![]() | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Direct Action Everywhere article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jackson5Dr ( talk · contribs), you have been told by multiple editors that you must make statements from a neutral point of view ( WP:NPOV) and cite reliable sources ( WP:Reliable). You've also been warned that your edit warring - reverting more than three times in a 24 hour period ( WP:3RR) - can lead to a block. Please respond here. If you continue your disruptive editing your actions will be reported to the appropriate admin noticeboard. Funcrunch ( talk) 01:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a regular volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and I closed the request made there because it does not satisfy our requirements to be accepted as a case, but I thought that I'd say a word about one issue which is pretty simple: sourcing. The Wikipedia Verifiability policy says that any material which has been challenged, either by objection on the article talk page or by being reverted for being unsourced cannot be replaced until reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia have been provided. If this is the edit in question, most of the material in it is unsourced and the sources provided for the material which is sourced do not satisfy the definition of reliable sources required by Wikipedia so that material is, in effect, also unsourced. Blogs and other self published sources generally cannot be used for reliable sources. Issues of NPOV are irrelevant until proper sources have been provided. Repeatedly restoring unsourced or inadequately sourced material can cause you to be blocked if a report is filed at ANI. Moreover, inserting controversial material about living persons without high-quality reliable sources violates the Biographies of Living Persons policy and restoring that kind of material without adequate sourcing can get you blocked even faster. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 01:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Yo
So I did some minor copy-editing of the article, it could probably use a little more. While I was editing I noticed that in some instances, the article does seem to read as an advertisement for the group. There are a few sections that I don't feel are necessary or are stated twice in the article. I don't want to start an edit war, as I've noticed online that if one disparages the group, a flame war generally ensues. Given that I'm a relatively new/inexperienced editor, I thought it would be best to post on the talk page first before doing anything.
The sections in question are "Philosophy" and "Tactics", as I don't believe that they state much new information that hasn't already been stated concisely. When new information is brought up, while it is cited correctly, I wonder if it is notable enough for inclusion in a wikipedia article. Rejewskifan ( talk) 22:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
My latest edit was in relation to this -- while I don't think "Philosophy" or "Tactics" belong in the article, I removed the two most glaring subsections of "Philosophy" that violated WP:SELFPUB. I may take more of an axe to the article soon, but I would like some input before I do so. Rejewskifan ( talk) 04:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Direct Action Everywhere. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
So some of you might have noticed that I did a bunch of edits. One main discrepancy in the article seems to be in phrasing whether an Open Rescue is livestock theft or a regular old rescue sans airquotes. I put in my edits "Performed an Open Rescue on" in one section. Not sure what the solution here is, but I certainly don't think we should be saying rescue sans airquotes, and I don't think the activists that edit this page and perform these actions think what they're doing is livestock theft. Not sure what the style considerations are here, but hopefully this post can generate a discussion so that we can all edit this article with the same style in mind and stick to it. If you also have a problem with my recent edits or have constructive criticism, let's keep the discussion here in one place! Rejewskifan ( talk) 10:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Wow. Nice fluff piece. — I don't know who's been editing this, but well done. This 'article' belongs in Slate as a sponsored piece. Way to hold up Wikipedia neutrality standards. 216.168.113.99 ( talk) 20:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Conflict of Interest — Solely based on being a single purpose account that POV pushes the user RasaPetrauskaite should be regarded as having a possible undisclosed conflict of interest. Based on easily obtained off-Wiki information I am nearly certain that the ToU terms on COI editing are being violated. I have tagged the article accordingly and am doing a dive into other users active here to see how deep this behavior goes. 112.119.86.128 ( talk) 16:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Conflict of Interest disclosure — I donate money to several non-profit organizations, including Direct Action Everywhere (DxE). I believe in helping people and animals. So this creates in me motivation to keep the pages related to DxE fair and to remove misleading information that perhaps is being inserted by people who have financial ties to the animal agriculture industry. I have in the past replaced inaccurate and perhaps deliberately misleading information with language directly from citations that the same people have found or I found myself in reputable online newspapers, including The New York Times. In addition, I volunteer with Direct Action Everywhere. I will going forward refrain from making direct edits to DxE pages, including this one, except if there's blatant slander present that does not actually appear in any newspapers. It appears that this slander is sometimes fabricated by people who either get paid to promote the meat, dairy or egg industries or perhaps is made by people who are stake-holders in these animal ag operations. These people routinely try to undermine our organization through both ethical and non-ethical ways. Also, worth mentioning, I work in an unrelated industry, at an investment company. I have never been paid by Direct Action Everywhere or any other non-profit organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RasaPetrauskaite ( talk • contribs) 05:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
OK, yes. I will refrain from making direct edits, unless it's blatant slander and I cannot remove it otherwise or have someone else remove it. In any case, I will try to refrain from making direct edits to this page or others that are connected with DxE. I will follow your recommendation. RasaPetrauskaite ( talk) 05:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Sometimes slander appears on this page — I volunteer with Direct Action Everywhere (DxE) and donate money to them periodically because I believe in helping animals. That said, sometimes I noticed that slanderous and false information had in the past been inserted into this article. I also know that the animal agriculture industry tried to undermine the work that DxE does to promote Animal Rights. So something to watch out for is people who try to undermine DxE because they may have ties to the animal agriculture industry. To give more color on this persistent problem, the animal agriculture industry had the US government pass the Enterprise Terrorism Act to put into prison Animal Rights activists who did "an open rescue" of animals bound for slaughter. This is something that several animal rights groups were battling over the past years. The animal agriculture industry also had influence over the FBI, which sent agents to raid two animal sanctuaries that may have adopted two piglets who were "rescued" from an agricultural facility. In addition, the animal agriculture industry petitioned the IRS to remove 501(c)3 non-profit tax-advantaged status from Direct Action Everywhere and PETA. They were trying to discourage donors from giving money to these Animal Rights organizations. So the animal agriculture industry uses ethical and unethical means to harm the Animal Rights movement. This appears to extend to Wikipedia where some people insert inaccurate information that is not found in any sources and that appears to be motivated to paint DxE in a bad light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RasaPetrauskaite ( talk • contribs) 05:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
"seems very tilted in favor of the subject"—too vague to be actionable—and the alleged tilting
"is no surprise given that the organization itself seems to have heavily influenced the article through undisclosed COI editing."This is purely circular: it's POV because I say there's a COI, and there's a COI because I detect a POV. The only thing close to a substantive critique was saying that a separate "Criticism" section alone cannot make up for pervasive POV throughout. In theory that could be true, but separate "Criticism" sections are bog-standard across Wikipedia—and again, what pervasive POV throughout? What specific language in the article is the IP objecting to? And if they see problems, then why aren't they making productive improvements to the page instead of prosecuting another user's motives? — BLZ · talk 20:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Off-wiki evidence suggests that RasaPetrauskaite does substantial communications work for Direct Action Everywhere and is intimately involved with this rather small organization. 112.119.86.128 ( talk) 14:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I've just consolidated the discussion so far under a single section heading so it's more linear and easier to follow. The editors who are already following this discussion are probably are, but the same IP is also litigating this issue at the talk page for the article on Wayne Hsiung, who is a cofounder of DxE. — BLZ · talk 21:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
The IP left this kind message on my talk page:
"I know for sure that you have a connection to the subject of Wayne Hsiung. See here. Your actions at Wayne Hsiung are highly inappropriate. Do not remove any warning tags from that article again. This issue is far from being resolved and is still under active investigation."
Great job, super-sleuth. Clearly I tried very hard to conceal that by uh, uploading the photo under the same name I attach to all of my Wikimedia accounts, but somehow you found it. In all seriousness, I have nothing to hide. If you feel you "know for sure" that I have a connection to Hsiung just because I took a picture of him, you should go back to Detective School and retake Inferences 101.
For the record, that photo coincided with the one and only time I have met Mr. Hsiung. He was a guest speaker (in his capacity as a lawyer/legal scholar) in a class I was taking; I had never heard of him or DxE prior. The presentation was engaging and I was impressed by his depth of knowledge and compassion—sorry to say, but those are not elements of a conflict of interest. After the class I asked him if he'd like to have his picture taken for Wikipedia, since there was an article about him but no free-license photo. He obliged, and even though it was an impromptu photo taken with a cell phone in a campus hallway—notice (if you'd like to "look closely") that he didn't even set his laptop down, so this was not exactly a glamor shoot—it still turned out reasonably well. What else... I dunno, we chatted briefly about the films Okja and Snowpiercer (both great, especially the latter imo). At this point I am truly scraping the bottom of the barrel of my "connection" to Hsiung. Not that it particularly matters, but I am neither a member of DxE nor a contributor.
The IP's behavior is genuinely odd, aggressive but also tedious. They still have only described the "bias" they see in these pages in the vaguest terms. Rather than identifying specific POV language and removing or reworking it, they work backwards, launching an "investigation" (their own word!) into any editor who contradicts them, looking for any hint of a "connection" to the subject no matter how tenuous and then trying to use it as leverage to bully people away from contributing. In an
edit summary for a revert to the Wayne Hsiung page, they said "Keep this up and I will take this to COIN and they will probably reduce this article to stub"
. I assume they believed this threat (I guess?) would have me quaking in my boots, but to the contrary: go right ahead! I'd be very interested to hear what they have to say about all of this. —
BLZ ·
talk
18:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
"definitively establishes a connection between the subject [and]"myself. OK, sure, but the goal posts have moved: a connection is not a conflict of interest—otherwise Kevin Bacon would be forbidden from editing Wikipedia. You're welcome to table a debate about the epistemological impossibility of true objectivity if you'd like, but that's a table for one because I'm not playing along.
"stop"the article
"from being identified as biased". On the contrary, I have invited you repeatedly to quote any specific language in the article that constitutes biased content so that we may all assess it, rework it as needed, and move forward, having improved the article rather than slapping a label on it. You seek to identify the article as biased, but I challenge you to identify the bias. If it's biased, show us where! Justify your claim! It's clear you think it's biased, but we don't even know why you think it's biased. Put aside your ex post facto allegations of "connection" for a moment: what was it about reading the article that made you feel wary of a possible "bias" in the first place?
"Whole Foods, which has a known record of cruelty toward animals and even humans,"—and in that case, we would all agree with you and change it! But on the other hand, what if you come back and say "fine, I'll tell you why the article is biased—it's because it describes DxE as 'activists' when it should describe them as what they really are: radical terrorist fundamentalists." I'd bet your objections are not actually that ridiculous-sounding, but I chose a purposely ridiculous example because, for all we know, maybe your reason is that ridiculous. And for all we know, maybe that's exactly why you don't want to tell us.
"keep this up", you would gladly escalate and take things to WP:COIN. Fine; I'll call your bluff. You've made the accusation of a COI again and again, but an accusation and a prosecution are two different things. I'll make it easy: the link to WP:COIN is here, the link to create a new COI discussion is there, and here's the text you are supposed to post to my talk page as a notification:
{{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~
. The tools are there at your disposal. You could also observe the
WP:COIN page's admonishment that "COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection[editor's note: emphasis my own]
to a subject from editing articles on that subject."— BLZ · talk 07:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Recently an agenda-pushing IP has engaged in edit-warring in order to insert editorial bias into this article by swapping the word "activists" with "extremists" in the first sentence of the lede, which now reads as follows: "Direct Action Everywhere (DxE) is an international grassroots network of animal rights extremists[neutrality is disputed] [1] founded in 2013 in the San Francisco Bay Area.[2]". Branding them as "extremists" in the very first sentence, with the cited source being a blog post about a Vice video, clearly violates one of Wikipedia's core policies. The consensus version of the lede should be restored.-- C.J. Griffin ( talk) 16:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
This article has several tags based on previous discussions and criticisms:
![]() | This article has multiple issues. Please help
improve it or discuss these issues on the
talk page. (
Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
|
It seems there have been numerous edits since those discussions. Is everyone okay with me removing the tags? If not, could you please specify what exact issues have yet to be resolved? Jmill1806 ( talk) 12:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Gonna quickly add my 2 cents here after a long wiki-break and a brief skim-through of the article. This article definitely needs to be edited for tone, and pov, because there are certain parts that read like an advertisement, however since I haven't tagged pages before and am unclear on the policy on them at the moment, I don't know if it's to the point that it warrants a tag. Oftentimes you will see actions DxE has taken or claims about dxe with questionable sourcing on some of the specifics.
2 Brief examples that are towards the top of the article itself: "By December 2014, DxE's network had grown to at least 90 cities in 20 countries." (the cite for this? DxE's own youtube video), and "DxE hosts an annual Animal Liberation Conference (ALC) for grassroots, peaceful animal rights activists. The ALC is a full week of talks, trainings, and socials all aimed at empowering activists.20 (That cite is from this piece, which I think is WP:QS by the fact that their about page pitches plant-based news as something more akin to a lifestyle blog, and the piece itself in any case comes from a member of DxE promoting the conference. Does that by itself make the conference notable? I don't think so. There are a few other examples of this kind of sourcing that you can find if you look into it, but when I went through this article the first time, I really was focused more on the low-hanging fruit, and it's only grown since then.
I also think there is a small debate to be had on whether we 1) need to know about every chicken, pig, or aardvark that they have exculpated, (are each notable? I haven't gone through every single one of them, but given some of the article's reliance on primary sources and WP:QS, I bet a deeper look might say otherwise) 2) need to know each of their names and why they are named that way, and 3) if we should begin to organize this article a different way, since you can on a skim reading see that many sections start to just go into the same type of summary of recent actions DxE has taken. It almost reads as though different members or sympathizers of the organization will just take a different part of the article and just start writing into the latest thing that happened, but I don't want to accuse anybody of anything. I added a couple minor and uncontroversial edits that should be pretty straightforward to emphasize my points with other examples in the article of the issues I'm describing. After that, I'm holding off for a little bit since it seems since I was gone there was another edit war here, and I don't want to step on anyone's toes in the article itself until I get a better picture as to why the vandal IP edits and tags didn't also prompt a major clean-up of the article, since as the saying goes "A blind squirrel still can still find my nuts every once in a great while." Otherwise I'll just keep editing away from least potentially controversial changes to most potentially controversial ones. Rejewskifan ( talk) 01:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC) .
![]() | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Direct Action Everywhere article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jackson5Dr ( talk · contribs), you have been told by multiple editors that you must make statements from a neutral point of view ( WP:NPOV) and cite reliable sources ( WP:Reliable). You've also been warned that your edit warring - reverting more than three times in a 24 hour period ( WP:3RR) - can lead to a block. Please respond here. If you continue your disruptive editing your actions will be reported to the appropriate admin noticeboard. Funcrunch ( talk) 01:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a regular volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and I closed the request made there because it does not satisfy our requirements to be accepted as a case, but I thought that I'd say a word about one issue which is pretty simple: sourcing. The Wikipedia Verifiability policy says that any material which has been challenged, either by objection on the article talk page or by being reverted for being unsourced cannot be replaced until reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia have been provided. If this is the edit in question, most of the material in it is unsourced and the sources provided for the material which is sourced do not satisfy the definition of reliable sources required by Wikipedia so that material is, in effect, also unsourced. Blogs and other self published sources generally cannot be used for reliable sources. Issues of NPOV are irrelevant until proper sources have been provided. Repeatedly restoring unsourced or inadequately sourced material can cause you to be blocked if a report is filed at ANI. Moreover, inserting controversial material about living persons without high-quality reliable sources violates the Biographies of Living Persons policy and restoring that kind of material without adequate sourcing can get you blocked even faster. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 01:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Yo
So I did some minor copy-editing of the article, it could probably use a little more. While I was editing I noticed that in some instances, the article does seem to read as an advertisement for the group. There are a few sections that I don't feel are necessary or are stated twice in the article. I don't want to start an edit war, as I've noticed online that if one disparages the group, a flame war generally ensues. Given that I'm a relatively new/inexperienced editor, I thought it would be best to post on the talk page first before doing anything.
The sections in question are "Philosophy" and "Tactics", as I don't believe that they state much new information that hasn't already been stated concisely. When new information is brought up, while it is cited correctly, I wonder if it is notable enough for inclusion in a wikipedia article. Rejewskifan ( talk) 22:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
My latest edit was in relation to this -- while I don't think "Philosophy" or "Tactics" belong in the article, I removed the two most glaring subsections of "Philosophy" that violated WP:SELFPUB. I may take more of an axe to the article soon, but I would like some input before I do so. Rejewskifan ( talk) 04:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Direct Action Everywhere. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
So some of you might have noticed that I did a bunch of edits. One main discrepancy in the article seems to be in phrasing whether an Open Rescue is livestock theft or a regular old rescue sans airquotes. I put in my edits "Performed an Open Rescue on" in one section. Not sure what the solution here is, but I certainly don't think we should be saying rescue sans airquotes, and I don't think the activists that edit this page and perform these actions think what they're doing is livestock theft. Not sure what the style considerations are here, but hopefully this post can generate a discussion so that we can all edit this article with the same style in mind and stick to it. If you also have a problem with my recent edits or have constructive criticism, let's keep the discussion here in one place! Rejewskifan ( talk) 10:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Wow. Nice fluff piece. — I don't know who's been editing this, but well done. This 'article' belongs in Slate as a sponsored piece. Way to hold up Wikipedia neutrality standards. 216.168.113.99 ( talk) 20:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Conflict of Interest — Solely based on being a single purpose account that POV pushes the user RasaPetrauskaite should be regarded as having a possible undisclosed conflict of interest. Based on easily obtained off-Wiki information I am nearly certain that the ToU terms on COI editing are being violated. I have tagged the article accordingly and am doing a dive into other users active here to see how deep this behavior goes. 112.119.86.128 ( talk) 16:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Conflict of Interest disclosure — I donate money to several non-profit organizations, including Direct Action Everywhere (DxE). I believe in helping people and animals. So this creates in me motivation to keep the pages related to DxE fair and to remove misleading information that perhaps is being inserted by people who have financial ties to the animal agriculture industry. I have in the past replaced inaccurate and perhaps deliberately misleading information with language directly from citations that the same people have found or I found myself in reputable online newspapers, including The New York Times. In addition, I volunteer with Direct Action Everywhere. I will going forward refrain from making direct edits to DxE pages, including this one, except if there's blatant slander present that does not actually appear in any newspapers. It appears that this slander is sometimes fabricated by people who either get paid to promote the meat, dairy or egg industries or perhaps is made by people who are stake-holders in these animal ag operations. These people routinely try to undermine our organization through both ethical and non-ethical ways. Also, worth mentioning, I work in an unrelated industry, at an investment company. I have never been paid by Direct Action Everywhere or any other non-profit organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RasaPetrauskaite ( talk • contribs) 05:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
OK, yes. I will refrain from making direct edits, unless it's blatant slander and I cannot remove it otherwise or have someone else remove it. In any case, I will try to refrain from making direct edits to this page or others that are connected with DxE. I will follow your recommendation. RasaPetrauskaite ( talk) 05:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Sometimes slander appears on this page — I volunteer with Direct Action Everywhere (DxE) and donate money to them periodically because I believe in helping animals. That said, sometimes I noticed that slanderous and false information had in the past been inserted into this article. I also know that the animal agriculture industry tried to undermine the work that DxE does to promote Animal Rights. So something to watch out for is people who try to undermine DxE because they may have ties to the animal agriculture industry. To give more color on this persistent problem, the animal agriculture industry had the US government pass the Enterprise Terrorism Act to put into prison Animal Rights activists who did "an open rescue" of animals bound for slaughter. This is something that several animal rights groups were battling over the past years. The animal agriculture industry also had influence over the FBI, which sent agents to raid two animal sanctuaries that may have adopted two piglets who were "rescued" from an agricultural facility. In addition, the animal agriculture industry petitioned the IRS to remove 501(c)3 non-profit tax-advantaged status from Direct Action Everywhere and PETA. They were trying to discourage donors from giving money to these Animal Rights organizations. So the animal agriculture industry uses ethical and unethical means to harm the Animal Rights movement. This appears to extend to Wikipedia where some people insert inaccurate information that is not found in any sources and that appears to be motivated to paint DxE in a bad light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RasaPetrauskaite ( talk • contribs) 05:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
"seems very tilted in favor of the subject"—too vague to be actionable—and the alleged tilting
"is no surprise given that the organization itself seems to have heavily influenced the article through undisclosed COI editing."This is purely circular: it's POV because I say there's a COI, and there's a COI because I detect a POV. The only thing close to a substantive critique was saying that a separate "Criticism" section alone cannot make up for pervasive POV throughout. In theory that could be true, but separate "Criticism" sections are bog-standard across Wikipedia—and again, what pervasive POV throughout? What specific language in the article is the IP objecting to? And if they see problems, then why aren't they making productive improvements to the page instead of prosecuting another user's motives? — BLZ · talk 20:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Off-wiki evidence suggests that RasaPetrauskaite does substantial communications work for Direct Action Everywhere and is intimately involved with this rather small organization. 112.119.86.128 ( talk) 14:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I've just consolidated the discussion so far under a single section heading so it's more linear and easier to follow. The editors who are already following this discussion are probably are, but the same IP is also litigating this issue at the talk page for the article on Wayne Hsiung, who is a cofounder of DxE. — BLZ · talk 21:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
The IP left this kind message on my talk page:
"I know for sure that you have a connection to the subject of Wayne Hsiung. See here. Your actions at Wayne Hsiung are highly inappropriate. Do not remove any warning tags from that article again. This issue is far from being resolved and is still under active investigation."
Great job, super-sleuth. Clearly I tried very hard to conceal that by uh, uploading the photo under the same name I attach to all of my Wikimedia accounts, but somehow you found it. In all seriousness, I have nothing to hide. If you feel you "know for sure" that I have a connection to Hsiung just because I took a picture of him, you should go back to Detective School and retake Inferences 101.
For the record, that photo coincided with the one and only time I have met Mr. Hsiung. He was a guest speaker (in his capacity as a lawyer/legal scholar) in a class I was taking; I had never heard of him or DxE prior. The presentation was engaging and I was impressed by his depth of knowledge and compassion—sorry to say, but those are not elements of a conflict of interest. After the class I asked him if he'd like to have his picture taken for Wikipedia, since there was an article about him but no free-license photo. He obliged, and even though it was an impromptu photo taken with a cell phone in a campus hallway—notice (if you'd like to "look closely") that he didn't even set his laptop down, so this was not exactly a glamor shoot—it still turned out reasonably well. What else... I dunno, we chatted briefly about the films Okja and Snowpiercer (both great, especially the latter imo). At this point I am truly scraping the bottom of the barrel of my "connection" to Hsiung. Not that it particularly matters, but I am neither a member of DxE nor a contributor.
The IP's behavior is genuinely odd, aggressive but also tedious. They still have only described the "bias" they see in these pages in the vaguest terms. Rather than identifying specific POV language and removing or reworking it, they work backwards, launching an "investigation" (their own word!) into any editor who contradicts them, looking for any hint of a "connection" to the subject no matter how tenuous and then trying to use it as leverage to bully people away from contributing. In an
edit summary for a revert to the Wayne Hsiung page, they said "Keep this up and I will take this to COIN and they will probably reduce this article to stub"
. I assume they believed this threat (I guess?) would have me quaking in my boots, but to the contrary: go right ahead! I'd be very interested to hear what they have to say about all of this. —
BLZ ·
talk
18:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
"definitively establishes a connection between the subject [and]"myself. OK, sure, but the goal posts have moved: a connection is not a conflict of interest—otherwise Kevin Bacon would be forbidden from editing Wikipedia. You're welcome to table a debate about the epistemological impossibility of true objectivity if you'd like, but that's a table for one because I'm not playing along.
"stop"the article
"from being identified as biased". On the contrary, I have invited you repeatedly to quote any specific language in the article that constitutes biased content so that we may all assess it, rework it as needed, and move forward, having improved the article rather than slapping a label on it. You seek to identify the article as biased, but I challenge you to identify the bias. If it's biased, show us where! Justify your claim! It's clear you think it's biased, but we don't even know why you think it's biased. Put aside your ex post facto allegations of "connection" for a moment: what was it about reading the article that made you feel wary of a possible "bias" in the first place?
"Whole Foods, which has a known record of cruelty toward animals and even humans,"—and in that case, we would all agree with you and change it! But on the other hand, what if you come back and say "fine, I'll tell you why the article is biased—it's because it describes DxE as 'activists' when it should describe them as what they really are: radical terrorist fundamentalists." I'd bet your objections are not actually that ridiculous-sounding, but I chose a purposely ridiculous example because, for all we know, maybe your reason is that ridiculous. And for all we know, maybe that's exactly why you don't want to tell us.
"keep this up", you would gladly escalate and take things to WP:COIN. Fine; I'll call your bluff. You've made the accusation of a COI again and again, but an accusation and a prosecution are two different things. I'll make it easy: the link to WP:COIN is here, the link to create a new COI discussion is there, and here's the text you are supposed to post to my talk page as a notification:
{{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~
. The tools are there at your disposal. You could also observe the
WP:COIN page's admonishment that "COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection[editor's note: emphasis my own]
to a subject from editing articles on that subject."— BLZ · talk 07:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Recently an agenda-pushing IP has engaged in edit-warring in order to insert editorial bias into this article by swapping the word "activists" with "extremists" in the first sentence of the lede, which now reads as follows: "Direct Action Everywhere (DxE) is an international grassroots network of animal rights extremists[neutrality is disputed] [1] founded in 2013 in the San Francisco Bay Area.[2]". Branding them as "extremists" in the very first sentence, with the cited source being a blog post about a Vice video, clearly violates one of Wikipedia's core policies. The consensus version of the lede should be restored.-- C.J. Griffin ( talk) 16:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
This article has several tags based on previous discussions and criticisms:
![]() | This article has multiple issues. Please help
improve it or discuss these issues on the
talk page. (
Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
|
It seems there have been numerous edits since those discussions. Is everyone okay with me removing the tags? If not, could you please specify what exact issues have yet to be resolved? Jmill1806 ( talk) 12:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Gonna quickly add my 2 cents here after a long wiki-break and a brief skim-through of the article. This article definitely needs to be edited for tone, and pov, because there are certain parts that read like an advertisement, however since I haven't tagged pages before and am unclear on the policy on them at the moment, I don't know if it's to the point that it warrants a tag. Oftentimes you will see actions DxE has taken or claims about dxe with questionable sourcing on some of the specifics.
2 Brief examples that are towards the top of the article itself: "By December 2014, DxE's network had grown to at least 90 cities in 20 countries." (the cite for this? DxE's own youtube video), and "DxE hosts an annual Animal Liberation Conference (ALC) for grassroots, peaceful animal rights activists. The ALC is a full week of talks, trainings, and socials all aimed at empowering activists.20 (That cite is from this piece, which I think is WP:QS by the fact that their about page pitches plant-based news as something more akin to a lifestyle blog, and the piece itself in any case comes from a member of DxE promoting the conference. Does that by itself make the conference notable? I don't think so. There are a few other examples of this kind of sourcing that you can find if you look into it, but when I went through this article the first time, I really was focused more on the low-hanging fruit, and it's only grown since then.
I also think there is a small debate to be had on whether we 1) need to know about every chicken, pig, or aardvark that they have exculpated, (are each notable? I haven't gone through every single one of them, but given some of the article's reliance on primary sources and WP:QS, I bet a deeper look might say otherwise) 2) need to know each of their names and why they are named that way, and 3) if we should begin to organize this article a different way, since you can on a skim reading see that many sections start to just go into the same type of summary of recent actions DxE has taken. It almost reads as though different members or sympathizers of the organization will just take a different part of the article and just start writing into the latest thing that happened, but I don't want to accuse anybody of anything. I added a couple minor and uncontroversial edits that should be pretty straightforward to emphasize my points with other examples in the article of the issues I'm describing. After that, I'm holding off for a little bit since it seems since I was gone there was another edit war here, and I don't want to step on anyone's toes in the article itself until I get a better picture as to why the vandal IP edits and tags didn't also prompt a major clean-up of the article, since as the saying goes "A blind squirrel still can still find my nuts every once in a great while." Otherwise I'll just keep editing away from least potentially controversial changes to most potentially controversial ones. Rejewskifan ( talk) 01:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC) .