Talk:Julien Blanc/Archive 1

Notability and NPOV

The article largely violates WP:NPOV, presents the opinion of inviduals and lacks WP:Notability. Moreover, it is missing primary sources Wikipedia:PRIMARY.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.5.10.29 (talk • contribs)

I don't agree. NPOV is (verbatim quote) representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic, so there's no problem with that.
Notability might be a bit of a concern, but given that there are petitions around the world, I'd argue that per WP:ONEEVENT an article is justified.
PRIMARY sources are not a necessity and while they're allowed, in WP:BLPbiographies they're actually discouraged. --Six words (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

All sources are news articles from the last couple of days and are as such not reliable sources. Please have look at WP:The world will not end tomorrow and WP:RECENTISM.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.5.10.29 (talk • contribs)

These are essays, not policy, and you have a very interesting definition of reliability. There's no waiting period until a news article becomes a reliable source - sources are either regarded as reliable (like articles in newspapers known for fact checking) or they aren't.--Six words (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

This does not address WP:The world will not end tomorrow and WP:RECENTISM. Wikipedia is NOT a news platform. Paulkroka (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not meant to be derived from primary sources, as an anonymous IP user above seems to believe. In the Wikipedia project article identifying reliable sources, editors are asked to use third-party sources to establish the notability of article subjects. As the main author of this article, I discovered only one article (from last June) published before the beginning of this month, but there must be hundreds of artists published about Blanc in the last two-and-a-half weeks, by news sources on all five inhabited continents. Blanc is now known for more than one thing. The nature of the reported seminars, and his effective expulsion from one country (Australia). He is likely be be formally banned from others in due course. (Canada is one such country which has not been directly mentioned in the article so far.) Neutral Point of View does not apply to the balance of the article, rather that the article should not display bias. In the linking passages between the direct quotes I hope I managed to be neutral, and any words which do not show this should be changed. Most of the more contentious passages are cited to multiple reliable sources.

Incidentally, Blanc is only defended on the immigration issue, not on his instructional practices in any source which is admissible (other than the RSD website) as far as I have been able to discover. The 'pick up artist' phenomenon has been around for some time, gained plenty of coverage, and in my own country (the United Kingdom), the cancellation of a comedy programme featuring Dapper Laughs has been paired with the controversy over Julien Blanc's potential admission to the UK next year. For good or ill, Julien Blanc is probably now the best known practitioner in his field. Philip Cross (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

It's been awhile since I've been a regular Wikipedia contributor, but FWIW I think you've done an extraordinary job of maintaining neutrality in how you're written the article, and letting the sources speak for themselves. As I wrote in the AfD discussion,

That they tell a similar story of Julien Blanc's controversiality is not in itself an indication of bias: Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy does not require an article to present all possible points of view but rather to present "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" —

— which I think you've been doing an exemplary job with.

Paulkroka is a new contributor to Wikipedia whose only contributions thus far have been in criticism of this article and support of its deletion. I suggest a better avenue is to improve the article by following the advice I also stated with my AfD vote:

thus, if there are reliable published sources which present a different view of Blanc's controversiality, then the proper avenue is to introduce properly source information from those sources (if any, in fact, exist), rather than simply to decry the supposed "bias" of reliable sources with which an editor personally disagrees.

— Yksin (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Paulkroka: I addressed both by noting they're essays - essays can be nice, and one may agree with them (or not), but they aren't binding in any way, else they'd be policy. --Six words (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

This does not address these issues. The article is mostly based on recent events, events that happend during the last two weeks. Paulkroka (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no policy (nor a guideline) barring us from basing articles on recent events, so yeah, noting that you two seem to mistake essays for policy adresses "these issues". As I said above, I think the article is justified per WP:ONEEVENT - you may disagree, and once 185.5.10.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has completed their AFD nomination, you can argue "recentism" there. --Six words (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

There is such a policy Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper! Paulkroka (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Paulkroka:, did you read this page before you posted it here? "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors...". One last time: essays aren't policies, and as the article doesn't violate WP policy I'm not discussing whether the article is worthy of inclusion (that can be done at AFD) here - I'm done with this line of argument. What we can (even should) discuss is which sources to include and how to summarise them. --Six words (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Six words: ok, then have a look at the policy here Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper. Thanks! Paulkroka (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I question the neutrality of this article. I am not good at Wiki though so I don't know how to fix it. Bobklosak (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the article does satisfy the Notability requirement, given the reportage of Blanc in reputable or at least established media. I think the posting above, reminding us of Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper is useful. I do get the impression that I am reading a gossip item with this article. Perhaps edit down? Richard RM9876 (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Kicked out of Australia

Assuming this article isn't deleted, the article needs a better citation for him being kicked out of Australia, or to have that claim removed completely. The cited sources all cite Victoria police as saying "We can confirm Julien Blanc left Australia overnight". That doesn't say he was kicked out, it says he left. Unless there's a better source, I think that he just left in the face of all the rioting, and Australia police wanted to make it seem like they took some action against him when they didn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:8109:9300:1a54:6dc7:c161:2768:ef20 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 17 November 2014‎ (UTC)

The slang expression "kicked out" appears only in the title of the piece cited from The Washington Post, not in the article's main text. The Washington D.C. newspaper is a thoroughly blue chip reliable source. Incidentally, his visa was revoked. Philip Cross (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

You're right. "Kicked out" (does our article really say that?) doesn't sound very encyclopaedic, we should use less colloquial wording like saying he was "forced to leave Australia after [his] visa [got] cancelled" (The Guardian) or even just state that "his visa was withdrawn" (The Independent). --Six words (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

No, the article doesn't really say that. As Philip Cross explained immediately above your comment, that term does not occur in the article's main text but only in the title of a cited source article from The Washington Post which did use that term. — Yksin (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I read "the article" as referring to "The Washington Post"'s article, saying "it only appears in their title, we could just as well use the wording in their main text, saying his visa was revoked". Sorry if that caused any confusion. --Six words (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

But you asked "(does our article really say that?)" — which is the question I answered. In any case, when citing the WaPo article, it was entirely correct to cite its title, or it wouldn't be a proper source citation. — Yksin (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Some questions don't need to be answered - believe me or not, if I want to know what the article says I can look at it. If I want to know what it said five edits ago, I can look at its history. My "question" and following comment was just a way of saying that while I wouldn't agree with using this language (assuming it's phrased that way), there are quite a few sources saying that Blanc left not because he wanted to but because, being without a visa, he had to, so no, we're not going to remove that bit. I slightly misunderstood Philip's comment, but it didn't really matter because my comment supported his view that nothing needs to be removed. I never suggested revising a source's title (that would be ridiculous). --Six words (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Description of his services

Is this a sales page for his 'pimping my game' product? Detailed descriptions of his services, including prices should be removed. --213.7.112.229 (talk) 11:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Cited in many third party sources and thus entirely legitimate. Philip Cross (talk) 12:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

please see WP:NOTNP

The problem with citing WP:NOTNP has been mentioned many times in the last few days. Near the start, the author(s) of the article write: "There is usually no need to write articles about things with no historical significance whatsoever." Clearly this applies to trivial stories, perhaps with a parochial slant, not an individual and his employers who have made headlines in five continents. Philip Cross (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Edits by IP 213.7.112.229

This user, who has only not posted on articles relating to Julien Blanc keeps changing the article to give a false impression as to the content of sources. The most glaring is the insistence that Blanc did not have his visa revoked in Australia. He is also inserting his own POV, such as the suggestion that Jenn Li is a "self styled" activist, an accusation which has not appeared in any source, so far as I know. Philip Cross (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Then write that the source CLAIMS his visa was revoked. If you look at the actual tweet by victoria police, it does not state he was deported. Just that he left. The thing about Jennifer Lee was a mistake, I was again trying to explain that the media styled her as an activist or whatever. You are using this article as a dump of all the media activity going on in the past few days. You are repeating everything that has been repeated by news articles over and over. You are going into way too much detail also. --213.7.112.229 (talk) 13:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Tweets are not generally citable on Wikipedia, but news articles are. In any case immigration is not a Police issue. Saying such-and-source has made a claim is perfectly all right when the citation is not thoroughly blue chip, but suggesting the reliable sources used are indulging in invention enters the realms of original research. That Blanc's visa was revoked is stated in multiple sources. Philip Cross (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you please name the sources? Thanks! 141.3.24.74 (talk) 14:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok yes now I see, multiple sources do claim so and the fact that I know that no government officials have said so doesn't mean I can put it on the article. What is the wikipedia policy on controversial facts? What about the fact that this article draws heavily from recent events covered by media, and goes into too much detail? --213.7.112.229 (talk) 14:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

You should read the policy article on verifiability which will explain the situation to you. If you can find proper sources which support your assertion ("the fact that I know that no government officials have said so"), you could add them. But instead, you simply falsify the content of sources, which counts as a form of disruptive editing. Your comment also suggests you might have a conflict of interest. Philip Cross (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

You keep avoiding my question. This article reads as a news article. For example, it states what Blanc did (as seen on the news), instead of what significance it has to the backlash brought upon him. For example this part: "In one video seminar, recorded in Tokyo, Blanc demonstrates himself grabbing forcing women's heads towards his groin.[4] Blanc has been accused of bigotry and racism.[9] "At least in Tokyo, if you’re a white male, you can do what you want," comments Blanc in the same recording.[14] "I’m just romping through the streets, just grabbing girls' heads, just like, head, pfft on the dick. Head, on the dick, yelling, 'pikachu', with a pikachu shirt."[15] Blanc uses the hashtag #ChokingGirlsAroundTheWorld on social media to promote his activities.[16]" It is under "Responses". You should state not just what he did and what he is accused of, but what the response to that was. e.g. you could change it to "He was heavily criticized for a recording of him saying this and that, for which he was accused of bigotry and racism by so and so." Again, this is not a news article, but a wikipedia article. The article is f***ing full of statements like these. Hence it looks like a dump for everything that has been said on the news for the past 2 weeks. --213.7.112.229 (talk) 14:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

g00.se is self-published, not reliable

I know this is at AfD at the moment, but g00.se is a self-published blog source that has not been verified as actually being written by Blanc's assistant: it is pretty much the opposite of a reliable source. If the claims made have been reported on by a reliable source, then they can be included, but otherwise it is pretty much a worthless source. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

unsourced info and external link

There was unsourced information under Work with RSD which i removed and added sourced information. Also someone added an external link to a possibly copyrighted image but now it's been edited out by the same user. Please do not add potentially copyrighted material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobklosak (talk • contribs) 17:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC) (and immediately edited by 213.7.112.229 at 17:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC) — presumably the same user)

Please remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes ~ at the end of your posts, instead of making other editors do it for you. Thanks! — Yksin (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

BLanc insists he does not teach rape, and opinions stated as fact

It's stated that Blanc is accused of being a rapist. The source cited actually only states he is accused of teaching rape I think the article should mention that Julien Blanc claims he does not teach people to violate women's consent as seen on http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1411/17/nday.04.html. Also one paragraph states the views of a person. Even though it is partially in quotation marks, it does not meet the criteria of WP:ASSERT and seems off-topic, talking about how pickup artistry shows the prevalence of "rape culture" and talking about the company Blanc is associated with. Nothing to do with Blanc's social media posts. Also that "he was accused of being a rapist" and that "there is no proof of blanc being a rapist" are both not mentioned in the citation given (citation 11) and are likely vandalism.

I would do it myself but the article became semi-protected and I had create a new account so I'm not autoconfirmed yet.

It's the paragraph under "social media posts and response". What should be changed/added I emboldened, what should be removed I italicized.

Before Blanc's public apology on CNN, Real Social Dynamics co-founder Owen Cook (online handle "Tyler") wrote "I think Julien’s video was absolutely stupid," on their company's website, apologizing for the video and saying that Blanc did not realize the full outcome the situation would lead to.[3][10] Blanc himself has described the Tokyo video as a "horrible attempt at humor."[6] Blanc was accused by campaigners that he "promotes rape," and that a sales pitch for his services promises to teach men how to engage in sex with women without given consent.[use this as a citation: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/nov/10/julien-blanc-petition-urges-uk-deny-visa-pick-up-artist] Somayya Ismailjee, a writer from Perth, Australia commented in an article for theguardian.com website: "The instruction and promotion of abuse and the total violation of consent is this company’s stock in trade." That it is a profitable enterprise "is a testament to the extent to which our society accepts rampant rape culture." There has been no proof of Blanc violating consent and performing rape.[11] Blanc has denied this in an interview, saying that he actually teaches clients to always adhere to consent.[use citation 6 of CNN interview]--Jlalex (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. I've read the CNN transcript, so am familiar with the source, and certainly Blanc's defense of himself should be represented to make it an NPOV (neutral) article. My problem is time, and the fact that the article currently is a disordered mess that goes into far too much play-by-play detail. — Yksin (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

See article. I didn't use your exact wording, but it pretty much agrees with your suggestions, which I agree helped the article towards factual neutrality. In a follow-up edit, I also removed the Ismailjee quotes which struck me as unnecessary POV opinionating, per what you said about WP:ASSERT. Here's my position: it's fact that Blanc's critics are asserting such claims, but that doesn't mean we have to assemble a bunch of quotes from persons holding those opinions, if the facts that such claims have been asserted are already represented in the article in more neutral language. Thanks for your helpful suggestions, which I agree improve the article. (Which is still, otherwise, pretty darn messy.) — Yksin (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

"There has been no proof of Blanc violating consent or performing rape.[42]" this line is kind of "out of the blue", as in it doesn't match what was said before. It's also not mentioned in the citation given. I suggest omitting the line. Everything else seems good fact-wise. The article is also looking much better. Thanks!--93.109.250.186 (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Source needed for that claim.Yes, I discovered that the cited source didn't support that claim either. Ultimately I replaced the citation with a "citation needed" tag, while I tried to hunt down where that claim & source had originally been placed, in case it was just a matter of an editing error that lost the original source citation. Finally found this diff, which shows in which a piece of original research —

Somayya Ismailjee, a writer from Perth, Australia commented in an article for theguardian.com website: "The instruction and promotion of abuse and the total violation of consent is this company’s stock in trade." That it is a profitable enterprise "is a testament to the extent to which our society accepts rampant rape culture." However, she never posted proof of him violating any woman's consent.

— got turned into this:

Somayya Ismailjee, a writer from Perth, Australia commented in an article for theguardian.com website: "The instruction and promotion of abuse and the total violation of consent is this company’s stock in trade." That it is a profitable enterprise "is a testament to the extent to which our society accepts rampant rape culture." There has been no proof of Blanc violating consent and performing rape.

— also original research. Obviously later edits (might even have been mine) removed the extraneous quote and left the citation that did not support the “original research” claim intact.

A lesson in “we’ve got to keep checking our sources all the way through.” In fact, someone should go through all the stuff I did to make sure that all the sources as they stand now do, indeed, match the text. I’m pretty good about that kind of detail, but I still make mistakes.

Meanwhile, I’m sure I’ve run across some source or another who has pointed out that Blanc hasn’t been proven to have committed any crimes, so there should be a place somewhere or another where a supporting source can be found. (The Tokyo video ‘’seems’’ to be documentary proof of sexual assault, but actually it’s possible that the depictions of him grabbing women’s heads and forcing them down to his crotch were all acted and staged, and did not actually violate the consent of the women in the videos.) —Yksin (talk) 08:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Revamping work in progress

I've made some progress in trying to clean up and clarify this article. Still in progress. Some of what I've already done:

• Cleaned up and compressed the tail end of the "Social media" discussion indicating major criticisms of Blanc and his major statements (in the CNN interview) in his defense. This included removing opinion quotes which could be summed up in by the major criticisms: I hold that we don't actually need to go into detail with the exact wording of various figures opinions as long as we have the gist of what they are accusing, as collecting critical quotes serves to unbalance the article against WP:NPOV.
• Cleaned up the info about the revocation of his visa and departure from Australia.
• Clarified description of the sequence of events from the posting of the Tokyo video through the social media campaign through Nov 6, when Blanc's Australian visa was revoked.\
• Created a new subheader about his apology/defense on CNN as the beginning or trying to reorganize the article better.

What I still feel is needed (and will do some work on):

• There's far too much detail about the various petitions. I intend to compress and summarize it, probably to go as a sub-sub header under the "YouTube video and social media campaign" subheader. This may lead to reduction of sources, but I'll try to minimize that: the main thing is, we simply do not need the level of detail about the various petitions. We do not need to know, for example, the exact count of signatures as of whatever date on any given petition, or the specific reasoning by each and every petition organizer for running a petition — reasons which, by and large, are the same reasons that have already been explained in the article already.
• There are two major types of defense of Blanc and/or RSD, and both need to be represented in the article. (1) One is by PUA advocates (including Blanc) who assert that Blanc (and RSD and PUA in general) is not abusive, bigoted, misogynistic, whatever. We may not agree that's the case, but it's a point-of-view which must be represented if there are reliable sources to back it up. Such sources need to be developed. (2) The other is various sources who assert various "free speech" arguments. Some of these sources are already represented in the article, but they need their own section.
• There may also need to be something about backlash against the social media campaign. At least some people who are against the campaign have made antifeminist statements and claims, and Li has claimed to have received rape threats.
• There should be further background info about Blanc and the PUA stuff to put this whole thing in context. For example, I remember yesterday reading a couple of things about his part in helping start RSD, but all of that has somehow been washed out of the article.

That's what I can think of right now. Comments/thoughts welcome. Meanwhile, I'm going to work on for a little while.

— Yksin (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I think some of what you stated is not actually unnecessary. You forget this is not an event page for the recent criticisms of not only Julien Blanc but also PUA and RSD. This is a biography purely for Julien Blanc. I agree with your first point about too much on petitions. I don't agree posting defenses by PUA advocate that PUA is not misogynistic etc etc because this is not a page about PUA. You could go write that at pickup artist. As for the third point, again this is not about the media campaign, so writing about the antifeminist statements by PUA-supporters would not have its place in the article as this has nothing to do with Blanc. I agree perhaps adding biographical info (4th point), however I know that Blanc did definitely not start RSD, despite what I've seen written on media (co-founder etc). Ever read the book The Game? It talks about the start of the company. Blanc was not in the book whatsoever (he joined the pickup community in 2007 judging from his claims that he "started pickup 7 years ago", which was several years after the start of RSD as described in the aforementioned book). Since the book is non-fiction, can it be considered as a reliable source to go against the claims that he is a co-founder of RSD? considering the book was released 10 years ago, way before anyone even heard of Blanc.--93.109.250.186 (talk) 05:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback — very good points about biography vs. event — I won't worry about the "PUAs defending PUA" angle. Besides, I need to eat and get some sleep, & I'll have no time to work on this tomorrow. I will satisfy myself tonight with completing the condensing of the UK info. I stand corrected on the "cofounder" info, I've been a bit fuzzy on that anyway.

Hope that my efforts will stand as a good start in improving the article. Other people can take it up tomorrow. — Yksin (talk) 05:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

You made good efforts I must admit, some people were not listening when others talked about the article having a bias, stating way too much details and opinions, which a lot of was initially stated incorrectly under WP:ASSERT and there were lots of reversions for some reason to the original version which was pretty bad in my opinion.--93.109.250.186 (talk) 06:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

All done for now. Will check in tomorrow but can't be doing much if any editing. Ball is now in other editors' courts. — Yksin (talk) 08:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

FYI, Blanc's website back up

Per the article (with a source that backs this up), Blanc's website pimpmygame.com had been taken down as of November 6. However, it's now back up, apparently under a new URL — www.pimpingmygame.com. Its homepage doesn't seem to have changed from anything described in media reports, despite Blanc's claim on CNN yesterday that he would be "re-evaluating everything" he was putting out. — Yksin (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything in the article? The website never went down except when it overflowed for some time with traffic. It wasn't yet altered. The url is still the same. This has absolutely nothing to do with article and seems like you are trying to spread information against him. Can you please remove this section?--213.7.83.123 (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

213.7.83.123, I posted this here only as a point of information, in case other people had further info that would help us to evaluate its significance. Your info in fact is helpful: there's a source (quoted in the article) which reported his site had been taken down around the same time that there were changes to his YouTube and Twitter, but given that his site is up (though YouTube and Twitter changes remain — he himself in his CNN interview said he'd made those changes), I think it would be fair to remove from the article the info from the newspaper about his site being taken down — esp. since the newspaper apparently got the URL wrong. (Or possibly the editor who originally added that info into the article made the error).

As a point of info, talk pages are for just such discussions as you & I are having here: exchanging information and discussion about how to improve the article, and to build consensus when there are disagreements. It's firm Wikipedia policy not to remove discussions from the talk page (except in those rare instances when there is vandalism or abuse). See this page WP:TPG for some helpful info about how talk pages are used. And please if you will assume good faith: again, I only posted the above as a point of information and to seek more info.

And thank you again for the info you provided. I will go make that edit to the article now. — Yksin (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

hey sorry for not assuming good faith, I did come off a bit angry there. I just didn't see the relevance. pimpingmygame is the website for one of his products, not his personal website. He has infact another website which is something along the lines of julienlife.com but im not sure. He did take down/make private his facebook, twitter and youtube videos. 31.153.82.51 (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

No harm, no foul. The pimpingmygame is relevant for the article, though all the editors here so far including me have hesitated to provide a link to it or directly to the RSD site — or for that matter to the various petitions — because of policies about promoting sites. And personal sites...well, that would be pretty disruptive to people's personal lives (& I imagine Julien Blanc has already been target of a lot of hate mail, which I don't want to assist, so...not going there); would prefer to get legitimate biographical info from secondary sources.

For balance in the article per WP:NPOV, I'm hoping Blanc will find some print reporter who has more time to give him than a CNN broadcaster on a deadline, who would give Blanc the opportunity to explain in more detail what he meant about "context" and describe his actual coaching methods, etc. too. That would handily provide a good verifiable, reliable seconary source. Oh yeah, & don't forget to mention your birthday & all your other vital statistics, LOL.

(One of the biggest problems for an editor here is being able to get sources that are reliable under Wikipedia's policy definitions, because we can't provide interpretations of how "okay" or not the training materials are, or the seminars: we have to depend on people in the secondary sources to do so. So while I am personally convinced because of all the research I've done that Blanc, RSD, and PUA aren't so evil as they've been painted to be in the petitions & press, I can't say so in the article. It's important for all new editors who are here because you believe he's been treated unfairly to understand that. Meanwhile, doing the best I can with the limited "balancing" secondary sources that I can find.) — Yksin (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Haha you mean "Blancing" secondary sources right? On a serious note, i think personal sites wouldn't meet the "reliable and well-published" criterion and also as you said interpretation of those sites would lead to original research, so it's best to just leave them out. --93.109.205.13 (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2014

Keep: Reading that the UK Visa was denied, I had no idea, who the guy is. Wikepedia helped out. Possbily the article should be heavily edited by someone neutral.

128.186.110.224 (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

As the editor who has spent the better part of a day making edits to make the article "neutral", I'm not sure what heavy-editing you are asking for. Please take a look at Wikipedia's policy article on Neutral point of view, referred to colloquially by Wikipedia editors as NPOV. According to this policy,

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three.

This policy is nonnegotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editor consensus.

(For further detail see the rest of the policy.)

Given this information, if you have suggestions about what improvements we — not just me, but other Wikipedia editors as well — could make in order to achieve these standards, we all would welcome your suggestions. You can also become a Wikipedia editor yourself. Best wishes. — Yksin (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Blanc's nationality

We've been saying he was "Swiss-American" and "Swiss-born American," but an Argentina article about him seems to indicate that he's of Swiss nationality but resident in the U.S. Here's the article in Spanish and here it is again in Google-translated-English, which translates a portion of the petition to say,

This petition asks the denial of visa to the Argentine territory, the Swiss (US resident) Julien Blanc. On behalf of all those who fight violence against women in Argentina to inform you that in January of 2015 our country has scheduled a conference led by the Swiss (US resident) Julien Blanc in the City of Buenos Aires...

Can anyone find other sources indicating his true nationality? — Yksin (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

(The Argentina petition itself is on Change.org at https://www.change.org/p/dr-martin-augusto-arias-duval-no-permitan-la-entrada-de-julien-blanc-a-la-argentina].) — Yksin (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Swiss born, American based is the most common form used in sources. While many of the citations asserting the form currently used may have simply repeated other sources, rather than made checks, it is not possible to rule out that the information stated in a small minority of sources is not simply a mistake. As any primary source indicating the date and location of his birth is an inadmissible source (WP:PRIMARY), we can only go with the most common assertion. Using the current form at least leaves open whether or not he now has American nationality in the absence of any official confirmation. Philip Cross (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Won't do anything with it now, but looking for (in general) more definitive biographical info beyond just the PUA/RSD stuff. But can't do much if there aren't reliable sources for it. — Yksin (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2014

At the very end of the wikipedia article there is no response to Jennifer Li's point "He keeps denying that he has taught this stuff. How can you say you do not teach this when the video shows him telling men that it’s OK to force women’s heads on his crotch.”

In the CNN interview Julien expresses that he knew those women beforehand, and that those claims are taking the situation out of context.

I think that not including Julien's response to this may leave readers with one side of the argument had they not read the entire article.

Also consider this Instagram image as evidence the Asian women enjoyed Julien's company and might suggest the omission of context in the Tokyo videos. http://www.julienlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/image_1.jpeg this is also another resource to consider using in the article. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1411/17/nday.04.html

Please pardon my constant edits around this article. I wanted to ensure this suggestion was placed in the appropriate location.

Adiakritos (talk) 00:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Adiakritos, that's a good suggestion, and having just spent some time developing further context (by reading a hugely long discussion thread at the RDS site's forums), I think you're absolutely right. It appears very much as if Julien's "humor" (as he calls it) had to do what in BDSM circles would probably be called consensual D/S (domination/submission) play, which he stupidly posted away from a context of people who would understand what he was doing. That's my best understanding, anyway. However, the forums I was reading would not count as a reliable source, so I'll take a second in-depth look at the transcript (I read it once yesterday) and do what I can to fix this issue, in the interest of WP:NPOV. — Yksin (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Some revisions made, which I think help. See what you think. Feel free to write on my talk page too. — Yksin (talk) 06:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I tried to write on your talk page but got this error:

  "[a1ed4a99] 2014-11-20 15:57:28: Fatal exception of type Scribunto_LuaInterpreterNotFoundError"

The edit is definitely better. I also appreciate the edit that speaks about exactly what you can see from the picture of julien with his hand close to the girl's throat. From the picture you can't tell whether he's squeezing her neck, if she's distressed or enjoying it, or whether he intends to harm the girl. So the wording of that was chosen carefully. Thumbs up!

On the "Other criticisms of Blanc" section, the last paragraph, there it lists the claims which his incumbents are making, which is great to have. Although I feel it's missing evidence to support their claims, at least which should be mentioned next to each claim. This way the reader won't have to dig around looking for the evidence themselves. Many of those articles don't have a neutral tone, and I think sending them there takes away from the objective nature wikipedia is aiming for. This wiki is turning out to be wonderful in that it is laying out everything in a very balanced way. Really appreciate your work, and the work of anyone else, on the matter.

I hadn't read that BDSM article from the RSD forums. It's an interesting point to make to explain Julien's actions. Although, I think to include that would suggest to the public that Julien teaches BDSM-style pick-up. LOL. I guess the only saving point in that is that it's consensual. Although, he's already spoken about how that was intended to be humorous, so that might inaccurate to say he 'teaches' that.

There is a great piece from a TV show called "Hunt for Real Men" on youtube that showcases Julien in action, teaching men to pick up women. It's titled "The Truth About Julien Blanc - EXPOSED". There are some great quotes you can use to shed light on exactly what Julien really teaches. Maybe that show could be considered a reliable source? 131.91.4.40 (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Glad you appreciated the edits. I didn't actually make mention of the photo: it would require making interpretation that I can't make as an editor (Wikipedia refers to this as no original research) — though I could cite someone else's interpretation of a photo like that, if it appeared in a reliable secondary source. So I worked around it.

Same goes for my speculations about the BDSM-like character of some of Blanc's "humor". That wasn't an article I read: what I read was a lengthy thread of RSD forum members discussing Blanc's CNN interview, and a couple of the members there mentioned domination/submission (D/s) type play. But I would never include any info about D/s or BDSM in the article unless there was a reliable published secondary source which could substantiate that. Otherwise, it would be me engaging in "original research." In general, Wikipedia would not count informal discussion on a message board (such as the RSD forums) or blog posts as reliable or verifiable. See the policy WP:VERIFY: that's what guides here.

I did find an article from June by the guy Tim Samuels who did that documentary you refer to, "The Hunt for Real Men," as well as an interview of Tim Samuels on BBC yesterday where they asked him "what's a seminar with Blanc really like?" and included info from that in the article right after the stuff about the UK visa denial. (Though I'm not sure that's the right place for it.)

I've got more to say. Will put it on your talk page — (User talk:Adiakritos). Remember to log in when you comment! — Yksin (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Birthday

As I cannot edit the article, I have to edit it here: His Bday is October 24th, 1988. Bodhisattva1 (talk) 12:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Bodhisattva1, I moved your comment to here from the top of the page, as it's practice for new topics to be posted in chronological order. Also, thanks for the information, but we are unable to add it without a verifiable secondary source (a reliable published source.) Do you know of one? — Yksin (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

"Critique of campaigns" as a subset of "Support for Blanc"

I'm concerned that § Critique of campaigns is a subheading of § Support for Blanc. This gives the impression that "my enemy's enemy is my friend", which is not true across such a broad set of people – even if true for a handful.

There has been some objective criticism of anti-Blanc campaigns that they are a witchhunt. This does not impply that such campaigners support Blanc, merely that they don't support harassment of him.

Some anti-Blanc campaigners have in turn been seen as becoming worse than Blanc. There is a problem with the internet culture of a large number of free-floating trolls and agitators who simply want to be angry about something, anything, and have latched onto the anti-Blanc bandwagon for the lulz, not from a principled stand against Blanc.

Neither of these groups can be said to be "Supporting" Blanc. We should not imply this through our use of nested headings. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Andy. I think I'm the one who had ordered them that way — hadn't intended to nest the headings, or give that implication, so glad you caught it. Thanks for fixing it! — Yksin (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

youtube videos that support blanc

There are a bunch of videos out there that are not reliable nor published reports, but they are from a 3rd party and they are basically in a format of accusation-debunking. Here are some examples https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JZ5TOPBqaY A vid showing accusations made by various people followed by clips of Julien from various of his seminars and his Pimp product which refutes the accusation made. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PS360836BGc similar vid --31.153.68.167 (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I just took another look at WP:VERIFY with those videos in mind. I'm sorry to say that it doesn't seem that they could be accepted in & of themselves as reliable sources, even if couched in language such as "Some of Blanc's defenders have posted videos, for example Video1 and Video2, which attempt to debunk accusations against Blanc." However, if a source that meets WP:VERIFY such as a newspaper story were to refer to Video1 and Video2 with a similar explanation, then this article could say that with citation to the newspaper story.

You may notice that in all the references to anti-Blanc petitions, as well as to the counterpetition, editors have not cited the petitions themselves (which might not meet WP:VERIFY), but only to news stories which refer to those petitions.

Can any other editors or admins with wide experience on Wikipedia weigh in here? Do you agree or disagree with my assessment? — Yksin (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit request of BBC interview with a man who filmed him

Someone please consider and add information from this source to the article. I cannot do that as the article is protected. Thanks! http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30122657

Also I saw a video of the actual documentary somewhere, can someone search if it has been publicized by a reliable source? --213.7.83.123 (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, 213.7.83.123. Information from that interview with Tim Samuels was put into the article yesterday (well... yesterday my time) right after the info about the UK denying Blanc's visa. — Yksin (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

P.S. — I found some videos — apparently reliable — or portions of that documentary, which is called "The Hunt for Real Men," yesterday, but didn't have time to do anything with it. Will try to find them again when I have time. — Yksin (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30122657 i don't think info from this source has yet been added to the article. Can anyone do so? --81.4.180.206 (talk) 08:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk pages are for reaching a consensus, not seeking permission

It is clear that Yksin disagrees with some of my changes from the last few hours. Therefore, the talk page is now the appropriate place for us to discuss verifiability. However, the onus was not on me to announce my plans on the talk page in the first place.

Since she is selectively restoring my edits, it is not yet clear if I will have to "argue". If I still have issues with the article tomorrow, I will make a post expanding on my rationale for each change. Good day! Connor Behan (talk) 06:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Reply. Connor, crossposting. You are correct that talk pages are for establishing consensus, not for asking permission. My apologies.

I was in the process of writing this when I saw that you had posted. So now I'm reframing it as a reply to you.

Here's what I did: I checked the Diff showing the edits you had made. It appeared you had removed some content and sources, some of which created issues. So, I restored the article manually to what it had been before you edits, then went back through his edits one-by-one to restore those of your edits which I felt were justified.

Here's two more diffs:

• Diff showing the edits I've made following your edits
• overall diff showing the edits from the last version before your edits and how I just finished up,.

Some of your edits in my opinion were quite helpful, which is why I restored them. Some of them seemed to me to be sloppy, in some cases removing the only source for information. Some of them seemed to be matters of disagreement of what constitutes reliable secondary sources according to WP:VERIFY or what is legitimate information to include. Some of them changed the meaning, or led to conflation between two different sources (or sets of sources) to the point that it seemed to amount to original research, and your final edit also created an inaccuracy — changing an exclamation point to a period within a quotation, when the source used an exclamation point.

So yes, there needs to be discussion of areas of disagreement. — Yksin (talk) 06:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Those are good points. I got a bit carried away with my edits and some sloppiness crept in. Here is a list of things I still find problematic about the article.

• I would think that forcing a woman into a somewhat sexual act is a serious crime in any civilized country. Places that do not regard it as such include Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and the Congo. A line reminding people that Japan is not part of this list sounds condescending. Perhaps it's not obvious that Japan would use the word "indecency" to describe this behaviour. Western countries in the past have used this word as an excuse for bigotry, but I think this qualifies as a "fun fact about Japan" and not something that belongs in this article.
• The pseudonymous YouTube user "msdoom99" does not sound like a notable figure to mention. Jake Adelstein's page which reports this is also POV in that he calls Blanc "vile" even in the title. I went searching to replace this with a neutral source, but the quotation by "msdoom99" came up only 7 times and all uses were on equally biased sites. Moreover, the links led to a removed video when I tried them. So this subtitled video is not going to be getting any more than 400,000 views which is not all that many. Something with low notability, only mentioned in POV sources, should be removed.
• The movement to ban Blanc from Korea has two citations. One is the Korea Observer which seems fine. The other is a Kpop site that calls him a creep in the title. This does not seem necessary to me.
• As I'm sure you know, Buzz Feed is a content aggregator with a long history of plagiarism. There may be reputable people who work for it, but I am skeptical of any Buzz Feed story that says "[a recently newsworthy person] wrote to us and told us this." I don't know why Jennifer Li, who previously wrote for the Independent, would go to Buzz Feed. I think we should just cite the Guardian when talking about her response to the non-apology.
• Jennifer Li is of course a major player in this debate. But there are lots of random people with opinions and choosing a few of them to name specifically gives undue weight. One columnist mentioned is Radhika Sanghani who appears to write many articles expressing outrage.
• Compare the Brazil and Singapore sources with different authors. Both contain the line 'One of his pick-up techniques to "open" a woman is to approach the target and choke her before covering her mouth to keep her quiet' and 'The Australian government revoked Blanc's visa, forcing him to cancel a tour and leave the country ahead of schedule'. We cannot be sure of who copied whom so ideally we should remove both of them. Since there was only one citation for the petition in Singapore, I removed the Brazil one. While I was at it, I removed this other one because the slanted phrase "violent speech" appears in the article's own voice.

Let's figure out what to do. Connor Behan (talk) 06:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply & detail explanations, Connor. It's going to be easier for me to reply point by point; I'll do each reply in a separate edit. — Yksin (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Point by point replies

Other nations section — forcible indecency in Japan

You wrote:

I would think that forcing a woman into a somewhat sexual act is a serious crime in any civilized country. Places that do not regard it as such include Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and the Congo. A line reminding people that Japan is not part of this list sounds condescending. Perhaps it's not obvious that Japan would use the word "indecency" to describe this behaviour. Western countries in the past have used this word as an excuse for bigotry, but I think this qualifies as a "fun fact about Japan" and not something that belongs in this article.

For me the issue here is that, per the source, the Japanese customs officials were citing two apparent violations of specific Japanese laws: one regarding the lack of a proper work permit, and the other regarding the forcible indecency of which Blanc's Tokyo video was evidence. This is especially significant to this article because everywhere else (that I've checked), all kinds of accusations against Blanc are being leveled by protesters, but this is the one case in which authorities in a specific nation have actually pointed to actual specific laws of their nation that Blanc may have violated. Here it's not just a "fun fact." I strongly feel the reference should be retained. — Yksin (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for acting quickly and making the edits where we agree. I was wrong to remove this; the fact that authorities are recommending the "forcible indecency" charge and not just Internet users, makes the source interesting. However, I still think the assertion that this crime is serious in Japan represents slightly bad wording. I will try something else. Connor Behan (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, and your revised wording works fine for me. -- Yksin (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

msdoom99's Japanese-subtitled version of Tokyo video

You wrote:

The pseudonymous YouTube user "msdoom99" does not sound like a notable figure to mention. Jake Adelstein's page which reports this is also POV in that he calls Blanc "vile" even in the title. I went searching to replace this with a neutral source, but the quotation by "msdoom99" came up only 7 times and all uses were on equally biased sites. Moreover, the links led to a removed video when I tried them. So this subtitled video is not going to be getting any more than 400,000 views which is not all that many. Something with low notability, only mentioned in POV sources, should be removed.

400,000 views seems pretty significant, regardless of whether it was later taken down. But it's hard to fully know msdoom99's significance to this story unless one can read Japanese-language news sources, since that's where her impact would most likely be felt — particularly on the Japanese petition effort and decisionmaking by Japanese customs officials. But failing someone who can research the Japanese media, we're left with what little we have about her, and your arguments are persuasive. So, I'm not wedded to keeping this content, and can accept its deletion.

(Whatever her reasoning in taking the video down, msdoom99 later reuploaded it — here. I've seen portions of it or screenshots of it at a number of news sources.) — Yksin (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

msdoom99 info has been removed per this discussion. — Yksin (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Korea sources

The movement to ban Blanc from Korea has two citations. One is the Korea Observer which seems fine. The other is a Kpop site that calls him a creep in the title. This does not seem necessary to me.

I double-checked both sources, and the Korea Observer verifies all the information we state in the article, so this is okay with me. — Yksin (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Source removed from article per our agreement on this. — Yksin (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Jennifer Li and Buzzfeed

As I'm sure you know, Buzz Feed is a content aggregator with a long history of plagiarism. There may be reputable people who work for it, but I am skeptical of any Buzz Feed story that says "[a recently newsworthy person] wrote to us and told us this." I don't know why Jennifer Li, who previously wrote for the Independent, would go to Buzz Feed. I think we should just cite the Guardian when talking about her response to the non-apology.

In most cases I'd probably agree that Buzzfeed is a lousy source: but this also seems to be the original source for the Jennifer Li quote — it's in fact the source that the Guardian cites. But I don't feel that strongly about it. I'm okay with only citing the Guardian. — Yksin (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Buzzfeed removed as a source per our agreement on this. -- Yksin (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Responses to Blanc's CNN appearance

Jennifer Li is of course a major player in this debate. But there are lots of random people with opinions and choosing a few of them to name specifically gives undue weight. One columnist mentioned is Radhika Sanghani who appears to write many articles expressing outrage.

I'm not sure what specifically you're arguing for or against here. The issue here for me is in representing responses by Blanc's critics to his CNN appearance and apology. I think now though that I'd use a more useful quote from Li — which Cuomo also said during the interview — "He is sorry he got caught, not for what he has done." Otherwise I wouldn't want to change this passage. — Yksin (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the "He's full of shit" quote and substituted the comment I suggested from Jennifer LI, "He is sorry he got caught, not for what he has done." Awaiting any other discussion of this, since I'm not assuming we're in agreement here. — Yksin (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

In my original edit I removed the mention of Buzz Feed as well to just say what Li's quotation was. But I don't mind keeping it. My issue here is that this is an article that mentions very few people by name. Exceptions to this give the impression that someone is quite important to the debate. Keeping the sentence about Sanghani's opinion is only fair if we also say "Jake Adelstein thinks Blanc is vile", "Martin Daubney thinks the campaign amounts to censorship" and so on. It doesn't help that this sentence is accusatory of others, whose actions are much less controversial than Julien's. Connor Behan (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Jennifer Li is pretty obviously important to this debate, as she's the person who originated the media campaign, and she could — had she accepted his apology — have potentially taken action to slow or stop the campaign. She basically stands in as a major figure representative of all of those who felt they deserved apology. The quote there now ("He is sorry he got caught, not for what he has done.") is better than the prior quote used ("His apology is shit" or whatever its exact wording was) because it provides an explanation for why she did not find his apology acceptable. — Yksin (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a misunderstanding. I am saying that Jennifer Li is an important leader in this debate while Radhika Sanghani is not. Therefore the article should not give equal weight to their reactions. I am glad that the article names Jenn Li explicitly and says what her issue was with the apology. However, I don't think we should name Sanghani or describe the content of her rant. It's a cherry-picked opinion and it goes off-topic by bringing up Laughs, Evans and Taylor. I'm also unimpressed with the tone lumping a comedian and a convicted rapist together. Connor Behan (talk) 06:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. I'm okay with removing Sanghani. — Yksin (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Sanghani citation removed per this agreement. -- Yksin (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Sources on Brazil and Singapore

Compare the Brazil and Singapore sources with different authors. Both contain the line 'One of his pick-up techniques to "open" a woman is to approach the target and choke her before covering her mouth to keep her quiet' and 'The Australian government revoked Blanc's visa, forcing him to cancel a tour and leave the country ahead of schedule'. We cannot be sure of who copied whom so ideally we should remove both of them. Since there was only one citation for the petition in Singapore, I removed the Brazil one. While I was at it, I removed this other one because the slanted phrase "violent speech" appears in the article's own voice.

I'm unaware of any Wikipedia policy which requires or suggests editors to compare sources to see if they crib from one another, or to make decisions based on such comparisons about which should be relied upon (which would arguably be original research). The only question at issue is whether the source meets WP:VERIFY. The Brazil source is IOL, a South African source citing the Reuters newswire; the Singapore source is the Straits Times; both sources clearly meet WP:VERIFY.

The last source you question as ("this other one"), is possibly questionable under WP:VERIFY because "the slanted phrase "violent speech" appears in the article's own voice." Here too, I know of no Wikipedia policy that requires or suggests editors to evaluate sources for "slanted" language. In fact, I'd argue that doing so amount to original research: "slanted" by whose definition? Again, the issue is, whether the source meet WP:VERIFY. The source at issue here is Global Voices, which describes itself as follows:

We are a borderless, largely volunteer community of more than 800 writers, analysts, online media experts and translators.

Global Voices has been leading the conversation on citizen media reporting since 2005. We curate, verify and translate trending news and stories you might be missing on the Internet, from blogs, independent press and social media in 167 countries

That reads "reliable" to me, though some editors may disagree. — Yksin (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no requirement to compare sources searching for plagiarism; this would take a long time. But if we happen to notice it, we should not turn a blind eye. To me, it's a matter of trust. Someone who copies the exact wording of another author, might also be the kind of person who doesn't check if some rumour he heard is true. I don't think such misreporting actually happened in this case, but when there are many sources to choose from, the ones we cite should be the ones setting examples of good journalism.

Regarding Global Voices, the mission of a newspaper is often not achieved in practice. Alleged bias in a source may not be known outside Wikipedia, but there is no policy against using original research to remove sources. We must only avoid using original research to add content.

I am also not being very original here. A phrase is slanted if there is disagreement over what it means or whether it describes something real. If a significant number of people think a phrase is slanted, then by definition, it is slanted. I would say the number of people is significant in this case, looking at the reactions to hate speech and hate crime laws. Debates about whether a thought or a speech can be violent in and of itself have been going on for decades. So a source that uses the term "violent speech" in a matter-of-fact way, is taking a particular side. Connor Behan (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

International leader in dating advice

Ok this is a bit of original research but Time claimed him to be an international leader in dating advice (see the introduction of this article for what I am referring to), however as you can see on his twitter account at https://twitter.com/rsdjulien , he claims that it is Real Social Dynamics that is the leader in dating advice, not him himself, so someone at Time must have bad eyesight. Considering that this information is factually incorrect I think we should remove the text and the source. The wikipedia article does state that Time claims so and not that he actually is one (someone must have previously taken notice of this and decided to clarify that it is only Time that claims so), so it is not that bad but still I don't see a reason why we should mention clearly factually incorrect statements, and since this is a debate between a "reliable source" and original research I think the best course of action is to just remove the statement all together. Plus it improves the quality of the article considering it was already mentioned that he gives dating advice (it is said he is a dating coach) and hence this kind of just sounds like pointless bragging. Perhaps (if we ignore the factual incorrectness for now) it would be a good indicator to show Blanc's popularity, but then the claim would have come from Blanc's mouth (as is stated in the Time article) and not from any sort of reliable source in itself. We cannot put what Blanc claims to be, unless it is relevant to the context (i.e. for example in the section where Blanc apologises and refutes the accusations), only what he actually is as per the source. --31.153.81.37 (talk) 14:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@31.153.81.37: His twitter account should be Verified if we are supposed to use his quote. Using primary sources should be heavily discouraged. Avono (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Spiked (magazine)

have a neutral article about Blanc here [1]. Should it be used at all regarding BLP concerns? Avono (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I would hardly call an article titled "Julien Blanc is a dickhead" neutral. Nor does the article really add any info that the Wikipedia article doesn't already have. — Yksin (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

A clarification: WP:NPOV does not require sources to be neutral; rather, it requires that we "[represent] fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." However, I think Connor Behan's point during earlier working out of sources is well-taken: that if there are two (or more) reliable sources that present the same factual information, but in which one uses neutral language but the other one doesn't, the neutral one is probably better to use. (But if a non-neutral source is the only one providing the factual information, then go ahead and use it — as long as that source meets WP:VERIFY). But if presenting information about opinions on a topic, it's okay to use sources that express a clear bias (an opinion) — we've just got to be sure that the language of the Wikipedia article is using nonjudgmental language: "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them." —Yksin (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Well I considered it neutral because it states a pro and contra opinion on Blanc. Should it be used to expand the citations at "controversy surrounding Blanc has given rise to criticism and debates on various aspects of the social media campaign against him. Several commentators have charged that petitions calling for Blanc to be refused entry to various countries amounts to censorship and violation of free speech" ? I already see 5 citations there so maybe not. Avono (talk) 10:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)