Ritchie333 (talk | contribs) Old AFD – 21 February 2018: keep (XFDcloser) |
ScratchMarshall (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
::::::Fair enough - thank you both for your time in talking to me! Apologies for any time wasted! --<span style="background:#1a1a1a;padding:2px 8px;font-size:12px">[[User:Hunterm267|<span style="color:#FFAB21">'''HunterM267'''</span>]] <span style="color:#FF7800">❯</span> [[User talk:Hunterm267|<span style="color:#E0E0E0">talk</span>]]</span> 20:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC) |
::::::Fair enough - thank you both for your time in talking to me! Apologies for any time wasted! --<span style="background:#1a1a1a;padding:2px 8px;font-size:12px">[[User:Hunterm267|<span style="color:#FFAB21">'''HunterM267'''</span>]] <span style="color:#FF7800">❯</span> [[User talk:Hunterm267|<span style="color:#E0E0E0">talk</span>]]</span> 20:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC) |
||
:::::::No problem, I agree that it grates when seen in text, but the times we live in seem to demand that we make an emphatic statement that ''Britannica'' might not need ... if ''Britannica'' had articles on GamerGate, PizzaGate and Mr. Hogg. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 20:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC) |
:::::::No problem, I agree that it grates when seen in text, but the times we live in seem to demand that we make an emphatic statement that ''Britannica'' might not need ... if ''Britannica'' had articles on GamerGate, PizzaGate and Mr. Hogg. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 20:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC) |
||
==Fake graduation claims== |
|||
Wondering if this is worth mentioning under the conspiracy theories section. Seems someone claied he graduated from a [[Redondo Shores High School]] in 2015 and people started running with it and/or debunking it. Far as I can tell that's not even a real school. |
|||
https://heavy.com/news/2018/02/david-hogg-florida-school-shooting-california-video/ cites a now-deleted Feb 21 tweet for example (sadly no archive): |
|||
:Finally, a fake Antifa “parody” account shared a video of a yearbook with Hogg’s name in it, as “proof” that he wasn’t going to Stoneman Douglas High (you can watch the video below.) However, this video moves so fast that you can’t see a date or clearly read the yearbook’s full cover. A tweet shared later debunked this video. |
|||
::Here's video proof #DavidHogg went to Redondo Shores High School in California and not in #Parkland Florida like my tweet showed earlier #GunReformNow @BevHillsAntifa3 @AntifaNantucket @VacavilleAntifa @Burnt240 @Rob__Base @AntifaMidwest @AntifaBitcoin @DonaldJTrumpJr pic.twitter.com/AtdRdPIevP |
|||
::— Laguna Beach Antifa (@LagBeachAntifa9) February 21, 2018 |
|||
Looking at [[:Category:High_schools_in_Los_Angeles_County,_California]] the only HS I could find with Redondo in the name is [[Redondo Union High School]]. |
|||
Having some difficulty understanding timeline here. Presently the article says: |
|||
:"moved to Florida at the beginning of high school" |
|||
:"Hogg is a senior and he is expected to graduate from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida in the spring of 2018." |
|||
:"a television report out of Los Angeles from August 2017, in which Hogg is interviewed" |
|||
Senior usually means 4th year, if he is going to graduate in spring 2018 then wouldn't the year he began high school be autumn 2013? In that case perhaps we could provide some context for the 2017 return to California from Florida? Presumably a summer vacation back to his old hang or something since the interview was in August? [[User:ScratchMarshall|ScratchMarshall]] ([[User talk:ScratchMarshall|talk]]) 19:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:57, 1 March 2018
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2018
Remove the word "falsely" where the article says that conspiracy theories "falsely claim..."
It is not a necessary word to have. The fact that the theories exist proves that there are reasonable people with good reasons to believe that the the theories are not false. Leave it up to the reader to decide if they are false or not. Ztoddw (talk) 07:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{edit semi-protected}}
template. The section you're referring to is well-sourced, so there should be a good rationale to remove it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't "prove" anything. There are false claims that the lunar landing was a fake despite the overwhelming evidence; the general consensus is obviously that these claims are false. Same applies here. It would be nice if David Hogg could post a pic of his driving licence to dispel all myths. User:Pcauchy (talk) 10:35, 17 Bebruary 2018 (UTC)
I ultimately made this edit (before reading this talk page entry, admittedly), and, after reversion, made a talk page post on the page of the user who reverted it. Please see my talk page post for additional information on my standing. --HunterM267 ❯ talk 18:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Just a reminder to all editors, the Biographies of living persons policy should be excruciatingly studied before adding material on this person or any other survivors, some of whom are already reporting death threats ([1],[2]). Per WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIVACY, primary sources should not be used, especially ones that include personal details. We should avoid victimization by only including the facts most pertinent and widely reported, or even omitting some reported details as appropriate. The dignity and safety of human beings should always be placed above the need to write a meticulously detailed article. --Animalparty! (talk)
- Thank you for the reminder! CookieMonster755✉ 03:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Image
This image was added to the page, with a quote by Hogg from his Twitter and map of Florida. I don't think it is relevant and seems like a personally created picture for personal purposes more than one that serves an encyclopedic purpose. I don't think it should be added, it takes up unnecessary space. The quote can be put in word form or with a quote template, but a picture is unnecessary and not commonly practiced. CookieMonster755✉ 03:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- Never mind. This has been removed. I just find it odd that a picture quote would be placed on the page when a text quote can be used instead. CookieMonster755✉ 04:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- Well I agree, and Tomwsulcer, sorry, but yeah. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, it doesn't provide any more context than a simple quote, is tacky and arbitrarily decorative, and gives undue visual emphasis. This article should not serve to amplify Hogg's own voice, per WP:ADVOCACY. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Obama and political views
We going to mention the Seal of the President of the United States photograph from 23 July 2014?
- d_m_h_photography M&Ms from Air Force 1! Sighed by the commander in chief #Obama
Shows Barack Obama signature. Not sure what M&M stands for. ScratchMarshall (talk) 05:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Keep the David Hogg (activist) article
Keep the Hogg (activist) article. Controversy surrounds many, if not most, things in life. His activism at his age is quite notable, and worthy of a Wikipedia article. --Freudsig (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- Please participate in the AfD, not on the talk page, for this matter. CookieMonster755✉ 17:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
The fact that he is currently in the news does is not enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.85.186.6 (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Reversion of removal of "falsely" on David Hogg (activist)
Hi there - you reverted my edit on the David Hogg (activist) article for the removal of the word "falsely". As I referenced in my initial edit summary, I believe this is a weasel word, and also violates MOS:ACCUSED, since I would argue that, like most conspiracy theories, a conclusive yes/no answer is very difficult to obtain - hence why Wikipedia typically focuses on presenting the facts, as it does in that article. For example, see this section of the lunar landing article. While the section clearly presents the conspiracy as disputed with "empirical evidence", it does not include words that skew the neutrality of the article one way or the other. --HunterM267 ❯ talk 18:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- "Falsely" and "accused/alleged/purported" do not have the same meaning. The theory that Hogg is a crisis actor has been thoroughly debunked as indisputably false. Someone was even fired for it. Some conspiracy theories are plausible; this one is not. Do you disagree with any of this?- MrX 🖋 18:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- If a conclusion can be reached that the conspiracy theory that makes up ~30% of the entire page is entirely false and plausible, I question its inclusion in the page in the first place. My opinion is that if a conspiracy theory/controversy is covered at all, it should be covered in a neutral way. --HunterM267 ❯ talk 18:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- One issue at time. Do you disagree that sources ayy that this conspiracy theory was debunked? Let's continue this discussion on the article talk page so that other editors can weigh in. I will copy it there now.- MrX 🖋 18:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- I personally feel that given the nature of a Conspiracy theory - it is very difficult to fully "debunk" such a claim. I feel that this theory is no different, and while the individual themselves has denied it, as well as other figures including social media sources used to share such theories, as with most all conspiracy theories, it is very difficult or impossible to fully prove otherwise. Do I personally think there is substantial evidence supporting such a theory? Not necessarily. Nor do I wish to make any changes to push personal political agendas. That said, however, I think that including the word "falsely" in front of the Wikipedia discussion of the claim, however false it may seem, slightly changes the tone of the section away from a fully neutral representation of the controversy. --HunterM267 ❯ talk 18:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- We don't build article content based on editor's personal feelings. We use sources. Here is what the cited source says:
The claims against Hogg are 100% fabricated.- MrX 🖋 19:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)"Calls by student David Hogg for stricter gun laws in the days after last week's massacre have made him the subject of smear campaigns and demonstrably false conspiracy theories."
— CNN- As I stated in my previous post, I'm not contesting the validity of the controversy, nor attempting to use the section to inject personal opinions, but rather the way such a controversy was presented in the article. In fact, I'd go so far as to agree with you that the claims against Hogg are indeed 100% fabricated. However, that does not change my opinion that the use of the word "falsely" in a Wikipedia article's description of a controversy modifies the section's neutrality. --HunterM267 ❯ talk 19:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- There is ample precedent on WP that "falsely" is required for BLP compliance where individuals are subjects of conspiracy theories. People associated witht GamerGate and PizzaGate have been subjects of false conspiracy promotion, and consensus has consistently been on the side of explicitly calling out conspiracy theories and rumors associated with these individuals as false. Acroterion (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- Fair enough - thank you both for your time in talking to me! Apologies for any time wasted! --HunterM267 ❯ talk 20:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- No problem, I agree that it grates when seen in text, but the times we live in seem to demand that we make an emphatic statement that Britannica might not need ... if Britannica had articles on GamerGate, PizzaGate and Mr. Hogg. Acroterion (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- Fair enough - thank you both for your time in talking to me! Apologies for any time wasted! --HunterM267 ❯ talk 20:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- There is ample precedent on WP that "falsely" is required for BLP compliance where individuals are subjects of conspiracy theories. People associated witht GamerGate and PizzaGate have been subjects of false conspiracy promotion, and consensus has consistently been on the side of explicitly calling out conspiracy theories and rumors associated with these individuals as false. Acroterion (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- If a conclusion can be reached that the conspiracy theory that makes up ~30% of the entire page is entirely false and plausible, I question its inclusion in the page in the first place. My opinion is that if a conspiracy theory/controversy is covered at all, it should be covered in a neutral way. --HunterM267 ❯ talk 18:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Fake graduation claims
Wondering if this is worth mentioning under the conspiracy theories section. Seems someone claied he graduated from a Redondo Shores High School in 2015 and people started running with it and/or debunking it. Far as I can tell that's not even a real school.
https://heavy.com/news/2018/02/david-hogg-florida-school-shooting-california-video/ cites a now-deleted Feb 21 tweet for example (sadly no archive):
- Finally, a fake Antifa “parody” account shared a video of a yearbook with Hogg’s name in it, as “proof” that he wasn’t going to Stoneman Douglas High (you can watch the video below.) However, this video moves so fast that you can’t see a date or clearly read the yearbook’s full cover. A tweet shared later debunked this video.
- Here's video proof #DavidHogg went to Redondo Shores High School in California and not in #Parkland Florida like my tweet showed earlier #GunReformNow @BevHillsAntifa3 @AntifaNantucket @VacavilleAntifa @Burnt240 @Rob__Base @AntifaMidwest @AntifaBitcoin @DonaldJTrumpJr pic.twitter.com/AtdRdPIevP
- — Laguna Beach Antifa (@LagBeachAntifa9) February 21, 2018
Looking at Category:High_schools_in_Los_Angeles_County,_California the only HS I could find with Redondo in the name is Redondo Union High School.
Having some difficulty understanding timeline here. Presently the article says:
- "moved to Florida at the beginning of high school"
- "Hogg is a senior and he is expected to graduate from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida in the spring of 2018."
- "a television report out of Los Angeles from August 2017, in which Hogg is interviewed"
Senior usually means 4th year, if he is going to graduate in spring 2018 then wouldn't the year he began high school be autumn 2013? In that case perhaps we could provide some context for the 2017 return to California from Florida? Presumably a summer vacation back to his old hang or something since the interview was in August? ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)