Talk:Tracy Morgan

removal of "tabloid stuff"

@Abs145:, Special:Diff/1320460980

removed a lot of the tabloid stuff about him - focus on bolstering the career

but why? Why are you bolstering his career? Given this article is not about Tracy Morgan's creative work, but his biography page; coverage about him in reliable source is valid. Bolstering one aspect of his life while avoiding other would not be a neutral presentation. How he conducts off stage that receives media coverage is relevant. Graywalls (talk) 09:58, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry I think bolster was absolutely the wrong word to use here, my fault. I meant that I removed very specific details that I felt were definitely out of scope and I felt qualified as too much detail. Additionally, looking at WP:BLPGOSSIP, the sources were all tabloid and did not quite add additional information. The key content on his personal life remains in the article, I just eliminated 1-2 paragraphs giving blow-by-blow detail on the court case he had which felt, again, out of scope. Hope that's clear, but you can compare the edit revision and lmk if part of it should be reverted. Abs145 (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok I see you reverted already my changes. I am inclined to remove the paragraph with intense detail on the lawsuit for the following reasons: (1) see above on out of scope/too much detial, and (2) the only sources are a reuters tag line and then the dailymail (tabloid - not reliable as you stated in your revert). I'm thinking a good compromise is we keep one sentence of information explicitly from the reuters article and remove info from dailymail. Does that sound good? Abs145 (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

What dailymail? I didn't add dailymail and I don't see it used anywhere directly as a source in the article. Graywalls (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1320353804 this too selectively emphasizes his career based on your summary

added in his comedy specials. seems to be a lot of info on personal life vs. career - could use more sourcing on his style and his place in 2000s comedy.

I do think that we shouldn't emphasize, or de-emphasize something based on what we think is important and leave it to reliable sources to choose what to cover. Things that we should de-emphasize in biography article are family pedigree, accomplishments of family members and such if the article is NOT about the family as those things would not be about the article's subject. I do tend to agree with you there are things within Walmart crash we could trim out, specifically related to things about other people. My changes did you relate to 2014 crash. It relates to how Morgan conducted himself and the media coverage he received about a different incident Graywalls (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry it was this Daily News article i was referring to (not Daily Mail). Still a tabloid. Its in the page, I'm not saying you specifically added it. Next, I would agree that we should not emphasize / de emphasize, but again to my point on out of scope, an individual who is notable for his creative career (stand up, acting) and is not notable for his car accident should not have three paragraphs on a car accident when his 20+ year career makes up the core of his notability. He's not famous for the crash. With respect to your edits, as far as I can see you did make changes related to his car accident under === 2019 car accident handling ===

I understand that his personal conduct may be relevant to his biography but we should, again, avoid including tabloid gossip about an individual that is not necessarily core to his notability. although if you believe there's some personal attributes that are notable to his public image, yes, of course we leave in. And finally, any details that are about people's responses or reactions to morgan's actions should likely be avoided. I can't find the specific policy / recommendation on this ATM but I've discussed with other editors before that you should limit the amount of content that is categorically a 'reaction' or 'criticism' or 'response' from others on a page unless it is to identify consensus. Abs145 (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

You'll also note that it wasn't a simple reversion, but additional sources, including staff writer written Huffington Post article. Graywalls (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

yes, I see the addition of the 2019 accident. I didn't change or edit this part in anyway after your revisions. hopefully we agree on the way out of scope has been applied here. Also how BLPs, while using source quality to help determine if something should be included, should also relate the contribution of the individual. Editors can make choices to limit details on non-core or tabloid information to keep it orderly. thanks again for calling me on the poor description in my edits - ill be more careful in the future! Abs145 (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)