Talk:Shaun King/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

assault response

King has posted on his facebook about the incident, including a recollection from a friend who supports him, but I think this will run up against WP:SPS and WP:RS. Posting it here to let others weigh in. https://www.facebook.com/shaunking/posts/908047459234173 Gaijin42 (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

This has been picked up by the New york daily news, so Ill source the rebuttal from there. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

photo

I looked for a photo on flickr and google filtered for Creative Commons. Couldn't find any. I'm somewhat suprised, since hes been so involved in BLM, and there are a lot of activist oriented photojournalists out there. In any case, since how he appears is a major source of his notability, a photo would be a good addition I think, if someone can find an appropriately licensed one. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Race

I think the claim about King having "misled" about his race should be removed for the time being. King has stated on Twitter that "Out of LOVE for my family, I've never gone public with my racial story because it's hurtful, scandalous, and it's MY STORY" 1 and "No 2 siblings in my family have the same set of parents. We're all over the place. Some of us are not even blood relatives" 2. I think most of this will be made clear and verified by more reputable secondary sources within days. So there's no need to rush to such a claim now. "Biographies of living persons ('BLPs') must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy." WP:LIVING -Reagle (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Reagle This seems to fall pretty squarely in WP:WELLKNOWN its been covered by multiple mainstream outlets, and addressed directly by the subject themselves publicly. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

24 hours later, I think the text is much better at making it clear this is an active area of discussion and contention. -Reagle (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

He didn't deny that he lied in his twitter rant. Popish Plot (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Story now picked up by CNN and New York Times, so very firmly in WP:WELLKNOWN at this point. I'll probably start swapping out some of the weaker sources used as they are redundant. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The first line under "Personal Life" should read "King claims to be biracial," rather than "King is biracial." There are clear and substantial reasons to doubt his claim to be biracial, and no evidence whatsoever (as yet) to back it up, so it should not be expressed here as if it were a fact. FireHorse (talk) 04:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, totally agree. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Which are those reasons? A debunked Breitbart story? You will need something far more substantive than that to overcome the article subject's own uncontroverted statements made in impeccable reliable sources. Wikipedia does not traffic in gossip and scandalmongering, and we treat article subjects with dignity and respect. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• No "claims to be biracial" is not justified or neutral. It is POV editorializing. If anything other than simply stating it as fact is warranted then it is "King identifies as biracial" or "King considers himself to be biracial".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

biological father

Both gawker and Vox have raised the issue/possibility of Steve King not being Shaun's biological father to explain the discrepancies between the documentation and King's claims. Should a sentence to that effect (attributed to gawker/vox) be added? Its speculation, but its RS speculation. This also lines up with some of the statements King made on twitter ("no two kids with same parents", "scandalous", "affairs" , etc) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Are gawker and Vox considered reliable sources? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Vox typically has been when it has come up at RSN. Gawker less so. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Personally, if Gawker is "less so" then it should be discounted at this time. Vox alone probably isn't RS enough at this point. We have to be very careful -- this is a BLP and the story is "breaking". I'd say that unless there's nothing else other than Vox, we don't add it until a major news source covers it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Vox was started by the same guy who owns kos where King works. Popish Plot (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

MSNBC's Joy Reid says King told her directly that the birth certificate dad is not his biological father. I'm going to try and find either a transcript of this, or a better link to the video. http://www.mediaite.com/online/joy-reid-shaun-kings-biological-father-is-black-but-not-on-birth-certificate/ Gaijin42 (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

IN the section "Questions regarding race" is it really helpful to have the last sentence backed up by 8 sources? I think perhaps the 3 best ones will suffice. Less is more in this case. Bonewah (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Utterly terrible biography

This article is a classic example of why we should never write "biographies" of people that are WP:COATRACKs for 12 hours' worth of news-cycle attack stories fueled by a nakedly-partisan witch hunt, before the subject of the biography has a reasonable chance to respond to claims made about deeply-personal parts of their life. I have stripped out baseless claims, apparently-groundless information and awful sources, and I suggest that we can do better and treat our article subjects better than we have here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Your gutting of the article appears quite POV. I have put content back in, including reliable sources. Some of the wording has been tweaked, and sections redone to a limited degree. Please discuss before deciding unilaterally to strip the article again. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The alleged "comparison" is simply not on, given the widely varying sets of facts. It is entirely inflammatory and unfair to this article subject, and it must be removed until and unless there is a consensus that it belongs here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

It's all supported by reliable sources. You appear to be whitewashing the article. Wikipedia does not WP:CENSOR. Time for more drastic measures to stop your disruption, I guess. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

This article subject has directly and publicly refuted the claims in question, and sensationalistic media speculation does not belong in an encyclopedic biography based on 12 hours' worth of attack articles. If there are actual comparisons to be made outside of brief partisan news-cycle mentions before the claims were refuted, we can insert them at that time. Until then, this article must treat its subject with sensitivity and the avoidance of scandal, rumormongering and negative attacks. That is what the biographies of living persons policy demands. This article was clearly created as a coatrack for partisan-driven allegations which now appear to be scurrilous, invasive and utterly false, and Wikipedia does not truck in such nonsense. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Not a valid reason for editing disruptively and edit warring, sorry. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Please AGF and don't declare other editors content opinions "disruptive" just because you disagree with them. The reason we have a discussion board is to work through these questions. Dramatically declaring "time for more drastic measures" is not helpful, nor is it in the spirit of WP. BlueSalix (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof Id appreciate a little bit of WP:AGF. King clearly passes GNG (and likely would have passed before this blow up) but this blow up clearly dwarfs his prior notability. Count the number of words that were written about this incident in top tier RS, and then the total written about him in any capacity before, then look at WP:WEIGHT. He came up with a good explanation for the discrepancy, and I'm happy to include it prominently. As can be seen from my other edits that I was scrupulous about sourcing and including all of the evidence and arguments to the contrary. Brietbart went out on a limb on this one, and got burnt, but when the NYT, CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, Sun, Sky, etc all follow a story, thats a pretty big safety net for us, and we are supposed to WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE Gaijin42 (talk) 14:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Spot on. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 07:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• Clear POV coatrack the way it is written. Could be a decent article, but is not.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I do agree that Wikipedia is not a newspaper and doesn't have to have exact news in real time but this Shaun King was not notable enough to have a wiki article before but now is due to this scandal so I doubt it ever is forgotten, and wil llikely always be correct to be mentioned in his bio here. Popish Plot (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Light-skinned black man - possibility that his father was mixed race/ bi-racial/ mulatto/ part-black

forum speculation not appropriate for BLP
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If his father was light-skinned black man, then it would include the possibility that his father was mixed race/ bi-racial/ mulatto/ part-black. Also, some American black people have been intermixed with white people, including white slave owners (like Sally Hemings). So Shaun might only be 5% to 20% Black (of African descent). --JustALittleBlack (talk) 10:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC) According to WP 58 percent of African Americans have at least 12.5% European ancestry (equivalent of one great-grandparent); 19.6 percent of African Americans have at least 25% European ancestry (equivalent of one grandparent); https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule --JustALittleBlack (talk) 12:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC) is that original research though or are sources making that speculation? Popish Plot (talk) 13:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC) The research is from Henry Louis Gates, Jr., an American historian, currently the Alphonse Fletcher University Professor and Director of the Hutchins Center for African and African American Research at Harvard University. He is also an Emmy Award-winning filmmaker, literary scholar, journalist, cultural critic, and institution builder. Gates has written 17 books and created 14 documentary films, including Wonders of the African World, African American Lives, Black in Latin America, and Finding Your Roots, now in its second season on PBS. His six-part PBS documentary series, The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross (2013), which he wrote, executive produced, and hosted, earned the News and Documentary Emmy Award for Outstanding Historical Program—Long Form, as well as the Peabody Award, Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University Award, and NAACP Image Award. Having written for such leading publications as The New Yorker, The New York Times, and Time, Gates is editor-in-chief of TheRoot.com, a daily online magazine, while overseeing the Oxford African American Studies Center, the first comprehensive scholarly online resource in the field. In 2012, The Henry Louis Gates, Jr. Reader, a collection on his writings, was published. Gates's latest book is Finding Your Roots: The Official Companion to the PBS Series, released by the University of North Carolina Press in 2014. The recipient of 53 honorary degrees and numerous prizes, Gates was a member of the first class awarded "genius grants" by the MacArthur Foundation in 1981, and in 1998, he became the first African-American scholar to be awarded the National Humanities Medal. He publicized such genetic studies on his two series African American Lives, shown on PBS, in which the ancestry of prominent figures was explored. His experts discussed the results of autosomal DNA tests, in contrast to direct-line testing, which survey all the DNA that has been inherited from the parents of an individual.[20] Autosomal tests focus on SNPs --JustALittleBlack (talk) 22:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Gates' research does not mention King and therefore it is WP:SYNTH to use it in support of anything in this article. That research is true, and yes, it is likely that King's biological father was himself biracial. So what, Whats the point? There were specific allegations that were notable that King had misrepresented his race/ethnicity/ancestry. I started an this article, and put those allegations in. King has now come up with a (imo) reasonable explanation for the documentation discrepancy, but more importantly, it has been accepted as reasonable by reliable sources, including the ones that were running with the original story. One can certainly debate the way that ethnicity is defined/applied in America (or the world). But this article is not the place to do so. This article is not going to get into a one drop rule debate , nor will we decide if King is a Quadroon or a Mischling. The allegations and their resolution remain notable. But its time to drop the stick that they were right. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• I probably agree with this take on the sources and where we are now. But I would go further and state that the vast majority of reliable sources that have reported on this 'issue' have not only accepted King's explanation, but have ridiculed the people who doxxed King and the outlets that ran the 'story'. So I believe that the Dolezal comparison is even more of a BLP violation. I know that NBSB attempted to make the comparison BLP compliant, but I don't think we can get consensus for a BLP compliant addition at this time. I rather wait(as agreed to below) to see what other sources say after some reflection by journalists. Dave Dial (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Disagree on that point. the comparison was mentioned by multiple reliable sources. We shouldn't put that comparison in wikipedia's voice, and we should certainly include refutations of the comparison, but that comparison was the "framing" of the controversy at almost every outlet that covered it. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Rachel Dolezal

There are numerous RS that draw a comparison between Rachel Dolezal and the subject of this article. Several editors feel strongly that mentioning this comparison in this article is inflammatory and against wp:BLP. I thought I would post at least one RS and let other editors determine to what extent this material should be in this article. *Aaron Morrison “Is Shaun King White? Black Lives Matter Activist, Writer Responds To Conservatives' Claims He Is Another ‘Rachel Dolezal’”, International Business Times, 19 August 2015--Nowa (talk) 10:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• -Comment -- From what I have read and seen on reports, this is totally different from the Rachel Dolezal issue. King was a victim of being "doxxed" by unscrupulous right-wing bloggers, Dolezal was pretending to be Black and outed by her biological parents. I think the editors who started this article, and the ones who are trying to maintain the right-wing hit job in the lede, should be Topic-Banned from all race related articles. These are obviously BLP violations, and the editors should be informed of the various ArbCom and Community sanctions involved. There should be NO mention of this in the lede, and only a small mention in the article stating the right-wing hit job has been debunked. Dave Dial (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Since multiple reliable sources have made the connection, I do not think it would be a BLP violation to note the comparison has been drawn, if we are clear on manner in which sources state the cases differ; alternately, a link for Rachel Dolezal could be included in a see also section, but it would probably stand out too much if it's the only see also link. This would seem a more appropriate option if there were multiple "see also" links. I agree that any mention of comparisons to Dolezal seems more appropriate for the body of the article than the lead. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

No. Including such specious "comparisons" in a six-paragraph "biography" would be entirely undue weight on hastily-jumped-to "conclusions" which have now been demonstrated to be entirely false and scurrilous. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. BlueSalix (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps a 'see also' link would be appropriate here. Bonewah (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Context-free "See also" links can be worse than a sentence in the article. I'd say just wait. There's no rush, if it's a comparison that sticks and we can cover it neutrally and respectfully then we can add a sentence later. — Strongjam (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

These look like excellent comments. Here's another reference about the comparison itself. Dexter Thomas, “ Analysis Shaun King is no Rachel Dolezal: Look who's calling him white” LA Times, 20 August 2015 Perhaps there is a better place for this subject to be covered.--Nowa (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Mentioning the comparison has been drawn is clearly not undue weight. A google search of Shaun King and Rachel Dolezal reveals a large number of sources. Here's just a small sample: [1],[2],[[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11]--BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

That's just bullshit, and the fact that some sources have picked up the doxxing by a right-wing hack doesn't make it true. In fact, none of the reliable sources are giving any weight to the Brietbart hatchet job. This is a BLP, and if editors here do not understand what that means, they should head over to the 9th bullet and follow the links. See also Attack pages and Balance. If editors keep treating this mans word and life as if it were ok to allow partisan hit jobs to make false claims about him, there is going to be a case about this. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The sources speak for themselves, and they appear to represent journalists from across the political spectrum. I do not have a strong opinion on this case, but it seems many do, which raises POV concerns for the bio. Clearly, any information regarding the factual information that this comparison has been drawn should be brief and carefully worded for neutrality, addressing the sources saying the comparison is unfair. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, Bobomeowcat. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree as well.Jet (magazine) and BET are also making the comparison Shantelle E. Jamison, “Rachel Dolezal II? The Case of Shaun King” Jet (magazine), “Shaun King's Wife Speaks Out: 'He's No Rachel Dolezal”, BET 20 August 2015--Nowa (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I also agree with bobomeowcat. I think, given that the comparisons have been made in a number of RS', its safe for us to at least link to Rachel Dolezal, if not say something about the comparison in the article. Bonewah (talk) 22:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

No, Entertainment outlets, TMZ and such that are citing the hit piece are NOT reliable sources for this type of stuff concerning BLPs. Especially considering that White Supremacists have stalked the guy, Doxxed him and his family. If there is a real journalist and an unbiased(hint, not Brietbart, Blaze, etc) that report on this, then a discussion can take place. Right now, all of the sources that are reliable state that there is no comparison and that the report was incorrect. If I have to file a case linking this to the CCC and White Supremacists, I will. Dave Dial (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

One of the sources linked to above is the Washington Post, which is most assuredly not an "Entertainment outlet". That article leads off with this "He's been accused in various right-leaning media outlets of making up or significantly overstating the extent of an alleged hate crime of which King says he was a victim in high school. And, he's been accused of -- well, you had to know that this was coming soon -- trying to pull a Rachel Dolezal." You may not agree with the comparison, but there is no doubt, at least in my mind, that the comparison has been made in reliable sources. Bonewah (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not stating that reliable sources have not mentioned the comparisons that right-wing outlets have made, I am stating that not one has stated that King lied and is not Black/Bi-racial. That is the BLP violation. The people who have Doxxed King are trying to bully and intimidate people of color and their supporters all over the internet. That should not be given credence on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia editors did what Pate did to King, they would be indeffed. We cannot allow this to be done by proxy. So no, we should let this play out and then make decisions on content. In fact, all mention in the lede should be taken out. These accusations have very little bearing on the life of King and his accomplishments. Dave Dial (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Im not sure what your objection is here. Reliable sources have reported on this matter, so we include it. Reliable sources have noted the comparison between him and Dolezal so i think we should or at least we can mention that without violating BLP. No reliable source has stated that King is not biracial, but neither have we. We merely report the story as it is. Whats the issue? Remember, Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Bonewah (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

That's not how things work. If someone at Common Dreams or Daily Kos compares Ted Cruz(or some other politician) to Hitler(or some other extreme version of political candidate), and it's covered by a few reliable sources, we do not include that and insert a *See also Adolph Hitler into the BLP. Yet using your criteria, that would be perfectly acceptable. And no, I am not comparing Dolezal to Hitler, nor Cruz. You, and others, do not seem to get the policies of Due Weight, NPOV, BLP and the other guidelines I've linked to above. But you will. Dave Dial (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

So to be clear then, we are talking solely about making some reference to Dolezal here? I ask because your responses here have been all over the place. If that is your objection, im ok with waiting a bit to see if the comparison starts appearing in more places before adding it here in some form. However, if it does start to show up commonly then ill move to add a reference here. That is not a violation of Due Weight, NOPV or anything else. Bonewah (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, considering the only way it will "start to show up commonly", is if he's lying, I can agree to that. Because if he is, then it's part of his story. If he's not, it should not be anything other than a racist attack. In any case, I do want the mention removed from the lede(I guess that may be what you refer to as me being "all over the place"), but won't push that if other editors are objecting. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

It does seem like you are all over the place with your opinions on this, Dave Dial. A couple of days ago, you were calling for editors who worked on the article in a certain manner to be indeffed. You are trying to turn manner of editing and sources cited into a politically partisan issue. It all looks pretty emotional to me. And yes, I realize this a sensitive issue that stirs up emotions. But we need to sort through the emotions and get to the NPOV and what's appropriate for the article. No need to be in a rush with this, but there are parts of the story that can be included and cited responsibly. That said, there's no need to refer to editors who see it differently than you "right wingers" and call for them to be blocked. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• You should have taken the hint at AN3 when 2 admins told you that NBSB edits were protected from edit warring on BLP grounds. The only editors in a 'rush' are those trying to subvert BLP policies by using sources that are not credible or extremely partisan. A 'sensitive issue'? Sure, a group of racists doxx a BLM leader and publish what seem to be lies, and editors 'rush' over here and use questionable sources to add those accusations. Don't lecture me with condescending bullshit. Follow the rules. Dave Dial (talk) 02:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

No one is trying to subvert policy. If it were truly happening that way, you would have had grounds to take those you believe are subverting policy to AN/I. You really need to dial it down several notches. Further, you tell me not to "lecture" with "condescending bullshit" while spewing condescending bullshit. That's rich. As far as following the rules, I'm one of the biggest rule followers here - it's in my nature and part of my neurology. And, just for the record: enough of implying anyone who disagrees with you in regard to content in this article is racist. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I brought this issue to WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I took out the $25k offered by a Black Conservatives Group for the subject of this article to "prove" he was black. That is certainly far less noteworthy than the comparisons to Rachel Dolezal.--Nowa (talk) 11:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Are his family considered reliable sources?

His mother told him he is part black. Other family members told CNN, and other news organizations that he is white. It seems they both should be reliable, or neither.

--JustALittleBlack (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

None of them are independent of the subject so cannot be considered reliable sources for the ethnicity of his father. They can, though, be considered reliable sources on themselves, i.e., their opinions. The difference is that we can cite their self published words as primary sources on their speech, but we shouldn't have to, it should be covered by a reputable and unbiased secondary source. Therefore all inclusion of their positions should be clearly identified as their opinions, not as independent facts. So, "King's mother has said his father is black" is fine. GraniteSand (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

References to flesh out biography

I put a time filter on Google to see what might have been published about SK prior to the current controversy. Here are some references we can use to fill out the biography after the block is lifted. Feel free to comment or add more:

• Marcia Wade Talbert “Tweets for Good: Atlanta pastor transforms microphilanthropy with celebrity Twitter auctions”, Black Enterprise, 1 June 2011
• Scott Marshall, “Shaun King:Courageous Church, Atlanta”, Outreach (magazine) 7 June 2011
• Amy Neumann “Social Good Stars:HopeMob's Shaun King”, Huffington Post, 13 August 2012
• Nicola Menzie, “HopeMob CEO and Retired Pastor Shaun King Talks Churches, Technology, New Startup”, Christian Post, 20 August 2013
• “Shaun King, author, “The Power of 100”, The Marilu Henner Show, 7 January 2015

Nowa (talk) 12:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Good stuff. This is the first im learning that SK was/is a pastor. We should add that info when the PP expires, at a minimum. Bonewah (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Rachel Dolezal comparisons

NorthBySouthBaranof Good attempt, but I think the LAT quote is both overly long, and not directly on point. The NYT (really Daily Dot) quote is more succinct and directly on point as a contrast I think "The disgraced NAACP leader also took deliberate steps to conceal her true physical appearance, altering it with traditionally black hairstyles and spray tans,” Mr. Clifton wrote. “That’s different from being biracial and referring to oneself as either black or biracial: Racial identity is not a game of pick-and-choose."

Also, I think we need at least one quote from the "doleazal 2.0" camp, even if we couch it in terms that indicate it was a POV more strongly embraced prior to King's paternity announcement. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I also appreciate the tweaks for neutrality, but I honestly think it should be restored to something more similar to it's original form which seemed more neutral and less verbose regarding the comparison which seems wp:undue. The rest of the bio already address how the cases are different, we don't need to spell it out again. It seems we should limit this brief section to new information and try to keep it coherent.

For ease of comparison here is original version:

Comparisons have been drawn between King and Rachel Dolezal, former NAACP leader whose parents said she’s white, though she identifies as black.[30][31][32][33] King’s wife, Rai King, says: "He’s no Rachel Dolezal. What’s white about him is white, and what’s black about him is black and always has been from the time he was a child. There’s no spray tan, no fake black hairstyles, no attempt to make himself appear any more ethnic than he already does."[34][35]

Here's NBSB's version:

His critics have drawn comparisons between King and Rachel Dolezal, but others have contrasted the two cases.[30][31][32][33][34] Writing in The Los Angeles Times, Dexter Thomas juxtaposed the cases, accusing Breitbart and right-wing media of "concern trolling" in the King case. "King’s post is a personal story. It may not satisfy the staff of Breitbart or the Daily Caller, who have amplified a call for King to submit to a DNA test. But for the time being, many prominent activists, such as DeRay McKesson, who was deeply involved in the protests after Michael Brown's killing in Ferguson, Mo., have voiced their support for King. And the community that is most involved with Black Lives Matter seems to be more interested in Shaun King’s work than they are in the color of his skin, or the history of his family," he said.[35] King’s wife, Rai King, says: "He’s no Rachel Dolezal. What’s white about him is white, and what’s black about him is black and always has been from the time he was a child. There’s no spray tan, no fake black hairstyles, no attempt to make himself appear any more ethnic than he already does."[36][37]

The opening for one thing is concerning as it's not only his critics who have compared the two cases, the rest of it is hard to follow.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Add- I do like the "more interested in his work than the color of his skin, or the history of his family" quote from the longer version. This seems like something that should be somewhere in the article, perhaps in with the Dolezal stuff or perhaps elsewhere. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

If we are going to include a reference to Dolezal, then i prefer the earlier version. I dont think we should spend more time on the comparison then we do on the actual issue itself. Bonewah (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

There was no consensus to add Dolezal to the article at all, despite this misleading edit summary(add Dolezal per talk page and WP:BLPN discussion), neither here nor the BLP Noticeboard. Also, this revert shows that you believe Breitbart is a reliable source for BLP material. It is most definitely NOT. I am putting the article back to where it was before that revert. Dave Dial (talk) 00:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I count 4 in support and 3 opposed on this talk plus the uninvolved editors who chimed in at BLPN. There was zero outside support for omitting this well sourced comparison at wp:blpn. [12] --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Bobomeowcat, where is consensus on this issue being sought? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi, I was judging by the comments in Rachel Dolezal talk page section above and also in the BLPN discussion on this issue, but given how contentious this is, perhaps we should start a new section for a formal vote.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Or not. You could just take what you've got (as you did) and take it as is. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

It's really frustrating because first it was "undue weight" but the abundance of sources don't support undue weight. Then it was BLP violation but WP:BLPN didn't agree, now it's "lack of consensus". I'm only minimally invested in this article, and am tempted just to walk away, but it seems really POV and not supported by policy to omit it.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

It's obviously not any of those things. I'm going to keep an eye on it, but have no interest in the drama this article has attracted. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

If reliable sources compare him to dolenzal it's ok to put in the article. Popish Plot (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

wp:Consensus is “an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.”. It does not require unanimity and it is not the result of a vote. As BoboMeowCat said, the legitimate concerns with neutrally mentioning the comparisons to R. D. are undue and BLP. These appear to have been addressed. Many of the other concerns do not appear to me to be legitimate concerns. So I think we have reached consensus, but with strong opposition. That’s fine. That happens.--Nowa (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources trumps consensus. Wikipedia isn't a democracy and it's not all about voting. This shouldn't even be a question. Popish Plot (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Just because something is in a reliable source doesn't mean it must be in this biography. — Strongjam (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Strongjam, I'm sorry but this article will reflect the consensus of reliable sources. Excluding information they feel is relevant is cherrypicking and violates the "due weight" clause of WP:NPOV, quoted below for convenience

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.

161.202.72.152 (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. I'd also note that if the comparisons in reliable sources come down to "Some compared it to this other situation, but it was nothing like that" then why even bother having it in this persons biography? — Strongjam (talk) 18:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

If we limit ourselves to summarizing what is already widespread in reliable sources then we will stay clear of being the primary vehicle for spreading anything. If multiple reliable sources are making a particular comparison, we should summarize that particular comparison for the sake of readers who want a neutral summary of it.--Nowa (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Except there are not 'multiple reliable sources making a comparison'. That's the big lie being pimped here. There are reliable sources that state that some right-wing bloggers have made that comparison, and a few entertainment/tabloid outlets that have, but most reliable sources(the vast majority) have steered far clear of that comparison. Especially since King had to go out and defend himself against those spurious accusations. So no, it does not outweigh BLP. And any such attempt to do so will be met with reverts citing BLP. Dave Dial (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

most reliable sources(the vast majority) have steered far clear of that comparison. Which reliable sources were you thinking of?--Nowa (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Most sources haven't "steered clear of it", but I've read a couple stories on King's biracial identity that did not specifically mention Dolezal, and honestly, it hardly seems necessary at this point, because we've been so saturated with the comparison. Anyway, this seems to be going around in circles. That the comparison is exceedingly well sourced in reliable sources has been documented in depth at WP:BLPN [13] and also in the above talk page section. Saying the two cases have been compared, isn't saying they're the same, it just provides useful content for the readers and adds a wikilink to another artilce where the media also showed a great deal of interest the racial identity of a civil rights activist.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Joy Reid opinion

There is a dispute as to whether the following is redundant. I thought I would post it here to see if we can reach consensus.

MSNBC national correspondent Joy Reid said on Live with Thomas Roberts, "I did talk to Shaun. I can tell you that Shaun King is biracial. There is no reason to doubt that he is biracial. The stories about what he said regarding getting his scholarship, etc, I think you have to consider the source. I don’t think they’re credible absent any actual reporting."

To get things started, I think that overall there is too much information in the article regarding the current controversy over SK's race. I'm not saying this particular information should be excluded, but I do think overall we should do a better job of summarizing. For example, we could say something like: "Several commentators have expressed their support for SK and the validity of him being described as biracial. They include....."--Nowa (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I dont see the value in adding these lines like "X person thinks Y about this subject" Who cares? Its mere opinion and should not be included, unless that opinion is held by someone really important, such that not including mention of it would diminish the reader's understanding of the subject. If Barack Obama weighs in on the subject, we should include it. If someone from MSNBC or HuffPo weighs in, leave it out. Bonewah (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Then remove all the accusations, especially the references to Breitbart and Milo. There is no way they should hold more weight than real journalists or news outlets. No way. Dave Dial (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Breitbart's significance on this subject is due to the multiple RS that reference Breitbart. It's not that Brietbart has any particular authority, it's that everyone is talking about Breitbart. Similar to SK's wife. Everyone is talking about what she said so her opinion on the subject should be included.--Nowa (talk) 19:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Independent coverage includes critical coverage of such accusations, such as Joy Reid's, the New York Daily News', and Keith Boykin's. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Precisely (directed at Nowa). The claims reported on by Brietbart are significant because they are being reported on by other, more reliable sources. I.E. they are significant claims, even if untrue. No one is reporting on what Joy Reid or any of the other editorialists you have quoted think because their opinions are not terribly important. Think about it in reverse. If i trotted out a thousand editorials that claim that SK is a liar and that the claims about his whiteness are true, would you be ok in including them in this article? I wouldnt, because the mere fact that someone commented on a subject does not make that commentary notable enough to include here. Its simple, if they dont know anything more that we do, or if their commentary isnt noteable in some other way, then it should not be included. Bonewah (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof, so what? Bonewah (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

"So what" is that we don't simply publish third-party claims about living people without also publishing reliably-sourced responses to those claims, of which there are many. Editorial opinions of the New York Daily News are inherently notable; this constitutes a major mainstream news source commenting on Breitbart's claims. We don't need other people commenting on NYDN's opinion to make it usable here. Likewise, Joy Reid is a notable commentator and reporter for a major mainstream news source, as is Keith Boykin. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

We did publish reliably sourced responses, the responses of those actually involved or knowledgeable about the subject. Editorial opinions of the New York Daily News are not "inherently notable", you are just making that up. Bonewah (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course it is. You are arguing that what makes Breitbart's claims notable and suitable for this biography is the myriad of third-party discussion of those claims. Thus, you cannot possibly claim that those third-party discussions are not themselves notable because if they were not notable, then they would have no power to make Breitbart notable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you are confusing notability with reliability. If a large number of reliable secondary sources discuss a particular topic,then the topic becomes notable. Any individual discussion, however, may not necessarily be notable.Nowa (talk) 01:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Break out as separate article?

The comment above, "Suppose the Daily Kos or some other left wing outlet starts making accusations against Republican candidates...", reminded me that this exactly happened with George W. Bush in his 2004 campaign. CBS released what are now regarded as faked documents demeaning GWB's national guard service. The controversy has since been broken out of his bio as a separate article: Killian documents controversy. That might be useful guidance for us--Nowa (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Not nearly enough sources to do that. — Strongjam (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Ridiculing Breitbart

Since the article is locked down, it seems to be a good time to discuss ongoing issues. Regarding back and forth edit wars, I have noticed multiple edits which ridicule Breitbart. The implication seems to be the allegations that King misrepresented his racial identity must be false, due to the source of the allegations. The current text, though not as inflammatory as previous version [14] doesn't seem to add to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject. I’m referring specifically to this quote:"you have to consider the source. I don’t think they’re credible absent any actual reporting." This doesn't make sense. Brietbart reported King’s birth certificate listed 2 white parents, and their reporting on this has been confirmed to be correct. His birth certificate lists white parents. King has since supplied a plausible and reasonable explanation for the discrepancy. These are the facts and it seems we should stick to the facts. Adding reliably sourced and neutrally worded commentary that these questions regarding King’s race have been seen by some as an attack on the greater Black Lives Matter movement, would be perhaps a better way to address bias concerns of some of those reporting on this story, but simply sneering at or ridiculing Brietbart in the article doesn’t seem appropriate. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree 100%, BoboMeowCat. With everything you wrote above. I don't see why Breitbart is to be discounted, either, since numerous reliable reports have confirmed what they reported about the birth certificate. I'm also tired of the edit warring at this article as well as the "racist" label being thrown around. Hopefully, all of this will be resolved while the article is locked and when the protection expires, we can get to editing in peace and without animosity. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you fellows head over to RSN and search 'Breitbart' to see if they are a reliable source, especially for BLPs. As for the 'racist' label, that's also sourced, and much better sourcing than Breitbart, In-News(or whatever the fuck that website is for Pate) or the various entertainment magazines being being pointed at as sources. I won't go into more detail right now, I'm busy, but I suggest you follow the advice about the RSN. Dave Dial (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Breitbart is an acceptable source on Breitbart, under WP:SELFPUB, as long as we are not using the ref to assert the veracity of any claims about third parties or any exceptional claims about Brietbart itself. Since the citation is being used only to demonstrate Breitbart published something, as an important event in the chronology of the issue, there is no reason to remove it. I hope this makes sense. GraniteSand (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

This isn't about referencing Brietbart. The information originally published by Brietbart regarding the birth certificate discrepancy has been covered by multiple other sources which are referenced in the article. The issue is whether we should include text in this article which mocks or ridicules Brietbart as a source of information. I think we shouldn't because it seems POV and it doesn't seem to add to encyclopedic understanding of the topic.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

My response was confined only to Dave's apparent objection to the presence of Breitbart at all. What you're referring to is, really, a non-issue designed to deflect and distract. Criticisms of Breitbart in ideological or political publications, or by such authors, are really only to shift the discussion away from the actual issue, King's ethnicity and what King knew about it. Milo Yiannopoulos, writing in Breitbart, made no independent claims about King at all, only referred to the claims of Vicki Pate. The facts presented by Pate have since been confirmed as true, only Pate's interpretation of those facts can be questioned at this point. To include "criticism" of Breitbart as a source is a non-sequitur which serves only to distract. Lastly, the nature of the WP:CHERRYpicking of aggressive and derisory quotes that's going on speaks for it, I think. GraniteSand (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not a "non sequitur" to publish reliable sources who question the veracity, motivation and well-foundedness of personal attacks on a living person, when we are republishing those same personal attacks in the biography of that living person. It is, in fact, required by policy that we treat living people with respect, sensitivity and care, whether or not a politically-motivated witch hunt has targeted that person. This entire biography was created as a WP:COATRACK to spread those unfounded and now-discredited personal attacks, and the fact that those attacks have now been criticized in a number of reliable sources is entirely pertinent and relevant. If we are going to give significant space to such attacks, we must also give significant space to the rebuttals and repudiations of them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Breitbart is categorically an unacceptable source for any living persons issue, and may not be linked to in BLPs except for those of Breitbart writers, etc. The organization has a well-earned reputation for publishing lies, fabrications, politically-motivated witch-hunts and out-and-out personal attacks.

The veracity (and lack thereof) of Breitbart's claims and reporting on King is of categorical importance and interest to this article, and the fact that a number of mainstream sources (MSNBC, Salon, etc.) have published such criticism is, of course, proof of this matter. The fact is that Breitbart's reporting was a misleading witch-hunt which forced out family secrets of no particular public interest. As the New York Daily News (hardly a liberal bastion) notes, attempting to discredit opponents by delving into their racial identities without far more care than shown here is repugnant. If we're going to publish Breitbart's now-discredited garbage, we're also going to publish the fact that a number of mainstream sources are saying it was discredited garbage. [15] NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm loath to respond to you because I know who you are and what you're all about and life's too short to spend any of it locking horns with people like you on Wikipedia, but I'll resp[opnd to you this one time. You have a long and well established history as an ideological polemicist; that's how you spend your time on Wikipedia. What you're doing here is trying to engage in an ad hominem attack on the messenger and distract from the actual subject by making this about Breitbart. So, I'll reiterate, this isn't about Breitbart. Breitbart made no independent claims about King, none. Your quote-picking of others in the mediasphere trying to do the same (Salon, MSNBC, NYDN, etc) is a transparent attempt at crisis management and deflection. Regardless of one's position on the whole King race brouhaha, there is no reason to include the wider media poo flinging spectacle to this BLP. And, as the Great American Sage once said, that's all I have to say about that. GraniteSand (talk) 01:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• “Why don't you fellows head over to RSN and search 'Breitbart'...“ I did. I see critics and defenders of Brietbart.com as RS. I do not see consensus.
• “...the actual issue, [is] King's ethnicity...” I respectfully disagree. The issue is the controversy about SK's ethnicity, not what it “actually” is.
• “...when we are republishing those same personal attacks...” If the article appears to be attacking a living person, then the article fails BLP. Summarizing the fact that attacks exist, however, is essential to a proper BLP, particularly when those attacks are notable or even notorious.
• "If we are going to give significant space to such attacks, we must also give significant space to the rebuttals and repudiations of them.” I agree.Nowa (talk) 02:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• *“Why don't you fellows head over to RSN and search 'Breitbart'...“ I did. I see critics and defenders of Brietbart.com as RS. I do not see consensus.

  Then you're not looking hard enough. Breitbart is most definitely NOT a reliable source for news. And cannot be used as a source of fact for BLPs. That is definitely the consensus at BLPN. Dave Dial (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It's quite amusing that you make a transparent ad-hominem attack at the same time as you accuse me of engaging in ad hominem. The fact that the claims originated on a fringe right-wing blogger who got zero attention until picked up by another right-wing outlet with a long history of publishing flat-out fabrications, lies, etc. about their political opponents is entirely relevant to this biography, as noted by the reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof I'm a little confused. I believe I agreed with you regarding the necessity to include “rebuttals and repudiations”. Was there another point you were making?--Nowa (talk) 02:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

My reply was to GraniteSand; I realize the threading is rather confusing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the clarification.Nowa (talk) 02:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You've got to be fucking kidding me. Attacking on the messenger is what Breitbart did, for fucks sake. What the Hell does King's ethnicity have to do with anything? Why publish a doxxing by a known racist blogger? You're loath to respond to him? You apologists for this hit piece take the cake. There was no reason at all to make the accusations that were made, and this entire 'issue' is bullshit that was absolutely a personal attack on King. For you(and others) to try and insist that there be no criticism of that is laughable. Sheesh........ Dave Dial (talk) 02:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm getting a little tired of being called racist just because I posted proof that King's parents are, according to his birth certificate, white. Making the leap to declaring King must be white as well is not racist. Amazing Wiki won't use daily cos as a reliable source, but will take the word of one of its authors as "reliable". There are all sorts of errors in this entire page, but hey, what does someone who has researched King for a year know? User:Renewsit (talk) 02:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the earlier comments regarding “rebuttals and repudiations”. These need to be included, but it seems these should be encyclopedic and substantive. The article currently doesn't seem to give enough weight to commentators who question why King's racial identity even matters with respect to his civil rights activism. It also seems we should mention commentators who believe that questioning King's racial identity is an attempt to discredit the Black Lives Matter movement. However, I don't think various versions of "Breitbart sucks" belongs in this article.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with BoboMeowCat at the outset of this section. Sticking to the facts as reported is what we should do here. If a quote or source doesnt add to our understanding of the subject, we should just leave it out. This includes the various "some other commenter thinks these allegations are awful" or similar. Further, the reliability of Breitbart is totally irrelevant. Bonewah (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

False claims

The claim in question is that King willfully misrepresented his racial identity. That is, at this point, false and/or discredited. No serious challenge has been made to King's accounting of his racial and ethnic makeup since he publicly refuted the attack more than a week ago, and reliable sources have universally moved on and dropped the matter. Given the highly-negative nature of the attack, we are required by policy to treat living people with respect and sensitivity. It is unfair to mention a discredited, partisan attack on King in the article's lede without immediately discussing the fact that the thrust of the attack — the claim that King lied about being biracial — is fundamentally untrue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The lede does so already doesn't it? Are you proposing some specific text change? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The wording has been repeatedly removed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, the claims must be labeled as false per BLP and Verifiability - Exceptional claims. Dave Dial (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

It's true he never claimed to be black so didn't lie. but No reliable sources pointed that out so I guess the wiki article has to remain confusing. Popish Plot (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Gaijin, if you object to the use of "false" on the grounds that it implies it was knowingly wrong, then the word "untrue" must satisfy this issue - the allegations, whether knowingly or not, are untrue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

It does not satisfy. I might go far as to allow "claims, which were later shown to be untrue" or something , which still suffers from the the wiki-voice issue. To be clear, I believe King's answer is correct, and further that the initial allegations were probably better off not raised but they were raised, and we need to accurately describe them and their resolution. They were knot known to be false or untrue at the time, and ultimately their "truth" or not relies entirely on King's assertion, based on his mother's hearsay, which he himself he admits he does not know the absolute truth of. In BLPs we generally take subjects word at face value for personal life details, but when those details are the topic of a controversy, we can't drop WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. I am entirely fine with leaving King's response unchallenged in any way, but it needs to be King's response, not wikipedia's response. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Not just his assertion, we have sourced statements from other people in the article. — Strongjam (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Sourced statements based on something other than his assertion?Gaijin42 (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Several of King's classmates and friends have backed King's position. Corey Richardson, a Morehouse classmate, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “He is black. A light-skinned black guy. That is what he is." I don't know what they're basing that on, I also don't really care. It's good enough for me. — Strongjam (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Its good enough for me too. I don't think its good enough for WP:WikiVoice and ignoring WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV tho. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it should be. That a partisan blogger questioned his identity shouldn't be enough for WP to cast any doubt. The section could probably be re-written better so that we could avoid the "false claims" term directly, but however we word it Wikipedia should avoid giving any credence to the claims. It is after all a rather exceptional claim. — Strongjam (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Or we could take out all mention of the accusations at all. Dave Dial (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

If you are talking about the lede, then i agree, there is no reason to mention his race at all. If you are talking about the whole article, then i disagree. Like it or not, the racial questions about SK are an important part of his biography. Bonewah (talk) 11:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Given the large amount of press coverage and per WP:LEDE, it seems brief and neutral mention of this belongs in the lede, but briefly and neutrally and without all the heated rhetoric. Instead of non-neutral and emotionally charged language such as "right-wingers", "false claims", "lies" and "repugnant", I think we should try to put this in context encyclopedicly by adding mention of suggestion that such questions regarding his race have been seen as an attempt to distract from the Black Lives Matter movement. Something like: "In 2015, a Brietbart reporter questioned King’s biracial identity based on his birth certificate, which lists white parents. King explained that the man listed on his birth certificate is not his biological father, clarifying that his biological father is a light-skinned black man, and King expressed concern that such questions were an attempt to distract from the Black Lives Matter movement." --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Id be ok with that. We could replace the current text: "In August 2015, a Breitbart writer reported on untrue allegations that King had misrepresented his biracial identity. A conservative blogger made this claim based on information from his birth certificate, which lists white parents. King responded that the allegations were "lies," stating that the man listed on his birth certificate is not his biological father, and that his biological father is a "light-skinned black man." With what you have. The only change i would recommend is changing "a Brietbart reporter" to "a Brietbart article" or something similar. Bonewah (talk) 14:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Once again, in reliable sources, the backlash against the accusations(after King's response), was covered much more than the actual accusations. The accusations that were covered were mostly by right-wing or entertainment outlets. You people are setting yourselves for a BLP nightmare. Suppose the Daily Kos or some other left wing outlet starts making accusations against Republican candidates, and the accusations are picked up in much the same manner as happened here. Even if the accusations are eventually found out to be untrue, you are stating they not only belong in the subjects article, but in the lede. And do not think the people over at BLM aren't ready to do some digging themselves, if only just to see how the media handles accusations against conservative white people. You are trying to set a precedent that this types of doxxing and half-ass 'reporting' are BLP relevant. Which they are obviously not. Dave Dial (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Dave, i explicitly said that i did not think this subject should be mentioned in the lede so i dont know what your issue is with that. As for the rest, the story of SK and race has appeared in many many reliable sources and should, therefor , be covered in this article. You are treading close to I didnt hear that territory. As for the claim that the backlash was covered more than the actual accusations, prove it. Show me actual reporting on the backlash that shows that, not just editorials, actual reporting, because we have lots of actual reporting in actual reliable sources about the accusations and i dont recall seeing any artcles about the backlash specifically. Bonewah (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Jesus man, what kind of environment do you come from where it's reckless speculation to assume birth certificates accurately reflect parentage? Say what you want about Republicans but I don't think that'll be a frequent problem. 104.156.240.208 (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

First, I don't think it's helpful, nor is it necessary for having a productive discussion, to keep going down the partisan road and dividing groups for the content into "conservative white people". My thoughts on this are as follows: if the hoo-haw about King's race isn't still in the news this week, leave it out of the lede. If that's the case, then obviously, it was a flash in the pan deal. And I agree with Bonewah that there really hasn't been any "backlash" per se that's notable or even noticeable (aside from King's zillion tweets in protest). But the content does need to be in the article. Can't escape that it happened, especially with King's zillion-tweet response to it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

It's received international coverage and it's still getting significant coverage weeks later. This interview with his hometown mayor and residents King grew up with seems to put it in greater context http://www.wkyt.com/home/headlines/WKYT-Exclusive--Versailles-leaders-invite-Shaun-King-back-to-hometown-323491871.html --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The link you included here is discussing his response, not the incident. It appears there is nothing new about the birth certificate and the Breitbart release of info on the birth certificate, am I right? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

What seems to be lacking from the current article is commentators asking "why does it matter?" and also discussion of how or if this impacts the Black Lives Matter movement, and if derailing the movement is the motivation for questioning his race. The above video address this and this source addresses it a bit more http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/20/us/shaun-king-controversy/ --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

AP has an article that goes into that as well. — Strongjam (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The CNN piece does not indicate the allegations are false so "false allegations" needs to remove "false." King refuted the allegations but there has been no stance on truth in reliable sources. As for mattering, race is not the issue but integrity would be per the AP expert. The CNN story says King's high school attack was racial, but it wasn't a hate crime, a family member told Lemon. King's family member said the cause of the altercation was about him being a white guy dating a black girl. Lemon is CNN's reporter. That passes RS. Lastly, Trayvon Martin was shot by George Zimmerman. Many reliable sources say "white Hispanic" yet Zimmerman has verifiable Black ancestors. It seems circumstances of upbringing are relevant and if CNN's Lemon and King's family member are to be believed, it appears he grew up in a white family and perceived as a white person - which is exactly why George Zimmerman was reported as white. If he really grew up with the privileges of white, heterosexual male and he is relaying that experience as the same as what black men grew up with, the AP's assessment of credibility being an issue is spot on. --DHeyward (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The AP piece talks about credibility, not integrity, and the AP expert says that isn't an issue here, and that he should instead be judged on his work. — Strongjam (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Absolute crock. Not to mention everything you've pointed to was BEFORE King(and his wife) came out and explained the situation. I should have known you would show up here with this. smh. How do you possibly justify your garbled line of thinking to even yourself? Dave Dial (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The most recent link above (here it is again: [16]) was actually from this Monday, weeks after King and his wife provided explanations.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about @DD2K:? Who's garbled line of thinking? The only thing that I've read is that he doesn't know his father other than as a light skinned black man. That doesn't really express what he experienced nor is it any kind of declaration of race. Is CNN's Lemon wrong? Sorry I'm late to your party as I don't pay attention to right wing news and just saw this edit war but I find very little has been said that is false unless CNN has retracted Lemon's report. Have they? --DHeyward (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

One anonymous quote shouldn't outweigh his own identification, the other sources with people who have gone on the record Corey Richardson, also a former Morehouse classmate, was blunt [...] "He is black," said Richardson, who now lives in Chicago. “A light-skinned black guy. That is what he is[17] Other people who know him were just as direct.[18]. It's a rather exceptional claim that he's misrepresented his racial identity, and per BLP we should require exceptional proof before giving them any credence. — Strongjam (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

It was not anonymous, it was a family member. CNN made the statement. We should not be disputing reliable sources. His family member said he was white per CNN. A friend said he was black. That's all Wikipedia should say. We don't call either the friend, king or the family member a liar by saying anything they said is false. Here's the reliable source facts: King's birth records list his parents as white. King says the person listed on his birth certificate is not his father and he was told his father was a light skin-tone black man. A family member has said King is white while his friends say he is black. His wife has stated that he has never been untruthful about his racial identity. That's it. No need for "false" or "allegations" or other loaded terms. There is no truth to be made here by Wikipedia. No claims. Only statements. --DHeyward (talk) 01:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

This unnamed family member did not say he was white. He said "the cause of the altercation was about him being a white guy dating a black girl." Those that beat him up saw him as a white guy dating a black girl according to this family member. — Strongjam (talk) 12:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam: That was in addition to A family member tells CNN that both of King's parents are white.[19] --DHeyward (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's already been covered, since childhood he's been told his biological father is black. — Strongjam (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

And that's exactly what I wrote so I am not sure what you are arguing about. We attribute those statements to the people that make them. Exactly what issue did you have with:

King's birth records list his parents as white. King says the person listed on his birth certificate is not his father and he was told his father was a light skin-tone black man. A family member has said King is white while his friends say he is black. His wife has stated that he has never been untruthful about his racial identity.? CNN hasn't retracted anything about what the family member said last week. There is nothing to be stated in Wikipedia's voice since we only have statements. RSes report what multiple parties have said and make no assertions that any of them are false. Neither should we, nor should we speculate. --DHeyward (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think "A family member has said King is white" is a far summary of "the cause of the altercation was about him being a white guy dating a black girl.". In this context he could have just meant the fight was about how people perceived King. — Strongjam (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but that was only part of the source. The family member said two things: both King's parents are white and that the altercation was about a white guy dating a black girl. Rather than making both statements, I condensed it to show that the understanding/point/belief of the relative is that King is white. King actually disputes that he was perceived as white when he was beaten and disputes that his father is white so creating a context that the fight was about how people perceived King is still problematic as well as WP:OR. Speculating on context of a statement when they disagree on the fundamentals is not something we can do. I think it would be overweight, in that statement, to relay both the parental points and the altercation description made by the relative to show the relative simply believes King is white. What we cannot do is imply the family member is lying or is making a false statement as RSes haven't done that. Nor would we say King is lying or making false statements. RSes juxtapose statements without conclusion. There are many ways to write a summary of the four main statements in the RSes. Using terms like "false", "claims," "allegations" are not necessary, though. Even in light of King's response, CNN has not retracted it, corrected it, contextualized it or anything else other than report his response. The family member has not retracted it or clarified it which would have forced CNN to do the same. CNN disclosed the comments by the relative that they believe are pertinent. We condense and reflect that. --DHeyward (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

You're assuming it's the same unnamed family member in both cases, probably true, but CNN doesn't put them together and neither can we, and we can't speculate on what they meant by combining them together. (I should add I'm just basing that on the description of the video, I haven't had a chance to watch it yet.) — Strongjam (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, just finished watching the video. No mention of the statement about the fight. — Strongjam (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

In light of your comments above, DHeyward, I think it is important to also make note of similar comments made by Bbb23 at AN3 in regard to the dispute being discussed here:

"If reliable sources report on accusations, there's nothing wrong with Wikipedia putting in that material. If the subject disputes the allegations and that's also reported by reliable sources, we of course should put that in as well. But it remains a dispute unless reliable sources report that the claims were false. Wikipedia does not get to decide the truth of the claims. The closest the article comes to reporting on the falsity of the claims is the sentence citing The New York Daily News, but in my view it's insufficient for us to say in Wikipedia's voice that the claims are categorically false...From what I read, none of what you say is in the article, so as far as I'm concerned, it's pure WP:OR. I'm letting your comments stand, but they are clearly disruptive. Encouraging other users to edit-war based on your interpretation of policy is a dangerous thing to do. My warning is an administrative action. You can disagree with it, but that doesn't mean you are entitled to incite others to violate policy."

Diffs for the above can be found here and here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Query. Prior to this comment, I counted 11 mentions of "right-wing" on this Talk page, all in the context of implying either unreliability of sources or malicious behaviour by individuals. Is it Wikipedia policy that "right-wing" sources are inherently unreliable? If so, could someone please point me to the relevant policy? If not, then why should it matter? It reads to me like commenters here are simply exposing their own political bias. I'm seeing accusations about a "right-wing hit job" and "doxxing by a right-wing hack"; is there any substantiation forthcoming for the claim of 'doxxing' (are we seriously applying that term now to looking up the publicly available birth certificate of a public figure who goes by his real name)?

That said, I think a reasonable argument can be made that race is as much about physical appearance as it is about ancestry. In light of which, I find the photo of King which the Daily Kos has chosen to run with, rather ironic. 76.64.33.209 (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Scholarship questions

Currently we have a bit about the scholarship but no response to it. I added a bit about it not being race-based before, but it was removed as the source didn't directly say the Oprah Winfrey scholarship isn't race based. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has a statement from Morehouse that addresses that concern directly. We should change that section to something like:

Yiannopolous questioned if King had misled Oprah Winfrey by accepting an Oprah Scholarship to Morehouse College, a historically black school. A Morehouse spokesperson dismissed the claim, saying that admissions and scholarship are not race-based, and that the Oprah Winfrey Scholarship at Morehouse has always been a based on need and merit.

— Strongjam (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me. We can also add that he graduated in '02--Nowa (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The morehouse statement is not really an answer to the Oprah question. That just refers to Morehouse's own scholarships and admissions. Technically morehouse could not legally restrict admissions (nor likely scholarships) based on race. But they certainly are almost exclusively black. On the other hand, Oprah's scholarship may or may not be race based, and thus far the sources indicate it is. King's statement about the scholarship supports that ("500 other brothers have the same story") and so does the morehouse page about the oprah scholarship http://www.morehouse.edu/oprah/ "When you empower a black man, you light up the world". Heres another oprah scholarship targeted to another school http://wagner.nyu.edu/global/fellowships/awpsf (technically for Africans, not African Americans, but still) If King ultimately had turned out to be white, the oprah misleading issue would have been real, while attending morehouse would have been interesting, but not necessarily proof of deception. 23:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Gaijin42: The Morehouse statement covers the Oprah scholarship as well. "the Oprah Winfrey Scholarship at Morehouse has been a need- and merit-based scholarship since it was first awarded 26 years ago. Recipients of any race are eligible for it if they meet the academic and financial requirements." — Strongjam (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I apologize, I misread the quote, thinking it was the same as the one previously in the article. In that case, I think we should drop the first half of that quote as not being directly on point as a response to the previous statement, and tweak the second half to include the more critical element - that the specific scholarship in question is open to all races (eg, that it is merit/need based doesn't explicitly address the question). Gaijin42 (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe something like this then?:

Yiannopolous questioned if King had misled Oprah Winfrey by accepting an Oprah Scholarship to Morehouse College, a historically black school. A Morehouse spokesperson dismissed the questions, saying the Oprah Winfrey Scholarship at Morehouse has always been based on need and merit, and recipients from any race are eligible.

— Strongjam (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is a better version. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll wait a little while and if there are no objections I'll put in an edit request. — Strongjam (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

References

I believe the deleted tweet has been discussed which relates to his application to Morehouse. It also related in a way to the altercation in high school and his complicated situation. It makes sense that all the wording and press releases and tweets and conflicting sources about his race. --DHeyward (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

the deleted tweet was clearly a typo. It was deleted immediately after posting, and replaced with an identical tweet with the additional word "not". Its an interesting meta story, as Lemon ran with it, and they had a panel about morehouse/oprah deception that discussed it, but we shouldn't focus on it. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't even think the tweet is relevant here. The statement from AJC has a quote I can't find anywhere else: His being black, white, green or blue would not have determined his admission here, it looks like they talked directly to Morehouse and aren't just reporting about what was said on twitter. — Strongjam (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

No, but the Morehouse application clarifies a lot of the ambiguity. Lemon alluded to it and but also what makes it more complex. The following tweet that I saw was a completely different statement not a typo correction (which makes sense). --DHeyward (talk) 00:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think I follow what's being talked about here? @DHeyward: are you objecting to the edit, or suggesting some alternative? I feel like there is a source or something being talked about but not linked to. — Strongjam (talk) 02:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Remove "Morehouse dismissed the questions." They spoke broadly about admission and scholarship policies and would not comment directly on King. If you have ever been placed in his situation where "it's complicated" it's pretty clear what happened and why. It's the reason he describes the altercation as white on black but the police log it as white on white. Be careful how Morehouse is worded because it's quite possible he filled out the application and lists "White" for race/ethnicity and it doesn't contradict anything he said (and fits the deleted tweet as well). --DHeyward (talk) 03:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

King is not White, the police officer stated he listed King as 'White' because there was no box to check that stated "biracial or 'mixed'. The same officer stated King is biracial, and everyone in town knew that. You keep mentioning the 'deleted tweet', where King made a series of Tweets and made a typo stating 'I did lie' instead of 'I did not lie', which was deleted and corrected within minutes. Only the 'birther-type' loons are hanging onto that typo as some kind of proof King stated he lied. Much like the loons who believed Obama was a Muslim because of the YouTube video of Obama saying 'my Muslim faith' out of context. Keep it up though, DH, you're on a roll. Dave Dial (talk) 04:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you off your meds? At least what I've seen, I've not said he's white. I don't think I ever said that he was white but you seem to have difficulty reading. I haven't seen a tweet that corrected a typo, I saw a tweet that made a different kind of statement. "citation needed" for typo correction tweet but if your referring to his broad denial, it's not a typo correction. I said he may have checked the box that said "white" on Morehead and it would wise to keep that in mind when writing the article. He is being very careful how he words his responses. This is because geniuses like yourself don't understand the complexity and difficulty of being mixed race and editors like you will write stuff that makes him look like a liar when things like applications, birth certificates, passports and drivers' license actually come out if you aren't paying attention. Be very careful (as careful as him) how you write about Morehead because if his application says "white", he has not contradicted anything he has said so far and it doesn't make him white. If you think checking "White" on the Morehead application would make him a liar, then you don't understand the problem and should stop writing about him because you are only hurting his credibility. Your ad hominem rant suggests that it would be perfectly fine to say he must have checked "Black" on every form to identify as "Black." He's said he identified as Black since elementary school yet there may be documents that he signed that he checked the "White" box. If there's no bi-racial box, you seem to think if he checked "White" like the police did, he must have lied. Not so. Perhaps it comes down to the same documents that are wrong about his father? Like I said, be careful about how Morehead's response is written because it's likely he checked "White" on the application and it would be incorrect and a large disservice to him to make his truthfulness dependent on that when he cautiously avoids it. Morehead didn't comment on his application. Don't make it more than that. --DHeyward (talk) 09:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a forum for speculation about the subject. Please stay focused on the content of reliable sources.--Nowa (talk) 09:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward: Remove "Morehouse dismissed the questions." They spoke broadly about admission and scholarship policies and would not comment directly on King.

We can word it more closely to the source if you like, the source says "As for the assertion that King lied about his race to get the Winfrey scholarship, Morehouse officials scoffed at that claim Thursday." I thought "Morehouse dismissed the questions" was a more neutral summary of that. — Strongjam (talk) 11:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Oprah Winfrey does not give out Oprah Winfrey Scholarships. In the case of Morehouse, Oprah gave the school $12 million. Morehouse set up the “Oprah Winfrey Endowed Scholarship Fund” and they use the funds to give out the scholarships.--Nowa (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

And that's where wording comes in. The claims about King were not addressed. Morehouse addressed claims that admission was race based. They scoffed at claims that the award would be different if he was a different race or checked a different box. This is where we have to be careful. There are other sources for Morehouse that more accurately describes what they addressed and it was only their admission and scholarship policy. --DHeyward (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

other sources for Morehouse that more accurately describes what they addressed Not sure why you think that. AJC is not reporting on any tweets here. The quotes are not on even on twitter (and longer than 140 chars anyway.) The source is quite clear that Morehouse dismissed any claims about the scholarship, and we should be just as clear about that in the article. Especially as this is a BLP. — Strongjam (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

If you've watched other things like this play out, the information dribbles out. The more you infer about what they said. Very little has been said by King. Given his situation, there is likely a lot of contradictory documents that fit what he says but may not fit what we infer from these statements and put in the article. There is a "White" and a "Black" box on the application. Given King's situation it's quite possible he checked either box. Morehouse didn't address this except to say it wouldn't matter. However, if we write it as if he always checked the "Black" box and it's a "lie" to suggest otherwise, it misses everything that King has said. King hasn't lied regardless of what he may have checked. We have to make sure we don't write it in a way that would imply a lie if that document is released regardless of what he checked. Don't kake it appear as if the "scoff" was in relation to any information on the form or any "lie." (Or his drivers license app or his passport app or his kids birth certificate, etc, etc). King was very careful in that he may have checked anything and it didn't conflict with his identity. --DHeyward (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

In wiki terms, it's synth to juxtapose the question asked by Milos with the answer given by Morehouse. They are apples and oranges. This edit mixes them seem as if they are linked. They are not. --DHeyward (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Daily News

It wasn't clear to me if we had reached consensus on including the Daily News editorial. I've posted was was in the article below. I ask that no one reintroduce the material until consensus is reached. --Nowa (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The New York Daily News criticized the attacks on King in an editorial which noted that while King is "a public figure deserving of scrutiny ... attempting to discredit opponents by delving into their racial identities without far more care than shown here is repugnant."

It's quite usual that when discussing claims about a living person, we include reliably-sourced responses or reactions to those claims from mainstream sources. A good example is Huma Abedin, where we quote several newspapers, organizations, senators, etc. rejecting attacks on Abedin which claimed that her family was tied to the Muslim Brotherhood. It is entirely fitting that we include an editorial from a major metropolitan daily paper directly addressing the charges against King, finding them non-credible in the light of King's public statement. If we are going to include these fringe claims from Breitbart and a pseudonymous attack blogger, we're also going to directly note that King's refutation of the charges has basically been widely accepted. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

References

I disagree for at least 2 reasons. One, the addition tells us nothing of import about the subject except that someone somewhere dislikes what was written about him. This is unremarkable because it is true of nearly everything. Anything of enough importance to warrant a Wikipedia article will likely have some editorial somewhere expressing an opinion about that subject. We should not add these types of things unless it expands our understanding of the subject. Second, we need to maintain a neutral stance when editing, and the addition of these types of editorials is really just a way to push a certain POV indirectly. There is no evidence, in my opinion, that either the charges against SK, or his refutation of them have been widely accepted and introducing editorials to make it look like they have is a form of POV pushing. Again, stick to the facts, let the talking heads opine. Bonewah (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Fact check on Breitbart?

Have any RS done an analysis of the [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/19/did-black-lives-matter-organiser-shaun-king-mislead-oprah-winfrey-by-pretending-to-be-biracial/ original Breitbart piece?] Has anyone confirmed, for example, that the “Jeffrey Wayne King” listed on the birth certificate is in fact the white guy pictured in the Breitbart article?--Nowa (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe King did that when he said the man listed on his birth certificate wasn't his real father. --DHeyward (talk) 01:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

That's not quite what I mean. I haven't seen any strong evidence that the Jeffrey Wayne King listed on the birth certificate is even white. For example, the Breitbart article makes the statement “Finally, public records show only one J Wayne King in the state.” That may be, but the Jeffrey Wayne King that currently lives in Kentucky is certainly not the Jeffrey Wayne King shown in the mug shot. The Jeffrey Wayne King shown in the mug shot is 59 (born 11 November 1955). The Jeffrey Wayne King that currently lives in KY is 61. And besides, what does a person's current residence or place of birth have to do with whether or not they might be the Jeffrey Wayne King listed on the birth certificate? The whole Brietbart piece is utter rubbish from a journalistic standpoint. I was just wondering if any RS has given it the scrutiny it deserves.Nowa (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

NowaTo answer the core of the question, I think they have not. King ended that line on inquiry (by anyone we could use) with his response, which ended the story or further investigation.For wiki purposes, I don't think we are going to be able to develop that portion further to say if that narrow portion of the story was accurate or inaccurate (or even considered accurate or inaccurate)

• at a meta WP:OR level King could have just as easily ended the story, without revealing the sensitive family history by just saying "that dude isn't related to me/my dad/my legal dad" and neither did King's brother who was commenting on the story. Thats pretty telling (but obviously nothing we could put into the article)
• also At a meta WP:OR level however, public records and particularly arrest records are notoriously inaccurate - a first, middle, last match where the birthdate is within 5 years or so is pretty solid especially for an uncommon name (eg not John James Smith) - source : I am currently writing a background check app which relies primarily on rapsheet data for the DOJ where even a 10 year swing on bdate is considered a likely match if the name, race,gender match. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I think King wanted to firmly and completely end the inquiry and was willing to pierce his family's veil of privacy to do so, rather than leave endless partisan attacks unanswered. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The name is spelled differently as well. The patent has "Jeffrey Shaun King", the birth certificate says "Jeffery Shaun King." Don't know if his drivers license is "re" or "er" but it's another moot point. It would be interesting to know when he started using "Shaun" as his name and the story behind it for background. --DHeyward (talk) 21:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Interesting point on “re” vs “er” in Jeffrey. As a patent agent myself, I can tell you that we are very diligent in getting inventors' legal names correct on patent documents. I makes me wonder if the “birth certificate” posted on Breitbart is even legitimate. As for when did JSK start using “Shaun”, it was at least as early as his Morehouse years.Nowa (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Tighten the lede

Having a little bit of distance from the events, it's now quite clear that the "controversy," such as it was, does not belong in a form which dominates the lede of King's biography. It is highly undue weight on a single incident, as well as recentism, focusing far too much attention on a fringe personal attack which was quickly debunked and has since entirely disappeared from mainstream reliable sources. Therefore, I've removed the discussion from the lede, but of course, have left it in the body of the article, where it certainly belongs. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I think before we make major changes to the lede, we need to reach consensus first. Otherwise an edit war will ensue again and the article will be locked again. --Nowa (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:BRD certainly applies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the questions about King's race were debunked. He denied that he is White. That's far from debunking. The fact is, the man listed on his birth certificate is White. His mother is White. We go with reliable sources, and a birth certificate is considered a source that, in many cases, would be considered reliable. King's denial that the man on his birth certificate is his bio father is a primary source, which, in the world of Wikipedia, is a primary source, and not wholly reliable. The only thing that will debunk the claims regarding King's bio heritage being all White is a DNA test. So, debunked? No, just denied. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

We go with reliable sources, and a birth certificate is considered a source that, in many cases, would be considered reliable Nope. By policy here it is not a reliable source. — Strongjam (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Reread what I actually wrote and then realize I wasn't communicating in Wiki-speak but in real world speak: in most cases a birth certificate is a reliable source of parentage. To prove citizenship, you need a birth certificate. To prove parentage, you need s birth certificate. King's claims are not Wikipedia's issue, it is his issue - he hadn't proven in the real world that his White father on the birth certificate isn't his bio father. Therefore, the claims are not debunked. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they are, and your absurd adherence to this "birth certificate" nonsense has no foundation in either policy or practice. No mainstream reliable source today considers the allegations credible, the "controversy" disappeared from the media milliseconds after he issued his public statement and a major metropolitan daily editorially denounced the attacks as unfounded and unfair. This manufactured nontroversy is over. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

No, they aren't. In a court of law, King's testimony would be considered heresay. A DNA test is the only thing to actually debunk the claims of his totally white parentage. By now, we are all aware of your bias toward King's story. Personally, I don't care one way or the other. That's why I can look at this truthfully and objectively and without emotion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes, make a personal attack and then claim neutrality in the same breath. Very constructive. And no, sorry, we don't require biographical subjects to get DNA tests. That's ludicrous and absurd. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

(ec) I dont think the claims about SK's parentage have been debunked, but it doesnt matter here. We report what happened, not what we think. Bonewah (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)North, please try to keep up. I said nothing about us needing DNA. The claims weren't debunked. No matter how often you say they were, they really weren't. Which is why we can't say they were debunked, just denied. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Please do keep up; reliable sources no longer consider the claims credible and have stopped reporting on them, because King debunked them with his public statement. Nobody believes Breitbart or the wacky right-wing blogger anymore. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

It doesnt matter, unless you can produce reliable sources (not editorials) which say that these claims have been debunked we cant put any such things into the article. It doesnt matter who believes Breitbart or anyone else. Bonewah (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Two points. 1) regardless of the truth or untruth of the allegations, the allegations are the major source of notability for king outside of the relatively small amount people already involved in or following the BLM movement. the number of people who heard his name for the first time, and the number of words written/broadcast about him in the context of this incident, dwarf anything before. The article, and therefore the lead should reflect this weight. However both the article and lead should be written in a neutral/blp compliant manner. Any major removals or reformatting I think will certainly require an RFC given how contentious this topic is 2) specifically regarding the truth or untruth, I think it is excessive to say they are "untrue" as a fact in wiki voice, but we could certainly WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV similar analysis to someone else (either some specific notable voice, or to a WP:WEASEL "analysts/media" if there are a good number thereof. I think the NYD quote being discussed elsewhere serves well in that capacity, but there could be some better formulation too. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Tweetify

I thought it might be a fruitful exercise to try an reduce the Breitbart controversy in the lede to a tweet. The best I could do was 188 180 characters.--Nowa (talk) 13:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• In 2015, a Breitbart blogger said that King was white because his birth certificate had a white father. King said that according to his mother, his father was a "light-skinned black man". (188 characters)
• In 2015, a Breitbart blog said that King was white since his birth certificate had a white father. King said that his mother told him his real father was a light-skinned black man. (180 characters)

I think this exercise is missing a lot of nuance, and misrepresenting the original controversy. The way the tweeted version reads, it sounds like its a debate over the one drop rule, or how we define race. The core of the allegation was that King had misrepresented his race as black, and certainly the birth certificate was used as the evidence of that argument, but the alleged misrepresentation is the "meat" of the allegation, not the fact that he was one race or another. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm not saying it's the best summary in the world. Care to take a shot at it?--Nowa (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I think I prefer the current version for the most part. The "allegation" portion is succinct at one sentence. The counter/response to the could be trimmed up as I think some parts of it are redundant, but I think others (NorthBySouthBaranof etc) will think those details are necessary for BLP/NPOV concerns. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Categorization

The category is certainly appropriate, given his direct statements and self-identification. BLP does not permit us to ignore a person's own statements when categorizing living people. King has said this in multiple reliable sources, and absent a reliable source which refutes or disproves his own statements, the categorization must reflect them. Whether or not Breitbart's allegations are "false" or "untrue" or whatever is irrelevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Mostly agree, per WP:BLPCAT and MOS:IDENTITY we should cat people at face value of what they identify as - we can effectively ignore the arguments/allegations entirely for this purpose. As an example Dolezal who is provably white at this point is still categorized as african american. However additional cats are also probably appropriate (African American related controviersies, multiracial affairs etc, as well as any "ancestry" cats which are well sourced from the mother's side). Gaijin42 (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the Category:Multiracial affairs, this was the only biography in that category, so I don't think it really fit in there. — Strongjam (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Strongjam There are numerous BLPs in the category, but they are mostly diffused into the subcategories. Category:Multiracial_affairs_in_the_United_States is perhaps a better subcat as being more specific, and also already includes other BLPs. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Alright, that probably makes more sense. Although the category seems odd to me. I'm not sure if "affairs" here is meant to mean "an event" or the nature of a relationship. — Strongjam (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the naming of the category is unfortunately confusing in this circumstance. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the Category:African-American-related controversies; people's biographies generally shouldn't be categorized as a "Controversy." You'll notice that that category has almost no people in it, living or not. Martin Luther King, Jr. is not in it, Malcolm X is not in it, Jesse Jackson is not in it, etc. All of those people had far larger and more significant "African-American-related controversies" about them, yet they're not in that category. Articles about specific controversies are — such as Firing of Shirley Sherrod. There are people in a subcategory - Category:Politics and race in the United States, which I do believe is an appropriate category, because it doesn't basically directly state that a person is a controversy. I suppose one could create a redirect, Shaun King race debate and stick it in the "Controversies" category and I wouldn't object, although I'd think it was kind of silly :) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

For the most part I agree, and thanks for pointing out the subcats that already covered the controversy link. For a new cat it may be silly but there are certainly lots of cats like that for other incidents/events/topics. This article is somewhat complex as its an edge case for WP:BLP1E (although he probably has enough other coverage to put us firmly on the yes BLP side of the edge). For the cats, we could put this article there, Breitbart , renewsit , maybe KOS, moorhouse, oprah?, etc, . As I was typing this I kept coming up with possible inclusions, so it seems like a reasonable category. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

That would probably fail WP:SMALLCAT though. — Strongjam (talk) 17:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

As per WP:COP, Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. I don't think this issue is a "defining characteristic" for any living person. Also, Categorize by characteristics of the person, not characteristics of the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

To just use another example of avoidance of "Controversies" categorization of people... Hillary Clinton, no doubt a very controversial figure, is in precisely zero "Controversies" categories. Same with George W. Bush, another rather controversial figure. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Bad examples. GWB is a former two term president, HRC is a candidate for president - neither is best known for a controversy; Shaun King is most notable as the target of a false harassment campaign based on false allegations that were debunked and dismissed as conspiracy theories. 104.156.240.209 (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't make him (the person) a controversy. Nor does it make the controversy a "defining characteristic" of the person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

As a person he is non-notable. Without the controversy this article wouldn't survive an AfD. I propose a move to Shaun King Controversy.161.202.72.150 (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Race

With Elizabeth Warren we do a good job of phrasing and relaying relevant racial information without making judgements. We should follow that model in this article. 161.202.72.162 (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source states that King is biracial

Nowa has discovered and added a reliable published source which directly, in the source's voice, states that King is biracial - that he is the son of a Caucasian mother and an African-American father [20]. As there are no reliable sources which directly state that King is not biracial, this reliable source is controlling. We certainly must mention Breitbart's allegations, but these now-discredited and dropped allegations do not override the factual statement of a reliable published source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

As to the anon IP, this isn't a matter of "opinion," this is a reported story in a reliable source which states the issue as a matter of fact. Please provide the reliable source which says King is not biracial. And no, Breitbart is not a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I want to make sure I'm following your reasoning here, so please let me know if I have this right - if King says he's biracial we have to report "King says he's biracial" or something along those lines; we can't write "King is biracial." But if King tells a journalist he's biracial and the journalist repeats it, it becomes "fact" - is that right? If so I'd describe your process as "truth laundering" - take a statement, tumble it through a few magazines who simply repeat it and it comes out as fact, nice and clean. Do you see any potential problems with that process? 161.202.72.168 (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

You're conducting original research, which is prohibited. Wikipedia content is based on reliable published sources, and we have a reliable, published source which states, as fact, King's parentage. Your unsupported speculation as to how the source came to state it as a fact is irrelevant. Reliable published sources have editorial and fact-checking mechanisms, and we must presume that the statement was vetted by those mechanisms at Rebel before they published it. Absent any reliable published source directly questioning that source's particular conclusion, we must take it at face value. Our role as Wikipedia editors is not to "reinvestigate" what reliable published sources say. We are not here to discover the WP:TRUTH as you or anyone else believes it to be, we are here to report what reliable published sources say. We have a reliable source - a journalistic article published in a print magazine - which says that King's parents are a Caucasian mother and an African-American father. There appears to be no reliable published source which directly contradicts this statement of fact, only speculation, innuendo and allegations of pseudonymous bloggers and partisan attack dogs. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Even if I concede this silly laundering process, which is so susceptible to gaming I'm surprised anyone writing an encyclopedia would advocate it, we'd need much more than one or two sources supporting a contentious claim before repeating it in wikivoice. Your understanding of this purpose of this encyclopedia is incorrect. We do not simply parrot sources. "Reliability" is situational - the claim, the source and the author are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. That's not "original research" - that's fundamental to WP:RS which I suggest you re-read. Regardless, the text as is, attributing the claim King is, according to Rebel Magazine, the son of a Caucasian mother and an African-American father is as it should be. No need to continue this tangent. 161.202.72.168 (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not a "contentious claim," though. It really isn't. Nobody but Breitbart and a pseudonymous attack blogger ever directly claimed otherwise, and they were shut down by King's direct refutation of their attacks. No reliable source today says that King's parents aren't who he said they were.

You're welcome to evaluate Rebel as a source, but unsupported speculation as to how they reached their factual conclusions is unhelpful. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

You seem not to have understood - reliability is evaluated on a case-by-case basis. That evaluation is fundamental to our writing process. If you feel strongly otherwise the proper course is to propose your change on the RS policy talk page. 161.202.72.168 (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Milo Yiannopoulos never states that SK is white in [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/19/did-black-lives-matter-organiser-shaun-king-mislead-oprah-winfrey-by-pretending-to-be-biracial/ his controversial Breitbart piece.]Nowa (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

So then the only person who actually directly claimed that King's parents aren't who he says they are, is a pseudonymous attack blogger? That is the definition of a fringe claim. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• As he shouldn't. He presents available evidence without offering speculative conclusions as statements of fact. That's how responsible journalists behave. Odd to see that behavior virtually unique to Breitbart (of all sources!) in this instance. It's a good example of why policy stresses situational reliability. 161.202.72.168 (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure, evaluate the source. Doing that requires more than unsupported speculation and claims. Are there other reliable sources which state that Rebel does not fact-check stories? Do you have reliably-sourced evidence that Rebel did not fact-check the information in question? Otherwise, what you have is nothing more than your speculative claim that the source didn't fact-check the statement. And that is nothing at all.

If you feel strongly that Rebel is not a reliable source, the proper course is to bring up the issue at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard for discussion and consensus. For example, that is why Breitbart is not accepted as a reliable source - significant discussion at that venue of multiple instances of fabrication, poor fact-checking, etc. as documented in reliable sources, has led to a consensus of Wikipedians that it lacks the editorial control we expect in a reliable source, and is thus unacceptable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

No need. 161.202.72.168 (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Whats the purpose of this discussion? Is someone advocating a change to the article based on this? If so, what is the proposed change? Bonewah (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I have removed mention of this dumb non-controversy from the lede, where it does not belong - probably we should have a look at the extent to which it presents a WP:WEIGHT issue in the rest of the article and trim it back, if not removing it entirely. Artw (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, it has been replaced - can someone explain to me why a stupid artificial controversy generated by a hate cite deserves pride of place in the lede? Artw (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the race controversy thing does not belong in the lede. I disagree with removing it entirely, numerous reliable sources have covered it and therefor it deserves a mention. Bonewah (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

He's primarily notable for the controversy. About half of the cited RSs and a third of the article relate to it. It would be disingenuous to exclude it from the lead. 161.202.72.151 (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It's worth about a line at most, not in the lede, probably focusing on how dumb trying to build a controversy out of it is. Artw (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I understand you feel that way. It doesn't change the fact that: he's primarily notable for the controversy, our article reflects that, the lede reflects the article. Which of those those points do you disagree with? They seem rather uncontroversial. 161.202.72.151 (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

No, his notability does not derive from a Breitbart attack piece, and if it did then he would be non-notable per WP:RECENT and WP:TABLOID. However in actuality he does have prominence outside of that, which would be why Brietbart started writing hit peices on him in the first place.

An no, I am not persuaded otherwise by the dumb attempt to flood references. Artw (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I also agree that too much weight is given to the Breitbart controversy in the lede. I also agree that SK was notable before the current controversy.Nowa (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Weight is proportional to coverage in reliable sources. If all we had were the Breitbart piece I'd agree with you - but we have significant secondary coverage of the Breitbart piece and of King's response. Again, he is primarily notable for the controversy. 161.202.72.151 (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

As per the emerging consensus here, I've taken a WP:BOLD shot at tightening the lede for weighting purposes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not certain which consensus you're referring to specifically but I support your edit. I removed "as lies" since it's follows the Breitbart reference - Breitbart didn't report anything that King has discredited as a "lie." They said the white parents listed on his birth certificate suggested he may be white. He doesn't dispute the birth certificate and the suggestion is clearly speculative - it may be incorrect but it can't be a lie. 161.202.72.151 (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The substance of Breitbart's reporting is, as we state, alleging based on that birth certificate that King publicly misrepresented his biracial heritage, and it is clear that King called those allegations a lie. The substance of the claim is, as King says, a lie - he did not misrepresent his heritage. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

No. Please read the Breitbart piece (or even our article's summation of the Breitbart piece.) It reported the blogger's allegation that King lied about his race (without accusing King of lying about his race) and the specifics of his birth certificate, which are not disputed. If there is a line in the Breitbart piece which King or anyone else has claimed is a lie, paste the quote here. 161.202.72.151 (talk) 20:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The substance of the claims, whoever you want to pin it on, is to allege that King misrepresented his racial heritage. Nobody would care about who's on King's birth certificate if it wasn't to try and claim that King was lying about his race. It is abundantly clear that King has directly called that reporting lies, several times. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

We're going in circles. A question can not be a lie. The title of the Breitbart article even ends in a "?" A question may be disingenuous, mean-spirited or a smear (per your recent edit) but by definition it can not be a lie. 161.202.72.151 (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways. If you're saying that Breitbart is alleging that King misrepresented his racial heritage (as the lede is currently worded), then it is abundantly clear that King has called that allegation a lie. If you are saying that Breitbart hasn't alleged that King misrepresented his racial heritage, then we shouldn't say that they are making such an allegation in the lede, and we should attribute that to some other conservative bloggers. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The Breitbart article alleged he may have misrepresented his heritage. It didn't outright claim he did. The allegation itself can't be "false" or a "lie." (I should have been more specific in my recent article edit summary re "lies" - see the "False Claims" consensus.) 161.202.72.151 (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. Of course an allegation can be a lie. If I allege that you did something you didn't do, that's a lie. And King has directly called them lies, and we attribute his opinion of those allegations. They are highly notable, of course, being the opinion of a living person about highly-negative claims made about that person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

This allegation can not be a lie. If I say "NorthBySouthBaranof stole my apple" yes, that can be a lie. If I say "Did NorthBySouthBaranof steal my apple? He has apple crumbs on his desk" - as our summary of the Breitbart article indicates it does and no one disputes the crumbs claim the question can not be a lie. Semantically yes, they are both "allegations" but significantly distinct. 161.202.72.151 (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course it's an allegation, and the reliable sources treat it as such. It's a loaded question in the vein of "Have you stopped beating your wife?" A question mark does not turn an accusation of wrongdoing into an innocent "just asking questions" statement. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It's a loaded question - yes, and objectively a smear - agree, but it's not a lie. Seems our language should be more precise: "alleged he may have" or find a more suitable word than alleged. 161.202.72.151 (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

If the substance of Breitbart's story is to allege that King misrepresented his biracial heritage, then there is no question that King's opinion of that allegation is that it's a lie. It doesn't really matter what any of us think; we're reporting King's opinion of it, and his opinion of highly-negative claims about him is inherently notable. On the other hand, if the substance of Breitbart's story is to "ask a question about King's biracial heritage because these conservative bloggers alleged he misrepresented his heritage" then we shouldn't frame the lede as "Breitbart alleges that King misrepresented his biracial heritage," we should frame it as "these conservative bloggers alleged he misrepresented his heritage." Because the idea that King misrepresented his heritage is what is the notable issue here, if anything is notable. And King has clearly stated that any such idea is a lie.

The key is that if there wasn't a claim that King had misrepresented his heritage, literally nobody would care who his parents are, and it wouldn't have even begun to become an issue of public concern. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

As the anonymous IP has stated that there is "no consensus" for changes to the lede, I have self-reverted my changes to the original status-quo-ante version which existed before my WP:BOLD edits, which had longstanding consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I think maybe it is time we got some additional eyes on this. Artw (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, and I suggest that no changes be made to the lede without consensus on this talk page, as the anonymous IP user has asked. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I support both suggestions - more eyes, clear consensus. Thank you for reverting. 161.202.72.151 (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I have started an RFC, below. 21:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Full name and birth date

I can't find his full birth name and birth date in our sources. Per WP:BLPPRIVACY we should only have them in the article if they have been widely published in reliable sources, or sources linked to the subject. — Strongjam (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Nowa: WP:BLPPRIMARY, birth certificates and patent applications aren't acceptable for full birth names and birth dates. — Strongjam (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's a non-Breitbart reference for "J. Shaun King"--Nowa (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

morehouse response location

Strongjam while I understand your reasoning, that reasoning would be true for every sentence in the subsequent paragraphs. It seems to make more sense to me to have 1) allegations (and the background/sourcing for them). 2) Kings response to those allegations, 3) other peoples response to them. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

My concern is that it's a question that is easily answered with a 'no'. I don't really like having the text be A) Did he mislead Oprah? [... Two paragraphs later] "No he didn't mislead Oprah." Maybe we can split it up into two sentences, one that just plainly says that the scholarship is not based on race and another in the responses section for the Morehouse statement that his race had nothing to do with his time there. — Strongjam (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

We could reverse paragraphs 2 and 3. (and perhaps shuffle sentences in P1) That would leave king with the final word, and also bring the 3rd parties forward. This incident is tricky, because normally 3rd parties would be given more weight than primaries or self interested parties, but since this is an identity issue, we (and to a degree the world) rely more heavily on self. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Need a better source

This bit:

• His contributions to the website have centered around civil rights issues and violence in Ferguson, Missouri and Charleston, South Carolina as well as allegations of police brutality toward the black community.

Is sourced to a Daily Kos search result. While it's a true statement, do we have a better source for this? — Strongjam (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources (many already in article) linking him to Ferguson, I can't find any mentioning Charleston though. I think we can probably put this under WP:BLUE Gaijin42 (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

"His mother told him he was black"

If we're going to cite some anonymous unnamed "family member" who apparently told someone that "King was white," we're certainly going to include this direct statement sourced to GQ: King was told by his mother he was black and has lived most of his life as black. [21] This is certainly relevant to any claim that King ever "misrepresented" his racial identity. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't object to including that - it's relevant but the phrasing as it was is confusing stating that the man listed on his birth certificate is not his biological father, that his biological father is a "light-skinned black man" and that he was told by his mother that he was black.

First "...is not his biological father" is by all accounts information provided to him by his mother. It's strange to not specify the source there but specify it for the later "he was black" - implying a different source for the first statement. It's also phrased in a way to appear as two separate statements "his biological father is a light-skinned black man" and "he [Shaun] is black" - we're saying the same thing two different ways one right after the other. It needs work. 161.202.72.168 (talk) 09:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense, but taking a crack at fixing it in the page it is always preferable to just reverting. :) How about this construction: stating that according to his mother, the man listed on his birth certificate is not his biological father, that his biological father is a "light-skinned black man," and that he was black. He said he lived most of his life as black, only later coming to understand himself as biracial. Cite is the GQ interview. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Note that i arrived here summoned by a bot to the RfC, and i did just make a change to the statement in question to attribute it to King. In this edit, i added "He says that..." to the claim in question. It is his claim, and i am personally inclined to believe it, but it must be attributed so that it is not in Wikivoice. I hope this makes sense. SageRad (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted this, because this statement is made in the source's voice in the reliable source cited. The GQ article linked states "King was told by his mother he was black and has lived most of his life as black." It would be original research to attribute the statement to King. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

But, who is the source that GQ is using to report this information? SageRad (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not following. The reliable source states, in its voice, as a fact, that "King was told by his mother he was black." As far as we're concerned, that's the end of it. It's not for you or me or anyone else to take guesses at how GQ sourced their story. Attributing the statement to King falsely presents the statement as King's POV, when it is presented by the source as a fact. That would be a misrepresentation of the source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The source story is an interview with King, and the statement you're using comes from the lede to the interview. In the interview, Shaun King says, "I have been told for most of my life that the white man on my birth certificate is not my biological father and that my actual biological father is a light-skinned black man." I think you're being semantic and splitting hairs. I don't think i'm engaging in synthesis or original research by reading the article to be stating this based on King's testimony to that point. We are editors who get to read articles and use our interpretive human brains to ascertain certain basic things about the source, and that is far from synthesis. Anyway, i think attributing the statement is a point of strength, and i am not here with any sort of axe to grind about King. I think the counter-statements in the controversy need serious attribution qualifications, and adding attribution to this statement is a point in favor of attribution on the right-wing machine who seem to be out to get King. SageRad (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

If it needs attribution at all, it would be attributed directly to GQ. The fact that the statement is in the lede to the interview is, indeed, the key point. The statement is not in the interview text, which is clearly presented a a Q&A format with King's own words; rather, the statement is presented separately, in the source's journalistic voice. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof I agree 100% that the source says "King was told by his mother that he was black" and that is sufficient sourcing for us to repeat that statement without regard to their own sourcing. That is not sufficient sourcing to say in wikipedia's voice that King is black (although I personally think he is). My mother told me that I could be anything I want to be, even the president. That does not mean that wikipedia can say I am going to be the president. I am somewhat surprised that in the aftermath of this kerfuffle no RS has directly made a claim on King's identity in their own voice. Here are some hypothetical versions of what we could write based on this particular source

• King is black (too strong in wikipedia's voice when the source is explicitly quoting a game of telephone)
• King was told by his mother that he is black (well sourced and attributed, WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE)
• King said he was told by his mother that he is black (No reason to double attribute)
• GC said that king said that he was told by his mother he is black (even worse)Gaijin42 (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for laying it out like that, Gaijin42. "King says that his mother told him he is black" is not too bad a statement in my book. I think there is reason to double attribute. In reality it is a double attribution. It's King's statement as reported by GQ. The source does say that "King was told by his mother that he was black" but this is in a lede text preceding an interview in which King says that in his own words, and therefore it seems obvious to me that it's King's statement that his mother told him he is black, being reported in GQ. I'm dropping this stick, but i do think it's important to be very accurate as to who says what. Wikipedia policy does not ask us to shut off our brains and be robotic in our editing. It exists for very good reason, and the spirit of the guidelines is as important as the letter of the guidelines. Anyway, enough on this point for me. In case you wonder, i'm on the side of King in this controversy and i personally see this incident as a right-wing sliming attempt to discredit the BLM movement. I do not see my contention in this instance as being harmful to King's case but actually slightly helpful. SageRad (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Morehouse

I have removed mention of the Morehouse issue; as several reliable sources noted, the question itself was ill-founded, being based entirely on a fatally-wrong understanding of the scholarship as having anything whatsoever to do with someone's race. We have no need to repeat a fatally-wrong loaded "question" whose entire premise was built on ignorance. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The controversy doesn't make sense without it. Whether correct or not the impression is that Oprah's Morehouse scholarship is for blacks only. If he misrepresented his race to qualify, that's a controversy. A white guy involved in BLM is not a controversy. 161.202.72.143 (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no reason to include in Shaun King's biography the fact that a Breitbart writer is ignorant of the qualifications for a college scholarship. It's irrelevant to King. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you could address the substance of my arguments in your responses. The controversy doesn't make sense without it. If the controversy's included we should explain why it's a controversy - it's not obvious from the current text and confusing to a reader not already familiar. And please refrain from attacks like "ignorant." It's not helpful and not "ignorant" to trust multiple sources, including Oprah's own site, with respect to qualifications. From her site [22]:

Education is important to Oprah. That's why, in 1989, Oprah worked with Morehouse College to develop the Oprah Scholars program, which has helped pay for the education of 400 black men as they pursue careers in banking, law, medicine and many other fields.

161.202.72.143 (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The reliable sources cited don't seem to think it's that important. The New York Times article we cite relegates any mention of his college to the 10th paragraph of a 20-paragraph story. The lede says the key allegation is "that (King) had lied about his race." Considering the brevity of this biography and the brevity of the section, there's no need to use space within it to point out that Milo Yiannopoulos didn't fact-check his accusations. If you want to add a section to Milo's biography explaining that he doesn't know the qualifications for the Oprah Scholars program or for admission to Morehouse College, and thus made a poorly-founded accusation which blew up in his face, feel free. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

It's clear you're here with a POV - pro-King and anti-Yiannopoulos for whatever reason. I'll wait for other editors to comment. 161.202.72.143 (talk) 00:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, the article IS about King, and not about whatever silly nonsense some blogger dreams up, so I'd say go with removing as much of the nonsense as possible. Artw (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I havent re-looked at the sources with regard to this question, but i just want to remind everyone that removing the allegations (and denial by Morehouse) that he lied to get a scholarship is no favor to King. By remaining silent on the issue we pass on the opportunity to debunk that particular claim. In any event, seeing as how Morehouse explicitly denied these allegations id think its at least worth a mention. Bonewah (talk) 00:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick search of the citations we use shows that the Morehouse claims appear in numerous, high quality sources, including Newsweek, the NYT, VOX, NY daily news, CNN, and The Washington Post. Id say it clearly falls in the same category as the racial thing generally, i.e. it has appeared in enough RS' to include in this bio. Bonewah (talk) 00:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Battleground mentality

I would remind people that this article is covered by WP:BLP and removing questionable material is not only defensible, it is mandatory. The onus is firmly on anybody seeking to include content, to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Defending Wikipedia policy does not make anyone "pro-King", and to draw battle lines on the grounds that the world is divided into pro-King and anti-King is a fallacy. It is even more dangerous to replace "King" with "Truth" in this. Guy (Help!) 08:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Joshua Goldberg/Milo Yiannopoulos

Fun though it's been watching this trainwreck do we really need to hash out the minuate of this on this page? We're already devoting to much space to the stupid nontriversey as it is - perhaps a better place to go into detail would be on the Milo Yiannopoulos or Gamergate controversy pages? Artw (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Why Gamergate? GraniteSand (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

plenty of discussion of that over on the relevant talk page. But whether it does or doesn't belong there it doesn't belong here. Artw (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

"Shaun King" returns no results on with Yiannopoulos or Gamergate or their archives. I'm afraid I don't know what you're talking about. GraniteSand (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@GraniteSand: The connection is Joshua Ryne Goldberg. It seems a bit undue weight for either article at the moment. — Strongjam (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I see, but that's excruciatingly tangential and I wouldn't support merging any of this to any of those pages. It's also worth noting that GG is under sanction and we'd have to take it to ArbCom enforcement or achieve a super clear consensus here to do that. At least one contributor on this page is topic banned from GG related articles. GraniteSand (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

that's excruciatingly tangential 100% agree, just trying to explain the connection. — Strongjam (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

the mention that Goldberg was used as one of the sources seems appropriate. The terrorism charges are sufficiently unrelated from this topic that they should be removed. Im further concerned about the troll moniker, I think we would need a good number of RS calling him such to put that in wiki voice (or include at all). Gaijin42 (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

My understanding was that Goldberg was not used as a source. Do you have a cite for that? GraniteSand (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The cite is the Sydney Morning Herald article, which says that Yiannopoulous denied that Goldberg was the only source, but he did not deny using Goldberg as a source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

the SMH quotes Breitbart as saying goldberg was ONE of the sources, as does brietbarts' own site. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/12/shaun-king-supporters-cook-up-new-conspiracy-theory-still-smarting-because-their-hero-isnt-black/ Gaijin42 (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The article you've linked to states without any ambiguity that Goldberg was not used as a source. Despite the name the SMH is not much of a paper. They lnked to "burningcatghair" as a source in their article. They printed internet rumors which were then rebuffed by the person in question. The SMH hasn't followed up and they haven't indicated what their source is. The wording of the article doesn't make sense and the calim was made in passing. None of it passes BLP for the writer in question. GraniteSand (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Bad sources who are repeated by good sources are the foundation for this entire incident. If its good for the goose its good for the gander. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Gaijin42: I'm not sure what yhu mean. Could you expound on that line of reasoning? GraniteSand (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You assert that internet rumors and bloggers are the ultimate source of the SMH allegation. renewsit (or breitbart) are the ultimate source for the King allegations. In both cases the ultimate source are not reliable, but the allegations have been repeated by those who are. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The difference being we cover the accusations because the controversy surrounding the accusations (including King's response) was notable. For the equivalent to apply, coverage of the "troll" controversy would have to be notable. At the moment it isn't. 161.202.72.143 (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Right, but we don't reference Breitbart or renewsit as reliable third party sources on the validity of any claims about King. The entire issue blew up because all the facts found by renewsit, and repeated by Breitbart, were true and King responded to it. It attained wide coverage in the media. Even if that were not true it seems that you are making the argument that two wrongs make a right, or that you want to bar lowered, which I'm not on board with. Am I misinterpreting you? Nobody of any note had repeated the claim that Yiannopoulos used Goldberg as a source and he's flat out denied it. GraniteSand (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. The Sydney Morning Herald has flat-out stated that he did. Read the source. They have discovered that Goldberg was a source of information for a series of articles that accused Shaun King, an activist with the Black Lives Matter movement, of lying about his race. ... Emails of Goldberg's correspondence with the journalist who "outed" King have been made public, as have tweets under his main account, Moon Metropolis. While the journalist has since denied that Goldberg was his only source of information, the emails and tweets indicate that Goldberg at least provided initial assistance. While we should certainly include Yiannopoulos' later denial of that allegation, simply sweeping it under the rug and pretending it doesn't exist is not kosher either. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Breitbart is an unacceptable source, and its stories on King are republished accusations based on another unacceptable source (a pseudonymous blogger) and, apparently, a notorious online troll. They become (sort of) suitable for King's biography because they were published in mainstream media. Similarly, what we have here is mainstream media (and despite your claim to the contrary, the SMH is indisputably mainstream media) discussing the sourcing of the stories on King... if your argument is "they printed internet rumors in passing," well, then that's all that got published against King - Internet rumors in passing. As Gaijin42 notes, if it's OK for us to republish Breitbart's republication of Internet rumors in passing, then you can hardly argue that we shouldn't republish the SMH's republication of Internet rumors in passing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

That's simply not true. Since the story broke of his arrest, accusations have mounted against Goldberg, as internet users, particularly those on Reddit, trace his online footprint. They have discovered that Goldberg was a source of information for a series of articles that accused Shaun King, an activist with the Black Lives Matter movement, of lying about his race. The accusations resulted in an emotional public appearance by King who revealed personal details about his family history. Emails of Goldberg's correspondence with the journalist who "outed" King have been made public, as have tweets under his main account, Moon Metropolis. While the journalist has since denied that Goldberg was his only source of information, the emails and tweets indicate that Goldberg at least provided initial assistance. This is not just "internet rumors," this is reporting based on the public evidence discussed in the story - the e-mails and tweets of Goldberg's correspondence with Yiannopoulos. They include his side of the story (denying that he's the only source) and judges, based on the evidence, that Goldberg was at least part of the story.

Your bald accusation that "the SMH is not much of a paper" is ridiculous - it's one of the largest newspapers in Australia and has a respectable journalistic reputation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

As for why it merits inclusion, I think it's obviously relevant to (briefly) discuss the provenance of the claims; users are entitled to know that Breitbart's story attacking King was based on communications with a pseudonymous right-wing blogger and a now-notorious Internet troll who is suspected of having fabricated, lied and generally made shit up about all sorts of things, including bomb threats. If more cites are needed for discussion of Goldberg's online behavior, they're available. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not it is included on Weight grounds I don't believe this is a good reason for removing it. Artw (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You don't believe that the living subject of an isolated claim saying that claim isn't true doesn't hold enough weight to exclude it? It seems pretty BLP non-compliant to me. GraniteSand (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The living subject of this biography has similarly flatly denied the claims against him and said they're not true. Is it thus OK with you if I remove all mention of the issue from his biography? The claims are similarly isolated; only Breitbart and its ilk have made them, though the fact that Breitbart made the claim has been republished elsewhere. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

That would be the simplest and cleanest way of dealing with the issue, yes. Artw (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Artw:The article makes no assertions of fact regarding the parameters of King's race. It cites the media coverage of his birth documents and family members saying he is white and his response to those facts, due to the controversy, confusion, and condemnation created in the wake of their release. GraniteSand (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The article republishes highly-negative and damaging claims made by a pseudonymous right-wing scandalblogger and a notorious Internet troll now jailed on suspicion of fomenting bomb threats, which were thinly "truth-laundered" by a highly-partisan scandal sheet with a notoriously terrible reputation for publishing outright lies and fabrications about people it opposes. Meanwhile, you complain about the Sydney Morning Herald saying that the journalist used an Internet troll for a source. Tosh. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

No BLP issue, Breitbart is simply not to be considered a trustworthy source on anything, and that includes itself. Artw (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you got the idea that Yiannopoulos can't be cited in regards to himself. Our guidelines are pretty clear on that, especially in the context of potentially libelous BLP claims. GraniteSand (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

As a heads-up, there is an article for Joshua Ryne Goldberg now. Artw (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

wikivoice vs attribution RFC

There are currently several statements in the article in wikivoice evaluating the allegations regarding King's family. eg "writer reported on untrue allegations" and " blogger [...] who falsely claimed King had misrepresented his biracial identity"

• Should these evaluations be in WP:WikiVoice or use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV
• Should these evaluations include tense (eg, later found to be untrue etc, vs "untrue" which raises issues of if the bloggers/media were aware of the truth/untruth at the time

Survey

• attribute, include tense While the media/rs opinion of the allegations has largely shifted, they were taken seriously initially and were not known to be false at the time. The shift in opinion is just that a shift in opinion, and not a shift in fact, and those opinions should be attributed (even if just a passive/weasel attribution). The "holdout" opinions that are still arguing that the allegations are true are WP:FRINGE enough not to be included. (eg, we do not need to include the other hand/contrary arguments, certainly not in the lead and perhaps not in the article at all) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• False - These are fringe allegations made by a pseudonymous blogger and picked up by Breitbart, which is so well-known for publishing partisan hack-jobs, smears and falsehoods that it's long been ruled an unacceptable source on Wikipedia. While there was initially some mainstream media reporting on the issue, King's public and "privacy-destroying" response to the attacks wholly and completely refuted the claims and mainstream sources immediately dropped the matter. No reliable source has controverted or even challenged King's accounting of the issue. Not even Breitbart is pursuing this anymore. When we deal with fringe-sourced, highly-negative claims about living people, it is our responsibility to accurately portray them as they are — widely discredited and no longer considered a matter of public interest. Whether or not they were "known to be false at the time," they are now viewed that way by mainstream sources, as evidenced by the complete and total dropping of the matter by those sources, and even by the partisan attack site which initially publicized them. We cannot present a fringe claim made by a pseudonymous blogger as if it deserves equal merit or credence with the uncontroverted public statement of the article subject himself. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

They are not viewed as false, they are viewed as immaterial. --DHeyward (talk) 01:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Attribute - and I'd prefer "later claimed" or "denied" to "later found." Fundamentally, we should report the accusation (including citeable, relevant evidence) and report the denial (including citable, relevant evidence.) The veracity of either position is debatable and we should not take a side in that debate. Suggesting we should is something I see more frequently and it appears to involve a two-step process:

• Step 1: Muddy the distinction between fact and opinion (e.g. "O.J. Simpson played football" vs "O.J Simpson was innocent") so that the subjective becomes objective, and repeatable in wikivoice
• Step 2: Cite WP:OR to preclude evaluation of those opinions, such that opinion based on "gut" carries equal weight to opinion based on diligent research, and instead weight opinions on the frequency with which they're repeated.

This may be acceptable for a tabloid or <pick your side>-leaning publication but it's a worrying trend in an encyclopedia. 216.185.103.139 (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

It's a worrying trend when an IP (likely using a proxy server) comes in out of the blue to an RfC and comments when that IP has (seemingly) never edited Wikipedia previously. If you have an account, please log in. Otherwise, your !vote is likely to be discounted. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Attribute but avoid "claimed" "falsely" "alleged" and all the loaded words. It's really pretty simple Should be something like King's birth records list his parents as white. King says the person listed on his birth certificate is not his father and he was told his father was a light skin-tone black man. A family member has said King is white while his friends say he is black. His wife has stated that he has never been untruthful about his racial identity. That's about all we know and we attribute views to those that hold them. We don't judge their views as "false" and it's not a crime to be white, black, biracial or anything in between so there is no need to allege anything. We aren't (and shouldn't) claim anyone in the story has lied. --DHeyward (talk) 01:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with your basic point, but don't believe the birth records list the race of the parents. [http://media.breitbart.com/media/2015/08/jeffery-shaun-king.png The birth certificate posted on Breitbart] certainly doesn't list race.Nowa (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Attribute per DHeyward. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - summoned by bot - I agree these are fringe allegations and strongly feel this issue should not be in the introduction section. This is not a Rachel Dolezal situation as far as I can tell so as of now this is simply an allegation that falls under FRINGE. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

And that's why it has to be strictly attributed. "This is not a Rachel Dolezal situation" goes only so far as we make accurate statements that don't imply things that were not said. There's no question that Dolezal lived (and continues to live) in the black community with her children. Anyone who's watched these things play out (whether it's O'Keefe and ACORN or the Planned Parenthood videos), it doesn't all come out at once. An article that reads stronger than the statements provided does a great disservice to the subject of the biography. If it came out tomorrow that he checked the "White" box on his college application or scholarship request (or if they were different from each other), it would not contradict a thing he's said. If we have to rewrite the article because of that, we have failed NPOV and RS principles. Cover what he said and what other notable people have said. Don't infer truth where fact will do. --DHeyward (talk) 03:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Attribute per DHeyward I dont think this information needs to be in the lede, however. Bonewah (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
• Attribute and do not include this in lede as per WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENTISM -- this controversy is not who this person is. It is a current controversy that should be described in the article with POV attribution for all statements that are controversial, from the allegations that he is not black, to the sentence "He was told by his mother he was black" which should read "He says he was told by his mother he was black." I was called here by a bot. No prior knowledge of this person. SageRad (talk) 13:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

In fact, i did take this opportunity as a bot-summoned respondent to this RfC to make two edits to change controversial statements being made in Wikivoice. In this edit, i removed a statement that was in flat Wikivoice that there was no indication that the assault was racially motivated, because this is not a fact. It is a position of the authorities and if it is to be re-added then it must be attributed as such. Secondly, in this edit, i added attribution to King's own claim that his mother told him he was black. I think these changes are only fair. SageRad (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

SageRad I agree with both edits, but I restored the "racially motivated" one, and added attribution. It was poorly worded before, and implied wikivoice, but it was (I believe) meant to be a continuation of the previous sentence which was describing the police report. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Attribute in article's body but not in lede (summoned by bot) - Cwobeel (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should this biographical article so prominently feature allegations by Breitbart.com?

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.

---

This article includes prominent mentions of recent allegations made by the Breitbart site, including over half of the lede. Is this a reasonable amount or should it be cut back? Artw (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:53, 13 September 2015

• Cut back - Accusations that King had misrepresented his biracial heritage were briefly a matter of public interest, but have entirely disappeared from reliable sources after King revealed his family history. Even Breitbart has dropped the issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
• Cut back I believe this is completely unsuitable for the lede and probably merits only a sentence or two in the body. WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS apply, as well as serious WP:WEIGHT concerns. Artw (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Keep King, himself, put the allegations in a prominent light when he Tweet-bombed over it and talked loudly to media about them. And, truth be told, the allegations have not been disproven, they have not been debunked (despite what King apologists claim). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Keep with more neutral wording This seems to be a confusing/poorly worded RfC. The wording most recently in lead regarding this seemed POV, but apparently, a Brietbart writer questioned King's biracial identity, based on his birth certificate, which lists white parents. Then the mainstream media also questioned King's racial identity en masse, comparing this to the recent media frenzy regarding Rachel Dolezal [23], [24],[25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30],[31], [32],[33], [34],[35]. making this little mini-controversy one of the most covered aspects of Shaun King in reliable sources, so it probably should be in the lead in some form in accordance with WP:DUE. I'd suggest more neutral wording such as:

In August 2015, a Breitbart writer questioned King's biracial identity based on information from King's birth certificate, which lists white parents. King explained that the man listed on his birth certificate is not his biological father, and that his biological father is a light-skinned black man, and King expressed concern that such questions were an attempt to distract from the Black Lives Matter movement."--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I support the above wording - seems like a fair accounting of the issue. Nice work, BoboMeowCat. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

That's not unreasonable but the original source of the allegation should be made clear (Breitbart made no original claims), "explained" should be changed to "said", and the last portion should be its own sentence. GraniteSand (talk) 05:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Cut back: A brief mention should make it clear that political opponents made a false claim, and that the matter was promptly cleared up. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
• support BoboMeowCats version for lead, oppose wholesale gutting of body but it could probably be tightened up here and there. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
• Trim It's receiving undue coverage. If, in the future, it tangibly affects the trajectory of his biography then it can be revisited. For the moment it's just too much coverage. I'd add that it currently reads as quote-harvesting talking point "cheat sheet" and not an encyclopedic entry. When it's reduced attention should be paid to keeping it concise, factual, and largely free of the tangential noise which festoons it now. GraniteSand (talk) 05:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with trimming the body to only neutral and encyclopedic information. My keep above was in regard to the lead. I agree with GraniteSand. The body contains POV noise. For example, it's not encyclopedic that the Brietbart writer may have been tipped off that King's birth certificate lists two white parents by an "internet troll". Regardless of who tipped the reporter off regarding King's birth certificate, it's true, as confirmed by King himself, the birth certificate lists white parents. That this discrepancy regarding King's birth certificate was widely circulated in mainstream sources should be mentioned in bio, as well as King's explanation for the discrepancy, but we should keep it brief, neutral and factual. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• cut back -- there's no plausibility whatsoever in the notion that something that happened a month ago can be so important in one's biography that it should be the largest element in the lead. Anyone arguing that it deserves that sort of prominence is embarrassing themselves. At this stage it doesn't belong in the lead at all. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
• support BoboMeowCats version for lead, agree with BoboMeowCat and Gaijin42, simple, neutral line in the lede, keep the body more or less like it is now. Bonewah (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
• Exclude from lede, dramatically prune in body. I would advocate removing this nontroversy altogether, since Breitbart is a canonically unreliable source on this issue, but if we must have it then BoboMeowCat's version is acceptable in the body as the sum total of coverage of this pathetic and blatantly racist incident. It does not belong in the lede, at least until the Shaun King "birthers" get some mainstream independent analytical coverage. Guy (Help!) 15:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

JzG If the sourcing was ended at Brieitbart, I would agree, but it was picked up extensively by mainstream sources (CNN, NYT, etc) . There was extensive mainstream coverage. As an analog see Steve Scalise where the story sourcing is an anonymous posting on a A) stormfont (hate group) forum, B) then picked up by a non-notable blogger, then picked up by mainstream sourcing using A and B as their sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the matter has entirely disappeared from reliable sources and has been gone from those sources for weeks now. The nontroversy lasted less than a week before King's forceful and by all accounts, entirely credible response ended the line of questioning. It is undue weight on one week's worth of stories to make that the focus of his biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Collapsing totally off-topic, useless discussion

How badly must it suck to suffer discrimination because you're black, only to then suffer discrimination from the same knuckledraggers for kinda probably not being black when you challenge the painfully obvious problem of institutional racism? @Gaijin42: the crucial difference here is that Scalise verifiably did speak at an event run by David Duke, whereas Shaun King never was anything other than mixed race. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC) Your agenda is showing. GraniteSand (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC) JzG Except in this case the birth certificate supports the "birthers." Amusing that in the same sentence you imply Obama birthers are loons for ignoring the birth certificate and King "birthers" are loons for not ignoring it. Can't win with you! :) 161.202.72.143 (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC) Both kinds are engaged in motivated reasoning, both are looking for reasons to validate facts that challenge their racist world view. Loons is way too kind. (Redacted) Guy (Help!) 17:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC) And here I thought applying consistent standards was the opposite of bias. Learn something every day on wikipedia. Thanks! 161.202.72.143 (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC) Their standard is entirely consistent. They hate all niggers. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support BoboMeowCats version for lead. Support keeping controversy in article This RfC could have been worded better. The allegations are not Breitbart's any more than they're CNN's. A blogger not related to either broke the story and the rest of the sources (Daily News, Breitbart, CNN, etc.) repeated it. It should be noted that King is best know for this controversy. Excluding it from the article entirely would be misleading. 161.202.72.143 (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC) — 161.202.72.143 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Attacking editors who !vote for keeping the content by saying they have a nefarious agenda and referring to them as birthers is bullshit. Keep it out of the discussion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Keep per BoboMeowCat's specifications above, which are suitably coherent. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Keep And would prefer BoboMeowCats version. It's very good both from a BLP and a notability perspective. Aparslet (talk) 13:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
• Cut back. We can't devote a section to every Breitbart hit piece, and this one seems to have died almost instantly; the attention paid to it here is mostly a sign of WP:RECENTISM. It's not something with any long-term significance in the subject's biography, and therefore deserves no more than a sentence or two at most. --Aquillion (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not our job to speculate. As an encyclopedia, we're required to reflect mainstream coverage; if it sucks, well, hopefully one day it will suck less and we can cover that. But we're not an investigative journal. We're an encyclopedia, which means that we have to stick with the consensus among reliable sources. And the consensus is that this controversy is notable. 161.202.72.182 (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not speculating, I'm stating facts. Coverage of this was very brief and transient; there was a lot of coverage for a very short period of time, after which it evaporated. That's almost the definition of something that poses a WP:RECENTISM / WP:NOTNEWS problem, since it this implies that the controversy has little significance overall. Determining such due weight (especially when it comes to recent events, which often loom larger than they should) is indeed part of our job as editors. And it's clear, in retrospect, that the weight paid to this subject is somewhat undue. Yes, it's notable enough for a sentence or two, perhaps. But we have enough perspective now to see that it doesn't deserve more than that. Furthermore, note that this article falls under WP:BLP, which means that (as it says) WP:EVENTUALISM does not apply -- that is to say, if I say "I don't think this is likely to be important in the long term, based on the way coverage rapidly declined" and you say "no, that's speculation, I think it might be important in the future", we're required to err on the side of caution and give it minimal weight. If it does turn out to retain its importance in the long term (as you've implicitly speculated yourself), well, we can always expand it again then. --Aquillion (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - It will be difficult for the closer to close this RFC because both the lede and the body of the article have been edited (trimmed down) since the RFC was filed, and so the !votes have to be considered in view of what the text of the article was at the time of any !vote.
  • • Trim down as has already been done, and keep 22 September version rather than version at time of RFC. The specific controversy does not need to dominate the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Summoned by bot. Issue apparently fixed. Current wording is fine. Coretheapple (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. I was summoned by the bot, and the current wording looks alright to me, too. Criticism from a single source probably shouldn't go into the lead. And if it's the only source that criticizes someone, then care should be taken to make sure that it doesn't become undue. Why give one website's opinions such a huge soapbox on Wikipedia? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I was also summoned by the bot. I see that the material in question has been cut down considerably since this RFC was started, and I agree that the current wording looks good. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• Cut back - I was summoned here by bot as well. The material in the lede should be cut back and made as neutral as possible, making sure to avoid WP:UNDUE. If there is only one source stating these allegations, then it should not be in the lede. It seems like it has already been trimmed down which is good. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:05, 5 October 2015 (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.

Reliable sources as to King's racial heritage

The two reliable sources cited for King's racial heritage speak of the matter as a fact, and do not attribute it to King. Therefore, The matter is not one of POV, it is a statement of fact supported by those reliable sources. Rewriting the text supported by those sources to say "King says" is not only inaccurate, it is an intentional misrepresentation of the sources. We deal with the issue of what his birth certificate says elsewhere. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Possibly the big tag that seems to suggest there is some legitimate dispute here should be removed. A straight up IP ban would be more useful. Artw (talk) 04:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Yea, there is no real dispute on who King is. Only by reckless anon IPs and one editor who seems to have sided with the Fringe conspiracy theorists. Other editors have done a good job with this article. I would have nominated it for deletion after the BLP1E thing, but it's become rather obvious that King has other GNG criteria. Dave Dial (talk) 05:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

And your proof I am on the side of fringe conspiracy theorists is where, Dial? His birth certificate says exactly what the removed content said - there's nothing fringe or conspiratorial about it. Put up or shut up, please. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 10:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Obviously Wink, the edits you were making were decided that they were fringe, so they were put into a different section. Because of the original source of the accusations are not reliable. The info you were trying to add in King's other section was already in the Fringe section about the accusations. So there you go. Also, you go from article to article, drama board to drama board, looking for the most drama you can find. Dave Dial (talk) 14:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Only able to add to the ad hominem and unable to support your outlandish claim with anything substantive, I see. How unsurprising. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

For the record, there is no reliable source that establishes the race of the person listed as King's father on his birth certificate. I've clarified the wording in the article to reflect that.--Nowa (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Tamir Rice fundraising

I've removed the word "Controversy" from the subheading, because the reliable sources don't support the idea that there is any significant "controversy" about this issue; there is no evidence that this involved any substantive "ongoing, prolonged public disagreement" between parties, given the fact that King and Rice's family's attorneys later collaborated on a second fundraiser. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Shaun King and fundraising

I'm not sure where this link should go but this piece from The Daily Beast has information that might be noteworthy. Where Did All the Money Shaun King Raised for Black Lives Go? GamerPro64 19:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I just added a sentence on it at the end of the Rice section. By the way, there probably should be the word "controversy" in the heading for that section because of the questions about it. Cla68 (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Someone removed it. Wikipedia has a reputation for denigrating the contributions of women, and this kind of thing sure doesn't help that reputation. If it had been a man who had written about this topic, would it have been removed with the patronizing, condescending edit summary, "Removing he said, she said..."? Cla68 (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

It was not my intention to condescend. "he said, she said" is just a turn of a phrase that means the story only consists of dueling accusations with no other supporting facts, which is my opinion of what the lines i removed were. Bonewah (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2016

I believe controversy associated with this activist isn't highlighted enough. My suggestion is to create a "controversy" section that would include the issue of his race, over thousands deleted offensive tweets and misappropriation of funds he has raised for activism.

This Daily Beast article is well written and the author provides numerous links (IRS and Fundme) and other evidence to back their research in regards to Shaun King's misappropriation of charity funds. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/16/where-did-all-the-money-shaun-king-raised-for-black-lives-go.html

This Daily Caller article provides screen-grabs of some of thousand of offensive tweets by Shaun King. (ones he later deleted) http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/07/shaun-king-scrubs-twitter-account-after-pro-gun-tweets-surface/

Majority of citation refer to newspapers with unambiguous political bias (Washington post, Daily Kos) The aforementioned additions should should make the page more politically balanced. 66.155.225.131 (talk) 04:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

 Not done we have a specific guideline WP:Controversy sections that ststes "Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies" - if you think this information should be added, please explain how and where it can be integrated into the text - Arjayay (talk) 10:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Your claim that The Washington Post (a major metropolitan daily newspaper) is biased while The Daily Caller (a noted right-wing house organ) is not, is a rather classic example of projection. There is no "controversy" about his race (the question was asked and answered), there is no evidence that King "misappropriated charity funds" (the article notes the Tamir Rice fundraiser issue, which was by all accounts resolved to the satisfaction of the parties) and that a person deleted some tweets is not encyclopedic unless you've got more than a partisan right-wing hit piece covering it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2016

2602:30A:C03D:62B0:805C:94E8:16B2:BE1B (talk) 04:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Blank request — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2016

I would like to remove where it says "African American" under the top portion where it says "Shaun King is an African American writer and civil rights activist." Shaun King has been proven not to be African American and I would request this be changed to a more accurate title.

Bruce233 (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done There seems to be no reason to remove it wholesale, especially with the lack of reliable sources supporting your claim. Even if this aspect eventually turns out to be incorrect, there's no harm to the subject, since the subject makes this claim about himself. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Shan King is NOT African-American — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninjaboss1313 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

This is NOT a discussion board where we share opinions. If you know of reliable sources that back up your opinion, bring them here for our review. This page is about discussing the improvement of this article. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2016

Greetings,

Two months ago, Shaun King reached out to the Wikipedia community to make corrections to his Wikipedia page. I responded to ask what the errors were, and here is his reply:

"Thanks for addressing my concerns. My Wikipedia page has a number of errors. Could you please address them? Much of the information can be confirmed here: http://www.snopes.com/2015/08/19/shaun-king/ . Here's a list of the problems on my page:

1. Name misspelled – correct spelling: Jeffery Shaun King. It has been misspelled as Jeffrey.

2. "Early Life" - omitted information and errors:

I entered Morehouse College, a historically black college for me, in August of 1997. In March of 1999, I won the Otis Moss Oratorical Contest in front of the student body and was, a month later, elected the youngest student government president elected since 1947.

I was a Bonner Scholar - which required me to perform community service, from 1997 forward. It was as a Bonner Scholar that I performed regular community service at Frank L. Stanton Elementary School.

During my junior year at Morehouse, I had a spinal surgery stemming from the injuries I suffered when I was assaulted in high school. When I returned, I was given the Oprah Winfrey Scholarship. I didn't apply for it. It was granted to "diamonds in the rough" we were told.

3. Activism- omitted information and errors:

I have been an activist and spokesperson against injustice since 1997 - first leading rallies on the campus of Morehouse College as a student leader dealing with the sentencing disparities between crack and cocaine and later against the shooting deaths of Amadou Diallo and Sean Bell. It's how I became known as a student.

4. "Tamir Rice Fundraising"- omitted information and errors:

a. We started the fundraiser for Tamir Rice after being given direct permission & encouragement by his uncle to do so. I was told that he was the spokesperson for the family. b. We started it after we saw an interview where his mother, Samaria, said she would soon have to go to work. c. Racist trolls and bigots aimed to stop the campaign because I was a part of it. They contacted the attorney, who was confused and had the account shut down. d. Samaria Rice fired that attorney. He then petitioned the court that he be paid from the money we raised from the family and was paid from it. e. At no time did we ever have possession of the funds that were raised. f. The family and her attorneys and I have worked together many times since.

I have helped raise nearly a million for causes and families related to the Black Lives Matter Movement and have not received a dime of it.

5. High School Assault – omitted information and inaccuracies:

a. I missed nearly 18 months of school after the assault to have three spinal surgeries. b. I had fractures in my face and ribs c. I had severely damaged sinus cavities d. The worst injuries were to my lower back/spine

This one is of particular import:

e. The detective who visited me in the hospital checked a box saying I was white. That police report has been used as proof that I am white. Here is what that detective said about it in an interview :

Detective Keith Broughton, who was the officer on the scene of the alleged hate crime, told IJReview: “I believe that he’s biracial. I could just tell when I saw him. I marked him white because he’s very light complected. He was there with his white mother. My crime report there’s only two things you can check: black or white. It doesn’t say biracial…anyone from around here who knew him knew he was mixed.” (Source: http://ijr.com/2015/08/398828-witness-shaun-kings-high-school-hate-crime-shares-remembers-day/ )

Many other very essential facts are in that story pertaining to race as well.

6. Under questions regarding race:

a. The source, Milo, has been banned from Twitter for racial antagonism. b. The source, Milo, has said a dozen other disproved assertions about me that are not mentioned here. c. The source for Milo, Vicki Pate, has also been banned from Twitter for violating terms of use. d. Again, the Versailles detective, who I had never met before, said "anyone from around here who knew him knew he was mixed." My race was never a secret. It was well known, and that was in 1995. "

Can someone please make these corrections? If you would like further information or if you would like information to reach Shaun King directly, feel free to contact me by email.

Much appreciated, Gohoya (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)Gohoya

Gohoya (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

(You or anyone) Feel free to make changes to the article that are reliably sourced. I'm not sure Snopes is a hard enough source, but if they provide references for anything, and if they are reliable, go with them. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2016

Mr. King is not African American but Caucasian. Please fix this error.

StephenHopkins53 (talk) 13:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done per previous similar requests. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

citation needed on his race

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.

---

Does anyone have a reliable source, a publication of his DNA test results? (Redacted) If we can neither confirm or deny anything about his race with real scientific sources as opposed to anecdotal claims, perhaps it is best to make no claims about his race, be it african-american or caucasian; just leave his race unlisted. Better to be lacking information than possibly be displaying erroneous information. -75.140.253.89 (talk) 04:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

As soon as we have the same for Donald Trump. That's how ridiculous this request is. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The article on Donald J. Trump does not make any claims whatsoever on his race. So yes, I am perfectly fine with employing the same standard, thank you! -75.140.253.89 (talk) 00:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Denied on the grounds that the request is absurd. Reliable sources do not have to include DNA test results to demonstrate claims made about birth parents, the same way we don't require tests to prove anyone's religion. And yes, for these purposes, they are similar. Stop wasting our time. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 04:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

You say that, but then why is Elizabeth_Warren not described as Native American? Reliable sources have stated that she said family members have remarked on her "papaw's" "high cheekbones...just like all the Indians do". The difference between claiming a religion and claiming a racial identity is that only one of these can actually be changed through one's life. Claims about birth parents cannot be trusted as fact when, by the whole family's admission, the *true* birth father's identity is unknown. King has no idea who his father is; by his own admission he has never met him, nor seen photographs of him. His life's self-professed racial identity has only been based on a gut feeling. -75.140.253.89 (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I have redacted an unsupported personal opinion which reflects negatively on the article subject; Wikipedia is not a place for editors to make unsupported speculation or claims about living people, and such is specifically prohibited by policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Unsupported claims about living people would be (Redacted). That is quite the extraordinary claim, which requires extraordinary evidence. Reports of hearsay, even reports by high-profile news outlets such as CNN and a couple of magazines, are still reports of hearsay, and do not satisfy the requirement for extraordinary evidence. -75.140.253.89 (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you may be confusing genetics with psychology. Racial and ethnic identity is not determined by DNA. You may be interested in the subject of Passing (racial identity). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

As the man's race has been questioned in reliable news sources, we do require a preponderance of reliable sources to make a claim about his race, as we would with any statement about a living person. SPACKlick (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Which reliable sources? In the article we just have reliable sources reporting on unreliable sources questioning his race. — Strongjam (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

There are two reliable sources directly cited for his racial heritage. Your edit misrepresented those sources - neither of them says anything about "self report" - they both state as fact that King is black or biracial. I have restored the previous consensus version. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The two sources on the claim in the final section say (quoting Shaun)I have been told for most of my life that the white man on my birth certificate is not my biological father and that my actual biological father is a light-skinned black man and in their own words He has said that his mother is white and his father is black and that the assault fueled his passion for helping people. Both of these are couched in terms of self reporting, they are not the claims of the source themselves. I will remove the claims again until a source stating his race is provided per WP:BLP. SPACKlick (talk) 23:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Please read this reliable source cited in the section you are changing. It states, in the source's voice and without qualifiers, that King is The son of a Caucasian mother and an African-American father. Your edit disregards and indeed misrepresents the content of that source, and at this point, that misrepresentation must be considered willful. Please do not change reliably-sourced text in a manner that isn't supported by those sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, we do have one source for his parentage, now do you have a reliable source for him being African American? On the accusations of it being willful, there is no source in the lede I am changing and the two sources on the sentence I was changing I quoted above, they both point to a self attribution, the article you linked isn't linked anywhere near that section. When someone argues for something you disagree with on a talk page, rather than attributing malice, why not directly point to the sources that support your claim rather than start an argument? SPACKlick (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're just wrong. In this edit, you inserted the entirely-unsourced words "self reports as" in a sentence which is directly sourced to two reliable sources — one which says he's "Black" and the other which says he's "The son of a Caucasian mother and an African-American father." That is a misrepresentation of the two cited sources, and as I said, you either negligently failed to read the sources or willfully ignored what they say. As for the lede, as per WP:LEDE, the lede does not need duplicate citations for statements which are cited in the body text. If you think there's a special reason to provide sources there, that's something we could come to consensus on, but it's not a requirement. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I've worked out the cock up I've made, there's two sections which mention his parentage, the top of personal Life and the last section. I was reading the sources from the latter when editing the former. Which was clearly my mistake. You still haven't pointed to a source which says he's african american by the way, The BlackEnterprise source describes his company as Black Owned. Black is not the same as African American. SPACKlick (talk) 09:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Er, yes it is, if the person is an American. See the definition of African American - "Americans (citizens or residents of the United States) with total or partial ancestry from any of the black racial groups of Africa." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Verified self-reporting about things like this are easily and clearly enough to go on unless there is reliable controverting sources that show what he is saying isn't true or can be reasonably questioned, and even then, we would have to balance both viewpoints. We cannot simply judge that somebody is lying about their own essence (e.g., racial makeup, religion, etc.). In the end, we cannot treat this subject as different from any other one in this regard, and this continued picking on this subject is frankly rather strange and seems like a vendetta. We have to say he is what he says he is. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

This whole thing is absurd. It wouldn't even be an issue if not for Milo poisoning the well. If the man says he's black, he's black. There's no reason to doubt his explanation. clpo13_(talk) 23:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Race is not like religion, self reporting is not always sufficient. If Donald Trump claimed to be Mexican I doubt you would be so easy going. SPACKlick (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

"Mexican" isn't a race. WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm done. The content has plenty sufficient backup at this time. This is clearly an attempt to publicly tell somebody they're lying despite having no reliable sources to back it up. The subject isn't saying something absurd about himself and that's obvious to most people. I'm on the verge of reporting people who persist in this absurdity. Again, to those pushing this, stop wasting our time. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

This isn't "self reporting." Two reliable sources state, in the source's voice and without qualification or attribution, that King is "Black" and "the son of a Caucasian mother and an African-American father." You have presented zero reliable sources which refute or even seriously contest this uncontroverted statement of fact. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

You will see I am responding to a claim that self reporting is sufficient for Race, not the claim that his race is unsupported, that discussion is higher up the page. Where I have admitted I was looking at sources on one part of the page and editing another due to similar language. With that being said, there has been discussion of his race in reliable sources, such as the daily mail, so it is likely to be questioned. The solution when it is, which nobody has yet done, is to POST A SOURCE THAT SAYS HE'S AFRICAN AMERICAN. Don't say the source exists, or the source is linked. Link the source and quote from it. SPACKlick (talk) 09:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is not a reliable source for BLP issues, as per longstanding consensus on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and BLP Noticeboard. I invite you to open a discussion there if you think that consensus should change. As for the other claim, it's patently silly to claim that an American citizen who is half-black is not an African-American, and it doesn't really merit further response. The dictionary definition of African-American is thataway. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

If you are responding to a claim that self-reporting is sufficient, then I'll tell you the general policy: Unless there is a reliable source that seriously disputes the self-reported claim (e.g., not merely one that reports that some politically motivated group is pretending that the one-drop rule never would have applied to this person), then self-reports are not only "acceptable" but also generally considered "authoritative". WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any relevant evidence (such as from a genealogical study) that his father is actually black instead of accepting the WP:FRINGE explanation that there is a government conspiracy that King's birth certificate is entirely inaccurate, that it lists his race incorrectly, and that the white man listed on his birth certificate is not his father? -75.140.253.89 (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Also holy shit, one-drop rule? Are we going back to Jim Crow era? How can you even mention that as a serious suggestion? -75.140.253.89 (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course, as we all know, birth certificates are never inaccurate and nobody ever lies when filling one out. clpo13_(talk) 00:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

You are now making a legal opinion. Careful where you tread. -75.140.253.89 (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

It is not your place as a Wikipedia editor to demand "a genealogical study" of a person's ancestry. That's not what we do as encyclopedia editors. If you wish to undertake some sort of investigation of the article subject, you are not in the right place. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Puff pieces in lifestyle magazines are not relevant sources for providing evidence on someone's race -75.140.253.89 (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

That may be your opinion but that is not wikipedia policy. Those articles are WP:Reliable Sources. SPACKlick (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

rebelmagazine is not a high-profile news organization, and has not been used for citation on any other but this article. And I'm not really following any logic as to why the Black Enterprise article is listed as a source, as it makes no explicit statement on his race. Wikipedia does not make leaps of logic. -75.140.253.89 (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The Black Enterprise source is used because it refers to Twit Change as a company that Shaun King owns and calls it "Black Owned" therefore it is a source that Shaun King is Black. SPACKlick (talk) 04:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

So the two sources are one source that has never been used on Wikipedia and the second you are inferring that is says he is black based on a business he is involved in which they say is 'black owned'? That seems extremely thin, at best. If he is black, there should be an actual RS out there that says so, in no uncertain terms.50m race walk (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to have something with a more explicit connection. The article does not state whether King is the sole owner and proprietor of Twit Change. In fact, looking at TwitChange's history, it seems that Shelton Mercer, founder, might actually be the "black owner" that is referred to in the article. [36]-75.140.253.89 (talk) 04:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @75.140.253.89: The sources provided, both where Shaun reports that he was told his father was Black and those that report in their own voice that his biological father was black, provide sufficient sourcing for this claim even in a BLP. As for the above claim that any black american is African American I'd love to see a source on that, because not all black Americans are of recent African ancestry. Not all african immigrants are black and black skin as a phenotype is not uniquely African. Plenty of black americans do not self identify as african american we have West Indian Americans, Afro Caribbean and Caribbean people[37] and [[Black Hispanic and Latino Americans

]]. This topic comes up in lots of areas of guidance (see Penn State's advice to mentors). So I say again, we need at least one source claiming that Shaun is an African American as opposed to any other black identity for wikipedia to ascribe that identity to him. I suspect from his writings that he does identify that way but I can only find writings where he refers to himself as black and where he refers to his father as black and where his company is referred to as Black Owned. SPACKlick (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

From the 48 sources in the article we have

• ...when King's claim to being African-American was questioned in a story on Breitbart.com.24
• the winner of the most creative social good campaign in 2010, was a Black-owned company.15(although it doesn't specifically say Shaun owns the company),
• He publicly identified as black throughout high school, and said by the time he went to college he “had honestly moved on from even wanting to know the details of who [his mother] slept with in January of 1979.”1,
• quoting a tweet “If you have known me from when I was in elementary school at Huntertown Elementary until now, you’ve known me as black or bi-racial.” & summarising his own article By middle school, King identified not as biracial, but as black. His friends were black, his girlfriends were black. That was it. & in their own words As a teenager he was beaten for being black.28,
• Traugott didn't want to comment on King's race,37, of breitbart wrote in Breitbart, a conservative website, that King is not black or biracial & from a local These rednecks beat him because he is or came off to be BLACK. & in their own voice is there any way to conclusively figure out who's right, and whether King is black or biracial? Unfortunately, no & even if King's family members identify as white, black, or something else, it's entirely plausible for King to identify as black or biracial & If King isn't black or biracial, the movement may have a harder time accepting him as a leader43,
• in his response to the allegation that he misrepresented his race and passed for black when he's actually white. & quoting Don Lemon Initially, he did not answer but later referred to himself as biracial45,
• Mr. King, who has long identified as black,48.

And in his own article he exclusively refers to himself as having been black while growing up. So we have no source and googling provides me with no source to which we can attribute african american as his racial identity SPACKlick (talk) 04:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Due to lack of proper sources, it seems best to remove the claim for now. In addition to the already-changed lede this also should be accompanied with the removal from the "Personal Life" section the claim that King is the "biological son of ... an African-American father". I advise any critics that a removal of a claim is not a declaration of the polar opposite, and many BLP articles exist that do not make any claims on their subject's race. -75.140.253.89 (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

There is not any consensus to remove, and given the current enforcement action regarding yourself, you should be the last person pushing this. On the other hand, to be magnanimous, if somebody would like to start an RfC on the matter, please proceed. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

In this case it is the policy to remove the disputed material, as per WP:BLP. Please read WP:CONSENSUS: "for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it." -75.140.253.89 (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2016 (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.

Early Life - Medical Leave

The article states: "Midway through his education he had to take a medical leave". One might possibly infer that the cause for being on medical leave had something to do with the fact that starting at age 17 he was undergoing a total of three spinal surgeries. It would be useful to put this information into the article, but I don't feel comfortable with the connection and would rather "stick to the source". After all the reason for medical leave could have been PTSD for all I know. Does anyone have an inkling on the reason for medical leave? It would sure help in the search for information. -75.140.253.89 (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Several sources appear dead or mispointed

As a side note of looking into the sources from above, sources 7,8,21,22&23 appear to be no longer available, Source 27 points to a blank search page at the Daily Kos. Sources 45 and 47 point to the same article but 45 has a different apparent title. SPACKlick (talk) 04:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

See WP:DEADREF. Also, different titles are pretty common these days. You'll often see different titles in the HTML header (top of your browser window) and above the first paragraph on news sites. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Per DeadRef I'm checking the link is dead not temporarily down or just down for me. And 45&47 I can't see any difference in, same URL, same header, same Headline, I can't see a difference between them, I don't know if one is linked to the wrong article or if they combined two articles on the website. I've combined them on the main page in the meantime SPACKlick (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

King joins the National Anthem Protest

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-stand-star-spangled-banner-article-1.2770075 Is this a relevant example of his activism? I'll leave it up to someone else to add it into the article. -75.140.253.89 (talk) 03:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Mirror of RSN discussion on rebelmagazine.com source

From Reliable Sources Noticeboard: (Archive 212)

Digging around I found out that this "Rebel Magazine" is not even the Rebel Magazine we have an article on ([38]), but instead some obscure Arizona Christian publication. A publication so non-notable that it doesn't even have an article on Wikipedia, and so poorly managed that none of their websites ([39] [40]) are even functional (though they do have a facebook page [41]. Therefore this source should not be considered as reliable on any article, including Shaun_King_(activist) (which by the way is the only article trying to use it as a source). -75.140.253.89 (talk) 03:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Article in question: [42]

Sources without proper websites or Wikipedia pages are not necessarily unreliable. The website may not be functioning now, but it was in August 2014, when the archive snapshot was created. Is there anything to suggest this Rebel Magazine lacks editorial oversight or has a poor reputation for fact-checking? clpo13_(talk) 03:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Assuming that it's really theirs, the twitter that they briefly reached out from really lacks professionality: [43]. Other than that I am not really sure how to demonstrate a lack of editorial oversight, only the opposite. I guess I'll read around about the process? -75.140.253.89 (talk) 04:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, you could demonstrate a lack of editorial oversight or reputation for poor fact-checking by finding evidence that the source in question has a broadly-held reputation for, and documented history of, publishing misstatements, fabrications, politically-motivated smears and outright lies about people. Sort of like, say, Breitbart does. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Sources are not usually presumed reliable until proven otherwise. Having no reputation is often considered nearly as bad as having a bad reputation. Rhoark (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

That's what I had thought until I was met with such resistance. I'm glad to finally hear some reinforcement of my assumption. So if anyone would like to show evidence of Rebel issuing corrections, that would easily establish reliability. -75.140.253.89 (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

after 6 days following the final comment the discussion was moved to archives.

Semi-protected edit request on 04 October 2016

I recommend adding information about King's latest activist project, the Injustice Boycott, described at: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-boycott-injustice-police-brutality-article-1.2812999 Robertbeal (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I added it [44][45]. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

What is a white-skinned black man?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of Evidence

Family members and classmates have stated that they understood King to be biracial growing up.

Is this seriously the standard that this website uses for evidence? People "understood" him as biracial? So that makes him biracial? So if I "understand" that gravity is false, you should take my position seriously?

Poorly-sourced claim on father

In the "Personal Life" section it is claimed that "King is the biological son of a Caucasian mother and an African-American father". This claim only uses two sources, one which lacks an established reputation of reliability (rebelmagazine) [[46]], and one (Black Enterprise) which refers to TwitChange as a "black-owned business", but does not state that King is the sole owner. (In fact the same Black Enterprise in another article suggests another black man, Shelton Mercer, owns TwitChange [[47]]). Please find better sources. -75.140.253.89 (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you sure she did not identify as African-American as a child? There are reputable sources repeating her claim that she did so, even drawing pictures of herself as a child using brown crayons instead of peach-colors that a "white" child would be expected to use. [[48]] [[49]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.140.253.89 (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@NorthBySouthBaranof: Please do not ignore [[50]] requests for identification of your source. -75.140.253.89 (talk) 16:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biracial addition

The Daily Mail has interviewed his family who have stated his biological parents are white and the fight was not motivated because he was African-American but in a mixed race relationship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgrus22 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Mail of that era is not a reliable source, as has been amply discussed here. Anonymous claims about a living person are entitled to no credence. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is anonymous?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.82.230 (talk) 03:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Attributing King for info on his father

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

2012 Rebel Magazine[51] –

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

2015 Washington Post[52] –

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

and

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

2015 New York Times[53]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requested move 9 January 2017

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2017

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

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

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

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

Removed material

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:BLP issues with sourcing from TheBlaze

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

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

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

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

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

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

Campbell301 ^{Talk •}

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revert of disputed material

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories

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

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

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

Daily Caller

I've removed a cite to the Daily Caller:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Umm, that section had two sources. There's a reason it had two sources. King called out The Daily Caller (TDC). That's part of the narrative. There's nothing in RSN that says TDC is not a reliable source and in this case it's backed up by the NYT. TDC is relevant to the incident. It's preferable to provide the narrative as TDC being a source rather than a target since ultimately, the NYT repeated what TDC said. The alternative is to dissect "pack of lies" [54] and find where NYT agreed with King or agreed with TDC. The burden is on whomever thinks removing sources that are part of the news cycle is okay. The objection to TDC seems to be IDONTLIKEIT because no claims were removed, just the reference. Why on earth would an editor want to censor where someone reads facts especially when that place is the start of the mainstream narrative? Smelling blood in the water, @dailycaller and @TuckerCarlson wrote this piece about me. All lies. Shaun King 8/19/2015. TDC can't be written out and quite frankly it's much better for King if they are used as a source in combination with the NYT rather than as King's adversary that get backed up by the NYT. TDC as one of the originating sources appears to be reliabe and accurate. Being backed up by the NYT should add to that but we don't take out the original source when another source substantiates what they published. At the bottom of the NYT story they even have a correction An earlier version of this article misidentified who originally obtained a police report about an assault involving Shaun King. The report was first obtained by The Daily Caller, not Vicki Pate. --DHeyward (talk) 06:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Consensus on use of rebelmagazine.com source

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meh. Sources say whatever the citor says they say as long as other editors don't check, don't care, or are aligned with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.82.230 (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Edits reverted

I have reverted these edits on several grounds. Firstly, to state that it was merely a "belief" does not comport with the source, which states that King's mother told him of that fact. Secondly, the source cited for the police officer section does not state that people who knew him knew him as biracial "because of his physical appearance" - that's simply not supported by the source. Thirdly, to source that King has written about his experiences as a biracial person is trivial to source and should not be removed - if you think it needs a source, tag it as such, or doc it yourself, as I have just done. Thanks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 August 2017

"King grew up in Versailles, Kentucky. He was raised by his white mother and white adoptive father, Jeffrey King. King grew up" should be changed to "King grew up in Versailles, Kentucky. He was raised by his white mother. King grew up..."

There is no evidence to support that Jeffrey King is not Shaun King's father, let alone his "adoptive" father. Unless there is evidence out there to support otherwise, Jeffrey King is listed on his birth certificate and no where does it say he's his ADOPTIVE father. I think that line should be removed and changed to the proposed one above. Swreynolds7 (talk) 16:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC) Swreynolds7 (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

What consensus am I missing? The page is inaccurate and needs to be fixed, as stated above. Jeffrey King is not his adoptive Father, rather the Father that is listed on his birth certificate. Whether or not the mother had an extramarital affair is not relevant - his birth certificate says Jeffrey King is his father. If that is not enough evidence then just remove the adoptive portion all-together as we can agree that it is false. Swreynolds7 (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Career section outdated

As of August 2017, Shaun King is no longer a writer for the NY Daily News. He also has not appeared on the Young Turks webcast since at least May 2017, leading to speculation that he has left his position there as well. He is currently a writer for the Fair Punishment Project at Harvard University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mascan42 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2017

Shaun King is a white man Elijah541 (talk) 14:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 15:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Shaun King (American football) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 14 February 2018

Shaun King → Shaun King (activist) – The activist's prominence has dwindled over the past year and is no longer the unquestionable Primary Topic he was this time last year. Page views: 56,151 vs. 32,893. Additionally requesting the default Shaun King page to be a disambiguation redirect, though I'm not sure how to formally do that. --Xparasite9 (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Uh, who would be the primary topic then? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Is the football player more notable? It doesn’t seem like it. Doesn’t seem like anyone else is bluelinked in the disambig page. Artw (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

It was just moved a year ago, and this page still generally gets significantly more page views than that of a relatively-obscure retired football player. I don't see a good reason to move it back and just dump people into a disambig page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it was moved a year ago, back when there were a difference in views by an order of magnitude, and under the assumption that the gap is would continue to widen and that there would not be any convergence in the following years. We did see a convergence in pageviews within a time period that wasn't even one year. So because that assumption was incorrect, we should revert the change made approximately a year ago. --Xparasite9 (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, I don't see a good reason to undo a move when one page gets 23,000 more views than the other. It's still the primary topic by a significant margin. So I will oppose the requested move, but let's see what others have to say. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

23,000 only when we include the first half of 2017, when he was with TYT. If compare the aggregate of the past six months, however, we see a difference of only 3,000 pageviews. One should question if this difference would be smaller if the default article display weren't Jeffrey Shaun King.--Xparasite9 (talk) 05:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per my comments above, plus as pointed out the football player is retired. Artw (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Race categories

Per WP:CATV, Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. The article and the sources attribute King's race claims to King himself, and only says about the classmates that they "understood King to be biracial growing up" which doesn't support King's race at all. If the sources don't explicitly state that King is African-American, then per WP:CATDEF: A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having, the categories should be removed. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 22:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

No, they shouldn't. His biracial identity is key to his writing and to his activism. There is clear, verifiable information that King is biracial, undisputed by any reliable source. We do not ask other African-American people to have their race "verified" and we will not do so here. Nor am I going to "ping" you if you have no further desire to participate in the discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: can you then give me a source that refers to Shaun King as African-American? wumbolo ^^^ 20:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

He is an American person of African descent, so yes, he belongs in that particular category. The slew of articles discussing his revelation of the family secret that he was born out of wedlock to an African-American father are amply cited in the article already. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Is "biracial identity" key to Rachel Dolezal's art or did it cause huge problems after she was outed by her family as totally and very White? I'm thinking the latter. Isn't this an encyclopedia that provides verifiable facts? (Redacted) -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform for you to speculate about people. I have redacted your insinuation as a violation of BLP. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

But it's a place to censor opinions that don't mirror your own because you've been triggered? I second Wumbulo's question: where's your source that verifies King's "biraciality"? This is an encyclopedia, not a social justice safe-space. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I’m pretty sure most encyclopedias don’t incorporate weird insinuations to placate the kind of person who is concerned about things like “social justice safe spaces”, FWIW. Possibly this line of discussion is not goin to produce anything of worth and should be dropped? Artw (talk) 01:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome to find some other wiki where it is acceptable for editors to make thinly-veiled accusations about the ancestry of article subjects. Perhaps Metapedia would be more your style. Have a nice day, Mr. "Triggered." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Sherita Dixon-Cole

https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/05/21/texas-police-address-sherita-dixon-cole-arrest-controversy/ and http://www.star-telegram.com/news/state/texas/article211734544.html - deserves a paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:E979:3587:9A54:ED60 (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2019

Include the story of Shaun King pushing for vigilante justice on the Texas Trooper who was unjustly accused of sexual assault by a DWI driver.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/05/23/she-said-she-was-raped-by-a-state-trooper-his-camera-footage-shows-otherwise/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.cd8fa67d7c7e Brotato42 (talk) 05:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Please make a precise request, including exactly what text you want to add and where. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Date error

Article contains this statement regarding Jazmine’s shooting: 7-year old Barnes was killed in a drive-by shooting in Houston at 7 a.m. December 30, 2019. Obviously that is an error. The year was 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.140.172.47 (talk) 11:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Tags 2019

I've added two tags to the article, POV and Overly Detailed.

POV - Significant slant in King's favor. Phrasing bolstering King's responses where in other articles, the subject's personal responses (on social media or elsewhere) are ommitted or given far less weight.

Overly detailed - e.g. reason for becoming a pastor (subject is known as activist, other activities are not as relevant), recent car accident, etc.

I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 03:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you be more specific as to what you believe is "slanted"? I agree that there's some awkward and redundant language in the "pastor" section that could be tightened. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

"conservative outlets"

In 2015, conservative media outlets published multiple pieces seeking to discredit King's account of the assault.[11] Conservative outlets, citing interviews with the investigating detective Keith Broughton and police reports on the case, reported that the fight was a one-on-one between King and another boy over a girl and that the injuries were minor.[10] Keith Broughton, the investigating detective, said he interviewed multiple witnesses, including a teacher who broke up the fight, who characterized the fight as a one-on-one altercation.[10]

This is almost never how information is reported on in Wikipedia... these "conservative outlets" aren't publishing opinion pieces about Shaun King's alleged assault, or if they do it is not being added to this Wikipedia article. Therefore it is irrelevant what their political leaning is, the only thing being written about here is the interview of the detective and the police reports. Prefacing these statements of fact with "conservative outlets" is seeking to discredit what's being written.

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2020

Please add the following text to the "Fundraising Controversies" section after the sentence, "He wrote an editorial explaining the purpose of taking legal action and addressed some specific critiques levied against him." The text is to be inserted as below:

On August 31, 2019, a 72 page financial audit report prepared by a team of experts in justice reform, tax law, finance and accounting, and compliance was released. The team examined King's financial materials from fundraisers promoted through his social media accounts, Real Justice PAC, and Action PAC. Additionally, a review of King's full tax returns for 2013-2017 was performed and compared to his public fundraising from 2014-2019. King also granted the team full unlimited access to checking accounts, savings accounts, credit cards, retirement accounts, and money management software. In the report, the Financial Review Board concluded, "In short, we find absolutely no evidence that Shaun has ever inappropriately accessed any funds that he has raised. We searched and we asked. Not one single family, charity, cause or campaign said Shaun was ever compensated, directly, or indirectly, for his online fundraising. In fact, it appears that with the exception of his compensation through Real Justice PAC, Shaun has received zero compensation for the fundraising he promoted. The exhaustive documentation to substantiate our findings, including every statement from every family and attorney, can be found below." To support this conclusion, a breakdown of financial appropriations from King's fundraisers demonstrated how the $34.5 M total funds raised since the Black Lives Matter movement began has been appropriated.

 Nthenry08 (talk) 07:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as is. This is way too much detail and ignores the fact that King himself contracted this team. Moreover, this is taken from a statement by the team itself, which is essentially a primary source. It would be much better to have a reliable, secondary, independent source that has discussed the matter. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Evidence of Black heritage

this proposition seems unsupported:

"Family members and classmates have stated that they understood King to be biracial growing up."

First of all, those citations do not seem to say that anywhere?

Second of all, what "family members" plural? I did see something from his wife elsewhere on web, but nothing else. Nothing from his brothers, the late Jason King and veteran/electrician Russ King. Nothing from his mother. Nothing from Jeffrey Wayne King, man listed as father on his birth certificate.

Third of all, we would need a citation for this "friends said" assertion, if we can find one.

Why does this sentence remain on Wikipedia? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2021

this article needs to draw attention to the whole reason this man became famous, by pretending to be a different race than he actually is 2600:1700:34B0:1520:2974:9296:B332:F8E6 (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)