Talk:Elijah Daniel

---

{{rfc}}Should the "Career" section contain coverage of the White House petition to make Party in the U.S.A. the national anthem? Sagecandor (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support inclusion of the White House petition coverage, which is notable per secondary sources, as can be seen here in this version with cited secondary source coverage. Secondary source coverage included: ABC News, Hindustan Times, WCBS-FM, the Deseret News, The Huffington Post, The Daily Dot, Mashable, Inquisitr, and the Dutch language newspaper Het Laatste Nieuws. This is global coverage. From sources in multiple different languages. From newspapers in multiple different countries. Sagecandor (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support - per the reliable sources that cover it. Doesn't need to be long, but a mention is valid. Not sure why this would be escalated to RFC level, or why one would even be against inclusion... Sergecross73 msg me 19:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
• Likewise—if reliable sources cover it, give it due weight in comparison to his whole life in the article. (Looks like this needed more of a third opinion (or a post to a noticeboard for more input) than a full RfC, which are reserved for major, intractable issues. You can probably close this RfC without much ado.)  czar 19:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Likewise—if reliable sources cover it, give it due weight in comparison to his whole life in the article. (Looks like this needed more of a third opinion (or a post to a noticeboard for more input) than a full RfC, which are reserved for major, intractable issues. You can probably close this RfC without much ado.)  czar 19:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Czar:, see above, there are multiple editors involved, including some for and some against inclusion. That's why we needed an RFC and not a third opinion. Sagecandor (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't think we need an RfC either. I'm fine with reincluding it now that we have more sourcing. We needed talk page discussion on all of this. I'm fine with including it as a brief mention now that you have better sourcing for it than Mashable. I didn't want an RfC, simply discussion of the contested material. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

      A single sentence on the subject with multiple refs sounds appropriate. I wouldn't add much more unless it was a major point of his career, and if it was, multiple sources would say so (and we'd cite those). If more discussion is needed, take the specific sentence and refs to the talk page, blockquote it and workshop it. czar 19:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

      • I agree with Czar that I'd be fine with a single sentence with multiple refs noting the worldwide coverage in multiple countries in multiple languages. If you read above, I think you'll see we weren't getting any traction on inclusion of this particular info, before the RFC. So that's why I started the RFC. Sagecandor (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

        • Please only use one ref so as to avoid overciting. Now that we have consensus for a brief mention of that point, we don't need to have multiple sources citing it. The issue above was that it was restored with a lot of content that was controversial. I'm very open to discussing what content should be in the article, my concern above was that the article had been trimmed in many areas appropriately and wholesale reverted rather than discussed. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
          • Prefer to have multiple refs, to note the names of the publications that covered the event. Sagecandor (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
            • If multiple news organizations covered it then it isn't really noteworthy to point out every single mention: it makes it sound like a press release or a CV. We only need a brief mention of the fact that he did it cited to a reliable source with mention of talk page consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

(I happened to find the discussion not through the RfC system, for what it's worth.) See, for the sake of compromise, I'd recommend using a single ref tag containing multiple citations (more than three would be overkill), but only if the sources (which?) give different perspectives. If not, a simple, single US news source is sufficient for the sentence. If needed, the extra refs can be added in a hidden {{comment}} near the ref, in case needed in the future. For what it's worth, it looks like this is a common issue in the article—I'd condense refs as much as possible for the sake of readability. (Perhaps the pile of refs makes the topic look more impressive at AfD? but the truth is that if the refs are identical in material, they shouldn't even be considered as more than duplicates at AfD) Anyway, I think it's safe to say that some trimming would be useful here to make this readable for a general audience rather than a waterfall of facts. Only skimmed through the above, but if the trimming is contentious, I recommend doing it in small doses, and taking any objections directly to the talk page for discussion to work towards compromise czar 20:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• On Wikipedia we go by due weight from secondary sources. This particular event is notable and noteworthy for inclusion based upon the preponderance of secondary source coverage about it. Sagecandor (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that three hours of discussion might be insufficient to start an RfC. TimothyJosephWood 20:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • We weren't getting anywhere above. Now we are. Looks like the RFC is helping already! Sagecandor (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

RfCs are a limited resource, which is why there is expected to have already been substantive discussion prior to opening one, and three hours worth is probably quite enough. The conversation could have continued quite a while more, or agree with the above that 3O was probably a better option. TimothyJosephWood 20:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I"m sorry, I thought third opinions were discouraged if there were more than two parties to a dispute? Sagecandor (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's round about 2 v 1 it seems. I still consider myself in a bit of a mediation role, so I think the addition of another editor in a mediator role would have been helpful. It's moot at this point since it seems ANI has brought... some !votes, and at least one editor willing to more fully engage in discussion. (BTW, thanks to User:Czar for that.)

The issue with an RfC is that we have limited people subscribed to let Legobot notify them of ongoing RfCs, and there is limited time and patience among those people to actually reply the RfCs they are notified of (or reply to those on ongoing lists). So by the time it gets to RfC, issues about fairly basic things like what sources are available should probably already be hashed out. But I think that there's enough folks around right now that we probably don't need Legobot taxing that limited reservoir just yet.

I'd also point out that you seem to have made the same mistake you accused others of doing at the AfD, that of conflating the sources in the article, with the sources that exist, which is the ultimate arbiter of notability. TimothyJosephWood 21:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll bear that in mind in the future for future RfCs. Sagecandor (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• I recommend keeping this RfC on topic. If there is no opposition to the single sentence, as discussed, then the RfC can be closed and any subsequent phrasing/ref issues discussed here in turn  czar 22:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree with Czar, above, that we should have a few refs perhaps enclosed within a cite at the end of the sentence. Also would really like to mention in-text a few of the secondary sources that covered the event itself. Sagecandor (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The noteworthy part is the event, not the publication that covered the event. (Unless another source makes a point of how the story was picked up by other venues, it's routine that journalists report stories.) czar 23:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

That is my objection: we don't cover the coverage, we cover the thing that happened. Listing all the media is what makes it feel spamy in my opinion. Bundling the citations as suggested above also sounds good. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, but the fact that it was covered by publications around the world in multiple languages in multiple countries is significant and warrants inclusion. Sagecandor (talk) 23:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Not unless there is sustained coverage in reliable sources about the coverage. The OJ Simpson Trial has had much commentary about how it was a media circus and so discussion there is warranted of how it was covered. To my knowledge, Mr. Daniel hasn't had discussion of his coverage, he has simply been covered. Otherwise we sound like a website promoting him, which we are not. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni:When you use words like "spam" and "promotion" to refer to me, that is offensive. I'm trying to improve a page on Wikipedia, and save it from deletion, and eventually improve it more in quality. No more, no less. Sagecandor (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Listing every source that has covered someone in the text does make it feel promotional. That might not be your intent, but it does give it a promotional tone. This is the major objection people had with the article at AfD: virtually no one denied the sourcing. The issue was the promotional tone. I'm fine with listing this fact. I'm not fine with listing every single media piece that he's received coverage in. We summarize the content of the coverage and don't list in the prose of the article what covered unless it is a point of view that shouldn't be in Wikipedia's voice or in attribution for limited direct quotes. Otherwise it does feel like it was written to promote, even if that was not the intent. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We may be mixing terms here, since WP:SPAM usually implies a paid contributor with a WP:COI, which I assume you don't have. It doesn't come off as spam to me, but it does at times smack of WP:FANCRUFT which is an issue without the COI. TimothyJosephWood 23:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no COI. There is no attempt at promotion. There is no attempt at "spam". I resent the words promotion and spam. I particularly resent the word "spam". I am not a "spammer". I'm merely trying to save the page from deletion, then, after that, improve it eventually even more in quality. No more, no less. Sagecandor (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

No, I know there is not a COI and I'm sorry if that sounds like what I was saying. I do a lot of work with new pages which means that I do see a lot of legitimate spam, which is probably why I used the word, I'm so used to seeing it. As I've said to you before, I know you are trying to improve the encyclopedia here, but by adding the name of every single news organization that has covered him, it does read to me in a promotional tone. Our goal is to simply report a summary of his life as it has been reported in reliable sources, not list everything he has ever done or every paper that has ever covered him. I'd like to thank Timothyjosephwood for pointing out the discrepancy in my language, which was not the intent behind it. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. Such language harms the tone and tenor of the discussion on how to improve the article. Sagecandor (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The core issue I have is not with your intent, but with the tone of the article before the trimming. Even if the intent is not there, listing coverage received in the prose comes off a bit like a dustjacket, which we need to avoid. We also need to avoid excessive detail. The goal here should be a neutrally written article that hits the major events of his life as have been covered in sources, not coverage of the coverage. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

That makes sense. However, I'm also against removing so much content, during an ongoing AFD, such that it would risk fail at the AFD. Sagecandor (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

It won't. AfDs are based on the existence of sourcing which you've already demonstrated. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the vote of confidence, but difficult to demonstrate existence of sourcing which as you say I've already demonstrated, when sources are actively being removed at same time as attempts at improvement to the page. Sagecandor (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

If the removal of sources results in the deletion of the article, then the deletion is invalid, and I'll personally take it to WP:DRV and argue the point myself. So ignore the AfD for now, and concentrate on the article. TimothyJosephWood 00:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the nice gesture, I really appreciate it. It'll be easier after the AFD is closed. Sagecandor (talk) 00:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Sagecandor, if you prefer to wait after the AfD is closed, I understand that. I have no intent of trying to get the article deleted (I switched my !vote). I would appreciate if the article stays as it currently is (or with the petition sentence added without the media references in the prose) until then. I do want to help improve this article, and I really am sorry if you took anything I said in relation to the article as being against you. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Tony, I appreciate that. Certainly I took your word usage of "spam", and the like, as extremely offensive to me personally. As that is not why I am here on Wikipedia. For example, I am no more doing that, here, than I am at a new article I created, Why We Want You to Be Rich, by Trump. In both cases, I'm trying to add quality content to Wikipedia. To be accused of otherwise is incredibly offensive to me. Sagecandor (talk) 01:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that was a poor choice of words, which was not my intent. I still have concerns about the tone, but they are not about COI and they never have been. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Your tone concerns are noted. Your tone concerns have nothing to do with any sort of promotional intent of any kind. There is zero promotional intent in my creation of the article Midas Touch, a book by Trump. Sagecandor (talk) 01:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and restored this because there seems to be consensus to add it back in some form and also consensus we don't need an RfC. I'd suggest removing the RfC template so that Legobot doesn't draw people here and drain resources as noted above. I used the ABC New source, but if you bundle them, I have no objection. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I've bundled the sources and moved them to a footnote. Only one shows up as a citation to the footnote. Sagecandor (talk) 02:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• On the edit in question, I think

  Daniel's response was praised by Metro News and Elite Daily.

  is a better example than

  The White House petition received coverage from ABC News,[21] Hindustan Times,[22] WCBS-FM,[23] the Deseret News,[24] The Huffington Post,[25] The Daily Dot,[15] Mashable,[20] Inquisitr,[26] and the Dutch language newspaper Het Laatste Nieuws.[18]

  in showing when a publication's name is useful. In the former case, it's useful to know who praised what, but in the latter case, it provides the same functional detail as if a handful of refs were added after the single sentence. I haven't been through the sources—if there is something important said about the petition, say it, otherwise the refs are just repeats of each other. I think that an alternative such as, "The petition received international coverage." could be useful but would be undersourced if the only international source is the Dutch one. I'd pick your three best refs here and dump the rest. czar 03:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Czar:Trimmed a bunch at DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
    • @Czar:Used your suggested wording, "The petition received international coverage", with sources from USA, India, Belgium, and the Netherlands. DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 03:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)