Talk:Anthony Fantano

What's the deal?

@Thebigbennke: Are you being serious or not. I don't have all day and this edit war need to end. Instead of calling me a troll for no reason either stop the disruptive editing or explain why you are doing this. Bowling is life (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bowling is life: (Personal attack removed)

So you aren't serious. You are just here to vandalize and rely on personal attacks. Good to know. Bowling is life (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I know...

That Anthony Fantano is not considered a reliable source because he is self published, but this brings me a lot of concerns, first is how wikipedia mantains its encyclopedia style even though it is something that has grown beside (and beyond) it (it is an online knowledge encyclopedia, damn) and there is more to the kind of ideological side which I can't even touch because of how long that would be even to put the basis, but even admitting its policies as truth isn't kind of strange that there is a mention here by Robert Christgau, just because he is Robert Christgau, if you read the article referenced you could note that he hasn't watched a single Needledrop video and is just giving his opinion as it is, a personal opinion of someone which its content he doesn't really know, but that is given as something worth adding to an article which feels kind of strange because the opinion of Robert isn't that different of what you can see in some random comment of Fantano's video, but is given the editorial importance because of the person it is coming from, what I'm saying is this article seems lackluster for the kind of person it is giving encyclopedic information about, this isn't the first time wikipedia has added something that is factually wrong/irrelevant as a source, but I feel concerned of how normal this is because of internal policies, if wikipedia purpose is to keep an archive of knowledge and truth, doesn't this kind of things kind of self.defeat it's purpose on the first place?

Taking Fantano's article as an example but I feel this is something bigger and sorry, I don't have the energy or patience to tackle it big scale, but is something I have seen a lot in this place Whatsupwiththis (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality in attribution

@Alyo: Could you specify how the paragraph implies that the complaint's statements are neutral facts? I thought I was being clear in the sentence about Fantano's (alleged) threat because of the "According to Activision" at the start. The sentence you removed did mention that the argument was simply being stated by lawyers (without any confirmation of their claims), though I admit I could've specified ("Activision's laywers stated..."). If the attribution wasn't clear enough, I could try rewriting the sentences. ObserveOwl (talk) 07:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @ObserveOwl, what you thought I objecting to is correct--"Lawyers stated..." sounds as though neutral attorneys are speaking to the issue in their personal capacity, which is not what happened. "The complaint alleges..." is a more accurate framing. Even then, the wording of the rest of the sentences needs to be carefully written so as to not violate our BLP policies (see WP:BLPPRIMARY for a general caution against citing directing to court documents as background). For example, "developing a scheme" is language that only comes from direct quotes of the complaint and doesn't further inform our readers as much as it casts aspersions on the subject of the article. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I felt like multiple sources pointed out their use of the word "scheme", but I now understand it sounds unnecessarily defamatory. I'd say that the part of the sentence about the alleged legal threats to selective users is slightly redundant from the rest of the paragraph. Still, I think it is appropriate to include a short sentence that further explains the motivations behind the complaint, and, instead, it could mention (according to the Rolling Stone source) how Activision argues that the use of the audio doesn't imply any sponsorship from Fantano. We could say "The complaint alleges that he made the audio available on TikTok's library and its use did not mislead consumers about any affiliation between Activision and Fantano." I am still doubtful about the removal of the information about Fantano's alleged threat to sue; it is probably important to mention it in order to understand why the company didn't just refuse to pay him: "Fantano demanded that Activision either immediately pay him [...] or be prepared to defend a lawsuit. As a result, Activision had no choice but to seek declaratory relief from this Court." (Activision as cited by Rolling Stone) ObserveOwl (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

That first proposed sentence certainly looks good to me. Regarding the alleged threat to sue, at present it's purely based on the allegations in the complaint, right? So at minimum, we probably should not say that in wikivoice: "Activision claimed Fantano threatened to sue for damages..." etc etc. I'm not sure that there's a real difference between requesting damages and threatening a lawsuit, as they sort of go hand in hand (although I'm also a lawyer, so maybe that's just the way I read it). I've added your suggested sentence and rewritten the passage a little bit, let me know what you think. Alyo (chat·edits) 03:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Just want to clarify that the last part of my message in quotation marks was not a suggestion, but a quote of the complaint for verification purposes. ObserveOwl (talk) 07:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh oh oh, gotcha! Alyo (chat·edits) 14:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)