Talk:Carlos Maza

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2019

Change "The decision drew considerable criticism from fans, observers, and the media" to "The decision drew criticism from Maza fans, left-wing observers, and the left-wing media". 46.33.152.203 (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I recommend that no changes or updates on current Crowder<>Maza outrage/drama be added until at least 1 or 2 weeks has passed. Simply put, the situation is rapidly changing and the current wikipedia page is already inaccurate. Constalation(talk) 23:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Is that what it says in the source? If not, it's the IP's own opinion. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be exactly what the source says. Remember to be impartial. The one you replied to isn't wrong when stating that by far, most sources criticizing it are left wing. If we look at the right wing, I personally do not see sources criticizing crowder. If anything, most right wing sources are supporting him. Also, maybe don't use buzzfeed? Constalation(talk) 09:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

•  Partly done: The source doesn't indicate the source of the criticism one way or the other, so I dropped the prepositional phrase. Also added YT's reversal. O3000 (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2019

The suggestion that Steven Crowder used homophobic and racist language is completely FALSE. He stated what Carlos Maza says about himself. 2606:6000:67CD:A500:2DB9:DB9E:604A:90AF (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• That's not what the sources say. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

THe WIKI article is not being neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.69.196.201 (talk) 04:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia's rarely neutral in cases like this.--Comnenus (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Not Demonetized

Crowder was demonetized ONLY until he removes link to, what YouTube considers, offensive T-Shirt. So this fact needs to be added to this article. Also, how come not even 1 conservative news source was used in this article? It's only left-wing ideological sites like Vox, The Hill, etc. Let's make this article neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:77B2:400:DD8F:4377:6F04:AC10 (talk) 01:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

You're seriously claiming that The Hill is a "left-wing ideological site"? You've just demonstrated that you have literally no idea what you're talking about and are just spouting talking points. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I did find reliable sourcing related to demonetization conditions, so I went ahead and added that to the article. Benny White (talk) 06:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

"Left wing" label

The "left wing" label is backed by a reliable source. It was argued that one source is not sufficient, which is an inconsistent argument given the equivalent "conservative" label on Steven Crowder's page is only backed by one source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cement4802 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

It's true that Crowder's article mentions his political bent in the lead. However, there's a key difference: many sources from all over the political spectrum agree that Crowder is conservative, while the only ones I could find about Maza's political bent were from distinctly conservative outlets. That puts it in the zone of WP:IMPARTIAL issues. Per WP:BLP, we must be extra cautious, so we need to undo the change soon unless you can find a reliable source without the bias issue. Benny White (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I hope it's obvious, but sources discuss Crowder for very different reasons, and in very different contexts, than they discuss Maza. We judge every article on its own merits based on sources. With that in mind, using other articles to prove a WP:POINT is generally a bad idea. A single Fox News mention fails to demonstrate that this is a defining trait which needs to be in the lede. Grayfell (talk) 04:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

In regards to Steven Crowder's article, it should be consistent to thus have more than one source backing the conservative label claim. The Washington Post is not necessarily the least bias source, and the article cited for the label is somewhat opinionated Cement4802 (talk) 04:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The place to discuss another article would be that article's talk page. We do not have to treat both of these biographies exactly the same, because they are different people with different histories, and they are notable for very different reasons. Do not pretend otherwise. Grayfell (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

carlosmaza.com

The link is correct but the title is not. It should be: CarlosMMaza.com

64.237.234.210 (talk) 12:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. O3000 (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

NPOV

It is my opinion that the article, prior to a recent change I made, was worded in such a way as to be in support of Maza in the recent dispute with Steven Crowder. Per Wikipedia:NPOV I reworded parts of the article for an impartial stance, including a sourced, professional article indicating supporters of Crowder and critics of YouTube's decision to take action against him. It seems two other editors disagree with these changes, and instead of continuing an edit war, I'd like to pose the discussion here. Should the article be changed, along with the source I have included, to fit a neutral POV? Tradeojax6 (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

There are some parts of your edit that are unobjectionable; the BI source is fine, and we can get some balanced discussion of the response to YouTube from it, and other sources. However, your portrayal of the racist and homophobic slurs as mere "allegations" is contradicted by the cited sources; it is self-evident and clear that Crowder used racist and homophobic slurs, and we state facts as facts. Claiming "it's a joke" does not render a slur less of a slur. Similarly, the sources do not support a "polarizing" response to YouTube's initial refusal to do anything about the slurs; the sources (even the one you provided) are clear that the backlash was heavily against YouTube's lack of action. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Though I disagree with the sentiment that the slurs were "factual", it is what Crowder himself stated and what the sources state, so that I can understand and agree with. Would it be agreeable to keep in the ending edits - specifically the BI source and the note of Crowder's support and Youtube's critics in this situation - and leave it at that? As neutral as possible, as factual as possible, taking neither side's favor and just presenting the facts. I understand this could be a potentially charged issue, and would like it to remain neutral to all sides. Tradeojax6 (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The slurs were slurs. This wasn't an accusation, it was an observation which lead to commentary and criticism.

The BI source on Crowder's "support" is surprisingly vague as to what that support actually is, or what it is based on, and it is especially useless for explaining how this relates to Maza. This article is about Maza, not Crowder.

Per the source, Cruz's comments suggest he believes that Maza is obligated to debate a harasser who openly uses offensive slurs, and that Youtube is "playing god" by demonetizing a channel on its own platform. If this is about Maza, I don't really get it, but stripping it of all context will not work for many reasons.

Greenwald's comments suggest that he opposes Youtube because Maza has a job with a powerful corporation, while Crowder... doesn't somehow? It's tempting to go into this, such as by mentioning the ongoing walk-outs at Vox over how they treat workers such as Maza, or that Crowder is supported by corporations such as the Daily Wire, PragerU, BlazeTV, etc... But again, that's not really relevant to Maza, is it? Grayfell (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

That's not for us to decide. The accusations came, the investigation checked it, initially did not state they were slurs, then stated that they were, and Crowder admitted them being so. That's the sequence of events and how, factually, it played out, hence why I feel a distinction is important. You're correct in that this article is about Maza, not Crowder, and in such case then this section could be shortened exponentially to something along the lines of:

"In June 2019 Maza accused YouTube personality Steven Crowder of using racist and homophobic slurs against him in several of his videos and stated that Crowder's fans were doxxing and harassing him, leading to an investigation by YouTube staff. Initially they found Crowder's comments to be 'hurtful' but not in violation of the terms of service, though the following day they announced Crowder had been demonetized. This decision has drawn criticism from both conservative and liberal outlets and individuals."

Leaving it at that would accomplish several things: it would establish a neutral point of view and purely state the facts, and this being an evidently charged event makes it all the more vital that no stance is taken, whereas the article as it stands, and as several other edits prior to mine attempted to challenge, seems to take a supporting stance on Maza rather than impartiality; it would trim down the article of unnecessary information about Crowder, and keep the span of the controversy as a summary rather than a synopsis, useful especially as the controversy has become more beyond the scope of both Maza and Crowder personally and instead into the debate of freedom of speech, which shouldn't be conveyed on either individual's article beyond summarization of the controversy as that's where the relevance ends; it would allow other sources, looping back to point one, to establish a more impartial tone, and properly documenting that there are supporters of Crowder's side as well as Maza's, whereas the current article seems to portray Maza as only having support and Crowder as only having criticism, which even for a brief summary would not suffice as it is factually incorrect.

I think now that a shortening of the section would be the most beneficial, and negate any possibility of either side of this controversy of using it as a soapbox or platform with which to continue the argument, in violation with Wikipedia's first code of conduct.

Thank you for your consideration and I hope we can find a compromise here. Tradeojax6 (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The article looks reasonably Maza-focused as it is. I support including one or two brief sentences that still connect to Maza; for example, Greenwald's and Cruz's statements (quoted in the BI article) referenced Maza. Source for Greenwald: [1] Source for Cruz is the same BI article: [2]

In regards to the words, while they're self-evidently slurs to the reader, I agree that we have to be cautious about WP:W2W editorializing, so I found several sources that don't equivocate: [3] [4] [5] [6] Beefing up the article with these sources will fix several concerns at once. Benny White (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't object to including outside opinions, but we clearly can't include two opinions from people supporting Crowder and zero opinions from people supporting Maza. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Good point—I hadn't thought that thru. Yes, if we add those opinions we also need to add views supporting Maza. AOC's and Rippon's statements from the same Business Insider article are probably fine. Benny White (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

About the creation of the section «Controversies»

The «Controversy» section is necessary because the article in its current state doesn't clarify the relationship between the profiled person and Steven Crowder. The entry «Steven Crowder» is right now a section mixed along with «Biography» and «Personal life» without much context and without being properly classified. Ajñavidya (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The article seems to state the relationship clearly to me—i.e., that Crowder harassed Maza—and is quite thoroughly sourced. I'd say including a section "Controversies" implies that the subject of the page instigated a controversy, rather than being a target of someone else's actions as is the case here. Therefore, it would be accurate to include a "controversies" section on Crowder's article, but not on this one.

I couldn't find a style guide on how to name sections for biographies, but the previous section title makes it easy enough for anyone who knows what they're looking up to jump to the appropriate section. However, it couldn't hurt to add a little more context—as long as it's accurate, of course. So "Harassment by Stephen Crowder" would be appropriate as well as the section title, perhaps with the sub-heading "YouTube's response". Benny White (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Benny White that a "controversy" section title is unnecessary, but that something such as "Harrassment by Stephen Crowder" would be helpful. In addition, "controversy" sections are discouraged in general as per WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Yep. Under other circumstances it would be a title to be wary of but there is no ambiguity here. A title such as "Harassment by Stephen Crowder" is totally justified by the situation. There is no "controversy" over Maza (or Crowder) here. The only controversies are around YouTube's handling of the harassment, which is not primarily a matter for this article. DanielRigal (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I was bold and made the change. I think the word "harassment" seems the least POV (as opposed to "attacks" or "targeting", which I had considered before reading Benny White's comment), and it helps clarify the section as per Ajñavidya's concern. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The section name «Harrasement by Steven Crowder» is by far less neutral than «Controversy». The dispute between the profiled person (Maza) and the person whose name the proposed section is after (Crowder) is precisely that one of them consider the actions of the other of being harassment, and the other part denies it. Deciding to take a stance in this controversy between them is biased and non-neutral, violating Wikipedia's neutral policy and specially its impartial tone guidelines. Ajñavidya (talk) 05:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

In isolation I'd agree, but in this specific case I believe the available facts lead in the direction of plainly calling the harassment what it is. I mentioned in a previous discussion that a number of reputable sources refer to Crowder's actions as, e.g, "slurs" rather than "alleged slurs", and have already added some of those sources to the article. Crowder may deny that his actions were harassment, but reliable sources don't see it that way. Benny White (talk) 06:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Fairness to Crowder requires that we note his denials and try to keep a straight face while doing so. That is all. We are not obliged to give his personal spin parity of esteem with reliably sourced independent coverage of the actual facts. To do so would not be neutral. It would be to take his side. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The investigation was into Youtube's "harassment" policy and the term "harassment" is used in almost every source about the issue. We go with the sources. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 12:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

That the sources arguing for an argument are a majority doesn't equal to that argument being correct, specially when other sources contradicting that argument are deemed as "unreliable." The personal opinions of wikipedists should not be taken into account in the article, and should not interfere with its neutrality. Naming a section as «Harassment by [...]» is taking party in one both sides of a controversy that is currently in dispute. Ajñavidya (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Ajñavidya, you need to read WP:CONSENSUS and understand how editing and dispute resolution works. Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say, not personal opinions. When the reliable, independent sources take sides and label something as harassment, then so should Wikipedia. If you want your change to the Crowder section, then you need to present reliable sources that make the same claims as you.

Also, the Tucker Carlson section is entirely inappropriate for this biography. Maza was the author of the first cited article, and not a single other cited article mentioned him. The section would need independent, reliable sources as per WP:RS and WP:BLP to be included. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert, we're trying to achieve consensus through this discussion, that's what talk pages aim to do according to WP:CONSENSUS. All sources do NOT claim that Crowder factually harassed Maza, the article in its current state gives that false impression because all the references contradicting that claim has been eliminated in further edits. For example, under what criteria the Business Insider's article YouTube's week from hell: How the debate over free speech online exploded after a conservative star with millions of subscribers was accused of homophobic harassment is considered «too biased» but the Washington Post's A right-wing YouTuber hurled racist, homophobic taunts at a gay reporter. The company did nothing is not? Ajñavidya (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

You may want to be sure you aren't the one attempting to cherry pick sources, including how this issue has been reported in almost every Business Insider article. E.g., from a quick Google search:

• YouTube is refusing to punish a star with millions of fans after he hurled homophobic slurs at a journalist
• YouTube CEO apologized to the LGBTQ community for not banning videos involving homophobic slurs last week, but says she stands by the decision
• Google employees are speaking out using the hashtag 'NoPrideInYT' after YouTube was slow to punish a right-wing creator for using homophobic slurs
• 'We aren't quite where we want to be': Google's CEO admits to failings on harmful content after YouTube's week from hell

Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert, I consider them all to be valid for this article, but then again, why specifically YouTube's week from hell: How the debate over free speech online exploded after a conservative star with millions of subscribers was accused of homophobic harassment was considered «too biased»? Ajñavidya (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ajñavidya: Who considers that article "too biased"? It is one of two Business Insider articles cited in the current Wikipedia article. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The source was eliminated by Benny White with the edit description: «content not in sources. Source too biased for inclusion on Wikipedia». Ajñavidya (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

No, that edit by Benny White removed a biased editorial from a conservative news website, Human Events, along with an addition you had put into the article that was not supported by any of the sources (including the Business Insider article, which is still in the current Wikipedia article). Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

You're right. That text gave the false impression that the statement was made by YouTube instead of Crowder, and the statement itself was not in the sources. Also, I've noted that the article by Business Insider has been reestablished in the last edit. Ajñavidya (talk) 01:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

(Is this indenting getting too long?) It's worth mentioning the diff feature, which I use just about constantly when editing. It avoids just this sort of confusion since it highlights what's changed. Also Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources is useful; it mentions that Human Events is considered a biased source, and specifically unreliable for posts after May 2019.

Let's also be frank about the issue with the Tucker Carlson sources: Maza's name did not even appear in most of them. Mentioning Maza's documentation of white supremacists' approval of Carlson, and saying in the next sentence that "these accusations" led to harassment and death threats against Carlson, is firmly false. Benny White (talk) 01:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn't see that Wallyfromdilbert already addressed the latter issue. Let me add my support to what they said. Benny White (talk) 01:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted an edit which added a polemic, right-wing opinion source purporting to make factual claims about the article subject; that's simply not going to fly. @Ajñavidya:, you need to recognize and understand that we're looking for mainstream reliable sources here, and you're not likely to find those by perusing partisan political sites which exist solely to promote one or the other point of view. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof Sources like Buzzfeed (which could be argued to be a biased source) is already in use in this article. According to Wikipedia's police of neutrañity and neutrality of sources, «biased sources» are not inherently disallowed, but a neutral point of view should be achieved by «balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view». Not taking part in the controversy and a balance in the point of view is what this article is in desperate need of. Ajñavidya (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, you removed as well a text that was referring to a Business Insider article. Ajñavidya (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

BuzzFeed News is not a biased source; it's generally accepted as reliable and has a track record of quality journalism. RedState fired a bunch of its staff because they were insufficiently Trumpist, published libelous lies about David Hogg and promoted conspiracy theories about the Murder of Seth Rich. Your false equivalency isn't going to fly here. No matter how much you want two different things to be the same, they're not. RedState is not a journalistic publication, it's a sycophantic mouthpiece for uncritical promotion of Trumpism. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, both of them have a history of inflammatory journalism as well as quality journalism, hence I reaffirm what wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Bias_in_sources states: «balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view». Regardless of what your opinions about Buzzfeed and RedState are, they should not be used as criterion to include one but exclude the other in this article. Ajñavidya (talk) 03:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

No, they don't. RedState is not an acceptable reliable source for factual statements. Period. At best an article on RedState may be usable for its attributed opinions, if we determine that the opinion of its author is relevant to the article. I realize that as a relatively new editor, this may come as a shock to you, if you've been previously immersed in a right-wing media bubble — but we do not consider mainstream reliable sources to be biased. In fact, our articles are, by fundamental and foundational policy, primarily based on mainstream reliable sources. Not all things are equal, and we aren't required to treat them as such. NPOV explicitly does not require us to treat all points of view as equal, or meriting of equal space or credence. You may wish to read the sections WP:DUE and WP:GEVAL in the NPOV policy, as they explain much. Notably, Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view and Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, this is not a matter of treating all points of view as equal, it's about sourcing both sides of a controversy between two persons and not just selecting the sources that favor one side while considering any source favoring the other's as «biased». It's about bursting the bubble, not creating one around the article, as the article right now is extremely one-sided — which is against Wikipedia's neutrality and its explicit guidelines of how to treat cases like this, as I've stated. Ajñavidya (talk) 06:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

You appear to be attempting a WP:FALSEBALANCE. You're not convincing anyone because this isn't how WP works. We use RS. We don't go searching poor sources for "balance". O3000 (talk) 10:10, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to "burst a bubble." We're here to write encyclopedia articles based on what is verifiably published in reliable sources. RedState is demonstrably not a reliable source - it does not meet the standards required, because it has a poor reputation for checking the facts and is a website ... expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist. The examples listed in RedState's own article here (firing editorial staff deemed insufficiently supportive of Donald Trump, claiming that David Hogg lied about the Parkland school shooting, promoting malicious conspiracy theories about the murder of Seth Rich) are demonstrative of that. It is, at best, a WP:QUESTIONABLE source, and The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited. Those uses explicitly do not include making claims about living people, particularly living people whose political viewpoints the source is diametrically opposed to. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not denying that RedState has been involved in questionable journalistic practices such as those you've mentioned. However, the same could be argued about —for instance— Buzzfeed (hiring on gender and ethnic profile bias, firing staff with divergent political views, promotion of conspiracy theories such as forced gender gap, etc.). The argument is that this insight not enough to consider an article from those sources biased per se, and both sources should be included if attained to this ongoing issue/controversy/dispute instead of declaring that actual harassment occurred and taking a one-sided position in an encyclopedia that is supposed to be neutral and fact-ridden. Ajñavidya (talk) 08:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

You wikilinked to the wrong article. Although Buzzfeed is questionable, Buzzfeed News is considered reliable by Wikipedia. The cite is from Buzzfeed News. RedState isn't close. O3000 (talk) 10:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Every sentence in the section on Crowder has at least two citations to reliable sources. Ajñavidya is still giving a false equivalence that ignores the facts reported in actual reliable sources. This is starting to look like time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources for *any* of those claims about BuzzFeed? If not, you should consider striking them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

This is not a discussion about which BuzzFeed or RedState is less of a reliable source. Such debate is irrelevant and would only hinder this talk section. If you areinterested in the arguments, visit BuzzFeed or RedState pages on Wikipedia. Suffice that not including the RedState article based on a personal opinion is unjustified, since that source is not considered biased by any fact-medium. Ajñavidya (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Of course it's a discussion about what is and isn't a reliable source, because that's foundational to our work. Material published in RedState is not a reliable source for factual claims, particularly those about living people on the opposite side of the political spectrum. If you would like to challenge that, you're welcome to open a thread at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and ask for other opinions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

By the other hand, the fact that YouTube advised Crowder that monetization of his channel could be restored should be included in this article, since it shows that the measure originated by the Maza-Crowder controversy is reversible and temporal, which is relevant information to that section. Ajñavidya (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ajñavidya: That is what "suspends" means. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Monetization to be Reinstated

YouTube clarified that Crowder's monetization will be reinstated once he removes link to his T-Shirts. https://twitter.com/TeamYouTube/status/1136356046887313408 . I added this info to the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:77b2:400:fd3f:b80b:82aa:edf0 (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

This information does not seem relevant to Maza's biography. I would suggest adding it instead to Crowder's biography. Here is a better source than the Twitter post that you could use: [7]. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Then why haven't you used it? You removed perfectly reliable source -> Official YouTube Team's response to Maza. You cannot do that.

The material in question is already in the article, sourced to the cited reliable source above (and not a random tweet). NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

As a clarification, YouTube said that Crowder's monetization will be reinstated as soon as he removes link to his T-shirts.

References

If the consequences to Crowder's channel are mentioned in this article, then so should this factual clarification about reinstatement also be included. -- Netoholic @ 23:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

As stated above, the article already addresses re-monetization, and in literally the same sentence as the consequences: YouTube decided to suspend Crowder's ability to run ads or monetize his videos until Crowder addresses "all of the issues" with his channel. The current version, sourced to NPR, is also more accurate, since YouTube went beyond merely requiring him to remove a link to T-shirts, and specifically said he has to "address all of the issues with his channel" [8]. Please make sure to read the content before making changes, especially in a biography of a living person. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The WaPo article was published at 9am June 5th, so I don't even know why its used as a source for this section. NPR's article specifically mentions T-shirts as "one of the issues" (and in fact doesn't detail any other "issues" other than the t-shirt store). -- Netoholic @ 01:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Netoholic: The Washington Post article is cited for the claim in the first half of the sentence that "The decision drew considerable criticism". If you think more detail about Crowder is relevant, then that should be put into Crowder's biography. I don't see how mentioning T-shirts as "one of the issues" is relevant to a biography on Maza, especially when Youtube's actual statement (that I provided above) was the same as reported by NPR. Obviously stating that he could get re-monetized "as soon as he removes link to his T-shirts" is inaccurate if it is only "one of the issues". Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: Then the problem may be more WP:SYNTH in the construction of the sentence. The "drew considerable criticism" should be a separate statement because WaPo says that, but NPR doesn't... and for the "all of the issues" part is not covered by WaPo. And if specifics of the re-monetization aren't appropriate here, then neither is the demonetization itself because no source is cited which says the de-monetization was specifically connected to Crowder's comments about Maza - the relevant videos mentioning Maza are even still hosted on YouTube. At best, the article here should say that Maza's complaints prompted YouTube to look into Crowder's channel, which was demonetized not directly for harassment but for other "issues", like the t-shirt store links. -- Netoholic @ 01:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Netoholic: The NPR article directly connects the demonetization to Maza: As NPR's Folkenflik explained: "As [Maza] brought up pressure, as other journalists looked at it, as a lot of them teased out inconsistencies in the way in which YouTube had enacted its policies — YouTube said we're gonna demonetize [Crowder]." This is also easily verified in numerous other articles, such as USA Today: YouTube announced Wednesday that it will temporarily pull ads from a conservative commentator after backlash about the company's prior position on allegations made by a journalist accusing the channel of promoting "racist and homophobic" content. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Maza's protestations raised awareness, but did not directly cause the demonetization. What YouTube said, and this is quoted in several sources, was "because a pattern of egregious actions has harmed the broader community and is against our YouTube Partner Program policies" and its follow-up clarifications were mocked on twitter. Now, almost nothing past this point is relevant to Maza - its now between YouTube and Crowder. This article, though, if you read it critically, leaves the reader with the false impression that YouTube requiring correction of "all of the issues" refers to Maza's initial complaints. That's false. -- Netoholic @ 02:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Criticism

There is only one side of the story. The other side of the story is Criticism of Carlos Maza. Carlos Maza was critized by National Review for equating free speech with violence. Fox News host, Tucker Carlson, called him "fascist posing as a victim" and calling for physical assault of other people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:77B2:400:FD3F:B80B:82AA:EDF0 (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires reliable sources for content about living people. Also, "criticism" sections are discouraged as per WP:CSECTION. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

You removed reliable source: YouTube team's response. "As a clarification, YouTube said that Crowder's monetization will be reinstated as soon as he removes link to his T-shirts.[16]" You cannot do that.

Whether or not noted Trump sycophant and talk show blatherer Tucker Carlson's opinion of Maza has any relevance to this article whatsoever is an open question. You don't have consensus to include it, and revert-warring doesn't change that lack of consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Further, including the statement that Maza is a "fascist" when sourced to a Youtube video for the opinion of a conservative pundit is a serious WP:BLP violation, which states that Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Kevin D. Williamson wrote that while Crowder's mocking was "ugly and stupid", it was "not violence, near to violence, or even rhetorically violent", and that "suppressing that kind of speech has nothing to do with 'public safety'". Tucker Carlson described Maza as "a fascist, posing as a victim" due to his past racist comments and calls for physical violence against people with opposing politics.

References

The above viewpoints which contradict Maza's claims of harassment/fear for safety are necessary in support of WP:NPOV. Williamson, in addition to being a notable contributor to National Review, this article in particular has been referenced by others([9][10]). There are multiple sources in particular which cover Carlson's quote in relation to this incident, and so it is more than WP:DUE to include it - especially when sources of such wildly different viewpoints all bring it up. -- Netoholic @ 23:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how Williamson's opinion can be said to "contradict" anything — whether anything is "violence" or not is not relevant to whether or not it is "harassment." Harassment does not have to be violent. As our article states, harassment is commonly understood as behavior that demeans, humiliates or embarrasses a person. It's undeniable that such a thing occurred, and thus they are not "claims" but facts. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Moreover, this article does not, at this time, include any columnists' opinions about one side of the debate or the other. If we're going to include Kevin Williamson's critical opinion, per principles of due weight, we would need to include several opinions by columnists who are critical of Crowder, because that is unquestionably the mainstream point of view. Williamson's opinion is a minority, and to present it as if it were mainstream would create false balance. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Certainly, views that express support or corroboration of Maza are welcome in the article as well. Criticism of Maza and YouTube's actions, though, is completely appropriate. If other editors want to further balance it by supporting comments, let them. -- Netoholic @ 01:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia content is supposed to represent "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" under WP:NPOV. Both NPOV and WP:BLP say that the views of small minorities should not be included at all. I do not believe that a small number of highly partisan criticisms are relevant to include here, especially when they are attempts to contradict the factual assertions reported by reliable sources. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Its astounding that you think criticism of Maza is "small minority". Its only your opinion that it is, and so long as you keep edit-warring to prevent addition of any other views, you seem to be more interested in perpetuating that opinion rather than proving it. If it truly is a majority position, for every 2 criticisms of Maza, you should be easily able to find at least 10 complimentary views of Maza, right? So why not instead add them (or tag the article as needing them) rather than removing well-sourced, mainstream critical views? Carlson in particular was the 2nd-3rd top-rated nightly cable program every single evening that week[11], and that episode had more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined [12]. "Small minority"? I think you're in a very tight bubble if you think that. -- Netoholic @ 02:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP. In particular, WP:BLPBALANCE: The idea expressed in meta:Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: You're just WP:GAMING. Geez, I see this article right now as unbalanced because it is too favorable toward Maza and doesn't offer critical viewpoints. You're playing games quoting that line. There is nothing "unfair" to the subject by adding critical views. Just think about what you're implying here - that ANY addition to this article from this moment on is invalid because "biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times". ALL times? Gee, I guess we can't edit it because we might imbalance it! This is directly counter to the aims of Wikipedia. -- Netoholic @ 02:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

As was already stated to you above by another editor, this article does not currently include any opinions about one side of the debate or the other. If you think the facts reported by reliable sources are too favorable to one side or the other, then you should contact those publications. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you not doing the same thing? If you think that "the facts reported by reliable sources are too negative to one side or the other, than you should contact those publications". He too gave reliable sources that criticize him, as reliable as the ones that are favorable to him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.173.41.47 (talk) 08:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Section name still non-neutral

Although WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION advises that the name «Controversies» to be avoided for the title of a section, the name «Harrasement by [...]» is non-neutral, since it is debatable if actual harassment occurred and there's a current dispute with one of the parts involved denying it. Declaring that harassment occurred with not enough evidence is acting against Wikipedia rules for this case, and the section should be renamed if not «controversy» or «dispute» with another name more neutral and non-conclusive than the mere affirmation of the fact. Ajñavidya (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

As discussed above, the mainstream reliable sources cited in the article do not treat this as "debatable" or "a current dispute." Once again, we are not required to give equal validity to each side where it is clear that reliable sources do not do so. Crowder and his conservative allies may dispute it, but just as with climate change, we have no obligation to give equal time or space to unequal arguments. To paraphrase Ben Shapiro, facts don't care about conservatives' feelings. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

We should use "Alleged Harassment", not "Harassment", because there was no harassment. It is debatable and subjective to call Crowder's actions harassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:77B2:400:FD3F:B80B:82AA:EDF0 (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, which overwhelming report this as an issue of harassment and not as debatable. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

So if most media, which is LEFT WING, report something as "harassment", then it's harassment? That's not reliable, nor credible. That simply does not make any sense. Maza publicly called for violence. Why don't you include that fact? You seem to be very political and very selective in your sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:77B2:400:FD3F:B80B:82AA:EDF0 (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

We really don't care that you think most media is "LEFT WING." We simply don't. If you want to edit a site where everyone agrees with your conservative bubble, try Conservapedia on for size. Your editing career here is destined to be brief and unhappy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

This is not LEFTWINGpedia. This is Wikipedia. Your extreme left wing bias has no place here. Carlos Maza publicly called for conservatives to be attacked with milkshake and humiliated. WHY is this fact NOT INCLUDED? Why? It's a fact. So why do you refuse to include it? It's because there is no neutral point of view in this article. And that has to change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:77B2:400:FD3F:B80B:82AA:EDF0 (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

You haven't provided any sources, much less mainstream reliable sources, for the claim that Maza called for "violence" so there's nothing to consider. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia has extensive processes in place for writing and editing articles, especially on biographies of living people. If you disagree with those procedures and with the general consensus of editors regarding what is considered reliable enough to be included in Wikipedia, then this is not the appropriate website for you. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I would want to add to this discussion is NOT a political discussion. This article and the section being treated is not a left wing vs. right wing dilemma, so this debate should not degenerate into a political edit war. Please, do not refer or try to guess an editor's political position because it is irrelevant and hinders the consult. Ajñavidya (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

That being said, I do believe that there's a selection in the sources in the article as it is which makes seem that the harassment is an unquestionable fact, while excluding other sources under the falsely excuse of being «biased», this classification solely based on editors' personal opinion, which is unacceptable. Ajñavidya (talk) 02:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The harassment is a fact in the vast majority of reliable sources. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Are they reliable because they support that the alleged harassment occurred, or there is any other criteria? Because if this is the implicit criteria then we're at the presence of circular reasoning. Is there any other classification for calling them «reliable» while excluding, for instance, RedState? You used a climate change analogy to this article in an earlier comment, but this is a false equivalence. Climate change is a scientific phenomenon proven by experimentation and scientific methodology — such as rigorous peer-reviewing, etc. — which has gained consensus among the scientific community; this has absolutely nothing to do with a dispute between two public figures and journalistic means are by no stream of imagination equivalent to the scientific community. Ajñavidya (talk) 03:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

If you wish to gain insights or broader perspective into the reliability of any particular source, you're welcome to open a thread at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and ask for a broader discussion. In short, what makes a source reliable is a track record of accuracy; identifiable editorial structures and fact-checking processes; the publication of corrections and retractions; and, for statements of fact, an established reputation for news reporting as opposed to opinionated punditry. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Further, you should again review WP:GEVAL and WP:DUE. We do not treat all sources as equal, and we do not treat all sides as equal. If the BBC, The Guardian, NPR, The Washington Post and Time say one thing, while National Review and RedState say another — we do not have two equal sides. We have, on one hand, an array of mainstream reliable sources, and on the other hand, a pair of explicitly-partisan conservative house organs. Those are not equivalent, and we are not required to pretend they are. You may well protest that "the mainstream media are biased!" Assuming, arguendo, that you're correct... we aren't here to fix that. The mission of Wikipedia is not to counter what you or anyone else may perceive as biases within mainstream sources. We are, rather, bound by policy to reflect those mainstream sources. You're free to disagree with those policies but you're not free to ignore them while editing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I understand what you say. However, none of the sources you have put as an example and none of the sources in the article actually confirmed that harassment existed, with perhaps the only exception of Newsweek. Neither BBC News nor The Guardian nor the Washington Post confirm that this harassment existed. They limit themselves to quote Carlos Maza and Vox's demands, and quote both stances with impartiality. BBC News correctly describes the situation as a "dispute." Even BuzzFeed (hardly a reliable source, but I agree it should be quoted here) treats the issue in a surprisingly neutral way. Therefore, keeping the title of the section as «Harassment by Steven Crowder» instead of «Alleged harassment [...]» is totally unjustified and should further corrected to reflex the neutrality in the facts and the sources. Ajñavidya (talk) 05:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

BBC: peppered with insulting language attacking Maza's sexual orientation and ethnicity ... a video compilation of the abuse. Not "alleged insults" or "alleged abuse." NPR: the racist and homophobic abuse he's faced. Not "alleged abuse." The Guardian: a user who subjected a journalist to repeated homophobic abuse in videos. Again, not "alleged abuse." If you wish to change the existing language, you're going to need to establish consensus. If "abuse" is more acceptable to you, that's also widely used in sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

"Racist and homophobic abuse from Steven Crowder" is an acceptable alternative, if that works for you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• "Alleged" definitely doesn't work because, as WP:ALLEGED explains, it implicitly casts doubt on the qualified statement - ie. it carries the implication that the content of the section is questionable, which isn't really what the sources say. --Aquillion (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Aquillion, the Manual of Style states that the word «alleged» can and should be legitimately used when the sources point that «wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined», which is precisely the case we are treating. The words «alleged» and «accused» shouldn't be used in the case that a fact is pointed by a source but even then the editor express doubt about that source, without justifying that doubt. Ajñavidya (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I'm having difficulty understanding how anyone can see this otherwise. Even ignoring the sources that call this abuse, the sky is blue and water is wet. O3000 (talk) 21:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Maza made allegations of harassment/abuse by Crowder, but salty commentary, unsavory insults, and bad jokes are not automatically on the level of "abuse" or "harassment". YouTube looked into it and found that the videos were not in violation of their policies. This is the highest level of adjudication we have on the matter (after all, nothing has been taken to court), and so, frankly, its even possible to make a valid claim that the allegations of "abuse"/"harassment" have been shown to be unfounded. Wording this as "alleged" is at least a middle ground - although if we can think outside the box and maybe find some entirely different way to rename the section I think that'd help. -- Netoholic @ 21:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

YouTube is an interested party to the situation and not RS. Let’s stick with RS. O3000 (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

My comment was to explain to you the context and show how your "sky is blue" response is not appropriate. Its indisputable in RS that YouTube has found that Crowder's videos do not violate their ToS (which define abuse and harassment) - if the videos did, they would have been deleted. -- Netoholic @ 22:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

No, YouTube does not "define" abuse anymore than the KKK defines racism. Let's stick with RS. We can, and do, state the opinion of YT. But, they are an interested party. O3000 (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Netoholic: Youtube does not define the words "abuse" or "harassment" in their ToS. Youtube also made no determination regarding whether Maza was harassed by Crowder. Youtube's policies prohibit content that is "intended to maliciously harass, threaten, or bully others", and provide examples of what that means. This Wikipedia page has never used the term "malicious" or any similar terms to modify the word "harassment". Both your comment and Youtube's conclusions are irrelevant to a discussion on the use of the terms "harassment" or "abuse", which are both widely used as factual descriptions in the reliable sources. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Then you have to stop edit warring to remove RS which give differing viewpoints. Just as there are some RS which label this as "harassment", there are others that dispute that label or go further to suggest that Maza is the one acting in bad faith for making these claims. -- Netoholic @ 22:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

What RS say this is not abusive? O3000 (talk) 22:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

This title of the section is continually edited to a non-neutral text. The title «Homophobic and racist abuse by [...]» is imprecise and has a baggage to give the impression of a level of abuse beyond verbal. Again, most of the sources go around an «alleged harassment» and not all of them describe Crowder's actions as «homophobic» or «racist», and the word «abuse» is rarely present, most of the time used when quoting Maza. Ajñavidya (talk) 02:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

"Racist and homophobic abuse" is literally the wording used by the multiple reliable sources I cited and quoted above. Meanwhile, you've cited and quoted not a single source using the phrase "alleged harassment," and a Google News search finds zero reliable sources using that phrase in relation to this matter. Your claim about what "most of the sources" say is, quite simply, false. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, as I have previously said, the majority of sources here quoted don't state that harassment occurred, they simply quote Maza’s and Crowder’s declarations, tweets and overall dispute. They don't state either that abuse occurred. For example, The Guardian's article is titled: «YouTube removes advertising from account accused of homophobic abuse». USA Today's article's title is: «YouTube pulls ads from right-wing pundit after journalist alleges anti-gay harassment» Hence, the title «Harassement» or even «Homophobic and racist abuse by [...]» is misleading because this claim isn’t made in most of the sources, and in presence of this dispute between individuals, a neutral and impartial tone should be presented in Wikipedia and the term «alleged» should be included in due to this. Ajñavidya (talk) 06:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

We avoid using article titles. The text in the Guardian article begins: YouTube has removed advertising from material by a user who subjected a journalist to repeated homophobic abuse in videos, after the platform faced criticism over its failure to act.[13] A later USA Today article says: YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki apologized to the gay and lesbian community on Monday over the handling of anti-gay comments on the video platform.[14] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective3000 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, my point is still valid. The title of the The Guardian's article uses the phrase «accused of homophobic abuse». The first paragraph of the quoted USA Today's article is as follows:

YouTube announced Wednesday that it will temporarily pull ads from a conservative commentator after backlash about the company's prior position  on allegations made by a journalist accusing the channel of promoting "racist and homophobic" content.

In the presence of various versions by different sources, we must chose the most neutral and balanced point of view. Ajñavidya (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, we avoid titles as they are generally not written by the authors of the article. The article states outright that it was abusive -- and it is an excellent source. O3000 (talk) 00:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

If the title is written by someone else or the same person that wrote the article is irrelevant to this discussion. The article has been published with that title. Besides, this would be cherry-picking this particular source, because other sources refer to the dispute neutrally and do not go further to affirm that the harassment or even abuse occurred. Ajñavidya (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Many sources support that Crowder's comments were abusive. Selectively highlighting a couple quotes out of context to support weasel words and whitewashing is not balanced, and is not neutral. Wikipedia isn't a platform for euphemisms or whitewashing. Grayfell (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

It would be weasel-wording and false attribution if the title of the section stays as it is right now. As I argued to extenuation, the majority of sources quoted here do not affirm that harassment or abuse occurred. This is a situation where various sources are describing the same situation, some affirming a position and others being neutral in their description. According to WP:BALANCE the most neutral stance should be that of Wikipedia. I sincerely don't understand why this is longer an issue. Ajñavidya (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Ajñavidya, you need to stop making false claims about the content of the sources. Almost all of them (9 of the 11) describe Crowder's actions as "harassment", "abuse", or "slurs", as well as "homophobic", "anti-gay", or "racist". Only two of the sources in the article use the word "allegations" and none use the word "alleged". One article from Business Insider only discusses the harassment as Maza "accused" Crowder, but as I showed in a previous comment, at least 3 other Business Insider articles directly call them "slurs".

1. Time "YouTube Says Homophobic Harassment Targeting a Popular Host Doesn't Violate Its Policies" / "YouTube says a popular conservative host is not violating the company’s policies despite his homophobic and racist slurs targeting another video maker"
2. Buzzfeed News "Maza wrote a viral Twitter thread last week describing the harassment he is experiencing from Steven Crowder and his followers. Crowder has published a number videos mocking Maza, calling him a “lispy queer” and making other racist and anti-gay comments." / "After Maza's tweets about his harassment from Crowder went viral last week"
3. Business Insider "YouTube is refusing to punish a star with millions of fans after he hurled homophobic slurs at a journalist" / "The Vox journalist Carlos Maza tweeted last week about the harassment he said he'd received"
4. BBC "YouTube's 'confused' response to anti-gay slurs" / "Whenever Maza publishes a video for Vox, Crowder will post his own 'debunking' video, peppered with insulting language attacking Maza's sexual orientation and ethnicity. So, last week, Maza posted a video compilation of the abuse."
5. Newsweek "has spoken up about harassment he's experienced from YouTuber Steven Crowder and his fans" / "Crowder has made numerous homophobic remarks directed at Maza" / "in which he repeatedly mocked Maza's sexuality and liberal views" / "He claimed his homophobic language" / "The similarly personal nature of the insults and attacks from Crowder and his fans"
6. The Guardian "YouTube has removed advertising from material by a user who subjected a journalist to repeated homophobic abuse in videos"
7. USA Today "He chronicled a list of these homophobic and racist displays in the thread. Maza also shared that his private information has been leaked, or doxed, as a result of this harassment." / "on allegations made by a journalist"
8. Washington Post "YouTuber hurled racist, homophobic taunts at a gay reporter" / "said the harassment began about two years ago"
9. NPR "highlighting the racist and homophobic abuse he's faced" / "while YouTube's support team announced that the homophobic language by right-wing YouTuber" / "Maza posted a montage of personal attacks he's faced" / "Crowder sold a T-shirt depicting Che Guevara with a limp wrist, and a homophobic slur printed underneath. A version of that shirt with Maza's name on it appeared on a separate online store this week"
10. The Hill "YouTube responded to Maza's tweet thread detailing his allegations" "Crowder posted a video to YouTube on Friday responding to the investigation and Maza's allegations."
11. Business Insider only discusses as Maza "accusing" that Crowder harassed him

– Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Some sources refer to Crowder's comments as «slurs» but not «abuse» or «harassment» which —although recognized by a part— is not recognized by all the sources as some approach to a more neutral stance considering it «allegations» by Maza. This article should stick to WP:IMPARTIAL. Ajñavidya (talk) 05:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:DROPTHESTICK – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert, my point is valid. In presence of multiple sources describing a dispute/controversy/argue such as this case, Wikipedia should select the most neutral, least baggaged, most balanced of those views: WP:IMPARTIAL. If different views are presented by the sources, but none of them adopt a neutral stance, then Wikipedia should present a neutral stance anyways, balancing those different views: WP:BALANCED. All this is specially true for this section can be considered a POV fork of Steven Crowder's article, and as WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION suggests a biographical section should not focus on criticism and polemic, and referring to them an special attention should be paid to a neutral point of view. Both Steven Crowder and Carlos Maza are living persons. Ajñavidya (talk) 06:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, this seems to be an ongoing pattern here, where editors with a clear bias in their political and social ideologies, impose a similar bias on pages such as this. Wikipedia is and should be a neutral and factual site, instead of one which suits the opinions and agendas of biased editors. Similarly, locking a page to seemingly "resolve" a dispute, where there is little to no compromise in conflicting interests, but instead only a move which suits one side, is also just as biased and innapropriate Cement4802 (talk) 11:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Now that you've called editors with whom you disagree names, do you have anything to contribute to the discussion? WP:AGF O3000 (talk) 12:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Wallyfromdilbert. It is well past time for the WP:STICK to be dropped. It really isn't getting anybody anywhere to keep on with the kvetching.

Asking for a "compromise" between reliable sources and people's personal spin is not compromise at all. Our responsibility is to write neutrality based on reliable sources and not to adopt some sort of fake "centerism" equidistant between the reliable sources and unreliable claims. As I have said above, we do have to note the denials, and we do need to keep a straight face while doing so, even when those doing the denying do not do so themselves (I mean, "figs". Really?), but we are not required to give these parity of esteem with the reliable sources. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

DanielRigal, this is not «fake "centrism" equidistant between reliable sources and unreliable claims», this is what Wikipedia policies and the quoted sources suggest to do. When you say «[...] but we are not required to give these parity of esteem with the reliable sources», you must recall that that is what WP:IMPARTIAL exactly commands to do. Remember that what might be obvious to you hasn't have to be obvious to everybody else, and personal considerations of yours or any other editor shouldn't be taken into account in Wikipedia. Lastly, I will quote a text of NPOV that summarizes perfectly what to stand for, and fully applies to this case:

This policy [neutral point of view] is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.

Ajñavidya (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ajñavidya: NPOV is exactly why we cannot ignore the reliable sources to insert your personal preference into the article. You have repeatedly made false claims about the sources in order to push your personal narrative. You have repeatedly been shown to be wrong, and at this point it seems like you are pushing these fabrications purposely in order to minimize the factual claims in this article that are directly supported by 9 out of 11 sources. Your sophistry has gone on long enough, and this discussion has developed into a waste of everyone's time. Please stop with the bad faith arguments and WP:DROPTHESTICK. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert, I haven't made false claims and I am not trying to push a personal narrative, I'm trying to stick to the sources and what's suggested by Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. I have used various arguments and you're still not getting the point. I don't want to repeat myself; suffice to say that even if one of the quoted sources state that «harassment» and/or «abuse» are allegations it'd be enough reason to take that neutral stance in the redaction of this article, specially if it can be a biographical NPOV fork. Otherwise we're in the case of a NPOV violation. Ajñavidya (talk) 02:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Section name is still in violation of several Wikipedia policies at this point. Why hasn't this been fixed yet? Ajñavidya (talk) 03:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

If you think the section name is improper, you're welcome to open a formal RFC to determine consensus. If there's a consensus that it violates policies, then the article will be edited accordingly. Right now, there's a clear preponderance of opinions that the name does not violate policies, and so it has not been changed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I really hoped this could be solved without recurring to the noticeboard. Ajñavidya (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Starting an RFC is something you can do here, rather than on a noticeboard. I really do think that it is a complete waste of time to do so, because I don't see any support for your position. I think that pretty much everybody else here regards this as already "solved". Nonetheless, it is a legitimate step that you can take if you really want to see that lack of agreement spelled out in even more stark and unambiguous terms than it already has been. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not a complete waste of time to make this article in line with official wikipedia policy. Just because the "reliable sources" all come out in favour of Maza doesn't make official public perception of the issue in line with mainstream sources. The CNN video "Carlos Maza rips YouTube over homophobic videos targeting him" has over a 99% dislike/like ratio. It would be naive to think that the public believes that Maza is truely a targeted victim here. Obviously there's more here than our reliable news sources dogpiling on an "abusive right wing figure." Don't let the flame die out on this, wikipedia must remain neutral, and this section title most certainly is not. If the "reliable sources" are not truthworthy, then they should not be used to paint this picture. But maybe these editors are really vox journalists :P. GenericTrueNeutral (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable, secondary sources, not original research by editors O3000 (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Understandably the point about public perception was not meant to be included in the article but rather as a thinking point when considering which sources most broadly reflect truth in an objective manner. Those 9 out of 11 "reliable sources" are an example of a mainstream narrative being pushed which is overwhelming in support of Maza. Are we on Wikipedia meant to push mainstream narratives, even if the mainstream narrative violates NPOV? Wikipedia articles are meant to collate sources are present them in a neutral manner, and not in one that reflects a media outrage. The section heading is still a point of contention and should be brought to the next level. GenericTrueNeutral (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes. NPOV specifically states, Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. That's called due weight. Wikipedia is not a platform to promote alternative viewpoints which are given no credence in reliable sources. Among other things, this means that we treat fringe conspiracy theories such as "Barack Obama's a secret Kenyan Muslim terrorist usurper!" as what they are - fringe lunacy. That you put any credence in easily-gamed "like/dislike" social media mechanics suggests that you may not be familiar with, or fully understand, how we write and edit articles. I suggest you review the relevant policies before entering into a wild-goose chase; you are, of course, free to bring this dispute "to the next level" by initiating an request for comment. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Interesting that you point out that like/dislike bars are easily gamed, seeing as taking 9 sources from arguably the same or allied media franchises could be described as gaming the system to project a pro-Maza viewpoint. Are we going to accusing botting for the reason why the public is so overwhelmingly negative towards the media coverage of this story? Anyways, that's not particularly important to the actually writing of the section at hand. No one here is suggesting that we include fringe viewpoints within our articles but that the wording of "racist and homophobic abuse" is a conviction that doesn't have enough credence. Without accusing editors of any implicit biases I admit that as a long time Wiki consumer and first time poster I may not be aware of the hierarchies of power within the editor sphere, however I and many others are not satisfied with the way this article has been documented. Seeing as how long this thread has gone, it might be time to use the noticeboard. (I don't know how to use the noticeboard) GenericTrueNeutral (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@GenericTrueNeutral: Present reliable sources that support your position or otherwise stop wasting other editors' time. Your personal opinions about the facts are irrelevant here. If you think all mainstream reliable sources are biased, then editing Wikipedia is not the place for you. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

1. [15] " torrent of outrage from left-wing groups about insulting remarks he made about a gay political personality working at Vox."

So clearly at least one reliable source frames Crowder's comments as "insulting remarks" rather than "racist and homophobic abuse." Yes yes, I can see the undue weight accusations coming since I only put one news publication on short notice. Speaking of undue weight, I don't see the undue weight policy meaning that Wikipedia is meant to be an approximate aggregator of reliable sources, which seems to totally contradict the policy of NPOV...? Seeing as we don't like the Washington Times, the Post Millennial, or the Daily Caller here I haven't included any of their articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenericTrueNeutral (talk • contribs) 20:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

The fact that one source uses vaguer language does not contradict the other sources. Let me give you an example. Say several sources say "Stalin was a very bad man". Now suppose we find one source that simply says "Stalin was a bad man". Does that source mean to say that Stalin was bad but not very bad? That is possible but not at all certain. Would that source dispute that Stalin was very bad if it was put to them? We can't tell. We can't assume anything from what people choose not to say. Now if a source said that "Stalin was a good man" then we would have a disagreement, albeit a silly one. So how does this help us here? The description "insulting remarks" is consistent with "racist and homophobic abuse" because racist and homophobic verbal abuse is a specific subset of the broader set of insulting remarks. So we have nothing here to contradict what we say. So this is going absolutely nowhere and, as you can see above, the discussion is already pointless and overlong. I suggest to give it up. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this is a satisfactory response since we on Wikipedia do not explicitly say that Stalin was a bad man, nor was Hitler a bad man. The Wiki does not have a stance on events since we are explicitly NPOV, we collate sources and display them within the article. Even within the article itself it states "Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Stalin has retained popularity in Russia and Georgia as a victorious wartime leader who established the Soviet Union as a major world power. Conversely, his totalitarian government has been widely condemned for overseeing mass repressions, ethnic cleansing, deportations, hundreds of thousands of executions, and famines which killed millions." Can we say personally that Stalin was objectively bad based on the facts that are presented? Of course, we can deduct from the facts within the article that Stalin was a bad man, or that knowledge from sources on gulags would make him evil, but we also include the sources that say that he was a good man, or did good for Russia, such as the blurb about his popularity in contemporary Russia. Again, this is all within NPOV. The fact of the matter is that the wording of "racist and homophobic abuse" implies that we, as Wiki editors, have taken the stance that Maza objectively faced abuse, where the situation is not as cut and dried, even if most of our listed reliable sources take his side. The fact that this discussion has gone for this long shows exactly how problematic this wording is. Looking at the revision history I can already see this page is the site of a massive edit war. Hope you understand why we feel this is problematic wording that is not within the Wikipedia ethos. GenericTrueNeutral (talk) 23:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

What? WP:NOTFORUM O3000 (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

DanielRigal gave a hypothetical example, not a literal comparison. If you want to make a literal comparison, note that (for instance) Stalin's government is described as "totalitarian", not "allegedly totalitarian", because reliable sources agree on its nature. Stalin is described as a "dictator" by the '30s, not an "alleged dictator", for the same reason. Steven Crowder's actions are described as "racist and homophobic abuse", not "alleged racist and homophobic abuse", for the same reason. All about what reliable sources say. Benny White (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Even within the Legacy heading within Stalin's page we have "Death toll and allegations of genocide" seeing as there is there is a big debate on whether or not the Holodomor is truly a genocide. Some would argue that Stalin was a genocidal maniac of which it would not be a hard point to defend. That's not the point. The point is, once again, NPOV policy. If the reliable sources are not mostly unanimous, then we cannot call it a "genocide." So then, we can agree that every source reports on the nature of the remarks that Crowder made, from Fox saying "insulting remarks," Newsweek saying "homophobic remarks/mocked Maza's sexuality," the Hill being more third person saying, "Carlos Maza accused him of harassment and making derogatory comments about his ethnicity and sexuality," to Time saying fully, "YouTube says a popular conservative host is not violating the company’s policies despite his homophobic and racist slurs." Even within our used reliable sources, we've just jumped to the Time article and accepted Time as some sort of gold standard. And yes, I understand that the BBC and the Guardian are fully describing Crowder as an abusive homophobe. Point is, there is still room for debate.

The wording is still unacceptable for a Wiki article and is reminiscent of some of the drivel found on RationalWiki, but maybe "allegations of racist and homophobic abuse" isn't the solution either. Maybe not even "controversy with Stephen Crowder" or "harassment dispute with Stephen Crowder." I'd almost like to say "feud with Stephen Crowder" but I'm sure that's not popular among some of the editors on this page.GenericTrueNeutral (talk) 04:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Your suggestions ignore the actual sources, which have been laid out above, and which clearly put Crowder in the wrong. The sources are nearly unanimous, which is why the language was chosen. WP:DROPTHESTICK and find something useful to do, especially considering your only edits are to this talk page. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, this is wonderful, finally someone who admits their partiality towards Maza. Isn't this like the third time you told like 4 different users to drop the stick? Anyways, clearly you take the stance that if Time, BBC, the Guardian, BuzzFeed, Vox (obviously) are fully in support of Maza then we should be too, since they're the "majority." It would be anti-NPOV to ignore that Fox supports Crowder's view, not to mention the Hill's article which is a fairly distanced 3rd party observation and the interesting Business Insider article which sets the stage for a discussion about free speech. Anyways, sorry, but the stick isn't being dropped and if we can't come to some sort of consensus then I'll make my very first post on the noticeboard or a request for comment (exciting!!!) GenericTrueNeutral (talk) 06:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Switch "Personal life" and "Racist and homophobic abuse from Steven Crowder" sections

The article would make more sense if the reader found out that Maza is gay before learning that he was the victim of homophobic abuse. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

It is also in the Biography section so I think it is OK as it is. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

True. I still think the sentence "Maza is openly gay" is in the wrong place if it comes after the homophobic abuse stuff. It is just bad writing. But if you are ok with it, have it your way. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh right: I forgot. In principle, the more relevant stuff should come first. And his personal life is more relevant to his article than a problem some other guy has. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Youtube abuse section - relevant?

Does the section 'Racist and homophobic abuse from Steven Crowder' really belong in this article? It's not really about Maza, it's almost entirely about Steven Crowder and YouTube. I'd say it should be cut down to one or two lines at most, it looks out of place here. Robofish (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

It's relevant because it became a public issue involving Maza after he spoke up against the abuse; I wouldn't call it "off-topic." I see where you're coming from, because I don't think the section talks enough about Maza's response to the abuse, which we should fix. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

It is one of the primary things Maza is known for so it belongs here. The issue is somewhat softpedaled in the Steven Crowder article and is, amazingly, completely absent in the YouTube article. I mean, I know that YouTube does this a lot but surely this is one of the most notable examples of it doing (what can charitably be described as) the bare minimum to prevent its platform being used to harass people. The section definitely does need more about Maza's own responses but we don't want to make it too long either. The other reason the section looks odd is that there is so little else in the article. It should be built up with more about his career. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

The section is just another example of biased editing by the Wikipedia editors who live in a far-left bubble. P.S., do NOT delete other's comments. This does NOT fall under WP:NOTAFORUM. 2401:E180:8860:D3DE:61E7:731A:8680:A16E (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The whole section is an example of WP:AVOIDVICTIM and WP:UNDUE, not to mention its blatant bias. A group of users insist in that they have achieved consensus, as if consensus would justify leaving the article contradicting Wikipedia policies as it currently is; but the repeated attempts to correct its issues by various users show that such consensus doesn't even exist. Ajñavidya (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

You can start an RFC if you want to gauge the consensus. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)2401:E180:8860:D3DE:61E7:731A:8680:A16E (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

It always makes me laugh when people throw the phrase "far-left" around without even the slightest idea of what it means. I always hope that one day that they they will fall into conversation with an actual Anarchist or Communist and have a long chat where they learn what the far-left really is. I mean, I'm not expecting them to agree with any of it, just to learn a little of what it is that they are disagreeing with.

Anyway, I digress from the actual topic at hand, which is this fine Wikipedia article, so please let me recap. There is no consensus for putting weaselly wording in to protect Crowder's feelings or reputation. There appears to be a consensus in favour of the current wording. Anybody who disagrees is welcome to start an RFC to determine exactly where the consensus is. The unwillingness to do so seems to suggest that the situation is already perfectly well understood. Whatever happens, this general, vague, pointless kvetching is not getting anybody anywhere and is just wasting people's time that could be better spent on something productive. It is getting to the point where it might be considered disruptive. Personally, I recommend that effort is better spent on improving other parts of the article so that it does a better job of covering Maza's career. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The way you've accused others of «weaselly wording [sic] in to protect Crowder's feelings or reputation» fits better the current violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:Balance in order to take a side in assuming the accusations made by Maza are true, instead of keeping an impartial tone as demanded by the encyclopedia. Moreover, the use of words such as «racist» and «homophobic», which are explicitly called out to be avoided by WP:Label, have no place here since they're baggaged and demagogic in nature, and are only allowed for in-text attributions to the sources. These words cannot simply be used in a section name. Ajñavidya (talk) 08:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

You have been offered a route if you want to challenge the consensus. Please either take it or stop wasting everybody's time. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

No More Vox Job

So this guy either quit or got fired. It's the talk of nearly every conservative youtuber. There's a bunch of questionable sources and this:

https://nypost.com/2019/08/13/carlos-maza-reportedly-leaving-vox-after-harassment-on-twitter/

So... I guess the article's lead needs an update.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 07:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

There is no reliable source I can find that says he has left. O3000 (talk) 10:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Ummm, maybe go check the RS Noticeboard. Consensus leans toward nypost is RS for it's actual articles, just like Fox News is still considered RS.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 07:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:RSP: "There is no consensus regarding the reliability of the New York Post." WP:BLPGOSSIP: "Be wary of relying on sources ... that attribute material to anonymous sources." Benny White (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Did you look at the sources for that assessment? Seems much less contentious then the summary suggests. I am keeping my eyes open, but given the speed of the news cycle in the modern day, no other source may even cover it. Also, he changed his twitter profile, which isn't a source but kinda points out they got it right.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 06:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at those before now. The five discussions (1 2 3 4 5) do seem to have unaddressed challenges to a reliability consensus, in keeping with the summary. The closest thing to consensus I could see was that it can be reliable on a case-by-case basis. This would not be that case, since the article relies on anonymous sources, which the BLP policy specifically warns against as mentioned above. Even if a thoroughly "RS" source relied on anonymous sources, it wouldn't be enough to get past BLP here. If multiple reliable sources come out (and they will eventually, at least briefly mentioning his new job, if he's indeed leaving), then we can include the info. Until then, as far as Wikipedia's concerned (due to stringent BLP requirements), this event hasn't happened. Benny White (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I would note that his website still says he's a video producer at Vox.com. SpaceDude21 (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

However on his Twitter handle which is a better way update vocation has removed it around the same time as shown, with one of the last moments he self proclaimed to be a employee of Vox {edit} to be in July could we add that as relevance to topic due to it being over a month we could point to this moment Stag Ark (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

No, sorry. We would need reliable sources that clearly state that he is no longer at Vox. See the policy on biographies of living persons. Benny White (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

https://www.theverge.com/tech/2020/1/31/21112724/carlos-maza-steven-crowder-vox-youtube-harassment-policies-breadtube the article says he left but his own words in the video kinda indicate he was cancelled. Also, he released a video on a personal youtube channel, which is what the secondary source is reporting on.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 07:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2019

That the paragraph titled "racist and homophobic abuse" is retitled as "controversy" 109.144.71.175 (talk) 07:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: This has already been discussed above, and there is no consensus for this change, for multiple reasons. Grayfell (talk) 08:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Crowder abuse - allegedly?

That's what is being edit warred in at Steven Crowder. I don't agree. Doug Weller talk 10:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Here is an overview of the sources from a previous discussion: [16]. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 13:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Doug Weller, to save others time, the reason I added the word "Alleged" to the title to address a potentially libelous statement. Without alleged, it misleads readers to believe that Steven Crowder harassed Maza, a criminal act in every jurisdiction of the USA. YouTube demonetized Crowder to address "all the issues," not this specific one. While Maza and others may allege such a crime or wrongful act, without conviction, it cannot be stated that such a criminal act occurred without disclosing that it was merely "alleged." While, User:NorthBySouthBaranof argued alleged is not required because it is not a crime; we must take extraordinary care since he is a living person and it would be perceived by most/some reasonable people as the criminal definition (see 3.6 policy on Biographies of living people.

• • I would also advocate for alternative headings that avoid legally charged terms, such as harassed, to avoid this issue. If I am misguided, please clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASuperEditor (talk • contribs) 02:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that it will be perceived as criminal. Most harassment is not criminal - rather, it is behavior that demeans, humiliates or embarrasses a person. Reliable sources do not use the term "alleged" in the case of Crowder's harassment of Maza - and therefore, neither should we. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Rewording employment info

Maza's last recorded Vox activity is over 6 months old: https://www.vox.com/authors/carlos-maza. While there are still no adequate sources to state he's left, I also think it's no longer accurate to definitively state he still works there. Also, he co-wrote an award-winning film (https://vimeo.com/366617629), which suggests he's been doing something else.

I propose the following changes for deliberate ambiguity until we have confirmation of his current job: "is an American video producer who writes, produces, and hosts the Vox series Strikethrough" → "is an American video producer known for writing, producing, and hosting the Vox series Strikethrough"; "He then began working at Vox Media, where he produces and hosts Strikethrough" → "He then began producing and hosting Strikethrough at Vox Media"; and removing the employer info in the infobox. Benny White (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's that big of an issue since the Vox page still describes him as a correspondent, but I don't object to most of the change. I don't think "known for" would be appropriate to use through unless that was the type of language being used in the sources. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

True, probably not that important. I removed "known for" and added the fact that he started Strikethrough. Benny White (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I think your changes are great. Even if he is still at Vox, it helps future-proof the article. Thanks. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Maza started a youtube channel and said he was cancelled over what his employers saw as a two-way war with Steven Crowder. He's a primary source, but we should be on look for appropriate secondary sources.209.112.211.251 (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Well this says he 'left' which I would think means quit, but he definately indicated he was let go in the video..... But a source. https://www.theverge.com/tech/2020/1/31/21112724/carlos-maza-steven-crowder-vox-youtube-harassment-policies-breadtube Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

New York Post article

good article on his family history and upbringing. --2001:8003:4085:8100:F54D:C5A5:4142:50B5 (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. If you wanted to make an edit request, you'll need a better source than one article from the New York Post, which is a tabloid. Benny White (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

So, we're supposed to only use sources that Benny White approves? A tabloid format newspaper is perfectly capable of finding out truth. In fact, Maza has admitted the story is accurate. Any more facts that your want to dispute, Benny? 47.37.56.179 (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:RSP: "There is no consensus regarding the reliability of the New York Post. The New York Post is a tabloid newspaper with high circulation, and most editors prefer more reliable sources when available. The New York Post operates Page Six, its gossip section." WP:BLPSOURCE: "...The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." Benny White (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Benny, please see WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. I saw you reverted my piece on this article. What I wrote were the words of Maza himself: see Twitter. However, I had to use a secondary source with editorial oversight. Otherwise, the reasoning would be that Maza writing about Maza on the Twitter-page of Maza would not be notable enough to be used in an encyclopedia, or from another viewpoint, "too exceptional" (see WP:TWITTER). But for some reason, when Maza's own words are notable enough to be directly quoted in a major high-circulation news paper, it is reverted for being unreliable, even if the used quote is verifiably exactly the same as his statement on Twitter. Why is that? Jeff5102 (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Because the quote snippet used omits relevant context, and appears to be designed as a "gotcha." The full quote is I have lived a life of tremendous privilege, and I am trying to use that privilege to push for a fairer, more just world. What was the reasoning for intentionally omitting the second part of the sentence? Probably to omit that context. If we decide that his mother & family being wealthy is relevant based on a single article in the New York Post, we would need to include all the context surrounding it. Because yes, as you said, context matters. And the context here is that someone with a wealthy family is advocating for policies which would result in his family becoming less wealthy, because he believes that a broader wealth distribution is fairer and more just. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jeff5102: Thanks for providing the context that it was based on a first-party Twitter statement. @NorthBySouthBaranof: I agree that if we include the information, we would need to follow the true context.

I looked up the WP:SOCIALMEDIA policy, which seems a little vague. I feel that this addition to the article may be WP:UNDUE. Maza's post was in anticipation of one tabloid's story, and the other source (which doesn't exactly get a ringing endorsement on WP:RSP) is that tabloid. I think we should skip this addition unless it is covered in more RS. Benny White (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of socioeconomic background is not out of place in a biography and I find the context welcome: "I have lived a life of tremendous privilege, and I am trying to use that privilege to push for a fairer, more just world." Bus stop (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Maza says in that Twitter post that this is not something he wants to talk about. We shouldn't be including quotes on Wikipedia that article subjects are forced to make because of a tabloid piece in a low quality source. If reliable sources discuss Maza's socioeconomic background, then I think it may be appropriate to include. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The Twitter post is simply to provide more information. It isn't to deny information about to be published by the New York Post. They are not "forced" to make a statement via Twitter providing information that is supplemental to the New York Post article and they are not denying the information in the New York Post article. Bus stop (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Neither the New York Post article nor the Twitter post are appropriate to include. The one is a tabloid article in a low quality source, and the other is a Twitter post where the author of the post says they don't want to be discussing this. The relevance of the information would need to be shown by inclusion in better sources. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I think he is just about confirming the accuracy of the information in the New York Post article. He is saying that he wants to "get out ahead of it". He issues no denials of what is about to be published. "Get[ting] out a head of it" to me means providing additional information relevant to what is about to be published. And that is all that he does. He does not deny anything. I am perfectly OK with including his additional information such as "I have lived a life of tremendous privilege, and I am trying to use that privilege to push for a fairer, more just world." Bus stop (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

If you think we should include a quote from Twitter post where the author says "This all feels uncomfortably personal to talk about" and "I dread having to talk about this", then you will have to find a better reason than a sensationalist tabloid article. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The subject is not saying the information in that article is inaccurate. The subject says "there's going to be a shitty article about my family in the New York Post pretty soon". Bus stop (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

As Benny White has also said, the information is not WP:DUE without better sourcing. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Damned if I can find dueness in a tabloid (ironically owned by a billionaire) drumming up controversy over the fact that, in their minds, one born to money can't criticize inequality. If an excellent source can be found (not Twitter), go for it in full context. O3000 (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert—I don't think there is a question concerning due and undue weight. It is standard to include socioeconomic information in biographies, if known. In this instance Maza is providing information via Twitter that is supplemental to the New York Post article. Do you feel that anything Maza says via Twitter conflicts with anything in the New York Post article? Bus stop (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't get it, sorry. Someone's socioeconomic background is WP:UNDUE, as opposed to the fact that this 1988-born person frequently played video games as a child, which is notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia? It appears to me that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is at play here. As a second point: the phrase "I have lived a life of tremendous privilege, and I am trying to use that privilege to push for a fairer, more just world." looks rather silly if it is followed by a statement of his fondness of playing video games. Moreover, the latter part was not notable enough to be inserted in the Post-article, so why would it be notable enough here? After all, it doesnt change the status of his upbringing.Jeff5102 (talk) 06:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

If information about his parents' wealth is due, then why isn't it covered in reliable sources? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 14:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

It would be undue weight if we excessively explored the subject's socioeconomic background, but at this time there is nothing in the article about the subject's socioeconomic background, so how can the edit in question be an instance of undue weight? Bus stop (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Wally, this newspaper quotes the words Maza uses on Twitter. I checked it, and it, and the words were indeed taken over correctly by the Post. I gave you the exact link, so you can check it yourself. Why then should there be a problem with reliability?Jeff5102 (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

A low quality source is not reliable enough to be used to establish the information should be included. If it was important enough information to be included, it would be covered in multiple sources. Benny White already quoted several rules, including WP:BLPSOURCE, which says, contentious material "should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we are discussing "contentious material". What do you see as being "contentious" about the material in this edit? Bus stop (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Two editors have removed it, and four editors have objected to it here. Only you and Jeff5102 have argued for its inclusion. Unless you can find better sources, there doesn't seem to be anymore to discuss. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

You are saying you are removing "contentious material". I am looking at the same material and not seeing anything "contentious". Therefore I am simply asking you—what is "contentious" about the material that you are removing? Bus stop (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Wally, WP:VOTE tells us that "polls are generally not used for article development. Remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy; even when polls appear to be "votes", most decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis of consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule. In summary, polling is not a substitute for discussion."

That said, your argument would have some merit if we really only had the Post, article. However, you ignore Maza's own tweet that confirms the used part of the reference word for word. Quoting someone directly is not "contentious." Therefore, the appeal to the questionable reliability falls flat, and with that the problem of notability. After all, it is published by a major news source with editorial oversight, which makes it notable.

Also, when you willanswer Bus Stop's question, please also answer this one: why is the fact that this 1988-born person frequently played video games as a child noteworthy enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia, while his socioeconomic status is not?Jeff5102 (talk) 05:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I took another look at WP:SOCIALMEDIA, and I think Maza's Twitter post does meet the requirements. I would be OK with including the info if we base it accurately on Maza's Twitter post, keep it to probably one sentence, and just skip the New York Post story—it's hard to argue that a tabloid hit piece would be an appropriate source, and another source is not required by the social-media source policy. So something like "Maza experienced both wealth and financial struggle while growing up, which he credits with motivating him to advocate for more economic equality." Would this be an acceptable compromise to all? Benny White (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. O3000 (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I feel we should wait until the information is covered by a reliable source. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest the following for inclusion in the article: Maza has said "I grew up living between two very different households, experiencing two very different economic classes...I know what it's like to enjoy incredible wealth. And I know what it's like to struggle to make ends meet...I have lived a life of tremendous privilege, and I am trying to use that privilege to push for a fairer, more just world". Bus stop (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

We are proposing to include long quotes from a Twitter post where the author of the post says, "This all feels uncomfortably personal to talk about" and "I dread having to talk about this" when the material has not been covered in any reliable sources? If we wanted to include random quotes from Maza, we would have a thousand, which is why we rely on reliable sources to determine what is due. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

These are not "random quotes from Maza". This is Maza explaining his socioeconomic background. Most biographies—if the information is known—shed some light on the circumstances of one's life especially one's upbringing. We know that material circumstances are often pertinent to lives. Poverty tends to have its impact as does privilege. I totally accept that he may find discussing his background uncomfortable. But he made the post. You can still read it here. His purpose in making the Twitter post is to "get out ahead of it". He wishes to explain his own circumstances in advance of the New York Post explaining it for him. I have chosen those excerpts from his Twitter post that I feel explains to the reader of our article just what his background is vis-à-vis material wellbeing and especially in his upbringing. I have avoided most but not all passages that involve interpretation. For instance I did not include "the experience of growing up across a class divide deeply informs my politics and ideas of economic justice". In another section of the article that assertion would very well be a good addition. But in an early life section I think we want just the facts, without interpretation. Bus stop (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

"I have chosen those excerpts from his Twitter post that I feel explains to the reader of our article" is why we are supposed to be guided by reliable sources for what is WP:DUE. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

You are just tossing out policy acronyms. Shouldn't you be explaining how WP:DUE applies to the topic of this discussion? Bus stop (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The policy explicitly says article content should "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". If no independent reliable sources have published certain information about Maza and the only source for content is a Twitter post where Maza says he does not want to be discussing the information, then how is that complying with WP:DUE policy's first line? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you please tell me what the "viewpoints" are? You are saying article content should "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". Bus stop (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not the information is noteworthy/significant enough for inclusion, the point of the policy. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I think more than one sentence is excessive. I would not normally use social media as a source, but since it is allowable under policy, it seems like a good point of compromise. WP:DUE says "...in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Since there's really only one BLP-acceptable source here (Maza's post), I think you could make the case for including one sentence, but not more. Benny White (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Why "one sentence, but not more"? Bus stop (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Since there's only one acceptable source for this content (and not an especially strong one), it's not very prominent in the RS, so proportionally it should be minimally covered. More than one sentence would be disproportionate. If readers are interested in seeing more of what the subject has to say, they could still click the source link. Benny White (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

wallyfromdilbert—no, that is not the "point of the policy". Policy reads as follows: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

1. I do not believe the compromise will work. WP:SOCIALMEDIA says that the used material shouldn't be "unduly self-serving." It is quite obvious that a defense against an upcoming attack-piece is self-serving.

2. The twitter-quote of Maza in the New York Post-story has been taken over by other news outlets. However, given the conservative-leaning nature of them, I do not believe the articles of The Daily Caller and Townhall will be judged as "reliable" by some of the involved editors here.

3.Isn't it a better compromise to start the biography with "Maza graduated from Wake Forest University in 2010 with a BA in political science..." and erase everything before that? That prevents us from further heated discussion. When all aspects of Maza's youth will be discussed in a source that is acceptable for all we can recreate/reinsert the paragraph again. Would that be an acceptable compromise to all?Jeff5102 (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

What reason would there be for removing content properly sourced to a reliable source, such as his birth year? That is also a completely separate topic from whether or not to include information from a New York Post article or his Twitter feed about his parents' income, and should probably be raised in a new section. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

His birth year is still present in the infobox. And for the rest, just stating that he was a child of Cuban immigrants, had some siblings and loved debating and video games - that gives a false impression of the conditions he grew up in.Jeff5102 (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

wallyfromdilbert—an article aims to provide a balanced presentation of a topic it addresses. The conspicuous absence of material expected to be present can be seen as misleading the reader. You are asking "What reason would there be for removing content properly sourced to a reliable source, such as his birth year?" Because we are not interested in misleading readers. The information under discussion would be conspicuously absent. A biography would be expected to shed light on socioeconomic background, if known, and especially in this case, as Maza addresses issues pertaining to the contrast between those, even in America, who are relatively impoverished, and those with ample access to advantages that sometimes contribute to life satisfaction. Bus stop (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Covering what is presented in reliable sources is "misleading" and give a "false impression"? Seems like you should contact those sources then, rather than trying to put your own perspective into the article when it hasn't been covered by reliable sources. We don't remove information just because you don't like it or include information based on your opinion about what is noteworthy. We use reliable sources to determine what to include, which neither of you have presented for the information you want to include. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

"when it hasn't been covered by reliable sources" But it has been covered by reliable sources. The New York Post and Maza's Twitter post corroborate one another. Bus stop (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

And it is also covered by The Daily Caller,Townhall and the International Business Times. That is plenty coverage. As you said:"The relevance of the information would need to be shown by inclusion in better sources. Here you have them. I know that at least two of those sources have a conservative bias. However, since a) they merely confirm what Maza is saying, and b) no media outlet has proven them wrong, I see no reason for not using them all. At least, if nobody agrees with my compromise.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The Daily Caller is deprecated as a source and not to be used for anything. O3000 (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The New York Post is not reliable and the International Business Times is unreliable per WP:RSP. The Townhall article is an opinion article. So, none of those are reliable sources. The only reliable source is Maza's Twitter post, which I don't think counts for WP:DUE considering Maza says in the post he does not want to be discussing the information in it. As WP:BLPSOURCES says, if the information was noteworthy, it would be covered in reliable sources. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Why would Maza's "not want to be discussing the information" have any bearing on whether we apprise the reader of Maza's socioeconomic background? We include information that is reliably sourced and relevant to a biography even if a subject of a WP:BLP would rather that information not be in our articles. Why would we make an exception in this instance? Bus stop (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Including information from individual's Twitter posts is the exception, and I see no reason to do so when the individual would object. If it was noteworthy information for this individual, then it would be in more reliable sources. You should find those. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)These sources are garbage, and we don't use garbage sources to included loaded trivia in a BLP without a very, very good reason. We would be making an "exception" by emphasizing bad sources. Grayfell (talk) 00:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Grayfell—according to WP:TWITTER, information such as this would be usable—or do you know of any reason why it might not be usable? Bus stop (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

It is rather weird that the Townhall-article is disqualifed for being an opinion-piece, since WP:NEWSBLOG tells us that they "may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process." Thus, an outright disqualification of the piece is beyond my comprehension. However,I will disqualify it too, if someone over here can point out any relevant factual errors in it. That said, we cannot solely use Maza's tweet, since WP:TWITTER says that the used material shouldn't be "unduly self-serving." As I said above, it is quite obvious that a defense against an upcoming attack-piece is self-serving. And as I said before: what is notable about Maza writing about Maza on the Twitter-page of Maza?

Thus, we have the bizarre situation that "garbage sources" provide "good information" on Maza's youth (backed up by Maza's own tweet), while "reliable sources" give "garbage information." That is why I proposed to delete the youth-part altogether. The article can do without it, and it will prevent us from more repetitive discussion.Jeff5102 (talk) 09:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

This Twitter post should not be considered "self-serving" in the sense found at WP:TWITTER because it does not deny or dispute anything found in any other source including the New York Post article. The New York Post should be considered an entirely reliable source for straightforward facts that do not deviate in any way from Maza's own assertions and are not interpretive in any way—were the New York Post to say for instance that Maza was not a "good person"—that would be "interpretive" and thus not allowable on that basis. Bus stop (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind to include both the tweet and the New York Post-article - and insert the facts both agree on. I would however like to insert the fact that his mother and fiancé works/worked for Ultimate Software. Not because I like or dislike that company or Maza, but because that company has only 13 links from other articles to it, and one of the good features of Wikipedia is that it can teach us that everything and everyone can be linked to eachother.Jeff5102 (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I tend to favor the wording I suggested above. Sourcing is more than adequate for the wording I suggested. I feel that the corroborative relation between the two sources provides good support for the inclusion of the material I'm suggesting. I don't think it is likely that the New York Post got the company name wrong (Ultimate Software) but for that fact we don't have corroboration between the two sources, because Maza doesn't mention Ultimate Software. I'd still say the suggestion I made here would be my first choice. Bus stop (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2020

Change "Harrasment by Steven Crowder" to "Cotroversies", as there was a response that might be considered controversial 2600:100F:B02A:AF38:A118:E213:86E9:E5AF (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Reliable sources agree that it was harassment; see previous discussions. Benny White (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Socialist

Should the article contain the text Maza is a socialist., sourced to a February 2020 New York Times article about him in which he is described as a socialist? The quote from the article is ... Mr. Maza, who is a New York-based socialist, decided to seize the means of his own video production. "I’m going to use the master’s tools to destroy the master’s house" .... @IHateAccounts:, @Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: and @Benny White: have been going back and forth over this; its inclusion seems pretty straightforward to me, but I figure other people's eyes should be on this (I don't like to get too political with my editing). jp×g 19:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose including the wording. The language, especially as the edit puts it in (distilling an entire bio piece to "X is a socialist") has major WP:BLP concerns. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• RfC not needed: There's been no talk-page discussion of this proposal, so I think it's premature to start an RfC, per WP:RFCBEFORE. Especially since the article already mentions Maza's "leftist" politics. If an editor wants to make a case for including this statement, they are welcome to start a discussion, but I think we should cancel this RfC. Benny White (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
• I agree that an RfC is premature here, and that regular discussion would be more beneficial. I'm not sure why IHateAccounts is opposed to this content, as it is reliably sourced (the NYT article discusses him being a socialist 4 times, and directly calls him a socialist twice) and seems pretty clearly important to his identity as a left-wing activist. Maybe there could be some argument for attribution, but is there some reason to believe he in any way objects to the label? Otherwise, what is the BLP issue with a reliably sourced description of Maza's politics? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: An actual, full representation of his political positions would be one thing. The "personal life" section at the moment looks more like an attempt to justify the attacks on him by Steven Crowder and others; I'm not too happy with the bare sentence "Maza is openly gay" lacking any details either and seemingly cited as a throwaway to AdWeek; since it's paywalled, I can't tell whether it's an opinion column, or someone else's analysis of the main article by Maza [17].

Regardless, simply flagging the "personal life" section with a single sentence "he's a socialist" is a pejorative and thereby a violation of WP:BLP. A detailed analysis of his political positions/leanings/beliefs would be fine to replace the pejorative sentence, and I'm sure someone could do so from the source provided. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

How is "socialist" pejorative? It's reliably sourced information about his political identity. I don't really understand what you mean by "an attempt to justify the attacks on him" when Maza appears to be proud about these aspects of his identity. Are you claiming the New York Times is somehow part of a conspiracy to make Maza look bad? I am not sure how WP:LABEL would apply, and I am not aware of the how else BLP would be involved in a neutral description sourced to the New York Times. From everything I have read and seen, Maza is proudly gay and proudly socialist, which seems easy to find in both independent and self-published sources. If you think additional context would be helpful, then go ahead and add that. I really doubt you would find any traction for your opinion on the BLP noticeboard, but maybe that would be a better avenue for you to take your concerns? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I know a number of socialists, and none of them consider the term an insult; there are currently 404 people in Category:American_socialists; and the article on socialism describes it pretty clearly as an adherent of specific political beliefs. Do you have any source for the claim that it's "pejorative"? While I am not a socialist myself (and I disagree with many of my socialist friends' opinions), I don't think we should be trying to cover up people's beliefs. This is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. Moreover, on Twitter, his username is @gaywonk and he further describes himself as queer in his bio. Likewise, I don't think we should be in the business of denying people's expression of their sexuality (this has political implications as well). jp×g 22:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

"Socialist" may not be inherently pejorative, but it has an awkward and almost pejorative tone when it's included as a short sentence in the "Personal life" section. If we're going to include it, it might make more sense to place it in the "leftist" sentence: In an interview with Business Insider, Maza, who is a socialist, voiced his dissatisfaction with YouTube while also stating that he "might as well flood its airwaves with leftist propaganda" by returning to the platform as an independent creator. Benny White (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

References

I disagree that the term is pejorative at all, and I don't see how it is anymore awkward than any other single-word description of an individual's personal political beliefs in a biographical Wikipedia article on them, which is common on many BLPs. I don't see how there could be any argument that "socialist" is more pejorative in our Wikipedia article than it is in the New York Times's article or its subheading. Further, if the term was pejorative by itself, it would be just as pejorative to use it in a larger sentence. See WP:LABEL for examples of contentious labels. You couldn't call someone a racist in Wikipedia's voice just because it's not in a stand-alone sentence. I don't think we should be basing our editorial decisions on our own personal opinions of whether we like Maza being called a socialist. Maybe the term "socialist" would be contentious or pejorative if the article subject objected to it; however, Benny White, you seem to be agreeing that Maza is a socialist and doesn't object to that label himself. I also disagree with the idea of moving a description of Maza's political views out of the "personal life" section, and I think that is even more problematic if we put a descriptor used by another source inside an sentence that is attributing a quote to Maza from a different source. Since you are not objecting to the actual description, maybe it would be better to expand the content to address your concern about context/presentation, rather than hiding these aspects of Maza's personal life in other parts of the article? Otherwise, I think attributing the description to the New York Times in the personal life section would be a better solution. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it needs better context, is what I'm getting at. I think putting it in the "Career" section would actually make sense since it informs his career so heavily. I don't think it's inherently a problem to include it in the same sentence—it's pretty clear which source says what. Maybe using parentheses for the "socialist" info would make it even clearer that it's not from the Business Insider source. But I would also be OK with including it somewhere else with a reasonable amount of context. Benny White (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

*Include per reasoning by wallyfromdilbert GMPX1234 (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC) — GMPX1234 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs).

• Include the wording. I agree that this RfC is a little premature, but no matter. I can't fathom how this is a BLP concern. Maza is a self-described socialist [18], [19], who makes videos on Noam Chomsky: [20]. The NY Times unequivocally refers to him as a socialist multiple times in the article. It would be a BLP issue to not include the wording since it's central to his identity. The only problem is that I'm not sure where to include it. I originally put it in the Personal Life section, but maybe putting it in the lead is more appropriate? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 04:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Information in the lead should be summarizing the most important content from the body rather than introducing information not also found later in the article. I don't see support in the sources for it being significant enough to be included in the lead though. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Include. No reason not to. BLP is for unsourced or poorly sourced content. This is neither, and there's nothing derogatory about being called a socialist, especially when you publicly self-identify that way. As for procedure, although it might have been helpful to discuss the matter first, there's no rule that you can't go straight to RfC. R2 (bleep) 20:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
• Definitely include, having seen his Youtube channel. Maza is not subtle about his socialist views nor does he appear to consider the fact that he is a socialist pejorative in any way. Loki (talk) 01:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
• Include The references demonstrate that he is a Socialist and that this is highly relevant to what he does. There might be a case for omitting it if it was a fact unconnected to his work but that is not the case here. We should mention it in a way that makes this relevance clear otherwise it isn't very informative and invites questions such as the one we are discussing here. As such, the Personal Life section is not the best place for it. Also, I feel that the "openly" in "openly gay" is archaic and unnecessary. I'll remove that. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

This discussion is unhelpful and clearly devolved into comments on contributors rather than content. Therefore, I am closing this.
The following discussion has been closed by MJL. Please do not modify it.
That's actually worse. In Crowder circles, calling someone gay is definitely a pejorative. See Gay#Generalized_pejorative_use. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC) We don't write our articles from within "Crowder circles" or adopt their terminology. Crowder circles, with their abusive language and their twisted abuses of language, are not a concern for us when we write our articles. After all, they regard all sorts of normal descriptions as pejorative. They throw the word "socialist" around as if it was a slur. It isn't, and we don't shy away from using it when appropriate. Unless presented within a clear pejorative context, "gay" is not a pejorative. It is to be hoped that no person intelligent enough to read an encyclopaedia would regard "gay" as intrinsically pejorative. If they do, that is a defect in their reading and comprehension skills not in our writing. While we should always try to make our writing as clear and comprehensible as possible to readers of different levels of knowledge, I do not feel that we need to overconcern ourselves with the risk that some semi-literate ding-dongs might wilfully misconstrue what we write in line with their own prejudices. They are going to do that anyway, no matter how careful we are. Haters gonna hate. Dong-dongs gonna ding-dong. They are beneath our consideration. So let's talk about why "Openly gay" is bad. It springs from an outdated mindset that assumes that openness is not the default for gay people. It assumes that there is "gay", implying closeted, and "openly gay" as the rare and noteworthy exception. When people write "openly gay" they don't mean to do so but they often unintentionally import outdated homophobic assumptions. It is also redundant. Under what possible circumstances would we ever describe anybody as gay in a BLP if they were not out as gay? That would be a massive BLP violation. The phrase "openly gay" has some legitimate use, mostly in historical contexts, when talking about people living in circumstances where being out would be exceptional and noteworthy. It should certainly not be the default phrase used in BLPs. Maza is a left wing YouTuber and, as such, works in a space where LGBT+ identities are not at all uncommon. What I will concede is that the sentence "Maza is gay." is abrupt and clunky. If anybody has a better idea then by all means give it a try. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Gee, I wonder why I am objecting to inserting slurs and pejoratives into the page? [21] There's a history of outspoken individuals putting the insults they have received from alt-right extremists on their twitter bios (same as Jewish individuals or those who are against neo-nazis or anti-semitism putting Triple parentheses around their own name) to show that they reject being attacked in that way, but that doesn't mean it's acceptable for someone to put those slurs into a Wikipedia WP:BLP without any context. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2020 (UTC) @IHateAccounts: Why are you making false accusations? In what way, shape, or form did I insert a "slur" or "pejorative" into this page? Maza self-describes himself as a "Marxist Pig" on his Twitter page, and that's exactly what the source states. If the source gave a reason why Maza inserted that phrase, then I would have included it. Another user pointed out that Maza may have been sarcastic [22]. I agreed, that's why I replaced "Marxist Pig" with "socialist," which better reflects his views. DanielRigal is exactly correct--"gay" is not a "slur." Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC) First, I'm not making any sort of "false accusations". Second, the piece you cited to source the slur "Marxist pig" is an opinion column by Andrew Sullivan (I'll let editors read the article there to understand the who, and what, of Sullivan), written as a defense for Crowder in which he also says "He’s a cry-bully: weaponizing his alleged victimhood to shut down other people’s careers." Such a completely unreliable source has no business anywhere near Wikipedia, certainly much less being used as a justification to insert WP:BLP-violating slurs. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Oh and in case anyone isn't clear on the context, "is a socialist" was the very next thing tried by the same editor who tried to insert the words "Marxist pig". [23] I for one don't think it was intended as anything other than a slur. I would fully support an actual "Political Positions" section that gave a sourced description of Maza's actual positions and his reasoning for why he self-identifies as a "socialist", but a four-word "Maza is a socialist" dumped into "personal life" is just a slur. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC) While I agree that the mention of him being a socialist should be moved out of the Personal Life section, as it is a very significant part of his work, I find the characterisation of it as a slur not merely as obviously incorrect but as utterly incomprehensible. You will note that when I contested the problematic phrase "openly gay", I did so by explaining what the problem with the phrase is and without casting any aspersions on the motives of the person who added it. If we are to continue this discussion then I would request that we all adopt this approach. If you really do think that it is actually a slur then please accept that this is not obvious to other people and try to explain why you beleive that this is the case. The fact that Crowder's fans use it as a slur is not enough to make it so. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC) I have repeatedly explained, and quite literally in the comment you're replying to. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC) I don't see it. You suggest that you have the divined the motives of the person who added it but that is as far as you go. Anyway, this is unproductive. I hope we can all agree that mention of socialism should move elsewhere in the article so lets just do that? --DanielRigal (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC) I don't think that we should be moving it out of the personal life section, as it is seems central to how Maza describes himself. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC) Please, STOP ASSUMING BAD FAITH (like you have done so in the past). My intentions are to improve this article in anyway I can. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Please stop falsely accusing me of assuming bad faith. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC) You are not doing yourself any favours here. Please calm down and try to discuss the content not other editors. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC) IHateAccounts, neither "gay" nor "socialist" is a slur nor a pejorative, and if you think they are, then take that up with the New York Times, the Columbia Journalism Review, and the numerous other reliable sources as well as the article subject himself, who regularly uses those terms about himself and has done so long before Crowder's harassment. If you think the content should have more context, then go and add that. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC) @IHateAccounts: The alleged intent of the editor who initially added content to an article is not relevant to the merit of its inclusion. Conjecturing at length about other editors' purported motives is rather outré; please do not use talk pages as a battleground. jp×g 05:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that neither "gay" nor "socialist" are perjorative. Taking sourced information about a person's sexual orientation out of the page because some people have anti-gay prejudices is self-defeating. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. There is some good information that can be used to flesh out the personal life section from MEL magazine. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
• Include as it is reliably sourced and does not consistute WP:UNDUE weight, in addition to the other reasons provided above. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Quote in Lead

How does everyone feel about: The Columbia Journalism Review described him as "Brian Stelter meets NowThis" in the lead? I realize it's attributed, but it still seems way too MOS:FLOWERY to me. Personally, I am not a fan when we insert random, cherrypicked quotes into the leads of BLPs. They serve almost no purpose, they provide almost no context about the subject, and, in this case, I don't see how this quote accurately summarizes the article. (See this RfC on Charlie Kirk to get a sense of what I'm talking about). Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

That quote seems far more informative than promotional, and I think it helps in a short article about a relatively non-notable person. It's the overall summary of a long profile by a reliable source (and the most cited source in the article), and so I do not see how it is "cherrypicked" and "misrepresenting what the source says" or even what other sources would disagree with that characterization. MOS:FLOWERY also does not seem relevant given that the example provided there takes a sentence with peacock terms about Bob Dylan and replaces it with an attributed quote to Time magazine (and the current Bob Dylan article includes three quotes in its lead). As with the previous discussion, I think that if more context seems helpful, then adding that additional context is preferably over removing reliably sourced information. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't have much to add to what Wallyfromdilbert said. I think the quote is relevant and useful, unless/until some good language can be proposed for a replacement rather than just removing it. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I was too imprecise. I never suggested immediate deletion. And I think it would be too premature to completely delete the sentence until we have consensus on a replacement. However, I believe the sentence lacks a great deal of context and clarity. How exactly is Maza "Brian Stelter meets NowThis"? What does that even mean? Is it some sort of testament to Maza's journalistic skills? The Bob Dylan article describes at length how Dylan was a counterculture figure. How does this article describe Maza's success as a journalist (which is what I think the quote is trying to say)? Leads should always summarize articles, and I feel like this quote fails to do so. In essence, I agree with Wallyfromdilbert that adding "additional context is preferably over removing reliably sourced information." But, until we are able to beef up his career section, which is what the quote is in reference to, I think it would be best to move the quote to somewhere else in the article. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 05:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

If it is not in the body then tag with template:not in body. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Due weight for Crowder section

I don't think it's particularly undue. A quick Google news search for Maza suggests that it remains a significant aspect of his notability, and the sourcing is fairly broad. The incident is still being mentioned as a reference point for discussions of YouTube harassment or similar controversies today (eg. [24][25][26]) and is generally brought up prominently in articles on Maza or Crowder (eg. [27][28][29]) - note that all these sources are just from the first page of that Google News search for Maza. The last one in particular implies that it's a significant aspect of his career. There isn't much more that we could do to condense the paragraph while keeping it in, and this level of sustained sourcing makes it clear we need to keep it. There's actually more we could add based on these sources, but it would probably be best to expand other parts of the article first. --Aquillion (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)