| Revision as of 19:27, 20 November 2014 editIntgr (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers32,254 editsm →'Anti feminist': Editing error← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 14:58, 21 November 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,896,618 editsm →top: followup cleanupTag: AWB |
| (169 intermediate revisions by 61 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
⚫ |
{{Old XfD multi |
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Biography|living=yes}} |
|
| ⚫ |
{{old AfD multi |
|
|
|date1 = May 31 2012 |result1 = '''delete''' |page1 = Phil Mason |
|
|date1 = May 31 2012 |result1 = '''delete''' |page1 = Phil Mason |
|
|
|date2 = August 29, 2018 |result2 = '''no consensus''' |page2 = Phil Mason (2nd nomination) |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=start|listas=Mason, Phil|1= |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Biography|s&a-work-group=yes|s&a-priority=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject YouTube|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Internet culture|importance=low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
| algo = old(30d) |
|
|
| archive = Talk:Thunderf00t/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
| counter = 1 |
|
|
| maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|
|
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
| minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
Some parts of this arcticle leads to references which do not in any way point the points being pointed out. Have been removed. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Contested deletion == |
|
|
|
|
|
Writing 32 scientific papers does not notability make. This page was clearly written by some deluded fanboy. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because while Mason may not meet the notability guideline as a result of his YouTube activities, he does meet the guideline for academics, as he has published a number of highly cited papers, which include, in addition to those already in the article, the following: and ] ] 03:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:May I ask how he meets the notability guideline for academics since that was one of the reasons for deletion last time? Because it does say "Having published does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are." Plus the sourcing issue that was a problem last time still remains. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 08:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::Right, well as someone who remembers the old version of this article, I feel that his notability as a scientist was not established in the old version of this article, but that it is now. Specifically, one person said that "there is no evidence Mr. Mason meets Misplaced Pages's academic notability guideline." However, it seems that Mr. Mason is frequently cited for his research by other scientists; his PNAS paper alone has 153 citations on Google Scholar. Additionally, here is a source that can be incorporated into the article that isn't a blog: ] ] 12:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::OK, I would prefer to see more reliable sources in it and less of the unreliable sources and youtube (which should really be removed but since there is a lack of reliable ones, there wouldn't be much to cite everything). Just another question, subsection does say that Google Scholar isn't accurate for measuring the number of citations, could a more accurate verification technique be used to alleviate my concerns? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 17:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Perhaps the American Chemical Society's website is more to your liking--one of Mason's papers has been cited 100 times , another 66 times , and another 31 times . Is this sufficient to establish notability, in your view? ] ] 17:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::That's better. I have no problems with notability with that but the sourcing is still an issue and does need work. Ie. Richard dawkins.net and youtube are hardly reliable sources. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 17:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Plus I would direct you towards ] regarding the new addition of the ftb section. The sourcing really urgently needs work. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 16:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::This seems to have come up when his page was put up for AFD last time. Noting that you participated in that discussion, and that your userpage identifies you as a creationist, I can't help but wonder if you have something personal against Mason, given that he is an outspoken critic of your views, and if this is why you don't seem to want him to have a Misplaced Pages page. Anyway, Vera said that "the notability of the blogs that talk about him is quite high." However, WP:BLOGS states that anything not affiliated with a newspaper or magazine are "largely" not considered a reliable source, but largely doesn't mean always. Pharyngula the blog is not just any ordinary blog--it actually has independent notability and therefore, I would argue, is a reliable source. The same goes for Patheos, in my opinion. ] ] 16:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::What my views are is irrelevant to this. Please don't go onto argumentum ad hominum just because I have concerns about the sourcing. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 17:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::That's not ad hominum. If your actions are motivated by your religious views, and not for the good of wikipedia, that is a serious issue.] (]) 13:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Third opinion request == |
|
|
|
|
|
The Third Opinion request made in respect to has been removed because the 3O project (like all forms of mediated ] here at WP) requires substantial talk page discussion before requesting assistance. While I would ordinarily suggest following my recommendations ] when an editor will not discuss, this really seems more like a case for a ] request. Best regards, ] (]) 21:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Wrong emphasis == |
|
|
|
|
|
This seems too focussed on his internet activities to me. There should atleast be more on his research, talk about his notable findings. Don't get me wrong I do think a summary, atleast, of his internet activities is necessary. I think it should be a section instead of being thrown in.] (]) 13:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:I'd contest this since his internet activities are what made him notable in the first place. ] (]) 16:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::But he meets acedemic guidelines for notability. So there should be more on it.] (]) 17:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC) Can we atleast agree to separate internet activities into one section, with a basic summary at the start. And add some info on his research.] (]) 17:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::We agree. ] (]) 17:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== 'Anti feminist' == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Archives}} |
|
Are there any sources describing him as such or is this all ]? ] (]) 00:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Picture == |
|
* I suppose describes him as anti-feminist. —] (]) 00:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What picture should be use for the infobox. We have the current one from 2011 but ] uploaded ] from 2003 as the picture. I am starting the discussion here to decide which one should be used. Personally I think the 2011 one is a better fit as its a more neutral setting. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 08:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
* Perhaps anti-feminist isn't the best word to use as you'll find few reputable sources using that specific phrasing, but given the majority of the videos has makes now are about (and against) feminism, it would be reasonable to mention this in the opening paragraph somehow. He would seem to fit ], too. —] (]) 00:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::I am of the opinion Ajfweb is correct with his information. I would like a second RS to nail it down before we include said language. ] <small><sup>(] - ])</sup></small> 21:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Im a little confused by all this. The original reason for the revert by CofE was 'conflict of interest'. |
|
:::I admit this is just my opinion and not directly backed up by sources. But my impression is that Thunderf00t attacks everyone he sees as making dishonest claims — be it media hype about technologies, hoaxes on Kickstarter, religion, or in this case, the claims and actions of certain feminist persons. It does not seem fair to stick the "anti-feminist" label in the lead if he's not actually arguing against the rights for women. Compare that to his stances on religion, for instance, where he's clearly attacking the ideology. |
|
|
|
:When I mentioned that providing my own photo was hardly a conflict of interest, the goal posts move to 'but the bad image we have deliberately chosen to be unflattering from a screengrab of video in 2011 is better because its more recent'. The ONLY way the current image could be obtained is by watching the 2011 video and taking an unflattering screenshot. It is hard to call this 'neutral' |
|
:::I think it's more accurate to describe him as "critic of prominent feminists" rather than "anti-feminist". -- ] <small>]]</small> 23:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:These sound like moving goal posts from someone who is not arguing/ editing in good faith. |
|
::::I can't say I'd agree with you there. While he claims not to be against feminism, only "feminism" as he calls people, it's not clear what parts of feminism he does support, if any, that are actually in any way not mainstream, commonly-accepted views. Even if he's not against "all" feminism, he seems to be against a lot of it. For those reasons, I'd say it's a fitting descriptor. —] (]) 23:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:The article covers several subjects of my phd. The photo should maybe reflect this rather than a poor picture of me on vacation in 2011. ] (]) 08:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::::I boldly went and changed the lead to how I would phrase it: "''He has produced numerous videos, some about science and others criticising religion, certain feminists and technology hype.''", edit it into oblivion if you disagree. :) |
|
|
|
::Not sure about the conflict of interest and we do tend to respect the wishes of the subject in biographies of living people. Per ], it could be out of context if it is a holiday screenshot and disparaging if purposely taken from a bad sequence in the video. I will restore the phd photo for now and can discuss alternatives here. We can choose from three photos I see in ]. I find the phd photo ] to be a little hard to decipher the face, not really an ideal portrait, but it is excellent quality overall. The gown is distracting but I guess it really shouts phd. ] makes it easier to identify the subject, but its quality has been questioned by the subject (personally I think it looks fine but I've never seen him before). It may be highly relevant though as I believe it is a screenshot from a Youtube video and Youtube is a major thing the subject is known for. But the subject says it is them on vacation, so relevance is low. About ] I don't know how useful it is, seems to be a holiday pic. Seems to me that the best option would be a screenshot of a Youtube video where the subject is doing the thing they are famous on Youtube for, talking about solar panel roads for example. That screenshot should be a great portrait, not a poor representation. Also we could consider running with two photos. ] (]) 09:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::::Just curious: "''he claims not to be against feminism''" — did he say that anywhere publicly? -- ] <small>]]</small> 22:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::Thank you {{ping|Commander Keane}} for the neutral opinion. I do agree I think that a screenshot from one of his Youtube videos would probably be best as I too think the robe picture is a bit distracting for the infobox pic (I have to admit, I honestly thought it was a Carolean style portrait at first glance). I have no issue with it being included in the body of the article for his academic career as well as a separate infobox image from his Youtube career as I would say that is probably what he's better known for. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 18:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::::: I'm trying to ignore this debate, but descriptions of his online activities should be cited to a ] rather than dependent on ]. ] (]) 23:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::For a youtuber who in spite of very limited knowledge mansplains topics of which he is demonstrably ignorant I find the both pompous and clownish portrait to be just perfect. With this comment I will self-impose a topic ban on this biography and let myself out. ] (]) 18:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::::::True enough. I had a look at the sources and so far we have two relevant sources that seem reliable. only says "Popular YouTuber and Anita Sarkeesian critic Thunderf00t" whithout mentioning feminism at all. |
|
|
|
::::@Commander Keane i think the original picture was exactly that! something representative (years ago now). I dont know who 'updated' the photo to something obviously deliberately bad, but I figured let the trolls have their fun! I certainly never expected anyone to defend the trolling picture as 'neutral' |
|
::::::: is titled "''on passing off anti-feminist nonsense as critique''", but it seems he's not directly referring to Thunderf00t. It talks about lots of different avenues of criticism and only mentions Thunderf00t in the second half of the article, starting out with someone's "''hate email that cites the work of thunderf00t''". Direct descriptions of Thunderf00t don't go any further than "''He's a prominent YouTube capital-A Atheist, who mainly focuses on Dawkins- or Hitchens-type criticism of organised religion, but with a sideshow channel devoted also to debunking prominent feminists.''" -- ] <small>]]</small> 19:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::: @The C of E God Save the King! if you want a picture from my youtube, almost all of my stuff is off camera, so why not just use my avatar? That would actually be more representative of youtube. |
|
|
::::else you can use the image from my google scholar account, seems more fitting given half the article is about my scholarly work. I dont find it distracting at all. |
|
|
::::https://scholar.google.cz/citations?user=NubQZmsAAAAJ&hl=en&citsig=ADIE8skU9OgS7nUYF54fA5AbG-LP ] (]) 19:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I would agree as well. While the two pictures have their ups and downs, we should consider creatinh a new image which represents the subject doing what they are most well known for (YT), with better qualities and perhaps a better expression, as ] may fall under a "situation where the subject did not expect to be photographed." ] (]) 07:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::{{ping|XCBRO172}} I think we'll need to look for any of his other videos that are released under CC (wasn't the series he did about VenomFangX released under CC?), since free alternatives exist I don't think we can make a Fair Use case for just screenshotting any one. . <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 14:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Although I didn't originally think of copyright, we should definitely choose something under CC. I'm not an expert on Thunderf00t's videos so I can't really help beyond here except for my opinion. ] (]) 15:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::As someone who just had this page watchlisted checking for possible vandalism, I don't see anything wrong with the graduation photo. And ], while we have you, do you see anything that is factually inaccurate about the article's contents? If so, best to post here rather than edit it directly, and we can try to investigate and amend. ] (]) 21:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC) |
