reviewed the guidelines, and just as if there is supposed to be consensus on deletions, if "no consensus" is made to delete an article, it means it defaults to keep. My edit was yanked DURING the process, when it was agreed we would let items remain while working on consensuses. Someone declared "no consensus"...to delete or to keep? No consensus implies the edit should keep, as in article deletions. Also, a crucial part of the consensus process is that rather than just say "no", participants are to make alternative suggestions with the goal of something everyone can live with. Look through the history and see who has repeatedly tried to make a consensus, made new suggestions and who has posted just to criticize, condescend and make personal attacks.JohnKAndersen (talk) 06:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)JohnkAndersen

After "unlocking" the article from editing (as was implied), I hope we have arrived at a version that more can live with. I was able to edit some of my own wording that had become out of place when other edits were made, made other sentences more succinct, fixed some grammatical and redundant wording and included an earlier, less POV quote from Dunnings' that expresses the facts of not pressing the charges and why without the speculative editorializing. This makes the need to balance the statement with Dunnings' affiliations less pressing, although I still think it's' relevant, I'm happy with the current version (until new events shake everything up again! This is still an ongoing event). One dangling issue, we had all (I believe) agreed early on that opinion and quotes not from the principal players should not be included, because then you just end up with an endless "battle of the quotes" from 3rd party sources. And finding that Twitter is considered a Self Published Source and not considered a RS allowed some clean up of outdated material. Now it's clean, factual, and I think as NPOV as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnKAndersen (talk • contribs) 09:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Mastcell, I think leaving the text of the NY Times article out is OK. The article was used as a reference point to show that some people have accused Crowder of selectively editing the video (hence its inclusion), and so a news-based reference to that concept is OK. The problem is that the text you're trying to include isn't factual as much as it's the opinion of a New York Times blogger, and unless we're going to get into - as John puts it in the editing - a quote war, I think it's best just to reference the event's notability in news and then leave the quotes out of it. Additionally, we could include another reference (say like this one) and then let the readers decide if they want the pro-Crowder version or the anti-Crowder version, again without including any quotes and thereby inviting any bias. 5minutes (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with 5minutes' last post. For every "negative leaning" quote, a "pro leaning" quote can be found. That's why I think saying "he was accused of selectively editing" covers it, especially since the full video was released days after this concern was voiced, which makes it a total non-issue. He didn't stonewall and destroy select sections like Nixon or something. To imply, or in this case outright accuse that there was some other insidious purpose wouldn't be fair. (We can't even include Dunnings' affiliations with NO conclusion, yet in this case some want to include a quote that DOES draw a direct conclusion?) On to the "all editing is selective Tweet" issue, that is simply a truism, and is in fact what WE DO here ourselves. We have to decide what is relevant/appropriate and selectively edit. In his case, there had to be editing for appropriateness for television broadcast with its time limitations. Also, Twitter with its VERY limited amount of characters could never portray an in-depth answer, whereas the article cited above properly gives the full context (besides Twitter being a self-published source...I wasn't allowed to use many, basic, non-controversial biographical things from Steven's own webpage for this reason; why would we even consider using his Twitter account then?).

Looking at the full, unedited multi-camera footage, with its views of people's feet, the sky, trees, random people screaming, it becomes almost humorously evident that yes, it had to be edited; no network would air 15 minutes of profanity, irrelevant material and "rough shots" of the surrounding scenery. Therefore, I really think saying that he was in fact accused, with a link to the article above covers all bases without drawing a conclusion for the reader since it was a very minor part of the bigger picture and as noted above, quickly remedied to satisfy people that were using the fact that the video was edited (as all videos are) to distract from the primary issue; the violence, intimidation, alleged assault, etc. ThanksJohnKAndersen (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

• I'm fine with 5minutes' proposal to omit the New York Times blogger's conclusion. For the rest, though, what's happening here is insane. This article is subject to Wikipedia's content policies. We need to use actual independent, reliable sources and honestly convey their content. JohnKAndersen doesn't get to hold this article hostage by ignoring everyone else. We need to use the best available sources. That means YouTube is out and reputable news outlets are in. MastCell ^Talk 05:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• I resent the accusation, I have tried in good faith to reach consensus with little cooperation, referring often to the rules for consensus in the Wikiguide. We had finally came to a version that we could live with. Steven's Youtube channel is listed not as a source but as his outlet for his commentary, I believe. If not, the unedited video is listed on plenty of sites and that can be changed (although it in no way changes the content, I don't see the point as they got THEIR video from Youtube). Now, someone has jumped in and removed the entire section about Steven releasing the unedited video, a fact which wasn't even under debate! WHY? I propose a reversion that had been strenuously fact-checked back and forth, satisfied Wiki policy and the two primary editors (which at one point was indicated was a goal). I see the NPOV "just the fact quote" from the Prosecutor has been changed back to his speculation about Crowder's intentions. Again, we were all satisfied, and there is no posts here explaining the already-settled changes (isn't that policy?) I am reinstating the language that we all had agreed on as of yesterday and everyone actively involved seemed happy with. I expect to have the person who basically vandalized this page by randomly omitting information from consensus-built language without explanation be warned.JohnKAndersen (talk) 08:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

• Here's my question: is the quote from the prosecutor really necessary to the article? A reference to a decision doesn't necessarily mean that the quote is a worthy addition. Could we simply not say something like "In March 2013, the prosecutor declined to press charges"? Short, sweet, factual, and allegation-and-controversy-free. 5minutes (talk) 12:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I think that the reason why the prosecutor declined to press charges is relevant - certainly it's more relevant and better-sourced than much of the material currently in the article. Presumably the reader will be curious, given our lead-in, as to why no charges were filed. A direct quote isn't essential - we could also paraphrase the self-defense finding - but this detail is relevant, well-sourced, and appropriate for inclusion with proper attribution (i.e., we're not pronouncing in the editorial voice that it was self-defense; we're conveying that the prosecutor reached that conclusion, per site policy). MastCell ^Talk 18:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

He thinks that the reason why the prosecutor declined to press charges is relevant, but not so relevant that we should document the party loyalties [clear BLP violation redacted by Fat&Happy (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)]. 2602:306:CCA3:460:445C:3BF0:F837:EAD5 (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with MastCell that the self-defense finding is very relevant to include, but no quote is needed to convey that.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit ambivalent on this one. Just saying the prosecutor decided the union member was "acting in self-defense" seems to be indicting Crowder by implication (the same type of implication I want to avoid re: Dunnings' motives). That he was actually engaged in self-defense is a bit dubious – if I am in a crowd and get shoved from behind, is it self-defense for me to spin around and take a swing at the first person I see? Dunnings' comment is a sound-byte, not a precise legal finding. It seems to be shorthand for "the guy got knocked down and took a swing at someone, believing he was defending himself" and it wasn't serious enough to warrant charges. But if we use the "acting in self-defense" phrasing, I'd like to see it paraphrased and tempered a bit with analysis of the overall situation, as in the Lansing State Journal article. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, the prosecutor actually did say that the union member appeared to be engaged in self-defense, and reliable secondary source reported his statement to that effect; I'm not sure it's our role as editors to downplay it because we're dubious. And we're not presenting the self-defense claim as fact, but simply as a viewpoint attributed to the prosecutor. I agree that the situation is a bit nebulous - that's actually why I preferred a direct quote rather than a paraphrase, to avoid editorially framing things one way or the other. I'd be totally fine with including any other context from the Lansing State Journal article, or from any other independent, reliable secondary source, which you think is appropriate or relevant. MastCell ^Talk 20:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of Dunnings' further quote that the guy had been pushed down and "came up swinging" would help convey something of the confused circumstances and alleviate any impression that, e.g., he had been punched in the gut and swung specifically at his attacker in response, as would the LSJ's conclusion that it was "unclear who pushed the union member". I'm not sure the LSJ comment about Crowder's gesturing his innocence is necessary, but wouldn't object too much either way. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd be fine with the inclusion of any or all of those details, as you see fit. Along those lines, the New York Times piece notes that "Mr. Crowder had his hand on that man's shoulder just before he tumbled to the ground" but that "it seems likely that the man was knocked to the ground as members of the two sides pushed against one other, not shoved down by Mr. Crowder." ([2]) That may help add context. MastCell ^Talk 21:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I would be OK with the inclusion of a statement such as the one above. It seems more fact-based than a sound-byte by a politician. 5minutes (talk) 02:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The current statement from dunnings isn't a paraphrase but the original, official statement. Our effort to keep what really is his speculation out of the article is because any number of other sources report that he was punched without provocation. Again, don't want to get into a quote battle when the facts say it all; the prosecutor didn't fine enough evidence to press charges. That's not confusing, nor slanted in any way. Anyone still curious can then check the citations. I think getting into "whose hand was on whose shoulder" or whether someone fell, was pushed, tripped, etc is minutiae and speculation that we had removed from the first iteration, as the article is about Crowder, not the protest per se.

Maybe a subarticle about that protest is warranted; I don't think so, but that's just my opinion. But once you start getting those kind of dissection of people's hand movements at which time type details, then you open it to include other additional information like the defense of the tent was due to elderly volunteers inside, as well as a hot dog vendor who was mildly injured (and allegedly but quoted in numerous sources) called a racial epithet, a VERY obvious threat of killing Crowder with a gun repeatedly (as clearly heard in the video) and that the women inside were in potential danger due to the tent coming in contact with the heaters and hot dog cooker, and so forth. I think it opens up a pandora's box of details that really aren't necessary. The shorter (current) version gives enough detail, if someone wants addtl details,that's what citations are for. I noticed the prosecutor's identification as a Democrat was deleted without discussion, I believe that was 5 minutes addition accepted by consensus as NPOV. Should we delete the words "conservative" when referring to Steven's media work? I am 99% happy with this article as it stand now, but think any elected politician's party should be included as an honorific and out of respect as it is in newspapers and encylopedias, even if it's in the common form "(D)".ThanksJohnKAndersen (talk) 07:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

• As Fat&Happy pointed out, there are sources that DO make a connection between Dunnins and the unions and it might have influenced his decision:http://danaloeschradio.com/mi-prosecutor-lets-union-off-the-hook-in-crowder-case/

If we are to consider Dunnings' speculative quote instead of his official statement, would we also include an award winning columnist' opinion upon review of the same video? There are many other sources, and the guide supports it as RS and gives a similar example: "According to the opinion columnist Maureen Dowd..." That would neutralize Dunnings' opinion, if included."Dunnings is simply protecting the union members behind the riot which saw them destroy property, put women and children in harm’s way, and assault those who were videotaped simply asking questions. It’s an embarrassment to the office in which he serves." We don't need warring quotes about the protest, that OVERWEIGHTS Crowder's article and makes it all about the protest with minute details and he said/she said quotes. This is an interesting read though as its frame-by-frame gives an insight that some may find interesting, if not change their mind, introduce some doubt.JohnKAndersen (talk) 09:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

Quick note: "danaloeschradio" is not a RS. Dana is a personal friend of Steven. Her husband Chris did the rap with Steven that made the "knickers" as N-word joke. And John, I am sure you know this.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• And you would be 100% WRONG. I have asked you not to address me personally. You don't KNOW me. You're openly baiting me as you have on my talk page and elsewhere with petty and snarky comments which does nothing to advance discussion or consensus. I'm not playing along. Too ill to flame-war with some stranger/stalker/harasser. I honestly have no idea whom Crowder is acquainted with, nor had I heard of her before this article. You could have expressed the concern without making any reference to me or assumptions about what I know or don't know. To the point; she fits the RS requirements. (If Dunnings' close, personal "acquaintances" and benefactors in the Unions are, beyond all obvious common sense and backed up with RS are deemed irrelevant and supposedly don't bias his opinions and affect his MUCH more direct influence, the same is true of Crowder's alleged friends.)JohnKAndersen (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment "This policy is aimed to protect victims of genuine harassment which is meant to cause distress to the user, such as repeated and UNWANTED CORRESPONDENCE and postings.JohnKAndersen (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen
• First, John, if you believe a user is harassing you, you should report it to the WP Administrators, not make accusations against another user on a talk page. Such behavior is not smiled upon at WP. Second, Milowent is correct. DanaLoeschRadio is not a reliable source under WP guidelines. It is an opinion-based blog, not a fact-checked, reliable third-party source of information. 5minutes (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• 5minutes, thank you for your opinion. I had done that, and despite it the actions continued so I exercised my right to not be harassed here, since reporting and attempting to address it private was not successful. They were not accusations; but met the criteria via Wiki-guide (making profane statements and/or intended to threaten or intimidate). I disagree with you about whether Dana Loesch's blog is a reliable source as I carefully read the guidelines at the time, and it seemed to meet the criteria. I'm not sure it's crucial to the article; I've never seen/heard her work. I will review/research it again. JohnKAndersen (talk) 10:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)JohnKAnderson

• You may consider her blog reliable, but in terms of encyclopedic reference material, blogs of any kind are typically not considered a reliable source and are heavily frowned upon for biographies of living people. Please use reliable sources such as newspapers, major news sites, etc. for your information sources. 5minutes (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

red conservatism banner

why is the banner for conservatism red? can someone change it back to blue. 2001:8003:84D5:6200:F5DF:3F64:BF37:E41E (talk) 06:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

It's been red for a long time. No need to change. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Border Town ‖ 06:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Anti-Islam and antifeminism

An IP has been repeatedly adding a number of categories to the article, such as Category:Critics of Islam, Category:Male critics of feminism, Category:Critics of atheism, and similar. Per WP:V and WP:BLPCAT, these should absolutely not be included until this is explained in the article with reliable sources. This must also be supported as a defining trait, per WP:CATDEF

The three links the IP has suggested as sources are this thing from Crowder's website, a Media Matters post from 2012 about comments he made in 2010, and Google search results. I'm not sure how, or if, this should be included.

The WP:PRIMARY source is a mess for multiple reasons, although it does support that he's opposed to Islam. It's a GIF-filled half-joke article that's built on misinterpreted statistics and ignorant assumptions, but it's not really up to me to describe it that way. This article shouldn't be a platform to share his ideas, good or bad. Without reliable, independent sources, it's hard to see how this is any different from all the rest of the content he produces, and highlighting one specific post while ignoring countless others is a form of editorializing.

The Media Matters post is a different issue. What, exactly, should be added from it? Crowder said that "Muslims tend to be more violent than Christians" because he considers the Quran more violent than the Bible (more violent than Judges 21:10-24? Deuteronomy 22:28-29? Why is it a contest? Anyway...)

Google results are useless. We need specific reliable sources for something like this. Looking through those results, I see some results from the The Washington Times. This is not a generally reliable outlet, but the articles are about a video he made of him pretending to be gay and trying to order over-the-top wedding cakes from Muslim bakeries. Since he vocally supports their right not to bake these hypothetical cakes, and he apparently went to bakeries that don't normally make wedding cakes at all for anyone, it's hard to treat this as anything more than click-bait trolling, especially not without a real source. Grayfell (talk) 05:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

It's also obvious satire. Lukacris (talk) 06:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Steven Crowder and Climate Change

Hello there everyone, I would like to get your opinions on the hole Steven Crowder and Climate Change part of the article, more specifically the "Crowder rejects the scientific consensus on climate change". I find this statement contradictory with what Crowder stated in his video "Top 5 Myths About Steven Crowder Debunked" where he adresses this claim:

"Do I think the climate is changing? Yes. Could humans be contributing? Yes. Could they be contributing a significant amount? Sure! What I have an issue with, is the predictions, which cannot be verified, which will be catastrophic, imminent, and we need to take action right now, through, surprise, government policies."

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYM7trRhjyo 06:06 for the quote or 05:10-08:15 for the full clip.

Also correct me if I'm wrong, but don't all of the 4 sources provided for the claims against Crowder fall under not a reliable source under WP guidelines?

Whilst the three YouTube videos by potholer54 were very well made and good critisms of Crowders points, they are nonetheless YouTube videos, henceforth, unreliable sources? My apologies on this point if I'm incorrect, I'm new to the whole Wikipedia editing thing.

"Sasha Leidman, a PhD student in the Arctic Hydroclimatology Research Lab at Rutgers University, described a video by Crowder as "climate change disinformation" and that he spotted more than 25 blatantly false statements in the video."

Now the last source and the wording of it on the article seems to be... really missplaced. The video which the source is refering too is an interview between Steven Crowder and Patrick Moore and almost all of the "blatantly false statements", that the source is referring too, are statements made by Patrick Moore, not Steven Crowder. This is pretty cheeky wording, in my opinion, which makes Steven Crowder sound quite a bit worse then "A man Steven Crowder was interviewing said multiple false statements about climate change". N:POV 78.84.88.215 (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.84.88.215 (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

The section has since been removed, so this is resolved. Grayfell (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Ashley Judd/Shaun King

These two entries seem rather WP:UNDUE, and not particularly notable, not in terms of the entire body of what he's discussed, or their notability in the general sense of who Crowder is. Thoughts? Anastrophe (talk) 07:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this needs an entire section. The source seems reliable, and... yeesh. The "joke" seems so extraordinarily tasteless that it's not surprising that an article would be written about it, but is this due weight, or just shock-jock attention seeking? Right now the paragraph is proportional to other coverage of similar nonsense in the article, but that's a deeper problem, innit? Grayfell (talk) 07:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

If this does remain however it should be noted why the statements are made, not just to point them out. For instance Sean King's family has stated he is biologically white and there are the police reports as well. User:Bgrus22 (talk) Feb 13, 2019 —Preceding undated comment added 08:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

As extensively discussed at the appropriate article, anonymous claims published in the Daily Mail are not a reliable source for anything related to a living person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Additional info to Personal Life section?

(Note: I have limited, infrequent interaction on Wikipedia. I'm not entirely clear on how detailed information of Bio's of living people can be.)

I noticed the Personal Life section was very sparse. Also, the final sentence reads ″Crowder is a Christian.[17]″, which ends a bit abruptly without adding any more detail.

Does anyone know of more information that can be added to the Personal Life section? I've caught his videos on YouTube a few times, so I'm aware he has strong opinions on abortion, and that his wife works at some kind of a crisis planning center. Would information like that be appropriate for this article? From what I understand, his stance on the subject is something that is relevant to his religious beliefs, so it might be worth mentioning in the Personal Life section. I don't have enough info on the subject to put it in definitively though. Sawta (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing but all I could come up with are unsourced claims he attended Centennial Regional High School in Longueuil, Canada and allegedly went to Champlain College, Vermont in the United States but it is unknown what his major is or if he majored at all. If he had a degree, I guess he wouldn't be so secretive about it and as far as I can see, he found his calling relatively early as a voice actor and youtuber so there was no need for any more formal education. 2001:16B8:6637:5100:575:7A04:FA32:BC57 (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

All of this would need a reliable source. Normally his own social media (videos and tweets, etc.) would not be very useful for articles, but they may be helpful here. For religion, education, and similar categories, Wikipedia accepts that people are who they say they are unless we have a specific, well-sourced reason to doubt them. Therefore, if Crowder has said "I graduated from Champlain" or "I went to Champlain but didn't graduate" or whatever, that's probably sufficient, but we need the actual source so we can verify this. Sources are not optional, especially because this is a biography of a living person. If you know of any useful sources, please feel free to post them here. Grayfell (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Crowder's income stream vis a vis youtube monetization

First, the addition stated that Maza didn't like youtube's decision, and included his claim that YT isn't Crowder's main source of income. That's immaterial to YT's decision, and whether Maza likes the decision or not isn't at all relevant to the BLP. I removed it on that rationale. It was reverted with removal of it being Maza's claim, as being 'relevant' to the section. Unfortunately, the claim that it's Crowder's main source of income/revenue is only supported by Maza's statement that it is. That's wholey unreliable, and not one of the three sources provides an independent assessment of that claim. I'd be willing to add the sentence back with a 'cite needed' tag, but I see no point in that. It's an unsourced claim which has precious little to do with the matter. It's implying that the sanction is meaningless - we don't publish implications. Anastrophe (talk) 00:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

@Anastrophe: All three sources mention t-shirt sales as being a major part of this issue, as Google specifically mentioned this point. They first said he cannot both sell homophobic t-shirts and also be monetized by Google, before later saying that was only a small part of the problem.

Per the Daily Beast source: He currently makes money from t-shirt sales, as well as from a paid content-sharing agreement with Ben Shapiro's the Daily Wire, Media Matters reported. This is a reliable source, and is not from Maza.

Per Forbes: According to analytics platform SimilarWeb, Crowder's online store has averaged nearly 75,000 views per month in 2019. This is also a reliable source, (it is from Forbes staff, not "contributors"). This is also not from Maza, but is back-up to Maza's comments.

Multiple reliable sources have cited Maza, and then also provide additional back-up and context. We cannot assume that it's just Maza's opinion. If there is a reason to think he was mistaken about this, let's hear it. If there is some reason to think that Maza's perspective on this is immaterial because he's involved, you're got your work cut out for you making that case. Sources report what he has to say for an obvious reason. Grayfell (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

And which of those sources states that "Crowder's income primarily came from merchandise sales, and paid promotion for The Daily Wire via Facebook"? Not a single one. It may very well be that YT isn't his primary source of income. So what? Is the article to engage in 'reverse schadenfruede' - we'll imply 'oh, well, it's not going to hurt him as much as we'd like him to be hurt by this, regrettably'? Yes, I will "cry blp", since, you know, this is a BLP. Maza's opinion that the sanctions aren't adequate isn't material - it's clear that Maza wants Crowder completely silenced (as all good journalists would). His opinion of whether Crowder has been harmed sufficiently is _not_ relevant to Mr. Crowder's BLP. Anastrophe (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I should add what should be obvious: Maza's opinion of whether Crowder has been harmed sufficiently is entirely and 100% relevant to Maza's BLP. Anastrophe (talk) 01:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

BLP isn't a bubble which insulates people from their own actions. If BLP applies to Maza, it applies to Maza on this article as well as Crowder's.

Do not distort Maza's words to prove a point. Maza is a journalist who has documented specific harassment and doxing he has received. He is qualified to discuss whether or not his own actions had the intended consequences, and multiple reliable, independent sources have quoted him in this context. BLP applies to Maza also. We cannot ignore BLP when it cites someone who disagrees with the subject of the article. Maza's opinions on this incident matter because sources specifically tell us they matter.

Maza has repeatedly said he doesn't particularly care about Crowder specifically. He wants Youtube to enforce its existing policies to prevent future harassment. He's not out to get Crowder, as though he were some corporate boogieman. This isn't about being "harmed sufficiently". Sources are discussing this issue for a reason, and we must present this context. To do otherwise is misusing sources to present a more flattering picture of Crowder, and a less flattering picture of Maza. Grayfell (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not distorting Maza's words. "Maza is a journalist who has documented specific harassment and doxing he has received." He's "documented" Crowder relentlessy critisizing Maza's work, which isn't malicious - he challenges the ideas, and a journalist should expect that - it's part of the job. Crowder isn't some sort of virulent white-supremacist hate monger, and judging him within the bubble of 'friendly' journalistic sources isn't impartial either. Maza has not documented any doxing by Crowder, and in fact Crowder has always been emphatic in his denouncement of any behavior like that (and it needs to be noted in the article that YT found no evidence supporting the suggestion that Crowder encouraged doxing, brigading, or anything remotely like it.) Maza's thus far said that demonetizing Crowder isn't enough - which pretty clearly implies that he wants Crowder shut down. Yes, that's my own inference, but it's not really a stretch considering his tone. "To do otherwise is misusing sources to present a more flattering picture of Crowder, and a less flattering picture of Maza." The article is hardly 'flattering' to Crowder by clearly stating that he was investigated, and demonetized because of his content. Anastrophe (talk) 04:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

/* Louder with Crowder */ Citation needed for claim involving AIDS

This claim appears to be sourced from one of his videos, "HOAX: The AIDS Epidemic That Never Happened!". It is a false derivation from the video that he denies AIDS exists; he is claiming that the epidemic was over-reported. This article is a BLP so this claim should be reviewed and the claim either removed or revised and sourced.

2620:0:1006:FD00:3830:D95D:D80F:50A7 (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Correct, WP:NOR is definitely not allowed here. I am leaving the {{cn}} tag for a bit if someone finds a RS. wumbolo ^^^ 21:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I just deleted the section entirely. Only citation was a 2009 youtube video that only substantiated when he started on youtube. Rest of it was unsourced and out of chronological order with the flow of the rest of the article. Rivselis (talk) 02:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Steven Crowder "Youtube" section

Edits made were factual, objective and backed by reliable sources. Until there is further evidence to back Maza's claims, it should be safe to assume that "mocking" is a subjective term from the perspective of Maza, and thus "allegedly" is more appropriate to describe those claims. Wikipedia aims to be as factual and objective as possible and the lack of an objective/neutral stance hence undermines Wikipedia's credibility — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cement4802 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The cited sources do not describe this as an "allegation". Crowder's behavior is as clear as day, and sources are unlikely to play stupid to something as obvious as this without a good reason. Further, these sources do emphasize that Maza "took offense", making your edit clear editorializing. Grayfell (talk) 04:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The word "mocked" seems like a reasonable descriptor to me but if others disagree the word should be removed/replaced. Adding the word "allegedly" makes the sentence less clear: Maza was also allegedly mocked with a stereotypical gay voice. That makes it sound like whether or not Crowder used a stereotypical gay voice is in dispute, but it's not. WanderingWanda (talk) 04:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

It is a completely fine, appropriate and verified word, it's not at MOS:WTW and it is used at January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation. I have more of a problem with the word "slur" (slur-shaming?). wumbolo ^^^ 12:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The Verge source

Regarding this edit by @Netoholic::

According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources The Verge (and Vox) are broadly reliable sources. The statements made in the article were clearly attributed to The Verge as a Vox subsidiary, and the context that Maza works for Vox had also been explained earlier in the section. Readers have the info needed to weight this appropriately. The source itself also discloses this connection.

The reason for given for removal is that this is a biased source which is not independent of the topic it is covering. This is neither accurate, not sufficient in this case. Removing this source without any specific further reason is implying that reporters for an otherwise reliable outlet cannot be trusted to report on people who have insulted their colleagues at a sister-outlet. This is an absurd standard, because journalists commonly, and almost consistently, report on people who openly dislike them, and taunting someone with slurs doesn't undermine the reliability of the recipient of the attacks. It also doesn't undermine the reliability of other reporters who work under a different banner of the same corporation.

In other words, Crowder is not qualified in any way to decide whether or not a source is reliable on Wikipedia. Likewise, Maza's statements about Crowder's behavior do not make Maza's colleagues at another site any less reliable. If there is some specific reason why this source isn't reliable other than that Crowder has insulted one of Maza's co-workers, let's see it. If there is some clear reason this is a BLP violation, explain it, otherwise this appears to be using BLP as a deflection for whitewashing the article.

This source is not an opinion, and is not being used to support subjective claims. Here it is for convenience:

• Alexander, Julia (2019-05-31). "YouTube investigating right-wing pundit Steven Crowder for harassing Vox.com host". The Verge. Retrieved 2019-06-01.

Grayfell (talk) 05:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

The Verge is considered a generally-reliable source, yeah; it seems sufficient, at least, to establish WP:DUE for a brief quote by Maza, attributed to Maza, outlining his position on a conflict that is clearly central to the topic. I don't think there's any serious doubt that said this, and it would be difficult to argue that it's irrelevant to the dispute, so I don't see the argument for omitting it. --Aquillion (talk) 06:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Aquillion: The sourced quote ("routinely contain egregious violations of YouTube's policies against cyberbullying") is from the Verge article's prose - not a quote from Maza. Its a cherry-picked line taken from a WP:BIASED source which is not independent enough of the topic, since its about one of their employee's. Neither is it some from of official statement from Vox. Its a writer defending a co-worker, and since this is a BLP, it is inappropriate to include it. Its also not necessary to do so as there are a plethora of other sources which state opinions about the matter which are appropriately independent. -- Netoholic @ 06:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Netoholic:, you have broken the three revert rule.[3][4][5][6] I strongly advise you to self revert. It has already been established that The Verge is both reliable and relevant, so further changes should be proposed here first. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: See the above reply I gave to Aquillion. Also, I'll point out, that this particular line is factually incorrect because YouTube has specifically said that Crowder's videos do not violate its policies. Instead of trying to restore this biased source, please find WP:INDEPENDENT sources on the matter. I advise that you stop edit warring to include such a cherry-picked line from a connected source. As this a WP:BLPREMOVE situation, there is no chance I will self-revert because the inclusion of this source is a violation of BLP policies. -- Netoholic @ 14:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Netoholic: I have already read the reply above, and these issues have also been discussed in Carlos Maza's talk page, but it isn't a reason to break 3RR. Per WP:3RRNO, it's more advisable to report in the BLP noticeboard rather than edit warring. Notice that I haven't reverted again, and I would like to strongly advise, once again, that you self revert. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: I've posted on Wikipedia:BLPN#Steven Crowder just as you replied. Self-reverting is not an option due to the BLP nature of this. No editor here, no matter what your opinion, should ever edit to include such defamatory and factually incorrect material to a BLP that comes from a source connected to the topic in this way. -- Netoholic @ 14:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

There is no BLP issue here; the wording is reliably sourced and we don't exclude sources merely because an employee from that source has been criticized by the article subject. Otherwise article subjects could literally control the sourcing of their Wikipedia article simply by criticizing people who work for sources they don't like. "I called a reporter for The Washington Post an ISIS-supporting commie socialist, therefore The Washington Post has a conflict of interest and you can't use it!" No, there's zero support in policy for that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I filed a report in the edit warring noticeboard so a third party can evaluate the situation, given that there isn't an agreement regarding if this is a BLP violation. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Many sources have commented on Youtube's failures to clearly articulate its own terms of service. Some have specifically said that Youtube has failed to enforce its own rules, regardless of Youtube's botched PR to the contrary. Youtube can decide that Crowder wasn't in violation, but that's not the end of the story, because sources are still talking about it. They are talking about it because Youtube's comments were definitely confusing and arguably hypocritical. It would be a very bad idea for the article to favor corporate PR over reliable sources, so we should probably indicate this problem. To put it another way, Youtube made a judgement call that Crowder had not violated its terms of service, and independent observers disputed this. I would say that Youtube's poor handling of this is a main point of most reliable sources on this specific incident. Omitting this perspective would be damaging the article for little benefit. Grayfell (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

"It has already been established that The Verge is both reliable and relevant,” How is a statement that is by definition an opinion deemed “reliable?” Absurd discussion! Orthotox (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Content proposed by Cement4802

Cement4802 has recently added and attempted to re-add the following content (italicised content was already there):

The decision to demonetize Crowder's account was criticized by Republican Senator Ted Cruz, who had previously tweeted in defense of Crowder, saying "This is ridiculous. YouTube is not the Star Chamber — stop playing God & silencing those voices you disagree with. This will not end well". Similarly, the demonetization of Crowder's channel also drew criticism from free speech advocates.

The latter reference is to [7]. Pinging Grayfell who has reverted the addition multiple times.

Let's discuss the content rather than edit warring. I'll start: the quote from Cruz is undue weight to a small part of the media coverage of the incidents. The Business Insider article is not necessarily a reliable source but it does look detailed and like it could add value to the article. However, I do not see how it verifies the given sentence, which is also non-neutrally worded. Even if I have overlooked such a claim in the article, it would be undue weight to cherry-pick that as the only part to include out of the many reactions the article documents. Hence I believe the original version of the article is better, though I'm not opposed to using the BI source. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 23:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this perspective. The BI article appears broadly reliable, but it includes multiple perspectives which the source contextualizes. Picking one tweet among several, just because it's from a noteworthy person, is arbitrary and potentially misleading.

Likewise the terms "criticism" and "controversy" should be handled with caution. Since this is an encyclopedia, we should be able to indicate why these are controversial. If sources don't allow us to do that for some reason, we should neutrally indicate who is controverting something. "Free speech advocates" is not neutral, as it is euphemistic and leading for multiple reasons. Presenting this as a debate between censorship and free speech is similarly loaded, since the term "censorship" is both inflammatory and complicated. Grayfell (talk) 23:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The removal of videos following the oscars

This was a large scale issue with abc that put him in the limelight and should be mentioned Bgrus22 (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Other Show Segments

"Change my Mind" may be the most well known of the segments but there are many others that may be worth listing. This would include: Crowder confronts, rebutals, debunks, and debates. Also it may be prudent to explain the format of these segments and/or list and link the topics. Bgrus22 (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires reliable independent sources for adding content, especially on a biography of a living person. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2019

Added description of imagery on t-shirt to provide context to sentence. Hksoftware (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Is this related to his "Socialism is for f*gs" T-shirt? Or the T-shirt he's wearing in the main article image, with Walther on it? Dogman15 (talk) 09:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)