This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 75 | ← | Archive 78 | Archive 79 | Archive 80 | Archive 81 | Archive 82 | → | Archive 85 |
At Talk:Morari Bapu#Removal of Sarcastic Dig at Swaminarayan there is a very long discussion. I have tried to build consensus but not all editors agree. I was invited for 3O but I later took over to build the consensus.
First, a paragraph from Reception section of Morari Bapu was removed by Moksha88 citing the similar paragraph was removed from another article Criticism of Swaminarayan sect (since merged). Harshil169 disagreed and restored it several times when Actionjackson09 and ThaNDNman224 reverted before the page was locked for edit warring.
In September 2019, he had took sarcastic dig at Sahajanand Swami, founder of Swaminarayan sect, and said that, "To become Nilkanth (one name of Shiva), you have to drink poison. You can't become Nilkanth by eating laddus (referring to Sahajananda)." [1] [2] The comments triggered a controversy and saints from the Swaminarayan sect demanded an apology. [2] He later apologised. [3]
Above mentioned editors disagreed with Harshil169 about the inclusion of the text. Apollo1203 also involved. I was invited for 3O where I opined that the context is different from Criticism article so this should be included in Morari Bapu. The disagreement persisted and Ms Sarah Welch was also invited for opinion. Krishna's flute drop by and gave some sound advice on dispute resolution. Moksha88 and Harshil169 keep discussing the issue without any progress. MSW also opined that it should be included and suggested rewording for neutrality. Moksha88 proposed Vesrion 1 at User:Moksha88/sandbox which I found not neutral and in favour of Swaminarayan sect because calling Morari Bapu's comment as "derogatory". I proposed v2a/2b at User:Moksha88/sandbox which MSW found more neutral the V1. In response, Moksha88 porposed V3a, 3b, 3c which was just paraphrase of V1. MSW gave inputs to better explain the Bapu's comment so I expanded the V2a/2b into V4 which I reworded several times on suggestions of others. Moksha88 and others continued with V5, V6, V7 but just changed from "derogatory" to some similar non-neutral word. Other editors were also invited by Moksha88 for commets. They opined that either the whole incident should excluded from the article or V7 or similar should be included. I had asked opinion on the V4 which I had proposed but instead of giving specific inputs and comments, editors frequently derail the discussion and only agreeing with the non-neutral proposal. My and others' comments on why it is not neutral is not considered and the discussion dragged without any constructive comments which I repeatedly asked for. Pinging other editors which participated on talkpage: @ Sacredsea and Treehugger8891:.
In one of his discourses in September 2019, Morari Bapu questioned the authenticity of any deity called Nilkanth other than Shiva who also known by the same name. He also recollected that he had previously refused to perform abhisheka ritual of Nilkanthvarni, the adolescent form of Swaminarayan, the founder and deity of the Swaminarayan tradition. [4] [2] Followers of the tradition found Bapu's statement as hurting to their religious sentiments, challenged his views and demanded an apology. [2] [5] [6] [4] Bapu later apologised and sought forgiveness for his statements. [7]
In one of his discourses in September 2019, Morari Bapu made some sarcastic remarks about Swaminarayan. [2] [4] Followers of the tradition challenged his views, and Morari Bapu later apologized for his statements and sought forgiveness for his statements. [5] [6] [7]
I request the feedback for two things:
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
In summary, I agree with inclusion of this material as per WP:BLPPUBLIC and prefer version 7 as it balances WP:undue and WP:IMPARTIAL. The evidence is available for all to review and comment accordingly. Moksha88 ( talk) 08:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I am not happy with the strong statement claiming the puzzle to be resolved. There are recent results that disagree with this finding. Furthermore, it appears to highlight unjustly a single result, while ignoring others. The user who edited this page to introduce these changes has only ever contributed this edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.118.61.230 ( talk) 12:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
More eyes are needed at Evo Morales government resignation where some accounts are trying to gives the impression in Wiki voice that this was a coup (something that needs to be reliably sourced). Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 03:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a neutrality-related discussion about the article Murder of Laquan McDonald. The debate is about the title of the article, not its contents. I started a Request for Comment about this a few weeks ago, and explained my own opinion there. Some editors have contributed to the RfC, but it occurs to me that this discussion might be of interest to editors who review this NPOV Noticeboard. It's at Talk:Murder of Laquan McDonald#Request for comment on the title of this article. Please comment there and not here, to keep the discussion all in one place. Thanks. — Mudwater ( Talk) 11:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Recently, I am editing articles about some controversial issues in China such as 2019 Hong Kong protests. The problems is that Chinese media has created alternative version of the protests, which has become the basis of nearly all the statements and actions (some actions are did by nationalists rather than Chinese governments) I know that Wikipedia has WP:FRIDGE and WP:DUE, but the article will create more confusion for readers if the depictions is not well described. (I am sure that the depictions is supported by secondary realiable sources and does not violate WP:OR) The problems is not only in tdepictions of the protests but also in other China-related issues. I want to know what degree we should include such depictions? (I believed it is the specific issues of Wikipedia policy) Mariogoods ( talk) 09:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the right venue. But Yonmara is about a star, but I can find no reputable reference to it being called this name. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
The controversial start-class article Lesbian erasure has some serious neutrality-related issues in my opinion. They have been listed on the talk page and some other editors have agreed with me on the issues. However the editors who disagree have attempted to erase the visibility of the disputes by removing maintenance tags about the dispute repeatedly ( [2], [3]) claiming they are WP:DRIVEBY tags despite multiple editors (myself included) finding validity in the disputes. Gwen Hope ( talk) ( contrib) 19:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.StarryGrandma ( talk) 15:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
This is a problematic article: there is way too much content in here, and some of it is clearly not neutral-- here I removed some non-neutral phrasing, done in Wikipedia's voice, but there is more. In addition, editor Activist keeps insisting on inserting a gallery of culprits, which they argue is necessary and warranted because a. (they claim) it attracts readers to the article and b. these people are criminals and so is Trump etc. Maybe I'm not doing their argument justice: please see Talk:Homestead Temporary Shelter for Unaccompanied Children, where you'll find that they've been doing this for a while, as User:GastelEtzwane can attest. I'm about to lose patience with this line of argument, and would appreciate some more eyes. Somehow Hunter Biden has something to do with it as well, and someone called Uncle Sugar. And there's something about tax payers who shouldn't allow this Wikipedia article to...I don't know. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 20:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Participation needed on this article per concern also raised here [4]. SPECIFICO talk 15:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
The White privilege page has multiple Neutral point of view problems.
The lede treats White privilege as a phenomenon, rather than as an explanation for a phenomenon, contravening the Neutral point of view - see /info/en/?search=Talk:White_privilege#Sociological_concept
The current version is:
White privilege (or white skin privilege) is the societal privilege that benefits white people over non-white people, particularly if they are otherwise under the same social, political, or economic circumstances.
The proposed neutral version would read:
White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a sociological concept which explains differences in social, political, and economic outcomes between ethnic groups by reference to societal privilege that benefits white people over non-white people.
The problem with the Neutral point of view continue within the body of the article, which generally sidelines critique of the concept.
Keith Johnston (
talk) 15:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
white privilege (or white skin privilege) is a sociological concept which explains differences. It doesn't say that white privilege is just a theory. Saying that 'white privilege is a concept' does not imply that it is "just a theory" in the way that anti-evolutionists might use the term "theory" to cast doubt on evolution. Michepman ( talk) 00:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
ethnic background, for example - ie.: the ethnic background in the US is a major driver of economic success. According to : "Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months (in 2016 inflation-adjusted dollars)". [from American Community Survey. United States Census Bureau. 2016] which is referenced on Wikipedia as well- Indians have the largest household income in the US ($128,000). White Americans: $67-68,000. Sri Lankan Americans: $73-74,000. Ghanaian Americans: $66-67,000. Pakistani Americans: $72-73,000. Pennsylvania German Americans: $48-49,000 and so on.
no data or study is quoted in the article (which was supposed to be summarized in the lead) to prove its alleged global existence, in most countries and, particularly, in larger countries like China, Japan, North Korea, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Nigeria, Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran, and so on.
No data or study is quoted in the white privilege article to prove that, for example, Caucasian/white people like Armenians, Moldovans, Belarusians, Georgians, Chechens or Yazidis enjoy the same privileges as white Americans, Canadians or Brits in Western countries.-- ColumbiaXY ( talk) 08:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
As a white person, I realized I had been taught about racism as something that puts others at a disadvantage, but had been taught not to see one of its corollary aspects, white privilege, which puts me at an advantage.So your demand for a closer analysis of you supposed sources only substantiates the statement I made earlier: none of them say what you so desperately want them to say. Attempting to use them to force your POV editing into the article is obvious bad-faith editing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
It cam (and I suspect is) both, it depends on what you mean, and how you apply it. As others have said at its heart whilst it may in the most basic sense be true, it is also far form nuanced enough to be a real indicator of social status or acceptance. At best it is a broad brush not applicable to all individual or situations. Its not helped when examples of white privilege can be lumped into things like the idea "maths" is a white plot (or some such thing). So we go with scholastic consensus so what is it? Slatersteven ( talk) 10:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Some scholars say that the term uses the concept of "whiteness" as a proxy for class or other social privilege or as a distraction from deeper underlying problems of inequality.... Other commentators [argue] that the concept of white privilege ignores important differences between white subpopulations and individuals... the concept of white privilege is frequently misinterpreted by non-academics...I believe that the article in its present form is NPOV-compliant. NightHeron ( talk) 13:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
obvious and less obvious passive advantages...[distinguished] from overt bias or prejudiceis in opposition to at least the tone of the first paragraph.
Some scholars say...and
Writers have noted...are problematic. Lack of clarity could contribute to a perceived lack of neutrality.— eric 15:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.Perhaps a section on "criticisms" is needed. The criticisms should be of the way the term "white privilege" is used to frame the problem of racism, which is very different from fringe viewpoints that there's no such thing as white privilege. The article [11] by Lawrence Blum seems a good source for such a section. But I'm not familiar with the scholarly literature on this. NightHeron ( talk) 18:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
to analyze how racism and racialized societies affect the lives of white or white-skinned people.... White privilege denotes both obvious and less obvious passive advantages that white people may not recognize they have, which distinguishes it from overt bias or prejudice.Denying that there is such a thing, while not exactly the same as entirely denying the existence of racism, is quite close --- just as denying that there's such a thing as male privilege is close to denying the existence of sexism. However, as I've said, it is not denialism to question the usefulness of the terminology and framing. Someone might prefer, for example, terms like passive white advantage or passive male advantage as being clearer and less provocative. But both white privilege and male privilege are commonly used terms for the respective phenomena. NightHeron ( talk) 14:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, now we've got people who are undeniably making bad-faith claims and know it. You can't say that NYT is good sourcing for one claim and not for another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allenwiliams ( talk • contribs) 15:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC) — Allenwiliams ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
@Guy - that's circular, and makes no sense. Go fish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allenwiliams ( talk • contribs) 04:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
The fundamental problem with the article is that it treats a non-scientific area of academia as if it were scientific. "White privilege" is a term that became popular in Critical Race Theory, and which has since been picked up in other areas of academia. It is popular among social studies people with a certain general political outlook, and you will find plenty of articles by people in these fields who take the existence of white privilege for granted. Years ago, I included a number of academic criticisms of the concept in the article, including an article by the historian Eric Arnesen that criticized the idea as an ill-defined moving target (see this old version of the page - almost all the criticism has since been removed). If you leave academia, the concept is obviously very controversial. You only have to look at all the conservatives who dispute it.
The error that editors have made is to treat academics in Critical Race Theory and similar fields as if they were scientists, and to therefore paint the controversy surrounding "white privilege" as one of scientists vs. deniers. It's much more a controversy between people with academic posts in a highly political domain of academia vs. people outside who write for publications with a different political bent (and people in different domains of academia that don't have the same political direction as CRT). - Thucydides411 ( talk) 08:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Suppose this is a broader epistemological question about whether concepts in social sciences should be presented the same way as those in natural sciences with laws. Richard Feynman, the 1965 Nobel Prize in Physics winner, in a 1981 BBC interview: "Because of the success of science, there is a kind of a pseudo-science. Social science is an example of a science which is not a science. They follow the forms. You gather data, you do so and so and so forth, but they don’t get any laws, they haven’t found out anything. They haven’t got anywhere – yet. Maybe someday they will, but it’s not very well developed."-- Pudeo ( talk) 11:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I updated the article to reflect the new version of the trade agreement that was just approved and found it in need of attention. I changed present tense to past where appropriate and improved the wording in that section somewhat, but the article needs a lot of work and my hands are already full. I am bringing it here as it appears to almost entirely reflect the Trump administration's point of view, and should also be reviewed for accuracy as to government systems. For examplpe, it is true as someone else said on the talk page that Canada does not exactly have a "ratification" process. There is also more to the dispute over aluminum than just American cars, as Quebec politicians are calling the aluminum provisions unacceptable. The writing is en-4 or en-5, understandable and apparently knowledgeable, but with echoes of bureaucratese learned in some language other than English, French or Spanish. It could use a thorough copy-edit and fact-check, but I am not saying that any one past editor was not acting in good faith. Elinruby ( talk) 08:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
It has become clear that the editors of the Everett Stern article are unable to come to a consensus. There have been sides formed, politically and clear COI. It needs to be looked at from NPOV from outside editors and administrators. The article is found here: /info/en/?search=Talk:Everett_Stern Everettstern ( talk) 17:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Primefac is a class-A editor, but even Primefac is not "controlling" that page. It's a collaborative project. Marchjuly has posted a bunch of things on the article talk page, and others have weighed in, and you found that page as well. That is where these things should be hashed out. I have some experience, and I am about to bow out of this discussion on this noticeboard, but from that experience I will tell you that you will not gain any traction here with this specific complaint. If you want to not be topic banned, stop accusing and work with others, by discussing matters on the talk page. Drmies( talk) 21:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
The article Media bias against Bernie Sanders is considered for deletion [7]. The article is basically a compilation of pro-Sanders op-eds complaining that the media is biased against Sanders, with whatever RS content that is on the page either just reporting the complaints by the Sanders campaign or outright dismissing that the media was biased against Sanders, yet the whole article taken together suggests that the media is in fact biased against Sanders. The existence of the page serves as a campaign ad for the candidate (or at least something that fits a narrative that the campaign is pushing), and given the low standard of sources (primarily op-eds and non-rs), one could easily construct similar "I'm being mistreated" articles for other presidential candidates such as Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren and so on. When constructive edits are made to the article itself, these are just indiscriminately reverted. [8] [9] The AfD is kind of ruined by the fact that massive canvassing is going on: both pro- and anti-Sanders Twitter accounts, YouTube channels and subreddits are driving people to the AfD discussion. That's why it might be more helpful to have a separate discussion for regular Wikipedia editors on this noticeboard. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Bacondrum ( talk) 20:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I ask because that is what the editor SunCrow is claiming while he edit-wars [10] [11] the concept out of a Wikipedia article about the NC governor, Pat McCrory, who implemented the anti-transgender North Carolina bathroom bills which sought to prohibit transgender individuals from using the bathrooms consistent with their gender identity. Is it a NPOV violation to acknowledge that "gender identity" is a thing? Is it a NPOV violation to note the effect of the bathroom bill was to prevent transgender individuals from using public restrooms consistent with their gender identity? Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 00:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Whether to allow transgender people access to bathrooms based on gender identity has touched off a national debate...) Even if it didn't, gender identity isn't a nebulous concept at all—not sure how mentioning it could be construed as an NPOV violation. — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 02:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
It's in Jerry Johnston. Seems pretty pov to me to state this in Wikipedia's voice as a real thing. Doug Weller talk 17:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Whats the evidence on that? Must be super strong to justify such a claim. Cinadon 36 21:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Contents were added to an article I am involved in at Special:Diff/930891751 and Special:Diff/930822078. I removed it, but a few editors keep re-inserting some of the contents. The personal website and blog sources do not appear to pass WP:RS. I removed the contents referencing those sources as well as the newly introduced materials. It's my belief that from viewing different discussions and contents dispute that adding information from forum, blog, personal sites material is roughly comparable to Wikipedia editors adding their original research. For example, if someone was to insert the result of an experiment or trial-and-error based on their own experience, or cites a blog, personal site or forum post reporting this, I believe it's proper to remove it; unless that finding has been covered by a reliable source. Should such thing remain, and if other editors keep reverting back contents that do not meet contents guidelines, what should I do? Graywalls ( talk) 01:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
According to [12]. we have pages on
We also have a bunch of redirects like
To me, it looks like most (but not all) of the "Criticism of" pages are WP:POVFORKs or WP:COATRACKs for criticism that wasn't allowed into the main article.
I think that most of them should be merged into the corresponding main pages and that all of the "Criticism of" redirects should be deleted as being unlikely search terms.
Before I post an RfC proposing that, does anyone agree or disagree with my take on this?
Are there any opinions on particular "Criticism of" pages that should be kept? I am thinking that...
...might be worth keeping. Or maybe not. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
IMO "Criticism of" sections and articles should all get deleted. Sections distort the coverage in the article, and the articles are distorted coverage. But IMO moving it from a separate article (an obscure "garbage can") into a section of the main article makes the problem even worse.North8000 ( talk) 18:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
notable and deserve large separate pages. This is not distortion. Some others, like Criticism of the Israeli government are indeed basically attack pages." Why should criticism of Israel be forbidden, and criticism of Islam be encouraged? Wikipedia has often been accused of systemic bias in favor of the West (such as the Judeo-Christian traditions) and against other parts of the world (such as the Islamic traditions). The NPOV noticeboard should be a place for reducing bias, not a place for reinforcing bias with clearly prejudicial claims. NightHeron ( talk) 21:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
The page in question is this Blaze (UK and Ireland) and its pages linked in A&E Networks I went to the help desk, and there was a start of a discussion Alas the other user just doesn't care and just reverted back everything, how can you have dialog etc if the other person will not explain or bother. -- Crazyseiko ( talk) 23:07, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the length and subject matter.
I found the inclusion of NAMBLA content in the lead of Harry Hay surprising, and in looking at the sources used, then a look to see if there were better ones available, I found sourcing lacking. I took the one sentence off the lead and also removed Category:Pedophile activism as both seemed inappropriate. Can you guess where this is going? They were both re-added and the content in the lead expanded. ( Here is a copy as of 4 July 2019. I read all the sources I could find and tried to apply NPOV. After a couple rounds of this I gave up and started a survey of all sources on this content.
NAMBLA is widely despised as child molesters by the vast majority of LGBTQ people as well as popular culture. It’s a group for pedophile advocacy. Pedophilia, is a preference for prepubescent children as old as 13. NAMBLA is possibly the most hated group imaginable to many LGBTQ people.
Any connections to NAMBLA automatically taint whoever is connected with them. The vast majority of reliable sources barely mention anything, those that do cite:
Click for list of reliable sources on this with any usable content
|
---|
|
References
"Getting him to agree to simply wear a sign rather than carry a banner took considerable negotiation by the parade organizers, who wanted to distance the gay and lesbian movement from pedophilia, yet wanted Harry to participate."; "an action he took because he remembered the pleasure of coming out as a teenager with a man who initiated him to the gay world."
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
Unless other reliable sources support this material and demonstrate it has a significant bearing on his life I don’t see how this should be in the lead. As well I think the category is inappropriate. Am I crazy? Gleeanon409 ( talk) 12:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
When Hay was was alive, his constant advocacy for NAMBLA and his cruising of boys was common knowledge. Same as with Ginsberg. It's part of what made Hay a controversial figure - someone who was routinely disrupting Pride, getting kicked out of the very orgs he founded ( Mattachine Society), etc. I've tried to explain this to Gleeanaon, who clearly wasn't around then, but he takes my suggestion to read the sources as a personal attack. He suggests respected gay journalists like Michael Bronski, who was part of some of the same radical collectives as Hay, are somehow orchestrating a smear campaign. I suggest anyone who wants to comment first read Bronski's article, "The real Harry Hay", all the way to the end, as Bronski points out the the New York Times and other major outlets were already leaving the NAMBLA stuff out of his obits, and immediately trying to reinvent him on death:
Neither of the long and laudatory obits in the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times mentioned his unyielding support for NAMBLA or even his deeply radical credentials and vision. Harry, it turns out, was a grandfatherly figure who had an affair with Grandpa Walton. But it’s important to remember Hay — with all his contradictions, his sometimes crackpot notions, and his radiant, ecstatic, vision of the holiness of being queer — as he lived. For in his death, Harry Hay is becoming everything he would have raged against.
Gleeanon's main project right now is editing National LGBTQ Wall of Honor, and they are the one who added the list of names and are the creator and main editor of the article. Gleeanon honestly didn't seem to any know this about Hay, as he seems to not know much about any of the older community members he's copy and pasting into that list. I've told them the answer is not to rewrite history. But Gleeanon keeps deleting discussions from their talk page and misrepresenting both the sourcing and other people's edits. He has become a Tendentious editor who is wasting our time with his, I'm sorry, ignorance of this topic and, possibly, agenda to whitewash on behalf of this group. If the people working on the memorial didn't want someone this problematic, they should have asked older people, or done their research, rather than trying to whitewash the honorees after the fact. Gleeanon is now focusing rather intensely on this. I have asked if they have COI on this project and they have denied it, but I'm really not sure I believe that given this intense POV push. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 19:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
References in the article include Hay's official bio, which was fine with Gleeanon until he realized it sourced all this, with this photo: [15], where Hay wore the sign, "NAMBLA walks with me" in LA Pride. As I said on talk: I really didn't want to link to them, but here's - https://www. nambla. org/hay2002.html NAMBLA's index on their Harry Hay materials. This page has - https://www. nambla. org/sanfrancisco1984.html photos of Harry Hay speaking on a NAMBLA panel in 1984, in San Francisco, under their banner. And again in 1986 in Los Angeles (no photo). Ick. The link is not live because, understandably, the site is on the blacklist. So the the url has spaces. You will have to copy and paste, and take out the spaces, to see it. Ick again. Gleeanon thinks all this is a conspiracy. But it's in Hay's official bio, which was written by some of his most ardent supporters. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I am aware that the quote has been previously linked to however I thought it best that it was out in the open. Please help me try and understand, are you insinuating that the speech at the forum, hosted by the Gay Academic Union at NYU in 1983, given by Hay, is not accurately presented? Are you insinuating that Back To Stonewall is made up of revisionists and that Will Kohler doesn't know what he's talking about? Indigenous girl ( talk) 15:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help) "When he died at ninety in October 2002, many remembrances focused on Hay’s late-life defense of the North American Man/Boy Love Association. While Hay never joined the group, he did defend it from being expelled from several LBGTQ conferences. His defense of NAMBLA was eccentric and troubling, rooted in his own experiences of teenaged sexual activity. But it was a small piece of Hay’s long life of writing and activism." - This source argued that it was not a significant part of Hay's activity and that he never joined... If you think Jacobin is mischaracterizing this, it would be good to find a secondary source (from a reputable publisher, of course) which says the opposite. "
Gay History – October 23rd: The Almost Forgotten Gay Activist Harry Hay and Quebec’s Gay Club Raid Protests" (mentioned above by another user) seems to contradict Jacobin when it states "These events overshadowed Hay’s previous legacy so much that today he is all but forgotten and purposely left out of many LGBT historical writings." but it may be good to check the publishing status of this website to see if it counts as a Reliable Source.
WhisperToMe (
talk) 22:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
References
In closing, I think the discussion here has reached consensus that this is reliably sourced as a prominent and recurring issue in Harry Hay's political work. As Gleeanon409's initial presentation did not include all the sources, mentioned "sources" that are not in the article, and simply dismissed all sources that discuss this part of Hay's life as "unreliable", I am including a list here of the actual sources that cite this well-known, unfortunate fact about Harry Hay. As others have said, NPOV means we write neutrally about the facts of someone's life, without censorship. This was a well-known fact of Hay's life.
Reliable Sources:
There are more mentions out there online, and a ton more in print, but these are the ones in the article at the moment. To include this material is in no way an endorsement of Hay's views. It is certainly not an endorsement of NAMBLA. Whenever someone invokes "trying to right great wrongs" when it's something like pedophile advocacy (dear gods...) I wonder if they think we have no responsibility as editors here at all. Hay made quite the ruckus trying to keep NAMBLA from being shunned when he was alive, so it's only fair that it stays in his article now. What's there right now is NPOV and minimal, all things considered. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 00:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Nowhere was this more evident than in Hay’s persistent support of NAMBLA’s right to march in gay-pride parades. In 1994, he refused to march with the official parade commemorating the Stonewall riots in New York because it refused NAMBLA a place in the event. Instead, he joined a competing march, dubbed The Spirit of Stonewall, which included NAMBLA as well as many of the original Gay Liberation Front members.A source specifically states that he "persistently" protested NAMBLA's exclusion from these marches. Including that is not deceptive; it's accurately following the sources. Your personal research about which marches he protested cannot be used to counter that statement.
Harry Hay... suggests to a crowded room at the recent NAMBLA meeting that a name change might help.Maybe this isn't "strategizing", but the source does say that he offered them advice on how to improve their image. This is not "adding credibility to NAMBLA," it's presenting the facts about Harry Hay as recorded in reliable sources. That is, and should be, the sole goal of Wikipedia. Material is not censored because we fear it may lend credence to some disgusting agenda, and biographies are not white-washed because we might prefer to see our heroes presented in a better light. Oh, and even Britannica mentions his support of NAMBLA [18]
Hay often waded into contentious debates, notably by advocating for such controversial organizations as the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), a pro-pederasty group.. This isn't some smear cooked up by the right-wing media and Wikipedia.
He spoke out in support of relationships between adult men and boys as young as thirteenand
helping the group strategize a name change to help with their public imageare not well-sourced. They rely on analysis of primary sources and that questionable Spectator article (hard to tell if it's an opinion piece or journalism). It would be better to leave that out of the lead, and just let the quotes speak for themselves in the body of the article. I think that entire final sentence should be cut from the lead, both for issues of sourcing and to avoid lending undue weight to the issue. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 20:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I got feedback on the two books suggested above. Accordingly the
Will Roscoe one will likely be used to note facts but not analysis.
While the Hubbard - Verstraete one, is considered of scholarly research and likely can be used to explore Hay’s motivations. I have a copy of the book on its way as I’ve been unable to fully access it online.
Gleeanon409 (
talk) 03:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Hay’s favorite story, of his coming-of-age, “which he repeatedly told to audiences in later years and refered to ironically as his ‘child molestation speech,’ in order to emphasize how sharply different gay life is from heterosexual norms,” recounted his time as an emancipated fourteen-year-old (circa 1926) pursuing sex with a man in his mid-twenties who assumed Hay was of the age of consent. [1] He shared the story “specifically to contradict entrenched stereotypes and to caution against uncritical generalizations so common in reference to pederasty.“ [1] The man gave Hay “tips on how ‘people like us’ should conduct themselves, which ‘inspired Harry almost as vividly as the erotic memory’.” [2] [1]
In 1986, Los Angeles Pride wanted Hay to march, but they had banned NAMBLA, a group synonymous in the U.S. with pro-pedophilia advocacy, and had to negotiate for him to only carry a sign, rather than a larger banner, to protest the action. [3] Hay wanted to do so “because he remembered the pleasure of coming out as a teenager with a man who initiated him to the gay world.” [3] He ended up wearing two posterboard signs; one for Valerie Terrigno, a recently disgraced lesbian politician also banned from the parade, on his front, “Valerie Terrigno walks with me"; [4] and on his back, “NAMBLA walks with me.” [2]
Eight years later, in 1994, Hay was again protesting NAMBLA being banned: ILGA (now ILGBTIA), the-then only group representing gays and lesbians at the United Nations (UN) banned them and two other groups from membership; [a] and Stonewall 25 organizers, producing the 1994 twenty-fifth anniversary of the Stonewall riots, the largest LGBTQ Pride event in the world as of then, [6] banned them and similar groups from its Pride protest march, [7] [b] that purposely changed the route to use First Avenue going past the UN, reflecting the events’ international focus on LGBTQ issues. [9] Hay was among the 150 “activists, scholars, artists, and writers” who signed on to support Spirit Of Stonewall (SOS), an ad hoc group that felt the banned group had free speech, and association rights. [7] Hay delivered “Our Beloved Gay/Lesbian Movement at a Crossroads” speech, concerning the expulsion of NAMBLA, at a SOS press conference, where he stressed three organizing principles from the formation and growth of the LGBTQ movement he used since the early 1950s: we do not censor or exclude one another; if someone identifies as lesbian or gay he accepts them as such; and we cannot allow heterosexuals to dictate who is in our communities—we decide. [10] Hay helped lead the counter-march with almost 7,000 participants. [3]
"Getting him to agree to simply wear a sign rather than carry a banner took considerable negotiation by the parade organizers, who wanted to distance the gay and lesbian movement from pedophilia, yet wanted Harry to participate."; "an action he took because he remembered the pleasure of coming out as a teenager with a man who initiated him to the gay world."
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
If any better sources are forthcoming I’m happy to check them out and add accordingly.
I’m proposing this content be used in the article instead of the current material, after this has been vetted.
Separately, and dependent if any new sources are found, decisions can be made if the category is appropriate, and what, if any, content belongs in the lead.
Gleeanon409 (
talk) 11:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Given the reliable sources available to now, and I’m happy to look at any others that may add to or change what is known, I think Wikipedia’s present content in the lead, and article is dreadfully sourced, and misrepresents Hay’s connection to this despised group. Additionally including Hay in the category of pedophile advocacy is wholly inaccurate. If Wikipedia is indeed an encyclopedia and not a click-bait tabloid then we should update the article accordingly. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 07:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I did omit at least one important facet in trying to express his views. He adamantly felt that queer youth worldwide were victimized by being forced into hetero identities dooming them into forms of despair. He felt this was the real molestation they faced.
He also connects Sen Jesse Helms move to defund the United Nations by discrediting ILGA via the pedophilia groups scandal; with his similar move 30 days later “amended an education bill on its way through the Senate by denying federal funds to any public school district that teaches homosexuality is a positive lifestyle alternative through class work, textbooks, or counseling. This language is so broad that even Project 10, a nationally known counseling program for Gay high school students, would be a key target of the ban.” Gleeanon409 ( talk) 22:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
{this would replaced the content in the body of the article; after reading every reliable and non-primary source it’s apparent this was a minor aspect of Hay’s later life. Accordingly I feel anything in the lead would be WP:Undue and violate WP:RSUW.}}
When Hay died, Michael Bronski’s obituary mentioned his “late-life defense” of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), a group that is synonymous with pro- pedophilia activism. [1] [2] Initially in the late 1970s NAMBLA was accepted as one of many fledgling LGBTQ groups, at least as a fringe one, for its advocacy of gay youth, and civil rights for the teens and pedarists, who had sex with teenaged boys. [3] [4] [5] Quickly though the pedarists were in the minority as the group became controlled by pedophiles—attracted to children and pre-adolescents—who insisted on abolishing all age of consent laws without compromise, eroding all mainstream LGBTQ support. [4] [6] [7] Hay was never a member but did defend them from being expelled from LBGTQ events which was characterized by Bronski as politically embarrassing, and Jacobin’s Ben Miller as “eccentric and troubling,” but “a small piece of Hay’s long life of writing and activism.” [2]
Hay’s favorite story, of his coming-of-age, “which he repeatedly told to audiences in later years and refered to ironically as his ‘child molestation speech,’ in order to emphasize how sharply different gay life is from heterosexual norms,” recounted his time as an emancipated fourteen-year-old (circa 1926) pursuing sex with a man in his mid-twenties who assumed Hay was of the age of consent. [8] He shared the story “specifically to contradict entrenched stereotypes and to caution against uncritical generalizations so common in reference to pederasty.“ [8] The man gave Hay “tips” as to how gay men should act, which ‘inspired Harry almost as vividly as the erotic memory’.” [9] [8]
In 1986, Los Angeles Pride wanted Hay to march, but they had banned NAMBLA, and negotiated for him to carry only a sign, rather than a larger banner, to protest the action. [10] Hay wanted to do so “because he remembered the pleasure of coming out as a teenager with a man who initiated him to the gay world.” [10] He ended up wearing two posterboard signs; one for Valerie Terrigno, a recently disgraced lesbian politician also banned from the parade, on his front, “Valerie Terrigno walks with me"; [11] and on his back, “NAMBLA walks with me.” [9]
Eight years later, in 1994, Hay was again defending the group: ILGA (now ILGBTIA), the-then only group representing gays and lesbians at the United Nations (UN) banned them and two other groups from membership; [a] and Stonewall 25 organizers, producing the 1994 twenty-fifth anniversary of the Stonewall riots in New York City, the largest LGBTQ Pride event in the world as of then, [12] banned the groups from the Pride protest march, [13] [b] that purposely re-routed to use First Avenue going past the UN, reflecting the event’s international focus on LGBTQ issues. [15] Hay was among 150 “activists, scholars, artists, and writers” who publicly signed to support Spirit Of Stonewall (SOS), an ad hoc group that felt the banned groups had free speech, and association rights. [13] Hay delivered “Our Beloved Gay/Lesbian Movement at a Crossroads” speech at a SOS press conference, and later reprinted in Gay Community News, where he stressed organizing principles from the formation and growth of the LGBTQ movement he used since the early 1950s:“...we wouldn't censor or exclude each other. If people self-identify themselves to me as Gay or Lesbian, I accept them as Brothers and Sisters with love. ... [We] integrate [into the mainstream] on our own terms, as we saw ourselves and with our own set of values. ...[And] we no longer permitted any heteros ... to tell us who we were, or of whom our groups should or should not consist”. [16] [17] Hay helped lead the counter-march with almost 7,000 participants. [10]
References
"He was, at times, a serious political embarrassment, as when he consistently advocated the inclusion of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) in gay-pride parades. HAY'S UNEASY relationship with the gay movement — he reviled what he saw as the movement's propensity for selling out its fringe members for easy, and often illusory, respectability — didn't develop later in life. It was there from the start."
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
"Getting him to agree to simply wear a sign rather than carry a banner took considerable negotiation by the parade organizers, who wanted to distance the gay and lesbian movement from pedophilia, yet wanted Harry to participate."; "an action he took because he remembered the pleasure of coming out as a teenager with a man who initiated him to the gay world."
We decided from the beginning that having been almost obliterated for so many centuries, we wouldn't censor or exclude each other. If people self-identify themselves to me as Gay or Lesbian, I accept them as Brothers and Sisters with love. When we decided to rejoin the social and political mainstream, we were determined to integrate on our own terms, as we saw ourselves and with our own set of values. Otherwise, we would not integrate at all. And finally, we no longer permitted any heteros -- nationally or internationally, individually or collectively -- to tell us who we were, or of whom our groups should or should not consist. If necessary, we would assert the prior rights of collective self-definition and self-determination. We Queers would decide such matters among ourselves! Those statements, developed 42 years ago, still hold.
I’m hoping others will be willing to check over the proposed content, and sourcing, and after being vetted this could be used in the article to update the content. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 07:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC) @ MPS1992:, @ Mark Ironie:, @ WhisperToMe:, @ Red Rock Canyon:, @ Someguy1221:, I’m hoping you can shed some light on the ‘proposed’ content for the article itself, and a constructive path forward. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 01:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Should the ‘proposed content’ in the sections directly above replace the NAMBLA-related content in the Harry Hay article; and by WP:Lead, and WP:Undue should there be *any* mention in the lead. If so, what would satisfy NPOV, and WP:Lead? Gleeanon409 ( talk) 14:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
This summary comes in just under 50 words. The second current lede para regurgitates the Background section. The third current lede para could go under "Theory." The last paragraph already appears in section "Later Years"... If someone feels "NAMBLA" needs mention in lede, they could finish it with such, for instance "...who was also involved in other controversial organizations (e.g., NAMBLA)." Keep it simple. Aboudaqn ( talk) 18:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)Henry "Harry" Hay Jr. (1912–2002) was a prominent American gay rights activist, communist, and labor advocate, a founder of the Mattachine Society (first sustained gay rights group in the United States) and the Radical Faeries (loosely affiliated gay spiritual movement), who was also involved in other controversial organizations.
Several edit warriors have tried to exclude the citation of a new book proposing (on evidence that is limited) that the KGB was behind Albert Camus' death in a car wreck. (The book and theory have been discussed by journalists, for ex. at The Guardian.) Failing to exclude it, these editors fell back upon insisting that it be described as a "conspiracy theory" - which is pejorative and a term for a specific type of theory that per se is invalid because it is formulated in a way that makes it not subject to proof or disproof. The matter was debated on Talk page, but fruitlessly because the same editors have dismissed the idea that they need to define a conspiracy theory or show why this theory is one. In so far as they tried, they have contradicted each other and proposed only vague rules of thumb ('speculative', 'fringe', 'possibly true') that permit them to avoid having to justify using the pejorative term. They've made clear that they won't be drawn into justifying it in an evidence-based manner, as shown by the bizarre evidence and rules of evidence they have invoked. One of the edit warriors insists that it is "completely irrelevant" what the WP Conspiracy theory says in defining the term. Another one points to random books and online pages (predating the new book) that neglect to mention the new theory, which is supposed to be proof that the authors rejected the theory. The same person declares that an undergraduate intern is an "expert" because she is the one person he has found who described the new theory as a "conspiracy theory".
I think this is a question of neutral point of view. If it *were* a conspiracy theory (and it is not), then in my view the theory should not be discussed at all on the Camus page. But since it is a fairly ordinary historical theory, albeit based on limited evidence, it should not be dismissed with a pejorative label. Those who insist of labeling it will not relent and allow a neutral description of the theory, and will not seriously justify their entrenched position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.136.62 ( talk) 18:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I'll try to be succinct here. There's this recent Times of Israel blog post about some of our categories for "Jews" and "people of Jewish descent" and being removed from the "Middle Eastern descent categories." Given the recent business with the "Warsaw concentration camp", I figured I'd quickly check and see what the rationale was, and found that, frankly, I have no idea. This is squarely outside of my wheelhouse (both the topic and categories in general).
At first I thought it was because "Jews" includes e.g. converts that are not of Middle Eastern descent whereas the "people of Jewish descent" categories would be in the Middle Eastern categories. That would make for a rather typical controversy-via-misunderstanding-how-wikipedia-works deal. And it checked out for one of the examples in the post: while Category:Canadian Jews had been removed from Category:Middle Eastern Canadians, Category:Canadian people of Jewish descent is indeed in Category:Canadian people of Middle Eastern descent. But then another example is Category:American people of Jewish descent, which was removed from the corresponding Middle Eastern descent category.
Digging through the various category, etc. talk pages is a nightmare. Endless edit warring doesn't help either. I get the sense that there have been multiple RfCs/big discussions, some of which have been overturned.
Can someone provide a short, clear explanation for how these categories are set up and arranged (and why)? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
do we really need to summarize this here because of that blog- I never said "we have to summarize this here because of the blog". I tried to make sense of it myself and couldn't, so asked here. At this stage I'm less looking for what is true/false and more trying to get a sense of how we do things and why (and, if possible, if there were useful RfCs/DRNs/whatnot that led to those processes). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
I just reverted a pile of anonymous IP edits at the Causes of transsexuality page (see the history here) and I thought it was worth double checking here to make sure the page as it stands now conforms with the NPOV rules. In my view I was restoring the version of the page that best matches the cited sources and the IP editor was possibly pushing a POV, but I’m not an expert, and it’s a potentially controversial and sensitive subject matter so I thought it was worth checking to see what uninvolved Wikipedians and/or experts think of the page. Apologies if this doesn’t belong here, or if my edits to the page in question were out of line. Cheers, Dawn Bard ( talk) 06:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
EOKA needs your attention and wikilove fellow wikipedians. I have already made an appeal for editors hear at NPOV/noticepad to have a look at the article [19] but with no respond. Pls have a look. Material from many RS (academic history profs) has been rejected (or trimmed to once sentence) while material from newspapers, not directly related to EOKA per se, has its own section! Absurd. Pls have a look at Talk Page last section: "Is section "Foreign Office declassified documents and EOKA lawsuits against the British government" unnecessary or too long, resulting inUNDUE weight" Cinadon 36 23:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
sadly the RfC didn't get enough attention. It got plenty of attention. Just not the kind of "attention" you wanted it to get. Khirurg ( talk) 17:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Elinruby thanks for spending some time on the article. Well it seems I didn't explain properly my objection as you have misunderstood my argument. Most probable my fault. I have never said that newspapers like TheGuardian are not RS. Quite the contrary. Nor the text in the article misrepresent what the newspaper articles are saying. No, they are great. The problem is that it is given too much weight this specific incidence (the lawsuit). Torture by British forces is discussed elsewhere in the article. The text on lawsuit is the 8% of the article which is absurdly too much. All other sections have been super-summarized, while the specific section ("Foreign Office declassified documents and EOKA lawsuits against the British government") is way too long. It gives details about the alleged tortures- horrible events indeed- but if we follow this path, should we talk about the public torture and murder of a left winger by EOKA members (French 2013, p 167), the assassination of a British doctor while examining patients (Richter 2011, p 582), placing a bomb in a civilian aircraft of 44 passengers (Richter 2011, p 487), and many more. In my view, the article should focus mostly on the effects EOKA struggle had (left wingers and turkish-cypriots- the other significant community of Cyprus island), to explain the pathos for nation self determination that was prominent, to explain the villain side of EOKA (there was one as there is always in these kind of guerrilla struggles). These are the topics of interest among EOKA scholars. As for forumshopping, I was only trying to get more wikipedia users involved. Not many users contributed their opinion at Talk Page and when they did, they didn't actually made a contra-argument. Which I respect but I would prefer if a contra argument would develop to answer my argument. I though I was following the proper dispute-resolution path. Did I not? 22:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
not to put shame on the UK. You will not stop, until you have WP:GAMEd the system, because you hope that people may get tired of this multi-month disruption and not respond any longer. It won't work. WP:DROPTHESTICK already. Also stop following Khirurg around to obscure articles you never edited before to revert him out of spite because he opposed you at EOKA. Dr. K. 23:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Fox News's lead is not following reliable sourcing standards because it is using completely biased opinionated sources to establish a descriptive detailing of a company's page (i.e. the lead paragraph). I, along with many others, on the article's talk page, have discussed restructuring or removing the third paragraph of the lead because of biased sourcing and a reluctance to include information that is contradictory to the narrative portrayed by the sources in question.
A few examples:
Example 1: The New Yorker: "Fox’s hostility toward the Obama Administration grew increasingly extreme."
[1]
Example 2: VOX: "It certainly seems like Fox News has essentially become state TV. So how concerned should the average American be?"
[2] This should be attributed to the scholar's opinion and should not be in the lead.
Example 3: Media Matters: "Fox’s internal critics deserve few accolades."
[3]
I have very rarely seen opinion columns used in the lead, especially for a news organization's article. CNN and MSNBC, for example, have many sources of biased reporting which are not permitted in those organization's articles within the lead by overzealous editors.
When we present information that is contradictory to the opinions stated within the sources in question, such as this article [4] by The Perspective, that contradictory information is deleted. This is a blatant misuse of neutral point of view and the standards set fourth by Wikipedia to have opposing points of view. In addition, sourcing we have set fourth have been equally reliable when viewed within the "lens" of the existing sourcing.
I hope to have this issued resolved. Many others have suggested the third paragraph of the lead of Fox News either be restructured or deleted. I have suggested removing the final sentence: "During Trump's presidency, observers have noted a pronounced tendency of Fox News to serve as a "mouthpiece" for the administration, providing "propaganda" and a "feedback loop" for Trump, with one presidential scholar stating, "it’s the closest we’ve come to having state TV.", as it uses most of the unreliable sourcing, but I would suggest the entire paragraph be restructured. Curivity ( talk) 22:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
References
The Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (MH17) had been shot down by a surface-to-air missile(SAM) while overflying Eastern Ukraine during the War in Donbass. The shootdown had been heavily politicized. There is pretty much a consensus that the airplane had been shot down by the rebels of the Donetsk People's Republic, who tragically misidentified it as belonging to the Ukrainian Airforce (UAF). The rebels are supported by the Russian Federation, and the SAM in question appears to have been supplied by the Russian Federation one day before the shootdown. The rebels shot down several other UAF aircraft in the weeks prior to the downing of MH17, and this is thoroughly detailed in the background section of the article. The POV question I am trying to address is this: should this section also mention, as a matter of balance, that fact the UAF had been using the airspace to bomb the rebels? This is being discussed in an an RfC on the talk page of the article. Heptor ( talk) 00:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
We need some more eyes on these two articles:
especially in relation to Venezuela, where large amounts of well-sourced text are being added and deleted. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 08:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
I have created a page on wiki with the name Cricingig here is the Draft URL https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cricingif# , If someone have any Conflict of Interest, please provide feedback, thoughts suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesjing90 ( talk • contribs) 10:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I just read a very long informative article about Pfizer and their many acquisitions, lawsuits, drug experimentation, etc. but basically nothing about their abuse of horses in order for them to obtain pure estrogen from the pregnant horses urine. This very long article left out a very big atrocity committed by this drug manufacturer. Billions made by torturing animals.
I have quite possibly reached to wrong site to voice my concern but, I hope that whoever reads this does something useful with my complaint.
By the way, in case you don't know, these pregnant horse are down on their knees in an 8 x 3 cage, unable to move. Then they attach a pulley system to the mares groins, 24/7, to collect their estrogen rich urine. (made rich because the horse receives just enough water to keep it alive) This goes on for 7 months. When the mare finally does give birth, she is put out to pasture to get pregnant again and the foals go to feedlots to be fattened up for slaughter. SO, NOW YOU KNOW THE REASON FOR MY COMPLAINT. LOTS OF INFO ABOUT ACQUISITIONS, BUT NONE ABOUT THESE ATROCITIES. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:B843:BB00:547:37E3:BEFA:D32D ( talk) 17:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
In February 2018, we removed mission= and slogan= from {{ infobox organization}} on the basis that they are promotional devices and not encyclopaedic content. That seems to have improved NPOV on those articles. However, a number of templates (e.g. {{ Infobox television channel}} still contain slogans. I think we should be consistent and remove slogans, mission statements and other promotional devices from all infoboxen. Guy ( help!) 00:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
This is an invitation to participate at Request For Comments on second line of lead: Should second line of lead of this article be modified ?
Kmoksha ( talk) 13:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Could someone take a look. I have been tryingto remove puffery, and have been repeatedly reverted by different ip editors, using what I think the patently incorrect reason that they are trying to remove uncited information. I could just semiprotect and block them for vandalism, but since I edited the article, I'd like someone else to look. If I've misjudged, please tell me. DGG ( talk ) 07:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
There is a noticeboard discussion regarding the use of Climate Feedback and InsideClimate News to describe the accuracy of claims made by proponents of climate change denial. If you are interested, please participate at WP:BLPN § Accuracy of claims made by climate change deniers. — Newslinger talk 10:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I'm writing here to request comment on the way in which Queen Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Stelitz Article's "Ancestry" section is handled. Among the cited sources, there is a PBS Frontline article, as well as an article by The Independent, that explore theories around her possible mixed-African ancestry. I notice, however, that only the most sceptical points are excerpted from said sources to include in Wikipedia. The more plausible arguments around this possibility are nowhere to be seen except in the source material itself. I have attempted to contribute samples of these as well as quotations from the Queen’s contemporaries, complete with in-line citations, and, as I learned more, paraphrased them to avoid violating the copyright of the source material, only to see them removed or altered in such a way that the significance of the passage is lost.
Here is an example: After contributing and seeing my contributions deleted, I created an Individual Reassessment page here, and corresponded with an administrator, Celia Homeford, about how to better contribute. Following the guidelines she communicated to me, I composed this paragraph, and added it to the surrounding text:
“Some [of the above-mentioned quotations from historical figures] are listed here … making apparent reference to [her] mixed-ethnicity features: Baron Christian Stockmar, in a fuller version of the above quotation, as appears in an article by the Independent [60], referred to Queen Charlotte as “small and crooked, with a true Mulatto face.” Sir Walter Scott once used a variety of epithets to describe the Queen’s appearance, remarking of the Queen as “ill-coloured” and, in fact, referring to her kin as “a bunch of ill-coloured orangutans.” In Janice Hadlow’s book, “A Royal Experiment: The Private Life of King George III”, upon meeting his wife-to-be, the King was later said by onlookers to have “been shocked by Charlotte’s appearance.” ”
I returned to find my paragraph was then slimmed down by an editor to just this: Sir Walter Scott described her as "ill-coloured" and referred to her kin as "a bunch of ill-coloured orangutans."[60]
This is the thing that concerns me. The phrase I used: "Sir Walter Scott once used a variety of epithets to describe the Queen’s appearance," which was not under copyright and entirely within bounds, was removed. I am concerned that this may leave the reader with the impression that the language he used is accepted by Wikipedia, when in fact, it matches the Oxford dictionary's definition of an epithet. Even if another phrase is used, this, I feel, can be acknowledged without adding a flavour of bias to the article.
That is what I wrote to the apparent editor, Celia Homeford, which has so far elicited no response. See the interaction [ here].
Also, the "Ancestry" section of the Queen Charlotte article remains heavily sceptical at this point, appearing to pick and choose facts that do not reflect the balance of perspectives in the source material. For instance, the page features a hypothesis that her portrait artist, Allan Ramsay, was not accurate in his representation of her -- even though his portrait of her seems to depict what her contemporaries were noticing and attempting to describe -- and Ramsay's portrait remains her official portrait. Still, this hypothesis, that the painter simply made it all up, or 'exaggerated' otherwise imperceptible mixed-ethnic features, remains in a place of honour with insufficient references to the balancing arguments (particularly genealogical ones) that appear in the source material.
In light of these observations, I cannot see how the Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz article meets number 4 of the "Good Article" criteria: "Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each." I would really appreciate any improving attention this section could receive from any helpful folks out here.
Again, the discussion I am referring to with Celia Homeford occurred here, at /info/en/?search=Talk:Charlotte_of_Mecklenburg-Strelitz/GA2. 2605:A601:A1A8:CD00:718A:B28D:9514:7663 ( talk) 19:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your swift response! I completely 'get' that our entries should be concise. However, that differs substantially from my earlier point about neutrality: that the article “appear[s] to pick and choose facts that do not reflect the balance of perspectives in the source material.” In other words, the article as it is gives the impression of near-consensus where there is none.
I have a follow-up question: The genealogist quoted in the article, Valdes, had two theories of the Queen’s ancestry. Only one is quoted by Wikipedia. If I were to contribute his other one, (re-phrased to avoid copyright infringement), and gave proper citations, would this, too, likely be removed to keep the section short? 2605:A601:A1A8:CD00:3129:D3C:C9BA:66D3 ( talk) 20:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
The article is heavily distorted in favor of South Korean state ideology.
In the history of edits, the deletion of a large data array with verified links has been noticed.
The studies of Russian and Chinese archaeologists and scientists are completely ignored if they contradict the official Korean version - nationalistically motivated.
The article needs to be completely revised due to its poor quality.
This article is the cause of the conflict because this state occupies an important place in the modern state myth and the legitimization of claims to the lands of the neighbors of South Korea.
The deleted information was significant as it reflected the point of view of all three parties to the conflict equally.
Obviously, their opinion does not correspond to the official position of South Korea. Moreover, it is significant since 90% of this state was located on their territory, but it was not on the territory of South Korea. All archaeological sites available for research are located in these countries and are actively studied by scientists of these countries.
Rejecting their data on the grounds that they disagree with the Korean is a violation of all possible rules. And just the concepts of honesty, democracy, justice. It turns Wikipedia into a means of propaganda. One or another state ideology. Sometimes very doubtful. 185.17.129.116 ( talk) 16:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 75 | ← | Archive 78 | Archive 79 | Archive 80 | Archive 81 | Archive 82 | → | Archive 85 |
At Talk:Morari Bapu#Removal of Sarcastic Dig at Swaminarayan there is a very long discussion. I have tried to build consensus but not all editors agree. I was invited for 3O but I later took over to build the consensus.
First, a paragraph from Reception section of Morari Bapu was removed by Moksha88 citing the similar paragraph was removed from another article Criticism of Swaminarayan sect (since merged). Harshil169 disagreed and restored it several times when Actionjackson09 and ThaNDNman224 reverted before the page was locked for edit warring.
In September 2019, he had took sarcastic dig at Sahajanand Swami, founder of Swaminarayan sect, and said that, "To become Nilkanth (one name of Shiva), you have to drink poison. You can't become Nilkanth by eating laddus (referring to Sahajananda)." [1] [2] The comments triggered a controversy and saints from the Swaminarayan sect demanded an apology. [2] He later apologised. [3]
Above mentioned editors disagreed with Harshil169 about the inclusion of the text. Apollo1203 also involved. I was invited for 3O where I opined that the context is different from Criticism article so this should be included in Morari Bapu. The disagreement persisted and Ms Sarah Welch was also invited for opinion. Krishna's flute drop by and gave some sound advice on dispute resolution. Moksha88 and Harshil169 keep discussing the issue without any progress. MSW also opined that it should be included and suggested rewording for neutrality. Moksha88 proposed Vesrion 1 at User:Moksha88/sandbox which I found not neutral and in favour of Swaminarayan sect because calling Morari Bapu's comment as "derogatory". I proposed v2a/2b at User:Moksha88/sandbox which MSW found more neutral the V1. In response, Moksha88 porposed V3a, 3b, 3c which was just paraphrase of V1. MSW gave inputs to better explain the Bapu's comment so I expanded the V2a/2b into V4 which I reworded several times on suggestions of others. Moksha88 and others continued with V5, V6, V7 but just changed from "derogatory" to some similar non-neutral word. Other editors were also invited by Moksha88 for commets. They opined that either the whole incident should excluded from the article or V7 or similar should be included. I had asked opinion on the V4 which I had proposed but instead of giving specific inputs and comments, editors frequently derail the discussion and only agreeing with the non-neutral proposal. My and others' comments on why it is not neutral is not considered and the discussion dragged without any constructive comments which I repeatedly asked for. Pinging other editors which participated on talkpage: @ Sacredsea and Treehugger8891:.
In one of his discourses in September 2019, Morari Bapu questioned the authenticity of any deity called Nilkanth other than Shiva who also known by the same name. He also recollected that he had previously refused to perform abhisheka ritual of Nilkanthvarni, the adolescent form of Swaminarayan, the founder and deity of the Swaminarayan tradition. [4] [2] Followers of the tradition found Bapu's statement as hurting to their religious sentiments, challenged his views and demanded an apology. [2] [5] [6] [4] Bapu later apologised and sought forgiveness for his statements. [7]
In one of his discourses in September 2019, Morari Bapu made some sarcastic remarks about Swaminarayan. [2] [4] Followers of the tradition challenged his views, and Morari Bapu later apologized for his statements and sought forgiveness for his statements. [5] [6] [7]
I request the feedback for two things:
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
In summary, I agree with inclusion of this material as per WP:BLPPUBLIC and prefer version 7 as it balances WP:undue and WP:IMPARTIAL. The evidence is available for all to review and comment accordingly. Moksha88 ( talk) 08:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I am not happy with the strong statement claiming the puzzle to be resolved. There are recent results that disagree with this finding. Furthermore, it appears to highlight unjustly a single result, while ignoring others. The user who edited this page to introduce these changes has only ever contributed this edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.118.61.230 ( talk) 12:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
More eyes are needed at Evo Morales government resignation where some accounts are trying to gives the impression in Wiki voice that this was a coup (something that needs to be reliably sourced). Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 03:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a neutrality-related discussion about the article Murder of Laquan McDonald. The debate is about the title of the article, not its contents. I started a Request for Comment about this a few weeks ago, and explained my own opinion there. Some editors have contributed to the RfC, but it occurs to me that this discussion might be of interest to editors who review this NPOV Noticeboard. It's at Talk:Murder of Laquan McDonald#Request for comment on the title of this article. Please comment there and not here, to keep the discussion all in one place. Thanks. — Mudwater ( Talk) 11:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Recently, I am editing articles about some controversial issues in China such as 2019 Hong Kong protests. The problems is that Chinese media has created alternative version of the protests, which has become the basis of nearly all the statements and actions (some actions are did by nationalists rather than Chinese governments) I know that Wikipedia has WP:FRIDGE and WP:DUE, but the article will create more confusion for readers if the depictions is not well described. (I am sure that the depictions is supported by secondary realiable sources and does not violate WP:OR) The problems is not only in tdepictions of the protests but also in other China-related issues. I want to know what degree we should include such depictions? (I believed it is the specific issues of Wikipedia policy) Mariogoods ( talk) 09:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the right venue. But Yonmara is about a star, but I can find no reputable reference to it being called this name. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
The controversial start-class article Lesbian erasure has some serious neutrality-related issues in my opinion. They have been listed on the talk page and some other editors have agreed with me on the issues. However the editors who disagree have attempted to erase the visibility of the disputes by removing maintenance tags about the dispute repeatedly ( [2], [3]) claiming they are WP:DRIVEBY tags despite multiple editors (myself included) finding validity in the disputes. Gwen Hope ( talk) ( contrib) 19:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.StarryGrandma ( talk) 15:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
This is a problematic article: there is way too much content in here, and some of it is clearly not neutral-- here I removed some non-neutral phrasing, done in Wikipedia's voice, but there is more. In addition, editor Activist keeps insisting on inserting a gallery of culprits, which they argue is necessary and warranted because a. (they claim) it attracts readers to the article and b. these people are criminals and so is Trump etc. Maybe I'm not doing their argument justice: please see Talk:Homestead Temporary Shelter for Unaccompanied Children, where you'll find that they've been doing this for a while, as User:GastelEtzwane can attest. I'm about to lose patience with this line of argument, and would appreciate some more eyes. Somehow Hunter Biden has something to do with it as well, and someone called Uncle Sugar. And there's something about tax payers who shouldn't allow this Wikipedia article to...I don't know. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 20:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Participation needed on this article per concern also raised here [4]. SPECIFICO talk 15:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
The White privilege page has multiple Neutral point of view problems.
The lede treats White privilege as a phenomenon, rather than as an explanation for a phenomenon, contravening the Neutral point of view - see /info/en/?search=Talk:White_privilege#Sociological_concept
The current version is:
White privilege (or white skin privilege) is the societal privilege that benefits white people over non-white people, particularly if they are otherwise under the same social, political, or economic circumstances.
The proposed neutral version would read:
White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a sociological concept which explains differences in social, political, and economic outcomes between ethnic groups by reference to societal privilege that benefits white people over non-white people.
The problem with the Neutral point of view continue within the body of the article, which generally sidelines critique of the concept.
Keith Johnston (
talk) 15:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
white privilege (or white skin privilege) is a sociological concept which explains differences. It doesn't say that white privilege is just a theory. Saying that 'white privilege is a concept' does not imply that it is "just a theory" in the way that anti-evolutionists might use the term "theory" to cast doubt on evolution. Michepman ( talk) 00:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
ethnic background, for example - ie.: the ethnic background in the US is a major driver of economic success. According to : "Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months (in 2016 inflation-adjusted dollars)". [from American Community Survey. United States Census Bureau. 2016] which is referenced on Wikipedia as well- Indians have the largest household income in the US ($128,000). White Americans: $67-68,000. Sri Lankan Americans: $73-74,000. Ghanaian Americans: $66-67,000. Pakistani Americans: $72-73,000. Pennsylvania German Americans: $48-49,000 and so on.
no data or study is quoted in the article (which was supposed to be summarized in the lead) to prove its alleged global existence, in most countries and, particularly, in larger countries like China, Japan, North Korea, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Nigeria, Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran, and so on.
No data or study is quoted in the white privilege article to prove that, for example, Caucasian/white people like Armenians, Moldovans, Belarusians, Georgians, Chechens or Yazidis enjoy the same privileges as white Americans, Canadians or Brits in Western countries.-- ColumbiaXY ( talk) 08:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
As a white person, I realized I had been taught about racism as something that puts others at a disadvantage, but had been taught not to see one of its corollary aspects, white privilege, which puts me at an advantage.So your demand for a closer analysis of you supposed sources only substantiates the statement I made earlier: none of them say what you so desperately want them to say. Attempting to use them to force your POV editing into the article is obvious bad-faith editing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
It cam (and I suspect is) both, it depends on what you mean, and how you apply it. As others have said at its heart whilst it may in the most basic sense be true, it is also far form nuanced enough to be a real indicator of social status or acceptance. At best it is a broad brush not applicable to all individual or situations. Its not helped when examples of white privilege can be lumped into things like the idea "maths" is a white plot (or some such thing). So we go with scholastic consensus so what is it? Slatersteven ( talk) 10:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Some scholars say that the term uses the concept of "whiteness" as a proxy for class or other social privilege or as a distraction from deeper underlying problems of inequality.... Other commentators [argue] that the concept of white privilege ignores important differences between white subpopulations and individuals... the concept of white privilege is frequently misinterpreted by non-academics...I believe that the article in its present form is NPOV-compliant. NightHeron ( talk) 13:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
obvious and less obvious passive advantages...[distinguished] from overt bias or prejudiceis in opposition to at least the tone of the first paragraph.
Some scholars say...and
Writers have noted...are problematic. Lack of clarity could contribute to a perceived lack of neutrality.— eric 15:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.Perhaps a section on "criticisms" is needed. The criticisms should be of the way the term "white privilege" is used to frame the problem of racism, which is very different from fringe viewpoints that there's no such thing as white privilege. The article [11] by Lawrence Blum seems a good source for such a section. But I'm not familiar with the scholarly literature on this. NightHeron ( talk) 18:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
to analyze how racism and racialized societies affect the lives of white or white-skinned people.... White privilege denotes both obvious and less obvious passive advantages that white people may not recognize they have, which distinguishes it from overt bias or prejudice.Denying that there is such a thing, while not exactly the same as entirely denying the existence of racism, is quite close --- just as denying that there's such a thing as male privilege is close to denying the existence of sexism. However, as I've said, it is not denialism to question the usefulness of the terminology and framing. Someone might prefer, for example, terms like passive white advantage or passive male advantage as being clearer and less provocative. But both white privilege and male privilege are commonly used terms for the respective phenomena. NightHeron ( talk) 14:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, now we've got people who are undeniably making bad-faith claims and know it. You can't say that NYT is good sourcing for one claim and not for another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allenwiliams ( talk • contribs) 15:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC) — Allenwiliams ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
@Guy - that's circular, and makes no sense. Go fish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allenwiliams ( talk • contribs) 04:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
The fundamental problem with the article is that it treats a non-scientific area of academia as if it were scientific. "White privilege" is a term that became popular in Critical Race Theory, and which has since been picked up in other areas of academia. It is popular among social studies people with a certain general political outlook, and you will find plenty of articles by people in these fields who take the existence of white privilege for granted. Years ago, I included a number of academic criticisms of the concept in the article, including an article by the historian Eric Arnesen that criticized the idea as an ill-defined moving target (see this old version of the page - almost all the criticism has since been removed). If you leave academia, the concept is obviously very controversial. You only have to look at all the conservatives who dispute it.
The error that editors have made is to treat academics in Critical Race Theory and similar fields as if they were scientists, and to therefore paint the controversy surrounding "white privilege" as one of scientists vs. deniers. It's much more a controversy between people with academic posts in a highly political domain of academia vs. people outside who write for publications with a different political bent (and people in different domains of academia that don't have the same political direction as CRT). - Thucydides411 ( talk) 08:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Suppose this is a broader epistemological question about whether concepts in social sciences should be presented the same way as those in natural sciences with laws. Richard Feynman, the 1965 Nobel Prize in Physics winner, in a 1981 BBC interview: "Because of the success of science, there is a kind of a pseudo-science. Social science is an example of a science which is not a science. They follow the forms. You gather data, you do so and so and so forth, but they don’t get any laws, they haven’t found out anything. They haven’t got anywhere – yet. Maybe someday they will, but it’s not very well developed."-- Pudeo ( talk) 11:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I updated the article to reflect the new version of the trade agreement that was just approved and found it in need of attention. I changed present tense to past where appropriate and improved the wording in that section somewhat, but the article needs a lot of work and my hands are already full. I am bringing it here as it appears to almost entirely reflect the Trump administration's point of view, and should also be reviewed for accuracy as to government systems. For examplpe, it is true as someone else said on the talk page that Canada does not exactly have a "ratification" process. There is also more to the dispute over aluminum than just American cars, as Quebec politicians are calling the aluminum provisions unacceptable. The writing is en-4 or en-5, understandable and apparently knowledgeable, but with echoes of bureaucratese learned in some language other than English, French or Spanish. It could use a thorough copy-edit and fact-check, but I am not saying that any one past editor was not acting in good faith. Elinruby ( talk) 08:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
It has become clear that the editors of the Everett Stern article are unable to come to a consensus. There have been sides formed, politically and clear COI. It needs to be looked at from NPOV from outside editors and administrators. The article is found here: /info/en/?search=Talk:Everett_Stern Everettstern ( talk) 17:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Primefac is a class-A editor, but even Primefac is not "controlling" that page. It's a collaborative project. Marchjuly has posted a bunch of things on the article talk page, and others have weighed in, and you found that page as well. That is where these things should be hashed out. I have some experience, and I am about to bow out of this discussion on this noticeboard, but from that experience I will tell you that you will not gain any traction here with this specific complaint. If you want to not be topic banned, stop accusing and work with others, by discussing matters on the talk page. Drmies( talk) 21:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
The article Media bias against Bernie Sanders is considered for deletion [7]. The article is basically a compilation of pro-Sanders op-eds complaining that the media is biased against Sanders, with whatever RS content that is on the page either just reporting the complaints by the Sanders campaign or outright dismissing that the media was biased against Sanders, yet the whole article taken together suggests that the media is in fact biased against Sanders. The existence of the page serves as a campaign ad for the candidate (or at least something that fits a narrative that the campaign is pushing), and given the low standard of sources (primarily op-eds and non-rs), one could easily construct similar "I'm being mistreated" articles for other presidential candidates such as Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren and so on. When constructive edits are made to the article itself, these are just indiscriminately reverted. [8] [9] The AfD is kind of ruined by the fact that massive canvassing is going on: both pro- and anti-Sanders Twitter accounts, YouTube channels and subreddits are driving people to the AfD discussion. That's why it might be more helpful to have a separate discussion for regular Wikipedia editors on this noticeboard. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Bacondrum ( talk) 20:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I ask because that is what the editor SunCrow is claiming while he edit-wars [10] [11] the concept out of a Wikipedia article about the NC governor, Pat McCrory, who implemented the anti-transgender North Carolina bathroom bills which sought to prohibit transgender individuals from using the bathrooms consistent with their gender identity. Is it a NPOV violation to acknowledge that "gender identity" is a thing? Is it a NPOV violation to note the effect of the bathroom bill was to prevent transgender individuals from using public restrooms consistent with their gender identity? Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 00:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Whether to allow transgender people access to bathrooms based on gender identity has touched off a national debate...) Even if it didn't, gender identity isn't a nebulous concept at all—not sure how mentioning it could be construed as an NPOV violation. — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 02:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
It's in Jerry Johnston. Seems pretty pov to me to state this in Wikipedia's voice as a real thing. Doug Weller talk 17:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Whats the evidence on that? Must be super strong to justify such a claim. Cinadon 36 21:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Contents were added to an article I am involved in at Special:Diff/930891751 and Special:Diff/930822078. I removed it, but a few editors keep re-inserting some of the contents. The personal website and blog sources do not appear to pass WP:RS. I removed the contents referencing those sources as well as the newly introduced materials. It's my belief that from viewing different discussions and contents dispute that adding information from forum, blog, personal sites material is roughly comparable to Wikipedia editors adding their original research. For example, if someone was to insert the result of an experiment or trial-and-error based on their own experience, or cites a blog, personal site or forum post reporting this, I believe it's proper to remove it; unless that finding has been covered by a reliable source. Should such thing remain, and if other editors keep reverting back contents that do not meet contents guidelines, what should I do? Graywalls ( talk) 01:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
According to [12]. we have pages on
We also have a bunch of redirects like
To me, it looks like most (but not all) of the "Criticism of" pages are WP:POVFORKs or WP:COATRACKs for criticism that wasn't allowed into the main article.
I think that most of them should be merged into the corresponding main pages and that all of the "Criticism of" redirects should be deleted as being unlikely search terms.
Before I post an RfC proposing that, does anyone agree or disagree with my take on this?
Are there any opinions on particular "Criticism of" pages that should be kept? I am thinking that...
...might be worth keeping. Or maybe not. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
IMO "Criticism of" sections and articles should all get deleted. Sections distort the coverage in the article, and the articles are distorted coverage. But IMO moving it from a separate article (an obscure "garbage can") into a section of the main article makes the problem even worse.North8000 ( talk) 18:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
notable and deserve large separate pages. This is not distortion. Some others, like Criticism of the Israeli government are indeed basically attack pages." Why should criticism of Israel be forbidden, and criticism of Islam be encouraged? Wikipedia has often been accused of systemic bias in favor of the West (such as the Judeo-Christian traditions) and against other parts of the world (such as the Islamic traditions). The NPOV noticeboard should be a place for reducing bias, not a place for reinforcing bias with clearly prejudicial claims. NightHeron ( talk) 21:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
The page in question is this Blaze (UK and Ireland) and its pages linked in A&E Networks I went to the help desk, and there was a start of a discussion Alas the other user just doesn't care and just reverted back everything, how can you have dialog etc if the other person will not explain or bother. -- Crazyseiko ( talk) 23:07, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the length and subject matter.
I found the inclusion of NAMBLA content in the lead of Harry Hay surprising, and in looking at the sources used, then a look to see if there were better ones available, I found sourcing lacking. I took the one sentence off the lead and also removed Category:Pedophile activism as both seemed inappropriate. Can you guess where this is going? They were both re-added and the content in the lead expanded. ( Here is a copy as of 4 July 2019. I read all the sources I could find and tried to apply NPOV. After a couple rounds of this I gave up and started a survey of all sources on this content.
NAMBLA is widely despised as child molesters by the vast majority of LGBTQ people as well as popular culture. It’s a group for pedophile advocacy. Pedophilia, is a preference for prepubescent children as old as 13. NAMBLA is possibly the most hated group imaginable to many LGBTQ people.
Any connections to NAMBLA automatically taint whoever is connected with them. The vast majority of reliable sources barely mention anything, those that do cite:
Click for list of reliable sources on this with any usable content
|
---|
|
References
"Getting him to agree to simply wear a sign rather than carry a banner took considerable negotiation by the parade organizers, who wanted to distance the gay and lesbian movement from pedophilia, yet wanted Harry to participate."; "an action he took because he remembered the pleasure of coming out as a teenager with a man who initiated him to the gay world."
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
Unless other reliable sources support this material and demonstrate it has a significant bearing on his life I don’t see how this should be in the lead. As well I think the category is inappropriate. Am I crazy? Gleeanon409 ( talk) 12:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
When Hay was was alive, his constant advocacy for NAMBLA and his cruising of boys was common knowledge. Same as with Ginsberg. It's part of what made Hay a controversial figure - someone who was routinely disrupting Pride, getting kicked out of the very orgs he founded ( Mattachine Society), etc. I've tried to explain this to Gleeanaon, who clearly wasn't around then, but he takes my suggestion to read the sources as a personal attack. He suggests respected gay journalists like Michael Bronski, who was part of some of the same radical collectives as Hay, are somehow orchestrating a smear campaign. I suggest anyone who wants to comment first read Bronski's article, "The real Harry Hay", all the way to the end, as Bronski points out the the New York Times and other major outlets were already leaving the NAMBLA stuff out of his obits, and immediately trying to reinvent him on death:
Neither of the long and laudatory obits in the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times mentioned his unyielding support for NAMBLA or even his deeply radical credentials and vision. Harry, it turns out, was a grandfatherly figure who had an affair with Grandpa Walton. But it’s important to remember Hay — with all his contradictions, his sometimes crackpot notions, and his radiant, ecstatic, vision of the holiness of being queer — as he lived. For in his death, Harry Hay is becoming everything he would have raged against.
Gleeanon's main project right now is editing National LGBTQ Wall of Honor, and they are the one who added the list of names and are the creator and main editor of the article. Gleeanon honestly didn't seem to any know this about Hay, as he seems to not know much about any of the older community members he's copy and pasting into that list. I've told them the answer is not to rewrite history. But Gleeanon keeps deleting discussions from their talk page and misrepresenting both the sourcing and other people's edits. He has become a Tendentious editor who is wasting our time with his, I'm sorry, ignorance of this topic and, possibly, agenda to whitewash on behalf of this group. If the people working on the memorial didn't want someone this problematic, they should have asked older people, or done their research, rather than trying to whitewash the honorees after the fact. Gleeanon is now focusing rather intensely on this. I have asked if they have COI on this project and they have denied it, but I'm really not sure I believe that given this intense POV push. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 19:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
References in the article include Hay's official bio, which was fine with Gleeanon until he realized it sourced all this, with this photo: [15], where Hay wore the sign, "NAMBLA walks with me" in LA Pride. As I said on talk: I really didn't want to link to them, but here's - https://www. nambla. org/hay2002.html NAMBLA's index on their Harry Hay materials. This page has - https://www. nambla. org/sanfrancisco1984.html photos of Harry Hay speaking on a NAMBLA panel in 1984, in San Francisco, under their banner. And again in 1986 in Los Angeles (no photo). Ick. The link is not live because, understandably, the site is on the blacklist. So the the url has spaces. You will have to copy and paste, and take out the spaces, to see it. Ick again. Gleeanon thinks all this is a conspiracy. But it's in Hay's official bio, which was written by some of his most ardent supporters. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I am aware that the quote has been previously linked to however I thought it best that it was out in the open. Please help me try and understand, are you insinuating that the speech at the forum, hosted by the Gay Academic Union at NYU in 1983, given by Hay, is not accurately presented? Are you insinuating that Back To Stonewall is made up of revisionists and that Will Kohler doesn't know what he's talking about? Indigenous girl ( talk) 15:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help) "When he died at ninety in October 2002, many remembrances focused on Hay’s late-life defense of the North American Man/Boy Love Association. While Hay never joined the group, he did defend it from being expelled from several LBGTQ conferences. His defense of NAMBLA was eccentric and troubling, rooted in his own experiences of teenaged sexual activity. But it was a small piece of Hay’s long life of writing and activism." - This source argued that it was not a significant part of Hay's activity and that he never joined... If you think Jacobin is mischaracterizing this, it would be good to find a secondary source (from a reputable publisher, of course) which says the opposite. "
Gay History – October 23rd: The Almost Forgotten Gay Activist Harry Hay and Quebec’s Gay Club Raid Protests" (mentioned above by another user) seems to contradict Jacobin when it states "These events overshadowed Hay’s previous legacy so much that today he is all but forgotten and purposely left out of many LGBT historical writings." but it may be good to check the publishing status of this website to see if it counts as a Reliable Source.
WhisperToMe (
talk) 22:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
References
In closing, I think the discussion here has reached consensus that this is reliably sourced as a prominent and recurring issue in Harry Hay's political work. As Gleeanon409's initial presentation did not include all the sources, mentioned "sources" that are not in the article, and simply dismissed all sources that discuss this part of Hay's life as "unreliable", I am including a list here of the actual sources that cite this well-known, unfortunate fact about Harry Hay. As others have said, NPOV means we write neutrally about the facts of someone's life, without censorship. This was a well-known fact of Hay's life.
Reliable Sources:
There are more mentions out there online, and a ton more in print, but these are the ones in the article at the moment. To include this material is in no way an endorsement of Hay's views. It is certainly not an endorsement of NAMBLA. Whenever someone invokes "trying to right great wrongs" when it's something like pedophile advocacy (dear gods...) I wonder if they think we have no responsibility as editors here at all. Hay made quite the ruckus trying to keep NAMBLA from being shunned when he was alive, so it's only fair that it stays in his article now. What's there right now is NPOV and minimal, all things considered. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 00:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Nowhere was this more evident than in Hay’s persistent support of NAMBLA’s right to march in gay-pride parades. In 1994, he refused to march with the official parade commemorating the Stonewall riots in New York because it refused NAMBLA a place in the event. Instead, he joined a competing march, dubbed The Spirit of Stonewall, which included NAMBLA as well as many of the original Gay Liberation Front members.A source specifically states that he "persistently" protested NAMBLA's exclusion from these marches. Including that is not deceptive; it's accurately following the sources. Your personal research about which marches he protested cannot be used to counter that statement.
Harry Hay... suggests to a crowded room at the recent NAMBLA meeting that a name change might help.Maybe this isn't "strategizing", but the source does say that he offered them advice on how to improve their image. This is not "adding credibility to NAMBLA," it's presenting the facts about Harry Hay as recorded in reliable sources. That is, and should be, the sole goal of Wikipedia. Material is not censored because we fear it may lend credence to some disgusting agenda, and biographies are not white-washed because we might prefer to see our heroes presented in a better light. Oh, and even Britannica mentions his support of NAMBLA [18]
Hay often waded into contentious debates, notably by advocating for such controversial organizations as the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), a pro-pederasty group.. This isn't some smear cooked up by the right-wing media and Wikipedia.
He spoke out in support of relationships between adult men and boys as young as thirteenand
helping the group strategize a name change to help with their public imageare not well-sourced. They rely on analysis of primary sources and that questionable Spectator article (hard to tell if it's an opinion piece or journalism). It would be better to leave that out of the lead, and just let the quotes speak for themselves in the body of the article. I think that entire final sentence should be cut from the lead, both for issues of sourcing and to avoid lending undue weight to the issue. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 20:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I got feedback on the two books suggested above. Accordingly the
Will Roscoe one will likely be used to note facts but not analysis.
While the Hubbard - Verstraete one, is considered of scholarly research and likely can be used to explore Hay’s motivations. I have a copy of the book on its way as I’ve been unable to fully access it online.
Gleeanon409 (
talk) 03:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Hay’s favorite story, of his coming-of-age, “which he repeatedly told to audiences in later years and refered to ironically as his ‘child molestation speech,’ in order to emphasize how sharply different gay life is from heterosexual norms,” recounted his time as an emancipated fourteen-year-old (circa 1926) pursuing sex with a man in his mid-twenties who assumed Hay was of the age of consent. [1] He shared the story “specifically to contradict entrenched stereotypes and to caution against uncritical generalizations so common in reference to pederasty.“ [1] The man gave Hay “tips on how ‘people like us’ should conduct themselves, which ‘inspired Harry almost as vividly as the erotic memory’.” [2] [1]
In 1986, Los Angeles Pride wanted Hay to march, but they had banned NAMBLA, a group synonymous in the U.S. with pro-pedophilia advocacy, and had to negotiate for him to only carry a sign, rather than a larger banner, to protest the action. [3] Hay wanted to do so “because he remembered the pleasure of coming out as a teenager with a man who initiated him to the gay world.” [3] He ended up wearing two posterboard signs; one for Valerie Terrigno, a recently disgraced lesbian politician also banned from the parade, on his front, “Valerie Terrigno walks with me"; [4] and on his back, “NAMBLA walks with me.” [2]
Eight years later, in 1994, Hay was again protesting NAMBLA being banned: ILGA (now ILGBTIA), the-then only group representing gays and lesbians at the United Nations (UN) banned them and two other groups from membership; [a] and Stonewall 25 organizers, producing the 1994 twenty-fifth anniversary of the Stonewall riots, the largest LGBTQ Pride event in the world as of then, [6] banned them and similar groups from its Pride protest march, [7] [b] that purposely changed the route to use First Avenue going past the UN, reflecting the events’ international focus on LGBTQ issues. [9] Hay was among the 150 “activists, scholars, artists, and writers” who signed on to support Spirit Of Stonewall (SOS), an ad hoc group that felt the banned group had free speech, and association rights. [7] Hay delivered “Our Beloved Gay/Lesbian Movement at a Crossroads” speech, concerning the expulsion of NAMBLA, at a SOS press conference, where he stressed three organizing principles from the formation and growth of the LGBTQ movement he used since the early 1950s: we do not censor or exclude one another; if someone identifies as lesbian or gay he accepts them as such; and we cannot allow heterosexuals to dictate who is in our communities—we decide. [10] Hay helped lead the counter-march with almost 7,000 participants. [3]
"Getting him to agree to simply wear a sign rather than carry a banner took considerable negotiation by the parade organizers, who wanted to distance the gay and lesbian movement from pedophilia, yet wanted Harry to participate."; "an action he took because he remembered the pleasure of coming out as a teenager with a man who initiated him to the gay world."
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
If any better sources are forthcoming I’m happy to check them out and add accordingly.
I’m proposing this content be used in the article instead of the current material, after this has been vetted.
Separately, and dependent if any new sources are found, decisions can be made if the category is appropriate, and what, if any, content belongs in the lead.
Gleeanon409 (
talk) 11:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Given the reliable sources available to now, and I’m happy to look at any others that may add to or change what is known, I think Wikipedia’s present content in the lead, and article is dreadfully sourced, and misrepresents Hay’s connection to this despised group. Additionally including Hay in the category of pedophile advocacy is wholly inaccurate. If Wikipedia is indeed an encyclopedia and not a click-bait tabloid then we should update the article accordingly. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 07:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I did omit at least one important facet in trying to express his views. He adamantly felt that queer youth worldwide were victimized by being forced into hetero identities dooming them into forms of despair. He felt this was the real molestation they faced.
He also connects Sen Jesse Helms move to defund the United Nations by discrediting ILGA via the pedophilia groups scandal; with his similar move 30 days later “amended an education bill on its way through the Senate by denying federal funds to any public school district that teaches homosexuality is a positive lifestyle alternative through class work, textbooks, or counseling. This language is so broad that even Project 10, a nationally known counseling program for Gay high school students, would be a key target of the ban.” Gleeanon409 ( talk) 22:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
{this would replaced the content in the body of the article; after reading every reliable and non-primary source it’s apparent this was a minor aspect of Hay’s later life. Accordingly I feel anything in the lead would be WP:Undue and violate WP:RSUW.}}
When Hay died, Michael Bronski’s obituary mentioned his “late-life defense” of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), a group that is synonymous with pro- pedophilia activism. [1] [2] Initially in the late 1970s NAMBLA was accepted as one of many fledgling LGBTQ groups, at least as a fringe one, for its advocacy of gay youth, and civil rights for the teens and pedarists, who had sex with teenaged boys. [3] [4] [5] Quickly though the pedarists were in the minority as the group became controlled by pedophiles—attracted to children and pre-adolescents—who insisted on abolishing all age of consent laws without compromise, eroding all mainstream LGBTQ support. [4] [6] [7] Hay was never a member but did defend them from being expelled from LBGTQ events which was characterized by Bronski as politically embarrassing, and Jacobin’s Ben Miller as “eccentric and troubling,” but “a small piece of Hay’s long life of writing and activism.” [2]
Hay’s favorite story, of his coming-of-age, “which he repeatedly told to audiences in later years and refered to ironically as his ‘child molestation speech,’ in order to emphasize how sharply different gay life is from heterosexual norms,” recounted his time as an emancipated fourteen-year-old (circa 1926) pursuing sex with a man in his mid-twenties who assumed Hay was of the age of consent. [8] He shared the story “specifically to contradict entrenched stereotypes and to caution against uncritical generalizations so common in reference to pederasty.“ [8] The man gave Hay “tips” as to how gay men should act, which ‘inspired Harry almost as vividly as the erotic memory’.” [9] [8]
In 1986, Los Angeles Pride wanted Hay to march, but they had banned NAMBLA, and negotiated for him to carry only a sign, rather than a larger banner, to protest the action. [10] Hay wanted to do so “because he remembered the pleasure of coming out as a teenager with a man who initiated him to the gay world.” [10] He ended up wearing two posterboard signs; one for Valerie Terrigno, a recently disgraced lesbian politician also banned from the parade, on his front, “Valerie Terrigno walks with me"; [11] and on his back, “NAMBLA walks with me.” [9]
Eight years later, in 1994, Hay was again defending the group: ILGA (now ILGBTIA), the-then only group representing gays and lesbians at the United Nations (UN) banned them and two other groups from membership; [a] and Stonewall 25 organizers, producing the 1994 twenty-fifth anniversary of the Stonewall riots in New York City, the largest LGBTQ Pride event in the world as of then, [12] banned the groups from the Pride protest march, [13] [b] that purposely re-routed to use First Avenue going past the UN, reflecting the event’s international focus on LGBTQ issues. [15] Hay was among 150 “activists, scholars, artists, and writers” who publicly signed to support Spirit Of Stonewall (SOS), an ad hoc group that felt the banned groups had free speech, and association rights. [13] Hay delivered “Our Beloved Gay/Lesbian Movement at a Crossroads” speech at a SOS press conference, and later reprinted in Gay Community News, where he stressed organizing principles from the formation and growth of the LGBTQ movement he used since the early 1950s:“...we wouldn't censor or exclude each other. If people self-identify themselves to me as Gay or Lesbian, I accept them as Brothers and Sisters with love. ... [We] integrate [into the mainstream] on our own terms, as we saw ourselves and with our own set of values. ...[And] we no longer permitted any heteros ... to tell us who we were, or of whom our groups should or should not consist”. [16] [17] Hay helped lead the counter-march with almost 7,000 participants. [10]
References
"He was, at times, a serious political embarrassment, as when he consistently advocated the inclusion of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) in gay-pride parades. HAY'S UNEASY relationship with the gay movement — he reviled what he saw as the movement's propensity for selling out its fringe members for easy, and often illusory, respectability — didn't develop later in life. It was there from the start."
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
"Getting him to agree to simply wear a sign rather than carry a banner took considerable negotiation by the parade organizers, who wanted to distance the gay and lesbian movement from pedophilia, yet wanted Harry to participate."; "an action he took because he remembered the pleasure of coming out as a teenager with a man who initiated him to the gay world."
We decided from the beginning that having been almost obliterated for so many centuries, we wouldn't censor or exclude each other. If people self-identify themselves to me as Gay or Lesbian, I accept them as Brothers and Sisters with love. When we decided to rejoin the social and political mainstream, we were determined to integrate on our own terms, as we saw ourselves and with our own set of values. Otherwise, we would not integrate at all. And finally, we no longer permitted any heteros -- nationally or internationally, individually or collectively -- to tell us who we were, or of whom our groups should or should not consist. If necessary, we would assert the prior rights of collective self-definition and self-determination. We Queers would decide such matters among ourselves! Those statements, developed 42 years ago, still hold.
I’m hoping others will be willing to check over the proposed content, and sourcing, and after being vetted this could be used in the article to update the content. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 07:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC) @ MPS1992:, @ Mark Ironie:, @ WhisperToMe:, @ Red Rock Canyon:, @ Someguy1221:, I’m hoping you can shed some light on the ‘proposed’ content for the article itself, and a constructive path forward. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 01:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Should the ‘proposed content’ in the sections directly above replace the NAMBLA-related content in the Harry Hay article; and by WP:Lead, and WP:Undue should there be *any* mention in the lead. If so, what would satisfy NPOV, and WP:Lead? Gleeanon409 ( talk) 14:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
This summary comes in just under 50 words. The second current lede para regurgitates the Background section. The third current lede para could go under "Theory." The last paragraph already appears in section "Later Years"... If someone feels "NAMBLA" needs mention in lede, they could finish it with such, for instance "...who was also involved in other controversial organizations (e.g., NAMBLA)." Keep it simple. Aboudaqn ( talk) 18:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)Henry "Harry" Hay Jr. (1912–2002) was a prominent American gay rights activist, communist, and labor advocate, a founder of the Mattachine Society (first sustained gay rights group in the United States) and the Radical Faeries (loosely affiliated gay spiritual movement), who was also involved in other controversial organizations.
Several edit warriors have tried to exclude the citation of a new book proposing (on evidence that is limited) that the KGB was behind Albert Camus' death in a car wreck. (The book and theory have been discussed by journalists, for ex. at The Guardian.) Failing to exclude it, these editors fell back upon insisting that it be described as a "conspiracy theory" - which is pejorative and a term for a specific type of theory that per se is invalid because it is formulated in a way that makes it not subject to proof or disproof. The matter was debated on Talk page, but fruitlessly because the same editors have dismissed the idea that they need to define a conspiracy theory or show why this theory is one. In so far as they tried, they have contradicted each other and proposed only vague rules of thumb ('speculative', 'fringe', 'possibly true') that permit them to avoid having to justify using the pejorative term. They've made clear that they won't be drawn into justifying it in an evidence-based manner, as shown by the bizarre evidence and rules of evidence they have invoked. One of the edit warriors insists that it is "completely irrelevant" what the WP Conspiracy theory says in defining the term. Another one points to random books and online pages (predating the new book) that neglect to mention the new theory, which is supposed to be proof that the authors rejected the theory. The same person declares that an undergraduate intern is an "expert" because she is the one person he has found who described the new theory as a "conspiracy theory".
I think this is a question of neutral point of view. If it *were* a conspiracy theory (and it is not), then in my view the theory should not be discussed at all on the Camus page. But since it is a fairly ordinary historical theory, albeit based on limited evidence, it should not be dismissed with a pejorative label. Those who insist of labeling it will not relent and allow a neutral description of the theory, and will not seriously justify their entrenched position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.136.62 ( talk) 18:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I'll try to be succinct here. There's this recent Times of Israel blog post about some of our categories for "Jews" and "people of Jewish descent" and being removed from the "Middle Eastern descent categories." Given the recent business with the "Warsaw concentration camp", I figured I'd quickly check and see what the rationale was, and found that, frankly, I have no idea. This is squarely outside of my wheelhouse (both the topic and categories in general).
At first I thought it was because "Jews" includes e.g. converts that are not of Middle Eastern descent whereas the "people of Jewish descent" categories would be in the Middle Eastern categories. That would make for a rather typical controversy-via-misunderstanding-how-wikipedia-works deal. And it checked out for one of the examples in the post: while Category:Canadian Jews had been removed from Category:Middle Eastern Canadians, Category:Canadian people of Jewish descent is indeed in Category:Canadian people of Middle Eastern descent. But then another example is Category:American people of Jewish descent, which was removed from the corresponding Middle Eastern descent category.
Digging through the various category, etc. talk pages is a nightmare. Endless edit warring doesn't help either. I get the sense that there have been multiple RfCs/big discussions, some of which have been overturned.
Can someone provide a short, clear explanation for how these categories are set up and arranged (and why)? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
do we really need to summarize this here because of that blog- I never said "we have to summarize this here because of the blog". I tried to make sense of it myself and couldn't, so asked here. At this stage I'm less looking for what is true/false and more trying to get a sense of how we do things and why (and, if possible, if there were useful RfCs/DRNs/whatnot that led to those processes). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
I just reverted a pile of anonymous IP edits at the Causes of transsexuality page (see the history here) and I thought it was worth double checking here to make sure the page as it stands now conforms with the NPOV rules. In my view I was restoring the version of the page that best matches the cited sources and the IP editor was possibly pushing a POV, but I’m not an expert, and it’s a potentially controversial and sensitive subject matter so I thought it was worth checking to see what uninvolved Wikipedians and/or experts think of the page. Apologies if this doesn’t belong here, or if my edits to the page in question were out of line. Cheers, Dawn Bard ( talk) 06:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
EOKA needs your attention and wikilove fellow wikipedians. I have already made an appeal for editors hear at NPOV/noticepad to have a look at the article [19] but with no respond. Pls have a look. Material from many RS (academic history profs) has been rejected (or trimmed to once sentence) while material from newspapers, not directly related to EOKA per se, has its own section! Absurd. Pls have a look at Talk Page last section: "Is section "Foreign Office declassified documents and EOKA lawsuits against the British government" unnecessary or too long, resulting inUNDUE weight" Cinadon 36 23:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
sadly the RfC didn't get enough attention. It got plenty of attention. Just not the kind of "attention" you wanted it to get. Khirurg ( talk) 17:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Elinruby thanks for spending some time on the article. Well it seems I didn't explain properly my objection as you have misunderstood my argument. Most probable my fault. I have never said that newspapers like TheGuardian are not RS. Quite the contrary. Nor the text in the article misrepresent what the newspaper articles are saying. No, they are great. The problem is that it is given too much weight this specific incidence (the lawsuit). Torture by British forces is discussed elsewhere in the article. The text on lawsuit is the 8% of the article which is absurdly too much. All other sections have been super-summarized, while the specific section ("Foreign Office declassified documents and EOKA lawsuits against the British government") is way too long. It gives details about the alleged tortures- horrible events indeed- but if we follow this path, should we talk about the public torture and murder of a left winger by EOKA members (French 2013, p 167), the assassination of a British doctor while examining patients (Richter 2011, p 582), placing a bomb in a civilian aircraft of 44 passengers (Richter 2011, p 487), and many more. In my view, the article should focus mostly on the effects EOKA struggle had (left wingers and turkish-cypriots- the other significant community of Cyprus island), to explain the pathos for nation self determination that was prominent, to explain the villain side of EOKA (there was one as there is always in these kind of guerrilla struggles). These are the topics of interest among EOKA scholars. As for forumshopping, I was only trying to get more wikipedia users involved. Not many users contributed their opinion at Talk Page and when they did, they didn't actually made a contra-argument. Which I respect but I would prefer if a contra argument would develop to answer my argument. I though I was following the proper dispute-resolution path. Did I not? 22:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
not to put shame on the UK. You will not stop, until you have WP:GAMEd the system, because you hope that people may get tired of this multi-month disruption and not respond any longer. It won't work. WP:DROPTHESTICK already. Also stop following Khirurg around to obscure articles you never edited before to revert him out of spite because he opposed you at EOKA. Dr. K. 23:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Fox News's lead is not following reliable sourcing standards because it is using completely biased opinionated sources to establish a descriptive detailing of a company's page (i.e. the lead paragraph). I, along with many others, on the article's talk page, have discussed restructuring or removing the third paragraph of the lead because of biased sourcing and a reluctance to include information that is contradictory to the narrative portrayed by the sources in question.
A few examples:
Example 1: The New Yorker: "Fox’s hostility toward the Obama Administration grew increasingly extreme."
[1]
Example 2: VOX: "It certainly seems like Fox News has essentially become state TV. So how concerned should the average American be?"
[2] This should be attributed to the scholar's opinion and should not be in the lead.
Example 3: Media Matters: "Fox’s internal critics deserve few accolades."
[3]
I have very rarely seen opinion columns used in the lead, especially for a news organization's article. CNN and MSNBC, for example, have many sources of biased reporting which are not permitted in those organization's articles within the lead by overzealous editors.
When we present information that is contradictory to the opinions stated within the sources in question, such as this article [4] by The Perspective, that contradictory information is deleted. This is a blatant misuse of neutral point of view and the standards set fourth by Wikipedia to have opposing points of view. In addition, sourcing we have set fourth have been equally reliable when viewed within the "lens" of the existing sourcing.
I hope to have this issued resolved. Many others have suggested the third paragraph of the lead of Fox News either be restructured or deleted. I have suggested removing the final sentence: "During Trump's presidency, observers have noted a pronounced tendency of Fox News to serve as a "mouthpiece" for the administration, providing "propaganda" and a "feedback loop" for Trump, with one presidential scholar stating, "it’s the closest we’ve come to having state TV.", as it uses most of the unreliable sourcing, but I would suggest the entire paragraph be restructured. Curivity ( talk) 22:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
References
The Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (MH17) had been shot down by a surface-to-air missile(SAM) while overflying Eastern Ukraine during the War in Donbass. The shootdown had been heavily politicized. There is pretty much a consensus that the airplane had been shot down by the rebels of the Donetsk People's Republic, who tragically misidentified it as belonging to the Ukrainian Airforce (UAF). The rebels are supported by the Russian Federation, and the SAM in question appears to have been supplied by the Russian Federation one day before the shootdown. The rebels shot down several other UAF aircraft in the weeks prior to the downing of MH17, and this is thoroughly detailed in the background section of the article. The POV question I am trying to address is this: should this section also mention, as a matter of balance, that fact the UAF had been using the airspace to bomb the rebels? This is being discussed in an an RfC on the talk page of the article. Heptor ( talk) 00:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
We need some more eyes on these two articles:
especially in relation to Venezuela, where large amounts of well-sourced text are being added and deleted. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 08:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
I have created a page on wiki with the name Cricingig here is the Draft URL https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cricingif# , If someone have any Conflict of Interest, please provide feedback, thoughts suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesjing90 ( talk • contribs) 10:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I just read a very long informative article about Pfizer and their many acquisitions, lawsuits, drug experimentation, etc. but basically nothing about their abuse of horses in order for them to obtain pure estrogen from the pregnant horses urine. This very long article left out a very big atrocity committed by this drug manufacturer. Billions made by torturing animals.
I have quite possibly reached to wrong site to voice my concern but, I hope that whoever reads this does something useful with my complaint.
By the way, in case you don't know, these pregnant horse are down on their knees in an 8 x 3 cage, unable to move. Then they attach a pulley system to the mares groins, 24/7, to collect their estrogen rich urine. (made rich because the horse receives just enough water to keep it alive) This goes on for 7 months. When the mare finally does give birth, she is put out to pasture to get pregnant again and the foals go to feedlots to be fattened up for slaughter. SO, NOW YOU KNOW THE REASON FOR MY COMPLAINT. LOTS OF INFO ABOUT ACQUISITIONS, BUT NONE ABOUT THESE ATROCITIES. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:B843:BB00:547:37E3:BEFA:D32D ( talk) 17:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
In February 2018, we removed mission= and slogan= from {{ infobox organization}} on the basis that they are promotional devices and not encyclopaedic content. That seems to have improved NPOV on those articles. However, a number of templates (e.g. {{ Infobox television channel}} still contain slogans. I think we should be consistent and remove slogans, mission statements and other promotional devices from all infoboxen. Guy ( help!) 00:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
This is an invitation to participate at Request For Comments on second line of lead: Should second line of lead of this article be modified ?
Kmoksha ( talk) 13:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Could someone take a look. I have been tryingto remove puffery, and have been repeatedly reverted by different ip editors, using what I think the patently incorrect reason that they are trying to remove uncited information. I could just semiprotect and block them for vandalism, but since I edited the article, I'd like someone else to look. If I've misjudged, please tell me. DGG ( talk ) 07:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
There is a noticeboard discussion regarding the use of Climate Feedback and InsideClimate News to describe the accuracy of claims made by proponents of climate change denial. If you are interested, please participate at WP:BLPN § Accuracy of claims made by climate change deniers. — Newslinger talk 10:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I'm writing here to request comment on the way in which Queen Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Stelitz Article's "Ancestry" section is handled. Among the cited sources, there is a PBS Frontline article, as well as an article by The Independent, that explore theories around her possible mixed-African ancestry. I notice, however, that only the most sceptical points are excerpted from said sources to include in Wikipedia. The more plausible arguments around this possibility are nowhere to be seen except in the source material itself. I have attempted to contribute samples of these as well as quotations from the Queen’s contemporaries, complete with in-line citations, and, as I learned more, paraphrased them to avoid violating the copyright of the source material, only to see them removed or altered in such a way that the significance of the passage is lost.
Here is an example: After contributing and seeing my contributions deleted, I created an Individual Reassessment page here, and corresponded with an administrator, Celia Homeford, about how to better contribute. Following the guidelines she communicated to me, I composed this paragraph, and added it to the surrounding text:
“Some [of the above-mentioned quotations from historical figures] are listed here … making apparent reference to [her] mixed-ethnicity features: Baron Christian Stockmar, in a fuller version of the above quotation, as appears in an article by the Independent [60], referred to Queen Charlotte as “small and crooked, with a true Mulatto face.” Sir Walter Scott once used a variety of epithets to describe the Queen’s appearance, remarking of the Queen as “ill-coloured” and, in fact, referring to her kin as “a bunch of ill-coloured orangutans.” In Janice Hadlow’s book, “A Royal Experiment: The Private Life of King George III”, upon meeting his wife-to-be, the King was later said by onlookers to have “been shocked by Charlotte’s appearance.” ”
I returned to find my paragraph was then slimmed down by an editor to just this: Sir Walter Scott described her as "ill-coloured" and referred to her kin as "a bunch of ill-coloured orangutans."[60]
This is the thing that concerns me. The phrase I used: "Sir Walter Scott once used a variety of epithets to describe the Queen’s appearance," which was not under copyright and entirely within bounds, was removed. I am concerned that this may leave the reader with the impression that the language he used is accepted by Wikipedia, when in fact, it matches the Oxford dictionary's definition of an epithet. Even if another phrase is used, this, I feel, can be acknowledged without adding a flavour of bias to the article.
That is what I wrote to the apparent editor, Celia Homeford, which has so far elicited no response. See the interaction [ here].
Also, the "Ancestry" section of the Queen Charlotte article remains heavily sceptical at this point, appearing to pick and choose facts that do not reflect the balance of perspectives in the source material. For instance, the page features a hypothesis that her portrait artist, Allan Ramsay, was not accurate in his representation of her -- even though his portrait of her seems to depict what her contemporaries were noticing and attempting to describe -- and Ramsay's portrait remains her official portrait. Still, this hypothesis, that the painter simply made it all up, or 'exaggerated' otherwise imperceptible mixed-ethnic features, remains in a place of honour with insufficient references to the balancing arguments (particularly genealogical ones) that appear in the source material.
In light of these observations, I cannot see how the Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz article meets number 4 of the "Good Article" criteria: "Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each." I would really appreciate any improving attention this section could receive from any helpful folks out here.
Again, the discussion I am referring to with Celia Homeford occurred here, at /info/en/?search=Talk:Charlotte_of_Mecklenburg-Strelitz/GA2. 2605:A601:A1A8:CD00:718A:B28D:9514:7663 ( talk) 19:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your swift response! I completely 'get' that our entries should be concise. However, that differs substantially from my earlier point about neutrality: that the article “appear[s] to pick and choose facts that do not reflect the balance of perspectives in the source material.” In other words, the article as it is gives the impression of near-consensus where there is none.
I have a follow-up question: The genealogist quoted in the article, Valdes, had two theories of the Queen’s ancestry. Only one is quoted by Wikipedia. If I were to contribute his other one, (re-phrased to avoid copyright infringement), and gave proper citations, would this, too, likely be removed to keep the section short? 2605:A601:A1A8:CD00:3129:D3C:C9BA:66D3 ( talk) 20:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
The article is heavily distorted in favor of South Korean state ideology.
In the history of edits, the deletion of a large data array with verified links has been noticed.
The studies of Russian and Chinese archaeologists and scientists are completely ignored if they contradict the official Korean version - nationalistically motivated.
The article needs to be completely revised due to its poor quality.
This article is the cause of the conflict because this state occupies an important place in the modern state myth and the legitimization of claims to the lands of the neighbors of South Korea.
The deleted information was significant as it reflected the point of view of all three parties to the conflict equally.
Obviously, their opinion does not correspond to the official position of South Korea. Moreover, it is significant since 90% of this state was located on their territory, but it was not on the territory of South Korea. All archaeological sites available for research are located in these countries and are actively studied by scientists of these countries.
Rejecting their data on the grounds that they disagree with the Korean is a violation of all possible rules. And just the concepts of honesty, democracy, justice. It turns Wikipedia into a means of propaganda. One or another state ideology. Sometimes very doubtful. 185.17.129.116 ( talk) 16:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)