This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Zuby article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Zuby has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
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 GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
This new article was rejected by GoingBatty because it lacked references that: "show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject"
So.... I've added more sources, all of which fulfill the above criteria:
a) the new sources are articles dedicated to Zuby (not just passing mentions), and, b) the new sources are some of the largest newspapers in the world (and, presumably, are published, reliable, secondary sources, independent of Zuby).
The_Sun_(United_Kingdom) (largest newspaper in the UK) wrote article dedicated to Zuby: [1]
The Times wrote article dedicated to Zuby: [2]
Washington Examiner wrote article dedicated to Zuby: [3]
RT_(TV_network) (Russian TV network) wrote article dedicated to Zuby. [4]
Sky News dedicated article: [5]
Spiked_(magazine) dedicated article: [6]
All of these references are very large news organizations, and independent of Zuby. Thus, this article should now be included in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisefroggy ( talk • contribs) 23:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
References
The result of the move request was: Wrong forum. If you believe he does not meet notability guidelines, nominate the article for deletion at WP:AFD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Zuby (rapper) → ? – This page does not meet notability guidelines, all information and sources relate to one controversial story, and one news report of an incident that does not relate to him as a person. I have done a good faith search and he has released music, but isn't notable for it (not reviewed in the press, or talked about in general) He does however have a large twitter following, but this isn't necessarily notable in itself unless he was noted for it in other secondary sources. For that reason I believe the title should be changed according to the notability guidelines to reflect the incident, not the person.- Benakt ( talk) 18:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Current Consensus:
Wisefroggy I don’t really have any way of disproving your accusations, (also I’m new, what does SPA mean- I tried googling but it only came up with a health spa) but I do think accusing me of sock-puppetry instead of finding a single article about Zuby as a rapper, not as part of a controversy unrelated to his supposed music career is an admission that whatever happens, the deletion of the page is appropriate. When I signed up I was under the impression that it wasn’t about how many edits you had made, it was about the facts, and about meeting the notability guidelines. This article clearly doesn’t meet said guidelines and surely the fact you have made thousands of edits in the past should not allow you to bend the rules. I think that destroys the sanctity of Wikipedia. Looking through the article History it seems you tried for ages to get this page created too, and many others disagreed with the initial creation. You threw sources at the wall, mischaracterised them to create a page which according to the guidelines shouldn’t have been made, a rapper page for a commentator and controversialist who wants to be known as a rapper. I joined Wikipedia because I was trying to find a source for claims Zuby made on twitter and it turned out that his Wikipedia was filled with unsubstantiated claims too, so I tried to help rectify that. I don’t know why you’re so invested in an article that shouldn’t be here according to Wikipedia’s own guidelines but you’re very welcome to it- just know that I think that wanting your article to be up, maybe because of your ego, does damage to Wikipedia and lends credit to the argument to those who say “anyone could edit it” when discussing credibility of the site as a whole. If things like this are upheld I think they will be the eventual cause of distrust of Wikipedia. I’m disappointed but not surprised. Benakt ( talk) 08:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
References
auto
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Bilorv ( talk · contribs) 17:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Alright, let's just say the fourth GA criterion might be more important here than for the average article. Thoughts on a first pass (more to come if these are addressed):
Thanks for the nomination and the work so far in aiming for neutrality on some heated topics. — Bilorv ( talk) 17:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Please see MOS:LEADLENGTH article size fewer than 15,000 characters one or two paragraphs. Also, we don't start by stating what an individual is "known for," notable aspects speak for themselves. Additionally, biographical information peripheral to why the subject is notable - such as place of birth, education etc. is not relevant to the lead. Also, struggling with the "rapper" description, there is no evidence of notability in this field, and all of his recorded material is self-published, no records of sale, charting, release press coverage etc. Acous mana 10:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
said that he "identified as a woman", though that's kind of already implied in the sentence already:
with a statement saying he broke the British women's deadlift record while "identifying as a woman."Commentary about the sincerity of his statement would make sense in the body of the article though. ‑‑ Volteer1 ( talk) 02:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
I’ve got a problem with “he broke the record” in the last paragraph - it’s not a record recognised by UK Powerlifting ( https://www.britishpowerlifting.org/documents/1012_female_classic_records_30-06-21.pdf) and so shouldn’t be acknowledged as such. I propose “he performed the stunt” instead, although the edit has been reverted.
On 29 April 2021, an IP editor 2a02:c7f:1875:c800:a020:93e3:80f1:1bee Added two categories Category:Criticism of political correctness and Category:Discrimination against transgender people without sources or an edit summary [4]. Minutes later, this was reverted by Crossroads per " WP:CATPOV, WP:BLP, WP:LABEL" [5]. Today these categories were readded without sources to the article by Acousmana with the summary "not sure why these categories were removed" [6]. I shortly reverted with the summary "Criticism of political correctness" is not mentioned at all in this article. Nor the explict use of "discrimination" against transgender people. If RSs state he is discriminating against transgender people then we can readd the cat" [7]. Acousmana then reverted me saying "was suspended from Twitter over transgender spat, it's sourced, it's in the article" [8]. This was then reverted by Volteer1 saying "As spy-cicle said, I see nothing in the article about a criticism of political correctness. Regarding the twitter ban, I don't think violating Twitter TOS allows us to state that a living person is discriminating against transgender people unless reliable sources do" [9]. Acousmana then readded the Category:Discrimination against transgender people saying "both World Athletics and the IOC have provisions for the inclusion of transgender competitors, there are regulations, if adhered to, no issue - Zuby's pronouncements, per sources, discriminate against said competitors" [10]. Categories have to be defining and verifiable not A said B mean C hence add the C category. Nothing on the article explcitly states he is Discriminating against transgender people. Regards Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 17:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
a defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having. Regarding the the first category, he's clearly a critic of political correctness (he certainly talks about it a lot: [11] [12] [13]), if RS were to talk about what he's been doing post-viral tweet (ranting against political correctness or whatever else) we can add it to the article and the category would be fine to include, though I'm not sure anyone's really cared that much about his attempts to milk his 15 minutes of fame. Regarding the second, it matters little what we think discrimination is and what we think discrimination isn't, if reliable sources don't
commonly and consistentlydescribe Zuby as being a discriminator of trans people then it shouldn't be a category – we should be careful also to not rub up against WP:CATPOV here. ‑‑ Volteer1 ( talk) 17:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Acousmana I am not saying that Zuby SPS (Twitter) is not reliable for his own opinions. The article content comes before categorisation per WP:CATV. So do you agree (yes or no) that per WP:CATV that the article content has be laid out well in the article first before any kind of categorization? Next if yes, why do you think using a solely primary source is it a due inclusion relating to his views of political correctness for it to be added in the article? If there were reliable secondary sources perhaps I could understand. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 03:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
More as a curiosity than a content dispute, is it fair to state the following:
Seems like it could be SYNTH to draw this causality even though it seems superficially evident. As a new editor I'm just wondering when we can make inferences like this and when we cannot in the absence of a secondary source that explicitly draws the connection. Thanks for any input. SmolBrane ( talk) 22:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Mikehawk10 ( talk · contribs) 20:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Let's take a look-see.
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Passes my copyediting eye. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 06:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC) | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | I believe that this is MOS-compliant. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 06:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC) | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | There is a reference list at the bottom of the article that is a list of all information in the article. This is compliant with the guidelines for layout, as it correctly placed at the end of the article and it does not cause other MOS issues with its placement. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 02:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC) | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | The article currently makes reference to many primary sources, including a
self-published sources/interview statements used in an
WP:ABOUTSELF manner. When using primary sources, it's important to not engage in novel synthesis or to give them undue weight. The sentence that's a string of podcasts that he's been in, unless it has been covered in a secondary source, is eh in terms of this policy. If there are secondary sources to back it up, then feel free to insert them, but absent them it needs to go; I don't see it carrying due weight even if it's not strictly OR. It also might be worth attributing to whom and when he said specific things; noting the interview would be better in terms of how we typically use primary sources. I'd suggest something along the lines of Speaking with Ben Shapiro on The Ben Shapiro Sunday Show, Zuby said..., though obviously some equivalent phrasing would work. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 04:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC) | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | A WP:EARWIG analysis shows that there is content published on other websites, but it's entirely limited to quotations from the article subject, so there is no apparent copyright violation present. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 02:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC) | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | The article appears to address most of the main aspects of the topic well. It's clear from a summary of coverage that much of his coverage is related to the police incident in 2008 and subsequent political activity. There are a few areas that I suspect could be improved; he apparently has
children that get no mention whatsoever in the current article, and I'm honestly a bit surprised that there aren't any reviews in the article for his music. I'm going to ask
Spy-cicle to do a deep dig again; I suspect that there's something more out there on his music, though my googling abilities have not been able to find it. If the user can't find anything, no big deal, but I'd like a bit more certainty on that respect. —
Mikehawk10 (
talk) 04:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Also, to add on to the above, I'm seeing characterizations of his politics on (trans)gender-related issues and some music festival as being lumped together under "views". I suspect that there has to be some article out there that more generally characterizes his politics (I'm seeing a lot of coverage from Fox News and this piece in particular describes him as a "classical liberal", so I suspect that there is something more there about his politics more broadly). — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 04:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC) I'm also seeing some characterizations of his following form sources like Politico. His views on coronavirus lockdowns and vaccine mandates also appear to be in a few articles I've perused. I'm putting this on hold; the views section needs to be improved substantially to better represent his politics more broadly. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 04:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC) | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | The article currently stays focused on Zuby. The descriptions of the police incident, while highly detailed, are all pertinent to the article subject and are well-written. The "views" section needs to be improved, per my comment in 3A, and I will re-analyze focus after changes are made before a final judgement occurs. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 04:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC) | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | The article has no signs of recent edit warring or instability. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 02:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC) | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | All media (one image) is properly licensed with a CC-BY-SA 2.0 license, which is compatible with Wikipedia's license. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 02:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC) | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | The image is a photograph of the individual in the infobox. The caption is appropriate. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 02:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC) | |
7. Overall assessment. |
Two questions for Spy-cicle:
— Mikehawk10 ( talk) 02:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Spy-cicle:
— Mhawk10 ( talk) 05:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Do you have a better category you'd like this to be placed into if it passes review? — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 13:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I have a lot to say here, but first, I want to clarify this: @ Spy-cicle, are you of the opinion that Zuby did factually break the British women's deadlift record? -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she/they) 15:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
In March 2019, Udezue received media attention after posting a video on Twitter of himself performing a deadlift of 238 kg (525 lb), with a statement saying he had broken the British women's deadlift record while "identifying as a woman".and
In March 2019, Udezue received media attention after posting on Twitter a video of himself performing a deadlift of 238 kg (525 lb), and subsequently stating he had broken the British women's deadlift record while "identifying as a woman".could be taken to mean that he broke the record? Whenever describing false claims in the encyclopedia's voice, we must take pains not to give readers the impression that those claims are true. That's why I added the citation to the reliable source saying he didn't break the record, and why I changed "statement saying" and "stating" to "claimed". They are less ambiguous. Usually, our articles are even less ambiguous about such things: The article on Donald Trump, for instance, says "falsely claimed" five times. But in this context I think a simple "claimed" is, just barely, enough to make clear it's not a thing that actually happened. But the current wording implies that, at best, Wikipedia is neutral as to whether he broke the record.Would you please self-revert? I would like to work with you to fix the major problems this article had at the time it passed GAN, issues that I would like to AGF are the result of you just not paying enough attention to whether the article was skewing toward a particular POV, which is an easy enough mistake to make if you get lost in all the sources; but if you're going to stonewall me on that, then I think it will have to go to a GACR. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she/they) 04:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
[T]he weightlifting hip-hop artist and Oxford graduate who set out to demonstrate that athletes who are genetically male should not be competing alongside womenare not the words of a publication describing a genuine breaking of a record. They're the words of a publication signal-boosting a publicity stunt by a public figure whose POV they're known to be sympathetic to. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she/they) 20:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
The addition of a one sentence summary of who the subject has been interviewed by has been repeatedly deleted by user:acousmana. The reasons for the multiple deletions vary (please see history [26] for summaries.
[[User::acousmana]], there are primary sources, I've added seconday sources per your suggestion, and all are WP:RS. As for notability: the interviews listed have audiences in the tens of millions. That is notable. Also, please ensure you do not violate 3RR. Wisefroggy ( talk) 23:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
This article seems overly detailed to me. I'll try and give it a trim to make it more concise. Seaweed ( talk) 15:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Zuby article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Zuby has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
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 GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
This new article was rejected by GoingBatty because it lacked references that: "show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject"
So.... I've added more sources, all of which fulfill the above criteria:
a) the new sources are articles dedicated to Zuby (not just passing mentions), and, b) the new sources are some of the largest newspapers in the world (and, presumably, are published, reliable, secondary sources, independent of Zuby).
The_Sun_(United_Kingdom) (largest newspaper in the UK) wrote article dedicated to Zuby: [1]
The Times wrote article dedicated to Zuby: [2]
Washington Examiner wrote article dedicated to Zuby: [3]
RT_(TV_network) (Russian TV network) wrote article dedicated to Zuby. [4]
Sky News dedicated article: [5]
Spiked_(magazine) dedicated article: [6]
All of these references are very large news organizations, and independent of Zuby. Thus, this article should now be included in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisefroggy ( talk • contribs) 23:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
References
The result of the move request was: Wrong forum. If you believe he does not meet notability guidelines, nominate the article for deletion at WP:AFD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Zuby (rapper) → ? – This page does not meet notability guidelines, all information and sources relate to one controversial story, and one news report of an incident that does not relate to him as a person. I have done a good faith search and he has released music, but isn't notable for it (not reviewed in the press, or talked about in general) He does however have a large twitter following, but this isn't necessarily notable in itself unless he was noted for it in other secondary sources. For that reason I believe the title should be changed according to the notability guidelines to reflect the incident, not the person.- Benakt ( talk) 18:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Current Consensus:
Wisefroggy I don’t really have any way of disproving your accusations, (also I’m new, what does SPA mean- I tried googling but it only came up with a health spa) but I do think accusing me of sock-puppetry instead of finding a single article about Zuby as a rapper, not as part of a controversy unrelated to his supposed music career is an admission that whatever happens, the deletion of the page is appropriate. When I signed up I was under the impression that it wasn’t about how many edits you had made, it was about the facts, and about meeting the notability guidelines. This article clearly doesn’t meet said guidelines and surely the fact you have made thousands of edits in the past should not allow you to bend the rules. I think that destroys the sanctity of Wikipedia. Looking through the article History it seems you tried for ages to get this page created too, and many others disagreed with the initial creation. You threw sources at the wall, mischaracterised them to create a page which according to the guidelines shouldn’t have been made, a rapper page for a commentator and controversialist who wants to be known as a rapper. I joined Wikipedia because I was trying to find a source for claims Zuby made on twitter and it turned out that his Wikipedia was filled with unsubstantiated claims too, so I tried to help rectify that. I don’t know why you’re so invested in an article that shouldn’t be here according to Wikipedia’s own guidelines but you’re very welcome to it- just know that I think that wanting your article to be up, maybe because of your ego, does damage to Wikipedia and lends credit to the argument to those who say “anyone could edit it” when discussing credibility of the site as a whole. If things like this are upheld I think they will be the eventual cause of distrust of Wikipedia. I’m disappointed but not surprised. Benakt ( talk) 08:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
References
auto
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Bilorv ( talk · contribs) 17:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Alright, let's just say the fourth GA criterion might be more important here than for the average article. Thoughts on a first pass (more to come if these are addressed):
Thanks for the nomination and the work so far in aiming for neutrality on some heated topics. — Bilorv ( talk) 17:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Please see MOS:LEADLENGTH article size fewer than 15,000 characters one or two paragraphs. Also, we don't start by stating what an individual is "known for," notable aspects speak for themselves. Additionally, biographical information peripheral to why the subject is notable - such as place of birth, education etc. is not relevant to the lead. Also, struggling with the "rapper" description, there is no evidence of notability in this field, and all of his recorded material is self-published, no records of sale, charting, release press coverage etc. Acous mana 10:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
said that he "identified as a woman", though that's kind of already implied in the sentence already:
with a statement saying he broke the British women's deadlift record while "identifying as a woman."Commentary about the sincerity of his statement would make sense in the body of the article though. ‑‑ Volteer1 ( talk) 02:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
I’ve got a problem with “he broke the record” in the last paragraph - it’s not a record recognised by UK Powerlifting ( https://www.britishpowerlifting.org/documents/1012_female_classic_records_30-06-21.pdf) and so shouldn’t be acknowledged as such. I propose “he performed the stunt” instead, although the edit has been reverted.
On 29 April 2021, an IP editor 2a02:c7f:1875:c800:a020:93e3:80f1:1bee Added two categories Category:Criticism of political correctness and Category:Discrimination against transgender people without sources or an edit summary [4]. Minutes later, this was reverted by Crossroads per " WP:CATPOV, WP:BLP, WP:LABEL" [5]. Today these categories were readded without sources to the article by Acousmana with the summary "not sure why these categories were removed" [6]. I shortly reverted with the summary "Criticism of political correctness" is not mentioned at all in this article. Nor the explict use of "discrimination" against transgender people. If RSs state he is discriminating against transgender people then we can readd the cat" [7]. Acousmana then reverted me saying "was suspended from Twitter over transgender spat, it's sourced, it's in the article" [8]. This was then reverted by Volteer1 saying "As spy-cicle said, I see nothing in the article about a criticism of political correctness. Regarding the twitter ban, I don't think violating Twitter TOS allows us to state that a living person is discriminating against transgender people unless reliable sources do" [9]. Acousmana then readded the Category:Discrimination against transgender people saying "both World Athletics and the IOC have provisions for the inclusion of transgender competitors, there are regulations, if adhered to, no issue - Zuby's pronouncements, per sources, discriminate against said competitors" [10]. Categories have to be defining and verifiable not A said B mean C hence add the C category. Nothing on the article explcitly states he is Discriminating against transgender people. Regards Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 17:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
a defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having. Regarding the the first category, he's clearly a critic of political correctness (he certainly talks about it a lot: [11] [12] [13]), if RS were to talk about what he's been doing post-viral tweet (ranting against political correctness or whatever else) we can add it to the article and the category would be fine to include, though I'm not sure anyone's really cared that much about his attempts to milk his 15 minutes of fame. Regarding the second, it matters little what we think discrimination is and what we think discrimination isn't, if reliable sources don't
commonly and consistentlydescribe Zuby as being a discriminator of trans people then it shouldn't be a category – we should be careful also to not rub up against WP:CATPOV here. ‑‑ Volteer1 ( talk) 17:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Acousmana I am not saying that Zuby SPS (Twitter) is not reliable for his own opinions. The article content comes before categorisation per WP:CATV. So do you agree (yes or no) that per WP:CATV that the article content has be laid out well in the article first before any kind of categorization? Next if yes, why do you think using a solely primary source is it a due inclusion relating to his views of political correctness for it to be added in the article? If there were reliable secondary sources perhaps I could understand. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 03:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
More as a curiosity than a content dispute, is it fair to state the following:
Seems like it could be SYNTH to draw this causality even though it seems superficially evident. As a new editor I'm just wondering when we can make inferences like this and when we cannot in the absence of a secondary source that explicitly draws the connection. Thanks for any input. SmolBrane ( talk) 22:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Mikehawk10 ( talk · contribs) 20:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Let's take a look-see.
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Passes my copyediting eye. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 06:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC) | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | I believe that this is MOS-compliant. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 06:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC) | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | There is a reference list at the bottom of the article that is a list of all information in the article. This is compliant with the guidelines for layout, as it correctly placed at the end of the article and it does not cause other MOS issues with its placement. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 02:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC) | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | The article currently makes reference to many primary sources, including a
self-published sources/interview statements used in an
WP:ABOUTSELF manner. When using primary sources, it's important to not engage in novel synthesis or to give them undue weight. The sentence that's a string of podcasts that he's been in, unless it has been covered in a secondary source, is eh in terms of this policy. If there are secondary sources to back it up, then feel free to insert them, but absent them it needs to go; I don't see it carrying due weight even if it's not strictly OR. It also might be worth attributing to whom and when he said specific things; noting the interview would be better in terms of how we typically use primary sources. I'd suggest something along the lines of Speaking with Ben Shapiro on The Ben Shapiro Sunday Show, Zuby said..., though obviously some equivalent phrasing would work. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 04:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC) | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | A WP:EARWIG analysis shows that there is content published on other websites, but it's entirely limited to quotations from the article subject, so there is no apparent copyright violation present. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 02:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC) | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | The article appears to address most of the main aspects of the topic well. It's clear from a summary of coverage that much of his coverage is related to the police incident in 2008 and subsequent political activity. There are a few areas that I suspect could be improved; he apparently has
children that get no mention whatsoever in the current article, and I'm honestly a bit surprised that there aren't any reviews in the article for his music. I'm going to ask
Spy-cicle to do a deep dig again; I suspect that there's something more out there on his music, though my googling abilities have not been able to find it. If the user can't find anything, no big deal, but I'd like a bit more certainty on that respect. —
Mikehawk10 (
talk) 04:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Also, to add on to the above, I'm seeing characterizations of his politics on (trans)gender-related issues and some music festival as being lumped together under "views". I suspect that there has to be some article out there that more generally characterizes his politics (I'm seeing a lot of coverage from Fox News and this piece in particular describes him as a "classical liberal", so I suspect that there is something more there about his politics more broadly). — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 04:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC) I'm also seeing some characterizations of his following form sources like Politico. His views on coronavirus lockdowns and vaccine mandates also appear to be in a few articles I've perused. I'm putting this on hold; the views section needs to be improved substantially to better represent his politics more broadly. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 04:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC) | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | The article currently stays focused on Zuby. The descriptions of the police incident, while highly detailed, are all pertinent to the article subject and are well-written. The "views" section needs to be improved, per my comment in 3A, and I will re-analyze focus after changes are made before a final judgement occurs. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 04:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC) | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | The article has no signs of recent edit warring or instability. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 02:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC) | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | All media (one image) is properly licensed with a CC-BY-SA 2.0 license, which is compatible with Wikipedia's license. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 02:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC) | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | The image is a photograph of the individual in the infobox. The caption is appropriate. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 02:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC) | |
7. Overall assessment. |
Two questions for Spy-cicle:
— Mikehawk10 ( talk) 02:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Spy-cicle:
— Mhawk10 ( talk) 05:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Do you have a better category you'd like this to be placed into if it passes review? — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 13:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I have a lot to say here, but first, I want to clarify this: @ Spy-cicle, are you of the opinion that Zuby did factually break the British women's deadlift record? -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she/they) 15:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
In March 2019, Udezue received media attention after posting a video on Twitter of himself performing a deadlift of 238 kg (525 lb), with a statement saying he had broken the British women's deadlift record while "identifying as a woman".and
In March 2019, Udezue received media attention after posting on Twitter a video of himself performing a deadlift of 238 kg (525 lb), and subsequently stating he had broken the British women's deadlift record while "identifying as a woman".could be taken to mean that he broke the record? Whenever describing false claims in the encyclopedia's voice, we must take pains not to give readers the impression that those claims are true. That's why I added the citation to the reliable source saying he didn't break the record, and why I changed "statement saying" and "stating" to "claimed". They are less ambiguous. Usually, our articles are even less ambiguous about such things: The article on Donald Trump, for instance, says "falsely claimed" five times. But in this context I think a simple "claimed" is, just barely, enough to make clear it's not a thing that actually happened. But the current wording implies that, at best, Wikipedia is neutral as to whether he broke the record.Would you please self-revert? I would like to work with you to fix the major problems this article had at the time it passed GAN, issues that I would like to AGF are the result of you just not paying enough attention to whether the article was skewing toward a particular POV, which is an easy enough mistake to make if you get lost in all the sources; but if you're going to stonewall me on that, then I think it will have to go to a GACR. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she/they) 04:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
[T]he weightlifting hip-hop artist and Oxford graduate who set out to demonstrate that athletes who are genetically male should not be competing alongside womenare not the words of a publication describing a genuine breaking of a record. They're the words of a publication signal-boosting a publicity stunt by a public figure whose POV they're known to be sympathetic to. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she/they) 20:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
The addition of a one sentence summary of who the subject has been interviewed by has been repeatedly deleted by user:acousmana. The reasons for the multiple deletions vary (please see history [26] for summaries.
[[User::acousmana]], there are primary sources, I've added seconday sources per your suggestion, and all are WP:RS. As for notability: the interviews listed have audiences in the tens of millions. That is notable. Also, please ensure you do not violate 3RR. Wisefroggy ( talk) 23:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
This article seems overly detailed to me. I'll try and give it a trim to make it more concise. Seaweed ( talk) 15:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)