Jump to content

Talk:Mark Wahlberg

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

"Hate Crimes" subsection title

Closing after just over a week. Consensus is that "Legal Issues" is the most appropriate title. Ed6767 talk! 15:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


There has been dispute over this. I have restored to "hate crimes" as it is what appears on an older version of this page before all the edit wars, however, here are our options. Your input on which one should be used is appreciated. Please add under the "survey" section.

Some suggestions:

  • "Hate crimes", as per current title header
  • "Racial Incidents"
  • "Arrests and felony assault conviction"
  • "Legal Issues"

Ed6767 talk! 21:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just to note, before an IP editor added a "Hate Crimes" heading on 13 April, this content was under "Early life" without a separate heading. Schazjmd (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Schazjmd, then before that it was under "Arrests and felony assault conviction" - it's clearly very controversial and nobody can really decide on a title. Ed6767 talk! 21:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to hear if there are any objections to moving this subsection (whatever it winds up being called) back to the "Early Life" section, where it had been for many years.—Myasuda (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • Legal issues or Racial assaults is my preferred terms -- Veggies (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legal issues is probably the most non-bias title to use, per WP:NPOV. -- Acekard talk 21:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A hate crime is defined as a violent crime on the basis of race, orientation or other grounds and his assaults fit the definition so I vote Hate Crimes . -- Ryu187 (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 1992 fight was not a hate crime, so that header does not really work. Legal issues seems like an ambigious title when all the incidents are based around race. I say Racial incidents or "Arrests and felony assault conviction", as (according to his lawyer at least), the 1992 incident appears to be him helping defend a black person; while technically a racial incident it doesn't necessarily fit what the title suggests.Hoponpop69 (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wahlberg and three friends chased after three black children while yelling "Kill the nigger, kill the nigger" and throwing rocks at them" I mean a lot of these incidents seem to be race based and I don't what else to call that besides hate crime. Racial assaults isn't a thing, that's literally what a hate crime is. Assaults based o racial prejudice, and if we're not calling them hate crimes you're giving him the benefit of the doubt which he's been proven guilty of already. A hate crime (also known as a bias-motivated crime or bias crime) is a prejudice-motivated crime which occurs when a perpetrator targets a victim because of their membership (or perceived membership) of a certain social group or race. You made a perfect point about how he was exposed on twitter because someone renamed hate crime. It got so much attention because he has a history of hate crime not "racial assault". It's like saying Derek Chauvin racially assaulted an innocent man? No he murdered a man use the right defintions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:105:b3f1:9dff:d355:472c:87bf (talk • contribs) — 2601:640:105:b3f1:9dff:d355:472c:87bf (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • The Justice departments [| page on hate crimes] cites an example from Utah on March 17, 2020 that describes a similar incident as the one Marky Mark was involved in when he beat a Vietnamese man with a stick, knocking him unconscious and calling him "Vietnam fucking shit." The only difference is that Wahlberg was not officially charged or convicted of Hate Crime. It should also be noted he made amends with the guy already and has served time. While his incident is classed as a hate crime based on the DOJ example, to brand him as a Hate Crime perpetrator without a hate crime conviction and him having already paid for this on his own wouldn't be fair in light of all this, imo respectfully. To keep the article unbiased the information should stand as is with a title of his actual charge, or a title of Legal Issues that groups then all together. I'd also advocate moving his one felony conviction to its own subsection within his legal issues section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.131.236.22 (talk • contribs) — 209.131.236.22 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • I suggest the content be restored as a subsection of the "Early life" section with the title "Arrests and felony assault conviction". It had been a subsection of "Early life" for many years, on up to at least February 13, 2020.—Myasuda (talk) 23:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legal issues seems to be the most WP:NEUTRAL of the options, and seems to follow other standards in articles (see Chris Brown or Jeffery Epstein). Adding "felony" in the title seems to give a disproportionate emphasis to only one of the cases, and as for "racial incidents" or "hate crime", not all of the content is about racism on his part (see the 1992 incident) and neither seem the most neutral. Regardless, it might be best to have a neutral section title and just let the content speak for itself. Also, I agree with Myasuda that it should go back under "Early life" - there's no reason to put it under personal life and almost all of cases happened when he was a teenager. According to the dates, the first incident happened when he was 14 or 15, the second at 16, and the third in 1992 at age 21. - Whisperjanes (talk) 02:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC),[reply]
  • Just due to the actual situations described i believe Hate Crimes fits the best description for the title because it goes beyond legal issues of personal life he was accused and charged with these crimes so as it stands they fall under Hate Crimes in my opinion Eerie Holiday (talk) 09:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hate Crimes, headers are meant to summarise the content of a section. Not dance around the issue. Legal issues is so absurdly vague, it doesn't even inform the reader that Wahlberg was the perpetrator and not the victim. 2601:19B:B00:87A0:5814:168F:5C6A:CDAE (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can anyone in favor of the Hate Crimes heading explain how the 1992 fight fits under that?Hoponpop69 (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Hate Crimes" is one of two things: a legal term or a colloquial one. The former doesn't apply because Wahlberg wasn't convicted of any hate crime statute. So, the only way it could be included as a section head in the article is as a colloquial term for his acts. However, the term is too POV (in my opinion) to use. -- Veggies (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legal issues, succinct and neutral. Zaathras (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that "hate crimes" has a very specific legal mention and a section title is not going to distiguish between the legal meaning and the more colloquial versions (the latter of which he has been convicted of but not under the legal definition of "hate crime"), Legal issues is the only appropriate title of this section that stays neutral and within BLP requirements. --Masem (t) 01:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be a consensus for "Legal issues", and there is no doubt it is a less loaded term--so while what Wahlberg did back then was totally despicable, "Hate crimes" needs a strong and policy-based consensus. PM800, I appreciate you, but you can't have it this way. Also, this "He is also known for..." in the lead is just awful writing. Once y'all figure out what to call this section, and why it should be a separate section instead of just being put in the "Early Life" section where it chronologically belongs, you can talk about the lead. I'm protecting this fully for a week--enjoy the discussion. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legal issues per Drmies and Masem. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legal issues per Drmies and Masem via Guy Macon. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legal issues. As mentioned above, hate crimes are a specific thing and Wahlberg was never charged with them. (And for the record, one of the incidents involved him attacking a white man).Calidum 16:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legal issues per Masem as neutral, particularly given the incidents occurred when young, and given no conviction for a "hate crime". Johnuniq (talk) 07:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hate Crimes for me. I feel like Legal issues is not neutral, it is hiding the gravity of the issues. I'd be okay with moving non-hate crime items to another section called legal issues. Other articles summarize issues in the top paragraph. I'd be up for that too. 75.165.95.18 (talk) 00:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can anyone explain why "Legal issues" is better than "Racial incidents"?Hoponpop69 (talk) 04:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just feel like “racial incidents” is too “on the nose” and keep in mind, for some of these instances, Wahlberg was heavily drugged up and just verbally assaulted some people and used “racial slurs” but again, it wouldn’t technically be racially charged. “Racial incidents” doesn’t fit to all the instances. Wikipedia has to provide a neutral point of view, WP:NPOV, as well, “hate crimes” is definitely a politically charged title. I hope the “Legal issues” title says, as it is accurate as all of them had legal consequences afterward, and is neutral and not trying to clearly smear Wahlberg. -- Acekard talk 04:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why on earth would we try to avoid being on the noise? If we're not aiming to be precise, why not just title it "Issues" because "Legal Issues" is more on the nose than that. You say "Racial incidents" doesn't doesn't fit all the incidents, well which incident does race not play a key component in? "Hate crimes" obviously does not fit, but I still have seen no convincing argument as to why "Legal issues" is better than "Racial incidents".Hoponpop69 (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Racial incidents" is too innocuous a term to completely encompass what's notable about that section. It wouldn't be newsworthy or BLP-notable that a celebrity made some racist remarks as a kid. It is certainly newsworthy and notable that a celebrity viciously assaulted several people in his youth and faced criminal and civil consequences for that—including convictions. What makes this section most notable (encyclopedically) is the legal ramifications, not the racial angle. Also, it sounds like Wahlberg's actions in the 1992 incident were in response to a racial epithet, not the source of the epithet. "Legal issues" is the most non-POV term to use here. It's certainly not satisfying for many people. That's okay. Whatever you title it, the information is still there to be read. -- Veggies (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do think that race plays into the two most notable of the issues (the ones that are written about in the most detail and happened when he was a teen), and I think that race is (at least in part) what's notable about that section (since it has gained media attention, even if it's partially because the section title was changed to "Hate crimes" for a period of time [1] [2][3]). However, I agree that the outlier is the 1992 incident, where his attorney claimed he attacked his neighbor because his neighbor called his companion a racial slur. But this is alleged, so saying that this also is a "racial incident" is stretching things. I feel like ideally there would be a more general header, and "Racial incidents" could be a subsection and "Other incidents" could be used for the 1992 incident, and then "Later responses" or something could be used for his responses in 2006+. But the problem with that is that the 1992 part doesn't seem long enough or talked about enough to warrant its own section. So the thing that all of the cases have in common becomes "Assault cases" or "Criminal convictions" or something else (like "Legal issues"). - Whisperjanes (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hate Crimes call it what it is. Plain and simple, all incidents are indeed hate crimes.AmericanHistorian (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legal issues per Drmies and Masem. Aoi (青い) (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This discussion appears to have been "closed" with a declaration of a conclusion by the same person who started it, after only a relatively brief period of discussion. Subsequent comments on the subject have been archived, but this section has not, and I see no special reason this section has been given a more privileged "sticky" position.

I think we should be able to use a more descriptive title for this section than "Legal issues", which sounds like a discussion of some kind of technicalities. The "Legal issues" section of the article describes incidents of violence, not something like failing to file the correct forms for something. The section is primarily describing behavioral issues, not legal ones. Looking at the discussion above, I don't see a clear reason why a title like "Assault cases" or "Criminal convictions" or "Violent incidents" wasn't selected. I don't notice clear objections to such section headings.

I suggest "Violence incidents of 1986–2002".

—⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 07:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Racist, really?

Whoever keeps adding his "racist youth" needs some serious *ss reaming for saying that without sources. This is libel/slander and "ayjay" or whatever the f* needs to answer for it. 172.79.201.111 (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The violent events of Wahlberg's younger years are all sourced from reliable sources. The attack on Johnny Trinh, the attack on Thanh Lam, and the various other violent acts are documented and verified. For instance...if Wahlberg didn't attack Trinh, then why did he apologize and meet with him? It's not libel/slander. It is true and verifiable. Shearonink (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/david-beckham-is-suing-mark-wahlberg-is-this-the-end-of-their-15-year-friendship/ar-AA1nskQt?ocid=BingHPC 86.142.74.171 (talk) 05:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mark_Wahlberg&oldid=1252180246"