Talk:Andy Gross

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Andy Gross. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion of Purdue performance[edit]

To me the recent expansion seemed like far too much coverage and detail for a single event that has apparently little or no lasting impact.

That said, it certainly could be written better, and the references formatted. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree and plan on reverting back your edit. In hindsight the article may not have required a separate header, but in its current state this article is embarrassing. Your opinion alone, without citing any policies, is very poor justification for reverting my edit, and Wikipedia's own policies agree with this fact.
I'll first explain why the current portion I edited cannot exist in the way you decided to edit it. Your edit has a quotation, that according to the WP:BLP page, "must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source." That is not the case, as not only is your edit a misquote, but in the same sentence violates the neutral point of view requirements. Your edit states that he made "continual sexual harassment jokes," and, aside from the poor wording, I will refer you to the WP:IMPARTIAL policy. To call the jokes explicitly sexually harassing, your edit presents his comments with bias. The students interpreted his actions as being sexually harassing, but as a performer he might argue that it was a part of the act and his comments were not to be taken literally. There was no criminal law violated, so to remove the neutrality in your edit is a clear violation. Finally, reading over your edit, there are still grammatical errors, poorly worded phrases, and general vague descriptions of events where there exist secondary news sources that could provide clarification.
My edit not only addressed these issues, but did so in the manner preferred by Wikipedia's policies on editing. My article provided the correct quote, as well as context behind what was said to avoid any misinterpretation of the events. That edit also clarified that it was the opinion of the students that Gross' actions were sexually harassing, rather than your edit that again violates the neutral point of view. Not only was all of this done following the WP:BLP guidelines, something your edit again violates, but in the reccomend fashion of WP:EDIT. Wikipedia's editing policy explicitly states that "Instead of removing article content that is poorly presented, consider cleaning up the writing." The original edit I modified was poorly worded and formatted, so I made my best effort to provide context where it was left out, along with sourcing where it was required. I suggest you read over the WP:PRESERVE section of the editing policy, as my edit follows the recommended actions.
Andy Gross' actions received national media attention, and deserve to be addressed in detail. Your opinion of what has impact or not is a very poor justification for reverting an entire edit, especially when you consider Wikipedia's policies. There is nothing wrong with providing properly sourced context behind a vaguely written article. Nucleartaco123 (talk) 12:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for joining the discussion.
I cited two core policies, POV and NOT, as well as the supplement WP:EXCESSDETAIL.
Again, I don't think the specific details that you provide matter, per NOTNEWS and WP:EXCESSDETAIL.
While the performance did receive a wide attention at the time, none of the references offered demonstrate any lasting impact. This suggests little mention should be given per POV and NOT.
Rather than focusing on a specific incident in his performance, we should summarize why it's noteworthy and what happened.
I'm not going to edit the article further at this point until we resolve this. However, the material is disputed and should be removed if we cannot find consensus.
I agree that the previous material needed work. I disagree on expanding upon it.
@Nucleartaco123: Please trim back the content and focus on summarizing the incident rather than giving all the details. If you can find references that demonstrate lasting impact of the performance, then we need to reconsider our approach. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that removal is the option if consensus can be reached, but I will be more than willing to substantiate my claim that this edit is appropriate. However, I first want to inquire as to why WP:POV has come into play here? I am also curious as to why my edit was disputed with regards to neutrality. Lastly, you keep bringing up the idea of a lasting impact. In your words, what would describe this? Nucleartaco123 (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNDUE is part of POV. I've stating that the expanded version is undue.
WP:NOT issues are addressed through applying POV.
Basically, it's not neutral because of all the problems I've listed.
The performance was in 2018. Gross said he would no longer work college shows immediately afterward. That's lasting impact, and we've included it. It's a year-and-a-half later. What's the lasting impact beyond the immediate news cycle hype that NOTNEWS tells us to avoid working from? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The details included by the edit provide context to his decision to stop performing college shows. In addition, if you read the article (reference 5) that addresses his decision to stop doing college shows, it is clearly stated that the parts of his act that I described by providing context have been removed from his show. The date, specific, now removed aspects of his shows, the subsequent protest, and his subsequent response are not unnecessary details that WP:NOTNEWS discusses. These details are not "trivia," they represent the context about why he has made 2 changes to his career as a performer. I made that very clear in my above reply. With regards to WP:UNDUE, no minority opinions were listed. Given the event was "easy to substantiate [] with reference to commonly accepted reference texts," it was given the weight of a "widely supported aspect" that WP:UNDUE states is acceptable.Nucleartaco123 (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we agree that his no longer performing at colleges is important. I'm saying it's the most important aspect because of the clear impact.
At this point, let's just move on assuming there is no other lasting impact.
UNDUE addresses the amount of detail we give. I'm saying we're giving too much.
The students considered it sexual harassment. That's important.
Many students walked out of the performance. That's important too.
As you can see, we agree on much of this. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We will not move on assuming there is no other lasting impact considering I already gave additional lasting impact in my response. The specific details I listed are specific portions of his future acts that he plans on removing. Considering his acts are an extension of his career, I would certainly consider that to be important and a lasting impact. I also clearly explained why this does not conflict with UNDUE.Nucleartaco123 (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't know what you mean, and it appears you don't know what I mean. Maybe we just disagree. I specifically mean no other lasting impact beyond the areas with which we agree. If you believe otherwise, the sources don't support it, and you'll have to clearly describe what else is important and why. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As previously stated, reference 5 in the article clearly states that that Gross intends to remove the portions outlined by this section from his future performances. That clearly establishes the lasting impact of the specific details I added to this section of the article. Nucleartaco123 (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a quote from Gross' lawyer at that time. That's due little if any weight. We've no later, independent sources verifying that he's changed his act as a result of this happening. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have no later independent verifying sources that he's stopped performing college shows either. That was a statement reported by independent source, and the burden of proof lies with disproving the claim, not substantiating it. Imagine the unfair precedent that would be set if information reported by a news source must be continually reported on over time in order to consider them valid. In reference to an earlier comment made by you, yes I believe we may disagree. You may interpret the cited policies differently than me, but there is no clear violation present. That does not mean that in disagreement we must default to your position, however, like you asserted in an earlier point. The information listed in this section is the sufficient amount necessary that still provides sufficient context for the event.Nucleartaco123 (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should look for more current refs then. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Attempts to move on[edit]

I've made this change to the first sentence. I don't believe any of the material is in dispute, and it's wordy. I'd like an alternative to "sparked controversy" as well. Is this ok as I've changed it? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine, and I agree that "sparked controversy" is not ideal, I mostly left that in to avoid further conflict with the previous editor for expanding on his/her article. Nucleartaco123 (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.
I trimmed it a bit further [1]. I hope that's ok. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Potential refs[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andy_Gross&oldid=1202476055"