Jump to content

Talk:KHive/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

KHive trademark

One of the edits that's been repeatedly reverted is about the trademark for KHive. The US Patent and Trademark Office shows that KHIVE was registered 21 June 2020 with the description Entertainment services, namely, providing podcasts in the field of politics. That's a primary source. No reliable secondary sources (the edits cite Facebook). Should the trademark be mentioned in the article? Schazjmd (talk) 07:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Even if KHive is trademarked, there is NO NEED to include the ™️ symbol after the word. Google is trademarked. Netflix is trademarked. CNN is trademarked. The little symbol is not used here. I have no problem including trademark information in prose if this can be authenticated by reliable sources. KidAd (talk) 07:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
With just the primary source, all we could say is the basic fact that a trademark is registered. It definitely does not support that the person who registered it started the "organization". Schazjmd (talk) 07:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree. Unfortunately for the IP, the proported originator (founder?) of the movement (organization?) doesn’t have a large presence online. There seem to be no reliable sources that link Bianca DeLaRosa to KHive other than her social media profiles. Without reliable sourcing, we might be out of luck. And the reliable sources that cover KHive don’t mention Delarosa or her trademark. KidAd (talk) 07:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Am I doing it correctly now?

Yes, please don't erase the woman who started the movement. Her original Twitter account was removed but she has been the Queen of the Hive for a year.

and how do I sing here correctly? Any tips?

Yes, this is where to discuss it. To sign any comment, just type four tildes (~~~~) at the end and the software will automatically sign for you.
Per Wikipedia policy, mentions of living people (WP:BLP) must be reliably sourced. A Facebook group is not a reliable source. Schazjmd (talk) 07:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I checked on a known trademark in the database and found that its record includes a registration number. As the KHIVE file doesn't, I think it means that the registration has been submitted but not yet accepted/approved. Schazjmd (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The FB is the KHive. You cannot link the direct page for the trademark which is why the trademark serial number was included. This is acceptable citation. Are you assigned by Wikipedia to remove what other people write because you don't like the source?24.45.137.208 (talk) 07:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The trademark just supports that she registered a trademark in June 2020. The Vox article states that the hashtag was first used in 2018. Schazjmd (talk) 07:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The fact you're reducing a Black woman's movement to a hashtag is concerning. The Facebook group, as noted in the source, was started in January by Bianca Delarosa. The phrase was first used by Joy Reid in 2018. KHive Queen B, Bianca, has 24,000 followers in the KHive. 24.45.137.208 (talk) 07:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no reliable source to support those claims. I've reported you for edit-warring. Schazjmd (talk) 08:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Same, you 3RR at least once and removed valid sources and a trademark. The source for the online group, is the online group. You removed the source. The source for the Trademark is the website provided. The serial number was also in the citation. 24.45.137.208 (talk) 08:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

IP, we can totally include the contributions by Delarosa and Reid; we just need a source. If you know which exact episode Joy Reid first said it, we can add that in. If there's been any coverage of Delarosa in any media, we can use that. But it sounds like Delarosa's contribution is limited to opening a FB group in Jan 2020 which now has ~1400 members, and trying to trademark the word KHive, and then getting angry and sending her followers here because no one is giving her credit for the entire KHive movement, which frankly seems a little off to me if as you say Joy Reid actually coined the term. —valereee (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I found a source for Joy Reid. I can't find anything about Delarosa, but if you find something, come back here and post it for us. —valereee (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The Trademark is being challenged. Fastred Tiller (talk) 18:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

(
)

Converted from a redirect by Valereee (talk). Self-nominated at 22:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC).

  • New enough redirect conversion and long enough. QPQ present. Hook source present in article and quote checks out. While the lead sentence beginning "The movement has been cited as an example" reads a bit weirdly to me, it does have a citation in the article proper, so it looks fine. One minor question, Valereee: is it me or is the same Washington Post article cited in two separate full citations? Raymie (t • c) 02:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Raymie, good catch! Thanks for the review! —valereee (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Template:Kamala Harris series

valereee, typically, if Template:Kamala Harris series appears in an article, the article should be linked from the template. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Coffeeandcrumbs, is the solution to add it, or to remove the template? Is there a threshold of importance or quality for articles to be added to those kinds of templates? —valereee (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Valereee, I would say add it. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Coffeeandcrumbs, done! I saw you tested changing the display name to #KHive -- did you decide it was better displayed as KHive, or did it not work? (Can't tell without retesting lol) —valereee (talk) 13:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
I should not have tried. I only remembered after that WP:NCHASHTAG says that # cannot be added in DISPLAYTITLE, and that only stylistic changes (like italics and capitalization) can be made. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Oh, very interesting! I knew it couldn't be part of the actual title, but I hadn't even thought about trying a display title. When I saw you'd tried and and reverted I was reluctant to repeat your experiment. :D —valereee (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Edits requested on Twitter

For other editors' edification, here is the Twitter thread in which Bianca Delarosa asks her followers to edit the article to say that she started KHive and to link it to her blog. Schazjmd (talk) 08:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

This claim for recognition is dubious at best. Fastred Tiller (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Fastred Tiller, that twitter thread isn't being used to prove anything about the coinage of the term. It's here solely to explain why suddenly we've got tons of IPs coming in to demand Bianca Delarosa receive credit. It's not doing Delarosa any good, and in fact it's likely attracting hostile attention. Please see WP:MEATPUPPETRY. —valereee (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Then why is it worded as it is? Bianca did not found the KHive. Does Wikipedia give in to harassment from IP's supporting KHive? Is that right? Fastred Tiller (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Fastred Tiller, you're coming in red hot here. We are very interested in getting this right. Reecie Colbert did in fact tell Bakari Sellers exactly what we say she told him. It has absolutely nothing to do with the harrassment from the IPs other than to probably get more than one editor to google "Bianca Delarosa" +KHive to see if there were any hits. —valereee (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Reecie Colbert is good friends with Bianca Delarosa which I can also prove. What she told someone is not necessarily true but a Twitter thread that can actually be read is proof admirable even in a court. Joy Reid, Zerlina Maxwell and Dr. Jason Johnso were the first to found and coin the word KHive in August 2017. The thread shows it first being used as a hashtag, people joining, etc. What is printed now in Wikipedia is not the truth. Fastred Tiller (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I have used Wikipedia as a source in numerous writings and often people question the source validityy. I always stand up for Wikipedia. But what you are doing now with this article makes me question that faith. Fastred Tiller (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Fastred Tiller, we are not your enemies. We are volunteers doing our best to create articles that reflect what reliable sources say about a subject. If you have sources that can help, please provide them. —valereee (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I have they keep disappearing. 3 times in fact. Fastred Tiller (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Seeing they disappear from here I will send all of the information via email to Ms Maher. Thanks for your time. Fastred Tiller (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Fastred Tiller HERE. On this page. Provide them here, and we'll discuss. I mean, you're free to email Ms. Maher, but she is vanishingly unlikely to get involved at this level. Your best bet is the editors who are working here at this page. —valereee (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
No thanks. She may or may not get involved. That's up to her. I attempted to post a link here on this page more than once and it didn't post several times. I am done trying here. Thanks anyways. Fastred Tiller (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest —valereee (talk) 22:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Just so you are aware I have contacted Wikimedia corporate concerning this page. I sent the links and information I attempted to post here and in the article. Fastred Tiller (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Fastred Tiller, you mean like the one where you made this change and gave it an edit summary of "fixed typos"? I'm not real worried, sorry. Your best bet is to deal with the well-intentioned editors here at this talk page. —valereee (talk) 23:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Errors as a new editor are just that mistakes. Repairs could have been made by you as an administrator with the new information. But you refused to. Fastred Tiller (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Fastred Tiller, you say mistake, I say disingenuous edit summary. Tomayto, tomahto. Still totally willing to listen. Show us the sources, there are lots of people here would like to get this right, but the chip on your shoulder is not helping. You've made TWO edits to the article, neither of which included sources. Tell me, show me, HERE, the sources that support your arguments. Totally willing to listen. —valereee (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I put a whole thread up HERE and it didn't post more than once. I disagree with you totally and you don't want truth you want selective edits right or not. Fastred Tiller (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Otherwise you'd have looked into the article sources more thoroughly and know that Reecie Volbert and Bianca Delarosa are friends. Or that there are different dates on articles involving Bianca and KHive. But not Joy Reid. Just the one and earliest. Fastred Tiller (talk) 02:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Correction Colbert Fastred Tiller (talk) 02:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
    Fastred Tiller, you've made TWO EDITS to that article under the username Fastred Tiller; neither included a source. Here are the edits you've made: link Are you maybe talking about edits you made while not logged in? Because there have been multiple edits made by IPs, at least one of which was trying to use a twitter thread as a source to somehow prove that Joy Reid coined the phrase simply because Joy Reid tweeted that she did. Joy Reid is not a reliable source for that, any more than Bianca Delarosa is a reliable source for saying she coined it. If that was you editing logged out, it was probably pretty frustrating. It's good you've created an account. That lets us ping you so we can start a discussion here on the talk page. I would highly recommend that you take a step back from being so pissed off, though. It is not our fault that you are new here, don't understand how WP works, and have as a result had a frustrating few days. It is also not our fault that there don't seem to be reliable sources available that support the changes you want to make. Like you we're all volunteers here.
    At any rate, I'm happy to discuss the edits you want to make. I just need to know what they are and what sources you have to support them. I'd rather not have to guess which IP edits were yours and which were someone else's. —valereee (talk) 11:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
I continue to disagree highly with you that a Twitter thread by Joy Ann Reid is not a reliable source. She is a highly respected journalist. Her date of founding is a year earlier and the first use of the hashtag is on the same day. Whereas who is Reecie Colbert? What credibility does she have? So also are Dr. Jason Johnson and Zerlina Maxwell reliable sources. I will not be answering you again and will wait to hear from Wikimedia. I believe you are biased in favor of Ms. Delarosa. Fastred Tiller (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks again for your time. Fastred Tiller (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Fastred Tiller, Reid is, as you say, a respected journalist, and as such a reliable source for information about other people's accomplishments. Like anyone, she's also considered reliable for noncontroversial assertions about herself. How many kids she has, for instance. Where she went to college.
We've got in reliable sources three different versions of the origins story, including two that directly contradict one another. This means the assertion is not noncontroversial. You'll notice we don't write that Bianca coined the phrase; we write that Reecie Colbert told Bakari Sellers she believes she did. We also report that the Daily Dot says Reid did. We're trying to report very carefully here because we have a clear difference in what is being said about this. FWIW, this is highly likely to get coverage by some ultra-reliable source sometime soon, and I suspect we'll end up with Reid credited. What it looks like to me is that the other woman actually set up the FB group and is trying to register the trademark, but it doesn't look like it's likely she actually was the first to use the hashtag. The problem is, it doesn't matter what it looks like to me, not even a little bit. What matters is what I can find in reliable sources.
You can read our policy on these kinds of things at WP:SELFSOURCE, and if you'd like a second opinion, you can ask at WP:TEAHOUSE, which is a question board for newer editors. —valereee (talk) 14:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
And re: your accusation about being biased in favor of Delarosa, you can find this quote from me higher up the page: But it sounds like Delarosa's contribution is limited to opening a FB group in Jan 2020 which now has ~1400 members, and trying to trademark the word KHive, and then getting angry and sending her followers here because no one is giving her credit for the entire KHive movement, which frankly seems a little off to me. So, yeah, not biased in her favor. —valereee (talk) 14:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
There is also an article here on Joy Reid where she alone is credited. That original statement of yours is why I say that you were influenced by KHive coming here. That statement clearly implies that you know full well that Bianca Delarosa is not telling the truth. Which means neither is Colbert. Whether bias is through choice or influence through harassment by others it is still bias. Also you are involved in editing the DougHive and Kamala Harris pages. Why is that? Fastred Tiller (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
The first time I ever heard of the KHive was less than ten days ago, and I immediately realized it was notable enough to have an article (at the time it was a redirect to Kamala Harris). I started doing research and had a stub within a few hours, and the next day this shitstorm hit when Delarosa posted that tweet. As I keep telling you it doesn't matter what I believe. What matters is what I can find in reliable sources to prove what I believe. And I edit at lots of other pages; you're free to also. I edit at Kamala Harris because I know it's going to attract vandals and people who want to insert misinformation, and I want to help keep the page accurate and unvandalized. It was a talk page discussion at that page where I first heard of the KHive. —valereee (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Fastred Tiller, oh, and BTW? The edit to Joy Reid that credited her? I made that edit. Delarosa isn't mentioned there because it's immaterial to the article about Reid. —valereee (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I will say that entire explanation is fascinating. Fastred Tiller (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Discovering a missing article and then creating that article is a ton of fun. :) That exact scenario has resulted in my creating dozens of articles, many of them related to women or POCs, both of which are underrepresented on Wikipedia because of unintentional bias caused by the fact the vast majority of editors are white males who, like all editors, tend to edit in the areas they're most interested in. Sports? We got that covered. :) But somehow the #KHive missed getting picked up on, even though it's probably been notable enough for at least a year. C'mon in, the water's fine. :) —valereee (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid this situation has soured me on that idea but thanks. Fastred Tiller (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I expected Wikipedia to post unambiguous truth rather than be influenced by "forces" with an agenda. One meant for self gain, profiteering and a penchant for self-aggrandizement. Fastred Tiller (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

We don't try to declare what the unambiguous truth is in these types of cases. We report what is WP:VERIFIABLE. It's a difficult distinction for a lot of new editors. It doesn't mean we don't care what the truth is. It means that as amateurs trying to write an encyclopedia in collaboration with hundreds of thousands of other people we don't know, we assume that reliable sources are doing their research, are figuring out the truth, and are reporting it accurately. Then we report what they're saying. When some reliable source says that they've looked into this debate and discovered that Version X is the correct origins story, we'll report that.
Believe me, editors here are vastly more likely to be openly hostile toward meatpuppets like those Delarosa sent here than to be "influenced" by them; that was the entire reason for the OP in this section: to warn editors about what she'd done. I actually don't know that I've ever seen it go well for the person who recruited the meatpuppets.
Sorry the experience has turned you off. Editing WP is not for everyone. —valereee (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
No it's not. Especially when like myself, the new editor believes that the process is hopelessly flawed. Fastred Tiller (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
The process is messy. It's full of human volunteers, doing their best, and some trolls and vandals working against them, and a certain number of people who think the process is hopelessly flawed because they don't understand it at all. We generally get it right in the end. —valereee (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I notice that many different types of discussions have been added to my Talk Page which I find interesting..But as stated in another discussion a group of bloggers of which I am a member will no longer use Wikipedia as a source for information or as a link or footnote. We voted last night that the encyclopedia is unreliable due to this experience. We believe veracity is of absolute importance. We do hope however that in the future Wikipedia will act with truth and integrity as the goals for all of it's published articles. Fastred Tiller (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, get over yourself. We believe veracity is of absolute importance, too. Write the true story. Get it published by a reliable source. We'll report it. That's what we do. If you know the true story, get it published in a reliable source. I'm guessing there are DOZENS of places to market this story that are considered by WP to be reliable sources. —valereee (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps you should get over yourself. If you consider Reecie Colbert a reliable source then Wikipedia is on a very bad path. Or allowing being swarmed by supporters of a totally fraudulent individual to influence the article which is what you did. Tell me exactly how is an article published by Vox where a friend of Bianca Delarosa's tells Bakari Sellers (THIRD PARTY SOURCING) more of a source than a plain Twitter thread which can't be edited going back to the true founder? Where the date and time of posting are timestamped. Just as these entries are here. (Are the ones here false?) Proving that nothing and the first #date are before anything Delarosa did. I'm not the one that should be looking in the mirror -valereee. Your actions cast serious doubt on the veracity of Wikipedia. Fastred Tiller (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
We've pointed you at WP:RELIABLESOURCES and WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH multiple times. I'm done here. Please take further questions to WP:TEAHOUSE. —valereee (talk) 01:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks I will. I am also done discussing with you most certainly. Fastred Tiller (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2020

Bianca Delarosa is the founder of the KHive she trademarked it and started it in 2018. Give her the credit she deserves! Blackwomenlead (talk) 13:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

  1. Please read the discussion above.
  2. If you can provide a reliable source supporting the statement, then it can probably be added.
  3. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of Wikipedia to think we should accept material in order to give people "credit" or because they "deserve" coverage. Those are subjective judgements, and Wikipedia aims to avoid using such criteria. JBW (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


To all of you flocking here from Twitter, let me give you some advice: you want Wikipedia to say this? Then bring the receipts.

You haven't brought the receipts. "Because I say so" ain't it. "Because Bianca Delarosa says so" ain't it. So until you bring the receipts -- in Wikipedia jargon, "reliable sources", like, say, newspaper articles, but NOT Bianca Delarosa herself -- nobody is going to pay attention to you. --Calton | Talk 15:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Blackwomenlead, we can totally include the contributions by Delarosa; we just need a source. —valereee (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Valereee, here is one source crediting Bianca as the one who coined the term, as stated by Reecie Colbert on Bakari Sellars' podcast this week (8/17/2020). The relevant excerpt starts at 7:23. [1] BeachMom90505 (talk) 08:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://www.theringer.com/2020/8/17/21371803/welcome-to-the-khive-with-reecie-colbert-chris-evans-and-julie-zebrak
Thank you BeachMom90505. So, here's the quote from The Bakari Sellers Podcast. Reecie Colbert (@blackwomenviews) says: "Yeah, I mean, as far as I know, I did not, none of us were credited with creating the term the KHive. I believe a woman by the name of Bianca a.k.a. Brave is the person who coined the term and so she came up with it as KHive but ultimately I mean KHive is we don't have any people like to say leaders of the KHive but it's just a bunch of really scrappy accounts on Twitter, on social media..." (timestamp: -36:10) gobonobo + c 11:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Who's Reecie Colbert? This is hardly a reliable source and leans towards WP:SELFPUB. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, this is not even remotely WP:SELFPUB. Bakari Sellers is a former Congressperson and CNN political analyst. The source can be considered reliable, especially for relaying what Reecie is saying. Reecie is a key member of the KHive community, and is mentioned in the Vox and Daily Beast articles we're using. The Bianca/Brave she refers to is Bianca DeLaRosa. @Valereee:, I think this could warrant a mention, but I'd appreciate your perspective. gobonobo + c 17:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Bakari Sellars was the youngest member of the South Carolina House of Representatives, but he would make a fine congressman. KidAd talk 17:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
You're right, it was the SC House. gobonobo + c 19:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Easy mistake, especially because he is on CNN so frequently. He also ran for Lieutenant Governor of South Carolina. KidAd talk 19:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Gobonobo, I agree. We'll have to figure out how to word it, as I think it's safe to say that sources disagree on who to credit. We've got so far at least three different versions. The problem is that this is the exact kind of thing that's sort of in the ether. There was already a BeyHive, and KHive is an obvious extension. It's likely multiple people made this connection sometime after 2016. I think we can probably include any that are plausible in a subsection on Coining the phrase or First use or something. —valereee (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I've made a stab at it. —valereee (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I like it, though I've changed "leader" to "prominent member" as KHive doesn't seem to have defined positions. Colbert also says in the quote that there's no formal leaders. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Fascinating edits. Fastred Tiller (talk) 02:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Questions from Fastred Tiller

I have a screen capture of a tweet proving that Joy Reid, Zerlina Maxwell and Dr. Jason Johnson founded K-Hive. The trademark is being challenged as well. Fastred Tiller (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Can a screen capture be uploaded to the moderating staff as proof? Fastred Tiller (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Fastred Tiller, no, I'm sorry, that violates our policies of WP:NOORIGINALRESEARCH. We only report what reliable sources have reported. But isn't that what we're already saying? —valereee (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I see it's not, because you changed it. No, the sources are not at all clear. We have at least three different versions in reliable sources. One of them is demonstrably wrong, so we've removed it, but the other two still disagree. —valereee (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

original research

-valereee How is a Screen capture original research? How the founding is posted in the article now is not the truth. How is the word of someone Bianca knows objective fact while a screen capture with Date and Time on it isn't? Ok Fastred Tiller (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Fastred Tiller, Wikipedia reports what WP:RELIABLESOURCES say about subject. We don't go out and find bits of information that 'prove' things, like screenshots. We consider that WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, and we don't do it, period. What 'objective fact' are we reporting w/re Bianca? I think we're only reporting what Reecie Colbert says she believes? —valereee (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

wp as trademark support

Wikipedia is being used as a source to establish the right to a trademark from which money is already being made through the use of inaccurate information being published here and in other sources. Fastred Tiller (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Fastred Tiller, sorry, I'm not sure I'm following. You're saying someone is using this WP article to prove a trademark claim? Not if they know anything about trademark law, they aren't. ETA: don't want to sound like I'm saying I know anything about trademark law myself. :D Seriously, we do our best to make sure our articles are accurate and based on the best sources we can find, but anyone can edit here. Mistakes get introduced, and sometimes it takes a while before they're discovered. —valereee (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

request for admin help

-valereee I would like to request administrator attention. Fastred Tiller (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Fastred Tiller, you've got it. —valereee (talk) 17:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Are you an administrator? Fastred Tiller (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Your answer is here. David Biddulph (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you David Biddulph for that information. I do however disagree with the conclusions -valereee reached. I won't be remaining as an editor and have contacted Ms. Maher at Wikimedia regarding this matter. Any trust I had in the veracity of Wikipedia no longer exists. Fastred Tiller (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Or it's editors and administrators. Oi Fastred Tiller (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Fastred Tiller, I'm sorry you don't want to contribute any more, but I'm here for discussion. As I said above, we want to get this right. We are limited to writing about what reliable sources have reported. If you can find reliable sources saying whatever it is you believe we need to say, please just give us those sources. —valereee (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I've.put up sources 3 times and they've disappeared. Fastred Tiller (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Fastred Tiller provide the sources here on this talk page, and we'll discuss. We want to get this right. We are not the enemy. —valereee (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Fastred Tiller, please also understand many editors (admin or not) have read this exchange. If at any time we disagreed with valereee, we would not hesitate to say so. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not certain C&C that I believe that. I am no longer comfortable after this experience and neither are my fellow blog mates in using Wikipedia as a source for our writings I am sorry to say. We will utilize other resources from here on out. Fastred Tiller (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Because there are so many great alternatives! Here's one: Conservapedia. Or there's britannica.com...oh, wait, they don't have an article on KHive. Huh, and the article on Kamala Harris also doesn't mention KHive...hm... well, I'm sure they'll get to it soon! —valereee (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Is all you have left for excuses sarcasm? Doesot enough alternative sources make false articles acceptable? I would say no. Fastred Tiller (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that you can no longer trust Wikipedia Fastred Tiller :(
I'm new here as an editor, too, and I feel that it is a valuable resource. But then, maybe it really isn't the only resource - if you want to prove to people that you believe someone founded the movement, why not just show them the Twitter screenshot you made? No need to put the info into Wikipedia for that - adding it here does not make it any more or less true than it might be! I feel like that is a common misconception, that everything has to be on Wikipedia. It does not. Wikipedia can only show a certain subset of information that meets certain - arguably quite strict - criteria. And for Twitter specifically, there's a bazillion people posting stuff that sometimes contradicts itself. Can we include every twitter post by everyone that thinks something about e.g. water? [I think not]. But that doesn't make the article about water false.
In conclusion: Don't worry too much about getting stuff to show up on Wikipedia! Bianca Delarosa should consider that as well. Wikipedia is a huge collection of knowledge you can hopefully trust most of the time, but sometimes it's just not the site to look for info.
So if you need some quick facts about e.g. water: Come look here at the Wikipedia page!
But if you need to look up some other stuff that isn't unequivocally stated at Wikipedia or fails notability - feel free to search at Twitter, a newspaper, a blog or elsewhere!
I believe that would be the best solution for all sides :)
(As a side note: I agree that sarcasm is not fitting here, but you must understand that Valereee is just a human after all, so they might feel a tad stressed after such a lengthy discussion. Don't be too mad about it!)
--LordPeterII (talk) 23:35, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the commentary LordPeterII. But whether the subject matter be water or KHive when you call yourself an encyclopedia the facts should be accurate. When the source is a well known journalist like Joy Reid on a Twitter thread that can't be edited in comparison to a third party source given by someone whose real first name can't be found I will take the Twitter source as being more valid every time. But I appreciate your input. I wish you luck here. Fastred Tiller (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Fastred Tiller, so if Joy Reid says she's been elected Queen of the World, what do you do? She's a respected journalist. Maybe it's true! —valereee (talk) —valereee (talk) 01:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Because Reecie Colbert tells Bakari Sellers who's a pundit that she's been given a peerage by Queen Elizabeth and Vox catches wind.....makes it true in your mind? Fastred Tiller (talk) 01:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

No. It doesn't make it true, that's the point I've been trying to make. But if the WSJ mentions it, writing "Reecie Colbert says Joy Reid has been given a peerage", yes, we report that. If we feel it might be a controversial assertion, we'd be very careful, perhaps writing, "Reecie Colbert, quoted in the Wall Street Journal on August 23, 2020, said Joy Reid had been given a peerage." —valereee (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
If it isn't true then it shouldn't be printed. That standard is utterly useless. Because It was reported in WSJ but isn't fact we'll post it anyways. What reliable resource does that? Fastred Tiller (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
I contacted Wikimedia concerning the article but now this AM I am filing a formal complaint with the Board against valereee as an editor. Fastred Tiller (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
<redacted personal attack> Wow. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 15:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Wow that "Karen" phrase is getting a ton of nonsensical use all over the place. Fastred Tiller (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
FT, I haven't pointed you to the noticeboards you actually could go to file a content dispute resolution request or a complaint about my behavior, because I think it's a waste of your time and a waste of time for the folks at those noticeboards. However, if you want to take those steps, the links are Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I really don't recommend it, but if you really think you're right about this content dispute and everyone else is wrong, and if you really want to file a complaint about me that someone with the authority to do something about it (which doesn't include the WMF board) will actually bother to read, that's where you go. —valereee (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I will do what I believe is correct and that includes contacting board members individually with a complaint. Fastred Tiller (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The board is not going to involve itself in a minor content dispute. Or even a major one. Neither is anyone from the office. It simply is not their place. However there are many other forms dispute resolution available to you should you choose to use them. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm half-hoping Doc James shows up here. —valereee (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

archives

I'm sure it's my fault, but pinging GorillaWarfare about the archives not appearing here because she probably can figure this out. —valereee (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: Fixed! It was my fault actually—I added an extra slash when trying to fix the Cluebot archivebox a while back, which caused the page to incorrectly be archived to Talk:KHive/Archive/ 1 instead of Talk:KHive/Archive 1. I've moved the archive page and fixed the archiving syntax so future conversations are properly archived. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

criticism section

I think it's fair to have such a section, but this seems like it's putting undue weight on a single huffpo article. —valereee (talk) 14:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I've cut the multiple examples to a single egregious one, I think that's probably sufficient. —valereee (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Vagianos article in HuffPo

I am calling into question the usability of this source. She only talked to a small number of people, refused to speak to Delarosa, and did not give Delarosa a chance to respond to the outrageous accusations she made against her. It's libelous and shouldn't be on here. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 18:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I really don't think it's our place to call a story in a reliable source libelous, especially on such thin evidence as "they didn't talk to enough people" and "they didn't talk to this one specific person." The second part of that isn't even true, as Delarosa responds in the article: "I admit to being a deliberate pain in the ass, but nothing I ever did went beyond basic overzealous championing, and perhaps a bit of ridicule." I read through this again, and HuffPost itself does not make any allegations about Delarosa directly; it only quotes people who does. That is the correct way to handle it. Delarosa has the chance to respond, both in the article and through Twitter, which you've added. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I've left in statements from both people. I think the amount is balanced now. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm sure you think that – after you've censored the article from any direct reference to the vile actions and statements attributed to KHive members from the HuffPost article [1]. I appreciate that you've retreated somewhat on the outrageous "libelous" accusation, but I disagree that the article is balanced yet, and I'm readding those quotes per WP:BRD. You also overuse WP:ACCORDINGTO to describe this report; Vagianos is a reporter, and she is not making those claims, they are being told to her. I will also note my surprise on clicking your profile to discover you're an admin given your initial comment, calling an RS into question and staunchly whitewashing the alleged actions of members of a political subculture. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
These are vile, serious, and unproven accusations. We cannot put these sorts of claims on WP. She did not adequately substantiate that the individuals who did these things, if they did them at all, were members of this group. It's enough to say allegations were made and link to them. Additionally, it's odd you accuse me of "whitewashing"... when the issue with reliability with some of these sources, that are usually reliable, sometimes comes into question when dealing with racial conflicts. Unfortunately, this conflict looks to be one of those times. There were vicious attacks going on on social media, with prominent advocates for Biden and Harris being set up by opponents; some of this has come out in recently released US intel reports. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 23:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
No, we cannot be 100% sure of that the true affiliation of an anonymous user online matches their claimed affiliation, but that does not take away from the notability of the allegation and the need for the quotes to be included to let the reader decide their importance. I recommend using a version with the "according to" language in place, while making it clear that the "who" is a claim that about anonymous Twitter users alleged to be KHive members. See also: https://meaww.com/kamala-harris-khive-maga-proud-boys-comparison-trolling-supporters-toxic-online-threats Typeprint (talk) 07:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Proud Boys? An organized terrorist group of white supremacists? Compared to advocates for our Vice President. Wow. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 17:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Marianne Williamson's tweets are not relevant here. Adding stuff like that is wholly inappropriate. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I think that everything in politics that makes national news concerning an organization or movement is relevant, especially when there are few enough articles about the KHive in the first place. Whether her remarks are "wholly inappropriate" as a response to the original tweet isn't for us to decide, I strongly disagree with the reversion, and implore other users to help form a consensus on this issue. Typeprint (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
@Typeprint, no, we don't include 'everything in politics that makes national news'. We include what is due and from reliable sources. —valereee (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

A simple search shows that it did not "make national news". It was on Williamson's twitter, and an entertainment site. Neither are RS for this article. You are trying to add inflammatory content. This is not about online drama. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Point taken, and I withdraw the meaww part of the edit. However, I do not consider allegations of anti-Semitic and homophobic harassment to be mere "online drama", nor is the alleged harassment involving workplace calls and Child Protective Services entirely online. The nature of the alleged harassment merits inclusion, and the best way to do that while letting the reader decide is through inclusion of direct quotes. Typeprint (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
But these are not reliably sourced as coming from members of the group. HuffPo is not considered to always be reliable on political matters, and there is no way to confirm these quotes came from KHive members. As it is, undue weight is being put on this source. No one is stopping readers from clicking the link. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 21:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
HuffPo is not a reliable source for US politics, per WP:RSNP. IMO we should not be calling out Delarosa as the bad actor because HuffPol calls her out as such. —valereee (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I've removed the BLP vio concerns sourced to HuffPo as HuffPo is not reliable for US politics, also removed Delarosa's tweet responses as now unnecessary and OR —valereee (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
To be specific, there is no consensus for HuffPo on U.S. politics, not consensus against reliability. I propose we use a version of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KHive&oldid=1014375243 but without the MEAWWW content and without the mention of Delarosa specifically. 22:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Typeprint (talk • contribs)
Valeree is right, it's a BLP violation and shouldn't have been added in the first place. Her changes are good. WP:DROPTHESTICK. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 22:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
@Typeprint, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says The community considers HuffPost openly biased on US politics. There is no consensus on its reliability for international politics. —valereee (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but bias is not the same thing as reliability, because bias includes "prominence to topics that support their political bias and may give less prominence, or omit to cover, things that deny it." Typeprint (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at ANI. Will convert to archived link once discussion closed. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:KHive/Archive_1&oldid=1136862655"