Talk:Zuby

Untitled

This new article was rejected by GoingBatty because it lacked references that: "show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject"

So.... I've added more sources, all of which fulfill the above criteria:

a) the new sources are articles dedicated to Zuby (not just passing mentions), and, b) the new sources are some of the largest newspapers in the world (and, presumably, are published, reliable, secondary sources, independent of Zuby).

The_Sun_(United_Kingdom) (largest newspaper in the UK) wrote article dedicated to Zuby:

The Times wrote article dedicated to Zuby:

Washington Examiner wrote article dedicated to Zuby:

RT_(TV_network) (Russian TV network) wrote article dedicated to Zuby.

Sky News dedicated article:

Spiked_(magazine) dedicated article:

BBC dedicated article:

All of these references are very large news organizations, and independent of Zuby. Thus, this article should now be included in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisefroggy (talk • contribs) 23:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Requested move 17 June 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Wrong forum. If you believe he does not meet notability guidelines, nominate the article for deletion at WP:AFD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

---

Zuby (rapper) → ? – This page does not meet notability guidelines, all information and sources relate to one controversial story, and one news report of an incident that does not relate to him as a person. I have done a good faith search and he has released music, but isn't notable for it (not reviewed in the press, or talked about in general) He does however have a large twitter following, but this isn't necessarily notable in itself unless he was noted for it in other secondary sources. For that reason I believe the title should be changed according to the notability guidelines to reflect the incident, not the person.- Benakt (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment It seems like he passes WP:GNG, and he is referred to as Zuby, and rapper by profession in the references. I say leave as is, unless someone has another disambiguator that makes more sense.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  I don't think he does, in notability guidelines it says that they can't only be notable for one specific event, with the example of if someone were to be murdered it should be titled "The murder of Jane Doe." not "Jane Doe (Musician)" even if she was. All but one of the articles use rapper as a qualifier rather than an absolute ('Nzube Udezue, a rapper' rather than 'Zuby, the rapper') and one of the sources specifically says "Zuby, who shot to internet fame after tweeting a video last year in which he claimed he was identifying as a woman in order to "destroy" the British women's deadlifting record". If the incident itself isn't notable enough to warrant a specific new title (which I'm inclined to agree with you about) I don't believe that we should keep a non-notable person as a notability figure and after this discussion is up, put it up for a deletion debate. Or maybe to change the name to the incident he is known for, then assess that article on its own (about whether it should stay or go). Either way I do think the WP:GNG says you can't be known for one incident- and he is. One other thought is maybe merging into an article more closely related to Trans Men and Women in sports? 81.98.50.184 (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  Hi 81.98.50.184: the article Zuby (rapper) has had substantial material and sources added since you last voiced your opinion. Please re-evaluate the latest version so we can include your opinion. Thanks! Wisefroggy (talk) 04:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Leave as-is. Seems to easily pass WP:GNG - as a person he is notable - he has had articles written specifically about him by large news organizations, and is interviewed at least semi-regularly. As Benakt pointed out, he does have a large twitter following, and his tweets are quoted by large newspapers (Washington Post, for example ). Further, material has been added to the article since the original requested move - the current article should be re-evaluated by anyone proposing a move. Wisefroggy (talk) 04:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• I completely disagree with the statement that the articles are dedicated to him- as mentioned above, they are dedicated to incidents, not to him (which is specifically mentioned as not passing WP:GNG)- he isn’t famous in his own right. As a person he is not notable for his body of work- something which notability specifically mentions. At the very least he does not meet the guidelines to be posted as a musician, and when posting him as a media personality (which would be far more appropriate given the sources Wisefroggy just added) it would be more appropriate to name an/the article about specific incidents, but then I feel these incidents aren’t specifically notable in their own right either, and should be added to articles relating to their subject matter. There isn’t one singular interview with Zuby that is a piece just about him, or even about his music, that I could find. I think deletion is most appropriate. Benakt (talk) 10:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  Benakt said "There isn’t one singular interview with Zuby that is a piece just about him". Here is one, from the largest news organization (perhaps? not sure) in USA:, where he is interviewed on a range of various topics including race, Kanye West, and politics. Importantly, this interview does not even mention the transgender weightlifting incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisefroggy (talk • contribs) 04:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• I looked at the additional sources added by Wisefroggy and I don’t believe they are about him as a figure, they are about incidents (incidents which I don’t believe merit their own article). I would say that this page should be deleted with the relevant incidents incorporated into a Discrimination in Sport/Discrimination within the police article or something 81.98.50.184 (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Here is one example "about him as a figure".Wisefroggy (talk) 03:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Current Consensus:

Wisefroggy(contribs): Leave as-is. Note this user (me) has hundreds of edits spanning many years.

Ortizesp(contribs): Leave as-is. Note this user has untold thousands (or even tens of thousands!?) of edits.

User:Benakt(contribs): Change to '?' - Benakt is the originator of this renaming request, but did not propose a new name (only suggested a question mark - see top of this section). Further:

user Benakt is a SPA (see contribs))

user Benakt appears to have engaged in sockpuppetry with 81.98.50.184 - evidence of puppetry:

Both users are SPA (see contribs here and here)

Both users were created on the same day

Both users have their very first edits 29 minutes apart

Both users forward the same arguments (see above: 'this article is all "about incidents"' not "the person", and similar such), and have similar WP:SIM.

for the above reasons, Benakt's opinion should be either ignored, or at least weighted less.

User 81.98.50.184: this anonymous user (and likely sockpuppet) should be ignored completely.

Wisefroggy I don’t really have any way of disproving your accusations, (also I’m new, what does SPA mean- I tried googling but it only came up with a health spa) but I do think accusing me of sock-puppetry instead of finding a single article about Zuby as a rapper, not as part of a controversy unrelated to his supposed music career is an admission that whatever happens, the deletion of the page is appropriate. When I signed up I was under the impression that it wasn’t about how many edits you had made, it was about the facts, and about meeting the notability guidelines. This article clearly doesn’t meet said guidelines and surely the fact you have made thousands of edits in the past should not allow you to bend the rules. I think that destroys the sanctity of Wikipedia. Looking through the article History it seems you tried for ages to get this page created too, and many others disagreed with the initial creation. You threw sources at the wall, mischaracterised them to create a page which according to the guidelines shouldn’t have been made, a rapper page for a commentator and controversialist who wants to be known as a rapper. I joined Wikipedia because I was trying to find a source for claims Zuby made on twitter and it turned out that his Wikipedia was filled with unsubstantiated claims too, so I tried to help rectify that. I don’t know why you’re so invested in an article that shouldn’t be here according to Wikipedia’s own guidelines but you’re very welcome to it- just know that I think that wanting your article to be up, maybe because of your ego, does damage to Wikipedia and lends credit to the argument to those who say “anyone could edit it” when discussing credibility of the site as a whole. If things like this are upheld I think they will be the eventual cause of distrust of Wikipedia. I’m disappointed but not surprised. Benakt (talk) 08:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

References

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Zuby (rapper)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bilorv (talk · contribs) 17:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Alright, let's just say the fourth GA criterion might be more important here than for the average article. Thoughts on a first pass (more to come if these are addressed):

• The article is using no pronouns to refer to Udezue during the time he claimed to identify as a transgender woman, and "he/him" otherwise, right? But my understanding is that we use the most recent pronoun (here, "he/him" I guess?) retroactively to refer to the person at all times in their life (see e.g. Elliot Page).

   Done Yeah that makes sense.

• "After Udezue expressed his views transgender people in sports ..." – Sentence is fine but belongs within the subsection "Transgender views" as it's still a comment related to that topic.

  I moved it to the subsection. To double check this was not referring to the sentence about his podcast appearances as they were very similiar?  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  Yep, you got the right sentence, sorry didn't realise there was ambiguity. — Bilorv (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• "known for his views on transgender people in sports" – Doesn't tell you what his views are. He could be strongly for or strongly against but those aren't the same thing. I'd say "known for his opposition to transgender women participating in women's sports".

   Done

• "and a police incident he was involved in, in 2008" – Even worse than the transgender sports, I think, because I don't want to leave a sentence like that without context in case it implies wrongdoing to some people. Maybe "and for being incorrectly stopped by police in 2008".

   Done Used apprehended.

• "Udezue at 5:24 pm boards a train" – Use past tense throughout for a past event. This is the way we would describe fiction but not fact, I think.

   Done

• "It added to the ongoing controversial issue of transgender people in sports" – Not a fan of "controversial" as you can communicate the idea that there are different views on the topic without that labelling e.g. "It added to the ongoing question of the role of transgender people in sports".

  I see your point but the transgender people in sports labels the topic controversial in the first sentence.

• "In 2019, The Times said he was from Southampton" – Either he is from Southampton (no attribution needed) or you can tell from the other sources that it's a mistake (don't include the sentence at all).

   Done Simplfied to just "and is from Southampton"

• The article needs another copyedit for small grammatical issues top to bottom. Here's some example issues that I know you can spot on another go through:
  • "Shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes" (occurs twice) – "shooting" should be lowercase and in the lead you need a "the" before it.

     Done

  • "From southern England, he lived in Saudi Arabia" – I think changing "he" to "Udezue" establishes the subject a bit better, as it's the first sentence of the paragraph.

     Done

  • "he graduated at St Edmund Hall, Oxford in computer science" – Graduated from.

     Done

  • "developed in interest" – Is this supposed to be "developed an interest for music"?

     Done

• What makes Disrn (not Dirsn as written) reliable? I can't even find an "About Us" page so I'm doubtful of good fact-checking reputation. Other sources are either reliable secondary sources (of which I think there's enough to show notability) or acceptable primary sources. There is some referencing inconsistency (e.g. in the way YouTube videos are cited) but that's not essential to fix for GA.

   Done Removed Disrn source and fixed YouTube ref inconsistency.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the nomination and the work so far in aiming for neutrality on some heated topics. — Bilorv (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Thanks for the review I've addressed your comments above, the only thing I did not change was controversial label regarding transgender sports. Hopefully its neutral, its tricky dealing with a musician who is not noted in RSs for his music.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 23:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The "controversial" label I'm not too adamant about, so that's fine. But I said "The article needs another copyedit for small grammatical issues top to bottom", so solving the individual examples I pointed out is not enough. Looking again I see within a few seconds: "Emmanuel and Chika are his father and mother; He is a respected doctor" ("he" shouldn't be capitalised); and "After promoting his music and selling his CDs in Southampton, Udezue at 5:24 pm boarded a train destined to Bournemouth (30 miles away from Basingstoke) and shortly thereafter British Transport Police (BLP), after being notified by Hampshire Police, believed he is a suspect possibly involved in the Basingstoke incident." (should be "believed he was", but also hard to follow the sentence as it's too long). These two issues need solving but you also need to re-read the rest of the content and find and address any other prose issues. Thank you for the work so far. — Bilorv (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: I have fixed those two issues and have re-read the article myself and fixed these issues [1], if it is still poor I could always request a WP:GOCE request.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 07:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Spy-cicle: I think we're still substantially below GA-quality prose, with phrases like "he graduated from St Edmund Hall, Oxford, in computer science" (rather than e.g. "with a degree in computer science") and "pursuing it full-time in 2011" (rather than "from 2011") and "he moved to live in Saudi Arabia where he attended an international school and his parents worked there for two decades" ("where ... his parents worked there" reads oddly) and "Aged 11, he attended a boarding school in the UK and frequently travelled" ("frequently travelled" is presumably about when he was at boarding school in general, but the sentence means "he frequently travelled while aged 11").

I think the standard GOCE waiting time is currently between weeks and months, so I can either put this on hold and give you a week (but you might not get a GOCE in that time) or I can close this as unsuccessful, you can do the GOCE out of process and then nominate for GA again. Let me know what you think. — Bilorv (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

In regards to those specific points you brought up I did not think it was worth specifying in the lead he recieved a degree from university since as I believe it is ubiquitous across universities but I can change it if deemed necessary. I changed "pursuing it full-time in 2011", to from and "Aged one, he moved to live in Saudi Arabia where he attended an international school and his parents worked there for two decades." to "Aged one, he and his parents moved to live in Saudi Arabia where he attended an international school. His parents worked there for two decades." I am not sure what you mean in regards to the meaning of the "frequently travelled" sentence. The sentence concludes with "frequently travelled between the two countries" i.e. flying back and forth between the UK ) and Saudi Arabia (presumably whilst 11 up until he left boarding school) so I am not sure how the meaning can be misconstrued. I have done another read over and copyedit and I am not sure how it does not meet 1.a.

@Bilorv: If you still strongly believe it does not meet 1.a. I will request a GOCE request but you could wait until the request is fulfilled before closing the review. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Some examples of prose concerns I have in the current version:

• "He started his rapping career in 2006, pursuing it full-time from 2011 and has since released six albums throughout his career" – Missing comma after "2011", right? Other I'm not sure what "has since" is attached to.

• Added a comma after 2011.

• "Aged 11, he attended a boarding school in the UK and frequently travelled between the two countries" – You ask about the issue with this. It says "Aged 11, he ... frequently travelled between the two countries". But this is talking about several years, right? (Maybe 11 to 18, even.) The source given doesn't say "I frequently travelled between Saudi Arabia and the UK when I was 11", but (in essence) "I frequently travelled when I was at boarding school". I guess maybe the confusion is that I didn't say I took issue with "Aged 11, he attended a boarding school in the UK" – an issue with my skim-reading. This has the same issue. I think "From the age of 11, he attended a boarding school in the UK and frequently travelled between the two countries" (or however you want to say it) would be what is needed here.

• Ah I think I see what you mean now. For reference the source said "when I was 11 I went boarding school at the age of 11. So I was back and forth between the two countries for a long time". So I changed it to "From the age of 11, he attended a boarding school in the UK and frequently travelled between the two countries".

• "As a child he played the piano and the trombone, the latter he played in a band ..." – Looks like a comma splice, as the two clauses in this sentence are independent.

• Changed "As a child he played the piano and the trombone, the latter he played in a band and during his teenage years became interested in hip-hop music." to "As a child he played the piano and the trombone; the latter of which he played in a band. Later, during his teenage years he became interested in hip-hop music."

• "In 2008, he lived in Bournemouth with his parents, and is from Southampton" – Last clause doesn't make sense in this context ("In 2008, he ... is from Southampton"? The sentence just doesn't track).

• Okay I will explain this since the sources are tricky to follow as to where Udezue is from. We know he was born in Luton. In a 2008, The Times (high quality RS) article states: "Mr Udezue lives in Bournemouth [...]". In a 2019, The Times article he it states: "Zuby, who is from Southampton [...]". I did orginally have it as In 2008, he lived in Bournemouth with his parents. In 2019, The Times said he was from Southampton. but I know you mentioned before we should not attributing this fact. Without using WP:OR like the subject moved from Bournemouth to Southampton between 2008 and 2019 or the possiblity that either one of these articles could have been mistaken (for reference the two areas are 30 miles away from each other) how is the best way to deal with this?  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 13:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure my geography is good enough to answer this question: do you think someone might say a person is "from Southampton" if they were from Bournemouth, like you might say you were "from London" even if you're a bit outside it but it's the nearest well-known place? I would be tempted to ignore The Times unless they're giving a specific time he lived in a specific place, as it sounds like they're just giving broad context to where in the country Zuby is from. But my original issue was simply that the grammar of the sentence is wrong. The implied meaning is, "In 2008, he ... is from Southampton", which doesn't make sense. Someone can't be "from [a place] [originally]" with respect to a particular year. You just mean "He is from Southampton", so the concern I raised (which I see now is not the full picture) would have been fixed by separating that out into two sentences: "In 2008, he lived in Bournemouth with his parents. He is from Southampton." — Bilorv (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• In regards to your question: (do you think someone might say a person is "from Southampton" if they were from Bournemouth, like you might say you were "from London" even if you're a bit outside it but it's the nearest well-known place?) It is it entirely possible, but it would be strange to do that since it is a UK newspaper, I believe Bournemouth is a reasonably known place (but could be biased since I know a reasonably bit of that part of England). Though Southampton is certainly more well-known of the two (big port). For reference we do know he arrived Bournemouth station during the police incident. In addition he lists where is from on Twitter as Southampton. But I believe it would WP:OR to conclude to dismiss one article in favour of another. Thoughts on how to process whilst avoiding OR?  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 14:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• WP:OR is often quoted in situations like this, but the text of the policy refers only to text in articles, not to editorial decisions about what to include or exclude. In this case, I would still be inclined to omit the Times source as the information's provenance and scope is unclear ("he is from Southampton" is not really the sort of sentence we have in bios—much better are "he lived in X from Y to Z"). We're not bound to include every sentence from every source: there has to be some process by which you decide what information to select. I think it would be reasonable for you to disagree with my opinion, though, and just include it as a standalone sentence, perhaps at the start of the section. — Bilorv (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Ah I see where your coming from. Would help to tell you Zuby unequivocally said he lived in Southampton through his Twitter page (a primary source). User: Where do you live now out of interest? Zuby: Southampton (21 May 2020) [2] [3].  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Sure, still your choice about what to do. — Bilorv (talk) 09:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

This isn't supposed to be an exhaustive list, but illustrative examples of not meeting 1a from the initial sections of the article. As I didn't get to the stage in the review of doing a search for more sources (for broadness), source spotchecks or doing more than a first pass on content issues, I don't feel like it's worth waiting (potentially) several weeks for a GOCE in the way it could be if it was the last thing to check off the list. I don't like leaving GANs hanging indefinitely, particularly as in this case it could hit me with bad timing in this case, contingent on real life factors. However, if you want to ping me after the GOCE is done I will tell you if I could pick this up for a GA2 and then we'd be able to continue where we left off; if not then hopefully the article has benefitted from the suggestions so far and would be in a good place to sail through another reviewer's process. I'll default to putting this on hold for a week in 24 hours (some GOCEs might get done within a week) but tell me if you'd rather I fail it sooner. — Bilorv (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• I have requested a GOCE copy edit.

Formally  On hold for seven days. — Bilorv (talk) 12:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Alright, it's a fail for GA at this time, but a second nomination is welcome once copyediting concerns have been fixed. — Bilorv (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Lead size

Please see MOS:LEADLENGTH article size fewer than 15,000 characters one or two paragraphs. Also, we don't start by stating what an individual is "known for," notable aspects speak for themselves. Additionally, biographical information peripheral to why the subject is notable - such as place of birth, education etc. is not relevant to the lead. Also, struggling with the "rapper" description, there is no evidence of notability in this field, and all of his recorded material is self-published, no records of sale, charting, release press coverage etc. Acousmana 10:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

BBC News, Sky News, The Times, Entertainment Weekly, The Washington Post, CTV News all describe him as a "rapper".

The Guardian, The Telegraph, "hip hop musician" and The Independent as "musician and author".

Fine he is not recieved much media coverage in regards to his actual rapping career but that is what most RSs describe him as.

I am not bothered about cutting it down to two paragraphs but I disagree about the twice added "identifying" as in quote marks as if he did not identify as such (sowing doubt which does not appear in RSs). Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

On "identification" point, the initial source for the claim was the tweet "P.S. I identified as a woman whilst lifting the weight. Don't be a bigot. - Face with tears of joy" and a number of other sources cited in the article stem from there: for example. You should also be very conscious of sensitivity surrounding gender identification, and the fact that people in the transgender community found this "joke" offensive. We should frame the "identification" aspect accurately, and we should also consider that there is a 'tears of joy' smiley face after the statement.Acousmana 19:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

So he said he identified as a woman whilst doing it with RSs like Sky News saying he did as well He claimed to identify as a woman while doing it. His word and identification is final, see MOS:GENDERID. Using a single emoiji, in a separate sentence, to counteract completely what he and other RSs just said seems like WP:OR. Whether or not people found it offensive is not really relevant unless it is signicantly sourced it can be added to the article.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• The primary source for the claim was the tweet, that's indisputable. The emoji closes the statement, that's rather obvious.
• Note also, in the Times interview cited he states: “It was done in a humorous way" & "I posted it being a bit tongue-in-cheek, showing what I think is the obvious absurdity of their argument.”
• And why do you feel a source is usable for statements concerning his claims but not acceptable for detailing criticism such as "'Just deciding on a whim that Zuby says he’s identifying as a woman, that’s not how it works, said Dawn Ennis, managing editor of Outsports News, an LGBTQ sports publication." or "'What Zuby did was disappointing because it mocks the trans experience and I think that Zuby has fans who are LGBT who are not going to want to be his fans,' said Ennis, 'and he risks losing both LGBT and allies as fans.'" I'm sure we can find additional commentary if required.
• Can you explain how - Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns, "man/woman", "waiter/waitress") that reflect the person's latest expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources applies to Zuby? Acousmana 21:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Scare quotes are not the right way to summarise the situation as they are not encyclopedic and the reader will raise more questions than are resolved by their usage. If it meets NPOV to discredit the identification then say "claimed to identify" or "pretended to identify" or similar. If it doesn't then the status quo is fine.

Acousmana, please don't upload copyright violations. I've removed the image from this page and see Spy-cicle correctly tagged it at Commons. Screenshots should never be claimed as "own work" because they are not. To take something I uploaded recently, File:Lichess Puzzle Streak.png is how you do it in the extremely rare cases of a website being freely licensed. If the claim is that the image doesn't show enough original content to meet copyright, such that it's in the public domain by default (not true here because of the profile picture and screenshot of the embedded video), then PD would be the right copyright. — Bilorv (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Quotes are used prominently in references the article uses, so we should follow suit.
• Times: The rapper, whose stage name is Zuby, was filmed last week smashing the British women’s deadlift record, in which the weights are raised from the ground to thigh level, while he said he was “identifying as a woman”.
• WQAD8: In the tweet Zuby said that he “identified as a woman whilst lifting the weight,” ultimately trolling the debate of transgender people competing in athletic events.
• Spiked: He has produced several viral videos in which he breaks British women’s weightlifting records while ‘identifying’ as a woman.Acousmana 11:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• re:image - That was an error on my part, I had meant to use the fair use option, too much detail required, assumed for the purposes of discussion would could quickly claim as own - owning to screenshot nature. Acousmana 22:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

fair use version now added. Acousmana 10:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm quite happy with Acousmana's edits to the lead here. I think the sources chose to use those quotes for a reason, searching for more sources than the ones listed above I haven't yet found one that doesn't say he "identified as a woman" in quotes. Just stating that he identified as a woman in wikivoice would be deriving meaning out of sources where that meaning doesn't exist, or in other words, original research. There's also perhaps commentary on doubt over the sincerity of his identification to be made, but honestly most sources don't seem to really go into it explicitly. Where such commentary exists it would be helpful context for the body of the article, but if sources typically just leave it as a quote the commentary that exists over the sincerity wouldn't be due for the lead. For instance, stating in the lead that he "pretended to identify" or "claimed to identify" as a woman would be inserting an explicit expression of doubt that is comparatively rare for sources to make. Both of those two ends of the spectrum have issues, but I fail to see a an issue with just quoting Zuby directly like sources do, it's not an unencyclopedic instance of a scare quote, it's a literal quote. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

stating "identification" in wikivoice is the main issue, it's clear we shouldn't. We could also, based on the Times interview (“It was done in a humorous way" & "I posted it being a bit tongue-in-cheek, showing what I think is the obvious absurdity of their argument”) and the emoji in the primary source, write "he jokingly identified as a woman." I agree with the WQAD8 view that this was "ultimately trolling." It seems the subject then tried to recast it as "serious" commentary when it garnered wider attention. Acousmana 14:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree too that it's true that he was joking, but I don't think it would be due to state that in the lead if it's relatively rare for sources to explicitly claim. You could emphasize that it's a literal quote even more if you explicitly said that he said that he "identified as a woman", though that's kind of already implied in the sentence already: with a statement saying he broke the British women's deadlift record while "identifying as a woman." Commentary about the sincerity of his statement would make sense in the body of the article though. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• I do somewhat see where you coming across in regards the quoting but why do sources like Sky News do not. They say claimed to identify which does sow doubt in a different way which I think is more approriate than quotes.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

as evidenced, multiple sources use quotes, and the primary source, the tweet, is clearly someone joking/trolling/whatever you want to call it. We shouldn't use wikivoice, it lends credence to a dubious claim. Acousmana 20:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I’ve got a problem with “he broke the record” in the last paragraph - it’s not a record recognised by UK Powerlifting (https://www.britishpowerlifting.org/documents/1012_female_classic_records_30-06-21.pdf) and so shouldn’t be acknowledged as such. I propose “he performed the stunt” instead, although the edit has been reverted.

The full sentence is Udezue said he does not think trans women should be allowed to compete in women's sport and that he broke the record to demonstrate the flaws of the arguments of those on the other side of the debate. The article is not trying to say "Udezue said he broke the record to ...". I have added another "said" to reinforce we are qualifying his claim to him, not in wikivoice.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 19:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Categories

On 29 April 2021, an IP editor 2a02:c7f:1875:c800:a020:93e3:80f1:1bee Added two categories Category:Criticism of political correctness and Category:Discrimination against transgender people without sources or an edit summary [4]. Minutes later, this was reverted by Crossroads per "WP:CATPOV, WP:BLP, WP:LABEL" [5]. Today these categories were readded without sources to the article by Acousmana with the summary "not sure why these categories were removed" [6]. I shortly reverted with the summary "Criticism of political correctness" is not mentioned at all in this article. Nor the explict use of "discrimination" against transgender people. If RSs state he is discriminating against transgender people then we can readd the cat" [7]. Acousmana then reverted me saying "was suspended from Twitter over transgender spat, it's sourced, it's in the article" [8]. This was then reverted by Volteer1 saying "As spy-cicle said, I see nothing in the article about a criticism of political correctness. Regarding the twitter ban, I don't think violating Twitter TOS allows us to state that a living person is discriminating against transgender people unless reliable sources do" [9]. Acousmana then readded the Category:Discrimination against transgender people saying "both World Athletics and the IOC have provisions for the inclusion of transgender competitors, there are regulations, if adhered to, no issue - Zuby's pronouncements, per sources, discriminate against said competitors" [10]. Categories have to be defining and verifiable not A said B mean C hence add the C category. Nothing on the article explcitly states he is Discriminating against transgender people. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

It may be useful to quote WP:CATDEFINING here: a defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having. Regarding the the first category, he's clearly a critic of political correctness (he certainly talks about it a lot: [11][12][13]), if RS were to talk about what he's been doing post-viral tweet (ranting against political correctness or whatever else) we can add it to the article and the category would be fine to include, though I'm not sure anyone's really cared that much about his attempts to milk his 15 minutes of fame. Regarding the second, it matters little what we think discrimination is and what we think discrimination isn't, if reliable sources don't commonly and consistently describe Zuby as being a discriminator of trans people then it shouldn't be a category – we should be careful also to not rub up against WP:CATPOV here. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Concur.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 18:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I also agree that that the second category about transgender discrimination is not appropriate for these reasons, and per WP:BLP, such dubious categories should be excluded, not edit warred in. I consider the first category a questionable as well; I think both of them are meant to contain concepts, not people. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

think it's pretty clear what category this guy is in re:PC, appearing on conservative Christian news satire channel The Babylon Bee with the title "Political Correctness is Deadly” Tweeting, "Political correctness is garbage," Youtube videos with titles like "The Dangers of Political Correctness, Cancel Culture, and “Wokeness” or "The Hidden Dangers of 'Political Correctness, any number of sources with him railing against "PC culture," it's text book alt-right garbage with a large smattering of Christian fundamentalist nonsense. Whether or not he's transphobic is more difficult to pin down, according to LGBT sources, and Twitter, his actions have been viewed as such, he claims he isn't, but I'm not sure how Tweeting "I'm a trans woman of colour myself. I can't be transphobic" supports this. Acousmana 20:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable secondary sources that demonstrate his criticism of political correctness is a defining characteristic? Same goes for "alt-right"?  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

there are secondary sources, unfortunately the majority are of the variety we don't use, for obvious reasons, instead primary suffices here, his Twitter feed is a veritable goldmine of wingnut proclamations, most recently of the anti-vax/anti-mask/government conspiracy variety. Probably best move this to an RFC, we include a ton of similar attention seeking personalities on the #Category:Criticism_of_political_correctness page. Acousmana 11:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I do not believe primary sources in this case suffice for this. We need reliable, secondary sources for this kind of infomation. Moreover, you have the order the wrong way around. In this case, the content in the article should become first before the category rather than the other way around. But in this case since it is all primary sourced infomation it is not due for inclusion in the first place. See WP:CATV Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. Use the {{Uncited category}} template if you find an article in a category that is not shown by sources to be appropriate or if the article gives no clear indication for inclusion in a category. You are welcome to start in RfC if you wish. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 02:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

per WP:BLPSPS: Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. Zuby's primary statements on political correctness qualify as sources because they are clearly written and published by the subject of the article and conform to WP:BLPSELFPUB caveats 1 through 5. Acousmana 13:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Acousmana I am not saying that Zuby SPS (Twitter) is not reliable for his own opinions. The article content comes before categorisation per WP:CATV. So do you agree (yes or no) that per WP:CATV that the article content has be laid out well in the article first before any kind of categorization? Next if yes, why do you think using a solely primary source is it a due inclusion relating to his views of political correctness for it to be added in the article? If there were reliable secondary sources perhaps I could understand.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 03:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Transgender views and later podcast appearances

More as a curiosity than a content dispute, is it fair to state the following:

"After Udezue expressed his views on transgender people in sports, he has been featured on many podcasts including:"

Seems like it could be SYNTH to draw this causality even though it seems superficially evident. As a new editor I'm just wondering when we can make inferences like this and when we cannot in the absence of a secondary source that explicitly draws the connection. Thanks for any input. SmolBrane (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

We can't make inferences like these without secondary sources, you're right to be concerned about that. I'm not really a fan of the "has appeared on many podcasts/many publications/many [whatever]s" with a link to a bunch of primary source videos either, but I guess it's not the end of the world. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 22:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Great, thanks. SmolBrane (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Zuby/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mikehawk10 (talk · contribs) 20:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Let's take a look-see.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Passes my copyediting eye. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I believe that this is MOS-compliant. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	There is a reference list at the bottom of the article that is a list of all information in the article. This is compliant with the guidelines for layout, as it correctly placed at the end of the article and it does not cause other MOS issues with its placement. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.	The article currently makes reference to many primary sources, including a self-published sources/interview statements used in an WP:ABOUTSELF manner. When using primary sources, it's important to not engage in novel synthesis or to give them undue weight. The sentence that's a string of podcasts that he's been in, unless it has been covered in a secondary source, is eh in terms of this policy. If there are secondary sources to back it up, then feel free to insert them, but absent them it needs to go; I don't see it carrying due weight even if it's not strictly OR. It also might be worth attributing to whom and when he said specific things; noting the interview would be better in terms of how we typically use primary sources. I'd suggest something along the lines of Speaking with Ben Shapiro on The Ben Shapiro Sunday Show, Zuby said..., though obviously some equivalent phrasing would work. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	A WP:EARWIG analysis shows that there is content published on other websites, but it's entirely limited to quotations from the article subject, so there is no apparent copyright violation present. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article appears to address most of the main aspects of the topic well. It's clear from a summary of coverage that much of his coverage is related to the police incident in 2008 and subsequent political activity. There are a few areas that I suspect could be improved; he apparently has children that get no mention whatsoever in the current article, and I'm honestly a bit surprised that there aren't any reviews in the article for his music. I'm going to ask Spy-cicle to do a deep dig again; I suspect that there's something more out there on his music, though my googling abilities have not been able to find it. If the user can't find anything, no big deal, but I'd like a bit more certainty on that respect. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC) Also, to add on to the above, I'm seeing characterizations of his politics on (trans)gender-related issues and some music festival as being lumped together under "views". I suspect that there has to be some article out there that more generally characterizes his politics (I'm seeing a lot of coverage from Fox News and this piece in particular describes him as a "classical liberal", so I suspect that there is something more there about his politics more broadly). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC) I'm also seeing some characterizations of his following form sources like Politico. His views on coronavirus lockdowns and vaccine mandates also appear to be in a few articles I've perused. I'm putting this on hold; the views section needs to be improved substantially to better represent his politics more broadly. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article currently stays focused on Zuby. The descriptions of the police incident, while highly detailed, are all pertinent to the article subject and are well-written. The "views" section needs to be improved, per my comment in 3A, and I will re-analyze focus after changes are made before a final judgement occurs. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article has no signs of recent edit warring or instability. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All media (one image) is properly licensed with a CC-BY-SA 2.0 license, which is compatible with Wikipedia's license. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The image is a photograph of the individual in the infobox. The caption is appropriate. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.

Two questions for Spy-cicle:

1. This article is written in British English, correct?
2. I'm not seeing a lot in the article about his music. Is this an intentional choice, or are there really not a lot of sources on it?

— Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mikehawk10, thank you for picking this review. To answer your questions:

1. Yes (I could perhaps add a template to make this clear?)
2. There is very limited secondary RS reporting regarding his music career. Most of his coverage and notability derives from the police incident (from 2008) and his views about transgender people (2019-2020). Despite this most secondary RSs refer to his primary occupation as simply a "rapper" which is where a categorisation question has lead to below. Most of sources discussing his rapping are either unreliable, primary sources (which I limited as to not seem self-promotional), or local newspapers like Bournemouth Echo which I included.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 04:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

 Working on the other stuff mentioned above.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 18:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the review @Mhawk10:, I have adjusted the article and have responded below. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 04:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Response to 2c

• I have removed the string of podcasts he was in.
• I am not sure what is wrong with using the WP:PRIMARY source for small parts of his early life. As per WP:PRIMARY, I am not interpreting it and the quote and from Zuby can be seen within the reference.

Response to 3b

• In response, to the bit on his children (the source in question [14] from The Telegraph (India) appears to be RS). However, just reading some of his tweets it does not appear that he has children: "...I said that my future daughters..." (April 2020) [15]; "When I have children, I will raise my sons to embrace their masculinity and my daughters to embrace their femininity..." [16]. The source in question uses this tweet [17] with young children (which based on this tweet [18] could just be his niece/nephews). Based on this advanced search I did, I inadvertedly discovered that he has two brothers and two sisters [19] which I have added.
• I have searched as much I as I can and I cannot find anything more that would be secondary RS that review his music (as a reference point Zuby is a rapper who has <10,000 monthly listeners on Spotify which is why his music career has only discussed minimally in local sources).
• I do remember seeing that Fox News piece [20] when researching this article. Does it consistute a primary source? As it appears to summarise the interview he was involved in? If not, happy to incorporate it.
• It is true there are small name mentions of Zuby for his views around covid in secondary RSs like Politico and The Independent [21][22] and a few other topics. But his views are only mentioned minimally, in a small paragraph, thus it adding it would be WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTNEWS, that would fail the WP:10Y test. If there were more in-depth RS articles about it, it would be different.

Response from Reviewer

@Spy-cicle:

I think that the improvements were interesting and I'm personally ok with not prominently featuring the COVID views in anything more than a single sentence, but I do think that they deserve at least a non-lead mention.

Sorry but this is one I going to have to refuse: his COVID-19 views can only be found in small passing mentions in secondary RSs like Politico and The Independent, which would consistute WP:UNDUE, and be WP:NOTNEWS, that would fail the WP:10Y test.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. — Mhawk10 (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

On the note of the lead, the lead currently gives a lot of weigh to the weightlifting video and less to the false arrest. It seems like the article has a lot more content on the arrest than on the weightlifting. If the article is properly weighted (and it looks reasonably so to me), then the lead should be modified to be consistent with due weight. There are also a few tone things that I could nitpick on; it's generally better to explicitly state what the "other side of the debate" is when referring to public controversies (such as in the lead), so as to be more accurate and precise.

I've have tried to adjust it to assign more weight to the police incident.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Better on the weight. I'd probably think a sentence from the "Early life and education" and another on the "Career" section would probably be more in line with the MOS guidelines for the lead. I should have mentioned this earlier, so I apologize for the inconvenience. — Mhawk10 (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Added a sentence on "Early life and education" and another on the "Career" to the lead.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Source 33 is currently a YouTube video that's a primary source interview. His account being restored is probably good for context, but couldn't that be achieved by inserting the word "temporarily" before "suspended" in the second sentence in the second paragraph of the "transgender people" subsection of views without appealing to a Youtube interview? Alternatively, are there any news sources that reflect this?

Unfortunately, the Examiner source only states "suspended", it does not include the follow up of once his suspsention was lifted. Most other sources covering it appear to be unreliable. However, would [23] Southside magazine ("The UK's Hip Hop Culture Magazine") be a reliable enough source for the claim to remove the PRIMARY source? It also includes a mention of the song "Ok dude" he released about it.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Reclaim the net is an activist source, but it's reliable enough to support "temporary" imho (especially coupled with the Examiner source); that it was temporary seems to be a rather uncontroversial fact that could be supported with a weaker source. You'd certainly need something better for an FA, but this would be fine for a GA. — Mhawk10 (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Added source.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

There's also a typo in the "Early Life and Education" section. ("two brother [sic] and two sisters.") Once all the content is fine, I can do a copyedit to solve anything small with grammar and/or spelling; just let me know when you think it is ready.

Fixed typo.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

— Mhawk10 (talk) 05:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mhawk10: Thanks for the response, the my reply is above.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@Spy-cicle: I've responded above. — Mhawk10 (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mhawk10: Thanks again for the response, my reply is above.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Spy-cicle:Looks good to me. My apologies for my sudden disappearance from Wikipedia over the past month. This GA is passed. — Mhawk10 (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mhawk10: No problem, thanks once again. Just on a quick technical note has the GA pass gone through? As the only Legobot message I recieved said it failed [24]. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Spy-cicle: I think I botched the technical side of listing this as a GA, which is why you got the bot message. I think it's been resolved at this point and it's certainly listed on the good article list. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments from others

• "Music good article nominee" yet article fails WP:NMG? It's a BLP about someone notable for two things: 1) a false arrest; 2) their views on transgender issues. Why are we GA-ing this as a music article? Acousmana 20:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Acousmana: I presume the nomination is because of the article subject's occupation. Since the request had been sitting for a while, I figured I'd try to clear it out from the backlog by giving it a review. Do you have a better category you'd like this to be placed into if it passes review (which is by no means certain, based off of my first read through)?— Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  Well, as I have mentioned above, the article does not exactly fit the tradional 'music' categorisation. Most secondary RSs describe him as a 'rapper' (i.e. his primary occupation) but most of his notability and coverage is not based on his career rapping instead based on 1)the false arrest; 2) his views on transgender issues. So it was either categorize based on his main occupation, put in the social/culture category (based on his coverage/notability), or put the article in the miscellaneous category. Either way, the fundamental GA criteria does not change based on the article categorisation.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 04:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

"I presume the nomination is because of the article subject's occupation" more social media personality than rapper; seems actively engaging in COVID misinformation, both on Twitter and Youtube, and chatting with Tucker Carlson, is more lucrative for him. Acousmana 13:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I’ll ask again, Do you have a better category you'd like this to be placed into if it passes review? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 13:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

he's a product of internet culture, so WP:GAN#CULTURE. Acousmana 14:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. How about for you, Spy-cicle? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. Acousmana is continuing to infer things from primary sources like "more social media personality than rapper", which is something not written in secondary RSs at all, something Acousmana has already done in the article's talk page. On determining an article's GAN category it should either based on a) the subject's primary occupation or b) the area in which the notability/coverage is determined from (i.e. in this case the false arrest and his views on transgender issues). For 99% of GANs a) and b) are the same so it is easy to determine where to place it, but this is not the case for this one. At the moment, I am not seeing a compelling reason to not categorize it within the topic of his primary occupation. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 08:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• subject fails WP:NMG, it's that simple, this is not a music article, so should therefore not be be under consideration for GA in the music category. The bulk of the article is coverage of: a) a false arrest in 2008; b) tweeted opinions regarding transgender issues. The rest is an attempt as profile building using whatever fluff happens to be floating about in local rags - so not even WP:RS. In terms of music, the subject is provably a non-entity. Acousmana 21:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• There is so little in the article about him as a musician that it fails to meet the "Broad in its coverage" criteria. Does he meet notability as a musician? Based on the paucity of sources, I'd say not—no reviews, no independent information about his album sales, and so on. This doesn't mean it can't be a GA at all, but his notability does, as noted, derive only from his highly problematic arrest with a bit from his weightlifting stunt. In a way, this is more in the Social sciences and scoeity topic area, but partially Law (the arrest) and partially Culture, sociology and psychology (his transgender criticism). Maybe this should go under Miscellaneous; it certainly isn't Music, but it's hard to slot it in elsewhere. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
  • As an executive decision on the part of the reviewer (if I'm allowed to do this; if not feel free to unilaterally overrule me), I'll consider this as miscellaneous if it passes. I'd rather not kill a potential GA for the sole reason of how to categorize it. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• • I'm fine with it being Miscellaneous however that inevitably kicks the can down the road as where it wil be placed at Wikipedia:Good articles/all, as there is no Miscellaneous section like at GAN.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Credulous reporting of an obviously false claim

I have a lot to say here, but first, I want to clarify this: @Spy-cicle, are you of the opinion that Zuby did factually break the British women's deadlift record? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 15:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I do not see what is wrong the wording as is. It does not imply or suggest that he did break the record.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Spy-cicle: You don't see how In March 2019, Udezue received media attention after posting a video on Twitter of himself performing a deadlift of 238 kg (525 lb), with a statement saying he had broken the British women's deadlift record while "identifying as a woman". and In March 2019, Udezue received media attention after posting on Twitter a video of himself performing a deadlift of 238 kg (525 lb), and subsequently stating he had broken the British women's deadlift record while "identifying as a woman". could be taken to mean that he broke the record? Whenever describing false claims in the encyclopedia's voice, we must take pains not to give readers the impression that those claims are true. That's why I added the citation to the reliable source saying he didn't break the record, and why I changed "statement saying" and "stating" to "claimed". They are less ambiguous. Usually, our articles are even less ambiguous about such things: The article on Donald Trump, for instance, says "falsely claimed" five times. But in this context I think a simple "claimed" is, just barely, enough to make clear it's not a thing that actually happened. But the current wording implies that, at best, Wikipedia is neutral as to whether he broke the record.

Would you please self-revert? I would like to work with you to fix the major problems this article had at the time it passed GAN, issues that I would like to AGF are the result of you just not paying enough attention to whether the article was skewing toward a particular POV, which is an easy enough mistake to make if you get lost in all the sources; but if you're going to stonewall me on that, then I think it will have to go to a GACR. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

But that wording does not reflect what the sources say look at The Times for instance [25]. We never say he broke it in our voice, just that he said he broke it. FWIW if I were here to OWN/STONEWALL I would have been doing wholesale reversions, which I have not been doing.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Spy-cicle: So your position is, because The Times doesn't use the word "claim", we can't use that word, even though he said a thing that is demonstrably false, and which even The Times doesn't seriously assert to be true? [T]he weightlifting hip-hop artist and Oxford graduate who set out to demonstrate that athletes who are genetically male should not be competing alongside women are not the words of a publication describing a genuine breaking of a record. They're the words of a publication signal-boosting a publicity stunt by a public figure whose POV they're known to be sympathetic to. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin: I want to jump in here to say that it seems clear from the text that Zuby identifying as a woman was done as a sort of protest, not in earnest. The tweet and the seriousness thereof is also discussed in a section called "View [on] Transgender people", in which it is clear that Zuby opposes the ideas expressed by the trans movement. (There's also the stickiness of Wikipedia having to defer to reliable sourcing, and not what we think is true.) That said, Spy-cicle, given that the tweet was widely condemned as transphobic, do you think that this aspect could be added (with sources) to make it clear that this was controversial?--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 16:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

As an addendum: I don't know anything about his spreading Covid misinformation (but I don't doubt it, given the guy's predictably partisan views), but if that's true, I think that warrants a mention with a note that it is misinformation. From a public health perspective, I think it is imperative that we categorize false medical information as such, and make a note of where it is coming from (I'm broadly pulling from Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) with regard to this assertion).--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 16:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

To reply to both of your comments: To your first point, could you provide the secondary RSs that state the incident was 'widely condemned as transphobic'? Otherwise I do not think we can add it. To your second point, this was mentioned in the GA review however the only mentions surrounding his views on COVID-19 / misinformation reported in secondary RSs were 1 or 2 very brief mentions as part of a larger article relating to an incident of misinformation online. Thus it adding it would be WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTNEWS, that would fail the WP:10Y test. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 19:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Well partly. Because our wording has to broadly reflect what is said in the most reliable sources (though of course context matters). But at the same time the meaning does not change too much whether we say claim/state. Fundamentally, as long we of course do not say he did in wikivoice that he broke it we should be fine. The lead wording has been adjusted by Mhawk. I'm not certain it is better or worse yet I'll have to do some more thinking though I do think the wikilink to transgender people in sports is important (since that is the wider subject/debate).  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 19:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC) Actually just noticed the wikilink is still there.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 19:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Adding of interviews to lead

The addition of a one sentence summary of who the subject has been interviewed by has been repeatedly deleted by user:acousmana. The reasons for the multiple deletions vary (please see history [26] for summaries.

[[User::acousmana]], there are primary sources, I've added seconday sources per your suggestion, and all are WP:RS. As for notability: the interviews listed have audiences in the tens of millions. That is notable. Also, please ensure you do not violate 3RR. Wisefroggy (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

editor adding a string of dubious WP:PRIMARY to support the statement "He has been interviewed on...'xyz'" is WP:OR. Why is any of this notable? no WP:SECONDARY that notes the fact that the subject has been interview on 'xyz'. Why is it being placed prominently in the lead? Appears WP:PROMOTIONAL. Acousmana 10:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Overly detailed

This article seems overly detailed to me. I'll try and give it a trim to make it more concise. Seaweed (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Not overly detailed. It succinctly summarises all the key details. See the GA review for further details.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)