Talk:Diarra Kilpatrick

"Review to make it Neutral and higher standard of quality" (no examples given) and then good encylopedic info was wrongly nuked

The editor who tagged and nuked sections of the article may falsely believe that if the vast majority (due weight) of notable sigcon and coverage about an actor/writer is "positive" then the resulting information and citations are "not neutral". That's false and violates the fundamentals of wikipedia, just as it's doubtful that any similar editor has added the POV Review tag to Leo Di Caprio ("he sounds good, so, the article isn't neutral"), or has tagged the Albert Einstein wiki as making him sound too good at physics.

The article was clearly neutral before the recent nuking which deleted good info:

1. Available views are duly represented
2. Opinions and judgments are clearly flagged/framed/quoted, and are relevant and informative for the subject
3. There's no false impression of parity. (Because there's no contrary notable sigcon coverage for anything in the article, people are not in fact publishing "This Actor Is Terrible!" articles at any usable outlet)
4. Nothing is contested. And small effort put into researching sources makes it reasonable to believe that nothing currently in the wiki could even possibly be contested.
5. Sentences are all cited to sources, and in cases where the sources are worse than others on a scale, the related sentences aren't unduly weighted or large or qualitative, and/or there are additional better sources right alongside it.
6. There's also the critic line about The Climb pilot not being good. That pilot being covered is a direct reflection of notable sigcon, which was obviously sourced and cited.
7. Review of article shows zero problem: everything in the article is sourced to and accurately reflects notable sigcon which is not difficult to find, and with careful/appropriate framing to sources.

Maybe the tagger thinks at face value that source-coverage of the actor doesn't or shouldn't involve details, praise, or awards, so that if that info is what exists in the world then it must have been written by a biased fan. That's false. Or maybe the tagger thinks that an actor who has notable writing credits and producing credits separate from acting simply "looks too good" to add those notable details, like "stop making the person with lots of credits sound special by listing those credits." That's false.

When the article easily passes all tests, I have to ask what the tagger imagined was a problem (especially since they didn't bother to say in the summary).

Also the sub-section structure that specifically headers American Koko, The Climb, and Diarra from Detroit, is based on notable sigcon (which aside from being sourced, cited, and obvious, was also explained in my non-useless Revision summary notes). 2 or the 3 don't have their own wiki, which is why I included it here and which is not a neutrality problem.RandomEditor6772314 (talk) 20:12, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Going through the recent destructive edit/deletion point by point

Main Idea.There are many things seriously wrong (and a few things good) with this new deletion edit. It deleted a large amount of good encyclopedic and correctly framed/sourced info. It wrongly using a broad "puffery" and "general NPOV edit" argument in the summary. So, I'm adding a Talk discussion to go through what's wrong with those edits and why the previous version was a better article.

The Actual Rules. The deletion erased a lot of plain facts that were correctly sourced, which I don't think even needs discussion. So let's focus on the misunderstanding of Neutral POV. Neutrality and POV is not about facts vs opinions. Wikipedia is filled with published notable sigcon opinions. The rule is about whether the non-factual info (aka opinion) is sourced, attributed, representative, duly weighted, contested, etc. (Note the indiscriminate deletion left the sentence "earned award nominations" but deleted all sourced attributed notable sigcon opinions about the same performer that the awards were given to. Seems like a clear misunderstanding of wikipedia and encylcopedia rules.) NPOV rule doesn't mean non-objective info is banned, the rule means non-objective info can't be the default pronouncement of "Wikipedia". It simply needs to be attributed, cited, and clearly framed as the source's view. Non-objective opinions, citations, quotes, etc, are obviously especially important for information about the arts, it's a basic part of wikipedia as is obvious on any actor page (Leonardo DiCaprio.

Why Am I Writing This?: I'm writing this because I want to have a good wikipedia. I recently saw the show "Diarra from Detroit" and was surprised to find that the wiki article for Diarra Kilpatrick was uninformative and sub-par about projects and details and sources and critical commentary...and it was very easy for me to find notable reliable sigcon for relevant subject-specific encyclopedic info that wasn't in the article. Great: I like improving wikipedia, so I fixed that. I added carefully cited/sourced/framed info, which reflected the world of published info and ideas/opinions, with due weight and with no neutrality problems. Then an editor deleted that-- see other Talk topic about for the Neutrality test discussion. Also I planning on expanding with even more useful info and sources in the future (I have a whole backlog of notable reliable sigcon that I haven't integrated yet), so let's head-off the disruptive editing now.

Point-by-point discussion about why most of the substantial deletions are wrong

(Note: all the info that was deleted had clear citations and sources to reliable notable sigcon or at worst press-release re-prints for well-attested non-contested non-controversial facts. It reflected the facts, consensus, relevant available opinions on the subject, and sources, with no counter opinion out there)

1. Word edits and substitutions:
   • Many of the single word edits in the deletion I think are fine. (However, the simplistic blanket summary argument "puffery", in the deletion note, looks in some examples more like a bone-to-pick rather than due consideration of reasoning or appropriateness of specific wording/phrasing.)
   • "starred/starring" was blanket changed to "appeared" regardless of role or sources (etc). I agree with that for supporting roles and some other info. However, starred/starring is obviously the common conventional credit nomenclature for main cast, and it's obviously attested in the given (reliable) sources/reporting, and it's obviously used on any actor wiki we could look at 40,000 wikipedia articles have the phrase "starred in". 15,000 wikipedia articles have the phrase "starred in" without the words "award" or "celebrity" (those ideas are NOT a requirement, but it helps the illustration to rule out Tom Cruise etc). Since the editor who blanket-replaced it made no attempt to distinguish case-by-case or to reflect sources, I have to assume the editor wrongly believes that the word "starring" can't or shouldn't be used except via some arcane mathematics or that it's reserved for Leo Di Caprio, or some rationale like that. That isn't true. Diarra Kilpatrick was a credited lead in TV productions (American Koko and Diarra from Detroit) and lead in isolated episodes, which also won awards plus this was after winning awards and nominations for stage/theatre work. Why did the editor delete "starred" as the verb, for lead roles? Where is the relevant MOS justification? I don't see any. Does the editor dislike that the normal conventional common legal word "starred in" sounds flattering? That's not how neutrality policy works. And of course there's no issue with this on any of the 100,000 actor wikis we compare to, a good example is maybe Jenna Fischer who, yes, "starred" in small things, and with a humble start in late 2000's (i.e. named roles).
2. Deletion of first paragraph Emmy nomination - Was the reason the summary "puffery" or an actual reason? Film MOS says summary awards can be in intro or later. Emmy nom/win is as high as it gets for TV, which I assume is why that was there. It was only one item in the intro, and it's part of what establishes notability.
3. Deletion of directors / project associations:
   • "starring, written and directed by Jeryl Prescott." line - I agree that the now-deleted padded multi-role Jeryl Prescott line was irrelevant. However, the rationale there was: it's customary and informative to note a project creator/director... this is not "puffery" or POV issue, it's basic info. The line-contortion of the extra roles (written, starring, directed) might have been because Prescott is not "only" director, so someone didn't want it to look like like only director. I don't know. In any case, especially when the movie doesn't have its own wiki article, but the director does, it's obviously informative to just name the director and to wiki-link.
   • Deletion of Jared Bushman for Hollywood je t'aime. See point 5-1 below.
   • Deletion of studio and co-executive producers for The Climb. Those names were basic project info because the purpose of the wiki article is to explain what the creator's project was, which was clearly attested in reliable notable sigcon and is non-controversial. The names were also part of the wikilink web as both names/companies have their own wiki, but the production/work itself (the pilot) doesn't have it's own central wiki (which is probably correct). The names were also co- with Kilpatrick, it's not random outside credits, it's because the text otherwise credits only Kilpatrick in the role and there's no subject-specific wiki.
4. Twilight Zone review excerpt line from The Guardian: the deletion is wrong. It's not "puffery" and is not a neutrality problem to correctly include and quote critical opinion. The line was what the reviewer of an enormous international newspaper chose to say about Kilpatrick, and it was correctly quoted and appropriately included in the relevant info area.
5. Deletion of basic informative genre-tag and network affiliation info:
   • Deletion of the queer film / Jared Bushman part is wrong, unlike the Jeryl Prescott multi-role line example. It is customary and informative to say the genre or identifying/categorical info about a work, and the project lead, and this also reflects sources aside from basic wiki information. Hollywood je t'aime doesn't have its own wiki, and the director doesn't either. The encyclopedia should say in brief what the movie is, which I did with clear correct citations/sources. Jared Bushman was in notable sigcon press tour for that movie, it's not hard to find. The queer/gay aspect is in notable reliable sigcon, and would be useful for readers because there's no wiki for that director or the movie, and it's obviously informative for basic reading to learn about Kilpatrick's work.
   • Blanket deletion of network affiliations, i.e. [Network] [genre] [show title], e.g. the CBS mystery series Dr. Solveit. The deletions make the article less informative on reading. It's not "puffery" or a neutrality problem to say what the network or provenance of a project is, it's basic useful info. Just as the Leo Di Caprio wiki says Leo was in "Scorcese's [title]" or "Scorcese's [genre] [title]". ("Degree" of fame is not a factor here.)
   • "Shakespeare adaptation" was not "puffery" or "POV", it was a simple genre-type identifier for basic informativeness when reading Kilpatrick's filmography.
6. Errors in the deletion/edit:
   • The "story editor" deletion and revision to editor is confused about basic terminology. A story editor is not an "editor" in film/TV, those are different.
   • "wrote [x]" instead of original "served as story editor" is wrong. That means a writing credit, NOT a story editor. The original wording about story editor was carefully worded and accurate, as appropriate for a Career section of a writer who has some crew credits below the level of credit screenwriter by guild rules. The deletion is sloppy and blatantly wrong.
   • Why was "crime series" revised in, but "NBC police-procedural" was not acceptable? What is the logic? None was given in the summary. Does the editor think that more specific words are non-neutral, because it looks "fancy"? I wrote police procedural because that's what the wiki for the show says. A couple lines later, "police procedural" was left intact for a different thing.
7. Deletion of the line about "Kilpatrick has created, written, produced, and starred in several shows", at the end of the first career section (headered with Acting), was a short transitional summary that led into the 3 projects in new sub-sections. There's a (real-world) complexity of the multiple overlapping and non-overlapping roles. Therefore it's arguably misleading to have no mention of them in the earlier section. That's why I put that transitional line. I could live with it being gone if the idea is that further sub-sections are prominently self-evident (I'm not fully convinced of this, because of how chronological/lede/summary writing and reading works).
8. Large sub-section deletions / nukes:
   • Diarra from Detroit sub-section: the editor blanket deleted good encyclopedic info that was clearly sourced and clearly reflective of notable sigcon and views. Just as Leo Di Caprio's article has commentary anecdotes by various people for various projects, the NPR Tonya Mosley blockquote was notable and relevant for understanding a representation of coverage and for understanding the show. It makes the article worse to delete useful appropriate sourced sentences/blockquotes about the show, regardless of whether the show has its own article.
   1. American Koko:
      • The deletion of the Viola Davis part is wrong. The original wording I never liked, but that is basic factual development info that explains how a random youtube show was turned into an ABC series, with appropriate wikilink to other industry people, and with reflection of sources. There is no separate article for American Koko. Therefore this wiki is the place for basic information. (And this is one of many examples where the "puffery" and "general NPOV edit" rationale in the deletion collapses, since the deletion erased basic sourced facts.)
      • The deletion of the synopsis is clearly wrong. That's basic info. The series doesn't have its own wiki article but has tons of notable sigcon that is very easy to find...I know this, because I did appropriate research before my edits. It is not "puffery" or a neutrality issue to appropriately convey info about a show in the actor/writer/producer's (same person) wiki article.
   • The Climb: the deletion of all the info is clearly wrong. There are notable reliable relevant sigcon reviews, which I clearly sourced, cited, quoted. It is not "puffery" or a neutrality issue to appropriately convey info and opinions and reception in a wiki article. The original text clearly included that one critic said the pilot wasn't a good pilot while giving praise/support to Kilpatrick.
9. Deletion of critical opinions - Side discussion for re-organization. We could have a separate Critical Reception part, which would contain all the correctly appropriately sourced and framed bits I already included (which were wrongly deleted), but in its own section rather than as in-line career notes. I assume if someone is pre-disposed to dislike it if people in the world praise Diarra Kilpatrick, such a person might get less angry if its in its own section rather than being inserted into the prose about career roles. The deletion didn't ask or propose anything like this, though. And it's obviously more helpful to have it in-line in the Career paragraphs when it's mostly small excerpts and not pre-existing synthesis.
10. Awards list was untouched - Correct. If awards (or condemnations for that matter) are worthy to include, that means that backing information, discussion, publications, critical opinions, that were correctly quoted and sourced, are worthy and important to include. I have to assume the deleter of the critical opinions believes that a physical award can't be argued with or easily deleted while a critic can, but first of all A) yes they can, they're not different, both awards and opinions are published info/opinions in the world, neither is more real than the other and B) content rules and wikipedia/encyclopedia isn't about what an editor personally dislikes or whether a governing body is behind the opinion.

Conclusion. The deletions were indiscriminate and sloppy. It deleted plain things that accurately reflected the world of published information and correctly sourced representative encyclopedic info and opinions. It didn't give any rationale or discussion except "puffery" and "general NPOV edit" while clearly deleting informative notable sigcon that was appropriately framed and sourced/cited, even while deleting plain uncontested relevant facts (let alone opinions). The edit made the article less useful and less informative, in a way that should be a obvious if a person cares about wikipedia content guidelines and goals. With all that, it's reasonable for me to believe that the deleter severely misunderstands the neutrality guidelines. (Frankly their history should be examined by anyone interested because they may have damaged many wikis in the same way if it wasn't individual bias against Diarra Kilpatrick.)

If I don't see good explanations in line with the guidelines and fundamentals (and pending any other consensus input by others who hopefully understand wikipedia guidelines), I'm going to re-revert in the many specific cases where the original was clearly better. If it gets deleted again in a way that has no real explanation, no discussion, and which harms the information or readability, and goes against basic guidelines, I'll escalate to a Disruptive Editing case to ban the user from the page. RandomEditor6772314 (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Dear @RandomEditor6772314

Thank you for your comprehensive reasoning for why my edit was misguided. After reading your points, I largely agree with your arguments and would like to apologize for my edits. My propensity to see edits and content as promotional or biased was unwarranted in this case and I removed relevant encyclopedic content. As a result, I've largely reverted my edit (but preserved some copy edits).

I'd like to preface this by saying that my prior experience or lack thereof doesn't mitigate my culpability for my ignorance of the relevant policies or my edit as a whole. For context, most of my edits are related to conflict of interest edit requests, and when you have a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. As you explain, NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. In the future, instead of removing content just because it paints the subject in a favorable light, I'll cross reference with reliable sources and see if it is controversial or not. I should've done that from the start and I didn't. Also, I don't edit film-related articles much and didn't realize the standard conventions regarding terms like "starred" or directors / project associations. As I've stated, this doesn't excuse my mistake since I should've checked the MOS for film. I will try my best to not make this same mistake again.

I hope you understand that my edit was not a result of a personal vendetta against Kilpatrick. I genuinely appreciate the time and effort that you put in to methodically explain not just that I was wrong, but how I was wrong. I am sorry for this mistake and I'll be careful to do better next time.

Sincerely,

- Otherwise (Antibacklog Aktion!) (talk?) 02:13, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

That's a great response. Highly respectable and responsible. It's an exemplar of seeing the logic/rules and not doubling-down or emotional defense mechanisms/rationalizations. Thank you for that. And some of the copy-editing was a good idea! Thanks for responsibly changing the material back (while also preserving your good changes, so we have a progressive merger). I'll do a copy-edit run myself now, some more mutation of the word changes we did.

(Also I would agree that there's often a marketing-speak problem on wikipedia... marketing has infected all aspects of life, I believe. here's an example of a viral wiki problem I discussed on a videogame Talk page)

Interesting side note: I wish we had a blunt Wikipedia MOS that banned starred/starring as a verb. Hollywood self-promotion hype lingo infiltrated "normal" language. But since we don't have a style rule (and probably many editors would reject the rule, I think wrongly), it seems for fairness and source-reflection/common-terminology we have to keep doing it or allowing it where semantically appropriate.

Thanks for your work, understanding, and rationality.RandomEditor6772314 (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Maybe boldly adding some guidelines to the MOS page would be helpful. Worst case scenario, it gets reverted. I will say, it does feel a bit ambiguous just looking at the current state of the film MOS. Like I mentioned, I don't edit many film related articles, but it would appear that some clarification could be very beneficial. - Otherwise (Antibacklog Aktion!) (talk?) 13:07, 6 August 2026 (UTC)