User talk:DocZach

This is DocZach's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 14 days

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Andrew Tate, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Criminal investigations are active; we will not report this as fact at this point in the case. The fact that you restored this after BLP was already cited is most concerning. VQuakr (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He admitted himself that he was a pimp. That is not defamatory language, and it is not a criminal accusation. Calling him a sex-trafficker would indeed be defamatory and not appropriate as he has not been convicted of it, but calling him a pimp is accurate terminology because he has admitted to and has been documented by reliable sources to have earned money and setup women to make money on NSFW webcams. DocZach (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to the article talk page. VQuakr (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between being documented by RS and being WP:DUE for the lead, especially the MOS:FIRST. Note how other contentious descriptions in the MOS:OPEN have at least half a dozen RS, making them due there. There's also the point that this description is not a summary of the body, per WP:LEAD. I'll add it to the Views and influence section, as is well referenced, but I don't believe it's due in the lead what so ever based on two sources. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added the descriptions to online ventures section with attribution, as this is where it belongs based on context. Based on the sources, neither should be used without attribution (see WP:GUARDIAN and WP:LATIMES, ie WP:NEWSBLOG for their columns), and therefore quite clearly doesn't belong in the lead on this basis alone. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 11:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Andrew Tate shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like on you've been trying to insert this term into multiple abortion related articles, and edit warring to keep it in place. Previously at abortion-rights movements, then at Jane's Revenge (both were on my watchlist), and now ShoutYourAbortion (which I only stumbled upon yesterday and looked at the edit history when I was surprised to see that term in there). Like you've been told at those discussions, it doesn't matter if you can find sources that use the term. Multiple sources also use terms like "pro-choice" and "pro-life", too, not to mention more extreme terms, but Wikipedia doesn't use those because they're imprecise and/or misleading slogans. There is a push among the anti-abortion groups to label things "pro-abortion" as frequently as possible, and indeed some abortion rights groups do use the term (though very rarely these days), but that doesn't mean it's how Wikipedia should describe an abortion rights group (or a group trying to reduce the stigma around abortion). In an unusual situation where a group uses that term about itself, we wouldn't call them a "pro-abortion group/campaign", but there might be a context in which we could attribute the term to the group/campaign itself rather than use it as a straightforward descriptor. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are supposed to use terms that the majority of reliable sources describe an organization as. "Pro-choice" is misleading because it is incredibly broad and doesn't specify what "choice." And "pro-life" is also misleading because it is also incredibly broad and doesn't specify what "life" or which practice is opposed. The term "pro-abortion" is defined simply as being "in favor of the availability of medically induced abortion as a means of ending a pregnancy." Examples of definitions from credible dictionaries:

• Pro-abortion is defined as supporting the belief that women should have the right to have an abortion (= the intentional ending of a pregnancy) if they need or want one. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/pro-abortion
• Pro-abortion is defined as favoring the legalization of abortion. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proabortion

Even Planned Parenthood themselves encourages using the term "pro-abortion." https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/planned-parenthood-advocacy-fund-massachusetts-inc/blog/whats-wrong-with-choice-why-we-need-to-go-beyond-choice-language-when-were-talking-about-abortion

Shout Your Abortion is not an "abortion rights" campaign. It is a pro-abortion campaign, as they explicitly serve the purpose of promoting and celebrating abortion, as explicitly defined on their website. Their primary purpose is sharing positive stories about abortion and eradicating all "stigma" from abortion, and using the classifier pro-abortion is appropriate as it distinguishes them from mainstream abortion-rights organizations. DocZach (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]