Talk:Brian Niemeier

"Shadowbanned"

Breitbart.com is cited as a source for the statement that "Niemeier was reported to have been shadowbanned on the social media site Twitter, making his posts and replies no longer show up to followers unless viewed on Niemeier's profile". As Nihonjoe argued on my talk page, that's true since Breitbart reports just that. Breitbart, however, is not a reliable source, particularly not for a BLP. If these shadowbanning reports are a significant aspect of Niemeier's biography, reliable sources will have covered them. If not, then we're engaging in rumormongering, and the comment should be removed. For comparison, I could set up a website that reports that Niemeier is [insert bizarre factoid here] - would I then be justified in citing my website for the fact that Niemeier has been reported to be [insert bizarre factoid here]? If not, why is Breitbart any better? Huon (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Huon: It's easily corroborated by searching Niemeier's site. It's not rumormongering. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia content should be based on reliable secondary sources, not primary sources nor unreliable sources. If no reliable secondary source discusses this claim, rumormongering is precisely what this is, and whether Niemeier also engages in it is irrelevant. It's arguably self-serving to claim he's oppressed. Huon (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Even if true, it shouldn't be considered noteworthy to discuss here if no reliable secondary sources have reported on it. Sam Walton (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

If Breitbart is reporting that Brian believes he was shadowbanned, and that can be easily verified, then (at least in this case) Breitbart can be considered reliable. Breitbart is used as a source on many different articles (hundreds of them), so refusing to use it here is not acceptable. It certainly shouldn't be used to establish notability, but it can be used to report something which can be verified by the source. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Where's the evidence that this was anything more than Twitter's UI screwing up again? (Seriously, I've sometimes had trouble finding my own stuff, and sometimes my timeline just stops three hours ago.) And when Twitter announced this year that they will be implementing something similar (despite the Breitbart article being from last year), they specified that users thus disciplined will be notified immediately. DS (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

All the sentence in the article states is that it was reported that he was shadowbanned. That much is true, as evidenced by the report on Breitbart (which is corroborated by the article subject on his website). Again, whether he was actually shadwobanned by Twitter is not indicated. As no claim is made that he was actually shadwobanned, no evidence is required that this was anything other than it being reported that he was shadowbanned. That's why it was worded that way. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The passive voice does fascinating things to responsibility. How about "Breitbart.com claimed that he had been shadowbanned" ? It was certainly a claim. DS (talk) 01:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Given that this does not appear to be an actual thing, perhaps "Niemeier claimed to have been 'shadowbanned' from Twitter; this was later repeated by Breitbart.com" ? DS (talk) 05:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

That's just mincing words. The current wording is concise and has sources, so anyone interested can review the sources if they want more details. It's not important who reported it (at least for the wording), especially if you don't think Breitbart is reliable. Why mention them in the body of the text if you think that? Simply mentioning that it was reported is good enough, IMHO. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I still don't understand why this isn't clear cut - no reliable sources have reported on this so why are we trying to do so? Sam Walton (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I guess it depends on your point of view. There are many people who consider Breitbart to be at least as reliable as Slate. They are basically the same, but for opposites on the political spectrum. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if you've read Breitbart's Wikipedia article recently, but they have quite the reputation for being far from reliable; RSN appears to agree. Sam Walton (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The general reliability of Breitbart is irrelevant in this case because the claim of shadowbanning is also referenced to the article subject's website. The claim of shadowbanning was reported by Breitbart, and therefore the claim in the article is 100% verifiable: Niemeier claimed to have been shadowbanned. Again, whether Breitbart is generally reliable is irrelevant here because it can be shown they are 100% reliable in this case. The sources are even archived. I don't tend to believe much (if anything) on Breitbart, but in this case they are reliable. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The subject claims to have been persecuted. Does any reliable source care enough to report the claim? No. Then it does not belong in an encyclopedia article. We're not a platform that reproduces just anything the subjects of our articles claim or say or even do, particularly not if it's arguably self-serving. If, for argument's sake, Niemeier had written on his website that he's the greatest writer ever, and Breitbart would replicate that statement, too, would we then be justified in saying that "Niemeier has been reported to be the greatest writer ever"? If some personal enemy of Niemeier's had called him a crybaby on their website and Slate had reported that the enemy had called Niemeier a crybaby (with the same 100% reliability in this hypothetical case as Nihonjoe grants Breitbart?), would we be justified in writing that "Nimeier has been reported to be a crybaby"? If not, why are we justifed to write that "Niemeier has been reported to have been shadowbanned by Twitter"? In the absence of reliable sources, which of the subject's (or other's) claims are worth repeating here and which aren't? To be blunt, I'm somewhat shocked that I have to remind Nihonjoe of WP:NPOV, particularly WP:UNDUE. Huon (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Please point out where this article claims Niemeier had been persecuted (or even claimed that)? Can't find it? That's right, because it's not there. And get off your high horse, being "shocked" and all. Give me a break. You're blowing all of this so far out of proportion as to make it completely unrecognizable. You're claiming the article states things it does not (and has never) stated. NPOV is irrelevant in this case as the way the information is presented is already neutral in its presentation. UNDUE might apply if it was more than one sentence stating the information. Since shadowbanning is a fairly new thing (if it is actually a thing, since there seems to be a lot of debate on that), it's not covered in very many places. Since it's not being used to establish notability, we could use just the reference on the author's official site, since there are no reliable sources claiming that he didn't claim to be shadowbanned. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

When did the criteria for including content in a Wikipedia article move from "has been reported by a reliable source" to "has been written about by the subject and also an unreliable source"? I can't see how the reliability of Breitbart is anything but the most relevant topic here. Sam Walton (talk) 07:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

"The subject claims he has been persecuted" is, I would presume, a reference to Niemeier's statement that he has been "unpersoned" as a purported result of the alleged "shadowbanning". DS (talk) 12:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to get sidetracked into a discussion about whether "the Twitter thought police" coming for Niemeier is persecution, or whether being shadowbanned is persecution. UNDUE is relevant even to a single sentence not backed up by reliable sources. If it's so new a thing that it's not covered by reliable published sources, Wikipedia is not the place to put it, and that doesn't get better when the subject writes about it. There's a consensus here that the sentence in its current form is not appropriate. Thus I'll remove it again. Huon (talk) 12:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Political criticism section

I think that the "political criticism" section in the article is undue. It is merely cherry-picking from Niemeier's blog posts. Unless his posts have received any independent coverage, why are we mentioning them at all? And what is the criteria for which blog posts are included in this article? I think the section should be removed until any of his personal rants actually attract any notice from reliable sources. Schazjmd (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I've removed it, although I'm dubious of the notability of the entire subject. The only assertion of notability in the article is the the Dragon Award and Campbell nominations; but both are done by anonymous votes among whoever chooses to participate (making them vulnerable to vote-manipulation, which was, in fact, alleged in both cases), and in both cases coverage of Niemeier's involvement in them is sparse (pretty much just lists; the one source that isn't a list casts doubt on them by noting the opaque nature of the Dragon Award criteria and the appearance of a political goal behind it. As I understand it anyone can nominate any work for a Campbell award, so that nomination confers no notability whatsoever, and the Dragon one is low-quality and has almost no coverage. This doesn't pass WP:AUTHOR; there's no indication that these represent significant critical attention. --Aquillion (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Anyone can be nominated. However, only 5 (now 6) nominees become finalists, and people are only eligible for their first two years as a published author. The Campbell/Astounding has historically been a major award, such that being a finalist is a reasonable assertion of notability. DS (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)