Talk:Aziz Ansari

Per Babe.net, Ansari directly apologized

The above heading is misleading and a BLP violation, as I explained at User talk:Kolya Butternut#TPG and in my attempts to correct:[1],[2] Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC) added "and in..." Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The Babe.net story quotes Ansari's direct apology to the woman.

“It was fun meeting you last night,” Ansari sent on Tuesday evening. “Last night might’ve been fun for you, but it wasn’t for me,” Grace responded. “You ignored clear non-verbal cues; you kept going with advances.” She explains why she is telling him how she felt: “I want to make sure you’re aware so maybe the next girl doesn’t have to cry on the ride home.”

“I’m so sad to hear this,” he responded. “Clearly, I misread things in the moment and I’m truly sorry.”

It is a BLP violation for this page to say he did not directly apologize to her, so I have replaced "directly" with "publicly" per RS accounts and the primary sourced quote from Babe.net. Any version of "directly" would need talk page consensus that it is verified and worded to prevent a BLP misrepresentation.
SPECIFICO talk 17:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Please respect ONUS per El C's instructions and revert your edit pending discussion. You have repeatedly attempted to change the well-sourced stable version against consensus by changing the line "directly apologizing for his alleged behavior" with false or misleading edit summaries [3],[4],[5]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Whatever the other merits of this contretemps, I would humbly suggest that on cursory inspection, Babe.net doesn't look to me like a reliable source per Wikipedia. I could certainly be wrong, but food for thought. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Babe.net is where the story about the encounter between Ansari and the woman called "Grace" was originally published. Its publication there is what sparked a much bigger story around it, from many other media outlets repeating parts of what was first reported in "Babe" and then also extending the story in some cases. The Ansari apology is itself repeated (from Babe.net) in many other places including the Atlantic and the Telegraph Novellasyes (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I understand that, but by my lights, we should try to use reliable sources nonetheless, as this is a BLP (even if they, themselves, rely on Babe.net). I'm certainly not making any demands about the article content or its sourcing; I just think it's something to bear in mind. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: You are correct that Babe.net is not WP:RS. Its lack of journalistic standards was noted and the post about Ansari was initially criticized for that. However, in the discussion that followed, the Babe post, in addition to the allegation itself, was the focus of discussion. A sourced NPOV discussion of Babe was reverted in this diff. SPECIFICO talk 19:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The reverted text was information forced into the article without discussion, much of it by a sock. Dumuzid, please ask SPECIFICO to observe WP:ONUS by reverting his edit so that we may discuss his proposal. It is a reversal of ONUS to have to discuss restoring the stable text while leaving the improper change in. Once the proper text is restored I can explain how SPECIFICO is misrepresenting the sources. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I will note the strawman argument; no one is saying he didn't "directly apologize to her"; the sources state that he did not "directly apologize for, his alleged behavior".[6] Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Seeing that he did apologize, I have removed the sentence stating otherwise. False information cannot be included in an article on a living person, per WP:BLP. -- Calidum 17:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Calidum, I'm not sure if you've read the past edit summaries or all of this discussion. The sources precisely say that he did not directly apologize for his alleged behavior, regardless of whether he made any apology to her. Please restore the stable version of the article; there is no BLP violation. Potential changes may of course be discussed, but please observe ONUS; this article has been extremely contentious. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth (not very much!), I agree with Calidum's removal here. I don't think the sentence is terribly problematic for any reason, but it reads to me as giving too much weight to the one Rolling Stone mention. As ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The Rolling Stone is not the only source which criticizes him for his apology. There has been much analysis of how he handled the allegations in his standup special, we shouldn't only quote him. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, possible liability, state statutes

According to RS, if Ansari had directly apologized for his alleged behavior he may have admitted to a crime. Even the limited apology that he did give for the sexual assault allegations leveled against him may have opened the actor up to criminal liability and prosecution, according to Law and Crime.[7] This may make his lack of direct apology for his alleged behavior more understandable, but we already say there was debate about whether what he did was sexual misconduct, so I'm not sure whether we need to give weight to the detailed legal analysis. Although, do note that according to Pew,

State lawmakers have debated [affirmative consent] bills in the past. But this year a slew of accusations of sexual assault, misconduct and harassment — along with accounts such as the anonymous accusation against comedian Aziz Ansari — have given legislators greater momentum in pursuing policies that do more to crack down on abusers and support survivors.[8]

Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

We should not be posting blog links and out of context quotations to insinuate criminal activity in any BLP article or talk page on this site. No such allegations or "analysis" have been voiced by notable commentators or authorities in any field related to the incident or the ensuing public discussion. The tenor of all the brief discussion surrounding this dating mishap has been related to the nature of public discourse around consent and communication, not to any assault or legal allegation. This kind of material should not be posted with no constructive purpose on the article talk page. If there were RS that allege criminal activity, it would long since have been cited or presented here for discussion and evaluation as to its WP:WEIGHT in mainstream discourse. SPECIFICO talk 16:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Kolya, I have to agree with SPECIFICO here, insofar as I don't really understand the larger point you're trying to make. It does feel to me as though you are insinuating criminal activity, and I am not sure what changes or improvements to the article you're suggesting. If you could make that more explicit, I would be grateful. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent sources as "blogs". Pew's Stateline provides daily reporting and analysis on trends in state policy. Since its founding in 1998, Stateline has maintained a commitment to the highest standards of nonpartisanship, objectivity, and integrity. Its team of veteran journalists combines original reporting with a roundup of the latest news from sources around the country...We subscribe to standards of editorial independence adopted by the Institute for Nonprofit News.[9]

This is what RS are saying about the story. There have been in depth legal analyses of the allegations against Ansari; there have been proposals for laws about criminal consent which have been given more attention because of the allegations against celebrities, including Ansari. The question is, has there been enough coverage that this information should be given weight in the article? I don't know yet. I did find a detailed analysis of "coercion" in the context of the Ansari allegation by a law professor in the Arizona State Law Journal last year.[10] It has been cited three times as of this writing. It's important to pay attention to whether the public's debate over whether the allegations constitute sexual misconduct has been evaluated by legal experts, and whether this story continues to be relevant in the future. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Please review my initial response to you in which I point out that the sources you cite and quote are not WP:RS let alone valid sources for BLP-disparaging or accusatory text. SPECIFICO talk 17:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I see the false characterization "blog", and reference to the irrelevant policy WP:NOTABLE. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Law & Crime is a blog, and shouldn't be used. The Pew piece you linked to doesn't suggest AA committed a crime, rather that legislators were considering changes to laws. I wouldn't use it either because the reference to AA is in passing and doesn't suggest he was the impetus for those changes. -- Calidum 17:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Why do you say Law & Crime is a blog? Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

You're right, it's likely an opinion piece, not a blog, but that ultimately doesn't matter. Also, if you read it, the author makes no determination on whether or not there was a crime. -- Calidum 17:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Right, I provided a direct quote to be sure to present the opinion accurately. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Also I found this forthcoming article in the Georgetown Law Journal, "When You're a Star: The Unnamed Wrong of Sexual Degradation" [11] It might make sense to add a source like this in the future if it becomes noteworthy; even if we don't quote it it would give more information about the debate for the reader. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

What value does it add? There is already extensive commentary inside the article. -- Calidum 17:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Please don't read into my motivations. It's important to know what the legal and academic world think of the story. This is one of the most complicated public cases of #MeToo, so it's one of the most interesting to explore. If there is noteworthy information to add to the article we should provide that for the reader. The Law & Order piece may put his apology into context, which helps us as editors to understand the story we're editing. The article doesn't include academic or legal commentary. At this time no such commentary may be needed, but like I said we should know what sources are saying in order to make that decision. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Kolya, I agree 100% that we shouldn't go around fisking the motivations of other editors. That being said, the question "what value does it add?" is expressly about the article and the opposite of that sort of improper query. While looking into relevant academic or legal discourse is of course fine, it's not always directly a help with building Wikipedia. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The "what does it add" question is also a really good one. Too often articles become dumping grounds for negative (or positive) factoids, quotes etc. A legitimate question is always, how does this help the reader better understand the article subject. If a clear tie to some topic paragraph (remember that from writing class) doesn't exist then perhaps the content isn't due in the article. In this case a lawyer saying Ansari might have opened himself up to a legal case would be DUE if one were actually in process. However, if none is happening then why include this speculative interpretation of the law. Even worse, it could be read as implying Ansari committed a crime or admitted to a crime. This is why such "informative" comments should always have a clear context and purpose in the parent section/article. Some will call this trying to scrub the article but really it's trying to make a more cohesive article. Springee (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I was responding to Calidum's concern expressed in their initial version of their question. So, the reason why this information is relevant is because there has been a public debate about whether Ansari's alleged behavior constitutes sexual misconduct or criminal behavior. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with SPECIFICO here. This legal speculation is too, well, speculative to be included at this time. If additional RSs discuss this then I think a case could be made but we aren't there at this time. Springee (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

So you agree with me! I'd be open to including a source, but new text probably shouldn't be given weight at this time. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Nobody in their right mind, even Aziz Ansari, would apologize for an allegation they (along with most notable commentators and journalists) deny. As one of those blogs points out, the apology as to the specific allegation could be used to infer a confession and form the basis for a legal claim of damages. This is truly a nonsensical "analysis" to say "he did not directly apologize for the allegation. SPECIFICO talk 18:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The sources in this subsection are not being used to support the text that he was "criticized for not directly apologizing for his alleged behavior". This is a tangential discussion. (Also, you don't have the facts correct, but we don't need to get into it.) Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

There's only one fact: This is a BLP and we have the original source in which the complainant states that he directly apologised to her. And that was before he called his attorney, Public Relations firm, and booking agent -- all of whom would ordinarily be expected to tell him to remain silent while the complaint was exposed for what it turned out to have been. SPECIFICO talk 20:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

That sounds like OR. It sounds like you are still strawmanning. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

"direcly apologized" discussion continued

If I might ask for a minor point of privilege--it does sound a little bit like argument for argument's sake at this point. Are there concrete changes being proposed at this point? I am not quite sure, but I have never been accused of being overly perceptive. Thanks in advance. Dumuzid (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

We now have consensus to omit the "apologized for the allegation" bit in the second paragraph of the section, so I think we're done. I may compile a Consensus List as has been done at the Donald Trump article here, so that we can avoid going over the same discussions in the future. SPECIFICO talk 22:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

No we do not have any such consensus. We haven't even begun to agree on what the sources actually say. And this practice of changing first, discussing later, is entirely against WP:ONUS and poisons the collaborative process. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I am in favor of omitting the apology sentence. And Kolya, while WP:ONUS is certainly a thing, so is WP:BRD. The collaborative process has many faces and demands flexibility from all of us. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Huh? The apology sentence has been in the article for months. Do you not want to include any reaction to Ansari's statement in the special? Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

ONUS says that even though it's verified, it stays out of the article without consensus to include. But this is a BLP, so that is even stronger reason to keep it out. Please undo your reinsertion. This talk page thread demonstrates there is no consensus to include that, and in fact there is only one editor favoring inclusion. It needs to be removed. SPECIFICO talk 23:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The fact that something has been in an article for a long time is really neither here or there -- as I say, good faith WP:BRD is pretty standard in my experience. And for me, based on the sources I've seen, I would favor not including any reaction. I'm just not convinced it was particularly notable in the Wikipedia sense. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by BRD; I have revered the bold edits, and now we are discussing. SPECIFICO, the text has had implicit consensus. There is no BLP violation here. Please allow a moment to discuss this before demanding removal of the text. It is not clear to me what the opinions are here, because much of the discussion has been confusion about what the sources actually say. Perhaps everyone can state their opinions now that hopefully we're on the same page about what the RS say? RS have widely covered his statement in his special, so I think some of that commentary merits inclusion. Perhaps we could add another line with an alternative take? Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

If you propose to crowbar this BLP disparagement into the article by claiming it is "only" a review of a TV show by a non-notable journalist, then it would be UNDUE as well. Needs to be removed per BLP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 23:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of "crowbar"ring content into the article? The text has been there for months. So far ONUS has been respected for literally twenty minutes. Please be patient while we discuss this. Please discuss other commentary we could include. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Consensus to remove?

SPECIFICO, please revert your edit.[12] There is no consensus to remove, and hasty edits of this highly contentious material create a hostile environment. Calidum's edit[13] was based on an misreading of the sources. They have not weighed in on the correct interpretation of the text. Dumuzid questions whether reactions to Ansari's statement are noteworthy. I assert they are. What is your objection to the sentence? Again, as an act of good faith, please revert the text and stop this needless fighting while we figure this out. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Dumuzid, you said you were not convinced the reaction to Ansari's statement is notable. Respectfully, I feel that you have the ONUS to convince that it is not notable. Would you discuss the sources?

SPECIFICO, you cited, "BLP disparagement" in your edit. What part of WP:BLP are you referring to? This is well-sourced criticism. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, WP:ONUS says, and I quote: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Thus, you have the burden exactly backwards. My argument is simple. I have seen Rolling Stone and The Times of India making the claim as you see it. That simply strikes me as insufficiently broad as to number of publications and, in addition, I don't think it has particularly stood the test of time. I do not mean this is a scientific conclusion. I do not mean that it is impossible to disagree with me. I simply mean this is my opinion, and, if you will, my !vote for the time being. As ever, reasonable minds may differ--as I may, at some point in time. This one just doesn't work for me right now. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Dumuzid, that is not the correct interpretation of ONUS. By that interpretation I could blank the whole article and then others would have the ONUS to add the material back. The removed sentence was part of the stable consensus version, and the ONUS is on editors who want to make contentious changes. You're judging the text as not having had broad coverage based solely on how many citations there are? That doesn't make sense...also, just recently there was a third citation. The Times of India piece is from this year...Please restore the text if you have not researched this. We have not achieved consensus for removal. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, I have stated my position. You can tell me what to do as much as you like, but it's not a particularly effective persuasion technique. Have a nice evening. Dumuzid (talk) 05:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I am politely asking you to observe ONUS. Also, I am not interested in using persuasion techniques. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Persuasion is how one achieves consensus. You persuade other editors to your point of view. Furthermore, if your reading of policy is such that the text in question should be reinserted, then why would I do it? I have stated my opinion here, but I don't believe I have ever edited the main page. Certainly not recently, anyway. With all due respect, WP:ONUS is not a magic incantation that means you get your way. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 06:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The Times of India article is not a valid source for reasons I stated when I removed it. If it was put back without consensus, that was a bad move and should be undone. SPECIFICO talk 08:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

You've given your reason for the text removal as "BLP disparagement". I don't see a policy that fits that description for sourced criticisms; what are you saying? Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• I strongly agree with SPECIFICO's removal of that material. The main reason I support the removal is because in the various (reputable) sources that have addressed this issue, there is no completely clear meaning on what any of them mean by "directly" and when a direct apology ought to have happened (or not). Should he have, or did he, apologize to "Grace" by text when he became aware of her reactions? If he did, does a text message count as a "direct" apology mechanism? Did he apologize for what he did, or just for how she experienced it? In July 2019, when he launched his attempted comeback and addressed the issue from the stage, did he or did he not "directly apologize" and does it matter? If he did not directly apologize then, but did directly apologize to the woman by text, and we even think any of this content should be in the article (I don't), that all would have to be addressed to get the story right. But since the (basically reputable) stories writing about this don't bother to dig down deep enough to disambiguate all of this, I don't see how Wikipedia can attempt to do that.Novellasyes (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support Removal. I'm not sure why it's relevant that we have two articles that say "others" criticized him for not directly apologizing. I don't see why this material needs to be in this article. What purpose does it serve? This is actually one of the things ONUS talks about. Just because the claim can be reliably sourced doesn't mean it's DUE. Springee (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: The entire subject of the standup special and statement has just been removed [14] without discussion, seemingly ignoring the weeks long contentious discussion over this material. It's hard to discuss which pieces of this to keep after the entire subject has been removed. That being said, Novellasyes, the "apology" we are discussing is in the context of the Aziz Ansari: Right Now stand-up special, regardless of whatever else he may have said, critics pointed out that he did not directly apologize in the special. The reaction to his statement is part of the reaction to the entire sexual misconduct allegation story. If you see the special you will see that he did not apologize, but he did express that he "felt terrible" she felt that way, so "directly" leaves some room for what he did say. Springee, I'm not sure why you say we have "two articles" that criticize his statement. We happen to have had two citations, that doesn't mean there aren't many more sources which discuss this. The criticism particularly made sense in the longstanding version[15] where we included a long statement by Ansari that read like a public relations statement. If most of that is removed then the reaction is less important for balance. ONUS says we leave longstanding stable text intact pending discussion. We do not remove the text first, otherwise editors could blank entire sections pending discussion. SPECIFICO, these edits are disruptive.[16] None of these are minor, they all make subtle POV changes. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

  I marked this edit "minor". Not seeing any problem there. this one I marked "copyedit minor" from the dropdown summaries. Not seeing a problem there. I removed a stray space, I believe, in this edit marked "minor". I removed a misplaced "the" in a quotation from the source with this minor edit. Did you see problems with the minor tags? Disruptive? SPECIFICO talk 21:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

  ?? Crickets...

  Also, as many editors have commented, ONUS does not mean we favor existing text. It means we do NOT necessarily favor text merely because it is verified by RS. Most of the times I have seen you say ONUS, it has to assert the opposite of what WP:ONUS says. SPECIFICO talk 22:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

  You're ignoring the diff I provided of edits I describe as disruptive. Would Bradv clarify how ONUS works in this context? I believe it has been made abundantly clear that you are misinterpreting ONUS[17] and that the ONUS was on you to find consensus before unilaterally removing a longstanding paragraph[18] and making a rewrite[19] without discussion. Only the "direct apology" line has been discussed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

  Kolya Butternut, again, I think you are misinterpreting WP:ONUS, but I also think your larger point has some merit. At the same time, it's a bit of a distraction--right now it seems that consensus is not in your favor. Everyone who has weighed in here argues against you. That's not to say consensus can't change, but right now SPECIFICO's changes seem to have a mandate, making procedural etiquette a bit pointless (even if SPECIFICO were to undo his changes, I would, at this time, put them right back as the consensus version). Again, by all means, keep arguing your point. But as I mentioned above, it might behoove you to think a bit more about persuasion and a bit less about WP:ONUS. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

  Your comment is creating a false narrative. You're conflating what people are !voting on here with the disruptive edits I just described. This comment was for SPECIFICO and Bradv, and by responding yourself they are now less likely to address to my comment. Please start a new thread and do not confuse things. Again, the disruptive edits which violate ONUS are:[20], which includes: [21] Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

  Again, telling me what to do is neither persuasive or effective. If you think I have done something untoward, then by all means take the appropriate administrative action. If the comment was for specific people, then perhaps a public talk page was not the best forum to use? Either way, have a nice evening. Dumuzid (talk) 03:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

  As an act of good faith, would you help to clarify my argument about the latest disruptive edits? If you didn't think what I said was clear, perhaps you might have an idea of how to explain it better for folks so we may discuss it. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

  I honestly would if I could, but those edits seem quite far removed from "disruptive" to me. I understand that you disagree with them, as is your right, but I don't see them as improper in any way. Again, that doesn't mean I am right, just that I am unconvinced of your position. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

  You don't think it's improper to add disputed text without discussion? Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

  No, I don't--I believe in the WP:BRD cycle, and also that consensus can change. Certainly, this can be done in a tendentious way, but that doesn't strike me as the case here. Rather, it looks to me like the ongoing process of editing Wikipedia. As ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

  The current version is the consensus version. There's one editor who doesn't like it but has not really stated any valid reason and the other editors here all are OK with the current version, which is a big improvement over what used to be here. Bear in mind that this is a Class C article, so improvement of the C version is no surprise. There were other improvements I made a week or two ago -- mainly deleting UNDUE fancruft -- that are now back in the article. I added the page views graph to this article and it's just not that widely followed a page. What typically happens with relatively infrequent viewed pages is that they stagnate in a subpar form until editors come and clean them up. That's what happened here. SPECIFICO talk 19:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

  That is a false narrative. There is no consensus for this version. Editors here have only given arguments about the "direct apology" text, and the discussion did not differentiate between the two apology/non-apologies discussed, as I have said many times. You know from our discussions over the past few weeks that I think your edits are POV and do not meet V, and that the onus is on you to discuss your edits before adding them, which you have not done. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with the removal as well. I won't rehash what others have already said. -- Calidum 02:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose removal: it was the bulk of the commentary I read when I created the Reception section of Aziz Ansari: Right Now, in a preliminary state which unfortunately hasn't been improved by anyone else since. I'm not sure what other people are basing their !votes off because it doesn't appear to be an understanding of critics' responses to Aziz Ansari: Right Now, the reliable coverage relating to Ansari's career since 2018 or even an interest in Ansari as a subject. I feel like just a fraction of the interest shown here in this subject could significantly improve the currently poor-quality Aziz Ansari: Right Now (but not, of course, if users will only cherry-pick sources and facts that suit their political agenda). The "purpose" of including this statement is that we never quote someone without including a response in reliable sources if that response significantly contradicts the quoted person's stance—Wikipedia is not a platform to repeat what famous people say uncritically. And of course Ansari's quote is relevant and due, so this response sentence (which could have many more sources than the ones it does, but for citation overkill) is too. — Bilorv (talk) 09:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

  Bilorv, the content and any noteworthy critical discussion of his TV show are certainly appropriate for detailed narratives in an article about the show itself. For this article, it fails WP:WEIGHT and WP:ONUS. In reviews of that Netflix show, some observers say he apologized, others say he did not apologize. At any rate, I agree with you the article on the TV show is not in good shape and could use improvement. I am not familiar with how WP treats such topics. I assume that it has passed the threshhold for WP:NOTABILITY. For this article, it is WP:UNDUE in the arc of his life, as in my opinion is much of the coverage of every tv role and comedy event in this article. I don't expect to see similar detail in the biographies of other performers. SPECIFICO talk 11:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

  It's not clear to me why you would believe that. Are you familiar with the good and featured article criteria and how they are applied in practice to film&TV topics? When have you helped in promoting articles to this standard? My experience in this area as a nominator and reviewer tells me that both listing the roles of an actor that were most significant to each stage of their career and the critical response is standard practice. Here, I don't know what work we could say is most relevant to Ansari's post-2018 career other than Aziz Ansari: Right Now. So we need to include critical response and as I'm sure you know from reading reviews, the most-discussed feature of it was the comments he made on his actions towards Grace. It appears to me that you are splitting hairs over whether what he said was described as an apology rather than the more substantial debate: whether what he said was sufficient to demonstrate that he understood what he had done wrong (and what exactly he had done wrong, if anything). This is what we should note in the article, that some reviewers contested that his words addressed the root of (their perception of) his poor mindset. And as a sidenote, yes, Aziz Ansari: Right Now is very uncontroversially notable. — Bilorv (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• I respectfully ask you to re-read my post to you above. You appear to be replying to several things I did not say. SPECIFICO talk 00:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

First paragraph of allegation section

This version of the first two sentences of the section relating to the gender controversy

One

In January 2018, in an article on the now-defunct Millennial/Gen-Z women's website Babe.net, Katie Way wrote a story about a woman (using the pseudonym "Grace") who accused Ansari of sexual misconduct on a date. According to Way, the woman later texted Ansari expressing her discomfort, and he replied to her with an apology.

was recently reverted and replaced with this version:

Two

In January 2018, a woman using the pseudonym "Grace" accused Ansari of sexual misconduct in an article on Babe.net by Katie Way. The article was met with a polarized response among commentators and the public, with disagreement as to whether the incident described in the Babe article constituted sexual misconduct.

References

Which version more neutrally provides context and factual predicate for the larger section on the controversy? SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• I prefer the second version; the first sentence in the first version seems too long and complex, and I like the second sentence in the second about polarized response. Best of both worlds would be if we start with the two sentences of the second version, then add the sentence about the apology somewhere, possibly but not necessarily as the third sentence. --GRuban (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  We're already discussing the "apology" text in the talk section above, #Per_Babe.net,_Ansari_directly_apologized, where SPECIFICO is misrepresenting the sources. The stable version should be restored before we discuss the apology text. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  I agree with you version 1 is a little awkwardly worded in its inclusion of the relevant information about Babe.net in one long sentence. Any suggestion as to how to parse that more gracefully would be appreciated. Babe.net was not quite a group blog, but it was not a news or information website either. It was described as gossip and soft-core salacious girl talk for adolescents. Sources tell us no news site would have published the post as it appeared there to put Ansari "in play". On the other hand, sources later tell us that his responses were artful exercises in PR crisis reputation management. SPECIFICO talk 21:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  I also prefer version 2; while I think the nature of Babe.net is relevant, I am not sure we need to "up-front" that information quite so much. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

  I agree #1 is awkward. Maybe it should be broken into 2 sentences with different word order? As to the content, however, the other version is inadequate. SPECIFICO talk 22:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

  It sounds like you want to include something from #1; what is it that you like? Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

  Given the ever-so-tautologous advice to 'omit needless words,' I would propose this for my edit of suggestion 1: "In January 2018, in an article on the now-defunct website Babe.net, Katie Way wrote a story about a woman who accused Ansari of sexual misconduct on a date. According to Way, the woman later texted Ansari expressing her discomfort, and he replied to her with an apology." I am sure others can do better! Dumuzid (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

  So the change you seek is to include the characterization "apology", in addition to the quote of his actual text to Grace that we already have? And you want to describe Babe.net as a defunct website? Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

  I'm giving my opinion on the proffered drafts; but I think it worth mentioning that Babe.net is now defunct, yes. And also, I do think the précis on offer here is an improvement. So, there you have it, I suppose! Dumuzid (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

  Ok, I see that the first quote from him is part of his public statement, not the quote to Grace. I object to the word "defunct". We could say something about it being no longer operational, but I think describing it for what it was is more important than describing it as "defunct", which seems to denigrate it. Why do you feel that he privately apologized to her is significant? Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

  Babe.net is highly defunct. It was nearly so when the date story was printed, then was sold and folded. SPECIFICO talk 23:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

  That's interesting. I don't think of "defunct" as having the same pejorative connotation, but idiolects, by definition, are highly personal. I think it bears mentioning that the website is no longer in existence--something along those lines. And I don't think the fact that he privately apologized is significant, per se; what I do think is that it functions as a major piece of the story as written. That's why I like it as part of a summation. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

  What about, "former young women's news site Babe.net"? Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

  Also, I think it's always best to include a direct quote of a statement instead of characterizing it as a "apology", unless the RS have analyzed it and characterized it as such. I've read some RS call it a "non-apology". Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Dumuzid, I agree defunct is not the point for a short version. The point is it was a salacious gossip site for girls and young women, and that the article did not conform to journalistic standards. SPECIFICO talk 00:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm noticing that all of these proposals would have the effect of disparaging the sexual misconduct allegation. As an act of good faith would you do some research into RS which speak well of Babe.net? Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it's possible to contextualize Babe.net as one of many similar news-adjacent websites which come and go quite frequently on the web. For me, "defunct" was fairly value-neutral which is why I liked that wording, but I am obviously in the minority. I am certainly open to other suggestions. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Well it's not WP that undermines the "allegation". It's RS evaluation of Babe and what it published. SPECIFICO talk 01:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I've copy edited, removing "defunct", adding citation RE: Babe.net, and taking account of talk page input. SPECIFICO talk 20:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

We spend so much time talking about the accusation, we should be a bit more specific about what that was. Was he accused of groping, assault, exposure, what? --GRuban (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I think policy is very clear we should not repeat the details of an unverified allegation that basically comes down to intent. We don't need to replay the blow by blow of their date, but to do so in the context of a moot allegation would violate BLP. SPECIFICO talk 21:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Babe.net

RE: Babe . net demise SPECIFICO talk 01:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The Wrap? You were so opposed to the relatively small site lawandcrime.com that you twice mischaracterized it as a blog, and now of all possible RS you cite The Wrap? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

You must not be familiar with The Wrap. It is a solid journalistic website. See RSN and please review the Masthead and other documentation on the publication's website. SPECIFICO talk 02:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that The Wrap is one of the best sources available? Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Stable consensus version

SPECIFICO, it goes without saying that I would like you to restore either the pre - September 16th longstanding consensus version or the version I just restored,[22] but what WP:BLP text are you citing in your edit summary?[23] You wrote: Per BLP, Ansari's reaction -- immediate apology directly to "Grace" must be included with the allegation. WP:Biographies of living persons#Public figures states: If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported. We did include: Ansari stated that the encounter "by all indications was completely consensual". The apology-text you added lacks consensus and is not supported by the RS you provided (Babe.net is not an RS).(While the struck comment is accurate, it is incidental and not what the preexisting content dispute is about.) Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not SPECIFICO but I'll address this. Kolya Butternut, I think your point is that BLP says that if the subject has denied the allegations, their denial should be reported. But (I assume you are thinking), the apology is not an allegation-denial . Therefore, contra SPECIFICO, BLP doesn't require that we include a note about Ansari's apology in this article. I disagree with you and here's why. What should we do when a policy is not exactly 100% on point with the concrete facts of a situation we are looking at? In my view, we have to extrapolate out as best as we can the spirit of the policy. Broadly speaking, what the policy is saying is that IF the alleged perpetrator said something directly about the allegation (whether what they said is a denial, an apology, or X), that needs to go in the article. FWIW, I agree with SPECIFICO suggesting that if you can't go along with that very minor extrapolation of the policy to cover apologies, please do start an RFC or other way of getting to consensus. Secondarily, you argue that even IF BLP requires including information about an apology in a BLP, that wouldn't matter here because the source for the information about the fact that an apology occurred is Babe.net and it isn't an RS. However, a number of RSes alluded to the Babe article and non-problematically referenced that apology.Novellasyes (talk) 14:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

That comment creates an entirely different narrative of what's happening, what I said, and what the sources say. My point is that SPECIFICO's reversion based on a BLP violation is invalid because the previous version already contained Ansari's denial. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Nearly all the media coverage, interpretation, and published commentary regarding the dating mishap was published during a few weeks after the event, in January, 2018. From an encyclopedic perspective, with the passage of time, the old text mostly from around that time needed updating for DUE WEIGHT, NOTNEWS, and RECENTISM. I contributed such editing in August and September of this year. The only significant talk page dissent from these improvements is KB's assertion that, as I understand it, KB has at least twice reverted to the previous text while declining my several requests for specific concerns about my improvements. There is simply no basis to lock down an article, especially a Class C, thinly edited article, merely because the newer text is... new. In the absence of specific discussion about further improvements, I sincerely hope we can move on to other article improvements at this time. As to Ansari's immediate apology to "Grace", we should bear in mind that if it were not for the subsequent #MeToo media flap, neither the incident nor Babe.net's reporting would ever pass BLP muster for Wikipedia publication. SPECIFICO talk 21:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, your comment is made up of true statements, false statements and omissions which create a false narrative. The disruption at this article could be so easily avoided and there would be no need to "lock down" the article if you would respect WP:NOCON by reverting what I have repeatedly stated is a WP:NPOV and WP:V violating rewrite.

Are you willing to revert your edit and discuss your proposed changes? Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, just shoot me for sticking my nose in again, but Kolya Butternut, here's where what you are saying is deeply confusing to me. I grasp that you want what it says on the article to go back to something that you believe is a previous "stable consensus version". You are upset with SPECIFICO because in your view, SPECIFICO has created a new framework/paragraph on the harrassment charges. You would prefer that if other editors want to tweak and contest the wording, that they do so off of the previous "stable consensus version". What's confusing to me is what I'll call your "shifting grounds of argumentation". In the first paragraph of this section, you put forth two arguments. I addressed those arguments, and said why I disagree with them. You then shifted the grounds of argumentation to an entirely new argument. You completely ignored what I said....which is kind of a pain, since in good faith, I addressed myself specifically to exactly the arguments/claims you had made. You then changed to new arguments. This does not make me (and maybe others) feel like addressing themselves to your new arguments because what one thinks here is, "Why bother? That same thing might happen again; Kolya Butternut will possibly just completely ignore the previous arguments and what I said about them so what's the point?" It might be the case that you think there are 5-6 strong arguments in favor of what you want. If so, it might be helpful for you to bullet-point them out and let others respond to each and then you would do them the courtesy of responding in an argument-specific style. This could actually lead to consensus at some point. Novellasyes (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I did not "shift the grounds of communication". Anyone can see my responses above. All I said was that SPECIFICO improperly restored their rewrite and there was no BLP violation to justify it. I would prefer to move on to content discussions rather than procedure, but first the stable version should be restored. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, with all due respect, if you'd like to move on to substantive discussion rather than procedure, responding to Novellasyes' substantive ideas would be a good start. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

What ideas are those? Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

As represented above -- the extrapolation of policy, use of Babe.net in reliable sources, etc. You are obviously welcome to stick to your procedural guns, as it were, but I personally don't find that a compelling argument. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The use of Babe.net as a source is an incidental disagreement. Saying that I'm "sticking to my guns" is projection. I don't think there's anything else to say here if folks can't represent what's happening here accurately. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

You are perfectly welcome to be a voice in the wilderness if you like, and I do agree that there's not much else to say here. Have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I struck the text in my first comment which was allowing for a distraction. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Please don't do that. It makes things even more difficult to understand, so it actually works against whatever argument you are trying to make. You can add new comments, clarifications, amendments, and enhancements in a new post at the appropriate location in the thread. SPECIFICO talk 17:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

No, it makes it easier to see that a false narrative was being created. My point is that your reversion was improper (and as a side note there was no BLPVIO justification). Are you willing to end this unnecessary confusion by reverting your edit[24] so that we may discuss your many proposed changes? Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Truly, I don't understand your idea that a false narrative was being created. Who created a false narrative, what was the true narrative, and how is it that you using the strike-out technique makes this easier to perceive? Novellasyes (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you don't understand, so I don't know what to say. If you are confused, just imagine I never said anything in this section besides the second sentence in my proceeding comment. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

"RAAAAAAAAANDY" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect RAAAAAAAAANDY. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 4#RAAAAAAAAANDY until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 17:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Section header regarding 2018 controversy

I propose that the article section header Allegation of sexual misconductassault be changed to 2018 #MeToo controversy or some other similar title that reflects the article text and RS presentation of the issue. Although the Babe blog and its anonymous source call this assault, RS are divided and do not conclude such a tag is warranted or consistent with the facts. This event has continued to recede from public awareness, with no ongoing media presense of which I'm aware. Per NPOV and BLP, I believe the header should be changed as proposed. Anyone disagree? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I like that better. Do we have RSs suggestion one vs the other or is this entirely a Wikipedia generated title? Are any sources saying this is "sexual assault" vs say misconduct or such. Assault has a rather loaded implication. Springee (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

You've quoted a title that doesn't exist: it says misconduct, not assault. Very different things. Can you strike and replace that part of your comment to avoid misleading, SPECIFICO? Springee—what do you think about the actual title used? The point here is that many RS, in addition to both the accuser and Ansari himself, do think there was misconduct, but not all of them, which is why this is an "allegation" rather than an "incident". The term is the one favored by reliable sources: of the small proportion of sources on the topic actually in the article, there's Vanity Fair and Vox that use it. — Bilorv (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Done, thank you. SPECIFICO talk 17:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, misconduct vs assault changes things. I'm a lot more neutral now. Are sources typically talking about it in context of MeToo? Springee (talk)

To my knowledge, there's been virtually no published discussion of it since shortly after the incident. The coverage and discussion was almost entirely in terms of #MeToo, whether it was within the #MeToo isssues, or whether it was something more personal and of little public significance except for the brief media back-and-forth. SPECIFICO talk 19:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Everyone's ear hears differently but to me, the phrase "#MeToo controversy" sounds more dire than a sexual misconduct allegation. Our article on the Me Too movement describes it as "a social movement against sexual abuse and sexual harassment where people publicize allegations of sex crimes". That's dire. When I see "sexual misconduct" I think, "that could mean just about anything; that's a broad continuum". I'm also not crazy about calling it a controversy. Honestly it seems more like a two-day dust-up. I am stating a bunch of personal opinions here which is mostly a reason to go with what the RSes say. Novellasyes (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Sections should never have "controversy" in the title, so I'm agreed. Something can be widely criticised, minorly criticised or polarised, but "controversy" doesn't communicate any of those situations properly. But this isn't a "two-day dust up". It garnered sustained coverage for a period of weeks and continues to this day to be one of the most commonly invoked examples from the 2010s of potential sexual misconduct, the way media reports on sexual misconduct, the consequences of sexual misconduct to victim and accused etc. For instance, consider its invokation in this Guardian piece. There are hundreds (possibly thousands) of high-quality sources of this form which you can find with a search or two. — Bilorv (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)