This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Zina Bash 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 |
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: | ||||||||
|
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 post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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. |
I see the detail on the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing was deleted by Anarcho-authoritarian and added in another form by Openlydialectic, which I expect will be deleted. Without that controversy, she's likely not notable and the page will be taken down. Bjhillis ( talk) 00:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC) The edit was already deleted by an anonymous editor, so here we go. I suggest the page is not notable based on remaining sources. Bjhillis ( talk) 01:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
It makes no difference that this gossip was mentioned by reliable sources. There are many reliable publications that mention the Hillary Clinton health conspiracy theory, but within the context that it was coined by Paul Joseph Watson, an InfoWars correspondent. [2] Wikipedia mentions on the article about Watson that he coined the theory, but obviously doesn't put it anywhere near Clinton's biography. The only place this Bash theory should go, if anywhere, is on the page about Eugene Gu, with appropriate weight on how accurate reliable sources consider it to be. Anarcho-authoritarian ( talk) 03:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
In September 2018, he denied that his wife's hand position at the confirmation hearing for Brett Kavanaugh signaled political beliefs. [1] [2] Bjhillis ( talk) 22:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
References
I've edited the article to once again mention the stupid attacks that made Ms Bash nationally famous. My version is:
The important word here is "falsely". Any halfway-honest article about her has to mention the vile allegations and make it clear they were false. CWC 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I disagree that the allegations could be defined as "false". There's no question as to whether she made the gesture - the question is whether or not she made it deliberately. Her husband's vehement denial is appropriately noted in the article, but a denial of an accusation does not make that allegation "false". Johnzdennis ( talk) 03:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Possibly-useful WaPo article by Megan McArdle: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/has-jk-rowling-figured-out-a-way-to-break-our-cancel-culture/2019/12/31/10798748-2bf3-11ea-bcb3-ac6482c4a92f_story.html CWC 05:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I wondered why people were editing this paragraph, so I did some googling. Here's what I learned:
The alt-right mainly work online, so it is natural that they are aware of the 4chan hoax, and use it to ‘troll the normies’. The alleged Christchurch mass murderer, who calls himself a shitposter, is also aware of this; that's why he made the "OK" gesture in court. In his ‘manifesto’, he says he is trying to spark conflict between races and political movements in the USA; while his manifesto contains lots of shitposting, he appears to be serious about this. It is a shame that some on the left responded to his OK-sign trolling in just the way he must have wanted. CWC 11:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
The current rush of edits is presumably due to video of some cadets playing the "circle game" leading to accusations of white supremacy. Sigh. CWC 03:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
With this edit, [3], I've restored the "okay" content related to this discussion. I think this content is the main reason Zina Bash is known to most people, so it should not be removed. I also do not think that we should judge the accusation, for example, by describing it as a "false accusation". Note that the cited sources do not debunk or disprove anything, despite assertion to the contrary, such as made in this edit summary: [4]. The cited sources only report denials of the accusation. Thank you. Attic Salt ( talk) 23:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Marquardtika, *you* knock it off. I have quoted text from BLP rules to you many times, and you continue to assert without any justification - *IF* this is a BLP violation, it is because Zina Bash is not a notable person BUT FOR the controversy, and the entire entry should be deleted. Your attempts to either blank mention of the controversy and/or definitively assert she was "falsely" accused is not supported by either your cited sources or the NPOV editorial guidelines- indeed, it is the definition of whitewashing/sanitizing. "The NPOV policy does not allow use of revisionism, censorship, whitewashing, or political correctness. Neither the NPOV nor BLP policies protect article subjects from documented criticism, which by nature is never neutral. Editors must not exercise censorship; they must present all significant sides of the controversy and document the opposing points of view, and they must not shield readers from such views." Moreover, as has been pointed out several times, your cited sources do not support your sweeping claims. If you want to expand the argument defending Ms. Bash using in-line attribution of the opinions you are citing, I have no objection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.170.37 ( talk) 21:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Should a short paragraph in the article about Zina Bash read:
or should it read:
Thank you, RfC relisted by Cunard ( talk) at 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC). RfC relisted by Cunard ( talk) at 08:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC). Attic Salt ( talk) 13:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Response:
2. Include "falsely". We have a RS (vice.com) saying the accusation is false. We do not have any RSes saying otherwise. Leaving out the uncontroverted fact that the accusation is false would violate multiple Wikipedia policies. CWC 01:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
2. Second version: the idea that the OK gesture is a white power symbol is in itself a hoax. See OK gesture#White power symbol. The Vox article noted above thoroughly debunks the Bash conspiracy theory. It is a WP:BLP violation to say she was accused of something (by whom?) that isn't even a thing--it's a hoax. The sources make that clear. Marquardtika ( talk) 18:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
According to the ADL, by 2019 some white supremacists had begun using the OK symbol "as a sincere expression of White Supremacy".Indeed the origins as a hoax are obvious, but nonetheless the symbol has since been used genuinely as a white power symbol. — Bilorv ( talk) 23:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
1. - Version 2 is clearly POV. The job of wikipedia is not to make final judgement on the truth of Ms. Bash's intent/psychological motivations (was she serious? was it accidental? was she trolling), but to lay out the factual elements of the controversy (the gesture was made, accusations were made, the accusations were denied, the gesture was made again, etc.) RE: the argument that this shouldn't appear at all- it is literally the only reason this page was created in the first place/the only reason the subject is considered notable. If the controversy isn't included, the article should be deleted entirely - wikipedia doesn't have/need entries for every low level bureaucrat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.10.173.83 ( talk) 13:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
neither - First, vice.com is not on the list of reliable sources. Regardless, the fact that the sign itself is a hoax makes it irrelevant and I would think should simply not be included. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Mikethewhistle-original (
talk •
contribs) 11:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
2. Second version: per point raised by Marquardtika Idealigic ( talk) 22:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Per reliable source Vox, "Bash was not making a 'white power hand signal.'" Source is here. This is a conspiracy theory started online. We shouldn't be repeating it here, and certainly not without labeling what it is--a conspiracy theory started by some social media users. Marquardtika ( talk) 18:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
If you want to add details regarding the original sources of the accusations, please feel free. Instead, you are drawing a POV synthesis conclusion not supported by the sources. There is no BLP violation, the accusations as well as Bash’s defense are both adequately covered and BLP doesn’t prevent documented criticisms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.166.205 ( talk) 11:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Look, it's clear at this point that you are tendentiously misreading the sources on this question to fit your own confirmation bias. It's hard to assume good faith when you take the quote "There is no credible evidence to suggest" so badly out of context. The WaPo article is referring to the *first* gesture- "There is no credible evidence to suggest, against her husband’s denial, that Bash was already aware of the hand sign’s associations with the alt-right, or the troll campaign that made it popular when the original controversy erupted." but then goes on to say (on literally the very next line) "On Thursday, however, after a news cycle about her hand’s resting position, Bash was very aware. A video clip from that day of the hearing appeared to show Bash, once again sitting behind Kavanaugh, making a much more deliberate-looking “okay” symbol with her hand." If you want to add the claims about signaling for water to further add detail to the defense, please do so, but you continually blanking the controversy because you can't achieve consensus on your POV synthesis language is the equivalent of taking your ball and going home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.166.205 ( talk) 21:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Marquardtika is continuing to revert my good faith edits and is clearly pushing a POV agenda to make Zina Bash's hand signal only sound like a conspiracy theory when multiple reliable sources say otherwise. This editor even removes sources that show US Coast Guard employees and others being fired for making the same hand signal. I have reverted this editor twice and refuse to violate the 3RR policy. I respectfully request other editors to step in and intervene here. NeneCaretaker ( talk) 00:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I have now reported the repeated violations of WP:BLP policy at WP:ANI. [12] AndyTheGrump ( talk) 01:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Needs refs. [13] [14] should be ok. Please add. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 16:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
I have removed the section on the false allegations of Bash making a white power hand symbol at Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing. See the discussion here and here. This material has been contentious in the article for some time and has recently resulted in two editors, Attic Salt and TrueQuantum, being banned from this page. This is a delicate WP:BLP issue and I believe that per WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:WEIGHT it is best at this time to remove the section until and unless a talk page consensus can be reached on how to incorporate this material in a way that reflects appropriate weight and adheres to our BLP policy. Marquardtika ( talk) 15:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Zina Bash 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 |
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: | ||||||||
|
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 post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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. |
I see the detail on the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing was deleted by Anarcho-authoritarian and added in another form by Openlydialectic, which I expect will be deleted. Without that controversy, she's likely not notable and the page will be taken down. Bjhillis ( talk) 00:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC) The edit was already deleted by an anonymous editor, so here we go. I suggest the page is not notable based on remaining sources. Bjhillis ( talk) 01:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
It makes no difference that this gossip was mentioned by reliable sources. There are many reliable publications that mention the Hillary Clinton health conspiracy theory, but within the context that it was coined by Paul Joseph Watson, an InfoWars correspondent. [2] Wikipedia mentions on the article about Watson that he coined the theory, but obviously doesn't put it anywhere near Clinton's biography. The only place this Bash theory should go, if anywhere, is on the page about Eugene Gu, with appropriate weight on how accurate reliable sources consider it to be. Anarcho-authoritarian ( talk) 03:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
In September 2018, he denied that his wife's hand position at the confirmation hearing for Brett Kavanaugh signaled political beliefs. [1] [2] Bjhillis ( talk) 22:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
References
I've edited the article to once again mention the stupid attacks that made Ms Bash nationally famous. My version is:
The important word here is "falsely". Any halfway-honest article about her has to mention the vile allegations and make it clear they were false. CWC 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I disagree that the allegations could be defined as "false". There's no question as to whether she made the gesture - the question is whether or not she made it deliberately. Her husband's vehement denial is appropriately noted in the article, but a denial of an accusation does not make that allegation "false". Johnzdennis ( talk) 03:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Possibly-useful WaPo article by Megan McArdle: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/has-jk-rowling-figured-out-a-way-to-break-our-cancel-culture/2019/12/31/10798748-2bf3-11ea-bcb3-ac6482c4a92f_story.html CWC 05:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I wondered why people were editing this paragraph, so I did some googling. Here's what I learned:
The alt-right mainly work online, so it is natural that they are aware of the 4chan hoax, and use it to ‘troll the normies’. The alleged Christchurch mass murderer, who calls himself a shitposter, is also aware of this; that's why he made the "OK" gesture in court. In his ‘manifesto’, he says he is trying to spark conflict between races and political movements in the USA; while his manifesto contains lots of shitposting, he appears to be serious about this. It is a shame that some on the left responded to his OK-sign trolling in just the way he must have wanted. CWC 11:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
The current rush of edits is presumably due to video of some cadets playing the "circle game" leading to accusations of white supremacy. Sigh. CWC 03:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
With this edit, [3], I've restored the "okay" content related to this discussion. I think this content is the main reason Zina Bash is known to most people, so it should not be removed. I also do not think that we should judge the accusation, for example, by describing it as a "false accusation". Note that the cited sources do not debunk or disprove anything, despite assertion to the contrary, such as made in this edit summary: [4]. The cited sources only report denials of the accusation. Thank you. Attic Salt ( talk) 23:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Marquardtika, *you* knock it off. I have quoted text from BLP rules to you many times, and you continue to assert without any justification - *IF* this is a BLP violation, it is because Zina Bash is not a notable person BUT FOR the controversy, and the entire entry should be deleted. Your attempts to either blank mention of the controversy and/or definitively assert she was "falsely" accused is not supported by either your cited sources or the NPOV editorial guidelines- indeed, it is the definition of whitewashing/sanitizing. "The NPOV policy does not allow use of revisionism, censorship, whitewashing, or political correctness. Neither the NPOV nor BLP policies protect article subjects from documented criticism, which by nature is never neutral. Editors must not exercise censorship; they must present all significant sides of the controversy and document the opposing points of view, and they must not shield readers from such views." Moreover, as has been pointed out several times, your cited sources do not support your sweeping claims. If you want to expand the argument defending Ms. Bash using in-line attribution of the opinions you are citing, I have no objection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.170.37 ( talk) 21:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Should a short paragraph in the article about Zina Bash read:
or should it read:
Thank you, RfC relisted by Cunard ( talk) at 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC). RfC relisted by Cunard ( talk) at 08:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC). Attic Salt ( talk) 13:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Response:
2. Include "falsely". We have a RS (vice.com) saying the accusation is false. We do not have any RSes saying otherwise. Leaving out the uncontroverted fact that the accusation is false would violate multiple Wikipedia policies. CWC 01:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
2. Second version: the idea that the OK gesture is a white power symbol is in itself a hoax. See OK gesture#White power symbol. The Vox article noted above thoroughly debunks the Bash conspiracy theory. It is a WP:BLP violation to say she was accused of something (by whom?) that isn't even a thing--it's a hoax. The sources make that clear. Marquardtika ( talk) 18:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
According to the ADL, by 2019 some white supremacists had begun using the OK symbol "as a sincere expression of White Supremacy".Indeed the origins as a hoax are obvious, but nonetheless the symbol has since been used genuinely as a white power symbol. — Bilorv ( talk) 23:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
1. - Version 2 is clearly POV. The job of wikipedia is not to make final judgement on the truth of Ms. Bash's intent/psychological motivations (was she serious? was it accidental? was she trolling), but to lay out the factual elements of the controversy (the gesture was made, accusations were made, the accusations were denied, the gesture was made again, etc.) RE: the argument that this shouldn't appear at all- it is literally the only reason this page was created in the first place/the only reason the subject is considered notable. If the controversy isn't included, the article should be deleted entirely - wikipedia doesn't have/need entries for every low level bureaucrat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.10.173.83 ( talk) 13:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
neither - First, vice.com is not on the list of reliable sources. Regardless, the fact that the sign itself is a hoax makes it irrelevant and I would think should simply not be included. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Mikethewhistle-original (
talk •
contribs) 11:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
2. Second version: per point raised by Marquardtika Idealigic ( talk) 22:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Per reliable source Vox, "Bash was not making a 'white power hand signal.'" Source is here. This is a conspiracy theory started online. We shouldn't be repeating it here, and certainly not without labeling what it is--a conspiracy theory started by some social media users. Marquardtika ( talk) 18:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
If you want to add details regarding the original sources of the accusations, please feel free. Instead, you are drawing a POV synthesis conclusion not supported by the sources. There is no BLP violation, the accusations as well as Bash’s defense are both adequately covered and BLP doesn’t prevent documented criticisms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.166.205 ( talk) 11:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Look, it's clear at this point that you are tendentiously misreading the sources on this question to fit your own confirmation bias. It's hard to assume good faith when you take the quote "There is no credible evidence to suggest" so badly out of context. The WaPo article is referring to the *first* gesture- "There is no credible evidence to suggest, against her husband’s denial, that Bash was already aware of the hand sign’s associations with the alt-right, or the troll campaign that made it popular when the original controversy erupted." but then goes on to say (on literally the very next line) "On Thursday, however, after a news cycle about her hand’s resting position, Bash was very aware. A video clip from that day of the hearing appeared to show Bash, once again sitting behind Kavanaugh, making a much more deliberate-looking “okay” symbol with her hand." If you want to add the claims about signaling for water to further add detail to the defense, please do so, but you continually blanking the controversy because you can't achieve consensus on your POV synthesis language is the equivalent of taking your ball and going home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.166.205 ( talk) 21:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Marquardtika is continuing to revert my good faith edits and is clearly pushing a POV agenda to make Zina Bash's hand signal only sound like a conspiracy theory when multiple reliable sources say otherwise. This editor even removes sources that show US Coast Guard employees and others being fired for making the same hand signal. I have reverted this editor twice and refuse to violate the 3RR policy. I respectfully request other editors to step in and intervene here. NeneCaretaker ( talk) 00:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I have now reported the repeated violations of WP:BLP policy at WP:ANI. [12] AndyTheGrump ( talk) 01:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Needs refs. [13] [14] should be ok. Please add. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 16:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
I have removed the section on the false allegations of Bash making a white power hand symbol at Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing. See the discussion here and here. This material has been contentious in the article for some time and has recently resulted in two editors, Attic Salt and TrueQuantum, being banned from this page. This is a delicate WP:BLP issue and I believe that per WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:WEIGHT it is best at this time to remove the section until and unless a talk page consensus can be reached on how to incorporate this material in a way that reflects appropriate weight and adheres to our BLP policy. Marquardtika ( talk) 15:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)