Talk:Julien Blanc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 93.109.250.186 (talk) at 21:49, 18 November 2014 (→BLanc insists he does not teach rape, and opinions stated as fact). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Notability and NPOV

The article largely violates WP:NPOV, presents the opinion of inviduals and lacks WP:Notability. Moreover, it is missing primary sources Wikipedia:PRIMARY.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.5.10.29 (talk • contribs)

I don't agree. NPOV is (verbatim quote) representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic, so there's no problem with that.
Notability might be a bit of a concern, but given that there are petitions around the world, I'd argue that per WP:ONEEVENT an article is justified.
PRIMARY sources are not a necessity and while they're allowed, in WP:BLPbiographies they're actually discouraged. --Six words (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All sources are news articles from the last couple of days and are as such not reliable sources. Please have look at WP:The world will not end tomorrow and WP:RECENTISM.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.5.10.29 (talk • contribs)
These are essays, not policy, and you have a very interesting definition of reliability. There's no waiting period until a news article becomes a reliable source - sources are either regarded as reliable (like articles in newspapers known for fact checking) or they aren't.--Six words (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This does not address WP:The world will not end tomorrow and WP:RECENTISM. Wikipedia is NOT a news platform. Paulkroka (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles are not meant to be derived from primary sources, as an anonymous IP user above seems to believe. In the Wikipedia project article identifying reliable sources, editors are asked to use third-party sources to establish the notability of article subjects. As the main author of this article, I discovered only one article (from last June) published before the beginning of this month, but there must be hundreds of artists published about Blanc in the last two-and-a-half weeks, by news sources on all five inhabited continents. Blanc is now known for more than one thing. The nature of the reported seminars, and his effective expulsion from one country (Australia). He is likely be be formally banned from others in due course. (Canada is one such country which has not been directly mentioned in the article so far.) Neutral Point of View does not apply to the balance of the article, rather that the article should not display bias. In the linking passages between the direct quotes I hope I managed to be neutral, and any words which do not show this should be changed. Most of the more contentious passages are cited to multiple reliable sources.
Incidentally, Blanc is only defended on the immigration issue, not on his instructional practices in any source which is admissible (other than the RSD website) as far as I have been able to discover. The 'pick up artist' phenomenon has been around for some time, gained plenty of coverage, and in my own country (the United Kingdom), the cancellation of a comedy programme featuring Dapper Laughs has been paired with the controversy over Julien Blanc's potential admission to the UK next year. For good or ill, Julien Blanc is probably now the best known practitioner in his field. Philip Cross (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's been awhile since I've been a regular Wikipedia contributor, but FWIW I think you've done an extraordinary job of maintaining neutrality in how you're written the article, and letting the sources speak for themselves. As I wrote in the AfD discussion,
That they tell a similar story of Julien Blanc's controversiality is not in itself an indication of bias: Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy does not require an article to present all possible points of view but rather to present "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" —
— which I think you've been doing an exemplary job with.
Paulkroka is a new contributor to Wikipedia whose only contributions thus far have been in criticism of this article and support of its deletion. I suggest a better avenue is to improve the article by following the advice I also stated with my AfD vote:
thus, if there are reliable published sources which present a different view of Blanc's controversiality, then the proper avenue is to introduce properly source information from those sources (if any, in fact, exist), rather than simply to decry the supposed "bias" of reliable sources with which an editor personally disagrees.
— Yksin (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Paulkroka: I addressed both by noting they're essays - essays can be nice, and one may agree with them (or not), but they aren't binding in any way, else they'd be policy. --Six words (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This does not address these issues. The article is mostly based on recent events, events that happend during the last two weeks. Paulkroka (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy (nor a guideline) barring us from basing articles on recent events, so yeah, noting that you two seem to mistake essays for policy adresses "these issues". As I said above, I think the article is justified per WP:ONEEVENT - you may disagree, and once 185.5.10.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has completed their AFD nomination, you can argue "recentism" there. --Six words (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is such a policy Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper! Paulkroka (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Paulkroka:, did you read this page before you posted it here? "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors...". One last time: essays aren't policies, and as the article doesn't violate WP policy I'm not discussing whether the article is worthy of inclusion (that can be done at AFD) here - I'm done with this line of argument. What we can (even should) discuss is which sources to include and how to summarise them. --Six words (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Six words: ok, then have a look at the policy here Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper. Thanks! Paulkroka (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I question the neutrality of this article. I am not good at Wiki though so I don't know how to fix it. Bobklosak (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I think the article does satisfy the Notability requirement, given the reportage of Blanc in reputable or at least established media. I think the posting above, reminding us of Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper is useful. I do get the impression that I am reading a gossip item with this article. Perhaps edit down? Richard RM9876 (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kicked out of Australia

Assuming this article isn't deleted, the article needs a better citation for him being kicked out of Australia, or to have that claim removed completely. The cited sources all cite Victoria police as saying "We can confirm Julien Blanc left Australia overnight". That doesn't say he was kicked out, it says he left. Unless there's a better source, I think that he just left in the face of all the rioting, and Australia police wanted to make it seem like they took some action against him when they didn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:8109:9300:1a54:6dc7:c161:2768:ef20 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 17 November 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

The slang expression "kicked out" appears only in the title of the piece cited from The Washington Post, not in the article's main text. The Washington D.C. newspaper is a thoroughly blue chip reliable source. Incidentally, his visa was revoked. Philip Cross (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. "Kicked out" (does our article really say that?) doesn't sound very encyclopaedic, we should use less colloquial wording like saying he was "forced to leave Australia after [his] visa [got] cancelled" (The Guardian) or even just state that "his visa was withdrawn" (The Independent). --Six words (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, the article doesn't really say that. As Philip Cross explained immediately above your comment, that term does not occur in the article's main text but only in the title of a cited source article from The Washington Post which did use that term. — Yksin (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I read "the article" as referring to "The Washington Post"'s article, saying "it only appears in their title, we could just as well use the wording in their main text, saying his visa was revoked". Sorry if that caused any confusion. --Six words (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But you asked "(does our article really say that?)" — which is the question I answered. In any case, when citing the WaPo article, it was entirely correct to cite its title, or it wouldn't be a proper source citation. — Yksin (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some questions don't need to be answered - believe me or not, if I want to know what the article says I can look at it. If I want to know what it said five edits ago, I can look at its history. My "question" and following comment was just a way of saying that while I wouldn't agree with using this language (assuming it's phrased that way), there are quite a few sources saying that Blanc left not because he wanted to but because, being without a visa, he had to, so no, we're not going to remove that bit. I slightly misunderstood Philip's comment, but it didn't really matter because my comment supported his view that nothing needs to be removed. I never suggested revising a source's title (that would be ridiculous). --Six words (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Description of his services

Is this a sales page for his 'pimping my game' product? Detailed descriptions of his services, including prices should be removed. --213.7.112.229 (talk) 11:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cited in many third party sources and thus entirely legitimate. Philip Cross (talk) 12:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
please see WP:NOTNP
The problem with citing WP:NOTNP has been mentioned many times in the last few days. Near the start, the author(s) of the article write: "There is usually no need to write articles about things with no historical significance whatsoever." Clearly this applies to trivial stories, perhaps with a parochial slant, not an individual and his employers who have made headlines in five continents. Philip Cross (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by IP 213.7.112.229

This user, who has only not posted on articles relating to Julien Blanc keeps changing the article to give a false impression as to the content of sources. The most glaring is the insistence that Blanc did not have his visa revoked in Australia. He is also inserting his own POV, such as the suggestion that Jenn Li is a "self styled" activist, an accusation which has not appeared in any source, so far as I know. Philip Cross (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then write that the source CLAIMS his visa was revoked. If you look at the actual tweet by victoria police, it does not state he was deported. Just that he left. The thing about Jennifer Lee was a mistake, I was again trying to explain that the media styled her as an activist or whatever. You are using this article as a dump of all the media activity going on in the past few days. You are repeating everything that has been repeated by news articles over and over. You are going into way too much detail also. --213.7.112.229 (talk) 13:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tweets are not generally citable on Wikipedia, but news articles are. In any case immigration is not a Police issue. Saying such-and-source has made a claim is perfectly all right when the citation is not thoroughly blue chip, but suggesting the reliable sources used are indulging in invention enters the realms of original research. That Blanc's visa was revoked is stated in multiple sources. Philip Cross (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please name the sources? Thanks! 141.3.24.74 (talk) 14:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok yes now I see, multiple sources do claim so and the fact that I know that no government officials have said so doesn't mean I can put it on the article. What is the wikipedia policy on controversial facts? What about the fact that this article draws heavily from recent events covered by media, and goes into too much detail? --213.7.112.229 (talk) 14:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You should read the policy article on verifiability which will explain the situation to you. If you can find proper sources which support your assertion ("the fact that I know that no government officials have said so"), you could add them. But instead, you simply falsify the content of sources, which counts as a form of disruptive editing. Your comment also suggests you might have a conflict of interest. Philip Cross (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You keep avoiding my question. This article reads as a news article. For example, it states what Blanc did (as seen on the news), instead of what significance it has to the backlash brought upon him. For example this part: "In one video seminar, recorded in Tokyo, Blanc demonstrates himself grabbing forcing women's heads towards his groin.[4] Blanc has been accused of bigotry and racism.[9] "At least in Tokyo, if you’re a white male, you can do what you want," comments Blanc in the same recording.[14] "I’m just romping through the streets, just grabbing girls' heads, just like, head, pfft on the dick. Head, on the dick, yelling, 'pikachu', with a pikachu shirt."[15] Blanc uses the hashtag #ChokingGirlsAroundTheWorld on social media to promote his activities.[16]" It is under "Responses". You should state not just what he did and what he is accused of, but what the response to that was. e.g. you could change it to "He was heavily criticized for a recording of him saying this and that, for which he was accused of bigotry and racism by so and so." Again, this is not a news article, but a wikipedia article. The article is f***ing full of statements like these. Hence it looks like a dump for everything that has been said on the news for the past 2 weeks. --213.7.112.229 (talk) 14:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

g00.se is self-published, not reliable

I know this is at AfD at the moment, but g00.se is a self-published blog source that has not been verified as actually being written by Blanc's assistant: it is pretty much the opposite of a reliable source. If the claims made have been reported on by a reliable source, then they can be included, but otherwise it is pretty much a worthless source. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was unsourced information under Work with RSD which i removed and added sourced information. Also someone added an external link to a possibly copyrighted image but now it's been edited out by the same user. Please do not add potentially copyrighted material.

BLanc insists he does not teach rape, and opinions stated as fact

It's stated that Blanc is accused of being a rapist. The source cited actually only states he is accused of teaching rape I think the article should mention that Julien Blanc claims he does not teach people to violate women's consent as seen on http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1411/17/nday.04.html. Also one paragraph states the views of a person. Even though it is partially in quotation marks, it does not meet the criteria of WP:ASSERT and seems off-topic, talking about how pickup artistry shows the prevalence of "rape culture". Nothing to do with Blanc's social media posts. Also that he was accused of being a rapist and that there is no proof of blanc being a rapist are both not mentioned in the citation given (citation 11) and are likely vandalism.

I would do it myself but the article became semi-protected and I had create a new account so I'm not autoconfirmed yet.

It's the paragraph under "social media posts and response". What should be changed/added I emboldened, what should be removed I italicized.

Before Blanc's public apology on CNN, Real Social Dynamics co-founder Owen Cook (online handle "Tyler") wrote "I think Julien’s video was absolutely stupid," on their company's website, apologizing for the video and saying that Blanc did not realize the full outcome the situation would lead to.[3][10] Blanc himself has described the Tokyo video as a "horrible attempt at humor."[6] Campaigners claimed that Blanc "promotes rape," and that a sales pitch for his services promises to teach men how to engage in sex with women without given consent.[use this as a citation: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/nov/10/julien-blanc-petition-urges-uk-deny-visa-pick-up-artist] Somayya Ismailjee, a writer from Perth, Australia commented in an article for theguardian.com website: "The instruction and promotion of abuse and the total violation of consent is this company’s stock in trade." That it is a profitable enterprise "is a testament to the extent to which our society accepts rampant rape culture." There has been no proof of Blanc violating consent and performing rape.[11] Blanc has maintained that he does not teach that, and that he actually teaches clients to always adhere to consent.[use citation 6 of CNN interview]--Jlalex (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Julien_Blanc&oldid=634436744"