Talk:Tony Hinchcliffe

Racism

This page needs to focus more on this supposed comedian's long history of racism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.253.76 (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Is a paragraph in the lead and two sub-sections about racial controversies not enough? Should we just replace the page with the word "racist" over and over again? Honestly. Unknown Temptation (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree it should focus on that but, because racism is Hinchcliffe's modus operandi, if we did that, it would the LONGEST page on Wikipedia. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't do it, but documenting all instances of Hinchcliffe's racism will take a long time, given the multitude of them.Vandelay, Varnson, & Van Nostrand (talk) 13:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

More context is needed around "Kill Tony"

Not a Wikipedia expert, but seems like people with an agenda against Tony are the only people to have written a word about him here. I'll try to include a couple of sources below describing what Kill tony is about. Specifically, Re: all the talk above, the show very purposefully uses an unfiltered format (anti-cancel culture), where all is welcome to be said so long as it's funny. Not in a demeaning way, but the show is meant to emulate Kill Bill, where it's a training ground for young comedians.

In general, I'm just saying that there's basically nothing about his show, which regularly gets over 100k views on YouTube alone, and is pulling guests like Tony Hawk, Tucker Carlson, and much of the Austin comedy scene. Help would be appreciated here! I included 10 different articles to help beef up the page.

'Kill Tony' Podcast Signs Distribution Deal With Studio71 | Exclusive [1]https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/kill-tony-podcast-signs-distribution-deal-with-studio71-exclusive/ar-BB1jbtfI?ocid=BingNewsSearch

The state of Austin stand-up comedy: booming, controversial and drawing eyes nationwide [2]https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/other/the-state-of-austin-stand-up-comedy-booming-controversial-and-drawing-eyes-nationwide/ar-BB1mVUGq?ocid=BingNewsSearch

‘The third coast of comedy’: Austin’s comedy scene tells us why they’re blowing up [3]https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2023-06-12/comedians-explain-why-austin-stand-up-scene-is-blowing-up

Stand-Up Comedian Tony Hinchcliffe on Defending Matt Rife, the ‘Kill Tony’ Podcast and ‘Never Apologizing’ After Using Racial Slur in 2021 [4]https://variety.com/2024/film/actors/kill-tony-podcast-tony-hinchcliffe-racial-slur-matt-rife-1235978335/

Why are so many comedians dying to go on Kill Tony? | CBC Arts [5]https://www.cbc.ca/arts/commotion/why-are-so-many-comedians-dying-to-go-on-kill-tony-1.7174110

Youngstown native Tony Hinchcliffe to perform at Powers [6]https://www.tribtoday.com/life/ticket/2023/10/youngstown-native-tony-hinchcliffe-to-perform-at-powers/

WATCH: Tucker Carlson Earns Big Applause With Surprise Appearance at Joe Rogan’s Comedy Club [7]https://www.mediaite.com/entertainment/watch-tucker-carlson-earns-big-applause-with-surprise-appearance-at-joe-rogans-comedy-club-for-show/

Joe Rogan Opens His Anti-Cancel Culture Club in Austin [8]https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/joe-rogan-comedy-mothership-review-austin-club-1235343105/

‘Kill Tony’: The World’s Most Brutal Podcast [9]https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/kill-tony-podcast-tony-hinchcliffe-free-speech/

62 concerts and huge events coming to Madison Square Garden this summer that you can’t miss [10]https://www.nj.com/live-entertainment/2024/06/62-concerts-and-huge-events-coming-to-madison-square-garden-in-summer-2024-that-you-cant-miss.html Cozyjoney (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I added some material on Kill Tony and the aftermath of the Peng Dang incident, but otherwise there hasn't been much more information to be gleaned from the sources you've listed here. Apart from the three sources I used (Variety, CBC, Hollywood in Toto), the other sources are either likely unreliable or irrelevant to the this article (for example, the sources about Joe Rogan would be of more use on his own article than here). Liu1126 (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Isn't the phrase Kill Tony merely a play on words or fun double entendre? ie, "Hey Tony, go out and Kill at your set," vs, "His insult comedy is so demeaning you just wanna Kill Tony.." no? -From Peter {a.k.a. Vid2vid (talk | contribs)} 08:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

It is not, I can’t remember what interview it was said in, but Tony has stated that it is because of Kill Bill.. might have been on Triggernometry. 204.195.159.244 (talk) 03:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

"Personal Life" Section, grassroots re lgbt status?

Hello. Any groundswell or ardent maintainers here that can find articles about Tony discussing his LGBT status? I'm surprised at not finding a mention here, nor a Personal Life subsection. Thx. -From Peter {a.k.a. Vid2vid (talk | contribs)} 08:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Opinion instead of fact

"This was said in jest as any comedian does and is not to be taken too literally."

Remove this -- it is opinion of the writer and not fact. 2600:100F:B1B3:F15:0:23:D405:E001 (talk) 02:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done CJ-Moki (talk) 03:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2024 (2)

His 2024 Trump rally speech did not contain any racist, misogynistic, etc material. There is no factual data to backup these remarks. Should be removed as it is “here say”. 2600:8807:88E8:B00:3C0F:C61D:28:F934 (talk) 06:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. CJ-Moki (talk) 07:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on whoever claims the jokes were "racist". If you can't point to anything other than mainstream media headlines, from media outlets that are well known as left-leaning publications, the claim of "racism" has no business being in an encyclopedia article. Rob Roilen (talk) 15:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The information is, in fact, dishonest, because it is taking what is meant to be comical and satire and claiming that it is representative of his views and has been since used in part to suggest the GOP and Trump supporters are racist. Both are untrue. He told jokes -- maybe bad jokes -- but jokes none the less, and the addition to this section does not properly articulate that he was telling jokes but suggests he was being racist and meant what he said. Further, as is stated on his own website, much of his comedy is "roast" type comedy which many other comedians do. This doesn't make them racist or make what they say racist.

[11]https://tonyhinchcliffe.com/pages/bio

[12]https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/racist-rally-trump-allies-prove-democrats-point-rcna177562

[13]https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/28/politics/video/trump-rally-puerto-rico-remarks-island-garbage-aoc-cnntm-digvid 198.98.217.40 (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Good luck convincing anyone here. The fact that @CJ-Moki is asking for "reliable sources" that jokes don't equate to racism means this discussion is already off the rails. Rob Roilen (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are written based on reliable secondary sources. Since these sources widely describe Hinchcliffe's remarks as racist, we should describe them as racist. To not do so on the grounds that "jokes don't equate to racism" would run afoul of our original research policy. CJ-Moki (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh I see, so we're just going to do that thing where we get stuck in a loop where you claim that mainstream media articles are "reliable" even though they make spurious, sensational claims akin to opinion articles. Maybe you should check out Argument from authority.

This is one of Wikipedia's greatest flaws. Now this arguably biased, unreliable information has been published for all to see, and editing it has been prohibited save for some lucky, privileged editors. This actively degrades the quality of communication between people. I understand if you PERSONALLY do not agree with or appreciate the things Tony said, but as it stands this article is plainly inaccurate and you are standing in the way of changing that. Rob Roilen (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@CJ-Moki Why is your sense of urgency suddenly gone? Someone was so eager to call Tony "racist" and lock down the editing of the page for a month, but when people push back we're just going to run out the clock?

It could even be argued that these statements about Tony are libelous. Wikipedia has a responsibility as an encyclopedia to be absolutely impartial. Can you prove that Tony was, say, trying to incite some sort of racist fury? Is there any evidence that he is, in fact, a racist person? If you cannot provide proof of things like this, this section should be heavily edited or entirely removed. Rob Roilen (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not sure that conventional sources can be presumed reliable for a comedian's standard of notability on contentious issues. Most comedians have sections on misconduct and allegations if applicable. Problematic jokes are going to run into WP:WEIGHT problems if it's somebody's livelihood.

I wonder if Don Rickles ever made racist statements? I don't see anything on his article about it. SmolBrane (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Most notable, I think, is that the mainstream articles don't actually attempt to prove their allegations of "racism", they just say "he said racist things" which starts from the problematic assumption that everyone reading the article is going to interpret what he said in the same way. Rob Roilen (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Now that I re-read the section there really are some BLP issues. 'Joking' doesn't come up until well into the paragraph. SmolBrane (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

"he gave a monologue which received criticism for comments he made which were deemed racist, misogynistic, and antisemitic."

nowhere is a value judgment made by the article. it is reporting what media has said about the speech.

• NBC: "As Trump courts their vote, comedian at his rally makes racist jokes about Latinos and Puerto Rico"
• RS: "Extremely Racist ‘Comedian’ Speaks at Trump Rally, Calls Puerto Rico ‘Garbage’"
• Daily Beast: "Even Some Republicans Think Racist Trump Rally ‘Joke’ Went Too Far"
• newsweek: "Trump Rally Speaker Calling Puerto Rico 'Pile of Garbage' Sparks Fury"
• time: "Trump Rally at MSG Marked by Racist, Lewd Jokes"
• axios: "GOP lawmakers slam "classless" Trump rally Puerto Rico joke in rare break"
• people: "Comedian Opens Trump's N.Y.C. Rally with Racist Attacks, Calls Puerto Rico 'Floating Island of Garbage'"

the consensus from MSM was that his routine / speech / rhetoric was racist and misogynistic. that is what is being reported. It doesn't matter if you think it's bigoted or not. Create a template (talk) 07:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

It is SO DANGEROUS and intellectually dishonest to use mainstream media headlines as sources. I don't expect overzealous Wikipedia editors to understand this but someone had to say it. 2603:6080:5A07:C24C:307C:E95E:3214:748 (talk) 14:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

first, I'm not that particularly overzealous compared to most wikipedian edit. if you provide reasonable evidence with your own sources demonstrating that many reportages explicitly did not view the remarks as racist, then you should mention them.

second, I gave the media headlines so that people can read them; the headlines themselves aren't the sources, it's what's inside of them that matters. I've read several articles and the cont matches the headlines. it was not intellectually dishonest, it was to demonstrate that reporting on this has come to consensus that the "comments he made were deemed racist, misogynistic..." by the majority of media.

third, many of artic that have labeled the rhetoric and jokes as "racist" have been judged as "high factuality" by ground news, an independent third party. https://ground.news/article/trumps-new-york-rally-attacks-harris-draws-criticism_cf7688

many of the center sources called the "controversial' instea do fexplicitly "racist" and I personally would be fine say something like "controversial remarks that many reporters and outlets have called racist, ...." when I do though, another edit might alter it so... Create a template (talk) 03:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Puerto Rican isn't a Race. 47.195.239.194 (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

that's true. if you read the article, RS acknowledges that. they are referring to two things that the comedian said. one about latinos and one about PR. Create a template (talk) 03:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh wow NBC Newsweek Axios Time Daily Beast People are calling it racist. WHAT a surprise. Such great sources for WIKEPEDIA. AND then WIKIPEDIA blocks editing 24.206.69.116 (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

actually, they are used quite often

it's not uncommon for wiki to block editing to make sure that bad faith actors don't mess with art of contr things, and this is pretty cont right now. it's frustrating though not out of the ordinary.

I don't know if this is how you actually are, though it sounds similar to many other ultra right-leaning people that I've had the misfortune to come across who distrust everything that msm says if it doesn't align with their opinion. just based on what's here you sound very conserv and like you disdain msm that isn't right leaning. Create a template (talk) 04:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2024 (3)

Change the paragraph defining the events of the recent October 2024 appearance at the Trump Rally. They are full of subjective statements listed off as factual events. It would have been accurate to state that his statements were deemed controversial, but a drawn out list of subjective adjectives and buzzwords is not appropriate for an objective encyclopedic website that aims to be a reliable source. 2600:1702:55B1:9800:49E7:1EB1:4C67:E2E7 (talk) 16:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Good luck. Wikipedia editors giving themselves the privilege to lock down editing on topics like this is such an insult to actual encyclopedic writing.

Now we're stuck in a loop where you have to prove a negative, and the editors are just going to appeal to authority by saying that mainstream media headlines are reliable sources.

The requirement that "the request must be of the form "please change X to Y" is bogus since the published information is plainly biased. It shouldn't be in the article as it is in the first place. Rob Roilen (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2024 (4)

24.206.69.116 (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

He does roast comedy and explicitly calling about the jokes about oct 27 event is just appalling, either whole page needs to list all his comedy roast details or shouldnt explicity mention about this. Wikipedia became a Democratic Wokepedia party mouthpiece on this. 216.228.127.128 (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

" He made racist misogynists .....comments at the MSG." This is the most biased article Ive ever seen. Wikipedia is a tool for the Democratic party

Facts don't care about your feelings, Karen.Vandelay, Varnson, & Van Nostrand (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Being called a Karen by people having mental breakdowns over a COMEDIAN making JOKES is hilarious. 183.177.48.166 (talk) 02:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

This article is being edited to purposefully portray Tony in a negative light

Cease the equine carcass thrashing. If a user doesn't understand how WP:RS works and why Wikipedia doesn't care about Argument from Authority, send them to the Teahouse. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What's happening right now is an insult to encyclopedic writing. The page cannot be edited except by editors with special privileges, and the only edits being made are meant to portray Tony negatively? What a joke. All credibility lost. You should be ashamed of yourselves for actively contributing to the degradation of open information sharing. This is not unbiased, neutral, accurate, factual writing. And to make it so much worse, you are literally preventing anyone who isn't in the Special Club from editing what boils down to opinions portrayed as fact. What leverage do the unprivileged editors have here? Who are you held accountable to? Yourselves? You don't see how this is dangerous? You don't think this makes it fair game for others to do the same to you? Rob Roilen (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC) I tried to fix some of it, and I agree, this swarm of overly emotional and reactionary users isnt helping when it comes to WP:NPOV --FMSky (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC) You should split his career section into further smaller sections, possibly by year. It doesn’t have a good flow right now. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC) Yes that could be done, but i was trying to avoid a seperate "controversy" section per WP:CSECTION --FMSky (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC) I see your edits are being undone, how interesting... Rob Roilen (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC) I didn't know about WP:CSECTION. feel free to do whatever reasonable stuff to integrate it into the main body and I won't add it back. Create a template (talk) 04:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC) Please stop. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Trulyy (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC) The reason that the article is locked due to arbitration enforcement by the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. It is also because of multiple unsourced additions to the article and additions of contentious topics without a reliable source. There is no way an article could be “biased” because any article needs a reliable, secondary, and independent source to talk about it and the editor adds information from that article and puts it in there. If you think that it is an issue, you can go to the arbitration committee directly. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC) "There is no way an article could be “biased” because any article needs a reliable, secondary, and independent source" Do you not see how problematic this is? When the mainstream sources Wikipedia deems as "reliable" regularly publish sensational, outright false information portrayed as fact, these sources are no longer reliable by definition. I think you guys need to take a long look at Argument from authority Like I said, this is just going to end up in a loop where privileged Wikipedia users block anyone else from making edits while pointing to The Rules and shrugging. Absolutely zero accountability. Rob Roilen (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC) If you have an issue with it, you can start a thread at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Telling me anything isn’t gonna get you anywhere because I don’t care about arguing about the reliability of sources. “Privileged” editors are editors who were chosen by the community to bring out their best of their ability to uphold the policies and guidelines that were made and written by the community themselves. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC) "I don’t care about arguing about the reliability of sources" - @Cowboygilbert And there it is, openly admitted. What a shame, Wikipedia deserves better. Rob Roilen (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC) @Rob Roilen, It’s because I trust editors who have spent time and time again trying to find the reliability of sources and the effort that they have taken to try to find it. I trust editors like I trust others in my life. If you want to continue to argue with me, I will simply just ignore you. I don’t care about arguing, I care about talking, if I have an editor coming to me to talk about the reliability than I would give them the policies and information that other editors in the community have written and produced to be able to teach the future of editors. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC) If the left tries to use jokes made by a comedian as sort of political weapon totally ignoring its context and the largely racially mixed crowd they have been made infront Harris and her cronies in the media must be in deep trouble. 80.131.53.87 (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC) The context is the subject of the article was at a political rally and was making racist, misogynistic comments. There is no way for his comments to be taken out of context. Trulyy (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC) And you have not, so far, provided any proof that the comments were indeed "racist" or "misogynistic". If you don't like them personally, that's fine and your right. But there is a distinct difference between "jokes dealing with race and women" and "actual racism and misogyny". Rob Roilen (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC) What proof do I need to provide? My edits and others have provided proof of such. It literally fits the definition. Making fun of a certain race in a derogatory manner is textbook racism. Trulyy (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC) What do you think? Cowboygilbert clearly agrees with wikipedia's reliable sources and does not feel like arguing with someone who will not change their opinion... Trulyy (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry, but your opinion on what is a reliable source does not trump wikipedia standards when editing wikipedia. If you have a problem with a source you deem unreliable you can bring it up with an administrator, but just because you feel a source is unreliable does not change wikipedia decision. Trulyy (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC) Your angry rant proves you do not have the ability to edit this article repetitively and keep an unbiased perspective. Trulyy (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC) Yeah you should probably check out Tone policing in addition to Argument from authority I see you're one of the special privileged editors, and you're undoing edits made by @FMSky. Some might even argue that you're wikipedia:edit warring. Rob Roilen (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC) @Rob Roilen, Edit warring is if you pass the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. Reverting an editors edit by itself isn’t edit warring but apart of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Also, quoting Wikipedia articles while in a discussion and having editors to read them won’t work because Wikipedia isn’t built on homework. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 18:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC) BOYCOTT WIKEPIDIA EVEN THE CREATOR HATES WHAT YOU PEOPLE HAVE BECOME 24.206.69.116 (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC) You can try that but Wikipedia isn’t your soapbox to preach it. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 18:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC) You are mistaken. You are trying to cite arguments to support your claim, but they are completely irrelevant. In no way have I stated my authority or implied anything remotely related to authority or status. Trulyy (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC) @Cowboygilbert @Trulyy I mean seriously do you hear yourselves? "Wikipedia isn't built on homework"? Completely failing to understand the relevancy of tone policing and appealing to authority in this conversation? But you're the ones with special privileges? Rob Roilen (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC) What does special privileges have to do with this? What does authority have to do with this? None of us you are attacking have mentioned anything about those things. Please also refer to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Trulyy (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC) You, as a privileged editor on this platform, said outright that you do not believe me to be fit for editing Wikipedia based simply on the perceived tone of my commentary. That is tone policing. I hope you understand the significance of someone in your position doing that to someone in my position. You and other editors have continuously referred to outlets like The New York Times and Axios, for example, as "reliable sources", even though they have demonstrably published sensational, misleading and at times outright false information, especially in regard to people they oppose politically. That is an argument from authority, or "appeal to authority", and is a fallacious argument, making it unfit for the primary reasoning to publish material in an encyclopedia. Rob Roilen (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC) What??!?! Have you read anything or are you making stuff up? I never once made any comments on your privledge. Please show me where I did, because I didn't. What is a reliable source to you? Trulyy (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC) You are a privileged editor because you are allowed to edit information that I am not allowed to edit. Simple. A reliable source for an encyclopedia article is one that contains no obvious bias. In order to determine whether or not outlets like, for example, The New York Times, have any bias toward one particular side, you would need to go back through the years and observe their reporting. At this point, these outlets do indeed happen to demonstrate a notable bias against conservative politicians and anyone who associates with them. With that acknowledged, any content these outlets publish associated with that subject should be heavily scrutinized when considering it as source material for something intended to be unbiased, like an encyclopedia. Rob Roilen (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC) You are free to scrutinize anyone or anything all you want, nobody is saying otherwise. When you are on Wikipedia, however, your discretion does not trump Wikipedia's reliable sources policy. If you disagree with a source Wikipedia deems reliable, you should not remove it because you think it to be the opposite. As stated above, you are free to contest the sources, but until that is either changed or affirmed, as always, you must abide by wikipedia's editing policies. Trulyy (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC) Okay see, that is textbook Argument from authority. It is a fallacious argument. Fallacious arguments are dangerous in the context of writing encyclopedias. Do we really need to go into the definitions of words like "reliable"? At what point does a "reliable" source, deemed so by Wikipedia, become an "unreliable" source? Is that ever possible? I don't think it's outlandish, or even in opposition of Wikipedia's policies, to say that a source like The New York Times is unreliable if it has continuously published verifiably false information about people with a particular political persuasion. Rob Roilen (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC) No, it isn't argument from authority, as established earlier and continued into by further comments, I have not made a single allusion to authority. To repeat what should have been understood earlier, yes, a source wikipedia deems reliable can be changed to be deemed unreliable and vice versa. That is not up to me or you, but rather the administrators, and, again, if you feel that needs to change you should bring it up elsewhere. You are free to avoid making edits that cite any source; you are not obligated to edit using a certain source. You may not, however, delete others edits because, contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines, you deem their source unreliable. Trulyy (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC) So have you actually read the Argument from authority article or...? Rob Roilen (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC) Yes. I did my due diligence and as stated earlier by me and others, the article does not apply here, as I have made no reference to authority whatsoever. I have, however, asked several times for you to show me where I have acted with argument from authority, and you have not given any example. Trulyy (talk) 18:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC) You are making edits on the main page and using the mainstream media articles referring to Tony's comments as "racist" and "misogynistic" as what you are referring to as "reliable" sources. You are appealing to the authority of the mainstream media outlets as a reason for why the information is accurate instead of, you know, actually determining accuracy based on facts. You are saying "the information is accurate because it is from the New York Times" instead of "the information is accurate because it reflects reality". Rob Roilen (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC) No, in fact, I don't believe I've read a single article regarding the situation. I've watched the raw, uncut, full video of the event, and reviewed the other sources before making edits. I have demonstrated earlier that his comments fit the textbook definition of racism. Trulyy (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC) You have not read "a single article regarding the situation" but you are using them as sources? The primary Merriam-Webster definition of "racism" is: - a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race - behavior or attitudes that reflect and foster this belief: racial discrimination or prejudice Do you believe that jokes made by professional insult/shock comedians accurately reflect their feelings on complex subjects like race? Do you believe that Tony Hinchcliffe indeed feels that the white race is superior, and that these jokes reflect that sentiment? Rob Roilen (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC) How about this: I don’t care about the relevance to two completely different articles than the one that is being conversed. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 18:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC) If you are so willing to ignore the relevance of Argument from authority in the context of editing an encyclopedia you should not be an editor. Rob Roilen (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC) I edit the encyclopedia for small fixes, background content (Like editing content that appears on the Main Page), WikiLove, and formatting. You don’t have to just be a content writer to be an editor. You are showing signs of WP:NOTHERE at this point. I am going to stop conversing in this thread, unsubscribe from it, and continue to watch my show (currently watching 1883 (TV series) and 1923 (TV series)! You have a great evening, night, morning, or day. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 18:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC) Thank you for all your help! Enjoy the show :) Trulyy (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC) If you are here to challenge wikipedia's long standing editorial privilege policy, the place to do it is not with random editors on a random talk page. Trulyy (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC) A far-right comedian made harmful comments, which have been covered extensively and there's a consensus that they are harmful comments. If you wanna keep whining about Wikipedia's left-wing bias (which I don't even think is a thing), then you're bound to get blocked, not because of your beliefs, but because you're not here to build an encyclopedia. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 01:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC) With respect, Tony Hinchcliffe is by no means "far-right". Are you familiar with his work? You may find his jokes distasteful, and prominent left-leaning commentators may echo that sentiment, but personal political leanings have no place in a neutral encyclopedia. Rob Roilen (talk) 02:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC) If Tony Hinchcliffe isn't far-right, then why was he on stage at a far-right rally, huh? Also, your comment about personal political leanings explains everything. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC) Thank you, I'm glad we can agree that personal political leanings do not belong in an encyclopedia. Rob Roilen (talk) 03:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC) I don't agree because those "personal political leanings" are in fact based on reality. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 03:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Wikipedia:No original research Rob Roilen (talk) 03:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC) Buddy, you're trying to whitewash the article. NPOV doesn't mean "the comedian who was racist should have his page scrubbed clean, otherwise it's not neutral". LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 03:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Request to remove redundant information

The final sentence of this article (which states "The Trump campaign distanced itself from Hinchcliffe's Puerto Rico comments") is redundant, since the same information is already provided in the statement "In response to the Puerto Rico joke, Trump campaign senior advisor Danielle Alvarez said that it did not reflect the views of Trump or the campaign". OrangeOyster (talk) 00:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

frankly, i think the entire section is too long and against WP:RSUW NotQualified (talk) 00:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

consensus on lede

to prevent an edit war, i need consensus that the lead violates WP:RSUW. i reverted it citing it:

"obviously bad faith edits and clearly inappropriate for a lede WP:RSUW"

but my revert was in itself reverted:

"the loss of an agent and engagements is a major part of one's career as a comedian, and therefore fits"

do i have consensus that the lede violates WP:RSUW. i have also requested even higher page protection. NotQualified (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the lede is not the appropriate place for this type of information. More specific biographical information belongs in the main body of the article.

It is also very important to maintain Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Rob Roilen (talk) 01:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Guettarda @Alith Anar Care to weigh in? Rob Roilen (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Few people have heard of Hinchcliffe before the Trump rally. The racist remarks are covered in their own section of the article, have been the subject of substantial coverage in all the major media outlets in the US, so their omission from the lead strikes me as problematic. Guettarda (talk) 01:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The Kill Tony YouTube channel has almost 2 million subscribers. Saying "few people" know of him is inaccurate.

Right now it seems like there are editors who are eager to portray Tony in a negative light due to his association with Trump which is not a good starting place for writing a neutral encyclopedia article. Rob Roilen (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's still "few people". He's now known to many tens of millions of people, primarily because of that set. It's not about "portraying him in a negative light" - he's famous now for calling Puerto Rico "a floating island of garbage". Whatever else happens, this is a large part of his legacy. It shouldn't be omitted just because it makes him look bad. He's famous for something bad. Guettarda (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

375,216,648 views on his Youtube channel alone. This is inaccurate. NotQualified (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Is that a lot? He has 537 videos and 1.9 million subscribers. If half his subscribers had watched just over half his videos, you'd have this many views.

The only reliable sources I can find about him before the Trump rally are about other racist incidents. Guettarda (talk) 01:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

id consider nearly 400 million a lot. most youtube views are by non-subscribers, kill tony is a pretty mainstream show. he is a celebrity, not some racist nut famous for one event NotQualified (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

375,216,648 views is not "...few people have heard". "...have been the subject of substantial coverage in all the major media outlets in the US" just because coverage has been large scale does not justify adding it to the lede NotQualified (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you have "extended confirmed protection"? @ToBeFree has changed the protection settings.

@ToBeFree It's only fair if you participate in this discussion now since you may be one of the only editors with the ability to edit the page Rob Roilen (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, but I'd like to avoid getting involved in the content discussion. Many of the editors around are extended-confirmed; you can click their name, then "Tools" and "View user groups". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, step in to seriously limit who can freely edit information but then refuse to participate in the ongoing discussion. How diplomatic. Rob Roilen (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

it's not their obligation to discuss anything and i asked them to lock down the article, frankly i think it needs to be locked down even further.

> Ah yes, step in to seriously limit who can freely edit information

would you prefer we go back to letting bad faith new accounts call him a white ethnonationalist far right neo-nazi? no? then lock the article until the new president is elected in january and things cool down.

thank you User:ToBeFree

and as you are concerned about the political make up of editors, there are political beliefs of all sides represented. we have largely agreed on most things through out this discussion and i have advocated for the near total removal of what i see as attack page writing. give it time. consensus does not seem to be on their side for the lede and ive cited a multitude of rules violated. NotQualified (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Separating content discussions from administrative conduct evaluation, Rob Roilen, is important; I shouldn't get involved. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

i think this discussion is over. i'll be editing the article soon and if it continues to be messed with please raise protection even higher. thank you NotQualified (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

it appears to have already been edited, ignore this NotQualified (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Now the lede has been edited by @JohnAdams1800 to refer to Tony as a "far-right activist".

@JohnAdams1800 You did not participate in the ongoing discussion on the talk page and made this edit without consensus. Rob Roilen (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

it's been reported and frankly i think it's so egregious theyll get suspended NotQualified (talk) 01:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Tony Hinchliffe is in a long line of political candidates and commentators who make far-right statements, including but not limited to: Doug Mastriano, Mark Robinson (American politician), Laura Loomer, Nick Fuentes, Marjorie Taylor Greene, etc. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

nick fuentes? mark robinson? these are literally genocidal neo-nazis?? tony is a comedian who called puerto rico a dump as a joke. what the fuck? NotQualified (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

He is neither a political candidate nor a commentator, he is a comedian. An insult comedian, at that. It's your right to not appreciate his sense of humor, but it is also your responsibility as an editor to remain as neutral as possible. Rob Roilen (talk) 01:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

If any other comedian outside of politics made Tony Hinchliffe's statements, they would be fired. It's one thing to insult individuals, but another to insult racial or religious groups. See Wikipedia:FALSEBALANCE. I have made over 10,000 edits and have written extensively on the history of the Jim Crow South, including Solid South. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I respect your personal opinion about insulting jokes but the reality is that many people, even people who belong to the groups being joked about, find these jokes humorous because they reflect real life. I'm sure you're aware of the comedian George Lopez's recent remarks at a Democratic rally regarding Mexicans being thieves. Surely the lack of outcry over that joke isn't lost on you. Rob Roilen (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

youre allowing yourself to get baited into a useless discussion about cancel culture, it's irrelevant. their edits are against wikipedia rules, thats what matters. NotQualified (talk) 01:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but who is going to hold these editors accountable? I certainly am not part of the magic club with ban or warning privileges, and it seems like a lot of the ones who are in that club are also the same ones trying to malign Tony as quickly as possible. Rob Roilen (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:GF

editors in violation of rules get their "magic[al]" privileges removed. i have already cited a multitude of rule violations but theyve stopped editing and are in the talk page so i dont think it needs to be escalated. i do not see consensus developing that their lede additions are valid and may remove them soon and cut down on the body to reflect due weight. NotQualified (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but who is making these determinations? How do you report these things to them? How did they gain their authority? Rob Roilen (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

it depends specifically on what is "in breach", how it is in breach, and how bad the violation is. along with how the user in question has conducted themself. the question needs context. for the highest of matters, think of this as the equilavent of a supreme court, there is an arbitration committee of 15 long time wikipedians who are democratically elected every year. you do not need to go to them. the teahouse is a good place to start for asking questions like this rather than this talk page Wikipedia:Teahouse NotQualified (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

look if you want, and i mean if you really want to report someone, go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. you will need to justify citing rules and expected behavior. i think youll waste your time. ive already contacted admins with what i think was proper procedure: i tagged the article as lacking neutrality, held a talk discussion, and had the article locked down. the individual youre feuding with has stopped editing. i think this is resolved. if they start again, feel free to summarise the situation and cite rules, and then ask for them to be checked. NotQualified (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

we're now being forced to enter cancel culture discussion, seriously? ive seen politicians make 9/11 jokes and be politically fine. you do not get to list a bunch of nazis and then make some far reaching nebulous remark that he should be fired in your opinion as justification for original research in the lede of contentious claims and tagging him as a white ethnonationalist if i recall correctly. obvious edit warring, obvious bias, obvious violation of reliable sources. i mean seriously, self declaring him as a far right racist and tagging him in anti black racism? this is a joke he couldnt even write NotQualified (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

(for the record, they changed their comment and now my response doesnt make as much sense) NotQualified (talk) 02:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@JohnAdams1800: They were "fired" (dropped by their agency). Regardless, it's critical that you have sources for your additions. And from a purely stylistic perspective, we don't generally add wikilinks within quotes. Guettarda (talk) 01:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

If you want to go into stereotypes about Latin America and Hispanics, we can certainly go into statistics. Yes, I analyze statistics related to sexuality, human reproduction, and sociology. [File:Nonmarital Birth Rates in the United States, 1940-2014.png|thumb|501x501px|The out of wedlock birth rates by race in the United States from 1940 to 2014. The data is from the National Vital Statistics System Reports published by the CDC National Center for Health Statistics. Note: Prior to 1969, African Americans were included along with other minority groups as "Non-White."]]

Statistically, it is true that Latin America has the highest rates of non-marital childbearing in the world (55–74% of all children in this region are born to unmarried parents). It is also true that Latin America has an extensive history of financial crises. See the articles on economic history of Argentina and Puerto Rican government-debt crisis.

Side-note: I am a graduate student, enrolled in a Statistics PhD program. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

jokes do not equal claims...? he did not claim in earnest anything.

> Side-note: I am a graduate student, enrolled in a Statistics PhD program.

irrelevant

> I have made over 10,000 edits and have written extensively on the history of the Jim Crow South, including Solid South

considering how in breach of rules you are this worries me NotQualified (talk) 02:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

If you have the time to denigrate me, could you please negatively review the Solid South article for a GA nomination then? I wrote more than half of the content. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

yet again, just because you have "qualifications", it does not enable you to violate wikipedia rules. end of. appeal to authority does not excuse you from the rules. cite your claims, do not [[WP:NOR]] a contentious claim. you cant justify original research because you want him fired. you can not violate edit warring rules, especially immediately after the page was raised in protection due to vandalism. NotQualified (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Remember that this is an article about a living person, and that WP:BLP applies. I have no problem with calling Hinchcliffe a far right activist, but only if you can find a high-quality source related to that.

And no, I'm not interest in discussing stereotypes. As a person from the Caribbean, as someone who did their doctoral field work in Puerto Rico, I have opinions about what Hinchcliffe had to say. But it's important to stick to the rules when it comes to writing Wikipedia articles. Guettarda (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

"I have no problem with calling Hinchcliffe a far right activist, but only if you can find a high-quality source related to that...

But it's important to stick to the rules when it comes to writing Wikipedia articles."

exactly, thank you [[User:Guettarda]]. granted id like to see more than one citations given how contentious that claim is on a BLP. NotQualified (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

id like to clarify, sourcing in the lede isnt necessary as long as it's sourced within the body. the lede in essence is a summary of the most vital parts of the body, not it's own independent thing. think of it as derivative of it. NotQualified (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we're going to reach a consensus. The lede is still inappropriate. What are our options? Rob Roilen (talk) 02:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

arbitration frankly. ive asked admins to lock down the article entirely. we can wait for more people to weigh in. NotQualified (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

granted, arbitration is a last resort, give it more time NotQualified (talk) 02:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration is no resort. It doesn't resolve content disputes. Try some form of WP:dispute resolution instead. Nil Einne (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

At this point I'm having a hard time trusting the integrity of the admins. ToBeFree even went so far as to delete content from my personal talk page and cite the "attack page" policy. I'm always impressed by how far people here will go. Rob Roilen (talk) 02:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

do not accuse them of bad faith and try to take their advice, they are dedicated volunteers. you may have violated a rule you didnt know existed. NotQualified (talk) 02:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The lede has been edited again by @Neverilluminated to include specific biographical information.

@Neverilluminated We have not yet reached a consensus on the lede. Rob Roilen (talk) 02:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Statistics related to Tony Hinchcliffe's stereotypes

WP:NOTAFORUM – Muboshgu (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

If you want to defend Tony Hinchcliffe's comments on the basis of being grounded in statistical reality, I'm here. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC) Wut r u doin Rob Roilen (talk) 02:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC) I'm exploring the statistical basis of the claims that Puerto Rico is a "floating island of garbage" and that "Latinos, they love making babies, they do. There's no pulling out. They don't do that, they come inside, just like they do to our country." I can provide statistics on sexuality, reproduction, and demographics as it relates to Latinos. I can also provided statistics on Puerto Rico, including its recent financial crisis and very high poverty rate. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC) While some stereotypes claim to be grounded in statistics, the effects of stereotyping go beyond any basis in data. Stereotypes, whether true or not, are inherently reductive and can fuel xenophobic mindsets, fostering exclusion rather than understanding. Even if there are statistics that might inform a stereotype, this doesn’t mean that a complex, diverse group can or should be defined by them, nor that those numbers apply universally. Stereotyping promotes closed-mindedness, often breeding more resentment, division, and discrimination than anything constructive. Repeating these ideas serves only to reinforce negative biases, limiting our ability to see people as individuals rather than stereotypes. Do you understand that what was wrong with the claims is not if they are true or not, but their intent? Jantokiilo (talk) 09:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC) it doesnt matter what your opinion is, this is an enclycopedia. literally none of this is remotely relevant and all of this if it were added to the main BLP would be original research and bias. he made distasteful jokes at a few communities, at most it should warrant a small two sentence body entry of the controversy and nothing more. not some nonsense in the lede that a comedian's obviously not serious jokes dont statistically weigh up upon further introspection, and that furthermore even if stats applied to stereotypes were to in fact hold up statistically we shouldnt even discuss them because theyre not nice to the PR of marginalised communities. what the fuck. both of you need to refresh yourself on wikipedia rules around BLP entries, due weight, original research, and bias. none of this is remotely relevant and even if it was somehow relevant im shocked to see advocation of not adding relevant information on the grounds it's offensive. now i am somewhat assuming that your comment User:Jantokiilo is with the intention of modifying the article, rather than just discussing your opinion on this topic for the enjoyment of conversation alone, if so, apologies for the misinterpretation of intent. NotQualified (talk) 11:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC) theyre jokes, this is irrelevant. jokes are not rooted in stats. im happy youre in the talk page instead of editing but just because you want to add details on stats around an obviously too long passage in violation of due weight about jokes he said that he never in earnest claimed to be true does not mean it is encyclopedic to add them to his BLP. NotQualified (talk) 02:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC) Yeah.... Its either funny or sad how the far-left sees racism and sexism everywhere while engaging themselves in a war against straight, white, christian males. 62.226.80.55 (talk) 03:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC) troll comment i presume? just like to inform you that you doxxed your ip address NotQualified (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Tweet addressed to Tim Walz

In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tony_Hinchcliffe&diff=1253998506&oldid=1253990047, I included a more complete citation of Hinchcliffe's tweet addressed at Tim Walz. However, @Rob Roilen then undid this change. Addition in bold:

Hinchcliffe singled out Walz for "[taking] the time out of his 'busy schedule' to analyze a joke out of context to make it seem racist," adding a reference to menstruation, "I'm a comedian Tim [Walz]…might be time to change your tampon."'

I added this because it seems highly notable and relevant that Hinchcliffe's reply went beyond simply criticizing Walz, and included a bit of fairly explicit misogyny. Any reason it shouldn't be added back in some form? —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 23:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Since "misogyny" means "dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women" I'm not sure how it applies here since this is about a comment between two men.

This seems willfully obtuse.

Would you claim that a racial slur conveys no racism if it is aimed at someone who isn't of the "target" race?

Or that an antisemitic slur conveys no hatred of Jews if it isn't aimed at a Jew? —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 23:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, clearly. Using tampons is not an insult. The insult is accusing a man of such behaviour, and thus implying he is not “manly” enough. If anything it’s misandry. Your comments are an attempt to smear. 2001:56A:F382:BC00:6CBB:7D29:6253:C526 (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

But these are not just comments - these are jokes, from a professional and popular insult/roast comedian. A "joke" is "a thing that someone says to cause amusement or laughter, especially a story with a funny punchline."

Maybe you are not the intended audience of the jokes if you do not find them funny, but Tony's popularity among millions of people represents the fact that many people do. Injecting language into an encyclopedia entry about him that portrays him as an actual misogynist or sexist, when what he said was a joke, is inappropriate and not neutral. Rob Roilen (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

This is a complete strawman. My addition to the article, cited in full above, intentionally did not include any explicit claim that the remarks were misogynistic or sexist. I simply included the full quote in order for the reader to have sufficient context to decide. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 23:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

There is absolutely zero reason to say the part about menstruation. If you'd like to just include the full text of Tony's tweet as an example of his response, that would be neutral. You have demonstrated here that your entire reasoning for including the phrase is because you personally find it to be on par with a racial slur, which is subjective and not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Rob Roilen (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

This was already removed by someone else but in case someone feels it's worth adding back: Why on earth are we analysing tweets ourselves? That's not how WP:verifiability works, it's WP:OR. Also WP:BLPSELFPUB means we might in theory be able to source something only to Hinchcliffe's tweet's if he's only talking about himself but not if he's talking about someone else. But in any case, this incident has been so widely covered in reliable secondary sources there's absolutely no reason why we would ever need to include something that hasn't be covered in such sources. That would clearly be WP:undue. No one else out of the thousands of sources covering this thought that aspect was worth covering so we don't either. A similar thing applies to Donald Trump Jr's tweet so I've also removed it. If you can't find a reliable secondary source which mentions the tweet then it's not something worth including. Nil Einne (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Nothing should be in the article that isn't a summary of high-quality independent sources (not tweets, per above), and what Wikipedia editors considers funny, jokey, manly, racist, antisemitic, etc. is irrelevant. Please, nobody else use the talk page to opine about Hinchcliffe, his set, or his tweets. Any post should argue, based on citations, how we should be summarizing said citations. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that articles opining about comedians' jokes quickly become undue. Like the section on his homophobic joke that's badly sourced. SmolBrane (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 October 2024

Michael Hinchcliffe raised Tony and his two siblings in Willowick, Ohio. He was a strict but loving father who instilled in Tony the importance of hard work and determination. Tony has often credited his father for his success in comedy, saying that he taught him the value of perseverance and never giving up on his dreams.

Michael Hinchcliffe passed away in 2016, but his legacy lives on through his son. Tony often speaks about his father in his comedy routines, and he has dedicated several of his albums to him. In 2019, Tony released a documentary about his father's life called "The Hinch." The documentary was a critical and commercial success, and it helped to introduce Michael Hinchcliffe to a new generation of fans.

Tony Hinchcliffe is one of the most successful comedians in the world today. He has starred in several television shows and movies, and he has released multiple comedy albums. Tony's success is a testament to his hard work and dedication, but it is also a reflection of the love and support he received from his father. 2600:1014:B312:5590:91E1:50EF:8024:81A (talk) 04:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

References

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 04:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

tony's delusional supporters are using the talk page to do damage control for his dead career because they can no longer delete things from the wiki. 59.102.41.97 (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

"Conservatism in the US" classification

@Biohistorian15 Is this necessary? Is there any actual evidence that Tony Hinchcliffe is a "conservative"? Having a prominent banner on the page proclaiming his association to a particular political party simply because he told jokes at a single Trump campaign rally is dubious without some sort of proof of his party alliance. The same banner does not appear on the pages of other comedians who have told similar jokes or associated with the same people, like Joe Rogan for example. Rob Roilen (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I found two sources. Biohistorian15 (talk) 13:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Cracked is marked as an unreliable source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

And the CBS link is a video that only says "Former President Donald Trump's campaign faced bipartisan backlash over comments made by conservative comedian Tony Hinchcliffe" in the caption.

These are not reliable sources for Tony's political association. Rob Roilen (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Opinion articles are considered reliable sources?

What's the source of his podcast? Kill Tony is pro drugs, has had multiple LGBT performers including guests, races people with disabilities, everyone is made fun of there no matter their opinions, race, political afilliation, nobody is safe, it's a roast show. The show is dumb like he said himself on almost every episode, Tony has never declared himself a conservative in a factual way but a anti-"woke" pro free speech comedian.

There is a really big problem with wikipedia using jokes as facts. WhatInTheWorld67 (talk) 13:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I also thought it was odd. There may be a couple sources which call him a "conservative comedian" (Cracked is unreliable btw), but he's included in the template as conservative commentator. So we have William F. Buckley, Ann Coulter, and ... Tony Hinchcliffe? It certainly wouldn't make sense to call him "conservative comedian" in the article, since we summarize the body of literature as a whole, but for inclusion in the sidebar? Meh. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

My deeper issue with this is that the page is currently 30/500 protected and these are the types of edits still being made, without any discussion on the talk page. Rob Roilen (talk) 13:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

That is concerning but are really going to consider a CBS News a reliable source for calling someone who, in my view, hosts a show that looks like a conservative's worst nightmare? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism#Ideological_variants Can we atleast make the editors specify what type of conservatism they want to label them into? Because a pro-drug, sexual orientation, racially and ethnicly diverse with lots of "anti-religious" jokes does not seem to fit at all into the conservative the is protrayed on the same page that wikipedia provides to educate people on the matter. WhatInTheWorld67 (talk) 13:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Calm down, guys. I thought there were better sources on the matter. Removed the template. Thanks for pointing this out, @Rob Roilen! Biohistorian15 (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for being reasonable. Rob Roilen (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

There are thousands of hours of content of Kill Tony, people who actually watch the show will know that the "reliable sources" cited here are full of nonsense. We want people to be calm but this is just another occurrence of how wikipedia clearly has a bias that starts at "what are reliable sources". Using the terms "expressed disdain for migrants" while clearly acknowledging that this was a comedy set "Hinchcliffe performed at a Donald Trump campaign rally in Madison Square Garden. During his set".

I can't edit this page, why is there no talk on Tony's response yet?

"How did Hinchcliffe respond this time?

Roast — or insult — comedians often argue that there are no lines in comedy and that everything, no matter how sensitive, is fair game. Hinchcliffe responded to his Madison Square Garden set with a variation on don’t expect an apology.

“These people have no sense of humor,” he complained on X. “Wild that a vice presidential candidate would take time out of his ‘busy schedule’ to analyze a joke taken out of context to make it seem racist. I love Puerto Rico and vacation there.”

Hinchcliffe has previously made controversial jokes about Sean “Diddy” Combs, George Floyd and the Baltimore Bridge collapse.

“I think people must realize that we are professionals. And yes, sure, we deal with the repercussions of what happens,” he told Variety. " - https://apnews.com/article/tony-hinchcliffe-puerto-rico-things-to-know-25e303873fac6fde3afdab80d941230d

Wikipedia is seriously running out of excuses for this. WhatInTheWorld67 (talk) 14:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia usually follows, it doesn't lead. Editors learn this quickly and readers should understand it too. SmolBrane (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

That excuse is already addressed: "bias that starts at "what are reliable sources". Wikipedia considers low quality propagandist journalism from left leaning media sources. This is leading, if Wikipedia followed then we would have sources from right leaning media propagandists too. 2001:818:DC0A:C400:61C8:EEF0:CB65:A8D3 (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

propaganda is propaganda no matter what side it's from and such sites are filtered regardless. no amount of seething will make tony less racist or undo the damage done to his reputation. 59.102.41.97 (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 October 2024 (2)

Remove Pseudonym: The Golden Pony or source where the subject has used that name, or where he has been called that as a nickname. ElBartoVerdad (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

 Question: Why? You need to give a reason for your request. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Done... I have removed it for now. It was unsourced, and not mentioned anywhere else in the article (as well as a possible BLP violation). If someone finds a reliable source that he has called himself this, or anyone else has called him this, feel free to re-add... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 November 2024

In the "2024 Donald Trump Rally" section it currently says:

During his set, he described Puerto Rico as a "floating island of garbage",[32] expressed disdain for migrants, and stated "these Latinos, they love making babies, they do. There's no pulling out. They don't do that, they come inside, just like they do to our country".[33] He invoked several racist stereotypes, talking about carving watermelons with Black people, and making a rock-paper-scissors joke involving Palestinians throwing rocks, and Jewish people "[having] a hard time throwing that paper."[34][35]

In order to maintain neutrality, I propose:

- "During his set, one of his jokes described Puerto Rico..." Without specifying that this was part of his comedy set it implies that he may have just expressed a personal opinion.

- Remove the phrase "expressed disdain for migrants". The cited source does not contain this phrase or anything similar so this is OR. He was also.....telling jokes as a roast comedian.

- Remove the OR interpretation that racist stereotypes were "invoked". Neither cited source for this section uses such pointed language, and the status of Salon and The Daily Beast as reliable sources is disputed Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources The language used should aim to describe the nature and effect of the jokes rather than ascribe a definitive motive unless it is clear from the context. Rob Roilen (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done

"During his set, one of his jokes described Puerto Rico..." Without specifying that this was part of his comedy set it implies that he may have just expressed a personal opinion. - Jokes are told by people rather than speaking on their own, but to the main point the sentence already begins "During his set" (i.e. specifying that this was part of his comedy set).

Saying he was "just telling jokes" is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what reliable sources say about the subject. And to that end, you are correct that the sources cited don't say that he "expressed disdain for migrants". They basically say he made offensive jokes about migrants. Done.

"Invoked" is awkward. Changed to "relied on". Also, you are correct that we can do better than Salon/Daily Beast. Replaced with The Guardian/Reuters. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Rhododendrites Rob Roilen (talk) 13:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

“Here’s where the joke comes from. Tony is actually obsessed with the Pacific Garbage patch… So there’s this landfill in Puerto Rico that’s way overflowed. Puerto Rico has a legitimate trash problem because they’re on an island, where you gonna put it?” Rogan explained.

On episode #2220 at the 32:21 mark but he doesn't say it exactly as i have written but pretty much Chicabonita661 (talk) 13:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Please add a link to a jackwad definition

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/jackwad

Joe rogan explains Tony's joke

I am a complete newbie so im sorry if this is not the place to suggest an edit or whatever it is considered. But I have not seen a lot of people saying that Tony's garbage joke is about the massive trash problem in Puerto Rico.

Better yet Here's what Joe Rogan said “Here’s where the joke comes from. Tony is actually obsessed with the Pacific Garbage patch… So there’s this landfill in Puerto Rico that’s way overflowed. Puerto Rico has a legitimate trash problem because they’re on an island, where you gonna put it?” Rogan explained.

That's not a direct quote but pretty much what he says but he says this on His podcast #2220 at timestamp 32:21.

I personally think he should have made that a little more apparent by following with "Those landfills are crazy full" still wouldn't have gotten a laugh but at least you know what he was trying to joke about.

Anyway if its not possible to add a quote from Joe Rogan then Marjorie Taylor Greene mentioned about the trash problem on her X account I believe. Chicabonita661 (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources reporting their comments? -- Pemilligan (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

as I stated Joe Rogan said this on his podcast #2220 around 32min:21sec. And as for Marjorie Marjorie on Garbage reference Chicabonita661 (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, these are not reliable sources. Please see WP:RS to see what 'reliable source' means. WhoAteMyButter (🌷_talk│🌻^contribs) 01:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

understandable and I appreciate your time and response Chicabonita661 (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/joe-rogan-tony-hinchcliffe-puerto-rico-trump-b2638889.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/tony-hinchcliffe-criticized-by-comedians-rcna177862

potential

https://www.the-express.com/sport/mma/153264/joe-rogan-tony-hinchcliffe-donald-trump-rally

additional quotes:

"where he compared Puerto Rico to a seafaring garbage patch"

https://thehill.com/latino/4958035-harris-campaign-msg-trump-rally-puerto-rico-garbage-joke-kill-tony-hinchcliffe/ Create a template (talk) 10:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Daily Express (the-express.com) "is considered generally unreliable" per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. I'm not sure what the additional quote would add to the article that isn't already there. -- Pemilligan (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

that is why I said potential. I found it iffy in the first place.

I'm not saying the the quote is necessary, though it supports the same thing.

you also basically ignored the other two. so great job there. I mean, I answered your question so... you're ungrateful. just like most editors. Create a template (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)