Talk:Aziz Ansari

Is this article appropriate for Project India?

This article says that Mr. Ansari was born in the US and is American. What relation other than possibly ancestry does he have to India such that it would warrant Project India incorporating this article? Shall we include George Bush in WikiProject England because of his ancestry in England?EECavazos (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed the India wikiproject. It should be reattached if Mr. Ansari somehow has dual citizenship.EECavazos (talk) 00:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Appearance on Uncle Morty's Dub Shack

Ansari was in the first episode of Uncle Morty's Dub Shack. I've never edited a wikipedia page before so I won't add this, but if someone feels it is important to add please do. Here is a reference link. http://www.iatv.tv/unclemorty/credits.php 24.27.75.111 (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Tamil Indian?

Please provide source I have removed it until then.139.57.238.170 (talk) 21:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

NRI?

Somebody wrote on his page that he's a Non resident Indian. That is absolutely false! He was born in the United States. In order to be an NRI you have to be born in the United States and living abroad. 139.57.238.170 (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

He is highly unpleasant, unfunny, and unfortunate and his demeanor is unappealing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.17.75.89 (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The above is categorically untrue. Aziz Ansari seems at least moderately fortunate. 99.95.39.54 (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Raaaaaaaandy!

Whoever keeps changing my edits, please take note, Aziz plays the character RAAAAAAAANDY (note the 8 "A"s), this spelling is correct and it verified both on his website, [1] and in many of his routines/interviews. If you have a problem with it, please talk it over here before just reverting the changes. --Andrew reid623 (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

True that; I just re-added the missing 7 A's to Raaaaaaaandy's name. That is how it's spelled. So for anyone wondering, it's not sloppy vandalism. 24.21.198.16 (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

he is totally awesome!!!!!!!

I just watched his new 2010 TV special and it was so freakin hilarious. Peacegirl13 January18,2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacegirl13 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Pornstar?

Under occupations, one of the occupations listed is pornstar. It's possible but unlikely* that this is true. Most likely it's up as a chic joke, but it should probably be removed unless a reference/porn credit can be found. *Unlikely because NBC would likely catch a lot of flak for having a sitcom with a young porn star in it. I'm sure Asiz Ansari could get into porn because he's young thin and famous but it would also likely be a career ending move.DasKreestof (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• At some point, everyone does porn. I suggest you deal with it. The Scythian 01:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Really seriously unfunny racist vandalism of this page

Right up towards the top of the page someone's put:

"Ansari was born as a Terroist and is still a Terroist to this day, there is no physical evidence of Ansari being a Terroist, but look at him! He's a paki. Therefore, he is definitely a Terroist."

I don't know how to edit/remove stuff, can someone who does remove this right away please? Thanks.

Meinhoff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.148.107 (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

American Muslim

The article says that he is an atheist yet there is still an 'American Muslims' tag at the bottom. I think it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.218.161 (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• Yah, I know what he means. You may be an atheist, but there is always some redneck labeling you a Muslim to your face. So it goes... The Scythian 02:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Removed the categories "American Muslims" and "Indian Muslims". According to this NY Times article, Ansari is a self-described atheist. Scj2315 (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

check the rules

There are special/specific ones for placing an atheist category on someone's wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.199.68.204 (talk) 04:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the rules, and your edits are inappropriate. First, the addition of the phrase "According to one news article that fails to quote him" is a non-neutral comment in your own voice. Wikipedia doesn't add those kinds of qualifiers to descriptions of what a source says. Second, the inclusion of the atheist category is governed by WP:BLPCAT, which requires that the subject self-identify, in this instance, as being an atheist. The source says, "In an earlier version of this article, Michael Schur, the co-creator of "Parks and Recreation," partly described Mr. Ansari as a Muslim. Mr. Ansari describes himself as an atheist." That's a sufficient self-identification coming from a very reliable source (The New York Times) to include the atheist category. I'm going to revert your edit one more time, and I hope you'll come back here to continue this discussion if you still object. Another option is to take this discussion to WP:BLPN to get a wider audience of editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Which Year?

The first paragraph says he began his career in 2000; the inset box with his photo says he began in 2004. Which is it?

Would have corrected this, but this article doesn't appear to be accepting changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Aziz Ansari. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080228180218/http://azizisbored.com/img/rollingstone.jpg to http://azizisbored.com/img/rollingstone.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101006072321/http://bonnaroo.com/artists/aziz-ansari/2010.aspx to http://www.bonnaroo.com/artists/aziz-ansari/2010.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121212062121/http://www.oxfamamericaunwrapped.com:80/aziz to http://www.oxfamamericaunwrapped.com/aziz

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2018

Change "In January 2017, Ansari was accused of sexual misconduct." to "In January 2018, Ansari was accused of sexual misconduct." Half.boy (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Done JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Ansari statement

Article should note that he denies that any sexual activity was non-consensual: http://people.com/tv/aziz-ansari-statement-report-sexual-encounter/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.40.1.16 (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Article already includes a substantially similar statement sourced to TV Guide. Chetsford (talk) 08:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 16 January 2018

Media coverage suggest Ansari’s sexual assault allegations have emerged as a fairly polarizing debate re: the #metoo /#timesup movements. For balance I suggest the article give equal weight to counter the quoted opinion of the social critic from Atlantic magazine. One voice from the other side that has received wide coverage is that of the feminist writer Jessica Valenti. I suggest adding to the last paragraph of the “Personal life” section (feel free to re-word/edit as necessary):

Feminist writer and Guardian columnist Jessica Valenti was quoted in a tweet that “a lot of men will read that post about Aziz Ansari and see an everyday, reasonable sexual interaction. But part of what women are saying right now is that what the culture considers 'normal' sexual encounters are not working for us, and oftentimes harmful.”

Her tweet has been covered widely in mainstream coverage (The Guardian, San Francisco Examiner, Fox News, etc.) I suggest wikipedia use as a reference it’s appearance in a CNN story: http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/15/entertainment/aziz-ansari-responds/index.html ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The text in the article quoted form the Atlantic does not defend Ansari or his boorish behavior. Adding a citation and text which discusses the current state of affairs regarding sexual encounters in society (which is what your proposed addition does) balances nothing because that's not what the cited text from the Atlantic does... the Atlantic cited text addresses not Ansari's behavior but the behavior of the "Babe"s authors. Marteau (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I would not favor adding additional material on the allegations at the current time. But if it continues, then yes. Coretheapple (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

But doesn't the phrase "...that post about Aziz..." make it clear that the quote is also about the Babe author's account? Regardless, perhaps I unnecessarily muddied things by couching this as a "balance" to the Atlantic quote specifically. I still feel something more should be included because as of now it reads that the accusation is: (a) contradicted by the accused, and (b) characterized as a hit job by a third party. So if we don't use this quote by Valenti, then something else perhaps? It's kicked off a national conversation that places Ansari square in the center with people taking sides, but this article--as it stands now--doesn't acknowledge that. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I think balance is always appropriate, and your invocation of the concept was appropriate even if your citation provides none. "Balance" would be a citation which defends Babe, their author and the article, not a cite which attacks Ansari's behavior or criticizes the current state of sexual relations in society. Adding criticism about Ansari's behavior as part of the "national conversation" would also have to include parts of that "national conversation" which defend Ansari... and as I said, nothing in our article currently defends Ansari or his behavior. Marteau (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Controversy not going away

I just noticed this New York Times op-ed, which leads me to think that maybe the controversy is becoming substantive and that it probably deserves a subsection and a couple of more summary-style sentences consistent with proper weight and BLP. Coretheapple (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree, Coretheapple. At this point, given the volume and consistency of coverage, I don't think a dedicated section would be undue. Chetsford (talk) 09:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the current paragraph in the personal life section is sufficient (summary of what happened and the mixed reactions). Anything more than that goes afoul of WP:Recentism. If there are long-term effects on his career those can be added later, but let's not jump the gun on that. I also note that the New York Times op-ed linked above as evidence of the controversy "becoming substantive" is basically arguing the opposite. The title of the op-ed is, "Aziz Ansari Is Guilty. Of Not Being a Mind Reader." and further down it says, "There is a useful term for what this woman experienced on her night with Mr. Ansari. It’s called “bad sex.” It sucks." ~Awilley (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that we don't want to give undue weight to this incident. However, the firestorm of controversy needs to be adequately dealt with, and apparently much of it, if not most, is sympathetic to Ansari. Thus I don't think that a separate subsection would necessarily be harmful from a BLP standpoint. Still I think that we do need to reflect the backlash against this accusations in fairness to the subject. Coretheapple (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

That's fair, but I don't think a new subsection (likely titled something along the lines of "Accusation of sexual misconduct") is the way to go. When so many sources are saying… "umm guys this isn't that big a deal" I don't think we should make a big deal of it in the article. ~Awilley (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about that. But we do need a clear consensus to add such a subsection in a BLP, that I do know. Right now we don't have a clear consensus to add, so out it stays. Coretheapple (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

As these allegations are unproven, I don't think this content should stay in the article. EncyclopediaOnline (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

We don't censor stuff on Wikipedia. If it is every unproven there is still enough here to have a section because it was a story. It would be just written in a way to say that instead. NZFC^(talk) 21:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

That op-ed

Seems to me the article should show a link to the New York Times op-ed at the root of the recent flurry of interest: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/15/opinion/aziz-ansari-babe-sexual-harassment.html .

— Jo3sampl (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Sexual harassment allegation in the lead

Wester has been edit warring to remove the following text from the lead:

In January 2018, Ansari was accused of sexual misconduct by a woman who he had brought on a date, which led to his receding from the public eye.

References

The content is well-sourced and summarises the well-sourced section "Allegation of sexual misconduct". Wester claims that Ansari appeared an numerous recent projects. So he did not recede from the public eye but this is not exactly an accurate statement, Ansari having indeed receded from the public eye following the allegations for over a year—something he said himself in Aziz Ansari: Right Now. Further sources for the fact are [2][3]. Wester has not responded to my comments that it violates WP:DUE and WP:LEAD to not mention a significant aspect of the subject in the body. We give it one short sentence out of three paragraphs. — Bilorv (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we can make it more clear during which time period he had temporarily receded from the public. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

First of all, "harassment" is not a good characterization of what he was accused of; the article uses the term "misconduct." As noted in the "Controversy not going away" above, a few sources suggest that "misconduct" may even be too strong a word. The current paragraph on it is OK (though it should include some of the counterpoints alluded to above; see here and here. In any case, I don't believe it belongs in the lede. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie, the Vox piece by Caroline Framke is an excellent summary of the reporting and one of the best pieces I've read on the story. Is there something in particular you would like to add? Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Upon rereading the section, I'd say it's reasonably weighted and adequately describes the polarization of opinions. Still, I strongly believe it's WP:UNDUE to include it in the lede, given that it's a single incident with a divided opinion over whether it was actual misconduct. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it's a notable event in his public image, but maybe it could be written to be less about "sexual assault" and more about the media story and #metoo? Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against covering it in the article, I just don't understand why it's a large enough part of the arc of his life and career to be included in the lede. I"m not sure how useful it is to talk about other bios here, but Isaac Brock and Matthew McConaughey articles don't even mention their arrests, let along put them in the lede; this wasn't even an arrest, it was a single allegation. It might be worth starting an RfC to get some consensus. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I was actually talking about the lead. An RfC at some point might make sense, but let's do the research first. For instance, the Framke piece states "Out of all the stories of sexual harassment, abuse, misconduct, and violence that have been brought to light in the past few months, perhaps none has proved as controversial as the allegations brought against comedian Aziz Ansari.". If we do a Google Trends search it appears that this event got the most attention out of any even in his life.[4] Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

It is a large part of the arc of his life and career. It informs his work Aziz Ansari: Right Now, the only thing I know of that he's done since the report was published. You say that there's a divided opinion over whether it was actual misconduct but this is precisely why it has garnered so much attention and is such a frequently mentioned case in discussions of the #MeToo movement. It could be an argument to reword the sentence, in which case go ahead and suggest an alternative. Arrests are not really related—the law is not relevant to an event's significance, only its coverage in reliable secondary sources. There's also no claim of illegal behavior here that I see. — Bilorv (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The text in the lead is being repeatedly reverted, and now I am being falsely accused of editing warring.[5] As Wikieditor19920 previously stated, this belongs in the lead per MOS:LEAD, "PROMINENT CONTROVERSIES". Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The text is undue for the lead. It received a blip of notability at the time the story was published, and the coverage in the body is enough. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

With the passage of time, the insignificance of this event is clear. An anonymous post on a now-defunct website led to the predictable internet chatter, largely among non-notable pundits who wrote nothing probative. The article content may still be overly long and elevate this insignificant event, but there can be no doubt that this is not a key fact about Ansari's life such that it should be placed in the lead. Many editors have enforced BLP by removing it, and unless some compelling argument has been overlooked, it needs to stay out of the lead. SPECIFICO talk 12:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no consensus to remove the text from the lead, so the status quo should remain. The WP:ONUS is on those who want to remove it to show that it is UNDUE. Unsourced opinions are not enough to override consensus text. I would prefer to discuss changing the text in the lead rather than removing it. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, Please stick to what you know. Basically everything you said that is a factual assertion about sources is provably false—this was addressed in a multitude of national publications from the Atlantic and Washington Post to the New York Times. Your arguments about why this is "no longer important" are clever and humourous, and also totally unpersuasive and having little relation to policy. As per WP:WEIGHT, this had extensive coverage in the news and a lasting impact on Ansari's career. He only just returned from the hiatus prompted by the allegations barely over a year ago. This was unquestionably a watershed moment in the subject's bio, and the fact that it may have faded from your mind does not mean it has not faded in prominence or from public significance as we measure these things on WP. I have restored the material with clarifying information. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I've removed it. This is a relatively insignificant issue that does not need to be in the lead. -- Calidum 15:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Calidum: You need to back your assertions with policy and sources, not subjective opinion.

Here are sources from NPR Vice NBC USA Today The New York Times and The Washington Post discussing the sexual assault allegations that the subject brought up in a public forum as recently as 2019.

Nor is this a BLP violation because it is negative. See WP:PUBLICFIGURE: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.

And see MOS:LEAD: The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. This controversy almost ended the subject's career and led to them receding from public view. They only returned approximately one year ago, to much controversy (see above).

We're not here to act as the subject's PR team, we're here to document their public profile, good and bad. Stop edit-warring out content that is strongly backed by available policy and sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

"The coverage in the body is enough." No, we are required per MOS:LEAD to also (briefly) summarize this controversy in the lead, which is to serve as a broad overview of the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

UNDUE for lead. This was an allegation that never developed into anything more. Putting it in the lead can imply support for the accusations within the allegation. In retrospect it appears Ansari may have been as much a victim as anything. Regardless, as time has passed the merit of the claim and the significance in of the allegations had diminished. Clearly due for the body but not the lead as if this were some sort of perp walk. Springee (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be focused on the allegation, but this was a critical story related to #MeToo. From Forbes last month:

"KEY BACKGROUND: Since civil rights activist Tarana Burke, a Black woman, started the #metoo movement in 2006, to raise awareness about the prevalence of sexual assault, abuse, and harassment against women of color, the movement has resulted in lost jobs and/or jail sentences across a variety of industries, largely in media and in entertainment, including former movie mogul Harvey Weinstein. Some entertainers have attempted to address allegations against them in varying forms of apology including comedians Aziz Ansari saying he hopes he’s 'become a better person,' according to Vox and Louis C.K., who acknowledged 'these stories are true,' according to The Times, after women accused him of exposing himself."[6]

Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

This gets into what I refer to as reciprocity of weight. The accusations of Me Too against Ansari may have had weight with respect to the Me Too movement, I recall them being seen as a claim too far, but does that impact give them weight here? What gives them weight here is not the impact on the Me Too movement but the impact on Anseri himself. While not good it appears to be something that is fading with time. Since this is a BLP we really should err on the side of do no harm to the subject. Weight for inclusion in the body is there but not so much for the lead. Springee (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

An allegation that never developed into anything more? I think the coverage above indicates otherwise. The allegation nearly ended the subject's career. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Where charges filed? Yes, a lot of people talked about it but in the end no additional evidence came out. In the end this amounted to something, it started to show that Me Too could go too far. However, that is the significance of the allegation to the Me Too movement, not to Ansari.  Springee (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

If you want to remove longstanding text, please cite policy and sources.  Opinions are not enough. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I won't remove it but I support the removal. The contentious nature of the accusation against a BLP and the way it's in the lead as a "accused of" with no additional information makes it a contentious claim. Per NOCON, a contentious BLP claim should be removed even if it isn't newly added. Springee (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:PRESERVE, why not restore it and fix it until there is consensus to remove? He never denied coercing her for sex; it's just contentious whether that constitutes "sexual misconduct". Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Were charges filed? Yes a lot of people talked about it but in the end no additional evidence came out. By "people" you mean reliable sources, and that is exactly the point. WP:PUBLICFIGURE applies to any public controversy or allegation, regardless of whether or not it resulted in any sort of criminal justice action. Claiming that "MeToo" allegations against Aziz Ansari are relevant to Me Too but not Aziz Ansari unfortunately gets it backwards. The allegations against the subject are of obviously of greatest significance with the subject. Whether or not they are relevant or significant in the broader Me Too movement is the more difficult question. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I think another point by me and Kolya Butternut is worth clarifying: Everyone is entitled to their opinions. But those opinions need to be rooted in policy and sources and not conclusory statements. A mere conclusory expression of opinion is not helpful and frankly, is not a sufficient justification for major changes to the article. "I think it's significant" or "I think it's not significant" needs to be backed up with reasons why. Without that, these statements resemble WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Half of the scholarly articles this year mentioning Aziz Ansari are related to MeToo.[7] Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• This received enough coverage in sources for including in the article, but I don't think it is nearly significant enough to include in the lead. If there were a criminal charge—perhaps. A conviction—definitely. It sounds to me like a horrible date that one of the participants decided to make public. That's not encyclopedic, and it's certainly not lead worthy. - MrX 🖋 20:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

MrX I think it's a bit of a tough line to draw, though, to say that criminal charges are necessary for something to be significant. Not all criminal charges are significant, and not all significant incidents are criminal. For the lead, at least, I believe that the guiding policy is MOS:LEAD. The allegations are addressed in-depth in the article because of how they affected Ansari's public profile. Do you not think that a summary of the article deserves a brief mention of this? Wikieditor19920 (talk)

MOS:LEAD is part of style guide. It's not a rule. That's why consensus is important so that editors can decide how a style guide should be applied to a particular situation.

I also think the article content should be trimmed back to what is biographically relevant to the subject. I would suggest removing this:

In an article in The Hindu, Vasundhara Sirnate Drennan wrote that "The issue is far more complicated than has been presented in knee-jerk opinion pieces." For The Atlantic, James Hamblin wrote that these "stories of gray areas are exactly what [...] need to be told and discussed." "Even Ansari, the semi-ironic expert who authored a book on interpersonal communication [...] was seeing something totally different from his date, Grace", who felt coerced.

This kind of quote-laden commentary tells us almost nothing about the subject.- MrX 🖋 21:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why we should depart from the traditional standard for leads. This is a well-documented controversy, covered at length in the article, and which MOS also directly addresses. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

A traditional standard lead would not contain a controversy about a bad date. - MrX 🖋 21:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The noteworthy incident was not the date -- which is like hundreds of thousands of such regrettable and regretted misunderstandings every week around the world. What garnered the brief attention in the blogosphere and a few press articles was the tenuous use of #MeToo narratives to describe the woman's having failed to extricate herself from an unwelcome situation before she got to tears. None of the commentary concludes that this woman impacted or damaged Ansari's "public profile". Nothing much happened. The noteworthy event was the woman's having held up her personal reactions to public scrutiny on the expectation that people would find them somehow similar to incidents of sexual misconduct. The public reaction was only that "bad conduct" is not "misconduct" and both she and Ansari were viewed as having bungled a rather innocuous interaction that left them both temporarily upset at having handled it poorly. SPECIFICO talk 21:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

No. This inaccurately minimizes the coverage received, which was substantial. It was not limited to the "blogosphere." The presence of unreliable or otherwise unusable sources does not diminish the value of reliable sources like the NYT, WaPo, NPR, and others (linked above) that also reported on this.

And I'm going to address something that I really hope I have to say only once: Do not use this page to discuss your view of whether or not the allegations were serious or not, whether or not it was a "date gone wrong" or a sexual assault allegation, and whether it was merely the woman's "personal reactions." Not only is this a violation of WP:FORUM, this is also probably a violation of the BLP of the accuser, who is also a specific, living person even if unnamed. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with SPECIFICO on these points, and I don't view any of the comments as violating WP:FORUM. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this situation does not involve sexual assault at all. - MrX 🖋 21:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I was summarizing the cited sources. I suggest you (re-)read them. SPECIFICO talk 21:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

CNN referred to it as a sexual assault allegation: "Master of None" star Aziz Ansari has responded to an allegation of sexual assault by a woman he went out on a date with in the fall. It has also been referred to as a sexual misconduct allegation by the New York Times. Whatever semantic variation you want to use, both are supported in reliable sources.

SPECIFICO, you did not reference any specific piece or attribute the views in the above comment. I see that there are commentators who have defended Aziz as documented in this interview and this opinion piece by the former NYT editor Bari Weiss. These are not reliable sources for what happened: these are reliable for the opinions of those authors only. And SPECIFICO is rehashing them, without attribution, and in his own words. Nowhere in any source do I see a suggestion that the woman "bungled" the encounter which she described as sexual assault. Nor do I see the encounter or the allegation described as "innocuous." BLP applies to the accuser just as it does Ansari, whether or not she is named, because we are referring to a specific person. Again, I ask that the above comments be struck by the editor who made them. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

We can see how much weight the allegations receive relative to other reporting about Ansari at The Guardian.[8] Many pieces discuss that this story is important precisely because it is so mundane. "As a young woman, I can just about count on two hands the number of experiences I’ve had like this – and there are probably even more I’ve forgotten about. Being coerced or pushed into sex you’re not particularly comfortable with is something that’s happened to almost every woman I know, to the extent that many of us just stoically accept that it can be part and parcel of sexual relations. To some extent, this is true. Ansari’s behaviour was normal – and therein lies its true horror.[9] Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Right. That's why it doesn't go in the lead. Dog bites man! SPECIFICO talk 22:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Template:BLP noticeboard Regarding the comments about the accuser. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Kolya, you are also citing an opinion piece, which is not a reliable source for anything but the author's opinion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the opinion of why the story is important. There are also pieces which mention the coverage of the coverage and the "media frenzy", like this story about The Cut from Columbia Journalism Review.[10] Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

That cjr piece confirms that the significant matter was not Ansari but was rather the viability of public #MeToo discourse. SPECIFICO talk 01:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

"That evening, The Cut’s staff writer, Anna Silman, identified the Ansari moment as a turning point, and called for a parallel dialogue about pervasive sexist norms at large." CJR. Whatever the "Ansari moment" is, it is about Ansari. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Just like a French Fry is not about France, etc. SPECIFICO talk 02:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

The (formerly, first changed here) above subheading was added after the below discussion began,[11] and presents a false dichotomy. The question is how much weight to give the accusation against Ansari, the effect on his career and Ansari's #MeToo moment. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

MrX, I understand that you are viewing the situation through the lens of a "bad date" as this is what SPECIFICO has been presenting, but the woman's story contains detailed descriptions of Ansari touching her unwantedly in a sexual manner, additionally forcefully attempting to touch her genitals and trying to force her hand to his genitals, while physically inhibiting her from being able to leave, for a sustained period of half an hour. This is a description, not a known fact, but this is why the incident is of substance. Many commentators do view this behaviour as sexual assault, but not necessarily as actions illegal under U.S. law. The main reason it is significant, however, is the same reason that all things on Wikipedia are or aren't significant—the amount of secondary source coverage of the incident. As a fan of Ansari, I see that the incident is a large turning point in his career, something he has both described himself extensively in his stand-up material and that has been discussed about him in the high-quality reliable sources that have been presented in this section (NYT, WaPo, US Today, NBC etc.). Editors' opinions about whether the incident is substantial or not to their personal view of Ansari are not important. There are many events which I view as notable but insubstantial (such as many of our gaming articles, sports I am not interested in etc.). Someone coughing loudly is a notable event if it obtains serious and detailed coverage by high-quality independent sources over many months and years. Do not allow a double standard here. — Bilorv (talk) 07:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

BilorvI am not viewing the situation through any lens and SPECIFICOs presentation had no effect on me. I read the babe.net article including Ansari's statement, and several other sources, and came to the conclusion that this is not something that could be covered in the lead without running afoul of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. It's worth noting that neither party disputes the details of what occurred, but there is dispute about whether it was sexual assault, sexual misconduct, or consensual sex. That does not summarize well. - MrX 🖋 11:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

MrX WP:WEIGHT is not based on your subjective evaluation of an incident or event. It's based on the source's evaluation and the degree of coverage. Sources have treated this as significant, which is why it's covered in a separate section in the article. The purpose of the lead is to summarize all components of the article, including controversies. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

We agree that WP:WEIGHT is not based on your subjective evaluation of an incident or event. Only a few sources treated this as significant, while most have ignored it. The purpose of the lead is not to summarize all components of the article. I have no interest in debating this ad nauseum, so I would ask that you please not ping me again. - MrX 🖋 12:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

And what is your basis for saying that "most sources have ignored it?" I think you need to review the source content more carefully, because this is absolutely false. All of the major national news outlets picked up on the Aziz Ansari allegations. Those are the sources that we take most seriously. It is completely wrong to say that sources have not treated this as significant. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I struck "while most have ignored it" since it was not based an exhaustive search and quantitative analysis. Here's a good summary that underscores why it would be inappropriate to try to distill this down to a summary in the lead of an encyclopedia biography:

The allegation against Ansari came as other stories of sexual misconduct and abuse began to entangle celebrities and high-profile and powerful men, leading to a #MeToo reckoning that also unraveled some of their careers. But the fallout from Ansari's case drew debate over the varying degrees and nuances over sexual misconduct, as well as how such stories are reported to the public.
— NBC News

This is mostly about the #MeToo movement, and only marginally about Ansari. - MrX 🖋 13:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

MrX is correct. These accusations were more significant in terms of causing people to ask, in effect, if the MeToo movement had gone too far. That is more about the movement vs about Ansari. Springee (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, look at how much of the coverage at The Guardian about Ansari is about the allegation.[12] This story is about Aziz Ansari. Regardless of whether the story is about an alleged assault or about his effect on the MeToo movement, the story is about Ansari. Framing the story as "has MeToo gone too far" is aligning with one side of the debate. A famous man, a famous feminist, a famous dating expert, was accused of coercing a woman into sex, and he did not deny that she experienced coercion regardless of what he saw at the time. He received more attention for this than any other event in his life.[13] Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Looking at what we have in the lead now vs earlier I see different issues. The problem is balancing WEIGHT in the lead with BLP and not making the lead imply something that the body would then have to sort out. This earlier version of the lead[[14]] was short so I don't see it as an issue of the lead giving undue weight to one aspect of the body. However, just saying he was "accused of" leads the reader with no idea if this is something like people accused Harvey Weinstein or Cosby (prior to their actual indictments) vs what appears to be this case, a date gone bad. The version we have now adds more information which tries to put some context as to why this should be in the lead but I don't think it quite works. It also means that ~1/4 of the lead is now about this issue. Like the earlier version it says accused of but fails to note that many saw this as a bad date vs a Weistein type of clear abuse of power. If the mitigating material were added then the length of the content in the lead grows too much. Since this is a BLP we should err on the side of not suggesting wrongdoing that hasn't been really proven. Allegations are just that. For that reason, I would keep it out of the lead. Again, this is an allegation of sexual misconduct in the lead. It has been suggested that this is the stable version of the lead. Perhaps though I see the inclusion of this material has been questioned in the past. Additionally, because it's an allegation of misconduct I would call that contentious content about a BLP. NOCON specifically says in that case a no-consensus results in removal even if this is the stable version. Springee (talk) 13:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Please stop describing this as a "date gone bad", not only does that minimize what Ansari did not deny happened, but it gives no information. A date-gone-bad could be a date that results in premature ejaculation, or it could be a date that results in rape. In this case, what Grace described was coerced sex from a powerful man who wears a Time's Up pin. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Sources predominantly describe this as a crummy date interaction. It is critical for BLP and to convey accurate RS information to our readers that we remember this: The "allegation" or "accusation" belongs to the accuser not to Ansari. There is nothing in Babe's piece that attaches this to Ansari. It is attached to the accuser. That is all we can say. Any language like "Ansari's case" "the Anasari allegation" and similar conjoining of Ansari the person to the thoughts and feelings of the woman are BLP violations and will be removed. Discussion can continue, but not on the premise that any of the alleged incident is significantly attached to Ansari. SPECIFICO talk 15:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Two things:

• From an WP:ONUS perspective, the text in the lede about the accusations, which appear to have been in there for several months from a quick scan, needs to stay until consensus develops to remove them. Presume this talk page thread is working towards that consensus.
• The events around this accusations are DUE for inclusion in the body (well-covered in RSes, and does represent a small shift in his career) but I don't believe it is lede-worthy here, particularly given the complexities of the situation and how RSes see the situation after the fact, less as a situation around Ansari, but more about how a badly-treated/reported incident can affect the #MeToo movement, which should be covered in more depth there. Alternatively, it could be seen as RECENTISM as we really don't have a good feel yet if this has really harmed his long-term career or not. He's still back on comedy tours and making specials after the break, and it seems like the events have washed off him, so if that remains the case, that further extends the UNDUE-ness for the lede (But still DUE for the body). But that could change. --Masem (t) 15:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

  Masem, how does ONUS justify non-consensus material in the lead? First, this article is not widely followed, so the presumption of consensus merely by its presence is somewhat weak. But what I'm seeing is a slow edit-war in which many editors removed the material from the lead and a smaller number of "motivated" editors kept restoring it with specious justifications, including what they saw as de facto consensus for it, even in the face of the ongoing dispute. From what I can tell it was added to the lead earlier this year, two years after the incident, in this edit. SPECIFICO talk 15:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

  I was just going back to chase down when it was added, and yes, I see it was added just then (in April 2020) and where it was "immediately" challenged (a few times in the week that followed) , and then I can see the slow edit war to remove it. (eg after a month edit warring on its inclusion picks up again). Nothing on the talk page here (outside the top two comments on this thread in May 2020 which don't make consensus) So to go back to ONUS, it should stay OUT of the lede until consensus can be reached as it is not long-standing material. --Masem (t) 16:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

  The lead may have no consensus, but the above characterizations are otherwise false. Editors who are removing the text have expressed that they believe the accusations are trivial, which seems to be a motivation for minimizing them in the article. Observe SPECIFICO's edit which downplays the criticism of Ansari for not apologizing which contradict's Rolling Stone's summary of the criticism from the Vox piece cited, and others: "Others, however, pointed out that Ansari acknowledged, but didn’t directly apologize for, his alleged behavior.[15] This follows an edit from April where he removed the apology criticism text with a false edit summary.[16] Of course, I can't take him to ANI because he will bully me as he has already done to me and to Wikieditor19920[17]. (No doubt the focus will be that the text in the lead was not actually longstanding, but that was not pointed out at the time.) I feel it is necessary to bring attention to what's happening on this talk page, but now that I have done that this can be discussed in other forums. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

  In the future, before justifying an edit war by falsely claiming the text was grandfathered, it would be best to check the history first. SPECIFICO talk 01:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• For what it's worth I think the longstanding version is here; before that it had been almost entirely stable for three months (and reasonably stable for a full year earlier.) I think that that, as relates to this topic or controversy, that version is at least generally superior to the one we have now and should be used as the basis for tweaks going forwards. --Aquillion (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Collaborating on sexual misconduct allegation text

Let's please slow down and discuss future changes to the section to come to a consensus beyond the stable version. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

This is an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. "Stable version" is not the goal. Improvement is. I don't think it was very nice of you to have reverted SPECIFICO's nine edits that they made over the course of nearly four hours, especially with an accusation fo edit warring. Collaboration is good. May I ask what specifically in SPECIFICO's nine edits you object to, and why? - MrX 🖋 11:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

This is not meant to be an accusation.  I felt that there was an edit war, perhaps the edit war was only on the lead, but regardless I felt an edit war was impending.  The goal is to deescalate, no offense was meant.  There is no consensus for these bold edits which changed edits which had been made over many hours previously.  I do not believe they best reflect the sources.  I am fine with the the physicist edit.  SPECIFICO, please revert your edit.  The ONUS is on those who wish to change the text; let's collaborate.  If I revert your edit then we would have an edit war, there's no need for that. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

See the preceding thread. The only edit war on the lead was the one in which you were re-adding UNDUE BLP insinuation about Ansari. Whether your false edit summary is an "accusation" or merely a misrepresentation, the effect is the same. It corrupts our editing process. Please read the cited sources and other mainstream discussion of the Babe.net #MeToo incident. Use the talk page and explain any specific concerns about the text before reverting improvements to the article page. Also, please read WP:NPOV and the WP:ONUS section. You are repeatedly citing it incorrectly. SPECIFICO talk 13:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with your characterizations, but let's move on.  I have read the sources, I have edited this article very carefully over many hours, and I disagree.  The ONUS is on you, unless you are ok with me individually reverting your edits, but going back and forth like that over many edits in one section doesn't seem like a good way to collaborate, and there has already been an editor war on this topic involving many editors. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

No one likes to have their changes reverted. I think SPECIFICO's changes were generally fine so I don't think the wholesale reversion was warranted. However, KB challenged them via reversion. That is consistent with BRD as well as ONUS. That means per ONUS they stay out until a consensus can be established. Proposing changes etc here will likely make that a smoother process. In the case of the opening paragraph, I like the extra detail SPECIFICO added but I also like the removed statement that the response was polarized. I think a hybrid of the two would work nicely. Springee (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you find "polarized" passes WEIGHT? That appeared to be editorial OR evaluation of a subset of sources. Basically, Babe.net is criticized far and wide for ever having published the tale. Then the Babe.net writer goes on the attack, notably against womean journalist Ashley Banfield, for her over-45 physical appearance. Then the consensus of those commenting in the media is that, while there is no merit whatsoever to "grace"s claims, and that she could have walked away at any point in the evening, it's good to discuss the general issue of male and female perceptions of consent. The BRD and ONUS stuff is nonsense, in the context of a blind revert without any rationale other than the bizarre "edit war" aspersion. We need to stick to behavioral protocols here, or else editors will stop volunteering their time and attention and the article will get worse and worse. SPECIFICO talk 15:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I have explained my rationale that I disagree with your interpretation of the sources. Now that that is clear, please revert your edit so that we may proceed more smoothly. Or, I wouldn't think it would make a difference, but would you be ok if I reverted you but with a more careful edit summary this time? Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I would have to check a number of sources to see if any say "polarized". You are correct that "polarized" may not be a neutral term. As I recall the reaction was some people were critical of Ansari and some of the accusations. Perhaps there would be some neutral way to note that the responses ranged from support of the accuser to criticizing the source for what appears to be a bad date story. Anyway, I generally agree with your edits but we still should respect BRD and ONUS. Springee (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, I've already mentioned the importance of BRD and ONUS to kb above, so we can hope that will not be a problem again. Meanwhile, those edits of mine consisted of a slight reordering of the sentences for better flow, an addition of an RS secondary source, an addition of RS context about babe.net, and a removal of misogynistic disparagement of Ansari's girlfriend. Hardly controversial stuff. If this incident is to remain in Ansari's article at all, it may need some detail about the attack on Banfield and on Ansari's most recent comments about it. The alternative would be to focus on the articles on #MeToo and Babe.net and trim the mention of it in this Ansari article. SPECIFICO talk 17:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I'm going to ask you one more time before asking for administrator assistance, please, in the collaborative spirit and as an act of good faith, revert your edit.  I disagree with your characterizations of your edits. (Although I see Ansari's girlfriend has recently completed her PhD). Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• I mentioned this above, but looking over the history, the longstanding version is here; before that it had been almost entirely stable for three months (and reasonably stable for a full year earlier.) I think that that version is at least generally superior to the one we have now and should be used as the basis for tweaks going forwards; we ought to revert the section back to it (which means no mention in the lead for now) and discuss until / unless we reach something better, with a focus on first addressing the things that are most glaring (ie. anything that people say is completely unjustified by the sources.) Things I like about that version vs. the current version - it makes it more clear what the controversy was actually about without taking a side or going too far off-topic. I don't think we can avoid discussing it as a sexual misconduct allegation, which is how the more serious sources do; it is already merely an allegation. Describing it as a "dating incident" implicitly dismisses it entirely to the point where someone reading that version would have trouble understanding why it attracted so much attention - the fact that it was a sexual misconduct allegation is the most important part of the section by far, because the fact that an allegation was framed that way is what makes it notable. The older version also tends to cite more nuanced / sedate coverage, which weighs both sides and discusses its impact; the current version is overwhelmingly slanted towards sources that dismiss the incident, at least in comparison. --Aquillion (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there is consensus from everyone except SPECIFICO, whose edits would be reverted, that we should restore the stable version before moving forward. I would suggest restoring the 29 February 2020 version you found and then discussing the differences between that and the version which I had attempted to restore.[18] Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

That is a perfectly ridiculous proposition. You want to roll back six months, 100+ edits by 64 users? And falsely claim ONUS for that? If you have reasoned concerns about any of those 104 Edison, start threads here and seek consensus. Most of those edits were typical WP copyedits, reference improvements, and trims. Pick a few that most concern you and suggest alternatives. SPECIFICO talk 02:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

We need to find the most recent consensus version. I understand there is implicit consensus for unchallenged edits older than a month, so do you support this version? That is the edit I made to restore the version before the disagreements about weight and interpretation of the sources which occurred only days ago. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the most recent stable version of the text would be. However, I would think any edit in the past few days/weeks would be considered new and, absent clear consensus, could be reverted per NOCON. Without citing a specific change I've generally felt that SPECIFICO and MrX's edits were improvements (call that weak support) but that doesn't mean a consensus exists for those changes. If they are reverted then the next step should be discuss here until a consensus for new text is reached. Springee (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Except that mounting a pitched battle over incremental copyedits and corrections is disruptive. We don't do mass blanket reverts. We improve articles be discussing specific issues, not weaponizing misapplied guidelines. SPECIFICO talk 02:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

How about restoring this version? Please stop making accusations. There is no need for it, we can restore copyedits easily once we've restored the version before the disagreements. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The disagreements? What disagreements? Put your top 3 up for discussion. Start sections and seek consensus. Drop the 6 month rollback idea. SPECIFICO talk 02:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The version I just suggested to you which you ignored is from two weeks ago. You know that the disagreements are about the interpretation of the sources related to the sexual misconduct allegation, and weight. The ONUS is on you to discuss your changes. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Or this version from four days ago which is the same thing. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

ONUS is not about copyedits. State your #1 concern in a new section and invite discussion. Then we can go on to #2, etc. SPECIFICO talk 03:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

That is a strawman argument. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

That is a perfectly ridiculous proposition. You want to roll back six months, 100+ edits by 64 users? Not permanently, I hope, and just that section, not the entire article (aside from the mention in the lead the rest of the article doesn't seem to be in dispute), but, well... yes, at least until we reach a consensus on where to go from there. Hopefully some of the less controversial improvements can be implemented quickly and then we can discuss the more controversial ones. Keep in mind that given the fairly clear lack of consensus for any recent version, rolling back the section (and mention in the lead) so far is to a certain extent a concession to you - the more recent, serious revert-war followed your sequence of edits immediately after here. I think it's obvious there's no clear consensus for those edits yet, and they were pretty drastic and WP:BOLD, so we have to revert to some point before then until we can reach a consensus or compromise - would you rather we revert to there? My perception (granted that I didn't inspect every single edit, so feel free to correct me) is that after the earlier point I identified as stable, there was a slow-boil back-and-forth over the section and that your more recent dramatic changes were partially sparked by disagreement with the outcome of that, so rolling the section all the way back to before anything happened (to a point where it seems to have been unequivocally stable for months) makes more sense, at least temporarily. But that older version did receive a lot of discussion at one point and I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that the whole thing is such a glaring WP:BLP violation that it requires pushing through an emergency rewrite in the middle of a dispute, and it does at least keep the mention out of the lead for now (which seems to have been one of the main points of contention.) Basically, it was on that version for months with little controversy, so it's hard to see much harm being done by sticking to it for a few more weeks while we discuss improvements and run RFCs or whatever we need to do to produce an improvement that satisfies people. --Aquillion (talk) 00:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, well kb has not given any reason for reverting 60+ of the edits that occupied quite a bit of my time and attention, all but a couple of them copyedits and conforming them to already-cited sources after I carefully re-read them. KB declined to identify, either real time or to this minute, which edits she disputes and why. This is against every policy and behavioral guideline regarding reverts. KB should either undo her blanket revert and go through the text offering improvements, or she should open sections for every one of my reverts and state her objection. A blanket revert is disruptive and the removal of obvious improvements without any explanation or edit to further improve them is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. SPECIFICO talk 00:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a false narrative. My edit summary[19] refers to this talk page where I have repeatedly explained my objections. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

You've only made 29 edits since the 02:45 August 24 text I restored, and many of those were unrelated to the sexual assault allegations, or minor copyedits, and were preserved. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

As of this writing, you've only made 44 edits to the entire article,[20] and that's including reverts and minor edits. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh I see you backed off the threat to go back to last winter. So if you have re edged 40+ edits by 11 editors, you need to explain each revert for discussion. Of undo your mass revert and work through them seriatim. SPECIFICO talk 01:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I only undid edits by you, and one edit by Mr Ernie, and a weird misrepresented minor edit.[21] Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Restored August 24, 2020 stable version (preserved copyedits)

Restored with this edit, and I added a source to the previously unsourced text which stated his girlfriend Serena Skov Campbell was a "physicist" rather than a "physics student".[22] Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Harmswhims, please undo your reversion[23] of the restored August 24th stable version which meets WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFIABILITY (which your change does not). The WP:ONUS is on those who wish to change the consensus version. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Harmswhims restored the current consensus. Half a dozen editors recently agreed it is better than "your" version. Feel free to propose specific edits. SPECIFICO talk 13:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Several other editors disagree with your version, and no one who supports keeping your edits in before further discussion has engaged in discussion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Harmswhims is a blocked sock. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Restoration following sock edits

I again restored the August 24th version, removing sock edits while preserving the undisputed edits which followed my previous restoration.[24] Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Section heading

SPECIFICO, please revert your edit[25] where you changed the stable version of the sexual misconduct allegation subheading. You made this same change on August 24th[26] and there has been an ongoing edit war over the subheading: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. Your version fails NPOV and the specific language fails WP:V. The stable version is NPOV, the language is the precise language used by the sources, and per WP:NDESC, articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law...are appropriately described as "allegations". Section headings should follow all the guidance for article titles. There is no evidence of a BLP violation; the ONUS is on you to gain consensus for this change. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The links at NDESC confirms the current heading, "dating incident" is correct, since there is no allegation of a crime. The Ansari gossip is like the allegations against Sen. Al Franken and other politicians where, due to their notability as politicians and public figures, baseless and trivial "allegations" about their behavior received brief coverage in the press. The same is true of Ansari, who has public attention due to his career in Milennial or GenX pop culture. The weight of RS discussion of this incident tells us that it was covered by the girls' site Babe.net more or less as gossip and not within the bounds and disciplines followed by true journalism. Unlike in the cases of Anthony Weiner, where a crime was committed, or even Elliot Spitzer where a possible infraction was investigated, there is no allegation of illegality in this matter. It's more like Hillary Clinton and "Benghazi". That's why, according to our policies and guidelines, we don't elevate "allegation..." simply because the woman who went to Babe chose to mischaracterize it in that way. Anyway, this doesn't need more discussion. We now have many editors endorsing most or all of the improvements, and only one editor insisting that a deprecated version is still "consensus." SPECIFICO talk 14:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with your characterisations and conclusions. I have given policy reasons for supporting the stable version, now please restore it and discuss further. The ONUS is on you to get to a new consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The former title, "Allegation of sexual misconduct", reeks of WP:POVPUSH especially as multiple sources questioned the validity of that allegation. "Dating incident" is much more appropriate, accurate and, more importantly, neutral - if not the most ideal choice. Using the former title would give undue weight to the accuser, discarding the various sources that are used in the rest of the section text. Harmswhims (talk) 00:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:ONUS, the longstanding title which EvergreenFir added over a year ago[32] must be restored until there is consensus to change it. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Stop bludgeoning the nonsense misrepresentation of ONUS. It has nothing to do with the section heading. Nothing. The POV heading is the same kind of UNDUE BLP smear that was initially inserted in the article about Al Franken and that KB tried to insinuate in the Michael Bloomberg article during his brief run for President. Also, this article topic is under at least two separate Arbcom Discretionary Sanctions topics. It's not wise to canvass. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 01:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I remind you of your logged warning that talk pages are for discussing article content, not contributors.[33] We will be pinging everyone who has edited or commented on the section title if we have an RfC; we have to start somewhere. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I just found this essay: WP:STATUSQUO, and the change to the heading does not meet the criteria of WP:BLPREMOVE. I want to emphasize again that I am happy to discuss this proposal in more depth once the collaborative process is respected.Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

El_C, can you tell me if I'm representing ONUS correctly? We're going in circles, and administrators haven't yet responded to requests for direction or enforcement.[34] Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: which version represents the status quo ante? El_C 01:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

KB's grievance has nothing to do with WP:ONUS, despite the fact it's repeatedly being cited on this page. Anyway, half a dozen editors have worked to improve the article over the past several weeks, and KB alone is demanding it be frozen at a version from some time ago. I might add that this is a Class C article, not heavily edited (especailly if you take out unsuccessful edit-warring by KB and others to put the UNDUE dating controversy in the lead) and so past consensus at Class C is expected and encouraged to change as the article is improved. SPECIFICO talk 01:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@El C: according to Masem[35] and Aquillion[36] the status quo ante is here. I had #Restored August 24, 2020 stable version (preserved copyedits) as a compromise. Masem hasn't weighed in specifically on whether that applies to the subheading, and no one has said what to do if ONUS has indeed not been respected. There are inaccuracies in SPECIFICO's comment I have previously addressed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

ONUS is about whether to include well-sourced content. It's the other side of WP:WEIGHT. You haven't explained why you repeatedly cite it to support your POV as to content edits and you do not appear to have taken stock of the fact that half a dozen editors disagree with your view on this page while you've declined to offer any reasoned arguments as to what about the current version you wish to change and why. Under the circumstances, I'd be surprised if any Admin is going to take a position as to article content, but as I said above, it would be constructive if you would start threads on what you believe should be changed and why you believe it should be changed. SPECIFICO talk 01:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd rather not go back and forth on arguments we've already had, but I feel I cannot ignore false statements. I'd say there are about an equal number of editors on each side of the argument. I have cited policies for my reversion. We have both not given reasoned in depth arguments for why we support our respective versions, and the ONUS is on you to start threads after the stable version is restored. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The former title, "Allegation of sexual misconduct", reeks of WP:POVPUSH especially as multiple sources questioned the validity of that allegation. That is normal for an allegation! It is why we describe it as "allegation of sexual misconduct" and not "indisputable factual occurrence of sexual misconduct." But the allegation did occur, was widely-reported on as such, and was widely described in those terms; censoring even the mention of the allegation makes the sequence of events impossible to parse because it becomes impossible to understand why the people accusing him were so incised or why his defenders viewed the accusations against him as such a serious thing. Even the rewritten version has {{accused Ansari of sexual misconduct on a date}} in the first sentence; there's no dispute that that allegation is the central, defining fact of the incident. It was overwhelmingly how the topic is discussed in reliable sources, so it also passes WP:COMMONNAME, even if you are worried about POV issues. I think even that concern is completely absurd; it is indisputable fact that he was accused of sexual misconduct and that that accusation was widely-reported in as many words, by sources that manifestly treated it as at least serious enough to discuss. We have to avoid lending it undue credence or ever presenting it as anything more than an accusation, but... while I'm open to discussion about ways to refine the section, the proposed alternative is stilted, awkward, and has glaring WP:POV issues in that it is overtly dismissive of the allegation in a way that most sources are not. It is not just a POV problem - it is crude in how heavy-handedly it takes sides - my first reaction on seeing it was honestly bafflement that anyone could remotely consider such a heading acceptable. I am as strenuously opposed to it as I can possibly express. Where did that awful phrasing even come from? It certainly isn't the WP:COMMONNAME. We're not going to replace the terminology used near-universally in reliable sources with... that. I'm all for improvements, but this particular change is bafflingly indefensible. --Aquillion (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

In truth, I'm just not familiar enough with the material that pertains to the respective allegations. But, to reiterate: broadly, if there is still significant opposition to a change that was introduced recently, then the status quo ante version is the version that should display while the dispute remains unresolved and the matter is being discussed. El_C 02:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@El C: so what do we do if ONUS is not respected? WP:AN3? Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• For other parts of the section it is complex because a long-running dispute seem to have started shortly after here. But for the subheading, it was stable until SPECIFICO changed it here a little under two weeks ago, after which it has sort of gone back-and-forth. --Aquillion (talk) 02:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, please observe WP:ONUS while the dispute remains outstanding. Two weeks is not long enough to be considered longstanding text. El_C 02:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

ONUS is not about "longstanding". I have no problem with Aquillion's edit, because it is based on a reasoned argument. That was not the case when you were pinged here. I gather we are now at a stable version, so that's fine. SPECIFICO talk 02:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Aquillion's argument is the same argument you disagreed with above. You were told to observe ONUS, and now are fine with the stable version. But regardless, please revert to the stable version. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Please stop misusing "ONUS". I've said this several times. You can always ask for help understanding policy at various venues. SPECIFICO talk 02:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

How is ONUS being misused? I'm not sure I follow your train of thought. El_C 02:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO often responds to pedantic misinterpretations of my comments. He likely was interpreting "you were told to observe ONUS" as when I told him to observe ONUS rather than when you told him to observe ONUS. I'll speak precisely: SPECIFICO, after you were told SPECIFICO, please observe WP:ONUS while the dispute remains outstanding. Two weeks is not long enough to be considered longstanding text at 02:32, 5 September 2020, you had no problem[37] with Aquillion's edit[38] even though Aquillion's arguments are the same arguments which you disagreed with through this talk page before you were told to observe ONUS. Feel free to disagree, but please don't strawman. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@El C:I've replied in the thread on @Bradv:'s talk page. SPECIFICO talk 16:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

KB, it is not OK to misrepresent other editors' comments. This page is under multiple DS topic areas. @El C:. SPECIFICO talk 16:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I think Aquillion's arguments are satisfactory. I'm convinced. Harmswhims (talk) 04:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

So will you revert back to the stable version of the paragraph before your edits? Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I was referring to the section title change, not the section body, the current version of which is indeed an improvement over the version you are desiring to revert to. Harmswhims (talk) 04:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

And yet there is no consensus, so ONUS must be observed. You just created your account on August 10th, so if you are not familiar with WP:ONUS, please read administrator El C's comments above where they state that if there is still significant opposition to a change that was introduced recently, then the status quo ante version is the version that should display while the dispute remains unresolved and the matter is being discussed. Now that you understand will you restore the stable version? Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

No one, including the administrator El C, has confirmed that your desired version (prior to the six months, 100+ edits by 64 users) is in fact the status quo ante version. Harmswhims (talk) 04:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The number you're looking for is 143 revisions by 68 users[39] as of this writing. You're using the same numbers SPECIFICO made above.[40] while pedantically ignoring every one of my responses, proposed and executed reversions. As I said above,[41] my #Restored August 24, 2020 stable version (preserved_copyedits) only undoes edits by SPECIFICO, one edit by Mr. Ernie, and one minor edit by another editor (and now all the edits you've made since you joined the edit war four days ago to edit the body[42] after SPECIFICO stopped editing the body. Shall I ping El C to clarify the expectations to observe ONUS or will you restore my reversion? Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

KB, all the discussion about restoring the section header related only to that change. Please post any comments about the article text within to the approapriate talk page section. The two issues are unrelated. SPECIFICO talk 16:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, El C asked you to please observe WP:ONUS while the dispute remains outstanding. The dispute is not limited to the subheading. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, you referenced WP:QUO here,[43] as did I above.[44] Please observe QUO as well, which also requires that the version of the paragraph before the dispute be restored pending consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Please carefully review the applicable policy that is linked RE: stonewalling. Unlike QUO, that is Policy. SPECIFICO talk 19:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

It would not be possible for me to status quo stonewall until the status quo is restored, so save that false accusation until then. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Nobody is making accusations. If you would state reasoned views, as Aquillion did, you would find the community ready to consider -- if not agree with -- your point of view. SPECIFICO talk 20:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

That is a reversal of ONUS. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, no. SPECIFICO talk 20:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussing proposed edits

SPECIFICO, now that the sock is gone and a stable version has been restored, you are welcome to discuss your proposed edits. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Article in The Federalist

"Revenge Porn" SPECIFICO talk 16:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Article in Reuters

New York Times writer Bari Weiss penned an opinion piece calling the Ansari article “arguably the worst thing that has happened to the #MeToo movement since it began.”

Washington Post’s Alyssa Rosenberg wrote that #MeToo could founder in acrimony without a “distinction between criminal acts and merely unattractive or immoral behavior.”

Catherine Deneuve made headlines last week in an open letter with 99 other French women that said #MeToo amounted to Puritanism and was fueled by a hatred of men.

Reuters

SPECIFICO talk 19:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources re: sexual misconduct allegation

Just a couple to begin with which aren't already in the article:

• 2020 reporting from India, "#MeToo cases in the US that hogged the headlines":

In 2018, an anonymous woman accused the American actor Aziz Ansari of sexual misconduct in a blog written on Babe.net. However, the opinion was widely divided as to whether the incident constituted sexual misconduct. Ansari denied the allegations, saying that the encounters were completely consensual. Ansari has been criticized for not directly apologizing for his alleged behavior.

• "The controversy around Babe.net’s Aziz Ansari story, explained", Vox Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• "A New Age of Believing Women? Judging Rape Narratives Online", Rape Narratives in Motion. Quote: one of the most polarised cases of the "Me Too" moment.

• "In a very dark sketch, SNL points out we still don’t know how to talk about Aziz Ansari", Washington Post Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I added the first three into the article.[45] Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I found a place that makes sense for the WaPo source about the illustration of the public reaction by SNL.[46] Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Per Babe.net, Ansari directly apologized

The Babe.net story quotes Ansari's direct apology to the woman.

“It was fun meeting you last night,” Ansari sent on Tuesday evening. “Last night might’ve been fun for you, but it wasn’t for me,” Grace responded. “You ignored clear non-verbal cues; you kept going with advances.” She explains why she is telling him how she felt: “I want to make sure you’re aware so maybe the next girl doesn’t have to cry on the ride home.”

“I’m so sad to hear this,” he responded. “Clearly, I misread things in the moment and I’m truly sorry.”

It is a BLP violation for this page to say he did not directly apologize to her, so I have replaced "directly" with "publicly" per RS accounts and the primary sourced quote from Babe.net. Any version of "directly" would need talk page consensus that it is verified and worded to prevent a BLP misrepresentation.
SPECIFICO talk 17:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Please respect ONUS per El C's instructions and revert your edit pending discussion. You have repeatedly attempted to change the well-sourced stable version against consensus by changing the line "directly apologizing for his alleged behavior" with false or misleading edit summaries [47],[48],[49]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Whatever the other merits of this contretemps, I would humbly suggest that on cursory inspection, Babe.net doesn't look to me like a reliable source per Wikipedia. I could certainly be wrong, but food for thought. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Babe.net is where the story about the encounter between Ansari and the woman called "Grace" was originally published. Its publication there is what sparked a much bigger story around it, from many other media outlets repeating parts of what was first reported in "Babe" and then also extending the story in some cases. The Ansari apology is itself repeated (from Babe.net) in many other places including the Atlantic and the Telegraph Novellasyes (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I understand that, but by my lights, we should try to use reliable sources nonetheless, as this is a BLP (even if they, themselves, rely on Babe.net). I'm certainly not making any demands about the article content or its sourcing; I just think it's something to bear in mind. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: You are correct that Babe.net is not WP:RS. Its lack of journalistic standards was noted and the post about Ansari was initially criticized for that. However, in the discussion that followed, the Babe post, in addition to the allegation itself, was the focus of discussion. A sourced NPOV discussion of Babe was reverted in this diff. SPECIFICO talk 19:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The reverted text was information forced into the article without discussion, much of it by a sock. Dumuzid, please ask SPECIFICO to observe WP:ONUS by reverting his edit so that we may discuss his proposal. It is a reversal of ONUS to have to discuss restoring the stable text while leaving the improper change in. Once the proper text is restored I can explain how SPECIFICO is misrepresenting the sources. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I will note the strawman argument; no one is saying he didn't "directly apologize to her"; the sources state that he did not "directly apologize for, his alleged behavior".[50] Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Seeing that he did apologize, I have removed the sentence stating otherwise. False information cannot be included in an article on a living person, per WP:BLP. -- Calidum 17:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Calidum, I'm not sure if you've read the past edit summaries or all of this discussion. The sources precisely say that he did not directly apologize for his alleged behavior, regardless of whether he made any apology to her. Please restore the stable version of the article; there is no BLP violation. Potential changes may of course be discussed, but please observe ONUS; this article has been extremely contentious. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth (not very much!), I agree with Calidum's removal here. I don't think the sentence is terribly problematic for any reason, but it reads to me as giving too much weight to the one Rolling Stone mention. As ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The Rolling Stone is not the only source which criticizes him for his apology. There has been much analysis of how he handled the allegations in his standup special, we shouldn't only quote him. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, possible liability, state statutes

According to RS, if Ansari had directly apologized for his alleged behavior he may have admitted to a crime. Even the limited apology that he did give for the sexual assault allegations leveled against him may have opened the actor up to criminal liability and prosecution, according to Law and Crime.[51] This may make his lack of direct apology for his alleged behavior more understandable, but we already say there was debate about whether what he did was sexual misconduct, so I'm not sure whether we need to give weight to the detailed legal analysis. Although, do note that according to Pew,

State lawmakers have debated [affirmative consent] bills in the past. But this year a slew of accusations of sexual assault, misconduct and harassment — along with accounts such as the anonymous accusation against comedian Aziz Ansari — have given legislators greater momentum in pursuing policies that do more to crack down on abusers and support survivors.[52]

Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

We should not be posting blog links and out of context quotations to insinuate criminal activity in any BLP article or talk page on this site. No such allegations or "analysis" have been voiced by notable commentators or authorities in any field related to the incident or the ensuing public discussion. The tenor of all the brief discussion surrounding this dating mishap has been related to the nature of public discourse around consent and communication, not to any assault or legal allegation. This kind of material should not be posted with no constructive purpose on the article talk page. If there were RS that allege criminal activity, it would long since have been cited or presented here for discussion and evaluation as to its WP:WEIGHT in mainstream discourse. SPECIFICO talk 16:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Kolya, I have to agree with SPECIFICO here, insofar as I don't really understand the larger point you're trying to make. It does feel to me as though you are insinuating criminal activity, and I am not sure what changes or improvements to the article you're suggesting. If you could make that more explicit, I would be grateful. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent sources as "blogs". Pew's Stateline provides daily reporting and analysis on trends in state policy. Since its founding in 1998, Stateline has maintained a commitment to the highest standards of nonpartisanship, objectivity, and integrity. Its team of veteran journalists combines original reporting with a roundup of the latest news from sources around the country...We subscribe to standards of editorial independence adopted by the Institute for Nonprofit News.[53]

This is what RS are saying about the story. There have been in depth legal analyses of the allegations against Ansari; there have been proposals for laws about criminal consent which have been given more attention because of the allegations against celebrities, including Ansari. The question is, has there been enough coverage that this information should be given weight in the article? I don't know yet. I did find a detailed analysis of "coercion" in the context of the Ansari allegation by a law professor in the Arizona State Law Journal last year.[54] It has been cited three times as of this writing. It's important to pay attention to whether the public's debate over whether the allegations constitute sexual misconduct has been evaluated by legal experts, and whether this story continues to be relevant in the future. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Please review my initial response to you in which I point out that the sources you cite and quote are not WP:RS let alone valid sources for BLP-disparaging or accusatory text. SPECIFICO talk 17:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I see the false characterization "blog", and reference to the irrelevant policy WP:NOTABLE. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Law & Crime is a blog, and shouldn't be used. The Pew piece you linked to doesn't suggest AA committed a crime, rather that legislators were considering changes to laws. I wouldn't use it either because the reference to AA is in passing and doesn't suggest he was the impetus for those changes. -- Calidum 17:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Why do you say Law & Crime is a blog? Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

You're right, it's likely an opinion piece, not a blog, but that ultimately doesn't matter. Also, if you read it, the author makes no determination on whether or not there was a crime. -- Calidum 17:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Right, I provided a direct quote to be sure to present the opinion accurately. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Also I found this forthcoming article in the Georgetown Law Journal, "When You're a Star: The Unnamed Wrong of Sexual Degradation" [55] It might make sense to add a source like this in the future if it becomes noteworthy; even if we don't quote it it would give more information about the debate for the reader. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

What value does it add? There is already extensive commentary inside the article. -- Calidum 17:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Please don't read into my motivations. It's important to know what the legal and academic world think of the story. This is one of the most complicated public cases of #MeToo, so it's one of the most interesting to explore. If there is noteworthy information to add to the article we should provide that for the reader. The Law & Order piece may put his apology into context, which helps us as editors to understand the story we're editing. The article doesn't include academic or legal commentary. At this time no such commentary may be needed, but like I said we should know what sources are saying in order to make that decision. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Kolya, I agree 100% that we shouldn't go around fisking the motivations of other editors. That being said, the question "what value does it add?" is expressly about the article and the opposite of that sort of improper query. While looking into relevant academic or legal discourse is of course fine, it's not always directly a help with building Wikipedia. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The "what does it add" question is also a really good one. Too often articles become dumping grounds for negative (or positive) factoids, quotes etc. A legitimate question is always, how does this help the reader better understand the article subject. If a clear tie to some topic paragraph (remember that from writing class) doesn't exist then perhaps the content isn't due in the article. In this case a lawyer saying Ansari might have opened himself up to a legal case would be DUE if one were actually in process. However, if none is happening then why include this speculative interpretation of the law. Even worse, it could be read as implying Ansari committed a crime or admitted to a crime. This is why such "informative" comments should always have a clear context and purpose in the parent section/article. Some will call this trying to scrub the article but really it's trying to make a more cohesive article. Springee (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I was responding to Calidum's concern expressed in their initial version of their question. So, the reason why this information is relevant is because there has been a public debate about whether Ansari's alleged behavior constitutes sexual misconduct or criminal behavior. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with SPECIFICO here. This legal speculation is too, well, speculative to be included at this time. If additional RSs discuss this then I think a case could be made but we aren't there at this time. Springee (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

So you agree with me! I'd be open to including a source, but new text probably shouldn't be given weight at this time. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Nobody in their right mind, even Aziz Ansari, would apologize for an allegation they (along with most notable commentators and journalists) deny. As one of those blogs points out, the apology as to the specific allegation could be used to infer a confession and form the basis for a legal claim of damages. This is truly a nonsensical "analysis" to say "he did not directly apologize for the allegation. SPECIFICO talk 18:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The sources in this subsection are not being used to support the text that he was "criticized for not directly apologizing for his alleged behavior". This is a tangential discussion. (Also, you don't have the facts correct, but we don't need to get into it.) Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

There's only one fact: This is a BLP and we have the original source in which the complainant states that he directly apologised to her. And that was before he called his attorney, Public Relations firm, and booking agent -- all of whom would ordinarily be expected to tell him to remain silent while the complaint was exposed for what it turned out to have been. SPECIFICO talk 20:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

That sounds like OR. It sounds like you are still strawmanning. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

"direcly apologized" discussion continued

If I might ask for a minor point of privilege--it does sound a little bit like argument for argument's sake at this point. Are there concrete changes being proposed at this point? I am not quite sure, but I have never been accused of being overly perceptive. Thanks in advance. Dumuzid (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

We now have consensus to omit the "apologized for the allegation" bit in the second paragraph of the section, so I think we're done. I may compile a Consensus List as has been done at the Donald Trump article here, so that we can avoid going over the same discussions in the future. SPECIFICO talk 22:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

No we do not have any such consensus. We haven't even begun to agree on what the sources actually say. And this practice of changing first, discussing later, is entirely against WP:ONUS and poisons the collaborative process. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I am in favor of omitting the apology sentence. And Kolya, while WP:ONUS is certainly a thing, so is WP:BRD. The collaborative process has many faces and demands flexibility from all of us. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Huh? The apology sentence has been in the article for months. Do you not want to include any reaction to Ansari's statement in the special? Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

ONUS says that even though it's verified, it stays out of the article without consensus to include. But this is a BLP, so that is even stronger reason to keep it out. Please undo your reinsertion. This talk page thread demonstrates there is no consensus to include that, and in fact there is only one editor favoring inclusion. It needs to be removed. SPECIFICO talk 23:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The fact that something has been in an article for a long time is really neither here or there -- as I say, good faith WP:BRD is pretty standard in my experience. And for me, based on the sources I've seen, I would favor not including any reaction. I'm just not convinced it was particularly notable in the Wikipedia sense. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by BRD; I have revered the bold edits, and now we are discussing. SPECIFICO, the text has had implicit consensus. There is no BLP violation here. Please allow a moment to discuss this before demanding removal of the text. It is not clear to me what the opinions are here, because much of the discussion has been confusion about what the sources actually say. Perhaps everyone can state their opinions now that hopefully we're on the same page about what the RS say? RS have widely covered his statement in his special, so I think some of that commentary merits inclusion. Perhaps we could add another line with an alternative take? Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

If you propose to crowbar this BLP disparagement into the article by claiming it is "only" a review of a TV show by a non-notable journalist, then it would be UNDUE as well. Needs to be removed per BLP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 23:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of "crowbar"ring content into the article? The text has been there for months. So far ONUS has been respected for literally twenty minutes. Please be patient while we discuss this. Please discuss other commentary we could include. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Consensus to remove?

SPECIFICO, please revert your edit.[56] There is no consensus to remove, and hasty edits of this highly contentious material create a hostile environment. Calidum's edit[57] was based on an misreading of the sources. They have not weighed in on the correct interpretation of the text. Dumuzid questions whether reactions to Ansari's statement are noteworthy. I assert they are. What is your objection to the sentence? Again, as an act of good faith, please revert the text and stop this needless fighting while we figure this out. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Dumuzid, you said you were not convinced the reaction to Ansari's statement is notable. Respectfully, I feel that you have the ONUS to convince that it is not notable. Would you discuss the sources?

SPECIFICO, you cited, "BLP disparagement" in your edit. What part of WP:BLP are you referring to? This is well-sourced criticism. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, WP:ONUS says, and I quote: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Thus, you have the burden exactly backwards. My argument is simple. I have seen Rolling Stone and The Times of India making the claim as you see it. That simply strikes me as insufficiently broad as to number of publications and, in addition, I don't think it has particularly stood the test of time. I do not mean this is a scientific conclusion. I do not mean that it is impossible to disagree with me. I simply mean this is my opinion, and, if you will, my !vote for the time being. As ever, reasonable minds may differ--as I may, at some point in time. This one just doesn't work for me right now. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Dumuzid, that is not the correct interpretation of ONUS. By that interpretation I could blank the whole article and then others would have the ONUS to add the material back. The removed sentence was part of the stable consensus version, and the ONUS is on editors who want to make contentious changes. You're judging the text as not having had broad coverage based solely on how many citations there are? That doesn't make sense...also, just recently there was a third citation. The Times of India piece is from this year...Please restore the text if you have not researched this. We have not achieved consensus for removal. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, I have stated my position. You can tell me what to do as much as you like, but it's not a particularly effective persuasion technique. Have a nice evening. Dumuzid (talk) 05:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I am politely asking you to observe ONUS. Also, I am not interested in using persuasion techniques. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Persuasion is how one achieves consensus. You persuade other editors to your point of view. Furthermore, if your reading of policy is such that the text in question should be reinserted, then why would I do it? I have stated my opinion here, but I don't believe I have ever edited the main page. Certainly not recently, anyway. With all due respect, WP:ONUS is not a magic incantation that means you get your way. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 06:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The Times of India article is not a valid source for reasons I stated when I removed it. If it was put back without consensus, that was a bad move and should be undone. SPECIFICO talk 08:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

You've given your reason for the text removal as "BLP disparagement". I don't see a policy that fits that description for sourced criticisms; what are you saying? Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• I strongly agree with SPECIFICO's removal of that material. The main reason I support the removal is because in the various (reputable) sources that have addressed this issue, there is no completely clear meaning on what any of them mean by "directly" and when a direct apology ought to have happened (or not). Should he have, or did he, apologize to "Grace" by text when he became aware of her reactions? If he did, does a text message count as a "direct" apology mechanism? Did he apologize for what he did, or just for how she experienced it? In July 2019, when he launched his attempted comeback and addressed the issue from the stage, did he or did he not "directly apologize" and does it matter? If he did not directly apologize then, but did directly apologize to the woman by text, and we even think any of this content should be in the article (I don't), that all would have to be addressed to get the story right. But since the (basically reputable) stories writing about this don't bother to dig down deep enough to disambiguate all of this, I don't see how Wikipedia can attempt to do that.Novellasyes ([[User talk:|talk]]) 15:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support Removal. I'm not sure why it's relevant that we have two articles that say "others" criticized him for not directly apologizing. I don't see why this material needs to be in this article. What purpose does it serve? This is actually one of the things ONUS talks about. Just because the claim can be reliably sourced doesn't mean it's DUE. Springee (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: The entire subject of the standup special and statement has just been removed [58] without discussion, seemingly ignoring the weeks long contentious discussion over this material. It's hard to discuss which pieces of this to keep after the entire subject has been removed. That being said, Novellasyes, the "apology" we are discussing is in the context of the Aziz Ansari: Right Now stand-up special, regardless of whatever else he may have said, critics pointed out that he did not directly apologize in the special. The reaction to his statement is part of the reaction to the entire sexual misconduct allegation story. If you see the special you will see that he did not apologize, but he did express that he "felt terrible" she felt that way, so "directly" leaves some room for what he did say. Springee, I'm not sure why you say we have "two articles" that criticize his statement. We happen to have had two citations, that doesn't mean there aren't many more sources which discuss this. The criticism particularly made sense in the longstanding version[59] where we included a long statement by Ansari that read like a public relations statement. If most of that is removed then the reaction is less important for balance. ONUS says we leave longstanding stable text intact pending discussion. We do not remove the text first, otherwise editors could blank entire sections pending discussion. SPECIFICO, these edits are disruptive.[60] None of these are minor, they all make subtle POV changes. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

  I marked this edit "minor". Not seeing any problem there. this one I marked "copyedit minor" from the dropdown summaries. Not seeing a problem there. I removed a stray space, I believe, in this edit marked "minor". I removed a misplaced "the" in a quotation from the source with this minor edit. Did you see problems with the minor tags? Disruptive? SPECIFICO talk 21:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

  Also, as many editors have commented, ONUS does not mean we favor existing text. It means we do NOT necessarily favor text merely because it is verified by RS. Most of the times I have seen you say ONUS, it has to assert the opposite of what WP:ONUS says. SPECIFICO talk 22:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

  You're ignoring the diff I provided of edits I describe as disruptive. Would Bradv clarify how ONUS works in this context? I believe it has been made abundantly clear that you are misinterpreting ONUS[61] and that the ONUS was on you to find consensus before unilaterally removing a longstanding paragraph[62] and making a rewrite[63] without discussion. Only the "direct apology" line has been discussed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

First paragraph of dating incident section

This version of the first two sentences of the section relating to the gender controversy

One

In January 2018, in an article on the now-defunct Millennial/Gen-Z women's website Babe.net, Katie Way wrote a story about a woman (using the pseudonym "Grace") who accused Ansari of sexual misconduct on a date. According to Way, the woman later texted Ansari expressing her discomfort, and he replied to her with an apology.

was recently reverted and replaced with this version:

Two

In January 2018, a woman using the pseudonym "Grace" accused Ansari of sexual misconduct in an article on Babe.net by Katie Way. The article was met with a polarized response among commentators and the public, with disagreement as to whether the incident described in the Babe article constituted sexual misconduct.

References

Which version more neutrally provides context and factual predicate for the larger section on the controversy? SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• I prefer the second version; the first sentence in the first version seems too long and complex, and I like the second sentence in the second about polarized response. Best of both worlds would be if we start with the two sentences of the second version, then add the sentence about the apology somewhere, possibly but not necessarily as the third sentence. --GRuban (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  We're already discussing the "apology" text in the talk section above, #Per_Babe.net,_Ansari_directly_apologized, where SPECIFICO is misrepresenting the sources. The stable version should be restored before we discuss the apology text. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  I agree with you version 1 is a little awkwardly worded in its inclusion of the relevant information about Babe.net in one long sentence. Any suggestion as to how to parse that more gracefully would be appreciated. Babe.net was not quite a group blog, but it was not a news or information website either. It was described as gossip and soft-core salacious girl talk for adolescents. Sources tell us no news site would have published the post as it appeared there to put Ansari "in play". On the other hand, sources later tell us that his responses were artful exercises in PR crisis reputation management. SPECIFICO talk 21:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  I also prefer version 2; while I think the nature of Babe.net is relevant, I am not sure we need to "up-front" that information quite so much. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

  I agree #1 is awkward. Maybe it should be broken into 2 sentences with different word order? As to the content, however, the other version is inadequate. SPECIFICO talk 22:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

  It sounds like you want to include something from #1; what is it that you like? Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

  Given the ever-so-tautologous advice to 'omit needless words,' I would propose this for my edit of suggestion 1: "In January 2018, in an article on the now-defunct website Babe.net, Katie Way wrote a story about a woman who accused Ansari of sexual misconduct on a date. According to Way, the woman later texted Ansari expressing her discomfort, and he replied to her with an apology." I am sure others can do better! Dumuzid (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

  So the change you seek is to include the characterization "apology", in addition to the quote of his actual text to Grace that we already have? And you want to describe Babe.net as a defunct website? Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

  I'm giving my opinion on the proffered drafts; but I think it worth mentioning that Babe.net is now defunct, yes. And also, I do think the précis on offer here is an improvement. So, there you have it, I suppose! Dumuzid (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

  Ok, I see that the first quote from him is part of his public statement, not the quote to Grace. I object to the word "defunct". We could say something about it being no longer operational, but I think describing it for what it was is more important than describing it as "defunct", which seems to denigrate it. Why do you feel that he privately apologized to her is significant? Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

  Babe.net is highly defunct. It was nearly so when the date story was printed, then was sold and folded. SPECIFICO talk 23:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

  That's interesting. I don't think of "defunct" as having the same pejorative connotation, but idiolects, by definition, are highly personal. I think it bears mentioning that the website is no longer in existence--something along those lines. And I don't think the fact that he privately apologized is significant, per se; what I do think is that it functions as a major piece of the story as written. That's why I like it as part of a summation. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

  What about, "former young women's news site Babe.net"? Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

  Also, I think it's always best to include a direct quote of a statement instead of characterizing it as a "apology", unless the RS have analyzed it and characterized it as such. I've read some RS call it a "non-apology". Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Dumuzid, I agree defunct is not the point for a short version. The point is it was a salacious gossip site for girls and young women, and that the article did not conform to journalistic standards. SPECIFICO talk 00:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm noticing that all of these proposals would have the effect of disparaging the sexual misconduct allegation. As an act of good faith would you do some research into RS which speak well of Babe.net? Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it's possible to contextualize Babe.net as one of many similar news-adjacent websites which come and go quite frequently on the web. For me, "defunct" was fairly value-neutral which is why I liked that wording, but I am obviously in the minority. I am certainly open to other suggestions. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Well it's not WP that undermines the "allegation". It's RS evaluation of Babe and what it published. SPECIFICO talk 01:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I've copy edited, removing "defunct", adding citation RE: Babe.net, and taking account of talk page input. SPECIFICO talk 20:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

We spend so much time talking about the accusation, we should be a bit more specific about what that was. Was he accused of groping, assault, exposure, what? --GRuban (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I think policy is very clear we should not repeat the details of an unverified allegation that basically comes down to intent. We don't need to replay the blow by blow of their date, but to do so in the context of a moot allegation would violate BLP. SPECIFICO talk 21:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Racial issues wrt the allegation

I see that this HuffPo opinion piece broaches the obvious question of race in the dating incident. In light of the recent incident with the Central Park Birder and other recent events, this piece seems on point and relevant for our readers. I wonder whether there are other sources to draw on relating to the aspect of a white woman accusing a dark-skinned man in this way. SPECIFICO talk 22:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Please provide them and offer a suggestion. Other people don't need to feel like it's their idea. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Babe.net

RE: Babe . net demise SPECIFICO talk 01:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The Wrap? You were so opposed to the relatively small site lawandcrime.com that you twice mischaracterized it as a blog, and now of all possible RS you cite The Wrap? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)