Jump to content

Talk:Thomas Jolly

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Thomas Jolly (artist))

Lock for editing

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Page is being vandalised with spurious claims about Jolly’s ancestry, due to discussion on right wing social media 209.35.88.101 (talk) 09:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The guy's jewish. Why is there a problem with his page identifying him as such? 98.251.238.217 (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's unverified, and because Jew-tagging is strongly discouraged, as are other attempts to single people out by ethnicity or religion. Acroterion (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because he's not Jewish? Is it that simple? Before the Olympic ceremony his Wikipedia didn't say he was Jewish until people start editing with no proof Thunderbolt4000 (talk) 21:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request

[edit]

In the intro, please add this source to his birth date. It is currently unsourced. https://lux.collections.yale.edu/view/person/63b3052c-47cc-493c-85d0-083d90309c8e 2600:100C:A20C:6C0F:2904:D1C0:7BEF:4336 (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Ferien (talk) 10:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocages

[edit]

Pourquoi est-elle bloquée ici et pourquoi cette page est-elle protégée? 2003:E3:6F30:3D5C:2CF1:AE96:6D98:94EB (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's attracting trolls. Acroterion (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2024

[edit]

As such it criticised

should be replaced with

As such it was criticised Tcris79 (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:57, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed content from lead

[edit]

In this diff, the key controversy Jolly was involved in was removed from the lead: [1]. According to my understanding of WP:LEAD, "The lead should ... summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Since this controversy was publicized worldwide and drew significant attention to Thomas Jolly, I believe that the "undue weight" argument may be incorrect. @Citing, would you be willing to reconsider this change? (Other editors are, of course, welcome to respond as well.) Whizkin (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Whizkin: I don't think it belongs in the intro. Less than a month later, it already looks like a relatively minor controversy that didn't last beyond the news cycle. Considering the scale of the opening and closing ceremonies (not to mention the subject's entire career), it feels out of place. I'm also reluctant to cram controversies into the intro of a BLP, especially less-known subjects like this one. Citing (talk) 12:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You make good points, but this is a prominent controversy in terms of the coverage of *this* person in reliable sources. For example, any biography of Thomas Jolly written, say, 10 years in the future will surely mention the controversy and demonization that he suffered. Therefore, in my opinion, 'due weight' calls for inclusion. Since he is actually the victim of harassment, this does not paint the person in negative terms. Whizkin (talk) 13:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Citing Putting the policies aside, let me explain a bit why I care. This person (whom I'm not related to, but empathize with) has been a target of a global hate and misinformation campaign, often pointing to false information that was inserted by trolls into *this article itself* as "evidence" for incorrect information. He received threatening and abusive messages, and we, sadly, had a part in this. I think it is our mission on Wikipedia, and my mission personally, to correct misinformation in a prominent way. Whizkin (talk) 13:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Whizkin:I understand that and am not disputing including accurate and verifiable information in the article itself. I don't think it belongs in the lead section, however, nor would including it in the lead would preclude vandalism. If you look at WP:LEAD: "The lead is the first thing most people read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read." At the moment, the lead section summarizes the subject's early life, education, career, and the directorship of the Olympic ceremonies. What you're proposing is adding quite a bit of text about a controversy that, all things considered, is basically over (notwithstanding ongoing investigations about harassment). Giving this much attention to the topic doesn't accurately reflect the subject's entire biography (especially if you look at the French version), and in general with a BLP it's better not to frame an individual's life in terms of controversies and conflict unless they are very well known for them.
For what it's worth, I think the material in the rest of the article about the controversy and harassment are not well-written as it is. I took out some of the worse sources (tabloids and tweets, mostly) but haven't been able to do more yet. Citing (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]