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 Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Dude obviously wrote this himself. He's quite impressed. 148.77.35.49 ( talk) 22:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I am uncomfortable with this article and not 100% comfortable even with what I have done to it today. I've referred it to WP:BLPN for further input because I am slightly out of my depth here. - Sitush ( talk) 08:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
BTW, regarding notability. He's obviously been talking about things on radio etc and I am unsure how significant that may be. In the UK, where I am, having "rent-a-mouth" academics on such shows is quite common and doesn't necessarily mean much at all. I'm happy to see the tag removed, or changed, if others think differently. - Sitush ( talk) 09:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
However, I have just reinstated that tag because I don't think the remover of it is best placed to make an informed assessment, sorry. I would prefer someone with no prior involvement with this article and who has not previously got into scrapes concerning BLPs. - Sitush ( talk) 14:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
He has publihed a book, and raised controversy by appearing on mainstream American national news media such as USA Today and mentioned by Washington Post, his appearances on conservative media alone make him notable. His status as conservative black pundit popular on conservative radio and media also makes him notable, yet tagger insists somehow that someone with national media visibility is not notable. Subject obviously passes notability, so this argument appears to be an attempt to remove coverage of the controversial subject matter who is an African American conservative who is a darling of conservative media.
WP:BIO People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject.
Tucker Carlson Fox News US national cable network USA Today US national newspaper Washington Post US major metro newspaper, Commentary Magazine major US political magazine Bachcell ( talk) 14:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Why couldn't Reilly find a mainstream publisher for his earlier writings? I see that the vanity press stuff I removed yesterday has reappeared. - Sitush ( talk) 06:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Also, the version as of now, as opposed to after the edits of BubbaJoe, is mostly referenced to Reilly himself. And it includes original research in its phrasing, eg: it says Reilly "appears to be" and cites a Reilly publication for the statement. - Sitush ( talk) 07:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
This is ref bombing. We only need one source where he says that he is a centrist. - Sitush ( talk) 08:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
The claim that only about 7,000 hate crimes occur in a typical year
surely cannot be correct? UK figures, for example, are notoriously subject to variable reporting and selection criteria but are in the hundreds of thousands by any reasonable measure, eg: see
this. That's for a population of 60 million in a country that, although far from perfect, I doubt is anywhere near as divided as the US (except regarding Brexit, haha). -
Sitush (
talk) 08:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Reading this website mentioned below, it seems to be a legal semantics/recording issue. I'm guessing that Reilly's book refers to the 7000 figure as being the FBI figure and that the FBI have an extremely different take on what constitutes a hate crime to the various bodies in the UK. If anyone can see the book then perhaps the tag I added can be removed by providing that clarity. - Sitush ( talk) 10:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I've found the book on GBooks but only have a partial view. If that view is consistent throughout the book, the figure cited is 5850 for 2015 and I think it possible that we may be misrepresenting him in other ways, too. Eg: the 8-10% figure and ignoring what he speculates about the number unreported incidents. See around this page, if your view of GBooks is the same as mine. - Sitush ( talk) 11:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Why not just say something like "since less than 7,000 hate crimes occur in a typical year?" That would seem to gel with Reilly's estimates, and with all - or all but one? - of the FBI figures. Again, this doesn't seem to be very disputed. Reilly's figures essentially have to come from the FBI's public database. If anything, he is being conservative in his estimates of hoax numbers, if arguing for 500 (or whatever) out of 5,800/10 rather than 7,000/10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.131.55.89 ( talk) 19:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
He uses this data to support his claim that a substantial percentage of all hate crime allegations must be hoaxes, given that only 5,280 reported hate crimes took place in the "fairly typical" year (2015) which Reilly uses as a baseline for data analysis, and at most 8-10% of alleged hate crimes receive significant reporting(my emphasis). Is the "reported" meant to indicate an official log of the incident and the "significant reporting" intended to refer to news coverage? Or are there different levels of logging? Or - unlikely - is the reporting in both cases a reference to stuff in news media etc? It's gibberish, as is the 8-10% figure. - Sitush ( talk) 09:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Although he may display partisan bias, Reilly's methodology seems fairly clear. He says that there are 5-7,000 reported hate crimes in the USA per year (in interviews, he usually uses 7,000 as an upper end estimate, and works with that number). Then, he estimates that 8-10% of these - so, 500 to 700 per year at the upper end - receive national reporting or a significant amount of regional reporting, so that he would be comfortable including the crime and its later exposure as a hoax in his data sets. If you take a five year period, 400 or so proven hoaxes out of 2,500-3,500 cases would indicate a confirmed hoax rate between roughly 12% and roughly 16-17%. That is, arguably, very substantial. It might also be worth comparing these totals to the actual conviction rate in hate crime cases in the States. Some numbers for California (?) were posted to this article earlier in the discussion, and that that seems to be about 7%. A fair amount of this is actually discussed in the Intro to the book, from pages xviii to xxiv.
Btw, Reilly uses the standard 5,850 figure for HC on page xxiv of the book. I may make that change to the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.131.55.89 ( talk) 17:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
This article [1] had some interesting commentary, but is it RS enough to use? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
This paragraph
"More broadly, the focus of Reilly's research appears to be conducting empirical testing of claims made by the political Right and Left - about, for example, the existence of widespread "white privilege" - which are often very influential but rarely well-supported by scientific data.[citation needed] His graduate dissertation,[clarification needed] later published as a book by the controversial small publisher Scholar's Press,[1] tests the claim made by left-wing intellectuals such as Andrew Hacker that the average white American would have to be paid tens of millions of dollars to become Black, and that this figure illustrates both the intense racism of most whites and the value of white status in an "institutionally racist" society.[14] Reilly countered this claim, surveying several thousand people and discovering that (1) individuals of all backgrounds are very reluctant to change core traits like race and sexual orientation and (2) minorities like Blacks and Asians are more attached to their race than whites.[15]"
Is not very WP-useful. Unless there are some decent secondary sources that cover and comments on Reilly's work, this is out of our scope and should be removed. Also, editors who cite books should include pagenumbers. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 11:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I have no idea where the "conservative media" came from, nor whether he is of that persuasion, but we do not need masses of citations to things that mentioned him. Some finessing may be required, provided it does not make assumptions, but a long list of sources is not. - Sitush ( talk) 17:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Generally, from an American perspective, appearing on Fox News, in the NY Post, in the Detroit Times, in Commentary, in USA Today, etc over 3-4 months. would suffice to categorize someone as "notable." My primary question here was actually just why mentions of his appearances in liberal/moderate sources seem to keep getting taken down. At one point, a sentence in the bio read something like "has appeared in many mainstream (Detroit News, NY Post, Epoch Times) and conservative (Glenn Beck, Michael Medved, _____) print and television sources." That was edited, apparently more than once, so that only hard-right sources remain. This seems to give an impression of Reilly as a strong conservative, which is probably not empirically accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.131.55.89 ( talk) 19:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Apokrif ( talk) 14:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
The first footnote in this article is never cited or marked in the article itself? Should it be eliminated or the article edited for a citation for that note? James Nicol ( talk) 19:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Please do not restore the assault allegations without consensus. There is currently a thread on WP:BLPN about this. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 00:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
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 Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Dude obviously wrote this himself. He's quite impressed. 148.77.35.49 ( talk) 22:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I am uncomfortable with this article and not 100% comfortable even with what I have done to it today. I've referred it to WP:BLPN for further input because I am slightly out of my depth here. - Sitush ( talk) 08:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
BTW, regarding notability. He's obviously been talking about things on radio etc and I am unsure how significant that may be. In the UK, where I am, having "rent-a-mouth" academics on such shows is quite common and doesn't necessarily mean much at all. I'm happy to see the tag removed, or changed, if others think differently. - Sitush ( talk) 09:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
However, I have just reinstated that tag because I don't think the remover of it is best placed to make an informed assessment, sorry. I would prefer someone with no prior involvement with this article and who has not previously got into scrapes concerning BLPs. - Sitush ( talk) 14:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
He has publihed a book, and raised controversy by appearing on mainstream American national news media such as USA Today and mentioned by Washington Post, his appearances on conservative media alone make him notable. His status as conservative black pundit popular on conservative radio and media also makes him notable, yet tagger insists somehow that someone with national media visibility is not notable. Subject obviously passes notability, so this argument appears to be an attempt to remove coverage of the controversial subject matter who is an African American conservative who is a darling of conservative media.
WP:BIO People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject.
Tucker Carlson Fox News US national cable network USA Today US national newspaper Washington Post US major metro newspaper, Commentary Magazine major US political magazine Bachcell ( talk) 14:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Why couldn't Reilly find a mainstream publisher for his earlier writings? I see that the vanity press stuff I removed yesterday has reappeared. - Sitush ( talk) 06:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Also, the version as of now, as opposed to after the edits of BubbaJoe, is mostly referenced to Reilly himself. And it includes original research in its phrasing, eg: it says Reilly "appears to be" and cites a Reilly publication for the statement. - Sitush ( talk) 07:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
This is ref bombing. We only need one source where he says that he is a centrist. - Sitush ( talk) 08:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
The claim that only about 7,000 hate crimes occur in a typical year
surely cannot be correct? UK figures, for example, are notoriously subject to variable reporting and selection criteria but are in the hundreds of thousands by any reasonable measure, eg: see
this. That's for a population of 60 million in a country that, although far from perfect, I doubt is anywhere near as divided as the US (except regarding Brexit, haha). -
Sitush (
talk) 08:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Reading this website mentioned below, it seems to be a legal semantics/recording issue. I'm guessing that Reilly's book refers to the 7000 figure as being the FBI figure and that the FBI have an extremely different take on what constitutes a hate crime to the various bodies in the UK. If anyone can see the book then perhaps the tag I added can be removed by providing that clarity. - Sitush ( talk) 10:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I've found the book on GBooks but only have a partial view. If that view is consistent throughout the book, the figure cited is 5850 for 2015 and I think it possible that we may be misrepresenting him in other ways, too. Eg: the 8-10% figure and ignoring what he speculates about the number unreported incidents. See around this page, if your view of GBooks is the same as mine. - Sitush ( talk) 11:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Why not just say something like "since less than 7,000 hate crimes occur in a typical year?" That would seem to gel with Reilly's estimates, and with all - or all but one? - of the FBI figures. Again, this doesn't seem to be very disputed. Reilly's figures essentially have to come from the FBI's public database. If anything, he is being conservative in his estimates of hoax numbers, if arguing for 500 (or whatever) out of 5,800/10 rather than 7,000/10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.131.55.89 ( talk) 19:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
He uses this data to support his claim that a substantial percentage of all hate crime allegations must be hoaxes, given that only 5,280 reported hate crimes took place in the "fairly typical" year (2015) which Reilly uses as a baseline for data analysis, and at most 8-10% of alleged hate crimes receive significant reporting(my emphasis). Is the "reported" meant to indicate an official log of the incident and the "significant reporting" intended to refer to news coverage? Or are there different levels of logging? Or - unlikely - is the reporting in both cases a reference to stuff in news media etc? It's gibberish, as is the 8-10% figure. - Sitush ( talk) 09:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Although he may display partisan bias, Reilly's methodology seems fairly clear. He says that there are 5-7,000 reported hate crimes in the USA per year (in interviews, he usually uses 7,000 as an upper end estimate, and works with that number). Then, he estimates that 8-10% of these - so, 500 to 700 per year at the upper end - receive national reporting or a significant amount of regional reporting, so that he would be comfortable including the crime and its later exposure as a hoax in his data sets. If you take a five year period, 400 or so proven hoaxes out of 2,500-3,500 cases would indicate a confirmed hoax rate between roughly 12% and roughly 16-17%. That is, arguably, very substantial. It might also be worth comparing these totals to the actual conviction rate in hate crime cases in the States. Some numbers for California (?) were posted to this article earlier in the discussion, and that that seems to be about 7%. A fair amount of this is actually discussed in the Intro to the book, from pages xviii to xxiv.
Btw, Reilly uses the standard 5,850 figure for HC on page xxiv of the book. I may make that change to the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.131.55.89 ( talk) 17:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
This article [1] had some interesting commentary, but is it RS enough to use? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
This paragraph
"More broadly, the focus of Reilly's research appears to be conducting empirical testing of claims made by the political Right and Left - about, for example, the existence of widespread "white privilege" - which are often very influential but rarely well-supported by scientific data.[citation needed] His graduate dissertation,[clarification needed] later published as a book by the controversial small publisher Scholar's Press,[1] tests the claim made by left-wing intellectuals such as Andrew Hacker that the average white American would have to be paid tens of millions of dollars to become Black, and that this figure illustrates both the intense racism of most whites and the value of white status in an "institutionally racist" society.[14] Reilly countered this claim, surveying several thousand people and discovering that (1) individuals of all backgrounds are very reluctant to change core traits like race and sexual orientation and (2) minorities like Blacks and Asians are more attached to their race than whites.[15]"
Is not very WP-useful. Unless there are some decent secondary sources that cover and comments on Reilly's work, this is out of our scope and should be removed. Also, editors who cite books should include pagenumbers. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 11:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I have no idea where the "conservative media" came from, nor whether he is of that persuasion, but we do not need masses of citations to things that mentioned him. Some finessing may be required, provided it does not make assumptions, but a long list of sources is not. - Sitush ( talk) 17:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Generally, from an American perspective, appearing on Fox News, in the NY Post, in the Detroit Times, in Commentary, in USA Today, etc over 3-4 months. would suffice to categorize someone as "notable." My primary question here was actually just why mentions of his appearances in liberal/moderate sources seem to keep getting taken down. At one point, a sentence in the bio read something like "has appeared in many mainstream (Detroit News, NY Post, Epoch Times) and conservative (Glenn Beck, Michael Medved, _____) print and television sources." That was edited, apparently more than once, so that only hard-right sources remain. This seems to give an impression of Reilly as a strong conservative, which is probably not empirically accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.131.55.89 ( talk) 19:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Apokrif ( talk) 14:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
The first footnote in this article is never cited or marked in the article itself? Should it be eliminated or the article edited for a citation for that note? James Nicol ( talk) 19:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Please do not restore the assault allegations without consensus. There is currently a thread on WP:BLPN about this. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 00:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)