Talk:Democracy Manifest

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Know Your Meme[edit]

This is user generated content multiple RSN say it is not reliable. -- GreenC 13:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be subject to editorial oversight. But you moved it to the External links anyway. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thus was discussed in RSN threads I couldn't find much support for this being a reliable source there, apparently the oversight is limited. It still works fine in external links. I like the site BTW it offers pretty good leads on finding other sources. -- GreenC 21:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery[edit]

The mystery of the ID of the DM-Man appears to be solved. There is one source still raising questions, but they not asserting Jack is not DM-Man. Nor did they do any investigations or interviews with the band or anything so this source looks like cheap journalism filler. Unless we get some actual investigations into Jack. Everything about Jack fits - he looks like him, sounds like him, re-enacts like him, is the aprox right age, has a criminal background, etc.. the fact no one can produce an arrest record probably doesn't mean much given the age, and confusion caused by multiple aliases. -- GreenC 15:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arrested?[edit]

There is some question. I dropped a note with sources. WP:Verifiability not WP:Truth. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just wrote about it above. -- GreenC 16:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are no media reports at the time, and there actually are some for the related arrests. I know, misdemeanors are not necessarily big news. One could argue that the person claiming that it was in fact an arrest has the burden of production. But we don't need to resolve this; only note it, FWIW. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source does not say "states flatly that it was never proven to be of a real arrest". It says "The video, which has never been proven to be a real arrest". These are very different statements. The first is a strong opinion there was no arrest. The second says no arrest was proven, but lack of proof doesn't mean there was no arrest. There are many ways/reasons lack of evidence can occur. -- GreenC 16:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We are not an adjudicator. Readers can weigh the sources and decide for themselves. Sources say what they say; can't change that. Existence of the question is relevant and material. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We know who filmed it and which TV station did so, the Theory #3 [1] in invalid, there is no basis any longer for doubting this story new developments have happened I think you are giving weight to old sources when it was still a mystery. -- GreenC 16:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that "Democracy Manifest" is a top Australian viral video and meme? Source: The Guardian "perhaps the pre-eminent Australian meme of the past 10 years". here and YouTube has several postings of the video, and they "have more than one million views each." there
    • ALT1:... that "Democracy Manifest" is a 1990 Australian viral video involving bungling police and a succulent Chinese meal? Same source as above and here

Created by 7&6=thirteen (talk), GreenC (talk), Dream Focus (talk), Lightburst (talk), Talsta (talk), and SpicyMilkBoy (talk). Nominated by 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Prefer main hook. Honestly, the article is so much more interesting, but I can't think of a better, just writing it's a viral video may be the best. GRuban (talk) 15:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment GRuban If you can think of a better hook email me so that I can propose it. And we can avoid the problem of getting another reviewer. I agree, the article is far better and more interesting than the hook suggests. Thanks for the review and insight. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution[edit]

Text and references copied from Democracy Manifest video to Gose. See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Viral video vs, Newscast video[edit]

There is some confusion regarding multiple versions of the video. There is a video released in 2009 which is the "viral video". It can be seen here: [2] Note the 1.8 million views and release date of 2009, this has been what people have looked at since 2009.

Now compare with this video starting at 1:05. Notice it is not the same video as the viral video, it contains a voice-over. This video was not released until 2020. I don't know how to "source" this other than simply by looking at the videos. -- GreenC 16:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that. The problem I had was the notation, which I did not want to interfere with the impending WP:DYK. Any trying to find a "source" for that would be very difficult, if not impossible; who would bother to state the obvious. (I was not deriding the distinction in Wikipedia. I was talking about the paucity of WP:Reliable sources on that narrow and relatively fine nuance). Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well they can discuss if they want. It is important because there is a temporal problem with a description of the viral video (based on raw footage), followed by a history of the video (based on final footage) then a history of the controversy (based on the raw footage) - but nowhere it clarifies there are two versions of the video. The lead section has a similar jumping around. I felt the easiest way to resolve was to clarify there are two videos, when they were released, their differences and significance. -- GreenC 21:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quote[edit]

This section is for discussing the quote about the Australia meme. [3] It's unclear what the problem is. The opinionated quote makes clear how notable the meme is. One does not need to agree with the quote, it is a quote people say things, it was reported in a reliable source and reported here. -- GreenC 15:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my or any wikipedia editor's "opinion". Rather, it is a statement of a quotation that explains the importance and context of the incident and the video. In that sense, this quotation is a fact, and it is reliably reported in WP:RS. WP:Verifiablity, not WP:Truth. You may disagree with the conclusion and even the fact, but you cannot make it disappear. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Page protection has been requested. -- GreenC 23:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tone tag[edit]

Regarding the use of the tone tag over usage of words like "boisterously", "incredulously" to describe the events of the video. First off the MOS is a guideline and is not meant to be treated as a blindly applied rule, context and specifics matter. The description of the video accurately and quickly captures the tone of the events of the video. Removing these descriptions would turn it into a banal and difficult to read literal description eg: "the man was arrested. The man was put into a car. The man was taken away." It would lobotomize the text, and maybe the reader. Wikipedia is not meant for 5th graders, it is possible to use big words to accurately describe a video that is by its nature dramatic. "The man booms in the controlled voice of a classic stage actor" is a concise and accurate description of what happens in the video - if not how else would you frame it without losing content and context while keeping it readable? In fact one of the sources even says something similar "As a crowd of police bundle the man into a waiting car, he declaims, in a stage-voice that would put Olivier to shame" [4] He has a deep baritone voice and it sounds like he is acting to an audience by projecting his voice to all around who will hear (which it turns out he was acting to appear like a crazy man). -- GreenC 16:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd rather discuss policy instead of guidelines, the phrases "commanding voice of a trained stage actor" (as mentioned in the lead) and "controlled voice of a classic stage actor" (as mentioned in the synopsis section) seem to be original research. I can't find anything that says the man is a classically trained actor. As you have pointed out, The Sydney Morning Herald does allude to his supposed "stage-voice" so perhaps if you want to include something about his voice being comparable to that of a theatre actor's, you could attribute it to the writer of that article.
Removing these descriptions would turn it into a banal and difficult to read literal description
  1. As far as I'm aware there's no guideline or even user generated essay that suggests articles stray from banality. Articles don't have to be exciting or fun to read. I also don't see how it would make it more difficult to read.
  2. It's supposed to be a literal description. What else would it be?
  3. "Wikipedia is not meant for 5th graders" -- not really sure what you mean by this. Wikipedia's open to everyone. If it's an insinuation that simplifying language and/or changing it to better fit MOS guidelines somehow brings it to "5th grader" level, I must disagree. I'm not sure where the assumption that I don't want "big words" has came from. Word length doesn't bother me, unencyclopaedic language does. It's not warranted just because a video is "dramatic". WP:TONE doesn't mean the tone of the writing should match the tone of the video or content, it's that the writing style should be encyclopaedic in nature.
Yes, the MOS (and its explanatory supplements etc.) is a guideline and doesn't necessarily need to be followed to a tee but in general adhering to it helps to improve articles. ToeSchmoker (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Description of video[edit]

In this diff, which description of the video do you prefer: the longer [left side] or shorter [right side]? -- GreenC 22:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Video (1 minute).

To have clearer consensus results, suggest voting for one or the other, then make any wording adjustments post-RfC. -- GreenC 22:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poll[edit]

  • Longer. The short version has the man's words and basic actions, but removes aspects of the man's distinct character ("boisterous"), motivations ("incredulously") and bizarre behavior ("stentorian voice") - which are central to the meme's notability/popularity. It removes context about "complimenting on a headlock" which makes the following sentence about Judo indecipherable. And context about the bystanders laughing which helps set the tone of the video. -- GreenC 22:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shorter, and even then it's still over detailed, as it duplicates the quotes from the lead. It should be a quick summary of the video, not an over-quoted blow by blow. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)[reply]
  • Longer - The short version does a poor job at explaining the video's outstanding features (boisterous voice etc). I made a point of reading the description before watching the video for the first time and it just doesn't manage to express the video's appeal at all. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Longer BUT omit bystanders' description. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shorter - The longer version contains flowery language that could very well be argued to be opinion based or exaggerated. I would not mind more neutral words such as "loudly" instead of "boistrously" for better description, but there's clearly WP:OR in the statement "booms in the controlled voice of a classic stage actor, apparently addressing an audience". There's a lot of assuming what is going on inside people's heads, as opposed to merely describing what is seen. Fieari (talk) 03:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shorter: the longer version is filled with interpretation by editors of what is happening, and would only be acceptable if those interpretations were attributed to reliable secondary sources. The shorter version has a more neutral and encyclopedic language. Isabelle 🔔 19:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

I don't know what to make of this RfC other than 3 long and 3 short is 50/50. I note that one person initially went short but after watching the video went long. It is a "plot" summary and they can be more expressionistic to get the sense across, the important thing is it an accurate description. The short version is IMO less accurate than the long as it is missing important intangible elements contained in the long that helped make the video viral (notable). -- GreenC 07:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What happened?[edit]

His website appears to be dead although the site he sold T-Shirts on and his pinot is still up albeit out of final stock for the latter. has there been any new information on the guy and what happened? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.241.64 (talk) 06:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

new reference[edit]

There's a fairly comprehensive radio documentary about this guy. From the ABC film last week. LINK

I don't have time to add anything from it myself, but I figured I'd put it here for someone else.

Irtapil (talk) 06:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sheehsh over 70 minutes . -- GreenC 07:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Real name[edit]

It looks like his real name is Jack Karlson.[5] Supported by the facts: he was married in the 1970s and his wife's name was Eve Karlson; the investigative reporter Mark Dapin calls him by this name; this is the name used in court transcripts ie. legal name, see: "When I read a trial transcript of Karlson.."[6]. -- GreenC 18:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you've linked to the same article twice; was the second link supposed to be to something different?
Sure, we can definitely cite the variations of his name as per the sources. I really think we only need to clarify it's one person who has gone by different names once though. Placing one alleged name behind every instance of the other is just making a bigger mess I think. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what it is achieving by referring to him by his alias throughout the article it causes confusion. A few places we need to use the alias but that can be clarified either by putting his real name in parenthesis as it was, or putting the alias in quotes. -- GreenC 02:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dapin saying "When I read a trial transcript of Karlson" could just be him using the same name for consistency. He never actually clarifies what the transcript says. How do you know 'Karlson' wasn't using an alias when he was married? For that matter, how do you know he was actually was married to Eve Karlson? He is a man known for making false statements when it suits him, after all. Sure, it does "look" like his real name is Karlson, but we just don't know.
I'm not supporting referring him to him by his alias, I'm supporting not repeatedly referring to him as "Edwards [Karlson]", because I think that's incredibly silly. There's only one mention of that alias after his identity is given as 'Karlson' by journalists anyway, so I think clarifying it is really unnecessary.
I agree he should be referred to as Karlson in the lead. However, I feel the history section should refer to the ongoing secrecy of the man's name in chronological order. I think it's interesting for readers to know he only wanted to be referred to as Jack K, and it would be both condescending and unnecessary to jump the gun and say 'ie. Jack Karlson' when that is revealed shortly thereafter by continuing to read the section. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Dapin is a reliable source. He has written a book-length treatment of Karlson (it includes others). It is the most comprehensive source we have. I guess I'll need to obtain a copy to see what else has to say about Karlson's early life and with page numbers and quotes. I think your arguments why it might not be Karlson are possible, but anything is possible, that's why we rely on RS and not OR, where the line is drawn.
Anyway, I understand about not wanting to spoil the reveal. Wikipedia has a general practice of referring to people by their real (last) name consistently throughout an article. It's possible we can get away with it here, but it is confusing and unusual, and likely will get challenged by other editors with time. That's why I was trying to keep his naming consistent. We'll see. -- GreenC 15:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh just to be clear I absolutely think Dapin is a reliable source, my point was the source you linked above says Jack told him he had been married. So it's only a reliable source that Jack indeed told him that; no doubt the book goes into more detail, but I haven't read it either. Anyway, that part isn't overly important for the purpose of his name, I was just illustrating a point. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Democracy_Manifest&oldid=1206929778"