Talk:Tim Wise

Tim Wise Religion Judaism

I would like to include in the article the religion (Time Wise tells his religion at 45 minutes 55 seconds) of time wise? Which he describes as Judaism in this video. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 01:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

"Wise has said that when he was 9 years old his Synagogue was attacked by white supremacists."

Content of Wikipedia needs to be relevant. If indeed Tim Wise's synagogue was attacked by white supremacists when he was a child, then that is relevant. It would be an important part of anyone's biography, let alone someone who dedicated his career to allegedly fighting white supremacists. But was it or was it not?! If it was - provide a proper proof! I would add here, that, presumably, if a synagogue was attacked by white supremacists, there would be sufficient evidence - media reports etc. - to prove this claim, apart from Mr Wise's own say-so. Yet, interestingly, none is offered. So is it all a hoax, or maybe a great exaggeration of a very minor, non-issue, event (such as someone saying something)? In that case, Tim Wise is a con-artist for making that claim. So, which of the following is it? (a) A very relevant event which very much belongs in this entry, and one which would, quite undoubtedly, be very easy to prove, yet for some reason no one seems to have been able to do so this entry, interestingly enough? or: (b) A major exaggeration which says more about Mr Wise's integrity than anything about white supremacists. In other words, an attack which never occurred, yet very much suits Mr Wise's narrative about white supremacists. If it is (a), please provide evidence and don't leave it with "Mr Wise says...". If it is (b), then simply remove the above sentence (see section headline) from the article.

In any case, to write "Mr Wise says that ... [a certain event happened]" is totally improper. It leaves open the question of whether the event did happen or Mr Wise is a bit of a liar.

That is why I suggest that, until evidence is presented either way, the above sentence should be removed, as it creates more questions than answers, and that is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.96.188 (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is the policy: Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion See also: WP:UNDUE and WP:PAGEDECIDE Shortcut: WP:ONUS While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

Based on the policy quoted above and on my arguments earlier: "Wise has said that when he was 9 years old his Synagogue was attacked by white supremacists" - is verifiable but not improve the article. Because, so what if he only says that?! If he or anyone else can verify NOT THAT HE MADE THE CLAIM, but the veracity of the claim - that would be both verifiable AND relevant. Until someone can prove the CLAIM ITSELF, I say we leave it all out. Opinions please, before I remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.96.188 (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:TL;DR

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I think what you're saying is "We can't take Wise's word about what happened; without independent sources, we need to remove the sentence about white supremacists attacking his synagogue." Why? What Wikipedia policy or guideline requires that? Regarding the use of self-published sources, WP:Biographies of living persons says:

Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:

1. it is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

See WP:BLPSELFPUB. Do you feel the sentence fails any of these criteria? Let's discuss. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I am the same person from above (though my signature may be different): According to your quote, "Such material may be used as a source only if... it is not unduly self-serving;" . Therefore, it will be sufficient grounds for me to use as criteria for the removal of the sentence, if I demonstrate that it is "unduly self-serving". Let me try to establish that it is, in fact, "unduly self-serving".

I refer you to the term Perception management (PM). Wikipedia is, as usual, much more knowledgeable than me, but let me quote a bit from the entry of PM. (My quote is heavily-edited, but you can use the above link to go to the entry to verify that I did not necessarily distort meanings):

Perception management is a term originated by the US military. The US Department of Defense (DOD) gives this definition: Actions to convey ... selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their... objective reasoning ... ultimately resulting in ... behaviors ... actions favorable to the originator's objectives. ... perception management combines ... deception... ... Factors that influence the target: ... Ambiguity: a lack of clarity. If ambiguity increases, the perceiver may find it harder to form an accurate perception ..." Based on the above (admittedly, heavily edited) quote, you may use ambiguity to manipulate the listener to create perception management which suggests an impression which is, actually, false.

That is exactly what I accuse the sentence that I propose to remove does: it suggests, using not evidence but ambiguous language, that a certain event occurred. For the casual, skim-reader, the sentence "Wise has said that when he was 9 years old his Synagogue was attacked by white supremacists." would sound close enough, and register in their mind as, "when he was 9 years old Wise's Synagogue was attacked by white supremacists." Agreed? Do you agree that for a casual and/or careless reader, skim-reading through this sentence, this may occur?

If that confusion was deliberate, is that PM which is "unduly self-serving"? Absolutely!

No doubt that Mr Wise's narrative and argument is positively enhanced by the belief of the community in the occurence of such an event, whether or not that has indeed happened. I hope you are still with me.

If that (the attack on his synagogue) has happened, then there is nothing I can do about it: Mr Wise wins the day! His argument is enhanced by the facts.

But notice that there is no evidence that this event occurred, or at least none is offered here. However, this lack of evidence is somewhat obscured, isn't it(?), by the fact that it is true that Mr Wise said that he seen it, which creates the ambiguity which I alluded to earlier: the uncertainty of did it really happen or not? - That is an ambiguity which may exist in the mind of the reader, without the reader being conscious of it, and consequently they may come to the conclusion - which is not accurate, based on the evidence offered, or lack thereof - that Mr Wise's synagogue has, in fact, been attacked. That would be self-serving for Mr Wise, but would be only PM, and nothing more.

So, sorry. Not good enough for me: in simple words, my position is "put up or shut up", i.e., either put up the evidence that his synagogue was indeed attacked, or don't mention this claim at all.

I hope the above starts to articulate my position. 125.255.40.126 (talk) 04:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

As for developing consensus on whether to include or exclude the sentence under discussion, put me down in the

INCLUDE column. The fact that Wise claims his synagogue was attacked when he was a youth, regardless of the veracity of the claim, is informative to me about the subject of this article, Tim Wise. If I want to get factual, verifiable information about attacks on synagogues, I'll look for that in a more appropriate article where it is conveyed in Wikipedia's voice. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Was hoping that other people would jump in and contribute to this section.

As for the topic: to include or not to include - that is the question. Here is my take:

Tim Wise is someone who based his entire career on criticizing White Power, White Privilege and White supremacist. If indeed his synagogue was attacked by white supremacists - that is a hugely important detail in his biography.

However, instead of stating simply that this has occurred, the only thing stated is that Tim Wise says that this has occurred. That is already weird. Furthermore, using Google, I tried to find any verification from other sources to this alleged attack. Not only did I find nothing from other sources. Interestingly, I have found nothing from Tim Wise HIMSELF written about this, INCLUDING IN HIS BOOK (in Google Books) - a more than 100 pages book detailing his childhood and multiple references to his synagogue and white supremacists. I repeat, nothing at all. The only reference to this claim is allegedly a claim made verbally during an interview. If indeed a synagogue was attacked, you would expect to find sufficient evidence, yet you barely find any evidence that Tim Wise himself said it. A man that penned books, essays and letters (including one to the Jewish community which mentions, generally, "synagogues desecrated"), never ever puts into writing what should be a very key event in his life, which both explains his activism and lends weight to his claims. - NOT ONE WRITTEN REFERENCE from Tim Wise himself, nor from anyone else.

Suspicious, no?

Therefore, I would say that the attack ever happened is highly unlikely. In any case, if there was such an attack which mysteriously was never ever mentioned by any witness to it in writing, then the principle of verifiability should kick in: no evidence - leave it alone. The integrity of Wikipedia as a factual source for information should trump what is, actually, pretty worthless and meaningless statement: "a private person said that something happened". So What if a person made a claim about some event happening? Without the evidence such a claim is worthless. That is how such a thing would be treated in a court of law, and I suggest this is how it should be treated here.

The say-so of a person, or "hearsay" in legalese, is absolutely worthless. At least if you say that in court, the judge, while immediately dismissing the admissibility of such a claim, at least would not know whether that is true or not.

In this case, due to the fact that no one seems to be able to say confidently that the attack did happen, even though you would think that if it was true the claim would have appeared more than just once, then you can quite reasonably determine that it is not admissible, and with 99.99% never happened. Yet, leaving it there may leave the impression in the minds of some readers that it may have happened/ That may have been the intention all along, but we must appreciate that if it was, then this sentence is nothing but a cheap ploy to circumnavigate Wikipedia's principle of verifiability ("I can't prove that it happened - because it did not, but I can say for sure that I said that it happened" - if it was Mr Wise's own edit). I say for the integrity of Wikipedia remove this silly sentence.

Just to give you an example: if in an entry about some person, Mr John Doe, there is the statement that Mr John Doe claims to be the tallest man alive. This statement is totally irrelevant without any other source discussing the height of Mr John Doe. That sentence by itself, provide very little useful information, but creates confusion: Is Mr John Doe really very tall, or is he a liar. Claims should add information, not create additional vagueness and uncertainty. That is what the sentence in Tim Wise's entry does, and I propose to remove it therefore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.96.99 (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

If indeed his synagogue was attacked by white supremacists - that is a hugely important detail in his biography.

If you say so, but that's not the discussion. If you've found reliably sourced information which conveys his synagogue was indeed attacked, and conveys the importance of that event re: Wise, then you are encouraged to add that to the biography. As for the issue at hand, his claim...

So What if a person made a claim about some event happening? Without the evidence such a claim is worthless.

Incorrect. I find that information to be of value. Your mileage may vary. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

" I find that information to be of value". OK, do tell: what is the value of this information? How does this information enhance your understanding of the topic, namely Mr Wise? 1.129.96.224 (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• I have to say, using Wise himself is sketchy. A primary source for a controversial point in a BLP? Doesn't seem right. Just because someone notable says it, doesn't make it true. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. It seems that there is no consensus to keep the silly sentence. Unless something changes I may remove it a bit later. 125.255.40.126 (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Nightshift36, what is "sketchy" about using Wise for a quote by Wise? Are you implying a fake-Wise said it? And what is "controversial" about Mr. Jones said xxx? Mr. Wise could have said he was abducted by aliens from another dimension, and the sentence wouldn't be any less "right". I think I'm really going to enjoy your response. Remember, Just because something isn't true, doesn't mean the notable person didn't say it. It seems there is no consensus, or even a valid argument, for removing the sentence. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The valid argument is that it is not important that he said that. If it is the onus is on you to argue why. It is the second time you havea chance to answer this question which I also asked you before and ideas of answering it you ignored it and replied to someone who didn't ask you anything. Looking forward to reading hit answer to my question.1.144.96.234 (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)