Talk:Dave Anthony

Edit request

Would someone please italicize "Damn Interesting" throughout, since it's the title of a website and podcast? I thought I had done them all, but there seems to be some I missed or that got undone. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 11:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

Before the page was locked the social media was removed, and that included a named reference, so now there is a broken reference on the page. Can someone please replace the broken one with the following reference... Cheers- MichelleFranklin(talk)

 Done --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Removal of Social Media section

I don't agree with this section being removed, as it is interesting, and the content is certainly established in more than one place, as it's been discussed regularly by Anthony over many years on various podcasts, however I admit that I only provided one reference so I'm not going to fight it, I only added it in because the page was so small and someone had stripped out anything that was not related to the plagiarism section, and I wanted to put back more interesting content. Next time I'll provide multiple references for each item if that's what's necessary. Cheers- MichelleFranklin(talk)

• Well, as far as I'm concerned, and the protecting admin agreed, this is trivial (the edit summary by Golbez makes a valid point). So, at the very least you'll have to win three editors over, which means you'll need to produce serious secondary sourcing... Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
• No worries, I won't try to win over three editors, if you all think it's too trivial that's fine. I still disagree because it's a common topic in the subject's work, but it's by no means important, I only added it because it was interesting. I'll just add in different interesting stuff and use more references in the future. Cheers- MichelleFranklin(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I hope this is the right place to get further help with edit warring

Anonymous user 24.11.43.196 has a personal issue, not entirely unwarranted, with the subject of this page. This user is claiming to "balance the bias" by removing and adding large chunks of text. We have a clear disagreement on the best way to get to an acceptable resolution. AnnieBee3 (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)AnnieBee3

When I arrived at the page, the Plagiarism Allegations section was written in the basic format a) party accused Anthony of plagiarism; b) here is why that accusation is unfounded; c) repeat. It was clearly biased toward suggesting that Anthony did nothing seriously wrong in any of these occasions. I attempted to correct the bias by removing the defensive language, to let the facts stand on their own merits, but user AnnieBee3 repeatedly reverted my changes. Maybe I was mistaken in my approach, so I took a different tack to add context. I added two things: a direct quote from Anthony to include his explanation of events, and a link to a third-party assessment of the controversy from the publication Plagiarism Today. No surprise, AnnieBee3 then removed the third-party source that was critical of Dave, but left the quote from Anthony defending himself. I feel that the third-party impartial link is key here to striking a balance, especially relating to a legal matter (plagiarism). I'm not here to attack Dave, but Wikipedia shouldn't take sides in an unsettled controversy when no general consensus or legal decision exists. 24.11.43.196 (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Why are you pretending that you are unbiased? You go around on your white horse editing out bias where you see it? It's just that the only place you you've ever spotted bias is Dave Anthony's page. Oh, and one update to an award won by Damn Interesting. Coincidence? Am I tempted to edit Damn Interesting's page? Absolutely. It's poorly sourced, incomplete and very biased. This seems like a poor use of my time. I'd prefer to settle on reasonable wording for one page instead of escalating. I attempted to write the Plagiarism Allegations as a) Dave was accused b) Dave has regrets c) here's another guy that accused him of plagiarism d) here's another guy that accused him of plagiarism. d) here's what Dave did and said in response.

Your version has a)Dave was accused of plagiarism b)Dave doesn't agree that the incident arises to plagiarism and here's what he believes in a full quote c)Here's an expert opinion that agrees that it's plagiarism d)here's another guy that accused him of plagiarism e)here's another guy that accused him of plagiarism. I can find quotes that say this wasn't plagiarism, you can find more that say it was. We can fill paragraphs and paragraphs of competing sources. Meanwhile, Dave will never see this as plagiarism. He just won't. So I suggest we can find a happy medium and let this rest. AnnieBee3 (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)AnneBee3

It seems obvious that I am a fan of Damn Interesting, you are a fan of Dave Anthony. We both have bias, but unbiased parties won't have much interest in this controversy, so we have to do our best. I propose a compromise: You said "I can find quotes that say this wasn't plagiarism." If you can find such a quote from an impartial third-party publication, why not add something like this after the Plagiarism Today quotation?: 'However [author] at [publication name] reached a different conclusion, stating, "[quote]"'. If you can find such a publication to quote from, that seems like a fair way to support two conflicting viewpoints. Regarding "Dave will never see this as plagiarism," that's beside the point, convincing Dave shouldn't be the goal here. 24.11.43.196 (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

That sounds like a plan. AnnieBee3 (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)AnnieBee3

On Feb 2 user AnnieBee3 agreed to stop edit warring with user 24.11.43.196 (see above), but they have once again resumed deleting important, cited details. User appears to be trying to 'whitewash' the actions of Dave Anthony; most of the user's edit history consists of adding positive information to Dave Anthony's entry and deleting anything that can be perceived as negative. AnnieBee3 is apparently a fan of his, someone working in reputation management, or Anthony himself. I have been undoing the vandalism, but AnnieBee3 keeps deleting it again. Based on the discussion above, I don't think they can be reasoned with, they already agreed to stop doing this, and now they are doing it again. 136.60.226.122 (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I did agree initially, but upon further investigation of the source I realized that instead of posting the agreed upon counter-viewpoint, this needed to be removed. For you to call it vandalism is an attempt to invalidate the legitimate concerns about the legitimacy of the source. If anyone is acting inappropriately, it is the anonymous person who is attempting to settle a disagreement between Dave Anthony and Alan Bellows via Wikipedia. I am fan of Dave Anthony, I am not paid by him or anyone else. I am doing this because it's the right thing to do and for no other personal gain. AnnieBee3 (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)AnnieBee3

I added ALL the information, not just the positive information. Do you see the information about his anger issues? I wrote that. The part where he was dating a woman and ended up in Al Anon. I wrote that. Because I am a fan of Dave Anthony, I happen to know a lot about him. I don't edit many other articles because I don't have a wide range of knowledge on the Empire State Building or the city of Paris. But I know about Dave Anthony so I wrote the article. I am aware of Alan Bellow's dislike of Dave Anthony, yet I have never touched his Wikipedia page as is specifically against the rules to bring personal issues into a BLP and if this person continues, I will continue to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnieBee3 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC) AnnieBee3 (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)AnnieBee3 . Sorry, forgot to sign

You mention a concern with the source plagiarismtoday.com, but you haven't specified what it is – why do you think it is not a good source to use here? The website is factually and neutrally written, and although it is the product of a single person, he is clearly identified and appears to be a legitimate authority in his field – I notice that the website is used as a source in various academic papers, and I have not (yet) seen anything on the site in my perusal of it that raises any red flags. I simply do not see how this source fails to meet WP:RS in general. As for the specific use of the source in this article, the claim is again factual, neutrally phrased, correctly attributed, and certainly does not violate WP:BLP. --bonadea contributions talk 15:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I have multiple issues with this quote being used. First, the anonymous editor who posted it should not be allowed to add things to this page because they are using it to continue an outside dispute which is not allowed on Wikipedia. This person does not like that Dave Anthony plagiarized, in their opinion, from the site Damn Interesting. The same quote is posted on Damn Interesting's Wikipedia page with a template warning that this section may not be balanced. I recognize that I am not the appropriate person to get involved with that page and left it alone. The same should be required of people with a personal issue with Dave Anthony, they should not be editing his page. So I am not accusing the quote of violating the WP:BLP per se, I am accusing the editor for using it inappropriately in their personal vendetta.

However, if it is deemed that this is not reason enough to remove the quote, my second issue is that the author of Plagiarism Today is not qualified to make a "ruling" on the case. He has the disclaimer on his page, "I am not a lawyer. I am just a legally-minded Webmaster/Writer." I'm a legally minded person too, but I'm not being quoted on Wikipedia. Further, his free site is set up with multiple links to his paid consulting service where he charges to help people accusing others of plagiarism. I am saying that this individual has compromised his ethics for money, but the fact remains that he only gets paid if something is plagiarism, not if it isn't, so his opinion is open to criticism.

If this is also deemed not removal-worthy, my third problem is that the quote is not a fair representation of the article as a whole. The full article seems fair balanced, but this quote was picked specifically to bias the readers against the subject of this page. Wikipedia is a place to present facts, not hash out a dispute that has already been covered.

I did initially agree to the quote standing and I would post an opposing opinion from a different source, but when I found time to take this issue back up I started with reviewing the article on Plagiarism Today and it raised enough concerns that I either needed to delete the quote or add an explanation similar to above to Dave Anthony's Wikipedia page. This would lengthen the entire section. You have already been active in removing information deemed overly specific so I'm not looking to lengthen the section, both for that reason and because I don't want to give the accusation more weight than it deserves. The allegations (aka Alan Bellows' side) are presented, then Dave's response is presented. (the anonymous editor added an additional quote to including an apology from Dave and I'm fine with that staying or going) and then there are the facts about 2 other plagiarism allegations. Josh Levin, one of the accusers, had posted on Twitter that it was not plagiarism in his case, but the tweet is gone now so I do not mention it. I believe that that is plenty of information on the subject for the Wikipedia user, but if they want more information on the entire situation, they'll easily be able to find additional reading, including the article in question and Damn Interesting's Wikipedia page. I don't believe Dave Anthony's Wikipedia page is the appropriate place to debate an old matter. AnnieBee3 (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)AnnieBee3

Just to add: I know you have cautioned me to assume good faith. And I promise I am trying. When I say that the anonymous user is doing this because they are a fan of Damn Interesting, it is not an assumption, it is something they stated. AnnieBee3 (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)AnnieBee3

The only thing that is relevant here is whether the source is relevant for use in this article – other Wikipedia articles, and whether somebody is a fan of this comedian or that one, doesn't affect the reliability of the source.

The author of Plagiarism Today is not a lawyer, but plagiarism is not a legal concept, so that is a non-issue. And in any case, one doesn't have to be a lawyer to be an authority on legal matters – if this were a legal issue, there's no reason I can see why Wikipedia would necessarily want to quote a lawyer! Yes, he does link to his consulting business, but I do not see how that is a problem. Plagiarism Today is not a commercial website, and obviously does not exist to drive business to the business website. Please give a link to where it says that "he charges to help people accusing others of plagiarism" and that "he only gets paid if something is plagiarism, not if it isn't", because that really doesn't seem to be the case (although it also doesn't affect whether the Plagiarism Today website is reliable or not). This part of your argumentation is similar to how a person might argue if they wanted to remove a source and were looking for reasons to do so.

As for your final point, we do indeed want to avoid placing undue emphasis on a specific episode, and this article does indeed need to lose a lot of trivial details, but since this is a secondary, independent source about this particular issue while the other two sources are primary and not independent, it is hard to see why this source should be removed and the others remain. It could in fact be argued that it is this kind of secondary coverage that makes it worth mentioning the issue at all; the article has too many primary sources and not enough secondary ones. --bonadea contributions talk 17:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. It's not that the editor is a fan, it is that the editor is using the source to continue an outside dispute by editing the page of a person they don't like to include undue negatively biased information. And that is specifically disallowed in the Wikipedia rules. I refer you again to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_BLPs_to_continue_disputes This is not a one time issue, this is a years-long vendetta waged by Alan Bellows and/or fans of Damn Interesting in defense of Alan Bellows. Deleting this quote will set a precedent that they need to let it go and stop editing this page to avenge a perceived wrong against their "side." It is a misuse of Wikipedia and it is stupid and exhausting.

How can you say Plagiarism Today "obviously does not exist to drive business to the business website."? Do you have proof that it wasn't created for this specific purpose? It is absolutely not out of the question to create a site that starts out giving free advice and if you want further help, they will provide it for a fee. I made it clear that I have no evidence that that is the reason he runs the site, I'd like to see you provide evidence to back up you claim that that isn't why he's doing it. Here is the link on plaigiarismtoday.com to the paid consulting service. https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/visit-copybyte-com-for-consulting-services/ Following said link, you will find that he represents people making plagiarism accusations, not those being accused. As such, logic tells us that he gets paid for his services by accusers, not accusees. Which I will say again does not, in and of itself, invalidate his opinion, but is a valid piece of information to take into consideration when evaluating potential bias. And just to put a finer point on it, what he is offering is his opinion, not a fact. Wikipedia is a place for facts, not opinions. The facts have been presented. There is no need to hammer the reader over the head with "expert" opinions. This goes back to the "overly specific" details Bonadea is looking to remove. AnnieBee3 (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)AnnieBee3

AnnieBee3, by deleting lines from a Wikipedia article, you are assuming bad faith on the part of the original author of the lines you are deleting (not user 24.11.43.196 who said that they are a fan of Damn Interesting above). I don't think you've shown that Plagiarism Today is biased just because they make money on the side catching people doing the thing they specialize in writing about... that is way too vague and broad of a disqualification. Half of the citations on Wikipedia would be disqualified by that standard (including many on this very page).

It might help you to look at an example of a Wikipedia entry for a similar high-profile writer who has been involved with plagiarism, one where you (I assume) have no emotional investment. Here's a good example: Ben Domenech. See the quotations and citations from third-party analysis in the Plagiarism section? It adds valuable context that elevates it from mere accusation/denial. If you can find an impartial third party source that concludes that Anthony has not plagiarized, that can add even more context... either as an addition to the section, or grounds to remove the quote that is currently there (but please don't remove the quote again without proving your case with citations here on the talk page). If you cannot find any such source, that might be telling you something.

You seem to be making some assumptions about other editors' identities and intentions. Do you have any sources for the claim that this is part of "a years-long vendetta waged by Alan Bellows and/or fans of Damn Interesting"? 136.60.226.122 (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

what he is offering is his opinion, not a fact Some of the content of the article "How a Comedy Podcast Sparked a Plagiarism Debate", is Bailey's opinion (and clearly signposted as such), but the sentence that is quoted in this Wikipedia article is a fact and not an opinion, so I'm not sure what you mean. As for The facts have been presented. There is no need to hammer the reader over the head with "expert" opinions no, that is a misunderstanding of how sourcing works. Plagiarism Today is the only secondary and independent source for this controversy – the other two sources are Anthony himself and whatever the other guy is called, and if anything, those primary sources should be removed (especially since Anthony posted his comments at Reddit!). Experts are certainly what Wikipedia want as sources. --bonadea contributions talk 22:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I have cut down the paragraph so as not to place too much emphasis on it, and have also removed the primary sources. The secondary source reports on the entire process so there is no need for primary sources here. --bonadea contributions talk 22:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your changes. I still don't agree with much of your argument, but it looks better. I will hope that other users are able to leave it alone. AnnieBee3 (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)AnnieBee3

Thank you for fixing my spelling! I saw it just after I'd posted, but you got there before me :-) I did manage to fix "plagiarised" --> "plagiarized" before posting, but missed the "apologised". --bonadea contributions talk 22:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Removing Maintenance Template

I realize that there are a lot of primary sources cited and that that is not ideal. In some cases they are used as back-up for secondary sources. I went a little citation-happy because information has been removed in the past for not being sourced so many facts have 2 or 3 sources just to make sure they aren't challenged. Additionally, because the subject is famous, but not super-star famous, some things like his Irish ancestry we're going to have to take his word for it. In addition to his album, I can provide 5 other places he's said it. Other occasions where primary sources are used are trivial matters, like using the subject's personal Instagram to identify the names of his dogs. I have not found any of the secondary sources to be spammy or otherwise disreputable. If there are specific sources that are objectionable, please provide information and I will correct them. Thanks in advance. AnnieBee3 (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)AnnieBee3

Indeed, there are many primary sources and several other inappropriate sources, so the template should stay for the time being. Looking at the ten first sources, eight of them are primary (and several are clearly unsuitable for Wikipedia), one is not accessible so I can't say anything about it, and one looks OK. As for please provide information and I will correct them – no, there is no need to ask you to make edits to the article, as you are not responsible for it. Your close personal interest in the subject means that although you don't have any actual connection to him, you should avoid editing the article about him directly. It is hard to look objectively at a topic one is particularly intereste in. Avoid removing any maintenance templates (they are there to make the article better, after all). Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 17:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Which one is inaccessible? Which ones are clearly unsuitable for Wikipedia? Where is there specific instructions on the number of primary sources allowed? If I am going to learn to be a decent editor, I would appreciate specific guidance. I understand that there may not be a need for me to make edits to the article, but I happen to have chosen this as my hobby and there is no rule against me making edits. AnnieBee3 (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)AnnieBee3

March 2021

What is appropriate on Wikipedia is entirely relevant. You have pointed to other pages on Wikipedia as relevant, don't tell me I can't do the same. This does NOT violate BLP. Truth is a defense to defamation claims. Would it be out of line to say that his father had cancer? Why are you shaming his father for his alcoholism? Are you the arbiter of which diseases are valid to mention. Growing up with an alcoholic parent absolutely shapes the way a human turns out. There's an article about it on Wikipedia you might find helpful. Dave being open and willing to talk about his difficulties is a positive for readers, not a negative. Stop edit warring and stop putting bullshit tags on my talk page just because you can't tell the difference between valid information and defamation. AnnieBee3 (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)AnnieBee3

"Dave being open and willing to talk about his difficulties" is fine, he is welcome to do so in interviews and in media he controls but Wikipedia is not interested in his own narrative. Anthony's parents are not notable, and WP:BLP is very clear about adding that kind of information about non-notable people, in particular when it is based solely on primary sources. --bonadea contributions talk 16:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

bonadea I'm happy to respond here if you'd like to discuss in good faith instead of just changing your reasoning each time I raise a counter argument. Your current stance is "negative information about non-notable people (the parents of the subject), supported only by a primary source" are unacceptable yet when I pointed you to examples of negative information about non-notable people (the parents of the subject), supported only by a primary source, you changed your stance to include the following at various points: nobody cares what Dave Anthony has to say about his life; he's not a celebrity like those other people; and showing comparable situations elsewhere on Wikipedia is irrelevant. We aren't going to get very far if you just keep changing my edits and making up new reasons why and I'm not going away. As I said in the edit summary, you do not own this page and I am not less important than you. AnnieBee3 (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)AnnieBee3

I will try to respond to all the points above. I am assuming good faith and would ask you to do the same. Feel free to strike the personal attacks in your post; for the future I will ignore any such posts entirely.

• There are multiple issues with this article, and I have brought up a few different issues at different times. This does not invalidate any of the other problems.
• Non-notable people should not be discussed beyond an absolute minimum, per WP:BLP. Negative claims about a living person (notable or non-notable) that are not supported by independent sources do not belong in a Wikipedia article.
• If there are similar issues in other articles, that does not affect this article. It is also possible that the other articles you mention had independent sourcing, and/or that the people who were discussed were in fact notable. But that's not what we are discussing here.
• Wikipedia does not, in fact, care about what a person wants to say about their own life.
• I should not have used the word "celebrity", since the content of a Wikipedia article is not affected by whether a person is a "celebrity" or not. It was careless of me, even if I only did use it in an edit summary. --bonadea contributions talk 18:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks? I don't even know which part you are referring to. The part where I repeated what you said, or the part where I clarified that I am not less important than you? Those are just facts. I did not attack you and I don't appreciate your implication that I am acting in anything other than good faith. My intent is to improve this Wikipedia article by making it an accurate reflection of the individual. How about we focus on the article instead of my perceived slights against you?

I don't agree that we should leave out an essential part of a person's character because my sources don't meet your standards, which you have yet to define beyond primary and unacceptable. I believe it is important to not whitewash unpleasant parts of a persons existence. It might be easier to pretend that his dad wasn't an alcoholic and that he didn't suffer as a result, but that isn't true. There are myriad reasons to allow this information. I'll list some if you like, but it all comes back to accurate representation.

I never asked for the plagiarism allegations to be removed, because I recognize that it is something that happened. I advocated for fair representation. I do the same here.

You would know whether the articles I mention had independent sourcing, and/or that the people who were discussed were in fact notable if you had looked at them. But you dismissed them because Dave is not a celebrity in your eyes. I am not talking about other issues with this article. I am parroting your responses to this edit and this edit alone. I will continue to edit parts of this article and we will obviously deal with those issue when they arise because it would appear that you have taken a personal interest in either this page or me. I should probably ask you to certify that you're not being paid to make these edits and/or threaten to have you blocked, maybe post some notices on your talk page about gaslighting re personal attacks, but that's not my style. I'd rather just work on the page. AnnieBee3 (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)AnnieBee3

So... last time I did this it bit me in the rear... but I'm going to try to clarify a few things for both of you. 1) WP does sometimes care about what a person says about themselves. But- there are guidelines to use self-published sources. 1st- they can't be self-promotional. 2nd- it does not involve claims about an event the person isn't associated with. 3rd- there is no reasonable doubt that they really are published by the subject, 4th- they are not the main sources in the article- and, finally, that they are not claims the person is making about 3rd parties. So that is the reason your source is unacceptable- they are self published and making a claim about third parties- even if those parties are the subject's parents. WP strongly discourages primary sources- they are only to be used in rare circumstances when nothing else exists AND they meet guidelines.

Now... from an outside perspective- both of you are not giving the other good faith, you are both being rude, and both are being condescending to the other. This will not lead to solutions. So take my suggestions or not- but I think you both need to step away from this article for a few days and come back with clear heads. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Nightenbelle for the clarification. I admit that I am new to this and I appreciate your guidance. I did find a better source and I posted it before reading your suggestion to step away for a few days. I will now take your advice and step back for a few days. Thanks. AnnieBee3 (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)AnnieBee3

Patronising much, Nightenbelle? I am removing this article from my watchlist. I am grateful to have found it as I like the podcaster very much and would never have heard of him if it had not been for this, but I hope I will never see this fucking mess of a BLP again. Bye. --bonadea contributions talk 21:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Sub header

David notMD, this is more explanation than you were probably looking for, please bear with me because I'm honestly trying. When I posted in the Teahouse, I was looking for guidance on article length and specificity. No one replied, but you did come edit this page, so if it was to assist in my goal of removing maintenance tags then I thank you. What I could really use is help/information/guidance. I'm new to Wikipedia. I have already learned quite a bit, but mostly I feel like I'm being punched down again and again. I told Nightenbelle that I would step away from editing for a few days. I thought that I could learn more about Wikipedia in that time and return a more informed editor. Instead I feel like I just drew more attention to the page. So I am taking a slight break from my break to build on one of your edits. I think it's a great idea to have career subheader, I think stand-up is a legitimate subsection of his career. Now I'm really gone for a few days. Thanks. AnnieBee3 (talk) 02:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)AnnieBee3

Leaving comments on your Talk page. To the long discussion above, all I will write is that disagreement does not mean vandalism, nor does edit warring mean vandalism. Hoping everyone can cool off. David notMD (talk) 06:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)