Talk:Jason Russell/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

Hello.

Exhausted is spelled incorrectly near the end of the article. It should be exhausted, not exausted. I would fix it myself, but I can't.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.54.140 (talk) 02:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

corrected Bangabandhu (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Commentary lacking information needs updating≥

I saw Jason Russell at CloudStock in San Francisco on March 15th around 11:00. There has to be no way he was arrested for lewd acts in San Diego yesterday. This must be a case of misaken identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MercifulTyrant (talk • contribs) 21:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, it would appear you are wrong.

Invisible Children's CEO Ben Keesey released a statement, saying:

"Jason Russell was unfortunately hospitalized yesterday suffering from exhaustion, dehydration, and malnutrition. He is now receiving medical care and is focused on getting better. The past two weeks have taken a severe emotional toll on all of us, Jason especially, and that toll manifested itself in an unfortunate incident yesterday. Jason's passion and his work have done so much to help so many, and we are devastated to see him dealing with this personal health issue. We will always love and support Jason, and we ask that you give his entire family privacy during this difficult time."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.148.70.93 (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Protect

This is and will be getting vandalized as the story picks up steam. Admins? --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The article needs immediate semi-protection. I've already requested it. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why my edit was removed. He was clearly naked in the video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.12.135.246 (talk) 04:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I apologize if your edit was legitimate. However, since the article is currently undergoing intense vandalism, I thought it best to revert anything that looked questionable, and for now I stand by my reversion of your edit (I looked up the source, and it says, "it's not confirmed that the naked man in the video is actually Russell"). It's best not to make any potentially controversial edit at the moment. The article needs to be protected. Then, when things have calmed down, we can consider details. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm following up on the request at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. The article[1] is a little heavy on the quotes and use of sensationalizing imagery. It's a biography of Jason Russell, the article name is not Detainment and hospitalization of Jason Russell. Try to balance the article better and put the info in more encyclopedic terms. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump has removed all material about the incident. That may be justified for now, but something will have to be said about this matter when it's confirmed (as it perhaps already has been - there seem to be several sources). That will be required under WP:NPOV and is perfectly compatible with BLP. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

"it's not confirmed that the naked man in the video is actually Russell"

That quote from the Huff Post says it all. Please read WP:BLP, and have some concern for the privacy of the individual concerned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, removal may be justified for the moment. But something is eventually going to have to go in when and as the story is confirmed. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Confirmation is a necessary requirement: it isn't a sufficient one. What evidence is there that Russell has any ongoing notability? This is not a newspaper. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

If Russell is notable, which he probably is, then something about this incident will eventually have to be included, per basic content policies. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Veracity.

None of the places where news reports speak of masturbation, sexual gestures, or car vandalizing, are quotes or first person sources. If you look, every time something like that is mentioned it is in the body of the story, a statement from the newspaper. For example, the original NBC San Diego story quotes police about a variety of things, but when talking about masturbation or car vandalizing, it just makes claims. If you watch the video provided with that story, of a police spokeswoman, at no point does she say anything about the claims, other than at one point someone claimed he had taken his underwear off, but that he was wearing underwear during the time of his detainment. This is a sensationalist beat up and, while it clearly states in multiple reports about sexual gestures, masturbation, and vandalising cars, looked at objectively, these accusations are all from one or two news reports, without sourcing. http://www.nbcsandiego.com/video/#!/on-air/as-seen-on/SDPD-Statement-on-PB-Incident/142985695 WookMuff (talk) 07:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Russell might not have been fapping after all. A blog on the LA Times has it that Russell was pounding his fists on the sidewalks, and the police may have misinterpreted reports about such pounding as "masturbation". — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 20:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

it's really a news article, not a blog, despite what the URL suggests. Oops. — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 20:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The sources are right, there is a new video that perfectly shows the man to be the very same Jason Russell here . Someone please add such information to the article. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Jason's wife

I think we should add a section quoting Danica Russell's recent statement that Jason absolutely does NOT have a problem with alcohol or drugs. I'm just really worried that a lot of uninformed and bigoted people are going to look at that video and then just automatically assume that he was on drugs or drunk at the time. It's completely unfair to Jason not to allow this clarification to appear on his Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.35.253 (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

A comment from his wife doesn't really prove anything. It's not exactly an unbiased source. - Evilio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.152.253 (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Brief Reactive Psychosis

Jason's family today released the official diagnosis by doctors as "brief reactive psychosis, an acute state brought on by extreme exhaustion, stress, and dehydration." I would like to ask Wikipedia editors once again to incorporate this into Jason's article. If the true reason for Jason's behaviour is not clarified on the Wikipedia page, all kinds of crazy rumours about alcohol and drug use are going to continue to proliferate on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.35.253 (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I added it with a citation but someone with a little more time should tweak the paragraph a little as it is getting a bit repetitive - Youreallycan 22:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

About the author

There have been many views on the detention of Jason Russell, and I found the article only presenting a few. Is there some way I could present the sources I found on Newsweek to an administrator here?140.198.45.71 (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

part 2

I have something to add to part 2 of the video, could we go more into detail about the second movie?140.198.45.22 (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The talk page here

Someone keeps deleting our posts' here, even when we just want to add something or just ask a question. If wikipedia is open to user who WANT to contribute, why does this mod/admin named Caleb/Caled keep deleting everyone's post on the talk page of the article?140.198.42.185 (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I've been trying to undo them, but I've only been allowed to undo the most recent removal. Crzyclarks (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Then just report him

This is unacceptable, there were 2 posts requesting to put a picture of Jason in with the article, but they were removed with no response whatsoever. I'll bring this to the attention of authority that this sort of admin abuse on wikipedia should not be tolerated by members of the free community here.140.198.45.66 (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

There is already an "image requested" template at the top of this page. What more do you want? WWGB (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Harmonized

This page looks like it has been "cleansed" of all the negative dimensions excepting the most superficial. What is going on here?137.111.13.167 (talk) 05:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

What "negative dimensions"? Any criticism of the film should be in the film's article. Any criticism of Invisible Children should be in that article. Unless the criticism is directly about Russell, it shouldn't be here. Silverseren^C 08:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess you aren't familiar with Russell's history, evangelical and otherwise...137.111.13.167 (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Police statement

The police statement is the most reliable source we have. Any "onlooker videos" are primary sources and inherently unreliable. Also, the fact that the police statement said they only had one caller say he was nude is important and, besides, the way the article is written now, it's implying that several callers said that, which is in direct conflict with what the source says. Silverseren^C 18:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The fact is that nudity is confirmed and masturbating isn't. The statement by police saying that they cannot confirm nudity is now irrelevant. You can say that only one witness said he was nude and masturbating, whilst the others didn't, only if you mention the several videos showing him to be nude. There are several non-primary sources for that. Otherwise the reader will be under the impression that he was not nude. Crzyclarks (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Then we would be better off saying it was the one caller and that the police couldn't confirm nudity, but that TMZ released a video of a nude man that was claimed to be Russell. That would be the best way of doing it. Silverseren^C 19:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems fine the way it is, but you could say that. Except for the claimed bit. It is confirmed that it was him by non-primary sources. Crzyclarks (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Who besides TMZ confirmed it? All the other sources I read were just quoting TMZ. Silverseren^C 19:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2118275/Kony-2012-video-director-Jason-Russell-suffering-reactive-psychosis.html Crzyclarks (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Who is monitoring this page?

This past week I've seen some questions and comments on the talk page, but like the Ron Paul talk page, ever single addition on here ends up getting deleted if not sponsored by an admin or moderator. Someone has already made a complaint about various talk pages being locked to the public, such as Justin Beiber, evolution, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and others. Has anyone done something to keep everyone's opinion and contribution saved here?140.198.45.102 (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Illuminati and the New World Order do. I'm so sorry. --Niemti (talk) 06:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• From the looks of the history, no one is removing contributions. Instead, ClueBot is set up to archive discussions that haven't had a new response within five days. All of those questions and comments you're talking about are probably in the archive right now, if you checked. Silverseren^C 06:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Stupid bot.

Anybody know how to stop the bot from archiving everything? Crzyclarks (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Its Likely Not The Problem

Like someone mentioned before, its likely either users "Cush" or "Calabe" who keep deleting contributions on here, since either one has full access to the user pages. We will look into it further, or get someone with some social sanity to help keep this page open to new users, however shy they may be.140.198.45.71 (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

You can look, just like anyone else, at the history and see that no one is deleting contributions, but that they are being archived by Cluebot after five days of no responses. They're in the archive on the right, click it. Silverseren^C 01:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

On the edit part of this discussion page, it's got cluebot stuff written down. I'm not going to go messing with it, but if you or anybody else knows how to increase the time between archiving stuff, that'd be good. Crzyclarks (talk) 02:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I figured out the problem after some sleuthing. The age parameter isn't set in days, but in hours. Therefore, i've reset it to 20 days (480 hours). I think that's more than long enough for threads to be archived after. Silverseren^C 04:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Ask the one in charge

Only he/she may be able to rewrite the bot. Calabe1992 is in charge of this page, I hope he's not doing this on purpose.174.19.142.36 (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Why do you keep mentioning this Calabe? Looking at the history, I see that he has only ever edited this talk page a single time and that was back on April 9th. Silverseren^C 20:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I just had a look and he and some others kept deleting contributions by 140.198.45.71 Crzyclarks (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, though that's because the comments were unhelpful and didn't actually discuss improving the article. Silverseren^C 22:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

He/she mentioned the bot archiving everything, but it was deleted. Crzyclarks (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Those comments a month ago, yeah. Everything since then has been archived though. Silverseren^C 23:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

"Detained" for how long?

There is no information about how long Jason Russell was hospitalized. He was taken into hospital in March. It is now June. Was he released? When? 70.36.137.39 (talk) 08:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Apparently of brief duration at most. Usually there is a state determined imit for involuntary hospitalization - typically three days. No arrest, and the "masturbating" comment is rumour - the police did not state that this was a "fact" at all. Thus WP:BLP requires we conservatively stick to facts, and not sensationalise the tale. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

San Diego police department statement

If you have a problem with "perhaps masturbating" (not just "masturbating"), go and sue the San Diego police department for talking about it in the official statement in this exact way

Not to mention all the media reports talking about it, but actually no media reports (misguiding) are being cited here, only the police statement. --Niemti (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Also your silly whitewash attempts to make it vague "irrational behavior" will look it like he was actually caught masturbating, because this is what most people (wrongly) believe, because of misleading media reports (NOT quoting what EXACTLY the police said) and the popular meme (reinforced by South Park). Plus, you remove the IC and his wife's statements for no reason whatseover. --Niemti (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: As there is a current discussion at the biographies of living persons noticeboard regarding the contested content, the paragraphs removed on BLP grounds should not be restored unless and until consensus is reached at the noticeboard (or on this talk page should the discussion eventually move here). As always, a reminder to remain civil can't hurt. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Him nude

I don't understand why I can't add that. Many news sources have commented on it and the video itself is proof that he was nude, so why can't it be added? 2001:49F0:A000:8:2E0:81FF:FEB8:4E7D (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

We have high standards for what constitutes a reliable source when it comes to potentially controversial material about living persons. See WP:BLP and (as an aside, and it's not policy) WP:TMZ. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I still don't understand. There are several videos of him nude released by TMZ, that is indisputable. So why can't a short sentence mentioning those videos be added? 2001:49F0:A000:8:2E0:81FF:FEB8:4E7D (talk) 03:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

See WP:RS, WP:V and, of course WP:BLP for why Wikipedia does not generally favour use of "videos" in biographies of living people. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I used a news article as the source, not the video. I can get dozens of news sources reporting his nudity if you want, or would I just be wasting my time? 2001:49F0:A000:8:2E0:81FF:FEB8:4E7D (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd like an answer. 2001:49F0:A000:8:2E0:81FF:FEB8:4E7D (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

You would be wasting your time. It's not worthy of being included in an encyclopedia article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

According to the Wiki guidelines it is. It is a famous event that is verified, fact, has intense interest, and many reliable sources. 2001:49F0:A000:8:2E0:81FF:FEB8:4E7D (talk) 02:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Discuss it and see if you can get WP:CONSENSUS for the contentious claims. Do not add it again unless and until you have such a consensus. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

They aren't contentious claims. It is a fact that has been verified beyond a doubt. 2001:49F0:A000:8:2E0:81FF:FEB8:4E7D (talk) 12:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree; there is no reason to censor this at all--it's a very well known and widely reported fact. And using the video as a source in this case would be perfectly acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.27.60 (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

dinner party

there was a dinner party with him in it, but it wasnt reported?184.98.125.243 (talk) 08:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

There are lots of dinner parties, with lots of people in them. Is there a reason this one was particularly notable. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 08:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Unlocked

Why? I thought that some users didn't want his page to open until the Kony thing died down? Who was charge of the page, although it may be more than one?184.98.114.65 (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Naked

Collect mistakenly suggested that mentioning Russell's well-documented public nudity could somehow be a violation of WP:BLP. As for WP:CONSENSUS, he's reverted various nude version by me, Acoma Magic, 193.90.240.119, 213.46.153.4, Bbb23 and DiscoAmazing, with support only from Silver seren. Clearly, Collect's stated reasons for his ongoing edit war are false. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks like this has been escalated [2]. The summary there is inaccurate, unfortunately, but I can't edit it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't escalate anything. I merely asked for outside input. I no longer have an opinion in this matter; I just want to see it come to a peaceful conclusion. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's fair to describe posting an incident notice as escalation. It's also fair to describe your notice as being inaccurate. For example, you claimed that the issue is "regarding whether or not a video is a reliable source for the statement that Mr. Russell was naked during his public breakdown earlier this year". In fact, we have reliable, non-video sources for this, yet Collect keeps removing all mention of it, against apparent consensus. So, on the whole, it does not appear that your actions were particularly helpful or constructive. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

My action aren't what matters here. This thing is escalating into an edit war, and I have nothing to do with that. Blame me if you like; I don't care. Hopefully an admin will be here shortly to sort this out. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I have restored an old version of the story; we have to err on the side of caution with a BLP. It's not just what the sources may say, but also real-life harm that can be done to the person in question if we get it wrong. Some people who phoned the cops said he may have been masturbating, but that was not confirmed by the responding officers, according to the Washington Post, so that part needs to come out, I think. -- Dianna (talk) 04:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It was apparently just one person that said he was masturbating, the same person that says he was naked, while all the rest of the phone calls said he was in his underwear and the police report states that he was in his underwear when they got there. I see no reason to include the report of one conflicting person among many others, especially in a BLP. Silverseren^C 05:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

What the witnesses or police said is irrelevant, as there is video proof. Before you accuse me of using videos as sources; there are reliable news sources that report this. 89.218.37.254 (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

All video sources are copies of what was released by TMZ, an unreliable source. Silverseren^C 07:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, most WP:RSN discussions have concluded that, due to its relatively strict editorial policy, TMZ is a reliable source for certain statements. It might be a good idea to take this there for further input, however. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I should probably clarify. In past RSN discussions, the conclusion is that they may or may not be reliable, but they are almost always WP:UNDUE because of the overall unimportant of the reporting on celebrity gossip. Combine that with our BLP policy and it's quite clear to see that we should be focusing on the most reliable thing we can for the subject and that would pretty much be the police report. Silverseren^C 08:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree. :) Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• The police report is a primary source, not suitable for use in a BLP. Belchfire (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me....I was apparently involved in this (with just one edit), though inadvertently as I was unaware of any edit war when I added that Jason Russell was found naked and hitting cars. This was on video - nobody has disputed this evidence. My concern is that in addition to the fact that if most of us go outside naked and harass people and hit cars then we will go to jail and be seriously charged, not be excused as being "under stress" (since stress does not induce public nudity), but the way the article is written is rather like writing of Bernie Madoff "he was convicted of fraud for a matter that occurred while he was experiencing some personal problems". The 'why' is relevant, and just because the police write he was not naked 'when they found him' (so what?), does not mean it is our job to report only what the police say they found upon arrival. So, no, a streamlined police report that does not contradict the video evidence (whether or not it is from TMZ, it has been reported by many mainstream media outlets and never contradicted) should NOT be the only 'reliable source'. This would be like making Wikipedia formally a wing of the State - that only reports what the police say it reportable (rather like we see with some articles regarding military matters with some trolls insisting we only accept Pentagon-approved 'information', not investigative journalism).
And I have a complaint here - thank you for informing me that you were having a discussion about this matter, but you cannot inform someone involved and "resolve" it between two people in just a few hours - when others would not have had the occasion to make their voices heard. Therefore, I do not accept this decision. Now, I am not an edit warrior, but let it be known you have not handled this properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.90.240.119 (talk) 11:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposals

This incident is barely worth including in the article. It happened in March. Although it was widely reported, there's been no follow-up of which I'm aware, whether it be about his health or about any impact the incident had on his career. Thus, if we're going to include it, it should be absolutely minimal. Russell is not a well-known person. Therefore, I think that WP:AVOIDVICTIM applies. Even if you quibble with that, WP:UNDUE does.

Proposal #1 - remove the material

Proposal #2 - replace current language with the following:

On March 15, 2012, Russell was detained by San Diego police after he was found in the street behaving in a bizarre fashion. Russell was taken to a hospital. According to his family, he was diagnosed as having had a "brief reactive psychosis, an acute state brought on by extreme exhaustion, stress, and dehydration".

• I think this is a good neutrally-worded version that could be placed in the article. I would support removal of the material at some date in the future, if there's no further news reports that show he is still having ill effects from the event. -- Dianna (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Sounds like a reasonable compromise to me, although as long as we're here, maybe we should come up with a cut-off date? I like closure. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• How about six months from the date of the original incident? -- Dianna (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• I would support that.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll share my thinking. We're already reporting the incident and linking to sources that mention both nudity and masturbation. As such, it's not as if someone reading Wikipedia will have any trouble getting these details, so removing them from the article isn't giving Russell any more privacy than otherwise. In fact, even if we removed the entire incident, it was widely reported, so it's not as if we dug it up and are in any position to bury it. The cat is out of the bag.

Let's at least make it accurate and comprehensive. We have a chance to report the incident here in neutral language and to immediately include his parents' claim that it was not drug-related, countering what some of the newspaper articles suggest. We should use this chance rather than shying away from the whole issue just because it's messy. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It's already out of the news; I couldn't find anything current about it at all. To give a lot of weight to this incident, which does not seem to be having any lasting impact moving forward, would be to give it undue weight, in my opinion. -- Dianna (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. Should we expect an event that occurred in the past to continuously remain in the news so that there are always recent articles? By that logic, we shouldn't mention that JFK got shot, because newspapers don't talk about it anymore. Of course, anyone can search for information about JFK's assassination today, just as anyone can search for Russell's incident, so it's not gone, either. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe this will help: WP:NPF

In a BLP, the article should be limited to material relating to the person's notability, and/or events the person is involved in that have lasting notability. The incident in question fails both tests. Belchfire (talk) 19:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Assume this guy's place of birth is uncontroversial, please add him to Category:People from El Cajon, California. Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Unduly naked?

Whether TMZ in this case counts as an RS is not that relevant, since there are other sources, like this one (supplied by 2001:...:4E7D in this edit): "'You're the devil, you're the devil': New footage of Kony video director emerges 'ranting at traffic while naked on busy street'". Mail Online. March 19, 2012. Retrieved July 22, 2012. The question is really whether mentioning Russell's public nudity (hopefully as a matter of fact in a non-sensational way) is due or undue. Let's take a poll. (I myself have no opinion, considering this an inconsequential issue.)  --Lambiam 11:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, mentioning this is due

• Support - For the reasons given above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Still-24-45-42-125 (talk • contribs) 17:36, July 22, 2012‎ (UTC)
• Support - Because there's no BLP issues, there's reliable sources and it's relevant to his notability. Acoma Magic (talk) 06:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

No, mentioning this is undue

Read RS/N discussions on the Daily Mail for such stuff And note that the DM is RS for normal news, and is not generally RS for tabloid-type claims regarding living persons. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Collect, can you please weigh in on the proposals in the section above? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a tabloid. We have a policy called WP:BLP which specifically requires strong reliable sourcing for any contentious claim. A TMZ video and a Daily Mail article, IMO, do not rise to the level of sourcing required. Collect (talk) 01:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Collect, that's not really the issue. We have many, many reliable sources for the facts of the matter, and calling them "tabloid-type" is simply your opinion. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Collect, individual pages on Wikipedia note incidents of far less importance than this (e.g., someone allegedly said an offensive word once). Blowing off steam by being overheard cursing in public would be a minor matter - running around nude harrassing drivers and pedestrians is very noteworthy as it would land most people in jail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.90.240.119 (talk) 10:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Mentioning the incident gives it undue weight, unless it has lasting impact on his career or health. I say this in spite of its mention on South Park. -- Dianna (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that, given the limited number of notable things Russell has done (one viral video, basically), the much-reported freak out incident is now a big part of his overall notability. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you mean well, but it's not necessary for you to re-state your opinion every time someone makes a post. It's already really clear where you stand. -- Dianna (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You might notice that I'm offering an additional argument, rather than simply restating my conclusion. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

South Park Mention

Guess this is late, but would it be worth mentioning South Park's parodies of Russell's incident of psychosis? Or does WP:BLP supersede that? Jonathanfu (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, it shows lasting notability. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually - not. Collect (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Please take this as helpful advice, but when you just state your opinion without support, it's entirely unpersuasive. You need to offer some reasoning, otherwise I will disregard your opinion as baseless. I expect that others will do the same, but I'll let them speak for themselves. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it deserves a mention. He's not notable for much and this is comparatively notable. Acoma Magic (talk) 06:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. While it wasn't his original claim to fame, this incident has cemented his fame in the public eye. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, he's plenty notable, as I show below, and, yes, including this info in his article would be a BLP violation. It is perfectly fine, however, to include a sentence in the articles on the episodes and link back to this one, since those aren't BLPs, so long as it only a sentence and none of it is defamatory.

Anyways sources, here you go: this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. There's also some college news here and here. This has some nice info as well. Silverseren^C 03:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Gold lock?

First silver, then it was unlocked, why is locked? Kony is old and this page has been messed with in a long time and is a small page, why gold lock it?184.98.114.65 (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Because people were arguing over whether or not to say if he is nude or not when he got arrested. ZappaOMati 22:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

No, we all agree that he had his underwear back on by the time the police picked him up. The issue was over mentioning the partial or full nudity in the first place. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Archives

The archives need to be fixed. It's moving everything a month old into a separate archive and some of them have only one section in it. Can the bot be fixed and all the archives be moved into one? I don't know how to do it and I couldn't be bothered finding out. Acoma Magic (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with monthly archiving? Silverseren^C 09:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I changed it anyways. If I did it correctly, then the next time it archives, it should either move everything already archived into numbered ones instead of monthly or it will start making numbered ones without touching the old monthly ones. Not sure how it's programming works in that regard. We'll have to see. Silverseren^C 09:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess it does the latter. That's somewhat disappointing. Silverseren^C 20:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you cut and paste the archives from the months and move them into Archive 1, then delete those empty month archives? Acoma Magic (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so I can't delete anything and i'm hesitant to mess with the archives, in fear it will screw the bot up. Silverseren^C 12:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Daily Mail

At WP:RS/N, the Daily Mail has been generally accepted as an RS, especially for matters of historical fact, it has been found wanting as RS for sensational claims about living people. Collect (talk) 11:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It's fine to use for things besides BLPs. But, on BLPs, it's usually just tabloid gossip and has been found to be inaccurate or expressed in an erroneous manner multiple times. Silverseren^C 12:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant as the content being added is indisputable. Acoma Magic (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

And then you add the "masturbating" ref as well from HuffPo? I fear you have not read the WP:BLP/N discussions about this page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

All I'm adding is that he was in various states of undress. That is indisputable, so what's the problem? Acoma Magic (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is a silly policy called WP:BLP and the idscussions at WP:BLP/N on this very article were clear. And using the Daily Mail is a "red flag" for sensational stories, as is a column on HuffPo referring to "masturbating" which is a clear no-no as far as asserting that a source is a reliable source - it is a TABLOID charge at best. Cheers - find better sources than you have so far, and read WP:EW while you are at it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, back in the real world, there are videos of him naked and this was picked up by reliable sources such as the Daily News[3]. So, on the whole, any concerns about BLP are more than satisfied. But thanks for caring so much. I'm sure Jason would appreciate it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you read WP:BLP/N on this? Did you read WP:CONSENSUS? I would suggest to you that you are beating a dead horse at this point, even though you would add salacious details here. That is not how WP:BLP works. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Videos. Naked. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow! Now read Wikipedia policy on using "videos." And WP:CONSENSUS and, at this point, WP:TENDENTIOUS. [Ending my contributions to this futile beating of a dead horse.] Collect (talk) 17:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Removed Breakdown and Hospitalization

Why was this section removed from the page? It seemed to be a major part of why the man is famous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:FC00:0:400:A867:D392:88D2:FF12 (talk) 06:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't removed, it's right there at the bottom of the Personal Life section. It was reduced to two sentences because any longer than that would be undue weight for the incident, along with being a Biographies of Living Persons violation. And I would argue that he is famous because of his work with Invisible Children. He's gotten a ton of coverage long before the incident in question. Silverseren^C 17:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Why?

Why is this now unlocked, I thought this was important now its not? Whats wrong, people?75.171.2.67 (talk) 06:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It's because the vandalism died down, not because something is important. ZappaOMati 23:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

March 2012 edits & discussion

The events earlier this year have been discussed and are archived. I do see a consensus to include un-encyclopedic details. WP:NOTNEWS provides appropriate guidance.--S. Rich (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I saw no consensus to abrogate WP:BLP. One proponent of the contentious edit is no longer with us, having threatened violaence and evincing battleground behaviour. Collect (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Dead topic

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The dude was (redacted per BLP). I have sources and I will be adding this shortly, if there are no objections. YvelinesFrance (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

There are objections: 1. Your previous edits have been reverted. 2. As per the above. 3. As in previous discussions. Please obtain consensus before re-adding. (Also consider WP:TE.)--S. Rich (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• I object, quite strongly, per BLP. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

You object based on what? There are sources that say he was (redacted) in public. Are you trying to censor this article? YvelinesFrance (talk) 05:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

No one can censor Wikipedia except the government, as censorship is a government action. Please see WP:AVOIDVICTIM, part of the BLP policy, paying special attention to the part which states "When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." While you, yourself, may be fascinated with masturbation, I assure you it is of little interest to others who are looking to learn about the subject of this article. If he is convicted of a crime and serves time, we can add that. But your voyeuristic desire to add this rather private embarrassment is distasteful. KillerChihuahua^?!? 05:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

And who are you to decide what information should be allowed or not? This is not voyeurism but simply free information that any reader deserves to know. You have no authority to decide what information should be allowed or not. There are many biographies of living individuals that deal with unpalatable subjects but that does not mean they should be censored. Also, since you don't seem to know the definition of censorship, here it is :Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body. YvelinesFrance (talk) 04:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• And as this has been dealt with several times now, I removed the reference per WP:BLP. If a wording is found to be a BLP violation if in an article, it is also one on the article talk page. Collect (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

  Good call, I completely forgot to do that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Has he ever been seen again?

I came to this article as i was researching the use of the term "dehydration" as a euphemism for a variety of mental and medical conditions in journalistic accounts of celebrity breakdowns of the past 20 years, and trying to match this euphemism up with later and more authoritative diagnoses of the causes of these events. His family's original statement was that he had suffered from "dehydration," but i found no dehydration references in the Wiki article per se, and, although i was hoping for more information, there is actually no mention of his life after the breakdown. However, what i found was fairly interesting in its own right -- all talk pages have been archived amidst an edit war over questions of nudity vs. non-nudity, and no further comments on his life have been made at all. It's as if he has vanished. Strange. Catherineyronwode (talk) 07:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

"Naked" or "state of undress"

Stop vandalizing this article by saying that Jason Russell was in a "state of undress". This implies that he was not naked. He was naked. If there is any doubt there are a variety of sources on youtube including:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32PBZ870ymg&bpctr=1395698516 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjdH2LDH5LM

What justification can there be for saying he was in a "state of undress" when primary sources (i.e. video) makes it clear he was naked.173.79.251.253 (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Your primary problem is that Wikipedia requires strong sourcing for any contentious claims. In the case at hand "A co-founder of Invisible Children was hospitalized in San Diego Thursday night after people called police to report he was running through the street in his underwear, screaming and pounding his fists on the sidewalk. " is the claim as found in |The Washington Post cited in the BLP. We can not go from there to "naked" without assuming that the Washington Post was in error, and it is a source we are citing for the claim. Collect (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

173.79.251.253 is right. The neutral term is "naked". I recommend 173.79.251.253 to use the {{cite}} template and add the quote "Jason Russell stripped naked and ran through the streets of San Diego."

Where is that so-called previous consensus? Consensus was to add the fact.[4] 84.127.80.114 (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

One source specifically says "underwear" and our obligation is to follow the sources -- thys we can not say "naked" by policy. Collect (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

That source specifically says: "Several callers reported the male was wearing only underwear and running into the street. One caller reported that the male had removed his underwear and was nude, perhaps masturbating, but that was not confirmed by responding officers." The other source specifically says: "Jason Russell stripped naked and ran through the streets of San Diego." with video. Following the sources, he was naked. Obviously, he first went from dressed to "state of undress". Then he became naked.

173.79.251.253 can use the {{cite}} template and add the quote "Jason Russell stripped naked and ran through the streets of San Diego." in any case. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

but that was not confirmed by responding officers." seems clear -- the claim was not confirmed by responding officers. Sorry -- your quote shows precisely why we can not aver in Wikipedia's voice that he was "naked"/ Collect (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

"Not confirmed". One source does not deny it. The other source affirms it, with backup. Wikipedia can perfectly say "naked". 84.127.80.114 (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

BLPs are supposed to have facts in them -- where an allegation is specifically stated as "not confirmed" it is possible that it does not meet the absolute requirements of policy that the claim be strongly sourced. In the case at hand, the claim of "naked" is not only not strongly sourced, it is stated to be nothing more than an allegation in a reliable source report citing the police. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Given the previous arguments (it is possible that it does not meet the absolute requirements, the claim of "naked" is not only not strongly sourced...), it is obvious that consensus is impossible. If 173.79.251.253 wants that change, the user should file a request for comment. Using the dispute resolution noticeboard will not help. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 00:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I linked to the actual video. It is a PRIMARY SOURCE. He is clearly naked. Verify for yourself!

The phrase "state of undress" clearly implies he was not naked. He was naked. I have provided primary sources that say he was and noone has provided a source that says he was not. 173.79.251.253 (talk) 04:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32PBZ870ymg&bpctr=1395698516 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjdH2LDH5LM

Please read WP:BLP, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:OR, and WP:RS. We can only use what reliable secondary sources state. We can not use what we "know" to be the "truth." And so far you are getting on the ragged edge of being tendentious here, so I suggest you simply have a cup of tea. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

This is blatant abuse and vandalism. Not only are there multiple secondary sources that state he was naked (which have vandals have tried repeatedly to remove); but I have provided links to the primary source video without any analysis or OR. If that is sufficient there are multiple secondary sources that vandals keep removing from the article. For example: Jason Russell himself admits to being naked: "There were rumors of masturbation, but no one who was there ever said that that was happening," he told Oprah Winfrey, adding: "I'm naked so it's not a far extension of imagination that that would be happening but, no, I don't remember any of that, and no one we knew there said that I was. I don't remember anything except like a half-second. I don't."<http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/kony-2012-jason-russell-breakdown-oprah-377041> This is a secondary source, that supports multiple other primary and secondary sources, all of which indicate that he was naked. He says, in an interview with Oprah, that he was naked. You can keep removing the links to primary and secondary sources but it does not change the fact that he is verifiably naked by his own admission in a secondary source as provided above.

Your claim that "we can only use reliable secondary sources" is not the position of Wikipedia which does allow Primary sources as long as there is no OR: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." I provided links to original video and users can view for themselves; so there is no OR and I am in line with Wikipedia policy. However, Wikipedia does have a clear policy against using weasel words and equivocation... for example, "State of Undress" are clearly weasel words used to imply that he was not naked. There are at least 3 secondary and 2 primary sources that have been provided. There is a friggin Oprah interview where he acknowledges being naked.

Stop with the accusations of vandalism. It not only doesn't help; it undermines your arguments because you come off as a fanatic. However, based on the Hollywood Reporter article, I'm inclined to use the word naked and cite to it. I think I would skip the YouTube link as WP:UNDUE. Collect, what do you think?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I had no particular interest in this page. I saw someone had made an edit to change 'naked' to use the weasel words 'state of undress'. I reverted the edit and provided secondary sources. Since then I have provided multiple primary and secondary sources which have been repeatedly removed. It is vandalism to repeatedly remove links to source material. If you want to remove the link to the Primary sources (i.e. the YouTube videos) please provide justification. There is nothing in WP:UNDUE which justifies removing links to source material. 173.79.251.253 (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Other sources refer to "underwear" and so we ought to use the most conservative wording supported by strong reliable sources. In one picture shown he is clearly partially clothed, so I demur on "naked" as a result. The police report is clear also about him being partially clad, so we can only go that far. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

A review of the history of this article is interesting. First, it is clear that this article was created in the immediate aftermath of the Jason Russell's public breakdown. Second, it clearly shows that user Collect has been, for 2 years, removing links to primary or secondary sources that detail the events and clearly indicate he was naked. The Daily Caller article he removed has pictures. Further, Collect and other users, including Silver seren, keep reverting this article without a valid justification while citing BLP: To say that Jason Russell is naked is verifiable, non-pov, and requires no original research so there is no justification for a revert under BLP.

The burden of proof is not on me but, let's say it were: I just need to go through the history and cite just a few of the the sources that Collect has removed in the process of vandalizing this article:

NBC: "A co-founder for Invisible Children was detained in Pacific Beach on Thursday for being drunk in public and masturbating, according to the San Diego Police Department. Jason Russell, 33, was allegedly found masturbating in public, vandalizing cars and possibly under the influence of something, according to the SDPD. He was detained at the intersection of Ingraham Street and Riviera Road."

RT:

Wall Street Journal: Mr. Broxtermann said police responded to multiple complaints variously describing a white male “running around the street in his underwear,” “naked and masturbating and screaming” and “banging his hands on the ground and screaming incoherently.” The calls complaining began around 11:30 am.

Huffington Post: "(WARNING: the above video is graphic and not suitable for children.) After Jason Russell, co-founder of the advocacy charity Invisible Children, was detained by San Diego police at 11:30 am Thursday morning for reportedly masturbating in public, TMZ posted graphic video of his alleged breakdown."

Daily News: "'You're the devil, you're the devil': New footage of Kony video director emerges 'ranting at traffic while naked on busy street'"

Gawker: TMZ has posted new video of Jason Russell's naked public meltdown, in which he can be heard screaming "fuck" and something about the devil. On the one hand, this footage gives a much closer look at what happened — before you get too excited, his penis is tastefully blurred."

I have provided multiple primary and secondary sources. Look at the pictures in the Daily News article! Look at the videos! I have provided the primary sources and any educated person can verify it for themselves. Look at the pictures in the Daily News article, that you have removed repeatedly over 2 years, and tell me he wasn't naked.173.79.251.253 (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Following WP:BLP is not vandalism and that charge is egregious here. Note that several of the sources refer to him wearing underwear. As for "allegations" , the bar for including "allegations" in BLPs is set high ion Wikipedia for good reason. BTW, the onus is on the person seeking to include material in a BLP to get WP:CONSENSUS for that material. At this point, you do not only not have consensus on your side, you are making a battleground over what is supposed to be a conservatively written biography. Several callers reported the male was wearing only underwear and running into the street, running around the street in his underwear, etc. I also suggest you look at the WP:RS/N archives for the fact that TMZ is considered tabloid quality as a source. And primary sources are specifically deprecated on Wikipedia - the general rule is to use the least tabloidish material - and the most reputable sources. Cheers, (and if you call this "vandalism" one more time, you might find a report filed at WP:AN/I). Collect (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

It is not an egregious charge. You have, over a two year period, deleted any source attached to this page that indicates that Jason Russell was naked. That is vandalism.

I have provided dozens of sources including pictures, videos, newspapers, and an Oprah interview where he acknowledges that he was naked. In order to remove a source then you should do your due diligence and actually read the source you are removing. Look at the pictures in the Daily Caller and tell me he wasn't naked. Just because you refuse to verify it does not mean it is not verifiable. To say that Jason Russell is naked is verifiable, non-pov, and requires no original research so there is no justification for a revert under BLP. 173.79.251.253 (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations! Following WP:BLP is never "vandalism" and you have crossed a bright line in your accusatory stance. Second, READ WP:V (verifiability). It does not say editors use what they "know" to be the "truth" as a source -- we are stuck with using what reliable secondary sources say. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to reiterate myself. You have not articulated a justification for a revert under BLP.173.79.251.253 (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Collect has repeatedly justified the removal of your content under BLP, not least in this thread. Please refrain from trying to force through your desired version by accusing other editors of not doing what they have, in fact, done. I note you repeat your accusations of vandalism even after their erroneous basis has been pointed out to you, which is disruptive and unwise. Finally, to reiterate what experienced editors here—one well up in BLP policy, the other an administrator—have already told you: you have no consensus for your preferred version. You can only post it if and when there is consensus for it. Until then, policy requires conservatively worded content. Writegeist (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

To say that Jason Russell is naked is verifiable, non-pov, and requires no original research so there is no justification for a revert under BLP. In order to do a revert please articulate which of these is violated and how. I have provided an abundance of evidence so it is verifiable. 173.79.251.253 (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Right, I just watched the footage, the guy was stark bollock naked. And he says so himself. RS in which he says "Referring to the incident, in which he was picked up by police while naked and rambling on the streets of San Diego, Jason Russell said his mind "clicked" after weeks of promoting and then defending his campaign against the Lord's Resistance Army and its murderous leader, Joseph Kony.". Darkness Shines (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

And in what part of the Guardian article does Russell say he was "naked"? The only word I see in quotes is "clicked" which is not exactly a synonym for "naked." Meanwhile, last I checked, WP:BLP informs us that we must edit BLPs conservatively. Collect (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, clearly and obviously naked, as is plain from a perfectly reliable source. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

He was butt naked, end of story. I have reverted to what is obviously the consensus version as of now, given only Collect seems to think a naked guy in the street was not in fact naked, Darkness Shines (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I ask you to self-revert as the discussion at BLP/N was clearly against using a tabloidification where some sources stated "underwear" and some used "naked." We can not say that "I (as an editor of Wikipedia) saw him naked therefor that is a reliable source" - we have to go by the conservative wording of the secondary reliable sources, and several of them expressly state he was partially clad. "Consensus" can not override specific policy, which is what is the case at hand. Cheers Collect (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I will not self revert, if you are referring to the BLP/N posted by the IP only you and the IP posted there, I see a consensus here to state what the source state and what the world has seen with their ow eyes, the guy was buttnaked in the street. There are no BLP violation here, stop claiming there is. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• ABC News: The callers reported the underwear-clad male was in the street, interfering with traffic, screaming, yelling incoherently and pounding his fists on the sidewalk.  Several people in the area tried to calm the male but he continued to act in a bizarre and irrational manner.” [5]

• The Guardian: San Diego police dispatcher transcripts show neighbours began calling around 11.30am on Thursday to report that a man was running around in his underwear in the city's Pacific Beach neighbourhood. "[Subject] is at the corner, banging his hands on the ground, screaming, incoherent," the transcript continues. "People are trying to calm him down, he's been stopping traffic." [...] [P]olice said he was detained for running around the streets screaming in his underwear. [6]

• NBC: Police described Russell as "in his underwear." He allegedly took off his underwear at one point, but it was back on by the time officers arrived, said police. [7]

• LA Times: Russell was dressed only in underwear, darting in and out of traffic in Pacific Beach when officers spotted him acting oddly on Thursday afternoon, authorities said. Police said some callers reported that Russell was naked and touching himself. [8]

• KPBS: In a statement released Friday, the San Diego Police Department said one caller reported the man "had removed his underwear and was nude, perhaps masturbating," but that was not confirmed by police officers at the scene. [9]

• CNN: [Russell] was picked up by police Thursday in San Diego after several people reported a man running through the streets in his underwear, screaming, sources said Friday. [10]

I respect Darkness and Nomo, and usually find myself in agreement with them. In this instance I don't support the contentious content, and here is my thinking: RS secondary sources report the police saying Russell was in his underwear when they found him. They report that, variously, "one caller"/"some callers" had said he'd removed his underwear/was naked/nude/touching himself/etc., and that he had "allegedly" taken off his underwear, etc. These are all merely allegations. The more responsible reporting made that clear; the more sensationalist coverage downplayed and in certain instances conveniently ignored the fact that these were merely allegations by "callers", allegations not confirmed by the responding police. Indeed the San Diego police specifically stated that the called-in reports were not confirmed by officers at the scene. In the article, presenting the allegations as facts is a breach of WP:BLP. The policy, as pointed out here many times, is unequivocal in its requirement for cautious, conservatively-worded coverage in a situation such as this. The content removed by the IP and Nomo is in compliance with the policy; the content inserted by them is, according to my understanding, in breach even though a man said to be Russell can be seen bollock-naked in a video. (Also I think the assertion that there is consensus for the content change is false. Consensus has not been achieved for either version AFAICT.) WP:BLPREMOVE requires removal of the offending content, and its removal is exempt from 3RR. Therefore I have reverted to the policy-compliant version, a version I think should remain in place pending talk page discussion to arrive at a BLP-based consensus, if in fact it materializes, for the IP's desired version. Having put my views on record, if I am reverted again I shall not revert back even though I believe the BLP policy would exempt me from 3RR in this instance. Apologies for the long post; didn't have time to write a short one. Writegeist (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Add me in for this being a BLP violation and Darkness Shines now also committing it in addition to the IP editor. We've been over this before in the past. Silverseren^C 02:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

@Silver seren:: excuse me but piss off: I haven't edited the article ever. On what grounds do you say I have committed a BLP violation? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Better? Silverseren^C 07:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a start -- but you forgot the apology and apparently don't know WP:REDACT. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Silver seren's mistake was entirely my fault. I wrote above "content removed by the IP and Nomo" when I should have said "content removed by the IP and Darkness Shines". My apologies to all. Writegeist (talk) 07:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Writegeist. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• As a previously-uninvolved editor who came through here from the BLPN, I agree and add to the consensus that we should use the description preferred by a majority of reliable sources, to wit, that Russell was in his underwear. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

He may have started off in his pants, but ended up naked. The video footage shows that, and the guardian source, which is a newer source than the ones cited by Writegeist, those were obviously printed just as it happened. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

In which case we use the more conservative usage from the reliable secondary sources - we do not use and cannot use images we see in a video for making any contentious claims about any living person at all. Ever. And please note that WP:BLP is an absolute policy, not one to be ignored because we know the truth. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It is not a contentious claim at all, the guy was running around the street naked. Per The Gaurdian and in his own words "I'm naked so it's not a far extension of imagination that that would be happening but, no, I don't remember any of that, and no one we knew there said that I was. I don't remember anything except like a half-second. I don't."[11] If he is happy to say he was butt naked in an interview, the nwe can say he was butt naked in the street. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

And you miss out on "I think I was trying to ask cars to take me to the airport. In my underwear." which is his full statement about his state of dress. He did not say "butt naked" that I can find, so that claim is pretty much a non-starter. You are citing a quote out of context -- referring to the totally unsubstantiated claim of masturbation. Taking quotes out of context is a teensy bit iffy, especially where he makes clear that he was in his underwear in the context of explaining what happened. Cheers -- but we can not allow BLP violations in any part of Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Pure bollocks, he says himself when asked about the wanking, "I'm naked" so the article will say what he has said, that he was stark bollock naked in the street. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian has him unequivocally naked. Collect will no doubt find another way to dissemble and condescend to the rest of us even in the face of a perfectly straightforward claim in a perfectly reliable source. But sensible editors will read it for what it is. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian piece linked by Darkness does indeed say that Russell was "picked up by police while naked". But the assertion is contrary to the police statement that he was in fact picked up in his underwear. So I don't see how it can be usable to support "naked" in the article. Which leaves only the Hollywood Reporter coverage of the Oprah interview. The HR has Russell saying both that he was naked and that he was in his underwear. We already have RSs for the underwear. Might it be argued that use of the HR as a solus source re. Russell's self-proclaimed nakedness is inadequate? If so, that concern would be assuaged if the HR report is corroborated by other bulletproof RS coverage. Darkness, Nomo? Writegeist (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Will this photo of his arse do? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Reality check: does anyone editing this article think that he wasn't naked for at least part of his peregrinations that day? We can set up all the hoops we want and then tumble right through them -- but let's try to stay grounded in some reasonable replica of reality here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

@Darkness: You trying to bumfuzzle me?

@Nomo: I've seen the photos and the video, so . . . But it doesn't matter what I think. (Can't believe I just said that.) Writegeist (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Well I just had to Google bumfuzzle, I guess that is my word for the day sorted. No mate, I am not trying to confuse you, the link I gave is to The Wire It has a photo of the guys ass on there, taken from the video footage. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The following is the original content of this article on June 30, 2012. This content was deleted on that date by user Collect. Between Collect, SilverSeren, and Bbb23 there are scores of reverts to dozens of different editors over a continuous period of 2 years. The reason given is typically BLP but there is a variety of Policy Shopping to be observed. I believe that this original text should be restored and this page should be locked to prevent vandalism. Can we get a request for comment so neutral parties, not previously involved, to weigh in on the matter?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jason_Russell&diff=500032549&oldid=499986014

173.79.251.253 (talk) 04:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

==Breakdown and hospitalization==

On March 15, 2012, Russell was detained by San Diego police and taken to a local hospital after publicly acting "in a bizarre and irrational manner." The police said they were responding to callers saying that a man in his underwear was "interfering with traffic, screaming, yelling incoherently and pounding his fists on the sidewalk ... had removed his underwear and was nude, perhaps masturbating." By the time officers arrived, Russell was wearing his underwear. The police said he was not arrested but detained "for his own safety" and hospitalized.

Russell's wife explained that he was adversely affected by criticism of the film, "because of how personal the film is, many of the attacks against it were also very personal, and Jason took them very hard." According to a brief statement issued by Invisible Children, Russell was exhausted in the wake of the emotional toll of the media storm around Kony 2012. According to a family statement, the official diagnosis was "brief reactive psychosis, an acute state brought on by extreme exhaustion, stress, and dehydration." (unsigned)

Kindly note that only proper weight should be given to allegations in a BLP, that the police noted he was in his underwear, and that WP:BLP requires strong secondary reliable sourcing for contentious claims. Also that the onus is on the person adding material to any BLP which is contested to obtain [[WP:CONSENSUS[[ for any such addition is on the person seeking to add it. I suggest you seek opinions at WP:BLP/N as to whether the edit you seek is proper under that policy, which overrides any consensus for contentious material. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Kindly note he said himself he was naked, so the article will also say he was naked. There are no BLP problems here, other than the ones in your imagination. I see no reason at all to not restore this content, the guy says he was naked, the sources say he was naked, the article will say he was naked. Further reverts from you will be reported to ANEW, there is no BLP exemption here. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The article you cite also quotes him as saying he was in his underwear as well. The police said he was in his underwear. The Daily Mail is not really usable for contentious claims about living persons, so that is unusable. Wikipedia says we must edit conservatively, using what reliable secondary sources state - and the overwhelming weight thereon is "in his underwear" (or SilverSeren's "state of undress"). We do not use the most salacious version of events because Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Who the fuck is citing the Daily Fail? I sure as hell ain`t. He started in his underpants, he took them off and got naked, he says so himself. I am not even going to argue this with you, you are being tendentious on the matter to the point of absurdity. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

"Mr Russell was seen running around a busy crossroads in San Diego clad only in his underwear, shouting and gesticulating. He then removed his underpants and beat his fists on the pavement before being restrained by police and passers-by."[12] Another RS. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

"JASON: "Again, it's really hard to explain if people who have never had an out-of-body experience, but it really wasn't me. That wasn't me, that person on the street corner ranting and raving and naked is not me, that's not who I am."[13] And again in his own words, he was naked. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

More than twenty separate editors have removed the material as a BLP violation, including several admins who protected the BLP because of violations. I suggest you read the prior BLP/N discussions thereon. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not give a shit how many people removed it, it is not a BLP violation to say a guy was naked in the street, when he himself has said he was naked in the street, conversation over. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Russell said he was in his underwear. The police said he was in his underwear. Many secondary reliable sources stated he was in his underwear. "Naked" in a headline is not part of the reliable source, by the way - headline writers are not fact-checked as reporters. And his use of "naked" was in the third person -- he does not say "I was naked and masturbating" which is pretty much the claim you wish to re-insert. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

How about you stop ignoring the fact that he said himself he was naked? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The proposed edit in question is clearly BLP violation - allegations of masturbating in public for christsake - thats a sex crime that gets people on lists that public vigilantes stalk. Absolutely unacceptable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, the allegation of masturbation is unverifiable and should be removed. That is not to say there weren't reports of masturbation... just that it is not appropriate to include allegations without verifiable evidence. 173.79.251.253 (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Reversing my earlier statement. I thoroughly reviewed Wikipedia's BLP policy. It is clear that the allegations of masturbation should be included per Wikipedia policy: "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. [...] Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he or she actually did. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported."

As state below: The events were noteworthy (several major newspapers noted it), it is relevant (Oprah did an interview with Jason Russell specifically on the matter), and they were well documented (photos, video, and dozens of news articles are widely available).

Is there a policy basis for your saying that this is "absolutely unacceptable" or is that a personal opinion? If policy basis, would you kindly explain your position? Consensus requires engadgement. 173.79.251.253 (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia decision-making is based on consensus. If twenty different people disagree with you, and your opinion is shared by only one or two others, then the consensus is that you're wrong, and continuing to press the point is well into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. If you don't think the consensus is clearly stated enough, I invite you to open a formal request for comment. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

And consensus should be reached through discussion. I think it is a little premature for a RfC when we've yet to get to the heart of the matter: specifically, what BLP violation occurred? If the revert isn't being made on BLP grounds then what grounds is it based on? How can have a discussion on the merits when noone has been willing to articulate the basis for reverting under the BLP policy? If your position is "BLP Violation because I said so" then we can't have an discussion on the merits. It seems you're reaching consensus by simply refusing to engage. 173.79.251.253 (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

References