Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 80

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. 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 main 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.

The original disputed text was: 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:.

Proposed Version - 4/4b: 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]

Proposed Version - 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 had told on the Talkpage that V7 is not neutral because it judges the comment without giving any details on what was the comment.

I request the feedback for two things:

1. Whole incident should be included in Morari Bapu's article or not?

2. If yes to #1, What should be included? I have proposed Version 4 above. Is it neutral and objective? Alternative Version 7 was proposed by other editors. Please give opinion on it as well.

Regards,-Nizil (talk) 06:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• I appreciate Nizil’s attempt to broaden review of this statement. In reviewing the dispute description, I disagree with the following statement followed by the reasons why, “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.”

1. One critique of the initial version was that it wasn't supported by the sources. (1)
2. Two of the sources were non-English, so I translated them and invited all to review to assess whether version 4/4b incorporated them. (1)
3. Sacredsea further explained why directly quoting Morari Bapu’s remarks doesn't clarify the sarcasm and requires more context thereby adding undue weight to one event in his life (1).
4. To illustrate this complexity, I assembled all these details to guide efforts towards building consensus (1) which have been moved here (1) by request of Sarah Welch.
5. Each attempt was ignored: 1; 2; 3
6. Sacredsea acknowledged Nizil’s comments and parsed his description ([1]), which too was ignored (1)

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 appreciate everyone's comments and advocacy for their positions, as well as the efforts to translate the non-english sources. Thanks to that I was able to read through those, and do a cursory search on the topic. What I found was that there are very few sources that mention this incident in the life of someone who is quite famous and therefore, I still remain not fully convinced that this necessitates inclusion at all. However if the majority of the editors feel that it is valid to include I will respect that decision and in that case I would say that version 7 is probably the best frame of the argument as the editor above mentions. ThaNDNman224 (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this content should be included in the article. However if by consensus it will be included, I prefer version 7.Actionjackson09 (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment: Same users are involved and not letting Dayananda Saraswati’s criticism in Swaminarayan Sampraday’s article by policy shopping. See [1]. Similarly, they’re not letting criticism by person to Swaminarayan in his own BLP by policy citing. First, they brought WP:NEVENT and then WP:UNDUE and then WP:BLPPUBLIC; after 3O, they want to add word 'deteriorating' in article which is not NPOV. Controversy is prominent as it received coverages in multiple, independent and reliable sources including BBC, The New Indian Express and VTV Gujarati. This is futile attempt to disrupt Wikipedia. Also, one should wonder why all have one opinion that version 7 should be included, otherwise, it is not notable. I support inclusion and version 4 is neutral and detailed. My one question is why Treehugger was even pinged in talk page for comment in discussion when he was not part of discussion or consensus building process and has just few edits? Generally, 3O is sought from experienced editors.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 01:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

• Parties in dispute: the best use of this board is to get additional input on what is more NPOV and what isn't. It is not to express support or vote on what must be done, or to criticize the other party, due or undue under BLP, policy shopping etc. The dispute you all have, as relevant to this board and wikipedia, needs focus on the "context". Neutrality is not with respect to your personal feelings about the subject or person, it is in the context of the sources and our BLP guidelines. If non-ENG sources can be interpreted/translated in a number of ways as evidenced by the wall of text on that talk page, the neutral version for a BLP would be one that reflects "a high degree of sensitivity, non-sensationalist" version per the cited sources that considers "the possibility of harm to living subjects" (see WP:BLP). That would be something closer to a version that uses the word "questioned" or something similar (4b), rather than a version that uses words such as "sarcastic dig, insulted, attacked, derogatory, slandered, etc" (5/6/7). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

• I thought I articulated my opinion on this matter quite clear on the article's talk page, but I guess I did not. Nizil, if you recall, I did not want to include the statement to begin with as I don't believe it is warranted on the article. However, based on the discussions, I was slightly convinced that it should be placed and if included. I reviewed the options in Moksha's sandbox and I favor v7. I agree with all the reasons articulated by Sacredsea, which also support my stance on this. Apollo1203 (talk) 05:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with Ms Sarah Welch that best to focus on NPOV issues here and leave other issues of inclusion and weight to talk page. As I mentioned in the talk page, the keyword of the VTV article headline offered in Ms Sarah Welch’s talk page post is કટાક્ષ – which is translated solely as sarcasm. Since the sarcastic remarks targeting Swaminarayan gave rise to the controversy according to sources, using the word “questioned” (or similar words) is euphemistic, and thus, non-neutral. I think the “sensitivity, non-sensationalist” approach would apply to both parties to the controversy as they are all living subjects. Using the euphemistic ‘questioned’, for what were ‘sarcastic remarks’, may be seen as insensitive towards objecting parties.Moreover, version 4 doesn't accurately explain the issue as mentioned in my talk page post points 1, 2 & 3.Sacredsea (talk) 14:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

• Not solely "sarcasm". It has four translations per google translate (Gujarati to English), depending on the context: sarcasm, quip, innuendo, aha. The word is likely derived from the Sanskrit Kaṭākṣa (कटाक्ष), which means "sideways glance/expression". Either "quipped" or "said" is a more neutral in BLP context, if you wish to use NON-ENG sources (else we can limit to NPOV version based strictly on the available English-language sources). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:32, 3 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)

I've modified the article in line with the Nature commentary about the recent experimental results. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:31, 4 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)

Well I mean WP:BLUESKY - when a legally elected president is kicked out of office by the military... Simonm223 (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

"Kicked out" via... a suggestion. That's a pretty novel application of "coup". 199.247.45.42 (talk) 08:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

When the military "suggests" that the government resign, that sounds like more than a suggestion. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:07, 5 December 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)

Well it can be argued that as Chinese media is state controlled they are not third party. But it might help if you linked to the problem articles so we can judge.Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• I think we can cover what the various sides claim happened in a neutral way. The key is to attribute the various claims and not present them as undisputed facts. The PRC says X, while the protesters say Y. Blueboar (talk) 12:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, which is why we need to see what is being added.Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 5 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)

• Boeing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• As I peruse the infobox for Boeing (just chose something at random) I notice that many facts are drawn from SEC filings. Other articles may use sources such as IRS tax filings, or secondary sources reporting thereof.
• Make-A-Wish Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• For Make-A-Wish, what material is sourced in the lede section is sourced to their official website. I imagine that more within is sourced, ultimately, to press releases.
• For any given organization, what facts are acceptable to include in articles, when drawn from that org's own WP:SPS? Membership numbers? Dollars given to charity, man-hours worked? Subsidiary office numbers and locations? Description of corporate structure? History of the org (founding date, growth, milestones)? Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources, so how many self-published citations are "too many" for an article? Elizium23 (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Elizium23, such facts are fine from primary sources. This is spelled out in WP:PRIMARY which says among other things 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)

So when do they become NOT_OK? When there are too many, percentagewise as regards references or article prose? Surely since Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources and promotion of topics is discouraged, this self-sourcing should be avoided, and/or stripped from articles where it appears, or is too predominant. Elizium23 (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Using the company's literature to support something like "they are a world-class company", or "the leading producer or widgets" or what would be considered self-serving, subjective statements. Maybe a company is the largest producer of widgets, but that should be made by an independent source. --Masem (t) 19:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I would also say be careful if reliable sources question the claims. For example Enron's accounting statements would certainly be questionable in retrospect and might have been questioned by sources at the time. Conversely I don't think people are widely questioning if say 3M or Agilent are fudging their numbers/claims in their filings. Basically if the claims aren't controversial and haven't been questioned I would generally accept them. Springee (talk) 21:15, 10 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

The above user has decided that the currently accepted phrasing is too "liberal" and wants to shift it away from the consensus. It's yet another "Wikipedia is biased against conservatives" strawman. They have spent weeks trying to maneuver the article with the classic "it's just a theory" technique in order to downplay any view that it is a recognized phenomenon. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Something of an obsession for this user, who seems unable to rest whilst the article in question purports to describe an observable phenomenon, rather than a "sociological concept". William Avery (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree. See the talk page. This is one person who failed to get agreement from several editors, some of who have been told about this post and others who have not. There's also no notice on the talk page. Doug Weller talk 17:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not just a theoretical concept, it's a cluster of thoroughly-studied phenomena; presenting it as "just a concept" biases the reader. You may present it as a "theory" (subject to topic area conventions), but you should state that it's supported by empirical evidence. François Robere (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, but Keith Johnston continually seeks out sources in which the "theory" label is attached to "white privilege", and says that these demonstrate the need for Wikipedia to characterise it as such. William Avery (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I just looked at the OP's talk page, see User talk:Keith Johnston - a history of some editwarring, a block for same, and quite a bit of old discussion about this article - several sections starting in July 2017. And these article talk page archives.[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 18:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Many of those contributions were regarding OPs earlier project, of adding a Criticism section. William Avery (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

This appears to be a WP:RGW crusade by Keith Johnston. The goal-posts keep shifting, but the intention is clearly to cast doubt on a routine academic term by any means necessary. The article has a steady trickle of SPAs who ignore or dislike the way consensus has been built on the talk page. There have been multiple RFCs and countless WP:DROPTHESTICK and WP:NOTFORUM rants from these editors. Keith Johnston will, almost unfailingly, comment on these talk sections weeks or even months after they have died a natural death, and will often comment on these editor's talk pages to encourage them to continue pushing this specific POV. From this, it looks like Keith Johnston is more interested in recruiting allies than in trying to understand the underlying issue, or trying persuade based on policy. This is disruptive.

Additionally, periodically Keith Johnston will post some obscure opinion article which might be interpreted as critical of the term or concept in some specific way, and use it to imply that the article should be made more critical of the entire idea. These usually ignore both the context and due weight of these opinions. This repetitious behavior means Keith Johnston is, by a comfortable margin, the most active contributor to the article's talk page. Grayfell (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the issue is with the proposed change. As far as I can tell, all he is doing is proposing to make it explicit that this is a term from sociology, which isn't controversial (I'd imagine any concept around race, class, etc. would fall into sociology as a field of study). I think the key here is to make it clear that this term is routine and generally accepted by the applicable research community in the lede, but other than that I don't see the proposed language as being beyond the pale or inappropriate for discussion on the talk page. Michepman (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

The issue is that he's been emphasize that it's "just a theory," the way anti-evolutionists say evolution is "just a theory, [not a fact]."

There's also the issue that white privilege is the thing about which sociologists have theories, rather than a theory to describe something else. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Ian.thomson - that's fair, but I am reading the proposed language as saying 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)

Agree with Michepman. White privilege is a sociological concept (one criticized by other academics) and should be presented as a sociological concept. The analogies with The Theory of Evolution, General relativity and other theories from Physics, Chemistry, Biology and other Natural Science are false analogies since Sociology is not a Natural Science. --ColumbiaXY (talk) 05:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore the current POV promoted in the lead of the article claims "white 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 in western countries".

1. This is not exactly true as shown by economic studies and surveys which also examine 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.

2. What is worse is that -even though the lead is ambiguous enough to make readers think "white privilege" is a general, global phenomenon, 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)

• Evolution is "just" a theory, General relativity is "just" a theory, Valence bond theory is "just" a theory, Germ theory of disease is "just" a theory, the Big Bang is "just" a theory, Mosquito-malaria theory is "just" a theory -- doesn't mean that what they explain is any less real. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

The phenomenon refereed to above is differences in ethnic group outcomes. White privilege is a concept which seeks to explain such differences. For wikipedia to describe white privilege as the phenomenon itself, and not an explanation for the phenomenon, is a category error.

There are reliable sources which make the claim that white privilege is the reason for the phenomenon. There are also reliable sources which contextualise white privilege as a concept (or theory) and cast doubt on or reject its claims. To maintain neutrality Wikipedia cannot take one side over the other. Some of these sources include:

Phyllis May-Machunda, Ph.D. Professor, American Multicultural Studies, describes White privilege as a 'a theoretical framework for viewing the dynamics and structure of oppression' https://nationalseedproject.org/Key-SEED-Texts/peggy-mcintosh-s-white-privilege-papers

Professor Michael J. Monahan of the University of Memphis: posits: “the misleading and morally dubious aspects of privilege…ultimately do more harm to a genuine understanding of oppression than good.”

https://nonprofitquarterly.org/putting-privilege-in-perspective/)

and

https://philarchive.org/archive/MONTCO-21v1).

In her book, The Perils of ‘Privilege’: Why Injustice Can’t Be Solved by Accusing Others of Advantage, Phoebe Maltz Bovy argues privilege has become “the word and concept of our age . . . our era’s number one insult.” whose “…role as an aide in online bullying exceeds its utility as a theoretical framework.”[8]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2017/03/23/the-last-thing-on-privilege-youll-ever-need-to-read/

also see https://newrepublic.com/article/140985/perils-privilege-phoebe-maltz-bovy-book-excerpt

In Intellectuals and Race, Economist Thomas Sowell agues that privilege represents an effort by the intelligencia to "downplay or discredit achievement by verbally transforming it into privilege" and rejects this idea as “grotesque”.. Intellectuals and Race, pp52-53, Basic Books (12 Mar. 2013) 978-0465058723

Professors Hyeyoung Woo, Department of Sociology, Portland State University. Professor Arthur Sakamoto, Department of Sociology, University of Texas, and Professor Isao Takei, Department of International Relations, Nihon University. They reject privilege theory claiming ethnic group differences are accounted for by “family patterns that emphasize educational attainment and upward social mobility.”

https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=soc_fac

Eric Arnesen argues that, in many cases, "whiteness scholars' extreme and essentialist formulations make their categories and contributions analytically quite useless.

Arnesen, Eric (October 2001). "Whiteness and the Historians' Imagination". International Labor and Working-Class History. 60: 3–32.

In the National review Dennis Prager describes white privilege as either “untrue or meaningless”

https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/02/white-privilege-myth-reality/

Keith Johnston (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I won't laboriously deconstruct these individually, but none of these out-of-context quotes say what the OP wants them to say. That is, none of them put white privilege into the category of "hypothesis" (the correct word for what they're referring to as "theory") and removes it from the realm of "fact". Many are not WP:V in the least. Even if they were useful, the cherry-picked selection above would be vastly over-weighted by the majority of scholarly analysis on the topic Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

The majority of scholarly research talks about the "concept of white privilege" - not the "phenomenon". --ColumbiaXY (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Ian.thomson - not all theories describe phenomena - in fact most don't - this is an important fact which you seem to be ignorng. --ColumbiaXY (talk) 06:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Eggishorn (talk) to construct an argument editors do need to laboriously engage with the sources. Meanwhile here is Andrew Sullivan (a prominent writer) writing in the New York magazine (a reliable source) characterising white privilege not as a phenomenon, but as an article of faith. http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/andrew-sullivan-americas-new-religions.html Keith Johnston (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The only mention of white privilege in the source does not deny that it exists as a phenomenon but merely attacks progressives for supposedly wanting whites to "[admit] white privilege in ways that are strikingly like the admission of original sin," what he calls a "public confession of sin." Whatever one thinks of Sullivan's screed, he'd not claiming that white privilege doesn't exist. NightHeron (talk) 14:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Sullivan is saying that white privilege exists as original sin in a new 'religion', analogous to Christianity, which he calls "social justice theory". To read this as supporting the idea that white privilege is uncontrovertibly a fact would be a fringe take on the christian religion, which famously is justified by faith alone. Keith Johnston (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Sullivan isn't stating any fact, but ranting in an opinion piece, which is not a reliable source for this article. You are twisting NightHeron's words around to try and change the narrative. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Nothing in the source addresses whether Sullivan thinks that white privilege exists as a phenomenon. What he objects to is the way he claims that social justice advocates try to get whites to "confess" to it. Similarly, opponents of the #MeToo movement object to how that movement deals with sexual harassment. They don't claim that sexual harassment doesn't exist as a phenomenon. NightHeron (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Keith Johnston, identifying Andrew Sullivan as merely a "prominent writer" in this context is like calling Alfred Baldwin a "security expert" in the context of Watergate. It isn't technically incorrect, but it also obfuscates how unreliable the source is for use in the debate. Sullivan is not a sociologist, a psychologist, a political scientist, a historian, or in any other way, shape, or form any kind of relevant expert on the subject. He is a magazine editor and a conservative political activist, and a highly biased one at that. In other words, citing his piece as if it were a relevant WP:RS is not merely useless to addressing the dispute, it is actively harmful to reaching a resolution. And all that is without even going into the substance of the piece which, as NightHeron and HandThatFeeds have already pointed out, doesn't actually dispute the existence of white privilege as a fact of social construction.

But you want your list of supposed sources laboriously deconstructed. Well, the "prove I'm wrong" nature of asking others to do the work you yourself should have done is highly against such an endeavor. Even more pertinent, however, is that your list of supposed supporting sources starts with such an egregious example of out-of-context quoting and failure to understand the source material that it cannot be anything other than complete incompetence to discuss the subject or blatant misrepresentation of a source. Doctor McIntosh is, in point of fact, one of the seminal leaders in establishing white privilege as a scholarly discipline[6]: 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)

edited to add a note for clarity: The quote from Dr. May-Machunda (the first source in Keith Johnston's list) is an excerpt of an endorsement of McIntosh's work and about using work to frame discrimination and privilege in class discussions on a page for a project McIntosh founded. It is anything but a disputation that white privilege exists as a fact of social organization. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm aware of the content of the source listed and thats exactly why it is listed. To demonstrate that even those who wholeheartedly support the utility of the concept recognise its a "theoretical framework".Keith Johnston (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

This only proves you have grossly misinterpreted sources and definitions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:45, 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)

• As an uninvolved editor, I must ask: what makes the proposed version any more neutral than the status-quo? From looking at the article my objection would be more towards not having any academic criticism of the concept's validity. —Srid^🍁 01:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

That may be because WP:GEVAL applies to criticism of the concept's validity. Non-white people have to face additional social problems that white people just don't have to face, and which in both quantity and quality exceed difficulties faced solely by white people. This is not to deny that white people face the same trouble that all people face (e.g. a bad economy) but that there are additional problems that white people don't have to deal with. To be ignorant of that is only excusable up to a point and to outright deny it is racist delusion. Theories of white privilege (explaining how it works or why it exists) might be critiqued, many proposed solutions for the larger examples of white privilege would be inherently political and open to criticism, but there's simply no reasonable criticism for being aware that non-whites face additional difficulties nor any humane opposition to the broad goal of reducing those problems. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Ian.thomson doesn't that depend on both the country being discussed and the (ethnic) origin of the white-person, among other things ? For example, in Pakistan, China, Singapore, Saudi Arabia or Japan, what social problems would face the locals that would exceed (in both quantity and quality) those faced by whites in those same countries? Also, are we expected to believe that, if a white American is visiting Turkey or Egypt, and if he enjoys some "privilege" there, the same will be true for an Armenian, Greek or Yazidi? Because there's exactly zero research to support such claims.--ColumbiaXY (talk) 09:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• I agree that white privilege is a phenomenon, and there can be no legitimate controversy over whether or not it exists. There can be legitimate disagreement about the choice of terminology, that is, the framing of the issue of racism. For example, some scholars and activists believe that use of the term makes it harder for people of color to find allies among oppressed subpopulations of white people. I don't see any need for change in the article, because the last two paragraphs of the lede already discuss possible objections to the terminology, especially: 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)

There are some legitimate issues with the lede tho, obvious and less obvious passive advantages...[distinguished] from overt bias or prejudice is 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)

eric: You make a good point that the lede could use more clarity. Also, there's little or nothing in the main body that explains or expands upon the last two paragraphs in the lede. According to MOS:LEAD, 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)

• If white privilege is truly a phenomenon, how come research to prove and measure that phenomenon is so absent? Crime is a social phenomenon, so are marriage or social inequality. "White privilege" is a sociological concept offered as a possible explanation for various observed phenomena, not a phenomenon in itself.--ColumbiaXY (talk) 05:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

All this concept-phenomenon bickering seems to be a roundabout way of saying "latent variable are abstract concepts operationalized and measured as measurable phenomenon". Death is a phenomenon, and yet a concept as it's not directly measurable.

Besides, you've made it very clear publicly that you hold a strong anti- social science pov. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

EvergreenFir (talk) you're making it clear you're equating definitions from Critical Race Theory (a non-Scientific discipline) to phenomena from Physics and Biology (and other Scientific disciplines). Death is the permanent cessation of all biological functions that sustain a living, physical organism, and those functions (from heartbeats to brain activity) are measurable. It's childish to imply otherwise. Death is ZERO heartbeats, ZERO brain activity and so on - no ambiguity, exception and alternative explanations, like in the case of "white privilege". As for the "social sciences" - I've only criticized the overwhelming number of "studies" that fail to replicate in that field (studies which just happen to not qualify as Science beacuse of that reason). You might want to start reading about the replication crisis in the social sciences more, especially since, so often, you act like it does not exist. --ColumbiaXY (talk) 05:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@ColumbiaXY: I'd love to know your view on cultural anthropological studies of death rituals and how the indication of death has changed over time. But your opposition to accepting any social science says volumes. All that aside, I'm not sure what the "replication crisis" (I'll wait for the meta-analysis crisis) has to do with white privilege. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: you're making some misleading arguments here. I'm not rejecting all "social science". I do prefer cautiousness over pushing absolutist claims from an academic field known for having systemic problems with the studies coming from it -especially when there are tons of criticism from academics regarding claims being pushed (ie: about "white privilege")--ColumbiaXY (talk) 06:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

White privilege is a near-synonym and alternative framing of racism. Racism is a phenomenon (not a "theory") and has long been treated as such on Wikipedia, see for example Racism in the United States. The notion that racism and white privilege are not a phenomenon is a fringe view. NightHeron (talk) 13:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Note that there is also an article on male privilege, which is quite analogous. While it is a fringe view to deny that white privilege and male privilege exist as real phenomena, it is perfectly reasonable to raise criticisms of the framing of those phenomena with the word choice privilege. The article white privilege does include in the lede some well-sourced criticism of the terminology. NightHeron (talk) 13:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

NightHeron (talk) We are discussing the white privilege page. No-one is claiming racism doesn't exist. None of the sources cited say that - even those critical of the concept - and neither does the proposed change. Keith Johnston (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Keith Johnston, According to the white privilege article, the concept of white privilege is used 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)

The article is so biased it does not even begin to explore the limitations of using the concept of white privilege to explain the phenomenon of outcome differences between different ethnic groups. Here is the Sutton Trust demonstrating "Improvement in urban schools, stronger family aspirations and cultural attitudes are suggested as some of the key reasons why different groups achieve differently." No mention of white privilege. https://www.suttontrust.com/research-paper/class-differences-ethnicity-and-disadvantage/ Keith Johnston (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

And that statement makes it very clear you either do not understand sourcing on Wikipedia, or you are disingenuously framing the argument to force your own point of view into the article. Because now you've moved to "I've found an article doesn't contain the words White Privilege, therefore proving my point!" That's... so far off base it's ridiculous. Of course there are articles about social standing between ethnic groups that don't use those words. That you seem to feel this invalidates the opposing arguments here is mind-boggling. Again, you're just throwing shit around to see what sticks, without mind for Wikipedia's rules and standards. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:44, 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.

Allenwiliams, not everything that is written is appropriate for inclusion. Ironically, the ability to deny white privilege is also an example of white privilege. Guy (help!) 15:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Guy - that's circular, and makes no sense. Go fish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allenwiliams (talk • contribs) 04:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah, no, this is a nothing burger from a user who wants to downplay the idea that white privilege exists outside the mind of academics. Simonm223 (talk) 12:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• The non-neutral point of view of this article gives new meaning to the term whitewashing. There is clearly an agenda to keep legitimate criticism out of the article.Jacona (talk) 13:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The last two paragraphs of the lede contain legitimate criticism. Do you have some additional criticism that's well-sourced (RS-compliant, not a right-wing blogger) that you'd like to add? NightHeron (talk) 14:39, 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 agree with the original poster that the current wording is biased. White privilege certainly exists in some cases, but not in all cases. There may be some scenarios that are biased in favor of other ethnicities. The current wording seems to imply that it always exists. As far as being a theory, it is completely wrong to compare it with scientific theories, because those are a universal way things work, which do not change with people's attitudes. I think a well-written article would include in the lead that it is a concept or idea rather than a universal truth, but would not have a criticism section, but rather include arguments of different perspectives interspersed. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 06:09, 10 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)

Elinruby, I assume you are referring to the article at United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement? A link is always helpful when coming to such a noticeboard as this one. Elizium23 (talk) 19:14, 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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Everett_Stern Everettstern (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• Everettstern, I call bullshit. What consensus? What is the problem? It's kind of rich, not to say hilarious, that you are complaining, *ahem*, about NPOV, *cough cough*, and that there are, eh, supposed to be editors with a clear COI **cough cough your username you are the subject**. Sorry, I got this cough. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Drmies, I agree that I have an obvious conflict of interest. But the rest of the group is being biased on the article as well. For instance, Primefac has been altering this article for six years and has no expertise or original research. The rest of the users in the past few days have all acted against the page, removed legitimate sources such as Reader's Digest. Changed my title, which was cited 10 times from legitimate primary sources, removed references to work that the Intelligence agency Tactical Rabbit has completed, and then called me a "former" politician. These inaccuracies should be addressed in good faith. Drmies don't you agree?Everettstern (talk) 04:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Everettstern, you can't ask for something "in good faith" while making completely unfounded accusations of "bias" and "COI". With Reader's Digest, do you mean this? You seriously want that, in between all the other sources, to prove something? That's vain, in all meanings of the word. Primefac, by the way, has plenty of expertise: nine years of it, and over 140,000 edits. I suggest you accept that they know what they're talking about, and that you stop trying to get people put in place with all these noticeboard postings, since I am seriously considering blocking you, or topic-banning you from your own article. Drmies (talk) 13:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Drmies There is no reason to threaten me with a block on my own page. I am following Wikipedia rules to discuss the issues on notice boards. I thought I was following procedure. I got concerned with Primefac because he has been following my page for 6 years. If he has all that experience then I stand corrected. Again, you have to forgive me as I am not a Wikipedia expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I do not think it is appropriate to threaten me with a block when I am doing what I read what Wikipedia told me to do. If I am not following Wikipedia rules then let me know, but blocking me from my own page in which I am the subject of is a bit extreme. I understand and admit there is a conflict of interest as I am the person in the article, but I simply do not believe I am getting a fair shake on things. If I am wrong then I am wrong. I was not sure and that is why I posted in this notice board so it can be discussed. I did not know Primfac had that kind of experience and I feel bad that I made the aforementioned comment. I was not trying to knock him in anyway. I just got concerned when I saw that overall he was the person that was really controlling my page. Maybe it is a good thing Primefac is controlling my page. Drmies I appreciate you telling me what you did about Primfac and this is why I am posting on this board... to learn. I apologize if it is being taken as an attack as it is not. I am just trying to get a neutral point of view. If Primefac has all of this experience then it is an honor to have him controlling my page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Everettstern (talk • contribs) 17:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

"If I am wrong then I am wrong"--yes. You could have found out about Primefac easily enough. Don't blame me for you not having learned the rules about the website you are editing. Four years ago you were given a welcome template with a bunch of links, including to the "Five Pillars". The fourth discusses civility, and [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assuming good faith] is an important part--and yet here you are, five years later, accusing others of a conflict of interest when you are the one with the COI. No, blocking you from "your own page" is not extreme at all: first of all, it's not "your" page, and second, we will do what we need to do in order to protect the integrity of the project, including that article. You keep looking at it from the "I know best about me" angle, and that's great, but there's another angle, the "you have a conflict of interest and on top of that you don't seem to have cared enough to learn the rules even though it seems so important to you" angle, which is to safeguard the project. You were not "doing what [you] read what Wikipedia told [you] to do", and saying "If I am not following Wikipedia rules then let me know" is a good start--except that you have already been told you weren't following rules/guidelines.

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)

Drmies I sincerely apologize to you. I am coming off the wrong way. There is a misunderstanding. Please see my talk page where I am now commenting on. Please give me the benefit of the doubt and understand I am not a seasoned Wikipedia user. On my talk page I address many of the issues you are concerned with. Everettstern (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

If the subject thinks that the content is inaccurate, they can go to the BLP noticeboard. Otherwise I suggest that the subject of an article not be a filing editor here. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Robert McClenon! I will figure out how to do that properly. I am not trying to break any Wikipedia rules and want to handle this situation properly and in good faith. I saw that you closed the dispute resolution request. I have tried to discuss these issues in the talk page, I always disclose my identity, but it seems that because I am the subject I am not afforded a voice. I have not broken any of the Wiki policies by requesting edits or raising concerns. I will take the issue to the BLPN. Again, thank you for your neutral assistance!Everettstern (talk) 04:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This is also being discussed at Talk:Everett Stern#Request for Comment on Article Version, and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Everett Stern. It's not very productive to try and open the same discussion at three different places at the same time. So, I wouldn't suggest trying to start another discussion about this at WP:BLPN; it would be OK, however, to add a Template:Please see to BLPN or to the talk pages of the any of the WikiProjects listed at the top of the article's talk page so as to let others know about the discussion ongoing on the article's talk page. As long as WP:CANVASS doesn't become an issue, it should be OK to do to post a general notification trying to get others involved in the discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I didn't notice that Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Everett Stern had already been closed when I posted the above. Once again, I advise against trying to start new discussions about this on other noticeboards since that won't speed things up and will only fragment the discussion. An RFC has been opened on the article's talk page, and it's best to keep all relevant comments there so that everything is in one place. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:25, 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)

The topic has been discussed in reliable sources. The justification offered by media is not that they are unbiased, but that their bias is justified based on opposition to his policies and belief that he should not be elected president. You might want to add justifications for media bias if you think the article lacks neutrality. TFD (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

That is certainly not what RS say. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

You've cleaned up the article, you've voted, you've argued your case in the AFD. What matters remain unclosed? POV canvassing concerns on both sides of the argument are already well documented. Whether you repeat twenty times that the sources aren't RS does not strengthen your claim. The whole reason why we are having a discussion about it to begin with is to assess the validity that claim.

Given this, it surprises me that you cross posted the AfD here, especially with such a leading tone. →Σσς. (Sigma) 07:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• The article is poorly soourced What if Trump supporters put together a page based on pro-Trump op-eds from News Corp et al called "Media bias against Donald Trump"? I mean every politician on earth claims the media is biased against them. Is there evidence or just opinion? When we see a memo from Murdoch leaked directing editors to "destroy Sander's reputation" or something similar then it's an artilce based entirely on opinion.

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)

The cited article references gender identity several times. (e.g. 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)

Pretty much a neutral term. I could see isolated cases where it may be considered loaded but I would assume it to be a perfectly acceptable neutral term . --Masem (t) 02:45, 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)

Is there a blood test for this? Seems to be sourced to him anywho. O3000 (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• No. The phrase "acceptance of salvation in Christ" presumes a great deal. GMG^talk 18:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Not even Billy Graham's article has statements like that. If Johnston heads a megachurch though, you could state the size of his congregation if the church doesn't have an article. You could state that he shared the message to x million people, as with Luis Palau. But that isn't the same as people who've made a decision. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I have so many questions(!) but the short answer is no. I might be swayed if Guinness Records were involved to check the receipts. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

NO we can say it has been claimed he has.Slatersteven (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Whats the evidence on that? Must be super strong to justify such a claim. Cinadon36 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)

Blogs are considered self-published and lacking in editorial review. There is an exception for acknowledged experts in their field. If editors refuse to discuss, there are notice boards about contentious editing and editor behaviour. Elinruby (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

On reviewing the diffs I see that the subject matter is OS hacks. This makes the question a little blurrier, as it is common practice for a lead developer, for example, to do a blog with pro tips. I do not want to do a deep dive into this right now, but the question has become who the author is. A QA engineer at Sun might be an expert, for example, or not, depending on how they do things. If the author is a Sun employee he may fall under this exception. Maybe. It definitely should be scrutinized. Elinruby (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

According to [12]. we have pages on

• Criticism of Swaminarayan sect (but no Criticism of Aum Shinrikyo)
• Criticism of Mother Teresa (but no Criticism of Dalai Lama)
• Criticism of Muhammad (but no Criticism of Gautama Buddha)
• Criticism of the Israeli government (but no Criticism of the Chinese government)
• Criticism of Amazon (but no Criticism of Alibaba Group)
• Criticism of Facebook (but no Criticism of Twitter)
• Criticism of The Walt Disney Company (but no Criticism of Monsanto)
• Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt (but no Criticism of Herbert Hoover)
• Criticism of Family Guy (but no Criticism of the Simpsons)

We also have a bunch of redirects like

• Criticism of Jay Leno (but no Criticism of David Letterman)
• Criticism of the C programming language (but no Criticism of BASIC)

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...

• Criticism of Christianity
• Criticism of Islam
• Criticisms of Marxism
• Criticism of capitalism

...might be worth keeping. Or maybe not. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it is wrong to say "We have criticism of X as a page but not critical of parallel topic y". Two questions better asked: 1) If we have "criticism of X" as a standalone, do we also have "criticism of parallel topic y" in the article about y itself, and 2) if we have "criticism of X", is there a SIZE issue to explain why it was moved out, and was there a better split of content less contestable that could have been split out first per Summary Style. And there are other factors to keep in mind. For example, Facebook has been a LOT more hot water than Twitter and so I would expect a rather lengthy bit on criticism of Facebook. Enough for its own page, after taking out all the minutee of the coverage? Not sure, but I would not be surprised to see enough for a standalone. --Masem (t) 00:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• I do not think that "criticism" pages are inherently problematic because the criticism of something or someone can be a well-defined, notable and perfectly legitimate subject. Not having pages about something is not a policy-based argument. Some of these page, however, (like Criticism of Swaminarayan sect) should go to AfD on a case by case basis. My very best wishes (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Agree with above, “criticism of” pages justified where body of criticism is well defined. Not a problem that some exist and some don’t if existing ones meet that test and non-existing ones don’t, or if non-existing could be made. Nothing prevents creation of criticism of Monsanto page for example — doubtless justifies and welcome to add. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that a lack of a criticism article for a related topic it not, one its own, enough to justify deletion since there are several other possible reasons for this. It could be, there is enough criticism for an article but no one got around to making it, the other subject is simply less controversial, the other subject has a shorter article so the it wasn't necessary to split criticism for size purposes, ect. This clearly needs to be decided on a case by case basis.--67.68.29.177 (talk) 03:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• I've long been of the opinion that criticism sections, let alone articles, are inherently coatracks for editors to include their own personal gripes. The vast majority of them should definitely be deprecated and their content merged into the articles. Sceptre (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I readily agree that criticism sections (but not limited to them) have become the type of laundry lists for any mention of any potential "bad thing" against that topic. It is moreso a problem over on BLPs, but it extends across the board. A poorly established criticism section in an article is a honeypot for anyone to come by with a weak source to say "this must be added!" But this doesn't mean criticism sections - or standalones - are bad in of themselves, as long as editors keep out the single-source, RECENTISM stuff, and instead focus on long-term criticism towards the topic, or criticism that has had a significant effect for the topic. It is similar to trivia sections, they can grow out of line if editors do not scrub out those entries that do not have proper sourcing. Now, in some cases, that can be merged throughout the article, but this is not always possible without disrupting narrative flow. For example, if we are discussing a company like Facebook, the only logical place to put its controversies is within the history of the company, but narratively would be jarring, and a separate section makes more sense - as long as it properly kept. --Masem (t) 23:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Looking over some of the criticism articles listed above, you can see a striking difference between two types of articles. Some are literally about the criticism, citing secondary sources that are explicitly analyzing the subject "criticism of X". Other articles appear utterly disjointed, lurching from section to section without transition, and many of the sources are literally criticisms of X. Far from a laundry list, I would say that many of these appear to be trash bins. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

To create a good page of this nature, one must have some secondary sources (preferably books or reviews) on the whole subject, for example a book entitled "Criticism of X". Otherwise, this is going to be a "coat rack" or essentially a list. My very best wishes (talk) 23:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• I would wager that most "Criticism of X" pages should be merged into the main, "X", articles. But some, like Criticism of Christianity are quite big because of the long history of the relevant phenomena, so I guess they should be kept intact? Notrium (talk) 09:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

How about Criticism of Wikipedia? Probably should stay. There doesn't seem to be a consensus for a policy change barring "Criticism of X" pages; rather, it seems that this needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis. NightHeron (talk) 11:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon, Masem, Hyperbolick, My very best wishes, Sceptre, Someguy1221, and NightHeron:, relevant: Wikipedia:Content forking, Wikipedia:Merging, Wikipedia:WikiProject Merge Notrium (talk) 17:55, 21 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)

I agree that keeping criticism pages separately helps to organize the content much better. Yes, such sections can distort the coverage of a subject, but this is not necessarily the case. Having a "controversies" section for a company is fine. Also, subjects like criticism of Marxism or Islam are notable and deserve large separate pages. This is not distortion. Some others, like Criticism of the Israeli government are indeed basically attack pages. My very best wishes (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

There is no justification for claiming that the article Criticism of Islam is "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 examples you have listed have gathered coverage of critism from reliable sources and thus deserve their own article. Additionally, large articles are often split out to separate articles including Critism of pages as there is a limit on how many bytes you can have on one certain page. If you can gather enough coverage of Criticism of Herbert Hoover to be notable you are more than welcome to create that article.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• My question is this.What are articles entitled "Criticism of....." Doing in an Encylopedia in the first place? I agree that any criticism article becomes a bitch list, and contentious at that. If there are any criticisms don't they belong summarized into the main article, or forked into a subsection. I can't think of any criticism that can't be briefly summarised, then again my thinking isn't all that it should be.21:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• I notice that many sections of Criticism of Christianity have main article links at the top. If the content is contained in, for instance Christianity and colonialism, and summarized in the main article, isn't that a better organization?—eric 17:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• I will say in general, there is a very broad issue that most often our reliable sourcing (and thus by inclusion, ourselves) focus on the negative. People want to be critical of others, it is human nature. That said, I do thing there are times to distinguish between reasonable debate on a topic (something I'd suspect much of Criticism of Christianity is really about), and sources just airing frustrations and concerns out without any expectation of a "result", which is probably more common in these Criticism articles. I don't have a solution, but this is something to think about, and definitely the case of wanting to avoid pages that are similar a list of frustrations, even if coming from RSes. That actually starts to get into SYNTH to argue that there is criticism of a topic. --Masem (t) 17:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Deep six 'em all Criticism of X is not ever valuable. Simonm223 (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Criticism of the BBC exists because the BBC article would be excessively lengthy if all the content were incorporated into it... AnonMoos (talk) 04:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• My limited experience, on the white privilege page, is that some editors can use the 'no criticism section' guideline as a pretext to sideline criticism. This would suggest that the creation of the separate criticism page is a practical compromise or workaround which, in some cases, may well be useful and justified. Keith Johnston (talk) 09:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• There is clearly no consensus that all criticism articles and sections should be removed. That would be a rather extreme action -- throwing out the baby with the bathwater. In a given case, editors might agree with the essay (not policy) WP:CSECTION and find a way to work the criticisms into the other sections, or they might decide that the criticisms are fringe or undue emphasis. But in other cases there might be no satisfactory way to work the criticisms in without disrupting the flow and making the article disjointed. Although, as User:Masem, says, it's human nature to be highly critical, it's also human nature to write puff-pieces about things we like. Criticism sections often provide balance in what would otherwise be a puff-piece. NightHeron (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the fact that we have criticism pages in one topic does not obligate us to have criticism pages on others. I also dislike criticism pages and sections, but for different reasons. Consider Pictou and Pictou Landing, Nova Scotia vs Pictou Landing First Nation and Boat Harbour, Nova Scotia, which are all talking about the same five square miles or so. Elinruby (talk) 22:40, 23 December 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)

Can we please have some more Neutral point of view on this broad: Talk:A&E Networks --Crazyseiko (talk) 00:01, 24 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:

1. February 1983, Hay speaks at an event (not NAMBLA’s) and states, “...if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world.” This quote follows Hay’s recounting his own positive sexual experience when he was 14 with an older man (reasoning for his going public in proposed content section); No reliable source for the quote but one good source for the overall speech.
2. June 1986, LA Pride parade bans NAMBLA, Hay wears a sign in protest on his back, one supporting Valerie Terrigno who was also banned, on his front.
3. June 1994, Stonewall 25, and ILGA bans NAMBLA, Hay and 149 others protest the action, about NAMBLA mainly (reasoning in proposed content section) and march in the Spirit of Stonewall alternative parade with 7,000.
4. sometime in 1994, spoke at a NAMBLA event where he suggested changing the group’s name. (I only see one brief mention of this.)

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)

Wikipedia is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. It may be that Bronski had an inside view of what Hay was like, and that Bronski disliked the fact that reliable sources like the New York Times, did not consider these problematic aspects of Hay to be significant aspects of his life. It may be that some people involved in some hall of fame project have failed to consult enough older people about their choice of inclusions. But Wikipedia should reflect what the balance of reliable sources say about it, not the views of individuals with an interest or individuals disgusted or disappointed. MPS1992 (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, editors are permitted by policy to blank content from their own talk page -- especially when the content concerned is several thousand words in length. Blanking such content is generally regarded as an indication that they have read it. Anyway that's a question of editor conduct, not a question of article neutrality which is what this noticeboard covers. MPS1992 (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I have continually asked for reliable sources that verify the “constant advocacy for NAMBLA” and pedophilia. There seems to be a massive conspiracy except one lone, but respected LGBTQ journalist. Perhaps that should be also shoehorned into the lead? One of the world’s best known pioneering gay rights advocates whose had dozens of obituaries, articles, interviews, books, and documentaries about him all fail to mention this despite Wikipedia even advertising it, possibly for years. Perhaps because they saw was is plainly evident, a lack of evidence despite NAMBLA themselves posting every scrap of pro-pedophile material they can. I look forward to more people looking into this. Gleeanon409 (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy? There is/was no conspiracy. This has been common knowledge for decades. The sources support this common knowledge. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed -- but the sources do not seem to regard it as significant in the individual's biography. MPS1992 (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

MPS, it's not just Bronski, it's the Gay press in general who wanted this known about him, because he was continually raising a stink about it and people were having to kick him out of groups and events. It's in the Advocate[13], and his own group, the Radical Faeries have it on their tribute page to him:[14]. This isn't righting great wrongs, it's keeping history accurate against a POV push from a relatively new, revisionist editor. NAMBLA is ugly. Of course people would rather not see it. But those who supported and promoted the pedophile group should be kept accountable. Go look at the article, not this user's misrepresentations. I think there is a misunderstanding here about what WP:NPOV is. We write in a neutral voice. It doesn't mean we hide awful things about people to make them sound nicer. Yeah, it's hard to write neutrally about a pedophile group. So we just state the facts. But we don't bury the facts when he, after Allen Ginsberg, was probably the group's most famous advocate in the gay community. Yeah, it's gross. But it happened. So we document it. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. I guess you really are saying that the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times were "revisionist" as well, and therefore we shouldn't consider them reliable on this topic, but instead we should only consider reliable the views of people that Hay knew personally and had had disagreements with? MPS1992 (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Or, let us look at it a different way. There are three questions. First, should Hay's protesting the exclusion of NAMBLA from events be mentioned in the article? (I would say yes.) Second, should it be mentioned in the lede of the article? And third, if it should be mentioned in the lede of the article, how should it be mentioned there? MPS1992 (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

They were incomplete. As their obits of subcultural figures have often been. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Those sources are already included in the seven(!) total(!) to be found, this one is a collection of obits with only one even touching on this content, the very sole one you helpfully quoted at length despite it already being posted above. These scraps were then woven into a grand story. It certainly feels “undue”. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:43, 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)

None of that proves anything but that he made invited speeches at some of their conferences, helpfully they provide their version of the transcripts which show ... no advocacy for the group or even anything beyond Hay recounting his own positive gay sex experiences as a kid. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Trying to destroy Pride because they wouldn't let NAMBLA march is not being an advocate? Helping them re-brand in order to get more members, sitting under the banner for photos while the group was sending out newsletters with photos of smiling seven year olds with the caption, "Smiles mean consent." Wow. You are really reaching here. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Original research inventing narratives not supported by reliable or even NAMBLA’s own sources isn’t helpful. Zero evidence Hay had control of how his photo was used, that he was helping recruit, or even destroy Pride. All interesting ideas that I’m sure will be spun into gold by right wing bloggers. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

OK folks, I think we need some outside input here, if anyone is willing? That's what this noticeboard is for. MPS1992 (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm quite bemused by all this discussion about whether Hay was a ardent supporter of NAMBLA. He was. Anyone who is old enough, was contemporaneous in his communities while he was alive, knows it to be true. As a co-founder of the Mattachine Society, people saw him as an elder statesman in the 1970s-90s. Gay people listened when he had opinions. Many vociferously disagreed with him on supporting NAMBLA. There were a significant number of Gay/Lesbian newspapers and newsletters during that time period. Hay did interviews with them and articles were written about him. Those papers, often with very good journalists writing for them, could be used as contemporaneous reliable sources. Unfortunately, only a fraction of them are available online. They would be secondary sources on this issue. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 23:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mark Ironie: If you know of any particular articles, post a request at Wikipedia:RX and volunteers there may get free copies. Also searching university library databases may pull up some articles. For articles prior to the 1980s or 1985 etc some of those may not be available electronically and will need to be taken from microfilms. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

If you are aware of any reliable sources, they are welcome. I just added one that was wedge into the lead just hours ago which ironically proves how weak the sourcing remains. As to your point, it seems like the only thing that we can reliably verify up to now, is that he defended their right to be in two Pride parades where they had been banned, and the reasons. Arguably this might have caused a furor at the time, although I’m not seeing any evidence of that either, but don’t we have to rely on verification through reliable sources? What we have after searching is listed at the top. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

"I also would like to say at this point that it seems to me that in the gay community the people who should be running interference for NAMBLA are the parents and friends of gays. Because if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world. And they would be welcoming this, and welcoming the opportunity for young gay kids to have the kind of experience that they would need." He is advocating for children to be in sexual relationships with adults. He gave this speech in 1983 at NYU and it is archived on the NAMBLA website as well as here ^[1]. On the Back to Stonewall site it also 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." Indigenous girl (talk) 14:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The first quote you cite is already included in the first sections of this report, sourced only to NAMBLA itself, everyone has pulled it from them.

On the surface, the “On the Back to Stonewall“ site looks great but the Hay content seems to be word for word copying from an older version of Wikipedia’s Hay page. Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:23, 26 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)

The quote was already out in the open, it’s point #1, in bold of this report.

That speech is only known from NAMBLA’s posting their transcript. It has to be presented that way. Additionally it’s not about NAMBLA so you have to use original research to say it is. It’s also not about pedophilia, Hay was the 14-year old and the man he had sex with thought he was an adult.

I’m saying ”Back To Stonewall” didn’t even use their own words for the NAMBLA content, they used Wikipedia’s Hay article as gospel, but as is evident here, all the NAMBLA content is generally unverified and he presents zero sources or even credit to Wikipedia. I have no problem publishing true content that is verifiably sourced, but we are currently publishing unverified, and possibly unverifiable claims. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually the GSU collection at USC^[2] contains the entire transcript of his speech. He specifically mentions NAMBLA in the context of his speech and urges allies to advocate for sex with 13, 14 and 15 year old children because, "it's what they need more than anything else in the world.". Indigenous girl (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Indigenous girl:, or @CorbieVreccan:, who added it to the article here, can you share how you verified this? Any link that others can use?

I do accept the NAMBLA-posted transcript does mention the group in the summary of the speech. I still think it’s borderline original research and has to be used NPOV. His speech is a testamonial of Hay’s own positive experience as a 14-year old having gay sex with an older man, based on his own experience he thinks that parents and friends of gays “should be running interference for NAMBLA”. Only presenting this material NPOV without original interpretation is acceptable. He also does not specifically advocate for sex with teens, but says a relationship which, I think requires original research to infer he meant romance or sex rather or additionally to anything else. Gleeanon409 (talk) 06:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you serious? In one sentence he advocates defending NAMBLA and in the next he speaks positively about relationships between young teenagers and older men. How could you possibly read that in a way that isn't about sexual relationships? All of your comments in this thread give the impression of increasing desperate denialism. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. I maintain that Wikipedia should report facts that are actually verified in reliable sources. All this NAMBLA content is dependent on supposedly well-known information which few to none reliable sources documented. Compare that to the mamouth volume about this is the lead and article. Any reader would falsely believe this was central to his life. Yet the vast majority of reliable sources make no mention of it. Those that do make very little mention of it. Yet the article lead? It’s a fourth of the content. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Gleeanon409: One way to obtain older newspaper sources is to use university library databses and type in particular phrases. Some of those may be paywalled/closed, but Wikipedia:RX is a tool one can use to get access. Some older papers are not electronically available, but articles may be available in microfilms. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I notice someone had already mentioned The Advocate - I wish to elaborate further and state that the article described Hay as being an older generation thing:

• Weir, John. "Mad about the boys." The Advocate. Here Publishing, August 23, 1994. ISSN 0001-8996. Start: p. 33. CITED: p. 37.
• "Harry Hay, 82, a founder of the Mattachine Society[...]suggests to a crowded room at the recent NAMBLA meeting that a name change for the association might help." -- "Hay's presence at the NAMBLA meeting signified that NAMBLA is more than just an advocacy group for men imprisoned[...] It has become in part the last refuge for longtime activists who feel alienated from the current mainstreaming of the lesbian and gay community."

It might help to search on Google Books for content like this. Check the publisher to ensure that it is not self-published.

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I looked around Google Books but sadly found that a lot of the newer books mentioning it tended to be hyper-religious or small publisher things... I'm looking for books from major publishers. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Found: Miller, Ben (2017-04-10). Jacobin https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/04/harry-hay-communist-mattachine-society-lgbtq. {{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)

@WhisperToMe:, Thank you for the leads, the Miller one does help to anchor the content. The Back2Stonewall one though didn’t even use their own words, they copied word for word from Wikipedia’s Hay article. That does demonstrate, again, how out of step the article is compared to reliable sources. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gleeanon409: Re: back2stonewall copying from Wikipedia, remember to go through the revisions and find the earliest Wikipedia revision with the content versus the earliest copy of the back2stonewall page to establish which came first. If back2stonewall indeed copied from Wikipedia, it cannot be considered at all in regards to reliable sources. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe:, indeed. Back2Stonewall published OCTOBER 23, 2017; word for word from Wikipedia content that predates. Gleeanon409 (talk) 06:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

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:

• The Advocate (LGBT magazine) <ref name="Advocate1994">{{cite magazine|last=Weir|first=John|title=Mad About the Boys|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=KmMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA37|date=23 August 1994|magazine=[[The Advocate (LGBT magazine)|The Advocate]]|page=37|issn=0001-8996}}</ref>
• Michael Bronski for The Phoenix <ref name= rhh>{{cite news|url=http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/02511115.htm|archiveurl= https://web.archive.org/web/20120302214758/http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/02511115.htm |archivedate=2012-03-02|title=The real Harry Hay|date=2002-11-07|accessdate=2008-11-16|first=Michael|last=Bronski|authorlink=Michael Bronski|newspaper=[[The Phoenix (newspaper)|The Phoenix]]|quote=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.|dead-url=no}}</ref>
• MIT Press <ref name=NonasLeVay>{{cite book|author1=Simon LeVay|author2=Elisabeth Nonas|title=City of Friends: A Portrait of the Gay and Lesbian Community in America|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=cl-4yFFql8gC&pg=PA181&dq=Harry+Hay+NAMBLA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjb4enV94XjAhVnTt8KHWyVCHUQ6AEITTAH#v=onepage&q=Harry%20Hay%20NAMBLA&f=false|year=1997 |publisher=MIT Press|isbn=978-0262621137|page=181|quote=Although some prominent gay leaders such as Harry Hay have supported NAMBLA's right to participate in gay rights marches, the link between NAMBLA and the mainstream gay rights movement has always been tenuous.}}</ref>
• Stuart Timmons, Hay's Official Biographer: scan of photo plate <ref name="LAPridePhoto">{{cite web|url=https://www.wthrockmorton.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Harryhaysignnambla2.jpg|title=Photos by Sandy Dwyer |last=Timmons |first=Stuart|date=1990|work=The Trouble with Harry Hay: Founder of the Modern Gay Movement|accessdate=2010-06-24|quote=The sign Harry tried to wear in the 1986 L.A. Gay Pride Parade}}</ref>
• <ref name=Spectator>{{Cite news | last = Lord | first = Jeffrey | title = When Nancy Met Harry | work = The American Spectator | date = 2006-10-05 | url = http://spectator.org/archives/2006/10/05/when-nancy-met-harry | accessdate = 2009-04-14 | deadurl = yes | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20090329000719/http://spectator.org/archives/2006/10/05/when-nancy-met-harry | archivedate = 2009-03-29 | quote=Said Harry: "Because if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world."}}</ref> Gleeanon wants to exclude this because it's "conservative". WP does not exclude sources on the basis of being liberal or conservative, and the text is the same as in the full speech below. This is included because it is an online text.
• Hay himself <ref name=LGAUfullspeech>[Box 2/folder 21] Lesbian and Gay Academic Union Records, Coll2011-041, ONE National Gay & Lesbian Archives, USC Libraries, University of Southern California</ref>
• Timmons again {{sfn|Timmons|1990|p=310}} {{sfn|Timmons|1990|p=295}} - Official biographer
• Vern Bullough <ref name=Bullough>{{cite book|author=Vern L. Bullough|authorlink=Vern Bullough|title=Before Stonewall: Activists for Gay and Lesbian Rights in Historical Context |publisher=Psychology Press |year=2002 |isbn=978-1560231936|page=74}}</ref> In Before Stonewall, biographer Vern L. Bullough writes, "Getting him to agree to simply wear a sign [supporting NAMBLA] 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."
• Yale University Press / Hay again / GCN again: Hay, Harry, "Focusing on NAMBLA Obscures the Issues", Gay Community News, Fall 1994, pp. 16, 18. As cited in {{cite book |title=Moral Panic: Changing Concepts of the Child Molester in Modern America|year=2004|last=Jenkins |first=Philip |publisher=Yale University Press|page=275|isbn=978-0300109634}} Hay writes on the issue for Gay Community paper of record.
• Hay's spiritual group: Obituary on Radical Fairy site, reproduces Bronski obituary.
• Obviously, as the NAMBLA site is blacklisted, we are not going to link to their website pages, but they have Hay's speeches, and photos of him speaking in front of their banner on their panels. These speeches and photos are in other publications that are not currently available online, but they are well-known in the community. It is inappropriate for Gleeanon409 to cast aspersions on older editors who remember these things and suggest this material is fabricated. This material is linked via broken URL's on article talk.

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)

Of course I remain dubious of these statements, and how “NPOV” and “minimally” the content is presented but first I’ll look at these sources to see which ones aren’t already listed at top, and include and assess what information should be added. It will take me a little while to do all this. When I’m ready I’ll post here again with a summary. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The Advocate article was already listed by me in the reliable sources section; so is the Bronski obit with it’s quote; so is the superfluous Timmons photo; so is the problematic Jeffrey Lord article; so is the Vern Bullough book; so is the Gay Community News; so is the link to the Radical Faeries.
I’ve added the Simon LeVay book; and the LGAU archive box.
I see little value in adding any more credibility to NAMBLA by acknowledging their online content, we can hold our collective noses and use the Spectator article that got it from them. His other two times as speaker both were Hay talking about his own positive experiences with gay sex when he was young. We already have the context for the quote to cover that, and it’s all primary sourced. Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

So we basically haven’t moved much to allay my initial concerns.
There remains zero reliable sourcing to support “Hay was an active supporter [of NAMBLA]”, you may know it to be true but no reliable source has backed it up.
Also it’s deceptive to state Hay “protested the group being banned from Pride parades” when we only have evidence for two; 1986 LA Pride, and 1994 Stonewall parades.
It’s also POV to state he spoke “about helping the group strategize a name change to help with their public image” implying he was doing something not implicated in his speech, a neutral take would be more along the lines of what I tried, he thought boy lover had negative connotations just like homosexual did in the 1950’s.
Wikipedia is broadcasting worldwide these deceptions. I can’t see how any content on NAMBLA should be wedged into the lead, and the utter lack of coverage in reliable sources presented so far suggests it should be trimmed to a NPOV minimum in the article.
Additionally there remains zero evidence to prop up the “Pedophile advocacy” category being included. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of POV, what you are calling "gay sex when he was young" was sex between an adult man and a 14 year old boy. Then Hay went on to speak at a handful of events that we have documented to plead with the gay community to endorse adults having sex with kids as young as 13, saying this would be the best thing adult gay people could do for gay kids. This is horrible. This is why he got kicked out of Pride parades and shunned by those who cared about kids. You are minimimizing criminal activity, this man's advocacy for criminal activity, and the way he tried to implicate normal gay people in criminal activity. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

He “pleaded” for gay men to have sex with teens? Or did he mean mentoring them? I don’t think we can say without evidence so instead, again to be NPOV, we likely should just report neutrally what the sources support, “relationships”, and leave the leap of guilt for the reader to decide. And that “series of events”, looks to be a total of three, and it was NAMBLA that kicked out of parades, and not even NAMBLA advocated for breaking any laws. Please dial down the hysteria and actually let the reliable sources dictate what is verified instead of your own memories. Your personal facts might be the gospel truth but they don’t belong in an encyclopedia. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

As both Red Rock Canyon:[16] and Mark Ironie:[17] have noted, watching you increasingly attempt to minimize the damage done by NAMBLA, it's really hard to believe you're serious at this point. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:12, 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.

That being said, I agree that these statements He spoke out in support of relationships between adult men and boys as young as thirteen and helping the group strategize a name change to help with their public image are 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)

Indigenous girl found the full speech about NAMBLA where Hay "urges allies to advocate for sex with 13, 14 and 15 year old children because, 'it's what they need more than anything else in the world.' in the ONE archives of Hay's speeches at USC. So, the sourcing is solid, and it should be included in the body of the article. As long as the rest of the text prior to that is in the lede, as it was before Gleeanon's disruption, I think the specific details about that speech (which he gave multiple times) can be left for further down. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

That's a primary source, and appears to be interpreted as such -- those are the dangers of primary sources. I understand that the topic causes emotions to run riot, but this is, after all, the neutral point of view noticeboard. MPS1992 (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

By the way, @Gleeanon409:, please do not say things like 'it’s deceptive to state Hay “protested the group being banned from Pride parades” when we only have evidence for two' -- no that is not deceptive. If he protested two of them, he protested it on an ongoing basis. Don't be silly. MPS1992 (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, as MPS1992 says, any text of the speech is a primary source, and we are not permitted to analyze primary sources and summarize them. I think it might be acceptable to quote some of the text of the speech in the article, since it's on a topic discussed by other secondary sources, and it's in the subject's own words, but we cannot put in any interpretation of what he's saying absent a secondary source that reports on his speech and what it means. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Right, as the primary source is available for comparison, we are able to see that the secondary sources are quoting Hay accurately. So that means the Spectator, Kohler, and the others cannot be ruled out just because we may not like their views on other issues. That is the sole reason I left the Spectator in - to verify the quote. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Are you guys totally following the idea that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so we should be summarising what secondary sources say, not just confirming that our chosen primary sources are accurate in what they say and what our longstanding appreciation of them is? MPS1992 (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The main function of the primary source is to assuage concerns that the Spectator piece was completely inventing something. Author Jeffrey Lord's opinion of Hay based on that speech would need to be attributed, though. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing this NAMBLA content and presenting it NPOV has been the main problems from the beginning. It remains that we ONLY have the primary source for this quote. Kohler copies Wikipedia word for word, I pointed this out in a previous section, and the Spectator, which is unmistakably an opinion hit piece, acknowledges they got it off NAMBLA’s website. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Indigenous girl may have found that Archive box source but you added it to the article, I asked both of you for anything that other editors could verify the information but nothing yet has come forth. It remain unclear what if anything about Hay’s speech is in there. Please be clear about what that source actually is and how it was confirmed.
And my “disruption” has continued to prove there indeed is glaring NPOV and sourcing issues. I’m glad we’re finally getting some more eyes on the issues, as well as finding any reliable sources. Hopefully the article will improve and all this content will be adjusted with due weight. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@MPS1992: It’s hardly silly, especially with such contested and controversial content, to be precise, NPOV, and encyclopedic when reporting this content, specifically in the number of parades he protested NAMBLA being banned from. There were two, separated by eight years. It’s deceptive not to report the facts as verified. I would say the same thing if there were eight or dozens. Let the facts speak for themselves. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Having more time to look over sources, I can't see an NPOV version of Hay's article not mentioning NAMBLA. Now, I will say that I agree that The Specator should not be cited, or more accurately Jeffrey Lord should not be cited. That's not because he's a conservative, but because he has a documented history of saying utterly ridiculous things about anything he perceives as liberal. He's a political strategist, not an academic or a journalist, and his expertise is trying to make opponents look bad. Aside, I found what I consider two more useful sources that I don't think have been mentioned yet. Hay, Harry (1997). Roscoe, Will (ed.). Radically Gay. Beacon Press. ISBN 9780807070819. seems to me a very good reference for sourcing content on this topic. There are also two contrasting interpretations of Hay's support for NAMBLA in Hubbard, Thomas K.; Verstraete, Beert (2013). Censoring Sex Research: The Debate Over Male Intergenerational Relations. Left Coast Press. ISBN 9781611323399. One of those interpretations was penned by Bruce Rind, who has a well known agenda, but I find he does have a point. Specifically, while searching for sources, it was hard to miss the volume of relatively recent conservative hit pieces that bring up Hay and overstate his support of NAMBLA, even going so far as to say he founded the organization. I will not cite those as they are light years from RS. That is, there really are people trying to posthumously demonize him as advocating for the rights of sexual predators to rape children, and may explain counter-attempts to minimize his involvement with them. Anyway, I found original statements of Hay and other content in Radically to be quite illuminating on Hay's position toward the group (note that although Hay is listed as the author, he is not the literal author of much of the content within). Notably, at times Hay described his support NAMBLA as being a sort of counter-counter-reaction. His belief was that NAMBLA was being excluded from the gay movement to appease conservatives, and therefore the gay community was allowing outsiders/opponents to dictate who could be members of it. He also of course had a very expansive view of "consent" as described here, that included underage males seeking out older men for sexual purposes, as already mentioned. Again, I don't see how an NPOV article avoids mentioning this, but it does have to be done correctly. I would actually avoid using any sources that are just dumbing down the history here to "Hay supported NAMBLA". Those are not useful because they are far more vague than we need to be. The outline of a paragraph or two I think would be npov would go, 1. Hay was controversial for his involvement with nambla. 2. Although not a member, Hay protested in support of Nambla's rights to march, etc. 3. Accurately describe Hay's statements on man-boy relations and exclusion of groups from the movement. It's of course a tricky thing because people see 'nambla', the imagine creepy old men grooming young boys for molestation. I assume that's the goal of some of the writers who bring this up. It's also obvious that although what Hay had in mind was still a crime, it's not that particular scenario. Plenty of people will consider that a distinction without a difference, but they will be basing that opinion on an accurate statements of facts. But anyway, I think this is achievable, inevitable, and necessary. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I very much appreciate your insight and comments on this. It’s exactly what I was hoping would happen here.
No one has suggested that this content shouldn’t be presented in the article. How it’s presented, and wether any mention belongs in the lead is the main concern.
I’ll have a look at these new sources to see how they can add to the understanding of the subject. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I’m having several issues accessing these sources mostly because I’m using Google Books. The site purposely blocks sections of pages so I’m not sure that when I’m searching I’m getting all the content on the subject, as well everything has to be hand copied rather than cut and paste. If anyone has ideas I’m open to them! Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:53, 5 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)

Thank you for sticking with this. I think some criticisms have been valid and others have been problematic. I hope you will take others' concerns seriously, and I hope that you will recognize their concerns about the historical portrayal of Harry Hay. Equally, I hope they will understand and help in your efforts to portray Hay according to reliable sources. I think you are all trying to achieve the same aim -- more or less. I am from a different cultural milieu, so I can't really claim to understand any of it. MPS1992 (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I’m learning plenty about sex and sexuality researchers including the prejudice and backlash they faced when they approach taboo subjects. Apparently that’s been true from the beginning. I’m almost through the first book, if I have to I’ll track down the other as well. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• I’ve asked for some help at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Pro-research help needed for Harry Hay. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• I’ve also asked for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#Opinion piece? By Harry Hay In ‘94 Gay Community News. Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:43, 16 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]

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)

I don't think this text serves as neutral. Is this intended as the lede? Or into the Later years: 1980-2002 section? It still seems like white-washing. I still have trouble understanding the resistance to the Michael Bronski obit/article. Bronski had been involved in journalism for over 30 years when it was published. The info in it is grounded in decades of gay journalism. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

This would potentially be content for inside the article. The lead content would then be a reflection of what we think belongs in the article itself. As for Bronski, and other sources that only gave a sentence, or less, of content on this I’m following the guidance above, “I would actually avoid using any sources that are just dumbing down the history here to "Hay supported NAMBLA". Those are not useful because they are far more vague than we need to be.” Bronski had one sentence, “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.” Looking at every reliable source there remains only two parades, eight years apart, so it’s hard to reconcile that with “consistently advocated”. Likewise “He was, at times, a serious political embarrassment”: Bronski was the only source to characterize this way, again we only have two parades; the 1986 one he seemingly was alone in the position, but in 1994 he was one of 150 LGBTQ activists and others that was protesting the group being banned. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe I need to explain some of the editing choices made, if reading through the above sections weren’t clear:
  • The Hay quote, usually misrepresented—especially by right-wing and conservative bloggers—as him advocating for sexual contact with men and young teen boys, is omitted as we only have one primary source, NAMBLA itself.
    • What is included is analysis of why Hay often shared his own story of when he was 14, where that quote was picked from, and had a positive gay sex experience with an older man.
  • No mentions of Hay advocating for the group, or pedophilia by extension, are included as no reliable sources gave any evidence he did this. Of all the sources on Hay, the majority don’t mention this subject area at all. Those that do use only the briefest of mentions with the most credible citing his protesting the banning from two Pride parades: LA in 1986; and Stonewall 25 In 1994.
    • Both parade episodes are included with explanations of why he protested their bans. Tellingly he was one of 150 LGBTQ activists on record for the 1994 protesting.

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)

• @MPS1992:, @Red Rock Canyon:, @Someguy1221:, I’d appreciate if you could look at the proposed content to see if the sourcing is reliable, NPOV, etc, and offer any changes, or any other sources. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Gleenanon, what you have done above in your proposed text is simply leave out the WP:RS sources that have the well-documented content that you don't like. Your sanitized version, describing what you believe were and were not Hay's motives, is not an improvement and is not encyclopedic. Additionally, in this discussion you have consistently misrepresented the sources, claiming reliable sources are not reliable simply because you do not like them, or claiming that sources don't exist when they do. When people have pointed this out, you simply ignore the corrections and keep misrepresenting the sources. This is a serious violation of policy and wikiquette. Posting a note up top that people do not need to read the full discussion, only your bits of it, is inappropriate, and by only pinging the people who you think might agree with you, you are treading very close to violating the WP:CANVASSING policy. As a number of people have already told you, reliable sourcing and writing with a neutral tone don't mean "never critical" and "never controversial". The fact Hay supported NAMBLA, spoke on their panels, carried their signs, cruised boys, is what it is. It's sourced. It was his choice. Downplaying what that means, or what NAMBLA is, is really not the answer. As Wikipedians, it is not our place to re-interpret or decide what his statements and actions really meant. We just document it. It's on Hay, not us. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

This entire process was needed because the POV and poorly sourced content was included in the article. Your again inviting me to leave it as is, or otherwise waiving me off isn’t helpful.

If I had found any reliable source that did provide evidence he in any way was an advocate for NAMBLA, or by extension pedophilia, I would be obligated to include it, with due weight. I found none. Nor has anyone else thus far.

I looked, and still welcome, any usable reliable sources that actually provide evidence for your many claims against Hay. Please note, that is not an invitation for you to post a list of sources, like you’ve done in the past, that have been listed already, but are considered primary, unreliable, or too vague to be of any help.

If there is a source you think I’m misquoting, or otherwise misrepresenting, or an equally reliable source that should be used, that we haven’t already included, then please make it known here.

I’ve amended the note at the very top, it was never my intention to mislead. I encourage anyone who’s willing to read the wall of texts to do so. It’s right there. Their conclusions might easily catch something I missed.

I invited the uninvolved people in hopes they could help move the process forward. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• Hello. I am one of the "uninvolved people", also described as "the people who you think might agree with you". I am really tired of this whole dispute, but I do not promise to be coherent while I explain why. It seems to me that this Gleeanon fellow was just fixing a few things, while also being far too excited about fixing things a little too much, and then suddenly he tripped some tripwire whereby people who ever advocated that bad thing, had to be vilified, and anyone trying to prevent that had to be crushed. Well actually my grandfather was in the military, and indeed he found that if you crush something under your boot then it often does not rise up again. He gave me many wise pieces of advice. I have not read every single piece of evidence presented above about what every single reliable source said about every single thing that this Hay fellow said about anything. To do that, it is probably going to take me another few weeks, so I hope you are all very patient people. For the time being, it seems to me that this Gleeanon fellow has some legitimate concerns about the current (original) article, and that some other editors are going slightly apoplectic that he should challenge the existing article. As someone who is not any part of any of either scene, this maybe should be the time that I back off and leave you all to it. But actually I am going to ask you to do two things. (1) actually understand what each of you is saying to the other, and if you can't do that, (2) give me some time until I can finally be bothered to read the above proposal and work out what it's about and whether it's accurate or what. I would much prefer the first option. MPS1992 (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I opened a thread at WP:RSN to address sourcing in the lead’s first sentence, while this content for the article itself moves forward. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
• Update. I just today got a copy of: “Our Beloved Gay/Lesbian Movement at a Crossroads” Hay, Harry. Gay Community News ; Boston Vol.20,Iss.3, (Fall 1994): 16. It’s the full text of his speech detailing why he, and apparently others, objected to ILGA and Stonewall 25, expelling NAMBLA or any other group that identified as gay/lesbian. The pdf is about six pages so it will take a bit of time to digest and hopefully distill into the proposed content.

  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)

• I’m still going over Hay’s own writing on the subject: “Our Beloved Gay/Lesbian Movement at a Crossroads” Hay, Harry. Gay Community News ; Boston, Vol. 20, Iss.3, (Fall 1994): 16. Anyone can also get a copy by requesting it at WP:RX. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:08, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
• Update. I’ve opened a request at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests in hopes to resolve this and the other main tagged issue of the article. I’ll work on updating User:Gleeanon409/sandbox/Hay - nambla sourcing with Hay’s published speech on the subject. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• • Request was auto-declined until this issue is resolved; I’m looking at adding the Hay speech and checking out the source(s) added in the last week above. Then a rewrite of proposed content. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
• Looking into the Miller source suggested above. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
• Adding Jacobin source. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:34, 12 October 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]

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)

• For a KISS (keep it short [and] sweet) solution, I recommend shortening of the entire lede, which is presently (26 November 2019) ~ just under 400 words or 4/5 of a standard print page long (500 words in single-space, Times New Roman 12). Such conciseness should drive to a higher level of summary, e.g., a mere list of controversies, not details. Since so many fellow Wikipedians criticize my own work rather than fix mistakes or offer solutions, let me go further and offer here a one-paragraph lede:

  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.

  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)
  • Thank you! That could help move things forward, as I intend to ask the WP:Guild of Copy Editors to process the entire article after this issue is resolved, thus having hopefully neutral editing to look at what the lead should contain. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
• Undue for the lead, at least at its current level of detail. Too many of the citations are passing mentions for my tastes - devoting an entire lead paragraph linking someone to a controversial organization like NAMBLA requires that it be extremely central to their bio, and the sources currently cited there simply don't support this. It could have one sentence in the lead at most, but probably doesn't need to be there at all; it can, of course, still be covered in the body given the sourcing we have. The list of sources provided above doesn't really support the idea that it was that central - many sources mention it (ie, it is true), but almost none of the mainstream sources about him specifically give it the overwhelming weight we're giving it here, which implies that the current lead is giving it WP:UNDUE weight. --Aquillion (talk) 04:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Aquillion:, I agree with you completely, and you’ve stated the case better than I have. This content would be for the body not the lead. Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Strong oppose to any of these changes, per my and CorbieVreccan's comments here. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

How do you reconcile your opposition to *anything* changing given:

• Any mention in the Lead defies that most reliable sources about Hay don’t mention this subject at all, the few that do seem to do so trivially.
• What is currently in the lead violates at least NPOV, and verifiability. Including using NAMBLA for sourcing.
• The sourcing for this proposed content was picked from the very few that could even be found. Of those, most are completely unreliable, most that are reliable mention this subject trivially, none go into this subject with much depth at all. The vast majority are tied to discrediting Obama by extension of discrediting his then-Secretary of Education for naming Hay as an inspiration. A concerted effort, including using Wikipedia, went on to tie Hay to pedophilia. The current state echoes that sentiment despite the lack of reliable sources. CorbieVreccan may have personal knowledge beyond what reliable sources state but they know better that to edit their beliefs into any article. Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Stop misrepresenting the sourcing, Gleeanon. You've been on this hard POV push and whitewashing of NAMBLA, their supporters and activities, for many months now, complete with forum-shopping. You have chronically misrepresented both Hay and the group he advocated for, and simply ignored all the opposing voices and moved on to yet another forum, hoping to outrun or wear others down, even after multiple people have warned you. You've simply wiped your talk page of warnings and kept on with it. WP:DROPTHESTICK. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I think any mature reading of the sources, the reliable ones that is, will arrive at a similar conclusion. Hay is not an advocate for NAMBLA although he fought for their first amendment rights. And Wikipedia’s voice overstating his support of them does a disservice. As well the 1/4 of the Lead that CorbieVreccan has wedged there and fights to keep in place violates Undue as well as Verifiable. I’m eager for more eyes on this content’s sourcing. And anyone is welcome to dig through my talk page discards which CorbieVreccan is well aware. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Leave the lede and the NAMBLA content alone for now, and Gleeanon409 needs to leave this article alone - the lede is long, but what Gleeanon wants is not acceptable. See my comments above. I would be fine on working to streamline some of this later, but only if Gleeanon is not part of it. This user has a troubling agenda here and is not working in collaboration. Look at his sandbox. He wants to cheerlead for this subject, not write a neutral article. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

The Lead, with this content removed, would still be too short but CorbieVreccan has proven to have extremely poor judgment, in this area at least. And add this to the list of WP:Aspersions leveled at me since they first began trying to waive me away.

Funny though, the more I looked, the flimsier the sourcing was compared to what was being reported. CorbieVreccan‘s editing is the only reason we’re on the NPOV Noticeboard, but I guess I have them to thank as I never would have looked at this if it weren’t for their inflating the lead with poor sourcing (including NAMBLA’s archives) to defend the position.

And anyone is welcome to look at my sandbox, it’s where I drafted...the proposed content above so I imagine they’re quite similar. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. And "controlled by pedophiles—attracted to children and pre-adolescents" is inaccurate anyway. Pedophilia, when accurately described, concerns a focus on prepubescent children. "Child" and "pre-adolescent" may or may not refer to prepubescents. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for that correction. Could you look at the Lead of Harry Hay and judge if the sourcing and weight of the NAMBLA content seem appropriate? Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Gleeanon has been attempting to white wash the article for months. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • That’s simply a lie, and I hope you know it. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I've been watching the consistent POV push by Gleeanon409 to: 1) Revise NAMBLA's pedophile orientation into something unsupported by documentation, and 2) Minimize Harry Hay's support for NAMBLA. Gleeanon has been forum shopping for months on this subject. I think Gleeanon should be topic banned but that's an argument to made elsewhere. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 22:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Im hurt that anyone would think I would bother to 1. Twist NAMBLA’s into something it wasn’t, I had already removed that contested material from my draft in the sandbox as an unneeded distraction; 2. That I would try to misrepresent Hay’s NAMBLA ties. Indeed the overwhelming majority of reliable sourcing don’t mention this at all; those that do, minimally. 3. That I would forum shop. I thought I was doing something wrong by getting more eyes on this corruption of an article lead but I only made it worse.
  • I certainly hope all my time reading through every possible source on this will help future editors there. I’m surprised and disappointed at the lack of community alarm at how this content is currently being misrepresented, but I’ll remain hopeful that it will be corrected and written NPOV with only reliable sources. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

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)

A (using your words here) theory based on limited evidence about a conspiracy to commit murder (unproven) is the text-book definition of "conspiracy theory".--Jorm (talk) 03:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

No it is not...which you would know if you bothered to read Conspiracy theory or any authoritative analysis of conspiracy theories. But if you think so, then please do cite the "textbook" you're referring to.04:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.136.62 (talk)

I am confused as to why the KGB would kill Camus, since the Communist Party was important in the Resistance. But it has been a while since I reviewed that history. However, in general, and assuming that the book author has some sort of credentials and the publisher is reputable, a book is considered a very solid source. So there seems to be little reason not to include it, especially if the wording follows the pattern of "one author, (name), has suggested/argued x", then goes on to cite the Guardian discussing the theory. Elinruby (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I would not, as the current text does, word it "a conspiracy theory says". If it is a conspiracy theory, it is not notable. If it is a notable statement from a reliable source then it should not be called a conspiracy theory. I would also suggest using the cite|book, cite|news or cite|web templates rather than the academic footnotes that are there, if there will be further escalations of the issue. Incidentally, I find the motive ascribed to the KGB in the article somewhat plausible. Elinruby (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this, it is a straight forward theory not a conspiracy theory, and it has some evidence and logic behind it. What I can't understand are the small band of contributors to that page who have been calling it a conspiracy theory, refusing to let basic citations be added, and also cutting out everything else some contributors have added. Their judgement is really off base. After your comment I tried to revise the page to eliminate the "conspiracy" part of the theory and add the author's name, and immediately one of those contributors deleted my edit without explanation.71.161.99.45 (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The same contributor now is deleting any mention of the theory, though there's consensus on the Talk page for mentioning it and providing citations.71.161.99.45 (talk) 03:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

If they will not discuss it is an issue of editor behaviour then. I don't think you have to assume good faith forever; I suggest escalating to one of the boards for contentious editing. I recommend changing the citations so it is clearer where you are citing a book or the Guardian piece, but that isn't required. Bottom line, if reliable sources are being treated as vandalism in order to protect the good name of the KGB or whatever, you probably should escalate this to a board where some enforcement is possible. If you don't know how to do that, let me know and I'll find a link for you. I don't have one in my back pocket Elinruby (talk) 22:11, 25 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)

So not this, in other words. --Malerooster (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

First of all, do we? I mean, do we really need to summarize this here because of that blog?

I am one of the editors who is responsible for these removals. Even though it was insinuated in the blog that pro-Palestine editors are responsible for the removals, this is not correct. Moreover, the whole Israel-Palestinian-conflict has nothing to do with the subject.

The question is whether the fact that most Jews can trace their ancestry back to Jews who lived two thousand years ago in what is now called Israel, is reason to add all Jewish descent categories to a Middle eastern descent category, or not. The proponents say that this is the logical conclusion, while the opponents have two main arguments: 1. not all Jews can indeed trace their origins to the Middle East, as there have been many proselytes; 2. descent categories are not relevant after a few generations.

Not all Jewish descent categories have been subcategories of Middle Eastern descent categories, although most have been there at one time or another, for different periods. The issue has been discussed on a few category pages, without reaching a clear and satisfying consensus. Debresser (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Debresser: Do we follow more "standard" ethnic classification here, eg. Ashkenazi and Mizrahi? François Robere (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow the question. Also, what do you mean by more or less "standard"? Debresser (talk) 11:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I mean prevailing definitions for Jewish ethnic sub-groups. So eg. Mizrahi Jews would be categorized on Wiki as "of ME/Jewish descent", but Ashkenazi Jews as "of EE/Jewish descent". François Robere (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Per Mizrahi Jews they can be from Northern Africa as well, so "of ME/Jewish descent" should not be used. Apart from that note, I don't know the answer to your question by heart. Debresser (talk) 22:50, 9 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" Cinadon36 23:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment This has nothing to do with wikilove or reliable sources but with a sustained multi-month WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Please see my response at the talkpage of the article. Dr. K. 03:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Ofcourse it has to do with RS. Staff from RS (academic professors like David French or Heinz Richter) talking about EOKA's action has been excluded while adding material from newspapers about a lawsuit 50 years later, get a section. More users are welcome to contribute their opinion, sadly the RfC didn't get enough attention. Cinadon36 08:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

You were told during the RfC by multiple users that the section you were trying to blank by rapid-fire edit-warring was fine, and even needed to be expanded. Drmies told you in his talkpage, when you went to complain about BRD, that your removal of the section was the definition of whitewashing and that he saw "pretty relevant and neutral content with strong sourcing.". Now, after two months of these cold-showers you got, you come back to relitigate this WP:DEADHORSE by FORUMSHOPPING and WP:GAMEing the system, thinking noone is watching. WP:DROPTHESTICK already after two months when noone has agreed with your position. Dr. K. 09:13, 29 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)

Ok you ve made your point. No need to repeat it over and over just trying to make the conversation looking like a battlefield.Cinadon36 17:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

This is the first edit by Khirurg in this thread. How can he repeat something when it's the first time he commented? His comment is also very civil and precise. The battlefield is in your mind. Dr. K. 20:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Cinadon36 Excuse me? You are the one that is beating a dead horse for months now. You are displaying WP:TEND and WP:BATTLE behavior. There are ways of dealing with that. Khirurg (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

unable to discern a question. Also unable to see the above-mentioned history on the talk page. Many errors of English in the article. I suggest a succinct description of this dispute on the talk page. Since sources appear to be at issue, yes, most newspapers are RS. Usually, depending on several factors. Sources do not have to be academic. If that does not answer the question then I suggest you rephrase and try again. Also, linking to this alleged forum shopping would be useful. Elinruby (talk) 09:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

This is the sequence of events: On 15 April 2019 the OP initiates his first attempt to remove the well-sourced and balanced Torture Lawsuit section from the EOKA article. On 27 October the OP opens a thread at NPOVN with the title EOKA and torture lawsuit. On the same day he goes to Drmies's talkpage to report me for reverting his blanking of the EOKA lawsuit and to ask advice from Drmies. On 29 October he opens an RfC on the EOKA talkpage. Shortly after, Drmies told the OP, when he went to complain about BRD, that his removal of the torture lawsuit section was the definition of whitewashing and that he saw "pretty relevant and neutral content with strong sourcing.". On 28 November the RFC at the talkpage of EOKA expired and the consensus was to keep the Lawsuit section in the article and even expand it. A month later, on 28 December, the OP asks the last participant of the expired RfC a question, attempting to reopen the expired RfC discussion on the EOKA talkpage. On the same day the OP opens yet another section on this noticeboard repeating the same arguments that were rejected before, mainly that the Lawsuit section in the EOKA article must be trimmed or altogether removed because newspapers and the BBC are not RS when compared to books. Dr. K. 17:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• Here is the wikilove Cinadon35 wants to bestow upon the EOKA article. On 15 April 2019 blanking the Torture lawsuit section of the article with the misleading edit-summary: "There is another section discussing torture allegations", although the lawsuit was not mentioned anywhere else in the article. On 25 October he returns to blank a large portion of the Torture and Lawsuit section with edit summary: removing staff that is UNDUE. No book on EOKA I know of give such a detail description of the alleged tortured by UK soldiers. If I get reverted, I 'll take it to Talk Page. and blanking details of the torture that I had added at the time. His reason? So why are we discussing in such a detail the EOKA lawsuit? I am worrying that it is UNDUE and hence POV-pushing as it falsly glorifies EOKA fighters (and put shame on UK), for something that literature haven't yet examined. It is clear that the text of our article is solely based on newspaper articles, no academic work, as the rest of the EOKA article.. How can you argue with such torrent of editorial wikilove manifested by blanking? Dr. K. 18:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention that he is stalking me and following me around all the time, to harass me for opposing him at EOKA. I'm wondering if this should be brought up at ANI at this point. Khirurg (talk) 20:51, 30 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)

Your response fails to acknowledge your longterm disruption, edit-warring and your refusal to get the point despite multiple users telling you that you should not blank the Torture and Lawsuits section at the EOKA article. Your previous foray at NPOVN, the RfC you initiated, the advice of Drmies, all went against your peculiar POV that this section must be blanked or reduced to a few sentences so as 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)

EOKA is a controversial subject that can stir passions. There may have been a misunderstanding between editors here. Some blanking, others not in favour of certain RS being included does no good to the editing process or the article. How about a discussion is undertaken the past left aside. That said, a suggested compromise could be that either both types of content based on RS go in the article or nothing at all.Resnjari (talk) 01:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

There was a specific RfC covering the chart of EOKA's casualties. There is no linkage between the EOKA casualties and the Torture lawsuit blanking other than in the OP's mind. Dr. K. 01:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

It appears in the editing history of the page that there were reverts and blanking on all sides of RS based content either way. I mean if a RS source is providing a piece of information and it expands knowledge about EOKA, shouldn't they be included. And if close paraphrasing is an issue then work could be done to remedy that without completely committing the RS sources. So like this the article is supplemented by content giving a wider picture about EOKA. Anyway, i'm off for now as i got things to prepare at home for the coming New Year. I'll get back to this after that. Best.Resnjari (talk) 02:01, 31 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)

No, this isn't a blantant POV problem.

I'd remove Media Matters as a source in the lede given WP:RSP.

The theperspective.com ref doesn't appear to be in the article currently. It seems a very poor source.

As for the rest, I think it would be a serious POV violation to remove the paragraph in dispute, as the information is a major aspect of their notability. --Ronz (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

In all likelihood the least reliable source on whether FoxNews is biased, partisan or packed full of lies would be an entity that is competing with FoxNews for viewership. Liken it to Ford comparing its cars to Chevy and Dodge as an example. Of course a Ford commercial or one of their sales reps will say Ford is the best...but we're not going to go to the Chevy article and say that Ford says Chevy sucks. My take is that only a neutral third party unaffiliated fact checker entity should be rendering any judgements on FoxNews, and surely no opinion pieces by FoxNews's opposition is a RS in this instance. I would also say this is absolutely true vice versa if FoxNews folks are opining on CNN, WaPo etc.--MONGO (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The part of the lead that you're claiming violates NPOV is based on this section of the body[20]. That section cites numerous peer-reviewed publications which substantiate the lead. We should use those sources in the lead. I agree that we should not cite Media Matters or an op-ed from Foreign Policy in the lead. The New Yorker and PBS are perfectly fine RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The amount of detail on Fox's bias in the left is perhaps too detailed, but it does seem otherwise appropriate , at least the first 2 or 3 sentences. --Masem (t) 23:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• Note that the filer placed this[21] on DRN ten minutes after posting here complaining about negative Fox material and this[22] on the CNN article 19 minutes after posting this claiming that CNN was somehow biased for firing employees that violated CNN guidelines. I suggest that the filer is forum shopping to support one network at the expense of another rather early in the process and would be advised to withdraw this. (WP:BITE applies). O3000 (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

O3000, WP:GF applies here. Do not assume I am moved in any direction politically. I would assume, however, that I am very interested in ensuring all articles are following the rules and all sources are NPOV in the aforementioned articles, which I don't. Curivity (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• What's the problem exactly? FN by and large isn't considered a reliable news source by RS.

Neither the New Yorker nor Vox bits are "opinion columns".

I submit the following as additional sources. François Robere (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

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:

• United States involvement in regime change#2019: Venezuela
• United States involvement in regime change in Latin America#Venezuela

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)

• I went there, this editor Jamez42 is adding tags without an explicit clear reason, and removing content that is sourced. This is disruptive and waste of time TBH.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: You reverted my edits without consulting or participating in the respective sections, namely "Orchestrated" and "Accuracy disputed", and accused me of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I just replied to your last comment, please let me know if you want me to help with the removal of the tag or go into further detail. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Jamez42, You just removed sourced Yemen-related content because you just don't like it. Making absolutely nonsensical arguments on the talk page is disruptive. Most editors disagree with your so-called arguments (I call them just dont like it) and yet you kept editwaring and removing sourced content. This is based on what I saw in the history section.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: Arguing that it was not related to US involvement, and when another editor undid my change, disagreed with me and added more content to the section, I thanked them for it. If you believe my arguments are "absolutely nonsensical", please explain why, and if you see that I'm insisting on changes let me know which they are. I encourage you to continue this in the article's talk page, and not this thread as a soapbox to attack me. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:22, 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)

Please read wp:v, this will explain that we need RS saying something before we can. Also wp:or might be worth a read, it does not matter what you know to be true, what matters is what wp:rs say. Your tone over at RSN also tells me you need to read wp:not, we are not here to right great wrongs or fight the good fight.

Now if you have RS saying reporting any of them above please provide them.Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 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)

I agree. It's soapboxing. --Ronz (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I also agree -- in exceptional cases, slogans might be of encyclopedic significance, but as a general rule they are just promotional junk. --JBL (talk) 01:05, 9 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Charlotte_of_Mecklenburg-Strelitz/GA2. 2605:A601:A1A8:CD00:718A:B28D:9514:7663 (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Current version looks fine. Wikipedia is collaborative. These "walls of text" of yours are not going to get a good response, try to be more concise. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:52, 14 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)