Talk:Carlos Maza

New York Post article

good article on his family history and upbringing. --2001:8003:4085:8100:F54D:C5A5:4142:50B5 (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. If you wanted to make an edit request, you'll need a better source than one article from the New York Post, which is a tabloid. Benny White (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

So, we're supposed to only use sources that Benny White approves? A tabloid format newspaper is perfectly capable of finding out truth. In fact, Maza has admitted the story is accurate. Any more facts that your want to dispute, Benny? 47.37.56.179 (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:RSP: "There is no consensus regarding the reliability of the New York Post. The New York Post is a tabloid newspaper with high circulation, and most editors prefer more reliable sources when available. The New York Post operates Page Six, its gossip section." WP:BLPSOURCE: "...The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." Benny White (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Benny, please see WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. I saw you reverted my piece on this article. What I wrote were the words of Maza himself: see Twitter. However, I had to use a secondary source with editorial oversight. Otherwise, the reasoning would be that Maza writing about Maza on the Twitter-page of Maza would not be notable enough to be used in an encyclopedia, or from another viewpoint, "too exceptional" (see WP:TWITTER). But for some reason, when Maza's own words are notable enough to be directly quoted in a major high-circulation news paper, it is reverted for being unreliable, even if the used quote is verifiably exactly the same as his statement on Twitter. Why is that? Jeff5102 (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Because the quote snippet used omits relevant context, and appears to be designed as a "gotcha." The full quote is I have lived a life of tremendous privilege, and I am trying to use that privilege to push for a fairer, more just world. What was the reasoning for intentionally omitting the second part of the sentence? Probably to omit that context. If we decide that his mother & family being wealthy is relevant based on a single article in the New York Post, we would need to include all the context surrounding it. Because yes, as you said, context matters. And the context here is that someone with a wealthy family is advocating for policies which would result in his family becoming less wealthy, because he believes that a broader wealth distribution is fairer and more just. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jeff5102: Thanks for providing the context that it was based on a first-party Twitter statement. @NorthBySouthBaranof: I agree that if we include the information, we would need to follow the true context.

I looked up the WP:SOCIALMEDIA policy, which seems a little vague. I feel that this addition to the article may be WP:UNDUE. Maza's post was in anticipation of one tabloid's story, and the other source (which doesn't exactly get a ringing endorsement on WP:RSP) is that tabloid. I think we should skip this addition unless it is covered in more RS. Benny White (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of socioeconomic background is not out of place in a biography and I find the context welcome: "I have lived a life of tremendous privilege, and I am trying to use that privilege to push for a fairer, more just world." Bus stop (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Maza says in that Twitter post that this is not something he wants to talk about. We shouldn't be including quotes on Wikipedia that article subjects are forced to make because of a tabloid piece in a low quality source. If reliable sources discuss Maza's socioeconomic background, then I think it may be appropriate to include. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The Twitter post is simply to provide more information. It isn't to deny information about to be published by the New York Post. They are not "forced" to make a statement via Twitter providing information that is supplemental to the New York Post article and they are not denying the information in the New York Post article. Bus stop (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Neither the New York Post article nor the Twitter post are appropriate to include. The one is a tabloid article in a low quality source, and the other is a Twitter post where the author of the post says they don't want to be discussing this. The relevance of the information would need to be shown by inclusion in better sources. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I think he is just about confirming the accuracy of the information in the New York Post article. He is saying that he wants to "get out ahead of it". He issues no denials of what is about to be published. "Get[ting] out a head of it" to me means providing additional information relevant to what is about to be published. And that is all that he does. He does not deny anything. I am perfectly OK with including his additional information such as "I have lived a life of tremendous privilege, and I am trying to use that privilege to push for a fairer, more just world." Bus stop (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

If you think we should include a quote from Twitter post where the author says "This all feels uncomfortably personal to talk about" and "I dread having to talk about this", then you will have to find a better reason than a sensationalist tabloid article. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The subject is not saying the information in that article is inaccurate. The subject says "there's going to be a shitty article about my family in the New York Post pretty soon". Bus stop (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

As Benny White has also said, the information is not WP:DUE without better sourcing. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Damned if I can find dueness in a tabloid (ironically owned by a billionaire) drumming up controversy over the fact that, in their minds, one born to money can't criticize inequality. If an excellent source can be found (not Twitter), go for it in full context. O3000 (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert—I don't think there is a question concerning due and undue weight. It is standard to include socioeconomic information in biographies, if known. In this instance Maza is providing information via Twitter that is supplemental to the New York Post article. Do you feel that anything Maza says via Twitter conflicts with anything in the New York Post article? Bus stop (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't get it, sorry. Someone's socioeconomic background is WP:UNDUE, as opposed to the fact that this 1988-born person frequently played video games as a child, which is notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia? It appears to me that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is at play here. As a second point: the phrase "I have lived a life of tremendous privilege, and I am trying to use that privilege to push for a fairer, more just world." looks rather silly if it is followed by a statement of his fondness of playing video games. Moreover, the latter part was not notable enough to be inserted in the Post-article, so why would it be notable enough here? After all, it doesnt change the status of his upbringing.Jeff5102 (talk) 06:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

If information about his parents' wealth is due, then why isn't it covered in reliable sources? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 14:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

It would be undue weight if we excessively explored the subject's socioeconomic background, but at this time there is nothing in the article about the subject's socioeconomic background, so how can the edit in question be an instance of undue weight? Bus stop (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Wally, this newspaper quotes the words Maza uses on Twitter. I checked it, and it, and the words were indeed taken over correctly by the Post. I gave you the exact link, so you can check it yourself. Why then should there be a problem with reliability?Jeff5102 (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

A low quality source is not reliable enough to be used to establish the information should be included. If it was important enough information to be included, it would be covered in multiple sources. Benny White already quoted several rules, including WP:BLPSOURCE, which says, contentious material "should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we are discussing "contentious material". What do you see as being "contentious" about the material in this edit? Bus stop (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Two editors have removed it, and four editors have objected to it here. Only you and Jeff5102 have argued for its inclusion. Unless you can find better sources, there doesn't seem to be anymore to discuss. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

You are saying you are removing "contentious material". I am looking at the same material and not seeing anything "contentious". Therefore I am simply asking you—what is "contentious" about the material that you are removing? Bus stop (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Wally, WP:VOTE tells us that "polls are generally not used for article development. Remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy; even when polls appear to be "votes", most decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis of consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule. In summary, polling is not a substitute for discussion."

That said, your argument would have some merit if we really only had the Post, article. However, you ignore Maza's own tweet that confirms the used part of the reference word for word. Quoting someone directly is not "contentious." Therefore, the appeal to the questionable reliability falls flat, and with that the problem of notability. After all, it is published by a major news source with editorial oversight, which makes it notable.

Also, when you willanswer Bus Stop's question, please also answer this one: why is the fact that this 1988-born person frequently played video games as a child noteworthy enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia, while his socioeconomic status is not?Jeff5102 (talk) 05:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I took another look at WP:SOCIALMEDIA, and I think Maza's Twitter post does meet the requirements. I would be OK with including the info if we base it accurately on Maza's Twitter post, keep it to probably one sentence, and just skip the New York Post story—it's hard to argue that a tabloid hit piece would be an appropriate source, and another source is not required by the social-media source policy. So something like "Maza experienced both wealth and financial struggle while growing up, which he credits with motivating him to advocate for more economic equality." Would this be an acceptable compromise to all? Benny White (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. O3000 (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I feel we should wait until the information is covered by a reliable source. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest the following for inclusion in the article: Maza has said "I grew up living between two very different households, experiencing two very different economic classes...I know what it's like to enjoy incredible wealth. And I know what it's like to struggle to make ends meet...I have lived a life of tremendous privilege, and I am trying to use that privilege to push for a fairer, more just world". Bus stop (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

We are proposing to include long quotes from a Twitter post where the author of the post says, "This all feels uncomfortably personal to talk about" and "I dread having to talk about this" when the material has not been covered in any reliable sources? If we wanted to include random quotes from Maza, we would have a thousand, which is why we rely on reliable sources to determine what is due. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

These are not "random quotes from Maza". This is Maza explaining his socioeconomic background. Most biographies—if the information is known—shed some light on the circumstances of one's life especially one's upbringing. We know that material circumstances are often pertinent to lives. Poverty tends to have its impact as does privilege. I totally accept that he may find discussing his background uncomfortable. But he made the post. You can still read it here. His purpose in making the Twitter post is to "get out ahead of it". He wishes to explain his own circumstances in advance of the New York Post explaining it for him. I have chosen those excerpts from his Twitter post that I feel explains to the reader of our article just what his background is vis-à-vis material wellbeing and especially in his upbringing. I have avoided most but not all passages that involve interpretation. For instance I did not include "the experience of growing up across a class divide deeply informs my politics and ideas of economic justice". In another section of the article that assertion would very well be a good addition. But in an early life section I think we want just the facts, without interpretation. Bus stop (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

"I have chosen those excerpts from his Twitter post that I feel explains to the reader of our article" is why we are supposed to be guided by reliable sources for what is WP:DUE. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

You are just tossing out policy acronyms. Shouldn't you be explaining how WP:DUE applies to the topic of this discussion? Bus stop (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The policy explicitly says article content should "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". If no independent reliable sources have published certain information about Maza and the only source for content is a Twitter post where Maza says he does not want to be discussing the information, then how is that complying with WP:DUE policy's first line? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you please tell me what the "viewpoints" are? You are saying article content should "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". Bus stop (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not the information is noteworthy/significant enough for inclusion, the point of the policy. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I think more than one sentence is excessive. I would not normally use social media as a source, but since it is allowable under policy, it seems like a good point of compromise. WP:DUE says "...in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Since there's really only one BLP-acceptable source here (Maza's post), I think you could make the case for including one sentence, but not more. Benny White (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Why "one sentence, but not more"? Bus stop (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Since there's only one acceptable source for this content (and not an especially strong one), it's not very prominent in the RS, so proportionally it should be minimally covered. More than one sentence would be disproportionate. If readers are interested in seeing more of what the subject has to say, they could still click the source link. Benny White (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

wallyfromdilbert—no, that is not the "point of the policy". Policy reads as follows: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

1. I do not believe the compromise will work. WP:SOCIALMEDIA says that the used material shouldn't be "unduly self-serving." It is quite obvious that a defense against an upcoming attack-piece is self-serving.

2. The twitter-quote of Maza in the New York Post-story has been taken over by other news outlets. However, given the conservative-leaning nature of them, I do not believe the articles of The Daily Caller and Townhall will be judged as "reliable" by some of the involved editors here.

3.Isn't it a better compromise to start the biography with "Maza graduated from Wake Forest University in 2010 with a BA in political science..." and erase everything before that? That prevents us from further heated discussion. When all aspects of Maza's youth will be discussed in a source that is acceptable for all we can recreate/reinsert the paragraph again. Would that be an acceptable compromise to all?Jeff5102 (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

What reason would there be for removing content properly sourced to a reliable source, such as his birth year? That is also a completely separate topic from whether or not to include information from a New York Post article or his Twitter feed about his parents' income, and should probably be raised in a new section. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

His birth year is still present in the infobox. And for the rest, just stating that he was a child of Cuban immigrants, had some siblings and loved debating and video games - that gives a false impression of the conditions he grew up in.Jeff5102 (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

wallyfromdilbert—an article aims to provide a balanced presentation of a topic it addresses. The conspicuous absence of material expected to be present can be seen as misleading the reader. You are asking "What reason would there be for removing content properly sourced to a reliable source, such as his birth year?" Because we are not interested in misleading readers. The information under discussion would be conspicuously absent. A biography would be expected to shed light on socioeconomic background, if known, and especially in this case, as Maza addresses issues pertaining to the contrast between those, even in America, who are relatively impoverished, and those with ample access to advantages that sometimes contribute to life satisfaction. Bus stop (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Covering what is presented in reliable sources is "misleading" and give a "false impression"? Seems like you should contact those sources then, rather than trying to put your own perspective into the article when it hasn't been covered by reliable sources. We don't remove information just because you don't like it or include information based on your opinion about what is noteworthy. We use reliable sources to determine what to include, which neither of you have presented for the information you want to include. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

"when it hasn't been covered by reliable sources" But it has been covered by reliable sources. The New York Post and Maza's Twitter post corroborate one another. Bus stop (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

And it is also covered by The Daily Caller,Townhall and the International Business Times. That is plenty coverage. As you said:"The relevance of the information would need to be shown by inclusion in better sources. Here you have them. I know that at least two of those sources have a conservative bias. However, since a) they merely confirm what Maza is saying, and b) no media outlet has proven them wrong, I see no reason for not using them all. At least, if nobody agrees with my compromise.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The Daily Caller is deprecated as a source and not to be used for anything. O3000 (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The New York Post is not reliable and the International Business Times is unreliable per WP:RSP. The Townhall article is an opinion article. So, none of those are reliable sources. The only reliable source is Maza's Twitter post, which I don't think counts for WP:DUE considering Maza says in the post he does not want to be discussing the information in it. As WP:BLPSOURCES says, if the information was noteworthy, it would be covered in reliable sources. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Why would Maza's "not want to be discussing the information" have any bearing on whether we apprise the reader of Maza's socioeconomic background? We include information that is reliably sourced and relevant to a biography even if a subject of a WP:BLP would rather that information not be in our articles. Why would we make an exception in this instance? Bus stop (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Including information from individual's Twitter posts is the exception, and I see no reason to do so when the individual would object. If it was noteworthy information for this individual, then it would be in more reliable sources. You should find those. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)These sources are garbage, and we don't use garbage sources to included loaded trivia in a BLP without a very, very good reason. We would be making an "exception" by emphasizing bad sources. Grayfell (talk) 00:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Grayfell—according to WP:TWITTER, information such as this would be usable—or do you know of any reason why it might not be usable? Bus stop (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

It is rather weird that the Townhall-article is disqualifed for being an opinion-piece, since WP:NEWSBLOG tells us that they "may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process." Thus, an outright disqualification of the piece is beyond my comprehension. However,I will disqualify it too, if someone over here can point out any relevant factual errors in it. That said, we cannot solely use Maza's tweet, since WP:TWITTER says that the used material shouldn't be "unduly self-serving." As I said above, it is quite obvious that a defense against an upcoming attack-piece is self-serving. And as I said before: what is notable about Maza writing about Maza on the Twitter-page of Maza?

Thus, we have the bizarre situation that "garbage sources" provide "good information" on Maza's youth (backed up by Maza's own tweet), while "reliable sources" give "garbage information." That is why I proposed to delete the youth-part altogether. The article can do without it, and it will prevent us from more repetitive discussion.Jeff5102 (talk) 09:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

This Twitter post should not be considered "self-serving" in the sense found at WP:TWITTER because it does not deny or dispute anything found in any other source including the New York Post article. The New York Post should be considered an entirely reliable source for straightforward facts that do not deviate in any way from Maza's own assertions and are not interpretive in any way—were the New York Post to say for instance that Maza was not a "good person"—that would be "interpretive" and thus not allowable on that basis. Bus stop (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind to include both the tweet and the New York Post-article - and insert the facts both agree on. I would however like to insert the fact that his mother and fiancé works/worked for Ultimate Software. Not because I like or dislike that company or Maza, but because that company has only 13 links from other articles to it, and one of the good features of Wikipedia is that it can teach us that everything and everyone can be linked to eachother.Jeff5102 (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I tend to favor the wording I suggested above. Sourcing is more than adequate for the wording I suggested. I feel that the corroborative relation between the two sources provides good support for the inclusion of the material I'm suggesting. I don't think it is likely that the New York Post got the company name wrong (Ultimate Software) but for that fact we don't have corroboration between the two sources, because Maza doesn't mention Ultimate Software. I'd still say the suggestion I made here would be my first choice. Bus stop (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2020

Change "Harrasment by Steven Crowder" to "Cotroversies", as there was a response that might be considered controversial 2600:100F:B02A:AF38:A118:E213:86E9:E5AF (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Reliable sources agree that it was harassment; see previous discussions. Benny White (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Socialist

Should the article contain the text Maza is a socialist., sourced to a February 2020 New York Times article about him in which he is described as a socialist? The quote from the article is ... Mr. Maza, who is a New York-based socialist, decided to seize the means of his own video production. "I’m going to use the master’s tools to destroy the master’s house" .... @IHateAccounts:, @Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: and @Benny White: have been going back and forth over this; its inclusion seems pretty straightforward to me, but I figure other people's eyes should be on this (I don't like to get too political with my editing). jp×g 19:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

*Oppose including the wording. The language, especially as the edit puts it in (distilling an entire bio piece to "X is a socialist") has major WP:BLP concerns. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• Banned sock  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• RfC not needed: There's been no talk-page discussion of this proposal, so I think it's premature to start an RfC, per WP:RFCBEFORE. Especially since the article already mentions Maza's "leftist" politics. If an editor wants to make a case for including this statement, they are welcome to start a discussion, but I think we should cancel this RfC. Benny White (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
• I agree that an RfC is premature here, and that regular discussion would be more beneficial. I'm not sure why IHateAccounts is opposed to this content, as it is reliably sourced (the NYT article discusses him being a socialist 4 times, and directly calls him a socialist twice) and seems pretty clearly important to his identity as a left-wing activist. Maybe there could be some argument for attribution, but is there some reason to believe he in any way objects to the label? Otherwise, what is the BLP issue with a reliably sourced description of Maza's politics? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: An actual, full representation of his political positions would be one thing. The "personal life" section at the moment looks more like an attempt to justify the attacks on him by Steven Crowder and others; I'm not too happy with the bare sentence "Maza is openly gay" lacking any details either and seemingly cited as a throwaway to AdWeek; since it's paywalled, I can't tell whether it's an opinion column, or someone else's analysis of the main article by Maza [1].

Regardless, simply flagging the "personal life" section with a single sentence "he's a socialist" is a pejorative and thereby a violation of WP:BLP. A detailed analysis of his political positions/leanings/beliefs would be fine to replace the pejorative sentence, and I'm sure someone could do so from the source provided. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

How is "socialist" pejorative? It's reliably sourced information about his political identity. I don't really understand what you mean by "an attempt to justify the attacks on him" when Maza appears to be proud about these aspects of his identity. Are you claiming the New York Times is somehow part of a conspiracy to make Maza look bad? I am not sure how WP:LABEL would apply, and I am not aware of the how else BLP would be involved in a neutral description sourced to the New York Times. From everything I have read and seen, Maza is proudly gay and proudly socialist, which seems easy to find in both independent and self-published sources. If you think additional context would be helpful, then go ahead and add that. I really doubt you would find any traction for your opinion on the BLP noticeboard, but maybe that would be a better avenue for you to take your concerns? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I know a number of socialists, and none of them consider the term an insult; there are currently 404 people in Category:American_socialists; and the article on socialism describes it pretty clearly as an adherent of specific political beliefs. Do you have any source for the claim that it's "pejorative"? While I am not a socialist myself (and I disagree with many of my socialist friends' opinions), I don't think we should be trying to cover up people's beliefs. This is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. Moreover, on Twitter, his username is @gaywonk and he further describes himself as queer in his bio. Likewise, I don't think we should be in the business of denying people's expression of their sexuality (this has political implications as well). jp×g 22:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

"Socialist" may not be inherently pejorative, but it has an awkward and almost pejorative tone when it's included as a short sentence in the "Personal life" section. If we're going to include it, it might make more sense to place it in the "leftist" sentence: In an interview with Business Insider, Maza, who is a socialist, voiced his dissatisfaction with YouTube while also stating that he "might as well flood its airwaves with leftist propaganda" by returning to the platform as an independent creator. Benny White (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

References

I disagree that the term is pejorative at all, and I don't see how it is anymore awkward than any other single-word description of an individual's personal political beliefs in a biographical Wikipedia article on them, which is common on many BLPs. I don't see how there could be any argument that "socialist" is more pejorative in our Wikipedia article than it is in the New York Times's article or its subheading. Further, if the term was pejorative by itself, it would be just as pejorative to use it in a larger sentence. See WP:LABEL for examples of contentious labels. You couldn't call someone a racist in Wikipedia's voice just because it's not in a stand-alone sentence. I don't think we should be basing our editorial decisions on our own personal opinions of whether we like Maza being called a socialist. Maybe the term "socialist" would be contentious or pejorative if the article subject objected to it; however, Benny White, you seem to be agreeing that Maza is a socialist and doesn't object to that label himself. I also disagree with the idea of moving a description of Maza's political views out of the "personal life" section, and I think that is even more problematic if we put a descriptor used by another source inside an sentence that is attributing a quote to Maza from a different source. Since you are not objecting to the actual description, maybe it would be better to expand the content to address your concern about context/presentation, rather than hiding these aspects of Maza's personal life in other parts of the article? Otherwise, I think attributing the description to the New York Times in the personal life section would be a better solution. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it needs better context, is what I'm getting at. I think putting it in the "Career" section would actually make sense since it informs his career so heavily. I don't think it's inherently a problem to include it in the same sentence—it's pretty clear which source says what. Maybe using parentheses for the "socialist" info would make it even clearer that it's not from the Business Insider source. But I would also be OK with including it somewhere else with a reasonable amount of context. Benny White (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

*Include per reasoning by wallyfromdilbert GMPX1234 (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC) — GMPX1234 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs).

• Include the wording. I agree that this RfC is a little premature, but no matter. I can't fathom how this is a BLP concern. Maza is a self-described socialist [2], [3], who makes videos on Noam Chomsky: [4]. The NY Times unequivocally refers to him as a socialist multiple times in the article. It would be a BLP issue to not include the wording since it's central to his identity. The only problem is that I'm not sure where to include it. I originally put it in the Personal Life section, but maybe putting it in the lead is more appropriate? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 04:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Information in the lead should be summarizing the most important content from the body rather than introducing information not also found later in the article. I don't see support in the sources for it being significant enough to be included in the lead though. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Include. No reason not to. BLP is for unsourced or poorly sourced content. This is neither, and there's nothing derogatory about being called a socialist, especially when you publicly self-identify that way. As for procedure, although it might have been helpful to discuss the matter first, there's no rule that you can't go straight to RfC. R2 (bleep) 20:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
• Definitely include, having seen his Youtube channel. Maza is not subtle about his socialist views nor does he appear to consider the fact that he is a socialist pejorative in any way. Loki (talk) 01:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
• Include The references demonstrate that he is a Socialist and that this is highly relevant to what he does. There might be a case for omitting it if it was a fact unconnected to his work but that is not the case here. We should mention it in a way that makes this relevance clear otherwise it isn't very informative and invites questions such as the one we are discussing here. As such, the Personal Life section is not the best place for it. Also, I feel that the "openly" in "openly gay" is archaic and unnecessary. I'll remove that. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

This discussion is unhelpful and clearly devolved into comments on contributors rather than content. Therefore, I am closing this.
The following discussion has been closed by MJL. Please do not modify it.
That's actually worse. In Crowder circles, calling someone gay is definitely a pejorative. See Gay#Generalized_pejorative_use. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC) We don't write our articles from within "Crowder circles" or adopt their terminology. Crowder circles, with their abusive language and their twisted abuses of language, are not a concern for us when we write our articles. After all, they regard all sorts of normal descriptions as pejorative. They throw the word "socialist" around as if it was a slur. It isn't, and we don't shy away from using it when appropriate. Unless presented within a clear pejorative context, "gay" is not a pejorative. It is to be hoped that no person intelligent enough to read an encyclopaedia would regard "gay" as intrinsically pejorative. If they do, that is a defect in their reading and comprehension skills not in our writing. While we should always try to make our writing as clear and comprehensible as possible to readers of different levels of knowledge, I do not feel that we need to overconcern ourselves with the risk that some semi-literate ding-dongs might wilfully misconstrue what we write in line with their own prejudices. They are going to do that anyway, no matter how careful we are. Haters gonna hate. Dong-dongs gonna ding-dong. They are beneath our consideration. So let's talk about why "Openly gay" is bad. It springs from an outdated mindset that assumes that openness is not the default for gay people. It assumes that there is "gay", implying closeted, and "openly gay" as the rare and noteworthy exception. When people write "openly gay" they don't mean to do so but they often unintentionally import outdated homophobic assumptions. It is also redundant. Under what possible circumstances would we ever describe anybody as gay in a BLP if they were not out as gay? That would be a massive BLP violation. The phrase "openly gay" has some legitimate use, mostly in historical contexts, when talking about people living in circumstances where being out would be exceptional and noteworthy. It should certainly not be the default phrase used in BLPs. Maza is a left wing YouTuber and, as such, works in a space where LGBT+ identities are not at all uncommon. What I will concede is that the sentence "Maza is gay." is abrupt and clunky. If anybody has a better idea then by all means give it a try. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Gee, I wonder why I am objecting to inserting slurs and pejoratives into the page? [5] There's a history of outspoken individuals putting the insults they have received from alt-right extremists on their twitter bios (same as Jewish individuals or those who are against neo-nazis or anti-semitism putting Triple parentheses around their own name) to show that they reject being attacked in that way, but that doesn't mean it's acceptable for someone to put those slurs into a Wikipedia WP:BLP without any context. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2020 (UTC) @IHateAccounts: Why are you making false accusations? In what way, shape, or form did I insert a "slur" or "pejorative" into this page? Maza self-describes himself as a "Marxist Pig" on his Twitter page, and that's exactly what the source states. If the source gave a reason why Maza inserted that phrase, then I would have included it. Another user pointed out that Maza may have been sarcastic [6]. I agreed, that's why I replaced "Marxist Pig" with "socialist," which better reflects his views. DanielRigal is exactly correct--"gay" is not a "slur." Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC) First, I'm not making any sort of "false accusations". Second, the piece you cited to source the slur "Marxist pig" is an opinion column by Andrew Sullivan (I'll let editors read the article there to understand the who, and what, of Sullivan), written as a defense for Crowder in which he also says "He’s a cry-bully: weaponizing his alleged victimhood to shut down other people’s careers." Such a completely unreliable source has no business anywhere near Wikipedia, certainly much less being used as a justification to insert WP:BLP-violating slurs. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Oh and in case anyone isn't clear on the context, "is a socialist" was the very next thing tried by the same editor who tried to insert the words "Marxist pig". [7] I for one don't think it was intended as anything other than a slur. I would fully support an actual "Political Positions" section that gave a sourced description of Maza's actual positions and his reasoning for why he self-identifies as a "socialist", but a four-word "Maza is a socialist" dumped into "personal life" is just a slur. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC) While I agree that the mention of him being a socialist should be moved out of the Personal Life section, as it is a very significant part of his work, I find the characterisation of it as a slur not merely as obviously incorrect but as utterly incomprehensible. You will note that when I contested the problematic phrase "openly gay", I did so by explaining what the problem with the phrase is and without casting any aspersions on the motives of the person who added it. If we are to continue this discussion then I would request that we all adopt this approach. If you really do think that it is actually a slur then please accept that this is not obvious to other people and try to explain why you beleive that this is the case. The fact that Crowder's fans use it as a slur is not enough to make it so. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC) I have repeatedly explained, and quite literally in the comment you're replying to. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC) I don't see it. You suggest that you have the divined the motives of the person who added it but that is as far as you go. Anyway, this is unproductive. I hope we can all agree that mention of socialism should move elsewhere in the article so lets just do that? --DanielRigal (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC) I don't think that we should be moving it out of the personal life section, as it is seems central to how Maza describes himself. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC) Please, STOP ASSUMING BAD FAITH (like you have done so in the past). My intentions are to improve this article in anyway I can. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Please stop falsely accusing me of assuming bad faith. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC) You are not doing yourself any favours here. Please calm down and try to discuss the content not other editors. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC) IHateAccounts, neither "gay" nor "socialist" is a slur nor a pejorative, and if you think they are, then take that up with the New York Times, the Columbia Journalism Review, and the numerous other reliable sources as well as the article subject himself, who regularly uses those terms about himself and has done so long before Crowder's harassment. If you think the content should have more context, then go and add that. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC) @IHateAccounts: The alleged intent of the editor who initially added content to an article is not relevant to the merit of its inclusion. Conjecturing at length about other editors' purported motives is rather outré; please do not use talk pages as a battleground. jp×g 05:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that neither "gay" nor "socialist" are perjorative. Taking sourced information about a person's sexual orientation out of the page because some people have anti-gay prejudices is self-defeating. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. There is some good information that can be used to flesh out the personal life section from MEL magazine. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
• Include as it is reliably sourced and does not consistute WP:UNDUE weight, in addition to the other reasons provided above. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Quote in Lead

How does everyone feel about: The Columbia Journalism Review described him as "Brian Stelter meets NowThis" in the lead? I realize it's attributed, but it still seems way too MOS:FLOWERY to me. Personally, I am not a fan when we insert random, cherrypicked quotes into the leads of BLPs. They serve almost no purpose, they provide almost no context about the subject, and, in this case, I don't see how this quote accurately summarizes the article. (See this RfC on Charlie Kirk to get a sense of what I'm talking about). Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

That quote seems far more informative than promotional, and I think it helps in a short article about a relatively non-notable person. It's the overall summary of a long profile by a reliable source (and the most cited source in the article), and so I do not see how it is "cherrypicked" and "misrepresenting what the source says" or even what other sources would disagree with that characterization. MOS:FLOWERY also does not seem relevant given that the example provided there takes a sentence with peacock terms about Bob Dylan and replaces it with an attributed quote to Time magazine (and the current Bob Dylan article includes three quotes in its lead). As with the previous discussion, I think that if more context seems helpful, then adding that additional context is preferably over removing reliably sourced information. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't have much to add to what Wallyfromdilbert said. I think the quote is relevant and useful, unless/until some good language can be proposed for a replacement rather than just removing it. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I was too imprecise. I never suggested immediate deletion. And I think it would be too premature to completely delete the sentence until we have consensus on a replacement. However, I believe the sentence lacks a great deal of context and clarity. How exactly is Maza "Brian Stelter meets NowThis"? What does that even mean? Is it some sort of testament to Maza's journalistic skills? The Bob Dylan article describes at length how Dylan was a counterculture figure. How does this article describe Maza's success as a journalist (which is what I think the quote is trying to say)? Leads should always summarize articles, and I feel like this quote fails to do so. In essence, I agree with Wallyfromdilbert that adding "additional context is preferably over removing reliably sourced information." But, until we are able to beef up his career section, which is what the quote is in reference to, I think it would be best to move the quote to somewhere else in the article. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 05:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

If it is not in the body then tag with template:not in body. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Due weight for Crowder section

I don't think it's particularly undue. A quick Google news search for Maza suggests that it remains a significant aspect of his notability, and the sourcing is fairly broad. The incident is still being mentioned as a reference point for discussions of YouTube harassment or similar controversies today (eg. [8][9][10]) and is generally brought up prominently in articles on Maza or Crowder (eg. [11][12][13]) - note that all these sources are just from the first page of that Google News search for Maza. The last one in particular implies that it's a significant aspect of his career. There isn't much more that we could do to condense the paragraph while keeping it in, and this level of sustained sourcing makes it clear we need to keep it. There's actually more we could add based on these sources, but it would probably be best to expand other parts of the article first. --Aquillion (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes. The imbalance here is that we are not going in depth enough about other stuff, not that we are over-covering this. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)