Talk:Roosh V

Is there evidence of COI?

This article went through Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Roosh. ‎ David FLXD moved page from Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Roosh to Roosh with edit summary "Created via Articles for Creation (you can help!) (AFCH)". Is it the article creator with the conflict of interest? User talk:Lapastillaroja? If so, what is the evidence that the article isn't neutral? Is there unreferenced material or POV issues? If so, that should be addressed rather than tagging the article without providing evidence. Star767 (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I suspect both User talk:Lapastillaroja and User:Ethicalv (note that "v") are very closely aligned with Daryush Valizadeh (pseudonym "Rush V"). Both are SPA's dedicated to this deeply unpleasant topic. As for the article, none of the "sources" deal with this person in any depth at all. It's just an overview of short outraged pieces in various languages about misogynistic self-published books by this fellow. That's one side. The other side is self-promotion. Dan Murphy (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

This article was up for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roosh. Someone complained the "this deeply unpleasant topic". The answer: "Does this wanne-be-famous Roosh deserve to be notable? Clearly, no. However, that's not the question. Wikipedia, within reasonable limits, does not take a judgemental position on content. The issue is, does Roosh meet GNG? Equally clearly, yes. Ekstrabladet in Denmark has nationwide circulation, and he managed to annoy the Danes enough to get coverage that makes him notable. "National" (or regional) coverage doesn't just apply to the U.S., it's equally so for any country. Getting to be famous by being outstandingly offensive is not a deserving tactic, but it does work."

Another editor said: "Well-referenced article showing significant coverage from numerous reliable sources. Don't discount them just because they're from parts of the world you don't care about."

So if we go by reliable sources, and stop worrying about "who" started the article, we don't have to let our value judgments or opinions affect our editing. Star767 (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Star767. There is no evidence of a conflict of interest, and even if there was, the article would have ended up substantially the same as it is now. I will remove the tag. – Smyth\^talk 15:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The evidence I found of potential COI that I referred to in the AfD talk is that there is a thread on Roosh's board, about this wikipedia article which coordinated edits are discussed. There also happens to be a username of LaPastillaRoja on Roosh's board. However, as noted already, the article's content is likely not affected by this potential COI as everything is sourced from external sources.PearlSt82 (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes I am a follower of his work, not unlike an editor updating the page of a musician he listens to. I stand by my edits and I offer you to point to ones you think were not neutral. In fact I think I've been overly critical of him. It seems from your emotional complaint that you are more angry with the subject of the article than the actual article. I think I've done an impartial continuance of User:Ethicalv's original stub, and enough interest has been brought to it where there are now multiple contributors trying to improve the page. Lapastillaroja (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Real name

Several editors have inserted an alleged real name for this person. The only source so far provided is a domain name registration, which does not prove anything at all -- he could have provided a fake name, or gotten someone else to register the domain for him. Please do not reinsert this information without a reliable source. – Smyth\^talk 15:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Article should mention Roosh's lack of scientific credibility

Roosh is not a psychologist and has no training in the statistical methodologies (e.g., econometrics) which govern the social sciences. None of his claims are peer-reviewed. Yet such a transparent charlatan is allowed to have a Wikipedia page where his (empirical/psychological) claims about women's sexuality go unchallenged? Utterly preposterous. This needs to change quickly. Steeletrap (talk) 04:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I suppose you also write letters to Cosmopolitan complaining that their articles aren't peer-reviewed by scientists either. – Smyth\^talk 13:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Advice columns are distinct from systems which purport to be scientific/relating to female sexual psychology. Steeletrap (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

He doesn't write in a particularly scientific style. It's more a kind of of social commentary. Anyway, after I wrote the above I found that there actually is a section in Cosmopolitan (magazine) containing similar complaints about its pseudo-scientific claims. It's tagged citation needed, and the same would apply here. – Smyth\^talk 21:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The article doesn't make any claims that Roosh is a psychologist or social scientist, as Roosh is neither a psychologist nor social scientist, just a pick up artist and author (and charlatan), which the article does state. Most of the English-language critiques of his work, including several of Bang Iceland for his comments on rape, do not meet WP:RSPearlSt82 (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

You guys are funny! Giovanni. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.114.248.7 (talk) 02:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Ethnicity, place of birth

Roosh's surname is Iranian and he has confirmed on his forum that he has Iranian heritage. Should this be added to the article? Also, any information regarding his place of birth could be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.123.40.185 (talk) 08:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

What a coincidence - just yesterday Roosh started a thread dealing with this specific subject. He is half Iranian and half Armenian.

http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-27445.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.123.40.185 (talk) 10:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

notability

Why is this page even up? He Self-published a bunch of books. That doesn't make him notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.64.249 (talk) 08:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The deletion discussion should answer your question. – Smyth\^talk 14:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Birth date

(Moved from User talk:Elmech])

Since you say his birth date is supported by "all the sources and reality", you will have no problem providing a citation for it. Thanks. – Smyth\^talk 21:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

hey man, there are tons of sources for that. bio page on rooshv.com, datingskills page, and so on. I don't want to advertise him, please try to be correct and balanced, and not show your love to Rooshv so much

You want Wikipedia to be correct? Wikipedia wants that too. That's why its policy states that you must provide a reliable source (or, in this case, a self-published one by the subject himself) which clearly supports the given date. Otherwise it must be removed. – Smyth\^talk 22:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

@Smyth: If you have a source that says a different birth date, please share it here. Otherwise, we will keep the current one. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

You're a bit behind. I was the one who found the only reliable source I've seen so far. – Smyth\^talk 10:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Elmech / EGirl90

This person is clearly not here to write an encyclopedia. They are here to discredit the subject of this article in every possible way. Nevertheless, policy says we have to give them a chance to discuss things, so please direct them to this talk page at every opportunity. – Smyth\^talk 12:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Does this violate WP:SOCK? PearlSt82 (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I would say no. They are obviously the same person, and have never claimed to be otherwise. – Smyth\^talk 17:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I helped start this page and it has recently devolved into a one-sided hit piece where mostly critics are given weight. It's hard to see it as neutral. It seems that any vocal feminist can have her opinion of him placed here. Lapastillaroja (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I am attempting to get this person blocked at WP:ANI#Roosh_V. I forgot to mention for the record that they previously deleted this whole section of the talk page and replaced it with the sentence "Laparistoja is here only to write ireeliatst good things about Roosh, despite all reality or truth". They also inserted a forged comment from Lapastillaroja to make them appear biased.[1] This is their only "contribution" to the talk page so far. – Smyth\^talk 02:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Is Jezebel "large" or "feminist"?

Nobody would dispute that it's "feminist", nor is that a slur on its reliability. But calling it "large" is meaningless and verges on peacocking. What is "large"? Is a website more reliable because it is "large"? Time Cube is large by some measures. – Smyth\^talk 10:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. They self-proclaim to be feminist. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Also agreed.PearlSt82 (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

SPLC / Daily Dot

Elmech is using selective quotation to imply as strongly as possible that Roosh was accused by the SPLC of being a Nazi or a terrorist. [2] This is completely unacceptable. – Smyth\^talk 12:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Tone of the article

I have seen mention of Roosh and Return of Kings in the general media, but almost all of it, if not all, has been negative. So, it's difficult to keep this article from looking like a hit piece. The only way to do so would be to reduce the article to about two paragraphs of neutral information. The problem then would be that its notability could then be questioned. Cla68 (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, 100% of the sources not from Roosh's personal site or ROK are negative. I dont think there is any RS out there that presents him in a positive light. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the first priority needs to be to bring this article in line with Wikipedia standards, as you say i.e. NPOV; and if that means reducing it down to about two paragraphs of neutral information, then so be it. We can cross the next bridge (regarding notability) when we get to it. Arthur Longshanks (talk) 10:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

This Article is not encyclopedic

Hi, new editor here, I just popped in here to say that this article does not read like an encyclopedia piece. It basically just reads like a hack job hit piece designed to discredit the man. Character assassination is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. A wikipedia article surely ought to have an introduction, different segments as relevant, and use credible sources. This article on the other hand is rambling, incoherent, and is largely sourced from the hysterical opinion website 'Jezebel', which is not deemed a quality source by Wikipedia standards as far as I know.

It is not appropriate to rant and rave about condoms and unprotected sex in the second sentence of a Wikipedia article. It is not appropriate to introduce personal bias into an article by phrasing sentences as like "Recent articles include the charming '5 Reasons to Date a Girl With an Eating Disorder,'". In this instance, the word "charming" is highly inappropriate, and it bells the cat as to the sort of biased POV with which this article was written. I will try to find the time to rewrite this article over the next few days if nobody has any objection to it being cleaned up.Arthur Longshanks (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Most of the content you object to was inserted by the user discussed in the section above, who is rapidly on their way to being banned. – Smyth\^talk 14:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Is Jezebel an appropriate source?

Negative commentary from blogs are generally forbidden in BLPs on Wikipedia. None of the Jezebel references are appropriate and I have removed them. Cla68 (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, Jezebel is not a blog. Those particular articles are blog-ish, but Jezebel does have editorial oversight. I do not see anything about Jezebel.com being non-RS on WP:RSN. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The first line on the WP article for Jezebel (website) is, "Jezebel is a blog aimed at women's interests, under the tagline "Celebrity, Sex, Fashion for Women. Without Airbrushing." It is one of several blogs owned by Gawker Media." I advise you not to edit war to insert negative information in BLP sourced to a blog. WP's administrators, for all their issues, have a short fuse when it comes to protecting BLP subjects. Talk it out here first before reading it to the article. Cla68 (talk) 05:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I think Jezebel is WP:RS for this. Its also used as a source in plenty of BLP, including Shigeo Tokuda, Joanna Angel, Tyra Banks, Todd Lamb (writer), Ani DiFranco, Madonna (entertainer), and many, many others. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence of Wikipedia:RS#Overview is "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." But the things that were sourced to Jezebel were not assertions of fact. They were the personal opinions (feelings, really) of individual Jezebel writers, who as far as I know, are not notable in their own right. And virtually all Jezebel content is like that. – Smyth\^talk 13:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

(@Cla68 as well) While the two cited articles were questionable, Jezebel itself cannot be written off as a blog. I do not see Jezebel call itself a blog. It does, however, have editorial staff ([3]). Its structure and functioning are quite similar to HuffPo. I won't re-add the quotes as I do not think that cited articles are the best sources and we have plenty of others. But it would be wrong to dismiss Jezebel writ large. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

We rightfully treat BLPs with kid gloves. The sources used for pejorative information have to be impeccable because of the real-world harm we can cause, and have caused in the past, to BLP subjects. Cla68 (talk) 11:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Sex tourist

Three reliable sources describe Roosh as a sex tourist in the title of their article, and 12 of the 14 books he's published deal with travelling to other countries, primarily third world, for the explicit purpose to sleep with women. This is the exact definition of what a sex tourist is and it is supposed by RS. PearlSt82 (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

No it isn't. The WP article states in its first sentence, "Sex tourism is travel to engage in sexual activity, particularly with prostitutes." Roosh V has been clear that he doesn't travel to sleep with prostitutes and those sources don't say that he travels to sleep with prostitutes. The label violates WP:BLP and I will continue to remove it. Remember, 3rr doesn't apply when protecting BLP subjects from attacks on their Wiki-bios. Cla68 (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It says "particularly with prostitutes", not always with prostitutes, and Roosh has admitted to purchasing prostitutes in his South American travel books. Where are you getting the idea that 3rr doesnt apply? PearlSt82 (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The term isn't pejorative enough to warrant violations of 3RR. It is sourced and has been in the article since its creation (literally). Please discuss it here. Start an RfC or a DRN if you feel the need. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course it is perjorative enough, the references need to be impeccable to make such a claim. To the point about what a "sex tourist" is, I suggest that Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to find a definition. My quick look suggests that overwhelmingly government organizations and the media are referring to paid sex, with a significant emphasis on child prostitution. To back up this claim you have a couple of articles using the term in the title. I think that might be enough to say "media outlet xxx describes Roosh V as a sex tourist", but nowhere near enough to make a straight out claim of fact in the lead. Kevin (talk) 03:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and that would need to go in the body of the article and not in the intro. From what I understand, "sex tourism" can be considered criminal activity by some governments, so putting something like that in a BLP could expose the subject to arrest while traveling. That has happened before to a WP BLP subject. Cla68 (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Also disagree that he should be labeled a sex tourist, when his work clearly and repeatedly discourages soliciting prostitution (http://www.rooshv.com/sex-tourists-vs-love-tourists). If he's a sex tourist then we are widening the definition to include anyone who travels and has casual sex without exchange of payment, which would be most of the Western traveling population. Lapastillaroja (talk) 10:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Article locked

Right, I've locked the article - can the two sides please lay out their evidence supporting their assertions in a laid out version below. If any admin reading this really feels the need to lock the article on the other version, I am not opposed - I just locked it as I found it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Casliber but the article does not appear to be locked (?) EvergreenFir (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

For inlcusion - Roosh is described as a "sex tourist" in the title of three WP:RS (1, 2, 3). He's an author of 14 books, 11 of which (not 12 as I erroneously stated before) are about traveling to different countries for the purpose of sleeping with women. His only notability comes from the controversy that these books have generated - if he had not written these and just had written "Bang", "Day Bang: How To Casually Pick Up Girls During The Day", and "30 Bangs: The Shaping Of One Man's Game From Patient Mouse To Rabid Wolf", he would very likely not be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. While child prostitution and prostitution are issues associated with sex tourism, someone who travels to (primarily) the third world with the purpose of sleeping with women also falls under the definition of sex tourist. As the preponderance of the RS about him deal with his books, I think the description is appropriate. PearlSt82 (talk) 12:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

* Support * - He described as such in the reliable reference right below that term in the article. Therefore, it's not Syn, OR, but rather, what the reliable source calls him. He can be called that. Yes, I realize "sex tourist" describes a host of acts which sometimes goes into illegal territory too, but again, he's being referred to a such reliably, so we can, per BLP . Kosh Vorlon    16:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

When a reliable source talks about something objective, such as him writing a particular book, then we can use that to support a statement of fact in the article. When that source talks about something subjective, which "sex tourist" most definitely is, then we cannot make a statement of fact based on that source. What we can say is "source xxx says this". If every source you read says the same thing then you might write something like "widely described as a sex tourist". The next question is whether it ought to go in the lead. The lead is supposed to summarize the content, so it would only go there if there was substantial content in the body of the article. I don't see this substantial content at present. In my opinion, this stating something subjective as a fact, in the lead of the article, is a clear violation of the BLP policy. Kevin (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

PearlSt82, can you show me where your definition of "sex tourist" comes from? Kevin (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Noncommercial sex exploitation via traveling to South American and Eastern European countries is a part of sex tourism and is described in various sources such as Tourism and Sex: Culture, Commerce and Coercion (Stephen Clift, ‎Simon Carter, 2000) and by WorldVision. When Roosh's works are described by the RS only as negative things like a "rape guide" and "as wrong as possible", it should seem clear that his works advocate approaching for sex in an exploitative manner. But that doesn't seem to matter as much as the RS describing him as a "sex tourist" multiple times in the title. PearlSt82 (talk) 11:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on sex tourism is nearly 100% about prostitution. As such, including a link to that page would be misleading unless it was expanded. – Smyth\^talk 10:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT? EvergreenFir (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not me that should fix it, I think it's fine. It's those who want to use the term in a different way who have the burden of proof. PearlSt82 has not provided such proof. His link above is also 100% about prostitution, which simply is not Roosh's area. The fact that some opinion journalists have used the term means nothing. Taki's Magazine is not a reliable source, and the other two links are not in English, so the term may have subtly different implications. Quoting a pejorative term and attributing it to the person who used it is the best way to go in BLP articles, unless the truth of the term is unquestionable. – Smyth\^talk 10:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Non-commercial exploitation is mentioned in the very first paragraph of that link so I don't believe it is "100%" about prostitution. Takimag is used as RS in plenty of other areas of WP and I think its a stretch to suggest the term means something else in Estonian. PearlSt82 (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, please see Tourism and Inequality: Problems and Prospects (Stroma Cole, ‎Nigel Morgan - 2010) - from page 63, among other descriptions of examples of noncommercial sex tourism - "Because the relationship between tourism and sex is close but multifaceted, the term 'sex tourism' is not as easy to define as it may first appear, and the problem cannot be fully resolved by defining 'sex tourism' as 'prostitution tourism', because, as has been seen in this chapter, sexual-economic relationships between tourists and local/migrant persons range from brief and explicit cash-for-sex exchanges that both parties understand as 'prostitution', though more open-ended, diffuse exchanges, to relationships that are understood by both parties to be 'romantic' despite the asymmetry of economic power between them. It is actually very difficult to draw a sharp line between tourists' experience of commercial and non-commercial sex. It is also important to recognize that in some cases, local/migrant people pursue relationships with tourists for reasons that are simultaneously economic and sexual.". The graph on page 100 of Sex Tourism: Marginal People and Liminalities (Ryan and Robertson, 1997) neatly describes paradigms of sex tourism and includes non-commercial activities as well. Previous chapters in the book have further discussion on the issue. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The World Vision paper is on human trafficking for sexual exploitation. Do you think Roosh V is involved in this? And while the paper contains the phrases "non-commercial" and "sex tourism", every single mention of "sex tourism" is preceded by the word "child". This paper has no place whatsoever in defining non-commercial sex tourism. Kevin (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)