Talk:Hartley Sawyer

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2020

On June 8, 2020, he was fired from the series after some attempts at off-color humor and purported misogynistic and racist Twitter posts he made from 2009 to 2014 surfaced.[12] Neomanrex (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Or something like that? I mean hear me out are we really really here to arbitrate all language that is racist and misgynistic? no we are an encyclopedia. This edit would easily allow us to edit in any single joke in it's always sunny in Philadelphia as misogynistic and racist. I cannot emphasize enough how important it is to weaken the claim of racism and misogyny which is the CLAIm only and just call the tweets what they are at first glance and not what the headlines are sensationalizing in a time of panic. Maybe at least until the dust settles.

Not done: You can’t dance around the truth and sugarcoat it. It’s not sensationalizing to say something that no one is contesting. To seek out to weaken the claims of misogyny and racism is an attempt to defend the indefensible--BaseFree (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

"Defend the indefensible"? That's a bit dramatic, given what he actually said. Here are some of the tweets he got fired for:

• "The only thing keeping me from doing mildly racist tweets is the knowledge that Al Sharpton would never stop complaining about me"
• "Enjoyed a secret boob viewing at an audition today."
• "As a lad, one of my favorite activities was kidnapping homeless women and cutting off their breasts"
• "Date rape myself so I don't have to masturbate."

Granted, these are strange attempts at jokes, but you see edgier humor than this every day on Twitter and Facebook, not to mention many comedians' stand-up acts. You could argue that there's misogyny in the "homeless women" tweet, but where's the racism? Unless talking about being racist is itself now racist. Korny O'Near (talk) 12:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree with Korny. These are the types of jokes you'd find examples of on our Black comedy page. It should be clarified that the Tweets are being construed as offensive, not that they actually are. And, yes, there are quite a few people contesting whether he said anything wrong. Aberration (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Fixed.

 DoneI have replaced the language. We will not be white-washing the text, nor implying any ambiguity. It is very clear that he was fired for the content; there is no "purported" about it, and his intention ("attempts at off-color humor") is irrelevant. Your personal opinions about whether or not not racist jokes are "okay" is not relevant, either. --Jorm (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand this logic. Is being fired for something proof that one is guilty of that thing? At most, it proves that one person thinks he's guilty of it; and given the massive outside pressure involved, it probably doesn't even prove that. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

We're going to go with what the sources say, and use the language from there, and not your interpretation of it. Wikipedia does not care about what you think it proves.--Jorm (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad you're no longer citing his being fired. As for the sources, interestingly, neither one of the two currently cited sources directly says that his tweets were racist or misogynistic. The E! Online article merely says that they were "offensive", while the Hollywood Reporter article says that they contained racist and misogynistic "references" and "language". (The headline does say "Racist, Misogynist Tweets", but headlines are not a reliable source.) I'm sure you could find sources that do directly call them racist and misogynistic, but the fact remains that not everyone calls them that. And the other fact remains that, though there's certainly a case for finding misogyny, the case for racism is paper-thin: basically one or two tweets where he called himself racist without expanding on that in any way. Yes, we have to avoid original research, but we shouldn't shut off our brains. I believe WP:COMMON, WP:WIKIVOICE and WP:BLP all point to describing the racism and misogyny here as "purported". Korny O'Near (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Korny O'Near, Oh, we'll probably get that firing line back in there; there's a TON of sources about this. There are tons and tons and tons and this is not "paper thin". We will not be using your original research language. Jorm (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware that he was fired; the issue is just whether that proves anything about what he said. (It doesn't.) Adding the word "purported" does not constitute original research, by the way - it's just more cautious phrasing. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, first paragraph of the Hollywood Reporter story: "Actor Hartley Sawyer has been fired from The Flash after a host of his tweets containing misogynist and racist references were surfaced in the past week." so hey look at that. I think we're done here.--Jorm (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I pointed that out already. "Racist references" does not necessarily mean "racist", and even if it did, that doesn't mean we need to repeat it in wiki voice. Again, I think common sense (where's the racism?) and WP:BLP mean we should refrain from using wiki voice. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Korny O'Near, Here are the options: We can leave it like this (which I'm fine with), or I can spend an hour pulling up references and such and then write up an entire section about it (because it will be WP:DUE given the amount of coverage out there) and it will be more than just a sentence. I'd prefer to not have to waste my time on this any further but if needs be, I will. Jorm (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

There's a third option, of course (see WP:OWN), but that second option sounds good. I don't think it affects this particular discussion, but more information is generally better. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why you're going with "consensus" as your rationale - that's by far your weakest argument, since the non-wiki-voice wording was in there for basically nine months, until you changed it. Tell me, though - do you think he actually said something racist? I know our opinions don't really matter, but here I think they do, especially because this is a BLP, but also because it's simply a matter of editorial discretion. Yes, a lot of the source call his tweets racist, but not all of them do, and none (as far I can tell) actually back up the charge of racism. It seems to me like a bogus charge here, where the word "racist" is a stand-in for something like "being flippant on the subject of race". Korny O'Near (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Korny O'Near, This very thread is asking for a fix to the language. An unexamined edit has consensus until it's objected to; I and others have objected to that white washing of the language, so it no longer has consensus.

And yes, I believe what he said was racist, but you don't have to take my word for it, you can take his word for it, because he admitted as much in his apology. I'm not sure why you are having difficulty taking that on. Jorm (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that neither side has any real consensus; though mine has slightly more, by default. As for his apology: I don't think he ever said "racist" in his apology. Even if he had, I would consider it meaningless because at that point, I'm sure he was ready to say whatever he thought would be helpful in salvaging his career. And even if he had said and meant it, it would still just be one person's opinion.

So, what was the racist thing he said? Korny O'Near (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Korny O'Near, what is wrong with you? I'm not going to repeat racist shit. Jorm (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

You're not obligated to answer my questions, of course. But continuing to revert my changes, while refusing to discuss the matter (and perhaps becoming a little aggressive?) seems like a bad combination. See WP:OWN. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I have discussed it. I've said, "we're going to follow the sources." Wikipedia is not a place for us to decide what is and is not racist, or to argue about it, nor is it a place for you to push your own perspective on what is or is not racist, nor a place to publish racist tweets. If you have a real policy-based argument as to why we shouldn't follow the sources and instead white wash this language, I'm glad to hear it, but otherwise I think you are the one with the ownership issues. Jorm (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I've offered a number of policy-based arguments - WIKIVOICE, BLP and COMMON. Let me add to those one more: WP:NOTCENSORED, in reply to your bizarre assertion that Wikipedia is not "a place to publish racist tweets". (Not that I think these tweets are racist, but it's faulty logic nonetheless.) Korny O'Near (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems fairly crazy to me to call statements in wikivoice "misogynistic" or "racist", and it's even crazier when these assertions are unsourced. The source currently used [1] just says "offensive", and the less reliable sources provided (celebrity gossip mags...) have used either "offensive tweets" as well [2] or "tweets containing misogynist and racist references" [3]. I don't see a reason for the currently unsourced statement to stay up in a BLP. Volteer1 (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, there are reliable sources that do directly call the tweets racist and misogynistic, like this NBC News article. But you're right that not all of them do. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, not to beat this topic into the ground, but I think the current "compromise" wording - just calling the tweets "offensive" - is sort of the worst of both worlds: incredibly vague while also needlessly judgmental. Much better, I think, is the original wording: "purported racist and misogynistic", or words to that effect. This kind of wording makes it clearer why he was fired, while also indicating that it's not a unanimous interpretation of what he wrote. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

We will not, under any circumstances, be using weasel word language for this. Feel free to talk all you want, but the sources are explicit, and we aren't going to white wash bad behavior. Feel free to suggest alternative language, but it must be definitive and not include the words "purported" or "claimed to be" or "seen as".--Jorm (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Please remain civil, please keep your personal biases out of this, and please note that your viewpoint at this point is the minority one. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Korny O'Near, "follow what the sources say" is the minority viewpoint here on Wikipedia? Interesting. I suppose the only thing to do is find all the sources that use "racist" and all the ones that say "misogynist" and inline cite them, so there can be no doubt as to what the sources say. I'll get on that after I've finished my breakfast. Jorm (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

So that's done. It turns out that lots of the sources are explicit about using "racist" and "misogynist[ic]". In fact, it's most of them. Since there have been issues with people removing citations as "over cite", and then other people saying, "well that language wasn't in the cited sources, now that a bunch of the sources are missing," I made sure they're all there.

I personally think it's dumb that I have to cite individual words in order to get past the whitewash brigade, but here we are. I suppose the next stop is possibly a notice board? Jorm (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

No, there's no reason why you have to cite individual words; I don't think it strengthens your case at all. An RfC might be good, or maybe just people's input - I'm curious what anyone else has to say. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

This arrogant attitude by jorm pretty much sums up why the election went the way it did. 24.63.3.107 (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

"Purported" racism

Korny O'Near insists on including the word "purported" before the (very well sourced) words "racist" and "misogynist", claiming that there is a majority consensus for... not following Wikipedia policy. Does anyone else agree with that, and if so, what are your policy-based reasons for not following the language of the sources?--Jorm (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

What Wikipedia policy are you referring to, by the way? Korny O'Near (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Korny O'Near You mean "write what the sources say?" Jorm (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Korny O'Near, But in this case, my posit is that using hte word "purported" is original research. Jorm (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's original research, just a matter of WP:WIKIVOICE and NPOV in general. (Same with "widely described as", my other suggested wording.) Racism is a serious charge, especially for a WP:BLP, and the actual evidence for racism is so thin in this case that I think it falls into the realm of opinion and not fact. But others may disagree. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Guess the argument was settled about 3 years ago. We won. 2601:18F:801:1D20:ED31:C153:8646:6A7 (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a strong consensus not to use the word "purported". Some editors recommended language along the lines of "identified as racist", but others said that the sourcing is strong enough to simply say "racist". (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 22:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

---

Should "purportedly" be included before "racist and misogynist" in the sentence "In May 2020, several purportedly racist and misogynist Twitter posts"?--Jorm (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• No. The words are well-cited. Nearly all of them directly use the terms as adjectives and do not prevaricate. The use of "purported" is white-washing and original research.--Jorm (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• No, although past the headlines most of the sources use language like: posts containing sexist and racist references emerged, old tweets containing racist, misogynist, and homophobic content, make references to sexual assault and contain racist and homophobic language. I don't know if it's picking nits to try and work the prose to something like several posts containing racist, homophobic and misogynist content rather than racist and misogynist posts. Either way it's well sourced enough to bypass having any "purported" or "supposed" or "what some called" verbiage. Also the current prose is missing the homophobic references. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Oh yeah, I was bot summoned. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  ScottishFinnishRadish, I agree it needs the homophobic references but I couldn't find sufficient sources that actually used the word "homophobic" and since this entire rigamarole is about what the sources actually say I didn't want to go down that rabbit hole. Jorm (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  Two of the four sources for that statement do mention the homophobia, so I think we're covered for that.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• No. This is more than adequately sourced, and we need to follow MOS:DOUBT by not using expressions of doubt when the sourcing doesn't support it. I'm a little surprised that this has been contentious given there are strong sources that are unequivocal in their descriptions. For the ease of others weighing in on this RfC, here's the current sourcing:
  • "[Sawyer] was fired after old tweets containing racist, misogynist, and homophobic content resurfaced..." Entertainment Weekly (RSP entry) [4]
  • "a host of [Sawyer's] tweets containing misogynist and racist references were surfaced in the past week." The Hollywood Reporter (RSP entry) [5]
  • "Hartley Sawyer will not be returning for the seventh season of 'The Flash' after old racist and misogynist tweets resurfaced online." NBC News (RSP entry) [6]
  • "Sawyer... apologised after posts containing sexist and racist references emerged." BBC News (RSP entry) [7]

All four sources are green at RSP. Additionally, IMO the inline citations are overkill at this point and read like citebombing -- they should probably grouped and/or moved out of the middle of the sentence. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, I agree re: the citations, but there were shenanigans about a) removing citations that supported the statement because of "overcite" followed by "no references support the statement" and then b) "the sources don't agree" so citations had to be marked for each instance. Jorm (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I've worked in articles where we've ended up with massive strings of citations for the same reason. The best solution is usually a grouped cite so that they're all there, just bundled. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Yes. (Either "purported" or words to that effect.) For anyone who's curious, here's the sum total of Hartley Sawyer's tweets that mention race in any way: from 2013: "Super Bowl! America! 80% of the prison population is African-American!". From 2014: "Out at dinner and just exposed myself as a racist, AGAIN". And another from 2014: "The only thing keeping me from doing mildly racist tweets is the knowledge that Al Sharpton would never stop complaining about me.". As far as I know, that's it. Now, we could parse these three tweets and discuss why each one is or isn't racist (actually, let me do that briefly: the first one, interestingly enough, though the number is wildly off, is the kind of statistic that is usually cited by anti-racism activists; while the second two are similarly strange tweets where he calls himself a racist without actually saying anything racist). The key thing to note, though, is that none of the sources that call his tweets racist (and not all of them do) attempt to really back that up. They're all short articles (and all surprisingly similarly worded), where the accusations of racism/misogyny/etc. are usually confined to a single sentence. (e.g., the ones quoted above.) I don't think that's a surprise, because the actual source material of Sawyer's quotes is so ambiguous - more strange than anything else. I firmly believe in the policy of no original research, but I don't think it's original research to note that the accusations of racism are uniformly halfhearted and evidence-free, and belong in the realm of opinion and not fact. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  It's not our job to decide if the tweets are racist or what have you, it's our job to take what reliable sources have written about them and turn it into an encyclopedia article. We should not be making our own judgement calls on it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  Korny O'Near once again: It is not our job to a) force observers to view racist content for you to make a point; b) define what racism is or argue about it, c) make excuses for subjects. Our job is to report what the reliable sources say. I wonder if you have the WP:COMPETENCE to understand that. Jorm (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks, and please stop editing my talk page comments; thanks. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

If you stopped trying to amplify racism that would be great. Jorm (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think Jorm's editing of your talk page comment is necessary or helpful but you're doing yourself a disservice by posting the tweets. By posting them you're basically telling us to look at the substance of his tweets, a primary source, then write what we think they are. That's the definition of original research. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Not really - the question is just whether to use wiki-voice or not, which is a matter of editorial judgment that can take in any number of factors. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

If there are no sources that show another viewpoint then we have no reason to present it in any way other than wikivoice. If there are sources showing other viewpoints please provide them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, there are sources that don't call the tweets racist - you can make of that what you will. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Can I see them? I feel like I'm in a steamed hams meme. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what that means, but here's one that's already cited in this article. You can see more here. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

There are lots of sources that don't say the earth is round; that doesn't mean we write that it is "purportedly round". GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

That's true but not very relevant. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The cnn source just called them offensive. Most of the other sources are unrelated, and most of the few that were used racism instead of racist. I'm willing to adjust my opinion based on sources but I have limited time to dig through sources to make your point. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

If you don't have enough time to look into it, you're not obligated to express an opinion on the matter. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I wonder how much time you think I should spend before forming an opinion. I've read the sources in the article, I've looked through the Google search you linked to try and find more sources and commented on my findings. You say there are many more sources but don't seem to want to provide them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say many more. There are a few reliable sources that have called the tweets racist, and a few that haven't, and I think that's pretty much where things stand. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• No The description of said tweets appears in reliable source, we can't just throw doubt on that because an editor or another personally believes the word "racist" to be too strong. I can't think of a single good reason for which we would include the word "purported" here. PraiseVivec (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• No per verifiable. The reliable sourcing is clear and abundant. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• No, but we should follow what the sources say, "tweets containing racist and misogynistic references". Of the four sources cited, two of them claim the tweets contain racist and misogynistic references, one says they contain racist and misogynistic content, and one does call them racist and misogynistic flatly. I think we should frame this in the same way that reliable sources do, not come up with our own preconceived idea of how this should be framed in the article and dig for the rare exceptions in the coverage by reliable sources to justify our own preconceived position. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 02:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  I would have no problem with that, because that seems where the balance of sources rests. We have CNN with offensive content, three with racist, homophobic, sexist content/references, then NBC with the tweets themselves are racist and sexist. In May 2020, several Twitter posts made by Sawyer from 2009 to 2014 containing racist, sexist and homophobic content resurfaced... or some such. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  What is the difference between a "tweet containing racist content" and a "racist tweet"? GorillaWarfare (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Would it be "original research" to discuss that? I'm not really being facetious - everything about this discussion so far has been about taking a very literal and non-analytical approach to what these four sources say. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussing on a talk page whether sources describing "racist tweets" and "tweets containing racist content" are meaningfully different is not original research, no. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

With the caveat that I don't really care one way or another since the meaning is essentially the same, tweets containing racism reads better since tweets have no agency and cannot actually be racist. The confederate flag is a symbol of racism but has no agency to be racist on its own. Also the majority of sources use language like that, I assume for a similar reason. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I think most people who use the shorter term "racist tweet" do so with the knowledge that people can grasp that a tweet does not have agency, and so it is, as you said, meaningfully the same as "tweet containing racist content". "Racist" certainly has usages beyond "a person who is racist" and can describe an idea or a passage of text. I also don't have a strong opinion on what wording we go with, though I do sometimes feel that saying someone "made a tweet containing racist content" seems to be an attempt to soften "made a racist tweet" as though it is possible to make a tweet that somehow just happened to contain racist content without making a racist tweet. Regardless, it's probably splitting hairs. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty much where I'm at. I have no strong feelings one way or another, just a purely grammatical preference. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I think they are meaningfully different, "a racist tweet" does seem to me to imply a different degree of agency or intentionality or more accurately blame on the part of the tweeter. If that language reads to you as an "attempt to soften" the level of blame, then you clearly *do* recognise that difference. Regardless, this discussion is entirely original research, it's not up to us to decide the extent of the difference between these phrases, we should just follow the sources and not argue that our position is "close enough" to the way reliable sources frame the issue. It's a pointless discussion to have, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for us to make sure the world knows who we think is naughty and who we think is nice – we need to discuss things the way reliable sources do. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Yep, if we want to go with "tweets containing" or similar, I have no serious objections -- at least with the current sourcing the sources are 3:1 on it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• No. The reliability of the sources are not to be doubted.Sea Ane (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. Some have reached a pay-out behind the scenes for overstatement – how would anyone know, that is how potentially libellous hype usually works in the U.S. Go with the more watery of same-content based sources or purportedly and do not give muster to those which cast their own opinion on what they contain, rather than a very undeniable synopsis (i.e. shorthand) of the same words.- Adam37 Talk 14:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  Is there any sourcing or the like for behind the scenes payouts payouts for negative coverage? Also the BBC isn't an American source and uses racist content to describe the tweets. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• No, but I would be open to, say "several statements identified as racist" or words to that effect. It's not our job to fix real world problems like sources saying things are racist when we don't think they are. We reflect the sources. Purported is a weasel word in context. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• No, it introduces MOS:DOUBT that isn't in the sources. --Aquillion (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• No, based on the sourcing. Idealigic (talk) 14:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Yes or wording somewhat like Guy's suggestion, "seen as racist" or somesuch - "puportedly/allegedly" introduces inapt doubt, which should not the be the intention. "Racist" or "sexist" mean something like "offensively commenting on race/sex" and is inherently subjective. No power on earth turns a handful of sources recording what is offensive to a specific (U.S.?) audience in 2021 into an objective, timeless, universal fact to be rendered in WP:VOICE. I keep going to discussions on WP where this same specific discussion occurs. No one would dream of describing a particular woman as 'beautiful', a film or sportsperson as 'great', or similar value judgements, in WP:VOICE - especially when the sourcing is so thin and 'local'. Someone above analogises with the earth's (relative) 'roundness', without ackmowdeging that the earth's shape and dimensions are inherently objectively knowable and verifiable. But whether something is offensive is inherently a judgement -often about intent rather than content- inherently 'local' and subject to the vagaries of trends. Of course we have to have some cut-off point, we would not refer to Herr Hitler's alleged or perceived anti-semitism', because barely any sane person doubts his hatred of Jews - but the cut-off point for recording subjective judgement in WP:VOICE on these racism/sexism related topics should be much more severe IMO - as it already is in some of the other subjective judgements I mention. Pincrete (talk) 09:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• "{identified, described, widely seen} as racist" or similar. We should not make value judgements in wikivoice (e.g. we generally don't describe things as evil, or cute, or brave, or delicious - even if they're widely perceived as such). "purportedly racist and misogynist" is a poor choice of words. "Purportedly" would normally be used for a question of fact for which we have indirect evidence, which is not the case here. Also, if there's going to be a paragraph about this with multiple reaction quotes, I think it's important to have a couple representative quotes from the tweets themselves. "racist" and "misogynist" can encompass a wide spectrum of expressions. Don't just tell - show. Colin M (talk) 01:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

  Colin M I don't think we need to do the job of racists and misogynists for them by repeating amplifying the speech. Jorm (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

  See WP:NOTCENSORED: Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia. Colin M (talk) 14:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

  Colin M, "not censored" is not, and has never been, an argument for disavowing editorial restraint and choice. The specifics of the tweets aren't important to provide context because we go by what reliable sources say (that they are racist, misogynist, and homophobic). There is no need to continue to inflict harm upon the general public just because an editor here or there wishes to do so; in fact, one might wonder as to the motivations of those who do demand such shrift. Jorm (talk) 18:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

  It would be weird to write something like "While hosting the 2016 Oscars, Chris Rock told a joke about ducks which was widely considered to be very funny." - and then have multiple quotes from people talking about how funny the joke was. The reader is obviously going to wonder just what was the joke? If the only rationale for doing something similar in this case is that the remarks at issue are offensive so we should spare the delicate sensibilities of the reader, then that is clearly contrary to WP:NOTCENSORED. As for the darkly hinting that I'm racist, I would hope you could make a little more effort to assume good faith instead. Colin M (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• No, it introduces MOS:DOUBT that isn't in the sources. --Whiteguru (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Comment by 131.106.30.178

Any adults want to have a conversation about this article ? I’ll wait. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.106.30.178 (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Did you have something in mind? If you are wishing to discuss the change you made in your edit just now, I would encourage you to read the discussions above first. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

won this. 24.63.3.107 (talk) 18:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Years of Active Actor Section needs to be updated.

Alright since we haven’t heard or seen Hartley in 2 years cuz he went dark after he got doxed and fired from The Flash. Essentially canceled from Hollywood it’s safe to say he “retired” from being on screen because he very well be could living off his Hollywood money since stars do make money off their reruns and dvds among other things 2601:545:4402:E9D0:1DCD:35BB:EFB:4379 (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Two years is not an outrageously long time for a professional actor to go unemployed, whether "cancelled" or not, so no, it's not safe to say that he's retired. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:45, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Locked Page Request

Since there seems to be an disputes about this page and it having accurate information aka Years of Active which are 2006-2020 could we please lock the page because some users refused to believe that he was forced into retirement and edit out that information. I’m tired of reverting back my edits every single time I check on this page! 2601:545:4403:8340:9F6:3BBA:107C:E8C9 (talk) 06:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)