Talk:Kurt Metzger

Reverted edits

Hello,

The amendment I proposed to the article was as neutral as possible and included the subject's own words without additional "biased" commentary. In response to the "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia" assertion - Metzger has had enough of a history repeating his opinions on rape/sexual assault in public, not just in his own comedy but in multiple interviews both in print and on video (including a recent interview with Splitsider) for it to be noted in his Wikipedia article. http://splitsider.com/2014/07/finding-controversy-by-accident-with-kurt-metzger/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCiN0uUVCjo

When a comedian repeatedly addresses an issue in public it is significant as it suggests an enduring aspect of his comedic perspective. Moreover, articles about living public figures and celebrities routinely include information regarding their personal lives (e.g. The Wikipedia article on Hugh Grant includes information regarding his legal troubles and prostitution related arrest though these have nothing to do with Grant's work as an actor).

This controversy has become a significant component of Metzger's public persona and work and deserves to be noted in the article in some form. (e.g. Extensive documentation of Donald Sterling's many controversial dealings in his Wikipedia article are considered worthwhile.) If an editor has an issue with the specific text consider rewriting it or truncating it and link back to the relevant sources I included rather than deleting it entirely.

I'd also like to suggest, with as much respect as possible, that there may be a significant gender bias regarding what is and is not worth including in a Wikipedia BLP article considering this: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/04/27/nine-out-of-ten-wikipedians-continue-to-be-men/. This is precisely the kind of amendment to an article that might be affected by the documented gender imbalance of Wikipedia editors though i'm sure you'll all consider it with as little bias as humanly possible.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.137.234 (talk) 08:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello 24.44.137.234,

I am the first editor to have removed the content you added to Kurt Metzger's article and, for what it's worth, I'm female. My reversion of your edits do not stem from any sort of gender-bias. My edits stem from Wikipedia's policies on Biographies of Living Persons and Notability.

Unfortunately one is limited to only so many characters in the edit summary field in Wikipedia; my "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia" rationale was meant to encapsulate this: Metzger is a comic and comics tend to say shocking, controversial, offensive, sometimes vile and disgusting things. This doesn't mean that these statements/actions should be included in their wiki article unless said commentary has reached notable enough coverage to at least be covered by some reliable sources as per Wikipedia's guidelines. If we didn't hold to at least this standard, articles on public figures would risk becoming lists of every controversial thing that some website has reported about or attributed to said public figure, whether that information is accurate or not, or whether or not the comments/actions being reported on have been taken out of context. So far, the only source outside of The Daily Dot that I can find covering this situation is the Splitsider interview you mentioned. Splitsider was not even reporting on the issue directly, but simply asked Metzger about it during his interview after he had alluded to The Daily Dot article. Unfortunately this alone does not constitute notability as per Wikipedia's guidelines.

Although, like you, I am also concerned about editor diversity on Wikipedia and it's effect on content. Pardon me if I'm wrong, but I would hazard a guess that you are female as well. Might I ask why haven't you registered to be an editor? I would be more than happy to assist you in that regard. Feel free to leave me a message on on my talk page should you have any questions about Wikipedia. My invitation also extends to anyone you know who may have questions or have an interest in becoming a Wikipedia editor.

Cheers! Marchije•^speak/_peek 01:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

We now have additional sources.

http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/amy-schumer-kurt-metzger-sexual-assault-1201839590/

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2016/aug/17/amy-schumer-writer-rape-kurt-metzger

And of course the writer's own statements are definitionally sourced. --Thalia42 (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Facebook and Twitter flame wars aren't made significant because the subjects are moderately famous. It may develop into something notable but nothing at the current time indicates it is (WP:NOTNEWS).

And a brief note to clarify: this conversation (and the sources above) have no bearing on my earlier edits [1] which removed still unsupported WP:BLP violations. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

If it's been reported in international mainstream media, it's no longer just a 'Twitter flame war'. While some of the content previously in this article seems excessive, I think the recent controversy over his comments on allegations about Aaron Glaser should definitely be included. These have received significant attention from reliable sources (e.g. here[2]) and are a notable part of his biography. Indeed, this controversy is arguably becoming what he's best known for. WP:BLP does not mean biographies should be whitewashed of all negative information about their subjects. Robofish (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I see it's being picked up, although most sources seem to focus on Schumer's reaction. This USA Today article looks usable: http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2016/08/19/amy-schumer-defends-kurt-metzger-charlie-rose/88988802/ James J. Lambden (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

NOTNEWS. Still. The twitter war is inane and not a "significant part" of Metzger's persona. It does seem to be a significant part of the blogrollers' lives, though. Avocats (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Nothing in WP:NOTNEWS seems to apply here; that section of WWIN doesn't advise against inclusion of recent events, only routine and non-notable information. This story has already garnered global coverage in both specialized and general press (I first came across it via the BBC) and has inspired several op eds, and a great deal more discussion about Metzger's behaviour and stances, all covered by reliable secondary, independent sources. Without commenting upon the content of his statements or views, it's pretty clear as an objective matter that this will have implications to his career and public perception. In short, it's well past that point where it's relevance is such that it can be ignored while presenting a complete accounting of the man's career, which is hinge of his WP:Notability. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Snow, NOTNEWS doesn't apply here. The idea these particular comments are not significant seems more like a personal opinion that's contradicted by the mass of international reliable sources covering it. Rab V (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)