 | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hi editors, I wanted to take a look at the Controversies section in the article and ask if it's necessary. While there were a couple of news stories about that event, I don't think that it's necessarily encyclopedic content. News stories are written every day about Twitter arguments but few of them are included on Wikipedia.
However, if editors do feel the content should remain, I'd suggest eliminating the Controversies section and moving the content to the History section. Based on my reading of NPOV and MOS guidelines, that seems to be more appropriate. The Criticism essay also supports this, noting that "Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged" and that "best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section."
I reworked the text a bit as well, cutting some extraneous information, addressing what I saw as some tone/NPOV issues and fixing up the citations so they follow the correct format.
On September 29, 2016, FanSided writers Burt Gertson and
Mia Khalifa engaged in a
Twitter argument. FanSided tweeted that the Gertson account was a fictional person aimed at providing satire. On October 1, 2016, FanSided issued a statement on the termination of those involved.
[1][2][3]
References
"To Our Fans". FanSided. October 1, 2016. Retrieved October 12, 2022.
Please let me know what you think! M at MinuteMedia (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
- Let me think on this one. I definitely think that a Controversy section with a single subsection is unfair to you, but having a Controversy or Criticism section is pretty much par for the course. I think nesting it under History with a subsection named Burt Gertson / Mia Khalifa controversy might be the best option. What do you think of that solution @M at MinuteMedia? -- FeldBum (talk) 15:46, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- @FeldBum:, thanks for the response! I understand what you are saying and if you think Controversy sections are par for the course, I will defer to your judgment on the placement of headers. What are your thoughts on my proposed wording changes? I think it makes the text more neutral and protects the identity of our former employee, as including his name could negatively affect his future endeavors. M at MinuteMedia (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
- I think your language is definitely a bit tighter, which is good, but it removes everything regarding Cavan, who is clearly mentioned in the Mashable and The Spun citations. I can try a version that combines both Cavan and your language. -- FeldBum (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- @M at MinuteMedia How about: On September 29, 2016, FanSided columnist Burt Gertson and former adult film actress Mia Khalifa, who was writing for FanSided at the time, engaged in a Twitter argument. After initially claiming via email that Gertson was a real person, FanSided later tweeted that the Gertson account was a fictional person aimed at providing satire. On October 1, 2016, FanSided issued a statement on the termination of those involved, including editor-in-chief Jim Cavan. --FeldBum (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- @FeldBum: I think your modification looks good. Let's go ahead with that! M at MinuteMedia (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Cool, all done then. I'll mark as finished. --FeldBum (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks! M at MinuteMedia (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)