Talk:Niger Innis

Pronunciation:

Is it the same as the Republic of Niger?--Greasysteve13 11:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I would assume. oTHErONE _(Contribs) 07:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

So would it be "nee-zher" or "nai-jer"? 76.95.40.6 (talk) 12:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It's the latter: 'nī-jǝr - Nunh-huh 23:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It's neither. It's pronounced like "knee-jaire". Not "nye-jer", "nye-zer", nor "knee-zaire". 24.136.40.99 (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

BLP / undue weight issues

User:BruceSwanson would like to include a link to a report of a typographical error in which Niger Innis's name was misspelled in a particularly unfortunate way. Said typographical error doesn't belong here - it's completely tangential to a discussion of Niger Innis - and so the link memorializing said typographical error also doesn't belong here. We're not a link farm; not everything that appears on the web is important enough to be linked to. I am positive that it's not User:BruceSwanson's intention to use the typographical error to demean a living person, but that would be the effect of including the link. In any case, a report about the carelessness of MSNBC belongs not here, but (if it belongs anywhere) in an article about MSNBC. - Nunh-huh 17:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Nothing to do with the article subject himself. I'd hardly think it merited mention in an article on MSNBC either, unless it had got a lot of external coverage. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree, irrelevant here. Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. Contrary to Grump, it obviously has something to do with the article's subject himself, and it equally obviously got, and still gets, a lot of external coverage. Thousands have already seen it and thousands more will, but it is blocked to readers here. This simply ensures that it will be re-inserted again and again by a series of late-coming editors who will think that no one has noticed the omission (few to none will bother first looking at the Discussion page), making the above fruitless cycle of reverts and discussion inevitable and attracting to the incident far more attention than it merits, to say the least. It is simply a fact that it happened and that fact should be duly noted without fuss or fanfare. I think my last version did just that. BruceSwanson (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bruce here. It isn't like the incident reflects negatively at all on Innis himself. It simply is an incident which he is well known for. This is not the only time some major event has occurred that impacts a notable person even though the individual himself didn't do anything to cause it. That's life, not a BLP violation. JoshuaZ (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Its trivia and not worthy of inclusion in this persons life story, if someone wants to add it then better add it to the TV stations article MSNBC. This person is not actually very noteworthy imo, not worthy of a bio here. Article has existed for five years now and the most notable thing about him is that someone called him nigger, ho ho ho. Presently we have two basically self published externals and sourcewatch which isn't reliable is it? and a link to a self pub about his father, nothing independent that asserts note. I also am not seeing the claim that it still gets a lot of external coverage, I didn't see anything high quality , that snopes doesn't look reliable to me either, anyways, its trivia, playground stuff not encyclopedic noteworthy in his life story of notable achievements. As Nunh-huh says its not only trivia its demeaning trivia. Off2riorob (talk) 14:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Repeating arguments isn't going to get anywhere. Snopes is generally although not always reliable. Bruce's response handles the other issues as well. Simply insisting that it is "demeaning trivia" is both POV and not helpful unless you give some form of logical argument for why that is the case. And bolding the term doesn't make your argument more persuasive. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

A TV station called him Nigger by mistake, ho ho ho, give over, what is noteworthy about that? In a living persons life story, childish toilet wall trivia content, and you repeatedly continue to support its inclusion as noteworthy in a BLP, hilarious, I don't , do whatever you want about it but I will never support its inclusion. Open yourself a RFC or a thread at the BLPN to publicize your desired addition. If he was more noteworthy and the BLP was larger and this was covered by more quality reports then there would be a stronger case but non of that complies here. Off2riorob (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Nothing you have said now is at all new. And the fact that you need to continue to use language like "hilarious" and characterize something that was in the article for a long time as an "addition" just reflects the lack of strength of your arguments. I'm not going to bother continuing to discuss this. It is clear that you aren't actually interested in discussing the matter or even interested in actually trying to convince me and I have higher priority things to do than this. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be irrelevant trivia in the MSNBC article. It's here or nowhere. As for Innis being noteworthy, he's certainly noteworthy enough for a stub, which is what his article is. As for the sources, they are not self-published. Two are the official CORE website, which seems reliable enough for the information gleaned from it. The website referencing Roy Innis is not self published. It's a National Rifle Assn website. The Sourcewatch site is surely a reliable source, its politics aside. I included it only to reference that Innis is a director of the African American Republican Leadership Council, and hence a "political consultant" as the lede states. Note that some of this information could be out of date, but that doesn't make the sites themselves unreliable as references. The external coverage is certainly high quality. Snopes.com "has been referenced by news media and other sites, including CNN, FOX news, MSNBC, and Australia's ABC on its 'Media Watch' program," and "Snopes has received praise from folklorist Jan Harold Brunvand, who considers the site so comprehensive as to obviate the necessity for launching one of his own." As for the Google-search images, no one can doubt they are genuine. The incident is indeed trivia and playground stuff, which is exactly why it keeps reappearing. Stubs should be stable. This one won't be until the incident is included. I'm signing off this discussion -- starting to feel like Sisyphus. BruceSwanson (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Stability in our articles is maintained by diligent monitoring, not by capitulation to those who want to insult people by adding demeaning insults to them. - Nunh-huh 20:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)