Talk:David Hogg

Use of the word "survivor"

Is it proper to call this young man a survivor? From what I can tell he was not anywhere near where the shooting was happening. He certainly did not get shot himself. --Proctris (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

How do sources refer to him?- MrX 🖋 15:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

If you look at reliable sources, it clearly states where he was during the event. He was close to the shooting where it happened, and survived the event. Reliable sources describe him as a survivor. CookieMonster755✉ 15:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources describe Cruz as a monster. No less flowery. We should categorize and write literally, as we do for everyone else in "American shooting survivors" except these four. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:14, March 12, 2018 (UTC)

If self-identification is worth anything around here, Hogg himself says, "I'm someone who had to witness this and live through this and I continue to be having to do that." You might hang up on "live through this" instead of "witness this", but consider that everyone who isn't shot when they see someone shot continues to live. It's a mundane sort of survival, but it does exist. We're surviving bullets that weren't aimed at us right now. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:21, March 12, 2018 (UTC)

Quite rightly, self-identification isn't worth anything around here. I don't need a bunch of links to show that sources, including many of the majors, call him a survivor. For comparison, I see sources quoting individuals who called Cruz a monster—including the CNN source that you linked—but few if any saying that in their own voices. I think you understand the difference. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The New York Post, known for skirting the line between newspaper and trash, uses the snippet from her quote to say its own thing about what her husband said. That's pretty close to saying it. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:43, March 12, 2018 (UTC)

You use a source that you admit is "known for skirting the line between newspaper and trash" to counter my verifiable argument referring to actual solid reliable sources? I think that effectively constitutes a concession, and thanks for making it so easy. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. Here they are calling Navy veteran Richard Rojas an alleged PCP-puffing loser. No quotes, but implicitly attributed to his own lawyer. Used that in his article today, just thought I'd share. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:05, March 14, 2018 (UTC)

In the fuller quote, Hogg calls himself a witness and someone who had to witness this. Double clarity. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:49, March 12, 2018 (UTC)

Here's a "reliable" witness for you. He was not there. https://twitter.com/_Makada_/status/978423596929441792 Daniel Sparkman (talk) 10:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

In case you're not being sarcastic, that's just a misinterpretation. Like Ronda Rousey denying her supposed ability to go back in time. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:40, March 28, 2018 (UTC)

He's a survivor (what the news media says) but we can de-emphasize the word in the lede if that makes contributors happier. But saying "self-proclaimed" etc is really over the top.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources call him a survivor, and that's what we're going to use. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• My opinion is that Hogg is notable for being an activist rather than a survivor of the shooting (since obviously the latter doesn't get you individual coverage), and the first sentence/lede should reflect that. Perhaps reword it so that the activist part comes first, and then add later (either in the same sentence or in a later sentence) that he became an activist because of the shootings? ansh666 01:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Please make the change.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

There's also an issue with saying Never Again MSD is "led by" survivors. The source beside it says "the group’s leadership has grown to include more than 20 Douglas students". Even if you become of the mind that some students are survivors because some sources call them so, you can't start calling all students survivors despite what the directly-cited source says. I'll suggest changing our lead sentence to "He is one of twenty student leaders of Never Again MSD, a gun control advocacy group." Or finding a source that matches what we currently say. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:58, March 14, 2018 (UTC)

Saying, "someone survived a shooting event," is different from saying, "someone survived being shot." Was he a student at the school? Was the school subjected to a school shooting event? Yes and yes, so he survived it. Also, I find it weird that there's an assertion that, somehow, when one becomes an "Activist" they cease being a "Survivor." I understand that the activism is what has become more notable. But we must remember the BLP rules apply to the talk page also, so the fact of survival shouldn't be downplayed so cynically. This is not soapboxing, only concerned about the BLP rules. Persistent Corvid (talk) 01:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

A shooting event is an event wherein people are shot. This is called a "school shooting" because 34 people were subjected to shooting in a school, not becaue the school or everyone in it was subjected to shooting. Unshot students may be subjected to post-traumatic stress disorder, but that's an entirely different injury from the sort of people in the "shooting survivor" category (minus the Never Againers) survived.

Here, the term is being used purely rhetorically, invoking the same feelings Destiny's Child or Gloria Gaynor did and like-minded newswriters do. It's meant to imply they're courageous, perseverant, empowered, won't be silenced, et cetera. I'm not saying they're not, but Wikipedia is meant to speak Plain English literally. If we want to say they're courageous, perseverant, empowered or won't be silenced, we can just say that (with a citation, of course). We don't need to confuse readers into thinking they were one of the 17 who actually survived this shooting. Doesn't make them better or worse, just makes them clearly unshot. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:27, March 27, 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, I agree with your reasoning. Was just making sure. Persistent Corvid (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of the use. I think it's being used to suggest that the event was a school shooting that affected the entire school - everyone went into hiding or whatever and feared for their lives. Maybe no bullets were fired near them, but they still experienced the event. -- irn (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, but it was an audiovisual experience only. The likelihood of a reasonably fit teenager with an elementary Western education succumbing to voodoo death is so ridiculously small that "surviving" scary sights and sounds is too obvious to warrant mention, from a rational standpoint. More people have died (and almost died) from papercuts, stubbed toes or water overdoses than from fear itself. The only reason those not physically hurt while collating, walking or drinking aren't called "survivors" is because there's no high-stakes national political feud over those, like there is with guns.

Wherever there's serialized TV drama, there's a subtly pro-hero commentator and a blatantly pro-villain one getting the basic formula over. The audience has to believe the heroes were in real danger if they're to buy into the comeback, hence the hyperbole from the side that needs our emotional investment most (as reigning champion, the NRA will retain control on a countout or disqualification). Nothing more to it than that, and Wikipedia shouldn't be sucked in by such carny tricks from "liberal" or "alternative" media. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:45, March 28, 2018 (UTC)

The only reason those not physically hurt while collating, walking or drinking aren't called "survivors" is because there's no high-stakes national political feud over those, like there is with guns. That's not the only reason. Indeed, a much more obvious reason is because those events are insignificant. Living through an event like the MSD shooting is a significant and potentially defining moment in a person's life. "Surviving" is simply another word for "living through"; an event doesn't have to be near-fatal for one to "survive" it. That this event was fatal for many makes "survivor" all the more appropriate. -- irn (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

While I don't agree with InedibleHulk's cynical/facetious analogies, I think he's trying say that using the "survivor" term for the ones that weren't wounded diminishes the wounded survivors' importance. I agree with you that all of them are survivors, but I personally compromised with him, because he's trying to be Encyclopedic with the terminology. Persistent Corvid (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes it all the less appropriate, I find. Seventeen people died because they directly experienced a shooting; to say three thousand survived the same implies a mortality of 0.5% and makes the dead look like frail anomalies. It also dilutes the distinction for the seventeen who lived to tell what bullets feel like, and seriously cheapens it for the few critically injured.

While Hogg spent his spring break recuperating from scary closet time by traveling the country with his friends, meeting lots of famous people, becoming one himself and generally doing more than ever, Anthony Borges is still in intensive care after multiple surgeries, a major infection, 44 days in bed, a visit from the local sheriff and faint hope of every playing competitive soccer again.

That's not to knock Hogg for being more fortunate or telling him to not complain; it's just that Abraham Lincoln told me last night that two things both equal to another thing must be equal to each other (roughly), yet these two forms of "survivor" are clearly incompatible. The significantly impressed sort that remember seeing other people hurt in ways that shaped their own life should be called a witness/bystander/onlooker/spectator/observer/something else. We all remember seeing a lot of things forever. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:42, March 29, 2018 (UTC)

Calling Hogg a survivor doesn't "cheapen" anyone else's experience. "Surviving" has many dimensions such that they're both survivors even though their experiences are different. Only one of them is also critically injured, and that's the distinction. Imagine a car crash involving six people: two fatalities, two people in comas, one person with just a few scrapes, and one person completely unscathed. There are five casualties; there four survivors and two fatalities; three of the survivors are injured and one not; two of the survivors are critically injured and two not. "Survivor" is the correct term for those who lived through it, regardless of how it affected them. Calling the person who walked away unscathed a "survivor" doesn't cheapen the experience of those in comas because that's not what the word "survivor" does. If you want to draw other sorts of distinctions, there are other words for that. -- irn (talk) 12:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, you've pretty much nailed the facts, but are still falsely equating them. In a car crash (or plane crash, sinking ship, burning building, falling elevator, poison cloud or collapsing roof), the immediate area of threat ("danger zone") is wide enough to potentially doom them all. Everyone in the car has roughly the same kinetic energy and proximity to the wreck. A bullet's danger zone is far narrower, and if you're elsewhere, you're not "in" a shooting. Hogg is more like a fellow motorist who heard the crash and witnessed the aftermath. Millions of people do that each week. A few years back, I stood close enough to smell a girl I knew's flesh burning after the drunk idiot driving her home happened to flip nearby. I'll probably remember it when I'm eighty, but wouldn't dare credit making it to that age with "surviving" that night, only continuing to live for many consecutive days (like you are right now).

Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis was closer to a bullet and its carnage than Hogg was, during a far more famous shooting with far more significant consequences for her. We don't call her a survivor, either. Nikolas Cruz was closer than Hogg was and saw every victim, during the same shooting with far more significant consequences for him. We don't call him a survivor, though mass shooters are far likelier to die in a random attack than any one innocent.

The only people we call survivors, besides survivors, are the Never Againers. And this is only because we're following the story from the "real" equivalent of Vince McMahon on WWF Superstars. We're likewise only wasting so much space defending him from cheater accusations because we're riled up by the counterpart of a pre-Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura Jesse Ventura. We should instead take a step back from the screen, and view the current feud in a wider and historical context (where's our Dave Meltzer?) before making the editorial judgment to follow the news editor's lead verbatim. We're not a mere online aggregator and shouldn't look like one. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:54, March 29, 2018 (UTC)

And I didn't say it cheapened Borges' experience, I said it cheapened the distinction for him. If he tells people he is (or is introduced as) a Parkland shooting survivor, he shouldn't have to clarify when people naturally assume "Oh, like the ones on the news." And the longer we perpetuate this lie, the more naturally people assume (though the damage is still mostly done by the news). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:28, March 29, 2018 (UTC)

We don't really care about your opinion on who is and who is not a "survivor" of a catastrophe. We follow the cited sources. ValarianB (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Except the source where he claims to be a witness, and denies being a crisis actor. Or all the ones about Rubio. Or this fist raising. Or the law his advocacy made. These prove we're capable of making our own decisions, based on our own opinions. If you personally don't care about mine, you're welcome to ignore me. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:02, March 29, 2018 (UTC)

If you want sources for my opinion that witnesses and survivors are distinct things, have a look at these. Or don't. Your choice. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:39, March 29, 2018 (UTC)

Your awkward linking is not really relevant. The sources refer to the subject as a survivor of the attack, along with many others. You're trying to draw some weird distinction to make a point that isn't important. ValarianB (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The sources use the term "survivor", but describe his actions clearly in many other words. None of what they say he did resembles the actions of an actual shooting survivor, and all of what they say paints him as a witness (including "I go to Stoneman Douglas High School, and I was a witness to this.") You might not like my linking, but I don't like the way you cherrypick one ambiguous and plainly problematic word above all else. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:32, March 29, 2018 (UTC)

You seem to think that "survive" is only applicable when there's some sort of elevated risk of death and that Hogg's risk did not meet that threshold, but that's not what "survive" means. Whether "survivor" as a term cheapens anything else or plays into some "high-stakes national political feud" is irrelevant. The way we are using the word in this article is perfectly valid, in line with the definition of the word, and backed by reliable sources. -- irn (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I know it can mean the other thing (live after), but in this context, surrounded by other kind (live despite), it strongly suggests we mean he was the second sort. It's a much clearer word when used in a "last surviving Munchkin" way or similar, but here, it's practically begging to be confused. Like calling Jane Goodall a primate rather than primatologist; both are true, but surrounded by chimps, she'd seem like a chimp (and no similar bio does it). Here, surrounded by gushot victims, it implies Hogg survived gunshots rather than existing after being in the general location of a concurrent shooting event (and only Never Againer articles do it).

I could call Abraham Zapruder the man who shot Kennedy's limo, period, but he much more honestly "filmed" it. And Hogg is much more honestly a student and witness. That's why he said he was, and has never also (to my knowledge) called himself a survivor. He's an honest kid. To trust a headline department's thesaurus over a subject's own word choice is sketchy enough when it's not needlessly introducing contentious material into a BLP, but staunchly defending and reinserting it because local consensus says it's sourced rather than poorly-sourced (ours contradict themselves) is technically "violation" of two rules.

And that "Persistant Corvid" should be the only one to curl up and compromise this bird-brained idea into something more encyclopedic is downright weird. I still like you other three, despite our differences, so don't take my advice about your editing behaviour as an attack or threat. I'm not a spiteful pointy sewer rat, more like a friendly annoying book mouse. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:25, March 29, 2018 (UTC)

He recently stated he was not there on a interview. He was a witness and bystander not survivor. Jaybay91 (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I just wish there were a more fitting word than "Witness " or "Bystander." I could suggest a phrase like, "A student attending MSD high school, at the time of the shooting, that was made to retreat into a classroom closet" While accurate, it's a rather clunky, long winded, and unwieldy sentence. Persistent Corvid (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Aye, someone low to the floor and behind a closed door doesn't quite stand or see a lot. Witnesses may be earwitnesses, of course, but eyewitness is the common default assuption and sounds less stupid (largely due to every TV station having an Eyewitness News program). How about "an American Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School student in a classroom closet during a shooting on February 14, 2018..."? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:25, March 31, 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead with a version of this, just in case most everyone likes it, and with full knowledge that someone won't. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:50, March 31, 2018 (UTC)

That word is "survivor". It's not just Hogg or MSD; it's what we use for all events of this nature. In any mass shooting, "survivor" is consistently used to refer to people who lived through the event regardless of whether they themselves were in danger. Reserving "survivor" for those who were injured goes against the meaning of the word, which can be easily attested to by its use by reliable sources. -- irn (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you show me another shooting article that has unhurt survivors? Wikipedia search only finds this crew for "school shooting survivor". "Mass shooting survivor" finds only gunshot victims. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:13, April 1, 2018 (UTC)

I just did a very brief search, and these were simply the first results: "As a survivor of the incident" (no injuries mentioned), "He asked her, "Did I shoot you?" She replied, "No." Then, he said, "Good, 'cause we need someone to survive, because I'm gonna shoot myself, and you'll be the only survivor." [...] that survivor", "The boy got up and ran out of the classroom and was among the survivors.", "nine survivors" (3 injuries), and "uninjured survivor". -- irn (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Not too shabby. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:25, April 4, 2018 (UTC)

I heard him on MSNBC today calling himself and his fellow witnesses "survivors of mass murder". I think he's just living the gimmick now, and silently insist that Cruz will never be charged with any of their attempted murders, but will drop the stick here because self-identification means more than news jargon. Even if he's wrong, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:15, April 5, 2018 (UTC)

On the word, "falsely," in the first paragraph.

In the first paragraph it has been stated that David Hogg has been accused of being a, "Crisis Actor." I agree that this claim is most likely false. However, before my edit, it was explicitly stated as false. I believe, wholeheartedly, that calling it false undermines the means of truth. We can never know the truth of the entire situation. However, we can make sure we live for pure truth. The current statement is, "He has been a target of several conspiracy theories and verbal attacks falsely claiming that he is a crisis actor." All I ask is that we remove the word, "falsely," because that sends the message that it is entirely known. I don't mean to stand for one side or the other; all I mean to do is ensure the article is written in a way that doesn't mislead. Just by using the word, "falsely," we send a message that the entire truth is known. Look at each sentence objectively. We can either say, "... verbal attacks FALSELY claiming he is a crisis actor," or we can say, "... verbal attacks claiming he is a crisis actor." I understand that the first sentence sends a stronger message. I understand that most people stand for that message. Yet I also understand that Wikipedia is a place for truth; not the place for opinions. Just by using the word, "falsely," we send an opinionated message. All I wish for is that we remove that one word because that one word changes the message entirely.

Thank you for your time, Aetherian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aetherian (talk • contribs) 02:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. It's not most likely false; it's false. We're not going to equivocate about basic facts. Also, please read the previous discussions about this so we don't have to repeat the same discussion.- MrX 🖋 02:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

<ec>That's not the way we do it. When crazy, libellous claims about living individuals are widely circulated without a shred of evidence beyond malicious wishful thinking, we explicitly state the falsity of those conspiracy theories. This is a project-wide consensus, established since Sandy Hook and other incidents where people have been the subjects of smear campaigns. We don't grant credibility by omission. There are ample sources to back up the falsity of the assertions: they aren't opinions as you claim. We may not leave this up for doubt, and the "we may never know the truth of the entire situation" is factually false in this case. Acroterion (talk) 03:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Nope. Earth is an oblate spheroid, Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, and David Hogg is not a crisis actor. These are facts, and we do not traffic in "alternative facts" here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd normally agree, but have learned true and false have different meanings at this particular article. Best to just do what they tell you and think about something else. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:29, March 25, 2018 (UTC)

True and false have the same meaning as always, but Wikipedia doesn't and shouldn't spread false information about living people. Slathering this garbage in a coating of false balance blather about "one side or the other" or weird silliness like "living for pure truth" doesn't make it even the tiniest bit acceptable. Grayfell (talk) 04:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course it spreads false information about living people. A large portion of this very article is spreading it behind you right now. Multiple cited sources agree David Hogg, who truly is a minor who witnessed a real shooting, is in fact a paid crisis actor or wasn't there at all. This is absolutely fine to host here, per consensus. It's even fine to admit it's false, and not fine to not say it is.

It's when one slathers the blather about the one person who knows David Hogg better than anyone going on cable television to say he witnessed a real shooting, as covered in multiple reputable reliable sources, that one gets blocked for two days for violating a living person's biography (it was initially a week). Don't make the same mistake I did, Aetherian! Maybe deleting the stuff we insist is false is the way to not spread false information. In the real world, it works. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:40, March 25, 2018 (UTC)

I've tried wiping the entire idea clean, lies, denial, suggestion and all. In theory, it should suit everyone concerned with truth. In theory. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:54, March 25, 2018 (UTC)

I agree that there's too much attention paid to the bullshit conspiracy theories, but I do think we need one clear straight rejection of them, so I have reinserted one brief mention of fact that the claims are false. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I like how your readdition of falsehoods was short, but this isn't a clear straight rejection. It's Wikipedia's voice presenting Nicole Chavez' opinion on their falsity as fact. One clair straight rejection instead should be attributed in the text to particular sources, as some repeatedly disallowed. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:04, March 27, 2018 (UTC)

There have been previous discussions about trimming this material, but deleting it entirely would seriously violate WP:WEIGHT.- MrX 🖋 12:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

This is what I mean. In the real Wikipedia, deleting it entirely would seriously satisfy that section and your decision would make it cry. "{A}rticles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". " In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it." Every time I try adding the well-sourced majority view (Hogg is not a crisis actor and witnessed a real shooting), it gets deleted entirely.

By giving the minority view more detail, larger chunks of text and far more citations, while consistently deleting even three words of denial, you're doing the complete opposite of what the policy says, what the majority believes true and what you yourself seem to have advised (citing the same policy) 23 days ago. I tried rewriting it for neutrality, now I try to "remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage."

If you pass out drunk and someone shaves a dick and "I'm a stupid baby" into your hair, do you ask the barber to trim one into a smiley face and insert a "not" in the other? Or do you just cut it all off and never trust those friends again? Same should apply to merely trimming harmful lies in BLPs. Absolutely ass-backwards and counterproductive to teaching readers the truth about subjects. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:42, March 27, 2018 (UTC)

Quote

Here is what I posted. Speaking at the March for Our Lives rally, Hogg said:

“It’s time for our congressmen, time for our state legislators and time for American political leaders around the country to stop and listen to us,”

I think this statement, saying to the political leaders "you WILL listen" gels down the essence of what these kids are doing. It was reverted. When I restored the content, I commented that "these kids have an ego." My commentary or opinion is not the question. It is whether this quote is important. It is the first full sentence quote used by the Miami Herald in its reporting of the March for Our Lives, obviously sourced by a major newspaper, reposted by other news amalgamation sites. Trackinfo (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Your commentary and opinion is absolutely in question. Edit summaries are not an appropriate place for you to express any opinion about the subject of this article. We aren't here to share our personal opinions, but since you have done so, your personal belief that "these kids have an ego" suggests that you're inserting the quote to make an opinionated point about this article's subject rather than doing so to improve the encyclopedia. The quote may well have a place in the article, but I don't think it belongs in the lede, and it certainly doesn't belong with an opinionated edit summary. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The quote is fine and belongs in the article. This article is about an activist -- a person seeking change -- and this quote goes to the heart of what Hogg is trying to change -- to get politicians to take the young people seriously. Trackinfo's edit summary is no big woof.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Now: At the conclusion of his speech at the March for Our Lives rally, Hogg raised his fist, an act which some right wing websites compared to a Nazi salute by Hitler. Snopes.com addressed the accusation, confirming it was a raised fist, a traditional act of defiance. has been redacted. The revert this time said These are not reliable sources, especially for a WP:BLP. Daily Mail not reliable? Vice News not reliable? The sourcing on snopes.com showed exactly what was being said about them in the article. Same goes for the notably biased sources of breitbart.com and conservativefiringline.com, showing them DOING what was reported about them. Every (sourced) mention of his participation in the March for Our Lives rally has been reverted. This constant reverting seems like an attempt at expunging Hogg's continued coverage in the media. Trackinfo (talk) 08:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Our WP:BLP policy is very strict. Yes, the Daily Mail is not reliable - I guess you missed the fuss when we decided that.[1] The others look worse. Doug Weller talk 10:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

You don't line up fringe conspiracies in an article just for the sake of knocking them down, unless the conspiracy itself is actually what is notable, e.g. Pizzagate or the nuttiness surrounding Seth Rich's death. ValarianB (talk) 11:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Well said.- MrX 🖋 12:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Comment by ban evading sock puppet strickenAs the far right conspiracy theories about Hogg have been debunked they should not be included in the lede of his article. (PatLaffan (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC))

Aye. No real point in the body, either. You don't see Richard Gere's article talking about gerbils. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:25, March 29, 2018 (UTC)

When we're falsely accusing a living minor of throwing fighting words at the President's son, yet nobody notices it hiding in plain sight for weeks among the other crap, we have a deeply-troubled section that's better burned than mismanaged. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:40, March 30, 2018 (UTC)

• No no no--this is still all over the place. It's a very salient fact. Snopes and FactCheck have reported on it, as have basically all the reliable sources in the US. This one single sentence deserves in the lead. Try Google News: the supposed Hitler salute is on the first page. Given the number of lies and the amount of inane repetition of these lies, this needs to stay. Drmies (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

You use Snopes and the Hitler salute here. I get a horse head in my bed for using Snopes and posting the same content. Trackinfo (talk) 07:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Also not a paid actor with any foreknowledge of the shooting, by the way. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:32, March 31, 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Drmies. There is no good reason to remove the conspiracy theories there are plethora of reliable sources that demonstrate notability. The problem here is everyone is so focused on the conspiracies that the rest of Hogg's story is neglected. Therefore an undue weight is placed on this section, as the most edited section which grows larger. The best way to help achieve a neutral point of view is concentrate on everything else. Did anyone, for example, notice that this page makes no mention of March for Our Lives? DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. Make sure the section is verifiable and reserve your efforts and time to working on the rest.Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment by ban evading sock puppet strickenI don't think it should be included, although Hogg himself should personally confirm his date of birth to finally end the "controversy". The Death of Adolf Hitler article for example does not mention conspiracy theories about the defeated leader allegedly escaping to South America on a U-Boat, despite this theory being all over the Internet. (PatLaffan (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC))

I'm kind of leaning with Drmies here, although I see PatLaffan's point that we don't want to give it undue weight.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the conspiracy theories and attacks are an important part of his biography and ought to be included (and mentioned in the lead), but as it stands now, I think the section is too long and goes into too much detail. Just about all of the second, third, and fourth paragraphs (from "Twitter users who" to "without my knowledge.'") could be cut. -- irn (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The lies are all over the place, to be sure, but everywhere they go, trouble follows. Can anyone dispute this? It's just the nature of well-poisoning. This article is living the parable of that stupid bunny who hosted and fed a snake that promised to destroy him. It doesn't matter how fat and healthy the other bunnies in the warren (the factual enlightening sections) become, a well-nourished snake can (and will) undo all that good work in an instant. If we can't kill the snake, we must contain it in a section at the shooting article, rather than let it propagate in each and every BLP of minors who've already been been through more than Wikipedia traditonally puts most adults through. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:10, March 31, 2018 (UTC)

It seems the anger was preventing Jorm's left hand from seeing what his right hand's undoing. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:20, March 31, 2018 (UTC)

Comment by ban evading sock puppet strickenI think Jorm is a troll. He is trying to sabotage the article. (PatLaffan (talk) 04:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC))

I don't know about that, but Googling "Jorm's hand" finds an oddly even mix of Many Shades of Evil and mental health literacy. That's not an attack, just an observation. Googling my own hands was far more boring and predictable. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:17, March 31, 2018 (UTC)

Is there a reason why my name keeps coming out of your mouth?--Jorm (talk) 05:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Aside from the two times right here when you're relevant, I hadn't heard of anyone named Jorm or looked at their hands. Sorry for finding it interesting. I'll never mention you again. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:21, March 31, 2018 (UTC)

I get that it's OK to revert someone who's been topic banned without it counting toward 3RR, but what about reverting someone who probably will (or should) be topic-banned for repeatedly defying the "false" consensus? Is it illegal to rollback preemptively, or should I wait till someone else finds him guilty and bans him? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:14, March 31, 2018 (UTC)

Lede

Comment by ban evading sock puppet strickenThe "crisis actor" conspiracy has been debunked and should be removed from the lede. Hogg's online voting registration shows he was 16 in 2016. Unless there is some kind of evidence the conspiracy theories should only be in the main body of the article, not in the lede. (PatLaffan (talk) 01:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC))

Still totally agree, but still think the age revelation is more like a fart in the windstorm of evidence simply placing him where he said he was during the particular event the news says the police say the witnesses say actually happened. Even in my relatively mellow pre-Columbine Canadian high school, the teachers didn't let strange men, boys or little lambs hang around inside. If you weren't on the roll call or a special guest, you were never supposed to be there. You had to hang around in the smoking area till lunch.

In modern America, the rules are even tighter, and every bit of authoritative credibility with give this conspiracy theory another bit for the unspoken conspiracy theory about the staff and security allowing strangers to follow kids to school. Makes him look bad, makes them look bad, makes the theorists look bad and makes us look bad.There's a reasonable case to be made that presenting this hokum doesn't make uninvoled readers, future world leaders or any omnipotent god look bad, but there's not much suggesting it make them feel any better about themselves, either.

We should delete the poison/shit/vitriol and give them a dose of how Never Again actually reformed gun law to make a second Florida school shooting at least a lot less likely. As is stands, this smoldering heap of trash is easily the hottest point of contention on the Talk Page, and I count no less than seven editors who've killed seven others in Edit War since we started huffing the fumes. Even I, the nicest man on the planet, wound up in Wikiprison. I'd only just visited Wikijail for an hour, six years prior to my corruption. Nobody's safe from this cloud of lies (barring people who use non-English Wikipedias, perhaps). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:07, March 31, 2018 (UTC)

He has received death threats as a result, and the conspiracy theories have generated a lot of coverage for him (indeed, I would imagine a lot of people have only heard of him because of the conspiracy theories), making them an important part of his biography. One line in the lead stating that they exist and are false seems appropriate. -- irn (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

DOB deleted

Two of the sources don't seem to have mentioned it - did I miss something? I'm not sure checkyourfact.com, run by The Daily Caller, meets RS anyway, especially for a BLP. The third, an unofficial source, had a slew of personal information in it so I ended up suppressing it. Doug Weller talk 11:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe there are one or two reliable secondary sources which list DH's age as of a given date, giving us a two-year range of possible birth years. I think DH's age is somewhat of an issue because it will determine whether DH can vote in the upcoming November election; but we can keep the information out if the bday/age stuff works against the idea of privacy.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC) For example, in Time magazine it said The 17-year-old... and the Time article date was Feb 26th 2018, so our Birth year as of date template can figure out the birth year range.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Is it encyclopedic to know if he can vote in November? I can't see that, but I am pleased that our BLP policy is paying more attention to this sort of issue. I know from my former OTRS work that it can be a big deal (even just the year is a big deal for some celebrities). We should always err on the side of caution with this sort of personal detail. Doug Weller talk 14:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, DH's age is an issue -- Hogg's campaign is largely focused on the upcoming election in which he may or may not vote (or be eligible, or not to vote), ie, it's relevant to this subject, tangentially. And the information is out there -- he told media reporters in several instances how old he was, so it's not like it's such a big secret. Now, the exact birthday -- yes I'm with you on not posting that for the reasons you've given above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Revert

ValarianB, since you reverted me, I believe I am due an explanation. The content that I added was non-POV because it relates to the issue of gun control and comes from Hogg himself. The content that I removed is clearly included for no reason other than to promote Hogg and comes from a dubious source. I'm willing to compromise and include both, but I'm curious to see how you're going to justify the quote that I included being unacceptable and the one that I deleted being OK. Display name 99 (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Your removal of Yahoo News for an allegation of bias is eyeroll-inducing; they aren't an originator of the piece, it is from Huffington Post. The other part, "Hogg has also been strongly critical of Republican politicians who differ from his view" kinda goes without saying, we don't need a large, verbatim quote from Hogg explaining why he opposes gun owners, sourced to a blog, no less. "Media Bias Factcheck" is not an arbiter for the Wikipedia, if you have an issue with a specific citation, WP:RSN is over there. ValarianB (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

On the Yahoo News article, you have a point about Yahoo not being the originator. But the quote isn't from Hogg and it doesn't describe his activities or philosophies in a substantive way. The fact that it's included in a separate quote template is clearly meant to distinguish it from what's around it. It seems intended to favor Hogg. As for the Hogg quote, it does include things which aren't discussed in the rest of the article. For instance, the idea that NRA-supported politicians don't enact gun control measures because they don't want to lose money is alluded to but not clearly stated in the rest of the article. A significant part of the media coverage of the pro-gun control Parkland survivors centers around the idea that the adults aren't getting anything done, and so it's up to the teenagers to take matters into their own hands. That idea becomes much more clear in the quote. I also couldn't care less whether Media Bias Factcheck is an arbiter of Wikipedia. Until you can show otherwise, the Outline is a reliable source. Besides, the audio can be listened online, so there's no question that he said what's attributed to him in that article.

Basically, there's no concrete reason why that text shouldn't be in the article and plenty of reasons why it should be. The editor who originally reverted me said that it was POV. That's the worst argument yet because it comes straight from Hogg; him being uncomfortable with facts does not make the facts less real. Like I said before, I'm totally fine with ending this discussion by agreeing to include both quotes. Display name 99 (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I support the revert. We should only be using the best sources and lengthy quotes from the subject do not make for a good article.- MrX 🖋 22:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

MrX, as I said, the source is considered reliable and there is no doubt that he said it because you can listen to the audio. Also, there's already a lengthy quote from the subject right above where that one was. Would you support a somewhat shorter version of the quote that was reverted? Display name 99 (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Display name 99: Considered reliable by whom? Why is that particular lengthy quote noteworthy, or alternatively, is it covered in other (reliable) sources?- MrX 🖋 23:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with MrX -- it's a rather lengthy quote. The quote should be cut or trimmed substantially.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The Outline is, according to Media Bias Factcheck, a left-wing publication with "highly factual" reporting. Here is the link. The story was also covered here in the NY Post. I explained why it's important above when responding to ValarianB. I've put the relevant text in bold. That should explain why it's noteworthy. I add also that it shows how Hogg regards those who don't agree with him. On the other hand, why is the very last quote in the article noteworthy? Doesn't it just glorify and promote what Hogg is doing without imparting any actual encyclopedic information? Shouldn't that be removed? Display name 99 (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

it shows how Hogg regards those who don't agree with him, what the actual fuck does that mean? How is it unusual or noteworthy to say that an activist doesn't agree with his opposition? TheValeyard (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

You know exactly what it means. Don't bullshit me. Display name 99 (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with TheValeyard -- what does that phrase mean; it really isn't clear to me, or how it's relevant.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It's one thing to disagree with people and a totally different thing to call them "sick fuckers." Still, I think both of you more or less knew what I meant. I call BS, if you will. Display name 99 (talk) 01:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

No, it's really not clear exactly what is meant, but more important, the discussion is getting off track -- my sense is the quote you added is way too long as per WP:UNDUE, and POV-ish; it should be cut or trimmed substantially.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The idea that it's POV-ish is absolutely nuts because it's literally an exact transcript of what Hogg said. You being uncomfortable with the facts doesn't make those facts any less true. I made several arguments already for why the content should be in the article to which you have yet to respond. I also don't believe that the quote should have to be shortened, but I am willing to shorten it in order to achieve consensus. Here's what I have:

Hogg has been strongly critical of office-holders who differ from his view. "It just makes me think what sick fuckers out there want to continue to sell more guns, murder more children, and honestly just get reelected," Hogg said. He believes that pro-gun politicians refuse to take action on gun control because of the money they receive from the NRA. He claimed that adults "don’t know how to use a fucking democracy, so we have to." Display name 99 (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Still pointless. TheValeyard (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

That's not an argument unless you actually back it up with something. Display name 99 (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no way we should take Hogg's most emotional comments and portray them as calculated criticisms of Republicans.- MrX 🖋 02:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no way we should take Leslie Gibson's most emotional comments and portray them as calculated criticisms of Emma Gonzalez. There is no way we should take Lara Ingraham's most emotional comments and portray them as calculated criticisms of David Hogg. Display name 99 (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF. I'm sorry that no one agrees with you thus far, that's just the way it goes. TheValeyard (talk) 05:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

That policy concerns articles, not content within articles, and I don't think it's particularly relevant here. But that means I can take those two parts down right, because after all we shouldn't be interpreting their most emotional comments as representing their true feelings? I can do so now, and if I do I'll assume that I won't be reverted. The basic point that I'm getting at is that the content is factual, relevant to the article, and supported by reliable sources. This seems for you like a case of wikilawyering in order to maintain the article's bias. Display name 99 (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I concur with Display name 99's synopsis of why the content needs to stay in the article. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

This is still going on? Goodness. I think the points raised by others of late get to the point, namely, undue weight given to a overlong quote. Do Wikipedia politician bios contain lengthy diatribes against ones' political opponents? Unlikely, and we got 1 person insisting on doing it to a teenagers'? No, not even remotely appropriate. ValarianB (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not overly long. In fact, I agreed to shorten it. It's not lengthy and it's not a diatribe. It's literally an exact quote in the article. The fact that he's a teenager isn't relevant at all here. When you enter the public discourse, you open yourself up to scrutiny. What Hogg doesn't realize, and what you don't seem to either, is that it is very hypocritical to call your opponents "sick fuckers" and then whine about being a child after somebody criticizes you. Winkelvi, thank you for your comment. (It's especially appreciated given our rocky history.) However, the content in question (the Hogg interview) currently isn't in the article because it got taken out. It seems you're saying it should go back in. Is that right? Display name 99 (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely should go back in. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

What Hogg doesn't realize, and what you don't seem to either, is that it is very hypocritical to call your opponents "sick fuckers" and then whine about being a child after somebody criticizes you. Including quotations because they highlight an individual's hypocrisy is WP:SYNTH. If the person's hypocrisy is important enough, it will have been covered by reliable sources, and we can go with that. -- irn (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Yea, that comment there seals the deal for the motivation behind Name 99's intentions here; adding his own criticisms of a blp subject to an article, where said criticisms are not supported by the soruces. ValarianB (talk) 14:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

He can state his criticisms here. Reliably sourced and largely covered direct quotes, however, are not criticisms. No matter how many times you continue to say they are. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The material is cherry picked and it's not representative of the totality of Hogg's comments. My god, he was sleep deprived and it was only a couple of weeks after the shooting. Let it go.- MrX 🖋 15:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

"My god, he was sleep deprived and it was only a couple of weeks after the shooting." Irrelevant. Doesn't make these comments any less "encyclopedic" than his other comments. They are reliably sourced, they're notable, they are verifiable. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

While I don't necessarily agree that the format in which the content was originally added to the page, I do think that the Hogg quotes it discussed are notable and verifiable. --HunterM267 ^talk 15:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Wake me when his comments are discussed and analyzed by the mainstream press. Meanwhile, WP:ONUS applies.- MrX 🖋 15:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you can point us to which policy you are referring to regarding such content and that it must be "discussed and analyzed by the mainstream press" to merit inclusion. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The argument for inclusion is that it is criticism. If it's not criticism, why should the quotation be included? What does it add to the article? -- irn (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Content in a BLP is to help the reader better understand the article subject. His words are what this David Hogg is about, even beyond him being at the school during the shooting. His words are what make him notable, if it weren't so, he wouldn't be interviewed or a featured speaker at rallies. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

By that logic, everything he has ever said could be included in the article. Why should this particular quotation be included in the article? -- irn (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

That's already been answered previously. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Let me summarize where we are now. Previously we were basically at a consensus to not include the material. I know there's no way for anyone to verify this, but I was actually preparing to wrap things up when I saw Winkelvi's comment. Now, no such consensus exists as two other editors have spoken in support of including the quotation. The quote has been shortened from its original size. I've dropped all attempts to remove the very last quote in the article, even though it's irrelevant, imparts no information, and is clearly just there to promote Hogg. I'd say that leaving that quote in, as dumb and as POV as it is, and allowing a shortened version of Hogg's comments into the article is a reasonable compromise, both from where we were at the beginning and now that there is more support for including content from the interview. Display name 99 (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC) Well, somebody else got rid of the last quote, so nevermind on that account. But still, a shortened version of the quote at least is merited. Display name 99 (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Where we're at is there is no consensus to include that material. If you shorten the quote, I would still be opposed. I can be convinced that the quotes are noteworthy if someone can produce a couple more reliable sources that discuss the specific quote(s).- MrX 🖋 12:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I have shortened the quote and provided a new version of it already. As to your other comments, the interview was discussed in the National Review, which, despite its conservative bias, is rated "High" by Media Bias Fatcheck for factual reporting. The Federalist, another conservative news outlet rated "High" for factual reporting, also covered the story here in the last five paragraphs of that article. The interview was from the Outline, a left-wing source but a generally reliable one nonetheless. It was also covered by the New York Post, a center-right but reliable news source. I posted the link already. That's 4 factually reliable sources. There are plenty of others, but those are largely unreliable. I will note that you only said "reliable" sources, not non-partisan. Those are especially hard to find these days anyway. The National Review and the Federalist are both right-wing news sources, but reliable on factual issues. I've already explained why the comments are significant. I think we have enough now to put in the shortened version that I added to the talk page above. Display name 99 (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

You do not have consensus for the inclusion of the quote.--Jorm (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

No shit. If you'd been paying attention, you'd have noticed that I'm trying to get consensus. You don't read very well. Display name 99 (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Second what Jorm said. Furthermore, @Display name 99:, you keep citing some website called "Media Bias Factcheck" and their ratings of other news sources; near as I can tell we have no indication that "Media Bias Factcheck" is itself a reliable source for fact checking other sources; it seems to be just some dude and his website. Anyone can open a website and call it anything. There are reliable fact checking services; such as FactCheck.org and the Poynter Institute. If you want to convince people that your sources can be trusted (or not trusted) you should use fact checking services which have a known reliability, and not Randy in Boise's homemade website. --Jayron32 16:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Display name 99: You lost me. You "shortened the quote and provided a new version" where? What are you currently proposing and where are sources for it?- MrX 🖋 16:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

As alternatives, I tried factcheck.org and the Washington Post fact checker. Unfortunately, they only seem to rate particular stories as true or false rather than news sources as reliable or unreliable. I couldn't figure out how Poynter Institute's online fact checker works. I then looked on a variety of other websites and couldn't find much. One source gave the National Review credit for not questioning Obama's birth certificate, but that's about it. Still, the NY Post is a widely respected news source that is near the center, and it covered the interview. I put the shortened version of the quote that I would like to include in the article in bold. My sources are the Outline interview and the NY Post article. Display name 99 (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The NY Post is neither widely respected nor near the center. -- irn (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, the Post has been a well known source of sensationalist tabloid journalism for decades. If a media checking resource rates them neutrally in this regard, it says more about the resource than the NY Post. It's a fairly good yardstick for sensationalist journalism. --Jayron32 18:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Note I have started an RfC for this discussion below to assist in determining a consensus or lack thereof. Safiel (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Quote

Should the article include the quote as described in the immediately preceding discussion, revert?

This is the original material. The proposed shortened version is bolded above. Safiel (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Please preface your comment with support or oppose and include a brief summary of your position? Safiel (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - We should only be using the best sources, and lengthy quotes from the subject do not make for a good article. There is no way we should take Hogg's sleep- and hunger-deprived comments and portray them as calculated criticisms of Republicans. The material is WP:UNDUE.- MrX 🖋 21:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

But it's totally fine to portray Leslie Gibson's and Laura Ingraham's comments as calculated criticisms of the students, right? And how do we know he was hungry and sleep-deprived? Because he said so? This is the same person who said his sister lost 4, then 2, then 3, and then 2 of her "best" friends. So is his testimony really reliable? Now I know I can't put that information in the article because even fewer sources cover it than the ones that do the quote, but it's worth pointing out on the talk page. Display name 99 (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

We're not doing that at all. Those are not apt comparisons. In addition to quoting Hogg's most inflammatory words, the wording of you proposed text (original and revised) really doesn't accurately paraphrase the source, which says: "... he and his classmates feel that adults — both voters and policymakers — have failed them."... "Hogg places some of the blame on voters, but his primary targets are pro-gun politicians and the NRA, both of whom he thinks care more about money than saving lives." Your second version is more faithful to the source, but worded in a way that makes Hogg sound like an intolerant bigot (not saying that was your intention).- MrX 🖋 00:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

It's our problem that he sounds "like an intolerant bigot"? We have to suppress his remarks and keep them out of the article because of same? Interesting comment from you, X. Revealing, too. Just as interesting and revealing as you claiming we have to keep the quote out of the article because he was hungry and sleep-deprived when he uttered words that made him sound like an intolerant bigot. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Good point WV. I admit I do have some personal bias, but I don't think I'm the only one. Display name 99 (talk) 00:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

No it's not a good point. It completely misses the point that you misrepresented the source and cherry-picked quotes that, whether intentional or not, misrepresent the substance and tenor of the interview. - MrX 🖋 00:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, it is a great point. The quotes actually make the tenor of the interview. Outline themselves noted the tenor in the headline, "DAVID HOGG IS MAD AS HELL" and noted further: "There’s no denying that Hogg is young, and it would be hard to claim he’s unbiased or dispassionate. His anger was palpable from the moment he walked into the room. He said “fuck” so many times during our interview that he jokingly said he hoped it wouldn’t be televised, “because you guys are fucked if the FCC is regulating this”." The "tenor" of the article and its direct David Hogg quotes are within the quotes that should be in this article. Outline certainly thinks they are central to who David Hogg is, based on their assessment of him. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Aye. When you (referring to them) refer to "pro-gun politicians" as "Republicans" or "the NRA" as "office-holders who differ from his view", it becomes your problem (meaning it's their problem). They know who they are. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:22, April 5, 2018 (UTC)

I literally have no idea what you're talking about. When we refer to pro-gun politicians, etc., even though that's clearly who Hogg meant, it becomes our problem, even though it's actually their problem, whoever their is referring to. I'm confused. Display name 99 (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Clearly who Hogg meant, according to you. According to Hogg, that includes Democrats. Including Conor Lamb, who wasn't an office-holder. It's not whether anybody agrees with him that makes them sick fuckers, it's about whether they put NRA money over gun reform (according to your source). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:57, April 5, 2018 (UTC)

Your mentioning of Conor Lamb actually totally disproves your point. Conor Lamb did not receive NRA money. The NRA endorsed his opponent, Rick Saccone. You literally just proved that it is about policy disagreements. Display name 99 (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

You really are confused. Conor Lamb is a "pro-gun politician". "The NRA" is Hogg's other "primary target". InedibleHulk (talk) 02:12, April 5, 2018 (UTC)

OK, so his targets include anyone who doesn't agree with him on gun control, whether that be pro-gun politicians or the NRA. Got it. Display name 99 (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

No, his targets are only pro-gun politicians and the NRA. At least in this "sick fucker" context. Plain Republicans or office-holders with differing views weren't mentioned until you brought them up. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:23, April 5, 2018 (UTC)

Office-holders with differing views are the same as pro-gun politicians. Come on. I remind you that the revised version of the quote, which is what really matters, makes no mention of party. Display name 99 (talk) 02:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Rick Saccone is a pro-gun politician who holds no office. Just wanted to get reelected, and spent NRA money trying. What really matters is the sort of people The Outline says Hogg means, not which of your interpretations is closer. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:02, April 5, 2018 (UTC)

• What quote? The above discussion is all over the place, and editors are already apparently confused about this. Please be more specific and copy the quote here, as it would be added to the article. Grayfell (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

  Hogg has also been strongly critical of Republican politicians who differ from his view. "It just makes me think what sick fuckers out there want to continue to sell more guns, murder more children, and honestly just get reelected," Hogg said. "What type of shitty person does that? They could have blood from children splattered all over their faces and they wouldn’t take action, because they all still see these dollar signs." Furthermore, he said, "When your old-ass parent is like, 'I don’t know how to send an iMessage,' and you’re just like, 'Give me the fucking phone and let me handle it.' Sadly, that’s what we have to do with our government; our parents don’t know how to use a fucking democracy, so we have to."[2]
  — diff

I wish to note that I included (and later bolded for people who couldn't find it) a shortened version of that quote. Hogg has been strongly critical of office-holders who differ from his view. "It just makes me think what sick fuckers out there want to continue to sell more guns, murder more children, and honestly just get reelected," Hogg said. He believes that pro-gun politicians refuse to take action on gun control because of the money they receive from the NRA. He claimed that adults "don’t know how to use a fucking democracy, so we have to." The discussion should preferably center around this version, not the longer one that was included above. Display name 99 (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose – Okay then. Even the shortened version is far too lengthy and poorly sourced. The article already contains too many cherry-picked quotes supported by weak sources. We don't need more. Find a reliable source explaining why this quote, taken from the middle of a lengthy interview, is a notable representation of his views, or is otherwise significant. As proposed this is obviously POV and undue. Grayfell (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: The quotation does not add anything that can't be done better in Wikipedia's voice using reliable sources. It is intended as criticism of Hogg [3], but using a quotation in that manner would be WP:SYNTH, which is completely unacceptable for criticism of the subject of a BLP. -- irn (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Direct quotes from the article's subject are. not. criticisms. Display name 99 (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support, For all the reasons I stated in the discussion above. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support per above. Display name 99 (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose What this is about is a user with a declared bias ("What Hogg doesn't realize, and what you don't seem to either, is that it is very hypocritical to call your opponents "sick fuckers" and then whine about being a child after somebody criticizes you." source) attempting to introduce his personal criticism into the article, using an out-of-context, cherry-picked quote to do so. It does not belong in the article. TheValeyard (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@TheValeyard: please read WP:BIASED and only consult WP:RS – we need reliable sources, not neutral sources, per WP:NPOV. wumbolo ^^^ 13:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo:, you need to work on your reading skills. The "bias" I was addressing was the bias of Display name 99. The "source" I cited was his own post earlier on this talk page. At no time did I address reliable sources or bias of sources. TheValeyard (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm not sure how this adds any light; it's only smoke.--Jorm (talk) 01:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand your analogy. Display name 99 (talk) 01:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Not about Republicans or office-holders. It's about death and money. Even if the gist was right, the lack of significant coverage makes it wrong for inclusion. Fine to say "shithole countries" or "fuck her right in the pussy", in context, but this ain't that. More like the time I pushed to call Jim Powers "goddamned Jim Powers", just because X-Pac said it once during an hour-long podcast. Cheap heat. If people want to believe God hates Powers, they can figure it out for themselves, same as figuring Hogg hates the GOP or anyone who disagrees with him. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:47, April 5, 2018 (UTC)

I didn't have a clue what you were saying throughout most of your comment. I will say though, as I did already, that disagreeing with people on policy is one thing. Calling your opponents "sick fuckers" is a totally different one. The interview was conducted by the outline. No-one so far has managed to show me that this is not a reliable source. Display name 99 (talk) 01:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Bit of a strawman there, as no one is arguing that it isn't a reliable source; what some users are asking is "show me a source that says the quote is important". You're trying to include this quote because you feel it reflects poorly on Mr. Hogg (please do not waste our time denying this, it is borne out in several of your comments), but the problem is that this characterization of "reflects poorly" is a concoction of your own making. Show us a passable (i.e. non fringe) citation that offers critical commentary of the passage, then we can talk. TheValeyard (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

What about Real Clear Politics? They have this article. Display name 99 (talk) 02:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

It's a straight recap of the first article. Adds no critical commentary of the quote you want, just repeats it, with five other bits. Seems to think the profanity-lacing is the most important thing in the whole interview, as do many other recyclers. Maybe you'd have better luck framing it as something about the swearing, in general. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:17, April 5, 2018 (UTC)

If profanity is the most important thing in the interview, there's plenty of it to go around in the quote that I chose. Display name 99 (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose quote adds little value to understanding the subject beyond what is already in the article without it. --Jayron32 03:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Not at all true. We cover in detail the strong, sometimes untrue, and sometimes vicious attacks made on Hogg and his fellow gun-control student activists but fail to cover Hogg's even more vicious attacks on his opponents. One fails to see how strong these criticisms are unless we cover them. Display name 99 (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Display name 99: You are aware that you don't score extra points because you respond to everyone's comment, right? You only get one "vote", and badgering people who present a different perspective than you doesn't mean you'll get your way. --Jayron32 13:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I am going to go ahead and chime in, on the general point (as expressed by the comment immediately proceeding mine) that the quote adds little to understanding the subject. Hogg is pretty much a typical "big mouth, know it all teenager" as are many "typical" teenagers. Mouthing off profanely is hardly an unexpected behavior. Safiel (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

So if Hogg truly is a "big mouth, know it all teenager," shouldn't the article portray him as such? Right now he comes off as a hero/victim. You seem to think that mouthing off profanity is tolerable/to be expected in this case. But as soon as somebody says something bad about one of the students, we have to cove it. Display name 99 (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

It is common knowledge that teenagers are that way, the article doesn't need to reiterate common knowledge. Teenage decision making is driven by the amygdala, due to the fact that the prefrontal cortex is not fully developed until around 25 to 26 years of age. The amygdala is the center of emotions, while the prefrontal cortex governs rational thought. That is why teenagers, such as Hogg and his peers, spout emotional and irrational ideas. They cannot be held to the same level of responsibility as can a fully mature adult, who does rationally choose their words. BTW, I oppose everything Hogg stands for. But I cannot ignore the fact that he (and his peers) are (by reason of biology) hindered from thinking in a fully rational manner. Safiel (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm 19 and while I've said stupid stuff before, I haven't said these sorts of things about people. And no, it's not common knowledge that teenagers are this way. The people I've talked to don't speak in this manner either. You seem to still be insisting that the information should be kept out of the article because it's embarrassing to Hogg. Once again, that's not our problem. He wants to be taken seriously. The only way to do that is to treat him like an adult. Display name 99 (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

So many things become so much clearer now.--Jorm (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose The idea that "its just a direct quote, and direct quotes can't be POV" needs to be put to bed here. A simple statement of fact can violate NPOV, depending on how and where it is presented in an article. See Talk:Unite the Right rally/Archive 6#Cause of death, where the mere addition of a cause of death to an article is a blatant push of a fringe conspiracy. Context matters, and in this case we have a long quote that is being pushed for inclusion to add critical commentary to a minor. ValarianB (talk) 11:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as per ValarianB and MrX and others.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
• False dilemma. Oppose both versions per WP:SECONDARY. Hogg criticized both Democrats and Republicans that received NRA money (Reuters). Even in the interview in question, Hogg referred to gun advocates and not Republicans as "sick fuckers" (National Review). Some editors supported the content as important strong criticism of the NRA, which I strongly agree with, as it is the whole premise of most of his actions/words/positions (MSNBC, National Review). Summarize the parents/democracy quote (New York Post parroted by MarketWatch, Chicago Tribune, National Review). A better topic for discussion about democracy would be the Ingraham boycott (Los Angeles Times). wumbolo ^^^ 13:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

You seem not to have read very carefully. The shortened version of the quote makes no mention of either Democrats nor Republicans-only "office holders who differ from his view." In other words, "gun advocates." And thank you for providing me with the Chicago Tribune article that I was previously unaware of. TheValeyard, would you now support including at the very least the democracy part of the quote, seeing as it has been included in a Chicago Tribune article? Display name 99 (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

No, I would not. The Tribune article simply repeats a part of the quote, that's all TheValeyard (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose While I generally support using quotes from a controversial subject to allow them to clearly state their own position, rather than have it interpreted through the eyes of non-neutral editorialists, this is not such a case. I have submitted several, more articulate quotes from the subject and each has been deleted. I have even been threatened for submitting such quotes (see above). This expletive laden quote is included deliberately to impeach the subject, rather than explain his point of view. That goes against WP:NPOV. As often as Hogg appears on interviews, there is a lot of superior, quotable material from him. Trackinfo (talk) 06:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Trackinfo: "superior" quotes? We include quotes that have been in WP:RS, not those that you like. wumbolo ^^^ 10:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I think we can snow close this. --Jorm (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Display name 99 (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. Consensus seems clear to not include it. --Jayron32 14:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC's can go up to 30 days. This is just a few days old. Closing it now would be premature. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Presuming everyone who wants to ignore the quote doesn't want to discuss it further, that's 12-2. The proposer has also jumped ship, making it 13-1 for a timely snow close. Why prolong the inevitable? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:30, April 7, 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter anyway. Consensus is clear, it's very unlikely to change, and RfCs do not have to be formally closed. We can all just move on, content in the knowledge that WP:DR has once again worked it's magic.- MrX 🖋 23:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boycott of The Ingraham Angle

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boycott of The Ingraham Angle. - MrX 🖋 21:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)Template:Z48- MrX 🖋 21:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Content of media interview

https://theoutline.com/post/3571/david-hogg-parkland-interview?zd=4&zi=5suerw7k

There are some statements in that interview that should be included in the article. Brookaxes (talk) 03:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

It looks like Thismightbezach is here socking again. Secondary sense (talk) 04:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)