Talk:Robby Starbuck

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Robby Starbuck article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article was nominated for deletion on September 23, 2015. The result of the discussion was delete.

This page was nominated for deletion on 13 June 2016. The result of the discussion was Keep.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in to an autoconfirmed or confirmed account (usually granted automatically to accounts with 10 edits and an age of 4 days)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Labels in the lead

Contentious descriptions in the lead such as "conspiracy theorist" must be widely supported by reliable sources before it can be inserted into the article per WP:LABEL. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, two articles in Rolling Stone are cited on three separate occasions.Per WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS: there is unanimous consensus among editors that Rolling Stone is generally unreliable for politically and societally sensitive issues reported since 2011. Both articles, by a former associate director of Media Matters for America, are categorized by Rolling Stone under politics, and are clearly about societally sensitive issues. Wikipedia should not use generally unreliable sources in a BLP to describe, nor lend weight to, "societally sensitive" issues. These comments also apply to The War on Children, which includes the same two Rolling Stone articles (and which probably doesn't even merit its own article: a merge/redirect to this article is more appropriate). --Animalparty! (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support an AfD @ The War on Children with a merge. Kcmastrpc (talk) 21:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think a proposed merge would be a better first course of action than AfD, even if it results in the same outcome. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Biohistorian15 has tried to transclude the War on Children article on here which I believe is inappropriate. It gives too much weight to the film given WP:BLPBALANCE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a gigantic section listing all the music videos he has apparently produced in the past. I do not see how a well-known documentary cannot be discussed in 2 more paragraphs than before. Biohistorian15 (talk) 07:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That can easily be reduced on your end since they're uncited. He was a music video director for at least 8 years though. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very strange behavior from you over all. You have been editing the page for a while now, I just chimed in a few hours ago. Biohistorian15 (talk) 07:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Casting aspersions? Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Issues

Came across this page per BLP/N, and a few things I noticed:

Should we include GENSEX contentious topic notification?
Should we better attribute "multiple news outlets" when describing his film as "anti-trans/lgbtq+", eg. "News outlets such as Rolling Stone and Pink News have ..."
Should we add a citation needed banner to his music video section, or just remove it entirely?

Kcmastrpc (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) probably not yet. GENSEX shouldn't be used as a cudgel for any controversy broadly construed. 2) We should definitely attribute when citing subjective/value-laden statements to partisan and/or generally unreliable sources. 3) for the time being it's probably best to summarize, in prose rather than list, his more notable videos/clients that have been mentioned in reliable sources e.g. Akon, the Smashing Pumpkins, Gucci Mane, and Snoop Dogg. Readers can be directed to Starbuck's IMDB and IMVDb profiles for more videos. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except in the case of WP:ARBPIA where it can matter in deciding if ECR should apply to the whole article (and so the article might be EC protected), IMO it's fairly pointless worrying too much if the whole article can reasonably be said to be within some contentious topics area. Remember there's no need for any notice for contentious topics to apply, it automatically applies if it's reasonably in an area covered and does not apply if it isn't. (There is a need for a notice for page specific restrictions, but that's up to an admin to decide.)

If an editor is aware, they need to abide by the contentious topics requirements in any content or discussion which is part of some contentious topic. And any editor not otherwise restricvt is free to alert any editor who is unaware and edits something that is covered. Likewise if an editor is topic banned, they need to recognise for themselves if they're editing something covered, topics bans don't have to be a CTOP restriction. In fact we just had a GENSEX topic ban that isn't under CTOP.

With this particular article anything to do with The War on Children and anything to do with his dispute with Megan Fox would seem to me to definitely come under the gensex topic area and so under that CTOP. Most of the DEI stuff would seem to be as well. (While DEI can include many things, it seems gensex stuff is what Starbuck has focused on.) While we don't have a source for the conspiracy theorist stuff anyway, since that seems to arise from The War on Children stuff, that too would seem to be covered by GENSEX. Arguably that would also come under Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Pseudoscience and fringe science too.

Of course ultimately the whole article would clearly be under BLP CTOP, so even more reason IMO why it doesn't matter.

Nil Einne (talk) 10:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne Thank you for explaining in detail how CTOP operates; very insightful. I did add GENSEX CTOP to The War on Children because that one seemed obvious, but this article less so. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reverts

I thought I could dispense with talk page discussions given my surely adequate edit summaries. Please provide your reasoning in a clear-cut way, Morbidthoughts. I don't get it. Biohistorian15 (talk) 08:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts do not override WP:ONUS or WP:BLPUNDEL. When you decide to add more text to an already disputed biography and are reverted under WP:BLPBALANCE, you don't simply revert back without demonstrated consensus to do so. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only one that would make sense per overruling WP:3RR might be WP:BLPUNDEL, but then I see no deletion of this exact content in the article history, rendering that moot. I do not understand your confrontational attitude. What am I missing? Biohistorian15 (talk) 08:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the deletion of that exact content in the article history, before you undid that deletion two more times. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's an inaccurate statement. Biohistorian15 (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are off the track here. We should not be transcluding the entire other article into this one; the article on the film should have more depth on it than is appropriate for the individual's article. If that is not the case, better to put all the material here and turn the other article into a redirect to the appropriate section of this article. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so. There were some serious miscommunications though, and not just on my part. I'll disengage now. Biohistorian15 (talk) 10:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proof needed

Is there a link to proof that the claim "toxic chemicals were responsible for causing children to identify as LGBTQ+" is a conspiracy hypothesis?

I'm mostly interested in the methodology of how to proof a statement like this, because initially its sounds unprovable. Like you would be able to prove "toxic chemicals were responsible for causing children to identify as LGBTQ+" by finding the biological mechanisms, but you can not disprove "toxic chemicals were responsible for causing children to identify as LGBTQ+" by not finding such a mechanism (The absence of a proof, proves nothing). 46.114.45.9 (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And why is it called a 'conspiracy theory' not simply a 'hypothesis'. 'Hypothesis' is a scientifically neutral term, that does not has the polarizing side effect. 46.114.45.9 (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]