Talk:Mook (graffiti artist)

My edits wasn't to add "general concept". Rather, this page is on the graffiti moniker "MOOK" and it is titled under the moniker, not the person's name. So it is a graffiti moniker used by two individuals that have received media coverage on this matter and the contents I have added is supported with sources. It doesn't seem like each person who gets media coverage for the same moniker have enough notoriety to justify their own page. The original page was written so much like a brand advertisement page anyways. Graywalls (talk) 04:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

No, this page is not about the moniker "mook", or else the title would be Mook (moniker) or something similar. This is an article about a graffiti artist, which is one person. -- Fyrael (talk) 07:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I put it as a subsection as copycat which should keep you satisfied. In the meantime I asked graffiti project for their input. Graywalls (talk) 10:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Removed materials

Response to the person who removed my contents. They are simply a list, referenced directly to the source. Just as done to reference a factual information like enrollment count in this diff even though it's not a secondary source. Anyone can go back to the source and verify it. It's not a requisite to be verifiable over www. Graywalls (talk) 15:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Fyrael: Do you have any input on this? A comprehensive list of Gunther's criminal history doesn't seem necessary, even if its verifiable. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Graywalls: Not all verifiable information should be included on Wikipedia—see WP:ONUS. Why do you think listing Gunther's prior criminal convictions is relevant or necessary? These convictions aren't given more than a tangential mention in independent sources, and it seems to me that you are giving them undue weight. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

When you read articles on other graffiti vandals, discussion of "legal problems" is very common. Although I haven't run into other where two separate individuals have run into publicity under the same moniker at two different times. Since prior convictions are often looked at when sentence is decided, justs having a table there would be useful for reader to come to their own conclusion using presented data. IMHO its no different than including detailed specificaitons to products like vehicles and electronics compounded from numerous sources which is often done. Graywalls (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Graywalls: please just create a new article for Gunther if you believe they are notable enough to justify one. At this point you've added as much text about this second tagger as there is for the person that this article is actually about, and most of it is minutia that isn't at all relevant to Monack. I don't know why we have to rehash the fact that this article is not about two people. If the issue is that you believe Gunther has more of a claim to this article's title than Monack, then that's fine and after you create the new article there can be discussion about titles. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the word count is necessarily the indicator of substance of the article. Graywalls (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is about two questions now: 1) Whether the section on Gunther should be in a separate article, and 2) whether the section on Gunther should mention his past criminal convictions when cited only to court cases.

I agree with Fyrael on the first question. The sources for the Pittsburgh graffitist use "Mook" to refer to a specific person (e.g., "... Mook has spray-painted his name on structures citywide" and "Police arrested the South Side graffiti writer known as 'Mook'"). The sources for the Portland graffitist only say that he tagged places with the word "mook", not that he adopted it as his name. Importantly, none of the cited sources mention a connection between Gunther and Monack. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what reliable, secondary sources say about a topic. Given that no sources (that I'm aware of) mention a connection between these two people, they should not share the same article.

On to the second question. You write above that listing a person's criminal history is equivalent to listing detailed product specifications. This is not the case on Wikipedia, which has special policies that apply to biographies of living people. In fact, WP:BLPPRIMARY explicitly forbids using court records to support assertions about living people. I've removed the disputed material on Gunther's criminal history per that policy. I agree that having some details about his past legal problems could provide helpful context for readers. The sentences on Gunther's DWI and heroin convictions (sourced to the Portland Tribune) and his enrollment in a drug rehabilitation program (sourced to OregonLive) are perfectly sufficient for this purpose, however. We don't need to list every single thing on his record. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

fair enough. I've tweaked it to work within the boundaries of contents covered in news articles. I'm also working on expanding Monack. Do you have any input on appropriateness about pre-existing contents with strong reliance on Letters the Editor to drum up his reputation? Graywalls (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

fork out suggested by someone else

If it was to be forked out, both taggers need to be forked out and titled under their real name. Forking out Gunther under his real life name and leaving Monack under Mook would cause a disproportionate allocation of the moniker. These taggers are both known for the same graffiti moniker (however, Monack also has another moniker human hater, as confirmed by reliable source). I don't know what procedures are in place on Wikipedia in the event when multiple subjects in the same field of interest are known under the same fictitious name. Graywalls (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Do you think a separate article is warranted here? All of the news coverage of Gunther is from 2018 or 2019 and is mainly focused on two specific graffiti incidents. A separate article might fall into WP:BLP1E territory. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not the person you're addressing so this isn't specifically directed at you. Until this one, I haven't come across a situation where two unrelated subjects would appropriately fit under the same article. One person objected but I don't see a policy prohibiting in more than one people existing under the same article titled with the pseudonym especially when it is appropriate in both context and subject area. This doesn't often enough for it to be a reliable consensus at this point. From one input given by an editor at biography project where discussion concerns issues about biography including organization of articles, the editor didn't find specific issues with such splitting of article under the common pseudonym under same disclipline to cover more than one individuals. On WP:BLP1E, it reads "It is important to remember that "notable" is not a synonym for "famous". Someone may have become famous due to one event, but may nevertheless be notable for more than one event. Conversely, a person may be generally famous, but significant coverage may focus on a single event involving that person.". Remember, Gunther was the subject of news coverage because of the two events, but having been identified as applying over a hundred tags was part of what makes it notable. Graywalls (talk) 07:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Generally, an article about a person should not discuss another person, even if closely related. The discussion of the Oregon Mook suggests there's enough content for this to be standalone. Or if not (WP:ONEEVENT...) than this should not be discussed here. In other words, this article is about one, famous Mook graffitti artists. Other people known as Mook either get their own articles - or no mention at all. Through a short one-two sentence mention in a section called 'legacy' or such could mention that other graffiti artists have been inspired by him and used same name - assuming of course that reliable sources can be used to show that there was a connection. If not, it could be argued that the Oregon Mook chose his name without any thought to the Pitt one (and us claiming otherwise is WP:OR). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

So, both of the subjects would fit under the labeling of graffiti practitioners who have become notable in relation to their graffiti related criminal mischief using the moniker "MOOK" so having two isolated sections seems to be ok at least by the discussion on biography project. There's no evidence that two are related, so if these were to be split, it becomes a question of how the existing article title gets allocated. I couldn't find any guiding policies. Graywalls (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I still think that the best solution would be to create articles for them under their real names, perhaps with (graffiti artist) added to it, and have Mook as a disambig page. Just sharing a same pseudonym generally does not result in sharing the same, single page. They are separate individuals and should have separate pages. Consider for example the mess if we try to add dates of birth/death categories, etc. Multiple bios in one page are always a mess of metadata. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Piotrus:I'm personally okay with leaving them together in one article under the same article and an uninvolved editor didn't see issues with it. They've suggested a possible idea to consider should consensus decides it should split. The prose is now properly isolated with no reference asserting correlation or the lack of between the two this comment into consideration. Graywalls (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)