Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
*'''No''': A single tweet, later deleted, that was covered by one reliable source (an Atlanta newspaper), is not significant enough of an event to where it should be in an encyclopedia. Ask yourself: will this pass ]? Of course not. ] (]) 13:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
*'''No''': A single tweet, later deleted, that was covered by one reliable source (an Atlanta newspaper), is not significant enough of an event to where it should be in an encyclopedia. Ask yourself: will this pass ]? Of course not. ] (]) 13:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
:::An editor is entitled to his (her) own opinions but not to his own facts. Besides the ''Atlanta Constitution'' that you are referring to. it was covered as news by ''Snopes'', and the ''New Zealand Herald'', which are specifically listed as ''reliable perennial sources''; mentioned in the ''Washington Post'' and covered as either news and/or discussion topics in all sorts of other outlets that are often used as sources in Misplaced Pages; examples: the ''Associated Press'', ''TheGrio'', ''The Root'', ''Fox News'', ''Newsweek'', etc. ] (]) 14:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
:::An editor is entitled to his (her) own opinions but not to his own facts. Besides the ''Atlanta Constitution'' that you are referring to. it was covered as news by ''Snopes'', and the ''New Zealand Herald'', which are specifically listed as ''reliable perennial sources''; mentioned in the ''Washington Post'' and covered as either news and/or discussion topics in all sorts of other outlets that are often used as sources in Misplaced Pages; examples: the ''Associated Press'', ''TheGrio'', ''The Root'', ''Fox News'', ''Newsweek'', etc. ] (]) 14:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
:::: Again - '''one''' article, in the local Atlanta newspaper. ] (]) 15:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
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 sourcedmust 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 multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
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 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Black Lives Matter, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Black Lives Matter 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.Black Lives MatterWikipedia:WikiProject Black Lives MatterTemplate:WikiProject Black Lives MatterBlack Lives Matter
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of veganism and vegetarianism 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.Veganism and VegetarianismWikipedia:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismTemplate:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismVeganism and Vegetarianism
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.
Robert Paul Cantrell
There are two paragraphs talking about this individual, who seems to be tangentially related to the subject. If there was a separate article on the shooting of Jazmine Barnes, maybe his inclusion would be noteworthy as one of the subjects, but otherwise, mentioning him here in this much detail is WP:COATRACK. His only connection to Shaun King is that he was one of the two suspects King helped apprehend, and of the two, he was not the perpetrator of this particular crime. Including this much detail about King's comments on him, and the circumstances of his suicide seems to insinuate that King was somehow responsible for his death, and that he was an innocent victim of some kind of witchhunt orchestrated by King, which is not the case. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 13:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
"insinuate that King was somehow responsible for his death" - This linkage is directly made by Cantrell, and repeated by repliable sources
Bond said Cantrell told him before he died, he was very concerned about the death threats he and his family were receiving because he was thought to be linked to Jazmine's murder.
"that he was an innocent victim of some kind of witchhunt orchestrated by King" - That _IS_ the case. His only involvement in this case was that King incorrectly identified him, and tweeted about him to a million people, resulting in threats against him and his family. ResultingConstant (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
@ResultingConstant: "that he was an innocent victim of some kind of witchhunt orchestrated by King" - That _IS_ the case. - Is it? That is a serious accusation, and needs more than two local news outlets to determine wether it's WP:DUE, let alone in line with WP:BLP. Especially since the sources only say what Cantrell said, not that his claim is factually correct.
His only involvement in this case was that King incorrectly identified him, and tweeted about him to a million people, resulting in threats against him and his family - that is objectively false and contradicts what's written in the article. King's involvement in this case is helping the authorities apprehend TWO potential suspects. One of the suspects was the culprit. The other turned out to be not guilty of this particular crime. WP:BLP applies to talk pages, and avoid making demonstrably false remarks about BLP subjects should be avoided. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 10:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
The "his involvement" I was referring to was Cantrell's. That King provided a useful tip does not erase the fact that he started a witch hunt against someone else. As for "this particular crime", I'm sure thats an argument that you would disagree with being used in many other situations. Don't use it here. ResultingConstant (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
@ResultingConstant: Cantrell's involvement is that he was one of two suspects in this case. Also, maybe I should reiterate that accusations such as ...does not erase the fact that he started a witch hunt against someone else aimed at BLP subjects go against site policy. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 09:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Twitter comments on depictions of Jesus
Since NorthBySouthBaranof and Wes sideman have deleted the section Twitter comments on depiction of Jesus placed into the article by 3Kingdoms and later restored by me (with added sources), I am following their advice and taking the disagreement to the Talk page. Having said that, however, I really don't see the issue. King's comments received lots of coverage, and not just by plenty of right-leaning sources but also by centrist and left-leaning sources. Those sources include the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Snopes, TheGrio, The Root and Newsweek. So what's the debate about? Certainly not due weight! Goodtablemanners (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
You're conflating "reliable source" arguments with WP:WEIGHT arguments, and they're not the same thing. Sure, the AJC is a reliable source (the others, not so much), but that doesn't mean that a single tweet, later deleted, that was covered by one reliable source, is significant enough of an event to where it should be in an encyclopedia. I get it, you don't like Shaun King, and you perceive the white Jesus tweet as painting him in a negative light, so you want it included, but that doesn't carry much water here. Wes sideman (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
The story was also mentioned in the Associated Press . It's pretty cut and dry that this received significant coverage in the context of King's career. Also, Wes you are making the assumption that GTM "dislikes Shaun King." and that is the only reason they want it included. It would be unfair if someone said the only reason you object to its inclusion is because you like King and do not want something that could in your words paint him in a negative light. So, lets instead focus on merit and not question motives. 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
There's one sentence, out of that entire article, that mentions King, and it doesn't even mention the tweet directly. If you're pointing to that as an indicator of whether that tweet deserves a mention in an encyclopedia, and that's the best you can do, it's now pretty evident that it doesn't. Wes sideman (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
King is addressed in 3 sentences and his comments were the rationale for the entire article.
It's not even an article. It's an opinion piece. No one cares. There's no WP:WEIGHT here, no matter how much you try to make it happen. If you insist on pursuing your quest to make Shaun King look as bad as possible over a deleted tweet, I suggest you start an RfC and see just how many editors point out that you're wrong. I've done it enough already. Wes sideman (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Questioning the motive for why people believe something should be included in not persuasive. This event is mentioned on other pages and has been mentioned in plenty of reliable sources Left, Right, and Center. Secular and Religious. If you wish to make an RFC go for it, but I am going to stop engaging here and walk away. I don't see the point of discussing this further when you won't be respectful to people. 3Kingdoms (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I'd just like to mention that two sources doesn't fit any definition of the word "plenty" that I've ever seen. Wes sideman (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Weak oppose While this is reliably sourced it doesn't appear to have received enough coverage to be included in King's biography. Just because something has sources doesn't automatically justify inclusion. A good thing to remember on content questions for WP:BLP is the twenty year test.
Will someone ten or twenty years from now be confused about how this article is written? In ten or twenty years will this addition still appear relevant? If I am devoting more time to it than other topics in the article, will it appear more relevant than what is already here?
It seems unlikely this will matter twenty years from now. However, I am open to inclusion if it could proved there was significant coverage of the incident. That doesn't appear to be the case. - Nemov (talk) 05:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Comment: the above comment vastly exaggerates the coverage. Only the AJC actually had an article about the now-deleted tweet. WP wrote one sentence that mentioned Shaun King. AP was even less, one sentence fragment. There's a reason Goodtablemanners didn't include links to the so-called "lots of coverage" - it would illustrate exactly how insignificant the coverage was. Wes sideman (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
King is mentioned in 3 sentences in the first paragraph. Also since King’s tweet was the catalyst for the two article, I think that should at the very least show that it generated discussion.
Yes. It was covered in the news a lot, and although I agree that not all news should be added to Misplaced Pages, this one in particular seems to stand out considerably. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
No: A single tweet, later deleted, that was covered by one reliable source (an Atlanta newspaper), is not significant enough of an event to where it should be in an encyclopedia. Ask yourself: will this pass WP:10YEARTEST? Of course not. Wes sideman (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
An editor is entitled to his (her) own opinions but not to his own facts. Besides the Atlanta Constitution that you are referring to. it was covered as news by Snopes, and the New Zealand Herald, which are specifically listed as reliable perennial sources; mentioned in the Washington Post and covered as either news and/or discussion topics in all sorts of other outlets that are often used as sources in Misplaced Pages; examples: the Associated Press, TheGrio, The Root, Fox News, Newsweek, etc. Goodtablemanners (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Black_Lives_Matter_logo.svg){kind=link}
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Afrodias_logo.svg){kind=link}