Content deleted Content added
→Manveer Heir: Reply |
→Manveer Heir: Reply |
||
Line 158:
::Now, you and I can argue whether he is "being sarcastic with hot takes" (respectfully, it is not "pretty clear" at all), but I encourage you to go and actually read some of his old tweets if you sincerely believe that - as, though I don't know you, I wager that were the comments directed at any other race, you would likely have a different opinion (for example: [https://archive.is/RODcy]https://archive.is/RODcy or https://archive.is/t3b9w (which I'd hope would give you pause)). The fact remains that a huge percentage of this article is dedicated to his comments on race, and whether you personally think it to be "sarcasm" or not, the comments made huge waves at the time, resulted in, arguably, his removal from the company, caused him to delete his account altogether, and are relevant to keeping the article balanced. Now, I'm not making those claims in the edits, only to you now as someone who followed it at the time, and only drawing attention that those comments exist and are pertinent. Nowhere in my language did it state he was a racist, nor that his comments weren't sarcasm, or anything else. Only that he made them, and they are related to his views for an entire section dedicated to them (or, why not just remove that section altogether?). If he has admitted to standing by those comments and you yourself don't view them as serious or racially charged, then why the panic to hide them from his article at all?
::If your issue is that we avoid terms like "criticized", then this can be done. There is no desire to paint the man as a monster, only to dedicate a measly 5% of the article to drawing attention to the fact that these comments ''were'' made and ''are'' relevant to the remaining 95% of the article that was biased enough that the man could - let's be honest - add it to his résumé. [[User:WhereIsFibonacci|WhereIsFibonacci]] ([[User talk:WhereIsFibonacci|talk]]) 07:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
:::@[[User:WhereIsFibonacci|WhereIsFibonacci]], Heir's tweets are still a primary source, so unusable for claims that are negative or controversial. It doesn't matter if we avoid the word "criticized" or take a "drawing attention" approach, it's still controversial. Ultimately, we're not here to [[WP:NOR|perform our own analysis or interpretation of sources]] or [[WP:YESPOV|add our own point of view or opinions]] into articles—which it sounds like you're trying to do. We do sometimes fill in basic details from primary sources, though there are limitations. Nothing negative or controversial as mentioned, but also no puffery because that type of content is usually considered "exceptional" or "self-serving" or simply isn't a statement of fact. (See [[WP:PRIMARY]] and (again) [[WP:ABOUTSELF]] for the full policies.) However, keep in mind that [[WP:VOLUNTEER|almost everyone on Wikipedia is a volunteer]] and we have 6.6 million articles, so not every article can or will be perfect. A few other comments:
:::One Angry Gamer is considered an unreliable source because their staff largely lacks training and experience in journalism (or related fields), they don't differentiate between opinion and fact-based content, they've misrepresented sources, and so on. You can read more about specific sources at [[WP:RSP]] (for general sources) and [[WP:VG/S]] (for video game-specific sources).
:::If the screenshot in that article is real, Heir had written more than 76 thousand tweets at the time it was published. I'm guessing he wrote a few more before deleting his account. Cherry-picking the dozen or two tweets that you disagree with is exactly why we don't do our own analysis and instead rely on what reliable sources have published.
:::As for why that didn't happen before, my guess is that your logged-out edits were seen as [[WP:BLP|Living Person policy violations]] and [[WP:EW|edit warring]]. BLP-violating content is almost always reverted, even if there are incidental good edits, because the policy is that {{tq|[c]ontentious material about living persons...that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion}}. I'm glad that you created an account and you're willing to discuss it now. If you have further concerns about the article, I suggest bringing them to [[Talk:Manveer Heir]] for a wider discussion. [[User:Woodroar|Woodroar]] ([[User talk:Woodroar#top|talk]]) 18:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
| |||