Talk:Michael Brooks (political commentator)

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

Saddle Embolus w/o citation[edit]

Hi, firstly I don't know how to put a new topic at the bottom of the talk page, I'm guessing it's easy but idk how so forgive me.

Okay so on Michael's wiki page his cause of death is listed as "saddle embolus" but there is no citation and I can't find an autopsy report on him online. As for the wording, "saddle embolus" is improper. A saddle pulmonary embolism would be considered a hazardous PE but it would only cause death if it bursts or completely blocks passage and even then the survivability rate is quite high at ~95% if found early. I say this not to diminish the seriousness of this potentially deadly medical condition, I say it because if this is in fact how he died, it would be pretty obvious. Whoever put "saddle embolus" should really only write that if they have a citation to go along with it.

Thanks for flagging this up I have tagged the sentence in question and have taken a quick look on the internet and can find nothing to corroborate it. However other people may. So I will give them a few days and keep looking myself also. Koncorde (talk) 08:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
12m15s into the 2020-07-21 episode of The Majority Report [1] Michael's sister Lisha cites the cause of his death as a "blood clot in his throat." I don't know if this helps corroborate the cause of death as a saddle pulmonary embolism, but the livestream video doesn't have an auto transcript so this direct statement from the family is otherwise unsearchable if you don't know where it is already. Hope this helps. Citationsaurus (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Birthday[edit]

Is there a particular, reliable source on his exact birthday? I see that section being edited constantly. HandIsNotNookls (talk) 05:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previously deleted article[edit]

To anybody interested, there is a copy of an article about Michael Brooks deleted in 2018 here. There is a significant amount of content in the latest version and in its history, but much of it is unsourced or not sufficiently encyclopaedic. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Reactions" name-dropping[edit]

Starting a preemptive discussion on whether or not to include a long list of people who voiced their condolences via social media after Brooks' death. I do not believe this material belongs in the article, even if Brooks' tragic death yielded responses from other semi-famous progressive media personalities. Instead of an exhaustive list, a sentence such as "After Brooks' death, various progressive media figures, politicians, friends, and colleagues issued their condolences via Twitter" should suffice. I'm open to other suggestions. KidAd (💬💬) 00:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really that long of a list. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was too long. The death of most people will yield broad well-wishes. Even heads of state don't get a list of people who expressed condolences after their demise. KidAd (💬💬) 01:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Other stuff? I didn't name a specific case or individual, but made the point that not every person who is sad that about a death must be listed on the deceased's Wikipedia page. KidAd (💬💬) 02:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you alluded to something not existing elsewhere. "Every person who is sad that about a death must be listed on the deceased's Wikipedia page" is a strawman and a blatant mischaracterisation, as nobody has advocated for this or attempted to add this to the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There was a fat wall of text that included a bunch of people who tweeted condolences. That shouldn't be on the page. KidAd (💬💬) 02:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At least this is a subjective view and not an incorrect objective one. The text was not too large and I would prefer it to be on the article, as these are the most notable condolences. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All because a view is subjective doesn't make it incorrect. What's wrong with a general statement like the one I drafted above? A list of people who tweeted condolences is not a standard of notability or success (on Wikipedia). So what does it provide to the article? KidAd (💬💬) 02:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't list the notable people who gave those reactions. Content is not added to biography articles on the basis that it indicates the subject is notable or successful. A list would provide the article with the names of notable people who reacted to the death of the subject. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but why? Why include the list? WP:NOTEVERYTHING. KidAd (💬💬) 03:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It details the reaction better. It's only a paragraph, it's not like the article is too long. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I doesn't detail anything. It's an arbitrary list of names. It's a vacuum of detail. KidAd (💬💬) 03:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The names are the details. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That makes zero sense. A list of names has no encyclopedic value without supporting context. KidAd (💬💬) 03:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The context is they are reacting to the death of the subject. Please stop making up things as you did before, nobody has added or proposed a list of names without context. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The list of names has a lack of context. Who are they, why does it matter, what have they go to do with Michael Brooks biography? Problematically they are not individually cited, the inclusion rationale appears to be "some people said something on the internet" rather than what was expressed, and in what context (such as referring to Seders show special etc, or Kasperian crying on air and being unable to finish reading the family statement etc). Is it important that lots of people expressed condolences? Possibly. Do we need to list a wall of names? No. It is good editing? No. Koncorde (talk) 04:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^^ Everything said above is correct, but it appears Onetwothreeip is only interested in WP:WIKILAWYERING and making WP:ILIKEIT arguments. KidAd (💬💬) 05:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only people relevant enough to be listed are those he specifically worked with and those people significant enough that their condolences achieved coverage in reliable sources. His colleagues personal eulogy, and the inclusion of the image of Lula probably supports his inclusion in the article - but it should be done better than it currently is (which is just another example of X said Y). Koncorde (talk) 05:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The list of names doesn't have a lack of context though, but I'm all for adding even more context. I would support further description of who they are, it matters because these are notable people reacting, and it has to do with the Michael Brooks biography because his death and reactions to it are part of that biography. I also support individual citations, you are incorrect on the inclusion rationale, and there is no "wall of names". That answers every question you've asked. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A list of people who have said something nice on twitter or youtube is not context. It wouldn't be context for someone's biography before they died, and it isn't context afterwards. We are not an aggregator of Twitter content.
None of it is attributed to reliable sources, it is pretty much the word of each editor that comes along with another name to attribute. And there is no inclusion criteria so, fundamentally, anyone with a wikipage appears to be fair game for inclusion. How many names would be too many names? What discretion should be extended?
And yes, this is a wall of names:
"Krystal Ball, Felix Biederman, Max Blumenthal, Jabari Brisport, Elizabeth Bruenig, Matt Christman, Bill Corbett, Peter Daou, Matt Duss, Saagar Enjeti, Anthony Fantano, Amber A'Lee Frost, Amy Goodman, Briahna Joy Gray, Glenn Greenwald, Katie Halper, Chris Hayes, John Iadarola, Owen Jones, Ana Kasparian, Nomiki Konst, Ben Mankiewicz, Abby Martin, Will Menaker, Vijay Prashad, Mike Prysner, Nathan J. Robinson, Jane Sanders, Michael Shure, David Shuster, David Sirota, Bhaskar Sunkara, Matt Taibbi, Nina Turner, Cenk Uygur, Eric Weinstein, Cornel West."
If I was to try and add that to any article on Wikipedia I would expect to be reverted. It is CRUFT at best. Koncorde (talk) 10:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the people in this list were not just random "semi-famous personalities" expressing the condolences "on social media", but Brooks' collaborators and coworkers expressing their condolences in long segments on their respective news' and political shows. I do agree we may need to refine the inclusion criteria, but I don't think that's grounds for removing the entire list. Kilgore T (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There was not a single citation for a single individual in a single reliable source provided (ignoring the Fox News article). How do we know that they aren't both random, nor semi famous? How do we know who falls into this "most" category? Click on each one? Search the internet for their relative fame? How do I know that they did actually say anything? How would we know they produced "long segments"? Did Jane Sanders produce some long segment on her "respective news' and political shows"?(The answer is no) Why would we care what Jabari Brisport said, did he even know Brooks? Childhood friend? Passing acquaintance? Study at same college? Or was he just interviewed by him a few years back? (the answer is no). How about Anthony Fantano, largely known as a music critic, I expect he did a long detailed tweet? (No, he just retweeted the Majority Report). Justin Jackson? (seems pretty random). Natalie Wynn? (Umm, pretty much the dictionary definition of a random semi famous personality expressing condolence).
What are any of their significant links with Brooks that would require their individual names to be listed as a wall of text? What does any of their names being listed convey that isn't conveyed by "Tributes were paid to Brooks by his Majority Report and Michael Brooks Show colleagues, as well as a range of political commentators from other platforms"?
Lets be clear, there are individuals who worked closely with, shows that he worked on, and people that he interviewed. They might hold some insight in their condolences that warrants their names being used - but a wall of text of just random uncited names is not the right way to do it. so it got removed. Koncorde (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So perhaps looking for and adding the appropriate links instead of deleting the list would be a more sensible course of action? WP:DOUBT Kilgore T (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The best course of action is no list. KidAd (💬💬) 21:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're still here, after your proposal for deletion failed, trying to nit-pick down the subjects notability? The history of this page and its past deletions are a testament to the embarrassing failure of Wikipedia's notability guidelines to accurately gauge who is and isn't a significant figure in progressive news commentary and politics. The crass dismissal of citations to legitimate and reliable sources because those sources were published on Twitter, while insisting on the use of "Reliable Sources" who publish articles containing nothing more than quotes and comments aggregate from the very publishing medium you dismiss as being trivial and meaningless. It's absurd, and embarrassing.
A list of names may not be necessary or appropriate, but those names and the associated statements reflect the status, role, and impact this figure and his work had both within his field and outside of it. Rather than focusing on the elimination of a list of names, editors should focus on how best to communicate his role and the impact he and his work had that resulted in so many notable and prominent figures commenting on the impact his work had on their own work and lives.
Continuing to focus on the trivial aspects of how his notability and significance are indicated, while ignoring the larger context in a petty campaign to erode the subjects significance, is asinine and counter productive. Please stop, and find a way to productively contribute to the development of this article. Citationsaurus (talk) 03:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I retracted the AfD after it became clear that the majority of voters were willing to ignore notability guidelines in favor of WP:ILIKEIT, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:NOTNEWS. The subject isn't any more notable than when his article was deleted previously, but the AfD is closed and the article is here to stay. I suggest that you move on from the AfD and work to improve the article. I still haven't heard a convincing argument to include the condolence wall, so maybe take the time to formulate one instead of re-litigating the AfD. KidAd (💬💬) 05:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're still arguing that a person with obituaries in multiple reliable media sources isn't notable? And you're the one asking people not to "re-litigate the AfD"? The remark about "condolence wall" is a lie, I've already pointed out that it's not a wall, please don't do it again. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I told the individual before you, I suggest that you direct your attention to gaining consensus for your condolence wall instead of piling up on me. While it might make you feel better, it won't do much good. I would also suggest ceasing your habit of accusing other editors of lying, and I'm not just talking about myself. Refer to policy on casting aspersions and assuming good faith. I made it clear in my previous comment that the AfD is closed and the article is here to stay, so any mischaracterization of my calm acceptance is – let's say – false. KidAd (💬💬) 07:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is a condolence wall. Or condolence book. Whatever you prefer. That cannot be a lie. People throwing around words like "lying" and "dishonest" against other editors are trying the lazest method of intimidation as a means of WP:OWN. Koncorde (talk) 08:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments betray your ignorance, and/or willful bias towards the subject of this article. Either (1) you've yet to read the actual cited messages detailing the impact the subject's work had in both his field of expertise, and outside of it, having a substantial impact on both US and international politics, notably his coverage of the coup in Brazil, and instead incorrectly assume any message issued in regards to a recently deceased person has no more substance than a Hallmark sympathy card; (2) you have read the messages and chosen to disregard the substantive information contained within, or (3) you have no idea what a wall of sympathy or a sympathy book is.
Continuing to refer dismissively to documentation attesting to the importance and impact of his work as simple expressions of sympathy, remembrance, and regret akin to "I'm sorry for your loss, I was vaguely aware of this person," is disingenuous, dishonest, and aims to create the false impression that there isn't, and could never be, anything notable or substantive found within the statements made by the individuals listed above regardless of whatever statements of regret and sympathy they included in them. It also detracts and distracts from the conversation that should be taking place here right now: how did someone so non-noteable, according to wikipedia's editorial process, go from having his page deleted two years ago to being remembered for his life and works by major international and domestic political figures, prominent academics, entertainers, and many more?
The relevant and substantive issue is not how a list of names can be in-artfully assembled into a gaudy wall of text, but how he came to be remembered and memorialized by so many noteworthy and prominent figures over such a short period of time. Rather than wasting time and energy debating the merits and aesthetics of a list as a means to efficiently convey valuable and noteworthy info, editors should work towards describing what he did to achieve this level of notability within, and outside of, his field of expertise.Citationsaurus (talk) 09:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have been subscribed to Majority Report for years. I know who Brooks is, what he has done etc. I have no issue with his notability and did not see the discussion, but would have advocated for him in any case.
I came here to see what had been out together - and found an unsightly lump of text at the bottom. Removing the carbuncle does not detract from the article. Recognising it as a carbuncle does not diminish Michael Brooks in any way. Recognising that the reason for inclusion was as minimal as someone retweeting another message is not diminishing Michael Brooks, nor detracting from discussing anything.
I have no issue with you adding back better content crack on. Koncorde (talk) 01:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. A condolence book is not a list of names, it is a list of condolences. This is not a list of condolences. As discussed before, it is not a wall of text either. You're more than welcome to take part in discussion, it's just highly disfavoured to make things up. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't bound in leather or left in a public venue while a body lies in state, but such dedication to literalism is another attempt to avoid the truth. Koncorde (talk) 08:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, why would we want to add a source for Natalie Wynns not notable condolences? Koncorde (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, here are links to four long-format condolences I compiled in less than 5 minutes: [2] [3] [4] [5] Kilgore T (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Koncorde: Are you wilfully lying to prove a point? It's very hard to discuss content when there are constant falsehoods such as saying this is "a list of people who have said something nice on twitter or youtube" or that there is no inclusion criteria. It's a list of notable people who have reacted to the subject's death, with the inclusion criteria that they are notable individuals who have published their reaction. Argue against that all you like, but stop making things up to contradict these facts. Wikipedia aggregates content from many sources, sometimes including Twitter. If you're not confident that each entry is attributable, then add a citation needed tag, if you don't want to find a citation yourself. That is what I have done for other content on the article, instead of deleting.
Any person that is the subject of a Wikipedia article is currently notable enough to be included in the list. As the list is only four rows long, it is not yet able to be considered a "wall of text". They absolutely do not require "significant links" with the subject for their condolences to be noted in the article, or for their remarks to be of a particular length, and you clearly didn't bother to ask anybody if this would be the case before you asked what links these individuals had to Brooks.
What I favour is inserting citations for the list, removing entries from the list who cannot be cited or did not write anything as a reaction to Brooks' death, and separating the list into those who published videos on the subject and those who published written remarks, such as on Twitter. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are no lies in any of my statements. They are literally just a bunch of people who said "RIP" on twitter or youtube, sometimes with a few more words, sometimes quite nicely, but little else. Lots of notable people say lots of things about lots of people. We do not aggregate their comments off twitter, we do not (generally) use twitter as a source of such notability, and a persons notability on a given subject does not automatically confer notability on another subject.
And ultimately - it looks shit. It reads like shit. Wikipedia is not a condolence book at a mortuary. Use some discretion about what is actual encyclopedic content. Koncorde (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's more honest given it is subjective, but still insufficient. This isn't a matter of certain people saying nice things, this is whatever the reaction of notable people may be to the subject's death, which is highly relevant biographically. Twitter is not being used a source of notability. I would prefer using news sources where possible. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, if you are going to throw around "lying" and "more honest", I suggest you get an actual argument together. No, a long list of peoples names who happened to say that they felt sad is not highly relevant biographical detail. Twitter is indeed being used as a source of the significance of their comments. We are saying because an American Football star passed on their condolences that this is significant enough to warrant inclusion. We cannot be saying that because he is an American Football star his comments about anything justify his inclusion in the associated article, right? I mean a few weeks back [he said something positive about trans issues. Should we all pile in over on the trans issues wikipage and make a list of people on the internet who have echoed similar positions? No, that isn't encyclopedic. Koncorde (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've already stated what you said was wrong, and stated the facts which contradict what you said. Twitter isn't a "source of the significance", it's just the source of those comments. As a notable person, his reaction to the death of the subject warrant inclusion. We're not at the point where there are too many reactions to list. I have no opinion on what to include on another article that you mention. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
People having an opinion on the internet does not warrant inclusion, a notable persons reaction to any given topic is not an inclusion rationale. That does not contradict anything. We are not listing reactions, we are listing names. We are not finding any notability for their inclusion from reliable sources, and even if we were the idea that a raw list of names is a good editorial decision is a joke. Hiding from these poor editorial decision by declaring you are not interested in OTHERTHINGS is not a great look. Koncorde (talk) 07:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favour of providing the list of notable people who have reacted to the subject's death. Where possible, this should be sourced from secondary sources. If the list were to become too large, then I would favour increasing the inclusion criteria. I'm clearly not hiding from any of this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A list is not an appropriate way to present such content even for those that are dealt with in reliable sources. The original content migrated by yourself had 5 names, and even that was unwieldy but at least it was vaguely readable. Koncorde (talk) 08:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much everyone in this discussion has betrayed his or her ignorance. First, the list of names is definitely the type of thing that the rest of Wikipedia has chosen to avoid and no one who uses the shorthand "condolence wall" for it is "lying". Second, "not a single citation for a single individual in a single reliable source provided (ignoring the [citation that was there])" is wrong because the Jacobin article sufficed as a citation for Bhaskar Sunkara. Third, we can do without the sour grapes of "the majority of voters were willing to ignore notability guidelines". All of the keep votes that were relevant for the closure cited clear policy reasons however flawed their interpretations might have been. Connor Behan (talk) 00:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit I thought the Bhaskar "memorial" reference was part of the fox brackets, so that's on me, but as stated I don't have an issue with the inclusion of a properly cited and relevant records of condolences such as articles written, shows produced, or those from individuals that are inherently tied to Brooks professionally such as the people from TYT, Sam Seder etc in the same way I don't object to Lula, because a president recognising someone so openly is pretty significant and likely notable in and of itself (it seems to be the main referenced tweet in any news article). Koncorde (talk) 01:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, I had links for four long-form obituaries plus a few more I've found since then. Do you consent on these being included in the article? Kilgore T (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is; are they noteworthy, are they encyclopedic, are they going to be added in an encyclopedic way? The original content migrated had 3 or 4 named individuals (basically the TYT and Seder team, plus Bhaskar). Do we need more? And if we are adding, do we need to name each individually or simply identify an organisation they represented so that we don't get back to the case of adding names in a long unreadable list. Koncorde (talk) 09:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Place of Birth[edit]

Hey, friend of Michael here. I can confirm that he wasn't born in Brooklyn, but rather Bethesda, Maryland. He lived in Brooklyn for a very short period in early childhood (I'm not sure how long, but can find out) before his family moved to Western Massachusetts. I'm not sure of a public source on this information, however. Any suggestions on how to rectify this?

Empathetics (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Empathetics[reply]

The family ought to publish an obituary, or it ought to assist journalists who would write an obituary. This would put the details on record in a way that could be cited here.Dogru144 (talk) 07:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Brooks_(political_commentator)&oldid=1206449130"