Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:04, 11 November 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Touré (journalist) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Touré (journalist) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days

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. Biography: Arts and Entertainment 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 supported by the arts and entertainment work group. Journalism 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.

redirecting to Touré

Touré shouldn't automatically redirect here. There are too many other important people called Touré, including the former prime minister of Mali.

Requested moves

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

The result of the move request was: moved. I will move this article to the (journalist) DAB, but no objections to a second discussion on a potentially better one. Help on cleaning up the links would be appreciated. Number 57 15:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Touré → Touré (television personality)
• Touré (surname) → Touré

– The television figure is not the primary topic. Amongst others, users might be searching for Ahmed Sékou Touré, the former president of Guinea, Ali Farka Touré, 'one of the African continent’s most internationally renowned musicians', Amadou Toumani Touré, the former president of Mali, Kolo Touré, the footballer who has played for Liverpool, Manchester City and Arsenal, Samori Ture, the founder of the Wassoulou Empire, or Yaya Touré, the Manchester City footballer. 86.154.155.169 (talk) 23:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support WP:ASTONISH, yes very surprising occupant of a common surname slot. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support per nom -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 05:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support this man pretty obviously is not the primary topic over the presidents, historical figures, and the footballer! —innotata 06:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Hatnote with link to disambiguation page is linked for those seeking other names. Also, if it is moved, I don't agree that "television personality" should necessarily be the designation; "writer" would probably be more appropriate.--Larrybob (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• How about 'journalist' instead? That might be a little more accurate than just 'writer'. 86.154.155.169 (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• I find it hard to believe the journalist/TV personality is the primary topic, by our usual definition, even though he goes by a mononym, against the political figures, several from prominent families of this name, and the famous footballer. If there were a TV host known by 'Anderson' in some country where it was an uncommon name, that wouldn't make him/her the main topic for the surname. —innotata 21:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Hatnote is, I think, fine. If move passes, I say "Touré (journalist)" is the best choice. TuckerResearch (talk) 00:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support to Touré (surname) → Touré. I abstain in the discussion about the TV personality/writer/journalist. Asturkian (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support, but not to "Touré (television personality)". Instead, move to "Touré (journalist)" ("Touré (writer)" would be OK too, the guy's got four books, granting that at least one is a collection of essays). Just "Touré" rather than "Touré (surname)" is preferable for the disambig -- more flexibile (for instance, this person could not be listed at "Touré (surname)). Herostratus (talk) 05:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• You have a point on "Touré" rather than "Touré (surname)." TuckerResearch (talk) 13:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support "Touré (surname)" → "Touré" and support "Touré" to "Touré (whatever consensus settles upon)". Gnome de plume (talk) 00:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support proposed name as not primary topic. What about Touré Neblett instead? Some sources use it. --George Ho (talk) 04:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support because this article is not the primary topic. Moving to Touré Neblett makes sense: it avoids choosing between television personality, writer and journalist. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 12:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• If you look at the battle royale in the archives of this talkpage, you'll notice we went over the whole surname bit. There was a big argument about whether his surname should be mentioned at all. But the title of this page, whatever decided here, should stay "Touré" because the subject prefers to be known by his mononym (say, like "Madonna (entertainer)"). TuckerResearch (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It should stay just "Touré" but not because of his preference but because that's his byline and how he's best known and most often referred to. Herostratus (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

If he is best known as his stage name (like Adele), then move to Touré (something), where the something describes him (television personality/writer/journalist). However, if he is often known by his real name, then that should be used. I do not know what is most common here. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Just "Touré", I'm confident, unless there's been a large and rapid recent change. During the dustup here (only one or two years ago) it was only possible to find a couple of obscure references which even give his last name, which he does not give out and which he has tried to keep entirely secret. Herostratus (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Career section issues

Hello to anyone watching this page! I'm looking for some help in addressing various issues with the content of this article, particularly within the Career section. Up front, I would like to say that I'm here on behalf of Touré and, due to this financial conflict of interest, I will not make any direct edits to this article.

While there are several issues I'd ultimately like to address, first I'd like to get some input on the first paragraph of the Writing career section. Right now, this paragraph details criticism from conservative web publications The Daily Caller and The Blaze regarding the student publication started by Touré (The Fire This Time) as well as some related events while he was a student at Emory. In my view, undue weight has been given to these views, particularly considering media coverage of these topics was limited to just these two publications.

To break it down, here are the specific issues I see with the current wording:

• The first sentence currently reads "While a student at Emory University, Touré founded the school's black student newspaper, The Fire This Time, which has been criticized for being militantly anti-white." This makes it sound like The Fire This Time and Touré have received widespread criticism, which is not the case, only The Daily Caller has made such claims, which were then repeated in a post on The Blaze.
• The current wording also says that the publication's articles "praised noted anti-Semites, black supremacists, and conspiracy theorists such as H. Rap Brown and Frances Cress Welsing, whom Touré invited to Emory's campus." I haven't been able to find any other sources mentioning the visit or saying that Touré had invited Welsing, nor any other critical coverage of The Fire This Time's interview with H. Rap Brown, nor any other specifics.
• The paragraph includes The Caller's criticism of Touré's statement in relation to an incident at Emory, where a black college student named Sabrina Collins had claimed to be the victim of racist vandalism in her dorm room, which was later said to be a hoax. Touré was not involved; he simply wrote about it in The Fire This Time.
• Lastly, the only reporting here is from The Caller, and its first bylined reporter is Charles C. Johnson, who has been frequently criticized in reliable sources for producing unreliable reporting (for example, Dave Weigel writing for Slate). Frankly, I would be very cautious about using this story in any way.

It's my view that much of the above detail does not belong in the article. It generally relates to things that happened while Touré was a student, well before his career was established. Regarding the general criticism, I'm more open to the idea of keeping a summary statement about this but I'm interested to hear what others think. At the very least, this should be tightened up and made clear the criticism originated with The Daily Caller. It's worth noting that Touré and The Caller are at different ends of the political spectrum and the latter often writes critically of progressive media figures.

Below, I've offered an updated version of this paragraph for editors to review and consider as a basis for replacing the current section. You'll see that I have offered a potential summary of the criticism from The Daily Caller, but otherwise removed the details listed above. This is just a suggested draft, so I'd be happy to discuss other ways the paragraph could be rewritten.

References

1. Loftus, Mary J. (Autumn 2009). "News makers". Emory Magazine. Retrieved 25 April 2012.
2. ^ Johnson, Charles C.; Girdusky, Ryan (April 9, 2013). "MSNBC's Touré founded militant anti-white student paper". The Daily Caller.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
3. ^ Ritz, Eric (April 9, 2013). "Report: MSNBC Host Touré Founded a 'Militant Anti-White Student Newspaper'". Yahoo! News.

Again, I'm looking to discuss the above issues and hopefully find a way to resolve them in the article. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Alanscottwalker, the paragraph has been edited to remove everything sourced to The Daily Caller. I'm very happy with this outcome, so thank you very much! This request is now complete, but I will be returning soon to discuss one more issue and propose some general updates to the article. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I actually found User:Alanscottwalker's edit too drastic. I think User:WWB_Too's suggested text was quite pithy, fair, even-handed, and fine. So I have added it as suggested. I think the Daily Caller source and the Yahoo! source are fine. (PS, when all Misplaced Pages references to the Huffington Post are removed, I'll stand by a removal of all references to the Daily Caller.) I agree with User:WWB_Too (and, presumably, Touré) that it was too harsh as written before this. I think the article in this section is fine as it stands. TuckerResearch (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

You pinged me? I disagree that my edit was "drastic" see WP:BLP, removal is the proper choice - and as your edit apparently did not restore the writing that I removed than it appears certain I did the right thing. I have not formulated an opinion on the new text you added, nor the source use for it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi TuckerResearch and Alanscottwalker. Since there's disagreement between you as to what, if anything, should be included regarding the coverage from The Daily Caller, I wanted to clarify that I am in favor of removing all of the information because of the unreliability of the source. As I mentioned above, the only reporting is by a writer who has specifically been criticized in the past for his unreliable and inaccurate reporting. The summary I offered was a potential compromise if editors feel that the information absolutely has to stay. Does that change your feeling on including the wording about The Fire This Time sourced to The Daily Caller, TuckerResearch? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Howdy! (And thank you for being so amicable an editor!) I think your first suggested edit was quite reasonable and even-handed. I think that Alanscottwalker's removal of everything was too much. Now that I've put in your reasonable suggested edit, you want a more drastic edit?! As mentioned above I don't think a sourced mention (even if it is from a right-wing website), if it doesn't place undue wait, is alright. As it was originally written, and I think you were right, it did place undue wait. As written now, I think it's fine. If anyone else wants to comment, we can hash it out. Full disclosure, I'm a conservative and not Touré's biggest fan when it comes to politics (his music writing is pretty good, though), but I'd like to think I'm giving him a fair shake here on Misplaced Pages. I don't think his article should be one long list of attacks and screeds against him, but I also don't think it should be scrubbed of all information he finds odious. (I think it borders on WP:COI, and we must find a way to balance WP:BLP, WP:COI, and WP:UNDUE.) I consider that unfair to Misplaced Pages readers of all political stripes. I think we can best be helped by further comments from editors (and I think there are several who watch and/or lurk on this page). Comments please! TuckerResearch (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, TuckerResearch, thanks for the reply explaining your thinking on this issue, and volunteering your personal views as well. Looking back I see that my initial request wasn't clear, but it was my intention to first suggest that the material to be removed entirely—as User:Alanscottwalker did—and only second to offer the proposed summary as a compromise if editors felt the mention did have to stay in the article.

Below I see you've compared The Daily Caller with The Daily Beast (a source used elsewhere in the article). It is not The Caller I object to as a source per se, but the unreliability of this particular author, per the explanation above. (Most relevant, this writer has previously been criticized for misinterpreting student publication archives to score political points.)

Hence my preference to see this information cut entirely. I think it's very important for this article to provide relevant career information. Touré having founded and edited this paper certainly counts. A writer for The Caller having an opinion about this paper, however, is not a necessary part of Touré's biography. What do you think? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of "controversies"

Hello again, following my last request, I would now like to turn to the second major issue that I can see in the Career section, this time under the Television section. The main issue as I see it is that the majority of this section currently covers a few small "controversies" that could be summarized into one to two sentences. Right now, over one third of the section is dedicated to a discussing a single tweet by Touré that was taken out of context. A further one third covers two other events where Touré was involved in short-lived debates.

Similar to the coverage from The Daily Caller, it seems like relatively minor events are being given undue weight within the article. In each case, while the individual event received some news coverage (mainly within publications that discuss the media) at the time, it is not an ongoing or major controversy. What do editors here think about reducing the second and third paragraphs of this section down to a short summary?

Here's a suggestion for what that might look like:

References

1. Tommy Christopher (30 March 2012). "Update: Piers Morgan Books MSNBC's Touré in Real Time to Settle Twitter Feud". Mediaite. Retrieved 15 October 2014.
2. Allison Samuels (31 March 2012). "Piers Morgan Vs. Touré: How the CNN Host Blew It". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 10 October 2014.
3. Erik Wemple (17 August 2012). "MSNBC's Touré apologizes for 'niggerization' remark". The Washington Post. Retrieved 10 October 2014.
4. Jessica Chasmar (27 May 2014). "MSNBC's Touré says 'power of whiteness' benefited Holocaust survivors". The Washington Times. Retrieved 10 October 2014.
5. Ross, L.A. (May 27, 2014). "MSNBC Host Apologizes for ‘Power of Whiteness’ Tweet About Holocaust". MSNBC.

Does the above summary work? If not, I'm open to other options to address this section. Let me know what you think. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

(I saw this mentioned at WP:BLPN. I supported leaving his "slave name" out of this article per his request a few years back.)

I prefer the existing text, actually. Speaking as someone who knows almost nothing about the man (I live in Australia), I found those little vignettes quite informative. They give me an impression of his polemical style, and leave me thinking he's someone who can own up when he makes a gaffe. They kind of fill in something about his personality that a plain list of achievements and career moves can't. Perhaps there's something I'm not getting, though, that is apparent in the USA context. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I stand with User:Anthonyhcole here. TuckerResearch (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand why you both prefer there being this information in the article, but it's simply too much detail on these blink-and-you'll-miss-it events versus the coverage of the rest of his career. Currently the latter is described concisely, whereas these "controversies" are given considerably more space. Altogether the amount of detail on these events seems clearly WP:UNDUE, and the point by point description of them surely goes against the spirit of WP:SUMMARY. Unlike the information from The Daily Caller, I'm not saying that the details should be removed entirely, but instead summarized. The wording I suggested above is a starting point and I'd be open to suggestions for an alternative. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm open to some editing, some concision, but I think your suggested edit here removes too much info and detail. I don't think as it stands it goes against WP:SUMMARY to mention the exact words Touré used. I also think, and I mean this with all due respect, that the sentence: "During Touré's career he has made several controversial statements including ones made on Twitter in response to tweets directed at him" are weasel words (WP:WEASEL). (And, on my own personal soapbox here, to me it is just as bad to use a story from The Daily Beast as The Daily Caller. One is liberal , one is conservative . I'm an inclusionist: the more information the better on Misplaced Pages, let the reader decide.) Might I suggest the following, and let's see what everyone thinks, and I welcome your input:

In March 2012, Touré criticized Piers Morgan's interview of Robert Zimmerman regarding his brother George Zimmerman's shooting of Trayvon Martin on Morgan's CNN talk show, Piers Morgan Tonight. In August 2012, on The Cycle, Touré caused a controversy by stating that by calling President Barack Obama "angry," Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney was engaging in the "niggerization" of the president. He apologized for using the word the next day.

References

1. Christopher, Tommy (March 30, 2012). "Update: Piers Morgan Books MSNBC's Touré In Real Time To Settle Twitter Feud". Mediaite.
2. Christopher, Tommy (March 30, 2012). "Piers Morgan And Touré Finish Their Twitter Feud On CNN’s Air". Mediaite.
3. Stableford, Dylan (Apr 1, 2012). "Toure apologizes for Piers Morgan meltdown". Yahoo! News.
4. Wemple, Erik (17 Aug 2012). "MSNBC's Touré apologizes for 'niggerization' remark". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2012-09-21.
5. Chasmar, Jessica (May 27, 2014). "MSNBC’s Touré says ‘power of whiteness’ benefited Holocaust survivors". The Washington Times.
6. Ross, L.A. (May 27, 2014). "MSNBC Host Apologizes for ‘Power of Whiteness’ Tweet About Holocaust". MSNBC.

I know it's not much of a reduction, but I think it's better than your suggestion. What do our fellow editors think?

P.S. - I'd like to see more comments and reviews of his writing career ADDED to the article, to balance out the television stuff. How can we do that!?!? TuckerResearch (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand your concerns with my draft and appreciate your comments. I have now taken a close look at your suggestion, but I still disagree with keeping so much detail. Meanwhile, I totally get that you and User:Anthonyhcole find this interesting, but I submit that interestingness is not the proper threshold for inclusion. A biographical article should provide a concise overview of a notable person's career, and needn't go in-depth on a given sub-topic just because sources exist. That Touré has had contentious words with other media personalities is noteworthy; the particulars of each incident is not.

Consider, the issue here is really a larger one that impacts Misplaced Pages—the "if it bleeds, it leads" aspect of news coverage. Should we let the content of this encyclopedia be so heavily influenced by the preoccupations of a pageview-driven media culture that turns brief Twitter exchanges into "controversies"? I suggest that we do not, and that we take the long view instead: this should be a broad overview of his career. (Related to which, I must respectfully disagree that my version violates WP:WEASEL. Classic cases of weasel words are "some people say" and "research has shown". Rather, I chose words that broadly described the events.)

I am certainly in favor of including more information about other aspects of his career, for example, more can be said about the books he has written. However, even with that information added, this section would still be unduly weighted toward details of minor incidents. Regardless of the wording we eventually agree upon, I believe we should be mindful of limiting detail. Readers who want to know more can always follow the citations. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

WWB Too, it's not just "interesting", it's informative - it tells me something about the subject's political stance, whom he stands against, (and, as I said) his polemical style and his ability to acknowledge when he's gone too far. If your concern is that it's unduly negative, from this distance it doesn't look unduly negative - it's just the argy-bargy that politically engaged writers do. From here, that's how it looks.

All that said, though, it's a pretty slim and fragmentary biography. A more complete, better-written piece may well convey what the disputed segments convey without needing to go into detail - or even mention the incidents - but that will depend on good sources doing the same.

(The problem here - as with most of our biographies - is that the article is cobbled together based on primary sources, mostly news reports and journalistic commentary. In our other most sensitive field, medicine, our articles are based on secondary (peer-reviewed overviews by experts) and tertiary (graduate-level textbooks, other encyclopedias, etc.) sources, so we can take our lead on what/how to report from those expert overviews. Misplaced Pages should slash its "biography of living persons" offering back to only those subjects who have been well-covered in independent, reliable biographies. Until then, this.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Archives?

Where are the archives for this talk page? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I found the archives and got them here. The links to them are posted above. TuckerResearch (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed Journalism articles
• Unknown-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles