Talk:Raz Simone

Involvement with Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone

Raz Simone, a local rapper with an AK-47 slung from his shoulder and a pistol attached to his hip, screamed, “This is war!” into a white-and-red megaphone and instructed armed paramilitaries to guard the barricades in shifts. Later in the night, Simone was filmed allegedly assaulting multiple protestors who disobeyed his orders, informing them that he was the "police" now, sparking fears that he was becoming the de facto warlord of the autonomous zone.
— City Journal

I'm not sure the best way to incorporate this into the article. – Anne drew 01:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I would recommend checking out Wikipedia guidelines and policies first, for example: Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Beeflord99 (talk) 01:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

There is this video. --185.69.244.39 (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

That is, in fact, a video! Quite astute of you to notice that! Thanks for sharing! Beeflord99 (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no need to be rude to new users. 173.85.195.134 (talk) 05:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no need to be patient with blatant attempts to shoehorn in problematic material, either. Grandpallama (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Raz-simone-plottin.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Raz Simone Sentence on the video

Grandpallama, as stated before, lets discuss this with the community and have group approval. The snopes article is reliable and demonstrates an incident that has been the cause of criticism. The video demonstrates, as stated by snopes, Raz giving a semiautomatic rifle to someone who identifies himself as 18 on a facebook live video. I dont understand why stating it was from facebook live, the individual is 18, or that it is a crime is a problem. The first two claims can be verified by Snopes and the 3rd can be demonstrated by looking at the state law source I provided. Also the state law which I provided the statute for is not my original work and therefore not original research, its just a source from the state government. Given that I recommend keeping the sentence as "He was also criticized by conservatives for handing out a firearm to an individual who claimed to be 18 years old in a Facebook live video, a crime in the state of Washington." Also the Forbes source does not demonstrate that Forbes is calling him a warlord but that other sources are so I will be reading that (I am agreeing with you Grandpallama but simply installing it as a verifiable source of the name used not that it is accurate unless there is a problem with that). Bgrus22 (talk) 04:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

As I explained to you, Snopes does not verify the age of the individual, nor does it confirm anything but the authenticity of the video itself (Simone appears to give a gun to a self-identified 18-year-old); extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing. The Snopes article does not state that this has been a significant source of conservative criticism. Stating it was a crime by linking it to legal statutes is textbook WP:SYNTH, and your claim that the state law which I provided the statute for is not my original work and therefore not original research, its just a source from the state government is a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:OR. We don't need the Forbes source because we have already sourced the publications calling him a warlord to...those publications. And in your original attempt to add this material, you did assert that Forbes was among the publications calling Simone a warlord. Please read WP:OR and WP:BLP, and do not reinsert this problematic wording again. Grandpallama (talk) 04:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: I will start with where we agree since that will shorten this conversation. The addition of legality is synth and therefore should not be included (agreed and thank you for teaching me something new), the original use of Forbes was incorrect (agreed Ive stated that), and Forbes does not indicate widespread conservative criticism (agreed but only since demonstrating reliable widespread criticism is hard to do, Id probably point to something like the daily wire or Tim Pool which is not what is necessary). Glad we have that all out of the way, and again thank you for taking the time to respond, but I still think including the fact that the video only shows one individual not several and that the individual self-identifies as 18 is important. The snopes article indicates the individual self-identified as 18 years old and makes no mention of any other protesters being armed in it. Given that there are problems in my original proposal I will amend it to reflect WikiGuidelines more accurately, "He was later seen in a facebook live video giving a firearm to a self-identified 18-year-old he did not appear to know." That would be most in line with the citation given. Also I still hold that Forbes as a followup quote on the previously mentioned sentence would demonstrate that other outlets had used the term warlord but that Forbes does not subscribe to it, I personally believe in heavy citations and think the additional citation is worth including. Bgrus22 (talk) 05:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The Snopes article confirms the authenticity of the video, not interpretations of what is occurring in the video, which is why it twice uses "appears" to describe what seems to be happening; that is not a strong enough stance to be sole support for this verbiage. Other secondary sources should be provided to support a claim like that. The other Australian source provided uses "individuals", plural. The paucity of sources suggests the inclusion of mention here probably isn't due at all. Grandpallama (talk) 12:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I would point to the definition of "appears," based on the definition it would indicate in the specific clip that is being referenced an individual says he is 18 and receives a weapon, not the whole video as the Australian citation mentions but a specific clip of the video which Gno commented on. If what you are stating is that the final line in the preceding paragraph details the full video then the following line which is citing snopes should detail the clip the Gno shares since that is the subject matter and not the video as a whole. Since the clip focuses on an individual who self identifies his age as Snopes says then we should include that, if we are going to include the snopes commentary at all. Otherwise I do not see why we should be applying a narrative on the commentary by omitting something that our citation indicates as appeared to have occurred, by your standard of the definition of "appears" we should not include this at all because we can not verify he handed out a firearm to that individual just that he appeared to do so. Even verbage indicates that snopes agrees that the video demonstrates Raz handing out a rifle, if you want to say that "Gno shared a video where Simone appears to be handing out a rifle to someone who identifies as 18" that would probably most accurate between our two opinions on this, and would not detract from anything. Bgrus22 (talk) 23:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I remain unpersuaded that this is due or merits inclusion. And even if I were persuaded otherwise, I firmly believe the current sourcing is not strong enough to imply a felonious action in a BLP. So far, it looks like Cedar777 is similarly skeptical, so even without the BLP concerns, I don't see that there's enough consensus for inclusion in the first place. Grandpallama (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

As stated, the question of due is fair, but the portion being considered for inclusion is that if we do mention it do we include the age since that is part of the snopes citation and provides more context. I am not stating we should mention the legality of the issue since that would be a product of original research. Bgrus22 (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Sources and content

@Grandpallama: This biography is . . . challenging. Not reverting the issues with the sources until there is consensus. They were left in place but the general article structure was revised for a short lede and chronological content.

When there are better sources availlable, it makes sense to steer clear entirely of Fox, NY Post, and Forbes contributors. Perhaps there are aspects of the Forbes article that are worth attributing. Admitedly, this subject has not been a focus of my research and my knowledge drops off beyond the CHOP (CHAZ) stories I have been reading for the main article. He clearly had some sort of presence and notoriety at CHOP that leaned towards occupation with open carry fire arms. One that rubbed some participants the wrong way (see TechCrunch). But beyond a laundry list of conservative news outlets of questionable quality covering him as a warlord, what is actually, specifically known about him and his actions?

Questions that remain: Is the Snopes livestream video different from the New.com.au video? Who took the video(s)? Open carry is legal in Washington, but if it is illegal to distribute firearms to 18 year olds as this wikipedia article currently claims (and this is documented on video) why has this not been covered by more reputable media? Cedar777 (talk) 04:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• July 18 TechCrunch, For Seattle’s cop-free protest zone, tech is both a revolutionary asset and disastrous liability

Cedar777, Fox News is green at WP:RSP, so we cannot argue that it's not an acceptable source; if you argue that this falls under Fox (politics), which one reasonably could, it still falls within yellow. And the Post is yellow, so it's not off-limits. That said, in this case we are not sourcing claims about Simone to either of them, but specifically citing the claim that they published stories critical of Simone. I don't see any way in which Fox is inappropriate for that use, and since we are not relying on the NY Post to make any claims of our own, it is an attributed piece of sourcing about NY Post actions. There is no policy-based rationale for excluding these sources in this usage.

As far as the video goes, I think Snopes and NewsComAu (which I'm not overly familiar with) are probably good enough to support a mention. Whether or not that mention is due is probably a different question. The part about the legality of the weapon is WP:SYNTH and inappropriate for inclusion, unless it has significant mention in reliable, secondary sources. Grandpallama (talk) 04:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Grandpallama, We agree that the 18 year old bit is synth and would require coverage by a reputable source before being legitimately included. However, Fox News was just recently split into three categories and for politics and science it's yellow (no consensus). Fox became the news themselves for their poor coverage on the CHOP by photoshoping images depicting the zone and later getting into conflicts with demonstrators before being driven out of the zone. Any coverage they have to offer on this subject would best be handled with great care. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 05:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Cedar777, I think we actually agree on Fox, too. If we were making a factual statement about Simone, sourced to Fox, I'd be reticent to leave it in play. But the statement is that Fox (and other outlets) covered Simone prominently in a certain way and called him a "warlord". The citation is simply confirming that Fox is one of those outlets, rather than using Fox to make claims in WP's voice about Simone. In other words, we are citing Fox to support a claim about Fox, not about Simone.

Separately, whether the provided sources for the video are reliable or not, I'm inclined to consider mention of the video at all to be undue; as you say, where is all the secondary reporting on it? Grandpallama (talk) 05:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

If I am understanding you guys correctly I would agree that you can cite the sources to say that they made claims but not that the claims are accurate, and that Forbes did not make such a claim but that forbes reported that others made such claims (so Im agreeing with the general ruling). As for undue weight thats a fair point for discussion since it may not pass, but it got enough short term attention in an ongoing event that we may have to consider it. The snopes article does say that the individual self-identified as 18 though so it would be covered by the citation there, but the question of legality would be synth like you said, thank you for explaining that to me! Bgrus22 (ta–lk) 05:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

It is not uncommon for a detail to get short term attention in an ongoing event when that event is still developing. This is a core concept of WP:RECENT. But if it didn't have lasting impact, or significant and widespread reporting, that suggests its inclusion is probably not appropriate, particularly around a BLP. Grandpallama (talk) 12:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Grandpallama, yes, I think we do now agree for the most part. There is a difference when using a source to cite a claim about that source, rather than elaborating on that claim. For better or worse, it does seem this subject's primary notability is that he was the focus of swift, explosive media coverage of the CHOP. Mentioning and sourcing that coverage is DUE.

Regarding the videos, both are from Simone's social media chanels but were apparently filmed on different days June 8 (Snopes) & June 10 (news.com.au). Some other sources mention him, and those will go into a seperate talk page section. As you point out, the questions of what is DUE and is this RECENTISM, are well worth considering. Thanks and Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with all of these points as previously stated, but if it is included then we should discuss how it is. Bgrus22 (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Content for potential inclusion

Here are a few sources that may be worth including in the biography of the subject: Cedar777 (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• June 10 Welcome to the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, where Seattle protesters gather without police The Seattle Times

• June 20 After early morning shooting in CHOP, occupied area returns to its new normal The Seattle Times

• June 23 'America This Week' features Seattle CHOP leader, plus Giuliani, Navarro and more ABC St Louis, written content + video interview.

• June 30 Simone appears on America This Week as reported by WJLA ABC7, Some written content + video interview.

• July 18 For Seattle’s cop-free protest zone, tech is both a revolutionary asset and disastrous liability TechCrunch While this article discusses what is assumed to be his media characteriztion, it does not actually list his name. Probably unusable for that reason.

Allegations

2 women accuse Seattle hip-hop artist Raz Simone of abuse, coercion (NPR) Primarily he said/she said, however the article states Campbell’s account is supported by a protection order petition; Branch’s is supported by her mother’s account, hospital records, and a statement from a roommate who said she witnessed the abuse.. Schazjmd (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

And, naturally, not a thing about these allegations after a week, even though it's from a verifiable news source, Seattle Public Radio station KUOW. You can bet if there were criminal allegations against Tusitala Toese, those would appear in his biography within a day. Peter G Werner (talk) 04:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

More reporting on the allegations in the Seattle Times - this one lists 6 women . . . [1] Cedar777 (talk) 01:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

and this Seattle Times article now states 8 women. [2] Cedar777 (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Personal life section content

Hi. I'm here from looking over the WP:BLPN. A concern was raised about the Personal life section.

It is clearly contentious material regarding allegations of committing a crime. Reviewing WP:BLPCRIME, Raz Simone is a public figure in my judgement (from his activities related to the CHAZ).

WP:PUBLICFIGURE states the following, regarding contentious content, " If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." (emphasis mine).

Operating under the presumption that the material belongs here, I've searched for multiple sources for these allegations, or other information not specifically related to CHAZ.

DuckDuckGo Search - '"Raz Simone" abuse'. Found,

- Currently cited source. Newspaper. Verifiable by my eye.

- Makes allegations regarding an arrest record of a different alleged incident. WP:NYPOST, so not considering this information.

All results in the first few pages were either linking to, paraphrasing, or discussing , so I didn't consider them.

DuckDuckGo Search - '"Raz Simone" domestic'. No new results.

DuckDuckGo Search - '"Raz Simone" women'. No new results.

I did find several social media posts discussing this particular topic, but that isn't verifiable. So ...ugh. I'm removing this content? At the end of the day, there's only one source for this material.

If there is a 2nd source that I've overlooked, please feel free to add this content back with the additional citation. I have no particular concerns about WP:DUE or other policies, as long is this is verifiable. Jdphenix (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

References

"Activism"

You can't really call "activism" taking armed control of a city zone and threatening the police from entering it. Minor vandalism might be considered activism, but the CHOP was literally anarchy held by an armed gang. I've changed the name of the section to "controversies" since we can't talk of domestic terrorism without a sentence, but feel free to pick a better title if you have something more pertinent in mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:B07:A96:9FA6:1488:4A21:5864:D986 (talk) 02:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Sexual abuse and assault allegations

@Calwatch I have removed the sentence and source you have added, as I believe that the source used falls under WP:SPS. pedanticLoser🗯️ 19:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)