Talk:Nick Cannon/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Categories

Restore [1]. Numerous reliable sources have described at length Cannon's antisemitism: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. This category is very DUE. We are not calling him a "racist" or an "antisemite" in Wiki's voice. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

That's exactly what categories do. The category "X" is there to tell readers that "this person/place/thing is an X". Per WP:BLPCAT:

"Category names names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources ... Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should be added only for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability"

WP:CATDEF says:

"A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people)"

The Category:Criminals example is instructive. Neither the article nor its sources suggest that Cannon is primarily notable as an anti-white racist or an antisemite. The first mainstream news article I saw when I googled "Nick Cannon" doesn't mention racism or anti-Semitism. In general, we don't label people in this way. The opinion that Cannon's statements are racist or anti-Semitic must always be properly attributed, not implied to be factual. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

It is s fact that Cannon has made anti-semitic remarks and has perpetuated antisemitic conspiracy theories. Per every single reliable source listed has labeled his remarks as anti semitic. Attribution, in this case, is not needed. You do realize that the Fox News article you cited contains a link to "NICK CANNON APOLOGIZES FOR ANTI-SEMITIC REMARKS, FOX KEEPS HIM ON 'MASKED SINGER'" directly in the middle of the article? This category is extremely DUE. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The very nature of calling something anti-Semitic or racist is that it's an opinion, not an objective fact. The Fox News link is not part of the article text proper. WP:DUE is the wrong policy; nonetheless, the remarks are not even mentioned in the lead section. So I don't see how they can be considered "defining characteristics". Even assuming the statements were definitely racist and/or anti-Semitic, those would be characteristics of the statemtents themselves, not the person who made them (see Essentialism). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

That is completely false. You can make objectively racist statements. You can make objectively anti semitic statements. It is universally accepted that Cannon made anti semitic remarks--not an opinion. I see you didn't address your own Fox News article which clearly shows that Cannon's antisemitism is still relevant. It's not in the lead so it's not a "defining characteristics"? That is not a policy or a guideline. Per your logic, we would have to remove Howard University alumni, American philanthropists, People with lupus, Jive Records artists, Writers from San Diego, Writers from Charlotte, North Carolina, etc. from the category list. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Please link the peer-reviewed article in which scientists isolated racism in the lab. I addressed the Fox News article. The one you're referring to is from six months ago. Even if it were from yesterday, it doesn't suggest that racism or anti-Semitism is a defining characteristic of the person who made those comments. On the contrary, it says the remarks were "deemed anti-Semitic", thus framing it as an opinion that someone may or may not hold. The other categories may or may not be defining characteristics either, but they don't funcion as contentious labels in the way that "racism" and "anti-Semitism" do. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Peer reviews article where scientists have isolated racism? Yeah, that's not how that works. Based off your faux reasoning, are you gonna remove the "antisemitism in the United States" category from Owen Benjamin, Christopher Cantwell, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Arthur J. Jones, Sufi Abdul Hamid,etc.? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Then you don't have a source "objectively" defining racism? Removing the category from other BLPs is a very good idea, and I just might do it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• "Throughout the interview, Cannon engages in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, asking why "we give so much power to the 'theys,' and 'theys' turn into illuminati, the Zionists, the Rothschilds," — referring to the wealthy Jewish family often used as a dog whistle for anti-Semitism."
• "During the discussion, Cannon promoted anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and praised Louis Farrakhan."
• I have a million more of these. His statements were anti semitic--it's a statement of pure fact. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Your first source also calls the rap group Public Enemy "wildly popular". Is that also an objective statement of fact? What is the exact line between "popular" and "wildly popular"? The point is that news articles are never 100% factual, and it's our job as editors to sort fact from opinion. Apart from that, these two quotes prove my point: anti-Semitism is a quality of the statements or theories, not the person. It's the person who is the subject of the article, and to whom the categories refer. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

So are you suggesting that an individual can never be anti-semitic? They can only say anti semitic things? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that calling someone or something racist or anti-Semitic can never be a "pure fact", because there's no way to disprove it. It's unfalsifiable. More than that, it's not our job as editors to determine whether someone or something is truly racist or anti-Semitic. Wikipedia describes disputes; it doesn't engage in disputes. See also WP:TRUTH. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my question: can a person be anti-semitic? There is no rational dispute that Cannon's comments were not anti semitic. Only a WP:FRINGE extremist would consider his comments as non anti-semitic. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk pages are not a forum for deciding who is and isn't anti-Semitic or racist. Our concerns are sources and policy. Whether you or I think any comments are anti-Semitic is irrelevant. And as I said, the comments themselves are not the topic of the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The comments themselves led to Cannon losing his job and caused immense public backlash. Seems like a pretty big deal to me. The comments are, in fact, anti-semitic because reliable sources have repeatedly said so. Would you mind if I start an RfC on this? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

You're just stating your own opinion, which is, once again, irrelevant. You're also evading the point that the comments are not the subject of the article. I suggest taking this dispute to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard which I'm sure will confirm that WP:CATDEF and WP:BLPCAT outweigh any user's subjective notion of what is and isn't a "big deal". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

That noticeboard doesn't always get a lot of attention, and I don't feel like rehashing the same arguments I made here. I'll much rather start an RfC. And since you expressed desire to remove the anti-semitism category from other BLPs, including BLPs of Neo-Nazis, I think this dispute deserves the attention of the larger community (you could be absolutely right in your asstement, but I think it's best to get the opinions of others first). You do realize a fair bit of original research is allowed for talk pages? It's how we decide if something is due of inclusion or not. My "subjective notions" are backed up by facts and reliable sources. Fact 1) Cannon made anti-semitic comments, and promoted anti-semitic conspiracies. To say otherwise would be WP:FRINGE nonsense. Fact 2) those comments resulted in a large public backlash, resulting in his job termination. A category reflecting his comments is quite acceptable. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 05:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

In view of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 9#Bias categories, which found support to exclude articles about individual people from such categories as Category:Racism and Category:Sexism, the issue seems moot. However, it might be good to open a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons, both to confirm this (rather dated) consensus and to bring it to the community's attention for BLPs specifically. (WP:CFD is a rather obscure forum for significant policy discussions regarding living people, in my opinion.) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Contentious categories routinely get missued on BLPs. A set standard would probably be the best path forward. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 09:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Y See WT:BLP#Categorizing people. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2021

someone needs to add the fact that he has been hosting his own daily talk show for the past month on fox 32.. even if it fails, its more than ive accomplished. Snarevox (talk) 10:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

something needs to be said about his show that premiered on sept 27 2021...

heres your source

https://www.fox6now.com/news/nick-cannon-discusses-new-daytime-talk-show Snarevox (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Separating the children in the “personal life” section

As widely reported, Nick experienced a tragedy in the death of his seventh child.

I don’t have access to make the change, but his 2 children with Mariah Carey are separated by a line break, as well as his 3rd and 4th children.

For his 5th, 6th, and 7th children, all I’m asking is to separate (spacing out the final paragraph) the wording to provide Zen and Alyssa their own space to document that Zen existed.

Hopefully this isn’t too much to ask, it’s simply updating the formatting (separating the births) to affirm that Zen was born and lost his life far too soon. Kbrad422 (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2021

♥♠♥

71.249.100.12 (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. This edit request looks as if it might be a test. If so, please use the sandbox for any future editing tests. Helen(💬📖) 22:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2021 (2)

71.249.100.12 (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Helen(💬📖) 22:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Missing film

• What I think should be changed: The movie Berserk from 2019 is still missing from his filmography section.
• Why it should be changed: Nick Cannon starred in the movie.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6193470/

XIxj9 (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

References

 Done . Keep in mind, though, that IMDB is not a reliable source, as it's user generated. I used The LA Times review as a source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)