![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This page needs better sources or it should be trimmed down significantly. The entire article is thin on reliable sources and I'm not even sure the subject is notable enough to deserve an article. - Nemov ( talk) 20:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
So far it has 19 references mostly from different newspapers, how is that poorly sourced? Simbioz ( talk) 12:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Danny Left: This page is thinly sources already, but adding Harald Baldr as an associated act is a stretch. Even if the two of them are linked together in YouTube Video their relationship hasn't received significant coverage to make it a notable association. If there are notable source linking the two together please add it. Keep in mine YouTube isn't a notable source. Nemov ( talk) 03:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Spidersnakes: If you have a case for why Harald Baldr should be included in this article you can make it here. Thanks! Nemov ( talk) 16:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Harald Baldr should be added as an associated act. There are sources that mention him with Rich. They have also worked together many times, including recently, and are close friends. Also, Baldr was the person that encouraged him to start making YouTubr videos. Harald Baldr should be added to this page. Spidersnakes ( talk) 21:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Please do not refer to Alina Adzika as Rich's girlfriend. Whilst she was referred to as his girlfriend and editor in his 2017 book, it is understandable why people keep adding it. However on YouTube and in other media they now refer to each other as "friends"; and neither party will confirm or deny any romantic relationship when asked directly about it. Keep it as "friends" until they wish to go public. Sovietspoonz ( talk) 10:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Currently this man's name is given as "Benjamin Rich". There are several mentions of this in news articles, none of whose writers appear to have spoken to him, but his book The Burning Edge: Travels Through Irradiated Belarus is authored by "Arthur Chichester". There are also several mentions, including on fan pages, of him deliberately never giving his real name. It could be worth noting this ambiguity in the article. Wodgester ( talk) 16:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Is it possible that we could move on from the obsession with Mr.Bald's true name to learn how he is quite fluent in the Russian language? For instance, was he born into the language, or did he learn it on the road? Santamoly ( talk) 05:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Bald stated in a couple videos he was obsessed with the USSR growing up and as a result, he decided to learn Russian. I linked two videos which may be resourceful, but there are others circulating on his channel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loAxQe14ke0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcYCT9wEUuU
Kind regards Unofficialwikicorrector ( talk) 20:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
This article has been overrun by poor edits by users who do not understand
Wikipedia guidelines. This article is about the Bald and Bankrupt channel on YouTube. Additions to this article should be from notable third-party sources in regards to coverage of Ben and the channel. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.
Nemov (
talk)
12:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Should his other channel Daily Bald be added to the infobox? -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 20:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
NickCT raised a good point about the notability of the YouTuber. This isn't the first time this has been mentioned. I'm not convinced there's enough notable coverage to justify the article's existence so I nominated the article for deletion. Please proceed to the deletion page to discuss. Thanks! - Nemov ( talk) 13:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Chagcharan, please quit making unhelpful edits. You recent addition violates WP:BLPPRIMARY. You need to familiarize your self with the guidelines. Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.
Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. [a] -- Nemov ( talk) 02:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Should information on Rich's rape trial be included in this article? My reasons for creating this Rfc are explained in the "Notable Incidents" section.
Chagcharan (
talk) 17:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)—
Chagcharan (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock.
Nemov (
talk)
18:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
*Note @
Isaidnoway and
Nemov. While there is a push to get this content included, there also seems to be a coordinated push to exclude this content. I think that neither side is unbiased - including me. And that's the reason for this Rfc - to get some non partisan input.
Chagcharan (
talk) 13:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock.
Nemov (
talk)
18:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
there also seems to be a coordinated push to exclude this content- Coordination among who exactly? I never heard of this guy until I saw the RfC listed at WP:RFC/A. My reasoning for exclusion is based in policy - if you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the incident, leave it out - and this is precisely the reason this content keeps getting reverted out of the article, it's not biased editing, it's policy. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
By my comment I did not mean to accuse you of being biased, on the contrary, I sincerely value your input in this matter. I just wanted to point out that there has been an edit war going on in this article over the past months in which people on both sides seemed to be acting based on their personal agenda and not from a neutral standpoint. While I do have my opinion on this matter, I understand that this is a contentious issue and that's why I decided to call this Rfc instead of engaging in endless edit wars.
Chagcharan (
talk) 16:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock.
Nemov (
talk)
18:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I believe that the failure to address his rape trial (for which there exists a proper secondary source) goes against WP:NPOV. It purposely occludes certain points of view about his character and motivations. In fact, it is not just a certain point of view, it is literally the 'other side of the coin'. Besides, this is still relevant for his activities today: he is known for talking a lot about women in his videos, talking about booking "hotel rooms for two" and such. Also, why is the "Chechen chick" incident included in the article, but not this one? There is an 'incidents' section, so why purposely not put this one there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.6.36.80 ( talk) 01:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
First, the rule you mentioned requires that the content is "unsourced" or "poorly sourced". A local non-tabloid newspaper article is neither of the two. Furthermore, saying X is a "rapist" is libel while saying X "stood trial for rape" is not (since a reliable source exists for the latter, not for the former). Also, I do not see how there being "an influx of people" or the fact that people have "ulterior motives" undermines the fact that this piece of information is properly sourced. Tell me where it says that "ulterior motives" qualifies properly-sourced information for removal? Lastly, I think relevance isn't the real issue here: the rape trial is included on the German version of the article, so why not here, especially given that Rich is an anglophone Youtuber? There are also much less notable incidents than being tried for rape mentioned on here. Do these need to go too? 128.6.36.80 ( talk) 18:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I now agree with you, thank you 128.6.36.80 ( talk) 18:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Bald and Bankrupt has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Addition to 'Incident' section of the page.
Benjamin Rich was formerly known as Benjamin Rich-Swift, on 26th May 2001 he was involved in an incident concerning an alleged rape. Although eventually found not guilty, the judge a Mrs Justice Hallett said the men 'should feel ashamed of themselves'.
Bankruptcy notice, Benjamin Rich was declared bankrupt on 23rd January 2017. Deltajuliet2490 ( talk) 15:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Not done: please provide
reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. This topic has been discussed before. Additions to this article should be from notable third-party sources in regards to coverage of Ben and the channel. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.
Nemov (
talk)
15:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi Nemov the bankruptcy notice is reliable information. It is from The Gazette which is publicly available information for the UK and pertains to the whole reason why he started up the YouTube channel in the first place. This I feel should be added. Deltajuliet2490 ( talk) 20:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I will review these, thank you for sharing. Deltajuliet2490 ( talk) 21:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
@ David Gerard, you added the template in 2021. Is the article to your satifaction now? @ OrgoneBox attempted to remove the template, but I have rolled back that change to give you a chance to review or explain the template. Thanks! Nemov ( talk) 18:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
In any case, if the issue appears contentious, seek consensus on the talk page
There's another organized campaign to make changes to this article on Reddit. For those of you new to Wikipedia, there was an RfC about this topic last year where the consensus was not to include the information. Per the guidelines for biographies of living persons there needs to be multiple reliable sources to justify inclusion of new information. There's no campaign to keep information out. However, there is a campaign to brigade this article with poorly sourced information. Wikipedia isn't the place for original research, to right great wrongs, or for promoting fan or anti-fan sites. If there are genuine questions about the inclusion of new information please feel free to ask. Thanks! Nemov ( talk) 13:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
What should be addressed is the discrepancy between English and German versions of this article.
As one such new-ish editor, I was quite taken aback by my good faith edit/addition on the talk page which was very quickly erased by Nemov. I think doing so is not altogether reasonable. It would be better to instead use the talk page to *guide* newcomers on how to propose edits on this issue and the standards/rules required.Your "good faith edit" was promoting and outside group with a link to the group. The deletion was explained and I left a note on your TALK giving guidance on next steps. That's how Wikipedia works.
Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs.. Legal documents such as name changes are also not considered BLP complaint, they would have to mentioned by reliable sources before they would be included, also cf. WP:DEADNAME if people were non-notable under a previous name, then it is generally not included. Wikipedia has a responsibility to article subjects not to include poorly sourced material that is potentially libellous, see Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident for an example of what happens when that is not followed. If you want to get these allegations included, then get them published by mainstream newspapers. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research. As I said previously we would need a reliable source that specifically links "Bald and Bankrupt" to the rape case. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
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.
Hello, I wanted to start a here discussion about User:Nemov, a frequent contributor to this article, specifically his long-term editing pattern:
All in all, those points lead me to surmise that Nemov has some connection/stake to the subject of this article, or at the very least is a tendentious editor. Discuss below. 128.6.36.199 ( talk) 18:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I deleted the infobox image (which is an idealized drawing of the subject, inside a red star on a black background), for a couple-few reasons. An editor, @ Primefac:, has reverted this and restored the image, so let's talk. I'm not sure that we can't use the image, but I'm pretty sure. If I'm wrong I'm willing to be educated.
There are basically two reasons I don't think the we should -- or can -- use the image.
Executive Summary: this copyrighted image can't be used under any of our fair-use or other exemptions.
So, according to my understanding, free use pictures of living persons are not allowed (except for some exceptional cases). The rule is at Wikipedia:Non-free content, specifically at WP:GETTY
The editor's edit summary for the restore was "low-quality non-free images are acceptable regardless of use", which... isn't so. Assuming the editor meant "...in this case", then indeed non-free images are used in many cases, under fair use.
It is true that logos are permitted fair use. However, I think most people have assumed -- and I think the rules indicated -- that only organizations have logos, that individual persons can't have logos. If we look at WP:LOGOS, the lede ends with
The encyclopedic rationale for including a logo is similar to the rationale for including portraits of a famous actor: most users feel that portraits provide valuable information about the person that is difficult to describe solely with text. Logos should be regarded as portraits for a given entity. Unlike people, however, where it is often possible to take a free photograph of that person, logos are typically protected by copyright and trademark law and so cannot be replaced by a completely free alternative.
Emphasis added. So, the article is clearly about an individual person, as it opens with
Benjamin Rich (born 1 July 1974), also known by his YouTube channel name Bald and Bankrupt, is an English travel vlogger and author.
It doesn't say "Bald and Bankrupt is the name of a company which produces YouTube videos" or "...a collective of vloggers" or anything like that.
Since Benjamin Rich is an individual person, and the article is about that individual person, I believe a photograph of Benjamin Rich is what want here. If that is true -- and I mean, it is, right? -- we should fairly easily be able to obtain a free photo.
There are various guideline rules about all this, Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Copyrights. I hate to be a nag about this, but the Foundation takes this pretty seriously.
So but another couple things:
If we discuss the image, we can use it. If we can say "Bald and Bankrupt's logo (shown here) has attracted much attention for its unusual use of phlogistated septum" or whatever. Not sure we can do that without stretching too far.
And another thing, {{ Infobox YouTube personality}} has a field for "logo" (as well as a separate field for "image", which I suppose would usually be a portrait). This implies that individuals ("personalities") can have logos, which can be used. How that was decided I don't know, but I mean it can't override our copyright policies. If YouTube is different from everything else (could be I guess), we need to add that to Wikipedia:Image use policy and perhaps elsewhere, and we would need a big RfC for that.
Executive Summary: the image gives a false description of what the person looks like.
Altho it's a logo, it basically consists of a drawing of the person. It could be considered a portrait, I guess. Not that that would make it allowable, but the problem is that even it was, the drawing doesn't look like the person very much. It is true that we have used drawings when they are the only free image we have, even a kind of impressionist painting in one case. However, this is different because it's deliberately drawn to make the person look better than he really is, and (presumably) by the person himself or somebody working for him, or a fan. I mean, look at photos yourself of Rich and see what you think. I know what I think. NPOV violation. Herostratus ( talk) 02:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Well, so far I am not convinced. Some of the points I need clarification on, and others I find not compelling.
If "this is an article about that channel", why does it not open with "Bald and Bankrupts is YouTube channel starring Benjamin Rich, who also goes by the personal stage name of Bald of Bankrupt" or something like that, instead of "Benjamin Rich (born 1 July 1974), also known by his YouTube channel name Bald and Bankrupt, is an English travel vlogger and author", as it does. Do we need to change the article and lede? What is done for similar type YouTube personalities? I'm asking.
As to "If someone decides that a caricature of themselves is good enough to be the main image for their YouTube channel, I'm pretty sure it's not offensive for us to use it", I mean, no. Subjects of articles are not neutral, and are poor sources for any information about themselves beyond basic facts. We don't allow text "John Smith is considered to be extremely handsome" and source that to Smith himself, of course. Same thing with a drawing.
Sometimes we use subject-provided portraits, if they're accurate. Sometimes we use studio glamour shots (not preferred on the merits I think, but preferred because copyright holder released it for public distribution (altho not under a free license, but still)), but at least that's a actual photo of the actual person.
This doesn't even look like the person. It would be WP:BLP violation for me to say he's a lot... more filled out... in person, so I'll leave that to the reader.
Logo or not, it's a bad picture. But as to it being a logo: Is "Bald and Beatiful" an incorporated company? How many employees does it have, how many contract workers? Is Bald and Beautiful more similar to say John Denver, or to ExxonMobile? How does Bald and Beautiful compare to say CarniK Con, a YouTube troupe (which has a logo), or Pomato (company) which also publishes on YouTube but is a production company (and has a logo)? is the line between "YouTube individual person" and "YouTube troupe/company" kind of a slippery slope rather than a clear division?
Do we need to rewrite the article, or what? Are YouTube personalities with channels a kind of in-between thing between an individual and a company? Is a YouTube channel different from a TV broadcast of a concert and so on? How and why? Is this generally accepted here, and who said so? Do other YouTube people have logos? Why does PewDiePie and Etika and etc have a photo instead of a logo? (I'm genuinely asking, I don't watch YouTube channels and I can't keep up with you kids and your internets.)
Or, off of YouTube, do we allow logos for individuals? What examples? We do show that weird symbol that Prince used, under fair use. That's not a corporate logo tho, and is discussed in the text, and a free image performing the same function could never be obtained. Anybody else? Can't think of any right off.
Anyway, copyright aside, the picture's no good. It should be easy to get a photo. Somebody just ask him, he'll probably provide one. Herostratus ( talk) 20:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Do we need to change the article and lede? What is done for similar type YouTube personalities? I'm asking.
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.
A good proportion of sources and 1/2 of the article details incidents, so I the option is to either have a dedicated incident section, or delete the sourced content. Having his "career" section made up of 70% incidents violates npov more than having a dedicated section for incidents, as he is a controversial youtuber. 128.6.36.192 ( talk) 01:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
* Comment Has anyone done a sock check on all these IP accounts with very few edits citing Wikipedia guidelines? It's just odd that this article keeps receiving these inane guideline arguments from accounts with relatively few edits. These accounts are always accusing the editors of bad faith. It's a little suspicious. [Not the place for this question, removed.]
Nemov (
talk)
00:41, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This page needs better sources or it should be trimmed down significantly. The entire article is thin on reliable sources and I'm not even sure the subject is notable enough to deserve an article. - Nemov ( talk) 20:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
So far it has 19 references mostly from different newspapers, how is that poorly sourced? Simbioz ( talk) 12:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Danny Left: This page is thinly sources already, but adding Harald Baldr as an associated act is a stretch. Even if the two of them are linked together in YouTube Video their relationship hasn't received significant coverage to make it a notable association. If there are notable source linking the two together please add it. Keep in mine YouTube isn't a notable source. Nemov ( talk) 03:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Spidersnakes: If you have a case for why Harald Baldr should be included in this article you can make it here. Thanks! Nemov ( talk) 16:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Harald Baldr should be added as an associated act. There are sources that mention him with Rich. They have also worked together many times, including recently, and are close friends. Also, Baldr was the person that encouraged him to start making YouTubr videos. Harald Baldr should be added to this page. Spidersnakes ( talk) 21:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Please do not refer to Alina Adzika as Rich's girlfriend. Whilst she was referred to as his girlfriend and editor in his 2017 book, it is understandable why people keep adding it. However on YouTube and in other media they now refer to each other as "friends"; and neither party will confirm or deny any romantic relationship when asked directly about it. Keep it as "friends" until they wish to go public. Sovietspoonz ( talk) 10:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Currently this man's name is given as "Benjamin Rich". There are several mentions of this in news articles, none of whose writers appear to have spoken to him, but his book The Burning Edge: Travels Through Irradiated Belarus is authored by "Arthur Chichester". There are also several mentions, including on fan pages, of him deliberately never giving his real name. It could be worth noting this ambiguity in the article. Wodgester ( talk) 16:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Is it possible that we could move on from the obsession with Mr.Bald's true name to learn how he is quite fluent in the Russian language? For instance, was he born into the language, or did he learn it on the road? Santamoly ( talk) 05:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Bald stated in a couple videos he was obsessed with the USSR growing up and as a result, he decided to learn Russian. I linked two videos which may be resourceful, but there are others circulating on his channel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loAxQe14ke0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcYCT9wEUuU
Kind regards Unofficialwikicorrector ( talk) 20:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
This article has been overrun by poor edits by users who do not understand
Wikipedia guidelines. This article is about the Bald and Bankrupt channel on YouTube. Additions to this article should be from notable third-party sources in regards to coverage of Ben and the channel. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.
Nemov (
talk)
12:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Should his other channel Daily Bald be added to the infobox? -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 20:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
NickCT raised a good point about the notability of the YouTuber. This isn't the first time this has been mentioned. I'm not convinced there's enough notable coverage to justify the article's existence so I nominated the article for deletion. Please proceed to the deletion page to discuss. Thanks! - Nemov ( talk) 13:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Chagcharan, please quit making unhelpful edits. You recent addition violates WP:BLPPRIMARY. You need to familiarize your self with the guidelines. Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.
Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. [a] -- Nemov ( talk) 02:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Should information on Rich's rape trial be included in this article? My reasons for creating this Rfc are explained in the "Notable Incidents" section.
Chagcharan (
talk) 17:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)—
Chagcharan (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock.
Nemov (
talk)
18:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
*Note @
Isaidnoway and
Nemov. While there is a push to get this content included, there also seems to be a coordinated push to exclude this content. I think that neither side is unbiased - including me. And that's the reason for this Rfc - to get some non partisan input.
Chagcharan (
talk) 13:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock.
Nemov (
talk)
18:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
there also seems to be a coordinated push to exclude this content- Coordination among who exactly? I never heard of this guy until I saw the RfC listed at WP:RFC/A. My reasoning for exclusion is based in policy - if you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the incident, leave it out - and this is precisely the reason this content keeps getting reverted out of the article, it's not biased editing, it's policy. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
By my comment I did not mean to accuse you of being biased, on the contrary, I sincerely value your input in this matter. I just wanted to point out that there has been an edit war going on in this article over the past months in which people on both sides seemed to be acting based on their personal agenda and not from a neutral standpoint. While I do have my opinion on this matter, I understand that this is a contentious issue and that's why I decided to call this Rfc instead of engaging in endless edit wars.
Chagcharan (
talk) 16:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock.
Nemov (
talk)
18:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I believe that the failure to address his rape trial (for which there exists a proper secondary source) goes against WP:NPOV. It purposely occludes certain points of view about his character and motivations. In fact, it is not just a certain point of view, it is literally the 'other side of the coin'. Besides, this is still relevant for his activities today: he is known for talking a lot about women in his videos, talking about booking "hotel rooms for two" and such. Also, why is the "Chechen chick" incident included in the article, but not this one? There is an 'incidents' section, so why purposely not put this one there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.6.36.80 ( talk) 01:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
First, the rule you mentioned requires that the content is "unsourced" or "poorly sourced". A local non-tabloid newspaper article is neither of the two. Furthermore, saying X is a "rapist" is libel while saying X "stood trial for rape" is not (since a reliable source exists for the latter, not for the former). Also, I do not see how there being "an influx of people" or the fact that people have "ulterior motives" undermines the fact that this piece of information is properly sourced. Tell me where it says that "ulterior motives" qualifies properly-sourced information for removal? Lastly, I think relevance isn't the real issue here: the rape trial is included on the German version of the article, so why not here, especially given that Rich is an anglophone Youtuber? There are also much less notable incidents than being tried for rape mentioned on here. Do these need to go too? 128.6.36.80 ( talk) 18:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I now agree with you, thank you 128.6.36.80 ( talk) 18:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Bald and Bankrupt has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Addition to 'Incident' section of the page.
Benjamin Rich was formerly known as Benjamin Rich-Swift, on 26th May 2001 he was involved in an incident concerning an alleged rape. Although eventually found not guilty, the judge a Mrs Justice Hallett said the men 'should feel ashamed of themselves'.
Bankruptcy notice, Benjamin Rich was declared bankrupt on 23rd January 2017. Deltajuliet2490 ( talk) 15:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Not done: please provide
reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. This topic has been discussed before. Additions to this article should be from notable third-party sources in regards to coverage of Ben and the channel. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.
Nemov (
talk)
15:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi Nemov the bankruptcy notice is reliable information. It is from The Gazette which is publicly available information for the UK and pertains to the whole reason why he started up the YouTube channel in the first place. This I feel should be added. Deltajuliet2490 ( talk) 20:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I will review these, thank you for sharing. Deltajuliet2490 ( talk) 21:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
@ David Gerard, you added the template in 2021. Is the article to your satifaction now? @ OrgoneBox attempted to remove the template, but I have rolled back that change to give you a chance to review or explain the template. Thanks! Nemov ( talk) 18:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
In any case, if the issue appears contentious, seek consensus on the talk page
There's another organized campaign to make changes to this article on Reddit. For those of you new to Wikipedia, there was an RfC about this topic last year where the consensus was not to include the information. Per the guidelines for biographies of living persons there needs to be multiple reliable sources to justify inclusion of new information. There's no campaign to keep information out. However, there is a campaign to brigade this article with poorly sourced information. Wikipedia isn't the place for original research, to right great wrongs, or for promoting fan or anti-fan sites. If there are genuine questions about the inclusion of new information please feel free to ask. Thanks! Nemov ( talk) 13:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
What should be addressed is the discrepancy between English and German versions of this article.
As one such new-ish editor, I was quite taken aback by my good faith edit/addition on the talk page which was very quickly erased by Nemov. I think doing so is not altogether reasonable. It would be better to instead use the talk page to *guide* newcomers on how to propose edits on this issue and the standards/rules required.Your "good faith edit" was promoting and outside group with a link to the group. The deletion was explained and I left a note on your TALK giving guidance on next steps. That's how Wikipedia works.
Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs.. Legal documents such as name changes are also not considered BLP complaint, they would have to mentioned by reliable sources before they would be included, also cf. WP:DEADNAME if people were non-notable under a previous name, then it is generally not included. Wikipedia has a responsibility to article subjects not to include poorly sourced material that is potentially libellous, see Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident for an example of what happens when that is not followed. If you want to get these allegations included, then get them published by mainstream newspapers. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research. As I said previously we would need a reliable source that specifically links "Bald and Bankrupt" to the rape case. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
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.
Hello, I wanted to start a here discussion about User:Nemov, a frequent contributor to this article, specifically his long-term editing pattern:
All in all, those points lead me to surmise that Nemov has some connection/stake to the subject of this article, or at the very least is a tendentious editor. Discuss below. 128.6.36.199 ( talk) 18:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I deleted the infobox image (which is an idealized drawing of the subject, inside a red star on a black background), for a couple-few reasons. An editor, @ Primefac:, has reverted this and restored the image, so let's talk. I'm not sure that we can't use the image, but I'm pretty sure. If I'm wrong I'm willing to be educated.
There are basically two reasons I don't think the we should -- or can -- use the image.
Executive Summary: this copyrighted image can't be used under any of our fair-use or other exemptions.
So, according to my understanding, free use pictures of living persons are not allowed (except for some exceptional cases). The rule is at Wikipedia:Non-free content, specifically at WP:GETTY
The editor's edit summary for the restore was "low-quality non-free images are acceptable regardless of use", which... isn't so. Assuming the editor meant "...in this case", then indeed non-free images are used in many cases, under fair use.
It is true that logos are permitted fair use. However, I think most people have assumed -- and I think the rules indicated -- that only organizations have logos, that individual persons can't have logos. If we look at WP:LOGOS, the lede ends with
The encyclopedic rationale for including a logo is similar to the rationale for including portraits of a famous actor: most users feel that portraits provide valuable information about the person that is difficult to describe solely with text. Logos should be regarded as portraits for a given entity. Unlike people, however, where it is often possible to take a free photograph of that person, logos are typically protected by copyright and trademark law and so cannot be replaced by a completely free alternative.
Emphasis added. So, the article is clearly about an individual person, as it opens with
Benjamin Rich (born 1 July 1974), also known by his YouTube channel name Bald and Bankrupt, is an English travel vlogger and author.
It doesn't say "Bald and Bankrupt is the name of a company which produces YouTube videos" or "...a collective of vloggers" or anything like that.
Since Benjamin Rich is an individual person, and the article is about that individual person, I believe a photograph of Benjamin Rich is what want here. If that is true -- and I mean, it is, right? -- we should fairly easily be able to obtain a free photo.
There are various guideline rules about all this, Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Copyrights. I hate to be a nag about this, but the Foundation takes this pretty seriously.
So but another couple things:
If we discuss the image, we can use it. If we can say "Bald and Bankrupt's logo (shown here) has attracted much attention for its unusual use of phlogistated septum" or whatever. Not sure we can do that without stretching too far.
And another thing, {{ Infobox YouTube personality}} has a field for "logo" (as well as a separate field for "image", which I suppose would usually be a portrait). This implies that individuals ("personalities") can have logos, which can be used. How that was decided I don't know, but I mean it can't override our copyright policies. If YouTube is different from everything else (could be I guess), we need to add that to Wikipedia:Image use policy and perhaps elsewhere, and we would need a big RfC for that.
Executive Summary: the image gives a false description of what the person looks like.
Altho it's a logo, it basically consists of a drawing of the person. It could be considered a portrait, I guess. Not that that would make it allowable, but the problem is that even it was, the drawing doesn't look like the person very much. It is true that we have used drawings when they are the only free image we have, even a kind of impressionist painting in one case. However, this is different because it's deliberately drawn to make the person look better than he really is, and (presumably) by the person himself or somebody working for him, or a fan. I mean, look at photos yourself of Rich and see what you think. I know what I think. NPOV violation. Herostratus ( talk) 02:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Well, so far I am not convinced. Some of the points I need clarification on, and others I find not compelling.
If "this is an article about that channel", why does it not open with "Bald and Bankrupts is YouTube channel starring Benjamin Rich, who also goes by the personal stage name of Bald of Bankrupt" or something like that, instead of "Benjamin Rich (born 1 July 1974), also known by his YouTube channel name Bald and Bankrupt, is an English travel vlogger and author", as it does. Do we need to change the article and lede? What is done for similar type YouTube personalities? I'm asking.
As to "If someone decides that a caricature of themselves is good enough to be the main image for their YouTube channel, I'm pretty sure it's not offensive for us to use it", I mean, no. Subjects of articles are not neutral, and are poor sources for any information about themselves beyond basic facts. We don't allow text "John Smith is considered to be extremely handsome" and source that to Smith himself, of course. Same thing with a drawing.
Sometimes we use subject-provided portraits, if they're accurate. Sometimes we use studio glamour shots (not preferred on the merits I think, but preferred because copyright holder released it for public distribution (altho not under a free license, but still)), but at least that's a actual photo of the actual person.
This doesn't even look like the person. It would be WP:BLP violation for me to say he's a lot... more filled out... in person, so I'll leave that to the reader.
Logo or not, it's a bad picture. But as to it being a logo: Is "Bald and Beatiful" an incorporated company? How many employees does it have, how many contract workers? Is Bald and Beautiful more similar to say John Denver, or to ExxonMobile? How does Bald and Beautiful compare to say CarniK Con, a YouTube troupe (which has a logo), or Pomato (company) which also publishes on YouTube but is a production company (and has a logo)? is the line between "YouTube individual person" and "YouTube troupe/company" kind of a slippery slope rather than a clear division?
Do we need to rewrite the article, or what? Are YouTube personalities with channels a kind of in-between thing between an individual and a company? Is a YouTube channel different from a TV broadcast of a concert and so on? How and why? Is this generally accepted here, and who said so? Do other YouTube people have logos? Why does PewDiePie and Etika and etc have a photo instead of a logo? (I'm genuinely asking, I don't watch YouTube channels and I can't keep up with you kids and your internets.)
Or, off of YouTube, do we allow logos for individuals? What examples? We do show that weird symbol that Prince used, under fair use. That's not a corporate logo tho, and is discussed in the text, and a free image performing the same function could never be obtained. Anybody else? Can't think of any right off.
Anyway, copyright aside, the picture's no good. It should be easy to get a photo. Somebody just ask him, he'll probably provide one. Herostratus ( talk) 20:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Do we need to change the article and lede? What is done for similar type YouTube personalities? I'm asking.
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.
A good proportion of sources and 1/2 of the article details incidents, so I the option is to either have a dedicated incident section, or delete the sourced content. Having his "career" section made up of 70% incidents violates npov more than having a dedicated section for incidents, as he is a controversial youtuber. 128.6.36.192 ( talk) 01:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
* Comment Has anyone done a sock check on all these IP accounts with very few edits citing Wikipedia guidelines? It's just odd that this article keeps receiving these inane guideline arguments from accounts with relatively few edits. These accounts are always accusing the editors of bad faith. It's a little suspicious. [Not the place for this question, removed.]
Nemov (
talk)
00:41, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).