Talk:Roosh V

Is there evidence of COI?

This article went through Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Roosh. ‎ David FLXD moved page from Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Roosh to Roosh with edit summary "Created via Articles for Creation (you can help!) (AFCH)". Is it the article creator with the conflict of interest? User talk:Lapastillaroja? If so, what is the evidence that the article isn't neutral? Is there unreferenced material or POV issues? If so, that should be addressed rather than tagging the article without providing evidence. Star767 (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I suspect both User talk:Lapastillaroja and User:Ethicalv (note that "v") are very closely aligned with Daryush Valizadeh (pseudonym "Rush V"). Both are SPA's dedicated to this deeply unpleasant topic. As for the article, none of the "sources" deal with this person in any depth at all. It's just an overview of short outraged pieces in various languages about misogynistic self-published books by this fellow. That's one side. The other side is self-promotion. Dan Murphy (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

This article was up for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roosh. Someone complained the "this deeply unpleasant topic". The answer: "Does this wanne-be-famous Roosh deserve to be notable? Clearly, no. However, that's not the question. Wikipedia, within reasonable limits, does not take a judgemental position on content. The issue is, does Roosh meet GNG? Equally clearly, yes. Ekstrabladet in Denmark has nationwide circulation, and he managed to annoy the Danes enough to get coverage that makes him notable. "National" (or regional) coverage doesn't just apply to the U.S., it's equally so for any country. Getting to be famous by being outstandingly offensive is not a deserving tactic, but it does work."

Another editor said: "Well-referenced article showing significant coverage from numerous reliable sources. Don't discount them just because they're from parts of the world you don't care about."

So if we go by reliable sources, and stop worrying about "who" started the article, we don't have to let our value judgments or opinions affect our editing. Star767 (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Star767. There is no evidence of a conflict of interest, and even if there was, the article would have ended up substantially the same as it is now. I will remove the tag. – Smyth\^talk 15:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The evidence I found of potential COI that I referred to in the AfD talk is that there is a thread on Roosh's board, about this wikipedia article which coordinated edits are discussed. There also happens to be a username of LaPastillaRoja on Roosh's board. However, as noted already, the article's content is likely not affected by this potential COI as everything is sourced from external sources.PearlSt82 (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes I am a follower of his work, not unlike an editor updating the page of a musician he listens to. I stand by my edits and I offer you to point to ones you think were not neutral. In fact I think I've been overly critical of him. It seems from your emotional complaint that you are more angry with the subject of the article than the actual article. I think I've done an impartial continuance of User:Ethicalv's original stub, and enough interest has been brought to it where there are now multiple contributors trying to improve the page. Lapastillaroja (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Real name

Several editors have inserted an alleged real name for this person. The only source so far provided is a domain name registration, which does not prove anything at all -- he could have provided a fake name, or gotten someone else to register the domain for him. Please do not reinsert this information without a reliable source. – Smyth\^talk 15:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Link 1 is dead. No evidence of this guys name whatsoever. If he chooses to remain anonymous and never show his face, the article should say that rather than giving him credibility as a legitimate "named" person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.200.188.142 (talk) 12:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The Doublethink Online piece seems to have vanished from the internet so I've updated it with a more recent piece on the Daily Dot. As far as never showing his face, this is clearly not the case, just google image (or youtube) search Roosh. PearlSt82 (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Article should mention Roosh's lack of scientific credibility

Roosh is not a psychologist and has no training in the statistical methodologies (e.g., econometrics) which govern the social sciences. None of his claims are peer-reviewed. Yet such a transparent charlatan is allowed to have a Wikipedia page where his (empirical/psychological) claims about women's sexuality go unchallenged? Utterly preposterous. This needs to change quickly. Steeletrap (talk) 04:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I suppose you also write letters to Cosmopolitan complaining that their articles aren't peer-reviewed by scientists either. – Smyth\^talk 13:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Advice columns are distinct from systems which purport to be scientific/relating to female sexual psychology. Steeletrap (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

He doesn't write in a particularly scientific style. It's more a kind of of social commentary. Anyway, after I wrote the above I found that there actually is a section in Cosmopolitan (magazine) containing similar complaints about its pseudo-scientific claims. It's tagged citation needed, and the same would apply here. – Smyth\^talk 21:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The article doesn't make any claims that Roosh is a psychologist or social scientist, as Roosh is neither a psychologist nor social scientist, just a pick up artist and author (and charlatan), which the article does state. Most of the English-language critiques of his work, including several of Bang Iceland for his comments on rape, do not meet WP:RSPearlSt82 (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

You guys are funny! Giovanni. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.114.248.7 (talk) 02:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Ethnicity, place of birth

Roosh's surname is Iranian and he has confirmed on his forum that he has Iranian heritage. Should this be added to the article? Also, any information regarding his place of birth could be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.123.40.185 (talk) 08:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

What a coincidence - just yesterday Roosh started a thread dealing with this specific subject. He is half Iranian and half Armenian.

http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-27445.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.123.40.185 (talk) 10:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

notability

Why is this page even up? He Self-published a bunch of books. That doesn't make him notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.64.249 (talk) 08:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The deletion discussion should answer your question. – Smyth\^talk 14:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Birth date

(Moved from User talk:Elmech])

Since you say his birth date is supported by "all the sources and reality", you will have no problem providing a citation for it. Thanks. – Smyth\^talk 21:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

hey man, there are tons of sources for that. bio page on rooshv.com, datingskills page, and so on. I don't want to advertise him, please try to be correct and balanced, and not show your love to Rooshv so much

You want Wikipedia to be correct? Wikipedia wants that too. That's why its policy states that you must provide a reliable source (or, in this case, a self-published one by the subject himself) which clearly supports the given date. Otherwise it must be removed. – Smyth\^talk 22:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

@Smyth: If you have a source that says a different birth date, please share it here. Otherwise, we will keep the current one. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

You're a bit behind. I was the one who found the only reliable source I've seen so far. – Smyth\^talk 10:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Elmech / EGirl90

This person is clearly not here to write an encyclopedia. They are here to discredit the subject of this article in every possible way. Nevertheless, policy says we have to give them a chance to discuss things, so please direct them to this talk page at every opportunity. – Smyth\^talk 12:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Does this violate WP:SOCK? PearlSt82 (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I would say no. They are obviously the same person, and have never claimed to be otherwise. – Smyth\^talk 17:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I helped start this page and it has recently devolved into a one-sided hit piece where mostly critics are given weight. It's hard to see it as neutral. It seems that any vocal feminist can have her opinion of him placed here. Lapastillaroja (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I am attempting to get this person blocked at WP:ANI#Roosh_V. I forgot to mention for the record that they previously deleted this whole section of the talk page and replaced it with the sentence "Laparistoja is here only to write ireeliatst good things about Roosh, despite all reality or truth". They also inserted a forged comment from Lapastillaroja to make them appear biased.[1] This is their only "contribution" to the talk page so far. – Smyth\^talk 02:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Is Jezebel "large" or "feminist"?

Nobody would dispute that it's "feminist", nor is that a slur on its reliability. But calling it "large" is meaningless and verges on peacocking. What is "large"? Is a website more reliable because it is "large"? Time Cube is large by some measures. – Smyth\^talk 10:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. They self-proclaim to be feminist. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Also agreed.PearlSt82 (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

SPLC / Daily Dot

Elmech is using selective quotation to imply as strongly as possible that Roosh was accused by the SPLC of being a Nazi or a terrorist. [2] This is completely unacceptable. – Smyth\^talk 12:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Tone of the article

I have seen mention of Roosh and Return of Kings in the general media, but almost all of it, if not all, has been negative. So, it's difficult to keep this article from looking like a hit piece. The only way to do so would be to reduce the article to about two paragraphs of neutral information. The problem then would be that its notability could then be questioned. Cla68 (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, 100% of the sources not from Roosh's personal site or ROK are negative. I dont think there is any RS out there that presents him in a positive light. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the first priority needs to be to bring this article in line with Wikipedia standards, as you say i.e. NPOV; and if that means reducing it down to about two paragraphs of neutral information, then so be it. We can cross the next bridge (regarding notability) when we get to it. Arthur Longshanks (talk) 10:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

This Article is not encyclopedic

Hi, new editor here, I just popped in here to say that this article does not read like an encyclopedia piece. It basically just reads like a hack job hit piece designed to discredit the man. Character assassination is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. A wikipedia article surely ought to have an introduction, different segments as relevant, and use credible sources. This article on the other hand is rambling, incoherent, and is largely sourced from the hysterical opinion website 'Jezebel', which is not deemed a quality source by Wikipedia standards as far as I know.

It is not appropriate to rant and rave about condoms and unprotected sex in the second sentence of a Wikipedia article. It is not appropriate to introduce personal bias into an article by phrasing sentences as like "Recent articles include the charming '5 Reasons to Date a Girl With an Eating Disorder,'". In this instance, the word "charming" is highly inappropriate, and it bells the cat as to the sort of biased POV with which this article was written. I will try to find the time to rewrite this article over the next few days if nobody has any objection to it being cleaned up.Arthur Longshanks (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Most of the content you object to was inserted by the user discussed in the section above, who is rapidly on their way to being banned. – Smyth\^talk 14:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Is Jezebel an appropriate source?

Negative commentary from blogs are generally forbidden in BLPs on Wikipedia. None of the Jezebel references are appropriate and I have removed them. Cla68 (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, Jezebel is not a blog. Those particular articles are blog-ish, but Jezebel does have editorial oversight. I do not see anything about Jezebel.com being non-RS on WP:RSN. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The first line on the WP article for Jezebel (website) is, "Jezebel is a blog aimed at women's interests, under the tagline "Celebrity, Sex, Fashion for Women. Without Airbrushing." It is one of several blogs owned by Gawker Media." I advise you not to edit war to insert negative information in BLP sourced to a blog. WP's administrators, for all their issues, have a short fuse when it comes to protecting BLP subjects. Talk it out here first before reading it to the article. Cla68 (talk) 05:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I think Jezebel is WP:RS for this. Its also used as a source in plenty of BLP, including Shigeo Tokuda, Joanna Angel, Tyra Banks, Todd Lamb (writer), Ani DiFranco, Madonna (entertainer), and many, many others. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence of Wikipedia:RS#Overview is "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." But the things that were sourced to Jezebel were not assertions of fact. They were the personal opinions (feelings, really) of individual Jezebel writers, who as far as I know, are not notable in their own right. And virtually all Jezebel content is like that. – Smyth\^talk 13:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

(@Cla68 as well) While the two cited articles were questionable, Jezebel itself cannot be written off as a blog. I do not see Jezebel call itself a blog. It does, however, have editorial staff ([3]). Its structure and functioning are quite similar to HuffPo. I won't re-add the quotes as I do not think that cited articles are the best sources and we have plenty of others. But it would be wrong to dismiss Jezebel writ large. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

We rightfully treat BLPs with kid gloves. The sources used for pejorative information have to be impeccable because of the real-world harm we can cause, and have caused in the past, to BLP subjects. Cla68 (talk) 11:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Sex tourist

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Three reliable sources describe Roosh as a sex tourist in the title of their article, and 12 of the 14 books he's published deal with travelling to other countries, primarily third world, for the explicit purpose to sleep with women. This is the exact definition of what a sex tourist is and it is supposed by RS. PearlSt82 (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

No it isn't. The WP article states in its first sentence, "Sex tourism is travel to engage in sexual activity, particularly with prostitutes." Roosh V has been clear that he doesn't travel to sleep with prostitutes and those sources don't say that he travels to sleep with prostitutes. The label violates WP:BLP and I will continue to remove it. Remember, 3rr doesn't apply when protecting BLP subjects from attacks on their Wiki-bios. Cla68 (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It says "particularly with prostitutes", not always with prostitutes, and Roosh has admitted to purchasing prostitutes in his South American travel books. Where are you getting the idea that 3rr doesnt apply? PearlSt82 (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The term isn't pejorative enough to warrant violations of 3RR. It is sourced and has been in the article since its creation (literally). Please discuss it here. Start an RfC or a DRN if you feel the need. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course it is perjorative enough, the references need to be impeccable to make such a claim. To the point about what a "sex tourist" is, I suggest that Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to find a definition. My quick look suggests that overwhelmingly government organizations and the media are referring to paid sex, with a significant emphasis on child prostitution. To back up this claim you have a couple of articles using the term in the title. I think that might be enough to say "media outlet xxx describes Roosh V as a sex tourist", but nowhere near enough to make a straight out claim of fact in the lead. Kevin (talk) 03:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and that would need to go in the body of the article and not in the intro. From what I understand, "sex tourism" can be considered criminal activity by some governments, so putting something like that in a BLP could expose the subject to arrest while traveling. That has happened before to a WP BLP subject. Cla68 (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Also disagree that he should be labeled a sex tourist, when his work clearly and repeatedly discourages soliciting prostitution (http://www.rooshv.com/sex-tourists-vs-love-tourists). If he's a sex tourist then we are widening the definition to include anyone who travels and has casual sex without exchange of payment, which would be most of the Western traveling population. Lapastillaroja (talk) 10:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• not a sex tourist we should not use 'sex tourist' to describe him in wikipedia's voice, as if it were some sort of job, instead of a pejorative slur - it would be similar to saying X is a racist or X is an asshole or X is a sexist - this is especially important since he appears to eschew this label. Can you imagine Andrea Dworkin's lede reading 'she is a feminist author and feminazi' etc. in the relevant book review sections we could say 'in the review of his book on Iceland, noted book reviewer X noted that 'Roosh's book is written by a blatant sex tourist' I'm actuLly shocked that experienced Wikipedia editors believe this is good - reliable sources use all sorts of nasty terms about people, but even for Elliot Rodgers I seriously doubt we'd say 'Rodgers was a student and misogynist at San Diego state' etc. it's simply not done here; no matter how much we dislike the subject we should treat it neutrally and not go out of our way to put slurs in the lede. Pearl you should be ashamed of yourself for this ridiculous attempt. Also, the terminology 'third world' is a bit dated, and Latvia, Estonia, Iceland, Lithuania, Poland, and Denmark don't qualify (and never did) as third world in any case. (Fwiw, since you may not know this, third world came from the non-aligned movement of countries that were neither part of the 1st world dominated by the western powers nor the second world dominated by the soviets, it was originally meant to be a third way, another path. Over time the term came to take on somewhat pejorative and stereotypical aspects with images of starving kids and flies buzzing around their heads. This is not what you'll find in Estonia, Poland, or Iceland, nor will you find it on the bustling cosmopolitans streets of Bogotá.) but the bottom line is, totally inappropriate for a lede.Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 08:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I concede third world was a poor choice of words. What I should have said is that aside from Iceland and Denmark (coincidentally where Roosh seems to have had the least success in his travels), he travels to countries which are economically disadvantaged and imbalanced compared to the United States. Sexual relationships pursued via tourism, especially when coupled with Roosh's methods, in such economically imbalanced scenarios are described as being sex tourism in the Cole/Morgan book I've posted. Comparing the label of Roosh as a "sex tourist" to Dworkin being a "feminazi" is a bit of a false equivalency for several reasons, namely that "feminazi" is an obvious slur coined by Rush Limbaugh to insult his political opponents, whereas sex tourism is actual phenomenon and exists outside of the context of being an insult. As for saying X is a racist, the lede in David Duke's article says "David Ernest Duke (born July 1, 1950) is an American White nationalist" (first words) and "His views are characterized by racism" (end of paragraph). I'm not ashamed of anything I've posted on this page, but may I point out that the term was in the article since its creation and this is not just my "attempt" to include it. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Promotion of sex tourism - even with adults - is illegal in at least 3 US states - it's a class-C felony in Washington state [4]. We simply don't use pejorative labels like this in wikipedia's voice, especially ones which have such a close association with criminal activity, unless the person has in fact been convicted of a crime. It's wildly inappropriate to say "Roosh is an author and sex tourist" - it's not his JOB, it's an IDENTITY he rejects, and it's pejorative to describe him in this way especially in unadorned language using wikipedia's voice. It would be much better to state that book review X called him a "sex tourist" in the title, and then link to Roosh's website where he lays out the differences and makes the claim that he isn't one.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Article locked

Right, I've locked the article - can the two sides please lay out their evidence supporting their assertions in a laid out version below. If any admin reading this really feels the need to lock the article on the other version, I am not opposed - I just locked it as I found it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Casliber but the article does not appear to be locked (?) EvergreenFir (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

For inlcusion - Roosh is described as a "sex tourist" in the title of three WP:RS (1, 2, 3). He's an author of 14 books, 11 of which (not 12 as I erroneously stated before) are about traveling to different countries for the purpose of sleeping with women. His only notability comes from the controversy that these books have generated - if he had not written these and just had written "Bang", "Day Bang: How To Casually Pick Up Girls During The Day", and "30 Bangs: The Shaping Of One Man's Game From Patient Mouse To Rabid Wolf", he would very likely not be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. While child prostitution and prostitution are issues associated with sex tourism, someone who travels to (primarily) the third world with the purpose of sleeping with women also falls under the definition of sex tourist. As the preponderance of the RS about him deal with his books, I think the description is appropriate. PearlSt82 (talk) 12:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

* Support * - He described as such in the reliable reference right below that term in the article. Therefore, it's not Syn, OR, but rather, what the reliable source calls him. He can be called that. Yes, I realize "sex tourist" describes a host of acts which sometimes goes into illegal territory too, but again, he's being referred to a such reliably, so we can, per BLP . Kosh Vorlon    16:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

When a reliable source talks about something objective, such as him writing a particular book, then we can use that to support a statement of fact in the article. When that source talks about something subjective, which "sex tourist" most definitely is, then we cannot make a statement of fact based on that source. What we can say is "source xxx says this". If every source you read says the same thing then you might write something like "widely described as a sex tourist". The next question is whether it ought to go in the lead. The lead is supposed to summarize the content, so it would only go there if there was substantial content in the body of the article. I don't see this substantial content at present. In my opinion, this stating something subjective as a fact, in the lead of the article, is a clear violation of the BLP policy. Kevin (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

PearlSt82, can you show me where your definition of "sex tourist" comes from? Kevin (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Noncommercial sex exploitation via traveling to South American and Eastern European countries is a part of sex tourism and is described in various sources such as Tourism and Sex: Culture, Commerce and Coercion (Stephen Clift, ‎Simon Carter, 2000) and by WorldVision. When Roosh's works are described by the RS only as negative things like a "rape guide" and "as wrong as possible", it should seem clear that his works advocate approaching for sex in an exploitative manner. But that doesn't seem to matter as much as the RS describing him as a "sex tourist" multiple times in the title. PearlSt82 (talk) 11:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on sex tourism is nearly 100% about prostitution. As such, including a link to that page would be misleading unless it was expanded. – Smyth\^talk 10:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT? EvergreenFir (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not me that should fix it, I think it's fine. It's those who want to use the term in a different way who have the burden of proof. PearlSt82 has not provided such proof. His link above is also 100% about prostitution, which simply is not Roosh's area. The fact that some opinion journalists have used the term means nothing. Taki's Magazine is not a reliable source, and the other two links are not in English, so the term may have subtly different implications. Quoting a pejorative term and attributing it to the person who used it is the best way to go in BLP articles, unless the truth of the term is unquestionable. – Smyth\^talk 10:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Non-commercial exploitation is mentioned in the very first paragraph of that link so I don't believe it is "100%" about prostitution. Takimag is used as RS in plenty of other areas of WP and I think its a stretch to suggest the term means something else in Estonian. PearlSt82 (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, please see Tourism and Inequality: Problems and Prospects (Stroma Cole, ‎Nigel Morgan - 2010) - from page 63, among other descriptions of examples of noncommercial sex tourism - "Because the relationship between tourism and sex is close but multifaceted, the term 'sex tourism' is not as easy to define as it may first appear, and the problem cannot be fully resolved by defining 'sex tourism' as 'prostitution tourism', because, as has been seen in this chapter, sexual-economic relationships between tourists and local/migrant persons range from brief and explicit cash-for-sex exchanges that both parties understand as 'prostitution', though more open-ended, diffuse exchanges, to relationships that are understood by both parties to be 'romantic' despite the asymmetry of economic power between them. It is actually very difficult to draw a sharp line between tourists' experience of commercial and non-commercial sex. It is also important to recognize that in some cases, local/migrant people pursue relationships with tourists for reasons that are simultaneously economic and sexual.". The graph on page 100 of Sex Tourism: Marginal People and Liminalities (Ryan and Robertson, 1997) neatly describes paradigms of sex tourism and includes non-commercial activities as well. Previous chapters in the book have further discussion on the issue. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The World Vision paper is on human trafficking for sexual exploitation. Do you think Roosh V is involved in this? And while the paper contains the phrases "non-commercial" and "sex tourism", every single mention of "sex tourism" is preceded by the word "child". This paper has no place whatsoever in defining non-commercial sex tourism. Kevin (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The Worldvision pamplet might not have the best definition, but what about the other three sources I've mentioned and quoted above? The Cole/Morgan book is pretty clear. I could certainly find and post several others too.PearlSt82 (talk) 11:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with what Kevin said. Just because Roosh is an asshole (which I have no argument with), it does not follow that he is guilty of every sexual crime and misdemeanour under the sun. And even though he is an asshole, we don't call him that in the voice of the encyclopedia. We quote it and attribute it.

And you might want to reread WP:RS. Taki's Magazine does not have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", because it consists entirely of opinion pieces. And even if it was a reliable source for questions of fact, WP:RS explains that "opinion pieces [...] are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact" (emphasis added).

As for non-English sources, it's completely plausible that in other languages, the cognate of "sex tourism" might simply mean "tourism for the purpose of finding sexual partners" (which Roosh does do), without any implication of an economic relationship between the partners (which Roosh claims not to do). – Smyth\^talk 09:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think he's guilty of every sexual crime, but his books seem pretty clearly about sex tourism, and he's described as such. Takimag appears to be referenced in 49 articles - if its not RS, would RSN be the place to have it removed? PearlSt82 (talk) 11:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

His books are clearly about tourism for the purpose of sex. But as shown above, the phrase "sex tourism" has additional implications in English which simply do not apply to him.

As I said, there's nothing wrong with Taki's Magazine being used as a source of statements of opinion, suitably attributed to their author, assuming the author is notable in the given context. But it's not reliable as a source of fact. – Smyth\^talk 09:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC - Sex tourist

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Question - Should the term "sex tourist" be used to describe Roosh V in the lead sentence (see here for current wording using term)? Please see Talk:Roosh V#Sex tourist for previous discussion including use of term by other sources and discussions of BLP policy. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• strong oppose Promotion of sex tourism - even with adults - is illegal in at least 3 US states - it's a class-C felony in Washington state [5]. We should not use pejorative labels like this in wikipedia's voice, especially ones which have such a close association with criminal activity, unless the person has in fact been convicted of a crime per WP:BLPCRIME. We should not use 'sex tourist' to describe him in wikipedia's voice, as if it were some sort of job - it would be similar to saying that X is a racist or X is an asshole or X is a sexist - this is especially important since Roosh appears to eschew this label - see [6] + interviews cited in article. Reliable sources use all sorts of nasty terms about people, but even for Elliot Rodgers I seriously doubt we'd say 'Rodgers was a student and misogynist at San Diego state' etc. It's simply not done here; no matter how much we dislike the subject we should treat it neutrally (BLP requires this) and not go out of our way to place pejorative slurs in the lede. Sex tourist is pejorative because it suggests an exploitative paid sex relationship with prostitutes - and in some countries these prostitutes are themselves victims of human trafficking, and sex tourism is often used to describe people going overseas to have sex with minors (something which is also illegal under several federal statutes in the US). None of this describes the actions that Roosh actually undertakes or what his books describe. Thus, it's wildly inappropriate to say "Roosh is an author and sex tourist" - it's not his JOB, it's an IDENTITY he rejects, and it's pejorative to describe him in this way especially in unadorned language using wikipedia's voice. Also, FWIW, I oppose the idea of holding an RFC on this matter - discussion was progressing above and consensus was leaning against its inclusion; seeing a losing battle, the framer of this RFC is attempting to bring fresh troops to the question. RFCs should normally be used when the talk page discussions aren't bearing fruit or consensus hasn't arisen, which wasn't the case here--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I did not draw the same conclusion from the above discussion given the protracted nature of this discussion (seems mixed to me) and thought an RfC appropriate. Thank you for your input though. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

There was certainly a majority against including the material, and no strong arguments given for why we should include such material in wikipedia's voice, especially given the pejorative nature of that descriptor.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

As you know, majority does not matter as much as the quality of the arguments. I see two strong arguments here and felt RfC was appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

"Promotion of sex tourism - even with adults - is illegal in at least 3 US states - it's a class-C felony in Washington state" - Not everyone on wikipedia lives in the United States, and, as a consequence, we are not bound by its laws. DJAMP4444 22:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

True, but Roosh does live in the US...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Prostitution is legal in several rural counties of Nevada. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Roosh is described as a sex tourist in three WP:RS (1, 2, 3). He's an author of 14 books, 11 of which are about traveling to different countries for the purpose of sleeping with women. Aside from Iceland and Denmark, they are all countries which are economically disadvantaged compared to the United States. Sex tourism is not limited to prostitution - Tourism and Inequality: Problems and Prospects (Stroma Cole, ‎Nigel Morgan - 2010) - from page 63, among other descriptions of examples of noncommercial sex tourism gives a definition of "Because the relationship between tourism and sex is close but multifaceted, the term 'sex tourism' is not as easy to define as it may first appear, and the problem cannot be fully resolved by defining 'sex tourism' as 'prostitution tourism', because, as has been seen in this chapter, sexual-economic relationships between tourists and local/migrant persons range from brief and explicit cash-for-sex exchanges that both parties understand as 'prostitution', though more open-ended, diffuse exchanges, to relationships that are understood by both parties to be 'romantic' despite the asymmetry of economic power between them. It is actually very difficult to draw a sharp line between tourists' experience of commercial and non-commercial sex. It is also important to recognize that in some cases, local/migrant people pursue relationships with tourists for reasons that are simultaneously economic and sexual.". The graph on page 100 of Sex Tourism: Marginal People and Liminalities (Ryan and Robertson, 1997) neatly describes paradigms of sex tourism and includes non-commercial activities as well. Previous chapters in the book have further discussion on the issue. Roosh's only notability comes from the controversy that these books have generated - if he had not written these and just had written "Bang", "Day Bang: How To Casually Pick Up Girls During The Day", and "30 Bangs: The Shaping Of One Man's Game From Patient Mouse To Rabid Wolf", he would very likely not be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. In regards to the legality, the Washingston State statue specifically defines the criminal element as dealing with prostitution which is not relevant in Roosh's case. However, it may be important to note that Roosh himself describes his activities in a legal grey area. From Bang Iceland: "While walking to my place, I realized how drunk she was. In America, having sex with her would have been rape, since she legally couldn’t give her consent. It didn’t help matters that I was relatively sober, but I can’t say I cared or even hesitated. I won’t rationalize my actions, but having sex is what I do." Similar sentiment is consistently expressed throughout his works. Roosh has noted he prefers the the term "Love tourist", but this seems to me like rationalization for his behavior as I'm not sure how anyone can extract "love" from that particular sentiment. PearlSt82 (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Notwithstanding, the term is pejorative, and he has been convicted of no crime. Just as we wouldn't say "He's a misogynist" even though sources claim he is, we should not say unadorned that he is a sex tourist. In the relevant book review sections, we can say "Source X called him a sex tourist", which is the state of the article right now, along with his response to same. Whether you personally like the term love tourist is rather irrelevant. Also, I question your purpose in pulling out a single quote from his work like that from his work - it's almost like you're trying to paint him in a negative light. Editors should edit from NPOV always.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. As Obiwankenobi states above, sex tourism is a crime in a number of places. Therefore, to say in the intro for this BLP that the subject is a sex tourist requires air-tight sourcing, which is not even close to the case here. Cla68 (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support but willing to compromise per PearlSt82 argument and the fact that "sex tourist" does not only refer to criminal behavior. I would not be opposed to adding a footnote explaining the use of the term or even using "love tourist" (with a footnote describing the behaviors) which is Roosh's preferred term. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose for intro, Support for body. The term is clearly used to describe Roosh; however the problem is that we don't have enough space in the intro to explain that the word as commonly used refers to travel for the purposes of sex with prostitutes, while the word as used to describe Roosh merely refers to travel for the purposes of sex. We do have enough space to explain that in the body, so should. --GRuban (talk) 03:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
• Alternative I have discussed with EvergreenFir and we may have a compromise position, which is:

1. Use the term "self-styled love tourist" in the intro, linking to Roosh's website where he delineates the difference between love and sex tourism, and give a brief explanation in a footnote that he travels overseas to meet women and sleep with them
2. In the book reviews from Lithuania, keep as it is, e.g. "The source X called him a "sex tourist", but Roosh responded that he was a love tourist.(ref) that way, sex tourist is mentioned, but in the body, contextualized in the context of the book review where it appeared, and with a chance for him to respond (as he did in an interview in Lithuania or Latvia.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• I support this alternative. Seems to solve all issues raised: (1) desire to describe his body of authorship about traveling for the purposes of having sex, (2) abiding by BLP guidelines and not using loaded/pejorative terms in Wikipedia's voice, and (3) keeps the criticism as "sex tourist" in the relevant section but not in Wikipedia's voice. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm also fine with this. Is there WP policy which specifically deals with the construction of footnotes in this context? WP:FOOTNOTE just deals with citations. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

FOOTNOTE says "Footnotes are used most commonly to provide:references (bibliographic citations) to reliable sources,explanatory information or..." This would fit under "explanatory information". I've removed the RFC tag since we seem to have consensus.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Kind of - it's inappropriate to use "Sex Tourist" in Wikipedia's voice. We should instead say that he was described as a sex tourist by whoever did that describing. Hipocrite (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support, though with attribution (and placement in the lead). "Love tourist" is not appropriate -- his books and actions are not about "love" in the way most people would understand that term, and given the sources that describe him as a sex tourist it would be a violation of NPOV to allow his own self-description to guide our edits in this respect. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with self-styled - I count at least 1,000 uses of this in ledes of other biographies.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

You counted at least 1000 uses of self-styled descriptions in ledes? Do you have some examples? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.191.143 (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose labelling him with the term in Wikipedia's voice anywhere in the article for the reasons I've already given above. Using the term but attributing it to a source, as Obinwankenobi suggests above or otherwise, is fine with me. – Smyth\^talk 21:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as it is too easy to take sex tourist to mean that the subject engages with prostitutes. Seemingly - and in the subject's own words - his preference is "love tourist". SueDonem (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, for reasons I have given in the 2 sections above. Kevin (talk) 02:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose RFC question and Support Alternative proposed by Obi-Wan Kenobi per above discussions. --Ca2james (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Easy Oppose The issue of whether or not "sex tourism" is a criminal activity is not relevant. If the subject of the article were primarily known as a "sex tourist", e.g. if he'd have been convicted for a "sex tourism"-related crime, Wikipedia should list him as such. Wikipedia is not a prude. But he's primarily known as a writer and a blogger. The criterion of notability trumps all else. -The Gnome (talk) 00:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose calling him a "sex tourist" in Wikipedia's voice, though I support mentioning that some reliable sources call him that. Worthy of note is that prostitution is legal in many areas, that some tourists travel to such areas to indulge, and that such tourism is not illegal. As for his "love tourist" claim, his relevant blog post states: " Sex tourists get freebies in the form of an extra 15 minutes from his whore. Love tourists get freebies in the form of a blowjob in the bushes by a girl who loves Americans." He has a far different definition of "love" than most people, and I think I will go wash my hands now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment – Let's be clear about the legality of "sex tourism". Traveling with the goal (or extra benefit) of sexual fulfillment is not illegal anywhere. Rather, the commercial promotion of travel "sex tourism", that is, to sell travel services with sex tourism as a commercial end, is illegal in some states. So, if he (or anyone) is a "sex tourist", that's fine. (E.g., perfectly legal.) If he engages in sex illegally, that's a crime. But he is not promoting illegal sexual tourism travel services if he simply says "Go to place X...you are sure to get laid." Having said this, I support the alternative posted above. – S. Rich (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Views on Homosexuality

Considering Roosh has pretty... well.. unconventional views on homosexuality, would it be possible to make a section based on articles that he has written on the subject or would that be a repeat of the "sex tourist" thing? [7] [8] --80.193.191.143 (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Those articles shouldn't be brought in unless mentioned elsewhere in a third-party RS. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point, he would need to make a few more articles before they become definitive of his writing topics. Still, it is unusual to see heterophobia used and discussed legitimately, only within the MRM eh? --80.193.191.143 (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Stealing Drinks and living arrangement

First, where he is living is not mentioned in the source, as such is a BLP vio. Second, why do we care that he stole drinks? It's not encyclopedic, we don't need to know every little thing that he may have done wrong in his life. We're an encyclopedia, and this is most defininitely not encyclopedic. Actually, this just seems to be some WP: BLPGOSSIP. --Kyohyi (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE as well. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Roosh's reading list

While I don't see any BLP problems with the inclusion of this text, it might be WP:UNDUE. His literature preferences don't seem to be mentioned by any other sources other than his personal website. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it might be undue. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. – Smyth\^talk 08:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect References

I have just been looking through the references listed for this article, and have found a couple of issues. Primarily, the Washington Times Communities Article link leads only to the Washington Times Communities homepage; the article does not seem to exist any more, through searching both via Google and the Washington Times Communities website itself. Also, reference number 7 does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for referencing. I am also slightly doubtful that the blog of "Roosh V", Facebook and comments on forums are suitable references and meet Wikipedia's guidelines. If there are no objections, I'll delete the information referenced by The Washington Times Communities article that cannot be located. Any thoughts of the other referencing issues that I've mentioned? U65945 (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It's just WP:LINKROT. I've added the archived version. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, attempted to do that but couldn't find it anywhere. U65945 (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)