Talk:Chris Hardwick

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2018

In the first paragraph, Hardwick should not be listed as the former host of the AMC shows. The only statement given so far by AMC is that Talking is on hold until they further "assess the situation" as per the citation [1] given on the page. Insusurro (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Done. I have changed the wording to “has hosted” as per WP:CRYSTAL (Wikipedia can not predict the outcome of the investigation of the allegations). Samboy (talk) 04:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

 Already done by Samboy in Special:Diff/846202022/846210639. Sam Sailor 05:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Original statement location

Is the full text of Hardwick's statement regarding the sexual assault allegations somewhere online we can link to? The current link is just a summary of the statement, which I can't seem to find anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.243.192.37 (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

This link gives the full statement. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/chris-hardwick-denies-claims-he-sexually-assaulted-chloe-dykstra-1120718 Insusurro (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

We do not include the entire statement from Nerdist; we should not include Hardwick’s entire statement; WP:NOTNEWS (this is an encyclopedia, not a dump of every story about this controversial event) and there are WP:COPYVIO issues with including the entire statement. I believe having some of his statement is appropriate; right now, with the accusations only two days old, we summarize it as a “she said this”, followed by “this happened to Chris as a result”, followed by “Chris says this”. Samboy (talk) 04:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with not including the whole text, but using a source that has his entire statement rather than a summary seems more complete to me. Either way, its easy enough to find the full statement on several sites. Insusurro (talk) 04:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I added a reference to his entire statement. Lots of references are good, especially when something is controversial like this. Samboy (talk) 04:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The text messages are not relevant

Even if Dykstra did contact her ex months after the allegedly abusive relationship ended, this is no evidence that the relationship was not abusive; I have known women who still loved and wanted to be with their abusive ex months after they finally had the strength to end the relationship. I wish the Hollywood gossip rags would not imply otherwise.

It can be a very difficult emotional process to let go of someone who is abusive.

References:

• http://www.thehotline.org/2017/02/16/supporting-someone-returning-to-abusive-relationship/ “survivors of abuse return to their abusive partners an average of seven times before they leave for good”
• Why I believe some women are ADDICTED to abusive men
• People often stay in abusive relationships because of something called 'trauma bonding'

This in mind, I have removed the alleged text messages from the article.

Samboy (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. That whole section is way too long.

Sobriety date

Chris Hardwick’s sobriety date is October 8, 2013. However, there are two recent edits where the exact day is considered "not notable". So, to determine whether it is notable, let’s look at how reliable sources describe his sobriety. And they describe it as "October 8, 2003":

• http://hotlifestylenews.com/celebrities/chris-hardwick-5-facts-amc-host-suspected-accused-sexual-assault/ "He also talks openly about being a recovering alcoholic and has been sober since October 8, 2003."
• https://hollywoodlife.com/2018/06/15/who-is-chris-hardwick-sexual-assault-claims-chloe-dykstra/ "He has also talked openly about being a recovering alcoholic and has been sober since October 8, 2003."
• https://www.boomsbeat.com/articles/105754/20151201/50-facts-comedian-actor-tv-host-author-writer-producer-podcaster.htm also mentions the October 8, 2003 date
• https://twitter.com/hardwick/status/917185382067838976 Chris Hardwick himself considers the October 8 date important.

So, in light of these references, I do not think we can make a reasonable case that his sobriety date is "not notable". Samboy (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING "A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary". There is nothing notable & significant of that specific day thus it doesn't warrant inclusion- month and year is all that's needed. --TheTruthiness (talk) 01:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Notability is established by what reliable sources have to say. The sobriety date is notable because reliable sources and Chris Hardwick himself consider it notable. If his sobriety date was not notable, there would be not be reliable sources describing it as "October 8, 2003". For us to have the form be "October 2003", we need to find reliable sources which describes his sobriety date as "October 2003" instead of "October 8, 2003".

In terms of WP:NOTEVERYTHING, that article lists what we should not include in the Wikipedia: Dictionary content, original thought, soapbox content, promotional content, mirrored content, blog content, social networking content, etc. Hardwick’s sobriety date does not apply to any of the items listed on that page, so WP:NOTEVERYTHING does not apply here. Samboy (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

'For us to have the form be "October 2003", we need to find reliable sources which describes his sobriety date as "October 2003" instead of "October 8, 2003".' That's a load of crap and you know it. We don't have to include absolutely everything. We have the ability to exercise editorial restraint, and we should do so here.--Jorm (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the "load of crap" statement but I do appreciate you intervening to give consensus. (Refactor as per WP:RPA) I am glad we discussed the issue on talk and finally come up with a rough consensus. Samboy (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't appreciate you attacking me for what you were doing- buddy, YOU were the lone editor constantly editing without getting consensus. On this site the onus is on the person ADDING the info (you) to argue its relevance, not the person removing it (me). FYI What the subject of the article considers notable isn't relevant. Nor does a reliable source mentioning something make it automatically notable to Wikipedia. People magazine is considered a reliable source yet we're not adding this article that Obama celebrated his 55th birthday on Aug. 4, 2016 at Fiola Mare resturant. Nor would we add all the times a newspaper noted him eating a chilli cheese dog at a state fair. --TheTruthiness (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I removed what has been perceived as a personal attack as per WP:RPA, and if there was any lack of civility on my part, I apologize for it. As an open source developer in the late 2010s, I now strive to live by the contributor covenant. Samboy (talk) 05:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

That... that's great, man. Goodonye.--Jorm (talk) 05:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)