DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Catturd

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác

Birthdate inclusion

[edit]

Elli, you removed the birthdate on the basis that it's a primary source. Birthdates are occasionally derived from calculations (allowed via WP:CALC) when there are no secondary sources listing the birthdate but the person publishes it themselves. Do you raise an issue with the correctness or faithful reflection of the sources? SWinxy (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SWinxy: I don't doubt the accuracy here but given that we're deriving this from multiple tweets inclusion seems to be a bit iffy with regards to WP:BLPPRIVACY. I won't revert if you want to reinstate it but I'd suggest asking at WP:BLPN before doing so. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Coincidentally there's a discussion there related to DoB inference on the noticeboard. BLPPRIVACY cautions against things that the subject would reasonably want made private (when ...it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public), so I would argue that publishing your birth day to a large public audience gives an implicit allowability. I've seen including a CALC birthday been done before where there has been consensus that they pass under CALC and BLPPRIVACY (e.g. Dream (YouTuber) iirc). SWinxy (talk) 02:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a super strong opinion on this, so I'm not going to challenge you if you want to re-add it. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't meant to be combative or anything! It was a good decision to remove the PS listing his name. SWinxy (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this page exist?

[edit]

I suggest this article should be nominated for deletion as 'twitter shitposter and internet troll', even if backed up with credible sources, is not a credible claim of significance. Fnuciton (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fnuciton: if you think the page should be deleted, feel free to nominate it at WP:AFD. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. This is stupid. 104.54.220.196 (talk) 04:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Buchanan

[edit]

Isn't the person who runs the account Phillip Buchanan? I noticed that it had been apart of the article earlier but was removed and I'm unsure as to why. I noticed that the source from OpenCorporates showing Buchanan as being the sole owner of "CATTURD, LLC." was described as having needed a better citation, I'm not too sure what it meant since you can confirm this from looking at the CATTURD, LLC. snapshot report on Sunbiz, could someone help me out here? B3251 (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's what's been said online and listed in filings, but per WP:BLPPRIVACY, only include when full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. He definitely would object to his name being included, but he's tweeted about his birthday and age, so it can go in. SWinxy (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply, makes sense! B3251 (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPPRIVACY pertains to publishing of personal information that could lead to identity theft, such as a full name (ie middle name included) or date of birth. Buchanan has self-published his date of birth. It's not an issue to include the real name of the online handle, any more than it is to include Chaya Raichik's name on the Libs of TikTok article. Wes sideman (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an attack piece

[edit]

Too far left leaning you’re not fooling anyone wiki 2001:48F8:1015:59D:D5A4:D769:96A2:1B76 (talk) 11:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per the revelant policy, an attack page is "entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced." While the tone could be adjusted, and I recommend you make an account yourself and acquire the necessary permissions (autoconfirmed is not a high hurdle), the point about the page being poorly sourced is patently untrue. This is an extremely well sourced article, in line with as would be expected. ZachT1234 (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Room for Article Improvement

[edit]

I feel as though the article could be improved by making reference to his ongoing podcast, and his appearance on the podcast hosted by Tucker Carlson. I would like to approach this inline with the best practices set forth in WP:BLP, acknowledging that IMDB is generally not a reliable source in biographies of living people. Upon finding more reputable sources, I plan on making proper, bold edits in the appropriate section. ZachT1234 (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go for mentioning his podcast. I think it's fine to cite IMDb for him having one, since it's low-stakes (factual) information. His appearance on Carlson's own podcast is not worth mentioning; we don't make note of appearances. SWinxy (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does this sentence mean? It is incomprehensible,and not English

[edit]

"The Twitter handle @catturd had been taken in 2010, and denied from being the poster of the suspended account @CATTURD1."

Is/are "@catturd", "@CATTURD1", and "CATTURD2" suposed to be the same person? Totally baffled. 24.47.49.74 (talk) 00:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. It means to say that @catturd and @CATTURD1 were both registered accounts on Twitter. https://twitter.com/catturd is an account, while https://twitter.com/CATTURD1 is suspended. Catturd (i.e. Buchanan) says he wasn't in charge of @CATTURD1, but the Rolling Stone article didn't explicitly say they were different people. SWinxy (talk) 03:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2024

[edit]

This page passes judgement on the individual it represents and these biography type pages should be neutral in content and not side taking. Either take it down or demand facts not opinions. 98.184.210.185 (talk) 12:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 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. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biased information

[edit]

Hey y'all!

So like, there's a LOT of seemingly biased information on this page. I've been trying to correct it, but someone keeps shifting it back.

The mission statement of Wikipedia is to "create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language." Labelling a right-wing X user as a shitposter is not high-quality. Some of the ideas posted on Catturd's X page are not 100% accurate, but he doesn't specifically spread misinformation, disinformation, and conspiracy theories. I think labelling his type of messages as "conservative political views" would be much more accurate and fair.

Respectfully, Nate Y. Nathaniel Y. 2009 (talk) 15:05, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Makes about as much sense as the claims that Tylenol causes autism. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited it to say "spreading conspiracy theories and expressing conservative political views." I think that's a good compromise, since some parts (like the Tylenol thing) are absolute BS. Nathaniel Y. 2009 (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Wikipedia reflects what is written in reliable sources about a subject. The sources cited for the sentence you've changed state that "@catturd2 has a long history of supporting Trump, spreading pro-Trump conspiracy theories, and amplifying his most ardent followers", "He stokes fear by warning that China “owns” the Biden family while endorsing the far-right activists Project Veritas over the “lying propagandists” of mainstream media. ... Channeling many streams of misinformation into a single torrent, he’s hit upon an explosive formula for derailing — or even directing — public discourse", and "rabid far-right conspiracy theorists and stochastic terrorists, including ... Catturd". GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:18, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just see that I've inadvertently reverted you in an edit conflict. However I would encourage you to discuss your proposed change on this talk page before reintroducing it to the article, per WP:BRD, as it's now been challenged three times. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:20, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Buchanan has objectively spread false or misleading information to an unprecedented degree. Refer to the last paragraph in the online activity section for just a handful of examples. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 11:02, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent removal of material

[edit]

The material I removed was both largely negative and not sourced to a universally recognized reliable source. Before adding it back, please discuss if it is appropriate prior to that. Absadah (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are reliable. If there are some that aren't, then feel free to remove those. ... discospinster talk 21:18, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which removed sources qualify as RS's for a BLP? Absadah (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Media Matters, Vice, Rolling Stone, New Republic, etc. ... discospinster talk 21:20, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
GO to perennial sources, Media Matters, Vice, Rolling Stone are not RS's for this material. Absadah (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Media Matters is "marginally reliable", Vice News is "no consensus", this is not the same as them being "generally unreliable and must be removed from any BLP". Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And Rolling Stone (which publishes the supposed name) , the Daily Dot? Contentious material about living (or, in some cases, recently deceased) persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Absadah (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So if these are "poorly sourced" what would you consider to be a "reliable source" for the purpose of this article? ... discospinster talk 22:02, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The editor raising the issue has been blocked as a sock, but in my opinion there is some merit to the argument that we should limit the use of marginally reliable sources on a BLP. I don't have strong objections to most of the sources used here, but advocacy sources like Media Matters really shouldn't ever be used in a BLP for all but the most basic claims and I'd rather replace it or, if that's not possible, remove things cited exclusively to it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:18, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marital details

[edit]

Why the emphasis on his marriages and divorces? Saying he has been married three times would surely suffice. Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:06, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed all of Buchanan's marital info, as it was sourced only to Rolling Stone, which WP:RS/PS classifies as generally unreliable for political and societal topics, especially biographical ones. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]