Talk:Walt Heyer

Speedy deletion declined

 Candidates for speedy deletion patroller --- Gparyani, I declined your speedy deletion request of this article with no prejudice against its deletion through WP:AfD if its notability is in doubt because A7 does not applies to articles with assertion of notability. I fix the page per WP:SEP. Cheers! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Article history notation

This article was deleted at AfD in 2015 as non-notable. Since that time, Heyer authored a USA Today editorial in 2019 and was at the center of a YouTube censorship controversy in June 2020, the latter of which prompted me to look into the article, its history, and decide that I could demonstrate notability from RS'es sufficient to prompt re-creation. So I did, including those to demonstrate notability. Having said that, I don't think the article is at all well written, and feels too hostile for a BLP that I would have worked with back in the 2008-2012 era, which is when I'd done most of my Wikipedia work. There's also probably a lot more that could be added between 2015 and now, and many of the older sources and phrasing can be modernized. Jclemens (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Characterizing Heyer's views' reception

Sorry, but this doesn't really make much sense:

"His views conflict with those held by most mainstream media." (references not copied from article page because 1) I'm lazy, and 2) I'm suggesting we replace them anyways)

I don't think we should particularly care what the media think; shouldn't we be instead focusing on what major psychiatric organizations like the APA think? Does anyone care to propose appropriate wording to replace this? Jclemens (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Criticism of When Harry Became Sally

I just don't see why this addition belongs in the article. The book's own article covers the controversy, so repeating it here seems quite WP:COATRACKish. Jclemens (talk) 02:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and refocused the criticism on Heyer, since Anderson is not the focus of this article, and attributed the source per WP:RS/P. Jclemens (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Federalist as source

David Gerard thanks for providing a substantial edit summary on your second revert of the addition of sourced information to this page. Am I correct in assessing that you object to the federalist being linked to from any article? That's my assessment of the edit summary. Allow me to elaborate: It's a self-pub blog post in a usually unreliable source. did anyone in the rest of the world note it? else its presence is SYNTH. Looking at WP:RSP, the Federalist entry notes The Federalist is generally unreliable for facts due to its partisan nature and its promotion of conspiracy theories. However, it may be usable for attributed opinions. Obviously, since Heyer's opinion is being cited, its use anywhere in the article is for no more than Heyer's opinions, and my reference to which you objected wasn't even that. Likewise, the Federalist is nowhere characterized as a blog in that RS/P notice or the underlying discussion, in which I note that you participated. Thus, I presume your reference to The Federalist being unreliable in the context use and/or that it was a self-published blog by Wikipedia's standards are simple mistakes. Likewise, I'm confused by your take on SYNTH. I cannot see how what I wrote Heyer continues to write and speak on transgender topics, including a March 2023 piece in The Federalist could be considered SYNTH in any way. Again, I'm going to assume this is a simple error on your part. Given that you have not advanced any policy-based rationale for removing sourced content on a contentious topic, I urge you to be more careful in future edits to this page. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

“If someone doesn't like what was said, and they therefore cry SYNTH, others almost certainly will be right to cry foul. Virtually anything can be shoehorned into a broad reading of SYNTH, but the vast majority of it shouldn't be.” WP:SYNTHNOT Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 04:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

It's a self-sourced post in a GUNREL source - equivalent to a blog post or other SPS. It's not like it's even a third-party unreliable source. It's equivalent to "Heyer posted a blog post". We don't note everything someone happens to write. Did anyone, anywhere, note this fact? Is it actually significant? If not, that gets SYNTHy. This isn't complicated - David Gerard (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

So, "equivalent" to a blog post... but not a blog post. And not used in any way that would run afoul of how The Federalist is assessed as a partisan source. I'll note you didn't address the motivation question, so will accept your tacit admission--backed up by years of your conduct--that you're continuing a quest to deny conservative-leaning sources representation on Wikipedia. Your SYNTH argument is rejected as specious: facts aren't synth. While I appreciate that your modifications have applied nuance to your statement in a second revert, they also demonstrate that you had no reasonable policy basis for the reversions in the first place. Again, in the future please seek consensus for edits that do not reflect clear policy directives, rather than repeatedly reverting policy-compliant material you happen to not prefer. Jclemens (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 03:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

You're trying to wedge in something that's redundant. In any case, if you want the fact of writing for the Federalist, the third-party RS does that job, and we don't need the weird questionable primary source. Also, good luck with your conspiracy theories about other editors, and if you think you have a case then bring it, or don't - David Gerard (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Please cite a policy or guideline that suggests adding a second source is inappropriate before you remove cited content. I've incidentally reverted your removal of another editor's characterization of Media Matters for America--This is a separate issue, and as I don't see a policy supporting your removal, nor do you advocate one, your removal is at this point against consensus. Jclemens (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

So, thinking further about this, you're right--while my only interactions with you have been characterized by your attempts to remove websites I view as topically appropriate for the subjects of the articles in question, it's probably unfair for me to term your efforts a "quest." So, let's discuss: given that Heyer's work for the Federalist is extensive and that there's no prohibition in linking to the Federalist from Wikipedia, how would you propose that we link to Heyer's work there? I mean, unless you disagree with the consensus that the Federalist is OK to link to, or that there may be other articles where a link to The Federalist would be appropriate but this article isn't one of them... Jclemens (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)