Talk:Ta-Nehisi Coates/Archive 1

Proposed changes

We refer to the subject both as Coates and as Ta-Nehisi, apparently to emphasize his youth in the autobiographical work. I propose that we use Ta-Nehisi only to refer to the character, and show "the young Ta-Nehisi" at first use.

For an encyclopedic approach, I think we need to link or otherwise explain the capitalized Consciousness.

Any objections?

-- Jo3sampl (talk) 11:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

A constructive proposal, though I would pay heed to the Manual of Style's comments on prénom vs surname use. Skomorokh 19:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; you're right on surname use. I haven't yet found a satisfactory link for "Consciousness" as used here. Jo3sampl (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional citations

I have added citations for all the unreferenced biographical details (attendance at Baltimore Polytechnic and Howard University, current residence in Harlem) and removed the "needs additional citations" tag. This is my first "real" edit of an article (i.e. not just fixing broken links), and I think I covered everything necessary, but please let me know if I'm in the wrong here. Mictlantecuhtle (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.164.101 (talk) 04:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Ta Nehisi Coates blog style

I have tried numerous times to edit a section on TNC and the editing of articles. Well, more so on the editing of comment sections of articles. It seems that TNC, himself or others affiliated with him, have been significantly altering his own blog on The Atlantic to change comments. .

.....In violation of Wikipedia standard.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.65.50 (talk) 03:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

If you are genuinely confused as to why your edit keeps being deleted see wikipedia's policy on original research — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.185.136 (talk • contribs)

Habit of banning users

On Aug 31 2013 (link), user Agnosticraccoon deleted a link to my post about TNC banning me for disagreeing with him. Agnosticraccoon said, "Those sources are opinion pieces used to bolster what was written as objective fact. I suggest you bring it up on the talk page." I'm having trouble parsing that, but it's a fact that TNC banned me and has banned others. I mean, he says "lawl. ur so banned." to me right here. My post combines opinion with fact, but I'm sure most WP readers aren't so young that they're going to be confused between a fact (that TNC banned me) and my take on it.

Isn't it a fact that TNC banned me and publicly admits that he did so? Isn't it a fact that he's done that in other cases? Shouldn't the negatives about his style be in this article in order to provide some slight balance? ZXY4931 (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

To include such a thing, Wikipedia rules require that it be documented by a reliable secondary source, not a primary source like your blog. Gamaliel (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The primary source is The Atlantic website - which has been linked. The proof is there - written words from Ta Nehisi Coates himself. The bigger question is why are you so against including the FACT that TNC bans users for disagreeing with him as a topic on his Wiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.65.50 (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand. We can't include every random fact, so the significance of the fact must be demonstrated by coverage in a reliable secondary source. Gamaliel (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I understand quite clearly. TNC is a blogger. That is his profession. He does something which is actually rather unusual on his blog and participates in discussion and then bans people who disagree with him. So, if you think his profession and the way he conducts it are "every random fact" then that's your personal opinion. It doesn't change the fact that you're disallowing facts on a wikipedia page because of a personal bias. The source is Ta Nehisi Coates himself. How is that less reliable or applicable than a secondary source doing a report on him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.65.50 (talk) 02:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not disallowing anything, Wikipedia policies are. They require a secondary source. Gamaliel (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are disallowing direct, sourced material. The fact that the New York Times hasn't done an article about TNC blogging habits does not change the facts of what he does. And you know that. Why are you disallowing this information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.65.50 (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

If you have a specific reliable secondary source for the edit, please cite it here, and we can discuss the issue. A generic reference to atlantic.com is pretty worthless; one may as well claim, "I read it somewhere on the internet". Also repeated insertion of the disputed content will only result in your getting blocked from editing on wikipedia too, which would be ironic considering the subject of dispute! Abecedare (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The direct link to the comments sections where TNC has banned people has been previously provided. It was then deleted by people like you who are trying to hide the truth. Are you denying that Coates bans people from TheAtlantic.com for disagreeing with him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.65.50 (talk) 02:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You can insure that the truth comes to light by providing a reliable secondary source per Wikipedia rules. Gamaliel (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a "blog", I'm not a blogger, and I don't want to be associated with either term. Short of the NYT writing an article about what TNC is in the habit of doing, what would be necessary to get something in the wiki article about what TNC is in the habit of doing? The Atlantic's comments don't appear to be indexed, but if I or a bot friend can find X instances of a TNC comment admitting to banning someone, what value of X will result in that being allowed into the article? ZXY4931 (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

None, because of Wikipedia's prohibition against original research. A secondary source is required. Gamaliel (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

More to the point, Wikipedia is not the place to document your disputes with the subject of an article. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is a link to all the articles that mention Coates at the Atlantic website. [1] Which of these articles are you referring to as your source?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Removing Link to Coates Living in Harlem.

Sorry, the current link is an article that Coates wrote for The Atlantic. And we've already determined that stuff that Coates write on that website considered "original source." So I'm going to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PJarorbi (talk • contribs) 22:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:POINT Gamaliel (talk) 23:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, so you agree that I made a point. Or that I'm going to. Which is to apply your criteria evenly now and in the future. What is your connection to Coates anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PJarorbi (talk • contribs) 03:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Here is an article you should read that will help you interact with other editors on Wikipedia. Please let me know if you have any questions. Gamaliel (talk) 03:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Arrest for assault

My edit keeps being reverted by users with no discussion, then they tell me to "go to talk page." Please follow your own advice. This author writes on issues of blacks and crime (among others), and has cited this arrest several times in his writing. Therefore, it is no at all "undue". If the personal section is a little short, then maybe that's because this person is not as notable as other people think. But the length of the section is not relevant here. Please justify your edits on the talk page here, or cease deleting good faith edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Useitorloseit (talk • contribs) 21:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

It's undue weight to include the material as a throwaway line. You're welcome to present a proposal on this page for a non-tendentious, contextual discussion of those incidents in his life. Simply adding a line that says "he was arrested" to his personal life section does not cut it.

Your addition has been reverted multiple times by multiple editors and you have violated the three-revert rule. Please make a proposal here before attempting to add it again. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The fact is that an arrest and/or suspension for minor allegations while underage would not ordinarily be at all encyclopedic for someone's biography on Wikipedia.

The incidents may be notable in this case, but only because Coates has discussed them in his writings as a part of his formative experiences. There are no reliable sources discussing the incidents except those that flow from Coates' own writings. Therefore, the incidents are only notable when placed in the context of his writing about them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Your argument only consists of several conclusory statements, offered without supporting evidence. For example, you keep trying to minimize my edit by referring to it as a "throwaway line". According to whom? Is there a WP definition of "throwaway lines" somewhere? If so, what is it and why does it apply here? You call these allegations "minor". That is not a neutral POV, and you need to support your assertion. Assault is a felony in every state I know of; I hardly call that "minor". You yourself admit my edit may be ok "only because Coates has discussed them." That sounds like justification enough to include it to me. Lastly, the page has repeatedly been reverted by other user without trying to discuss or improve my edit first, in violation of WP policy; yet you do not say anything about it. please explain why you ignore the other user's behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Useitorloseit (talk • contribs) 23:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear what I am doing: I am trying to get to a fair temporary page while discussion takes place. Gamaliel violated WP policy at 19:31 20 Feb by reverting my edit. This is the rule that applies here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary#Unacceptable_reversions: Take note of "Never revert an edit because it was made via an improper process." Also, "Don't revert an edit because it is unnecessary — because it does not improve the article. For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse. Wikipedia does not have a bias toward the status quo (except in cases of fully developed disputes, while they are being resolved). In fact, Wikipedia has a bias toward change, as a means of maximizing quality by maximizing participation. Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit, especially if you are the author of the prior text. The reason for this is that authors and others with past involvement in an article have a natural prejudice in favor of the status quo, so your finding that the article was better before might just be a result of that. Also, Wikipedia likes to encourage editing." Also: "This is a strict limit, not a given right; you should not revert any one article more than three times daily." Gamaliel broke these rules, and my reverts are trying to undo it and get to a place where the discussion (if users actually want that) can take place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Useitorloseit (talk • contribs) 00:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I broke no rules. That's not a rule, that's an essay which, as it notes on top of that page "contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributor". Per our BLP policies, potentially infringing material should be removed immediately, which is what I did. Gamaliel (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, you decided to actally try discussing; good for you. Perhaps you could have just tried that to start with; the page (which you seem to want to just ignore) does say to let what you think is a minor flaw go to avoid discourgaing editors? A search of BLP page shows nothing about "infringing material", whatever that means. You certainly violated the 3RR rule, so fairness says the page should stand at my edit and let's discuss (if you actually want to). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Useitorloseit (talk • contribs) 00:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I've reviewed the edit history, and Gamaliel has not violated 3RR today. —C.Fred (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The edit war's over, but if anyone has comments about my proposed addition, please discuss. Useitorloseit (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I oppose adding information to a BLP about a juvenile arrest with no evidence provided of a conviction. Describing this as his "criminal" background in an edit summary is incorrect and a BLP violation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Cullen.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you're making much too much of my shorthand description for my edit, and anyway it's not even in the actual article. You didn't explain why you think it's a BLP violation, but no one is disputing the truth of the arrest, so any possible violation seems like a non-issue. Lastly, I know of no rule that you can't mention an arrest unless it led to a conviction. Think of those celebrities who get arrested protesting then have charges dropped; you don't think that should be allowed to be mentioned in their articles? So I don't support that rule that you are asking for. The synopsis of his book probably should get edited, too; that is not at all up to standards. Useitorloseit (talk) 04:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

its a BLP violation because it violates our WP:BLP policy. read it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Please be aware, Useitorloseit that the BLP policy applies everywhere on Wikipedia, which includes talk pages and edit summaries. Here's the specific policy language from WP:BLP that supports my recommendation to exclude mention of this juvenile arrest: "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." This person is notable but relatively unknown, he is not a well-known celebrity: he is a journalist and commentator for a respected magazine of relatively limited circulation. The fact that the arrest occurred when he was a juvenile, and that the juvenile arrest is discussed nowhere that I know other than in his own online commentary on his magazine's website, indicates that this is minor, we have no evidence of a conviction, and inclusion of material that even hints that he is a "criminal" is a policy violation. The edit summary is evidence of your intentions. So I will continue to oppose inclusion unless and until new facts emerge. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from trying to discern my "intentions", unless you want me to start speculating about yours. And on your main point, I think you are missing an important distinction: this issue is closely related with this subject's notability. It's not like we have an article about the 2010 Science Fair winner and I'm trying to add a note about them being busted for underage drinking. This person's notability derives from his writing about blacks and crime and issues thereof, and his upbringing in a crime-ridden inner city school and his own brushes with the law, which he wrote his only book about. So excluding it would be like having an article on a writer about homelessness and not mentioning the fact he was homeless himself once. The arrest dovetails very closely with whatever notability he has, and that's why it should go in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Useitorloseit (talk • contribs) 19:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

You are correct that it has had an impact on his writing. As I have said, mentioning the arrest in the context of Coates' writing and what he has written about the experience is probably proper, in the section about his writing. If someone has a copy of The Beautiful Struggle and can assist with depicting Coates' experience and his perspective, that would be most helpful.

But that is not what is being done here - you have attempted to insert the matter as a throwaway line in his "personal life" section, when it is not a significant or relevant part of his personal life. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I support the approach suggested by NorthBySouthBaranof. Anyone is free to comment on my intentions to the extent that I reveal them in my edit summaries or talk page comments. The same goes for all other editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think if we add it to the book section, there's another problem: that section needs to be cut down a lot because it looks like someone just wrote a book review, and once it's cut down to appropriate size (I pruned it just now), the blurb about the arrest might seem over-emphasized if we include it there. I think it's better to mention the arrest in the section of the article dealing with his early life, since that's when it happened and readers can see he used that material in his later writing career themselves. I envision the article going something like "He had some trouble with authority growing up. Later he wrote about it." Useitorloseit (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

There continues to be no consensus for your proposal to insert a mention of a juvenile arrest into the personal life section of this article. It has been explained to you a number of times why the edit is objectionable. You are a single-purpose account with no edits to any other articles, and your continued edits are well into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You have violated good faith by falsely accusing me of being a SPA. Just because I don't contribute much doesn't make me what you claim. I point out that you have failed to address my last comments here, and gone back on your previous statements. Only when you settle on one opinion will we be able to discuss things. You have said you think it "probably" should go in, so I said it should be the biographical section. Again, I note for the record you revert instantly, but you don't truly engage in discussion beyond repeating the same thing. Where is your reply to my post above? You are getting into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory, not me. Please explain yourself for the record and allow me to weigh in, or leave the article alone. Useitorloseit (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

There is not violation of good faith by stating the accurate facts. the only edits you have made outside of Ta-Nehisi Coates have been your spite reversals of people who have not supported your quest against Coates. Your single obsession with Coates makes you an SPA. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

So what if I don't have the urge to edit articles more than once every few years? Maybe I am not as interested in Wikipedia editing as you are. Did you or anyone else ever ask me that? No, you just accuse me of bad faith. Stop blaming me for disagreeing with your preferred version of the article. Useitorloseit (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

"My preferred version" of the article is one that is in compliance with our policy about content regarding living people. The fact that you have shown no interest in any other subject would not matter if your interest in the single subject was to improve the quality of the article as per the guidelines and policies. Your complete rejection of the policy that trumps ever other policy is the issue. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Who says your version is "in compliance" and mine isn't? You have an unfortunate tendency to state the "facts" as being whatever you personally think, and everything else being a "violation". I have three users agreeing it's ok to put this in the article. The current debate is WHERE to put it. Have you even read the discussion up above?? Useitorloseit (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Who sez? well so far it has been everyone who has reverted you and every one on this page who has said "No" to your version. so "who sez?" : just about everyone. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It's clear you haven't read the discussion above. NorthbySouth said it should "probably" go in the article "in the context of his writing", and Cullen agreed. So that makes three of use (including me) who think it's relevant in at least SOME section. No one replied when I said if we're including it, it should go in his bio section, so I assumed the discussion was over. Useitorloseit (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion was over. We explained where and how it might be proper to discuss the issue - in a nuanced fashion that does not focus on the totally non-notable and unencyclopedic fact of the arrest, but on what Coates has written about the experience.

You didn't add anything "in the context of his writing," you simply re-added basically the exact same wording in the exact same place that everyone but you has determined is objectionable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't give biographical details via descriptions of artists' work. Tolstoy's page doesn't say "He wrote a book about Russia (by the way, he was from there)". The same principle applies here. If it's notable for his writing as you said, then it's notable for inclusion - after all, the article only exists due to his writing). And we should include it in the appropriate section, which is his personal life section.Useitorloseit (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

As has been repeatedly explained, being arrested for a minor offense as a minor is not generally a notable, encyclopedic part of a person's biography. This is a rebuttable presumption which you have made no effort to rebut, except by declaration.

Your POV on this matter was made clear by your initial edit summary: you have an ax to grind against Coates and wish to smear him as a "criminal." This you may not do. If you do not accept the consensus and cease the tendentious edits, you'll likely be blocked for disruption. And that's all there is to it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You are the one being "tendentious", amply demonstrated by your dismissive "throwaway line" comments, the attempts to read into my POV, your reverting within 7 minutes after dropping out of the discussion for a week, and your "that's all there is to it". You yourself have admitted it's "probably proper" to include in some context, so beware of your own words. The fact that this is a writer whose main topics are blacks and crime and the issues arising from them, who wrote his only book about his own troubled upbringing, including his troubles with the law, makes this a notable event.Useitorloseit (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no "attempt" to read into your POV. You have made your POV abundantly clear from your first edit and your obsession and your disruptive editing related to your POV. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC: High school incident

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 this author's arrest for assaulting his teacher in high school be included, and if so where? Useitorloseit (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• do not include we are not here to write your slander for you. WP:BLP WP:UNDUE WP:BLPCRIME WP:POINT-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You REALLY need to stop trying to play hall monitor. I added your source so quit arguing about the arrest because it happened. Useitorloseit (talk) 02:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

hall monitors aren't necessary when adults or children follow simple rules. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• We should never include a simple mention of a juvenile arrest without a conviction in a BLP. If the article includes a comprehensive, neutral, well-referenced overview of his writing, and if reliable sources mention that his discussion of his own arrest is a significant aspect of his journalistic output, then the incident could be mentioned as part of that broad overview. I will continue to oppose any content that states or implies that he is a "criminal" because of a juvenile arrest without conviction. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Cullen, there is no policy about "never" including an arrest unless there's a conviction, and that's a good thing. No one is trying to add the word "criminal" to the article and I oppose that too if someone did. But the arrest is relevant to his career, despitr being uncomfortable for some people to read about. It happened, he writes about it in his book and blog, it belongs in the article. Useitorloseit (talk) 02:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

That's why I qualified my remark with the important word "juvenile" which you quickly glossed over. There is a strong presumption of privacy with regards to juvenile arrests in many countries including the United States where he lives. Which reliable source says that this arrest is "relevant to his career", or is that your own opinion, which is of negligible value here on Wikipedia? Are you arguing that we should include every single theme or biographical incident that occurs in his writing, or only this one? Or is it only the ones that, in your view, reflect negatively on him? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You put "never" in italics; you didn't qualify anything. I find your opinions of negligible value as well. Demanding a cite for the arrest being relevant to the career is clear argumentativeness. I demand a cite to a Wikipedia rule for you insisting on a cite. Useitorloseit (talk) 03:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

"Read the entire sentence please, not just the word in italics. I included the word "juvenile" for a very good reason which you continue to ignore. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It says never include a juvenile arrest. Of course it's juvenile - hard to write a bok about high school and not mention being a juvenile. Useitorloseit (talk) 04:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

its the same one you have been ignoring before- why the fuck should we think you would read it now? But on the off chance that you are merely really slow and not a troll: WP:BLP -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

you keep making that assertion and proving no support for it. You MUST stop violating BLP. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you for real? I have repeatedly given the link to the source. You simply are refusing to even listen or read.Useitorloseit (talk) 02:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

you have not given any source that establishes " the arrest is relevant to his career," only your assertion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Given that the link isn't in the discussion section above, you may need to give the link one more time, or point to where you gave the link. —C.Fred (talk) 02:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The original link to the author's own blog mentioning the arrest (I know of at least one more blog post also mentioning arrest): . His book The Beautiful Struggle mentions the suspension for assault on p. 172; not sure about citing format. My understanding is that people didn't doubt that the arrest happened, just that it was notable. Useitorloseit (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

And because there was no conviction (or even any indication that he was formally charged) and he was a minor and there is no contemporary news coverage, the incident is non-notable and unencyclopedic outside the context of what Coates wrote about the experience and how it affected his life. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

On any planet, the author's book and blog posts are enough for inclusion. Useitorloseit (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, everyone else appears to disagree. This is called "consensus." It has been reached. When you repeatedly reject that consensus because you don't like it, you are engaging in disruptive behavior. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The policy does not say "never", true. What policy does say is, "editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." Policy also requires reliable sources, especially with controversial or contentious material. That's why there's a recurring call for the sources to back up the claim. —C.Fred (talk) 02:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I have never said he committed any crime. All I have said in the article is he was arrested for one. Given this author's own mentions of said arrest, the BLP issue is a non-issue. Trying to say the author isn't an authoritative source is not being serious; there is no genuine doubt that this arrest happened. I don't see how mentioning facts that the author himself discusses could be a "smear". It is a relevant episode that adds a level of understanding to this person's limited notability by showing why he might write what he writes, and take the opinions he takes. Just because it's not pleasant to discuss doesn't make it a BLP violation or non-notable. Useitorloseit (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• "editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured

See the "is accused of committing a crime" part? That would cover being arrested. There is no question that the only way this factoid should be included is if you took NorthBySouthBaranof's advice and brought a childhood experience in dialogue with themes in his work. But that's more work. Arrests without conviction are not mentioned on Wikipedia unless it is a case that is widely covered by the media in which it would be simple to find third party sources. But even then, it is not always included in biographies of living persons if it is not considered significant. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• As has been repeatedly explained, the only source for this material is Coates' own writings - it was never reported by the media, which makes it irrelevant and unencyclopedic outside the context of the book, in which Coates discusses his life experiences. If the above editor is interested in buying a copy of The Beautiful Struggle and writing an in-depth, contextual section discussing Coates' childhood, it might be possible to write an encyclopedic section including that information in context. Given the above editor's apparent desire to do nothing more than an ineffectual smear job on the writer, this discussion can die a natural death. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's a cite for the relevance: this guy's intro specifically references his troubled past and how he's "learned from it": http://2014.wascarc.org/content/ta-nehisi-coates-why-we-teach-and-why-we-learn Useitorloseit (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Your cite is a summary for a talk that hasn't happened yet, and your use of the phrase "troubled past" is original research, given that it appears nowhere in the summary. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Another cite for arrest: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-littlest-schoolhouse/308132/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Useitorloseit (talk • contribs) 03:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion per WP:BLPCRIME. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for speedy close

Per WP:IAR, I propose a speedy close to this ill conceived RfC. We are being asked to choose between including nothing (because that is what plain readings of WP:BLP / WP:UNDUE / WP:OR require) and including - nothing (because no alternatives have been proposed). Letting such nonsense run is process for process sake and simply giving a banquet to a troll. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support - The initiating user has been blocked for disruption, which is pretty much all that needs to be said about that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Proposed edit for article

User/admin S.G.^(GH) and I have been talking this over on his Talk page, and he and I feel this proposed edit of the first section and first part of the second section could work. The rest of the article would be unchanged. Any comments?

Personal life

Coates was raised in a working-class family in Baltimore, Maryland. His father, William Paul Coates, was a Vietnam veteran and former Black Panther. His mother, Cheryl, was the breadwinner in the family and his father was a stay-at-home dad where he ran a small publishing house during Ta-Nehisi's childhood. Ta-Nehisi's father had seven children. Ta-Nehisi is an Egyptian name for ancient Nubia.

Coates attended a number of Baltimore-area schools, including Baltimore Polytechnic Institute, before graduating from Woodlawn High School. After high school, he enrolled in Howard University but dropped out to become a journalist. He currently resides in Harlem with his wife and son.

Writing and teaching

In 2009, he published The Beautiful Struggle, a memoir about coming of age in West Baltimore and its impact on him. In it, he discusses the influence of his father, a former Black Panther; the prevailing street crime of the era and its effects on his older brother; his own experience attending Baltimore-area schools, which included by his own later account "two suspensions, two expulsions, and an arrest by school police"; and his eventual graduation and enrollment in "Mecca", as he refers to Howard University.

References

• Comment I've discussed this a bit with the user on my talk page, and I wonder if an inclusion might be warranted per the following thought process: This subject is notable for his writing -> verifiable content, sourced even to first party sources, on what influences his writing, is therefore notable -> if a first party source states that one of the events of his early life that went on to influence his opinions/writings were early breaches of discipline including an arrest, and that both the event and the idea of it being an influence are taken directly for first party sourced, attributed to the source in quotation marks -> therefore this would not be original research as all inferences come from the source, not Wikipedia, and it would not violate BLPCRIME as it evidences why inclusion is notable, and we are simply quoting a sentence from a first-party source, rather than making any statements of "our own" so to speak. Forgive the verbose comment, that's just my working theory. I have indicated several times to the user above that if consensus is against the idea then I will of course defer, but I thought the idea worth exploring. There is, obviously, some history higher in the talk page which took place prior to me speaking to the user. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 22:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I wouldnt cover the expulsions twice, but that is well on the way to what people have been voicing for above - relating the event to something notable. and yes, the subject himself is an acceptable source to make that connection (although it would be preferred if a third party had noted it as well, so that we know that others think its a notable connection he is making there among the hundreds of items in his book and articles and interviews that he has noted have made impacts on him.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It is redundant to mention the issue in his "personal life" section.

I also think that if this is going to be added, it can only be as part of a significant expansion of the section about the book. Per the book, there were two minor incidents (not five separate ones as implied) - with the incidents and their aftermath taking up perhaps six pages in a 224-page book. (Coates talks far more about his parents' reaction to the incidents than any legal issues.) It is undue weight to have a one-sentence description of the book dominated by reference to the suspensions.

If we are going to keep it to one sentence, then I would not find it acceptable to say more than "his own troubled experience in Baltimore-area schools." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I concur with those saying it should only be mentioned once. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I took out the extra mention of expulsions, and added some links I hadn't seen before about the influence on his writing. Let's leave it for comment a while longer but I think we're pretty much there. Useitorloseit (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the only thing left to do is to turn those bare url citations into references using the citation templates. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, but I cannot figure out how to do that. Can you do one and I can probably extrapolate from that? Useitorloseit (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Use this template:<ref>{{cite web|last=author last name|first=author first name|title=title|url=url|publisher=publisher|accessdate=access date}}</ref> and just replace the placeholders after the '=' with the right content. Like this: "Climate impacts 'overwhelming' - UN". BBC News. BBC. 31 March 2014. Retrieved 31 March 2014. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I've got the hang of it so I'll finish the rest soon. Useitorloseit (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Update: I changed the rest of the links so hopefully we are good to go now. Thanks for your help. Useitorloseit (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• No. As I stated three weeks ago, any mention beyond "his own troubled experience in Baltimore-area schools" is undue weight, in my opinion - we are describing the book in one sentence, and the sum total of those incidents is 6 pages in a 224-page book. Also, the existing construction implies that there were five separate incidents, which is also not supported by the source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be 3 to 1 in favor of including this edit. I think this is a good compromise. I would have preferred my original idea but I can go along with SGGH's suggested approach. Others wanted more context and that has been provided. So I think this moves the ball forward and improves the article in a way that everyone ought to be able to live with even if I or someone else didn't get 100% of what they want. And in a few months someone else will probably come along and change it further. Useitorloseit (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

If the content above is a direct quote and it is the only mention of the incident(s) in the entire article, I personally would think it was suitable. That seems to be the case at the moment, unless I'm missing something. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, no. Extensive consensus rejected including it at all. Three of us have stated that some mention would be acceptable, but there is no consensus for the exact wording you propose absent a significant expansion of the section. As-is, your proposal places undue weight on 6 pages of a 224-page book. "His own troubled experience in Baltimore-area schools" sums up the issue accurately and concisely.

If the section was expanded to several paragraphs, your proposal might be acceptable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Your disagreement was and is noted but other editors are on record here saying they're ok with it. Useitorloseit (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Open an RFC and gain consensus for your proposal. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

You're the one operating against consensus here. Useitorloseit (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think that?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

This section has solicted opinions. Useitorloseit (talk) 02:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

If you keep getting reverted, and by different editors, you probably don't have consensus for actual text, regardless of whether "this section has solicited opinions." Why don't you just slow down and wait till there's actual consensus?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The previous section solicited opinions as well. I can see both sides and I encourage you to open a proper RfC instead of edit warring to expand possibly contentious material in a BLP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

One person said "this is well on its way to being acceptable" but requested some changes - more than a month ago, during which time no substantive changes were made to the proposal and you appeared to entirely drop the matter. I agree that it was well on its way to being acceptable - with the change I made to de-emphasize a section of undue weight making it entirely acceptable to me. Now you reappear and demand to implement your proposal as-is claiming "consensus" out of thin air. If there is a consensus for your changes, open an RFC and demonstrate it. If your version is preferred by an RFC, I will consider the matter closed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that consensus exists for the proposed changes and want to add my concerns about undue weight, and trying to turn two incidents into five. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Where were you when I was soliciting opinions these past weeks? It isn't right to ignore a request for debate then accuse people of going against consensus. You never weighed in on the proposed edit. Useitorloseit (talk) 03:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

You have 154 edits as of just now, with exactly 21 of them to mainspace. That doesn't mean your opinion isn't as valid as everyone else's, but it might make you want to ask yourself whether it's just possible that maybe you're less familiar with how things work around here than everybody else that you're disagreeing with? What's your rush? The material you proposed is "well on its way to being acceptable." Keep working with everyone and I'll just bet that eventually you'll all be able to come up with something that has at least part of what everyone thinks is good.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I am a volunteer, not a paid staffer, Useitorloseit, and you are not my boss. I comment if and when I choose to comment, and I remain silent when I so choose. I have already commented on this matter several times in March. Now, I am back to comment again. There is no consensus for the specific language you have proposed. That is not an accusation. That is a fact. Try to come up with better language based on the input you've received. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I gave it several weeks to get opinions but my new edit that SGGH and I worked out had never been commented on by you. Useitorloseit (talk) 03:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed wording of contentious section

The proposed edit above by Useitorloseit is almost entirely acceptable to me, with one and only one change.

I propose that instead of the phrase his own experience attending Baltimore-area schools, which included by his own later account "two suspensions, two expulsions, and an arrest by school police" preferred by Useitorloseit, we simply state his own troubled experience in Baltimore-area schools.

The reasoning is twofold.

Firstly, the entire sum total of the discussion of the incidents in the book is six out of 224 pages. Coates discusses his parents' reaction to the incidents far more than the legal issue. The version preferred by Useitorloseit places undue weight on the incidents by giving them outsized importance and detail in the article relative to their importance in the book. It also places the focus on numbers and legalities rather than Coates' feelings and thoughts about the occurrences. In a one-sentence summation of the book, his juvenile arrest is not important enough to be called out and specifically noted.

Secondly, the quote used implies the existence of five separate incidents, which is simply not true - there were, according to the source, only two separate incidents. This simply cannot stand - it fundamentally misleads readers.

For those reasons, at least, the construction "his own troubled experience at Baltimore-area schools" accurately and concisely describes the section and should be used in the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Reply On your first point, I'd agree if the book was all there was. But in his regular writing gig, he brings this up regularly, over a number of years. I've added links below and they're on my Talk page. Seems like these are events he likes to use in his writing, so I think they are notable enough to be specifically included. On your second point, I doubt the author's own description is as unacceptable as you claim, but I am open to finding another way to phrase it. I think the current "troubled past" violates WP:NPOV by using a euphemism for the incident. I think a compromise would be something that doesn't rub salt in the subject's past while also not trying to shield him from it. Useitorloseit (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Query Just so I'm clear on what we're discussing, you're proposing to replace the current "his own experience attending Baltimore-area schools" with the slightly more detailed "his troubled experience at Baltimore-area schools." Is that your proposal?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - The current version does state "troubled." The word "troubled" is descriptive and concisely sums up the matter without undue detail. I have added Useitorloseit's preferred version to my statement for clarity. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support I think this version gives proportionally due weight to his legal troubles as a juvenile. I am open to reconsidering this issue if independent (or, GG, even more coverage in his own work) reliable sources can be produced to show that these incidents deserve more coverage somehow.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Reply/Question Alf.laylah.wa.laylah, you said you could reconsider if there was more coverage. The author's day job is writing essays at the Atlantic, where he's brought up these incidents repeatedly: in 2009 ([2]), 2010 ([3]), 2012 ([4]), and 2013 ([5]). These all talk about the arrest; some of them also discuss the suspensions/expulsions. And that doesn't include all the references to his past in the inner city and its effects; here's a piece about being tempted to "cold-cock" someone but not doing it because of lessons learned from the street ([6]). So I think given the repeat use of this stuff in his writing over many years, there's good reason to actually mention the incidents (in some form), instead of using a vague euphemism like "troubled past", especially since even the author doesn't hide it. Please tell me what you think. Useitorloseit (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• I take your point. One problem is that without a secondary source explaining how he uses these experiences in his writing we're faced with the necessity of doing original research to explain the relevance of them to his writing career. That being said, the fact that your desired summary (2 this, 2 that, etc.) is a quote from him along with the fact that he does bring it up a lot makes it potentially important. The problem still remains, though, that it's hard to think of what to say about why we're saying it that wouldn't be original research.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It's like a writer about homelessness who was homeless himself once. We could say in the bio section "he was homeless", then in his writing section, mention that he writes books about homelessness. We don't have to say why we're saying it. Any reader would understand the significance. Wikipedia is supposed to be just the facts; any discussion of "why" seems like injecting POV into the piece. Why can't we just state what we know are reliable facts? Here we have an author who got in trouble in school, and now writes about troubled youth (among other similar things). There's nothing OR or UNDUE about it, I think. Useitorloseit (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree with this, or if the section was proportionately expanded - if we had a whole paragraph about the book and a whole paragraph about Coates' upbringing, bringing in Coates' thoughts about those experiences would be appropriate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• This is a bio of a writer whose main topics are issues of blacks, crime, inner city problems like violent schools, racism, etc. I think these incidents belong in the article the same way we'd include the fact an author of books about Russia was born in Russia. I think it's relevant and notable.
• The author has discussed the arrest/expulsion enough to demonstrate the influence it had on him (aside from his book, in 2009 ([7]), 2010 ([8]), 2012 ([9]), and 2013 ([10]). If we're including a fact such as his dad was a Black Panther, then this seems of equal or greater relevance to him.
• Looks like he got arrested for assault and suspended from that, may or may not have been expelled the 1st time for that, then got suspended for ANOTHER alleged assault, then was expelled again for a brawl (see the links above). I agree that listing all this is probably WP:UNDUE, but let's not brush over it with a vague euphemism like "troubled past", especially when the author himself doesn't. I like the idea of using the author's own summary of it, but can work to find a suitable half-way point.
• I think the description belongs in the Early Life section where his schooling is discussed. If the majority wants to keep it in the Writing section, I can live with that, although I don't think it's the best choice.
• Hopefully people will concentrate on content, not on any user's history, intent, etc. I pledge to do the same, of course. Useitorloseit (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The author himself did not view it as important enough to take up more than 6 pages of a 224-page book. That's less than 3 percent.

If our discussion of the book is to place due weight on each part of the narrative, the discussion of those incidents should take up no more than 3 percent of our discussion of the book.

Obviously, that's not the case here - one might argue that we are still placing undue weight by giving it as much space as we do. We summarize things, and a duly-weighted summary of that section of the book is no more than a few words - and dominated not by legalistic outcomes but by his thoughts about the events of his childhood.

A full and complete featured-article-quality biography would be several thousand words and have space for a sourced discussion about his school experiences. But that's not what we have here - we have a really brief biographical sketch of just a few sentences. There are no quotations from Coates' discussion of how he moved beyond those troubles and reached a high level of success - the much longer and far more significant story of his journey into and through academia and journalism. In a really brief article, it is very easy to introduce undue weight, and that's the issue here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:53, 24 April 2014

As I said, there's more than just the book. You keep looking at this solely through the book, but he has more writings that discuss it and I've given links to them. This person is not hugely notable which is why his article is not very long, and expanding it significantly would be give undue weight to his importance. Useitorloseit (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course, a highly-motivated NPOV editor, or team of editors, could expand this article, providing much more well-referenced information about his entire life and the full range of his notable writings and their critical reception. Instead, we have to fight an ongoing defensive action against a WP:SPA , Useitorloseit, who has been determined since their very first edit, to besmirch the BLP subject. So, all the efforts that could be dedicated to improving the article have to, instead, be devoted to defending the article against a tendentious, POV pushing, axe-grinding editor obsessed with making the subject look bad. What a pity! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

So much for focusing on content. Useitorloseit (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on WP:ANI

I have opened a discussion relevant to this article at the administrator's noticeboard for incidents. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully an admin will take the time to hear both sides, because when civil discussion takes place, I usually end up having my edit winning support. Other users resort to name-calling and forum shopping. Useitorloseit (talk) 04:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

where exactly has your proposal for content "won"? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change to Early Life section

I propose the current sentence about his schooling in the early life section be changed to this:

Coates attended Baltimore Polytechnic Institute but was expelled twice for disciplinary violations and he graduated from Woodlawn High School.

This doesn't specifically mention any of the assaults, suspensions, or arrest. It's also not in the section describing the memoir, so it's not giving undue weight to any part of the book. Based on his multiple referrals to these incidents which I have provided links for, I think it's relevant to this article. Naysayers may feel it is negative. Another more likely view in my opinion is that it enhances his credibility and authority to comment on the social issues he often writes about, and provides a richer context for readers. I've already expanded the book description as far as it can go without returning to the previous undue weight version, which is one demonstrable improvement of the article I made, and would like to include this part and hopefully move on to other things. Hope people can be reasonable and work with me here. Useitorloseit (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

No. We already refer to his book's account of his troubled experience at Baltimore schools. Consensus is clear that the incident is sufficiently described. You should move on to other things. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Other editors have stated they are ok with a single, more explicit description of the incidents, so consensus is not quite what you claim. Simply saying "troubled experience" violates the NPOV rule. This proposal is a good compromise: it takes it out of the book section but is still general enough. If you have another compromise, let's hear it. Useitorloseit (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose If he is the only one discussing these juvenile incidents, in his blog, then I see no reason for adding this content in a brief biography such as this. It would give undue weight to the incident. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

By your standard, most of the biographical facts should be tossed as well. He has made it clear these events are important enough to him by mentioning them over the years in a non-cursory way. That makes them relevant enough not to be undue weight. Useitorloseit (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Results Ok, I'm obviously ok with this. SGGH was ok with a single explicit reference. TheRedPenofDoom said not to mention it twice, which implies it's ok to mention once. Cullen and NorthbySouthBaranhof are opposed. Where does consensus stand? Does anyone want to propose a compromise? Useitorloseit (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

You may not take anything from my "dont mention twice" other than i am clearly on the record as opposed to mentioning it twice.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

That IS all I took from it, and I think the implication was a fair one. At any rate, it would still be 2-2. Does anybody want to sit down and work out a compromise? This is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Useitorloseit (talk) 02:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The issue is already mentioned. We don't "compromise," we develop consensus. There exists a consensus that the existing version adequately discusses any incidents related to Coates' time in school. That you don't like this consensus is neither here nor there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

No such consensus exists. And if editors disagree, they are supposed to find a workable solution. So let's do that instead of claiming you have consensus on your side when you plainly don't. We need to find a phrasing that does not paper over the events but doesn't wallow in them either. That is where consensus lies. What wording do you suggest? Useitorloseit (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, actually, there has never been a consensus developed that any mention of the incident belongs in the article. The status quo ante was no mention at all, prior to your controversial addition in February. The existing version is, in and of itself, a compromise version. If you believe that there is no consensus, then we will have to revert back to a version before you began introducing the issue, removing any and all mention of the incident until such time as a consensus is further developed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

This is the last uncontroversial version of the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

[11] is what I consider the last uncontroversial edit. I think there is consensus that it gets mentioned; you yourself have supported the euphemism "troubled past" which is a mention, however vague. I also think there is consensus to only mention it once. The only question it seems to me is how specific do we get. Useitorloseit (talk) 04:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

*Oppose It's sourced content and I don't think mentioning the specific charges is undue. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• • Changing to Support I misread. This guy got kicked out of school by his own admission. The article should reflect that. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Your edit summary is false and misleading. There is no evidence that Coates is in any way a "criminal." Please refrain from inflammatory/BLP-violating rhetoric in edit summaries. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It is already mentioned in the "Career" section and we should not mention it twice. I think that is what The Red Pen of Doom is saying as well, but that editor can clarify it needed. SGGH hasn't commented in three weeks, so please do not count that editor as supporting your current proposal, unless they speak in favor now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

If people opposed are allowed to be counted without weighing in, such as yourself these past few months, then I'm counting SGGH. The wording in the Career section is too vague. Mentioning it once is fine but I won't accept a euphemism that obscures the issue. We need to find a phrasing that does not paper over the events but doesn't wallow in them either. That is where consensus lies. What wording do you suggest?

Useitorloseit (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I have commented on this matter many times since February, including several times in the last three weeks. So please don't misrepresent my contributions. My suggestion is "no change", as long as you are grinding your axe. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• absolutely oppose the proposed wording drop the damn stick and your obsession with portraying him as a criminal and go on with your life. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is based on quality of arguments. Making a conclusory statement and just questioning an editor's motives aren't high up the quality scale. Useitorloseit (talk) 04:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Consensus HAS been made on the quality of arguments. and yours have been found lacking. and found lacking. and found lacking. When you keep beating your head against the wall, dont blame me for your headache. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Consensus can change. Useitorloseit (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Consensus hasn't changed, and motives are relevant. Your motives have been obvious since your very first edit summary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

You just ignore editors who disagree with you. SGGH and Chris troutman seem to feel differently than you. With me, that's 3. Your motives are clear: you don't like being contradicted. Useitorloseit (talk) 05:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I love being contradicted by productive encyclopedia editors who understand our policies and guidelines, and are here to build the encyclopedia rather than to push a point of view. I am quick to admit my mistakes when they are pointed out to me. I am not perfect and constantly work to improve my contributions here. However, I truly do not believe that this is such a case. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, passive-aggressive comments like "I'm not here to push a point of view" aren't conducive to building consensus, and I hope you see that now. But I'll tell you what: your tagline says Let's Discuss It. I'll take you at your word: let's talk it over and see if we can work out phrasing that works for both of us. I understand and agree with your desire not to "smear" this person. I hope you will appreciate my desire not to paper over a formative occurrence in this person's background. Useitorloseit (talk) 01:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, how's this for a start: Set aside your obsession with this issue for a month. In that time, show us that you are here to build an encyclopedia by tripling the length of this biography, adding nothing but scrupulously well referenced, neutral content. Once you've shown your good faith, we can agree to a slight expansion of the coverage of his juvenile problems. It would not then violate WP:UNDUE. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

We can discuss this, but it has to be with no preconditions. I've already stated my objection to your proposal about drastically expanding the article: this person is of limited notability and such an expansion would give undue weight to his notability. However, I am responsible for expanding the description of his book. Useitorloseit (talk) 02:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

If he is of limited notability, his being expelled from high school is of absolutely zero notability, given that you have not provided a single reliable non-primary source which discusses it, and therefore any significant mention is undue weight. Q.E.D. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

No, because the info is directly tied up with the reason for his notability. He writes about race, crime, inner city schools, etc. This is relevant to that writing. It's like having an author of a book about homelessness, and debating whether to mention that they were homeless when younger. Useitorloseit (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

That is your personal opinion. It is an interesting opinion, but if you have no sources to support it, then it has no place in Wikipedia. We do not publish original research. Please cite the independent reliable sources which consider these minor juvenile incidents as important to Coates' life as you claim. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The links I've given to Coates' own references to the incidents demonstrate their importance. Other editors agree with this point too. Useitorloseit (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. WP:DEADHORSE. Gamaliel (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

New ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Useitorloseit_and_Ta-Nehisi_Coates_-_request_for_topic_ban. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You couldn't wait for this one RfC to be allowed to play out?? Useitorloseit (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I was going to, but this nonsense was the last straw for me. Gamaliel (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

That's a clear abuse of process. Maybe if you just dropped the noticeboard stuff and let discussion peter out I would go away. Did it ever occur to you I keep starting discussion because you keep trying to delete them? Useitorloseit (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

What process is being abused? Please provide a link. Gamaliel (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Now what?

The editor who originally opened the RfC, as above, has been banned from anything related to the topic under discussion. Where does this leave the RfC? -The Gnome (talk) 08:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

It will run its course and be closed by an uninvolved administrator. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Discipline issues in high school

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 subject's discipline problems in his inner city school be mentioned in the article? Useitorloseit (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

Ta-Nehisi Coates is a blogger for the Atlantic magazine who focuses on issues of African-Americans, race relations, crime, young black males, inner city schools, etc. (Reparations for slavery and Shooting of Trayvon Martin are two examples of issues where he has had an impact). He has written about his discipline issues in high school over the years, and I want to include a mention of that. The proposed edit is this: "Coates attended Baltimore Polytechnic Institute but was expelled twice for disciplinary violations and he graduated from Woodlawn High School." The edit meets Wikipedia's content requirements: it is verifiable, based on the author's own repeated discussion of the incidents over the years. WP policy allows such self-referential sources. There is no original research: these links are written by the author, not me, and they are being used to support only one thing: the straight fact of the incidents, nothing else. Lastly, this is a neutral point of view: it doesn't obscure the existence of these incidents, nor does it emphasize them. I believe this edit should be added to the article. Useitorloseit (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

As has been discussed here ad nauseam, the material you seek to add is a continuation of your campaign vendetta against the author, beginning with your very first edit which smeared Coates as a "criminal." Absent a significant and wide-ranging expansion of the article's biographical coverage of his life and works, it is inappropriate and undue weight to go into any detail about minor disciplinary issues during his childhood.

New editors entering this discussion should take time to familiarize themselves with the extensive previous discussion of this issue on this page and the talk page archives. They should also know that the RfC initiator is effectively a single-purpose account with no substantive contributions beyond this quest to smear the biography's subject. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Reply New editors should note that the editor above has repeatedly tried to sabotage debate, and you only need 2 edits to prove it: when an earlier edit [[12]] had 3-3 split supporting/opposing, he talked about reverting to the last uncontroversial version due to no consensus [[13]], then IN HIS VERY NEXT POST, tried to have me topic banned [banned]. He deserves sanctions for making false statements at ANI. There is only one possible explanation: he is abusing process to win a debate, probably due to OWNERSHIP issues. When he reopened this RfC, he didn't include [[14]] the RfC tag, so it wouldn't attract other editors who might disagree with him. A previous edit had 2-1 support, so he reverted it 3 times then reported me to the edit warring board. He harassed [[15]] or tried to prevent [16]] other editors who might support me from joining in. He has made a mess of this whole thing, then claims "debate is over". I will not allow this RfC to be sabotaged or rushed. Other RfCs stay up for a couple weeks, so I will revert any attempt to close this without giving it time to get the input it should have had long ago. The article isn't being changed; there is no harm being done. Useitorloseit (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Myself and others have repeatedly suggested that the material might be appropriate if given appropriate context in a broader, deeper biography than the two short paragraphs we currently have. Myself and others have repeatedly offered to work with you to significantly expand Coates' biography - with featured-article-length discussion of Coates' life, a sentence or two about his school disciplinary issue would not be undue. You have refused that offer.

Moreover, you have made the entirely contradictory argument that "this person is of limited notability" so we shouldn't have much detail about his life, but have spent thousands of words and hundreds of edits demanding that we go into extensive detail about a pair of negative incidents from high school. The inference is obvious: you think this article should exist primarily to smear Coates as having "a criminal past" (as stated in your very first edit on the encyclopedia) while ignoring or belittling his significant achievements in journalism.

You apparently have no interest in Coates' life at all except to ensure everyone knows that he got expelled from high school. Editors are entitled to infer from that set of facts what they will. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You haven't offered to "work with me"; you repeatedly went to noticeboards to get me blocked. You haven't denied making false statements at ANI about the state of consensus. Moreover, you have shown your bias by referring to his "substantial" achievements and insisting the article be radically expanded. The article is a stub-class rated low-importance. This bio is notable mainly for his experience of inner-city problems and therefore his own run-ins with authority are relevant. It's like a writer about homelessness who actually was homeless once. Useitorloseit (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Insisting the article be expanded is not a sign of bias, it's what we do here, writing an encyclopedia. You are not here to write an encyclopedia, which is clear from your comments mocking the achievements of the subject of the article, inexplicably claiming that his notability arises from being a juvenile delinquent instead of being a writer of one of the US's leading publications, and most importantly, from your edits. Of your 20 edits to this article, 19 were to insert this disputed material. You have only made 13 contributions to other articles. But you've managed to make 310 edits total, almost all of them arguing about this disputed material. In 310 edits, you could have brought this article up to Featured Article status, both improving the encyclopedia and, ironically, making the article large enough to allay any concerns about the UNDUE nature of this material you are fighting to include. But you clearly have no interest in improving this article or this encyclopedia. Please stop wasting everyone's time. Gamaliel (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Some subjects just aren't notable enough to be long, featured articles. Your notion that there's some undiscovered treasure trove of sources out there just waiting to be added is wrong and not NPOV. Me insisting on the appropriate length IS an improvement to the encyclopedia. People are biased in favor of this guy and exaggerate how "rich" and "varied" his career is. Look at the article before I came along for an example of how biased it was. Look at his writing: it all covers the same ground about inner-city problems. Why should this material be so out of place? Useitorloseit (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, your single edit to the article unrelated to the RFC material was the masterstroke that eliminated bias in the article. Gamaliel (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You honestly think that belonged there? That's what any "expanded" article will end up looking like. Useitorloseit (talk) 21:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

It was a good edit, probably your only positive contribution to Wikipedia. But it's still a single edit, not something you can use to take credit for eliminating or reducing the amount of bias you claim was in the article. Gamaliel (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I certainly claim I reduced the bias. And take a look at my talk page - I've made several contributions to Wikipedia over the years. You are just plain wrong about me. Useitorloseit (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

And when asked for reliable secondary sources which support your assertion that Coates is primarily notable for his "inner-city problems," you have produced bupkis. The reliable secondary sources focus primarily on Coates' writing and journalistic career. The incidents are covered in six pages of his 243-page autobiography. It is and will always be undue weight on a small part of his life unless the article is expanded to proportionately discuss everything else in his life. Which you just said isn't warranted. You can't have it both ways. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Still not denying making false statements on ANI, huh? And the cites I've provided are more than enough to show notability for this one bit. It's not like I'm trying to delete everything but the expulsions. Useitorloseit (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• Editor Useitorloseit has called me in to weigh in on this discussion however the editor appears to be a WP:SPA which would otherwise mean that editor Useitorloseit should be banned for solicitation of support despite editors having already expended considerable effort discussing the issue. After all, volunteer editor time and effort should not be wasted while at the same time contentious editors wishing to contribute should accept the general concensus of other editors and accept their recommendations gracefully. So Useitorloseit, I oppose your proposed edit while also hoping that you continue to contribute to the Wikipedia project in other areas. I recommend that the proposed addition of the text be opposed and that editors move on. Damotclese (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• Support For the reasons I stated in the discussion section. Useitorloseit (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:DEADHORSE. Gamaliel (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Undue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Are you serious? Cwobeel (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Is this related to this? This looks tedious.__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

yep, same editor, same obsession. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - As discussed ad nauseam, undue and unnecessary detail. Drop the stick. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
• for the 12th million time - NO. now take your vendetta elsewhere. 01:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk • contribs)
• Oppose for reasons stated over and over and over previously. It seems that the time for a topic ban is fast approaching. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose It's WP:UNDUE until a reliable secondary source shows how incidents in school are significant for the overall biography. Johnuniq (talk) 03:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Coming from RFC and reading the discussion it seems to me that this whole issue is WP:DEADHORSE and that everyone is arguing over whether to use "troubled past" or "expelled from school". Personally "troubled past" looks better but everyone should JUST DROP IT Retartist (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Being expelled from school twice is a sufficient impact on someone's life to be worth mentioning in a reasonable biographic article. --GRuban (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Note edit summary of nominator's very first edit to Wikipedia.[17] — goethean 19:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Gamaliel, Goethean, Johnuniq. SPECIFICO talk 19:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Seriously, this has gone on long enough. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I can accept consensus. But dismissing me as an SPA or requesting blocks on noticeboards is not really debating content. Useitorloseit (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

No you cannot accept consensus - that is obvious from the fact that you brought this very same issue up YET ANOTHER TIME when consensus has OVERWHELMINGLY been against your position EVERY OTHER time. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The last edit had support/oppose of 3-3. The one before that was 2-1 with 1 ambiguous. What you said is not true. Useitorloseit (talk) 05:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:UNDUE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per extended previous discussions. As this is a BLP, we must be especially cautious in what material gets introduced to the article. There are policy objections to including the material and Useitorloseit has given no compelling reasons for ignoring policy. --Ca2james (talk) 23:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Until there's a more good-faith collaboration and less disruptive editing, this is way too controversial an addition to the article. This seems like a clear attempt to smear a living person by adding context-free negative content. Once things calm down a bit, discussions about adding the various biographical details – in context – can take place. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support This is notable information, nowhere near a "smear" as some editors claim, and quite relevant to the issues in which the subject of the article has distinguished himself. Moreover, the proposed insert is worded in an appropriate manner. Leaving the information out would, in fact, be a disservice to Wikipedia users. (Some editors suggest we leave it out until we get "more good-faith collaboration" among editors, but this would be setting our priorities wrong.)- The Gnome (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
• Qualified Support Honestly, that he was expelled doesn't necessarily reflect badly on him. It's high school, people. And given the successful professional he ended up becoming, it adds interest to his biography more than anything. And it's verifiable. However, I do not support including this material if we can't find an RS (preferably Coates) talking about the circumstances behind it. Steeletrap (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose in accordance with WP:UNDUE. DJAMP4444 (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose because it is WP:UNDUE. You don't know the real circumstances of his suspension and in the course of his whole life, it is nothing but a small blip. Constantly dragging up a mistake from someone's past violates NPOV in my view, especially given that he grew up to be a successful adult. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
• Basically Support Part of any complete biography is information about what their childhood experience was like. The proposed text focuses on a very specific and trivial item of getting expelled, however something more general like "According to Coates he got into fights in school and had poor grades" would be more on-target and supported by the proposed self-published sources. CorporateM (Talk) 14:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

  Something like "his own troubled experience attending Baltimore-area schools"? I think we may already have the level of detail you are suggesting is appropriate. The RFC was whether to add specifics of his high school transcripts.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I have done a little BRD. I think what I have added is mild in comparison to the source material, which describes physical altercations with his teachers, ditching class, etc.. I think this is appropriate to tone down our description substantially, not for BLP reasons, but because it is a primary source and people often exaggerate or mis-represent their hardships during their youth or create exaggerated versions of actual events. Coates discusses his bad behavior as a High School student extensively in multiple sources in great detail in a way that suggests to me very strongly that these experiences shaped his life and that he feels they are an important part of his life story. I think, if anything, it is disrespectful to create a sterile version of his biography, when he has gone through such great lengths to share his hardships. CorporateM (Talk) 17:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it might be a bit premature (to say the least) to close this RFC as a "SNOW Support" situation. You're welcome to your arguments, but I don't see a consensus for further inclusion right now. There's already some mention, most seem currently opposed to giving more attention to high school stuff than is already included.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you point out what you mean by it being mentioned already? I don't see it anywhere. I think especially because Ta-Nehisi seems to feel these hardships are caused - at least in part - by his being African American, it is especially offensive to him that we choose not to include them and if Ta-Nehisi told us that he does in fact want it included, that could change the community's views of the situation substantially. I will see if I can contact him and get his input. CorporateM (Talk) 17:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I see here that one of his accomplishments seems to be a memoir about his youth called "Beautiful Struggle". His struggles as a child seems to potentially be one of the things he is notable for? Still researching... CorporateM (Talk) 17:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't see how it would be offensive to the subject to give more attention to their writing career and accomplishments over their high school record. We have it in the article that he wrote about his childhood. I haven't seen any secondary source that gives any weight or mention of his high school record, especially compared to anything else mentioned about him. He's defined as a successful writer and editor, and a mature adult, he didn't achieve any notability among reliable sources as some kind of juvenile delinquent. I think you should probably hold off on including material until the RFC has run its course.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry - I said it was BRD, not edit-warring. The consensus is clear, but sometimes consensus can change, even dramatically, when new arguments or evidence are introduced (and sometimes it doesn't). Anyways, the best way I found of contacting him was through LinkedIn, but if anyone else finds a better way to reach him to get his perspective, I think it would help. CorporateM (Talk) 18:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Is there an actual policy on hunting down a BLP subject's opinion? Do you have any worries that this could turn an editorial difference between editors about proper weight into something that has a possibly negative impact on the subject? I know WP:BLPPRIVACY covers the type of contact information we can talk about, but I thought the general idea was If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. Even if we get an editor saying they have a direct line to Coates, how would we reliably know it wasn't a hoax? I have some misgivings about this suggested course of action.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Hillman prize question

In updating the information regarding the Polk award Coates receieved, I added a category for Polk award recipients. There does not appear to be a similar category for Hillman prize recipients. Is there a guideline that addresses notability requirements for prize recipients categories? Thanks. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Headings

Too many section headings—just remove them and group like with like – czar 02:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Czar: I actually added more headings, as I think the article is a bit underwritten and anemic. There's a lot more content I'd like to fill in to justify the amount of headings. This is definitely a work in progress. Hope that's okay by you. BrillLyle (talk) 03:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Go for it—no rush on my suggestion. While I have you here, based on your edits in quick succession, you might be interested in the preview function and list-defined refs to make your editing easier, if you haven't already considered them. – czar 03:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Czar: Thanks!

Regarding 'Discipline issues in high school'

That whole discussion is a classic example of what passes for neutral and disinterested discussion with certain self appointed Wikipedian guardians of the truth. Despite the fact that it is mentioned in his own memoir, under no circumstances must it be allowed to tarnish the purity of his image. Like Moses who came down from the mountain, he is without human failings. Anyone else reading that would be impressed that he overcame his early issues with formal education and made something of himself.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Beautiful-Struggle-Unlikely-Manhood/dp/0385520360

Yaweller (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight to stuff that aint happened yet

Having a full section for projects that have not been completed provides them with WP:UNDUE weight in relation to the actual stuff he has accomplished. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. I actually found out about Coates because he was doing a symposium with David Simon that is connected to Baltimore. There has been press coverage. And Coates has been writing about his work in Paris, so that too seems germane. Same with the Marvel thing -- this was big news that was extensively covered in legit press sources, will be covered extensively.

Also I think separate items like this are better served by bullets, and are easier to read. But then I'd prefer it be clear and easy to use with a focus on the end-user versus locked into some arcane Wikipedia rule (not a fan of this rule, think it doesn't add to readability at all most of the time).

Thanks for bringing this up as a point of discussion. I really appreciate it. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, I guess I'm wondering what the problem is with stuff that is in development. The process of how these projects are born, grow, are developed could definitely have interest to Wikipedia. It could add to the entry and make the entry fuller and richer. I'm a fan of more content versus constraining the content. I honestly don't think this information is hurting the page. I think it actually helps and adds valuable information. Thoughts? -- Erika aka

BrillLyle (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Looking over the refs, my opinion is that the amount of coverage of upcoming projects in the article is neither undue nor running afoul of WP:CRYSTAL. I'm more agnostic as to whether prose or bullet points are better though MOS:EMBED does advise: "Do not use lists if a passage is read easily as plain paragraphs." Individual paragraphs for each project would provide the same organizational service to readers while avoiding the bullets that drive many batty. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Sanders support

He'll be supporting Sanders. Does that go in the article? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Possibly, but, if so, it should be tempered with his critique of "endorsements": "The idea that anyone would cast a vote because of how I am casting my vote makes my skin crawl. It misses the point of everything I’ve been trying to do in my time at The Atlantic. The point is to get people to question, not to recruit them into a religion. Citizens are not sheep." 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Not encyclopedic

This is not an encyclopedia article. It is an advertisement, or the scripture of a cult. 2604:2000:9046:800:CDAD:50C5:F2BC:79C3 (talk) 02:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

“In Coates' family, he said that the important overarching focus was on rearing children with values based on family, respect for elders and being a contribution to your community. This approach to family was common in the community where he grew up.[2] Coates grew up in the Mondawmin neighborhood of Baltimore[13] during the crack epidemic.[2]”

Does anyone else see anything odd about the foregoing passage? 2604:2000:9046:800:CDAD:50C5:F2BC:79C3 (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Black Panther

The article gives the impression that TNC's work on Black Panther was well received but in reality it was canceled after two issues because sales were so bad. Word Is Born (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

There may be room for improvement of current wording, but "canceled after two issues" is imprecise. There were 6 issues planned originally; the Newsweek article says all 6 would eventually be done; what they announced after the second issue was that there would be no more after the planned 6. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, something needs more research: This page from marvel.com seems to show Coates has written 10 so far, and counting. I am not a comics person at all (more of an eight years in power person), and have little time to figure out what's going on, but the "cancelled after two issues" thing appears simplistic at best, and wrong at worst. We should figure out what actually is going on, and fix the article. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

My edits aren't related to Coats work on Black Panther (which you linked to) but the spin off "Black Panther & The Crew".

From another source

After just two issues, Marvel is canceling Black Panther & The Crew, writer Ta-Nehisi Coates’ latest series following Black Panther and some of Marvel’s better known black characters. Coates tells The Verge that the cancellation is due to poor sales, and the series will end after six issues. However, the story currently being told will have the chance to end. Word Is Born (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Strike two. Now you've cited two sources that support what the article says ("ran for six issues") and none that support the version you're pushing: "planned for six issues but canceled after two". Care to go for a third swing? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Leaving the language in the article at "ran for six issues" doesn't tell the whole story that readership was so low it was canceled. Seems relevant to the topic at hand especially when so many sources have included this reason for its cancelation. Word Is Born (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I think what it says now is factually correct, I now understand the BP/BP&TC difference. However, I'm curious about the desire to emphasize the poor sales, and the previous desire to misstate the number of issues; my research about the BP&TC cancellation leads me to understand that there is a "Coates failed hahah SJW's suck" perspective beloved by some corners of the web. I wouldn't want us to be used to perpetuate that narrative. Until there's a consensus, I've tried to come up with a compromise wording. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)