Talk:Shaun King

---

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)

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.[30][31][32][33] 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."[34][35]

Here's NBSB's version:

His critics have drawn comparisons between King and Rachel Dolezal, but others have contrasted the two cases.[30][31][32][33][34] 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.[35] 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."[36][37]

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. [1] --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 Wikipedia'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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia'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 [2] 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 [3] 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. [4] 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 Wikipedia, but I'll resp[opnd to you this one time. You have a long and well established history as an ideological polemicist; that's how you spend your time on Wikipedia. What you're doing here is trying to engage in an ad hominem attack on the messenger and distract from the actual subject by making this about Breitbart. So, I'll reiterate, this isn't about Breitbart. Breitbart made no independent claims about King, none. Your quote-picking of others in the mediasphere trying to do the same (Salon, MSNBC, NYDN, etc) is a transparent attempt at crisis management and deflection. Regardless of one's position on the whole King race brouhaha, there is no reason to include the wider media poo flinging spectacle to this BLP. And, as the Great American Sage once said, that's all I have to say about that. GraniteSand (talk) 01:49, 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.
• “...the actual issue, [is] 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'm getting a little tired of being called racist just because I posted proof that King's parents are, according to his birth certificate, white. Making the leap to declaring King must be white as well is not racist. Amazing Wiki won't use daily cos as a reliable source, but will take the word of one of its authors as "reliable". There are all sorts of errors in this entire page, but hey, what does someone who has researched King for a year know? User:Renewsit (talk) 02:07, 3 September 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)

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)

References

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)

The lede does so already doesn't it? Are you proposing some specific text change? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The wording has been repeatedly removed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, the claims must be labeled as false per BLP and Verifiability - Exceptional claims. Dave Dial (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

It's true he never claimed to be black so didn't lie. but No reliable sources pointed that out so I guess the wiki article has to remain confusing. Popish Plot (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Gaijin, if you object to the use of "false" on the grounds that it implies it was knowingly wrong, then the word "untrue" must satisfy this issue - the allegations, whether knowingly or not, are untrue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

It does not satisfy. I might go far as to allow "claims, which were later shown to be untrue" or something , which still suffers from the the wiki-voice issue. To be clear, I believe King's answer is correct, and further that the initial allegations were probably better off not raised but they were raised, and we need to accurately describe them and their resolution. They were knot known to be false or untrue at the time, and ultimately their "truth" or not relies entirely on King's assertion, based on his mother's hearsay, which he himself he admits he does not know the absolute truth of. In BLPs we generally take subjects word at face value for personal life details, but when those details are the topic of a controversy, we can't drop WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. I am entirely fine with leaving King's response unchallenged in any way, but it needs to be King's response, not wikipedia's response. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Not just his assertion, we have sourced statements from other people in the article. — Strongjam (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Sourced statements based on something other than his assertion?Gaijin42 (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Several of King's classmates and friends have backed King's position. Corey Richardson, a Morehouse classmate, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “He is black. A light-skinned black guy. That is what he is." I don't know what they're basing that on, I also don't really care. It's good enough for me. — Strongjam (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Its good enough for me too. I don't think its good enough for WP:WikiVoice and ignoring WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV tho. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it should be. That a partisan blogger questioned his identity shouldn't be enough for WP to cast any doubt. The section could probably be re-written better so that we could avoid the "false claims" term directly, but however we word it Wikipedia should avoid giving any credence to the claims. It is after all a rather exceptional claim. — Strongjam (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Or we could take out all mention of the accusations at all. Dave Dial (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

If you are talking about the lede, then i agree, there is no reason to mention his race at all. If you are talking about the whole article, then i disagree. Like it or not, the racial questions about SK are an important part of his biography. Bonewah (talk) 11:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Given the large amount of press coverage and per WP:LEDE, it seems brief and neutral mention of this belongs in the lede, but briefly and neutrally and without all the heated rhetoric. Instead of non-neutral and emotionally charged language such as "right-wingers", "false claims", "lies" and "repugnant", I think we should try to put this in context encyclopedicly by adding mention of suggestion that such questions regarding his race have been seen as an attempt to distract from the Black Lives Matter movement. Something like: "In 2015, a Brietbart reporter questioned King’s biracial identity based on his birth certificate, which lists white parents. King explained that the man listed on his birth certificate is not his biological father, clarifying that his biological father is a light-skinned black man, and King expressed concern that such questions were an attempt to distract from the Black Lives Matter movement." --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Id be ok with that. We could replace the current text: "In August 2015, a Breitbart writer reported on untrue allegations that King had misrepresented his biracial identity. A conservative blogger made this claim based on information from his birth certificate, which lists white parents. King responded that the allegations were "lies," stating that the man listed on his birth certificate is not his biological father, and that his biological father is a "light-skinned black man." With what you have. The only change i would recommend is changing "a Brietbart reporter" to "a Brietbart article" or something similar. Bonewah (talk) 14:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Once again, in reliable sources, the backlash against the accusations(after King's response), was covered much more than the actual accusations. The accusations that were covered were mostly by right-wing or entertainment outlets. You people are setting yourselves for a BLP nightmare. Suppose the Daily Kos or some other left wing outlet starts making accusations against Republican candidates, and the accusations are picked up in much the same manner as happened here. Even if the accusations are eventually found out to be untrue, you are stating they not only belong in the subjects article, but in the lede. And do not think the people over at BLM aren't ready to do some digging themselves, if only just to see how the media handles accusations against conservative white people. You are trying to set a precedent that this types of doxxing and half-ass 'reporting' are BLP relevant. Which they are obviously not. Dave Dial (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Dave, i explicitly said that i did not think this subject should be mentioned in the lede so i dont know what your issue is with that. As for the rest, the story of SK and race has appeared in many many reliable sources and should, therefor , be covered in this article. You are treading close to I didnt hear that territory. As for the claim that the backlash was covered more than the actual accusations, prove it. Show me actual reporting on the backlash that shows that, not just editorials, actual reporting, because we have lots of actual reporting in actual reliable sources about the accusations and i dont recall seeing any artcles about the backlash specifically. Bonewah (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Jesus man, what kind of environment do you come from where it's reckless speculation to assume birth certificates accurately reflect parentage? Say what you want about Republicans but I don't think that'll be a frequent problem. 104.156.240.208 (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

First, I don't think it's helpful, nor is it necessary for having a productive discussion, to keep going down the partisan road and dividing groups for the content into "conservative white people". My thoughts on this are as follows: if the hoo-haw about King's race isn't still in the news this week, leave it out of the lede. If that's the case, then obviously, it was a flash in the pan deal. And I agree with Bonewah that there really hasn't been any "backlash" per se that's notable or even noticeable (aside from King's zillion tweets in protest). But the content does need to be in the article. Can't escape that it happened, especially with King's zillion-tweet response to it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

It's received international coverage and it's still getting significant coverage weeks later. This interview with his hometown mayor and residents King grew up with seems to put it in greater context http://www.wkyt.com/home/headlines/WKYT-Exclusive--Versailles-leaders-invite-Shaun-King-back-to-hometown-323491871.html --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The link you included here is discussing his response, not the incident. It appears there is nothing new about the birth certificate and the Breitbart release of info on the birth certificate, am I right? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

What seems to be lacking from the current article is commentators asking "why does it matter?" and also discussion of how or if this impacts the Black Lives Matter movement, and if derailing the movement is the motivation for questioning his race. The above video address this and this source addresses it a bit more http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/20/us/shaun-king-controversy/ --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

AP has an article that goes into that as well. — Strongjam (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The CNN piece does not indicate the allegations are false so "false allegations" needs to remove "false." King refuted the allegations but there has been no stance on truth in reliable sources. As for mattering, race is not the issue but integrity would be per the AP expert. The CNN story says King's high school attack was racial, but it wasn't a hate crime, a family member told Lemon. King's family member said the cause of the altercation was about him being a white guy dating a black girl. Lemon is CNN's reporter. That passes RS. Lastly, Trayvon Martin was shot by George Zimmerman. Many reliable sources say "white Hispanic" yet Zimmerman has verifiable Black ancestors. It seems circumstances of upbringing are relevant and if CNN's Lemon and King's family member are to be believed, it appears he grew up in a white family and perceived as a white person - which is exactly why George Zimmerman was reported as white. If he really grew up with the privileges of white, heterosexual male and he is relaying that experience as the same as what black men grew up with, the AP's assessment of credibility being an issue is spot on. --DHeyward (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The AP piece talks about credibility, not integrity, and the AP expert says that isn't an issue here, and that he should instead be judged on his work. — Strongjam (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Absolute crock. Not to mention everything you've pointed to was BEFORE King(and his wife) came out and explained the situation. I should have known you would show up here with this. smh. How do you possibly justify your garbled line of thinking to even yourself? Dave Dial (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The most recent link above (here it is again: [5]) was actually from this Monday, weeks after King and his wife provided explanations.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about @DD2K:? Who's garbled line of thinking? The only thing that I've read is that he doesn't know his father other than as a light skinned black man. That doesn't really express what he experienced nor is it any kind of declaration of race. Is CNN's Lemon wrong? Sorry I'm late to your party as I don't pay attention to right wing news and just saw this edit war but I find very little has been said that is false unless CNN has retracted Lemon's report. Have they? --DHeyward (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

One anonymous quote shouldn't outweigh his own identification, the other sources with people who have gone on the record Corey Richardson, also a former Morehouse classmate, was blunt [...] "He is black," said Richardson, who now lives in Chicago. “A light-skinned black guy. That is what he is[6] Other people who know him were just as direct.[7]. It's a rather exceptional claim that he's misrepresented his racial identity, and per BLP we should require exceptional proof before giving them any credence. — Strongjam (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

It was not anonymous, it was a family member. CNN made the statement. We should not be disputing reliable sources. His family member said he was white per CNN. A friend said he was black. That's all Wikipedia should say. We don't call either the friend, king or the family member a liar by saying anything they said is false. Here's the reliable source facts: King's birth records list his parents as white. King says the person listed on his birth certificate is not his father and he was told his father was a light skin-tone black man. A family member has said King is white while his friends say he is black. His wife has stated that he has never been untruthful about his racial identity. That's it. No need for "false" or "allegations" or other loaded terms. There is no truth to be made here by Wikipedia. No claims. Only statements. --DHeyward (talk) 01:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

This unnamed family member did not say he was white. He said "the cause of the altercation was about him being a white guy dating a black girl." Those that beat him up saw him as a white guy dating a black girl according to this family member. — Strongjam (talk) 12:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam: That was in addition to A family member tells CNN that both of King's parents are white.[8] --DHeyward (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's already been covered, since childhood he's been told his biological father is black. — Strongjam (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

And that's exactly what I wrote so I am not sure what you are arguing about. We attribute those statements to the people that make them. Exactly what issue did you have with:

King's birth records list his parents as white. King says the person listed on his birth certificate is not his father and he was told his father was a light skin-tone black man. A family member has said King is white while his friends say he is black. His wife has stated that he has never been untruthful about his racial identity.? CNN hasn't retracted anything about what the family member said last week. There is nothing to be stated in Wikipedia's voice since we only have statements. RSes report what multiple parties have said and make no assertions that any of them are false. Neither should we, nor should we speculate. --DHeyward (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think "A family member has said King is white" is a far summary of "the cause of the altercation was about him being a white guy dating a black girl.". In this context he could have just meant the fight was about how people perceived King. — Strongjam (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but that was only part of the source. The family member said two things: both King's parents are white and that the altercation was about a white guy dating a black girl. Rather than making both statements, I condensed it to show that the understanding/point/belief of the relative is that King is white. King actually disputes that he was perceived as white when he was beaten and disputes that his father is white so creating a context that the fight was about how people perceived King is still problematic as well as WP:OR. Speculating on context of a statement when they disagree on the fundamentals is not something we can do. I think it would be overweight, in that statement, to relay both the parental points and the altercation description made by the relative to show the relative simply believes King is white. What we cannot do is imply the family member is lying or is making a false statement as RSes haven't done that. Nor would we say King is lying or making false statements. RSes juxtapose statements without conclusion. There are many ways to write a summary of the four main statements in the RSes. Using terms like "false", "claims," "allegations" are not necessary, though. Even in light of King's response, CNN has not retracted it, corrected it, contextualized it or anything else other than report his response. The family member has not retracted it or clarified it which would have forced CNN to do the same. CNN disclosed the comments by the relative that they believe are pertinent. We condense and reflect that. --DHeyward (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

You're assuming it's the same unnamed family member in both cases, probably true, but CNN doesn't put them together and neither can we, and we can't speculate on what they meant by combining them together. (I should add I'm just basing that on the description of the video, I haven't had a chance to watch it yet.) — Strongjam (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, just finished watching the video. No mention of the statement about the fight. — Strongjam (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

In light of your comments above, DHeyward, I think it is important to also make note of similar comments made by Bbb23 at AN3 in regard to the dispute being discussed here:

"If reliable sources report on accusations, there's nothing wrong with Wikipedia putting in that material. If the subject disputes the allegations and that's also reported by reliable sources, we of course should put that in as well. But it remains a dispute unless reliable sources report that the claims were false. Wikipedia does not get to decide the truth of the claims. The closest the article comes to reporting on the falsity of the claims is the sentence citing The New York Daily News, but in my view it's insufficient for us to say in Wikipedia's voice that the claims are categorically false...From what I read, none of what you say is in the article, so as far as I'm concerned, it's pure WP:OR. I'm letting your comments stand, but they are clearly disruptive. Encouraging other users to edit-war based on your interpretation of policy is a dangerous thing to do. My warning is an administrative action. You can disagree with it, but that doesn't mean you are entitled to incite others to violate policy."

Diffs for the above can be found here and here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Query. Prior to this comment, I counted 11 mentions of "right-wing" on this Talk page, all in the context of implying either unreliability of sources or malicious behaviour by individuals. Is it Wikipedia policy that "right-wing" sources are inherently unreliable? If so, could someone please point me to the relevant policy? If not, then why should it matter? It reads to me like commenters here are simply exposing their own political bias. I'm seeing accusations about a "right-wing hit job" and "doxxing by a right-wing hack"; is there any substantiation forthcoming for the claim of 'doxxing' (are we seriously applying that term now to looking up the publicly available birth certificate of a public figure who goes by his real name)?

That said, I think a reasonable argument can be made that race is as much about physical appearance as it is about ancestry. In light of which, I find the photo of King which the Daily Kos has chosen to run with, rather ironic. 76.64.33.209 (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Break out as separate article?

The comment above, "Suppose the Daily Kos or some other left wing outlet starts making accusations against Republican candidates...", reminded me that this exactly happened with George W. Bush in his 2004 campaign. CBS released what are now regarded as faked documents demeaning GWB's national guard service. The controversy has since been broken out of his bio as a separate article: Killian documents controversy. That might be useful guidance for us--Nowa (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Not nearly enough sources to do that. — Strongjam (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Scholarship questions

Currently we have a bit about the scholarship but no response to it. I added a bit about it not being race-based before, but it was removed as the source didn't directly say the Oprah Winfrey scholarship isn't race based. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has a statement from Morehouse that addresses that concern directly. We should change that section to something like:

Yiannopolous questioned if King had misled Oprah Winfrey by accepting an Oprah Scholarship to Morehouse College, a historically black school. A Morehouse spokesperson dismissed the claim, saying that admissions and scholarship are not race-based, and that the Oprah Winfrey Scholarship at Morehouse has always been a based on need and merit.

— Strongjam (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me. We can also add that he graduated in '02--Nowa (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The morehouse statement is not really an answer to the Oprah question. That just refers to Morehouse's own scholarships and admissions. Technically morehouse could not legally restrict admissions (nor likely scholarships) based on race. But they certainly are almost exclusively black. On the other hand, Oprah's scholarship may or may not be race based, and thus far the sources indicate it is. King's statement about the scholarship supports that ("500 other brothers have the same story") and so does the morehouse page about the oprah scholarship http://www.morehouse.edu/oprah/ "When you empower a black man, you light up the world". Heres another oprah scholarship targeted to another school http://wagner.nyu.edu/global/fellowships/awpsf (technically for Africans, not African Americans, but still) If King ultimately had turned out to be white, the oprah misleading issue would have been real, while attending morehouse would have been interesting, but not necessarily proof of deception. 23:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Gaijin42: The Morehouse statement covers the Oprah scholarship as well. "the Oprah Winfrey Scholarship at Morehouse has been a need- and merit-based scholarship since it was first awarded 26 years ago. Recipients of any race are eligible for it if they meet the academic and financial requirements." — Strongjam (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I apologize, I misread the quote, thinking it was the same as the one previously in the article. In that case, I think we should drop the first half of that quote as not being directly on point as a response to the previous statement, and tweak the second half to include the more critical element - that the specific scholarship in question is open to all races (eg, that it is merit/need based doesn't explicitly address the question). Gaijin42 (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe something like this then?:

Yiannopolous questioned if King had misled Oprah Winfrey by accepting an Oprah Scholarship to Morehouse College, a historically black school. A Morehouse spokesperson dismissed the questions, saying the Oprah Winfrey Scholarship at Morehouse has always been based on need and merit, and recipients from any race are eligible.

— Strongjam (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is a better version. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll wait a little while and if there are no objections I'll put in an edit request. — Strongjam (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

References

I believe the deleted tweet has been discussed which relates to his application to Morehouse. It also related in a way to the altercation in high school and his complicated situation. It makes sense that all the wording and press releases and tweets and conflicting sources about his race. --DHeyward (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

the deleted tweet was clearly a typo. It was deleted immediately after posting, and replaced with an identical tweet with the additional word "not". Its an interesting meta story, as Lemon ran with it, and they had a panel about morehouse/oprah deception that discussed it, but we shouldn't focus on it. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't even think the tweet is relevant here. The statement from AJC has a quote I can't find anywhere else: His being black, white, green or blue would not have determined his admission here, it looks like they talked directly to Morehouse and aren't just reporting about what was said on twitter. — Strongjam (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

No, but the Morehouse application clarifies a lot of the ambiguity. Lemon alluded to it and but also what makes it more complex. The following tweet that I saw was a completely different statement not a typo correction (which makes sense). --DHeyward (talk) 00:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think I follow what's being talked about here? @DHeyward: are you objecting to the edit, or suggesting some alternative? I feel like there is a source or something being talked about but not linked to. — Strongjam (talk) 02:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Remove "Morehouse dismissed the questions." They spoke broadly about admission and scholarship policies and would not comment directly on King. If you have ever been placed in his situation where "it's complicated" it's pretty clear what happened and why. It's the reason he describes the altercation as white on black but the police log it as white on white. Be careful how Morehouse is worded because it's quite possible he filled out the application and lists "White" for race/ethnicity and it doesn't contradict anything he said (and fits the deleted tweet as well). --DHeyward (talk) 03:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

King is not White, the police officer stated he listed King as 'White' because there was no box to check that stated "biracial or 'mixed'. The same officer stated King is biracial, and everyone in town knew that. You keep mentioning the 'deleted tweet', where King made a series of Tweets and made a typo stating 'I did lie' instead of 'I did not lie', which was deleted and corrected within minutes. Only the 'birther-type' loons are hanging onto that typo as some kind of proof King stated he lied. Much like the loons who believed Obama was a Muslim because of the YouTube video of Obama saying 'my Muslim faith' out of context. Keep it up though, DH, you're on a roll. Dave Dial (talk) 04:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you off your meds? At least what I've seen, I've not said he's white. I don't think I ever said that he was white but you seem to have difficulty reading. I haven't seen a tweet that corrected a typo, I saw a tweet that made a different kind of statement. "citation needed" for typo correction tweet but if your referring to his broad denial, it's not a typo correction. I said he may have checked the box that said "white" on Morehead and it would wise to keep that in mind when writing the article. He is being very careful how he words his responses. This is because geniuses like yourself don't understand the complexity and difficulty of being mixed race and editors like you will write stuff that makes him look like a liar when things like applications, birth certificates, passports and drivers' license actually come out if you aren't paying attention. Be very careful (as careful as him) how you write about Morehead because if his application says "white", he has not contradicted anything he has said so far and it doesn't make him white. If you think checking "White" on the Morehead application would make him a liar, then you don't understand the problem and should stop writing about him because you are only hurting his credibility. Your ad hominem rant suggests that it would be perfectly fine to say he must have checked "Black" on every form to identify as "Black." He's said he identified as Black since elementary school yet there may be documents that he signed that he checked the "White" box. If there's no bi-racial box, you seem to think if he checked "White" like the police did, he must have lied. Not so. Perhaps it comes down to the same documents that are wrong about his father? Like I said, be careful about how Morehead's response is written because it's likely he checked "White" on the application and it would be incorrect and a large disservice to him to make his truthfulness dependent on that when he cautiously avoids it. Morehead didn't comment on his application. Don't make it more than that. --DHeyward (talk) 09:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a forum for speculation about the subject. Please stay focused on the content of reliable sources.--Nowa (talk) 09:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward: Remove "Morehouse dismissed the questions." They spoke broadly about admission and scholarship policies and would not comment directly on King.

We can word it more closely to the source if you like, the source says "As for the assertion that King lied about his race to get the Winfrey scholarship, Morehouse officials scoffed at that claim Thursday." I thought "Morehouse dismissed the questions" was a more neutral summary of that. — Strongjam (talk) 11:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Oprah Winfrey does not give out Oprah Winfrey Scholarships. In the case of Morehouse, Oprah gave the school $12 million. Morehouse set up the “Oprah Winfrey Endowed Scholarship Fund” and they use the funds to give out the scholarships.--Nowa (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

And that's where wording comes in. The claims about King were not addressed. Morehouse addressed claims that admission was race based. They scoffed at claims that the award would be different if he was a different race or checked a different box. This is where we have to be careful. There are other sources for Morehouse that more accurately describes what they addressed and it was only their admission and scholarship policy. --DHeyward (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

other sources for Morehouse that more accurately describes what they addressed Not sure why you think that. AJC is not reporting on any tweets here. The quotes are not on even on twitter (and longer than 140 chars anyway.) The source is quite clear that Morehouse dismissed any claims about the scholarship, and we should be just as clear about that in the article. Especially as this is a BLP. — Strongjam (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

If you've watched other things like this play out, the information dribbles out. The more you infer about what they said. Very little has been said by King. Given his situation, there is likely a lot of contradictory documents that fit what he says but may not fit what we infer from these statements and put in the article. There is a "White" and a "Black" box on the application. Given King's situation it's quite possible he checked either box. Morehouse didn't address this except to say it wouldn't matter. However, if we write it as if he always checked the "Black" box and it's a "lie" to suggest otherwise, it misses everything that King has said. King hasn't lied regardless of what he may have checked. We have to make sure we don't write it in a way that would imply a lie if that document is released regardless of what he checked. Don't kake it appear as if the "scoff" was in relation to any information on the form or any "lie." (Or his drivers license app or his passport app or his kids birth certificate, etc, etc). King was very careful in that he may have checked anything and it didn't conflict with his identity. --DHeyward (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

In wiki terms, it's synth to juxtapose the question asked by Milos with the answer given by Morehouse. They are apples and oranges. This edit mixes them seem as if they are linked. They are not. --DHeyward (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Daily News

It wasn't clear to me if we had reached consensus on including the Daily News editorial. I've posted was was in the article below. I ask that no one reintroduce the material until consensus is reached. --Nowa (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The New York Daily News criticized the attacks on King in an editorial which noted that while King is "a public figure deserving of scrutiny ... attempting to discredit opponents by delving into their racial identities without far more care than shown here is repugnant."

It's quite usual that when discussing claims about a living person, we include reliably-sourced responses or reactions to those claims from mainstream sources. A good example is Huma Abedin, where we quote several newspapers, organizations, senators, etc. rejecting attacks on Abedin which claimed that her family was tied to the Muslim Brotherhood. It is entirely fitting that we include an editorial from a major metropolitan daily paper directly addressing the charges against King, finding them non-credible in the light of King's public statement. If we are going to include these fringe claims from Breitbart and a pseudonymous attack blogger, we're also going to directly note that King's refutation of the charges has basically been widely accepted. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

References

I disagree for at least 2 reasons. One, the addition tells us nothing of import about the subject except that someone somewhere dislikes what was written about him. This is unremarkable because it is true of nearly everything. Anything of enough importance to warrant a Wikipedia article will likely have some editorial somewhere expressing an opinion about that subject. We should not add these types of things unless it expands our understanding of the subject. Second, we need to maintain a neutral stance when editing, and the addition of these types of editorials is really just a way to push a certain POV indirectly. There is no evidence, in my opinion, that either the charges against SK, or his refutation of them have been widely accepted and introducing editorials to make it look like they have is a form of POV pushing. Again, stick to the facts, let the talking heads opine. Bonewah (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Tighten the lede

Having a little bit of distance from the events, it's now quite clear that the "controversy," such as it was, does not belong in a form which dominates the lede of King's biography. It is highly undue weight on a single incident, as well as recentism, focusing far too much attention on a fringe personal attack which was quickly debunked and has since entirely disappeared from mainstream reliable sources. Therefore, I've removed the discussion from the lede, but of course, have left it in the body of the article, where it certainly belongs. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I think before we make major changes to the lede, we need to reach consensus first. Otherwise an edit war will ensue again and the article will be locked again. --Nowa (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:BRD certainly applies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the questions about King's race were debunked. He denied that he is White. That's far from debunking. The fact is, the man listed on his birth certificate is White. His mother is White. We go with reliable sources, and a birth certificate is considered a source that, in many cases, would be considered reliable. King's denial that the man on his birth certificate is his bio father is a primary source, which, in the world of Wikipedia, is a primary source, and not wholly reliable. The only thing that will debunk the claims regarding King's bio heritage being all White is a DNA test. So, debunked? No, just denied. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

We go with reliable sources, and a birth certificate is considered a source that, in many cases, would be considered reliable Nope. By policy here it is not a reliable source. — Strongjam (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Reread what I actually wrote and then realize I wasn't communicating in Wiki-speak but in real world speak: in most cases a birth certificate is a reliable source of parentage. To prove citizenship, you need a birth certificate. To prove parentage, you need s birth certificate. King's claims are not Wikipedia's issue, it is his issue - he hadn't proven in the real world that his White father on the birth certificate isn't his bio father. Therefore, the claims are not debunked. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they are, and your absurd adherence to this "birth certificate" nonsense has no foundation in either policy or practice. No mainstream reliable source today considers the allegations credible, the "controversy" disappeared from the media milliseconds after he issued his public statement and a major metropolitan daily editorially denounced the attacks as unfounded and unfair. This manufactured nontroversy is over. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

No, they aren't. In a court of law, King's testimony would be considered heresay. A DNA test is the only thing to actually debunk the claims of his totally white parentage. By now, we are all aware of your bias toward King's story. Personally, I don't care one way or the other. That's why I can look at this truthfully and objectively and without emotion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes, make a personal attack and then claim neutrality in the same breath. Very constructive. And no, sorry, we don't require biographical subjects to get DNA tests. That's ludicrous and absurd. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

(ec) I dont think the claims about SK's parentage have been debunked, but it doesnt matter here. We report what happened, not what we think. Bonewah (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)North, please try to keep up. I said nothing about us needing DNA. The claims weren't debunked. No matter how often you say they were, they really weren't. Which is why we can't say they were debunked, just denied. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Please do keep up; reliable sources no longer consider the claims credible and have stopped reporting on them, because King debunked them with his public statement. Nobody believes Breitbart or the wacky right-wing blogger anymore. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

It doesnt matter, unless you can produce reliable sources (not editorials) which say that these claims have been debunked we cant put any such things into the article. It doesnt matter who believes Breitbart or anyone else. Bonewah (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Two points. 1) regardless of the truth or untruth of the allegations, the allegations are the major source of notability for king outside of the relatively small amount people already involved in or following the BLM movement. the number of people who heard his name for the first time, and the number of words written/broadcast about him in the context of this incident, dwarf anything before. The article, and therefore the lead should reflect this weight. However both the article and lead should be written in a neutral/blp compliant manner. Any major removals or reformatting I think will certainly require an RFC given how contentious this topic is 2) specifically regarding the truth or untruth, I think it is excessive to say they are "untrue" as a fact in wiki voice, but we could certainly WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV similar analysis to someone else (either some specific notable voice, or to a WP:WEASEL "analysts/media" if there are a good number thereof. I think the NYD quote being discussed elsewhere serves well in that capacity, but there could be some better formulation too. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Tweetify

I thought it might be a fruitful exercise to try an reduce the Breitbart controversy in the lede to a tweet. The best I could do was 188 180 characters.--Nowa (talk) 13:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• In 2015, a Breitbart blogger said that King was white because his birth certificate had a white father. King said that according to his mother, his father was a "light-skinned black man". (188 characters)
• In 2015, a Breitbart blog said that King was white since his birth certificate had a white father. King said that his mother told him his real father was a light-skinned black man. (180 characters)

I think this exercise is missing a lot of nuance, and misrepresenting the original controversy. The way the tweeted version reads, it sounds like its a debate over the one drop rule, or how we define race. The core of the allegation was that King had misrepresented his race as black, and certainly the birth certificate was used as the evidence of that argument, but the alleged misrepresentation is the "meat" of the allegation, not the fact that he was one race or another. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm not saying it's the best summary in the world. Care to take a shot at it?--Nowa (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I think I prefer the current version for the most part. The "allegation" portion is succinct at one sentence. The counter/response to the could be trimmed up as I think some parts of it are redundant, but I think others (NorthBySouthBaranof etc) will think those details are necessary for BLP/NPOV concerns. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Fact check on Breitbart?

Have any RS done an analysis of the original Breitbart piece? Has anyone confirmed, for example, that the “Jeffrey Wayne King” listed on the birth certificate is in fact the white guy pictured in the Breitbart article?--Nowa (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe King did that when he said the man listed on his birth certificate wasn't his real father. --DHeyward (talk) 01:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

That's not quite what I mean. I haven't seen any strong evidence that the Jeffrey Wayne King listed on the birth certificate is even white. For example, the Breitbart article makes the statement “Finally, public records show only one J Wayne King in the state.” That may be, but the Jeffrey Wayne King that currently lives in Kentucky is certainly not the Jeffrey Wayne King shown in the mug shot. The Jeffrey Wayne King shown in the mug shot is 59 (born 11 November 1955). The Jeffrey Wayne King that currently lives in KY is 61. And besides, what does a person's current residence or place of birth have to do with whether or not they might be the Jeffrey Wayne King listed on the birth certificate? The whole Brietbart piece is utter rubbish from a journalistic standpoint. I was just wondering if any RS has given it the scrutiny it deserves.Nowa (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

NowaTo answer the core of the question, I think they have not. King ended that line on inquiry (by anyone we could use) with his response, which ended the story or further investigation.For wiki purposes, I don't think we are going to be able to develop that portion further to say if that narrow portion of the story was accurate or inaccurate (or even considered accurate or inaccurate)

• at a meta WP:OR level King could have just as easily ended the story, without revealing the sensitive family history by just saying "that dude isn't related to me/my dad/my legal dad" and neither did King's brother who was commenting on the story. Thats pretty telling (but obviously nothing we could put into the article)
• also At a meta WP:OR level however, public records and particularly arrest records are notoriously inaccurate - a first, middle, last match where the birthdate is within 5 years or so is pretty solid especially for an uncommon name (eg not John James Smith) - source : I am currently writing a background check app which relies primarily on rapsheet data for the DOJ where even a 10 year swing on bdate is considered a likely match if the name, race,gender match. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I think King wanted to firmly and completely end the inquiry and was willing to pierce his family's veil of privacy to do so, rather than leave endless partisan attacks unanswered. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The name is spelled differently as well. The patent has "Jeffrey Shaun King", the birth certificate says "Jeffery Shaun King." Don't know if his drivers license is "re" or "er" but it's another moot point. It would be interesting to know when he started using "Shaun" as his name and the story behind it for background. --DHeyward (talk) 21:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Interesting point on “re” vs “er” in Jeffrey. As a patent agent myself, I can tell you that we are very diligent in getting inventors' legal names correct on patent documents. I makes me wonder if the “birth certificate” posted on Breitbart is even legitimate. As for when did JSK start using “Shaun”, it was at least as early as his Morehouse years.Nowa (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

wikivoice vs attribution RFC

There are currently several statements in the article in wikivoice evaluating the allegations regarding King's family. eg "writer reported on untrue allegations" and " blogger [...] who falsely claimed King had misrepresented his biracial identity"

• Should these evaluations be in WP:WikiVoice or use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV
• Should these evaluations include tense (eg, later found to be untrue etc, vs "untrue" which raises issues of if the bloggers/media were aware of the truth/untruth at the time

Survey

• attribute, include tense While the media/rs opinion of the allegations has largely shifted, they were taken seriously initially and were not known to be false at the time. The shift in opinion is just that a shift in opinion, and not a shift in fact, and those opinions should be attributed (even if just a passive/weasel attribution). The "holdout" opinions that are still arguing that the allegations are true are WP:FRINGE enough not to be included. (eg, we do not need to include the other hand/contrary arguments, certainly not in the lead and perhaps not in the article at all) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• False - These are fringe allegations made by a pseudonymous blogger and picked up by Breitbart, which is so well-known for publishing partisan hack-jobs, smears and falsehoods that it's long been ruled an unacceptable source on Wikipedia. While there was initially some mainstream media reporting on the issue, King's public and "privacy-destroying" response to the attacks wholly and completely refuted the claims and mainstream sources immediately dropped the matter. No reliable source has controverted or even challenged King's accounting of the issue. Not even Breitbart is pursuing this anymore. When we deal with fringe-sourced, highly-negative claims about living people, it is our responsibility to accurately portray them as they are — widely discredited and no longer considered a matter of public interest. Whether or not they were "known to be false at the time," they are now viewed that way by mainstream sources, as evidenced by the complete and total dropping of the matter by those sources, and even by the partisan attack site which initially publicized them. We cannot present a fringe claim made by a pseudonymous blogger as if it deserves equal merit or credence with the uncontroverted public statement of the article subject himself. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

They are not viewed as false, they are viewed as immaterial. --DHeyward (talk) 01:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Attribute - and I'd prefer "later claimed" or "denied" to "later found." Fundamentally, we should report the accusation (including citeable, relevant evidence) and report the denial (including citable, relevant evidence.) The veracity of either position is debatable and we should not take a side in that debate. Suggesting we should is something I see more frequently and it appears to involve a two-step process:

• Step 1: Muddy the distinction between fact and opinion (e.g. "O.J. Simpson played football" vs "O.J Simpson was innocent") so that the subjective becomes objective, and repeatable in wikivoice
• Step 2: Cite WP:OR to preclude evaluation of those opinions, such that opinion based on "gut" carries equal weight to opinion based on diligent research, and instead weight opinions on the frequency with which they're repeated.

This may be acceptable for a tabloid or <pick your side>-leaning publication but it's a worrying trend in an encyclopedia. 216.185.103.139 (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

It's a worrying trend when an IP (likely using a proxy server) comes in out of the blue to an RfC and comments when that IP has (seemingly) never edited Wikipedia previously. If you have an account, please log in. Otherwise, your !vote is likely to be discounted. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Attribute but avoid "claimed" "falsely" "alleged" and all the loaded words. It's really pretty simple Should be something like King's birth records list his parents as white. King says the person listed on his birth certificate is not his father and he was told his father was a light skin-tone black man. A family member has said King is white while his friends say he is black. His wife has stated that he has never been untruthful about his racial identity. That's about all we know and we attribute views to those that hold them. We don't judge their views as "false" and it's not a crime to be white, black, biracial or anything in between so there is no need to allege anything. We aren't (and shouldn't) claim anyone in the story has lied. --DHeyward (talk) 01:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with your basic point, but don't believe the birth records list the race of the parents. The birth certificate posted on Breitbart certainly doesn't list race.Nowa (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Attribute per DHeyward. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - summoned by bot - I agree these are fringe allegations and strongly feel this issue should not be in the introduction section. This is not a Rachel Dolezal situation as far as I can tell so as of now this is simply an allegation that falls under FRINGE. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

And that's why it has to be strictly attributed. "This is not a Rachel Dolezal situation" goes only so far as we make accurate statements that don't imply things that were not said. There's no question that Dolezal lived (and continues to live) in the black community with her children. Anyone who's watched these things play out (whether it's O'Keefe and ACORN or the Planned Parenthood videos), it doesn't all come out at once. An article that reads stronger than the statements provided does a great disservice to the subject of the biography. If it came out tomorrow that he checked the "White" box on his college application or scholarship request (or if they were different from each other), it would not contradict a thing he's said. If we have to rewrite the article because of that, we have failed NPOV and RS principles. Cover what he said and what other notable people have said. Don't infer truth where fact will do. --DHeyward (talk) 03:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Attribute per DHeyward I dont think this information needs to be in the lede, however. Bonewah (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
• Attribute and do not include this in lede as per WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENTISM -- this controversy is not who this person is. It is a current controversy that should be described in the article with POV attribution for all statements that are controversial, from the allegations that he is not black, to the sentence "He was told by his mother he was black" which should read "He says he was told by his mother he was black." I was called here by a bot. No prior knowledge of this person. SageRad (talk) 13:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

In fact, i did take this opportunity as a bot-summoned respondent to this RfC to make two edits to change controversial statements being made in Wikivoice. In this edit, i removed a statement that was in flat Wikivoice that there was no indication that the assault was racially motivated, because this is not a fact. It is a position of the authorities and if it is to be re-added then it must be attributed as such. Secondly, in this edit, i added attribution to King's own claim that his mother told him he was black. I think these changes are only fair. SageRad (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

SageRad I agree with both edits, but I restored the "racially motivated" one, and added attribution. It was poorly worded before, and implied wikivoice, but it was (I believe) meant to be a continuation of the previous sentence which was describing the police report. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

"His mother told him he was black"

If we're going to cite some anonymous unnamed "family member" who apparently told someone that "King was white," we're certainly going to include this direct statement sourced to GQ: King was told by his mother he was black and has lived most of his life as black. [9] This is certainly relevant to any claim that King ever "misrepresented" his racial identity. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't object to including that - it's relevant but the phrasing as it was is confusing stating that the man listed on his birth certificate is not his biological father, that his biological father is a "light-skinned black man" and that he was told by his mother that he was black.

First "...is not his biological father" is by all accounts information provided to him by his mother. It's strange to not specify the source there but specify it for the later "he was black" - implying a different source for the first statement. It's also phrased in a way to appear as two separate statements "his biological father is a light-skinned black man" and "he [Shaun] is black" - we're saying the same thing two different ways one right after the other. It needs work. 161.202.72.168 (talk) 09:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense, but taking a crack at fixing it in the page it is always preferable to just reverting. :) How about this construction: stating that according to his mother, the man listed on his birth certificate is not his biological father, that his biological father is a "light-skinned black man," and that he was black. He said he lived most of his life as black, only later coming to understand himself as biracial. Cite is the GQ interview. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Note that i arrived here summoned by a bot to the RfC, and i did just make a change to the statement in question to attribute it to King. In this edit, i added "He says that..." to the claim in question. It is his claim, and i am personally inclined to believe it, but it must be attributed so that it is not in Wikivoice. I hope this makes sense. SageRad (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted this, because this statement is made in the source's voice in the reliable source cited. The GQ article linked states "King was told by his mother he was black and has lived most of his life as black." It would be original research to attribute the statement to King. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

But, who is the source that GQ is using to report this information? SageRad (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not following. The reliable source states, in its voice, as a fact, that "King was told by his mother he was black." As far as we're concerned, that's the end of it. It's not for you or me or anyone else to take guesses at how GQ sourced their story. Attributing the statement to King falsely presents the statement as King's POV, when it is presented by the source as a fact. That would be a misrepresentation of the source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The source story is an interview with King, and the statement you're using comes from the lede to the interview. In the interview, Shaun King says, "I have been told for most of my life that the white man on my birth certificate is not my biological father and that my actual biological father is a light-skinned black man." I think you're being semantic and splitting hairs. I don't think i'm engaging in synthesis or original research by reading the article to be stating this based on King's testimony to that point. We are editors who get to read articles and use our interpretive human brains to ascertain certain basic things about the source, and that is far from synthesis. Anyway, i think attributing the statement is a point of strength, and i am not here with any sort of axe to grind about King. I think the counter-statements in the controversy need serious attribution qualifications, and adding attribution to this statement is a point in favor of attribution on the right-wing machine who seem to be out to get King. SageRad (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

If it needs attribution at all, it would be attributed directly to GQ. The fact that the statement is in the lede to the interview is, indeed, the key point. The statement is not in the interview text, which is clearly presented a a Q&A format with King's own words; rather, the statement is presented separately, in the source's journalistic voice. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof I agree 100% that the source says "King was told by his mother that he was black" and that is sufficient sourcing for us to repeat that statement without regard to their own sourcing. That is not sufficient sourcing to say in wikipedia's voice that King is black (although I personally think he is). My mother told me that I could be anything I want to be, even the president. That does not mean that wikipedia can say I am going to be the president. I am somewhat surprised that in the aftermath of this kerfuffle no RS has directly made a claim on King's identity in their own voice. Here are some hypothetical versions of what we could write based on this particular source

• King is black (too strong in wikipedia's voice when the source is explicitly quoting a game of telephone)
• King was told by his mother that he is black (well sourced and attributed, WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE)
• King said he was told by his mother that he is black (No reason to double attribute)
• GC said that king said that he was told by his mother he is black (even worse)Gaijin42 (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for laying it out like that, Gaijin42. "King says that his mother told him he is black" is not too bad a statement in my book. I think there is reason to double attribute. In reality it is a double attribution. It's King's statement as reported by GQ. The source does say that "King was told by his mother that he was black" but this is in a lede text preceding an interview in which King says that in his own words, and therefore it seems obvious to me that it's King's statement that his mother told him he is black, being reported in GQ. I'm dropping this stick, but i do think it's important to be very accurate as to who says what. Wikipedia policy does not ask us to shut off our brains and be robotic in our editing. It exists for very good reason, and the spirit of the guidelines is as important as the letter of the guidelines. Anyway, enough on this point for me. In case you wonder, i'm on the side of King in this controversy and i personally see this incident as a right-wing sliming attempt to discredit the BLM movement. I do not see my contention in this instance as being harmful to King's case but actually slightly helpful. SageRad (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Categorization

The category is certainly appropriate, given his direct statements and self-identification. BLP does not permit us to ignore a person's own statements when categorizing living people. King has said this in multiple reliable sources, and absent a reliable source which refutes or disproves his own statements, the categorization must reflect them. Whether or not Breitbart's allegations are "false" or "untrue" or whatever is irrelevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Mostly agree, per WP:BLPCAT and MOS:IDENTITY we should cat people at face value of what they identify as - we can effectively ignore the arguments/allegations entirely for this purpose. As an example Dolezal who is provably white at this point is still categorized as african american. However additional cats are also probably appropriate (African American related controviersies, multiracial affairs etc, as well as any "ancestry" cats which are well sourced from the mother's side). Gaijin42 (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the Category:Multiracial affairs, this was the only biography in that category, so I don't think it really fit in there. — Strongjam (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Strongjam There are numerous BLPs in the category, but they are mostly diffused into the subcategories. Category:Multiracial_affairs_in_the_United_States is perhaps a better subcat as being more specific, and also already includes other BLPs. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Alright, that probably makes more sense. Although the category seems odd to me. I'm not sure if "affairs" here is meant to mean "an event" or the nature of a relationship. — Strongjam (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the naming of the category is unfortunately confusing in this circumstance. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the Category:African-American-related controversies; people's biographies generally shouldn't be categorized as a "Controversy." You'll notice that that category has almost no people in it, living or not. Martin Luther King, Jr. is not in it, Malcolm X is not in it, Jesse Jackson is not in it, etc. All of those people had far larger and more significant "African-American-related controversies" about them, yet they're not in that category. Articles about specific controversies are — such as Firing of Shirley Sherrod. There are people in a subcategory - Category:Politics and race in the United States, which I do believe is an appropriate category, because it doesn't basically directly state that a person is a controversy. I suppose one could create a redirect, Shaun King race debate and stick it in the "Controversies" category and I wouldn't object, although I'd think it was kind of silly :) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

For the most part I agree, and thanks for pointing out the subcats that already covered the controversy link. For a new cat it may be silly but there are certainly lots of cats like that for other incidents/events/topics. This article is somewhat complex as its an edge case for WP:BLP1E (although he probably has enough other coverage to put us firmly on the yes BLP side of the edge). For the cats, we could put this article there, Breitbart , renewsit , maybe KOS, moorhouse, oprah?, etc, . As I was typing this I kept coming up with possible inclusions, so it seems like a reasonable category. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

That would probably fail WP:SMALLCAT though. — Strongjam (talk) 17:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

As per WP:COP, Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. I don't think this issue is a "defining characteristic" for any living person. Also, Categorize by characteristics of the person, not characteristics of the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

To just use another example of avoidance of "Controversies" categorization of people... Hillary Clinton, no doubt a very controversial figure, is in precisely zero "Controversies" categories. Same with George W. Bush, another rather controversial figure. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Bad examples. GWB is a former two term president, HRC is a candidate for president - neither is best known for a controversy; Shaun King is most notable as the target of a false harassment campaign based on false allegations that were debunked and dismissed as conspiracy theories. 104.156.240.209 (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't make him (the person) a controversy. Nor does it make the controversy a "defining characteristic" of the person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

As a person he is non-notable. Without the controversy this article wouldn't survive an AfD. I propose a move to Shaun King Controversy.161.202.72.150 (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Race

With Elizabeth Warren we do a good job of phrasing and relaying relevant racial information without making judgements. We should follow that model in this article. 161.202.72.162 (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source states that King is biracial

Nowa has discovered and added a reliable published source which directly, in the source's voice, states that King is biracial - that he is the son of a Caucasian mother and an African-American father [10]. As there are no reliable sources which directly state that King is not biracial, this reliable source is controlling. We certainly must mention Breitbart's allegations, but these now-discredited and dropped allegations do not override the factual statement of a reliable published source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

As to the anon IP, this isn't a matter of "opinion," this is a reported story in a reliable source which states the issue as a matter of fact. Please provide the reliable source which says King is not biracial. And no, Breitbart is not a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I want to make sure I'm following your reasoning here, so please let me know if I have this right - if King says he's biracial we have to report "King says he's biracial" or something along those lines; we can't write "King is biracial." But if King tells a journalist he's biracial and the journalist repeats it, it becomes "fact" - is that right? If so I'd describe your process as "truth laundering" - take a statement, tumble it through a few magazines who simply repeat it and it comes out as fact, nice and clean. Do you see any potential problems with that process? 161.202.72.168 (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

You're conducting original research, which is prohibited. Wikipedia content is based on reliable published sources, and we have a reliable, published source which states, as fact, King's parentage. Your unsupported speculation as to how the source came to state it as a fact is irrelevant. Reliable published sources have editorial and fact-checking mechanisms, and we must presume that the statement was vetted by those mechanisms at Rebel before they published it. Absent any reliable published source directly questioning that source's particular conclusion, we must take it at face value. Our role as Wikipedia editors is not to "reinvestigate" what reliable published sources say. We are not here to discover the WP:TRUTH as you or anyone else believes it to be, we are here to report what reliable published sources say. We have a reliable source - a journalistic article published in a print magazine - which says that King's parents are a Caucasian mother and an African-American father. There appears to be no reliable published source which directly contradicts this statement of fact, only speculation, innuendo and allegations of pseudonymous bloggers and partisan attack dogs. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Even if I concede this silly laundering process, which is so susceptible to gaming I'm surprised anyone writing an encyclopedia would advocate it, we'd need much more than one or two sources supporting a contentious claim before repeating it in wikivoice. Your understanding of this purpose of this encyclopedia is incorrect. We do not simply parrot sources. "Reliability" is situational - the claim, the source and the author are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. That's not "original research" - that's fundamental to WP:RS which I suggest you re-read. Regardless, the text as is, attributing the claim King is, according to Rebel Magazine, the son of a Caucasian mother and an African-American father is as it should be. No need to continue this tangent. 161.202.72.168 (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not a "contentious claim," though. It really isn't. Nobody but Breitbart and a pseudonymous attack blogger ever directly claimed otherwise, and they were shut down by King's direct refutation of their attacks. No reliable source today says that King's parents aren't who he said they were.

You're welcome to evaluate Rebel as a source, but unsupported speculation as to how they reached their factual conclusions is unhelpful. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

You seem not to have understood - reliability is evaluated on a case-by-case basis. That evaluation is fundamental to our writing process. If you feel strongly otherwise the proper course is to propose your change on the RS policy talk page. 161.202.72.168 (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Milo Yiannopoulos never states that SK is white in his controversial Breitbart piece.Nowa (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

So then the only person who actually directly claimed that King's parents aren't who he says they are, is a pseudonymous attack blogger? That is the definition of a fringe claim. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• As he shouldn't. He presents available evidence without offering speculative conclusions as statements of fact. That's how responsible journalists behave. Odd to see that behavior virtually unique to Breitbart (of all sources!) in this instance. It's a good example of why policy stresses situational reliability. 161.202.72.168 (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure, evaluate the source. Doing that requires more than unsupported speculation and claims. Are there other reliable sources which state that Rebel does not fact-check stories? Do you have reliably-sourced evidence that Rebel did not fact-check the information in question? Otherwise, what you have is nothing more than your speculative claim that the source didn't fact-check the statement. And that is nothing at all.

If you feel strongly that Rebel is not a reliable source, the proper course is to bring up the issue at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard for discussion and consensus. For example, that is why Breitbart is not accepted as a reliable source - significant discussion at that venue of multiple instances of fabrication, poor fact-checking, etc. as documented in reliable sources, has led to a consensus of Wikipedians that it lacks the editorial control we expect in a reliable source, and is thus unacceptable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

No need. 161.202.72.168 (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Whats the purpose of this discussion? Is someone advocating a change to the article based on this? If so, what is the proposed change? Bonewah (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I have removed mention of this dumb non-controversy from the lede, where it does not belong - probably we should have a look at the extent to which it presents a WP:WEIGHT issue in the rest of the article and trim it back, if not removing it entirely. Artw (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, it has been replaced - can someone explain to me why a stupid artificial controversy generated by a hate cite deserves pride of place in the lede? Artw (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the race controversy thing does not belong in the lede. I disagree with removing it entirely, numerous reliable sources have covered it and therefor it deserves a mention. Bonewah (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

He's primarily notable for the controversy. About half of the cited RSs and a third of the article relate to it. It would be disingenuous to exclude it from the lead. 161.202.72.151 (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It's worth about a line at most, not in the lede, probably focusing on how dumb trying to build a controversy out of it is. Artw (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I understand you feel that way. It doesn't change the fact that: he's primarily notable for the controversy, our article reflects that, the lede reflects the article. Which of those those points do you disagree with? They seem rather uncontroversial. 161.202.72.151 (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

No, his notability does not derive from a Breitbart attack piece, and if it did then he would be non-notable per WP:RECENT and WP:TABLOID. However in actuality he does have prominence outside of that, which would be why Brietbart started writing hit peices on him in the first place.

An no, I am not persuaded otherwise by the dumb attempt to flood references. Artw (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I also agree that too much weight is given to the Breitbart controversy in the lede. I also agree that SK was notable before the current controversy.Nowa (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Weight is proportional to coverage in reliable sources. If all we had were the Breitbart piece I'd agree with you - but we have significant secondary coverage of the Breitbart piece and of King's response. Again, he is primarily notable for the controversy. 161.202.72.151 (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

As per the emerging consensus here, I've taken a WP:BOLD shot at tightening the lede for weighting purposes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not certain which consensus you're referring to specifically but I support your edit. I removed "as lies" since it's follows the Breitbart reference - Breitbart didn't report anything that King has discredited as a "lie." They said the white parents listed on his birth certificate suggested he may be white. He doesn't dispute the birth certificate and the suggestion is clearly speculative - it may be incorrect but it can't be a lie. 161.202.72.151 (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The substance of Breitbart's reporting is, as we state, alleging based on that birth certificate that King publicly misrepresented his biracial heritage, and it is clear that King called those allegations a lie. The substance of the claim is, as King says, a lie - he did not misrepresent his heritage. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

No. Please read the Breitbart piece (or even our article's summation of the Breitbart piece.) It reported the blogger's allegation that King lied about his race (without accusing King of lying about his race) and the specifics of his birth certificate, which are not disputed. If there is a line in the Breitbart piece which King or anyone else has claimed is a lie, paste the quote here. 161.202.72.151 (talk) 20:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The substance of the claims, whoever you want to pin it on, is to allege that King misrepresented his racial heritage. Nobody would care about who's on King's birth certificate if it wasn't to try and claim that King was lying about his race. It is abundantly clear that King has directly called that reporting lies, several times. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

We're going in circles. A question can not be a lie. The title of the Breitbart article even ends in a "?" A question may be disingenuous, mean-spirited or a smear (per your recent edit) but by definition it can not be a lie. 161.202.72.151 (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways. If you're saying that Breitbart is alleging that King misrepresented his racial heritage (as the lede is currently worded), then it is abundantly clear that King has called that allegation a lie. If you are saying that Breitbart hasn't alleged that King misrepresented his racial heritage, then we shouldn't say that they are making such an allegation in the lede, and we should attribute that to some other conservative bloggers. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The Breitbart article alleged he may have misrepresented his heritage. It didn't outright claim he did. The allegation itself can't be "false" or a "lie." (I should have been more specific in my recent article edit summary re "lies" - see the "False Claims" consensus.) 161.202.72.151 (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. Of course an allegation can be a lie. If I allege that you did something you didn't do, that's a lie. And King has directly called them lies, and we attribute his opinion of those allegations. They are highly notable, of course, being the opinion of a living person about highly-negative claims made about that person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

This allegation can not be a lie. If I say "NorthBySouthBaranof stole my apple" yes, that can be a lie. If I say "Did NorthBySouthBaranof steal my apple? He has apple crumbs on his desk" - as our summary of the Breitbart article indicates it does and no one disputes the crumbs claim the question can not be a lie. Semantically yes, they are both "allegations" but significantly distinct. 161.202.72.151 (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course it's an allegation, and the reliable sources treat it as such. It's a loaded question in the vein of "Have you stopped beating your wife?" A question mark does not turn an accusation of wrongdoing into an innocent "just asking questions" statement. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It's a loaded question - yes, and objectively a smear - agree, but it's not a lie. Seems our language should be more precise: "alleged he may have" or find a more suitable word than alleged. 161.202.72.151 (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

If the substance of Breitbart's story is to allege that King misrepresented his biracial heritage, then there is no question that King's opinion of that allegation is that it's a lie. It doesn't really matter what any of us think; we're reporting King's opinion of it, and his opinion of highly-negative claims about him is inherently notable. On the other hand, if the substance of Breitbart's story is to "ask a question about King's biracial heritage because these conservative bloggers alleged he misrepresented his heritage" then we shouldn't frame the lede as "Breitbart alleges that King misrepresented his biracial heritage," we should frame it as "these conservative bloggers alleged he misrepresented his heritage." Because the idea that King misrepresented his heritage is what is the notable issue here, if anything is notable. And King has clearly stated that any such idea is a lie.

The key is that if there wasn't a claim that King had misrepresented his heritage, literally nobody would care who his parents are, and it wouldn't have even begun to become an issue of public concern. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

As the anonymous IP has stated that there is "no consensus" for changes to the lede, I have self-reverted my changes to the original status-quo-ante version which existed before my WP:BOLD edits, which had longstanding consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I think maybe it is time we got some additional eyes on this. Artw (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, and I suggest that no changes be made to the lede without consensus on this talk page, as the anonymous IP user has asked. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I support both suggestions - more eyes, clear consensus. Thank you for reverting. 161.202.72.151 (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I have started an RFC, below. 21:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Full name and birth date

I can't find his full birth name and birth date in our sources. Per WP:BLPPRIVACY we should only have them in the article if they have been widely published in reliable sources, or sources linked to the subject. — Strongjam (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Nowa: WP:BLPPRIMARY, birth certificates and patent applications aren't acceptable for full birth names and birth dates. — Strongjam (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's a non-Breitbart reference for "J. Shaun King"--Nowa (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should this biographical article so prominently feature allegations by Breitbart.com?

This article includes prominent mentions of recent allegations made by the Breitbart site, including over half of the lede. Is this a reasonable amount or should it be cut back? Artw (talk)

• Cut back - Accusations that King had misrepresented his biracial heritage were briefly a matter of public interest, but have entirely disappeared from reliable sources after King revealed his family history. Even Breitbart has dropped the issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
• Cut back I believe this is completely unsuitable for the lede and probably merits only a sentence or two in the body. WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS apply, as well as serious WP:WEIGHT concerns. Artw (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Keep King, himself, put the allegations in a prominent light when he Tweet-bombed over it and talked loudly to media about them. And, truth be told, the allegations have not been disproven, they have not been debunked (despite what King apologists claim). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Keep with more neutral wording This seems to be a confusing/poorly worded RfC. The wording most recently in lead regarding this seemed POV, but apparently, a Brietbart writer questioned King's biracial identity, based on his birth certificate, which lists white parents. Then the mainstream media also questioned King's racial identity en masse, comparing this to the recent media frenzy regarding Rachel Dolezal [11], [12],[13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18],[19], [20],[21], [22],[23]. making this little mini-controversy one of the most covered aspects of Shaun King in reliable sources, so it probably should be in the lead in some form in accordance with WP:DUE. I'd suggest more neutral wording such as:

In August 2015, a Breitbart writer questioned King's biracial identity based on information from King's birth certificate, which lists white parents. King explained that the man listed on his birth certificate is not his biological father, and that his biological father is a light-skinned black man, and King expressed concern that such questions were an attempt to distract from the Black Lives Matter movement."--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I support the above wording - seems like a fair accounting of the issue. Nice work, BoboMeowCat. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

That's not unreasonable but the original source of the allegation should be made clear (Breitbart made no original claims), "explained" should be changed to "said", and the last portion should be its own sentence. GraniteSand (talk) 05:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Cut back: A brief mention should make it clear that political opponents made a false claim, and that the matter was promptly cleared up. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
• support BoboMeowCats version for lead, oppose wholesale gutting of body but it could probably be tightened up here and there. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
• Trim It's receiving undue coverage. If, in the future, it tangibly affects the trajectory of his biography then it can be revisited. For the moment it's just too much coverage. I'd add that it currently reads as quote-harvesting talking point "cheat sheet" and not an encyclopedic entry. When it's reduced attention should be paid to keeping it concise, factual, and largely free of the tangential noise which festoons it now. GraniteSand (talk) 05:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with trimming the body to only neutral and encyclopedic information. My keep above was in regard to the lead. I agree with GraniteSand. The body contains POV noise. For example, it's not encyclopedic that the Brietbart writer may have been tipped off that King's birth certificate lists two white parents by an "internet troll". Regardless of who tipped the reporter off regarding King's birth certificate, it's true, as confirmed by King himself, the birth certificate lists white parents. That this discrepancy regarding King's birth certificate was widely circulated in mainstream sources should be mentioned in bio, as well as King's explanation for the discrepancy, but we should keep it brief, neutral and factual. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• cut back -- there's no plausibility whatsoever in the notion that something that happened a month ago can be so important in one's biography that it should be the largest element in the lead. Anyone arguing that it deserves that sort of prominence is embarrassing themselves. At this stage it doesn't belong in the lead at all. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
• support BoboMeowCats version for lead, agree with BoboMeowCat and Gaijin42, simple, neutral line in the lede, keep the body more or less like it is now. Bonewah (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
• Exclude from lede, dramatically prune in body. I would advocate removing this nontroversy altogether, since Breitbart is a canonically unreliable source on this issue, but if we must have it then BoboMeowCat's version is acceptable in the body as the sum total of coverage of this pathetic and blatantly racist incident. It does not belong in the lede, at least until the Shaun King "birthers" get some mainstream independent analytical coverage. Guy (Help!) 15:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

JzG If the sourcing was ended at Brieitbart, I would agree, but it was picked up extensively by mainstream sources (CNN, NYT, etc) . There was extensive mainstream coverage. As an analog see Steve Scalise where the story sourcing is an anonymous posting on a A) stormfont (hate group) forum, B) then picked up by a non-notable blogger, then picked up by mainstream sourcing using A and B as their sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the matter has entirely disappeared from reliable sources and has been gone from those sources for weeks now. The nontroversy lasted less than a week before King's forceful and by all accounts, entirely credible response ended the line of questioning. It is undue weight on one week's worth of stories to make that the focus of his biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

How badly must it suck to suffer discrimination because you're black, only to then suffer discrimination from the same knuckledraggers for allegedly not being black when you challenge the painfully obvious problem of institutional racism? @Gaijin42: the crucial difference here is that Scalise verifiably did speak at an event run by David Duke, whereas Shaun King never was anything other than mixed race. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Your agenda is showing. GraniteSand (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

JzG Except in this case the birth certificate supports the "birthers." Amusing that in the same sentence you imply Obama birthers are loons for ignoring the birth certificate and King "birthers" are loons for not ignoring it. Can't win with you! :) 161.202.72.143 (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Both kinds are engaged in motivated reasoning, both are looking for reasons to validate facts that challenge their racist world view. Loons is way too kind. (Redacted) Guy (Help!) 17:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

And here I thought applying consistent standards was the opposite of bias. Learn something every day on wikipedia. Thanks! 161.202.72.143 (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Their standard is entirely consistent. They hate all niggers. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support BoboMeowCats version for lead. Support keeping controversy in article This RfC could have been worded better. The allegations are not Breitbart's any more than they're CNN's. A blogger not related to either broke the story and the rest of the sources (Daily News, Breitbart, CNN, etc.) repeated it. It should be noted that King is best know for this controversy. Excluding it from the article entirely would be misleading. 161.202.72.143 (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Attacking editors who !vote for keeping the content by saying they have a nefarious agenda and referring to them as birthers is bullshit. Keep it out of the discussion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Keep per BoboMeowCat's specifications above, which are suitably coherent. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Keep And would prefer BoboMeowCats version. It's very good both from a BLP and a notability perspective. Aparslet (talk) 13:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
• Cut back. We can't devote a section to every Breitbart hit piece, and this one seems to have died almost instantly; the attention paid to it here is mostly a sign of WP:RECENTISM. It's not something with any long-term significance in the subject's biography, and therefore deserves no more than a sentence or two at most. --Aquillion (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not our job to speculate. As an encyclopedia, we're required to reflect mainstream coverage; if it sucks, well, hopefully one day it will suck less and we can cover that. But we're not an investigative journal. We're an encyclopedia, which means that we have to stick with the consensus among reliable sources. And the consensus is that this controversy is notable. 161.202.72.182 (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

morehouse response location

Strongjam while I understand your reasoning, that reasoning would be true for every sentence in the subsequent paragraphs. It seems to make more sense to me to have 1) allegations (and the background/sourcing for them). 2) Kings response to those allegations, 3) other peoples response to them. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

My concern is that it's a question that is easily answered with a 'no'. I don't really like having the text be A) Did he mislead Oprah? [... Two paragraphs later] "No he didn't mislead Oprah." Maybe we can split it up into two sentences, one that just plainly says that the scholarship is not based on race and another in the responses section for the Morehouse statement that his race had nothing to do with his time there. — Strongjam (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

We could reverse paragraphs 2 and 3. (and perhaps shuffle sentences in P1) That would leave king with the final word, and also bring the 3rd parties forward. This incident is tricky, because normally 3rd parties would be given more weight than primaries or self interested parties, but since this is an identity issue, we (and to a degree the world) rely more heavily on self. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Need a better source

This bit:

• His contributions to the website have centered around civil rights issues and violence in Ferguson, Missouri and Charleston, South Carolina as well as allegations of police brutality toward the black community.

Is sourced to a Daily Kos search result. While it's a true statement, do we have a better source for this? — Strongjam (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources (many already in article) linking him to Ferguson, I can't find any mentioning Charleston though. I think we can probably put this under WP:BLUE Gaijin42 (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Joshua Goldberg/Milo Yiannopoulos

Fun though it's been watching this trainwreck do we really need to hash out the minuate of this on this page? We're already devoting to much space to the stupid nontriversey as it is - perhaps a better place to go into detail would be on the Milo Yiannopoulos or Gamergate controversy pages? Artw (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Why Gamergate? GraniteSand (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

plenty of discussion of that over on the relevant talk page. But whether it does or doesn't belong there it doesn't belong here. Artw (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

"Shaun King" returns no results on with Yiannopoulos or Gamergate or their archives. I'm afraid I don't know what you're talking about. GraniteSand (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@GraniteSand: The connection is Joshua Ryne Goldberg. It seems a bit undue weight for either article at the moment. — Strongjam (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I see, but that's excruciatingly tangential and I wouldn't support merging any of this to any of those pages. It's also worth noting that GG is under sanction and we'd have to take it to ArbCom enforcement or achieve a super clear consensus here to do that. At least one contributor on this page is topic banned from GG related articles. GraniteSand (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

that's excruciatingly tangential 100% agree, just trying to explain the connection. — Strongjam (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

the mention that Goldberg was used as one of the sources seems appropriate. The terrorism charges are sufficiently unrelated from this topic that they should be removed. Im further concerned about the troll moniker, I think we would need a good number of RS calling him such to put that in wiki voice (or include at all). Gaijin42 (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

My understanding was that Goldberg was not used as a source. Do you have a cite for that? GraniteSand (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The cite is the Sydney Morning Herald article, which says that Yiannopoulous denied that Goldberg was the only source, but he did not deny using Goldberg as a source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

the SMH quotes Breitbart as saying goldberg was ONE of the sources, as does brietbarts' own site. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/12/shaun-king-supporters-cook-up-new-conspiracy-theory-still-smarting-because-their-hero-isnt-black/ Gaijin42 (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The article you've linked to states without any ambiguity that Goldberg was not used as a source. Despite the name the SMH is not much of a paper. They lnked to "burningcatghair" as a source in their article. They printed internet rumors which were then rebuffed by the person in question. The SMH hasn't followed up and they haven't indicated what their source is. The wording of the article doesn't make sense and the calim was made in passing. None of it passes BLP for the writer in question. GraniteSand (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Bad sources who are repeated by good sources are the foundation for this entire incident. If its good for the goose its good for the gander. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Gaijin42: I'm not sure what yhu mean. Could you expound on that line of reasoning? GraniteSand (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You assert that internet rumors and bloggers are the ultimate source of the SMH allegation. renewsit (or breitbart) are the ultimate source for the King allegations. In both cases the ultimate source are not reliable, but the allegations have been repeated by those who are. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The difference being we cover the accusations because the controversy surrounding the accusations (including King's response) was notable. For the equivalent to apply, coverage of the "troll" controversy would have to be notable. At the moment it isn't. 161.202.72.143 (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Right, but we don't reference Breitbart or renewsit as reliable third party sources on the validity of any claims about King. The entire issue blew up because all the facts found by renewsit, and repeated by Breitbart, were true and King responded to it. It attained wide coverage in the media. Even if that were not true it seems that you are making the argument that two wrongs make a right, or that you want to bar lowered, which I'm not on board with. Am I misinterpreting you? Nobody of any note had repeated the claim that Yiannopoulos used Goldberg as a source and he's flat out denied it. GraniteSand (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. The Sydney Morning Herald has flat-out stated that he did. Read the source. They have discovered that Goldberg was a source of information for a series of articles that accused Shaun King, an activist with the Black Lives Matter movement, of lying about his race. ... Emails of Goldberg's correspondence with the journalist who "outed" King have been made public, as have tweets under his main account, Moon Metropolis. While the journalist has since denied that Goldberg was his only source of information, the emails and tweets indicate that Goldberg at least provided initial assistance. While we should certainly include Yiannopoulos' later denial of that allegation, simply sweeping it under the rug and pretending it doesn't exist is not kosher either. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Breitbart is an unacceptable source, and its stories on King are republished accusations based on another unacceptable source (a pseudonymous blogger) and, apparently, a notorious online troll. They become (sort of) suitable for King's biography because they were published in mainstream media. Similarly, what we have here is mainstream media (and despite your claim to the contrary, the SMH is indisputably mainstream media) discussing the sourcing of the stories on King... if your argument is "they printed internet rumors in passing," well, then that's all that got published against King - Internet rumors in passing. As Gaijin42 notes, if it's OK for us to republish Breitbart's republication of Internet rumors in passing, then you can hardly argue that we shouldn't republish the SMH's republication of Internet rumors in passing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

That's simply not true. Since the story broke of his arrest, accusations have mounted against Goldberg, as internet users, particularly those on Reddit, trace his online footprint. They have discovered that Goldberg was a source of information for a series of articles that accused Shaun King, an activist with the Black Lives Matter movement, of lying about his race. The accusations resulted in an emotional public appearance by King who revealed personal details about his family history. Emails of Goldberg's correspondence with the journalist who "outed" King have been made public, as have tweets under his main account, Moon Metropolis. While the journalist has since denied that Goldberg was his only source of information, the emails and tweets indicate that Goldberg at least provided initial assistance. This is not just "internet rumors," this is reporting based on the public evidence discussed in the story - the e-mails and tweets of Goldberg's correspondence with Yiannopoulos. They include his side of the story (denying that he's the only source) and judges, based on the evidence, that Goldberg was at least part of the story.

Your bald accusation that "the SMH is not much of a paper" is ridiculous - it's one of the largest newspapers in Australia and has a respectable journalistic reputation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

As for why it merits inclusion, I think it's obviously relevant to (briefly) discuss the provenance of the claims; users are entitled to know that Breitbart's story attacking King was based on communications with a pseudonymous right-wing blogger and a now-notorious Internet troll who is suspected of having fabricated, lied and generally made shit up about all sorts of things, including bomb threats. If more cites are needed for discussion of Goldberg's online behavior, they're available. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not it is included on Weight grounds I don't believe this is a good reason for removing it. Artw (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You don't believe that the living subject of an isolated claim saying that claim isn't true doesn't hold enough weight to exclude it? It seems pretty BLP non-compliant to me. GraniteSand (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The living subject of this biography has similarly flatly denied the claims against him and said they're not true. Is it thus OK with you if I remove all mention of the issue from his biography? The claims are similarly isolated; only Breitbart and its ilk have made them, though the fact that Breitbart made the claim has been republished elsewhere. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

That would be the simplest and cleanest way of dealing with the issue, yes. Artw (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Artw:The article makes no assertions of fact regarding the parameters of King's race. It cites the media coverage of his birth documents and family members saying he is white and his response to those facts, due to the controversy, confusion, and condemnation created in the wake of their release. GraniteSand (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The article republishes highly-negative and damaging claims made by a pseudonymous right-wing scandalblogger and a notorious Internet troll now jailed on suspicion of fomenting bomb threats, which were thinly "truth-laundered" by a highly-partisan scandal sheet with a notoriously terrible reputation for publishing outright lies and fabrications about people it opposes. Meanwhile, you complain about the Sydney Morning Herald saying that the journalist used an Internet troll for a source. Tosh. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

No BLP issue, Breitbart is simply not to be considered a trustworthy source on anything, and that includes itself. Artw (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you got the idea that Yiannopoulos can't be cited in regards to himself. Our guidelines are pretty clear on that, especially in the context of potentially libelous BLP claims. GraniteSand (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Morehouse

I have removed mention of the Morehouse issue; as several reliable sources noted, the question itself was ill-founded, being based entirely on a fatally-wrong understanding of the scholarship as having anything whatsoever to do with someone's race. We have no need to repeat a fatally-wrong loaded "question" whose entire premise was built on ignorance. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The controversy doesn't make sense without it. Whether correct or not the impression is that Oprah's Morehouse scholarship is for blacks only. If he misrepresented his race to qualify, that's a controversy. A white guy involved in BLM is not a controversy. 161.202.72.143 (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no reason to include in Shaun King's biography the fact that a Breitbart writer is ignorant of the qualifications for a college scholarship. It's irrelevant to King. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you could address the substance of my arguments in your responses. The controversy doesn't make sense without it. If the controversy's included we should explain why it's a controversy - it's not obvious from the current text and confusing to a reader not already familiar. And please refrain from attacks like "ignorant." It's not helpful and not "ignorant" to trust multiple sources, including Oprah's own site, with respect to qualifications. From her site [24]:

Education is important to Oprah. That's why, in 1989, Oprah worked with Morehouse College to develop the Oprah Scholars program, which has helped pay for the education of 400 black men as they pursue careers in banking, law, medicine and many other fields.

161.202.72.143 (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The reliable sources cited don't seem to think it's that important. The New York Times article we cite relegates any mention of his college to the 10th paragraph of a 20-paragraph story. The lede says the key allegation is "that (King) had lied about his race." Considering the brevity of this biography and the brevity of the section, there's no need to use space within it to point out that Milo Yiannopoulos didn't fact-check his accusations. If you want to add a section to Milo's biography explaining that he doesn't know the qualifications for the Oprah Scholars program or for admission to Morehouse College, and thus made a poorly-founded accusation which blew up in his face, feel free. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

It's clear you're here with a POV - pro-King and anti-Yiannopoulos for whatever reason. I'll wait for other editors to comment. 161.202.72.143 (talk) 00:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, the article IS about King, and not about whatever silly nonsense some blogger dreams up, so I'd say go with removing as much of the nonsense as possible. Artw (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I havent re-looked at the sources with regard to this question, but i just want to remind everyone that removing the allegations (and denial by Morehouse) that he lied to get a scholarship is no favor to King. By remaining silent on the issue we pass on the opportunity to debunk that particular claim. In any event, seeing as how Morehouse explicitly denied these allegations id think its at least worth a mention. Bonewah (talk) 00:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick search of the citations we use shows that the Morehouse claims appear in numerous, high quality sources, including Newsweek, the NYT, VOX, NY daily news, CNN, and The Washington Post. Id say it clearly falls in the same category as the racial thing generally, i.e. it has appeared in enough RS' to include in this bio. Bonewah (talk) 00:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)