Talk:Darren Seals

Twitter bio inclusion?

Hi I see there's some debate about whether Seals's Twitter bio should be included here. It seems to me that since it's been reported in reliable secondary sources, it's appropriate to include, but I can see maybe there's an issue of due weight? Will ping Parsley Man and DRodgers11 since they've both edited the article on this point, and then additionally the more opinions the better. Thanks all. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey DRodgers11 apologies if you were already in the midst of doing so, but would you mind letting us know your thinking on reverting the reversion on this? Since there's some disagreement I feel like it'd be worthwhile to discuss. Thanks! Innisfree987 (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I honestly fail to see any relevance on the kinds of titles Seals gave for himself. Right now, it seems nothing more than padding for the fact that he has a social media presence. Parsley Man (talk) 23:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

A good point, but what do you make of the fact that it has been picked up by many reliable secondary sources? I'd definitely be against including it if a WP editor just went onto his Twitter page and copied it on here (I've spent a lot of time lately removing DOBs and birth names published only on social media and not in any secondary sources), but since it's been published in the Chicago Tribune, CNN, the LA Times, ABC, etc., I'm not sure we shouldn't defer to the editorial judgment of reliable secondary sources on whether it's significant. What do you think? Innisfree987 (talk) 03:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Just because those titles have been covered by many sources does not immediately verify relevancy for this article. Unless there's something important that these nicknames can provide content-wise, I would strongly advocate for the removal of that part. Parsley Man (talk) 00:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The names that the man called himself are important to his identity. Either add them or shut down this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6001:E701:8300:5D89:F212:86E7:484F (talk) 04:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

It does seem to me like quite a few reliable sources agree this is important content. It's not at all outside of guidelines to include a half sentence of how a person identified himself, when even so much as one reliable secondary reports his statement--and here we have many. Plus the current phrasing makes really clear it was his statement about himself (rather than a fact-checked statement by a secondary source), which is exactly how such material is supposed to be handled. And overall the entry certainly is not overly reliant on primary material... At this point I don't really see the problem with keeping it. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Source for involvement in rap group

Does anyone have a good secondary source clarifying Seals's role in the rap group D.O.A.? Here's what I've found but it's not very specific about whether he's an MC, producer, other:

• http://www.mtv.com/news/2010288/ferguson-protestor-personal-account-grand-jury-decision/
• http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2014/11/before-the-darren-wilson-grand-jury-announcement

Pinging InedibleHulk who has edited on this point but sources from all very welcome. In the meantime, I have switched the sentence back to the more general term "musician" (to me "rapper" implies he's an MC which we haven't confirmed), but would be happy to hear differing opinions. Thanks. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Still a bit specific. Not everyone in a rap group makes music, even rhythmically. But if we have to guess, it's a good guess. MTV says he's a songwriter, if that counts as musician. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Good points. What if we revised the lead (and I think this might be better for due weight anyway) to say something like "Darren Seals (dates) was a racial justice activist from Ferguson, Missouri, an assembly line worker, and a member of St. Louis rap group D.O.A." Or even "with local rap group"? Innisfree987 (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Either's good by me, linguistically, but I wonder now if it's even worth mentioning. Leads are meant to summarize the notable bits the body covers, and this body doesn't mention his music. There are plenty of posthumously famous artists, but have any become notable while their art remained unnoticed? I think the best bet is cutting it for now, until there's something real to say about D.O.A.

Same should apply to his assembly line work. Was he particularly good at it? Did it influence his activism/rapping/killing at all? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Good calls. Lead's much improved with the reference to his death, and I do think we should signal he's better known for that and his activism than anything else. I put the job back in just because I think it's standard info for a biography, and we do have a secondary source situating it as relevant to his activism, but I've tried to phrase so it's weighted appropriately, have a look and see if you think it works. Meanwhile for the music thing, I realized the CNN source actually does say he rapped, so that answers that, but I agree, barring more substantial commentary about that aspect of his life, it's not necessarily material for the lead. I'll put a sentence in the body of the article. Thanks! Innisfree987 (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I'd prefer to leave in the part about no apparent motive or suspects (different from actual motive or suspects), but not strongly or anything. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah I see what you're saying about the technical difference, and I agree that information's relevant to the lead. Just want to make sure distinction's clear to average reader--don't want anyone to see "no motive/suspects" and think they need to come add any of the unconfirmed speculation about it. I'll try again. Meanwhile, thanks for all your excellent collaboration on this sensitive topic. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion

wiki page should be speedy deleted because he had little to absolutely no national coverage before his death and this death is thereby not notable here at wiki - further, this page reads like a memorial --2600:8800:FF04:C00:E98E:504E:508B:6A89 (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --65.123.131.84 (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC) it doesn't really meet the speedy deletion criteria... also, since the case is still under investigation, I question the motive behind the speedy deletion request

my reasons are given above--2600:8800:FF04:C00:E98E:504E:508B:6A89 (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

oh and I question your motives--2600:8800:FF04:C00:E98E:504E:508B:6A89 (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

my motives are clear; that this persons murder is under investigation, that he was a protest leader during the protests, and that his death is being covered by national and international press.... and now I've logged in for the Wiki community to see.... yet I see you hiding behind a number — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkSummoner (talk • contribs) 23:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and don't give flak to this user because he/she is simply not signed in. Parsley Man (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Why should we assume good faith of someone not even logged in who is proposing the deletion of an article about a mysteriously murdered protest leader? I'm glad it didn't happen. But you should not assume good faith around subject matters like these. The percentage of the population that cares about this subject is so small, and for someone to come on Wikipedia and actually make an entry on a talk page (something an absurdly small percentage of the population does) suggesting the deletion of this article is incredibly suspicious. Possibly politically motivated. Ahkeesi0nai3ChuphahThii5aiCeeW1Aipah2eeCeivotoh9ah (talk) 05:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Removing proposed deletion

Hi all.

• Have carefully reviewed the edit history, the Criteria for Speedy Deletion, and the procedures for Proposed Deletions. Speedy deletion criteria clearly say: "The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so." Pppery converted it to a PROD, and Adam9007 restored Pppery's conversion, and my best understanding of the speedy procedure is that their actions are legitimate. Now that it's a PROD, I'm going to delete it which I believe (despite being the article's creator) I am allowed to do, per PROD instructions: "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason." If I've made a procedural error please do let me know, and also know that it's entirely in good faith and despite best efforts to pin down policy.

• With the procedural stuff out of the way. My substantive reason for removing the prod: I intentionally began this entry by focusing on secondary sources (nine separate publications cited in this diff) with material on Seals prior and unrelated to his death, over the course of two years, so that it would be clear he had "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" on multiple events and over the span of years. I thus believe Seals meets Wikipedia guidelines for notability.

• Turning back to the procedural, I believe anyone is nevertheless allowed to take this to AfD. My best estimate is that owing to prior, multi-year coverage of Seals, it would not get a deletion consensus and while maybe at a later date it would be eventually moved to something like "Death of Darren Seals", depending on how the press coverage evolves, I don't think there would be a consensus for that now, which might make an AfD a fruitless endeavor. On the other hand, an AfD might well produce a "keep" and that clarity of consensus might be useful going forward. So I'm not opposed to it, if someone wants to go to the trouble. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Innisfree987: You are correct that it is allowed to remove the PROD tag. Pppery 11:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi 2600:8800:FF04:C00:E98E:504E:508B:6A89, wanted to draw your attention to procedure here. Please note that an article may only be proposed for deletion once: see WP:PROD, a PROD "may only be placed on an article a single time" (emphasis in the original) and "PROD is one-shot only: It must not be used for articles PRODed before or previously discussed on AfD"; further elaboration at WP:PRODNOM, with the reminder to "Confirm that the article is eligible for proposed deletion by checking that it...has not previously been proposed for deletion," other than CSD or BLPPROD processes (not the case here, as there'd already been a declined regular PROD), before adding a proposed deletion. I think it's worth noting also "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected" (emphasis in the original); between the multiple editors declining the speedy and my decline of the PROD (with reasons elaborated just above, here on the talk page), I think it's fairly clear this wouldn't be an uncontroversial deletion. I realize it's a lot to keep track of, I totally understand you may not have been aware. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

More sources to add

• http://www.mtv.com/news/2930743/the-malleable-memory-of-darren-seals/
• http://lgbtweekly.com/2016/09/08/national-lgbtq-task-force-death-of-civil-rights-activist-horrifying-and-disturbing/
• http://www.vox.com/2016/9/7/12830430/darren-seals-ferguson-dead
• https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/08/ferguson-protest-leader-darren-seals-shot-dead-burning-car
• http://reason.com/blog/2016/09/08/ferguson-activist-darren-seals-found-sho
• http://www.riverfronttimes.com/newsblog/2016/09/12/armed-protesters-march-through-cwe-chanting-who-killed-darren-seals
• http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/09/08/police-ask-for-help-in-solving-shooting-death-top-ferguson-missouri-activist.html

In case someone else has a chance to go through these before I do. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

FBI files on Mr Seals released, but highly redacted.

The St Louis Riverfront Times has received an approximately 900 page FBI file, which was released via FOIA request. Over 90% of the release was completely redacted.

I hope that someone with good edit skills can get the relevant details on the page. I have a less than successful track record for successful edits concerning state criminality and white supremacy in the United States. 2601:5C4:200:5C40:B089:9EBD:8937:6D34 (talk) 12:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)