Talk:Gary Yourofsky

WP:BLP edit

I've cleaned and tagged problematic content under various WP:BLP policies and guidelines. Given that the article seems principally based on primary sources, this subject's notability should be better demonstrated by references to several reliable, independent, third party sources in order to avoid deletion. Below are some links to help interested editors:

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 23:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

== Neutrality ==LyndellaLee (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC) Surely it is a useful warning, if not a duty of care issue, for women to know that Yourofsky made those rape advocacy comments discussed and cited on this talk page? He has never resiled from them. If he had clarified or explained I might feel differently . I belong to vegan groups where Yourofsky is revered by young women who are completely unaware of this advocacy for violence. That of its own is not necessarily an argument for retention, but censoring his on-the-record commentary isn't usually regarded as valid. LyndellaLee (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC) Unjustified reverts such as this one are a violation of WP:N. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that information which may be problematic per WP:BLP must be thoroughly well sourced and if there's any problem, it should be discussed here on talk before re-adding it. You also probably mean WP:NPOV, not WP:N -- cyclopia^speak! 18:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

About the content you added: I think stuff sourced from an interview to Haaretz could and should stay. Tumblr, however, is not an acceptable source for anything, let alone a BLP.-- cyclopia^speak! 18:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

There was justification for that revert, WP:BLP. We are extremely careful in articles about living people to ensure we get it right. If something is believed to be problematic, as it was by User:Fluffernutter then the information shoulf not get added back into the article until a discussion has taken place and determined that the information does belong in the article. GB fan 18:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Three things, from my point of view. First, the original sourcing, the set I removed, was absolutely unacceptable as it went to tumblr and a blogging platform, neither of which has anything in common with a reliable source. Second, the Haaretz article, while it does repeat the quote, also takes pains to note that Yourofsky feels that particular quote is being pointedly cherry-picked by his ideological opponents to make him look bad, and I think that the google-bombing of that quote is an issue we need to be cognizant of as far as whether it belongs in our article or not. I personally think forcing that quote into the article is an unacceptable BLP issue, even using Haaretz as the source, for that reason. Third, for those of you with OTRS access, there is an OTRS ticket relevant to this article that has bearing on the BLP issues under discussion. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

In that case, we should include the quote, as well as the opinion of the Haaretz article on the Google bombing issue. This is what makes a truly neutral article. And Cyclopia – thank you, I indeed meant WP:NPOV. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Note to Fluffernutter: Do you have a plausible explanation how that quote could have possibly been misinterpreted to make Yourofsky look bad? Because if it hasn't, there is no "unacceptable BLP issue", as it does not constitute libel by its definition. Just because Yourofsky feels that way, doesn't make it the absolute truth. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Er, it is a quote that purports to show that Yourofsky supports rape of others. It is, on its face, a quote that makes his judgment in choosing his words look poor, at best, or that makes it look like he condones rape, at worst, and it is a single quote pulled from many other quotes by opponents who especially wish to give that impression, according to his statements in the Haaretz article. Either of those implications would make him look pretty "bad", as you say. The WP:IMPARTIAL section of WP:NPOV applies here, especially in light of the article being a BLP: "Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized." That is to say, even if it is provable that he uttered those words, that does not make it a given that selecting that quote, in particular, to represent his opinions in this article is a neutral choice.

The notion of balance and due/undue weight is also important here: if it is inappropriate to say "X said Y" in an article, because of BLP issues, then it gives the issue more undue weight, not less, to start adding more discussion of "X said Y, but A said B about Y, and also X added Q about Y". Your suggestion that the negative pull-quote can be tempered by more discussion of the negative pull-quote is thus rather misguided.

Remember, also, that our BLP policy requires us to err on the side of caution and sensitivity when it comes to contentious BLP issues: "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing tabloid-like about quoting a person verbatim. How can you say that the quote is chosen by his enemies to make him look like he condones rape, when he actually said that he believes that all fur wearers must be raped until they're disemboweled??? The BLP policy states that we shouldn't present the contents in a biased fashion. The article, as it is right now, is written in a very loaded fashion, as it presents Yourofsky almost from a fan's POV. This quote helps put the subject of the article in perspective, and it has been cited more than enough times by various outlets (as the Haaretz article reports) to establish notability. Therefore, we should include the quote alongside Yourofsky's interpretation of its alleged misattribution. This is the only way to present his opinions in a neutral fashion, not to hide some of those opinions to paint a biasedly ideal picture. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

While I do not share the animosity [insert adjective about being passionate about the issue ] of Hearfourmewesique, I understand their NPOV concerns. An interview by Haaretz with the subject own words is hardly "titillating", "sensationalist" or tabloid-like. Moreover, the article says: "Those words, and the full quote ‏(see box‏), tend to appear in every article about Yourofsky. The American fur breeders association has seen to it that the quotation appears high up in the results of Google searches about the activist." and "The Yourofsky quotes that will always be remembered..." , indicating the quote itself is pretty important in the context of the subject. This is WP:WELLKNOWN territory in my opinion. -- cyclopia^speak! 08:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Uhm... animosity? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a native English speaker, so sorry if I used a mistaken word. Let's say... passionate? -- cyclopia^speak! 15:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, although no sarcasm is needed. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

No sarcasm anywhere in fact. I just couldn't find the word. -- cyclopia^speak! 12:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

So... alrighty then? Can we move on? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing. One thing that perhaps would help is another RS about the Yourofsky quotes above. -- cyclopia^speak! 09:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

This HuffPost article doesn't include the quote, but summarizes its contents: "[I]n 2005 [Yourofsky] declared that fur wearers should themselves be raped. In response to the furore surrounding this declaration he called himself 'a proud advocate of violence'." Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Pushed a chair and long quotes

Gary Yourofsky pushed Erel Segal's chair per his account[1], not notable? " He suddenly pushes my chair. I fall on the floor…Ofer, the cameraman, takes a punch.". Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Mention of chair pushing undue so removed, also long quotes, per wp:BLP, being conservative and neutral. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I summarized that incident in the controversy section. Something happened to his image file, would appreciate it if someone could upload a new one. Yambaram (talk) 10:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually Yourofsky pushed the chair the journo was sitting on. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

There's a video interview in which Gary Yourofsky shares his side of the story related to this incident, talking about how he had thought the journalist would hit him, and how Gary pushed him acting in self-defense. Can that be described and included? --Bloody Rose (talk) 01:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Non-primary source needed?

The above tag found next to the following statement:

The experience affected Yourofsky, who said "[he] was no more than an animal in the zoo. It wasn't pleasant", and that it has reinforced "[his] empathy and understanding of what these animals go through".

Normally, one would prefer secondary sources over primary ones: fact-checking, neutrality, avoiding WP:SYNTH. Here, however:

• Yourofsky largely describes his own mental states, which nobody else has access to
• He is being directly quoted, so there is no interpretation of primary source material and no danger whatsoever of violating WP:SYNTH

This is precisely why a non-primary source is not needed here: it doesn't gain anything over the primary source.

Finally, as for the stated reason ("If it's actually worth mentioning, a third party will have covered it."), I'm not aware of any support for it in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. GregorB (talk) 13:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Cf.:

Yourofsky's website states that he has given 2,388 lectures to more than 60,000 people at 178 schools.

Here a primary source is needed - this is definitely a bit of a self-serving claim, even if it's clearly attributed to the primary source. GregorB (talk) 13:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)