Talk:Aziz Ansari/Archive 1

Is this article appropriate for Project India?

This article says that Mr. Ansari was born in the US and is American. What relation other than possibly ancestry does he have to India such that it would warrant Project India incorporating this article? Shall we include George Bush in WikiProject England because of his ancestry in England?EECavazos (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the India wikiproject. It should be reattached if Mr. Ansari somehow has dual citizenship.EECavazos (talk) 00:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appearance on Uncle Morty's Dub Shack

Ansari was in the first episode of Uncle Morty's Dub Shack. I've never edited a wikipedia page before so I won't add this, but if someone feels it is important to add please do. Here is a reference link. http://www.iatv.tv/unclemorty/credits.php 24.27.75.111 (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil Indian?

Please provide source I have removed it until then.139.57.238.170 (talk) 21:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NRI?

Somebody wrote on his page that he's a Non resident Indian. That is absolutely false! He was born in the United States. In order to be an NRI you have to be born in the United States and living abroad. 139.57.238.170 (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is highly unpleasant, unfunny, and unfortunate and his demeanor is unappealing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.17.75.89 (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is categorically untrue. Aziz Ansari seems at least moderately fortunate. 99.95.39.54 (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raaaaaaaandy!

Whoever keeps changing my edits, please take note, Aziz plays the character RAAAAAAAANDY (note the 8 "A"s), this spelling is correct and it verified both on his website, [1] and in many of his routines/interviews. If you have a problem with it, please talk it over here before just reverting the changes. --Andrew reid623 (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True that; I just re-added the missing 7 A's to Raaaaaaaandy's name. That is how it's spelled. So for anyone wondering, it's not sloppy vandalism. 24.21.198.16 (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

he is totally awesome!!!!!!!

I just watched his new 2010 TV special and it was so freakin hilarious. Peacegirl13 January18,2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacegirl13 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pornstar?

Under occupations, one of the occupations listed is pornstar. It's possible but unlikely* that this is true. Most likely it's up as a chic joke, but it should probably be removed unless a reference/porn credit can be found. *Unlikely because NBC would likely catch a lot of flak for having a sitcom with a young porn star in it. I'm sure Asiz Ansari could get into porn because he's young thin and famous but it would also likely be a career ending move.DasKreestof (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At some point, everyone does porn. I suggest you deal with it. The Scythian 01:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really seriously unfunny racist vandalism of this page

Right up towards the top of the page someone's put:

"Ansari was born as a Terroist and is still a Terroist to this day, there is no physical evidence of Ansari being a Terroist, but look at him! He's a paki. Therefore, he is definitely a Terroist."

I don't know how to edit/remove stuff, can someone who does remove this right away please? Thanks.

Meinhoff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.148.107 (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American Muslim

The article says that he is an atheist yet there is still an 'American Muslims' tag at the bottom. I think it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.218.161 (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, I know what he means. You may be an atheist, but there is always some redneck labeling you a Muslim to your face. So it goes... The Scythian 02:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed the categories "American Muslims" and "Indian Muslims". According to this NY Times article, Ansari is a self-described atheist. Scj2315 (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

check the rules

There are special/specific ones for placing an atheist category on someone's wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.199.68.204 (talk) 04:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with the rules, and your edits are inappropriate. First, the addition of the phrase "According to one news article that fails to quote him" is a non-neutral comment in your own voice. Wikipedia doesn't add those kinds of qualifiers to descriptions of what a source says. Second, the inclusion of the atheist category is governed by WP:BLPCAT, which requires that the subject self-identify, in this instance, as being an atheist. The source says, "In an earlier version of this article, Michael Schur, the co-creator of "Parks and Recreation," partly described Mr. Ansari as a Muslim. Mr. Ansari describes himself as an atheist." That's a sufficient self-identification coming from a very reliable source (The New York Times) to include the atheist category. I'm going to revert your edit one more time, and I hope you'll come back here to continue this discussion if you still object. Another option is to take this discussion to WP:BLPN to get a wider audience of editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which Year?

The first paragraph says he began his career in 2000; the inset box with his photo says he began in 2004. Which is it?

Would have corrected this, but this article doesn't appear to be accepting changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Aziz Ansari. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2018

This edit request to Aziz Ansari has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "In January 2017, Ansari was accused of sexual misconduct." to "In January 2018, Ansari was accused of sexual misconduct." Half.boy (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ansari statement

Article should note that he denies that any sexual activity was non-consensual: http://people.com/tv/aziz-ansari-statement-report-sexual-encounter/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.40.1.16 (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Article already includes a substantially similar statement sourced to TV Guide. Chetsford (talk) 08:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request 16 January 2018

Media coverage suggest Ansari’s sexual assault allegations have emerged as a fairly polarizing debate re: the #metoo /#timesup movements. For balance I suggest the article give equal weight to counter the quoted opinion of the social critic from Atlantic magazine. One voice from the other side that has received wide coverage is that of the feminist writer Jessica Valenti. I suggest adding to the last paragraph of the “Personal life” section (feel free to re-word/edit as necessary):

Feminist writer and Guardian columnist Jessica Valenti was quoted in a tweet that “a lot of men will read that post about Aziz Ansari and see an everyday, reasonable sexual interaction. But part of what women are saying right now is that what the culture considers 'normal' sexual encounters are not working for us, and oftentimes harmful.”

Her tweet has been covered widely in mainstream coverage (The Guardian, San Francisco Examiner, Fox News, etc.) I suggest wikipedia use as a reference it’s appearance in a CNN story: http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/15/entertainment/aziz-ansari-responds/index.html ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The text in the article quoted form the Atlantic does not defend Ansari or his boorish behavior. Adding a citation and text which discusses the current state of affairs regarding sexual encounters in society (which is what your proposed addition does) balances nothing because that's not what the cited text from the Atlantic does... the Atlantic cited text addresses not Ansari's behavior but the behavior of the "Babe"s authors. Marteau (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would not favor adding additional material on the allegations at the current time. But if it continues, then yes. Coretheapple (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But doesn't the phrase "...that post about Aziz..." make it clear that the quote is also about the Babe author's account? Regardless, perhaps I unnecessarily muddied things by couching this as a "balance" to the Atlantic quote specifically. I still feel something more should be included because as of now it reads that the accusation is: (a) contradicted by the accused, and (b) characterized as a hit job by a third party. So if we don't use this quote by Valenti, then something else perhaps? It's kicked off a national conversation that places Ansari square in the center with people taking sides, but this article--as it stands now--doesn't acknowledge that. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think balance is always appropriate, and your invocation of the concept was appropriate even if your citation provides none. "Balance" would be a citation which defends Babe, their author and the article, not a cite which attacks Ansari's behavior or criticizes the current state of sexual relations in society. Adding criticism about Ansari's behavior as part of the "national conversation" would also have to include parts of that "national conversation" which defend Ansari... and as I said, nothing in our article currently defends Ansari or his behavior. Marteau (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy not going away

I just noticed this New York Times op-ed, which leads me to think that maybe the controversy is becoming substantive and that it probably deserves a subsection and a couple of more summary-style sentences consistent with proper weight and BLP. Coretheapple (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Coretheapple. At this point, given the volume and consistency of coverage, I don't think a dedicated section would be undue. Chetsford (talk) 09:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think the current paragraph in the personal life section is sufficient (summary of what happened and the mixed reactions). Anything more than that goes afoul of WP:Recentism. If there are long-term effects on his career those can be added later, but let's not jump the gun on that. I also note that the New York Times op-ed linked above as evidence of the controversy "becoming substantive" is basically arguing the opposite. The title of the op-ed is, "Aziz Ansari Is Guilty. Of Not Being a Mind Reader." and further down it says, "There is a useful term for what this woman experienced on her night with Mr. Ansari. It’s called “bad sex.” It sucks." ~Awilley (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we don't want to give undue weight to this incident. However, the firestorm of controversy needs to be adequately dealt with, and apparently much of it, if not most, is sympathetic to Ansari. Thus I don't think that a separate subsection would necessarily be harmful from a BLP standpoint. Still I think that we do need to reflect the backlash against this accusations in fairness to the subject. Coretheapple (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair, but I don't think a new subsection (likely titled something along the lines of "Accusation of sexual misconduct") is the way to go. When so many sources are saying… "umm guys this isn't that big a deal" I don't think we should make a big deal of it in the article. ~Awilley (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know about that. But we do need a clear consensus to add such a subsection in a BLP, that I do know. Right now we don't have a clear consensus to add, so out it stays. Coretheapple (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As these allegations are unproven, I don't think this content should stay in the article. EncyclopediaOnline (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't censor stuff on Wikipedia. If it is every unproven there is still enough here to have a section because it was a story. It would be just written in a way to say that instead. NZFC^(talk) 21:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That op-ed

Seems to me the article should show a link to the New York Times op-ed at the root of the recent flurry of interest: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/15/opinion/aziz-ansari-babe-sexual-harassment.html .

— Jo3sampl (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual harassment allegation in the lead

Wester has been edit warring to remove the following text from the lead:

In January 2018, Ansari was accused of sexual misconduct by a woman who he had brought on a date, which led to his receding from the public eye.^[1]

References

^ Deb, Sopan (February 12, 2019). "Aziz Ansari Addresses Sexual Misconduct Accusation During New York Set". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved April 5, 2020.

The content is well-sourced and summarises the well-sourced section "Allegation of sexual misconduct". Wester claims that Ansari appeared an numerous recent projects. So he did not recede from the public eye but this is not exactly an accurate statement, Ansari having indeed receded from the public eye following the allegations for over a year—something he said himself in Aziz Ansari: Right Now. Further sources for the fact are [2][3]. Wester has not responded to my comments that it violates WP:DUE and WP:LEAD to not mention a significant aspect of the subject in the body. We give it one short sentence out of three paragraphs. — Bilorv (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we can make it more clear during which time period he had temporarily receded from the public. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, "harassment" is not a good characterization of what he was accused of; the article uses the term "misconduct." As noted in the "Controversy not going away" above, a few sources suggest that "misconduct" may even be too strong a word. The current paragraph on it is OK (though it should include some of the counterpoints alluded to above; see here and here. In any case, I don't believe it belongs in the lede. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ohnoitsjamie, the Vox piece by Caroline Framke is an excellent summary of the reporting and one of the best pieces I've read on the story. Is there something in particular you would like to add? Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Upon rereading the section, I'd say it's reasonably weighted and adequately describes the polarization of opinions. Still, I strongly believe it's WP:UNDUE to include it in the lede, given that it's a single incident with a divided opinion over whether it was actual misconduct. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a notable event in his public image, but maybe it could be written to be less about "sexual assault" and more about the media story and #metoo? Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing against covering it in the article, I just don't understand why it's a large enough part of the arc of his life and career to be included in the lede. I"m not sure how useful it is to talk about other bios here, but Isaac Brock and Matthew McConaughey articles don't even mention their arrests, let along put them in the lede; this wasn't even an arrest, it was a single allegation. It might be worth starting an RfC to get some consensus. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was actually talking about the lead. An RfC at some point might make sense, but let's do the research first. For instance, the Framke piece states "Out of all the stories of sexual harassment, abuse, misconduct, and violence that have been brought to light in the past few months, perhaps none has proved as controversial as the allegations brought against comedian Aziz Ansari.". If we do a Google Trends search it appears that this event got the most attention out of any even in his life.[4] Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a large part of the arc of his life and career. It informs his work Aziz Ansari: Right Now, the only thing I know of that he's done since the report was published. You say that there's a divided opinion over whether it was actual misconduct but this is precisely why it has garnered so much attention and is such a frequently mentioned case in discussions of the #MeToo movement. It could be an argument to reword the sentence, in which case go ahead and suggest an alternative. Arrests are not really related—the law is not relevant to an event's significance, only its coverage in reliable secondary sources. There's also no claim of illegal behavior here that I see. — Bilorv (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The text in the lead is being repeatedly reverted, and now I am being falsely accused of editing warring.[5] As Wikieditor19920 previously stated, this belongs in the lead per MOS:LEAD, "PROMINENT CONTROVERSIES". Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The text is undue for the lead. It received a blip of notability at the time the story was published, and the coverage in the body is enough. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With the passage of time, the insignificance of this event is clear. An anonymous post on a now-defunct website led to the predictable internet chatter, largely among non-notable pundits who wrote nothing probative. The article content may still be overly long and elevate this insignificant event, but there can be no doubt that this is not a key fact about Ansari's life such that it should be placed in the lead. Many editors have enforced BLP by removing it, and unless some compelling argument has been overlooked, it needs to stay out of the lead. SPECIFICO talk 12:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus to remove the text from the lead, so the status quo should remain. The WP:ONUS is on those who want to remove it to show that it is UNDUE. Unsourced opinions are not enough to override consensus text. I would prefer to discuss changing the text in the lead rather than removing it. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO, Please stick to what you know. Basically everything you said that is a factual assertion about sources is provably false—this was addressed in a multitude of national publications from the Atlantic and Washington Post to the New York Times. Your arguments about why this is "no longer important" are clever and humourous, and also totally unpersuasive and having little relation to policy. As per WP:WEIGHT, this had extensive coverage in the news and a lasting impact on Ansari's career. He only just returned from the hiatus prompted by the allegations barely over a year ago. This was unquestionably a watershed moment in the subject's bio, and the fact that it may have faded from your mind does not mean it has not faded in prominence or from public significance as we measure these things on WP. I have restored the material with clarifying information. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it. This is a relatively insignificant issue that does not need to be in the lead. -- Calidum 15:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Calidum: You need to back your assertions with policy and sources, not subjective opinion.

Here are sources from NPR Vice NBC USA Today The New York Times and The Washington Post discussing the sexual assault allegations that the subject brought up in a public forum as recently as 2019.

Nor is this a BLP violation because it is negative. See WP:PUBLICFIGURE: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.

And see MOS:LEAD: The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. This controversy almost ended the subject's career and led to them receding from public view. They only returned approximately one year ago, to much controversy (see above).

We're not here to act as the subject's PR team, we're here to document their public profile, good and bad. Stop edit-warring out content that is strongly backed by available policy and sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

"The coverage in the body is enough." No, we are required per MOS:LEAD to also (briefly) summarize this controversy in the lead, which is to serve as a broad overview of the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UNDUE for lead. This was an allegation that never developed into anything more. Putting it in the lead can imply support for the accusations within the allegation. In retrospect it appears Ansari may have been as much a victim as anything. Regardless, as time has passed the merit of the claim and the significance in of the allegations had diminished. Clearly due for the body but not the lead as if this were some sort of perp walk. Springee (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be focused on the allegation, but this was a critical story related to #MeToo. From Forbes last month:

"KEY BACKGROUND: Since civil rights activist Tarana Burke, a Black woman, started the #metoo movement in 2006, to raise awareness about the prevalence of sexual assault, abuse, and harassment against women of color, the movement has resulted in lost jobs and/or jail sentences across a variety of industries, largely in media and in entertainment, including former movie mogul Harvey Weinstein. Some entertainers have attempted to address allegations against them in varying forms of apology including comedians Aziz Ansari saying he hopes he’s 'become a better person,' according to Vox and Louis C.K., who acknowledged 'these stories are true,' according to The Times, after women accused him of exposing himself."[6]

Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This gets into what I refer to as reciprocity of weight. The accusations of Me Too against Ansari may have had weight with respect to the Me Too movement, I recall them being seen as a claim too far, but does that impact give them weight here? What gives them weight here is not the impact on the Me Too movement but the impact on Anseri himself. While not good it appears to be something that is fading with time. Since this is a BLP we really should err on the side of do no harm to the subject. Weight for inclusion in the body is there but not so much for the lead. Springee (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An allegation that never developed into anything more? I think the coverage above indicates otherwise. The allegation nearly ended the subject's career. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where charges filed? Yes, a lot of people talked about it but in the end no additional evidence came out. In the end this amounted to something, it started to show that Me Too could go too far. However, that is the significance of the allegation to the Me Too movement, not to Ansari. Springee (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to remove longstanding text, please cite policy and sources. Opinions are not enough. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I won't remove it but I support the removal. The contentious nature of the accusation against a BLP and the way it's in the lead as a "accused of" with no additional information makes it a contentious claim. Per NOCON, a contentious BLP claim should be removed even if it isn't newly added. Springee (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PRESERVE, why not restore it and fix it until there is consensus to remove? He never denied coercing her for sex; it's just contentious whether that constitutes "sexual misconduct". Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Were charges filed? Yes a lot of people talked about it but in the end no additional evidence came out. By "people" you mean reliable sources, and that is exactly the point. WP:PUBLICFIGURE applies to any public controversy or allegation, regardless of whether or not it resulted in any sort of criminal justice action. Claiming that "MeToo" allegations against Aziz Ansari are relevant to Me Too but not Aziz Ansari unfortunately gets it backwards. The allegations against the subject are of obviously of greatest significance with the subject. Whether or not they are relevant or significant in the broader Me Too movement is the more difficult question. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think another point by me and Kolya Butternut is worth clarifying: Everyone is entitled to their opinions. But those opinions need to be rooted in policy and sources and not conclusory statements. A mere conclusory expression of opinion is not helpful and frankly, is not a sufficient justification for major changes to the article. "I think it's significant" or "I think it's not significant" needs to be backed up with reasons why. Without that, these statements resemble WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Half of the scholarly articles this year mentioning Aziz Ansari are related to MeToo.[7] Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This received enough coverage in sources for including in the article, but I don't think it is nearly significant enough to include in the lead. If there were a criminal charge—perhaps. A conviction—definitely. It sounds to me like a horrible date that one of the participants decided to make public. That's not encyclopedic, and it's certainly not lead worthy. - MrX 🖋 20:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MrX I think it's a bit of a tough line to draw, though, to say that criminal charges are necessary for something to be significant. Not all criminal charges are significant, and not all significant incidents are criminal. For the lead, at least, I believe that the guiding policy is MOS:LEAD. The allegations are addressed in-depth in the article because of how they affected Ansari's public profile. Do you not think that a summary of the article deserves a brief mention of this? Wikieditor19920 (talk)

MOS:LEAD is part of style guide. It's not a rule. That's why consensus is important so that editors can decide how a style guide should be applied to a particular situation.

I also think the article content should be trimmed back to what is biographically relevant to the subject. I would suggest removing this:

In an article in The Hindu, Vasundhara Sirnate Drennan wrote that "The issue is far more complicated than has been presented in knee-jerk opinion pieces." For The Atlantic, James Hamblin wrote that these "stories of gray areas are exactly what [...] need to be told and discussed." "Even Ansari, the semi-ironic expert who authored a book on interpersonal communication [...] was seeing something totally different from his date, Grace", who felt coerced.

This kind of quote-laden commentary tells us almost nothing about the subject.- MrX 🖋 21:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why we should depart from the traditional standard for leads. This is a well-documented controversy, covered at length in the article, and which MOS also directly addresses. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A traditional standard lead would not contain a controversy about a bad date. - MrX 🖋 21:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The noteworthy incident was not the date -- which is like hundreds of thousands of such regrettable and regretted misunderstandings every week around the world. What garnered the brief attention in the blogosphere and a few press articles was the tenuous use of #MeToo narratives to describe the woman's having failed to extricate herself from an unwelcome situation before she got to tears. None of the commentary concludes that this woman impacted or damaged Ansari's "public profile". Nothing much happened. The noteworthy event was the woman's having held up her personal reactions to public scrutiny on the expectation that people would find them somehow similar to incidents of sexual misconduct. The public reaction was only that "bad conduct" is not "misconduct" and both she and Ansari were viewed as having bungled a rather innocuous interaction that left them both temporarily upset at having handled it poorly. SPECIFICO talk 21:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. This inaccurately minimizes the coverage received, which was substantial. It was not limited to the "blogosphere." The presence of unreliable or otherwise unusable sources does not diminish the value of reliable sources like the NYT, WaPo, NPR, and others (linked above) that also reported on this.

And I'm going to address something that I really hope I have to say only once: Do not use this page to discuss your view of whether or not the allegations were serious or not, whether or not it was a "date gone wrong" or a sexual assault allegation, and whether it was merely the woman's "personal reactions." Not only is this a violation of WP:FORUM, this is also probably a violation of the BLP of the accuser, who is also a specific, living person even if unnamed. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SPECIFICO on these points, and I don't view any of the comments as violating WP:FORUM. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this situation does not involve sexual assault at all. - MrX 🖋 21:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was summarizing the cited sources. I suggest you (re-)read them. SPECIFICO talk 21:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CNN referred to it as a sexual assault allegation: "Master of None" star Aziz Ansari has responded to an allegation of sexual assault by a woman he went out on a date with in the fall. It has also been referred to as a sexual misconduct allegation by the New York Times. Whatever semantic variation you want to use, both are supported in reliable sources.

SPECIFICO, you did not reference any specific piece or attribute the views in the above comment. I see that there are commentators who have defended Aziz as documented in this interview and this opinion piece by the former NYT editor Bari Weiss. These are not reliable sources for what happened: these are reliable for the opinions of those authors only. And SPECIFICO is rehashing them, without attribution, and in his own words. Nowhere in any source do I see a suggestion that the woman "bungled" the encounter which she described as sexual assault. Nor do I see the encounter or the allegation described as "innocuous." BLP applies to the accuser just as it does Ansari, whether or not she is named, because we are referring to a specific person. Again, I ask that the above comments be struck by the editor who made them. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We can see how much weight the allegations receive relative to other reporting about Ansari at The Guardian.[8] Many pieces discuss that this story is important precisely because it is so mundane. "As a young woman, I can just about count on two hands the number of experiences I’ve had like this – and there are probably even more I’ve forgotten about. Being coerced or pushed into sex you’re not particularly comfortable with is something that’s happened to almost every woman I know, to the extent that many of us just stoically accept that it can be part and parcel of sexual relations. To some extent, this is true. Ansari’s behaviour was normal – and therein lies its true horror.[9] Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right. That's why it doesn't go in the lead. Dog bites man! SPECIFICO talk 22:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{{BLP noticeboard}} Regarding the comments about the accuser. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kolya, you are also citing an opinion piece, which is not a reliable source for anything but the author's opinion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the opinion of why the story is important. There are also pieces which mention the coverage of the coverage and the "media frenzy", like this story about The Cut from Columbia Journalism Review.[10] Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That cjr piece confirms that the significant matter was not Ansari but was rather the viability of public #MeToo discourse. SPECIFICO talk 01:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"That evening, The Cut’s staff writer, Anna Silman, identified the Ansari moment as a turning point, and called for a parallel dialogue about pervasive sexist norms at large." CJR. Whatever the "Ansari moment" is, it is about Ansari. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. Just like a French Fry is not about France, etc. SPECIFICO talk 02:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

The (formerly, first changed here) above subheading was added after the below discussion began,[11] and presents a false dichotomy. The question is how much weight to give the accusation against Ansari, the effect on his career and Ansari's #MeToo moment. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MrX, I understand that you are viewing the situation through the lens of a "bad date" as this is what SPECIFICO has been presenting, but the woman's story contains detailed descriptions of Ansari touching her unwantedly in a sexual manner, additionally forcefully attempting to touch her genitals and trying to force her hand to his genitals, while physically inhibiting her from being able to leave, for a sustained period of half an hour. This is a description, not a known fact, but this is why the incident is of substance. Many commentators do view this behaviour as sexual assault, but not necessarily as actions illegal under U.S. law. The main reason it is significant, however, is the same reason that all things on Wikipedia are or aren't significant—the amount of secondary source coverage of the incident. As a fan of Ansari, I see that the incident is a large turning point in his career, something he has both described himself extensively in his stand-up material and that has been discussed about him in the high-quality reliable sources that have been presented in this section (NYT, WaPo, US Today, NBC etc.). Editors' opinions about whether the incident is substantial or not to their personal view of Ansari are not important. There are many events which I view as notable but insubstantial (such as many of our gaming articles, sports I am not interested in etc.). Someone coughing loudly is a notable event if it obtains serious and detailed coverage by high-quality independent sources over many months and years. Do not allow a double standard here. — Bilorv (talk) 07:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BilorvI am not viewing the situation through any lens and SPECIFICOs presentation had no effect on me. I read the babe.net article including Ansari's statement, and several other sources, and came to the conclusion that this is not something that could be covered in the lead without running afoul of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. It's worth noting that neither party disputes the details of what occurred, but there is dispute about whether it was sexual assault, sexual misconduct, or consensual sex. That does not summarize well. - MrX 🖋 11:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MrX WP:WEIGHT is not based on your subjective evaluation of an incident or event. It's based on the source's evaluation and the degree of coverage. Sources have treated this as significant, which is why it's covered in a separate section in the article. The purpose of the lead is to summarize all components of the article, including controversies. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We agree that WP:WEIGHT is not based on your subjective evaluation of an incident or event. Only a few sources treated this as significant, ~~while most have ignored it.~~ The purpose of the lead is not to summarize all components of the article. I have no interest in debating this ad nauseum, so I would ask that you please not ping me again. - MrX 🖋 12:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And what is your basis for saying that "most sources have ignored it?" I think you need to review the source content more carefully, because this is absolutely false. All of the major national news outlets picked up on the Aziz Ansari allegations. Those are the sources that we take most seriously. It is completely wrong to say that sources have not treated this as significant. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I struck "while most have ignored it" since it was not based an exhaustive search and quantitative analysis. Here's a good summary that underscores why it would be inappropriate to try to distill this down to a summary in the lead of an encyclopedia biography:

The allegation against Ansari came as other stories of sexual misconduct and abuse began to entangle celebrities and high-profile and powerful men, leading to a #MeToo reckoning that also unraveled some of their careers. But the fallout from Ansari's case drew debate over the varying degrees and nuances over sexual misconduct, as well as how such stories are reported to the public.
— NBC News

This is mostly about the #MeToo movement, and only marginally about Ansari. - MrX 🖋 13:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MrX is correct. These accusations were more significant in terms of causing people to ask, in effect, if the MeToo movement had gone too far. That is more about the movement vs about Ansari. Springee (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, look at how much of the coverage at The Guardian about Ansari is about the allegation.[12] This story is about Aziz Ansari. Regardless of whether the story is about an alleged assault or about his effect on the MeToo movement, the story is about Ansari. Framing the story as "has MeToo gone too far" is aligning with one side of the debate. A famous man, a famous feminist, a famous dating expert, was accused of coercing a woman into sex, and he did not deny that she experienced coercion regardless of what he saw at the time. He received more attention for this than any other event in his life.[13] Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at what we have in the lead now vs earlier I see different issues. The problem is balancing WEIGHT in the lead with BLP and not making the lead imply something that the body would then have to sort out. This earlier version of the lead[[14]] was short so I don't see it as an issue of the lead giving undue weight to one aspect of the body. However, just saying he was "accused of" leads the reader with no idea if this is something like people accused Harvey Weinstein or Cosby (prior to their actual indictments) vs what appears to be this case, a date gone bad. The version we have now adds more information which tries to put some context as to why this should be in the lead but I don't think it quite works. It also means that ~1/4 of the lead is now about this issue. Like the earlier version it says accused of but fails to note that many saw this as a bad date vs a Weistein type of clear abuse of power. If the mitigating material were added then the length of the content in the lead grows too much. Since this is a BLP we should err on the side of not suggesting wrongdoing that hasn't been really proven. Allegations are just that. For that reason, I would keep it out of the lead. Again, this is an allegation of sexual misconduct in the lead. It has been suggested that this is the stable version of the lead. Perhaps though I see the inclusion of this material has been questioned in the past. Additionally, because it's an allegation of misconduct I would call that contentious content about a BLP. NOCON specifically says in that case a no-consensus results in removal even if this is the stable version. Springee (talk) 13:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop describing this as a "date gone bad", not only does that minimize what Ansari did not deny happened, but it gives no information. A date-gone-bad could be a date that results in premature ejaculation, or it could be a date that results in rape. In this case, what Grace described was coerced sex from a powerful man who wears a Time's Up pin. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources predominantly describe this as a crummy date interaction. It is critical for BLP and to convey accurate RS information to our readers that we remember this: The "allegation" or "accusation" belongs to the accuser not to Ansari. There is nothing in Babe's piece that attaches this to Ansari. It is attached to the accuser. That is all we can say. Any language like "Ansari's case" "the Anasari allegation" and similar conjoining of Ansari the person to the thoughts and feelings of the woman are BLP violations and will be removed. Discussion can continue, but not on the premise that any of the alleged incident is significantly attached to Ansari. SPECIFICO talk 15:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two things:

From an WP:ONUS perspective, the text in the lede about the accusations, which appear to have been in there for several months from a quick scan, needs to stay until consensus develops to remove them. Presume this talk page thread is working towards that consensus.
The events around this accusations are DUE for inclusion in the body (well-covered in RSes, and does represent a small shift in his career) but I don't believe it is lede-worthy here, particularly given the complexities of the situation and how RSes see the situation after the fact, less as a situation around Ansari, but more about how a badly-treated/reported incident can affect the #MeToo movement, which should be covered in more depth there. Alternatively, it could be seen as RECENTISM as we really don't have a good feel yet if this has really harmed his long-term career or not. He's still back on comedy tours and making specials after the break, and it seems like the events have washed off him, so if that remains the case, that further extends the UNDUE-ness for the lede (But still DUE for the body). But that could change. --Masem (t) 15:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, how does ONUS justify non-consensus material in the lead? First, this article is not widely followed, so the presumption of consensus merely by its presence is somewhat weak. But what I'm seeing is a slow edit-war in which many editors removed the material from the lead and a smaller number of "motivated" editors kept restoring it with specious justifications, including what they saw as de facto consensus for it, even in the face of the ongoing dispute. From what I can tell it was added to the lead earlier this year, two years after the incident, in this edit. SPECIFICO talk 15:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was just going back to chase down when it was added, and yes, I see it was added just then (in April 2020) and where it was "immediately" challenged (a few times in the week that followed) , and then I can see the slow edit war to remove it. (eg after a month edit warring on its inclusion picks up again). Nothing on the talk page here (outside the top two comments on this thread in May 2020 which don't make consensus) So to go back to ONUS, it should stay OUT of the lede until consensus can be reached as it is not long-standing material. --Masem (t) 16:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The lead may have no consensus, but the above characterizations are otherwise false. Editors who are removing the text have expressed that they believe the accusations are trivial, which seems to be a motivation for minimizing them in the article. Observe SPECIFICO's edit which downplays the criticism of Ansari for not apologizing which contradict's Rolling Stone's summary of the criticism from the Vox piece cited, and others: "Others, however, pointed out that Ansari acknowledged, but didn’t directly apologize for, his alleged behavior.[15] This follows an edit from April where he removed the apology criticism text with a false edit summary.[16] Of course, I can't take him to ANI because he will bully me as he has already done to me and to Wikieditor19920 [17]. (No doubt the focus will be that the text in the lead was not actually longstanding, but that was not pointed out at the time.) I feel it is necessary to bring attention to what's happening on this talk page, but now that I have done that this can be discussed in other forums. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the future, before justifying an edit war by falsely claiming the text was grandfathered, it would be best to check the history first. SPECIFICO talk 01:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth I think the longstanding version is here; before that it had been almost entirely stable for three months (and reasonably stable for a full year earlier.) I think that that, as relates to this topic or controversy, that version is at least generally superior to the one we have now and should be used as the basis for tweaks going forwards. --Aquillion (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article in The Federalist

"Revenge Porn" SPECIFICO talk 16:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article in Reuters

New York Times writer Bari Weiss penned an opinion piece calling the Ansari article “arguably the worst thing that has happened to the #MeToo movement since it began.”

Washington Post’s Alyssa Rosenberg wrote that #MeToo could founder in acrimony without a “distinction between criminal acts and merely unattractive or immoral behavior.”

Catherine Deneuve made headlines last week in an open letter with 99 other French women that said #MeToo amounted to Puritanism and was fueled by a hatred of men.

Reuters

SPECIFICO talk 19:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Deb, Sopan (February 12, 2019). "Aziz Ansari Addresses Sexual Misconduct Accusation During New York Set". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved April 5, 2020.

[1]