Template:Vital article


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2018

"On November" = "In November" 2605:E000:9149:8300:8DD1:4DAA:AF43:2AFA (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – Vistadan 13:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comedian makes jokes; pearls were clutched

Dear, User:TSP I see no need to include on this page the wailing from pundits due to and Twitter's response to a comedian's jokes (referring to the latest "furor" in particular). Wikipedia is not the Burn Book from Mean Girls where you "update" it anytime your or your peers' feathers are ruffled. Be mature and strive for objectivity at all times. JKRichard (talk) 02:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JKRichard,
You should perhaps refamiliarise yourself with the core content policies of Wikipedia.
WP:NPOV says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources".
These activities have received significant coverage in published sources, so should be included here.
In addition, please avoid personal attacks. TSP (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Improvement to section "Career", subsection "Return to comedy"

Where the article currently reads "On December 31, 2018, a stand-up set from C.K. from Long Island was leaked in which he joked about Auschwitz, non-binary people as well as the victims of the 2018 Parkland shooting, which drew heavy condemnation on social media."

Would it not be more accurate to change this to read: "On December 31, 2018, a fan-recorded stand-up set from C.K. from the comedy club Governor's in Levittown, NY was leaked in which he joked about Auschwitz, non-binary people, as well as the victims of the 2018 Parkland shooting, which was subsequently seen as controversial on social media."

This fixes grammar and provides a more specific location and source of the material. Although there are quite a number of vocal sources critical of this material, there is also a large group of comedy fans defending his style of provocative comedy on the original leaked video and comments sections of many of the cited sources—therefore it would be more accurate to consider the reaction "controversial" since there is no consensus of opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:191:200:4156:45A:A15F:F514:CFC1 (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Philanthropy section relevance

Observation: most people and BLP articles don't have sections highlighting their philanthropy (except for those who are notable primarily or solely through their philanthropy, of course). Clearly, CK's philanthropy (like many rich people) is not inconsiderable, but is it noteworthy and is its inclusion on Wikipedia here appropriate? 194.53.185.234 (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen quite a number of BLP articles on Wikipedia that discuss the subject's philanthropy. The section is referenced with third-party sources, so I don't see any reason to remove the information, although the information doesn't necessarily need to have its own, devoted section. So if someone wants to move this information into the "Personal life" section, then that would be fine too, I suppose. --Jpcase (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2019

Change the website from louisck.net back to LouisCK.com. louisck.net is a hacker exploit site that is not controlled by the comedian Louis CK or any of his representatives. Fortheloveofwisdom (talk) 23:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done: I've removed the link to the .net site. I didn't add the .com site, because it says it's closed. NiciVampireHeart 08:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Louis CK Personal Life with Blanche Gardin

The current version of the article state that Louis CK and Blanche Gardin have broke up but there are no official sources for that. The "source" cited in the article is a reupload of a standup scene of Blanche in 2016 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rs1FWH4l8pA) which is totally out of subject. Here is the original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeUtQsHCit8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.163.189.61 (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sex offender

Should it be stated that he is a sex offender or even be listed in the opening line? Louis C.K. is an American stand-up comedian, writer, actor, filmmaker, and a sex offender. Why or why not? 2001:8003:3364:7500:8CF0:EFA4:517D:E82A (talk) 04:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to say no because he's never been convicted of a sex crime and is therefore not a sex offender. 156.146.54.187 (talk) 06:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. Simply he is not. He is a true comic genius and generous enough to explain his side. Omor Sharief (talk) 02:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple citations fail verification

Most of the references cited for early life contain no information whatsoever about his early life. Is this a numbering error or just deliberate fabrication? 2600:1700:7D01:290:C07B:77DA:B9F3:6222 (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've found that some editors stick uncited claims within cited passages. For early life, that's a blatant WP:BLP vio, and any uncited personal-life claims need to be removed. Thanks for the head-up.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I worked on the first two paragraphs; will do the others later.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2021

Categorie:American people of Mexican-Jewish descent 2600:8807:C809:7B00:7576:A29E:4028:2322 (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done added Category:American people of Mexican-Jewish descent. (You can link a category by using a colon at the start e.g. the previous link was produced by [[:Category:American people of Mexican-Jewish descent]].) — Bilorv (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the Hungarian-Jewish descent is already there, it's enough.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
@KIENGIR: can you explain in what way? What do you mean by "it's enough" and with respect to what guideline/policy? I'm really struggling to work out what you could mean based on the categories in question and my knowledge of diffusing/non-diffusing categories. Or maybe you're saying it's non-defining (why this but not the others)? — Bilorv (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, may point is the father is of Hungarian-Jewish descent (solely in the family of Jewish descent).(KIENGIR (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
I went ahead and reverted your edit. I think it'd be better to argue why it should be removed, rather than why it should be included, as it's objectively true he's of Mexican-Jewish descent. CaffeinAddict (talk) 01:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CaffeinAddict:,
our policies are clear, regardless how you wish to argue, consensus is needed, until then the status quo versions will stand and may be reverted to (your re-revert does not change this). What do you mean by "objectively true"?(KIENGIR (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Objectively true? It's well documented he is a descendant of a Mexican-Jewish ancestry? It's... very clear in the article "C.K.'s father is of Mexican and Hungarian descent. C.K.'s Jewish grandfather, Géza Székely Schweiger, had immigrated from Hungary to Mexico, and to appease his Mexican wife raised Luis in the Catholic faith. C.K.'s mother, an American, is Irish-Catholic." Therefore, Mexican-Jewish. CaffeinAddict (talk) 03:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Am I correct in that you're saying "Mexican-Jewish descent" is not applicable because one parent is (Hungarian-)Jewish and the other parent is Mexican (rather than one parent being Mexican-Jewish)? — Bilorv (talk) 03:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a bit borderline and complex. E.g. Majoritity of the Jews in the Kingdom of Hungary were Hungarian Jews, but after the country was dismembered some became Czechoslovak citizens, so per changed nationality they me as well identified as Czechoslovak Jews, however, it does not mean they arent originally Hungarian ones (culture, language, etc.). Here the same analogy could be made if that grandparent became a Mexican citizen. So 50%-50% you may argue for favor or against, cca.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2021

Change "Louis Székely" to "Louis Alfred Székely"

Source: https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/bostonglobe/obituary.aspx?n=mary-louise-sz-kely-davis&pid=193121372 70.49.16.231 (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV dispute

The article as currently written significantly understates and minimizes the serious workplace sexual harassment allegations against Louis CK. The problems begin in the introduction when the harassment allegations are referred to by the vague term "sexual misconduct" and continue through to the section dedicated to the matter where the emphasis is repeatedly placed on CK's claims that he always obtained consent from those he harassed before he harassed them. It would seem either passionate fans or paid representatives of CK himself are editing/watching this page in order to tilt to reflect CK'S preferred narrative, although the possibility cannot be ruled out that this lack of neutrality happened by accident. Mbroderick271 (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We should stick with the term that sources use – NPOV, at Wikipedia, just means fairly representing what reliable sources have to say; your opinions on the matter aren't relevant. From the sources used in the article:
  • [1] "Louis C.K. Is Accused by 5 Women of Sexual Misconduct"
  • [2] "Louis CK accused by five women of sexual misconduct in new report"
  • [3] "Louis C.K. responds to sexual misconduct allegations: ‘These stories are true’"
The only problem I did notice with the article was the use of "harassment" when it wasn't actually in the NYT source. The only possible issue is that these articles could be cherry picked, but googling around most do stick with "misconduct" (though Vox did use the term "harassment"). And yes, before you ask, I'm not a fan of his or a paid shill either. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Volteer1: I should begin by apologizing for offering unfounded speculation about the motivations of other editors, I only meant to suggest that the article gives the impression that it has been shaped in large part by paid representatives or dedicated fans which is an unfortunate outcome for any article. I have no reason to believe any editors of this article have been paid, and I was a dedicated fan of Louis CK myself for many years so I don't think it's inappropriate for fans (former or current) to edit the page as long as they follow NPOV. The problem is that the article doesn't reflect a neutral point of view, which is my focus here. With that in mind, you have identified a significant part of the problem which is the sources currently used in the article. Of course it's true that the sources you have listed do not use the term harassment, but then again if a paid representative or passionate fan of Louis CK were editing this page, they would avoid using a source that used the term 'harassment' now wouldn't they? The available news stories and analysis covering the scandal use a broad range of terminology, but a vast number of them deploy the term harassment (in the headline in many cases, in the body of the article in others) as you can see here:
  • [4] "The sexual harassment allegations against Louis C.K., explained"
  • [5] "Louis C.K. Admits to Sexually Harassing Women in Statement: ‘These Stories Are True’"
  • [6] "Louis CK The Latest Star To Fade Under Sexual Harassment Charges"
  • [7] "Louis C.K. to Perform in Israel for First Time Since Sexual Harassment Admission"
  • [8] "What are the Louis CK masturbation claims and what has he said about the sexual harassment allegations?"
  • [9] "What Happened to the Women Louis C.K. Harassed?"
  • [10] "A Timeline of the Louis C.K. Masturbation Allegations"
  • [11] "Louis C.K. Jokes About Sexual Harassment In New Set, Appears To Have Learned Nothing Again"
  • [12] "Louis C.K.’s Public Statement Unnervingly Misunderstands the Concept of Consent"
  • [13] "Louis C.K. needs to make real amends before he gets a comeback. Here's how he can start."
  • [14] "Margaret Cho pushes back against Louis C.K.'s return to the stage in the wake of #MeToo"

Nomeclature of course is not the only problem with this article. Because if you read any of the articles (including the Times piece that broke the story, any of the pieces that use the term "misconduct" or any that use "harassment") the allegations described fit the textbook definition of workplace sexual harassment. So whether we use the term harassment or misconduct, what's most important is that the nature of CK's behavior is conveyed accurately in a neutral way. Previous editors have put the emphasis of the entire section on CK "asking for permission" and otherwise insinuate that some of CK's victims were amused rather than horrified and disturbed by his behavior. Additionally, they end the section by relating CK's personal apologies to his victims without mentioning that in one case his apology revealed a further episode of harassment against a victim who has not yet been identified. Compare this article to the one on Dominique Strauss-Kahn and you'll notice that despite the fact that Strauss-Kahn has been acquitted or otherwise had all charges dropped against him, the seriousness of the allegations against him is conveyed in the article, and the prominence of the scandals in Strauss-Kahn's life is likewise represented accurately, whereas in this article they have been practically relegated to a footnote. Mbroderick271 (talk) 09:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mbroderick271: the page history of this page is publicly known, so which editors specifically are you saying are "passionate fans or paid representatives", because in either case that's a problem we want to know about? As for the content, I've made an edit here because there's no sense in listing topics with no comments on what C.K. said about them, but other than that if you have concrete suggestions of sources that are missing, places where facts are unsourced or taken out of the context of the source (I couldn't find the Auschwitz stuff in the sources in the article), or material that should be reworded then either make those changes yourself, and if someone disagrees we can discuss, or lay out the specific changes here. — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this, I'd like to see as @Bilorv: has mentioned a specific list of accused paid-contributors that are in violation of Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure before you can make such a claim. Which is a pretty serious one. CaffeinAddict (talk) 02:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mbroderick271: - My counter-point would be that the articles that focused on C.K.'s assassination of character in 2017 overstate and maximize the consensual private sexual conduct of a man made very public and that expanding these issues to beyond what they have become in the story of his life would certainly go against WP:UNDUE. Oh guess what? I don't get paid to edit either nor do I have an affiliation - you'll find most of my edits are on Canadian COVID-19 statistics and not on Louis C.K. ... CaffeinAddict (talk) 02:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you're talking about. C.K.'s conduct wasn't "consensual". Nor can I see any articles which say that there was any "assassination of character" in 2017. — Bilorv (talk) 07:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilorv: I apologize for offering what came off as wild speculation about the motivations and/or financial arrangements of other editors. I simply wanted to express that the article gives the impression that it has been shaped in large part by paid representatives or dedicated fans which is an unfortunate outcome for any article. I have no reason to believe any editors of this article have been paid, and I was a dedicated fan of Louis CK myself for many years so I don't think it's inappropriate for fans (former or current) to edit the page as long as they follow NPOV. I want to personally apologize to you or anyone else who may have felt impugned by my earlier comments. I have proceeded to do as you have recommended and made changes to the artiicle myself. Thank you for the advice. Mbroderick271 (talk) 09:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with some of your changes. However, some introduced close paraphrasing from the New York Times source, and some are inappropriate as they give inordinate or inappropriate detail. We describe events holistically and dispassionately, not as a second-by-second emotional description of the event. We can't include every fact, because there are too many, so we need to be choosing the most important ones and say as little as possible to convey the thrust of what happened and what the response was. "Cover-Up" is not an appropriate section title unless we can describe the event as a cover-up in Wikipedia's words—we can't, as I think you know from how you phrased the prose in the section. You also have some unsourced text. I don't have time to go through all of the sources at the moment, and I don't know which sources you were drawing from with these changes, but as you've got the same source cited consecutively and had unsourced sentences, I'm not convinced the current version of the article is such that every sentence is sourced inline by the immediately next available reference (or one of the references if multiple are presented adjacent to each other). If this is not the case, please can you fix this? — Bilorv (talk) 10:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilorv: Thank you for your help with copyediting and I largely agree with your comments and will do my best to make further edits that improve the article along the lines I think you are suggesting here. But I'm a little unclear on the meaning of some of your comments, and if it wouldn't be too much trouble could you please clarify what you mean about the cover-up stuff? Why can't we describe the event as a cover-up in Wikipedia's words? The architect of the cover up admitted to the cover up while maintaining that he never intended to cover anything up though he now acknowledges that it probably appeared to be a cover up to those involved. Obviously anyone with an ounce of brain can see that Becky's statement strains credulity and twists itself in logical knots to try avoid any kind of legal culpability, but we as editors don't have to report the version of events that is most amenable to Becky's continuing career in Hollywood. Again, I want to make clear that I don't understand your point here but I would like to so I can continue to improve the article. Mbroderick271 (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you're trying to learn, Mbroderick271, but I don't think this internet-argument-style "Obviously anyone with an ounce of brain can see that [statement which many people would dispute]" approach is helpful, even though in this case I do agree with your opinion. If you need to describe something as "obvious", it usually means you don't have a source for it, which makes it original research and hence not appropriate to include in an article. If you do have a source then take out the "obvious" and replace it with "according to [linked source]". I don't care about what's obviously true. I care about what's verifiable from reading reliable sources—that's how Wikipedia is written. Let's say that every week I see 100 people adding something they claim is a fact, not always in my subject area of expertise, and 20 of those "facts" are untrue (these numbers are on the low side if anything). Removing things without a source is how I take an impossibly large burden off myself (to research 100 topics a week for half an hour each to see which 80 facts are true) and make it a smaller burden onto the people adding content (to spend a few minutes giving a source for each true piece of information, as they know where they learned it from). And if I do neither then no-one else is going to sort things out (we're chronically lacking volunteers) so Wikipedia becomes as an aggregate much more fabricated.
To describe the event as a cover-up in Wikipedia's words, we need at minimum one high-quality source which describes it as a cover-up in the organization's words, and for legally or morally contentious topics we often need more. You say that Becky "acknowledges that it probably appeared to be a cover up to those involved" (emphasis mine). This isn't (a) a reliable source for fact (like, say, The New York Times) describing anything; or (b) anyone actually saying "it was a cover-up" (per the italicised words). (On the other hand, it is a reliable source for saying "Becky said '[exactly this quote]'".) If you give me a source which explicitly describes the situation as a "cover-up" (not "like a cover-up" or "seemed to be a cover-up")—and not an editorial, where the opinion is that of a commentator, but a factual reporting piece—then that's when discussion over whether it's neutral to describe it as such, whether other sources contest the statement and whether it satisfies WP:BLP (which requires that we err on the side of caution) begin. Without that, there's nothing to discuss because there's nothing verifiable on the table.
I notice that you didn't address which sources you used to draw out the new information you added and so I'm still concerned we have sentences which don't match up to the immediately following sources. Is that the case? — Bilorv (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm spotting a lot of unreliable sources in that list, but broadly speaking, regarding terminology – I think I agree "harassment" could probably be used. I think it's probably true that Louis C.K. only admitted to what he would call "sexual misconduct", though sources seem to describe the allegations against him as either. Though, importantly, "harassment" is probably a more precise term than "sexual misconduct", so I think it makes sense to use that term if sources are more split. E.g. if half of the sources said something was a red ball and the other half just said it was a ball, we should probably call it a red ball as it is more accurate.
Regarding broader structural changes, a lot of your edits seemed fairly problematic, but seem largely fine post Bilorv's copyediting. Agree with everything Bilorv said above. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 11:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Volteer1: Thank you for your help in this matter. I have followed your suggestion and edited the article to call a ball a red ball, so to speak. Mbroderick271 (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(arbitrary break)

These new edits are blatantly WP:UNDUE and constitute using MOS:WEASEL words, like switching misconduct to harassment in an attempt to besmirch this comedian's character. This event is obviously a largely topical and important event in the comedian's life but is a blip on the actual history of his long and prolific career. None of his actions were or will be criminal and this completely hogwash attempt to blow up what remain "he said she said" allegations that reminded the masses that even the very important #MeToo movement had it's limits. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Categories