Nodumbdumbs
August 2022
edit
Hello, I'm Zinnober9. I wanted to let you know that some of your recent contributions to Dominick Fernow have been reverted or removed because they seem to be defamatory or libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Zinnober9 (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- That's ridiculous. They are well-cited. The reference is to a carefully-documented article that lays out very clearly Dominick Fernow's connections to far right, racist, and Nazi musical articles. I do not understand why his wikipedia page cannot reflect this reporting, which he has never denied. Rainforestspiritualenslavement (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- No, it is not well cited. The only sources you have included have been self-published, which in no way meet the requirements of reliable sourcing in biography articles.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- Then would this re-reporting confirming and verifying self-published reporting qualify as a citation?
- https://thequietus.com/articles/30216-dominick-fernow-vatican-shadow-questions-raised-around-collaborators Rainforestspiritualenslavement (talk) 22:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- The Quietus article confirms that there is a blog making the accusations, but also includes the following disclaimer at the end "tQ acknowledges that it has extensively covered Dominick Fernow's work in the past and not sufficiently raised or researched the above-mentioned issues."-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- An additional link that you will likely find useful is Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, with WP:BLPN being available specifically for disputed regarding living persons.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- thank you 96.227.206.225 (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- that disclaimer refers to it's incomplete reporting in the past, prior to the 2021 revelations 96.227.206.225 (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- I think you are seriously misunderstanding that addendum if you think it renders the rest of the article before it inaccurate or not notable. It is apologizing for not doing due diligence *prior to the publication of that article*. Either way, why did you delete all the other info about effects on Fernow's career? Rainforestspiritualenslavement (talk) 23:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- that disclaimer refers to it's incomplete reporting in the past, prior to the 2021 revelations 96.227.206.225 (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- thank you 96.227.206.225 (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- An additional link that you will likely find useful is Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, with WP:BLPN being available specifically for disputed regarding living persons.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- The Quietus article confirms that there is a blog making the accusations, but also includes the following disclaimer at the end "tQ acknowledges that it has extensively covered Dominick Fernow's work in the past and not sufficiently raised or researched the above-mentioned issues."-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- No, it is not well cited. The only sources you have included have been self-published, which in no way meet the requirements of reliable sourcing in biography articles.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Dominick Fernow. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You do not have consensus, or reliable sources. Do NOT add that again until you have reliable sources. The Quietus is NOT a reliable source. Zinnober9 (talk) 23:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- you have not sufficiently explained why it is not a reliable source. you can't just declare that it's not. Rainforestspiritualenslavement (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- See @Ponyo's replies to you on Talk:Dominick Fernow, specifically the reply where they clearly stated: "The link to The Quietus article specifically states "tQ acknowledges that it has extensively covered Dominick Fernow's work in the past and not sufficiently raised or researched the above-mentioned issues."" This means that The Quietus has NOT referenced, or fact checked ANY of the content within that article, a direct conflict of what a reliable source is, and is exactly what the section WP:QUESTIONABLE describes: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight". In addition to that, my main issue is that the content you are attempting to add are not being covered by other sources, and thus cannot be cross-examined or verified. Just because one article writer has published something doesn't prove it's true. Many articles in the media have to be retracted or corrected because something was inaccurate, or falsely claimed. Until there are other sources, reliable sources backing up these claimed statements on Dominick Fernow, or another experienced editor shares something to this conversation that changes my mind, I'm sticking with my current view of "invalid, unreliable source" on this issue. Zinnober9 (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
- Again, I think that is a tortured and incorrect reading of that sentence by The Quietus. Again, that refers to their *previous reporting* on Fernow.
- The information on Substack doesn't need verification because it's based on publicly available sources like Fernow's own record label website, discogs, interviews he's given, etc. Almost every bit of information there links to its source, typically on discogs.com. The article doesn't contain any new information whatsoever; it merely collates publicly available information. That is how and why The Quietus validated it.
- As an attempt at getting past this logjam: would it be permissible to add something to the effect that editor Brandon Stosuy removed an interview with Fernow from the website he runs, that Electronic Beats posted a note distancing itself from Fernow, and that he is no longer listed as being represented by his former booking agency? Rainforestspiritualenslavement (talk) 04:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
- For instance, here is wikipedia's own page on Mikko Aspa:
- Clandestine Blaze#Ties to National Socialist black metal
- Here's a photo of Fernow with Aspa: https://pitchfork.com/features/show-no-mercy/6455-show-no-mercy/
- Here are releases Fernow did with Aspa:
- https://www.discogs.com/release/693792-Grunt-Prurient-Split-C-40
- https://www.discogs.com/release/9513847-Sadio-2-Prurient-BDSM-Atlantic-Partnership
- https://www.discogs.com/master/44913-Nicole-12-Prurient-Love-And-Romance
- Here is the discogs page for a release with multiple Nazi references and overtly nazi-sympathy bands, including a track from a band of Fernow's:
- https://www.discogs.com/release/1609853-Various-Eight-Acts-Of-Origin
- All of this is from the Substack article, linked therein, and easily verified. If you want to. Rainforestspiritualenslavement (talk) 05:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
- See @Ponyo's replies to you on Talk:Dominick Fernow, specifically the reply where they clearly stated: "The link to The Quietus article specifically states "tQ acknowledges that it has extensively covered Dominick Fernow's work in the past and not sufficiently raised or researched the above-mentioned issues."" This means that The Quietus has NOT referenced, or fact checked ANY of the content within that article, a direct conflict of what a reliable source is, and is exactly what the section WP:QUESTIONABLE describes: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight". In addition to that, my main issue is that the content you are attempting to add are not being covered by other sources, and thus cannot be cross-examined or verified. Just because one article writer has published something doesn't prove it's true. Many articles in the media have to be retracted or corrected because something was inaccurate, or falsely claimed. Until there are other sources, reliable sources backing up these claimed statements on Dominick Fernow, or another experienced editor shares something to this conversation that changes my mind, I'm sticking with my current view of "invalid, unreliable source" on this issue. Zinnober9 (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Rainforestspiritualenslavement", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it's the stage name of the person you are contributing about. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, or you may simply create a new account for editing. If you are Mr. Fernow, please confirm your identity per the instructions at this page. If you are not, please change your username as instructed. 331dot (talk) 09:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)