Talk:Shaun King

Poorly-sourced claim on father

In the "Personal Life" section it is claimed that "King is the biological son of a Caucasian mother and an African-American father". This claim only uses two sources, one which lacks an established reputation of reliability (rebelmagazine) [[1]], and one (Black Enterprise) which refers to TwitChange as a "black-owned business", but does not state that King is the sole owner. (In fact the same Black Enterprise in another article suggests another black man, Shelton Mercer, owns TwitChange [[2]]). Please find better sources. -75.140.253.89 (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah those are clearly the wrong sources for that statement. The sources I have are

• MSNBC correspondent Joy Reid defended King, stating that his father was in fact black, but that his biological father is not the same man who is listed on his birth certificate.The Blaze
• the white man on my birth certificate is not my biological father and that my actual biological father is a light-skinned black man. ... After that day when I was first asked if I was mixed, while I was still a very young child, kids and their well-intentioned parents began telling me they knew who my black father was, that I was so and so’s cousin, etc.Daily Kos

All other sources link back to Joy Reid or Shaun himself. I've put the daily Kos source on and removed the others because they do not verify the statement. I don't fully understand the sourcing requirements in this sort of situation, I've only experienced it before with religion so if someone could point to the relevant policy as to whether this claim needs attribution as Shaun says or Shaun claims or Shaun said etc. SPACKlick (talk) 12:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Claims about ethnicity or race do not require any other corroboration than the BLP subject themselves.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Is that from a specific policy? SPACKlick (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Self-Pub doesn't apply because there is no self publication here. Categorisation doesn't talk about sourcing. My point being we only have Shaun's word that his father, a potential Living Person is African American. Do we really want to ascribe an ethnicity to this man based on the admitted hearsay of his son? I don't think the sourcing is strong for his father's race is all and probably should be attributed and only used in the section about the Breitbart allegations something along the signs of "King denied the allegations saying 'My biological father was an african american man'"SPACKlick (talk) 13:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Ethnicity and ancestry is not the same thing. Even if King's father is not African American, but a Norwegian klansman, then King is still African-American by virtue of having grown up identifying as such and identified as such by others. Ethnicity is a questoin of being part of a community and sharing their experiences, not of genes. Your apparent idea that genes determines ethnicity is pre-modern. The difference with Dolezal is that she was clearly not raised identifying as AfricanAmerican and that she has not been consistent in her identification or community membership.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

So Shaun King is African American and Dolezal isn't because (Redacted), got it. I think it's odd that you're accusing other people of political agendas when you are here pushing an entirely political (not to mention zany) notion that ethnicity is not a question of genetics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agkistro (talk • contribs) 03:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I've redacted a BLP violation in the above post; do not use Wikipedia talk pages as places to repeat your personal opinions about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure she did not identify as African-American as a child? There are reputable sources repeating her claim that she did so, even drawing pictures of herself as a child using brown crayons instead of peach-colors that a "white" child would be expected to use. [[3]] [[4]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.140.253.89 (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

No, admittedly I am not sure about that, I am just taking her parents words for that I guess.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not discussing King's identity, that's not what this section is about. I am discussing the sentence this section is about "King is the biological son of a Caucasian mother and an African-American father". I'm not sure we have sufficient sourcing to have this sentence in Wikipedia's voice. King claims to be Black, and has at times claimed to be biracial. This is well sourced both to himself and other sources. His father however we only have King saying his mother told him he was the son of a "light-skinned black man". First, this doesn't say African American, it doesn't even claim he's American. Second it is King reporting what his mother told him, not King saying he knows it to be true. I think statements about the ethnicity of King's biological father should not be in WP voice but used with attribution where they have relevance, that is in the section refuting the Breitbart claims. SPACKlick (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, sure we can rewrite that, to something like "King was raised by his mother and step-father both of whom were white, but was raised with the knowledge that his biological father was a light/skinned black man." Something like that, seems to be a fairly precise description of what is known.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Struggling to find appropriate sources for that sentence (I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm pretty sure I've read them, I'm just struggling to find them right now). Until there is a well sourced sentence, the poorly sourced claims should not be returned per WP:BLP. SPACKlick (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

It is not poorly sourced. The sentence is about what King knew or believed about his biological father when he was growing up and King is a perfect source (the only perfect source in fact) for that. The article makes no claim about the father, only about what King's mother had told him. Don't remove it unless you present a valid rationale - it is crucial for the article to make sense.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Read the sentence you are returning it does not say "King was raised in the knowledge/belief his father was a light skinned black man" it says "King is the biological son of a Caucasian mother and an African-American father" We have no source for his father being African American, and you yourself agreed that claim would be more appropriate couched in terms of King's knowledge. I'm trying right now to find a source talking about King being raised by two white parents but I'm struggling to find one that's unambiguous, as I said above I'm sure it exists, I've read it in the last 48 hours. Till then, don't put the rubbish sentence back as is. SPACKlick (talk) 13:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

You are abusing BLP to advance what seems to be a political agenda to throw doubt on King's statements about his own ancestry. I have made a note of this at the BLP notice board and I will let them decide. I am not going to revert further, but we are both at 3rr.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Coming from BLPN -- is there specific reason to doubt what is stated in the Rebel Magazine source? It directly verifies the statement in question. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Mostly the question is on Rebel Magazine as a reliable source. It is a very small publication that only issues twice a year, and has never been used as a source anywhere else on wikipedia. This UK lifestyle magazine has an editing team of just one person; that's not a very safe set of credentials, especially for an organization reporting on a subject from across the Atlantic ocean. -75.140.253.89 (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no doubts about King's ancestry and no reason to doubt his claim that he has been told that he is the biological son of a black man. What we do not have is any information on his father, who is likely to be a living person. Ascribing the ethnicity of "African American" to him is a BLP violation. Shaun is not the living person here, it's his father. Rebel makes no comment on his father. SPACKlick (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, that is an absurd claim.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Which claim is absurd and would you care to explain why? SPACKlick (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

e/c It's absurd enough that it would be unwise to rely on a "BLP violation" exemption in a 3RR report... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The absurd claim is that it is a BLP violation to say an un-named, un-identifiable, possibly un-alive (since no one knows who/where they are) person is black. Firstly you would need to demonstrate they are not in fact, black, then you would need to provide a half-way credible argument they would take umbrage at it. Since the identity is completely unknown, neither of the two can be done. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

From WP:BLP The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material. The man is identifiable through true innuendo, that is there are people with sufficient information to identify who the claim is about. You would need to show at lease one reliable source identifying him as African American to make the claim. What we do have is a source which claims that King reports that he was told he was black. They're two very different things. 1) No source not even king reporting without saying "someone else told me" and no source saying he is ethnically African American. How we should present the information is how it is presented in the last section, with attribution. SPACKlick (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

In short, your argument is stupid. No BLP violation exists. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Or maybe the real BLP violation is to suggest that Shaun King's mother who is both identifiable and alive is a liar? BLP also applies to talkpages afterall.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Do we have a source from an interview with the mother saying that the father is a light-skinned black man? Or are all of these just Shaun King saying his mother told him his father is a light-skinned black man? Also we might need to consider tense. Does King say his mother continually affirms this, or that she once affirmed it when he was a child? -75.140.253.89 (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

So now we are argueing that King is not a reliable source about what his mother told him...·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

not at all -75.140.253.89 (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

We have a reliable source which states this as a fact in its own voice. We have zero reliable sources which so much as dispute, much less contradict, this statement. Breitbart and the fringe conspiracy theorist blogger Breitbart cites are not remotely reliable, and their claims are due precisely zero weight or credence, any more than we say in the president's biography "Obama claims he was born in Hawaii" because a few conspiracists insist he's actually a Kenyan. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

There are 48 sources in the article. Could you please make it clear which source you are talking about? Thanks. -75.140.253.89 (talk) 18:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Also Obama's birth certificate shows he was born in Hawaii. King's birth certificate states he is white and was born to two white parents. Are you sure you really want to make that comparison? -75.140.253.89 (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

How is this different from calling the subject a liar? If you have no RS to back up an alternative view, you *have* to go with the verified subject's explanation. This doesn't compare to Obama's birth certificate, as he himself did not say at any time something to challenge it based on his own family information, and have that covered somewhere. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

How is your comment any different from alleging that King's parents, and the government, are all either liars or so extremely incompetent that no one noticed and corrected a glaring mistake on the birth certificate? -75.140.253.89 (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I sure do, because just like Obama, the only people disputing King's account of his heritage are right-wing extremist conspiracy theorists offering no evidence for their claims. When the best you have to offer is a notorious Internet troll and a blogger who can't even get hired by Breitbart, you have nothing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

wew lad I didn't know CNN's Don Lemon was a right-wing extremist conspiracy theorist. Please cease your toxic mudslinging buzzwords. They don't add to your credibility and reflect poorly on your objectivity. -75.140.253.89 (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

irrelevant. the troll and blogger are Joshua Goldberg and Vicki Pate

:::::::::::also you should be a lot more careful; you're dangerously skirting your topic ban on Yiannopoulos. -75.140.253.89 (talk) 02:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC) If you think Shaun King is covered by a topic ban from gender-related issues, you should open a request for enforcement on the Arbitration Enforcement page. I know you know where that is now. You may also wish to consider that the closing admin advised you to move on from this topic area. Edit: Actually, you're prohibited from making an enforcement request because you're an anonymous IP. You might want to open an account, become an established Wikipedia user, familiarize yourself with policies and guidelines, edit a variety of different pages, and then come back and file an enforcement request. Have a nice day. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC) You could have just told me you were talking about Goldberg and Pate instead of leading me on a chase that left me with painful eyestrain. -75.140.253.89 (talk) 03:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: you say above that we have a source that states this in its own words, which source and what is the quote? SPACKlick (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: Please do not ignore [[5]] requests for identification of your source. -75.140.253.89 (talk) 16:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

since NorthBySouthBaranof has repeatedly ignored all requests for identification of the source, what do we do now? Do we continue on as if he never made that comment? -75.140.253.89 (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

On going back to the Rebel Magazine source on a different device I can see the article is considerably longer than I could read previously. It has this quote in it "The son of a Caucasian mother and an African-American father, King was born on Sept. 17, 1979, in Versailles, Ky., a town of 8,500 people." Which sources the entire content of the sentence in question. If you have doubts over the sources reliability I'd take it to WP:RSN SPACKlick (talk) 04:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I did so, and the discussion has been automatically archived after 10 days. Rhoark pointed out that Having no reputation is often considered nearly as bad as having a bad reputation. No one offered any any proof of reliability, while I offered some things that suggest that their editorial judgement is a bit flawed. Where do we go from here? -75.140.253.89 (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Start a Request for Comment if you want a community-level resolution. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

That page says that RSN is the proper process. I already went through that and either no one cared enough or no one was able to find anything to corroborate Rebel's status as a reliable source. I don't feel comfortable in unarchiving a discussion. Since it is you who appear to be unsatisfied with the amount of participants in the discussion, you are free to move it back onto the RSN and put in a RFC. You're the more experienced editor; I'd likely end up bungling it majorly if I try to do it. -75.140.253.89 (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I will not be doing that. In my humble opinion, an editor who is motivated to see a particular question resolved is the one who will initiate an RfC about it (I'm not motivated because I don't agree with your position and this would be very low priority for me anyway.) If you are motivated enough, you will spend the time necessary figuring out how to start an RfC -- and it can be done on this page. If an RSN went nowhere, an RfC is your only shot. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

No. As admin Doug Weller points out, it is the responsibility of the one wishing to use the source to prove its reliability, not of anyone else to prove its unreliability. The statement is now considered not reliably sourced, and I guess it should be removed. -75.140.253.89 (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

There is a fairly clear consensus on this page that the source and statement are OK, and you should consider that it may be time to drop the stick. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Can I borrow your shade lenses? I'm not seeing the same thing you are. There is a lot of contention and a great lack of any consensus (and even some irrelevant discussion) from what I just went back and read. -75.140.253.89 (talk) 04:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC) P.S. as you have finally returned to this talk page, would you please help us out and identify the unspecified source you referred to on 18:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC) ?

As SPACKlick noted above, the source is here. I don't see any "contention" about this other than you. If you are the only person left arguing a point, it may be time to consider that the debate has died a natural death and you're going to have to live with the results. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say it was reliably, merely that I was wrong about it not containing the content. I have no information as to the reliability of the source hence my suggestion to go to RSN. I can't see any reason to consider the source particularly reliable nor a reason not to. I'm not au fait with the policy in such a case so am agnostic as to its reliability. SPACKlick (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Attributing King for info on his father

Here's how the information about King's father was treated in three sources: a less prominent and defunct online magazine (Rebel), and two prominent news organizations (Washington Post and New York Times).

2012 Rebel Magazine[6] –

"The son of a Caucasian mother and an African-American father, King was born on Sept. 17, 1979, in Versailles, Ky., a town of 8,500 people. His mother, who has worked at the same light bulb factory for more than 40 years, raised her boy by herself in the rural Kentucky town of “beautiful horse farms and factories,” according to King."

2015 Washington Post[7] –

"...I have been told for most of my life that the white man on my birth certificate is not my biological father and that my actual biological father is a light-skinned black man,” King said in a statement to The Post that he also published at Daily Kos."

and

"In an interview with The Post, King said he and his mother discussed the identity of his father on Wednesday, the first time they had ever discussed the issue at length, and that she confirmed to him that his father was a black man."

2015 New York Times[8]

"He [King] has said that his mother is white and his father is black ..." –

Considering the relative weight of the above sources, and relative clearness about where the sources got the information, it looks like we should attribute the information about King's father to King, rather than to state it as a fact. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Without contradicting sources, though, isn't the information about King's father practically a fact for our purposes? We deal with verifiability, not truth, and what better source for this kind of information than the subject? Again, I'm afraid this is all sneakily leading to calling the subject a liar. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

It's just a matter of NPOV editing of the article. The given prominent sources, which are certainly not known for any conservative agenda, clearly attribute the information to King, and in that regard I wouldn't say that those sources are calling King a liar nor would Wikipedia if we attributed the information to King. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not a matter of NPOV, it's a case of creating fear, uncertainty and doubt in a situation where no reliable source disputes the statement. We don't need to attribute uncontroversial facts, and there is no controversy about this particular fact in any reliable source. The only sources contesting it are fringe racist conspiracy theorists who do not merit any discussion here. If a reported story in The New York Times said "Shaun King's father is not African-American," then I agree we would have a contested issue and the statement would require attribution. That's not the case here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Re "If a reported story in The New York Times said 'Shaun King's father is not African-American,' then I agree we would have a contested issue and the statement would require attribution." – If that were the case I expect the New York Times would have proof and give the identity of his non-African-American father, the fact would be repeated in other reliable sources with similar high reputations and we would probably go with that, as opposed to King's statement.

But the case is as I presented in my first message where the New York Times and the Washington Post attribute the information about the father to King, and that's what we should do and not go beyond what those prominent reliable sources say. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The case is, as presented, that we have a reliable source that says it without attribution, and thus there's no need to add any. That other reliable sources do say it with attribution is interesting, but doesn't change the fact that we have that fact stated without attribution in a reliable source. We could attribute the existing sourced fact to the source which published it, and we could add, if you like, a statement that The New York Times said that King said... but removing the existing sourced statement of fact is right out. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

We most certainly do not have a reliable source stating it in that way. Rebel Magazine has no established reputation of reliability, and despite weeks of this problem being publicized, no one has come forth with anything to corroborate its reliability. It cannot be used as a reliable source until that's been achieved. I have the agreement of another user and an admin to support this assertion. 75.140.253.89 (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Stated in another way, the sources here are not in any way contradictory. The fact that the NYT and WaPo chose to attribute the statement in their articles — for what reason we cannot know — is not a claim that the unattributed statement in another source is false or somehow unsupported, and it cannot be taken as evidence, much less proof, of such. Therefore, the existence of a differently-phrased statement in those two articles cannot in any way be taken as valid rationale to remove the unattributed statement cited to that other source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

(Please recall that this discussion is only about adding attribution, not removing the statement.)

I think you're giving undue weight to Rebel magazine compared to The New York Times and The Washington Post. Whereas the latter two were careful about attribution, Rebel magazine wasn't in this case. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

You're introducing a category error. We don't have a question of "undue weight" when we have two non-contradictory sources — we can present both of them if you like, but the two do not contradict one another and can coexist perfectly well. The article published in The New York Times does not refute the statement in Rebel, it does not question it, it does not challenge it and it does not argue it. Thus, to present the two sources as conflicting is, quite simply, a manufactured falsity.

Moreover, you have presented zero evidence in support of your statement that the cited source "wasn't careful" with attribution and of course you have absolutely no evidence of such. Please do not make unsupported claims on this talk page; it only muddies the waters further. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that you're giving too much weight to the lowest quality source of the three, Rebel. The New York Times and The Washington Post vs Rebel are contradictory in the way they are treating the information. In this particular case, Rebel takes what King says and presents it as a fact (although that may have been unintentional because the phrase "according to King" at the end of the paragraph may have been meant to apply to the father information too). Whereas The New York Times and The Washington Post takes what King says and presents it as what King says, rather than a fact. Note that the Times and Post articles came three years after the Rebel article, but they didn't state the father information as a fact and use the Rebel article as the source for it. Rebel is not a reliable source for the father information stated as a fact.

I think that's about all I have to say in our discussion, although I might add a small comment if I think it's worthwhile.--Bob K31416 (talk) 08:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The fact that one source chooses to attribute something, and that another source chooses not to attribute a similar fact, is not contradictory. It just isn't. It's an editorial decision which could have been made for countless reasons. Your claim that Rebel did nothing more than "take what King says and presents it as a fact" is unsupported by anything other than bald assertion — and the bald assertion of an anonymous Wikipedia editor is hardly sufficient to justify removing a published reliable source. It may just as well be that Rebel fact-checked the statement on their magazine-length deadlines while the NYT/WaPo did not have time to do so before publishing their story on a breaking-news deadline — I have no evidence to support that supposition, but this is exactly the point, that you are reduced to speculating without evidence, rather than simply accepting that there's a published reliable source which says it. That source, much as you denigrate it, is 10,000 times more reliable than anything either you or I write here, and this appears to be merely one more attempt to create fear, uncertainty and doubt about the stated racial heritage of a public figure which no reliable source questions. Unless someone has evidence in a published reliable source that King is not the child of a white mother and an African-American father, Wikipedia really should move on from this issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed your edit that attributed the statement to Rebel Magazine, and I appreciate that. There's another option you might consider also. The phrase "According to King" might be somewhat hard, and there may be a softer rewording for working that information into the sentence, possibly adding some information to help the process. --Bob K31416 (talk) 08:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I gave it some more thought, and maybe we could first write about his mother and then add the following about his father, "In a 2015 interview with the Washington Post, King mentioned how he had been told for most of his life that his biological father is a light-skinned black man and how his mother confirmed that shortly before the interview." --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

If you want to add that to the current wording, I'm fine with that. I'm not fine with removing reliably-sourced information. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

This all comes down to whether Rebel is a reliable source. If it is then no attribution is needed, we have a source. If it isn't then attirubtion is needed because all RS attribute. I'm not confident in Rebel so I would attribute. SPACKlick (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

We have no need of attributing an unquestioned fact. And yes, his racial heritage is, as far as reliable sources are concerned, an unquestioned fact. The racist conspiracy theorists at Breitbart, et al. need not apply.NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

We do need to attribute facts that are attributed in sources. Every source bar one puts these words either in direct quotes or explicitly attributes them. The only source for this as a fact, as opposed to a thing King says, is Rebel. I have no opinion on the truth of it but in terms of verifiability it all comes down to RebelMagazine. Rebel is the only source that verifies this as a fact so that's the question at hand. SPACKlick (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Note that there's no indication that Rebel got the information from anywhere other than King, so they're in the same situation as the Washington Post and New York Times but weren't careful about clearly attributing that like the Washington Post and New York Times were. Speaking for myself, it seems that NorthBySouthBaranof and I have reached about as much agreement as we can so I personally would look to other editors' opinions and discussions with them and consider what the consensus is from all of our inputs, including NorthBySouthBaranof. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree seems a clear case for attribution to me. SPACKlick (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• I think there is an elegant and several clumsy ways to do this, and I think currently we seem to be discussing which of several clumsy ones to choose. The elegant one is to not make any statement in wikipedia's voice about the race of his biological father, but instead simply to note King's own statement on the matter, e.g. "King was raised by white parents, but with the knowledge that his biological father was 'a light-skinned black man'", and in the town where he grew up it was widely known that King was not white." (For the last part we can cite officer Broughton's statement that "everyone around here who knew him knew he was mixed"). ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I think he was raised by just his mother, but you can check me on that. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

That may be correct, but the principle for making a more elegant wording is the same.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Get it all together here and we'll take a look at it. :) --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I think Maunus raises a very elegant solution to this issue — I would be fine with the following wording, "King was raised by his white mother, with the knowledge that his biological father was 'a light-skinned black man', and in the town where he grew up it was widely known that King was not white." I will boldly make this edit, but if there is any objection, feel free to revert. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Partial revert and a few touch ups.. Didn't see "widely known" in the given sources of the edit and "widely known" is for a local celebrity. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

True, that wording's a bit flowery anyway. I've inserted the attributed statement based upon the source, "anyone from around here who knew him knew he was mixed." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

"people" vs "anyone" – either is OK. I first put in "people" but had second thoughts because I thought it might be read as not being as extensive as "anyone", which is used in the source, but if you want "people", that's OK with me. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

P.S. this might sound confusing to anyone other than NorthBySouthBaranof and me unless you have been following the recent article edits. Sorry. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Trying on "those who knew him" for size. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

That's fine. --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Someone omitted that King's police report labels him as White during the altercation he had in 1995. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.81.22.108 (talk) 03:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Daily Caller

I've removed a cite to the Daily Caller:

• The Daily Caller's reliability is highly questionable. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Using higher-quality refs is especially important given that (1) the article is a BLP and (2) the content cited for is negative for the person.
• It is unnecessary to cite to the Daily Caller when a much higher-quality cite (the New York Times) is provided for the same information. Adding a second cite to a weaker source is not helpful. See Wikipedia:Citation overkill. The addition of the cite just pads out the references.

Neutrality^talk 05:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Of course. All conservative news sites are "fake news" and unreliable - unlike the highly reliable, impeccable NYT that has zero admitted bias. I think Wikipedia shoots itself in the foot with its obvious political bias (every mod I've ever come across was a flaming authoritarian "progressive") - you eliminate 50% of your potential donors this way. I mean just read the ridiculous sanitised entry on Hillary Clinton and the hit-piece that is the Trump article. It's all there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.132.10.250 (talk) 12:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

yeah, pretty much, since the source is at best of questionable reliability and since there is an alternative better source, what exactly is the point of trying to cram it in there? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

DHeyward: You should self-revert, immediately. The burden is on you to prove the reliability of the source, and the burden is on you to obtain consensus for use of this refthat ar in a BLP especially. You've done neither. (Not only did you fail to obtain consensus, but you failed to engage at talk at all.)

The only point of the reference is to promote the use of this highly dubious source on Wikipedia. The Daily Caller is not needed to "corroborate" or "reinforce" the New York Times, and suggestions that it does are very hard to give credence to. Neutrality^talk 05:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Umm, that section had two sources. There's a reason it had two sources. King called out The Daily Caller (TDC). That's part of the narrative. There's nothing in RSN that says TDC is not a reliable source and in this case it's backed up by the NYT. TDC is relevant to the incident. It's preferable to provide the narrative as TDC being a source rather than a target since ultimately, the NYT repeated what TDC said. The alternative is to dissect "pack of lies" [9] and find where NYT agreed with King or agreed with TDC. The burden is on whomever thinks removing sources that are part of the news cycle is okay. The objection to TDC seems to be IDONTLIKEIT because no claims were removed, just the reference. Why on earth would an editor want to censor where someone reads facts especially when that place is the start of the mainstream narrative? Smelling blood in the water, @dailycaller and @TuckerCarlson wrote this piece about me. All lies. Shaun King 8/19/2015. TDC can't be written out and quite frankly it's much better for King if they are used as a source in combination with the NYT rather than as King's adversary that get backed up by the NYT. TDC as one of the originating sources appears to be reliabe and accurate. Being backed up by the NYT should add to that but we don't take out the original source when another source substantiates what they published. At the bottom of the NYT story they even have a correction An earlier version of this article misidentified who originally obtained a police report about an assault involving Shaun King. The report was first obtained by The Daily Caller, not Vicki Pate. --DHeyward (talk) 06:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but the fact that the Daily Caller was the first to report doesn't make much difference. Many newspapers report news that was first picked up by a blog or a political organization, but we should still cite to the more reliable newspapers over these sources, even if they are technically the "originator" of the story. (E.g., This New York Times article recounts news that "was first reported by Think Progress" — but if we were citing it, I would still prefer citing to the NYT rather than Think Progress. The fact that TDC is in some sense "part of the story" might justify mentioning TDC in the text, but I don't think it goes in any direction toward establishing reliability or usability as a ref. Neutrality^talk 20:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

We aren't making a choice. The article sourced both. TDC is a reliable source. There was no consensus to remove the TDC reference and it's not as if it were replaced with a better reference, it was just removed. The NYT reference even refers to it and TDC has deeper background information. Someone seems to dislike TDC but we don't censor sources based on dislike. There is nothing wrong with having TDC and then having NYT, which references TDC, as a source. There is no policy or style reason for removing TDC and there is no consensus to remove it. Please restore it as the contested edit was its removal. That reference has stood in the article for a while. --DHeyward (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Consensus on use of rebelmagazine.com source

Xparasite9, can you point exactly to where this consensus against its use is? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

reliability has never been established for rebel magazine and no one has bothered to try to establish reliability despite that problem being pointed out a plurality of times. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=739903931 Xparasite9 (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

It's currently used only to source uncontroversial facts and direct statements made by King. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

That's interesting -- I don't remember being invited to that discussion like what appears. Otherwise, I might have explained my position about an RfC. Anyway, it doesn't look very conclusive. It's also not the sole cite, so there's apparently little harm in keeping it. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

What happens when all of your "approved sources" are completely biased? You have Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.207.237 (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

If you are referring to the Corporate Media (right and left wings of it) owned by merely 6 conglomerates, we can find some agreement. :) But general statements like this are not particularly helpful. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 9 January 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 17:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

---

Shaun King (activist) → Shaun King – The activist is the Primary Topic. Page views: 600,923 vs. 40,056. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 09:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

No objections based on numbers can be made. Even comparing just the Shaun King of this article against the sum of all the other Shaun Kings (and Sean, and Shawn), he still dominates the percentage of page views. The only possible argument someone could make is that the others have seniority. And I guess that Shaun Earl King is still making headlines as USF coach. 75.140.253.89 (talk) 04:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Reasoning is sound and there already appears to be a Sean King (disambiguation) in place. Artw (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support - makes sense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support In terms of usage, an order of magnitude difference in views between the activist and the football player was building in 2015 and flourished last year, and the gap is appearing to widen. As for long-term significance, that is certainly fluid, but it is hard to see any convergence in the next couple years as the other Shaun King is an assistant coach for a college team (one that's not really a big name in football, AFAIK). Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Shaun King remains relatively obscure, and after his public humiliation he may return to this entirely, I'd rather see them differentiated specifically anyway, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LikkerdySplit (talk • contribs) 15:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not the place for you to share your personal feelings about people; Reddit is thataway. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support - As per nominator. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support - for the same reasons as the nominator --JumpLike23 (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2017

I would like to go over minor spelling revisions and some source additions. Charles DeMange (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

This sentence, for instance, "The money went to the organization that provided what the person's needs, not to the person individually." It makes no logical sense. I would like to change it to something more grammatical. Charles DeMange (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out; I've tweaked that sentence appropriately. I would be happy to implement any other constructive changes you suggest. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Removed material

I have removed an edit from this page which was solely sourced to the Daily Caller, a right-wing source unuseful here except for reporting attributed opinions. That some group or another has demanded something or other from King is not particularly notable if the only source for it is a conservative house organ; people aren't generally required to answer unsolicited demands. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

There are a lot of those statements on Wikipedia, I'd like to know what arbitrary Wikipedia rule, voted on by 40 out of 30,000 members are you referring to for authority? Further, I don't think Vox or this 'Rebel magazine' are any way less biased a source than The Daily Caller, nor do I suppose such bias is relevant more than the merit of an argument or claim, everyone quoted by King or his friends are unnamed third, or fourth-hand witnesses and acquaintances of his - That is an entirely scurrilous quote, he may as well have made that up himself, who? 'someone he knows' - Unverifiable. (Redacted), - More of a question to me is why white, 21st century men want to be perceived as black? Once upon a time immigrants, Indians, blacks, mulattos and half-breeds, etc. would change their names, dress and groom themselves in such a manner and seek to appear more white, now even in relatively small-town Kentucky the cultural and racial stigma of whites, or the cultural and racial appeal and esteem of blacks results in whites affecting the dress, speech, cultural customs and politics of blacks, or at least of their perception of black culture. - If I thought for half a second that even with a hundred references such an article could survive on Wikipedia I might just right such a one.

I would like to say though, as a matter of due process and common courtesy, leaving a short explanation for a reversion, or for the removal of any content either on Wikipedia or elsewhere should be given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LikkerdySplit (talk • contribs) 14:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I have redacted a personal attack on the article subject from your post. Wikipedia is not a place to discuss your personal thoughts and feelings about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

At any rate, this is not a discussion board to discuss our personal opinions, and more to the point, to bring our fixations about a person's racial makeup. We need to keep all discussion on this page about developing relevant, weighty, NPOV, reliably-sourced content in this article. To wit, demands from various camps are made against public figures all the time -- one could develop an enormous work built of demands put on public figures, but do such things belong in an encyclopedia? We're basically here to report encyclopedically relevant facts. All I think we can be interested in is considering the right-wing criticism of King's personal story. and voila, this is covered already. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I see that a similar edit was reverted a while ago. Another Daily Caller piece published excerpts of some Kentucky court files, including a scan of one letter that labeled King as a "16 year old Black male", with an annotation circling the word Black and script denoting "parent states this is incorrect". This is a secondary source (cited in almost 100 other articles) that is publishing primary information. Are the curators of this wiki's article stating that the court documents are fraudulent, or are they just objecting to the publication itself? 75.140.253.89 (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you recommending a specific change to the article? As long as all reliable sources are considered, feel free to make a suggestion. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're suggesting - you're saying there's a court document which identifies him as a black male, but there's a handwritten note which says one of his parents says that's wrong? Why would the letter from the court identify him as black if he wasn't black? What weight do we give to this handwritten note vs. the statement in the letter? This all sounds like conflicting interpretations of ambiguous primary sources, which are generally to be avoided in biographies. Better to stick to what the reliable secondary sources say, as our article currently does. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

A few issues. Although I personally disagree with this, the Daily Caller is not generally accepted as reliable by wiki editors. Secondly, although the court document itself may be legitimate, what is the provenance of this particular copy? When and by whom was the annotation made? Such a document would surely be successfully challenged. In any case, in the face of reliable sources which do state unequivocally that King is black (or biracial), and his very adamant personal stance, the bar for contradicting that statement is going to be exceptionally high. The contradictory source will need to be impeccable, and this source isn't it. ResultingConstant (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

But what if it was a liberal source?2602:306:CC42:8340:5C18:218A:C1FD:D680 (talk) 06:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

It's about the reliability of the journalism, not the perceived bias of the source, always. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Nothing but excuses. King also said he was assaulted by a group of rednecks despite the fact that the police report states it was a one on one altercation. The police report and his birth certificate state he is white. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 10:39, 6 April (UTC)

Categories

What is the evidence or reference provided for King's belonging to 'African-American' categories? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LikkerdySplit (talk • contribs) 15:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The sources are provided in the article and this has been repeatedly discussed. We do not need "evidence," we use reliable sources, which discuss the fact that he clearly and publicly identifies as biracial, his mother told him his father was a black man, and his biracial heritage was generally known among his family and friends. Absent any reliable sources which explicitly state otherwise, those sources control here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:VNT. Sources in the article provide reasonable verification. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

What is a white-skinned black man?

Black is by definition dark. What is the meaning of describing someone as "light-skinned black man" or white-skinned black man?
He is white and identify as black, fine. The article should just state that he identifies himself as culturally black (as Rachel Dolezal does). But pretending that white is black is a far-fetched POV.--Onesbrief (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Being black in the United States is about more than just skin color. clpo13_(talk) 00:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources back up the position that he has African American ancestry, so he is more than just "culturally black". Again, I wonder why folks bring this fixation here. This is not a political forum. This is an encyclopedia. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

King is not a "light-skinned black man," his father was a light-skinned black man, and thus King is definitionally biracial, which is how we refer to him. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Barack Obama is biracial, his mother is white and his father was black. But defining someone with maybe 10% of black ancestry as biracial is far-fetched. The categories African-American studies scholars and 21st-century African-American activists are nonfactual and are a POV here.--Onesbrief (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Let me rephrase what Stevietheman wrote just above. Who says? See, we don't make our judgments here about such things that seem to be quite important to our living people article subjects. We don't write King is or is not black because a few radical bloggers questioned it, or because he doesn't meet one of our anonymous editors' "greater than 10%" rule. We follow the consensus of the Wikipedia:Reliable sources: experts, books, mainstream media. So far, it seems that the overwhelming majority of these do, in fact, call King an African-American studies scholar and activist. So even if some of us disagree, until that changes, that's what we go with. --GRuban (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, of course, let me give you Walter Francis White, who led the NAACP from 1931 to 1955, and quintupled its membership during that time. He wasn't just named White, he looked white. Here's from his autobiography: "I am a Negro. My skin is white, my eyes are blue, my hair is blond. The traits of my race are nowhere visible upon me." Would you object to his categories as well? --GRuban (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

As GRuban notes, the categories are factual because the sources say they're factual. Your entirely unsupported personal opinion of his ancestry is not relevant here; Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources, not personal opinions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't know there were reliable sources stating that he is himself african american or of african american descent, where are they? The only sources so far are:

• Shaun King stating that his biological father was a "light-skinned black man" (exact quote) and that he never saw this man or know his name. That's a statement, not a fact.
• A birth certificate listing him and both his parents as white, and a police incident report listing Shaun King as white
• Shaun King's family members stating that he, his parents and the whole family are white.
• And there are sources about the existence of a controversy on the subject (which should at last make us cautious on the subject).

I don't see factual non partisan sources about him being of african american descent. In fact, i don't see non partisan sources at all, for both allegations. The category "American people of African descent" in an unsourced POV.--Onesbrief (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

No "caution" is necessary as current sourcing is acceptable and the "controversy" has coverage in the article already. Unless and until you can bring forward secondary reliable coverage that seriously brings the current copy into question, there is nothing to discuss per this article. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The categorization is neither unsourced nor POV; it is based on the sources cited in the article. That a fringe conservative blogger has made a claim about King's ancestry is noteworthy enough to merit mention in the article; that the claim has been refuted is also well-sourced. Even the disreputable Breitbart cesspool had the good sense to drop the issue after King exposed the fact that he is the child of an extramarital affair. Why people still insist on pushing this nonsense here is beyond me, but it's probably just tied to racism. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

You call me a racist against a white man, here is a page you should read: Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
And again you didn't link one factual non-partisan source proving that he is african american. According to your logic, Rachel Dolezal can be categorized as african american too, just because she said so herself (even if official papers and the family say the contrary).--Onesbrief (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Encyclopedists don't prove anything. We just document what the balance of reliable sources report. We are not here to push our own original research or ideas about what somebody really and truly is in some regard. The article and its sources already adequately back up the content, so issuing challenges to prove something lead nowhere. The only thing one can constructively do is bring new reliable sources forward for us to consider that may make us look differently at how the content is presented. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

We do not need to prove that Obama is not a Muslim, that Trump doesn't have small hands, or that Shaun King does not lie about his parentage. We just report what reliable sources say.Biographical subjects are reliable sources about their own parents, and in this case there are no reliable sources that question the subjects statement about his parentage, and plenty of reliable sources - not only the subject himself who support it. So there is no basis for having this discussion. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

This is just tired POV pushing from an account that hasn't edited in over six years. AGF can only go so far. clpo13_(talk) 20:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Using lame ad hominem attacks once again, and still no factual sources proving that he is african american.--Onesbrief (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

At this point, this matter falls under "nothing to discuss". You clearly seem to want to ignore all the explanations given by myself and others. Good faith isn't as elastic as you imagine. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

These 'reliable sources' don't confirm that Shaun King is black, they confirm that he CLAIMS he's black. As it stands, he looks white and his biological parents are both white. The burden of proof is on King to substantiate his allegation that his birth certificate is a lie, which he could easily do with a DNA test. The fact that he's flat out refused to do so should set the matter to rest. He's another wannabe like Rachel Dolezal. 73.114.151.90 (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLP issues with sourcing from TheBlaze

Since we have to be concerned with the requirements for biographies of living persons, we need to be careful with sourcing from biased publications, especially with regards to defamatory/derogatory information. TheBlaze is considered to be biased from a right-wing POV. Therefore, if any contentious material (like is being added by Campbell301) is wished to be kept, editors seeking to add this kind of content need to find more reliable sources. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Biased is not the same things as unreliable. See WP:BIASED. In this case the material is backed by the WP:PRIMARY sources, and the content is attributed as the opinions/statements of the people who made, them, and not being presented as WP:THETRUTH. However, Campbell301 should be aware that this article is subject to Discretionary Sanctions via both BLP and American Politics, and information removed on reasonable BLP grounds should not be restored without consensus. Edit warring (by both parties) is likely to result in sanctions. Let us discuss here, and see if consensus develops. ResultingConstant (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Reverting per WP:BLP is not considered editing warring on my part, if that is what you are implying. It is considered the same as reverting vandalism, per WP:3RRBLP. Also, we certainly don't accept primary sources alone for defamatory/derogatory information, and that a right-wing-biased site is the only one found for interpreting these primary sources is problematic. As I stated, if additional reliable secondary sources are found interpreting these primary sources, it will be reasonable to consider including them. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Reconstructing an unreliable source's arguments using primary sources would basically just be a form of WP:OR, wouldn't it? Artw (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

As long as a secondary reliable source is doing that reconstructing (not us, via WP:SYNTH), that's not OR. Poking around for these secondary sources isn't OR. Anyway, we trust secondary reliable sources to do the following: 1) verify the primary source as legitimate (i.e., did these people really say these things?); 2) use their editorial judgment to decide if coverage using primary sources is worthwhile for public knowledge; 3) presenting the information from the primary sources in a faithful manner. Per #2 at least (and perhaps for #1 and #3), that is a reason for wanting to see other coverage. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

So you believe Vox and The New York Times to be "credible" enough to cite, but TheBlaze is not?

Campbell301 ^{Talk •}

Not for this information. If this information is correct it will be citable to a source that is not ideologically opposed to King.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The New York Times has a widely-accepted reputation for reliable, accurate and relatively-balanced factual reporting. TheBlaze has a reputation for being a platform for right-wing opinion-mouthpiece Glenn Beck. We are not required to treat unequal sources equally. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I will note that in the several days since my response, the editor wanting to add this information apparently couldn't turn up a reliable source (or from their perspective, an alternative source) for this material. Shouldn't *that* give them pause? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Biased excuse. This time I used CNN as a source just like you. You can take it down, but it will go right back up.Campbell301 ^Talk

May I ask what is your purpose here on the Wikipedia? Expanding knowledge or attacking a subject? It is really becoming clear that you're here for the latter purpose. You seem to have some kind of fixated hatred of this subject that is causing you to not work on an encyclopedia in the professional manner we expect here. I have a distaste for many subjects I edit on too, but that doesn't mean I go around scheming to apply my bias to articles about those subjects, and nobody should. If you're not here to write an encyclopedia in a professional manner, perhaps find some alternative activities? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

An inaccurate "encyclopedia" is considered useless. Campbell301 ^Talk

Revert of disputed material

I have reverted the insertion of derogatory material about King. I object to its inclusion because it amounts to second-hand anonymous hearsay about a living person — there is no disclosure of who the purported family member is, nor of the family member's actual relationship to King. We know from the reliable sources that King's family relationships were turbulent and not always public, and that outwardly, the two parents who raised him were white. There is much reason to suspect that the purported "family member" may not know the entire story, and because this source was unidentified, there does not appear to be any significant follow-up to the claim — this purported "family member" simply disappears from the radar screen. It's undue weight, among other things, to present anonymous uncorroborated hearsay in a brief Wikipedia biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Having white parents is now derogatory? Anonymous sources are regularly used by reliable sources. In the end it looks like most of the "not-black" story about King was wrong, but it was still a notable story, and pretending it didn't happen isn't neutrality. These events were covered in detail, by sources wikipedia considers reliable sources. WP:WELLKNOWN ResultingConstant (talk) 00:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The weirdo conspiracy theory is clearly meant to be some kind of gotcha, so yes, derogatory. Artw (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Even if the source has value, it only confirms the parents who raised him are white, and we know that already. Adding it only seems to give the appearance of calling King a liar, and that is defamatory. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's defamatory, because it is clearly presented with the implication that King is lying about his biological parentage and his ethnic background, and calling someone a liar is obviously defamatory. If the source said "the parents who raised him were white," it would not be defamatory, but it wouldn't merit inclusion either, because there's no dispute that the parents who raised him were white. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not defamatory if it is proven to be true. Also, since his "black dad" is also unnamed, I guess we cannot assume that part is true either. Campbell301 (talk) 09:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

See WP:VNT. We will need hard reliable sources to counter the subject's description of his lineage. But then, I think you're here to attack the subject, and not work within our encyclopedic policies/guidelines. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Campbell301: I've reverted again. The CNN cite does not support the text. You also are breaking the citations on the page with your edit. — Strongjam (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Stevietheman: CNN does not identify the individuals who stated the motive for the one-on-one altercation. Hard reliable sources? How about a birth certificate and a police report and his own family members. I deleted the part about "his experiences as a biracial person" because he now admits to being 75% white but still won't name or show a picture of his supposed dad. — Campbell301 (talk) 10:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Strongjam: CNN does not identify the individuals who stated the motive for the one-on-one altercation. Hard reliable sources? How about a birth certificate and a police report and his own family members. I deleted the part about "his experiences as a biracial person" because he now admits to being 75% white but still won't name or show a picture of his supposed dad. — Campbell301 (talk) 10:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

A birth certificate and a police report are primary sources, not what we require as secondary, independent, reliable sources. Have you read WP:RS? Have you read WP:BLP? We work by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines here, and you are making arguments that don't fit in with these things. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

By the way, 'biracial' does not require 50/50 racial makeup to be an applicable term. As I've said before, I really don't get all this fixation. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Vox and the New York Times are not more reliable than a legal document. If you are going to use those sources, I have just as much right to use whatever conservative sources I want as long as I cite them. Last time I used CNN and you still have an excuse. Campbell301 ^{Talk • Work} 12:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)