Talk:Aziz Ansari

message: ::::If I might ask for a minor point of privilege--it does sound a little bit like argument for argument's sake at this point.  Are there concrete changes being proposed at this point?  I am not quite sure, but I have never been accused of being overly perceptive.  Thanks in advance. Dumuzid (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: We now have consensus to omit the "apologized for the allegation" bit in the second paragraph of the section, so I think we're done. I may compile a Consensus List as has been done at the Donald Trump article here, so that we can avoid going over the same discussions in the future. SPECIFICO talk 22:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No we do not have any such consensus. We haven't even begun to agree on what the sources actually say.  And this practice of changing first, discussing later, is entirely against WP:ONUS and poisons the collaborative process. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in favor of omitting the apology sentence.  And Kolya, while WP:ONUS is certainly a thing, so is WP:BRD.  The collaborative process has many faces and demands flexibility from all of us.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? The apology sentence has been in the article for months.  Do you not want to include any reaction to Ansari's statement in the special? Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ONUS says that even though it's verified, it stays out of the article without consensus to include. But this is a BLP, so that is even stronger reason to keep it out. Please undo your reinsertion.  This talk page thread demonstrates there is no consensus to include that, and in fact there is only one editor favoring inclusion. It needs to be removed.  SPECIFICO talk 23:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that something has been in an article for a long time is really neither here or there -- as I say, good faith WP:BRD is pretty standard in my experience.  And for me, based on the sources I've seen, I would favor not including any reaction.  I'm just not convinced it was particularly notable in the Wikipedia sense.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean by BRD; I have revered the bold edits, and now we are discussing. SPECIFICO, the text has had implicit consensus.  There is no BLP violation here. Please allow a moment to discuss this before demanding removal of the text.  It is not clear to me what the opinions are here, because much of the discussion has been confusion about what the sources actually say.  Perhaps everyone can state their opinions now that hopefully we're on the same page about what the RS say? RS have widely covered his statement in his special, so I think some of that commentary merits inclusion.  Perhaps we could add another line with an alternative take? Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If you propose to crowbar this BLP disparagement into the article by claiming it is "only" a review of a TV show by a non-notable journalist, then it would be UNDUE as well. Needs to be removed per BLP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 23:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you accusing me of "crowbar"ring content into the article? The text has been there for months. So far ONUS has been respected for literally twenty minutes. Please be patient while we discuss this. Please discuss other commentary we could include. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: "direcly apologized" discussion continued

message: , please revert your edit. There is no consensus to remove, and hasty edits of this highly contentious material create a hostile environment. 's edit was based on an misreading of the sources. They have not weighed in on the correct interpretation of the text.  questions whether reactions to Ansari's statement are noteworthy.  I assert they are. What is your objection to the sentence? Again, as an act of good faith, please revert the text and stop this needless fighting while we figure this out. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Kolya Butternut, WP:ONUS says, and I quote: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."  Thus, you have the burden exactly backwards.  My argument is simple.  I have seen Rolling Stone and The Times of India making the claim as you see it.  That simply strikes me as insufficiently broad as to number of publications and, in addition, I don't think it has particularly stood the test of time.  I do not mean this is a scientific conclusion.  I do not mean that it is impossible to disagree with me.  I simply mean this is my opinion, and, if you will, my !vote for the time being.  As ever, reasonable minds may differ--as I may, at some point in time.  This one just doesn't work for me right now.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Dumuzid, that is not the correct interpretation of ONUS.  By that interpretation I could blank the whole article and then others would have the ONUS to add the material back. The removed sentence was part of the stable consensus version, and the ONUS is on editors who want to make contentious changes. You're judging the text as not having had broad coverage based solely on how many citations there are? That doesn't make sense...also, just recently there was a third citation. The Times of India piece is from this year...Please restore the text if you have not researched this. We have not achieved consensus for removal. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Kolya Butternut, I have stated my position.  You can tell me what to do as much as you like, but it's not a particularly effective persuasion technique.  Have a nice evening. Dumuzid (talk) 05:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I am politely asking you to observe ONUS. Also, I am not interested in using persuasion techniques. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Persuasion is how one achieves consensus.  You persuade other editors to your point of view.  Furthermore, if your reading of policy is such that the text in question should be reinserted, then why would I do it?  I have stated my opinion here, but I don't believe I have ever edited the main page.  Certainly not recently, anyway.  With all due respect, WP:ONUS is not a magic incantation that means you get your way.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 06:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The Times of India article is not a valid source for reasons I stated when I removed it. If it was put back without consensus, that was a bad move and should be undone. SPECIFICO talk 08:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  You've given your reason for the text removal as "BLP disparagement". I don't see a policy that fits that description for sourced criticisms; what are you saying? Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus to remove?

message: This version of the first two sentences of the section relating to the gender controversy
One 
was recently reverted and replaced with this version:
Two
Which version more neutrally provides context and factual predicate for the larger section on the controversy? SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm noticing that all of these proposals would have the effect of disparaging the sexual misconduct allegation. As an act of good faith would you do some research into RS which speak well of Babe.net? Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's possible to contextualize Babe.net as one of many similar news-adjacent websites which come and go quite frequently on the web.  For me, "defunct" was fairly value-neutral which is why I liked that wording, but I am obviously in the minority.  I am certainly open to other suggestions.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

message: RE: Babe . net demise  SPECIFICO talk 01:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wrap? You were so opposed to the relatively small site lawandcrime.com that you twice mischaracterized it as a blog, and now of all possible RS you cite The Wrap? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You must not be familiar with The Wrap. It is a solid journalistic website. See RSN and please review the Masthead and other documentation on the publication's website. SPECIFICO talk 02:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting that The Wrap is one of the best sources available? Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Babe.net 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :RAAAAAAAAANDY. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 4#RAAAAAAAAANDY until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  CycloneYoris talk! 17:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "RAAAAAAAAANDY" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]