Talk:David Pakman/Archive 1

Archive 1

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Cultural Judaism

Is there proof of him saying that he's "culturally jewish"? If so, what does that even mean?

-G

It means he still supports israel's creation as an ethno-state protected not only by advanced weaponry and armed-guarded walls, but also by racist immigration, marriage and citizenship laws; while simultaneously undermining those same laws in the West.

No, it doesn't mean any such thing. I'm a culturally Jewish anti-Zionist, and there are many others like me. Being culturally Jewish is independent of one's views on Israel.-- 98.171.173.90 (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes there is proof; see the citation in the article. As for what it means, see http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Cultural_Judaism -- 98.171.173.90 (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I have quoted him from that already-in-place citation. Bus stop (talk) 10:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

merge

IMO we should merge this page with The David Pakman Show. The degree of overlap is very high and Pakman is only known for hosting the show. All of the independent sources we use for both articles could be used completely inter-changeably. The amount of coverage of both is also relatively low, so I don't think it warrants two articles. Open to discussion though. Peregrine981 (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

IMO Peregrine981's comment is still applicable in 2017. —PermStrump(talk) 07:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

True, especially seeing that The David Pakman Show Article already contains the misidentification section of this article, and the format section discusses his early life. Even more on the plus side is that the show article has significantly less issues. Finbee (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Lede

[1]

Should "jewish" be included in the lede? Benjamin (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

No. The IP user and Pakman himself (obvious conflict of interest aside) both raise valid points. We generally don't go around saying "Jerry Seinfeld is a Jewish comedian" or "Scott Derrickson is a Christian film director" unless it is somehow applicable to their career or notability. DarkKnight2149 18:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Likewise, is it relevant that he's Argentinean-American? Benjamin (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

On that one, most articles about real non-fictional people specify a nationality. Here are some examples - Neil Gaiman, Clive Barker, Betty White, Neil Patrick Harris, Masahiro Ito, Peter Murphy, Mads Mikkelsen, Dieter Laser. DarkKnight2149 18:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

But why? Benjamin (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

MOS:LEADBIO goes into detail on this. DarkKnight2149 19:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Lock edit from public to member

This is based on recent edit of David Packman witch himself told the public he is not homosexual, but support anyone that are homosexual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.38.204.226 (talk) 05:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2020

It should be added into David Pakman's information on the right side, that his sexual orientation is being "heterosexual". There is a lot of confusion going around this fact and people might want to look it up. This is especially true, as there are false Information trolls on different platforms, spreading the wrong information, that David Pakman is "homosexual". Even though, it's not the case. Pointing to this article, containing the "heterosexual" Information, could help spreading the truth.

This video is my reference. The video is a clip from David Pakman's own show. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcTjOtTciPs It shows David Pakman clearly stating, (quote) "we are exclusively dating woman", "i am personally not gay" and "I am a straight ally". It also shows that, while taking the false allegations with humor, he is pretty bored and annoyed by those.

So adding this Info is not only a good tool for spreading the truth, but should also be in the best interest of David Pakman himself. Stryker-Evol (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Infoboxes do not include sexual orientation. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2020

David Pakman has stated that he has not eaten at a fast food restaurant since he was about 18 years old. Waitingtofade (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. This is trivia, and is coming from a WP:PRIMARY source.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2020

David Pakman is straight. There are a lot of rumors of him being gay. However he clarified his sexual preference in a YouTube video to his listeners and asked them to make the edits. Paulluffy07 (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: His sexual orientation is not mentioned in the article at the moment, which certainly seems to be correct given the lack of coverage of it in reliable sources. ~ mazca ^talk 00:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Davidpakanrebelwisom2019.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Academic?

Pakman is labeled a pundit and academic in the lead. Is there a reason he is labeled an academic? What are the qualifications to be labeled an academic? An MBA, I'd think, wouldn't qualify. Pundit makes sense, but I'm not sure what his "academic" qualifications are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobomok (talk • contribs) 21:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

He has taught a college course, but the "college instructor" description was removed in 2019 as it was poorly sourced and appeared outdated. The "academic" description, combined with an unsourced reference to him being an adjunct professor at Boston College, was added a few months later. As far as I can discern from web searches; he's taught a communications course at Boston College several times as an adjunct professor, being employed there part time for a few months on a couple of occasions, but it's certainly not a full-time thing, and may not be current. It's not unreasonable to describe someone who's been a teacher at a significant academic institution as an "academic", but equally it strikes me as a sufficiently intermittent and minor role that it's not really a useful defining characteristic for the lead section. ~ mazca ^talk 00:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes I think could be deleted. I am unsure, but perhaps the term could/should be reserved for at least a PhD. doing full-time adjuncting work, or producing scholarship? A part-time adjunct with only a Master's who has not produced scholarship it seems to me, doesn't qualify for the title, and if it does, it is such a minor role for the article's subject that it does not belong in the lead. --Hobomok (talk) 02:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with your suggestion that it should be restricted to people with PhDs or similar, I've always personally used it as a general term for anyone teaching or researching in higher education - but in any case, I do agree that it's not an appropriate description for the lead of this article. It's just not a significant part of his career or identity, so definitely better off removed, as you have. ~ mazca ^talk 14:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Does Not Meet BLP GNG

I am going to nominate this article for deletion. Sources are first-person WP:PRIMARY. Contributions are not notable WP:GNG. Most of the article isn't cited. There is also obvious overlap with this page and that of his show i.e. self-promotion. Drsammyjohnson (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)DrSammyJohnson

Hmm. An interesting nomination considering you might be the same Dr. Sammy Johnson who is a conservative. (Many conservatives _hate_ David Pakman.) I admit that you might be a different Dr. Sammy Johnson from the commenter on the Undernews blog, but I do have to question a person's motive when nominating the deletion of an article about a demonstrably notable figure, despite there being room for improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F7D0:2F90:583B:F8B2:F335:1F4F (talk) 06:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Calling David a conspiracy theorist is fair and I believe should be mentioned Yes he is

Maybe not in the lede as it was, but somewhere in the article. He just recently claimed that the attempted assassination of Argentina’s President was a false flag. This is by definition a conspiracy theory. GonzoTribune (talk) 21:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

While his video there was absolutely bizarre, on Wikipedia articles are based on Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If a news article or other RS has written about that video, then it can be included in the article as an aspect of who Pakman is (or more likely, it would appear in the article The David Pakman Show). If not, then it can't be included until there is sufficient sourcing to do so. aismallard (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't the fact that the source comes from Pakman's own channel not make it reliable? Genabab (talk) 08:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

That is not how reliable sourcing works, I'd recommend you read the policy page I linked above.

Citing a primary source is acceptable in more limited circumstances than reputable secondary sources. For instance, you could cite a primary source to indicates something obvious (e.g. John Smith says on his website he was born January 1, 1980) but not for something which requires further analysis, such as describing him as a conspiracist.

Another thing to bear in mind is the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, which requires that claims in articles about living people be especially well-sourced to avoid issues with defamation. aismallard (talk) 13:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, just seeing this, and from merely remembering the coverage: Pakman called the failed attempt on VP Kirchner very fishy, showing that he does follow Argentinian politics, finding it suspicious how exactly the attempt was a total failure when the assassin was so close to the politician; and commenting on the timing that it occured right before she was put on trial. BUT he has only covered the attempt once, he came to the conclusion that further investigations into this should occur and that he doesn't know more than anyone else, and he didn't come back to it since. In contrast, conspiracy theorists are usually people claiming to have proof, superior/inside knowledge, and pursue a topic more than just once in passing.

Pakman just does not fit that bill: as a news commentator (he is not a journalist, and advises against using him as single news source) he has strong opinions on many other matters which may at times be controversial. He clearly formulates which things he experienced himself; which things he read about (including often presenting the sources directly) and which things he doesn't know but reasonably speculates about; and even which things he finds implausible and explaining the reasoning behind that. In this case, he first presented sources to the audience who may not have heard about the topic, and then he commented to the best of his knowledge, raising suspicion on the motivations and background on the assassin. What he did NOT do was irresponsibly going into deeper speculations on who would orchestrate a false flag and why. With his knowledge on Argentinian politics, he could certainly have delved into hours-long coverage connecting all kinds of dots, spinning elaborate theories on who the nefarious culprits would likely be - but again, he just didn't. --Enyavar (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Religion

Bernspeed (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC) David Pakman is listed as a "critic of religion" and a Jew. Is this a contradiction? I didn't change anything related to that because it is potentially controversial.

Being Jewish is nowadays considered an ethnic thing. Somebody could have no belief in God etc. but still be considered a Jew. -Sioraf

Why can't a person belong to a group, even ethnic group and also be critical of it at the same time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.188.108.28 (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Pakman is of jewish heritage, but not a devout or overly religious person... just like how many (if not most) Christians amd Muslims are pretty lukewarm about their faith, too. --Enyavar (talk) 03:09, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2023

Change “American” to “Argentine-American” as he was born in Argentina and this better reflects his nationality. 45ponys (talk) 05:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: see MOS:NATIONALITY. We just use the country they became notable in Cannolis (talk) 05:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)