Talk:Will Amos

Controversy Issue

This article requires strong references and/or multiple references to add to this area.

User:Stoneacres do not repeatedly undo the deletions especially since more than one user has undone your edits for the same reason. Bring it hear for discussion or risk action by administrators please. Mkevlar (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Mkevlar I have restored the deleted paragraph because it is properly sourced, and without point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoneacres (talk • contribs) 04:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

It isn't. What you have provided is obviously slanted to one side of the issue and is not well supported by reliable sources. We need to be careful with how we right about living people, so if that information is to be included I recommend that you work with others here to ensure that it is properly done. Given the nature of the information, I'm not sure if that will be possible, but you can always try. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The issue here is political discrediting and I agree with Ajraddatz. This is evidenced by no mention of this in Nycole Turmel's profile. If this is important to Nycole Turmel then address it there and refer to it here. Stoneacres if you want to continue this line of attack then start your profile page and have a discussion there. Political dirt slinging is not acceptable in an encyclopedia and as such, I will be deleting it. Mkevlar 16:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I rewrote the material to hew as close to the sources as possible, given that Stoneacres's material was clearly biased. Turmel's article isn't the best measurement of what is and isn't important given that her electoral defeat goes completely unmentioned besides some dates in the infobox. I would like to give Paul McLeod the benefit of the doubt, as he's the former Ottawa Bureau Chief for The Chronicle Herald, but if the consensus is that McLeod himself or McLeod plus the Metro article isn't enough to keep the favours bit in the article, I'm okay with that as well. However, the Turmel thing should stay as numerous reliable sources were published about it, including but not limited to the CBC, the National Post (both in the article), as well as La Presse, The Ottawa Citizen, Yahoo News, and The Huffington Post among others. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2021

On April 14th, 2021, Amos forgot to turn his webcam off and streamed naked live in the Canadian House of Commons. 137.175.200.37 (talk) 03:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done

Request denied. Please refer to WP:NOTGOSSIP - "Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played or goal scored is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person."

WildComet (talk) 03:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Will Amos

Moved from Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard § Will Amos

 – aeschyIus (talk) 04:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Will Amos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
It you don't know, Amos streamed live naked a few days ago. It has been added and removed repeatedly. As the event may not be notable and may violate BLP, can we have a consensus whether or not it should be added? I am neutral to adding this. I would like to know, as it has currently been added back. aeschyIus (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

This is not as straight forward as a blatant violation of BLP policy would be. I'd suggest reading the preamble of WP:BLP, because much of what you need to know is right there. Especially look at the parts on the three, core policies and the part about titillating claims.

The thing is, this is found in reliable sources, so that hurdle has been covered, so now you have to start looking deeper into these other core policies. The questions I would ask myself are: Is this something that had a lasting impact on his life and career? Is it too soon to tell? Is this found in multiple reliable sources? If so, are there enough sources to constitute the amount of weight we're giving it, in comparison to all of the other sources? If the answer to any of these is no, then you have a good argument for removing it, or at least whittling it down to something much smaller.

This is really a question that needs to be sorted out on the talk page. We should always err on the side of caution and the burden is on those who want it included to prove their case, so in the interest of BLP I would recommend deleting it, per WP:BRD, and then open a discussion of the article's talk page, discussing the proper weight and whether of not it even warrants inclusion, before we actually decide to do so. That's where this discussion should take place. Zaereth (talk) 03:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Zaereth, I have moved the topic. The concern I had with posting here is that there were not many people who watch these sorts of arbitrary talk pages. aeschyIus (talk) 04:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The event isn't notable, Amos certainly is, but I don't see how this, properly written, would violate WP:BLP or WP:UNDUE. As long as there are reliable sources covering the incident and we adhere to what reliable sources are saying, there really isn't a BLP issue. If anything, it's better to have an accurate summary of the incident here to dispel any misconceptions that could arise such as this was similar to Jeffrey Toobin situation. As for UNDUE, it's an unfortunate truth that less prominent MPs such as Amos, who was only recently promoted to a Parliamentary Secretary, don't get much in-depth news coverage at all. If we were to strictly follow article weight by relative coverage in reliable sources, we would actually be greatly expanding the section on this incident, which is...suboptimal. I don't see a good reason not to restore the content. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind, I read UNDUE and realized that it is for a viewpoint. What I meant to say was that unless that is the only thing that makes him notable (which it isn't) it feels too big compared to the rest of the biography. Yes, I believe it will certainly merit inclusion if properly written and is notable. aeschyIus (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

UNDUE is frequently used to apply to controversy/scandals for BLPs to ensure that any coverage of the controversy/scandal wouldn't be disproportionate to coverage in reliable sources. Which is fine for many people, but as I said above, if we were strictly following coverage in reliable sources, we should be greatly expanding the clothing controversy, not removing it altogether. By your logic, it would be better to remove the sections on his education and early career, since those contribute nothing to meeting Wikipedia's notability standards and are about the same length. I think it would be more helpful if you could point out specific issues you have with how it's written. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't expecting the whole conversation to be transferred here, but I guess I'll clarify my initial reply. Forgive the long response, but I didn't have time to write a short one. Normally, I give advice at BLPN but rarely get involved deeply. I often like to answer question that haven't gotten, and were unlikely to, get a response. This is just my two cents, so there is no point responding directly to me, since I'm not watching this page.

To clarify (which I'm sure many of you are very well aware), anytime there is a living person involved, BLP policy applies, anywhere on Wikipedia, even talk pages. While BLP policy trumps all other policies, it also works in accordance with all those policies. The all modify each other, and that's what makes them flexible to some degree, to fit different situations. It's best not to micromanage with them, the way a lawyer would with laws, but rather think of them as being one, giant equation, like you'd find on some Einstein's chalkboard, where every factor in that equation must be satisfied for the info to be included. For the most part, this really is an NPOV issue, and is only a BLP issue in as much as it applies to that policy. We've crossed the RS hurdle, so now onto the next ones.

Now, weight certainly does apply to situations like this, because we don't want to give a disproportionate amount of weight to any one aspect of a person's life. That's part of balancing everything out. This is a big part of how we keep things like trivia out of articles on celebrities. Weight does not consist of simply counting sources either, because not all sources carry the same weight, and often the reliability of a source depends just as much on the information it is giving as it does the source itself. For example, books are almost always, like, a million times more reliable than newspapers, but a book by a renowned publisher like Springer beats a book by a vanity publisher any day. Likewise, the Oxford English Department is a very reliable source on the English language, but I wouldn't use them as a source for astrophysics. While newspapers are reliable sources (as long as it's actual reporting and not an op/ed column), they are at the bottom of the totem pole in the pecking order. This is because they deal with events in real time, without the benefit of hindsight. At the beginning of an event, the reporting is quite often extremely unreliable, but gets more and more reliable as time goes on.

Then you have to consider things like WP:RECENTISM. This is all very humorous, but does it have staying power? This is the part I really look at here. In the scope of this person's entire life and career, is this something that will still matter to anyone 5, 10, 100 years from now? Or is this just the latest, humorous gaffe of the week to fill space on a slow news day?

Personally, I equate this to any politician or celebrity who gets a speeding ticket. We don't bother with trivial little stuff like that on Wikipedia, because this isn't TMZ. We're not a newspaper either, so we can wait a while and see if, in a couple weeks/months, this is still going strong or has had some sort of impact on his life and career. (For example, if he gets removed from office or something, that would make it significant.) Now I haven't looked to deeply into this, so I don't really know all the specifics or the answers to any of these questions, so I will let you all work it out here amongst yourselves. Have a good weekend. Zaereth (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)