![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Franchesca Ramsey. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Franchesca Ramsey at the Reference desk. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This person is a "Youtube personality"? That's notable? 24.90.121.4 ( talk) 07:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Are sourced and not defamatory. There's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to stay. Flyboyrob2112 ( talk) 23:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Your edit begins with "Ramsey claims..." and proceeds with an accusatory, pearl-clutching tone to reveal the awful truth that Ramsey defines racism as prejudice plus power, as if this were remarkable. This is a view shared by Jim Wallis, Cornel West, Ta-Nehisi Coates, W. Kamau Bell, Stanley Fish, and on and on. One way we can tell that this belief is not considered particularly radical or remarkable is that nobody mentions it.
Look at recent news reports mentioning Ramsey: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. We read bland reports saying Ramsey's show was picked up, she's making a pilot, she won this or that award. Her name often comes up as one of the people frequently targeted by alt right trolls. We don't read "The controversial Franchesca Ramsey", or "Ramsey, who *gasp* thinks racism is prejudice plus power, is on Comedy Central".
You are clearly using primary sources with hostile intent to express an opinion of your own. Below there are some reputable sources that do mention the existence of some criticism of Ramsey, and we can carefully summarize what they say. But what you've been trying to do is not allowed. Three different editors, including an administrator User:GorillaWarfare, reverted your clearly tendentious edits. That's a clue. Stop. Instead, work from quality sources, and carefully summarize them, taking a very cautious and conservative approach to any negative statements as required by the BLP policy. You can do that. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 21:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Short version: Read WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPSPS. Do not cite primary sources for negative claims about a living person. "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". Never. Never means never. "But..."! No buts. Never.
This edit by User:Ghoul flesh is exactly the kind of addition that has been deleted from this article a dozen times in the last 5 years or more. You cannot cite primary sources alone to support negative or controversial information about living persons. The fact that the likes of Sargon of Akkad (YouTube) would attack someone like Ramsey says much more about him than her. You know how we can tell that someone is controversial or has faced a real "backlash"? Reliable sources actually say "Franchesca Ramsey is controversial". "There has been a backlash against Franchesca Ramsey". They need to say that in plain English. You are not allowed to infer it. The reason this supposed "controversy" is not ever mentioned in mainstream media is that Ramsesy's opinions about racism are totally unremarkable. They are well within the mainstream of modern African-American studies. The idea that Ramsey herself is somehow at the forefront of any new or radical notions is simply ignorant.
Even if you disagree with that, you still must cite a high-quality, fact-checked, independent reliable source. Not some guy's self-published YouTube videos. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 22:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Is this edit considered WP:CANVASSING? That user was banned for getting into an edit war over one of the things Ghoul flesh wants to add to the article. They're hardly a nonpartisan editor in this situation. -- ChiveFungi ( talk) 01:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
If not, then the WP:BLPN is probably the best venue, or else one of the other options at Dispute resolution. I would ask Ghoul flesh to stop the ad hominem, and other violations of the civility policy. If we are going to discuss whether or not the article can say Ramsey is controversial, anti-white, or the subject of any backlash, can we simply consider the basic question of whether reliable sources do or don't support that? Focus on what counts. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 02:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
To answer your question, it says "The typical campaigns of harassment against individuals like Ramsey are not organic, or spontaneous, but are orchestrated and coordinated attacks involving many participants, starting on both fringe white supremacist websites, and on alt-right, establishment-connected media like Breitbart News", because that is an accurate summary of what the source said (it's misspelled Brietbart if you're using CTRL-F to find it). The point is that an orchestrated campaign is something larger and more lasting than spontaneous individuals. Other sources cited further down support these general conclusions. The overall theme of the section it to describe the scale and relentlessness of the harassment against Ramsey. That's why it's there.
Back to our topic, I don't think it's helpful to keep changing the subject. Do you want to discus the four new sources you have introduced now? Or do you want to start a new discussion about the mention of Breitbart? Keep in mind that this kind of dispute will probably be resolved by third party editors who will read the discussion and give their opinions, but if it's impossible for them to figure out what the issue is, they will throw up their hands and walk away. So one thing at at time, OK? -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 03:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
This is nonsense POV-pushing and slandering of other editors. Come back once you've learnt how to work as part of a team (and bring reliable sources). -- ChiveFungi ( talk) 15:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
It's apparent with the "Online Harassment" section that this article has been beset by her fans anxious to portray her as some sort of martyr. The claim in the very first sentence, "Ramsey has been a target of online harassment, trolling and doxing," is completely unsupported by the two references intended to corroborate this claim. The only term that has an objective definition in that triad is "doxxing." The rest, "online harassment," and "trolling," are Ramsey's own subjective opinion. Her experiences have never been dubbed as harassment in any court of law. The second sentence of this paragraph is objective reporting on a statement made by someone else and can stay as it is. The next sentence is patently absurd and needs to be gone. Or else you could find yourself on a receiving end of a lawsuit. "The typical campaigns of harassment against individuals like Ramsey are not organic, or spontaneous, but are orchestrated and coordinated attacks involving many participants, starting on both fringe white supremacist websites, and on alt-right, establishment-connected media like Breitbart News." Do you have proof that a reasonable person would call this harassment, or is that Ramsey's own opinion? Or that this soi-disant harassment is "orchestrated and coordinated" with other participants? Breitbart's lawyers might have something to say about accusing them of harassment. They would doubtless see this as dissent. And you have no proof whatsoever that any of these sources are "coordinating" their supposed attacks on Ramsey with one another. Ramsey's musings that these attacks are "orchestrated and coordinated" and are "harassment" is not objective fact. It is speculation without proof and subjective opinion. These supposed instances of harassment are not corroborated by any of the source material, but merely Ramsey's own reporting on these incidents. There is no proof that these incidents actually occurred. Moreover, "harassment" is Ramsey's own take on these incidents. And she could hardly be described as objective. And the malware attacks. I assume you have proof that these actually happened, or at least a notable source that reported on this. And you, of course, know for a fact that this was done by the supposed stalker and wasn't some random virus, right? No? All-in-all, this section is extremely shoddy, to say the least. There is no proof of this supposed harassment and whether it's truly harassment is based on Ramsey's personal opinion. This article needs to enter protected status to get Ramsey's fans off this page. 65.33.138.115 ( talk) 04:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
|
Korny O'Near ( talk · contribs) is repeating some of the same arguments from previous discussions of this article, calling the use of sources that don't specifically mention Ramsey as synthesis. This ground has been covered before, as explained in the threads above. If you have anything new to add, please do so. The short version is this: the background facts do not supply a conclusion not stated int he sources. They reinforce conclusions already stated in the sources. Articles about Ramsey say she was the target of organized, coordinated online harassment campaigns. Other sources say that indeed, organized online harassment campaigns work are real, they do exists, and they say that the function in the same way as described by the sources about Ramsey. WP:SYNTH is when the article says things not contained in the sources. There is no requirement that every source in an article must specifically mention the subject of the article. Encyclopedic content needs to be broad and well-founded, and it adds context to narrow facts. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 19:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
There's no basis for these "not the basis for digression" and "irrelevant" claims. It's simply good writing to provide context. It's particularly important to point out that we don't merely have individuals like Ijeoma Oluo claiming that these individuals were targeted for online harassment. We have multiple sources saying that this is exactly what took place. There has been a concerted effort to claim that people like Ramsey are making it all up. This is a part of a much larger tradition of not believing women and not believing minorities. There is significant evidence that this context is necessary.
We have zero reliable sources that contradict anything said her by Ramsey, Olou, or others. If a reliable source were to give us any reason to think this is seriously in dispute, that would be much different. Instead, we only have anonymous online critics and sources with a history of deception, such as Breitbart. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 20:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Do you need "proof" that Ramsey worked in graphic design? Do you need proof that her white girls video went viral? Or that she got a law school scholarship? Yet for this one particular fact, you demand "proof", whatever that entails. We call it Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, what you're doing. It has to be multiple sources, to satisfy your arbitrary demands. How many sources do you require to believe she lives in New York? There's one class of facts that don't bother you, and that you accept with little need for strong sourcing. But you've arbitrarily picked out this other thing and subjected it to this extremely high standard of proof. Why that one fact? Why not others?
The policy you're violating is described at WP:YESPOV. "Avoid stating facts as opinions." As I've emphasized, if this were in any way controversial, as in reliable sources disputed any of this, then I would totally understand why you would ask for multiple sources that make these assertions in clear, strong terms. But this is not a controversy. Zero reliable sources dispute the existence of organized campaigns of harassment against people like Ramsey. We have a source saying it happened. We have leaders working against online harassment, particular at YouTube, namely John Green, who have specifically cited Ramsey as one of the people whose voice is being silenced by this organized harassment. YouTube itself specifically named Ramsey as someone who was affected by this and who they wanted to work with to remedy the problem. We have lots of indirect support for the obvious fact that she was the target of organized harassment.
And we don't need large quantities of sources for uncontroversial facts, like that she lives in New York or went to law school. Carpetboming sources is for disputed or uncertain or controversial facts.
You're taking a non-controversy and selectively making it a controversy. That's POV pushing, tendentious editing. You should take the sources at face value unless other reliable sources give you reason not to. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 19:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Those are odd rhetorical questions... yes, of course some proof is required that she worked in graphic design, etc. And that's all the more true when it's a biography of a living person.
I don't know what you mean by "people like Ramsey", but so far we have one opinion piece that says that Ramsey has been subjected to organized harassment, and one article talking about her experience with (maybe) a single stalker. I'm not aware of any other sources - John Green, YouTube, etc. - who have stated anything on the matter of her harassment. You seem to think that they have, so maybe I just missed it. Where did you see John Green, YouTube or anyone else talking about this? Korny O'Near ( talk) 19:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
If you want to reach consensus, I think you need to start acting in good faith. It goes without saying that you should have done the required reading here, but in this instance, you have even given us specific evidence that you are aware of what I mean, it is bad faith for you to claim "I don't know what you mean." -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 21:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
See http://wondermark.com/1k62/ He showed the same behavior at Talk:Imran Awan. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Korny Near on this. The sources for The typical campaigns of harassment against individuals like Ramsey are not organic, or spontaneous, but are orchestrated and coordinated attacks involving many participants, starting on both fringe
white supremacist websites, and on
alt-right, establishment-connected media like
Breitbart News
just don't cut it. The opinion pieces cannot be used for statements of fact, and the other article doesn't support the claim in the sentence, since it doesn't mention Ramsey at all.
Red Rock Canyon (
talk) 18:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On July 8, 2019, Franchesca announced on her Twitter page that she is in the midst of a divorce. 2600:1003:B007:B72C:2C84:E18D:4F92:AB68 ( talk) 02:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change details under "Early life and education" about Franchesca's move to New York City. It says she moved to go to law school on a scholarship and references this piece for that info: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/10/books/franchesca-ramsey-well-that-escalated-quickly.html, but it was in fact her husband who went to law school, prompting the move. Siskokeepsbees ( talk) 14:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
It's not surprising to see liberal individuals protected by the admins on wiki. It's pretty SOP. That said, it is odd the mountains of controversy surrounding this individual isn't even mentioned. Even when wiki admins blame all controversy on republicans n centrists, or as they like to call em: White supremacist nazis, it's still at least mentioned at some point. The unproven harassment is mentioned, biased n unreliable sources included... yet nothing on the endless controversy MTV Decoded and Franchesca started or were center stage to? I've come to expect a large degree of bias on wiki, with anything even remotely political, yet this even surprises me. This must be an oversight or mistake... right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.212.30 ( talk) 18:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the first specific issue: the harassment is treated as fact by reliable sources. That's all Wikipedia asks for. Calling it "unproven" makes me wonder what constitutes proof. A conviction in a court of law? A photo? What? We don't have to meet a random editor's standard of "proof". The thing to focus on here is not whether you find it convincing, but whether reliable sources do. If our sources don't have a problem with it, then neither do we. We don't shine a spotlight of skepticism on every fact to see if we can poke holes in it. That would violate the no original research policy. What we do is look for other sources -- significant, reliable sources -- who are skeptical, and see if they have sufficient weight.
And that's the problem: nobody with any reliability or weight has questioned the facts here. If we changed this article to claim there is controversy over whether or not Ramsey was harassed, it would violate the WP:YESPOV policy: "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." A controversy requires two sides who disagree, and excluding sources that don't meet WP:RS, there aren't two sides here.
The second part, as Korny asks, is what controversy? According to reliable sources, Franchesca Ramsey is uncontroversial. I know many editors find that unbelievable, but whenever we ask for a citation for a source who criticizes her, all we see are forum posts, social media, and obscure YouTubers. If any of these critics are people we have ever heard of, it's almost always because they are infamous as right wing trolls with a history of dishonesty.
I'm aware that fans of such online personalities are outraged by this, but it's a fair assessment of what mainstream reliable sources say about them. We don't have examples of respected, credible experts who level serious criticisms at Ramsey. The usual answer is that the mainstream media is biased. And Wikipedia's answer to that is: not our problem. Wikipedia isn't the cure for whatever bias may or may not exist in the mainstream. Wikipedia is nothing more or less than an accessible summary of whatever the respected, establishment, mainstream views are. If MSM bias has you outraged, you gotta go take it up with the MSM. We can't help you. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 21:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Ok, looks like there was bit of misunderstanding. I'm not suggesting to remove the harassment bit. In fact, I think that should remain, as although much is badly sourced, it's still part of her history. I'm also not claiming that it is what's controversial. Only pointing out that it remains, while the controversy is strangely absent. When looking at other pages, it always shows up somewhere, at least in passing reference, yet remains absent here. As for what controversy... you're joking right? Regardless of who was right or wrong (Believe it or not, this isn't about that, and I could care less what side the article takes, this is just about including it), to claim there was none isn't just misleading. It's an outright lie. The controversy existed, regardless of if it was grounded in facts or not. Honestly, it's not that hard to see why it happened too. Just watch a few of her decoded videos and imagine "How would a republican respond to this". Anyway, to satisfy you, here is literally the 1st 2 pages on a "franchesca ramsey controversy" google search. https://www.theodysseyonline.com/mtv-web-host-claims-black-people-can-not-racist https://www.dailydot.com/irl/franchesca-ramsey/ https://www.hercampus.com/school/u-mass-amherst/youtube-series-decoded-franchesca-ramsey https://superfame.com/post/shane-dawson-tumblr-franchesca-ramsey/ http://www.cc.com/video-playlists/kw3fj0/the-opposition-with-jordan-klepper-welcome-to-the-opposition-w--jordan-klepper/k2840f https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/632o44/why_is_everyone_angry_at_franchesca_ramsey/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJanCTIhDJ0&app=desktop https://www.neogaf.com/threads/the-internet-really-seems-to-hate-franchesca-ramsey.1323613/page-5 http://whatstrending.com/trending-videos/trending-now/22615-shane-dawson-is-over-party-twitter-controversy/
As you can see, the primary issues people had revolved around Race baiting/racism, and attacks on shane dawson. There's other issues people had too, but these 2 issues took the spotlight most of the time. Personally I was only around for the racism issues people had, I have no clue what the shane dawson issue was, just that it infuriated people. And that's the key. I'm not arguing what the issues were, just that she did indeed anger large groups of people. Aka, she was controversial. I mean good lord, look at her comment sections n like/dislike ratios. Yes, that means nothing for facts, but it proves without shadow of a doubt there was controversy.
Anyway, choice is yours. I wont return to my wiki account, and it's not like I can edit this page as an IP. I hold hope that i'll be pleasantly surprised... but I doubt it. Either way I just don't have the strength to argue with the white knights of wiki, especially when I know it will only end in being shut down n banned/blocked. (Oh, I have no idea what specifics those links go into, as again, my only point is to confirm that yes, there WAS controversy. Honestly didn't think my question would be so contentious, legitimately thought it was just an oversight or mistake. Guess even my low standards for wiki are too high these days) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.212.30 ( talk) 02:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Ha! So the daily dot, as in the same frickin source used to "confirm" the harassment, isn't reliable if it's something you disagree with? Strange. Almost like you didn't even look at the sources, or do any digging what-so-ever. It's almost as if *gasp* this was never about sources, but actually about the political positions of the subject. Good faith my arse. At least maybe one or two people will read this and realize the hypocrisy of the editors on wiki these days. (For the record, I made sure to include liberal RS's, ones confirmed on wiki, to prove a point. Thank you for helping me prove said point.) Anyway, I'm off. No need to reply, I wont be back. After debates on a good 6 dozen topics, with them all going same route, regardless of how benign... well.. I'm now convinced there is no saving wikipedia. The far left extremists have clearly taken full control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.212.30 ( talk) 15:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
In Wikipedia's terms, the accusation that Ramsey is the real racist is what we call a fringe theory. Sort of like Bill Nye getting attacks because he says man made climate change is real, or kooks threatening an astronomer who says Pluto is no longer defined as a planet. If someone yells threats at Bill Nye, that does not call climate change into question, it only demonstrates that an angry lunatic fringe exists. Wikipedia has a policy on this: WP:WIKIVOICE. "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." Ramsey's points about racism are uncontested by reliable sources. Her trustworthiness is uncontested by reliable sources. When she says she was harassed and threatened, no reliable sources question it.
So we can all agree Ramsey was virulently attacked on social media. The article clearly says she was. What the article does not say is that these attacks represented a significant point of view. It doesn't dispute that she was doxxed or harassed at her workplace. It doesn't suggest these attacks where legitimate. I think that's what you're objecting to. You want the article to say that she has been criticized for treating whites unfairly. You want the article to call into question that she was really harassed. Or something like that. You want her critics to be taken seriously.
We can both agree that you're probably wasting your time talking to me. You seem to think I'll never listen to your well-reasoned arguments and I'll never acknowledge your high quality sources. Maybe you should try barking up a different tree? Go to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Start a new thread and provide 1.) your source, 2.) the article Franchesca Ramsey and 3.) the statement you want to attribute to the source. I think you need to be specific here. The article already says she has been attacked by trolls and harassers. You want to elevate that to something else. State exactly what you want it to say and what your source is.
Who knows? Maybe they'll listen. I think they will probably patiently explain to you that YouTube and Reddit are not reliable, and that you've misinterpreted many of your sources like Daily Dot and Her Campus. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 21:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Alright, I stand corrected. I honestly did not expect a polite response after you dismissed me earlier. I apologize for my tone and word choice. It seems the issue might actually be a pretty big misunderstanding. Although, yes, I am of the camp that considers her views racist, it's not actually about that. Honestly there is a fair argument to be had to the contrary. What I am suggesting, is among certain large demographics (Specifically Conservatives and the Anti-SJW crowds), she was indeed considered to be controversial. I mean, to qualify as a controversial person, it doesn't take much. Simply causing division between groups is controversial, which is indeed something her videos accomplished. She is loved by certain large groups, especially Liberals, and hated by other equally large groups. That truly is my only point. Nothing of the content of the controversy, just that it existed. The Daily Dot, for example, supports her fully, but even they admit in that article there was controversy. That's why I originally said I couldn't care less what side the article takes, if only it would be recognized. Honestly the harassment, if it is actually true, serves as a good indicator of the large number of people she upset.
I do want to apologize again though. I assumed you would be much more hostile, and wrongly so. Possibly I was spurred on by the remnants of an earlier argument, where I was insulted n shut down immediately. Regardless, that's no excuse. My attitude toward you was uncalled for. I truly am sorry. I severely misjudged you it seems. Also, thank you for taking the time to give a reasoned and polite response. It's a real breath of fresh air. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.212.30 ( talk) 04:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree with the other IP editor, There was a lot of controversy around this person. Was all over internet. Some people rly didn't like her. I don rly have opinion bout her, but she sparked lots of anger. I dunno why thats contentious tho? Isn't all tht pretty common knowledge? I mean she got lots of harassment n hate mail n such, n tons of influencers went off over her, n huge groups went after her from wht i understand. seems like controversy to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.11.109.184 ( talk) 05:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
It appears the conversation has ended. Seems to happen too often. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealKysier ( talk • contribs) 13:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
This is just my own personal take away from what the IP editor was saying, but I think he's trying to say the reliability of the trolls involved doesn't matter, since even a bunch of arses "skreeing" is controversy if enough of em skree. Also controversy rarely has an RS. It's almost always just a bunch of people screeching on some platform these days. Usually youtube or twitter. Also though, I'd like to point out, after reading entire text wall, I agree completely with Dennis. Not because of the RS thing, but just because this is the stupidest reason to get into an argument over. It's a Tomahto/Tomayto situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealKysier ( talk • contribs) 13:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Franchesca Ramsey. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Franchesca Ramsey at the Reference desk. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This person is a "Youtube personality"? That's notable? 24.90.121.4 ( talk) 07:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Are sourced and not defamatory. There's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to stay. Flyboyrob2112 ( talk) 23:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Your edit begins with "Ramsey claims..." and proceeds with an accusatory, pearl-clutching tone to reveal the awful truth that Ramsey defines racism as prejudice plus power, as if this were remarkable. This is a view shared by Jim Wallis, Cornel West, Ta-Nehisi Coates, W. Kamau Bell, Stanley Fish, and on and on. One way we can tell that this belief is not considered particularly radical or remarkable is that nobody mentions it.
Look at recent news reports mentioning Ramsey: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. We read bland reports saying Ramsey's show was picked up, she's making a pilot, she won this or that award. Her name often comes up as one of the people frequently targeted by alt right trolls. We don't read "The controversial Franchesca Ramsey", or "Ramsey, who *gasp* thinks racism is prejudice plus power, is on Comedy Central".
You are clearly using primary sources with hostile intent to express an opinion of your own. Below there are some reputable sources that do mention the existence of some criticism of Ramsey, and we can carefully summarize what they say. But what you've been trying to do is not allowed. Three different editors, including an administrator User:GorillaWarfare, reverted your clearly tendentious edits. That's a clue. Stop. Instead, work from quality sources, and carefully summarize them, taking a very cautious and conservative approach to any negative statements as required by the BLP policy. You can do that. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 21:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Short version: Read WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPSPS. Do not cite primary sources for negative claims about a living person. "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". Never. Never means never. "But..."! No buts. Never.
This edit by User:Ghoul flesh is exactly the kind of addition that has been deleted from this article a dozen times in the last 5 years or more. You cannot cite primary sources alone to support negative or controversial information about living persons. The fact that the likes of Sargon of Akkad (YouTube) would attack someone like Ramsey says much more about him than her. You know how we can tell that someone is controversial or has faced a real "backlash"? Reliable sources actually say "Franchesca Ramsey is controversial". "There has been a backlash against Franchesca Ramsey". They need to say that in plain English. You are not allowed to infer it. The reason this supposed "controversy" is not ever mentioned in mainstream media is that Ramsesy's opinions about racism are totally unremarkable. They are well within the mainstream of modern African-American studies. The idea that Ramsey herself is somehow at the forefront of any new or radical notions is simply ignorant.
Even if you disagree with that, you still must cite a high-quality, fact-checked, independent reliable source. Not some guy's self-published YouTube videos. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 22:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Is this edit considered WP:CANVASSING? That user was banned for getting into an edit war over one of the things Ghoul flesh wants to add to the article. They're hardly a nonpartisan editor in this situation. -- ChiveFungi ( talk) 01:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
If not, then the WP:BLPN is probably the best venue, or else one of the other options at Dispute resolution. I would ask Ghoul flesh to stop the ad hominem, and other violations of the civility policy. If we are going to discuss whether or not the article can say Ramsey is controversial, anti-white, or the subject of any backlash, can we simply consider the basic question of whether reliable sources do or don't support that? Focus on what counts. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 02:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
To answer your question, it says "The typical campaigns of harassment against individuals like Ramsey are not organic, or spontaneous, but are orchestrated and coordinated attacks involving many participants, starting on both fringe white supremacist websites, and on alt-right, establishment-connected media like Breitbart News", because that is an accurate summary of what the source said (it's misspelled Brietbart if you're using CTRL-F to find it). The point is that an orchestrated campaign is something larger and more lasting than spontaneous individuals. Other sources cited further down support these general conclusions. The overall theme of the section it to describe the scale and relentlessness of the harassment against Ramsey. That's why it's there.
Back to our topic, I don't think it's helpful to keep changing the subject. Do you want to discus the four new sources you have introduced now? Or do you want to start a new discussion about the mention of Breitbart? Keep in mind that this kind of dispute will probably be resolved by third party editors who will read the discussion and give their opinions, but if it's impossible for them to figure out what the issue is, they will throw up their hands and walk away. So one thing at at time, OK? -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 03:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
This is nonsense POV-pushing and slandering of other editors. Come back once you've learnt how to work as part of a team (and bring reliable sources). -- ChiveFungi ( talk) 15:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
It's apparent with the "Online Harassment" section that this article has been beset by her fans anxious to portray her as some sort of martyr. The claim in the very first sentence, "Ramsey has been a target of online harassment, trolling and doxing," is completely unsupported by the two references intended to corroborate this claim. The only term that has an objective definition in that triad is "doxxing." The rest, "online harassment," and "trolling," are Ramsey's own subjective opinion. Her experiences have never been dubbed as harassment in any court of law. The second sentence of this paragraph is objective reporting on a statement made by someone else and can stay as it is. The next sentence is patently absurd and needs to be gone. Or else you could find yourself on a receiving end of a lawsuit. "The typical campaigns of harassment against individuals like Ramsey are not organic, or spontaneous, but are orchestrated and coordinated attacks involving many participants, starting on both fringe white supremacist websites, and on alt-right, establishment-connected media like Breitbart News." Do you have proof that a reasonable person would call this harassment, or is that Ramsey's own opinion? Or that this soi-disant harassment is "orchestrated and coordinated" with other participants? Breitbart's lawyers might have something to say about accusing them of harassment. They would doubtless see this as dissent. And you have no proof whatsoever that any of these sources are "coordinating" their supposed attacks on Ramsey with one another. Ramsey's musings that these attacks are "orchestrated and coordinated" and are "harassment" is not objective fact. It is speculation without proof and subjective opinion. These supposed instances of harassment are not corroborated by any of the source material, but merely Ramsey's own reporting on these incidents. There is no proof that these incidents actually occurred. Moreover, "harassment" is Ramsey's own take on these incidents. And she could hardly be described as objective. And the malware attacks. I assume you have proof that these actually happened, or at least a notable source that reported on this. And you, of course, know for a fact that this was done by the supposed stalker and wasn't some random virus, right? No? All-in-all, this section is extremely shoddy, to say the least. There is no proof of this supposed harassment and whether it's truly harassment is based on Ramsey's personal opinion. This article needs to enter protected status to get Ramsey's fans off this page. 65.33.138.115 ( talk) 04:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
|
Korny O'Near ( talk · contribs) is repeating some of the same arguments from previous discussions of this article, calling the use of sources that don't specifically mention Ramsey as synthesis. This ground has been covered before, as explained in the threads above. If you have anything new to add, please do so. The short version is this: the background facts do not supply a conclusion not stated int he sources. They reinforce conclusions already stated in the sources. Articles about Ramsey say she was the target of organized, coordinated online harassment campaigns. Other sources say that indeed, organized online harassment campaigns work are real, they do exists, and they say that the function in the same way as described by the sources about Ramsey. WP:SYNTH is when the article says things not contained in the sources. There is no requirement that every source in an article must specifically mention the subject of the article. Encyclopedic content needs to be broad and well-founded, and it adds context to narrow facts. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 19:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
There's no basis for these "not the basis for digression" and "irrelevant" claims. It's simply good writing to provide context. It's particularly important to point out that we don't merely have individuals like Ijeoma Oluo claiming that these individuals were targeted for online harassment. We have multiple sources saying that this is exactly what took place. There has been a concerted effort to claim that people like Ramsey are making it all up. This is a part of a much larger tradition of not believing women and not believing minorities. There is significant evidence that this context is necessary.
We have zero reliable sources that contradict anything said her by Ramsey, Olou, or others. If a reliable source were to give us any reason to think this is seriously in dispute, that would be much different. Instead, we only have anonymous online critics and sources with a history of deception, such as Breitbart. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 20:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Do you need "proof" that Ramsey worked in graphic design? Do you need proof that her white girls video went viral? Or that she got a law school scholarship? Yet for this one particular fact, you demand "proof", whatever that entails. We call it Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, what you're doing. It has to be multiple sources, to satisfy your arbitrary demands. How many sources do you require to believe she lives in New York? There's one class of facts that don't bother you, and that you accept with little need for strong sourcing. But you've arbitrarily picked out this other thing and subjected it to this extremely high standard of proof. Why that one fact? Why not others?
The policy you're violating is described at WP:YESPOV. "Avoid stating facts as opinions." As I've emphasized, if this were in any way controversial, as in reliable sources disputed any of this, then I would totally understand why you would ask for multiple sources that make these assertions in clear, strong terms. But this is not a controversy. Zero reliable sources dispute the existence of organized campaigns of harassment against people like Ramsey. We have a source saying it happened. We have leaders working against online harassment, particular at YouTube, namely John Green, who have specifically cited Ramsey as one of the people whose voice is being silenced by this organized harassment. YouTube itself specifically named Ramsey as someone who was affected by this and who they wanted to work with to remedy the problem. We have lots of indirect support for the obvious fact that she was the target of organized harassment.
And we don't need large quantities of sources for uncontroversial facts, like that she lives in New York or went to law school. Carpetboming sources is for disputed or uncertain or controversial facts.
You're taking a non-controversy and selectively making it a controversy. That's POV pushing, tendentious editing. You should take the sources at face value unless other reliable sources give you reason not to. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 19:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Those are odd rhetorical questions... yes, of course some proof is required that she worked in graphic design, etc. And that's all the more true when it's a biography of a living person.
I don't know what you mean by "people like Ramsey", but so far we have one opinion piece that says that Ramsey has been subjected to organized harassment, and one article talking about her experience with (maybe) a single stalker. I'm not aware of any other sources - John Green, YouTube, etc. - who have stated anything on the matter of her harassment. You seem to think that they have, so maybe I just missed it. Where did you see John Green, YouTube or anyone else talking about this? Korny O'Near ( talk) 19:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
If you want to reach consensus, I think you need to start acting in good faith. It goes without saying that you should have done the required reading here, but in this instance, you have even given us specific evidence that you are aware of what I mean, it is bad faith for you to claim "I don't know what you mean." -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 21:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
See http://wondermark.com/1k62/ He showed the same behavior at Talk:Imran Awan. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Korny Near on this. The sources for The typical campaigns of harassment against individuals like Ramsey are not organic, or spontaneous, but are orchestrated and coordinated attacks involving many participants, starting on both fringe
white supremacist websites, and on
alt-right, establishment-connected media like
Breitbart News
just don't cut it. The opinion pieces cannot be used for statements of fact, and the other article doesn't support the claim in the sentence, since it doesn't mention Ramsey at all.
Red Rock Canyon (
talk) 18:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On July 8, 2019, Franchesca announced on her Twitter page that she is in the midst of a divorce. 2600:1003:B007:B72C:2C84:E18D:4F92:AB68 ( talk) 02:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change details under "Early life and education" about Franchesca's move to New York City. It says she moved to go to law school on a scholarship and references this piece for that info: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/10/books/franchesca-ramsey-well-that-escalated-quickly.html, but it was in fact her husband who went to law school, prompting the move. Siskokeepsbees ( talk) 14:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
It's not surprising to see liberal individuals protected by the admins on wiki. It's pretty SOP. That said, it is odd the mountains of controversy surrounding this individual isn't even mentioned. Even when wiki admins blame all controversy on republicans n centrists, or as they like to call em: White supremacist nazis, it's still at least mentioned at some point. The unproven harassment is mentioned, biased n unreliable sources included... yet nothing on the endless controversy MTV Decoded and Franchesca started or were center stage to? I've come to expect a large degree of bias on wiki, with anything even remotely political, yet this even surprises me. This must be an oversight or mistake... right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.212.30 ( talk) 18:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the first specific issue: the harassment is treated as fact by reliable sources. That's all Wikipedia asks for. Calling it "unproven" makes me wonder what constitutes proof. A conviction in a court of law? A photo? What? We don't have to meet a random editor's standard of "proof". The thing to focus on here is not whether you find it convincing, but whether reliable sources do. If our sources don't have a problem with it, then neither do we. We don't shine a spotlight of skepticism on every fact to see if we can poke holes in it. That would violate the no original research policy. What we do is look for other sources -- significant, reliable sources -- who are skeptical, and see if they have sufficient weight.
And that's the problem: nobody with any reliability or weight has questioned the facts here. If we changed this article to claim there is controversy over whether or not Ramsey was harassed, it would violate the WP:YESPOV policy: "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." A controversy requires two sides who disagree, and excluding sources that don't meet WP:RS, there aren't two sides here.
The second part, as Korny asks, is what controversy? According to reliable sources, Franchesca Ramsey is uncontroversial. I know many editors find that unbelievable, but whenever we ask for a citation for a source who criticizes her, all we see are forum posts, social media, and obscure YouTubers. If any of these critics are people we have ever heard of, it's almost always because they are infamous as right wing trolls with a history of dishonesty.
I'm aware that fans of such online personalities are outraged by this, but it's a fair assessment of what mainstream reliable sources say about them. We don't have examples of respected, credible experts who level serious criticisms at Ramsey. The usual answer is that the mainstream media is biased. And Wikipedia's answer to that is: not our problem. Wikipedia isn't the cure for whatever bias may or may not exist in the mainstream. Wikipedia is nothing more or less than an accessible summary of whatever the respected, establishment, mainstream views are. If MSM bias has you outraged, you gotta go take it up with the MSM. We can't help you. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 21:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Ok, looks like there was bit of misunderstanding. I'm not suggesting to remove the harassment bit. In fact, I think that should remain, as although much is badly sourced, it's still part of her history. I'm also not claiming that it is what's controversial. Only pointing out that it remains, while the controversy is strangely absent. When looking at other pages, it always shows up somewhere, at least in passing reference, yet remains absent here. As for what controversy... you're joking right? Regardless of who was right or wrong (Believe it or not, this isn't about that, and I could care less what side the article takes, this is just about including it), to claim there was none isn't just misleading. It's an outright lie. The controversy existed, regardless of if it was grounded in facts or not. Honestly, it's not that hard to see why it happened too. Just watch a few of her decoded videos and imagine "How would a republican respond to this". Anyway, to satisfy you, here is literally the 1st 2 pages on a "franchesca ramsey controversy" google search. https://www.theodysseyonline.com/mtv-web-host-claims-black-people-can-not-racist https://www.dailydot.com/irl/franchesca-ramsey/ https://www.hercampus.com/school/u-mass-amherst/youtube-series-decoded-franchesca-ramsey https://superfame.com/post/shane-dawson-tumblr-franchesca-ramsey/ http://www.cc.com/video-playlists/kw3fj0/the-opposition-with-jordan-klepper-welcome-to-the-opposition-w--jordan-klepper/k2840f https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/632o44/why_is_everyone_angry_at_franchesca_ramsey/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJanCTIhDJ0&app=desktop https://www.neogaf.com/threads/the-internet-really-seems-to-hate-franchesca-ramsey.1323613/page-5 http://whatstrending.com/trending-videos/trending-now/22615-shane-dawson-is-over-party-twitter-controversy/
As you can see, the primary issues people had revolved around Race baiting/racism, and attacks on shane dawson. There's other issues people had too, but these 2 issues took the spotlight most of the time. Personally I was only around for the racism issues people had, I have no clue what the shane dawson issue was, just that it infuriated people. And that's the key. I'm not arguing what the issues were, just that she did indeed anger large groups of people. Aka, she was controversial. I mean good lord, look at her comment sections n like/dislike ratios. Yes, that means nothing for facts, but it proves without shadow of a doubt there was controversy.
Anyway, choice is yours. I wont return to my wiki account, and it's not like I can edit this page as an IP. I hold hope that i'll be pleasantly surprised... but I doubt it. Either way I just don't have the strength to argue with the white knights of wiki, especially when I know it will only end in being shut down n banned/blocked. (Oh, I have no idea what specifics those links go into, as again, my only point is to confirm that yes, there WAS controversy. Honestly didn't think my question would be so contentious, legitimately thought it was just an oversight or mistake. Guess even my low standards for wiki are too high these days) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.212.30 ( talk) 02:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Ha! So the daily dot, as in the same frickin source used to "confirm" the harassment, isn't reliable if it's something you disagree with? Strange. Almost like you didn't even look at the sources, or do any digging what-so-ever. It's almost as if *gasp* this was never about sources, but actually about the political positions of the subject. Good faith my arse. At least maybe one or two people will read this and realize the hypocrisy of the editors on wiki these days. (For the record, I made sure to include liberal RS's, ones confirmed on wiki, to prove a point. Thank you for helping me prove said point.) Anyway, I'm off. No need to reply, I wont be back. After debates on a good 6 dozen topics, with them all going same route, regardless of how benign... well.. I'm now convinced there is no saving wikipedia. The far left extremists have clearly taken full control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.212.30 ( talk) 15:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
In Wikipedia's terms, the accusation that Ramsey is the real racist is what we call a fringe theory. Sort of like Bill Nye getting attacks because he says man made climate change is real, or kooks threatening an astronomer who says Pluto is no longer defined as a planet. If someone yells threats at Bill Nye, that does not call climate change into question, it only demonstrates that an angry lunatic fringe exists. Wikipedia has a policy on this: WP:WIKIVOICE. "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." Ramsey's points about racism are uncontested by reliable sources. Her trustworthiness is uncontested by reliable sources. When she says she was harassed and threatened, no reliable sources question it.
So we can all agree Ramsey was virulently attacked on social media. The article clearly says she was. What the article does not say is that these attacks represented a significant point of view. It doesn't dispute that she was doxxed or harassed at her workplace. It doesn't suggest these attacks where legitimate. I think that's what you're objecting to. You want the article to say that she has been criticized for treating whites unfairly. You want the article to call into question that she was really harassed. Or something like that. You want her critics to be taken seriously.
We can both agree that you're probably wasting your time talking to me. You seem to think I'll never listen to your well-reasoned arguments and I'll never acknowledge your high quality sources. Maybe you should try barking up a different tree? Go to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Start a new thread and provide 1.) your source, 2.) the article Franchesca Ramsey and 3.) the statement you want to attribute to the source. I think you need to be specific here. The article already says she has been attacked by trolls and harassers. You want to elevate that to something else. State exactly what you want it to say and what your source is.
Who knows? Maybe they'll listen. I think they will probably patiently explain to you that YouTube and Reddit are not reliable, and that you've misinterpreted many of your sources like Daily Dot and Her Campus. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 21:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Alright, I stand corrected. I honestly did not expect a polite response after you dismissed me earlier. I apologize for my tone and word choice. It seems the issue might actually be a pretty big misunderstanding. Although, yes, I am of the camp that considers her views racist, it's not actually about that. Honestly there is a fair argument to be had to the contrary. What I am suggesting, is among certain large demographics (Specifically Conservatives and the Anti-SJW crowds), she was indeed considered to be controversial. I mean, to qualify as a controversial person, it doesn't take much. Simply causing division between groups is controversial, which is indeed something her videos accomplished. She is loved by certain large groups, especially Liberals, and hated by other equally large groups. That truly is my only point. Nothing of the content of the controversy, just that it existed. The Daily Dot, for example, supports her fully, but even they admit in that article there was controversy. That's why I originally said I couldn't care less what side the article takes, if only it would be recognized. Honestly the harassment, if it is actually true, serves as a good indicator of the large number of people she upset.
I do want to apologize again though. I assumed you would be much more hostile, and wrongly so. Possibly I was spurred on by the remnants of an earlier argument, where I was insulted n shut down immediately. Regardless, that's no excuse. My attitude toward you was uncalled for. I truly am sorry. I severely misjudged you it seems. Also, thank you for taking the time to give a reasoned and polite response. It's a real breath of fresh air. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.212.30 ( talk) 04:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree with the other IP editor, There was a lot of controversy around this person. Was all over internet. Some people rly didn't like her. I don rly have opinion bout her, but she sparked lots of anger. I dunno why thats contentious tho? Isn't all tht pretty common knowledge? I mean she got lots of harassment n hate mail n such, n tons of influencers went off over her, n huge groups went after her from wht i understand. seems like controversy to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.11.109.184 ( talk) 05:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
It appears the conversation has ended. Seems to happen too often. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealKysier ( talk • contribs) 13:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
This is just my own personal take away from what the IP editor was saying, but I think he's trying to say the reliability of the trolls involved doesn't matter, since even a bunch of arses "skreeing" is controversy if enough of em skree. Also controversy rarely has an RS. It's almost always just a bunch of people screeching on some platform these days. Usually youtube or twitter. Also though, I'd like to point out, after reading entire text wall, I agree completely with Dennis. Not because of the RS thing, but just because this is the stupidest reason to get into an argument over. It's a Tomahto/Tomayto situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealKysier ( talk • contribs) 13:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)