Talk:Franchesca Ramsey

Notability?

This person is a "Youtube personality"? That's notable? 24.90.121.4 (talk) 07:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the 21th century. Yes. If a Youtube personality garners enough viewership they are a public personality because of that. A few have more regular viewers that the most viewed shows in the world on Television (just because that doesn't count people who illegally download the show, but it's still a large number). 88.0.65.97 (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

That however does not mean Franchesca Ramsey is notable, her views are rather small and is only notable in the slightest for the controversy that follows her. 24.197.158.103 (talk) 03:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

24.90.121.4, I'm inclined to agree with you. If nobody objects, I'm going to nominate this page for deletion in a week for being non-notable. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}})} 08:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

You should carefully review the steps at WP:BEFORE. The citations already given in the current version of this article easily blow past the minimums at WP:ANYBIO, and even more acceptable sources can be found at Google, without even getting into more obscure databases. Going through the motions of an AfD discussion that has no chance isn't a good use of time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 08:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

My edits.

Are sourced and not defamatory. There's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to stay. Flyboyrob2112 (talk) 23:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

This addition is unacceptable for several reasons:

1. The WP:BLP policy prohibits adding controversial content about living persons.
2. Citing a YouTube video as a sole source violates WP:BLPPRIMARY.
3. The implication that it's a worthwhile accusation to say Ramsey's opinion it's not racism if people of color act in a racially prejudiced way towards white people. This is a common point of view in the study of racial issues, though not common in the vernacular. See Racism
4. The phrasing "She claims..." is a typical weasel word, as explained in WP:CLAIM.
5. This generally violates the WP:WEIGHT NPOV. The fact that some YouTubers are swarming isn't evidence of a "controversy". Reliable third party sources are required to claim that a controversy exists. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Dennis Bratland: It's not controversial. She said it. There's no disputing it. There's no issue with using her own words as a source for... her own words. And if it's not worthwhile, it's not controversial. If it's controversial, it's worthwhile. Pick one. If you don't like the language, you can offer something better. Flyboyrob2112 (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Huh. You go dark for nearly two months, and an editor violates the canvassing guidelines to recruit you back to vote stack for him, and shazam, here you are. Amazing.
Your edit begins with "Ramsey claims..." and proceeds with an accusatory, pearl-clutching tone to reveal the awful truth that Ramsey defines racism as prejudice plus power, as if this were remarkable. This is a view shared by Jim Wallis, Cornel West, Ta-Nehisi Coates, W. Kamau Bell, Stanley Fish, and on and on. One way we can tell that this belief is not considered particularly radical or remarkable is that nobody mentions it.
Look at recent news reports mentioning Ramsey: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. We read bland reports saying Ramsey's show was picked up, she's making a pilot, she won this or that award. Her name often comes up as one of the people frequently targeted by alt right trolls. We don't read "The controversial Franchesca Ramsey", or "Ramsey, who *gasp* thinks racism is prejudice plus power, is on Comedy Central".
You are clearly using primary sources with hostile intent to express an opinion of your own. Below there are some reputable sources that do mention the existence of some criticism of Ramsey, and we can carefully summarize what they say. But what you've been trying to do is not allowed. Three different editors, including an administrator User:GorillaWarfare, reverted your clearly tendentious edits. That's a clue. Stop. Instead, work from quality sources, and carefully summarize them, taking a very cautious and conservative approach to any negative statements as required by the BLP policy. You can do that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Controversies sourced to YouTube

Short version: Read WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPSPS. Do not cite primary sources for negative claims about a living person. "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article". Never. Never means never. "But..."! No buts. Never.
This edit by User:Ghoul flesh is exactly the kind of addition that has been deleted from this article a dozen times in the last 5 years or more. You cannot cite primary sources alone to support negative or controversial information about living persons. The fact that the likes of Sargon of Akkad (YouTube) would attack someone like Ramsey says much more about him than her. You know how we can tell that someone is controversial or has faced a real "backlash"? Reliable sources actually say "Franchesca Ramsey is controversial". "There has been a backlash against Franchesca Ramsey". They need to say that in plain English. You are not allowed to infer it. The reason this supposed "controversy" is not ever mentioned in mainstream media is that Ramsesy's opinions about racism are totally unremarkable. They are well within the mainstream of modern African-American studies. The idea that Ramsey herself is somehow at the forefront of any new or radical notions is simply ignorant.
Even if you disagree with that, you still must cite a high-quality, fact-checked, independent reliable source. Not some guy's self-published YouTube videos. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dennis Bratland: Look bud, it needs to be addressed in the article. I know you're trying to defend your idol, but face it. Not a lot of people like her. A great majority of Decoded videos coordinated by Ramsey are met with serious dislikes. Take a look in the comments once. I've never seen a person supporting her, except for on her Twitter. There's even a petition with 1.5k signatures to press MTV to cancel Decoded, citing that Ramsey is anti-white. The current information on this article describes how she's a victim of online harassment, which is not telling the full story. It says she's a frequent victim of doxing and rape threats. Not one article cited even mentions rape threats, or that pertaining to Ramsey. And she was doxed once by one person, which isn't even notable. The media won't report on her anti-white backlash, because they want to pretend nobody notices the anti-white rhetoric in media.

This doesn't relate to Ramsey, but the media couldn't hide MTV's infamous "2017 Resolutions for White Guys", which faced so much backlash, it was taken down.

Ghoul flesh • talk 22:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Dislikes? Oh, wait, "serious dislikes". Wow. Please stop wasting our time. You will be blocked from editing if you persist. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dennis Bratland: You don't have the power. And I did nothing that will pursue that. I came to the talk page, as I am supposed to. You, however, are being a tyrant and I am going to ask Wikipedia staff for further assistance. Ghoul flesh • talk 00:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Is this edit considered WP:CANVASSING? That user was banned for getting into an edit war over one of the things Ghoul flesh wants to add to the article. They're hardly a nonpartisan editor in this situation. --ChiveFungi (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's canvassing. Hopefully neither of the two editors Ghoul flesh recruited will respond, and we won't have a vote stacking problem to untangle. Hopefully Ghoul flesh will drop it now.
If not, then the WP:BLPN is probably the best venue, or else one of the other options at Dispute resolution. I would ask Ghoul flesh to stop the ad hominem, and other violations of the civility policy. If we are going to discuss whether or not the article can say Ramsey is controversial, anti-white, or the subject of any backlash, can we simply consider the basic question of whether reliable sources do or don't support that? Focus on what counts. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

One of the persons is an admin, if you bothered to notice. Also here are your articles;

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

Just for the record, I can't even find one Breitbart article that centers on Ramsey. At all. So why is the site mentioned in the article? Ghoul flesh • talk 02:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, now we're discussing real sources. That's a big improvement. It does not violate the WP:NOR policy to cite NPR for things like "One claim that comes up over and over again in the comments is that a role reversal would be considered hate and not humor." The edited, fact-checked source is summarizing YouTube comments, rather than a Wikipedia editor doing their own original research estimating who has a lot of YouTube dislikes or negative comments. I don't object to using sources like these if the contents are accurately summarized. I have never liked forking criticism off in a "Controversy" section, sort of like a POVFORK. It makes more sense to place reactions and criticism in context. Criticism of YouTube content belongs in the YouTube section, criticism of the TV content belongs in that section. It's more readable and shows development of events over time.
To answer your question, it says "The typical campaigns of harassment against individuals like Ramsey are not organic, or spontaneous, but are orchestrated and coordinated attacks involving many participants, starting on both fringe white supremacist websites, and on alt-right, establishment-connected media like Breitbart News", because that is an accurate summary of what the source said (it's misspelled Brietbart if you're using CTRL-F to find it). The point is that an orchestrated campaign is something larger and more lasting than spontaneous individuals. Other sources cited further down support these general conclusions. The overall theme of the section it to describe the scale and relentlessness of the harassment against Ramsey. That's why it's there.
Back to our topic, I don't think it's helpful to keep changing the subject. Do you want to discus the four new sources you have introduced now? Or do you want to start a new discussion about the mention of Breitbart? Keep in mind that this kind of dispute will probably be resolved by third party editors who will read the discussion and give their opinions, but if it's impossible for them to figure out what the issue is, they will throw up their hands and walk away. So one thing at at time, OK? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

What I want is a neutral article. But what I think is most important is mentioning her wide negative feedback on YouTube regarding racial topics. So nevermind about Breitbart. Ghoul flesh • talk 04:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

This Article Needs to Enter Protected Status

This is nonsense POV-pushing and slandering of other editors. Come back once you've learnt how to work as part of a team (and bring reliable sources). --ChiveFungi (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's apparent with the "Online Harassment" section that this article has been beset by her fans anxious to portray her as some sort of martyr. The claim in the very first sentence, "Ramsey has been a target of online harassment, trolling and doxing," is completely unsupported by the two references intended to corroborate this claim. The only term that has an objective definition in that triad is "doxxing." The rest, "online harassment," and "trolling," are Ramsey's own subjective opinion. Her experiences have never been dubbed as harassment in any court of law. The second sentence of this paragraph is objective reporting on a statement made by someone else and can stay as it is. The next sentence is patently absurd and needs to be gone. Or else you could find yourself on a receiving end of a lawsuit. "The typical campaigns of harassment against individuals like Ramsey are not organic, or spontaneous, but are orchestrated and coordinated attacks involving many participants, starting on both fringe white supremacist websites, and on alt-right, establishment-connected media like Breitbart News." Do you have proof that a reasonable person would call this harassment, or is that Ramsey's own opinion? Or that this soi-disant harassment is "orchestrated and coordinated" with other participants? Breitbart's lawyers might have something to say about accusing them of harassment. They would doubtless see this as dissent. And you have no proof whatsoever that any of these sources are "coordinating" their supposed attacks on Ramsey with one another. Ramsey's musings that these attacks are "orchestrated and coordinated" and are "harassment" is not objective fact. It is speculation without proof and subjective opinion. These supposed instances of harassment are not corroborated by any of the source material, but merely Ramsey's own reporting on these incidents. There is no proof that these incidents actually occurred. Moreover, "harassment" is Ramsey's own take on these incidents. And she could hardly be described as objective. And the malware attacks. I assume you have proof that these actually happened, or at least a notable source that reported on this. And you, of course, know for a fact that this was done by the supposed stalker and wasn't some random virus, right? No? All-in-all, this section is extremely shoddy, to say the least. There is no proof of this supposed harassment and whether it's truly harassment is based on Ramsey's personal opinion. This article needs to enter protected status to get Ramsey's fans off this page. 65.33.138.115 (talk) 04:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC) First, please read the policy Wikipedia:No legal threats. The policy is very strict and so if I were you, I wouldn't speak of that topic again, because you will likely be blocked immediately and we won't get to finish our conversation. If you do wish to go down that path, that policy page tells you whom you should contact. Similarly, Wikipedia's policy forbids commentary or actions that seeks "to get Ramsey's fans off this page" or otherwise prevent anyone from editing. Please read the policy Wikipedia:Ownership of content. Other editors should be treated with respect at all times, regardless of your opinions about their likes or their motives. See Assume good faith for more explanations. We should be discussing article content, not each other. As far as your several "where is your proof?" questions, I think you should read the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability. We don't have proof of anything in any article. The second paragraph of the article Star Wars says the film was "subtitled Episode IV: A New Hope in 1981". Is any Wikipedia editor in possession of "proof" that the subtitle was added in 1981? No, not that we know of. What we have is a couple verifiable sources, identified in the footnotes: [12] and [13]. Sources are not proof. Sources are just sources. The article Charles Darwin says he was born on February 12, 1809. Do we have "proof" he was? No. We have a citation to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. It is not available online, but offline sources are acceptable. See the verifiable policy at WP:PAYWALL. So I no more have proof that Ramsey was actually harassed or that malware was actually spread at her workplace than I do that Charles Darwin was born on February 12 1809. What we have are several reliable sources which are identified in the footnotes. Others may verify that the sources say what is in this article. I am aware some people may think Star Wars was called Episode IV: A New Hope all along, and some people think Darwin never existed. Maybe the world was created last Thursday and didn't exist in 1809. Sources that make these claims are balanced against other sources which do support the existence of the year 1809 and of Charles Darwin. If you would like to present evidence that the citations here are not reliable, as defined by Identifying reliable sources, or that there is anyone who has made a credible claim that Ramsey's recollections of events are false, then present that source. Other editors will discuss it with you and we can work to come to a consensus. It's also important to be aware of the Biographies of living persons policy. If Ramesy were a historical figure in the distant past, we would be more willing to include negative content about her, such as perhaps accusations that she exaggerated the harassment that targeted her. But the BLP policy means that the neutrality balance is tilted a bit towards giving the living person the benefit of the doubt and placing a higher burden on any sources that cast her in a negative light. We are more cautious about including criticism of a living subject than of a subject that isn't a person or who lived long ago. Even so, if you wish to cite high quality sources that criticize Ramsey, that is possible, provided we proceed with caution. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC) Okay, this is going to be my last response to you. So, we aren't going to be having a conversation. You are utterly incapable of discussing this issue and probably shouldn't be editing. Anything. First, I did not threaten legal action. I am not Breitbart or their lawyers. I am pointing out to you that Breitbart's lawyers might take issue with an accusation of harassment. The fact that you cannot distinguish between a concerned warning that you could be on the receiving end of a libel lawsuit and a threat to actually sue you shows me all too well that you lack the intellectual wherewithal to discuss this issue and should not be editing. Anything. The problem with this section is that it is taking allegations made by Ramsey herself, and presenting them as fact. You cannot say, "Franchesca Ramsey has been harassed by attacks from Breitbart coordinated with white supremacist websites." Lacking any evidence of Breitbart's attacks, and the even more sketchy claim that they were coordinating their "harassment" with "white supremacist websites," you cannot assert this, nor can you claim that their responses to her constitute harassment. With this in mind, a better, safer statement would be "Franchesca Ramsey claims to have been harassed by Breitbart in orchestrated attacks coordinated with white supremacist websites." The former is unproven and probably unprovable. The latter is documented fact and can easily be verified. All you would have to do is link to a source where Franchesca Ramsey claims she was being harassed as described. You do have proof, or at least authoritative sources that aver that Charles Darwin was born on February 12, 1809. You have no evidence beyond Franchesca Ramsey's own claims that she was harassed. Again, the safer and only verifiable way to put this is to say, "Franchesca Ramsey claims that she was harassed..." vs "Franchesca Ramsey was harassed..." You really can't see the difference between a credible, reputable source which provides us the date of Charles Darwin's birth and Franchesca Ramsey's (who is not a lawyer) own claims that whatever responses she received is "harassment" and that these were coordinated with white supremacist websites? The fact that you cannot see this shows me all too well that you lack the intellectual wherewithal to discuss this issue and should not be editing. Anything. Harassment is a legal term subject to legal definitions. To claim she was harassed when no court has ever ruled that the responses to her constitute harassment is, at best, shoddy reporting. At worst, you're asking for trouble. Suppose for instance, I personally posted critical responses to Franchesca Ramsey's videos (which I haven't; I wouldn't waste my time with her). And for the sake of the argument, let's refer to me as Mr. X (and that Mr. X is my real name) and that Franchesca Ramsey has blogged that I harassed her. You could safely say, "Franchesca Ramsey claims she was harassed by Mr. X." That would be objective fact and you could provide a link to her blog entry that shows her saying this. However, if you said, "Mr. X engaged in a campaign of harassment against Franchesca Ramsey," I would have something to say about that. Through my lawyer. Which would probably start with, "Excuse me, but did you just accuse Mr. X of harassment because he posted opinions critical of Franchesca Ramsey?" You would be accusing me of a crime, which has not been proven in a court of law! As for removing Franchesca Ramsey's fans from this page, I might give you that point. Except for the fact that the whole Online Harassment section is not objective reporting. It is presenting her allegations (which may be perfectly true, but we cannot prove this) as fact. It's a simple matter of reporting, "Franchesca Ramsey claims she was..." vs "Franchesca Ramsey was..." The fact that whoever wrote that section cannot see this suggests that this is someone who is not looking at this issue objectively, but is someone who is hanging on her every word and reporting her perspective on these events as fact. And again, the fact that you can't see this is proof that you should not be editing. Anything. And that concludes my final response to you. If someone else who has a better grasp (which would be just about anyone) wishes to take up this discussion, they are free to do so. You, on the other hand, I'm ignoring. 65.33.138.115 (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Deleting background information, again

Korny O'Near (talk · contribs) is repeating some of the same arguments from previous discussions of this article, calling the use of sources that don't specifically mention Ramsey as synthesis. This ground has been covered before, as explained in the threads above. If you have anything new to add, please do so. The short version is this: the background facts do not supply a conclusion not stated int he sources. They reinforce conclusions already stated in the sources. Articles about Ramsey say she was the target of organized, coordinated online harassment campaigns. Other sources say that indeed, organized online harassment campaigns work are real, they do exists, and they say that the function in the same way as described by the sources about Ramsey. WP:SYNTH is when the article says things not contained in the sources. There is no requirement that every source in an article must specifically mention the subject of the article. Encyclopedic content needs to be broad and well-founded, and it adds context to narrow facts. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion. I should note, first of all, that I made a number of edits, some of which had nothing to do with this "online harassment campaigns" issue, but you reverted them all – it would be better if you were more careful in your edits. Anyway, as far as I can tell there's exactly one source – Ijeoma Oluo in The Guardian – who says (indirectly) that Ramsey is the target of coordinated harassment. And that's in an opinion piece, not a news article. So it's fine to cite the piece, and even quote it, but I think it should be made clear that this is one person's opinion. To include other sources that don't mention Ramsey is indeed WP:SYNTH, but maybe more importantly it's just irrelevant – this article is not the place for a digression on the nature of online harassment in general. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't revert all your edits. Your additions to the article are still there. I restored the content you deleted. If you added something else to the article that I inadvertently deleted, please put it back, or point it out and I'll put it back.
There's no basis for these "not the basis for digression" and "irrelevant" claims. It's simply good writing to provide context. It's particularly important to point out that we don't merely have individuals like Ijeoma Oluo claiming that these individuals were targeted for online harassment. We have multiple sources saying that this is exactly what took place. There has been a concerted effort to claim that people like Ramsey are making it all up. This is a part of a much larger tradition of not believing women and not believing minorities. There is significant evidence that this context is necessary.
We have zero reliable sources that contradict anything said her by Ramsey, Olou, or others. If a reliable source were to give us any reason to think this is seriously in dispute, that would be much different. Instead, we only have anonymous online critics and sources with a history of deception, such as Breitbart. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I re-did some more of my changes. So – what are these additional sources that also claim that Ramsey was targeted for online harassment? I wasn't aware of any. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Why do you think every single source in the article has to mention Ramsey? There are facts in the article related to Ramsey, or referring to general background, that are verified by sources that do not mention Ramsey. That has never been a problem on any article. I'm curious what kind of a point you're trying to make. Is it your assertion that that Ramsey was not really harassed? Are you saying that alt-right websites do not coordinate harassment campaigns? What I see you doing here is taking facts which reliable sources treat as uncontroversial and pretending that there is a dispute or question hanging over them. The only sources that dispute the basic facts here are unreliable. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make a point; I want the article to stick to the facts. Your wording is, as I've said before, synthesis: it cites sources that state that (a) Ramsey has been harassed online, and (b) some women and minorities are the victims of targeted harassment, and synthesizes those together to state, or imply, that (c) Ramsey is the victim of targeted harassment.

Is she the victim of a targeted campaign? Maybe yes, maybe no. I don't see any proof of that, other than one opinion writer who includes Ramsey in a list of people who "face regular, coordinated campaigns of abuse". By the way, I'm not actually sure what a targeted campaign implies, but surely there should be some public evidence of Breitbart News or whoever else publicly saying "go out and harass this person"? Korny O'Near (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Now you're edit warring with multiple editors. Why don't you put the content back and work this out on the talk page? If you've failed to win any support than repeatedly pushing the same thing into the article isn't going to get you anywhere. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to work it out on the talk page, if you hadn't noticed... Korny O'Near (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Yet you keep deleting things, after two other editors have disputed your deletion.
Do you need "proof" that Ramsey worked in graphic design? Do you need proof that her white girls video went viral? Or that she got a law school scholarship? Yet for this one particular fact, you demand "proof", whatever that entails. We call it Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, what you're doing. It has to be multiple sources, to satisfy your arbitrary demands. How many sources do you require to believe she lives in New York? There's one class of facts that don't bother you, and that you accept with little need for strong sourcing. But you've arbitrarily picked out this other thing and subjected it to this extremely high standard of proof. Why that one fact? Why not others?
The policy you're violating is described at WP:YESPOV. "Avoid stating facts as opinions." As I've emphasized, if this were in any way controversial, as in reliable sources disputed any of this, then I would totally understand why you would ask for multiple sources that make these assertions in clear, strong terms. But this is not a controversy. Zero reliable sources dispute the existence of organized campaigns of harassment against people like Ramsey. We have a source saying it happened. We have leaders working against online harassment, particular at YouTube, namely John Green, who have specifically cited Ramsey as one of the people whose voice is being silenced by this organized harassment. YouTube itself specifically named Ramsey as someone who was affected by this and who they wanted to work with to remedy the problem. We have lots of indirect support for the obvious fact that she was the target of organized harassment.
And we don't need large quantities of sources for uncontroversial facts, like that she lives in New York or went to law school. Carpetboming sources is for disputed or uncertain or controversial facts.
You're taking a non-controversy and selectively making it a controversy. That's POV pushing, tendentious editing. You should take the sources at face value unless other reliable sources give you reason not to. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Those are odd rhetorical questions... yes, of course some proof is required that she worked in graphic design, etc. And that's all the more true when it's a biography of a living person.

I don't know what you mean by "people like Ramsey", but so far we have one opinion piece that says that Ramsey has been subjected to organized harassment, and one article talking about her experience with (maybe) a single stalker. I'm not aware of any other sources – John Green, YouTube, etc. - who have stated anything on the matter of her harassment. You seem to think that they have, so maybe I just missed it. Where did you see John Green, YouTube or anyone else talking about this? Korny O'Near (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

You appear to believe that edit warring is an acceptable alternative to seeking consensus on the article talk page. Please stop. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

You know very well who people like Ramsey are. Right here, you deleted the text of the article that specifically defines who these people are: those who receive "mountains of daily abuse" of the kind that is "disproportionately leveled against women as well as LGBT people and people of color, prompted by nothing at all". Your edit summary asserts that you know the context because you Cueto article. Which says "the vast majority of negative online feedback" is targeted at the people defined here. It says Ramsey is one of "five feminists that would doubtlessly do a great job of rounding up the stories of that rampant harassment".
If you want to reach consensus, I think you need to start acting in good faith. It goes without saying that you should have done the required reading here, but in this instance, you have even given us specific evidence that you are aware of what I mean, it is bad faith for you to claim "I don't know what you mean." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

So, "people like Ramsey" means women and minorities? Fine, now I know. What about the John Green and YouTube statements you were talking about? Korny O'Near (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

He also knows what I am talking about when I say "stop edit warring", having been warned about it previously.[14] --Guy Macon (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Sealioning

See http://wondermark.com/1k62/ He showed the same behavior at Talk:Imran Awan. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

It feels like you've crossed the line into harassment at this point. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I can understand why you would want to suppress all discussion of your behavior.

"Making accusations of harassment can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually harassment, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment themselves if done repeatedly." --WP:AOHA

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

You know what's "not helpful"? Following me to this article, just so you can criticize me and revert my edits, without any apparent desire to improve this article. I'd suggest you go work on one of the 5,000,000 or so articles I'm not involved in. Korny O'Near (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

You have a golden opportunity right now to step out of the corner you have painted yourself into. Why not let this one sticking point go? Focus instead on the many other ways this article can be expanded. There's significant areas with little to no coverage. Ramesey's new book has no summary, and we've barely mentioned what the book reviewers have said about it. There's various TV and web video projects she's done that we don't describe in any detail. Nothing is forcing you to keep up this battle, and if you do, it might move to a venue where your behavior is the central topic. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

[ec] Improving this article is my goal. I am not "following you around". What happened is that I noticed this edit of yours[15] which removed Suicide Is Painless (from M*A*S*H) from List of anti-war songs. That was a very bad edit. When I see someone making bad edits on multiple pages, it is legitimate to take a look and see where else the editor has been making bad edits. When I saw you sealioning User:Dennis Bratland (Who I am familiar with from really good edits such as these[16][17][18]) and edit warring, I realized that this article needed my help. Doing some research, I found Franchesca Ramsey to very thought provoking. For example, her video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnosXJjt-CQ is really insightful. So if you are through playing the victim and sealioning, could we please talk about your removal of relevant background material?[19] --Guy Macon (talk) 05:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

"I'm not following you around, I'm just going through your edit history and reverting the edits I don't like." Okay, then. What you're doing exactly fits the definition of wikihounding. Actually, it's worse, because you're bizarrely trying to convince other editors to do the same thing, like here. That's canvassing. You really should stop. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

"Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam." -- WP:WIKIHOUNDING

I have no desire to cause you distress and you have done nothing that I might want to get revenge over. I am attempting to correcting related problems on multiple articles -- problems that would not exist if you stopped ignoring WP:CONSENSUS. Your editing is disruptive and hurts the encyclopedia, and so far nobody agrees with you in the multiple content disputes you are engaged in. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

So which are these – unambiguous errors, violations of Wikipedia policy, or related problems in different articles? (The answer is none, of course.) And I can point you to multiple people who agree with me in various discussions – not that I need to defend myself. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

What part of "I am attempting to correcting related problems on multiple articles" are you having trouble understanding? The specific problems are ignoring WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:IDHT, WP:OWNERSHIP, edit warring, and sealioning. Nobody has expressed any support for your edits on the articles where I and others are attempting to correcting your bad edits. I have no opinion about any other edits that I have not personally checked. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

My edit on "List of anti-war songs" didn't conceivably fit into any of those things, so nice try. And your attempt to get other editors to come argue with me doesn't seem to have fit into "collegial or administrative purposes". Korny O'Near (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

"Coordinated attacks"

I agree with Korny Near on this. The sources for The typical campaigns of harassment against individuals like Ramsey are not organic, or spontaneous, but are orchestrated and coordinated attacks involving many participants, starting on both fringe white supremacist websites, and on alt-right, establishment-connected media like Breitbart News just don't cut it. The opinion pieces cannot be used for statements of fact, and the other article doesn't support the claim in the sentence, since it doesn't mention Ramsey at all. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 July 2019

On July 8, 2019, Franchesca announced on her Twitter page that she is in the midst of a divorce. 2600:1003:B007:B72C:2C84:E18D:4F92:AB68 (talk) 02:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to wait until this is covered by professional secondary sources. I saw one news blog that parroted the tweet, but didn't do any reporting. If that means we fail to update the marital/divorce status of the article for weeks or months until it gets covered by other media, so what? The reason we have a Franchesca Ramsey biography has nothing at all to do with whether or not she is married or who she's married to or if she's getting divorced. Since Wikipedia is not a news source, we have no motive to rush to report the latest news tidbits, particular when all it amounts to is celebrity gossip of no encyclopedic relevance, and no relevance to Ramsey's work, activism, or notability. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per Dennis Bratland. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 July 2019

Change details under "Early life and education" about Franchesca's move to New York City. It says she moved to go to law school on a scholarship and references this piece for that info: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/10/books/franchesca-ramsey-well-that-escalated-quickly.html, but it was in fact her husband who went to law school, prompting the move. Siskokeepsbees (talk) 14:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Maranello10 (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

No mention of the controversy?

It's not surprising to see liberal individuals protected by the admins on wiki. It's pretty SOP. That said, it is odd the mountains of controversy surrounding this individual isn't even mentioned. Even when wiki admins blame all controversy on republicans n centrists, or as they like to call em: White supremacist nazis, it's still at least mentioned at some point. The unproven harassment is mentioned, biased n unreliable sources included... yet nothing on the endless controversy MTV Decoded and Franchesca started or were center stage to? I've come to expect a large degree of bias on wiki, with anything even remotely political, yet this even surprises me. This must be an oversight or mistake... right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.212.30 (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

What was the controversy? Korny O'Near (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest the IP editor scroll up. Each of the points mentioned here has been discussed previously. I'd suggest reviewing the arguments already given, and if that doesn't satisfy your questions, post specifically what is the problem. The first thing to realize is that the Biographies of living persons policy tilts the balance of all biographical content away from negativity towards living people. A bio of a living person gives them more of the benefit of the doubt than an article about a company or a historical figure or inanimate object. We prefer to err or the side of casting living people in too positive a light rather than spread harmful claims that could be false. No Wikipedia biography is supposed to rip down a person's reputation. We don't accuse them of lying about anything, ever, unless the sourcing is extremely strong.
Regarding the first specific issue: the harassment is treated as fact by reliable sources. That's all Wikipedia asks for. Calling it "unproven" makes me wonder what constitutes proof. A conviction in a court of law? A photo? What? We don't have to meet a random editor's standard of "proof". The thing to focus on here is not whether you find it convincing, but whether reliable sources do. If our sources don't have a problem with it, then neither do we. We don't shine a spotlight of skepticism on every fact to see if we can poke holes in it. That would violate the no original research policy. What we do is look for other sources -- significant, reliable sources -- who are skeptical, and see if they have sufficient weight.
And that's the problem: nobody with any reliability or weight has questioned the facts here. If we changed this article to claim there is controversy over whether or not Ramsey was harassed, it would violate the WP:YESPOV policy: "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." A controversy requires two sides who disagree, and excluding sources that don't meet WP:RS, there aren't two sides here.
The second part, as Korny asks, is what controversy? According to reliable sources, Franchesca Ramsey is uncontroversial. I know many editors find that unbelievable, but whenever we ask for a citation for a source who criticizes her, all we see are forum posts, social media, and obscure YouTubers. If any of these critics are people we have ever heard of, it's almost always because they are infamous as right wing trolls with a history of dishonesty.
I'm aware that fans of such online personalities are outraged by this, but it's a fair assessment of what mainstream reliable sources say about them. We don't have examples of respected, credible experts who level serious criticisms at Ramsey. The usual answer is that the mainstream media is biased. And Wikipedia's answer to that is: not our problem. Wikipedia isn't the cure for whatever bias may or may not exist in the mainstream. Wikipedia is nothing more or less than an accessible summary of whatever the respected, establishment, mainstream views are. If MSM bias has you outraged, you gotta go take it up with the MSM. We can't help you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I wasn't making a rhetorical point, just asking a question. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, looks like there was bit of misunderstanding. I'm not suggesting to remove the harassment bit. In fact, I think that should remain, as although much is badly sourced, it's still part of her history. I'm also not claiming that it is what's controversial. Only pointing out that it remains, while the controversy is strangely absent. When looking at other pages, it always shows up somewhere, at least in passing reference, yet remains absent here. As for what controversy... you're joking right? Regardless of who was right or wrong (Believe it or not, this isn't about that, and I could care less what side the article takes, this is just about including it), to claim there was none isn't just misleading. It's an outright lie. The controversy existed, regardless of if it was grounded in facts or not. Honestly, it's not that hard to see why it happened too. Just watch a few of her decoded videos and imagine "How would a republican respond to this". Anyway, to satisfy you, here is literally the 1st 2 pages on a "franchesca ramsey controversy" google search. https://www.theodysseyonline.com/mtv-web-host-claims-black-people-can-not-racist https://www.dailydot.com/irl/franchesca-ramsey/ https://www.hercampus.com/school/u-mass-amherst/youtube-series-decoded-franchesca-ramsey https://superfame.com/post/shane-dawson-tumblr-franchesca-ramsey/ http://www.cc.com/video-playlists/kw3fj0/the-opposition-with-jordan-klepper-welcome-to-the-opposition-w--jordan-klepper/k2840f https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/632o44/why_is_everyone_angry_at_franchesca_ramsey/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJanCTIhDJ0&app=desktop https://www.neogaf.com/threads/the-internet-really-seems-to-hate-franchesca-ramsey.1323613/page-5 http://whatstrending.com/trending-videos/trending-now/22615-shane-dawson-is-over-party-twitter-controversy/

As you can see, the primary issues people had revolved around Race baiting/racism, and attacks on shane dawson. There's other issues people had too, but these 2 issues took the spotlight most of the time. Personally I was only around for the racism issues people had, I have no clue what the shane dawson issue was, just that it infuriated people. And that's the key. I'm not arguing what the issues were, just that she did indeed anger large groups of people. Aka, she was controversial. I mean good lord, look at her comment sections n like/dislike ratios. Yes, that means nothing for facts, but it proves without shadow of a doubt there was controversy.

Anyway, choice is yours. I wont return to my wiki account, and it's not like I can edit this page as an IP. I hold hope that i'll be pleasantly surprised... but I doubt it. Either way I just don't have the strength to argue with the white knights of wiki, especially when I know it will only end in being shut down n banned/blocked. (Oh, I have no idea what specifics those links go into, as again, my only point is to confirm that yes, there WAS controversy. Honestly didn't think my question would be so contentious, legitimately thought it was just an oversight or mistake. Guess even my low standards for wiki are too high these days) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.212.30 (talk) 02:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Whatever. When you have a reliable source to cite, I'll be interested. Until then, there's nothing do discuss. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Ha! So the daily dot, as in the same frickin source used to "confirm" the harassment, isn't reliable if it's something you disagree with? Strange. Almost like you didn't even look at the sources, or do any digging what-so-ever. It's almost as if *gasp* this was never about sources, but actually about the political positions of the subject. Good faith my arse. At least maybe one or two people will read this and realize the hypocrisy of the editors on wiki these days. (For the record, I made sure to include liberal RS's, ones confirmed on wiki, to prove a point. Thank you for helping me prove said point.) Anyway, I'm off. No need to reply, I wont be back. After debates on a good 6 dozen topics, with them all going same route, regardless of how benign... well.. I'm now convinced there is no saving wikipedia. The far left extremists have clearly taken full control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.212.30 (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you understood the Daily Dot piece. It says "judging by the over 1,400 dislikes and the many virulent comments saying things like 'none of these are white people's fault, racist,' Ramsey's straightforward commentary about race in pop culture is strangely controversial—and needed." It describes these critics as "haters and trolls". It is not saying these people should be taken seriously. It is agreeing with the other sources that this YouTube "intense backlash" is not valid criticism, but "virulent" harassment. Mary Emily O'Hara at the Daily Dot is saying Ramsey is speaking the truth -- "straightforward commentary" -- and hearing that truth has sent online bullies and bigots swarming. The Her Campus link says exactly the same thing. The Superfame article is a profile of one of Ramsey's online harassers -- it describes him as wishing death on people he disagrees with. This kind of thing only adds evidence to Ramsey's assertion that the attacks on her were coordinated by online trolls. The way someone like Ramsey gets 1,400 dislikes is when a vicious person like Dawson paints a target on her. Do you think this Shane Dawson profile legitimizes criticism of Ramsey? It doesn't. It only demonstrates that she has been telling the truth.
In Wikipedia's terms, the accusation that Ramsey is the real racist is what we call a fringe theory. Sort of like Bill Nye getting attacks because he says man made climate change is real, or kooks threatening an astronomer who says Pluto is no longer defined as a planet. If someone yells threats at Bill Nye, that does not call climate change into question, it only demonstrates that an angry lunatic fringe exists. Wikipedia has a policy on this: WP:WIKIVOICE. "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." Ramsey's points about racism are uncontested by reliable sources. Her trustworthiness is uncontested by reliable sources. When she says she was harassed and threatened, no reliable sources question it.
So we can all agree Ramsey was virulently attacked on social media. The article clearly says she was. What the article does not say is that these attacks represented a significant point of view. It doesn't dispute that she was doxxed or harassed at her workplace. It doesn't suggest these attacks where legitimate. I think that's what you're objecting to. You want the article to say that she has been criticized for treating whites unfairly. You want the article to call into question that she was really harassed. Or something like that. You want her critics to be taken seriously.
We can both agree that you're probably wasting your time talking to me. You seem to think I'll never listen to your well-reasoned arguments and I'll never acknowledge your high quality sources. Maybe you should try barking up a different tree? Go to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Start a new thread and provide 1.) your source, 2.) the article Franchesca Ramsey and 3.) the statement you want to attribute to the source. I think you need to be specific here. The article already says she has been attacked by trolls and harassers. You want to elevate that to something else. State exactly what you want it to say and what your source is.
Who knows? Maybe they'll listen. I think they will probably patiently explain to you that YouTube and Reddit are not reliable, and that you've misinterpreted many of your sources like Daily Dot and Her Campus. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I stand corrected. I honestly did not expect a polite response after you dismissed me earlier. I apologize for my tone and word choice. It seems the issue might actually be a pretty big misunderstanding. Although, yes, I am of the camp that considers her views racist, it's not actually about that. Honestly there is a fair argument to be had to the contrary. What I am suggesting, is among certain large demographics (Specifically Conservatives and the Anti-SJW crowds), she was indeed considered to be controversial. I mean, to qualify as a controversial person, it doesn't take much. Simply causing division between groups is controversial, which is indeed something her videos accomplished. She is loved by certain large groups, especially Liberals, and hated by other equally large groups. That truly is my only point. Nothing of the content of the controversy, just that it existed. The Daily Dot, for example, supports her fully, but even they admit in that article there was controversy. That's why I originally said I couldn't care less what side the article takes, if only it would be recognized. Honestly the harassment, if it is actually true, serves as a good indicator of the large number of people she upset.

I do want to apologize again though. I assumed you would be much more hostile, and wrongly so. Possibly I was spurred on by the remnants of an earlier argument, where I was insulted n shut down immediately. Regardless, that's no excuse. My attitude toward you was uncalled for. I truly am sorry. I severely misjudged you it seems. Also, thank you for taking the time to give a reasoned and polite response. It's a real breath of fresh air. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.212.30 (talk) 04:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the other IP editor, There was a lot of controversy around this person. Was all over internet. Some people rly didn't like her. I don rly have opinion bout her, but she sparked lots of anger. I dunno why thats contentious tho? Isn't all tht pretty common knowledge? I mean she got lots of harassment n hate mail n such, n tons of influencers went off over her, n huge groups went after her from wht i understand. seems like controversy to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.11.109.184 (talk) 05:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

It appears the conversation has ended. Seems to happen too often. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealKysier (talk • contribs) 13:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I practically held your hands and walked you through in baby steps on how to go to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and present your sources and what text you want to attribute to those sources. I'm not going to do it for you. If you guys want to pursue this, I explained to you all how to do that. If you choose not to make the effort, that's on you. The article already says she has been targeted by haters, trolls and harassers. If you think you can support some other statement beyond that, to suggest these trolls are in any way respectable or legitimate, then go and do the work. Not willing? Then yes, we're done here. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

A simple link to WP:RS would probably have sufficed here. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

This is just my own personal take away from what the IP editor was saying, but I think he's trying to say the reliability of the trolls involved doesn't matter, since even a bunch of arses "skreeing" is controversy if enough of em skree. Also controversy rarely has an RS. It's almost always just a bunch of people screeching on some platform these days. Usually youtube or twitter. Also though, I'd like to point out, after reading entire text wall, I agree completely with Dennis. Not because of the RS thing, but just because this is the stupidest reason to get into an argument over. It's a Tomahto/Tomayto situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealKysier (talk • contribs) 13:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)