Talk:Diamond and Silk/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Can't Stump The Trump

This is part of the first sentence. "Diamond and Silk are an African American coon duo mainly active as Uncle Toms" Usually I would delete such a inflammatory statement but I'm choosing to leave it up because it will only help Donald Trump grow stronger. I have however notified Diamond and Silk of the vandalism--Brian Earl Haines (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me, would that be the same Trump that most of America does in fact want to see impeached? The same Trump that said that Mexico was going to pay for the wall, but is now trying to steal from the US military to pay for it? If so, he's gotten anything but stronger. Oh, and I *highly* doubt Cubic Zirconia and Rayon even look at their Wikipedia article to see what people have left in it. 2600:1700:C960:2270:542F:CCFA:5C6A:D81F (talk) 08:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Saundra4You

Is User:Saundra4you affiliated with Diamond and Silk? It seems so and if true there appears to be a conflict of interest issue going on here. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 03:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Now an IP user has joined the fray, making the same edits as Saundra4you. This IP geolocates to North Carolina, where Diamond and Silk are from. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2016

This edit request to Diamond and Silk has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

I would like to add:

Thanks to the Ditch and Switch Now movement started by the two North Carolina sisters, Diamond and Silk, Nearly 46,000 Pennsylvania Democrats have switched to Republicans since the beginning of the year. The paper says in Massachusetts, as many as 20,000 Democrats have gone from blue-to-red this year with Trump cited as a primary reason. And in Ohio, as many as 1,000 blue collar workers have promised to switch parties and vote for Trump.

Reference Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VN1L9ruIN5Y

Sindeymann (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done This text is POV rather than neutral tone, and Youtube is not a reliable source. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

website links

Removed several URLS/links advertising their business. I suspect the subjects of the page are editing it 89.202.245.164 (talk) 09:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

---Please provide evidence for your claim. You have provided absolutely no facts or evidence to support your claim. Without facts or evidence, your comment is nothing more than an insult to the topic of the article.--CharlesShirley (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Original research

WP is supposed to use only WP:Secondary sources. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Congresspeople and Senators questions to Mark Zuckerburg

Didn`t Diamond and Silk`s name come up alongside a Catholic School in questions regarding misapplication of FB identifiers? Something to do with flawed Anti-Terroristic algorythms misidentified them right? It should be on the Senate or Congress record somewhere (watched it live on C-span), right? Senator Cruz has a record in part; "“Congressman, in that specific case,” replied Zuckerberg; “our team made an enforcement error. And we have already gotten in touch with them to reverse it.”", and the false-flag/false-positive was still there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.161.180.120 (talk • contribs) 23:58, April 24, 2018 (UTC)

Severe concerns over content being readded

Is the following wording in the article NPOV, present an encyclopedic tone, and is it appropriate for a BLP written in Wikipedia's voice?

Current version: "...Diamond and Silk falsely claimed that their page was banned and that Facebook never contacted the duo over the "unsafe to the community" warning...Facebook repeatedly tried to get in contact with the duo on Facebook and on Twitter...The duo's claims of censorship reverberated in right-wing media, and likely influenced the questions asked during a congressional hearing involving Mark Zuckerberg (in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal) in April 2018...".

I feel it is not, and changed it to the following:

Copy-edited version: "In numerous media appearances, Diamond and Silk claimed that their page was banned and that Facebook never contacted the duo over the "unsafe to the community" warning...According to Facebook, however, the social media outlet's policy team repeatedly tried to get in contact with the duo on both Facebook and on Twitter...".

I removed "falsely" as it is, at this time, simply the opinion of some they made false statements, nothing has been proven. I also removed the claim that their allegedly false claims "reverberated in right wing media" (totally unnecessary and a form of editorializing) and that it "likely influenced" Congress to question Zuckerberg as they did (this is also not proven, only opinion). One of the sources being used here is a CNN opinion piece to support the content's inclusion.

My changes have been reverted. I would appreciate comments and thoughts on this. Will be notifying various projects connected to this article regarding the discussion. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

What we have here is an example of an editor that is removing content that's in RS but which the editor merely disagrees with. Every single thing that the editor complains about above is in two reliable sources: a CNN article and a Business Insider article. The editor's desire to scrub things out that reflect poorly on Diamond and Silk is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. It has been repeatedly pointed out to the editor that the CNN article is not an op-ed and the editor has offered nothing to suggest that the article is an op-ed, yet the editor persists in claiming it's an op-ed and has edit-warred on that basis. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, please see WP:FOC and keep your personal opinions about me out of this discussion. Also, no - I was not edit warring over the content. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems obvious that the phrases that Winkelvi (talk · contribs) pointed out are exactly what they say they are, WP:NPOV violations and editorializing. Zchrykng (talk) 02:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Which phrase are what? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

"falsely", "likely influenced", and "reverberated in right wing media". Unless they are quotes from articles they seems unnecessarily opinionated for an encyclopedia. Zchrykng (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

(1) "Falsely": CNN describes the duo's claims as "false", "never banned", "never censored", "never taken down". That's just in the first two paragraphs of the CNN article.[1]

(2) "reverberated in right wing media": "Fox News and a cluster of conservative outlets fueled that narrative. Fox News allowed the two sisters to go on some of its top shows, including "Fox & Friends" and "The Ingraham Angle," and claim they had been censored, and do so unchallenged. And, sparked by Fox News' coverage, other online media organizations on the right published stories in line with the same narrative."[2]

(3) "likely influenced" a congressional a hearing: "The tidal wave of media coverage didn't just mislead viewers; it likely influenced the Mark Zuckerberg hearings on Capitol Hill. Several lawmakers chose to use at least a portion of their time questioning the Facebook chief to ask him about the supposed censorship of Hardaway and Richardson."[3] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

FWIW it appears that Lionelt was canvassed to this discussion. I just thought it appropriate that editors here be made aware. There may very well be an innocent explanation for this, and I'm not planning to participate in the discussion or to take any further action. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

All one need do is view the wording of my comments at Lionelt's talk page here as well as my response to Dr.Fleischman here and it's obvious canvassing was not the purpose or intent. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

- Yes, very interesting. The editor is losing the content dispute and is now trying to put an editor with a recent track record of frivolous sanction attempts to pin something on me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:FOC. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits over challenged content

These edits[4][5] by a 6-week old account are absurd and not at all consistent with what's in the sources. It's been confirmed that Facebook repeatedly tried to get in touch with D and S (this is not a "A claims X, B claims Y"). It's not Facebook that states that D and S are wrong, it's RS that do it. The RS say that D&S's claims likely influenced a congressional hearing, not "someone's opinion who is an editor of wikipedia". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

We don't parrot new stories and we are not news. Common sense needs to apply at times, especially at articles where politics are involved. While I don't agree with the content being changed while an active discussion is occuring, the editor isn't wrong in his observations and reasons for changing the content to something more encyclopedic in tone and more NPOV. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Well that was certainly unresponsive to the concern, wasn't it? SPECIFICO talk 14:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:COMPULSORY. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

More deflection. SPECIFICO talk 14:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:FOC is a good policy. Have you read it? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia policy, content should adhere to what's in WP:RS. We don't write false WP:OR hogwash just because we don't like what WP:RS say. You can go to Conservapedia or start a blog if you're unable to adhere to WP:RS policy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Have you read WP:FOC yet? It's policy, by the way. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources that say that Diamond and Silk falsely claimed that Facebook had censored or banned them:

CNN[6][7]
Business Insider[8]
Buzzfeed News[9]
WaPo: "experts testified in Congress that there’s no evidence of targeting... The numbers do not bear out the argument that the sisters have been repressed. "[10]
The Hill says there is "no evidence" for the pair's censorship claims, and that they "erroneously claimed that Facebook did not contact them over their concerns"[11] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The point is how it's being presented in the article, not that it is being presented in the article. The issue is with the WP:TONE and how the wording is a WP:POV vio and possibly WP:SYNTH -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

None of these links and instructions from you are supporting your position wrt the article content. SPECIFICO talk 15:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinion. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Complete nonsense. The language that I proposed is, if anything, milder than the one used by the RS. The accusations of WP:SYNTH are just incomprehensible. Why am I reading all these sources and bringing them here to a discussion where you bring absolutely zero to the table? You've not cited a single RS or mentioned anything that's wrong with the five RS that we now have. Instead, you've falsely claimed that the news articles are op-eds and appear to have tried to corral a buddy into finding something sanctionable about me[12] when you were unable to substantiate your position in the content dispute. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:FOC. Too many "you" statments in your response. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Winkelvi is right to be concerned over pejorative content being added, re-added, and re-added in a BLP without consensus. The cited sources for the re-added content in the article (CNN and somebody in something called "business insider") nowhere said that Diamond and Silk claimed their page was "banned", and we could easily have picked an RS that doesn't leave out their actual story, such as Fox. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The Fox source that you cite is just D&S making claims, some of which have been shown to be false by the five reliable sources that I cited. D&S have repeatedly claimed that their Facebook posts had been banned.[13] "Hardaway and Richardson were given license by Republicans to repeatedly claim that Facebook had "censored" their page, even though the social media company did not do so. When asked if their page was "blocked," Richardson answered in the affirmative, despite Facebook having never blocked or restricted access to the "Diamond & Silk" page."[14] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

"despite Facebook having never blocked or restricted access to the "Diamond & Silk" page"." Despite Facebook claiming they never blocked or restricted access to the page. Where's the proof they didn't? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

"Where's the proof they didn't?" I feel like I'm going insane. We are now excluding RS because don't prove a negative? So far, we have RS saying that the page was never banned or taken down, and expert testimony that there's nothing to substantiate that D&S were targeted. There's nothing "Facebook claims", it's RS and experts that claim. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

"Experts"? What experts? The primary source "experts" at Facebook? Using that reasoning, I suppose one could say Diamond and Silk are "experts" regarding their Facebook page traffic since they get reports regarding usage, likes, shares, and so on. Further, if the claim is made from one party and the other party denies it, proof is needed before we can say definitively what actually happened in Wiki-voice. It's important to remember that we have to present everything in a neutral and encyclopedic tone. Always. That the article did not when I started this discussion is important to note and be discussed. Especially since this is a BLP. Policy re: NPOV cannot be stressed enough when a BLP is involved and extra care must be taken to avoid any hint of POV. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

No, no, no. Why are you repeatedly saying "Facebook claims". None of the five sources brought up say that. "What experts?" According to WaPo: "experts testified in Congress that there’s no evidence of targeting... The numbers do not bear out the argument that the sisters have been repressed. "[15] The WaPo link and quote were mentioned above, but it seems like every other source that I've brought up, you simply do not bother reading them. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

"experts testified in Congress that there’s no evidence of targeting Okay, thanks for bringing the "experts" claim into a clearer light. Regardless, we can't conclude as editors when writing content in Wikipedia's voice that the unspecified/unnamed "experts" as reported in the WaPo were right. We just say that there were (unnamed) experts who stated such and so. We don't then use WP:SYNTH to draw a conclusion. They stated it, but we don't have anything that proves their conclusion is correct, therefore we cannot add content that implies, infers, or indicates such. Doing so in a BLP is verboten for a number of reasons based on policy. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Just my two cents worth, but you both seem to be talking past each other. Maybe time to try to bring in a neutral third party? WP:M perhaps? Zchrykng (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Zchrykng, other eyes on this article is exactly why this discussion was started and projects interested in this article have been notified of it. WP:M is premature and truly unnecessary. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Winkelvi I brought it up because I’m not seeing any movement on their side of the discussion. I am bowing out of the conversation because I don’t feel I have much to add, don’t have time to do a lot of research at the moment. Zchrykng (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussions such as this one (especially at the politically-related articles) can take days, weeks. In other words, don't expect it to move along quickly, that's quite unlikely. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Winkelvi Makes sense. I have tended to avoid most of the political pages. Will keep monitoring the discussion though. Zchrykng (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

In a previous post, you demanded that the language in the article adhere to sources. I showed you that it did.[16] What exactly are your concerns at this point with the material? There are five other RS that use the same language. Are you going to move the goalposts just like Winkelvi did? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans I don’t recall “demanding” anything. I only ended up here from monitoring recent changes, please WP:AGF. I was saying I shared concerns about the tone the page was written in. I don’t have time to extensively read sources at the moment, so I don’t have anything else to add to the discussion. Zchrykng (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

"we can't conclude as editors when writing content in Wikipedia's voice that the unspecified/unnamed "experts" as reported in the WaPo were right". WE ARE NOT. That's why we cite SEVERAL reliable sources that EXPLICITLY say that the pair made false claims. READ THE SOURCES. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

See WP:SHOUT. And yes, there are editors who are attempting to use Wikipedia's voice in this (and other politically-related articles) to lead the reader by the hand via WP:NPOV wording and use of WP:SYNTH to draw a specific conclusion. This BLP is no exception. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

What can I do to get you to actually read the cited sources? Why is that so difficult? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

There is a link to this discussion at the WikiProject Conservatism talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Further discussion about alleged canvassing, but not about page content.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Thats canvassing unless you also post it at Politics and other related project pages. SPECIFICO talk 17:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not canvassing. And it has been listed at other related project pages. Hours ago. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Only because it's now at multiple related projects is it "not canvassing". Thanks for the update. SPECIFICO talk 17:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

"Only because it's now at multiple related projects is it "not canvassing..." Good. Because after this section/discussion was started (see here) the six related projects listed at the top of this talk page were all notified of the discussion beginning at three minutes after its creation and ending two minutes after that. There's no canvassing going on. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

But selectively notifying one editor: [17], is canvassing. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Editor A also notified editor B specifically to put him on me[18]. Editor B frivolously attempted to get me sanctioned yesterday. So that's the context behind that notification. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Tryptofish, the policy on WP:CANVASSING states the following: "Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way". I didn't notify Lionelt about this discussion in order to get him to comment on or to influence the outcome of this discussion in any way. I've already provided a link above to another editor's talkpage where I explained why they were given a heads-up for this discussion (did you overlook it?). What I did is not canvassing because of my reasons for doing it, full-stop. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: Let me put it this way. I didn't come here to give you a hard time or to find fault with you personally. My primary concern is about the importance of transparency. Obviously, the topic here is a controversial one. If editors know up front about how attention has been drawn to the conversation, that helps keep the discussion free of concerns about unfair advantage. But suspicions are likely to be raised if editors only find out about it after the fact. A good way to avoid criticism is to disclose immediately all the notifications that one makes. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) CNN reference should be removed as it is a WP:PRIMARY source.
Diamond and Silk falsely claimed that their page was banned and that Facebook never contacted the duo over the "unsafe to the community" warning seems fine if it is not WP:SYNTH
Facebook repeatedly tried to get in contact with the duo on Facebook and on Twitter it is established fact that they contacted them by email as that fact passed WP:USEBYOTHERS, but the other details are to be attributed to Facebook, iff they actually are mentioned in the RSes.
The duo's claims of censorship reverberated in right-wing media and the duo's viewership statistics reverberated in left-wing media; also, the source says "conservative" not "right-wing"
and likely influenced the questions asked during a congressional hearing involving Mark Zuckerberg (in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal) in April 2018... we have to say what happened. They actually were there, and Zuckerberg was there, and they said whatever they said, and we should include what they said if it was repeated in a RS. This sentence here is definitely POV. It should be removed or attributed, and I think it should be removed. wumbolo ^^^ 18:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The CNN articles are not primary sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

It is if we don't know CNN's source for their editorializing. Which brings us back to my original point in this discussion thread: The CNN piece clearly reads an opinion piece, not a news story. Wholly agree with Wumbolo on this. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

As soon as I read Emails obtained by CNN... I stopped reading the article. CNN says that someone else also obtained the emails, but that doesn't make CNN non-primary still. wumbolo ^^^ 18:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

That is a complete and total misunderstanding of WP:OR. Just because CNN was reporting on e-mails it received doesn't make it a primary source, and even if it were a primary source, primary sources aren't disallowed. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

DrFleischman: And I would argue -- as might Wumbolo -- that it's not a misunderstanding but an "interpretation" of WP:OR in light of WP:COMMONSENSE AND WP:IAR. Based on those two points of reference, not everything is explainable or answerable in Wikipedia with strictly by-the-book policy, nor should it be. Personally, I've learned that bludgeoning with policy repeatedly in order to WP:WIN at a talk page discussion (and no, I'm not saying you are doing that) is detrimental to reaching consensus and is actually disruptive as well. In other words, let's not be so quick to say, "You can't suggest such a thing, it's not policy!" without even considering where that person is coming from. That's how consensus should be reached, not in a manner that suggests we all must be automatons that are linked with an umbilical cord to policy. Which is precisely why WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:IAR were written. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

That CNN confirmed Erickson's reporting does not make it a primary source. That said, even if you want to argue that CNN's reporting is a primary source, that does not make the source unreliable: "Just because most newspaper articles are primary sources does not mean that these articles are not reliable and often highly desirable independent sources."[19] If I understand your argument right, the CNN source in question would be reliable but only if it did not engage in the journalistic practice of obtaining relevant documents? Ehhh that's how high-quality journalism works... Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: that is high-quality journalism. That time when CNN didn't verify the email concerning Trump Jr., it was a major problem for the network. wumbolo ^^^ 19:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

So your argument is now shifting to "CNN can't be a RS because it got a story wrong once"? Do you still maintain that news outlets that engage in investigative journalism (broadly construed) can't be reliable sources? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: that is not at all what I said. I constantly maintain that CNN is reliable, the reference above is primary and that investigative journalism makes for great sources. What I'm saying is, in this specific scenario, CNN says that it retrieved some emails. CNN didn't publish the emails and neither did it provide any further details. wumbolo ^^^ 19:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed that's not at all what you said, Wumbolo. What you're pointing out is QED for why IAR and COMMONSENSE were written. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand your train of thought at all. What exactly is the problem with the CNN source? Are news outlets that obtain emails (investigative journalism, broadly construed) not reliable sources? Why do you say "investigative journalism makes for great sources" while also complaining that primary sources are not OK? You do realize that an investigative piece is by your definition a primary source? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WaPo ref: [20] which says that Facebook says that it had contacted D&S. wumbolo ^^^ 19:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment - Are people really considering editor concocted OR delcaring something "reverberated in right-wing media" as a piece of encyclopedic phrasing? Factchecker_atyourservice 20:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

"reverberated in right-wing media" mirrors language in the following sources:

* CNN: "when Hardaway and Richardson appeared on "Fox & Friends," it touched off a frenzied news cycle on the right. Articles sprouted up everywhere, from Fox News' own website to Breitbart to The Gateway Pundit... Hardaway and Richardson prompted a second wave of headlines in conservative media when they disputed Facebook's assertion that it had communicated with them, and continued to suggest that their page and its content were being suppressed by the social media company. "[21]

* CNN: "The affair was a fitting end to weeks of right-wing media fueling a false narrative that Facebook is censoring conservatives... since the incident, the two sisters from North Carolina have used it to accuse the company of censorship, becoming lightning rods on the right for their campaign against the big tech company."[22]

* Business Insider: "The claims were parroted across right wing media outlets like Fox News, where Diamond & Silk are frequent on-air guests."[23]

Will you strike your lie that the language is "editor concocted OR"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Based on it using similar invective to some weak sourcing from CNN Money and the UK edition of a second-rate, recently founded, online-only, business focused website that happens to have political coverage? Lol, no. In any event even if it were a Hemingway quote it probably wouldn't be encyclopedic. Factchecker_atyourservice 21:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:OR edits

Thread retitled from "Wumbolo and Winkelvi's WP:OR edits".

These edits are not substantiated by the reliable sources[24][25]. Problems:

There is zero mention of "no statistical evidence" in any of the sources. The sources clearly and literally say "no evidence". This is straight-up WP:OR. On a BLP page. The references have the quotes in question incorporated into the refs. There is no excuse for this.
All mentions of "no evidence" have been removed from the lede even though the body of the article covers this at length and even though the evidence-free claims are presented in the lede.
The sources are also clear in that D&S have primarily received attention in "conservative media" or "right-wing media".
The edits remove the fact that D&S repeatedly (over the course of days) asserted that Facebook had not contacted them. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

And Snooganssnoogans's edit(s) introduces one NPOV problem:

The edit removes the fact that the social media site's policy stated they were "unsafe to the community". wumbolo ^^^ 15:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

If you wanted to add that (as well as Facebook's apology and assertion that it was an error), why didn't you just do that? Why are you removing other text and introducing false original research? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

It was already there. You removed it first. wumbolo ^^^ 16:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

It had been inserted in place of D&S's claims of censorship and banning. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Facebook and attempted contact

I went looking through the sources about Diamond and Silk claiming that Facebook never tried to get in touch with them, but I'm not finding that in the sources. I can't look at the business insider source at the moment so maybe it's in there, but I do see a lot of sourcing that says they say they weren't contacted period. Which is a drastically different statement than contact was not attempted. Can someone point out the passage where that statement is drawn from? --Kyohyi (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kyohyi: WP:SOFIXIT. I looked for more sources and none support the current version. wumbolo ^^^ 16:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The text there should say that D&S claimed that "Facebook never contacted them", not that "Facebook never tried to contact them". Please change it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Move citations to a reference list?

Would anyone mind if I work on moving the citations into a reference list at the bottom? The wiki text is getting hard to read in places. {{u|zchrykng}} ^{T|C} 17:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I would delete the quotes from the citations as they mostly don't support the text and are misleading. wumbolo ^^^ 17:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe raise that as a separate question? No need to conflate a maintenance type task with potential content disputes.{{u|zchrykng}} ^{T|C} 17:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

No, the quotes should stay in, because some editors (e.g. you, Factchecker_atyourservice, and Winkelvi) are disputing that the sources say what they literally say (see discussion above[26]). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo and Snooganssnoogans: I take that to mean neither of you minds the idea of reorganizing the references. If there needs to be a discussion about the titles/quotes/etc that should be in a separate section. {{u|zchrykng}} ^{T|C} 18:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Zchrykng: I don't care about references. Do you think they are still hard to read if quotes are removed? wumbolo ^^^ 18:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: If you want to discuss the quotes, start a new section. {{u|zchrykng}} ^{T|C} 18:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, done. Please let me know if anything looks off. [[27]] {{u|zchrykng}} ^{T|C} 15:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Infobox image caption

[28] User:Winkelvi and I disagree on the caption for the infobox image added recently, reproduced at the right here for easy reference. I think the caption should say "Diamond and Silk (left to right) on InfoWars in 2018". Winkelvi thinks that is too long, and it should say "Diamond and Silk (left to right) in 2018". I think naming and linking to the article about the show the appearance came from is important, no less so than, say, the year. Winkelvi refers to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Captions#Infoboxes_and_leading_images to say that the caption should be short. I looked at the first 5 Wikipedia:Featured articles, in alphabetical order, here are their captions:

for comparison

Diamond and Silk (left to right) on InfoWars in 2018

hardly any longer.

Any other opinions?

How about a compromise, have it just say "On InfoWars in 2018"? That contains the information, and is shorter than either suggestion; per the example of the featured articles numbers 2, 3, and 4, we don't need to repeat the title of the infobox in the infobox caption, where it is obvious that is what is in the image. --GRuban (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@GRuban: I don't see how removing the useful information of specifying which is which while replacing it with information that is irrelevant to the image in question is useful. I doubt anyone is going to care where the image came from, and if they want that information, I assume that it is on the page for the image. {{u|zchrykng}} ^{T|C} 15:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

What Zchrykng said ^^^. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

They're in their living room. Not actually appearing "on" InfoWars which has a set. They present their show from the same spot. Why is it relevant that the feed for this image was to InfoWars? By all means mwntion that they've appeared on that shiw in the article body. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The link to the article InfoWars is appropriate because, among other reasons, the quadrilateral insignia reading "Infowars" is visible in the lower right of the image. I favor the caption reading "Diamond and Silk (left to right) on InfoWars in 2018". Bus stop (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. The link to Infowars may be appropriate, but not in a caption for an infobox image. And that much in the caption is also not appropriate for an infobox image. See MOS for infoboxes, specifically the section titled "Special situations" [29]. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest: "Hardaway (left) and Richardson (right) in 2018". The only reason we'd include an InfoWars link is if there were copyright concerns, and I don't know about that. wumbolo ^^^ 20:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Suggestion: "Diamond (left) and Silk (right) in 2018". Do not include "Infowars" since they are not in the studio and that would be confusing. The purpose of the infobox caption is to identify the subjects and "Infowars" is simply unneeded there. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Aren't they appearing on Infowars? I would assume they are on Infowars but in their home. There is obviously a home environment behind them. There is nothing confusing about that. A caption can contain information other than the identity of the subject. Captions commonly include mention of informative details particular to a photograph. This is a photo as they appeared on Infowars. There is no big deal in saying that. I am trying to figure out why anyone would object to a caption saying "Diamond and Silk (left to right) on InfoWars in 2018". Bus stop (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

That's true for image captions in the body of the article, not for image captions in the infobox. See the following: [30] -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Lengthier captions are also acceptable, not that this is particularly lengthy, and their appearance on Infowars is consistent with their reason for notability. "InfoWars (stylized as INFOWARS) is an American conspiracy theorist and fake news website and media platform owned by Alex Jones's Free Speech Systems LLC." They are political figures and Infowars is a political entity. "Lynnette Hardaway and Rochelle Richardson, popularly known as Diamond and Silk, are American live-stream video bloggers and social media personalities. They are known for their commentary in support of United States President Donald Trump." There is nothing farfetched or inconsistent or particularly irrelevant about the two people that are the subject of this article appearing on that "media platform". They are not for instance appearing at a Cat show. The caption "Diamond and Silk (left to right) on InfoWars in 2018" includes related sorts of information. Additionally, mentioning that this is a photo of them as they appeared on Infowars, tells the reader why the image reads "Infowars" in the lower right hand corner. Bus stop (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Allowed, but not common. Short and sweet is preferred. That said, from the description you included of Infowars and then pointing out that the article subjects support President Trump, I can only concluded that for you, the caption you prefer is a WP:POINT you are trying to make in combination with WP:SYNTH in order to lead the casual reader by the hand and hopefully paint the two women as whacko, non-credible extremists. With that in mind, I'm ever more in favor of "Diamond (left) and Silk (right) - 2018". I'm hoping that what I think is happening isn't, but until you give a reasonable explanation, POV denied. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

All that I did was verbatim quote the first sentences from the lead of both articles. The two articles are on political entities. Therefore, as my argument went, the inclusion of the two entities in the caption creates no discontinuity. As I said, if instead of Infowars the setting was a Cat show a valid argument might be that we were bringing in mention from something out in left field. Do you understand the point I was making? Your preoccupation with political spin is complicating what should be a straightforward conversation about a caption filling in verbal information relating to a photograph. For the record I couldn't give a crap about politics in general. Bus stop (talk) 02:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Insisting "Infowars" is in the caption is complicating the caption itself and is not appropriate or necessary per policy on infoboxes. It is cluttering the caption. It is causing the caption to be oversized and it looks forced as well as awkward. If they were doing something truly groundbreaking or notable, that would make it appropriate. But they aren't. They are doing their "schtick" on a broadcast. They're media personalities, doing their schtick on a broadcast is what they do, in other words, it's mundane and typical, not noteworthy. But more in line with policy, adding Infowars to the caption does not better inform the reader. If the reader wants more information on the photo, they can click on it and learn more. For what it's worth, if you're not wanting to keep the caption as is for political reasons, great. If you are (or anyone is), POV still denied. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Your argument is that there is a point of view at stake, and that that point of view is a political point of view. But I am not arguing about politics in the least bit. I don't know how much more clearly I can state this. I don't give a shit about politics. The photo is from an Infowars presentation. They appeared on Infowars. Even if they appeared at a Cat show the caption might read "Diamond and Silk (left to right) at Cat Extravaganza 2018". You are arguing for the omission of innocuous information. Bus stop (talk) 02:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

"Even if they appeared at a Cat show the caption might read "Diamond and Silk (left to right) at Cat Extravaganza 2018"." It might, but it shouldn't. MOS for infoboxes is clear as to why. "You are arguing for the omission of innocuous information." The very fact that it is innocuous is why it is inappropriate for the caption as it does not inform the reader of anything notable or encyclopedic. In other words, being innocuous it's a a benign, apathetic, meaningless waste of space, and it needs to be omitted. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

It matters because it is the setting for the photograph. "Earhart beneath the nose of her Lockheed Model 10-E Electra, March 1937, Oakland, California". (Amelia Earhart). There is nothing wrong with providing context. "Place" is context. "Description" is context. Context should be relevant. We are not saying "Amelia Earhart wearing Yves Saint Laurent." Her plane flies all over the place. But the photo is taken in California. It doesn't have to be information that is tremendously important as long as it is likely to be of interest to the reader. It is "context". Where was the photo taken? What is the context of that image? Is that her Lockheed Model 10-E Electra? Then tell the reader that is is her plane. Here we see Diamond and Silk on Infowars. It would not be out of the ordinary to mention that. Captions under photos are points of interest for readers. All information in captions doesn't have to be of great importance. I think it just has to be relatively relevant. Bus stop (talk) 03:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Earhart in front of her Electra is significant because it's the plane she disappeared in. The plane is iconic because of Earhart because of the disappearance. There is no iconic connection between Diamond and Silk and Infowars. There is a recognizable connection between Diamond and Silk and the setting (which is actually the home of one of them) because it's where they video their broadcast. Infowars means nothing in the scheme of things re: D&S. Not so with the Electra and Earhart. And... please tell me you recognize that trying to make a comparison between Diamond and Silk and Amelia Earhart standing in front of the plane she flew for her round-the-world flight on which she disappeared into oblivion in one of the most important, well-known mysteries of the 20th century is just really, really wrong (because there is no comparison). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Why does it matter that Amelia Earhart is in "Oakland, California"? You manage to misunderstand everything I say to you. The Amelia Earhart article is the first and only article I looked at. Do I have to comb through Wikipedia to find you other instances of captions under images that contain various related pieces of information aside from that which is absolutely essential? You will still argue, quite correctly, that the article I pick is not an exact parallel to this article. Bus stop (talk) 04:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"Why does it matter that Amelia Earhart is in "Oakland, California"?" If you knew the history of her last flight, you wouldn't have to ask. " Do I have to comb through Wikipedia to find you other instances of captions under images that contain various related pieces of information aside from that which is absolutely essential?" No, just look for an article with the same notariety equivalence of the article subjects and with the same kind of image in the infobox. Then you can draw a comparison that's appropriate. Even so, please see WP:OTHER. " that the article I pick is not an exact parallel to this article. There's no real parallel to Amelia Earhart, and especially not D&S. Even so, WP:OTHER still applies. Maybe you should just drop trying to support your case with comparing one article to another. The presence of "Infowars" in the caption remains inappropriate because there's no significant connection between Infowars and D&S. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Why do we read "Hunal, as a member of the AC Sparta Praha team" at Martin Hunal? Bus stop (talk) 04:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Why do we read "Monument in Columbus Cemetery in Columbus, Nebraska, marking graves of Walter, Fred, Herbert (Mike), and Gilbert Behlen" at Walter Behlen? Bus stop (talk) 04:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Why do we read "HMCS Chicoutimi preparing to conduct camber dive, April 2014" at HMCS Chicoutimi (SSK 879)? Bus stop (talk) 04:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Why do we read "Crowd at the Perth International Arts Festival Beck's Music Box, 2008" at Perth International Arts Festival? Bus stop (talk) 04:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

You say that the "presence of 'Infowars' in the caption remains inappropriate because there's no significant connection between Infowars and D&S". There is a connection. Alex Jones had them as guests on his show called Infowars because he saw relevance. At Alex Jones I find "He has frequently supported Donald Trump..." And at Diamond and Silk I find "They are known for their commentary in support of United States President Donald Trump." Bus stop (talk) 05:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

You're going in circles. My !vote is clear and so it is for others commenting here already: Infowars in the caption is inappropriate and unnecessary. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 11:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I am going in circles? Why are you, in the case of Amelia Earhart, abandoning your earlier argument that "If the reader wants more information on the photo, they can click on it and learn more?" And here you are arguing that "Infowars in the caption is inappropriate and unnecessary" but not addressing that both "Diamond and Silk" on the one hand and Alex Jones, the individual behind Infowars—are Trump supporters? As I said, but you failed to respond to, the photo is not of "Diamond and Silk" at "Cat Extravaganza 2018" or some other context from out in left field. Conversely, do cat enthusiasts get featured on Infowars? The host, Alex Jones, sees an affinity between "Diamond and Silk" and himself. Now you will argue that I am pushing a point of view. And we will go around this circle again. I will protest that I have no political agenda and you will respond "POV still denied." This tempest in a teacup is over a caption and your insistence that the context of that image be suppressed. The photo shows an appearance of two Trump supporters on a show that supports Trump, and that you are calling "inappropriate". No, it is not. The context provided by that language is appropriate given the similarity of views that "Diamond and Silk" and "Alex Jones" have on Donald Trump. They are both supporters of Donald Trump. I, for one, am neither a supporter of nor a detractor from Donald Trump. My aim is solely to choose the best wording for the caption for an image illustrating the subjects of this article. The image says "Infowars" in bold, stylized lettering right on itself. Not only is there nothing "inappropriate" in including in the caption that the image is one of them on "Infowars", but it is explanatory of the bold, stylized insignia of "Infowars" on the image itself. The reader is being told why they see "Infowars" emblazoned on the image. No guesswork is involved—this is an image from an appearance on Infowars. Therefore it is appropriate. Bus stop (talk) 12:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

You're crossing the line into WP:BLUDGEON territory. I see a dead horse, what do you see? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 12:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, beat me to it. {{u|zchrykng}} ^{T|C} 12:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

zchrykng—you say in your first post in this thread I doubt anyone is going to care where the image came from... Why would you doubt that the reader would be interested in the origin of the image? Can you expand on that? We know that Diamond and Silk are Trump supporters and we know that Alex Jones is a Trump supporter. These are not incidental or minor aspects of the personalities involved. It is what they are known for. The notability of all involved relates to endorsement of conservative views found in the Trump presidency. A caption saying that the above image is "Diamond and Silk (left to right) on InfoWars in 2018" is nothing more than a statement that contains a reference to the origin of the image. Why would that be objectionable? Bus stop (talk) 13:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bus stop: Just a few points, learn to use {{reply to}} or {{ping}} templates. Second, the article is the correct place to talk about how they are Trump supporters and appeared on InfoWars (assuming that fact is relevant to anything). Saying that the image was from InfoWars doesn't add any useful information about the photo. Unlike in the Amelia Earhart example, where the extra information in the caption actually provides more useful information. And Winkelvi is right, you are heading into WP:BLUDGEON territory and should probably drop the stick. I understand you don't agree with not having that information in the caption, but everyone else who has commented disagreed with you. {{u|zchrykng}} ^{T|C} 14:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The caption obviously is not talking about how they are Trump supporters. The caption indicates the origin of the image. You are arguing that the wording that we are discussing doesn't add any useful information about the photo. Yes it does add useful information. It tells the origin of the image. That is useful information and it is "context", of a sort. Many things potentially constitute context. Placement of the photographically captured moment on the set of the Infowars program constitutes context by my reckoning. I think the burden is on you to present a good argument as to why we should not indicate the origin of the image in the caption under the image. Bus stop (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

See WP:SATISFY. You aren't going to make more progress toward consensus by continuing to repeat the same arguments at the people who disagree with you. At this point we should probably close this discussion and if you are still not satisfied you can start an RfC in another section so it is easier for newcomers to follow. {{u|zchrykng}} ^{T|C} 15:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I think we know there is a philosophical affinity among the parties involved. If you are choosing to use an image of their appearance on Alex Jones' show then there should be no problem in informing the reader of that. No one is forcing you to use an image from Alex Jones' show. Bus stop (talk) 16:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

It's being used because there are no decent free photos of D&S available, not because they appeared on Infowars. At this point, I think it's reasonable to ask you to pull your head out of the sand and recognize that you are alone in your support. Consensus is for not including "Infowars" and you continue to pummel the equine carcass. Flies are gathering. When will you stop and drop the stick? WP:BLUDGEON is still policy and now you've wandered past it and crossed the border into WP:DISRUPT. Please, I beseech you... enough, okay? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

No one is forcing you to use any image. You wish to use an image but you don't want to tell the reader the origin of the image in straightforward language in the caption accompanying the image. You've even stated that the reader can click on the image to find its origin. The question here is—why not put that information in plain view? Is it in the interests of anyone to omit that information? Bus stop (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bus stop and Winkelvi: Okay, I have started an RfC to try to get a better light/heat ratio. {{u|zchrykng}} ^{T|C} 18:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC about the caption on the image in the infobox

Closing this RFC per a request at Wikipedia:Requests for closure; there has been no comments in July and only one in June, so I think it's fair to say everyone who wants to have a say on this matter has done so. There is a slight majority in favour of including a link to Infowars within the image caption. I am not convinced by the arguments that the MOS forbids this; MOS:CREDITS doesn't apply, as saying where the appearance was (which is allowed) is distinctly different from crediting the image creator (which is not). It's not explicitly forbidden in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Captions#Infoboxes_and_leading_images, and a number of editors note that a number of featured articles include these kind of links within the infobox image caption. So, with the arguments for not having Infowars linked in the caption being both not in line with policy, practice, and in the minority, I think it's reasonable to say that there's a consensus here that yes, the caption on the image should include a link to Infowars. Fish+Karate 12:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Should the caption on the image in the infobox include a link to Infowars? {{u|zchrykng}} ^{T|C} 18:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Survey

Support

Support It describes where the picture comes from, a rather important bit of information, and it does not exceed our standards for infobox captionsas shown by the list of Featured Articles above. --GRuban (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Support It is factual, just as it would be if they appeared on CNN. If appearing on Infowars is embarrassing, that's not the article's fault. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

discussion copied to threaded discussion here

"Embarrassing"? Please exercise good faith. No one who has already commented here is suggesting appearing on Infowars is a problem for anyone. Besides, to do so would violate WP:NPOV. Keep in mind, however, that such content can go in the body of the article where it belongs. Putting it in the infobox image caption is against MOS for infoboxes, it's inappropriate, and it makes the caption too long, causing the image and caption together to look crowded and awkward. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

You should probably assume the assumption of good faith too. Your high level of activity in the discussions suggests you have an emotional investment in this issue. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

"Emotional investment"? No, just an investment in principle based in policy and WP:COMMON SENSE. Attempt to gaslight noted. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 12:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Winkelvi—Haven't you made clear that you feel that an association with Infowars would "lead the casual reader by the hand and hopefully paint the two women as whacko, non-credible extremists"? Bus stop (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

"Gaslighting"? Wow, now you've made the leap from assuming the assumption of bad faith to flat out assuming bad faith. Referring an editor to AGF is in effect an accusation of bad faith, and should be done sparingly if at all. For the record I'd never even heard of Diamond and Silk until yesterday, I was simply responding to a RFC. I have no particular agenda. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Winkelvi—do you really think you should be cropping the photo to remove the Infowars logo? And you may not have used the word "embarrassing" but I think you suggest the inclusion of the disputed language would "lead the casual reader by the hand and hopefully paint the two women as whacko, non-credible extremists". Bus stop (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bus stop: it was an imperative to remove the logo. So why are you asking him that? Do you have diffs to prove that he is incapable of using Microsoft Paint? wumbolo ^^^ 11:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Why was it imperative to remove the logo? Bus stop (talk) 11:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bus stop: This and this. wumbolo ^^^ 12:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Support There is nothing out of the ordinary in a caption under such an image including the fact that the image depicts them appearing on Infowars. Bus stop (talk) 12:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Support. I came here from the notice at WikiProject Conservatism. If it were untrue that the image came from Infowars, then of course we should not include that. But it is simply a fact. If the subjects' images had been put on Infowars against their wishes or without their knowledge, we would be required by WP:BLP to either leave it out or explain it. But that is not the case. Appearing on any given information platform does not, in itself, imply endorsement of that platform. There is nothing unusual about including some information about context in an image caption. Unless we have sourcing that indicates that the subjects felt that the appearance reflected badly on themselves, any judgment by editors that we should treat it as though it reflected badly on them is WP:OR. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Support. Comming from RfC Bio page. This is a very common thing to include in captions, to give context to where an image comes from. For example, see Rolling Stones or Tom Cruise. LK (talk) 07:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Support - It's pretty standard practice to add captions on images explaining the context of the image. If "oppose"-rs here have a problem with POV issues related to Infowars, they ought to find another image to replace this one with. NickCT (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

discussion copied to threaded discussion here

"It's pretty standard practice to add captions on images explaining the context of the image." I don't know if you're aware, NickCT, but it's not standard practice, nor is it preferred, for infobox images per MOS. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: - Challenge! Here's the policy. Show me where it says it's not preferred. In fact, the MOS talks about how to insert a caption, which would seem to imply the MOS supports their use. NickCT (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

See the discussion thread directly above this one, and look for my comment that includes a link to the MOS on info boxes, the section within that policy is titled, I believe, special situations. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Our guidelines and policies are descriptive, not proscriptive. Many of us have given numerous clear examples that in our best articles infobox captions do explain the context of the image, sometimes to much greater length than this. --GRuban (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@GRuban: I went through all examples that were given, and no more than zero are similar to this case. wumbolo ^^^ 16:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

We're firmly into "threaded discussion" grounds now, and any moment I'm expecting some kind soul to move multiple posts there, but in what ways similar do you require, please? The Rolling Stones and Tom Cruise don't do it for you? I feel quite certain that I can find enough examples of excellent articles of any reasonable degree of similarity that have infobox captions of equal or greater length and context detail. --GRuban (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Can we just stop for a second to acknowledge that Cruise is awesome and all BLP's should emulate his? NickCT (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Er … ummm … yes, quite... Back to our original question. Let's do Wikipedia:Featured Article#Media biographies of living persons, shall we? We seem to be shy of "political bloggers", "Media" sufficient I hope?

* Amy Adams - Adams at the 2016 Toronto International Film Festival

* Ben Affleck - Affleck at the 2017 San Diego Comic-Con

* Vidya Balan - Vidya at the 63rd Filmfare Awards in 2018

* Eric Bana - Bana at the 2009 Tribeca Film Festival

* Nancy Cartwright - Cartwright at the 2014 Annie Awards

Every single one of the first 5 media biographies of living people had context in their infobox picture. And, of course Tom Cruise, who is, as above, awesome. --GRuban (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@GRuban: - The "Cruise" comment was meant to be a little tongue-in-cheek, if that wasn't apparent. The WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument is clearly sound and relevant here. NickCT (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@GRuban: I'd like an article with a lead photo that comes from a show or TV generally, so that the subject is not on set. wumbolo ^^^ 17:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Rudolph Cartier, Featured Article of a media personality, infobox caption "Rudolph Cartier in 1990, speaking about his career to BBC Two's The Late Show." He's dead, or I'd have included him in the list above (he precedes Cartwright alphabetically).--GRuban (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: - Ok. I'm reading Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Captions#Infoboxes_and_leading_images, but I'm still not saying the language that reads anything like "it's preferred not to use captions on Infobox images". Could you quote the exact line you're looking at? NickCT (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: - Echo-ing GRuban's comment; whether or not this is "policy" is one question. Whether this standard practice is another. I know it's a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but a quick glance through other BLP's seems to quickly confirm that we generally include captions. NickCT (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Support - Diamond and Silk are noteworthy for frequently appearing in the media giving commentary. And since this image is actually a screenshot from one of their many media appearances, it makes sense to inform the reader where the screenshot came from (which show were they appearing on) and the month/day/year of their appearance. It also makes the information easily accessible to our readers and there's plenty of room to include where it came from in the infobox caption. There's no policy and/or guideline that explicitly forbids including this information (unless of course consensus is against it). Isaidnoway (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Support. As others have said, its pretty common to provide context like this in captions. I see no real reason to exclude the information in this case. Calidum 17:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Support (Summoned by bot) ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
(moved back to oppose) Support per the article Carl Benjamin. I went through EVERY article in the category Category:Video bloggers and its subcategories, and Carl Benjamin is the only article which has a lead photo coming from an online interview "in one's living room" where the subject is not a regular contributor to the program which interviewed the subject. wumbolo ^^^ 15:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose You can see my objections above, it doesn't seem to add any useful information. {{u|zchrykng}} ^{T|C} 18:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. But the description below the pic itself here[31] should mention that they are appearing on InfoWars (the text there also violates WP:NPOV by repeating their false claims about censorship in Wiki voice). I don't know anything about Wikipedia policy regarding images, so I'm changing my vote to "neutral". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose both the link and mention of Infowars per MOS on infobox image captions. Knowing it's Infowars they were appearing on in this context neither improves the article nor does it better inform the reader regarding the article subject. Aside from policy on infobox image captions, it also can unfairly skew the reader's perception of the duo, suggesting they are directly afilliated with Infowars, which they are not. The image is from one appearance, not repeated or regular appearances. Best to stick to policy here: short, sweet, and NPOV. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per everything above, ~~and Hoth-level of snow close.~~ and per MOS:CREDITS and While more detail could be added, consider carefully whether it might distract the reader from the subject of the article. I went through EVERY article in Category:Video bloggers and its subcategories, and no article has a lead photo coming from an online interview "in one's living room" where the subject is not a regular contributor to the program which interviewed the subject. wumbolo ^^^ 19:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I originally voted oppose, then moved to support, and now moving back to oppose. wumbolo ^^^ 07:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - As noted above, readers will read "Infowars" and assume a direct connection between the two (or three). Meatsgains^(talk) 16:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per Wumbolo above and MOS:CREDITS as distracting from the topic. Infowars isn't mentioned anywhere else on the page, so linking it there reads is off-topic and incidental. The current caption as stated implies they are part of the show rather than simply guests. -- Netoholic @ 08:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Netoholic—one possibility, if there is widespread agreement, is to use the caption "Diamond (left) and Silk (right), guests on InfoWars in 2018". It is slightly longer but not prohibitively so, and it answers your request for clarification that they are guests. Bus stop (talk) 01:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Its better, of course, but I still oppose a photo source in the caption in general. If their appearance on the show isn't worthy of inclusion in the article, then its extraneous in the caption. In other examples given by the supporters, like musicians at concerts, etc., the info ties in with the article, where it can be sourced. -- Netoholic @ 02:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Oppose per Wumbolo. As far as I know there's no encyclopedic connection between D&S and InfoWars. If I'm mistaken, and there is some significant connection, then it should be explained in the text. Otherwise the fact that the photo was from InfoWars is unnecessary trivia and a distraction, and the phrase "on InfoWars" should be removed. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

DrFleischman—the instances are numerous of the involvements of Diamond and Silk with Infowars. Aside from them appearing as guests on Infowars (from which we have the image that we are discussing) we have the April 8, 2018 posting from Infowars with the heading "‘Unsafe to the community’: Facebook takes on pro-Trump Diamond and Silk", and we have the April 26, 2018 posting from Infowars with the heading "VIDEO! Diamond And Silk Destroy Congress", and we have the April 27, 2018 posting from Infowars with the heading "Diamond And Silk Are Fighting For You!" I have tried posting links but I am getting a message telling me that I am linking to a "blacklisted" site. Do your own search on Google or YouTube and you will find numerous involvements of Diamond and Silk with Infowars. Bus stop (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Bus stop, your reasoning is backwards. D&S aren't saying this and connecting themselves with Infowars, Infowars is saying it and connecting themselves with D&S. Using your reasoning, if the image must contain the caption with the reference to Infowars, then it should be done at the Infowars article, not the D&S article. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Neither you nor I know what arrangements there may be between Diamond and Silk and Infowars. Nor does it matter. Diamond and Silk appear as guests on Infowars. We do not know how many times. I believe it is your expressed opinion that informing the reader of the origin of our image would "paint the two women as whacko, non-credible extremists"[32]. That is only your opinion and even if your opinion is correct, and we have no way of knowing, that opinion would not constitute a reason for hiding the origin of the image. They chose to appear as guests on Infowars. It is their choice. Did they express that they regret appearing as guests on Infowars? If not, then why are you endeavoring to suppress this information? Yes, it is a WP:BLP, but what are the WP:BLP concerns in disclosing the origin of an image? Why should we conceal that from the reader, assuming we are choosing to use an image of their guest appearance on Infowars? The disagreement we are having concerns the propriety of telling the reader the origin of a photographic image. We are arguing over whether information should be provided or deliberately withheld. I favor disclosure. Bus stop (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Here is another instance of Diamond & Silk appearing on Infowars. This is not the origin of our image. This is the instance of Diamond & Silk appearing on Infowars from which our image derives. So now we have two instances of Diamond & Silk appearing as guests on Infowars. Bus stop (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

"Neither you nor I know what arrangements there may be between Diamond and Silk and Infowars. Nor does it matter." You're right, it doesn't matter. Which makes me wonder why you brought it up since no one has even attempted to speculate. "Diamond and Silk appear as guests on Infowars. We do not know how many times." No one has said anything about that, either. Except you. The article isn't about Infowars. You're obsessing on Infowars. You might want to stop. You also might want to stop violating policy on bludgeoning in talk page discussions. "I favor disclosure." Really? I never would have guessed. ;-) (that was meant as a good-natured, tongue-in-cheek humorous jab, in case it wasn't clear) :-D -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

@Snooganssnoogans: No objection to rewriting the information on the image's page. I will take a shot at it myself later, for some reason my work machine is blocking commons. {{u|zchrykng}} ^{T|C} 18:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The RfC is incorrectly formed. The question is whether the caption should read "Diamond and Silk (left to right) on InfoWars in 2018" or "Diamond (left) and Silk (right) - 2018". I am cutting and pasting what I think are the two primary choices from the discussion above. Bus stop (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

No, the RfC is not incorrectly formed. If the question asked doesn't meet your expectation of what the question should be, ask the creator to change it, however... we now have !votes based on that particular question, so I don't think it would be right to change it at this point. The RfC is valid as is. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

For an RfC to be effective it should be binary. Two choices. One or the other. Bus stop (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

There are two choices: Oppose or support. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you still beat your wife? You have two choices. Yes or no? Bus stop (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bus stop: You had many opportunities to start an RcF with your preferred language, in fact I suggested you start one. That said, if @Winkelvi and Snooganssnoogans: don't object I am happy to change the question. {{u|zchrykng}} ^{T|C} 18:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

As far as I understand policy, tou really shouldn't since there are already !votes in place based on the question asked. Truly, the RfC is not malformed, it's fine as it is. People can read and make their choices: either oppose or support. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense, I mostly want to avoid going through this again with a slightly different question. Was mostly thinking that if everyone who had !voted was okay with the change it would be fine, but if that is against policy I will leave well enough alone. {{u|zchrykng}} ^{T|C} 18:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I have uploaded a retouched version of the image, it removes the Infowars copyrighted logo and improves on the lighting and focus with some digital noise removal applied. I did not alter the image caption, of course, due to this current RfC and awaiting of consensus on the caption wording. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Support It is factual, just as it would be if they appeared on CNN. If appearing on Infowars is embarrassing, that's not the article's fault. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC); Moved discussion from above {{u|zchrykng}} ^{T|C} 18:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)