Talk:Diamond and Silk

Can other users opine on this entry ? A singularly-focused, red-named editor insists on misusing the cited source to support a claim of deliberate censorship, when the source actually states that it was due to an "enforcement error" and rectified. User has attempted to re-add without discussion 5 times n 3 days. ValarianB (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The edit is original research, and the editor misuses primary source to give a false account of what D&S's claimed and what Facebook recognized. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

User has returned 6 days later to do it again. ValarianB (talk) 12:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

--295N63E (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)ValarianB and Snooganssnoogans, I apologize for providing my earlier talk to editors specifically rather than on this page. I have occasionally been reverting after getting no response. I don't know why I am being assumed as "red-named" editor (I assume that means republican which I'm not, but it's also beside the point). I will start by saying a claim of "deliberate censorship" was never made by me in an edit, but neither is it accurate to say there is no evidence that Facebook.. censured...

The article as written in the opening paragraph states that "There is, however, no evidence that Facebook blocked or censored Diamond and Silk's Facebook page." Links to CNN and the Washington Post. While these news sites did their own background research they do not provide it, nor do they speak to what was actually stated in Facebook's official response through Mr. Zuckerberg. As such I've tried to provide clarification so the reader can see both sides of the issue.

I readily admit there is lack of concensus in the media over this. There is frequently pushback on politically charged issues. In cases like this it is Wikipedia's past practice to fall back on primary source documentation to the extent it is present. Official statements from the company (Facebook) in question are crucial in a fact based inquiry. Those statements conclusively show that facebook briefly censored (in Mark Zuckerberg's opinion), Diamond and Silk. Zuck was in brief, asked why censorship and replied that in that case the team made an enforcement error (and fixed it). If facebooks position was that it was not brief censorship he would have said "they weren't censored or something similar". If it were an algorithm he would have stated computer/algorithm or something, rather than team, as stating "team" clearly paints Facebook in more of a negative light than an incidential programming issue. Neither Facebook nor Zuckerberg made subsequent attempts to clarify or change his statement on the record, which was given under oath. To be clear, the explicit use of the phrase "team made an enforcement error" counters the widely held opinion in some social media groups that the action by facebook was initiated simply by a computer program, as it was clearly human driven. Assuming arguendo that CNN and the WaPo do have original sourcing that says otherwise, the record on Wiki should still reflect this contention of fact.

As such I suggest adding a clarifying sentence after the CNN/WaPo citation: However, on April 11, 2018, Mark Zuckerberg testified before the US House of Representatives to Congressman Joe Barton's question of "why is Facebook censoring conservative bloggers such as Diamond and Silk..." that "in that specific case, our team made an enforcement error and we have already gotten in touch with them to reverse it."^[1][2][3][4]

I would argue that this sentence is far less conclusive in tone than the statement as written that there is no evidence. It allows the reader to assess the official company statement to come to their own conclusion regarding the facts of the matter.

While removing the prior sentence may make the paragraph more accurate in my opinion, it would also ignore that there is contention. As such I proposed editing the current sentence to begin with "Some media sources state there is"(no evidence that Facebook blocked or censored Diamond and Silk's Facebook page). The reporting from CNN and the WaPo is there, and readers appreciate knowing the scope of an issue. Showing both sides of this issue, and not ignoring the direct testimony of facebook, provides impartiality to what is otherwise politically charged. I appreciate any and all polite responses.--295N63E (talk) 01:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

It was a brief enforcement error, which they reversed upon discovering the error. It is as if it never happened, we're not going to feed into the conspiracy theory that these two "pundits" were targeted for censorship. ValarianB (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

--295N63E (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)It was reversed once it was made public. It would be more accurate to say once it was discovered that the enforcement team had taken some action, they reversed it. Something that happens, and then is reversed, clearly happened. It's binary. Did or didn't. Again the assumption in the sentence above is that it was some computer glitch which isn't supported in the record. Wikipedia is an open and impartial source of factual basis. It doesn't matter if a fact supports what an editor puts forth as just a conspiracy theory or not, if it's a primary source quote with significant attention and no subsequent clarification by the company, it has significant weight. We can't ignore it especially as it is the strongest evidence we have.

It's circular logic to state there is no evidence to support any (even brief) censure took place, so to say otherwise is a conspiracy theory, and as such facts that support these people were briefly targeted by an enforcement team should not be discussed as it feeds a conspiracy theory. The facts here are fairly clear and to ignore them, especially in what appears to be a purposeful way, harms the impartiality of Wikipedia as an unbiased aggregation of information. The quoted sentence under oath by Facebook's representative makes clear what happened. I sincerely hope I'm misunderstanding the logic behind why this should not be considered. Please tell me more.--295N63E (talk) 01:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing more to add, other than to sign your posts at the end rather than at the beginning, please. ValarianB (talk) 14:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Given the argument thus far I don't see how the facts would support not using my edit (or something similar to also reference the official facebook position). As I understand it the argument is two part: 1) that since it was brief and when brought to light they reversed it, it is as if it never happened. The fact is clear that it happened, so it is a disservice to the accuracy of Wikipedia to claim that it is as if it didn't happen, and to use that to revert edits that discuss how it briefly did happen. 2) Wikipedia editors do not want to discuss the primary source statement from Facebook's CEO under oath, on record and never clarified by him or the company, because the facts would feed what they believe (ignoring this evidence to do so) is a conspiracy theory.

I fall back again to the statement of Zuckerberg under oath and not recanted, corrected, or updated by Facebook post hearing, to the question of "why is Facebook censoring conservative bloggers such as Diamond and Silk..." that "in that specific case, our team made an enforcement error and we have already gotten in touch with them to reverse it."--295N63E (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

You can reiterate the same point over and over as long as you like, but it remains an unconvincing point. Your attempting addition will be reversed every time. ValarianB (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Please state with specificity why this edit is not convincing. It is frustrating having a one sided conversation where one side refuses to debate the facts in question. For example you could cite how the CNN/WaPo articles cited in the sentence prior discussed their thoughts (though they shared no evidence of source reporting) or how Zuckerberg did not in fact mean what he said, or must have been confused or to not have heard the question clearly which he responded to. However, saying you are simply not convinced or it is not convincing, provides no clarity towards justification; it's entirely opinion based and doesn't have a place in Wikipedia's unbiased body of work. A starting point would be to acknowledge whether I do in fact have your position correct in that you don't want to discuss the facts cited in Zuckerberg's testimony before congress because to acknowledge this would be to feed what you cite as a conspiracy theory. An unbiased observer argues simply that facts are facts, and that the real world can, in fact, actually, at times, be messy. Continually reverting to "there is no evidence"... seems to reveal a clear bias in the absence of any articulate answer as to the why of that statement when confronted with the primary (and only) source testimony from Facebook on the issue. I will await a considerate response, thank you! 295N63E (talk) 01:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources say there is no evidence for the censorship and blocking claims. What you're doing is cobbling together primary sources and your faulty interpretation of the contents of those sources to rebut what RS are reporting. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Lets talk about the reliable sources this page and the sentence in question cites.

Citation #2 The WaPo article is the only of the three reliable sources cited that actually discusses facts or even indicates that it is in possession of facts to support its opinion. There are only two points the article makes with respect to this claim. The rest is mostly just the reporter making the case that these two ladies are doing this to get paid (but that's not relevant to this discussion other than to mention that this reliable source appears biased in her language and tone). Discussing the only two facts regarding the claim/counterclaim:

1. 1 "In early April, they said, the social-media giant sent them a notification stating their content had been deemed “unsafe.” Facebook apologized for what it called an “enforcement error,” and experts testified in Congress that there’s no evidence of targeting". This article admits Facebook made an error, so it's difficult to see it used as an attempt to show that there was no evidence to support that these people were targeted or censured. However this article is misleading in that it wants the reader to assume the experts testified that there was no evidence that Diamond and Silk had been targeted. Rather, the experts were speaking broadly that they could not show intentional bias against right leaning people, in general, as per the theme of the hearing and as no expert had had time to even look into the Diamond and Silk claim. That does not mean, and the article does not actually make the case (though it wants you to think it does) that there was no targeting in this case.
2. 2"The numbers do not bear out the argument that the sisters have been repressed. The liberal site ThinkProgress analyzed Facebook data showing the sisters’ page received more interactions during a month when the sisters claimed censorship than at the same time a year before." Early April 2018 notification that their content was unsafe. The two personalities almost immediately raised hell. It was further brought up to Zuckerberg in testimony on April 11, 2018. These individuals were not that well known, and suddenly they were on the big stage. The April 11, 2018 discussion by Zuckerberg by itself generated enough new interest in visiting their site to see who everyone was talking about. I can tell you with absolute certainty that this data point would not pass muster in any of the top 100 research papers without at least a footnote acknowledging that the interest generated from these people crying wolf very likely contributed more viewership within that month tested, than they would have seen had they said nothing. In short the sample is tainted and in research would not have been used. Here it simply cannot be used to make the claim that there was no censurship. What would have been useful was if this site used data from say the first week in April 2018 vs 2017. That they did not use simply the first week during the alleged censure, rather than the whole month may mean more about the "liberal site ThinkProgess" to quote from the article, and their desire in this case, than an unbiased research into the facts, but it doesn't mean that we as Wikipedia editors can't evaluate this impartially.

Citation #3 This Hill article is simply reporting a CNN personality/reporter interaction with a republican lawmaker (along with the linked CNN video of the interaction). There is no reliable source reporting here, just two guys talking without providing that they even have background information /original work on this topic. Cuomo just says "there's no evidence" though neither person talks about the substance of anything.

Citation #4 This CNN article states simply that "They had not been censored. Hardaway and Richardson's claims had been thoroughly debunked." However the article does not lay out a case or even state that the authors of the article reviewed or have any information indicating the issue is thoroughly debunked, nor did they link to any article where the reader can get any information on how the claim has been debunked. Additionally in reading the article it becomes clear that asked for comment, Facebook actually pointed the authors back to Zuckerbergs testimony before congress which I have attempted to include. That the authors ignored Zuckerbergs statements from that testimony, in writing what by all accounts is an opinion piece, doesn't mean its a reliable source in this instance. The article is also full of language maligning a particular political party. It's not objective and it provides no facts supporting the only statement on the issue.

Snooganssnoogans has stated "What you're doing is cobbling together primary sources and your faulty interpretation of the contents of those sources to rebut what RS are reporting". I have provided a detailed account of why the primary source matters, and now why a case can be made that these reliable sources are little more than links to well respected news sites that don't actually have facts to counter Zuckerbergs statement. Again, this editor is claiming without providing any reason why or showing how, I have either a faulty interpretation of contents within a transcribed testimony or have "cobbled together" primary sources . Facts matter. To date the other editors have been unwilling to discuss facts or present with specificity how I'm wrong in this bold but necessary edit. Saying simply that I have a faulty interpretation or that Reliable Sources outweigh my primary source, with no explanation, does not allow Wikipedia the ability to evaluate your argument. I await a complete response. Thank you.295N63E (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• Snooganssnoogans, ValarianB, it is happening again. 295N63E, this needs to stop. Your walls of text here cannot hide the fact that you are drawing your interpretations from reading primary sources. That is not how we work here. Drmies (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • It is not the job of a wikipedia editor to draw interpretations. We deal in facts. We try to discuss the specifics and do not simply put others down. If you like I can cite the appropriate Wiki policies. It would be helpful to this discussion if editors were willing to discuss at more than a one liner, any of these concerns of fact. --295N63E (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
    • That's right--that's not our job, and yet that is what you were doing. I'm not sure what you are talking about with "we"--it seems to me that you are a single-purpose account whose main interest is a kind of whitewashing. Drmies (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Tendentious was mentioned. This post has gathered my attention as it is absolutely lacking in objectivity. Just look for example at the three RS references I addressed. These are really tertiary sources with some secondary sourcing, though it has its own faults which I laid out above. It absolutely doesn't conform to NPOV and many of the claims are not verifiable. Since the claim keeps being raised that I'm relying on a primary source. While there is much primary source information within Zuckerbergs testimony, unless an editor wants to argue that Zuckerberg personally conducted a review of what happened in the case of these two not very well known personalities, it is safe to assume that Zuckerberg read whatever internal report/email report on the issue that was sent to him after the company's investigation of the facts. That is a reliable source discussing the primary source information. That Facebook did an internal investigation isn't disputed. It's that information he is pulling from when he acts as a secondary source to provide an analysis, evaluation and interpretation. I welcome an articulate and full response but to be perfectly blunt what it is starting to appear like, is that users with a political purpose are contesting very reasonable edits, and then refuse to provide any real discussion on the talk page. I do not believe anyone has provided a legitimate reason on how the reverts comply with Wikipedia:neutral point of view. If I do not receive a responsive submission to the "wall of text" I believe it will be proper to escalate this. However I really don't see how that would be necessary as the facts here are not really in question, it's just nobody has deigned to discuss them. It is interesting to me that a new editor so quickly reverted my changes (you'd almost have to be following this paged to do so), yet has been silent for the entirety of our talk discussion, and now when specifically asked to talk these issues out, becomes silent again.--295N63E (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

To verifiability and NPOV of the three sources I discussed above that are being claimed as RS but really aren't: More reputable news sources have simply stated the facts as known and let the reader understand that there is a conflict here.^{[1] [2]} We should not pretend there is no conflict of fact here.295N63E (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Interesting how a user account created exactly 30 days ago speaks of editors as "we" and goes right to escalation when confronted with opposition. To the matter at hand, nothing you have presented is any different from Day 1, still attempting to insert your own personal opinions, sill mis-using primary sources.

Let's Go back to your own statement, "I readily admit there is lack of concensus in the media over this. There is frequently pushback on politically charged issues. In cases like this it is Wikipedia's past practice to fall back on primary source documentation to the extent it is present". What you're here to do, in your own words, is "right great wrongs" that you perceive in the media coverage of this topic. That's not going to lead to a happy ending, for you. ValarianB (talk) 13:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

There has been much reception across the political spectrum from this pair. Are the current editors here happy that the few quotes are simply left leaning reactions? I believe this entire section does the impartiality of wikipedia a disservice. It is near impossible to provide an accurate picture of public reception of a pair of controversial personalities. Are there any editors here who believe this should stay? If so would you be willing to work to add some right leaning reception quotes as well? I personally don't relish that task but it would at least provide a more impartial view of this topic. --295N63E (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• The cited comments aren't "left-leaning" unless you make them so, and they are certainly not "simply" left-leaning. You don't find the comment by Boykin interesting? I do. Now, if you want to add some more stuff, make sure it's well-verified. But I have to say, if all you see is "simply left leaning" and "right leaning", I'm not sure you're the person for the job. Drmies (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I say nothing about interest or otherwise, my intent is to assist in providing a neutral point of view. This entire topic has political overtures and sensitivity is required. From the very first paragraph: "They are known for their commentary in support of United States President Donald Trump." It is not simply that I am attempting to see this article in red vs blue. I'm trying to inteject some impartiality in what appears to be a runaway narrative. Acknowledging that the only quotes are from an artist and activist (none of my artist/activist friends have a red bone in their body) and the second from someone critical of "conservatives" would go a long way in letting me know you are discussing this in good faith. It's unfortunate that we are discussing political leanings, and this exemplifies why I believe this section does not belong within this article. Aggregating specific quotes from random but relatively obscure personalities is not a useful wikipedia practice; there are to many to quantify and the quotes are opinion statements disguised as "public reception". --295N63E (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The article is entirely deficient in not addressing the personal histories of these two women and how they came to be teamed up with one another to become a media and show business phenomenon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:ED07:6300:2C39:F11D:33D4:CB48 (talk) 06:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Some sources have described them as siblings although I’m not sure if that’s the case, since I haven’t been able to find any details about maiden name(s), parents’ names, etc. 97.116.51.145 (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I know that You Tube videos are not reliable sources, but in this "Now This" video, the comedian Rob Haze claims that Diamond and Silk are the siblings Ineitha Lynette Hardaway (Diamond) and Herneitha Rochelle Hardaway Richardson (Silk), born in the 1970s in Fayetteville, North Carolina, to televangelist pastors Betty Hardaway and Freeman Hardaway. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bloLUPmcsYY That led me to view a 1994 broadcast by the elder Hardaways about their Jericho Deliverance Temple and Hardaway's Herb Garden in Raeford, North Carolina: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-G1aLxX8cU And that led me to a reputable source, The [Spokane] Spokesman-Review, where all is revealed and confirmed by Monica Hesse and Dan Zak of the Washington Post: https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2018/apr/26/who-are-diamond-and-silk-how-two-small-town-ex-dem/ 75.101.104.17 (talk) 07:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

That's all these people are. Is that the standard for having an article on Wikipedia, make enough noise and annoy enough people and eventually enough people are talking about you to be "notable?" Even if you have never actually done anything? Neutron (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I for one appreciate the fact that when I Googled their names I was able to find this article. "Why are they famous?" is one question that part of the visitors might want to see answered, even if the answer is "for being famous." YuriSanCa (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Lynnette Hardaway. Date of birth seems to be November 25, 1971. Source: . Source: . Source: . 32.209.55.38 (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP, the closest is The Parade which cites NBC as the source but the NBC article does not state the exact day, only that according to their book she was born Thanksgiving Day 1971 but the date of Thanksgiving is not a fixed date. Same for the Washington Post. The Daily Mail article says a tweet was sent by her sister on November 25th wishing her a happy birthday but that cannot be used because it is a statement by a third-party (see WP:SOCIALMEDIA). Also, the Daily Mail is not a reliable source (see WP:DAILYMAIL). S0091 (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The date of "Thanksgiving Day" is not a fixed date, agreed. However, the date of "Thanksgiving Day 1971" most certainly is a fixed date ... namely, Thursday, November 25, 1971. See Richard Nixon, 37th President of the United States: 1969 ‐ 1974, Proclamation 4093—Thanksgiving Day, 1971. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 08:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Her death was announced by Trump on Truth Social; while he said that "probably her big and precious heart just plain gave out", her official cause of death was not immediately made clear.

Crazy, insane blue liberal here, posting from the country of Reality, with the observation that maybe, just maybe, Trump shouldn’t be used as a source for the cause of death of one of the deceased. But what do I know, I live in Reality, a backwards fantasyland where former presidents aren’t masquerading as poetic coroners. Viriditas (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas I agree so I removed it along with adding a separate section about Hardaway's death and trimming the lead. S0091 (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

As I write this, Trump is an attribution. The sources are politico.com, theguardian.com and thedailybeast.com . Nothing of what we'll find will be appropriate for an encyclopedia for a while. But I'd wager those sources are typical for Wikipedia and deaths on the first day. Case closed? Iluvalar (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I’m not entirely sure what the best wording for the intro would be now. Referring to the duo (Diamond _and_ Silk) in the past tense is technically true, and yet some readers might interpret that as implying both sisters are deceased, rather than just Diamond.

A related question is what to do with the article now that only one of the pair is still alive; do we split it into two separate articles now or what? Personally, I think it’d be best to wait and see. We don’t know yet if Silk is going to retire from political commentary, continue on with a solo career, or hold auditions for someone else to take on Diamond’s role in a new duo. Until she announces what she plans to do, it’s probably best to keep the article the way it is. 2600:1014:B017:EC25:9D8E:A6C9:B7C0:D857 (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree we wait and see. I think it is clear enough in the lead (intro) that only Hardaway died. Once more is known, the lead can be amended to something like "While Hardaway died in 2023, Richardson continued to....." S0091 (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

they appeared on talk radio shows under a diff stage name for several months (a year?) before they blew up nationally. i can't recall the name.

was it, in fact, "stump for trump girls", as mentioned in the article? if so, it should be clarified that they were already using that as a name, that it wasn't just made up for that rally.

in fact, it would be great if someone could add when exactly they started vlogging and when exactly they switched names.

as for STYLE...saying late in the article that one spoke a lot and one was quiet is too little too late. it was their WHOLE schtick -- one doing a monologue, and one doing "hollaback" or w/e they call that call-and-response style from black churches.

not only was the quiet one generally quiet, but what she DID say was mostly "here here", "that's right", "so true" type lines. should be mentioned early on in the article. 2601:19C:527F:A660:3167:EC0C:82:574E (talk) 07:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I’m also curious about where they got their stage names from. I wonder if it’s a reference to this quote from Oscar de la Renta. Did they ever say? 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:7F3C (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Someone added the “Herman Cain Award” to the infobox, which I removed. They then readded it, claiming it is a “notable award bestowed upon a notable person” and therefore belongs in the infobox. I won’t remove it again because I don’t want to get into an edit war. But I still don’t think it belongs. First, it’s more of an Internet meme than a real award like the Nobel Prizes or Emmys are. Second, the subreddit it originated on is highly controversial. Third, we don’t definitively know the cause of death was COVID at this point, so it may not even be relevant. For all these reasons, I don’t believe the HCA reference should be included. 2600:1014:B017:EC25:CDFF:36B7:442F:B184 (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, this is interesting. Someone at Diamond’s official memorial service claimed that she had a boyfriend and that boyfriend was Donald Trump. Given that Trump is married, I’m assuming that remark was meant facetiously. I don’t think the article should say they were dating unless we get evidence the speaker wasn’t actually joking. (How would Melania feel?)

Knowing what we know about Trump’s personal life and preferences, I doubt he would have found Diamond attractive anyway. So that’s another reason not to take the above claim at face value.

The memorial was certainly bizarre in other ways, too (they were spreading conspiracy theories about Diamond being “poisoned” as part of a depopulation project). Not sure if any of that stuff is notable enough for inclusion in this article or not. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:7F3C (talk) 08:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Forgive me in advance for any process or culture errors, or other related idiocy: I've lurked but not edited before, so I'm posting here to see if the experienced among you think this has merit.

Here's the portion of text I'm questioning:

"In June 2015, after the pair began to make long form pro-Trump YouTube videos, political commentator Dennis Michael Lynch contacted the sisters to offer them advice and training on how to produce short videos that would go viral. Lynch signed the duo to a short-term contract, gave them the stage names 'Diamond and Silk', and helped produce and solicit their first short pro-Trump video that went viral with over 1,000,000 views. Within a few days of the video going viral, Lynch booked them on various cable television networks, including CNN and Fox News Channel."

These claims (from the History/Politics section) have no attribution except, by location in the paragraph, to imply relationship to the next cited footnote (# 12 Wapo) which article says nothing about Lynch and is not a source for the claims.

Does anyone have references to properly evidence Lynch's political influence here? In searching around, I found only Lynch himself, making such claims on the morning after Diamond's death.

Not sure if this has been hashed out otherwise but I believe elite political handling of 'grassroots-emerged' pundits is of historical note and relevance in the documentation of social-media influenced election campaigns in the period of emergence and refinement of such tactics which, in the US, I would consider to include at minimum the presidential elections 2004 through 2016.

Note that this intersects with and goes beyond the 'stage names' section already in Talk above, so not sure if this comment better belonged there but my question centers on political handling, of which stage names is a subset.

Thanks for listening and for the collective efforts. Kohlerfaucet (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. That content was added by an IP here, with no sourcing at all. We don't allow that, and I have now removed it.

If that content is factual, it really should be included, but only if properly sourced. If anyone can document it, please restore it with sourcing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I just reverted changes made to the article saying that Silk died on April 21, 2026. No source was given, and no basic search of news reports corroborates that. Please do not add it back without a reliable source if it does happen to be true. Imzadi 1979 → 18:09, 23 April 2026 (UTC)