Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BlueSalix (talk | contribs) at 17:55, 21 August 2015 (→Utterly terrible biography). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

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)

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)

• Stub-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles