Jump to content

Talk:Franchesca Ramsey: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Line 61: Line 61:
The next sentence is patently absurd and needs to be gone. Or else you could find yourself on a receiving end of a lawsuit. "The typical campaigns of harassment against individuals like Ramsey are not organic, or spontaneous, but are orchestrated and coordinated attacks involving many participants, starting on both fringe white supremacist websites, and on alt-right, establishment-connected media like Breitbart News."
The next sentence is patently absurd and needs to be gone. Or else you could find yourself on a receiving end of a lawsuit. "The typical campaigns of harassment against individuals like Ramsey are not organic, or spontaneous, but are orchestrated and coordinated attacks involving many participants, starting on both fringe white supremacist websites, and on alt-right, establishment-connected media like Breitbart News."


Do you have proof that a reasonable person would call this harassment, or is that Ramsey's own opinion? Or that this soi-disant harassment is "orchestrated and coordinated" with other participants? Breitbart's lawyers might have something to say about accusing them of harassment. They would doubtless see this as dissent. And you have no proof whatsoever that any of these sources are "coordinating" their supposed attacks on Ramsey with one another. Ramsey's musings that these attacks are "orchestrated and coordinated" are "harassment" is not objective fact. It is speculation without proof and subjective opinion.
Do you have proof that a reasonable person would call this harassment, or is that Ramsey's own opinion? Or that this soi-disant harassment is "orchestrated and coordinated" with other participants? Breitbart's lawyers might have something to say about accusing them of harassment. They would doubtless see this as dissent. And you have no proof whatsoever that any of these sources are "coordinating" their supposed attacks on Ramsey with one another. Ramsey's musings that these attacks are "orchestrated and coordinated" and are "harassment" is not objective fact. It is speculation without proof and subjective opinion.


These supposed instances of harassment are not corroborated by any of the source material, but merely Ramsey's own reporting on these incidents. There is no proof that these incidents actually occurred. Moreover, "harassment" is Ramsey's own take on these incidents. And she could hardly be described as objective.
These supposed instances of harassment are not corroborated by any of the source material, but merely Ramsey's own reporting on these incidents. There is no proof that these incidents actually occurred. Moreover, "harassment" is Ramsey's own take on these incidents. And she could hardly be described as objective.

Revision as of 05:01, 3 September 2017

WikiProject iconBiography Stub‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Notability?

This person is a "Youtube personality"? That's notable? 24.90.121.4 (talk) 07:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the 21th century. Yes. If a Youtube personality garners enough viewership they are a public personality because of that. A few have more regular viewers that the most viewed shows in the world on Television (just because that doesn't count people who illegally download the show, but it's still a large number). 88.0.65.97 (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That however does not mean Franchesca Ramsey is notable, her views are rather small and is only notable in the slightest for the controversy that follows her. 24.197.158.103 (talk) 03:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
24.90.121.4@, I'm inclined to agree with you. If nobody objects, I'm going to nominate this page for deletion in a week for being non-notable. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}}) 08:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You should carefully review the steps at WP:BEFORE. The citations already given in the current version of this article easily blow past the minimums at WP:ANYBIO, and even more acceptable sources can be found at Google, without even getting into more obscure databases. Going through the motions of an AfD discussion that has no chance isn't a good use of time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 08:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My edits.

Are sourced and not defamatory. There's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to stay. Flyboyrob2112 (talk) 23:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This addition is unacceptable for several reasons:
  1. The WP:BLP policy prohibits adding controversial content about living persons.
  2. Citing a YouTube video as a sole source violates WP:BLPPRIMARY.
  3. The implication that it's a worthwhile accusation to say Ramsey's opinion it's not racism if people of color act in a racially prejudiced way towards white people. This is a common point of view in the study of racial issues, though not common in the vernacular. See Racism
  4. The phrasing "She claims..." is a typical weasel word, as explained in WP:CLAIM.
  5. This generally violates the WP:WEIGHT NPOV. The fact that some YouTubers are swarming isn't evidence of a "controversy". Reliable third party sources are required to claim that a controversy exists. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dennis Bratland: It's not controversial. She said it. There's no disputing it. There's no issue with using her own words as a source for... her own words. And if it's not worthwhile, it's not controversial. If it's controversial, it's worthwhile. Pick one. If you don't like the language, you can offer something better. Flyboyrob2112 (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. You go dark for nearly two months, and an editor violates the canvassing guidelines to recruit you back to vote stack for him, and shazam, here you are. Amazing.

Your edit begins with "Ramsey claims..." and proceeds with an accusatory, pearl-clutching tone to reveal the awful truth that Ramsey defines racism as prejudice plus power, as if this were remarkable. This is a view shared by Jim Wallis, Cornel West, Ta-Nehisi Coates, W. Kamau Bell, Stanley Fish, and on and on. One way we can tell that this belief is not considered particularly radical or remarkable is that nobody mentions it.

Look at recent news reports mentioning Ramsey: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. We read bland reports saying Ramsey's show was picked up, she's making a pilot, she won this or that award. Her name often comes up as one of the people frequently targeted by alt right trolls. We don't read "The controversial Franchesca Ramsey", or "Ramsey, who *gasp* thinks racism is prejudice plus power, is on Comedy Central".

You are clearly using primary sources with hostile intent to express an opinion of your own. Below there are some reputable sources that do mention the existence of some criticism of Ramsey, and we can carefully summarize what they say. But what you've been trying to do is not allowed. Three different editors, including an administrator User:GorillaWarfare, reverted your clearly tendentious edits. That's a clue. Stop. Instead, work from quality sources, and carefully summarize them, taking a very cautious and conservative approach to any negative statements as required by the BLP policy. You can do that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies sourced to YouTube

Short version: Read WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPSPS. Do not cite primary sources for negative claims about a living person. "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article". Never. Never means never. "But..."! No buts. Never.

This edit by User:Ghoul flesh is exactly the kind of addition that has been deleted from this article a dozen times in the last 5 years or more. You cannot cite primary sources alone to support negative or controversial information about living persons. The fact that the likes of Sargon of Akkad (YouTube) would attack someone like Ramsey says much more about him than her. You know how we can tell that someone is controversial or has faced a real "backlash"? Reliable sources actually say "Franchesca Ramsey is controversial". "There has been a backlash against Franchesca Ramsey". They need to say that in plain English. You are not allowed to infer it. The reason this supposed "controversy" is not ever mentioned in mainstream media is that Ramsesy's opinions about racism are totally unremarkable. They are well within the mainstream of modern African-American studies. The idea that Ramsey herself is somehow at the forefront of any new or radical notions is simply ignorant.

Even if you disagree with that, you still must cite a high-quality, fact-checked, independent reliable source. Not some guy's self-published YouTube videos. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Bratland: Look bud, it needs to be addressed in the article. I know you're trying to defend your idol, but face it. Not a lot of people like her. A great majority of Decoded videos coordinated by Ramsey are met with serious dislikes. Take a look in the comments once. I've never seen a person supporting her, except for on her Twitter. There's even a petition with 1.5k signatures to press MTV to cancel Decoded, citing that Ramsey is anti-white. The current information on this article describes how she's a victim of online harassment, which is not telling the full story. It says she's a frequent victim of doxing and rape threats. Not one article cited even mentions rape threats, or that pertaining to Ramsey. And she was doxed once by one person, which isn't even notable. The media won't report on her anti-white backlash, because they want to pretend nobody notices the anti-white rhetoric in media.
This doesn't relate to Ramsey, but the media couldn't hide MTV's infamous "2017 Resolutions for White Guys", which faced so much backlash, it was taken down.
Ghoul fleshtalk 22:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dislikes? Oh, wait, "serious dislikes". Wow. Please stop wasting our time. You will be blocked from editing if you persist. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dennis Bratland: You don't have the power. And I did nothing that will pursue that. I came to the talk page, as I am supposed to. You, however, are being a tyrant and I am going to ask Wikipedia staff for further assistance. Ghoul fleshtalk 00:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this edit considered WP:CANVASSING? That user was banned for getting into an edit war over one of the things Ghoul flesh wants to add to the article. They're hardly a nonpartisan editor in this situation. --ChiveFungi (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's canvassing. Hopefully neither of the two editors Ghoul flesh recruited will respond, and we won't have a vote stacking problem to untangle. Hopefully Ghoul flesh will drop it now.

If not, then the WP:BLPN is probably the best venue, or else one of the other options at Dispute resolution. I would ask Ghoul flesh to stop the ad hominem, and other violations of the civility policy. If we are going to discuss whether or not the article can say Ramsey is controversial, anti-white, or the subject of any backlash, can we simply consider the basic question of whether reliable sources do or don't support that? Focus on what counts. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of the persons is an admin, if you bothered to notice. Also here are your articles;
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
Just for the record, I can't even find one Breitbart article that centers on Ramsey. At all. So why is the site mentioned in the article? Ghoul fleshtalk 02:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now we're discussing real sources. That's a big improvement. It does not violate the WP:NOR policy to cite NPR for things like "One claim that comes up over and over again in the comments is that a role reversal would be considered hate and not humor." The edited, fact-checked source is summarizing YouTube comments, rather than a Wikipedia editor doing their own original research estimating who has a lot of YouTube dislikes or negative comments. I don't object to using sources like these if the contents are accurately summarized. I have never liked forking criticism off in a "Controversy" section, sort of like a POVFORK. It makes more sense to place reactions and criticism in context. Criticism of YouTube content belongs in the YouTube section, criticism of the TV content belongs in that section. It's more readable and shows development of events over time.

To answer your question, it says "The typical campaigns of harassment against individuals like Ramsey are not organic, or spontaneous, but are orchestrated and coordinated attacks involving many participants, starting on both fringe white supremacist websites, and on alt-right, establishment-connected media like Breitbart News", because that is an accurate summary of what the source said (it's misspelled Brietbart if you're using CTRL-F to find it). The point is that an orchestrated campaign is something larger and more lasting than spontaneous individuals. Other sources cited further down support these general conclusions. The overall theme of the section it to describe the scale and relentlessness of the harassment against Ramsey. That's why it's there.

Back to our topic, I don't think it's helpful to keep changing the subject. Do you want to discus the four new sources you have introduced now? Or do you want to start a new discussion about the mention of Breitbart? Keep in mind that this kind of dispute will probably be resolved by third party editors who will read the discussion and give their opinions, but if it's impossible for them to figure out what the issue is, they will throw up their hands and walk away. So one thing at at time, OK? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I want is a neutral article. But what I think is most important is mentioning her wide negative feedback on YouTube regarding racial topics. So nevermind about Breitbart. Ghoul fleshtalk 04:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Article Needs to Enter Protected Status

It's apparent with the "Online Harassment" section that this article has been beset by her fans anxious to portray her as some sort of martyr. The claim in the very first sentence, "Ramsey has been a target of online harassment, trolling and doxing," is completely unsupported by the two references intended to corroborate this claim. The only term that has an objective definition in that triad is "doxxing." The rest, "online harassment," and "trolling," are Ramsey's own subjective opinion. Her experiences have never been dubbed as harassment in any court of law.

The second sentence of this paragraph is objective reporting on a statement made by someone else and can stay as it is.

The next sentence is patently absurd and needs to be gone. Or else you could find yourself on a receiving end of a lawsuit. "The typical campaigns of harassment against individuals like Ramsey are not organic, or spontaneous, but are orchestrated and coordinated attacks involving many participants, starting on both fringe white supremacist websites, and on alt-right, establishment-connected media like Breitbart News."

Do you have proof that a reasonable person would call this harassment, or is that Ramsey's own opinion? Or that this soi-disant harassment is "orchestrated and coordinated" with other participants? Breitbart's lawyers might have something to say about accusing them of harassment. They would doubtless see this as dissent. And you have no proof whatsoever that any of these sources are "coordinating" their supposed attacks on Ramsey with one another. Ramsey's musings that these attacks are "orchestrated and coordinated" and are "harassment" is not objective fact. It is speculation without proof and subjective opinion.

These supposed instances of harassment are not corroborated by any of the source material, but merely Ramsey's own reporting on these incidents. There is no proof that these incidents actually occurred. Moreover, "harassment" is Ramsey's own take on these incidents. And she could hardly be described as objective.

And the malware attacks. I assume you have proof that these actually happened, or at least a notable source that reported on this. And you, of course, know for a fact that this was done by the supposed stalker and wasn't some random virus, right? No?

All-in-all, this section is extremely shoddy, to say the least. There is no proof of this supposed harassment and whether it's truly harassment is based on Ramsey's personal opinion.

This article needs to enter protected status to get Ramsey's fans off this page. 65.33.138.115 (talk) 04:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]