Talk:Desmond is Amazing

Protect it from Vandalism.

I personally think we should protect this article from vandalism. Since I believe that this is a big target as Desmond is very controversial. 24.14.45.36 (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

If vandalizing arises it will be addressed. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

He may be being groomed. We should have the ability to inform people about it. DoubleDeckerDave (talk) 19:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

If you you have suggestions to improve this article that are inline with WP:Biographies of living persons, you can suggest them (with WP:RS that supports them) on this talkpage. Otherwise, you'll have to inform people about it somewhere else, the internet is vast. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

What happened to this page?

So if you look up Desmond is Amazing in Google you will see what looks to be a full Wikipedia article, however, upon clicking that article you come across a stub of what was once a full page, what happened to this page is the question? Did someone delete its content in order to replace it with a fuller text later? Or was it deleted to protect from vandalism?

~~Omir Laa~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omir Laa (talk • contribs) 16:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Genericusername57, care to comment? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång and Omir Laa: The main author was a sockpuppet of someone banned in 2010. (Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Benjiboi/Archive#07 November 2020.) He has a long history of disruption in the LGBT topic area. I think anything he's written needs to be rolled back or checked very carefully for BLP violations and POV pushing. I've cut back his articles on child celebrities (Desmond Napoles, Reuben de Maid, Benicio Bryant) to one-sentence stubs. This article in particular had problems with the tone and undue weight. He was also causing problems in the articles about pornographic film actors. Any assistance in rewriting this article or checking his other contributions would be extremely welcome. Cheers, gnu57 20:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Wow wonderful solution, congratulations. When's the page actually going to be back up? Because Napoles was involved in some pretty creepy stuff recently.

~~Omir Laa~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omir Laa (talk • contribs) 01:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

If you're up to it, you can start restoring stuff yourself. Everything is in the edithistory [1]. However, consider what Genericusername57 said, take it slow, be very, very (very) careful to follow WP:BLP, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PROPORTION etc, and be prepared to discuss if others disagree with your edits. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Michael Alig?

There is nothing in this article about Desmond's relationship with the late Michael Alig, a murderous club kid. This is pretty heavy stuff, why isn't this on Wikipedia? Also, there is some discussion about Wendy Napoles using sock puppet accounts to defend her son.

DoubleDeckerDave (talk) 09:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

What WP:BLP-good WP:RS do you have, and what text do you propose adding to the article based on those sources? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Whether Mentioning Desmond's Parents being Investigated by CPS Violates WP:BLP and WP:PROPORTION

Ping to User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Firstly, I would like to apologize for claiming that other fellow was an admin, I was mistaken. Still, he had already checked and edited the content. Instead of just claiming "WP:BLP" and "WP:PROPORTION" and removing relevant, RS material covering one of (if not the) most widely covered aspects of his life in online popular culture, why don't we do the rational thing and debate formally on the merit of removing the material from the article? How exactly do you feel this violates WP:PROPORTION? Thespearthrower (talk) 10:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Since it makes half the article text of this BLP about that particular issue. Also, there is no reason to conclude @Fourthords "checked" that content (they may have). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

That has absolutely no relevance to WP:PROPORTION. WP:PROPORTION is as follows:

"While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world."

The length of content added to an article has absolutely nothing to do with WP:PROPORTION, as you can see. Therefore your argument is not relevant or logical. Thespearthrower (talk) 10:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Err, no it isn't. WP:PROPORTION says An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news. You're looking at the section below that. Given that this article has been completely stripped down, having half the text about that one non-incident incident is a huge PROPORTION violation. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. The source isn't glaringly awful, but spending half of this BLP on this thing-that-according-to-source-wasn't-a-thing goes against the PROPORTION part of WP:NPOV (and IMO WP:MINORS deserves consideration here). I found this bit more interesting to add something to the WP-article about:

"Throughout the past three months, over 200 cases regarding the Napoles family have been opened with ACS alone, sending it all the way up to New York’s Governor Andrew Cuomo. But Wendy says that several other agencies also investigated their family by looking at every video, every interview and every photo of Desmond — including those being circulated by different hate groups. “ACS was here unannounced, announced, every single day. They would come at all hours,” Wendy says. “They would come at 3 in the morning even on school nights. They would visit Desmond at his school several times a week and pull him out of class. His grades went down, he thought it was embarrassing, he just started middle school. It’s just been a really horrible experience.”"

But the same problem applies until the article is more fleshed out (again). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

No, that's not WP:PROPORTION, that's WP:BALASP.

And if you are actually interested in this content due to WP:BALASP, why don't we just shorten this relevant, RS-sourced and widely covered in popular media information so that it is less of the overall page?

I would wager you will not find this acceptable as your goal isn't to fix a WP:BALASP issue but rather hide this information. Thespearthrower (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Content disagreement

@Thespearthrower on your ES:s here [2] and here [3], in no WP-sense is @Fourthords "an admin on the WP:BLP noticeboard." Ping also @Alyo. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)