Talk:Juan Pablo Galavis
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juan Pablo Galavis calls gays 'perverts' controversy
editIs the article below a reliable source?
http://randyreport.blogspot.com/2014/01/abcs-latest-bachelor-juan-pablo-galavis.html
San Francisco Bay Area Native 19:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- The relevant part of the interview is here. Medmyco (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's now addressed in the article. Hanxu9 (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
White Hispanic
editIt's a lot more precise to say that Juan Pablo is a "White Hispanic" rather than "minority." The definition of the term is " a citizen or resident who is racially white and of Hispanic descent." See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans
Hanxu9 (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- No, it's not. There is no source that says he identifies as "white" or that Hispanic or minority is improper. There were sources that talked about skin color but that is not race and it didn't identify Galavis as "white Hispanic". The source says most Hispanics identify as mestizo. --DHeyward (talk) 01:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Gay comments
editThe description that states his homophobic comments were taken out of context is biased. That is someone's opinion. That needs to be changed. 75.31.81.157 (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's the opinion of the person who said the comments in the first place. Sticking that bit in such a small article gave the issue undue weight in this person's life. Saffron Blaze (talk) 05:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- The comments were widely reported in mainstream media, the network issue a widely published response, and Galavis' apology made national news. Really don't see how the most prominent and widely reported comments he ever made in his life can be excluded from a biographical article. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- True, but if his words were the result of poor English and taken out of context then the controversy is unwarranted. The bit in this article leaves the question he may be a homophobe, yet when you do read the entire text of the interview this seems unlikely. Frankly this blurb comes across as punishment. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- The comments were widely reported in mainstream media, the network issue a widely published response, and Galavis' apology made national news. Really don't see how the most prominent and widely reported comments he ever made in his life can be excluded from a biographical article. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's true it may not be flattering, but given the widespread reporting and the fact that two major multinational corporations and a major TV production company all felt it necessary to respond, we can't in good conscience simply ignore it. Still, if you can find a neutral way to word it any better, obviously take a shot. The way it stands now seems to me to read pretty dry and straightforward and contains basic facts in context, but if you can improve it without sacrificing pertinent content, well, that's what we're all trying to do with Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- The part you seem to be missing is why this was so widely reported in the media. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Not following. What do you mean? --Tenebrae (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Somehow I doubt that but I am required to AGF. However, when you read the text the controversial bits are included in quotes but the actual context and the explanations he provided are not there. In other words this is not written in an NPOV. It is written to make him look like a homophobe. You are patently wrong in your assertion this is neutral and you reverted this despite being asked to bring it to the talk page for consensus. So, why would I bother if you are just going to go around supplanting your judgment for mine and ignoring a basic tenet of consensus building? Saffron Blaze (talk) 06:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- "Somehow I doubt that"? What does that mean? Would you please explain exactly what you're implying? Secondly, it is absolutely common to neutrally paraphrase long / rambling quotes. The passage, you'll notice, also paraphrases the ABC, etc. response, which was highly critical of Galavis, and simply says, neutrally, that ABC etc. "disavowed his comments." So let's get back to what you're implying by "Somehow I doubt that." Say what you're really saying rather than dropping veiled hints. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- No, because the motives of the media are external to this discussion. The part that is relevant is your refusal to allow consensus to build and imposing your version of events = WP:OWN. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- First, the media does not have any motives other than reporting news and making a profit. Secondly, what did you mean by saying you "doubt" my statement that I was "not following" your comments? Don't play passive-aggressive and make veiled implications. You made this personal with what appears to be a slimy attack on me. Say what you mean. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- No, because the motives of the media are external to this discussion. The part that is relevant is your refusal to allow consensus to build and imposing your version of events = WP:OWN. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- "Somehow I doubt that"? What does that mean? Would you please explain exactly what you're implying? Secondly, it is absolutely common to neutrally paraphrase long / rambling quotes. The passage, you'll notice, also paraphrases the ABC, etc. response, which was highly critical of Galavis, and simply says, neutrally, that ABC etc. "disavowed his comments." So let's get back to what you're implying by "Somehow I doubt that." Say what you're really saying rather than dropping veiled hints. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Somehow I doubt that but I am required to AGF. However, when you read the text the controversial bits are included in quotes but the actual context and the explanations he provided are not there. In other words this is not written in an NPOV. It is written to make him look like a homophobe. You are patently wrong in your assertion this is neutral and you reverted this despite being asked to bring it to the talk page for consensus. So, why would I bother if you are just going to go around supplanting your judgment for mine and ignoring a basic tenet of consensus building? Saffron Blaze (talk) 06:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Not following. What do you mean? --Tenebrae (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- The part you seem to be missing is why this was so widely reported in the media. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's true it may not be flattering, but given the widespread reporting and the fact that two major multinational corporations and a major TV production company all felt it necessary to respond, we can't in good conscience simply ignore it. Still, if you can find a neutral way to word it any better, obviously take a shot. The way it stands now seems to me to read pretty dry and straightforward and contains basic facts in context, but if you can improve it without sacrificing pertinent content, well, that's what we're all trying to do with Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Juan Pablo Galavis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131227212848/http://www.complotmagazine.com/articulo.php?id=1285 to http://www.complotmagazine.com/articulo.php?id=1285
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)