Talk:Fred Guttenberg

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Floated[edit]

Needs photo.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Needs deletion. Fathers blame societal failures for their sons' deaths around the clock in America. Same with mothers and daughters. It's not that we shouldn't care about their problems, there are just so many. This guy is a bit special because he actually went to Washington once instead of online, but who did he meet? What did they talk about? Did anything change? Worry about substance like that before wondering about photos of entirely normal people. We've all seen them. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see if he continues to gain press as an advocate. The Stoneman Douglas shooting appears to be triggering real change and a whole new level of protest against the gun culture. Legacypac (talk) 18:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, I've changed three grossly inaccurate paraphrases of what he said to something resembling what he said. Of five things we say he's said in all. Everyone's in a hurry to create a BLP, then nobody bothers to see if it's 60% lies. It's why we should stick to notable people and general movements. More eyes there, and people actually want to read the stories about them. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's far too soon to have an article on this subject, and can foresee an eventual merge/redirect into the article on the shooting, 2018 United States gun violence protests, or something similar. I once tweeted my thoughts to Donald Trump, and appeared in a newspaper once, still waiting for my Wikipedia article. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Animalparty I'd love to put you into Wikipedia when the time comes. In the meantime, I've been thinking about the whole issue of multiple articles versus consolidation into one Never Again MSD article, and my sense is that in time, this will become more apparent to us -- whether there are separate activists, each garnering (perhaps competing with each other?) for news attention, or whether they all work under the Never Again umbrella. My present guess is that the student activists, as well as the parent Mr. Guttenberg, are not working too closely together, and that separate articles make sense, but let's see what happens during the March 24th national demonstration in Washington DC.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See what happens, then wait till April at least before creating articles for the headline-grabbers of the day. If I were a betting man, I'd wager a previously unidentified five-year-old girl tugs the national heartstrings in Washington. Five-year-old girls need the least public attention, especially considering the murderous Facebook trolls Guttenberg and friends tried to warn the President about. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the same person is creating these articles with very little sourcing and passing them off as major activists. This particular individual hasn't had anything reported on in several days that hasn't already been repeated in the main article. Waiting until the start of May seems like a good compromise before creating dozens of articles for students and individuals we won't hear from ever again.100.33.114.169 (talk) 01:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Guttenberg birthday and age[edit]

Recently Guttenberg's birthday and age were added -- problem is, these are primary sources; we'd be much better off if a newspaper listed his birthday or some other reliable secondary source. The effect is, is that Wikipedians are making his birthday an issue, while the news media generally isn't making his birthday an issue (so adding his bday is essentially our original research). Remember this is a BLP and there are issues regarding privacy.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it citing WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:DOB. Looking at these policies it seems clear the information should not be in the article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should we mention his Jewish heritage?[edit]

Why is it that we can’t mention his Jewish heritage here, while other Jewish gun control activists get a mention of it? We could put it in the personal life section. It is sourced.22:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)2605:6001:EB41:A800:25EC:6887:4F1F:1137 (talk)

Tomwsulcer, you say "It's irrelevant". Can you please tell me why it is irrelevant? Bus stop (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tomwsulcer, it would be placed in the “Personal Life” section. Plus, you didn’t answer the other questions on the other Parland Jewish gun control activists: if irrelevant should we erase their Jewish background on those articles?2605:6001:EB41:A800:25EC:6887:4F1F:1137 (talk) 02:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The murder of Guttenberg's daughter had nothing to do with any religious affiliation; Guttenberg's decision to become an activist for gun control has nothing to do with any religious affiliation. This is clearly born out by media coverage. A Wikipedian, inserting religious affiliation into the article, is suggesting that the affiliation is somehow relevant to this subject when it isn't, essentially committing original research.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 08:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tomwsulcer—you are misconstruing policy. Here are some sources:
You are saying "A Wikipedian, inserting religious affiliation into the article, is suggesting that the affiliation is somehow relevant to this subject when it isn't, essentially committing original research." No, this would not be an example of "original research". Bus stop (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Both sources are biased towards Jewish-related news; it's not the NYTimes or Washington Post saying Guttenberg's religion is important to this story. It's irrelevant.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tomwsulcer—we don't give preference to Jewish sources or non-Jewish sources. Our preference in sources is for reliability. And you have not addressed how your charge of "original research" might be applicable. Bus stop (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even then, the non-mainstream sources merely mention his religion; they do not state in any form whatsoever that his religion has anything to do with what happened; the religious affiliation is totally irrelevant to the story, which is -- he's a father whose daughter was murdered in a school shooting and he's become an activist against gun violence. Making a big deal about a non-issue like his religion smacks of original research.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tomwsulcer—can you explain to me how a piece of information that is supported by a multitude of reliable sources is original research? Here is another such source: "The Guttenberg family, whose daughter Jamie was killed in the shooting, are members of the Reform congregation."
And when you say "Both sources are biased towards Jewish-related news", that is not even a remote approximation of what "bias" is. There is no opinion being expressed by these sources when they assert that Guttenberg is Jewish. Do you know of a source suggesting that Guttenberg might not be Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - He's not notable for being Jewish nor does it appear to meet WP:DUEWEIGHT. - MrX 🖋 14:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MrX—no one has argued that he is "notable for being Jewish". You are arguing against an argument that was never made by anyone in the first place. That is called a "straw man argument".[1] A straw man argument is "a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent".[2]
I don't know why you are invoking the policy of WP:DUEWEIGHT, which says "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources."[3] If you are under the impression that other sources assert that Guttenberg may not be Jewish could you please present those sources here? Bus stop (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good grief, I was not making a counter argument. I was making an argument for not including religion/ethnicity in an article about a person known for having a daughter who murdered and for his activism. Show that it's a significant aspect of his life by showing extensive coverage in mainstream sources and I will get on board. - MrX 🖋 15:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MrX—his daughter was Jewish and he is Jewish—according to reliable sources. From where do you derive that we need "mainstream sources" in order to assert that Guttenberg is Jewish? The sources supporting that Guttenberg is Jewish are entirely adequate for supporting in our article an assertion that Guttenberg is Jewish. Our article at present asserts "Guttenberg is a real estate agent and auto broker in Parkland, Florida." It is supported by this source. Do you consider that a "mainstream source"?
Also, when you cite WP:DUEWEIGHT you are citing inapplicable policy. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources."[4] There are no sources suggesting that Guttenberg might not be Jewish. Therefore the policy you are citing is not applicable to the question we are addressing. Bus stop (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Editorial discretion. The article is better without this trivia. I'm not aware that we routinely highlight the religion of relatives of shooting victims. If we do, we should stop.- MrX 🖋 16:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MrX—now you are talking about "highlight[ing] the religion" of Guttenberg. But—straw man argument alert—no one said anything about "religion". Sources say he is "Jewish", not "religious". And we are not "highlighting" anything. We are stating a fact, supported by sources. You can't present inapplicable policy as if it were a valid argument. WP:DUEWEIGHT has nothing to do with what we are discussing. No sources suggest that Guttenberg might not be Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you want this information in the article, you need to do more than show that it's sourceable. You need to show why it is important enough and relevant enough to include in this encyclopedia article. The default position is to omit it.- MrX 🖋 20:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100% with MrX.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MrX—we know that this information is "important enough and relevant enough to include in this encyclopedia article" because multiple sources support the assertion that Guttenberg is Jewish. I find yet another source reading "The Guttenberg family, whose daughter Jamie was killed in the shooting, are members of the Reform congregation."
Additionally, our article at present says that "Guttenberg is a real estate agent and auto broker in Parkland, Florida". Are you arguing to remove that information on the basis that it is not "important enough and relevant enough to include in this encyclopedia article"? If not, then why the distinction between material pertaining to being a real estate agent/auto broker and material pertaining to Jewishness? Bus stop (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've made my position sufficiently clear. Create an RfC if you like. - MrX 🖋 22:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, and let's append a Star of David, while we are at it. </sarcasm> K.e.coffman (talk) 11:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have in the article that "Guttenberg is a real estate agent and auto broker in Parkland, Florida". Why do you (presumably) consider the inclusion of that material acceptable and yet the equally reliably sourced assertion that Guttenberg is Jewish to be unacceptable? Obviously anyone can weigh in on this. Pinging K.e.coffman, MrX, Tomwsulcer. Bus stop (talk) 14:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I hope nobody minds but I've requested wider input here. Bus stop (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe. Are there reliable sources that say either his heritage or his religion are particularly important to either his life or his activism (the reason for his notability)? If so, we should. If not, we shouldn't. (Because, honestly, the overlap between "people who don't like Jews" and "people who support violence" is not negligible, so this wouldn't be like writing "Guttenberg wears glasses".) We write about his profession because there is a default assumption that he works at his job five days a week of most weeks, that he needs it to buy food, etc, so it is quite important to him. But that is not necessarily so of either his heritage or his religion - there are plenty of people to whom their heritage and religion are not very big parts of their lives. The three cited sources above mention Guttenberg's Jewishness in a single sentence, not giving it a lot of weight. --GRuban (talk) 15:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GRuban—how is his being a real estate agent and auto broker "particularly important to ... his activism (the reason for his notability)"? You have not fully responded to the question I posed.
You say this may not be important to him. The source tells us that "the Guttenberg family ... are members of [a] Reform congregation".[5] Isn't that important enough? Other sources confirm the man is Jewish. ("Guttenberg, who is Jewish, has been a vocal advocate of gun control since the at Marjory Stoneman Douglas shooting."[6])
You are saying "Because, honestly, the overlap between 'people who don't like Jews' and 'people who support violence' is not negligible, so this wouldn't be like writing 'Guttenberg wears glasses'." Are you saying we should be cautious about informing the reader that Guttenberg is Jewish? I would respond simply that the USA is a place of Law and order (politics). Bus stop (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if this sounds repetitive, but I can't think of a different way to restate my point. We write about his profession because there is a default assumption that he works at his job five days a week of most weeks, that he needs it to buy food, etc, therefore it is quite important to him. Not to his reason to notability, to his life. (You seem to have replaced that part with ... in quoting me.) There is not such a default assumption about his religion or heritage, there are plenty of people who are theoretically of a particular heritage or religion but practically don't do very much about it, it doesn't play any major part in their lives. The sources you have given mention his Jewishness in a sentence, and have not shown that it plays a major part in his life. He may well also be a member of a gym, a credit union, and the local Costco, which we could also find a source for, but none of which is also worth writing about unless we can either show it is important to him, or is linked to his notability. If you can show that his heritage or religion plays a major part in either his life or his reason for notability, I will support inclusion. --GRuban (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GRuban—the article says that "Guttenberg is a real estate agent and auto broker in Parkland, Florida." What does that have to do with "his activism" and what does that have to do with "the reason for his notability"? Incidentally the edits that were made and then reverted did not contain the terms "heritage" or "religion". Bus stop (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I'm afraid to respond here, because I feel that I am writing the same thing every time, but am somehow not conveying it. It's important to his life. Let me bold that, because that is the important part of this answer. This is a biographical article; we are writing about him because he is notable, but we are writing not only about the reason why he is notable, but also about the important parts of his life. For most people, their job is important because it keeps them fed and clothed, and they spend a major fraction of their time on it. If you can show the same for his Jewishness, I will support inclusion. --GRuban (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You write "For most people, their job is important because it keeps them fed and clothed, and they spend a major fraction of their time on it. If you can show the same for his Jewishness, I will support inclusion." We are not writing about "most people". We are writing about the subject of the biography. And I don't have to show you the same for Jewishness. You don't get to decide what is important to the subject of a biography. Bus stop (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The media sources decide, and they say his religion is irrelevant.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tomwsulcer—which media sources are telling you any of this? Which media source shows you that being a real estate agent and auto broker is relevant to this article?
The Jewish identities of families impacted by the Stoneman Douglas shooting is not something reliable sources are overlooking and there has been presented here in this discussion no reason our article should omit that piece of information. Here is yet another source: "Among the Jewish victims are first-year students Jaime Guttenberg and Alyssa Alhadeff, senior Meadow Pollack, student Alex Schachter and Scott Beigel, a geography teacher who saved students’ lives by closing a door as he was shot."[7] Pictured, by the way, in the linked-to source, is Jaime Guttenberg. It should be noted that you have not brought even one source to this discussion. We know that this information is relevant to some degree because the plethora of commentary in sources support the importance of this piece of information. I am not arguing that this is of outsized importance. In reality there would be no way for me to gauge its importance. But I think the sources are indicating a degree of importance associated with the reliably-sourced fact that Fred Guttenberg is Jewish.Bus stop (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All major media coverage (except of course the Jewish-based news which you've cherry picked) don't even bother to mention his religion because they get that it's irrelevant.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tomwsulcer—so-called Jewish sources are just as good as so-called non-Jewish sources. Information need not be found in all sources to be eligible for inclusion in an article. One of the primary concerns at Wikipedia is with the "reliability" of sources. Do you find the sources that you have labeled "Jewish-based" to be unreliable? Believe it or not we are not a shallow resource. Our remit is to compile relevant information—not to fight tooth and nail to keep information out of articles. Bus stop (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Choice of image[edit]

Image 1: Fred Guttenberg at Senate Democrats hearing
Image 2:Fred Guttenberg at Israel suspension.png

@Chrisrow: Updated to nicer pic I actually think the first picture is better, mainly because it shows more of the subject's face. In the second picture, his face is smaller, and has sunglasses that cover his eyes. --GRuban (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Perhaps you're right. Just thought it would be a clearer, higher-res pic.

Por que no los dos? --GRuban (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mucho bueno. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrow (talk • contribs) 22:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fred_Guttenberg&oldid=1212663634"