Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:08, 1 September 2015

Biography Stub‑class

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 Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

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. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Race

I think the claim about King having "misled" about his race should be removed for the time being. King has stated on Twitter that "Out of LOVE for my family, I've never gone public with my racial story because it's hurtful, scandalous, and it's MY STORY" 1 and "No 2 siblings in my family have the same set of parents. We're all over the place. Some of us are not even blood relatives" 2. I think most of this will be made clear and verified by more reputable secondary sources within days. So there's no need to rush to such a claim now. "Biographies of living persons ('BLPs') must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy." WP:LIVING -Reagle (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Reagle This seems to fall pretty squarely in WP:WELLKNOWN its been covered by multiple mainstream outlets, and addressed directly by the subject themselves publicly. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

24 hours later, I think the text is much better at making it clear this is an active area of discussion and contention. -Reagle (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

He didn't deny that he lied in his twitter rant. Popish Plot (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Story now picked up by CNN and New York Times, so very firmly in WP:WELLKNOWN at this point. I'll probably start swapping out some of the weaker sources used as they are redundant. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The first line under "Personal Life" should read "King claims to be biracial," rather than "King is biracial." There are clear and substantial reasons to doubt his claim to be biracial, and no evidence whatsoever (as yet) to back it up, so it should not be expressed here as if it were a fact. FireHorse (talk) 04:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, totally agree. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Which are those reasons? A debunked Breitbart story? You will need something far more substantive than that to overcome the article subject's own uncontroverted statements made in impeccable reliable sources. Misplaced Pages does not traffic in gossip and scandalmongering, and we treat article subjects with dignity and respect. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• No "claims to be biracial" is not justified or neutral. It is POV editorializing. If anything other than simply stating it as fact is warranted then it is "King identifies as biracial" or "King considers himself to be biracial".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

photo

I looked for a photo on flickr and google filtered for Creative Commons. Couldn't find any. I'm somewhat suprised, since hes been so involved in BLM, and there are a lot of activist oriented photojournalists out there. In any case, since how he appears is a major source of his notability, a photo would be a good addition I think, if someone can find an appropriately licensed one. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

biological father

Both gawker and Vox have raised the issue/possibility of Steve King not being Shaun's biological father to explain the discrepancies between the documentation and King's claims. Should a sentence to that effect (attributed to gawker/vox) be added? Its speculation, but its RS speculation. This also lines up with some of the statements King made on twitter ("no two kids with same parents", "scandalous", "affairs" , etc) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Are gawker and Vox considered reliable sources? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Vox typically has been when it has come up at RSN. Gawker less so. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Personally, if Gawker is "less so" then it should be discounted at this time. Vox alone probably isn't RS enough at this point. We have to be very careful -- this is a BLP and the story is "breaking". I'd say that unless there's nothing else other than Vox, we don't add it until a major news source covers it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Vox was started by the same guy who owns kos where King works. Popish Plot (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

MSNBC's Joy Reid says King told her directly that the birth certificate dad is not his biological father. I'm going to try and find either a transcript of this, or a better link to the video. http://www.mediaite.com/online/joy-reid-shaun-kings-biological-father-is-black-but-not-on-birth-certificate/ Gaijin42 (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

IN the section "Questions regarding race" is it really helpful to have the last sentence backed up by 8 sources? I think perhaps the 3 best ones will suffice. Less is more in this case. Bonewah (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Utterly terrible biography

This article is a classic example of why we should never write "biographies" of people that are WP:COATRACKs for 12 hours' worth of news-cycle attack stories fueled by a nakedly-partisan witch hunt, before the subject of the biography has a reasonable chance to respond to claims made about deeply-personal parts of their life. I have stripped out baseless claims, apparently-groundless information and awful sources, and I suggest that we can do better and treat our article subjects better than we have here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Your gutting of the article appears quite POV. I have put content back in, including reliable sources. Some of the wording has been tweaked, and sections redone to a limited degree. Please discuss before deciding unilaterally to strip the article again. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The alleged "comparison" is simply not on, given the widely varying sets of facts. It is entirely inflammatory and unfair to this article subject, and it must be removed until and unless there is a consensus that it belongs here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

It's all supported by reliable sources. You appear to be whitewashing the article. Misplaced Pages does not WP:CENSOR. Time for more drastic measures to stop your disruption, I guess. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

This article subject has directly and publicly refuted the claims in question, and sensationalistic media speculation does not belong in an encyclopedic biography based on 12 hours' worth of attack articles. If there are actual comparisons to be made outside of brief partisan news-cycle mentions before the claims were refuted, we can insert them at that time. Until then, this article must treat its subject with sensitivity and the avoidance of scandal, rumormongering and negative attacks. That is what the biographies of living persons policy demands. This article was clearly created as a coatrack for partisan-driven allegations which now appear to be scurrilous, invasive and utterly false, and Misplaced Pages does not truck in such nonsense. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Not a valid reason for editing disruptively and edit warring, sorry. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Please AGF and don't declare other editors content opinions "disruptive" just because you disagree with them. The reason we have a discussion board is to work through these questions. Dramatically declaring "time for more drastic measures" is not helpful, nor is it in the spirit of WP. BlueSalix (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof Id appreciate a little bit of WP:AGF. King clearly passes GNG (and likely would have passed before this blow up) but this blow up clearly dwarfs his prior notability. Count the number of words that were written about this incident in top tier RS, and then the total written about him in any capacity before, then look at WP:WEIGHT. He came up with a good explanation for the discrepancy, and I'm happy to include it prominently. As can be seen from my other edits that I was scrupulous about sourcing and including all of the evidence and arguments to the contrary. Brietbart went out on a limb on this one, and got burnt, but when the NYT, CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, Sun, Sky, etc all follow a story, thats a pretty big safety net for us, and we are supposed to WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE Gaijin42 (talk) 14:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Spot on. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 07:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• Clear POV coatrack the way it is written. Could be a decent article, but is not.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I do agree that Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper and doesn't have to have exact news in real time but this Shaun King was not notable enough to have a wiki article before but now is due to this scandal so I doubt it ever is forgotten, and wil llikely always be correct to be mentioned in his bio here. Popish Plot (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Rachel Dolezal

There are numerous RS that draw a comparison between Rachel Dolezal and the subject of this article. Several editors feel strongly that mentioning this comparison in this article is inflammatory and against wp:BLP. I thought I would post at least one RS and let other editors determine to what extent this material should be in this article. *Aaron Morrison “Is Shaun King White? Black Lives Matter Activist, Writer Responds To Conservatives' Claims He Is Another ‘Rachel Dolezal’”, International Business Times, 19 August 2015--Nowa (talk) 10:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• -Comment -- From what I have read and seen on reports, this is totally different from the Rachel Dolezal issue. King was a victim of being "doxxed" by unscrupulous right-wing bloggers, Dolezal was pretending to be Black and outed by her biological parents. I think the editors who started this article, and the ones who are trying to maintain the right-wing hit job in the lede, should be Topic-Banned from all race related articles. These are obviously BLP violations, and the editors should be informed of the various ArbCom and Community sanctions involved. There should be NO mention of this in the lede, and only a small mention in the article stating the right-wing hit job has been debunked. Dave Dial (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Since multiple reliable sources have made the connection, I do not think it would be a BLP violation to note the comparison has been drawn, if we are clear on manner in which sources state the cases differ; alternately, a link for Rachel Dolezal could be included in a see also section, but it would probably stand out too much if it's the only see also link. This would seem a more appropriate option if there were multiple "see also" links. I agree that any mention of comparisons to Dolezal seems more appropriate for the body of the article than the lead. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

No. Including such specious "comparisons" in a six-paragraph "biography" would be entirely undue weight on hastily-jumped-to "conclusions" which have now been demonstrated to be entirely false and scurrilous. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. BlueSalix (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps a 'see also' link would be appropriate here. Bonewah (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Context-free "See also" links can be worse than a sentence in the article. I'd say just wait. There's no rush, if it's a comparison that sticks and we can cover it neutrally and respectfully then we can add a sentence later. — Strongjam (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

These look like excellent comments. Here's another reference about the comparison itself. Dexter Thomas, “ Analysis Shaun King is no Rachel Dolezal: Look who's calling him white” LA Times, 20 August 2015 Perhaps there is a better place for this subject to be covered.--Nowa (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Mentioning the comparison has been drawn is clearly not undue weight. A google search of Shaun King and Rachel Dolezal reveals a large number of sources. Here's just a small sample: ,,,,,,,,,,--BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

That's just bullshit, and the fact that some sources have picked up the doxxing by a right-wing hack doesn't make it true. In fact, none of the reliable sources are giving any weight to the Brietbart hatchet job. This is a BLP, and if editors here do not understand what that means, they should head over to the 9th bullet and follow the links. See also Attack pages and Balance. If editors keep treating this mans word and life as if it were ok to allow partisan hit jobs to make false claims about him, there is going to be a case about this. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The sources speak for themselves, and they appear to represent journalists from across the political spectrum. I do not have a strong opinion on this case, but it seems many do, which raises POV concerns for the bio. Clearly, any information regarding the factual information that this comparison has been drawn should be brief and carefully worded for neutrality, addressing the sources saying the comparison is unfair. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, Bobomeowcat. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree as well.Jet (magazine) and BET are also making the comparison Shantelle E. Jamison, “Rachel Dolezal II? The Case of Shaun King” Jet (magazine), “Shaun King's Wife Speaks Out: 'He's No Rachel Dolezal”, BET 20 August 2015--Nowa (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I also agree with bobomeowcat. I think, given that the comparisons have been made in a number of RS', its safe for us to at least link to Rachel Dolezal, if not say something about the comparison in the article. Bonewah (talk) 22:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

No, Entertainment outlets, TMZ and such that are citing the hit piece are NOT reliable sources for this type of stuff concerning BLPs. Especially considering that White Supremacists have stalked the guy, Doxxed him and his family. If there is a real journalist and an unbiased(hint, not Brietbart, Blaze, etc) that report on this, then a discussion can take place. Right now, all of the sources that are reliable state that there is no comparison and that the report was incorrect. If I have to file a case linking this to the CCC and White Supremacists, I will. Dave Dial (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

One of the sources linked to above is the Washington Post, which is most assuredly not an "Entertainment outlet". That article leads off with this "He's been accused in various right-leaning media outlets of making up or significantly overstating the extent of an alleged hate crime of which King says he was a victim in high school. And, he's been accused of -- well, you had to know that this was coming soon -- trying to pull a Rachel Dolezal." You may not agree with the comparison, but there is no doubt, at least in my mind, that the comparison has been made in reliable sources. Bonewah (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not stating that reliable sources have not mentioned the comparisons that right-wing outlets have made, I am stating that not one has stated that King lied and is not Black/Bi-racial. That is the BLP violation. The people who have Doxxed King are trying to bully and intimidate people of color and their supporters all over the internet. That should not be given credence on Misplaced Pages. If Misplaced Pages editors did what Pate did to King, they would be indeffed. We cannot allow this to be done by proxy. So no, we should let this play out and then make decisions on content. In fact, all mention in the lede should be taken out. These accusations have very little bearing on the life of King and his accomplishments. Dave Dial (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Im not sure what your objection is here. Reliable sources have reported on this matter, so we include it. Reliable sources have noted the comparison between him and Dolezal so i think we should or at least we can mention that without violating BLP. No reliable source has stated that King is not biracial, but neither have we. We merely report the story as it is. Whats the issue? Remember, Misplaced Pages is not the place to right great wrongs. Bonewah (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

That's not how things work. If someone at Common Dreams or Daily Kos compares Ted Cruz(or some other politician) to Hitler(or some other extreme version of political candidate), and it's covered by a few reliable sources, we do not include that and insert a *See also Adolph Hitler into the BLP. Yet using your criteria, that would be perfectly acceptable. And no, I am not comparing Dolezal to Hitler, nor Cruz. You, and others, do not seem to get the policies of Due Weight, NPOV, BLP and the other guidelines I've linked to above. But you will. Dave Dial (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

So to be clear then, we are talking solely about making some reference to Dolezal here? I ask because your responses here have been all over the place. If that is your objection, im ok with waiting a bit to see if the comparison starts appearing in more places before adding it here in some form. However, if it does start to show up commonly then ill move to add a reference here. That is not a violation of Due Weight, NOPV or anything else. Bonewah (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, considering the only way it will "start to show up commonly", is if he's lying, I can agree to that. Because if he is, then it's part of his story. If he's not, it should not be anything other than a racist attack. In any case, I do want the mention removed from the lede(I guess that may be what you refer to as me being "all over the place"), but won't push that if other editors are objecting. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

It does seem like you are all over the place with your opinions on this, Dave Dial. A couple of days ago, you were calling for editors who worked on the article in a certain manner to be indeffed. You are trying to turn manner of editing and sources cited into a politically partisan issue. It all looks pretty emotional to me. And yes, I realize this a sensitive issue that stirs up emotions. But we need to sort through the emotions and get to the NPOV and what's appropriate for the article. No need to be in a rush with this, but there are parts of the story that can be included and cited responsibly. That said, there's no need to refer to editors who see it differently than you "right wingers" and call for them to be blocked. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• You should have taken the hint at AN3 when 2 admins told you that NBSB edits were protected from edit warring on BLP grounds. The only editors in a 'rush' are those trying to subvert BLP policies by using sources that are not credible or extremely partisan. A 'sensitive issue'? Sure, a group of racists doxx a BLM leader and publish what seem to be lies, and editors 'rush' over here and use questionable sources to add those accusations. Don't lecture me with condescending bullshit. Follow the rules. Dave Dial (talk) 02:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

No one is trying to subvert policy. If it were truly happening that way, you would have had grounds to take those you believe are subverting policy to AN/I. You really need to dial it down several notches. Further, you tell me not to "lecture" with "condescending bullshit" while spewing condescending bullshit. That's rich. As far as following the rules, I'm one of the biggest rule followers here - it's in my nature and part of my neurology. And, just for the record: enough of implying anyone who disagrees with you in regard to content in this article is racist. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I brought this issue to WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I took out the $25k offered by a Black Conservatives Group for the subject of this article to "prove" he was black. That is certainly far less noteworthy than the comparisons to Rachel Dolezal.--Nowa (talk) 11:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Light-skinned black man - possibility that his father was mixed race/ bi-racial/ mulatto/ part-black

Gates' research does not mention King and therefore it is WP:SYNTH to use it in support of anything in this article. That research is true, and yes, it is likely that King's biological father was himself biracial. So what, Whats the point? There were specific allegations that were notable that King had misrepresented his race/ethnicity/ancestry. I started an this article, and put those allegations in. King has now come up with a (imo) reasonable explanation for the documentation discrepancy, but more importantly, it has been accepted as reasonable by reliable sources, including the ones that were running with the original story. One can certainly debate the way that ethnicity is defined/applied in America (or the world). But this article is not the place to do so. This article is not going to get into a one drop rule debate , nor will we decide if King is a Quadroon or a Mischling. The allegations and their resolution remain notable. But its time to drop the stick that they were right. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• I probably agree with this take on the sources and where we are now. But I would go further and state that the vast majority of reliable sources that have reported on this 'issue' have not only accepted King's explanation, but have ridiculed the people who doxxed King and the outlets that ran the 'story'. So I believe that the Dolezal comparison is even more of a BLP violation. I know that NBSB attempted to make the comparison BLP compliant, but I don't think we can get consensus for a BLP compliant addition at this time. I rather wait(as agreed to below) to see what other sources say after some reflection by journalists. Dave Dial (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Disagree on that point. the comparison was mentioned by multiple reliable sources. We shouldn't put that comparison in wikipedia's voice, and we should certainly include refutations of the comparison, but that comparison was the "framing" of the controversy at almost every outlet that covered it. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Rachel Dolezal comparisons

NorthBySouthBaranof Good attempt, but I think the LAT quote is both overly long, and not directly on point. The NYT (really Daily Dot) quote is more succinct and directly on point as a contrast I think "The disgraced NAACP leader also took deliberate steps to conceal her true physical appearance, altering it with traditionally black hairstyles and spray tans,” Mr. Clifton wrote. “That’s different from being biracial and referring to oneself as either black or biracial: Racial identity is not a game of pick-and-choose."

Also, I think we need at least one quote from the "doleazal 2.0" camp, even if we couch it in terms that indicate it was a POV more strongly embraced prior to King's paternity announcement. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I also appreciate the tweaks for neutrality, but I honestly think it should be restored to something more similar to it's original form which seemed more neutral and less verbose regarding the comparison which seems wp:undue. The rest of the bio already address how the cases are different, we don't need to spell it out again. It seems we should limit this brief section to new information and try to keep it coherent.

For ease of comparison here is original version:

Comparisons have been drawn between King and Rachel Dolezal, former NAACP leader whose parents said she’s white, though she identifies as black. King’s wife, Rai King, says: "He’s no Rachel Dolezal. What’s white about him is white, and what’s black about him is black and always has been from the time he was a child. There’s no spray tan, no fake black hairstyles, no attempt to make himself appear any more ethnic than he already does."

Here's NBSB's version:

His critics have drawn comparisons between King and Rachel Dolezal, but others have contrasted the two cases. Writing in The Los Angeles Times, Dexter Thomas juxtaposed the cases, accusing Breitbart and right-wing media of "concern trolling" in the King case. "King’s post is a personal story. It may not satisfy the staff of Breitbart or the Daily Caller, who have amplified a call for King to submit to a DNA test. But for the time being, many prominent activists, such as DeRay McKesson, who was deeply involved in the protests after Michael Brown's killing in Ferguson, Mo., have voiced their support for King. And the community that is most involved with Black Lives Matter seems to be more interested in Shaun King’s work than they are in the color of his skin, or the history of his family," he said. King’s wife, Rai King, says: "He’s no Rachel Dolezal. What’s white about him is white, and what’s black about him is black and always has been from the time he was a child. There’s no spray tan, no fake black hairstyles, no attempt to make himself appear any more ethnic than he already does."

The opening for one thing is concerning as it's not only his critics who have compared the two cases, the rest of it is hard to follow.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Add- I do like the "more interested in his work than the color of his skin, or the history of his family" quote from the longer version. This seems like something that should be somewhere in the article, perhaps in with the Dolezal stuff or perhaps elsewhere. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

If we are going to include a reference to Dolezal, then i prefer the earlier version. I dont think we should spend more time on the comparison then we do on the actual issue itself. Bonewah (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

There was no consensus to add Dolezal to the article at all, despite this misleading edit summary(add Dolezal per talk page and WP:BLPN discussion), neither here nor the BLP Noticeboard. Also, this revert shows that you believe Breitbart is a reliable source for BLP material. It is most definitely NOT. I am putting the article back to where it was before that revert. Dave Dial (talk) 00:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I count 4 in support and 3 opposed on this talk plus the uninvolved editors who chimed in at BLPN. There was zero outside support for omitting this well sourced comparison at wp:blpn. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Bobomeowcat, where is consensus on this issue being sought? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi, I was judging by the comments in Rachel Dolezal talk page section above and also in the BLPN discussion on this issue, but given how contentious this is, perhaps we should start a new section for a formal vote.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Or not. You could just take what you've got (as you did) and take it as is. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

It's really frustrating because first it was "undue weight" but the abundance of sources don't support undue weight. Then it was BLP violation but WP:BLPN didn't agree, now it's "lack of consensus". I'm only minimally invested in this article, and am tempted just to walk away, but it seems really POV and not supported by policy to omit it.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

It's obviously not any of those things. I'm going to keep an eye on it, but have no interest in the drama this article has attracted. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

If reliable sources compare him to dolenzal it's ok to put in the article. Popish Plot (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

wp:Consensus is “an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines.”. It does not require unanimity and it is not the result of a vote. As BoboMeowCat said, the legitimate concerns with neutrally mentioning the comparisons to R. D. are undue and BLP. These appear to have been addressed. Many of the other concerns do not appear to me to be legitimate concerns. So I think we have reached consensus, but with strong opposition. That’s fine. That happens.--Nowa (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources trumps consensus. Misplaced Pages isn't a democracy and it's not all about voting. This shouldn't even be a question. Popish Plot (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Just because something is in a reliable source doesn't mean it must be in this biography. — Strongjam (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Strongjam, I'm sorry but this article will reflect the consensus of reliable sources. Excluding information they feel is relevant is cherrypicking and violates the "due weight" clause of WP:NPOV, quoted below for convenience

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

161.202.72.152 (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Misplaced Pages's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. I'd also note that if the comparisons in reliable sources come down to "Some compared it to this other situation, but it was nothing like that" then why even bother having it in this persons biography? — Strongjam (talk) 18:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

If we limit ourselves to summarizing what is already widespread in reliable sources then we will stay clear of being the primary vehicle for spreading anything. If multiple reliable sources are making a particular comparison, we should summarize that particular comparison for the sake of readers who want a neutral summary of it.--Nowa (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Except there are not 'multiple reliable sources making a comparison'. That's the big lie being pimped here. There are reliable sources that state that some right-wing bloggers have made that comparison, and a few entertainment/tabloid outlets that have, but most reliable sources(the vast majority) have steered far clear of that comparison. Especially since King had to go out and defend himself against those spurious accusations. So no, it does not outweigh BLP. And any such attempt to do so will be met with reverts citing BLP. Dave Dial (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

most reliable sources(the vast majority) have steered far clear of that comparison. Which reliable sources were you thinking of?--Nowa (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Most sources haven't "steered clear of it", but I've read a couple stories on King's biracial identity that did not specifically mention Dolezal, and honestly, it hardly seems necessary at this point, because we've been so saturated with the comparison. Anyway, this seems to be going around in circles. That the comparison is exceedingly well sourced in reliable sources has been documented in depth at WP:BLPN and also in the above talk page section. Saying the two cases have been compared, isn't saying they're the same, it just provides useful content for the readers and adds a wikilink to another artilce where the media also showed a great deal of interest the racial identity of a civil rights activist.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Ridiculing Breitbart

Since the article is locked down, it seems to be a good time to discuss ongoing issues. Regarding back and forth edit wars, I have noticed multiple edits which ridicule Breitbart. The implication seems to be the allegations that King misrepresented his racial identity must be false, due to the source of the allegations. The current text, though not as inflammatory as previous version doesn't seem to add to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject. I’m referring specifically to this quote:"you have to consider the source. I don’t think they’re credible absent any actual reporting." This doesn't make sense. Brietbart reported King’s birth certificate listed 2 white parents, and their reporting on this has been confirmed to be correct. His birth certificate lists white parents. King has since supplied a plausible and reasonable explanation for the discrepancy. These are the facts and it seems we should stick to the facts. Adding reliably sourced and neutrally worded commentary that these questions regarding King’s race have been seen by some as an attack on the greater Black Lives Matter movement, would be perhaps a better way to address bias concerns of some of those reporting on this story, but simply sneering at or ridiculing Brietbart in the article doesn’t seem appropriate. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree 100%, BoboMeowCat. With everything you wrote above. I don't see why Breitbart is to be discounted, either, since numerous reliable reports have confirmed what they reported about the birth certificate. I'm also tired of the edit warring at this article as well as the "racist" label being thrown around. Hopefully, all of this will be resolved while the article is locked and when the protection expires, we can get to editing in peace and without animosity. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you fellows head over to RSN and search 'Breitbart' to see if they are a reliable source, especially for BLPs. As for the 'racist' label, that's also sourced, and much better sourcing than Breitbart, In-News(or whatever the fuck that website is for Pate) or the various entertainment magazines being being pointed at as sources. I won't go into more detail right now, I'm busy, but I suggest you follow the advice about the RSN. Dave Dial (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Breitbart is an acceptable source on Breitbart, under WP:SELFPUB, as long as we are not using the ref to assert the veracity of any claims about third parties or any exceptional claims about Brietbart itself. Since the citation is being used only to demonstrate Breitbart published something, as an important event in the chronology of the issue, there is no reason to remove it. I hope this makes sense. GraniteSand (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

This isn't about referencing Brietbart. The information originally published by Brietbart regarding the birth certificate discrepancy has been covered by multiple other sources which are referenced in the article. The issue is whether we should include text in this article which mocks or ridicules Brietbart as a source of information. I think we shouldn't because it seems POV and it doesn't seem to add to encyclopedic understanding of the topic.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

My response was confined only to Dave's apparent objection to the presence of Breitbart at all. What you're referring to is, really, a non-issue designed to deflect and distract. Criticisms of Breitbart in ideological or political publications, or by such authors, are really only to shift the discussion away from the actual issue, King's ethnicity and what King knew about it. Milo Yiannopoulos, writing in Breitbart, made no independent claims about King at all, only referred to the claims of Vicki Pate. The facts presented by Pate have since been confirmed as true, only Pate's interpretation of those facts can be questioned at this point. To include "criticism" of Breitbart as a source is a non-sequitur which serves only to distract. Lastly, the nature of the WP:CHERRYpicking of aggressive and derisory quotes that's going on speaks for it, I think. GraniteSand (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not a "non sequitur" to publish reliable sources who question the veracity, motivation and well-foundedness of personal attacks on a living person, when we are republishing those same personal attacks in the biography of that living person. It is, in fact, required by policy that we treat living people with respect, sensitivity and care, whether or not a politically-motivated witch hunt has targeted that person. This entire biography was created as a WP:COATRACK to spread those unfounded and now-discredited personal attacks, and the fact that those attacks have now been criticized in a number of reliable sources is entirely pertinent and relevant. If we are going to give significant space to such attacks, we must also give significant space to the rebuttals and repudiations of them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Breitbart is categorically an unacceptable source for any living persons issue, and may not be linked to in BLPs except for those of Breitbart writers, etc. The organization has a well-earned reputation for publishing lies, fabrications, politically-motivated witch-hunts and out-and-out personal attacks.

The veracity (and lack thereof) of Breitbart's claims and reporting on King is of categorical importance and interest to this article, and the fact that a number of mainstream sources (MSNBC, Salon, etc.) have published such criticism is, of course, proof of this matter. The fact is that Breitbart's reporting was a misleading witch-hunt which forced out family secrets of no particular public interest. As the New York Daily News (hardly a liberal bastion) notes, attempting to discredit opponents by delving into their racial identities without far more care than shown here is repugnant. If we're going to publish Breitbart's now-discredited garbage, we're also going to publish the fact that a number of mainstream sources are saying it was discredited garbage. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm loath to respond to you because I know who you are and what you're all about and life's too short to spend any of it locking horns with people like you on Misplaced Pages, but I'll resp

• “Why don't you fellows head over to RSN and search 'Breitbart'...“ I did. I see critics and defenders of Brietbart.com as RS. I do not see consensus.
• “...the actual issue, King's ethnicity...” I respectfully disagree. The issue is the controversy about SK's ethnicity, not what it “actually” is.
• “...when we are republishing those same personal attacks...” If the article appears to be attacking a living person, then the article fails BLP. Summarizing the fact that attacks exist, however, is essential to a proper BLP, particularly when those attacks are notable or even notorious.
• "If we are going to give significant space to such attacks, we must also give significant space to the rebuttals and repudiations of them.” I agree.Nowa (talk) 02:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• *“Why don't you fellows head over to RSN and search 'Breitbart'...“ I did. I see critics and defenders of Brietbart.com as RS. I do not see consensus.

  Then you're not looking hard enough. Breitbart is most definitely NOT a reliable source for news. And cannot be used as a source of fact for BLPs. That is definitely the consensus at BLPN. Dave Dial (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It's quite amusing that you make a transparent ad-hominem attack at the same time as you accuse me of engaging in ad hominem. The fact that the claims originated on a fringe right-wing blogger who got zero attention until picked up by another right-wing outlet with a long history of publishing flat-out fabrications, lies, etc. about their political opponents is entirely relevant to this biography, as noted by the reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof I'm a little confused. I believe I agreed with you regarding the necessity to include “rebuttals and repudiations”. Was there another point you were making?--Nowa (talk) 02:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

My reply was to GraniteSand; I realize the threading is rather confusing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the clarification.Nowa (talk) 02:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You've got to be fucking kidding me. Attacking on the messenger is what Breitbart did, for fucks sake. What the Hell does King's ethnicity have to do with anything? Why publish a doxxing by a known racist blogger? You're loath to respond to him? You apologists for this hit piece take the cake. There was no reason at all to make the accusations that were made, and this entire 'issue' is bullshit that was absolutely a personal attack on King. For you(and others) to try and insist that there be no criticism of that is laughable. Sheesh........ Dave Dial (talk) 02:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the earlier comments regarding “rebuttals and repudiations”. These need to be included, but it seems these should be encyclopedic and substantive. The article currently doesn't seem to give enough weight to commentators who question why King's racial identity even matters with respect to his civil rights activism. It also seems we should mention commentators who believe that questioning King's racial identity is an attempt to discredit the Black Lives Matter movement. However, I don't think various versions of "Breitbart sucks" belongs in this article.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with BoboMeowCat at the outset of this section. Sticking to the facts as reported is what we should do here. If a quote or source doesnt add to our understanding of the subject, we should just leave it out. This includes the various "some other commenter thinks these allegations are awful" or similar. Further, the reliability of Breitbart is totally irrelevant. Bonewah (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Are his family considered reliable sources?

His mother told him he is part black. Other family members told CNN, and other news organizations that he is white. It seems they both should be reliable, or neither.

--JustALittleBlack (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

None of them are independent of the subject so cannot be considered reliable sources for the ethnicity of his father. They can, though, be considered reliable sources on themselves, i.e., their opinions. The difference is that we can cite their self published words as primary sources on their speech, but we shouldn't have to, it should be covered by a reputable and unbiased secondary source. Therefore all inclusion of their positions should be clearly identified as their opinions, not as independent facts. So, "King's mother has said his father is black" is fine. GraniteSand (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

References to flesh out biography

I put a time filter on Google to see what might have been published about SK prior to the current controversy. Here are some references we can use to fill out the biography after the block is lifted. Feel free to comment or add more:

• Marcia Wade Talbert “Tweets for Good: Atlanta pastor transforms microphilanthropy with celebrity Twitter auctions”, Black Enterprise, 1 June 2011
• Scott Marshall, “Shaun King:Courageous Church, Atlanta”, Outreach (magazine) 7 June 2011
• Amy Neumann “Social Good Stars:HopeMob's Shaun King”, Huffington Post, 13 August 2012
• Nicola Menzie, “HopeMob CEO and Retired Pastor Shaun King Talks Churches, Technology, New Startup”, Christian Post, 20 August 2013*“Shaun King, author, “The Power of 100”, The Marilu Henner Show, 7 January 2015

Nowa (talk) 12:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Good stuff. This is the first im learning that SK was/is a pastor. We should add that info when the PP expires, at a minimum. Bonewah (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Joy Reid opinion

There is a dispute as to whether the following is redundant. I thought I would post it here to see if we can reach consensus.

MSNBC national correspondent Joy Reid said on Live with Thomas Roberts, "I did talk to Shaun. I can tell you that Shaun King is biracial. There is no reason to doubt that he is biracial. The stories about what he said regarding getting his scholarship, etc, I think you have to consider the source. I don’t think they’re credible absent any actual reporting."

To get things started, I think that overall there is too much information in the article regarding the current controversy over SK's race. I'm not saying this particular information should be excluded, but I do think overall we should do a better job of summarizing. For example, we could say something like: "Several commentators have expressed their support for SK and the validity of him being described as biracial. They include....."--Nowa (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I dont see the value in adding these lines like "X person thinks Y about this subject" Who cares? Its mere opinion and should not be included, unless that opinion is held by someone really important, such that not including mention of it would diminish the reader's understanding of the subject. If Barack Obama weighs in on the subject, we should include it. If someone from MSNBC or HuffPo weighs in, leave it out. Bonewah (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Then remove all the accusations, especially the references to Breitbart and Milo. There is no way they should hold more weight than real journalists or news outlets. No way. Dave Dial (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Breitbart's significance on this subject is due to the multiple RS that reference Breitbart. It's not that Brietbart has any particular authority, it's that everyone is talking about Breitbart. Similar to SK's wife. Everyone is talking about what she said so her opinion on the subject should be included.--Nowa (talk) 19:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Independent coverage includes critical coverage of such accusations, such as Joy Reid's, the New York Daily News', and Keith Boykin's. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Precisely (directed at Nowa). The claims reported on by Brietbart are significant because they are being reported on by other, more reliable sources. I.E. they are significant claims, even if untrue. No one is reporting on what Joy Reid or any of the other editorialists you have quoted think because their opinions are not terribly important. Think about it in reverse. If i trotted out a thousand editorials that claim that SK is a liar and that the claims about his whiteness are true, would you be ok in including them in this article? I wouldnt, because the mere fact that someone commented on a subject does not make that commentary notable enough to include here. Its simple, if they dont know anything more that we do, or if their commentary isnt noteable in some other way, then it should not be included. Bonewah (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof, so what? Bonewah (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

"So what" is that we don't simply publish third-party claims about living people without also publishing reliably-sourced responses to those claims, of which there are many. Editorial opinions of the New York Daily News are inherently notable; this constitutes a major mainstream news source commenting on Breitbart's claims. We don't need other people commenting on NYDN's opinion to make it usable here. Likewise, Joy Reid is a notable commentator and reporter for a major mainstream news source, as is Keith Boykin. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

We did publish reliably sourced responses, the responses of those actually involved or knowledgeable about the subject. Editorial opinions of the New York Daily News are not "inherently notable", you are just making that up. Bonewah (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course it is. You are arguing that what makes Breitbart's claims notable and suitable for this biography is the myriad of third-party discussion of those claims. Thus, you cannot possibly claim that those third-party discussions are not themselves notable because if they were not notable, then they would have no power to make Breitbart notable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you are confusing notability with reliability. If a large number of reliable secondary sources discuss a particular topic,then the topic becomes notable. Any individual discussion, however, may not necessarily be notable.Nowa (talk) 01:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

False claims

The claim in question is that King willfully misrepresented his racial identity. That is, at this point, false and/or discredited. No serious challenge has been made to King's accounting of his racial and ethnic makeup since he publicly refuted the attack more than a week ago, and reliable sources have universally moved on and dropped the matter. Given the highly-negative nature of the attack, we are required by policy to treat living people with respect and sensitivity. It is unfair to mention a discredited, partisan attack on King in the article's lede without immediately discussing the fact that the thrust of the attack — the claim that King lied about being biracial — is fundamentally untrue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

1. Shaun King defends racial identity. Live with Thomas Roberts, MSNBC, August 20, 2015

• Stub-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles