Talk:Watkin Tudor Jones

a place to ask questions

Is there a place to ask about how to construct the code to make a link to something else on Wiki appear in the wiki page without inserting the link with a ref at the bottom? Not really looking for the answer here, but is there a place to ask that question on wiki?

--Gene Zef2 (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand what specifically you are asking about. If you know the specific policy, guideline, templates, etc; then the respective talk page would be where to ask. Otherwise, the appropriate subsection of WP:VILLAGEPUMP is a good location to ask for help, and it also lists other locations where you can get assistance. --Ronz (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Recent incorrect edits.

A certain editor, has seemingly made absolutely no effort to understand the subject, read the references, or understand any of the context. He's gone so far as to make threats and project behaviour of his own (edit warring, etc.) onto me when I'm simply reverting his mistakes and lack of understanding, and even absurd claims of a COI that don't exist in any way shape or form.

Here is the basis for the inclusion of stuffed animal making in the article, for those of you who Don't already know. Note this stuff was ALREADY referenced and cited within the article, and has been discussed numerous times; here's just some additional information. Waddy during at least one of the projects, produced commercially available limited edition Chommie Toys, and animated videos including them, at very least as part of the Oppikoppi Festival, with some sort of related projects at the time. https://www.reddit.com/r/DieAntwoord/comments/2xadd8/where_to_buy_ninja_and_yolandis_chommie_toys/ discusses the topic and includes references to an original maxnormal website, and another reference http://maxnormaltv.blogspot.com/ and can be seen in The Way Of The Dassie video, amongst others. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SinwIQrYr8Y

As to identity and persona, it is a key part of his artistic expression, and is seemingly well-known within South Africa. In the Kwaai Mix video you can see a number of the identity presentations of Waddy, including as MC Totally Rad who specifically makes a statement criticizing those who artificially take on American accents as part of their artistic presentation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sra9vV5FJUw In the Zef Side video, which was supposed to be at least partially an interview by a journalist that came out right after Die Antwoord broke internationally with Enter The Ninja and people were still trying to figure out who this guy was and if he was serious, it crafts and implies artificial histories and falsehoods about their families, residences, as well as perpetuates the myths by presenting a possibly completely false DJ Hi-Tek (who has been portrayed by a number of different people over time) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q77YBmtd2Rw In Max Normal Total Fuckup, he specifically discusses and details his struggle as a rapper trying to hustle and get his music out there, and his insecurities with it, as well as his reasons for and thoughts surrounding the exploration of different identity presentations and attempts at different personas. "why I rock a suit...", "maybe I should get in with the new rave scene, I'll wear space age shades... and change my name to Wad-E, wear tight little white shorts..." "Change my accent, make it more wild [?], total makeover, change my whole style.." "You are so lost in{?] make believe, you have[?] a new reality.." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pecHKtUXPy8 There are of course numerous other times where these things have been discussed or covered in his work, in interviews, in articles about him and them, including his decision to eventually rap partially in Afrikaans, but hopefully this and other previous discussions are good enough for you.

ALL of this stuff has been previously discussed here (possibly with archived discussions), dealt with with previous edits, etc. While the current text of the article, minus this editor's incorrect removals of factual and relevant information, may not be phrased in the ideal way, it is all true, referenced, and factual. If the editor has a problem with the way it is phrased perhaps he should improve the text rather than deleting it entirely. Furthermore, understanding the history and context of and diversity of his artistic expression and development is key to understanding his work. Remember, this article is not about Die Antwoord or his sole identity presentation as the tough-guy Ninja, this article is about Watkin Tudor Jones as a whole. The burden of proof should be on editors wishing to remove long-standing details and referenced and cited information, not the person simply trying to revert his incorrect edits made on false premises and a lack of understanding of the subject. Centerone (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Centerone, the fact that your hero has toyed around with different identities is sufficiently mentioned in the article even without your repeated intervention attempts: First, there is the expression "He is best known as ...", which implies that he might also be known under different names. Second, there is a long list of "Also known as" names in the info box. There is no need to spend more words on this issue. Yet, that is just a side note because both the tone and the content of this long statement suggests that you fail to demonstrate the required distance to the topic of the article. You positively confirmed the COI suspicion (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for the details} and, therefore, should not continue to edit this article. It is as simple as that. Allensbacher (talk) 05:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Accusations

Please see the discussion at WP:BLPN#Die Antwoord. I don't think these items are WP:DUE on this article. John (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for starting the noticeboard discussion. --Hipal (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Removal of the accusations (which have been extensively covered by reliable sources) was clearly inappropriate. If consensus is needed to restore this to the article, then I am strongly in favor of establishing such a consensus. --Jpcase (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with their removal, which is in line with policy. Why would you want to restore them? John (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  For reference: BLPN discussion archived. --Hipal (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think the accusations are relevant and appropriately sourced. WP:PUBLICFIGURE allows for inclusion of this type of material, including for allegations of criminal conduct. Around three or four other editors appeared to disagree on BLPN, although there was not a lot of response to my attempts to respond to their concerns and provide additional sources. Jpcase, if you feel strongly, then it may help if you identify which sources you think are the most adequate and respond to any of the relevant concerns raised on BLPN. This is the most recent version that I had edited in the article with the additional sources I had found. – notwally (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Our practice is to be extremely conservative about adding material like this. As Kcmastrpc put it at the central discussion Allegations usually require significant reliable coverage to be considered WP:DUE for a BLP, such as major investigations, criminal charges, or consequences. Unless these allegations result in charges or at least a police investigation, and unless they are reported in several high quality sources, I do not think we can include them. WP:BLPGOSSIP applies here I think. John (talk) 02:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think WP:PUBLICFIGURE puts it pretty well: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. 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." At BLPN, Kcmastrpc cited WP:EXTRAORDINARY and incorrectly said that it is the "threshold for inclusion" for WP:BLPCRIME, which it is not, especially not for public figures. Criminal charges or police investigations are not a requirement either, and once again, especially not for public figures.

  There are numerous high quality sources reporting on these allegations, including Le Monde, The South African, NME, The Fader, Mixmag, along with several others. Considering that this is a fairly minor South African band, that is very significant coverage. Are there any high quality sources that have covered the band since the allegations were made that have not included those allegations? Given the amount of sources, I'm not sure what the objection to including the material still is. Is the argument that Le Monde (the newspaper of record in France, similar to the New York Times in the US), is WP:BLPGOSSIP? – notwally (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Everything Notwally is saying is 100% correct. Criminal charges have never been a requirement for the inclusion of accusations on Wikipedia. This has simply never been a standard applied to BLP articles. The standard we use is to look at whether the accusations have been extensively covered by high-profile reliable news sources. These accusations have indisputably received such coverage. I haven't looked through every single source that was used, but NME and The Sydney Morning Herald are clearly high-quality sources that would alone establish notability for the accusations. Several of the other sources also appear to be solid. That there are multiple accusers who have received substantial news coverage makes the removal of this information especially egregious. --Jpcase (talk) 03:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Until there's consensus for inclusion, the removal should be expected per the relevant policies and the BLPN discussion. If editors are now finding new sources to use, then let's make sure we have consensus that they should be used. --Hipal (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree 100%. The consensus at BLPN was strongly against inclusion. Pending a new consensus, the material has to stay out. John (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if there was a consensus at BLPN, and there certainly was not a strong one. None of the sources I've mentioned here are new, and there has been no attempt to explain how Le Monde, The South African, or NME are not reliable sources. Please note that consensus is based on reasons, sources, and policy, and not simply a vote among editors. – notwally (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@Notwally, perhaps best for an RFC on this as I'm not reading clear consensus and per WP:OMUS and WP:BLPRESTORE consensus is required for re-inclusion. If you go ahead with an RFC I would word it so that's clear that you're asking if the material should be included in all three articles (Watkin, Yolandi and Die Antwoord) and leave notices on the other two article's talks pointing to the RFC. TarnishedPath^talk 00:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

TarnishedPath, who said there was consensus for inclusion? Before an RfC, there is supposed to be a discussion. I have provided multiple sources, but no one has responded as to why those sources are not adequate. – notwally (talk) 03:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I didn't write that there was consensus for inclusion. TarnishedPath^talk 03:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

My assumption, skimming through the BLPN discussion, is that all the refs were addressed and found lacking. Were some overlooked, or am I overlooking something in that discussion? --Hipal (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Hipal, I do not see any discussion at all about how high quality sources such as Le Monde (newspaper of record for France), The South African, NME, The Fader, or Mixmag were not adequate for inclusion. – notwally (talk) 23:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The commentary I see is that they were all published at the same time, based upon the same source, fitting NOTNEWS. Is there something that deserves a closer look?

I'm not sure what that commentary is based on because there are articles published in Apri, May, June, July, and August 2022, as well as March, April, and November 2024, which rely on multiple different sources and cover multiple different accusations. Futher, WP:NOTNEWS would not apply because this is not breaking news or routine coverage. Serious accusations of abuse are going to have enduring value. The relevant policy is WP:PUBLICFIGURE, and there are multiple high quality sources reporting on these accusations, including the newspaper of record for France and the largest newspaper in Austria, with articles published over 2 years apart reporting on the same accusations as multiple other sources. – notwally (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Can you identify the specific potential sources here so they can be reviewed? --Hipal (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Here are the sources I have mentioned above along with some additional ones: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. Here is the most recent edit that included the cited sources. – notwally (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm unable to access 1, 2, and 3

4, 5, and 6 appear to be another NOTNEWS cases. This feels a waste of time given the high standards required by BLP. Where are the BLP-quality references from 2024? --Hipal (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

You can use the Internet Archive to view Le Monde. I don't know why you would not be able to access the South Morning Post or Kronen Zeitung, but you can also use the Internet Archive to access them. I don't know how the largest newspaper in Austria (Kronen Zeitung) is not considered reliable, and their article was published in 2024. Further, ignoring the newspaper of record of France (Le Monde) and the newspaper of record of Australia (South Morning Herald), as well as 8 other reliable sources is a bizarre stance to take. What recent sources have you found about the article subject in major newspapers that do not reference the multiple separate allegations of abuse against him? – notwally (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I looked over an auto-translated version of the Kronen Zeitung. I don't think we should use it. We apparently don't agree on what quality of references are required for such content. --Hipal (talk) 01:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what better quality you can get than the newspapers of record for 2 major country and the largest newspaper in a 3rd major country. Other than a vague reference to WP:NOTNEWS, I'm not sure what objection you have to these types of high quality sources. – notwally (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The reliability of the publisher isn't the issue. In this case it's the quality and focus of the specific articles that have been offered as potential references. The early reporting reads as churnalism, and was addressed at BLPN. The coverage doesn't appear to be any better more recently. From what you've provided, those potential sources verify that nothing came of the accusations beyond the celebrity gossip. --Hipal (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

You haven't actually provided a substantive response by simply throwing out terms like "churnalism" or referencing WP:NOTNEWS without any actual reasoning. There are also 4 separate allegations covered over multiple months and years but you are using terms like "early reporting". Given the lack of a substantive response to the 14+ sources I provided, I will start a RfC in the next few days. – notwally (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Chiming back in to reiterate that I strongly agree with Notwally's stance on this. I don't see how NOTNEWS could possibly apply to a situation in which multiple high-quality sources have reported over an extended period of time on accusations made by multiple people. And using the word "gossip" to describe *direct accusations* that have been reported on by major news outlets strikes me as a serious mischaracterization of the matter at hand. --Jpcase (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

You haven't provided substantial...You haven't actually provided a substantive... The onus is on those seeking inclusion. Editors have had plenty of time to provide evidence that one or more sources actually meet the policy requirements that have been brought up.

There are no high-quality sources there. Quality publishers, but not sources. The sources appear to be churnalism, celebrity gossip, and authors/publishers looking to attract readers with salacious content... It's what we expect from entertainment news, and why we have policy specifically to address it in NOTNEWS. --Hipal (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

It is quite bizarre to misquote other editors. Also note that consensus is based on sources and reasons. Buzz words are not substantive reasons. – notwally (talk) 22:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:FOC. Please contact me on my talk if you feel I misquoted someone. Otherwise retract the accusation. --Hipal (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hipal, please show the diff where you got your quote. – notwally (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Apologies. Refactored. Poor edit conflict resolution on my part. --Hipal (talk) 22:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure it was an honest mistake. Sorry for being a little too aggressive. – notwally (talk) 03:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I stand by my comments of 11 days ago. We would need a strong consensus that this material is DUE before we could include it. I don't think we have that. Have you considered an RfC? John (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)