Jump to content

Talk:Jason Russell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 184.98.143.25 (talk) at 10:03, 1 August 2012 (→‎Why?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconBiography Start‑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.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Him nude

I don't understand why I can't add that. Many news sources have commented on it and the video itself is proof that he was nude, so why can't it be added? 2001:49F0:A000:8:2E0:81FF:FEB8:4E7D (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have high standards for what constitutes a reliable source when it comes to potentially controversial material about living persons. See WP:BLP and (as an aside, and it's not policy) WP:TMZ. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 02:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand. There are several videos of him nude released by TMZ, that is indisputable. So why can't a short sentence mentioning those videos be added? 2001:49F0:A000:8:2E0:81FF:FEB8:4E7D (talk) 03:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:RS, WP:V and, of course WP:BLP for why Wikipedia does not generally favour use of "videos" in biographies of living people. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I used a news article as the source, not the video. I can get dozens of news sources reporting his nudity if you want, or would I just be wasting my time? 2001:49F0:A000:8:2E0:81FF:FEB8:4E7D (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like an answer. 2001:49F0:A000:8:2E0:81FF:FEB8:4E7D (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You would be wasting your time. It's not worthy of being included in an encyclopedia article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Wiki guidelines it is. It is a famous event that is verified, fact, has intense interest, and many reliable sources. 2001:49F0:A000:8:2E0:81FF:FEB8:4E7D (talk) 02:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss it and see if you can get WP:CONSENSUS for the contentious claims. Do not add it again unless and until you have such a consensus. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't contentious claims. It is a fact that has been verified beyond a doubt. 2001:49F0:A000:8:2E0:81FF:FEB8:4E7D (talk) 12:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree; there is no reason to censor this at all--it's a very well known and widely reported fact. And using the video as a source in this case would be perfectly acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.27.60 (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

dinner party

there was a dinner party with him in it, but it wasnt reported?184.98.125.243 (talk) 08:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of dinner parties, with lots of people in them. Is there a reason this one was particularly notable. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 08:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unlocked

Why? I thought that some users didn't want his page to open until the Kony thing died down? Who was charge of the page, although it may be more than one?184.98.114.65 (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naked

Collect mistakenly suggested that mentioning Russell's well-documented public nudity could somehow be a violation of WP:BLP. As for WP:CONSENSUS, he's reverted various nude version by me, Acoma Magic, 193.90.240.119, 213.46.153.4, Bbb23 and DiscoAmazing, with support only from Silver seren. Clearly, Collect's stated reasons for his ongoing edit war are false. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this has been escalated [1]. The summary there is inaccurate, unfortunately, but I can't edit it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't escalate anything. I merely asked for outside input. I no longer have an opinion in this matter; I just want to see it come to a peaceful conclusion. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 03:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fair to describe posting an incident notice as escalation. It's also fair to describe your notice as being inaccurate. For example, you claimed that the issue is "regarding whether or not a video is a reliable source for the statement that Mr. Russell was naked during his public breakdown earlier this year". In fact, we have reliable, non-video sources for this, yet Collect keeps removing all mention of it, against apparent consensus. So, on the whole, it does not appear that your actions were particularly helpful or constructive. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My action aren't what matters here. This thing is escalating into an edit war, and I have nothing to do with that. Blame me if you like; I don't care. Hopefully an admin will be here shortly to sort this out. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 03:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored an old version of the story; we have to err on the side of caution with a BLP. It's not just what the sources may say, but also real-life harm that can be done to the person in question if we get it wrong. Some people who phoned the cops said he may have been masturbating, but that was not confirmed by the responding officers, according to the Washington Post, so that part needs to come out, I think. -- Dianna (talk) 04:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was apparently just one person that said he was masturbating, the same person that says he was naked, while all the rest of the phone calls said he was in his underwear and the police report states that he was in his underwear when they got there. I see no reason to include the report of one conflicting person among many others, especially in a BLP. SilverserenC 05:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What the witnesses or police said is irrelevant, as there is video proof. Before you accuse me of using videos as sources; there are reliable news sources that report this. 89.218.37.254 (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All video sources are copies of what was released by TMZ, an unreliable source. SilverserenC 07:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, most WP:RSN discussions have concluded that, due to its relatively strict editorial policy, TMZ is a reliable source for certain statements. It might be a good idea to take this there for further input, however. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 07:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should probably clarify. In past RSN discussions, the conclusion is that they may or may not be reliable, but they are almost always WP:UNDUE because of the overall unimportant of the reporting on celebrity gossip. Combine that with our BLP policy and it's quite clear to see that we should be focusing on the most reliable thing we can for the subject and that would pretty much be the police report. SilverserenC 08:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. :) Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 08:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me....I was apparently involved in this (with just one edit), though inadvertently as I was unaware of any edit war when I added that Jason Russell was found naked and hitting cars. This was on video - nobody has disputed this evidence. My concern is that in addition to the fact that if most of us go outside naked and harass people and hit cars then we will go to jail and be seriously charged, not be excused as being "under stress" (since stress does not induce public nudity), but the way the article is written is rather like writing of Bernie Madoff "he was convicted of fraud for a matter that occurred while he was experiencing some personal problems". The 'why' is relevant, and just because the police write he was not naked 'when they found him' (so what?), does not mean it is our job to report only what the police say they found upon arrival. So, no, a streamlined police report that does not contradict the video evidence (whether or not it is from TMZ, it has been reported by many mainstream media outlets and never contradicted) should NOT be the only 'reliable source'. This would be like making Wikipedia formally a wing of the State - that only reports what the police say it reportable (rather like we see with some articles regarding military matters with some trolls insisting we only accept Pentagon-approved 'information', not investigative journalism).
And I have a complaint here - thank you for informing me that you were having a discussion about this matter, but you cannot inform someone involved and "resolve" it between two people in just a few hours - when others would not have had the occasion to make their voices heard. Therefore, I do not accept this decision. Now, I am not an edit warrior, but let it be known you have not handled this properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.90.240.119 (talk) 11:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals

This incident is barely worth including in the article. It happened in March. Although it was widely reported, there's been no follow-up of which I'm aware, whether it be about his health or about any impact the incident had on his career. Thus, if we're going to include it, it should be absolutely minimal. Russell is not a well-known person. Therefore, I think that WP:AVOIDVICTIM applies. Even if you quibble with that, WP:UNDUE does.

Proposal #1 - remove the material

Proposal #2 - replace current language with the following:

On March 15, 2012, Russell was detained by San Diego police after he was found in the street behaving in a bizarre fashion. Russell was taken to a hospital. According to his family, he was diagnosed as having had a "brief reactive psychosis, an acute state brought on by extreme exhaustion, stress, and dehydration".

  • I think this is a good neutrally-worded version that could be placed in the article. I would support removal of the material at some date in the future, if there's no further news reports that show he is still having ill effects from the event. -- Dianna (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll share my thinking. We're already reporting the incident and linking to sources that mention both nudity and masturbation. As such, it's not as if someone reading Wikipedia will have any trouble getting these details, so removing them from the article isn't giving Russell any more privacy than otherwise. In fact, even if we removed the entire incident, it was widely reported, so it's not as if we dug it up and are in any position to bury it. The cat is out of the bag.

Let's at least make it accurate and comprehensive. We have a chance to report the incident here in neutral language and to immediately include his parents' claim that it was not drug-related, countering what some of the newspaper articles suggest. We should use this chance rather than shying away from the whole issue just because it's messy. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's already out of the news; I couldn't find anything current about it at all. To give a lot of weight to this incident, which does not seem to be having any lasting impact moving forward, would be to give it undue weight, in my opinion. -- Dianna (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand. Should we expect an event that occurred in the past to continuously remain in the news so that there are always recent articles? By that logic, we shouldn't mention that JFK got shot, because newspapers don't talk about it anymore. Of course, anyone can search for information about JFK's assassination today, just as anyone can search for Russell's incident, so it's not gone, either. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this will help: WP:NPF
In a BLP, the article should be limited to material relating to the person's notability, and/or events the person is involved in that have lasting notability. The incident in question fails both tests. Belchfire (talk) 19:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

Assume this guy's place of birth is uncontroversial, please add him to Category:People from El Cajon, California. Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unduly naked?

Whether TMZ in this case counts as an RS is not that relevant, since there are other sources, like this one (supplied by 2001:...:4E7D in this edit): "'You're the devil, you're the devil': New footage of Kony video director emerges 'ranting at traffic while naked on busy street'". Mail Online. March 19, 2012. Retrieved July 22, 2012. The question is really whether mentioning Russell's public nudity (hopefully as a matter of fact in a non-sensational way) is due or undue. Let's take a poll. (I myself have no opinion, considering this an inconsequential issue.)  --Lambiam 11:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, mentioning this is due
No, mentioning this is undue

Read RS/N discussions on the Daily Mail for such stuff And note that the DM is RS for normal news, and is not generally RS for tabloid-type claims regarding living persons. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, can you please weigh in on the proposals in the section above? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a tabloid. We have a policy called WP:BLP which specifically requires strong reliable sourcing for any contentious claim. A TMZ video and a Daily Mail article, IMO, do not rise to the level of sourcing required. Collect (talk) 01:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Collect, that's not really the issue. We have many, many reliable sources for the facts of the matter, and calling them "tabloid-type" is simply your opinion. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Collect, individual pages on Wikipedia note incidents of far less importance than this (e.g., someone allegedly said an offensive word once). Blowing off steam by being overheard cursing in public would be a minor matter - running around nude harrassing drivers and pedestrians is very noteworthy as it would land most people in jail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.90.240.119 (talk) 10:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mentioning the incident gives it undue weight, unless it has lasting impact on his career or health. I say this in spite of its mention on South Park. -- Dianna (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to suggest that, given the limited number of notable things Russell has done (one viral video, basically), the much-reported freak out incident is now a big part of his overall notability. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you mean well, but it's not necessary for you to re-state your opinion every time someone makes a post. It's already really clear where you stand. -- Dianna (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You might notice that I'm offering an additional argument, rather than simply restating my conclusion. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

South Park Mention

Guess this is late, but would it be worth mentioning South Park's parodies of Russell's incident of psychosis? Or does WP:BLP supersede that? Jonathanfu (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for one thing, it shows lasting notability. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually - not. Collect (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please take this as helpful advice, but when you just state your opinion without support, it's entirely unpersuasive. You need to offer some reasoning, otherwise I will disregard your opinion as baseless. I expect that others will do the same, but I'll let them speak for themselves. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it deserves a mention. He's not notable for much and this is comparatively notable. Acoma Magic (talk) 06:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. While it wasn't his original claim to fame, this incident has cemented his fame in the public eye. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Actually, he's plenty notable, as I show below, and, yes, including this info in his article would be a BLP violation. It is perfectly fine, however, to include a sentence in the articles on the episodes and link back to this one, since those aren't BLPs, so long as it only a sentence and none of it is defamatory.
Anyways sources, here you go: this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. There's also some college news here and here. This has some nice info as well. SilverserenC 03:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gold lock?

First silver, then it was unlocked, why is locked? Kony is old and this page has been messed with in a long time and is a small page, why gold lock it?184.98.114.65 (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

What for? Its just a small thing?184.98.143.25 (talk) 10:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jason_Russell&oldid=505236450"