Talk:Ta-Nehisi Coates: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 02:33, 3 June 2014 editNorthBySouthBaranof (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers33,494 edits →Threaded Discussion: rs.← Previous edit		Revision as of 02:47, 3 June 2014 edit undoUseitorloseit (talk \| contribs)471 edits →RfC: Discipline issues in high school Next edit →
Line 65:		Line 65:
	==RfC: Discipline issues in high school==		==RfC: Discipline issues in high school==
	{{rfc\|bio\|media\|rfcid=F5F23E0}}		{{rfc\|bio\|media\|rfcid=F5F23E0}}
	Should the subject's discipline problems in his inner city school be mentioned in the article? ] (]) 21:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)		Should the subject's discipline problems in his inner city school be mentioned in the article? ] (]) 02:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

	===Threaded Discussion===		===Threaded Discussion===

Revision as of 02:47, 3 June 2014

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Journalism

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United States

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

[REDACTED]

African diaspora Low‑importance

[REDACTED]	This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Proposed change to Early Life section

I propose the current sentence about his schooling in the early life section be changed to this:

Coates attended Baltimore Polytechnic Institute but was expelled twice for disciplinary violations and he graduated from Woodlawn High School.

This doesn't specifically mention any of the assaults, suspensions, or arrest. It's also not in the section describing the memoir, so it's not giving undue weight to any part of the book. Based on his multiple referrals to these incidents which I have provided links for, I think it's relevant to this article. Naysayers may feel it is negative. Another more likely view in my opinion is that it enhances his credibility and authority to comment on the social issues he often writes about, and provides a richer context for readers. I've already expanded the book description as far as it can go without returning to the previous undue weight version, which is one demonstrable improvement of the article I made, and would like to include this part and hopefully move on to other things. Hope people can be reasonable and work with me here. Useitorloseit (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

No. We already refer to his book's account of his troubled experience at Baltimore schools. Consensus is clear that the incident is sufficiently described. You should move on to other things. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Other editors have stated they are ok with a single, more explicit description of the incidents, so consensus is not quite what you claim. Simply saying "troubled experience" violates the NPOV rule. This proposal is a good compromise: it takes it out of the book section but is still general enough. If you have another compromise, let's hear it. Useitorloseit (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose If he is the only one discussing these juvenile incidents, in his blog, then I see no reason for adding this content in a brief biography such as this. It would give undue weight to the incident. Cullen Let's discuss it 01:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

By your standard, most of the biographical facts should be tossed as well. He has made it clear these events are important enough to him by mentioning them over the years in a non-cursory way. That makes them relevant enough not to be undue weight. Useitorloseit (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Results Ok, I'm obviously ok with this. SGGH was ok with a single explicit reference. TheRedPenofDoom said not to mention it twice, which implies it's ok to mention once. Cullen and NorthbySouthBaranhof are opposed. Where does consensus stand? Does anyone want to propose a compromise? Useitorloseit (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

You may not take anything from my "dont mention twice" other than i am clearly on the record as opposed to mentioning it twice.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

That IS all I took from it, and I think the implication was a fair one. At any rate, it would still be 2-2. Does anybody want to sit down and work out a compromise? This is how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work. Useitorloseit (talk) 02:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The issue is already mentioned. We don't "compromise," we develop consensus. There exists a consensus that the existing version adequately discusses any incidents related to Coates' time in school. That you don't like this consensus is neither here nor there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

No such consensus exists. And if editors disagree, they are supposed to find a workable solution. So let's do that instead of claiming you have consensus on your side when you plainly don't. We need to find a phrasing that does not paper over the events but doesn't wallow in them either. That is where consensus lies. What wording do you suggest? Useitorloseit (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, actually, there has never been a consensus developed that any mention of the incident belongs in the article. The status quo ante was no mention at all, prior to your controversial addition in February. The existing version is, in and of itself, a compromise version. If you believe that there is no consensus, then we will have to revert back to a version before you began introducing the issue, removing any and all mention of the incident until such time as a consensus is further developed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

This is the last uncontroversial version of the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

is what I consider the last uncontroversial edit. I think there is consensus that it gets mentioned; you yourself have supported the euphemism "troubled past" which is a mention, however vague. I also think there is consensus to only mention it once. The only question it seems to me is how specific do we get. Useitorloseit (talk) 04:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

*Oppose It's sourced content and I don't think mentioning the specific charges is undue. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

- Changing to Support I misread. This guy got kicked out of school by his own admission. The article should reflect that. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  - Your edit summary is false and misleading. There is no evidence that Coates is in any way a "criminal." Please refrain from inflammatory/BLP-violating rhetoric in edit summaries. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It is already mentioned in the "Career" section and we should not mention it twice. I think that is what The Red Pen of Doom is saying as well, but that editor can clarify it needed. SGGH hasn't commented in three weeks, so please do not count that editor as supporting your current proposal, unless they speak in favor now. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

If people opposed are allowed to be counted without weighing in, such as yourself these past few months, then I'm counting SGGH. The wording in the Career section is too vague. Mentioning it once is fine but I won't accept a euphemism that obscures the issue. We need to find a phrasing that does not paper over the events but doesn't wallow in them either. That is where consensus lies. What wording do you suggest?

Useitorloseit (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I have commented on this matter many times since February, including several times in the last three weeks. So please don't misrepresent my contributions. My suggestion is "no change", as long as you are grinding your axe. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

absolutely oppose the proposed wording drop the damn stick and your obsession with portraying him as a criminal and go on with your life. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is based on quality of arguments. Making a conclusory statement and just questioning an editor's motives aren't high up the quality scale. Useitorloseit (talk) 04:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Consensus HAS been made on the quality of arguments. and yours have been found lacking. and found lacking. and found lacking. When you keep beating your head against the wall, dont blame me for your headache. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Consensus can change. Useitorloseit (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Consensus hasn't changed, and motives are relevant. Your motives have been obvious since your very first edit summary. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

You just ignore editors who disagree with you. SGGH and Chris troutman seem to feel differently than you. With me, that's 3. Your motives are clear: you don't like being contradicted. Useitorloseit (talk) 05:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I love being contradicted by productive encyclopedia editors who understand our policies and guidelines, and are here to build the encyclopedia rather than to push a point of view. I am quick to admit my mistakes when they are pointed out to me. I am not perfect and constantly work to improve my contributions here. However, I truly do not believe that this is such a case. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, passive-aggressive comments like "I'm not here to push a point of view" aren't conducive to building consensus, and I hope you see that now. But I'll tell you what: your tagline says Let's Discuss It. I'll take you at your word: let's talk it over and see if we can work out phrasing that works for both of us. I understand and agree with your desire not to "smear" this person. I hope you will appreciate my desire not to paper over a formative occurrence in this person's background. Useitorloseit (talk) 01:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, how's this for a start: Set aside your obsession with this issue for a month. In that time, show us that you are here to build an encyclopedia by tripling the length of this biography, adding nothing but scrupulously well referenced, neutral content. Once you've shown your good faith, we can agree to a slight expansion of the coverage of his juvenile problems. It would not then violate WP:UNDUE. Cullen Let's discuss it 01:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

We can discuss this, but it has to be with no preconditions. I've already stated my objection to your proposal about drastically expanding the article: this person is of limited notability and such an expansion would give undue weight to his notability. However, I am responsible for expanding the description of his book. Useitorloseit (talk) 02:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

If he is of limited notability, his being expelled from high school is of absolutely zero notability, given that you have not provided a single reliable non-primary source which discusses it, and therefore any significant mention is undue weight. Q.E.D. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

No, because the info is directly tied up with the reason for his notability. He writes about race, crime, inner city schools, etc. This is relevant to that writing. It's like having an author of a book about homelessness, and debating whether to mention that they were homeless when younger. Useitorloseit (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

That is your personal opinion. It is an interesting opinion, but if you have no sources to support it, then it has no place in Misplaced Pages. We do not publish original research. Please cite the independent reliable sources which consider these minor juvenile incidents as important to Coates' life as you claim. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The links I've given to Coates' own references to the incidents demonstrate their importance. Other editors agree with this point too. Useitorloseit (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. WP:DEADHORSE. Gamaliel (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on WP:ANI

I have opened a discussion relevant to this article at the administrator's noticeboard for incidents. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully an admin will take the time to hear both sides, because when civil discussion takes place, I usually end up having my edit winning support. Other users resort to name-calling and forum shopping. Useitorloseit (talk) 04:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

where exactly has your proposal for content "won"? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Discipline issues in high school

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists:

Biographies
Media, the arts, and architecture

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the subject's discipline problems in his inner city school be mentioned in the article? Useitorloseit (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

Ta-Nehisi Coates is a blogger for the Atlantic magazine who focuses on issues of African-Americans, race relations, crime, young black males, inner city schools, etc. (Reparations for slavery and Shooting of Trayvon Martin are two examples of issues where he has had an impact). He has written about his discipline issues in high school over the years, and I want to include a mention of that. The proposed edit is this: "Coates attended Baltimore Polytechnic Institute but was expelled twice for disciplinary violations and he graduated from Woodlawn High School." The edit meets Misplaced Pages's content requirements: it is verifiable, based on the author's own repeated discussion of the incidents over the years. WP policy allows such self-referential sources. There is no original research: these links are written by the author, not me, and they are being used to support only one thing: the straight fact of the incidents, nothing else. Lastly, this is a neutral point of view: it doesn't obscure the existence of these incidents, nor does it emphasize them. I believe this edit should be added to the article. Useitorloseit (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

As has been discussed here ad nauseam, the material you seek to add is a continuation of your campaign vendetta against the author, beginning with your very first edit which smeared Coates as a "criminal." Absent a significant and wide-ranging expansion of the article's biographical coverage of his life and works, it is inappropriate and undue weight to go into any detail about minor disciplinary issues during his childhood.

New editors entering this discussion should take time to familiarize themselves with the extensive previous discussion of this issue on this page and the talk page archives. They should also know that the RfC initiator is effectively a single-purpose account with no substantive contributions beyond this quest to smear the biography's subject. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Support For the reasons I stated in the discussion section. Useitorloseit (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. WP:DEADHORSE. Gamaliel (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. Undue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Are you serious? Cwobeel (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Comment Is this related to this? This looks tedious.__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - As discussed ad nauseam, undue and unnecessary detail. Drop the stick. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
for the 12th million time - NO. now take your vendetta elsewhere. 01:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose for reasons stated over and over and over previously. It seems that the time for a topic ban is fast approaching. Cullen Let's discuss it 02:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Categories: