User talk:187Journalist

Welcome

Hello 187Journalist and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions, such as the ones to the page Stephen Rannazzisi, do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! JesseRafe (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Help me!

I would like to update the intro of Steve Rannazzisi's page to reflect current events. I gave no intention of using libelous or opinionated wording. Please advise on how to word it so that something he is well-known for receives the proper attention in the introduction.

I am thinking of an edit (with a link to a news article) that says something like..."is also famous for lying about escaping the South Tower of the World Trade Center on 9/11"

This is something that defines his public persona and should not be buried in the entry as it is now.

187Journalist (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You may want to check out WP:BLP. Apparently Rannazzisi lied about 9/11, but is he famous for it? Is that among the most important facts about him, according to coverage in reliable third-party sources? I don't think so, and February 2016 coverage mentions that lie only as a somewhat humorous episode that's now in the past while discussing his comedy career in much greater detail. Huon (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Rannazzisi's career is inexorably linked to his 9/11 story. He began telling it to comedians immediately after moving to Los Angeles days after the attack. He began telling more elaborate versions of the lie publicly starting in 2009. Here is one from 2011. And a clip from an interview he did with Pauly Shore.

It's important to have this action linked to him because he built his career off the narrative. He went on Howard Stern for a 40-plus minute recanting last year.

If you type his name into Google, three 9/11-related hits come up on the main page. If you run his name through the "news" filter, every single story is about 9/11.

And "Steve Rannazzisi 9/11" returns nearly 60,000 hits on google. Typing in "Steve Rannazzisi" into google returns roughly 376,000 hits, meaning more than 15 percent of his references include his lie about 9/11.

It is absolutely integral that his connection to a lie he told for 14 years be mentioned prominently in his bio. It belongs in the first paragraph, if not part of the first sentence. 187Journalist (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

REBUTTAL: Update Request on Steve Rannazzisi Bio Page.

This is an update to a request I'm making to update the bio page for comedian Steve Rannazzisi. Below is my original request, a reply from an editor, and my response with links to better present my position. Thank you for your time.

Original Request I am thinking of an edit (with a link to a news article) that says something like..."Stephen Rannazzisi is an American actor and stand-up comedian known for lying about escaping the South Tower of the World Trade Center on 9/11 and his work on the FXX comedy series The League."

This is something that defines his public persona and should not be buried in the entry as it is now.

187Journalist (talk) 19:59, Editor's Response1 April 2016 (UTC)

You may want to check out WP:BLP. Apparently Rannazzisi lied about 9/11, but is he famous for it? Is that among the most important facts about him, according to coverage in reliable third-party sources? I don't think so, and February 2016 coverage mentions that lie only as a somewhat humorous episode that's now in the past while discussing his comedy career in much greater detail. Huon (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Rebuttal Rannazzisi's career is inexorably linked to his 9/11 story. He began telling it to comedians immediately after moving to Los Angeles days after the attack. He began telling more elaborate versions of the lie publicly starting in 2009. Here is one from 2011. And a clip from an interview he did with Pauly Shore.

It's important to have this action linked to him because he built his career off the narrative and appeared on Howard Stern for a 40-plus minute recanting last year.

If you type his name into Google, four 9/11-related hits come up on the main page. If you run his name through the "news" filter, every single story on the first page is about his 9/11 lie.

Typing "Steve Rannazzisi" into Google returns roughly 173,000 hits and typing "Steve Rannazzisi 9/11" into Google returns 59,500.. Accounting for more than 1/3 of his total searches.

It is absolutely integral that his connection to a lie he told for 14 years be mentioned prominently in his bio. It absolutely belongs in the first paragraph, if not part of the first sentence.

187Journalist (talk) 05:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I believe Huon was correct in his assessment of this situation. Is there media coverage of Rannazzisi's 9/11 lie? Yes. Is it the thing about him that the media finds most important about him? No. As a result, the information is included in the article, but not in the lead. We must avoid giving undue weight to certain things, especially when our WP:BLP policy is applicable. I am concerned that you don't understand the methodology by which Wikipedia determines what content is included. Wikipedia is essentially a summary of what reliable sources say about a topic. How much weight and coverage we afford a particular aspect of a topic should be proportionate to how much weight and coverage the actual reliable media sources devote to that aspect of the topic. Wikipedia is not a platform for changing the way the media covers a topic, nor is it the appropriate venue to correct coverage based upon a perception of what should be important. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 05:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I understand Wikipedia's stance and have no intention of subverting it. I am failing to understand what further burden of proof I need to provide. A third of all his prominent Web mentions turn up information on the incident. Almost every post he makes on social media has at least one person reference the scandal. He has been interviewed about it on the radio multiple times this year.

Rannazzisi made a concerted effort to align himself with the attacks to build his career. Multiple retellings over several years demonstrates his attachment to his personal narrative. This isn't something he is accused of. This isn't a fringe rumor. This is who he presented himself as. Neglecting to mention this in the intro paragraph makes his biography incomplete.

I appreciate the time and consideration you have all shown.

187Journalist (talk) 09:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

187Journalist, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi 187Journalist! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Samwalton9 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Learning the Ropes_Thank You

Thank you,Marchjuly, Robert McClenon,JesseRafe, Huon, and Nick, for guiding me through the process. Reaching out to everyone here seems like the most efficient use of everyone's time. I didn't mean to bring so many editors into this. That's ignorance of the process on my part--and I'm grateful for the patience.

This isn't about trying to pass a request around until someone agrees with me. I've encountered each of you by following recommendations issued on my talk page.

Links I included weren't meant to bombard or annoy. I wanted to present a case as coherently as possible and verify the request with independent resources. Updating the introduction of Steve Rannazzisi's bio to include an incident he's prominently associated with doesn't appear to violate any of Wikipedia's guidelines or standards. Wikipedia is a valuable resource and this isn't an attempt to manipulate it. The update request is 100 percent fact-based. The lie cost him a prominent endorsement with Buffalo Wild Wings and continues to hamper his marketability(scroll over the STARMeter to see his current ranking, down 191 this week and in a decline since last September).

Here's an example of how his updated bio could read. It doesn't use loaded words, opinion or inaccuracies:

"Stephen Rannazzisi (born July 4, 1978) is an American actor and stand-up comedian who co-starred as fantasy football league player Kevin MacArthur in the FXX comedy series The League . In September 2015, Rannazzisi admitted to lying for more than a decade about claiming to have escaped the South Tower of the World Trade Center during the September 11, 2001 attacks."

Thank you for your time. Respectfully, 187Journalist (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

You did come across as angry and as seeking to Right a Great Wrong rather than to maintain neutrality. Since you are now willing to discuss rather than complain, I would suggest discussion on the talk page, and, if you aren't satisfied with the result, read the dispute resolution policy and follow one of the procedures. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Robert McClenon. I will take this to the talk page in the next day or two. I don't want everyone to think I am spamming. I suspect everyone included in this thread would side with you, but I want to offer enough time for input before leaping into it again. Is what I've written in the most recent post sufficient? Should I offer links from previous posts? Again, apologies for creating a confrontational introduction. That was never the intention. Wanted to keep the request focused and came off curt.

187Journalist (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Per my response at the Teahouse, I think you should discuss a change such as this on the article's talk page to see if there's a consensus for it.

Finally, one more suggestion about how you are adding references. There's nothing wrong with it per se, but it is a style more suitable for an article than it is for a talk page, noticeboard, etc. If you scroll down to the bottom of the page, you'll see all the references you cited on this page are lumped together like they would be in the "References" section of an article. If you're going to use ref tags on a talk page, etc. then it's good practice to also use Template:Reflist-talk or Template:Reflist near the relevant section. Article talk pages/noticeboards can sometimes be filled with posts from many different people discussing many different things. Using the aforementioned templates keep everything relevant to that particular post all together in the same place. This not only makes it easier for others to follow along, but it also really helps when threads are archived. I would add the templates myself per WP:TPG#Fixing format errors if this were an article talk page, the Teahouse or a noticeboard like I did here. This is your user talk page, however, so I won't add templates unless you want me to. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)