Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the neutral point of view noticeboard
This page is for reporting issues regarding whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.
  • Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion.
  • State the article being discussed; for example, [[article name]].
  • Include diffs to the specific change being proposed; paste text here.
  • Concisely state the problem perceived with the text in question.
  • Keep in mind that neutrality is often dependent upon context.
  • It helps others to respond to questions if you follow this format.
Sections older than 21 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so.

Additional notes:
Search this noticeboard & archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77

NAMBLA content on Harry Hay[edit]

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.)

reliable sources found[edit]

Click for list of reliable sources on this with any usable content
  • "When Nancy Met Harry". The American Spectator. Retrieved 2019-06-25. - from The American Spectator, Jeffrey Lord writes as a political commentator, and has a track record of controversial writing. I suspect this is not a reliable source, the chief purpose of the article is guilt by association attempting to connect Nancy Pelosi to allegation of pro-pedophile advocacy. But they do use the quote from 1 (above) taken from NAMBLA’s website. The speech was mainly Hay sharing his own positive gay sex experience with a man when he was 14. This assessment of this source might prove helpful, “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. This is the only source for 1.
  • Marc LaRocque and Cooper Moll (2014). "Finding aid to the Lesbian and Gay Academic Union records, 1973-1987; Coll2011-041" (PDF). Online Archive of California. [Box 2/folder 21] Lesbian and Gay Academic Union Records, Coll2011-041, ONE National Gay & Lesbian Archives, USC Libraries, University of Southern California., this was added to the article here but despite several requests there remains zero evidence the quote is contained there in any form, as it’s administrative records about the conference there is still the possibility a copy was included. If verified what is actually there this could be a better source for 1 if it’s not a primary source.
  • [1] - just added. Biographer Vern L. Bullough writes, "Getting him to agree to simply wear a sign rather than carry a banner took considerable negotiation by the parade organizers, who wanted to distance the gay and lesbian movement from pedophilia, yet wanted Harry to participate." Of interest to note is that the same organizers who didn’t want any NAMBLA recognition did want Hay himself. Also interesting is the omission of context for Hay’s wanting to wear the sign from the previous but uncited sentence, wearing the sign was ”an action he took because he remembered the pleasure of coming out as a teenager with a man who initiated him to the gay world.” This is in alignment with the few NAMBLA-documented speeches Hay gave as an invited speaker where he didn’t advocate for the group but instead talked about his own experiences. This source also helpfully points out that the 1994 Stonewall march was also protested for its commercialization and that Hay helped lead the counter-March with almost 7,000 participants. This is helpful for 2 and 3.
  • Timmons, Stuart (1990). "Photos by Sandy Dwyer". The Trouble with Harry Hay: Founder of the Modern Gay Movement. Retrieved 2010-06-24. The sign Harry tried to wear in the 1986 L.A. Gay Pride Parade - which points out he tried to be in the parade implying he didn’t succeed in some way, This is unneeded, but does provide a photo of 2.
  • [2], a reliable source that confirms the two signs were worn in the LA Pride parade. This is for 2.
  • Bronski, Michael (2002-11-07). "The real Harry Hay". The Phoenix. - (Copied here) - In an obituary, LGBT history academic and writer Michael Bronski wrote, “He was, at times, a serious political embarrassment, as when he consistently advocated the inclusion of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) in gay-pride parades. HAY’S UNEASY relationship with the gay movement — he reviled what he saw as the movement’s propensity for selling out its fringe members for easy, and often illusory, respectability — didn’t develop later in life. It was there from the start.” He helpfully contextualizes why he thinks Hay advocated for inclusion in the two parades, although he doesn’t provide anything to prove his assertions. This is unneeded but supports items 2 and 3.
  • "Defend Harry Hay's Reputation at the National Equality March". Retrieved 2019-06-25. - This affirms Hay was never a member, and contextualizes the Stonewall 25 episode. Additionally it notes exactly what I’ve been seeing: Allegations that Hay was a supporter of pederasty was “a staple of those members of the right-wing establishment who are bent on destabilizing the Obama Adminstration and destroying the careers of members of his administration through guilt by association.” (Specifically Kevin Jennings). This is unneeded but is a helpful source for 3.
  • "#BornThisDay: Gay Rights Pioneer, Harry Hay". The WOW Report. 2019-04-07. Retrieved 2019-06-25. - In 1994, he joined the The Spirit Of Stonewall, instead of the official pride march and controversially supported inclusion of NAMBLA. “He felt that silencing any part of the movement because it was disliked or hated by mainstream culture was a seriously mistaken political strategy. ... He saw that eliminating any “objectionable” group, like drag queens or leather enthusiasts only pandered to the idea of respectability.” This is unneeded but helpful source for 3.
  • Simon LeVay; Elisabeth Nonas (1997). City of Friends: A Portrait of the Gay and Lesbian Community in America. MIT Press. p. 181. ISBN 978-0262621137. 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. - This was Just added, although it only supports some prominent gay leaders such as Harry Hay have supported NAMBLA's right to participate in gay rights marches, it is use in the lead falsely to bolster that Hay was “an active supporter“, which no reliable source has yet to verify and the entire lead paragraph hinges upon. It’s not needed, but technically loosely confirm 2 and 3.
  • Weir, John (August 23, 1994). The Advocate, “Mad About the Boys”. Here Publishing.CS1 maint: date and year (link) - he was speaking at a nambla event and said they should consider a name change because “boy lover” had negative connotations like “homosexual” did in the 1950’s. I’m not seeing any other mention of this. This is the only source that supports item 4, but does so trivially. Hard to believe if there was more connecting Hay it wouldn’t also be included.
  • Hay, Harry, "Focusing on NAMBLA Obscures the Issues", Gay Community News, Fall 1994, pp. 16, 18. As cited in Jenkins, Philip (2004). Moral Panic: Changing Concepts of the Child Molester in Modern America. Yale University Press. p. 275. ISBN 978-0300109634. - Just added to the reference section. This source, likely an opinion piece by Hay, comes just after the Stonewall 25 events where both ILGA, and Stonewall 25 organizers banned pro-pedophilia groups from participating. It likely reaffirms his already reported reasoning, included in proposed content, behind supporting the group being allowed to march. This might be useful for 3, if someone can confirm what Hay actually wrote. But would likely be under primary source.
  • [3] gives only one quote from that Hay-authored piece right above but it’s certainly relevant, "I am not a member of NAMBLA, nor would it ever have been my inclination to be one." This has obvious contextual relevance and likely should be included.
  • Yalzadeh, Ida (October 20, 2018). "Harry Hay | Biography, Activism, & Facts". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2019-07-02. A champion for a diverse homosexual identity, 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 was just found and is the first to assert that Hay advocated for NAMBLA among other groups. It being the only source that offers this blanket statement lends to the point that this subject area is not yet proven to have such a weight in Hay’s life to warrant anything in the lead. The author doesn’t offer any information to corroborate the assertion.
  • [4] - Here is a helpful comment so far: “Beacon Press is a department of the Unitarian Universalist Association, somewhat of an advocacy publisher, but still potentially useful. ... I'd be hesitant to use the Beacon book, as both the publisher and the editor you linked have long histories of being activists rather than dispassionate scholars, but it could be useful for simple factual statements, e.g. "Hay did X in year YYYY".” This source reprints Hay’s Spirit of Stonewall speech from their press conference.
  • [5] - After paging through this the “two contrasting interpretations of Hay's support for NAMBLA” were a sentence each: “outspoken advocate for” vs. “alleged advocate of”; both useless as neither provided any information to affirm the statements, Here is a helpful comment so far: “Left Coast Press is an imprint of Routledge/Taylor & Francis, a globally prominent academic publisher. ... Conversely, anything coming from T&F is highly likely to be reliable both for simple statements of fact and for theoretical analysis, and I'd need to be given a solid reason to doubt them before I advised someone to be careful using it.” This source delved into Hay’s using his coming-of-age story as a 14-year-old with a man in his twenties, and why he shared it publicly.

References

  1. ^ Vern L. Bullough (2002). Before Stonewall: Activists for Gay and Lesbian Rights in Historical Context. Psychology Press. p. 74. ISBN 978-1560231936. "Getting him to agree to simply wear a sign rather than carry a banner took considerable negotiation by the parade organizers, who wanted to distance the gay and lesbian movement from pedophilia, yet wanted Harry to participate."; “an action he took because he remembered the pleasure of coming out as a teenager with a man who initiated him to the gay world.”
  2. ^ Timmons 1990, p. 295.
  3. ^ "The smear campaign continues: Fox Nation, Washington Examiner manufacture Jennings-NAMBLA link". Media Matters for America. October 2, 2009. Retrieved 2019-07-01.
  4. ^ Hay, Harry (1997). Roscoe, Will (ed.). Radically gay : the story of gay liberation in the words of its founder. Beacon Press. pp. 302–307. ISBN 9780807070819. OCLC 876542984.
  5. ^ Rind, Wright Bruce (2016), "Chapter 10; Blinded by Politics and Morality—A Reply to McAnulty and Wright", in Hubbard, Thomas K.; Verstraete, Beert C. (eds.), Censoring Sex Research : the Debate Over Male Intergenerational Relations, Taylor & Francis, pp. 279–298, doi:10.4324/9781315432458-16, ISBN 9781611323405, OCLC 855969738, retrieved 2019-07-12

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)

Feedback[edit]

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[1], and his own group, the Radical Faeries have it on their tribute page to him:[2]. 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:[3], 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 - http://www. nambla. org/hay2002.html NAMBLA's index on their Harry Hay materials. This page has - http://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 http://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/04/harry-hay-communist-mattachine-society-lgbtq. Missing or empty |title= (help) "When he died at ninety in October 2002, many remembrances focused on Hay’s late-life defense of the North American Man/Boy Love Association. While Hay never joined the group, he did defend it from being expelled from several LBGTQ conferences. His defense of NAMBLA was eccentric and troubling, rooted in his own experiences of teenaged sexual activity. But it was a small piece of Hay’s long life of writing and activism." - This source argued that it was not a significant part of Hay's activity and that he never joined... If you think Jacobin is mischaracterizing this, it would be good to find a secondary source (from a reputable publisher, of course) which says the opposite. "Gay History – October 23rd: The Almost Forgotten Gay Activist Harry Hay and Quebec’s Gay Club Raid Protests" (mentioned above by another user) seems to contradict Jacobin when it states "These events overshadowed Hay’s previous legacy so much that today he is all but forgotten and purposely left out of many LGBT historical writings." but it may be good to check the publishing status of this website to see if it counts as a Reliable Source. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.back2stonewall.com/2017/10/gay-history-october-23-harry-hay-montreal.html
  2. ^ [Box 2/folder 21] Lesbian and Gay Academic Union Records, Coll2011-041, ONE National Gay & Lesbian Archives, USC Libraries, University of Southern California

Notes before closing[edit]

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=http://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= http://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=http://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=http://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 = http://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:[4] and Mark Ironie:[5] 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 [6] 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)

Update (July 6, 2019)[edit]

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)

Possible content[edit]

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]

Notes and References[edit]

  1. ^ Brussels-based ILGA, said NAMBLA joined the association about 15 years ago, when it was a loose network with no rules for admission.“ (approximately 1979). [5] They instituted a screening process to eliminate pro-pedophile advocates.
  2. ^ The Stonewall 25 signature event was the pride march, the International March on the United Nations to Affirm the Human Rights of Lesbian and Gay People.[6] Stonewall 25 organizers plans also went public that they were not going to include leathermen or drag queens in the official ceremonies,[8] prompting the creation of the first annual New York City Drag March. Of the two counter-marches, only the drag march continued.


  1. ^ a b c Rind, Wright Bruce (2016), "Chapter 10; Blinded by Politics and Morality—A Reply to McAnulty and Wright", in Hubbard, Thomas K.; Verstraete, Beert C. (eds.), Censoring Sex Research : the Debate Over Male Intergenerational Relations, Taylor & Francis, pp. 279–298, doi:10.4324/9781315432458-16, ISBN 9781611323405, OCLC 855969738, retrieved 2019-07-12
  2. ^ a b Timmons, 1990, page 36.
  3. ^ a b c Vern L. Bullough (2002). Before Stonewall: Activists for Gay and Lesbian Rights in Historical Context. Psychology Press. p. 74. ISBN 978-1560231936. "Getting him to agree to simply wear a sign rather than carry a banner took considerable negotiation by the parade organizers, who wanted to distance the gay and lesbian movement from pedophilia, yet wanted Harry to participate."; “an action he took because he remembered the pleasure of coming out as a teenager with a man who initiated him to the gay world.”
  4. ^ Timmons 1990, p. 310.
  5. ^ Mills, Kim I. (February 13, 1994). "Gay Groups Try to Put Distance Between Themselves and Pedophile Group". AP NEWS. Retrieved 2019-07-14.
  6. ^ a b Lenius, Steve (June 6, 2019). "Leather Life: Stonewall 25 Memories". Lavender Magazine. Retrieved 2019-07-14.
  7. ^ a b Walsh, Sheila (June 10, 1994). "Ad Hoc Group Formed To Protest Ban On NAMBLA" (PDF). Washington Blade. Retrieved July 14, 2019.
  8. ^ Dommu, Rose (2018-06-25). "Hundreds Of Drag Queens Fill The NYC Streets Every Year For This 'Drag March'". HuffPost. Retrieved 2019-06-08.
  9. ^ Osborne, Duncan (June 19, 2018). "A Heritage of Disagreement". Gay City News. Retrieved 2019-07-15.
  10. ^ Hay, Harry (1997). Roscoe, Will (ed.). Radically gay : the story of gay liberation in the words of its founder. Beacon Press. pp. 302–307. ISBN 9780807070819. OCLC 876542984.


Comments[edit]

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)

    • 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)

Asking for your opinion in a RfC[edit]

I issued a RfC almost a month ago. As one of the main arguments concerns POV related issues, may I ask your kind contribution fellow wikipedians? Talk:EOKA#Request for Comment. Cinadon36 19:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Cinadon36:, I suggest that talk page gets archiving in place. I found it too big to access. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
You are right, I 'll see what I can do...maybe tomorrow though. Cinadon36 09:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
@Gleeanon409: done 255,918‎ bytes removed. Cinadon36 12:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Sonya Spence (Jamaican singer)[edit]

I searched for articles or something about this wonderful singer, even though dead, it will still be great to see some information about her.

Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.189.199.69 (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I searched under Sonia and Sonya, and didn’t find much easily available. You might ask at the WP:REFDESK. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Justin Trudeau SNC Lavalin affair[edit]

Recently, the Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau contravened a Conflict of Interest Act. In referring to this incident Trudeau said he takes full responsibility for the mistakes made but cannot apologize for trying to save Canadian jobs. An editor on the SNC Lavelin article has removed part of the information on this so that the article reads, "the Prime Minister said that he takes full responsibility for the mistakes made but did not apologize." instead of Trudeau's full statement, "Prime Minister said that he takes full responsibility for the mistakes made but could not apologize for trying to save Canadian jobs."

There are multiple sources documenting and discussing Trudeau's words so RS is not an issue. Here is one:[7]. As a disclaimer: I was the editor who added the words, "could not apologize for trying to save Canadian jobs." as context but am now being accused of POV editing. Discussion here. Welcome all input as to whether this content can and should be added to the article. Littleolive oil (talk) 02:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The claim "did not apologize" is factual, as he didn't. The claim "could not apologize" is not factual, as there was nothing constraining him from doing so. He obviously included the "could not apologize for saving Canadian jobs" as a verbal tactic, and it's unproven whether he actually did save any Canadian jobs by his actions. In my opinion, when the article is paraphrasing his words, it should communicate only the facts of what he said. That said, obviously the easy fix to all of this is just to modify the article to "the Prime Minister said that he takes full responsibility for the mistakes made, but added that he "could not apologize for trying to save Canadian jobs"". Zortwort (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Editing by User:Iblismesdara[edit]

Iblismesdara's entire contribution to Wikipedia has been to note that particular biographical subjects have made significant donations to Donald Trump's campaign. The edits do not place any value judgement on said donations, but merely point them out.

I contend that, since none of the subjects in question is a notably active political person, their political donation history should not be a part of the Wikipedia biography. Iblismesdara contends that, since these donations are a matter of public record, they are valid content for the Wikipedia articles. On this basis, to be neutral, we would need to record the political donation history of every Wikipedia biographical subject. I further contend that, since Iblismesdara is concentrating solely on contributions to Trump, his motivations, whether positive or negative, are not neutral. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Pinging this discussion to make sure I'm the only one who cares about this. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 04:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Does due weight apply to facts? and WP:DUE weight for co-sponsored legislation[edit]

There's a discussion over at the Tulsi Gabbard talk page regarding how to apply due weight to questions about legislative co-sponsorship. The main questions are:

  1. Is it appropriate to mention legislative co-sponsorships when they are not covered by secondary sources? edit I mean mentions of specific co-sponsored bills, not a legislator's general record of co-sponsoring legislation.Nblund talk 14:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  2. Does WP:DUE apply to facts, or does it only apply to opinions and viewpoints?


Background The Political positions of Tulsi Gabbard page mentions multiple bills that Gabbard co-sponsored, but most of these bills are covered only in primary sources such as Congress.gov. For instance: Gabbard co-sponsored the Government by the People Act, but she is one of 163 representatives to co-sponsor that bill. Reliable sources do not mention her as a significant supporter of that bill, and she has co-sponsored over 1000 bills while in Congress. I've argued that it is probably WP:UNDUE to include her co-sponsorships unless they receive coverage in secondary sources. Xenagoras has argued that the due weight policy only applies to opinions and does not apply to undisputed facts like Gabbard's co-sponsorship. I don't think this is correct, but I would appreciate external feedback. Nblund talk 02:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I think you're both wrong. First due weight applies to everything. In this example there is the appearance that it doesn't apply, but this is only because you both agree on the relevant facts. In this case, the facts are binary (True/False, black/white) and the government's own database, as presented through its webpage, is not a primary source, but a secondary one. The primary source is the legislators own spoken word (recorded or transcript) or signed paper stating her cosponsorship. Someone else is then reporting what she said, i.e., the house staff. The focal point of this debate should be, in my view, on giving readers understanding. The solution lies in providing some reasonable context for what co-sponsorship means. Maybe browse other pages to see how its handled there, look at the main pages that talk about legislative process.... if there isn't a good example to follow its time to create one. From my own personal knowledge, there are a gazillion bills that get introduced for PR reasons, and everyone in the legislature knows its for PR and they are not going anywhere. In a bicameral legislature (like the US) if the same party controls both sides they even pass bills in one, with a plan to kill itin the other, just for bragging rights. I know this from direct experience, but I'm sure there are plenty of RSs about strategy and tactics of the the legislature process. Good luck NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy: I think the best models are probably the bios of other members of Congress, and I don't see many instances where a co-sponsorship is mentioned. Most legislators co-sponsor a ton of stuff because its easy and painless: the median legislator in the 115th Congress had 280 co-sponsorships, so the overwhelming majority of those are necessarily excluded from Wikipedia. If reliable secondary sources aren't bothering to mention Gabbard's involvement in this bill, then why would we? Nblund talk 14:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
We wouldn't, I agree. My comment was stupidly ambiguous, and I was trying to address reporting the total number of cosponsorships. As phrased, the opening post appears to offer a single example as, well, a single illustrative example. If that one bill is in fact the real dispute that fact didn't register on me. Thanks for asking me to elaborate. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you mean now! I could have phrased that more clearly. Nblund talk 14:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy, the section "campaign finance reform" of the Gabbard's article mentions 2 legislations, H.Res.48 and H.R.20. Nblund wants to delete H.R.20. Please link or quote the policy source for "due weight applies to everything". Xenagoras (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Due weight applies to facts and opinions. It is a fact that the moon is not made of cheese, but moon should not mention that as it is undue. If reliable sources reported a politician's opinion about the moon, there may very well be no mention of that in the moon's or the politician's article because of UNDUE. I haven't examined the article in question but there would need to be a reason (per WP:DUE) to mention that a politician co-sponsored legislation. An article is not a list of everything. Johnuniq (talk) 09:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Johnuniq, please link or quote the policy source for "WP:DUE applies to facts".
There are zero facts supporting that "the moon is made of cheese". Anybody claiming "the moon is made of cheese" would state an opinion but not a fact. The moon article does not mention an opinion "the moon is made of cheese" because such an opinion would be such an invisibly tiny minority opinion versus the majority opinion "the moon is NOT made of cheese" that mentioning this minority opinion would give it WP:UNDUE weight. Additionally, any opinion (that "the moon is made of cheese") has less weight than facts (that "the moon is NOT made of cheese"), thereby further reducing the WP:DUE weight of said opinion.
The "campaign finance reform" section of the Gabbard article does not attempt to "list everything", but only essential content, like mentioning the co-sponsoring of H.Res.48 and H.R.20. H.R.20 strives to raise election participation by ordinary people and raise the transparency of campaign funding. Achieving these goals would reduce the relative influence of PAC money versus ordinary people. This corresponds with Gabbard's personal stance to not take PAC money and her statements about reducing the influence of PAC money and "the power lies with the people". It is also cited in secondary sources. Xenagoras (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  • While it is a fact that Gabbard co-sponsored bills, the information is self-serving particularly in terms of a page of a running political candidate. In such as case we should be guided by third-party RS coverage of the co-sponsored bills to include in here. If you have ever looked at a Congressperson's record, a lot of what is listed in the Congressional record is fluff, bills that fail to go forward, minor resolutions, etc., so to cherry pick co-sponsored bills out of that is a problem. Also, getting to be a co-sponsor on a bill can be trivial - bills easily can have upwards of a dozen+ co-sponsors, but usually the hard work is done by one or two of them, so even just being listed as a co-sponsor is not sufficient. But on the other hand, if a bill is noted in third-party sources and mentions the Congressperson as a co-sponsor, hey, great, then we can include it. --Masem (t) 14:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
    • To add to Nblund's clarification, if it is the case of WP editors picking and choosing out of those bills without guidance of 3rd parties, that's definitely a POV problem. --Masem (t) 14:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Masem, I did not "cherry pick co-sponsored bills", but only included H.Res.48 and H.R.20 in the section "campaign finance reform", because both are mentioned outside of Congress' website. I did not search through Gabbard's (co)-sponsored legislations in the Congress database to find them mentioned. Xenagoras (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Gabbard has sponsored 72 and cosponsored 1,085 bills. Unless we intend to cover all of these, and I don't believe we do, then you need coverage other than primary sources in order to determine the WEIGHT of which to cover and what vast majority of them to omit. GMGtalk 15:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Additional background and context from the author: Among the articles about the 10 most viewed candidates for the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries, the article on Tulsi Gabbard is the only one with lowest article grade "Start". This means Gabbard's article is "quite incomplete ... and weak in many areas... Most readers will need more content. ... The article needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. ...". I noticed that several of Gabbard's policies are not even mentioned in Wikipedia, therefore I created all of the current content of section "campaign finance reform", with my last edit being this. I welcome improvements in the description of all of Gabbard's policies (some policies are still missing on Wikipedia). User Nblund overall deleted 19903 bytes (-14%) from Gabbard's page and added 3005 bytes (mostly by reverting his own deletions). Nblund's net contribution to Gabbard is negative 16898 bytes (-12% of total). He wrote "I've made cuts, and I'll probably make more". I think we should strive to achieve the next higher article grade for Gabbard by adding more content.
The disputed content:
The section campaign finance reform mentions 2 legislations that Gabbard co-sponsored: The We the People Amendment (H.J.Res.48) and the Government by the People Act (H.R.20). User Nblund wants to remove the content about H.R.20, (by claiming WP:UNDUE weight) and the endorsement by End Citizens United (by claiming no WP:SECONDARY source is given).
The questions by Nblund:
  1. Is it appropriate to mention legislative co-sponsorships when they are not covered by secondary sources?
    WP:PRIMARY sources are "original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of ... a political decision." Gabbard herself saying, "I decided to co-sponsor H.R.20 for reason X", would be a primary source. See also how to classify sources. In my words: A primary source is the person/entity who creates information or opinion about an event/issue. A WP:SECONDARY source "provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." In my words: A secondary source is the person/entity who cites one or several primary sources. The Congress' website citing Gabbard's involvement in Congress' attempt to enact H.R.20 is a secondary source. Additionally, the GovTrack website is another secondary source citing Gabbard's involvement in Congress' attempt to enact H.R.20. Lastly, Ballot Pedia is another secondary source citing Gabbard's co-sponsoring. Importantly, secondary sources are not "good". And: Primary sources are not "bad" but can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources."
    The endorsement of Gabbard by End Citizens United (ECU) is not a primary source related to Gabbard, because it is not Gabbard who says "I have been endorsed by ECU", but ECU writes, that they have endorsed Gabbard. Thus it is a secondary source related to Gabbard.
  2. Does WP:DUE apply to facts, or does it only apply to opinions and viewpoints?
    For this I firstly refer to the explanation I gave to Nblund on the article talk page. An aspect is the way something appears when viewed from a certain direction or perspective. This means an aspect is a partial view, a part of the whole view. The whole view gets synthesized by combining several aspects of a view from different perspectives. Example: "This car is good" is a whole view the the item "car". "The engine of the car is good" is one aspect of the view on the car. "The fuel consumption of the car is bad" is another aspect of the view on the car. Combining/synthesizing all aspects of the view creates the whole view. Now analyze the definition of the usage of aspect in WP:DUE:
    "Articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." "Controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified." The definition of WP:DUE uses "aspect" 3 times (always in combination with view), "view" / "viewpoint" is used 28 times, "minority" is used 15 times, "majority" is used 5 times, "fringe" is used 1 time. All mentions of aspects in WP:DUE exist inside context of views and therefore the aspects in WP:DUE are aspects of views. It is completely obvious that "aspect" is meant as a "partial view" and the core meaning and the purpose of WP:DUE is to regulate how much space to give to the minority (fringe) view in relation to the majority view.
    WP:DUE always applies to views = opinions, but never to facts. Xenagoras (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Is it appropriate to mention legislative co-sponsorships when they are not covered by secondary sources? No.
  • Does WP:DUE apply to facts Yes.
See also WP:BLPPRIMARY. The congressional record is a primary source. A group writing about their own endorsement is also a primary source. Besides that, the high-handed hair splitting over the meaning of the word "aspect" is silly. GMGtalk 16:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
GreenMeansG, please link to or quote the Wikipedia policy that supports your statement "WP:DUE applies to facts". WP:BLPPRIMARY states, "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." WP:BLPPRIMARY is obviously aimed at protecting a living person against doxing (publishing of private identifying/location information about a living person). The questions of Nblund are not related to doxing Gabbard. Nothing I wrote about Gabbard in the article section "campaign finance reform" relates to doxing. Therefore WP:BLPPRIMARY does not apply to the questions of Nblund or the disputed content.
After I explained to Nblund, that WP:DUE's scope covers opinions but not facts, he replied that "WP:DUE applies to views or aspects of an issue", thereby he implied that aspects were facts. Therefore I explained here why aspects are not facts but partial views and therefore also opinions.
Your remark "the high-handed hair splitting over the meaning of the word aspect is silly" is uncivil. You should strike-through that remark. Xenagoras (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
It is silly and saying so is hardly uncivil. Incidentally, the only part of WP:BLPPRIMARY that you failed to quote was the part that was relevant to the issue at hand. Not a single person here has agreed with you and you would do well to take the advise you've been given and WP:DROPTHESTICK. I'm not going do debate you over the meanings of words, but I am beginning to wonder whether this is your first Wikipedia account. GMGtalk 19:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
GreenMeansGo, the title of the policy WP:BLPPRIMARY is "Avoid misuse of primary sources". Therefore nothing I left out of my policy quote applies to Nblund's question or disputed content. The policy WP:BLPPRIMARY covers protection of living persons against doxing, nothing else. None of the statements given by other editors so far has given any facts about why and where the WP:DUE policy covers facts in addition to opinions.
I am beginning to wonder whether you are being uncivil on purpose. I repeat, you should strike-strough your uncivil remark. Xenagoras (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Curious, how is it that you happened upon WP:RSOPINION in the two hours between making your first edit and making your first talk page post? That's quite impressive. GMGtalk 21:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry Xenagoras. I forgot to ping you. But I see you're online now, so you can answer my question. GMGtalk 21:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
It is not WP's place to make up for lack of coverage of a candidate, period. --Masem (t) 16:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Masem, we as wiki contributors should do our part and use the available sources (they are out there!) to improve the article from grade "Start" to at least grade "C" as is requested by the definition of grade "Start". Xenagoras (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
We cannot create coverage where coverage does not exist, however. "Beefing" up an article by putting an editor-selected list of co-sponsored bills which has gained the note of no reliable sources is not allowed. That said, I would have a hard time finding that one cannot build out enough an article for a sitting Congressperson particcularly when taking into account regional and local sources. --Masem (t) 22:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Masem, of course we must not do WP:ORIGINAL research. The sources for info on Gabbard are out there and can be found via Google, which I used to find info about H.Res.48 and H.R.20 and everything else. I did not arbitrarily select a list of co-sponsored bills, instead I used the Google search to find sources mentioning Gabbard. It is indeed difficult to find coverage on all of Gabbard's policies, because corporate mass media has only 1 question for Gabbard that gets endlessly repeated while every other policy gets neglected. The coverage of Gabbard's policies is far worse in newspapers than in visual media. But I have not yet found the time to watch and transcribe all her video interviews that might offer coverage on more policies.
There is unfortunately a very low number of active editors that add content to Gabbard's page, but Nblund is very busy deleting content. He deleted 12% of all content on Gabbard so far. It is difficult to keep up against his deleting spree and his behavior is also discouraging for people adding content, only to watch it being deleted shortly after. And he has stated, "I've made cuts, and I'll probably make more." He already deleted half of my addition before I answered here on this NoticeBoard/RequestForOpinion. I think this is inappropriate behavior. He should have waited until this discussion is resolved before changing any content that led to this very discussion. How do I prevent this? Xenagoras (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
I haven't deleted any of the mentions of co-sponsored bills that led to this discussion. If you don't want your contributions to get deleted, you're going to have to accept the feedback you're getting from other editors. Stuff like this (which contained a verbatim recitation of her campaign materials in Wikipedia's voice) is pretty much always going to get deleted on sight. Nblund talk 00:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
But you nonetheless deleted half of the content I had added and you gave no announcement that you planed to delete that part before you deleted it. You gave no feedback to me before you deleted that content. Xenagoras (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I would say that WP:UNDUE and similar policies are mainly about deciding which facts to choose to cover in an article and what kind of depth and prominence to give to those facts. Take a biographical article at Wikipedia for example. There are many more verifiable facts about a person's life we could choose to include in an article; but many of the more banal or inconsequential ones we don't include because they do not add meaningfully to the narrative of their life; and by including them we may skew the article in ways that do not accurately represent the person. So we choose which facts to cover, and which to ignore, because not everything is of equal importance. --Jayron32 16:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Jayron32, please elaborate where and how WP:UNDUE supports your assertion that its scope covers facts. Facts are not mentioned once in WP:UNDUE. What you describe in regard to allocating different amounts of "depth and prominence" for different facts in article is covered by WP:BALASP, but that policy covers "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports. ... This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." Xenagoras (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Xenagoras: to clarify, I think both HR 20 and HJ 48 should be removed unless we can find coverage in a reliable secondary source. WP:LINKSINACHAIN explains that simply repeating the same stuff elsewhere doesn't make a source secondary. Secondary sources add additional context and analysis. Congress.gov doesn't do that. Your account is just over a week old, and every one on of your 40+ edits have been related Tulsi Gabbard. I don't think that invalidates your viewpoint (we all started somewhere) but a half dozen or so experienced editors are telling you the same thing. You should take that to heart. Nblund talk 18:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Nblund, I disagree, but I offer you a proposal. Both H.Res.48 and H.R.20 are well sourced and besides that, the decision whether they are sufficiently sourced shall not to be made here on WP:NPOVN but on the article talk page, and if that fails, on WP:RSN. I understand and accept your point about WP:LINKSINACHAIN since I have read it.
      On the question "does WP:DUE apply to facts?": Here is how I suggest this disagreement between us shall be solved: We make a compromise: I will abide all policies including WP:NOTEVERYTHING which regulates how much space should be given to different facts and you accept that WP:DUE does not apply to facts and you will abide to improving content if you can rather than deleting it. Please read my summary below from 22:44, 28 August 2019 in my answer to Blueboar on the content and purpose of WP:NOTEVERYTHING and its consequences on my editing. You can skip all following text in this post if you agree on this compromise.

      If you do not want to make this compromise, I would like to offer an argumentation guideline based on Wikipedia's policies.
      Policy quote begin:
      What to do when you have a dispute with another editor: The best practice is to improve content it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text. Sustained discussion between the parties, even if not immediately successful, demonstrates your good faith and shows you are trying to reach a consensus. Try negotiating a truce or proposing a compromise through negotiation. Graham's hierarchy of disagreement: Aim at the top during disputes. (My personal interpretation of the pyramid: The green marked arguments at the top are winning a dispute: types 1 and 2. The gray one in the middle: type 3 is neither winning nor losing but allows for inquiry for more/better arguments. The red marked types of disagreement at the bottom of the pyramid are losing a dispute: types 4, 5, and 6.)
      Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus. Consensus does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), neither is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Achieving consensus ... through discussion: Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. ... Several processes are available for consensus-building (third opinions, dispute resolution noticeboard, requests for comment and the village pump). Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given (personal remark: see Graham's pyramid of disagreement above) on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. The editor/administrator closing a discussion will determine if consensus exists, and if so, what it is. To do this, the closer must read the arguments presented. A good closer will transparently explain how the decision was reached. Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue.
      Policy quote end.
      Analysis of quality of arguments: You Nblund, NewsAndEventsGuy and GreenMeansG gave a type 4 disagreement (contradiction with no supporting evidence). Johnuniq gave a type 3 disagreement (counterargument with no supporting evidence but with reasoning. But he used a logical fallacy that I explained at 17:18, 28 August 2019) Jayron32 gave a type 3 disagreement (counterargument with no supporting evidence but with reasoning. He did not quote or describe WP:DUE, but he correctly elaborated on the purpose of a different policy that regulates how much space should be given to different facts. Jayron32 did not name that policy. It is WP:NOTEVERYTHING as Blueboar later explained.) Blueboar did something remarkable: He did not attempt to refute my assertion about WP:DUE, but instead named the correct policy to apply when deciding how much space should be given to different facts: WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Johnbod did not explicitely give his own assertion on WP:DUE, but suggested to me "to believe the other editors" who disagree with me and to abide to the majority opinion, which goes counter to policy: Consensus is not determined by counting heads but ascertained by the quality of the arguments given. Among the editors (including yourself) that disagreed with me on WP:DUE during this discussion, none gave a type 1 or 2 disagreement that would refute my assertions about WP:DUE. Therefore the consensus is:
      WP:DUE does not apply to facts. WP:NOTEVERYTHING regulates how much space should be given to different facts. Xenagoras (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @Nblund: I forgot to ping you. Xenagoras (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Xenagoras, its time to drop the stick. Apply whatever policy you would like, but I think it is well-established because information is factual doesn't mean it is warranted for inclusion on a Wikipedia page. If you want to include mentions of her bill co-sponsorships, find reliable mainstream sources that mention them. If you want to avoid having your contributions deleted, then use good quality sources. Also please refrain from plagiarizing material as you did here - this will always get deleted or reworked no matter how well sourced. Nblund talk 21:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • More than WP:DUE, the more important policy for this discussion is WP:NOTEVERYTHING. We don’t include information simply because it is accurate and verifiable. Blueboar (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @Blueboar:, I agree with you, and thank you for your remark and link to WP:NOTEVERYTHING. That policy is helpful in this discussion and for editing in general because WP:NOTEVERYTHING's scope contains both opinions and facts, unlike WP:DUE. I read WP:NOTEVERYTHING and found a couple of policies in its sub categories that have to be adhered to in my contribution to Gabbard's section on campaign finance reform:
      WP:NOTEVERYTHING itself requests, an article "should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." This means I have to consider which parts shall be shortened, which shall be moved elsewhere and which shall be removed.
      WP:NOTADVOCACY prohibits "advocacy: .... political ... or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view". This means I have to consider which text that comes directly from primary source Gabbard needs to be removed or shortened or replaced by indirect speech or by secondary sources or balanced by opposing views.
      WP:NOTNEWS prevents wikipedia from becoming a newspaper: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. Most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities." This means I have to consider which announcements or news reports about Gabbard will stay important beyond the daily news cycle.
      WP:NOTDIARY is very similiar to WP:NOTNEWS: "Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are."
      Blueboar, your link was very helpful, thank's again. How would you reconciliate the WP:NOTEVERYTHING policy (incl. subcategories) with the article grade "Start" guideline that requests to add more content? Would you be so kind to have a look at my initial version and help me improve it? Xenagoras (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Guidelines don't override policies. There is no WP:DEADLINE to get a Start-class article past Start, but we are required to make sure what's included is appropriate for an encyclopedia. That likely means here that Gabbard's article will remain Start class until they get more coverage in the media. --Masem (t) 22:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Masem, I understand what you mean. The thing is, that among the 18 most viewed articles about the Democratic presidential candidates, the article on Tulsi Gabbard is the only one with lowest article grade "Start". Wikipedia missed the deadline June 26, 2019 when the democratic primary debates began. Wikipedia is faced with a huge demand for information about Gabbard that is not being fulfilled by Wikipedia because the article lacks so much content. This seems to be not only caused by a failure by corporate mass media to generate a large amount of newspaper articles about Gabbard that Wikipedian's can use, but also by a lack of commitment/activity in the Wikipedia community. On August 25, 2019 I added the section on "campaign finance reform" policy. Her electoral reform policy is still missing along with some other policies. We should have done better a long time ago. We should do better now. Xenagoras (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
The article is now rated "B", which seems right. Her political positions have another article. Many people have told you that WP:DUE applies to facts and opinions equally - I suggest you believe them & stop flogging this dead horse. If the article is too short, quality not quantity is what we look for in additional material. Johnbod (talk) 01:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

5-Minute Crafts and User:DrifAssault[edit]

DrifAssault has added an extraordinary amount of criticism to the 5-Minute Crafts article, mostly using original research, self-published sources (including Wikia (RSP entry) and other YouTube (RSP entry) channels), and selective quoting of news articles. The addition of the chart at Special:Diff/913019435 is a bit over-the-top.

I've started a discussion on the talk page at Talk:5-Minute Crafts § Original research to no effect. It would be nice to see some additional opinions on the content of this article. — Newslinger talk 10:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

What is socialblade.com? It looks like a reddit mirror. GMGtalk 10:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

DrifAssault: Yes, there are a lot of negative idea on my page, but I thought I can add some idea to them. However, i have cited to be more "third-party" and also some positive ideas. However, i want to have a fresh eye on this. P/S: social blade is acually an analystic tool to youtube channel, which count subscriber and views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrifAssault (talkcontribs) 11:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

DrifAssault, I think you need to take a moment and review guidance at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. We do not use primary youtube videos, wikis and online forum comments as sources on Wikipedia. GMGtalk 12:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Is mentioning also not allowed? as I just show people that there is that channel? (I have read that, and found out most of my added source are biased, and I thank you for helping me as I am a new Wiki editor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrifAssault (talkcontribs) 13:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

  • @DrifAssault: We generally do not use these sources whatsoever, because there is no reason to believe that the information is accurate. For example, anyone could just as easily go to some wiki, or start a wiki of their own and write whatever they want, and then come to Wikipedia and use it as a source to say whatever, regardless of whether it is factual. We also do not use primary sources such as youtube videos to make novel assertions, such as interpretations of what the important elements of the videos are. That get's into problems with original research. If there are important aspects of the videos that are worthy of further exploration, then we need to find a secondary published source that does so, not take it upon ourselves to review the primary sources. GMGtalk 14:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I will remove direct source altoghether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrifAssault (talkcontribs) 00:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DrifAssault/sandbox so if newslinger or/and gmg want to help me, please edit my sandbox page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrifAssault (talkcontribs) 00:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, DrifAssault! To be completely clear, it's okay to have an article to say more negative than positive things about a subject, but only if independent reliable sources say the same. When we mention a review in an article's "Critical reception" section, it's important for us to convey the overall impression of entire review. If a mixed review says positive and negative things about something, you'll want to mention both. However, if the review is mostly positive or mostly negative, you should say that.

Our policies/guidelines on sourcing and reliability can be a lot to read through, so let me summarize the relevant parts for you:

If you're not completely sure about whether a source is reliable, it would be good to ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. Also, feel free to ask me on my talk page if you have any questions about editing. I've done a bit of copyediting in your sandbox page, and I'll be happy to look over it some more when you are ready. — Newslinger talk 01:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Medicaid estate recovery and User:NormSpier[edit]

NormSpier (talk · contribs · count) has recently added a very large amount of negative content related to Medicaid estate recovery to the following articles:

Almost all of the edits included in the diffs were made by NormSpier.

These content additions are problematic because they use original research (with primary sources and synthesized claims), some self-published sources (including promotional links to their own website, such as this pagearchived here – in Special:Diff/909660591), and an unbalanced presentation of facts and opinions to introduce arguments against Medicaid estate recovery in the style of an essay.

A portion of the criticism introduced in these edits may be warranted in these articles, but it should not be presented in this way.

Since this is a large amount of content to thoroughly review, I'd like to get some input from other editors. How should these articles be changed to reflect a neutral point of view? — Newslinger talk 17:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Initial Response by NormSpier:

I welcome the forthcoming efforts of one or more editors to improve the article. I am new to writing for Wikipedia, so I trust you will figure out a better way to present the issues.

Let me report on what I did, to make your edits the best possible:

I built of the "Medicaid estate recovery" article from a stub in the last month or so. I added mainly, but not only, a large section on the critical issue of Medicaid estate recovery of non-long-term-care-related expenses, and how it interferes with the ACA. (I tried to have the wording be neutral on the 2nd pass of the article, after a prior essay-like comment from an editor.)

I added to a number of other articles, on aspects of the Medicaid estate recovery of non-long-term-related expenses. However, in the case of the ACA article, I added about 5 problems (section called "Problems"), which are well-known, and I have references. (About half of them were pointed out to me from a user on the VoxCare facebook site, and I had to look them up. "Family glitch", etc.)

On the ACA article, note it was found a little too positive at some point. The "talk page" has:

Note that the"talk" section of the ACA article has, from someone, "(AUG 2018) Portions of this article read as though they were written by the government and therefore should be questioned as political propaganda. Instead of reading in a more neutral manner, many of the points play out in a consecutively gratuitous manner toward the subject of the article. It reads more like a brochure and less like an objective analysis. There is far more positive POV description of the law than neutral or negative, and much time is spent in this article describing the components of the law AND "why that is good" for you, in a symbiotic relationship."

(Thus, the added problems should add balance. Also, they are a real necessity for a balanced article, as the defects are conspicuous to people familiar with the details of the ACA.)

The content I added is mostly negative, because of the nature of the issues. (I was in fact focusing on adding problems, because the ACA is up for repair or replacement.) What I wrote does not reflecting original ideas, as far as I can tell. (Editors may find aspects where I slipped, and did inadvertantly have original ideas. But, after a caution from a prior editor of Medicaid estate recovery, I did try to remove everything that seemed original.) Note the pile of references after, in the "Medicaid estate recovery" article, "The view that there were problematic aspects of the interaction of non-LTCR Medicaid estate recovery with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was put forth in various places starting from the time the ACA was passed", including the Washington Post and Seattle Times and Minnesota Star Tribune, as well as the academic journal Health Affairs and other think-tanky sources. (Those references document that other have seen various issues with Medicaid estate recovery of non-long-term-care-related expenses as it relates to the ACA. Later in the article, I have sub-issues, which I have attempted to document from sources.)

Please note: the issue of recovery of non-long-term-care-related Medicaid expenses post ACA is real (I ask people to think about what it says and see that it is real; and note that 6 states have acted on it to adjust since the ACA start in 2014 or soon after, as well as the Obama administration attempted to address in a 2014 issue), somewhat obscure (for political reasons--it's embarassing to some politicians and may enrage some people getting ACA expanded Medicaid, as it did in certain states where it was reported on), and most definitely not original.

So I ask the editors: in order to do the edits well, please do try and understand the technical issue of Medicaid estate recovery for non-long-term-care-related expenses, and its interaction with the ACA. It has been underpublicized lately, I think for political reasons. I'll bet few, if any, editors who will do the edits on this knew about the issue prior. The issue is that, in many states which have expanded Medicaid, people 55 or older who get expanded Medicaid in fact are only getting a loan for medical expenses. The estate has to pay the expenses paid out back. (Here, not in the encyclopedia, but here, I am using partial language, because the issue is so stunning because it is so blatant yet underpublicized. I do hope all editors see the technical issue. Bills are paid for a person now, but have to be paid back the estate, as part of the ACAs health insurance system (for people 55 and older, in states which exercise their option to do Medicaid estate recovery, for people who get Medicaid or expanded Medicaid: that is, those with incomes to 138% Fed Pov. Level.). Editors, please see and understand the issue. I'll bet you all didn't know about it! You will of course have the article be objective about this, and my partiality, and being stunned shows here in this "Neutral Point of View" section, but of course, it should nor appear in the final article.)

(Also, since I'm being open on my personal position on the issue here, let me point out that I was and still am all for the ACA. However, my opinion is there are serious defects that need to be cleaned up in the law. One defect of which is Medicaid estate recovery for people 55 and over in states that still do that post-ACA. Further, there are other issues, which did make it into the ACA article only under problems, and are generally recognized. Of course, the Wikipedia entry itself needs to report on issues objectively, and in an objective tone.)

(I will be glad to help people understand the issue if they are unclear. I am not sure how familiar the editors are with the details of the ACA, and its construction. So if anything is unclear, just ask. You might Try also the Washington Post, Seattle Times, or Health Affairs articles.)

Please note, while you edit, that the problem isolated is specifically the recovery of non-long-term-care-related expenses from Medicaid for people 55 and older. It messes up half of the ACA (expanded Medicaid), and makes it essentially not real insurance. Bills paid out have to be paid back. (Here, in this document here, I am varying from neutral language which I tried to put into the article.)

I probably have not succeeded perfectly in making the article neutral point of view. I am new to Wikipedia writing, so certainly I could use to learn some things about being more neutral, and conforming to Wikipedia standards. Hopefully, you editors will fix and adjust wording, etc. I welcome your bringing things up to Wikipedia standards.

Note also: I am happy to have removed my own "Blog" pages on the matter from the articles. (The one cited by Newslinger, http://nasmusicsoft.com/BlogMAEstateClawback1.html , and possibly some article also has my other page: http://nasmusicsoft.com/BlogACAConsumerProblems.html. These are 2 of a total of about 80 references that I added. The "Medicaid estate recovery" article was taken up from a stub by me in the last month or so, and most of the references are mine. That is, about 70 references, one or two of which are to my own pages.) However, the other numerous references are not my own, and include Health Affairs (academic) and major and minor newspapers.)

I thank you all for your efforts to fix any problems with what I have added. I assume you will do this in the spirit of making the articles a more complete and fair representation of the ACA, and its associated Medicaid. I am glad to have the expertise of more experienced editors to figure out exactly how to do this.

NormSpier (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC) Added a little later:NormSpier (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi NormSpier, and thanks for your comprehensive response. Also, thank you for spending a large amount of time and effort into expanding these articles. The Medicaid estate recovery article is much more informative right now than it was a month ago (Special:Permalink/682619084). I've read your web page ("A List of Affordable Care Act Problems"), and I found it extremely informative. It provides a lot of useful information, and presents this confusing topic in an understandable way. Your personal experiences with the MA Estate Recovery Unit are enlightening, and your suggested solutions are thought-provoking. I could see your web page being popular on social media (e.g. certain subreddits) if it isn't already.

I get the impression that you are trying to convey the information on your web page, as well as your personal knowledge of Medicaid estate recovery, in these Wikipedia articles. However, what makes for a compelling web page rarely makes for an appropriate encyclopedia entry. Some of Wikipedia's key policies and guidelines are:

  • Verifiability: Readers should be able to verify every single statement in a Wikipedia article with a reliable source. Assertions, opinions, or examples that are not from reliable sources are generally unacceptable. Synthesizing multiple sources to deduce something that none of the sources directly say is also not allowed.
  • No original research: Articles should be based mostly on reliable secondary sources. Primary sources can be used for uncontroversial information in some cases, but claims that can't be verified in reliable secondary sources are usually excluded from articles.
  • Neutrality: The goal of Wikipedia is to inform readers, not to persuade them. We try to reflect all major viewpoints covered by reliable sources in proportion to their prominence. If an issue is "underpublicized", it should be featured less prominently in an article.
  • Tone: Web pages can be informal, but Wikipedia articles should be written in a dispassionate tone. Also, contractions shouldn't be used unless they are in quotes of cited sources.
  • Reliability: On Wikipedia, sources are considered reliable if they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and if they are endorsed by other reliable sources. Unfortunately, self-published sources such as personal web pages are excluded by that definition in most cases, so you wouldn't be able to cite your own web page. This also applies to most blogs, including group blogs and company blogs.

You've done some significant research for these articles, and you've managed to collect a large number of relevant reliable sources. (You even have too many citations in some places. It's a good practice to condense long rows of citations with the {{refn}} template to save space.) The less reliable sources should be removed, and you can always ask the reliable sources noticeboard if you're not sure whether a source is reliable. Sticking to reliable sources means that a significant portion of your additions would have to be rewritten. Please don't take this personally, since articles change all the time, and everyone's contributions eventually get altered in some way.

On neutrality: I do expect much of the coverage on Medicaid estate recovery to be negative, since it is a liability from the consumer's perspective. However, editorializing can exaggerate the point of view, and its best to only use strict summaries of reliable sources. It's admirable that you are trying to communicate "the recovery of non-long-term-care-related expenses from Medicaid for people 55 and older" to the public, since this is a serious financial consideration for many American individuals. You are welcome to include information on this issue in Wikipedia articles, but only if it is adequately supported by reliable sources and explained in an appropriate amount of text for the topic of the article. Going beyond that to give undue emphasis to this aspect of Medicaid would unbalance the article.

I hope this clears up some of the expectations for Wikipedia articles, and helps clarify what is needed to improve these articles. I'll be happy to help you look over these articles, although there is a lot of content and writing articles on complex topics is always a long-term effort. If you have any questions on editing, please feel free to ask me on my talk page at any time. — Newslinger talk 22:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Newslinger and other editors who I get the feeling Newslinger is trying to get to look at at the articles.
For the main articles in question: Medicaid estate recovery and ACA, I have removed the one link to my own page on one of them, and two Daily Kos references, which were not verified by the publication, but just blog posts by users.
I have looked at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Usage_by_other_sources , as one of the issues. (This is the 5th of your issues: Reliability)
it says, under:
Statements of opinion
"Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable."
I think I've used the opinion sources correctly, stating them as opinion. (HufPost, etc.) I use terms like "viewpoint" where there is opinion.
Otherwise, to my eyes, I am OK on "verifiability", "No Original Research", "Neutrality", and "Tone". However, I'm not that experienced at writing for Wikipedia. (A week or two ago, AnUnnamedUser reviewed Medicaid estate recovery, and did have issues of "No Original Research", "Neutrality", and "Tone", and after that reviews, but I thought I fixed them as well as possible with both deletions and rewording as opinions. This for both the Medicaid estate recovery article, and the ACA article.)
Apparently not, and I think the issue is that I'm just not sensitive enough to Wikipedia standards at this point to make the articles conform without extensive help on specific sections of the text.
I'll see if I get any ideas on further improvements to conformance, but mainly, I think its up to you, more experienced Wikipedia editors to either:
a)point out specific passages that should be removed, reworded, and exactly how, if a rewording. (Or, ask for clarification, where does the reference say that?, etc.)
or b)do the deletion or rewording yourselves, using whatever editor consensus procedures you have to make sure there is sufficient agreement on your end.
So, basically, as I see it, I need to wait for more detailed feedback, or else you editors will just do the changes. (I realize no one may have time, and you may just delete my sections. That will be O.K. if that is your best judgement.)

Also, I'll of course be happy to delete my sections myself, for all the articles, if their editor consensus is that they should be deleted, as to not make extra work for everyone. (Except parts of the ACA article, which I added, which had no comments in review.)

NormSpier (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Just adding a bit on the critical ACA article, where you may want to avoid an appearance of bias in favor of the ACA, and the covering up of problems.

Also, note. Of the various articles in question (in the messageboard), probably the most critical for it not to appear to others of bias in favor of the ACA, covering up defects, is the ACA article itself, where the section Problems (which I added) lists 5 problems,

5 Problems 5.1 Subsidy Cliff at 400% FPL 5.2 Sometimes-Unaffordable Out-of-Pocket Maximums 5.3 Family Glitch 5.4 Estate Recovery under 138% FPL 5.5 Coordination of Medicaids with On-Exchange Plans

Note that most of the problems, including estate recovery when it is done by states non-long-term-care-related, are in multiple sources, and in particular this reliable one: http://tcf.org/content/report/key-proposals-to-strengthen-the-aca/ (co-authored by Tim Jost, an academic lawyer who did most of the the Health Affairs "Covering the ACA" posts until a year or two ago.)

Specifically, 4 of the 5 wikipedia ACA section 5 "problems" are within the text of the single "proposal to strengthen" article:

5.1 is within "Increase Credits for Moderate- and Middle-Income Families" 5.2 is within "Reduce Cost-sharing and Out-of-Pocket Limits and Improve Minimum Employer Coverage Requirements." 5.3 is within "Fix the Family Glitch" (you only have to go so far as the title) 5.4 is within "Eliminate Medicaid Estate Recoveries from the Expansion Population" 5.5 is the only one not in "proposal to strengthen". But I have reliable references (last paragraph in the article), including actual continuity of coverage issues found in the GAO report.

(The comment is repeated in the "talk" section for the ACA article only).

NormSpier (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi NormSpier, for the articles on broader subjects (e.g. Massachusetts health care reform), I think a better alternative than deleting would be to move the new content to sandboxes at subpages of the respective article talk pages (e.g. Talk:Massachusetts health care reform/sandbox). We could then gradually reintroduce the new content back into the articles as it becomes copyedited for policy compliance, and we'll also check the proportions of the articles' coverage of Medicaid estate recovery to make sure that they do not give undue weight to this subject. If an article covers Medicaid estate recovery in too much detail, we'll keep only the parts that are most relevant to the article's subject, and use a {{See also}} hatnote to direct the reader to the Medicaid estate recovery article for general information on the subject.

I'll help review the content, but we'll also solicit help from other editors on this noticeboard and in related WikiProjects such as the ones listed at the top of Talk:Medicaid estate recovery. Does this sound like an acceptable plan to you? — Newslinger talk 16:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is fine to include some of the criticism listed at Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act § Problems, although the length of the content should be reduced. For instance, the listed examples for silver/bronze plans are considered original research since they're not covered in reliable sources, and they should be removed. — Newslinger talk 16:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Newslinger
So, sure, I'm OK with the plan, as I understand it.
For the articles on your list besides the ACA and Medicaid estate recovery, I'll move it to the sandbox. (Unless any of it is obviously out of standards to me, even with my lack of complete understanding of the standards, in which case I will delete it.)
It sounds like for the Medicaid estate recovery, you, or assigns, are gonna handle it. That's fine. Do it however you wish. If you have questions about the meaning of what I wrote, or where the references apply, just ask.
For the ACA article, I don't want to be observed pulling out the 5 problems, or over-shortening them, as I actually support the ACA and might be accused of covering up defects. So I'll leave it to your group, to do whatever, including moving stuff to the sandbox temporarily. (I'll of course answer any questions, etc.)
Also, on the issue of the ACA article silver and bronze plan (used in 2 problems), note everything can be verified from the referenced healthcare.gov website. I've given the zipcode for a Chicago locale. A little math is needed, which may or may not be more than you want to have the readers or editors to have to do. (I see it may have to be pulled out for reasons of Wikipedia standards, so go ahead and do it, or sandbox it, or whatever.) However, just let me express the opinion that I find it informative, and gives people a picture of the numbers involved in people's real world premiums and copays, and the effect of the subsidy cliff. I personally don't want to be seen pulling out the sections myself, because it looks like it might be a covering up of real problems, with substantial cost-of-premium (when over the cliff) and copay issues with the ACA. (I guess I'm voicing a criticism of the Wikipedia policy on this--very useful information is kept out because it involves a little math and understanding of the regulations. But I'm attacking no one in particular. Just the principle. I did a search, and tried to find the numbers in direct form from a reputable source before computing the numbers myself, but could not. The numbers computed use a reputable source, Healthcare.gov, but calculation is involved. (Also, I took FPL from a reputable source.)

NormSpier (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, for the last 4 of the 6 articles, I just deleted the stuff. As discussed above, I've left the "Problems" section of the ACA article in the editors hands, as well as the Medicaid estate recovery article. NormSpier (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


For my own continuing edification and trying to figure out Wikipedia standards, I did look up undue weight "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." Text later on is unclear to me if equal text space is mandated. I hope not. That wouldn't make sense from a pursuit-of-truth point of view. It may be that one argument is more complex than the other.

In the particular case of Medicaid estate recovery, I actually did, after the first reviewer cited essay like, add in 'The moral justification for Estate Recovery has been stated as “if you’re receiving a public benefit and the state is trying to support you, you should give back if you are able".' (5th paragraph) This actually is about the whole argument. (One might add something like the government needs money to pay for Medicaid expenses. But that's about it. Two short arguments.)

The other side of the argument, which only comes in post-ACA, with non-long-term-care related estate recovery, is in fact complicated. You can't really understand the issue unless you get into the structure of the ACA, and think about what's going on with the collection all medical expenses from the estates of people who were supposedly insured under the ACA. Further, you have to have pointed out the exact structure of who gets real insurance where nothing has to be paid back, and who gets mislabelled insurance that has to be paid. It's people with similar incomes paying similar premiums (small or 0) and all with small copays, on either side of the 138% Federal Poverty Level divide. Additionally, there was (prior to mandate repeal) an issue of people being compelled to accept expanded Medicaid, or pay a penalty. This is done under the pretext of limiting adverse selection in order to give everyone good insurance that pools risk, but the thing is, in states that do non-long-term-care estate Recovery for people 55 and older, when it is all medical expenses, there is no pooling of risk at all for those people. There is also an economically bizarre estate recovery of a non-asset-tested benefit. (In opinionated language, O.K. here, but not for articles, there are a lot of parts to explain to see how the contraption is so cockamamie!)

Then, in the case of Medicaid estate recovery, there is also a case of both the director of the National Accociation of Medicaid Directors, and the Obama administration, acting as though they see there is a problem. And many states fixed at ACA start, or after, but as well, many have not.

These are all relevant complicated factors, where I can find no complicated factors in the 2 short arguments for the other side. So, if the Wikipedia standard does in fact mean equal text length, then I find it at fault. Something that may help with the optics, but would lead to wasted space explaining simple things, or not explaining complicated things.

Also, I see it is in the standard, to give weight based on how reported things are. ("In proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." This, I guess, is the standard, but I find it intellectually faulty. People who are familiar with "Manufacturing Consent" (Chomsky/Herman) will understand why, immediately. (So will many Donald Trump voters!)

This mainstream business may be coming up with Medicaid estate recovery (interaction with ACA part), which, though publicized in 6 or 7 mainstream sources that I can find, including the mainstream, limited-view newspapers of Chomsky/Herman, is probably or apparently still intentionally underpublicized, in order to make the ACA look good, and to keep people from getting enraged as they have in states where the issue did manage to get publicized mainstream. (These are WA, where the issue got fixed in a few days I believe, after publicity in 2013. Also CA and MN, where publicity led to political action and changing the recovery of non-long-term-related expenses.)

So I've learned from this that wikipedia has standards forcing it to behave like a mainstream, limited-viewpoint, or viewpoint expressed- proportional-to-establishments-sources. (Just a comment. It may or may not apply to Medicaid estate recovery, but it looks like an issue.)

NormSpier (talk) 01:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

In case anyone is working on this, note that I have now added article-specific stuff on the Talk pages for the 2 remaining articles in question. These are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Medicaid_estate_recovery and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act.

NormSpier (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi NormSpier, I've set up sandboxes for all of these articles. They are listed below and also linked from the respective article talk pages (in a message box near the top).
Currently, these sandboxes contain the content that was removed from the related articles. (The first two sandboxes are empty, because nothing has been removed from these articles yet.) If any portions of the sandbox content are both policy-compliant and relevant to the articles, we can restore them. We can also revise or copyedit the text in the sandboxes: it's a general drafting area for the articles.
Regarding your "pursuit-of-truth" comment, please note that Wikipedia seeks verifiability, not truth. In many topics, "truth" means different things to different people, and Wikipedia's way of adjudicating different perspectives is to derive our article content from reliable sources.
Wikipedia tends to reflect the information published in mainstream sources, and we recognize that as a form of systemic bias. The best way to address this bias is to use a diverse selection of reliable sources that reflect all prominent perspectives. In addition to online news sources, we can also use books and academic publications from reputable publishers. (Google Books, Google Scholar, and Semantic Scholar are good resources.) Once you participate a bit more on Wikipedia, you can also obtain access to The Wikipedia Library Card Platform, which gives you access to many paywalled publications free of charge.
However, there is no way around using reliable sources. Since all article content is derived from the cited sources, the quality of the sources directly determines the quality of our articles. If you feel that some information is inadequately covered by reliable sources, the only policy-compliant way to get that information into Wikipedia is to get it reliably published. You may want to consider getting into contact with journalists and convincing them to write about these subjects. You can also become a journalist yourself, although that opens you to conflict of interest issues on Wikipedia.
Let's discuss matters regarding specific content on the related article talk pages. We can continue coordinating the review process here, but it would be best to keep this discussion as organized as possible. Thanks again for your willingness to engage with other editors. — Newslinger talk 13:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Requests for comment[edit]

Hi NormSpier, I'm following up on the Teahouse discussion. Once again, the disputed changes to the articles are below:

To use this method of dispute resolution, we need to figure out which sets of changes we agree and disagree on. For the articles which we disagree on, we can start a request for comment on the respective talk pages to ask the whole Wikipedia community whether your changes should be kept or removed. Editors who participate in the discussion might suggest other solutions, but they will usually choose one or the other.

Given the two choices (keep or remove) for each article, I would choose to keep the changes to the Medicaid estate recovery article and remove all of the changes to all of the other articles.

Which of these articles do you want to keep your changes in? — Newslinger talk 19:59, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Newslinger, and everyone else. As I indicated prior, and reiterated at the Teahouse, I have removed several days ago my additions to 4 of the articles (to the best of my ability). The two where the additions remain are Medicaid estate recovery (which I have built up from a stub), and Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, where I've modified sections, adding stuff about "silver plan loading". I've also added a section trying to explain the way the coverage achieved ("Outline of the coverage mechanism"), which may or may not be problematic for Newslinger, but most definitely, my addition of the section "Problems", (Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Problems) describing 5 problems with the ACA, like "subsidy cliff", "family glitch", and "excessively high copays" is a trouble spot for Newslinger.
Newslinger. I may have missed answering your exact question above. Of the two articles with remaining additions, ACA, and Medicaid estate recovery, I would keep both. Subject to, as below, I find the question too coarse, keep or remove. The binary choice. See below. NormSpier (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Note that there have been certain additions, either for additional clarity, or to try to reasonably comply with points made by Newslinger, so I don't know what, exactly, those bulleted diffs are, but note they may not be the latest version (of the articles in question).
Thirdly, please note that the optimal resolution is to find a person or two with time, familiar with Wikipedia standards, able to understand technical details of the ACA, able to review the text, and make by line comments, with possible iteration back and forth between us on where things come from, and what they mean, and how standards may or may not be violated. (I understand Newslinger has attempted to seek additional reviewers starting 5 or 6 days ago, but has not been able to find any.)
I'm uncomfortable with the binary choice on the ACA article that you've given. Reducing down to the two articles left, you are saying keep Medicaid estate recovery, and the choice is remove (or not remove) all changes to the ACA article, including the section you object to, which talks about 5 problems of the ACA. This, in fact, seems politically suspect. You have not indicated any errors in any section, including that section. You have indicated the point of view is not neutral, but it is a section on problems with the ACA, that are real, and should not be covered up. No one else besides yourself has indicated they find the section incorrect or biased or any other violation of standards.

NormSpier (talk) 20:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Newslinger, as in the second sentence, "The two where the additions remain are Medicaid estate recovery (which I have built up from a stub), and Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act"
Also, rather than "keep all", or "delete all" on what I put in the ACA article, if you can't find someone with appropriate time and skills take a careful look, including necessary iteration with me, a third option is to leave the "Problems with ACA" section exactly as it is, including keeping, over the section, (a) "Some of this article's listed sources may not be reliable. (August 2019)", (b)"The neutrality of this article is disputed. (August 2019)", and (c) "This article may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. (August 2019)" all of which you put on the "Problems" with ACA section 8 days ago, and wait till people with suitable time and understanding of the issues get to it.
I've perused the article. Some people with understanding of the ACA technical mechanisms (rather than politics or law--not particularly relevant for the matters in question) apparently wrote parts of it. Maybe they will come back, eventually. There also must be people in the general public who will see the article, with the 3 disputes over "Problems", and eventually take a stab.

NormSpier (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi NormSpier, I've started a request for comment (RfC) at Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act § RfC: Recent additions. Please comment with your opinion. For an example of what the RfC discussion format looks like, you can refer to this closed RfC on an unrelated topic that also asks editors to choose between two versions of an article.

Since the additions to the article are very long (over 54,000 characters), a line-by-line evaluation is not feasible without enough volunteers. This RfC will be advertised throughout Wikipedia in several ways (see WP:RFC § Publicizing an RfC for details), and will likely attract enough attention from other editors to form a consensus on this article. As I mentioned in the Teahouse discussion, the result of this RfC will determine the starting point for this article, and whether to include or exclude specific portions of the added content can be discussed on the talk page afterward. The attention from the RfC will hopefully attract editors who are willing to participate in these discussions after the RfC. — Newslinger talk 05:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Ethnic background and drug dealer status of convicted co-conspirator in Jennifer Pan[edit]

Hi, everybody! Please see Talk:Jennifer_Pan#Possible_bias_in-text for a discussion on whether the ethnic backgrounds of the individuals involved and whether the status that one of the convicted co-conspirators (none of the people charged by the Canadian authorities - "the Crown" - were exonerated, all were convicted or pleaded guilty) was a drug dealer, a way in which he got to know and recruited other co-conspirators, are relevant or irrelevant details for this article.

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 07:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikivoice and "climate crisis"[edit]

Per a request at WP:AN, this post was intended to be an invitation to comment on the discussion at Talk:Climate_crisis#Wikivoice_and_"climate_crisis" but a link was not posted to that discussion. What's happened is this post has become a fork of that main discussion. Having parallel discussions on the same issue leads to undesirable results; to avoid that I am closing this as a matter of procedure. Please add your comments to the climate crisis talk page.
Also, kudos to Springee for coining the "caboose of change" phrase, that's going in my notes. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As you may know, the phrases climate change and global warming have been officially replaced by some (certainly not all) media outlets. For example, the editorial board of the The Guardian has adopted substitute phrases climate crisis and global heating. Greta Thunberg and the school climate strike movement uses similar language and will be making a lot more headlines in weeks ahead. Meanwhile here at home is a surge of new interest in the climate pages, and a fast-rising citing of "climate crisis" phrasing in RSs. Inevitably, some editors want to follow the The Guardian's lead by embracing the use of "climate crisis" in Wikivoice. It's my view that the balance of RSs may get us there one day, but not yet, and so we need to report on the reframing issue itself, and use inline attribution where necessary. I'm interested in consensus that leaves us all stronger together, but fear this has earmarks of a potential blow up. We're gonna need your skilled NPOV help, I think, and right now the focal point might be at Greta Thunberg and Climate crisis.

Caution, all climate pages are under DS per WP:ARBCOMM. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE - the main thread where its being discussed (so far) is Talk:Climate_crisis#Wikivoice_and_"climate_crisis". Please consider adding comments there, for benefit of climate eds who never come here.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • We should be very wary of neologisms and media hype. Best to use the terms that the majority of climatologists use in academic writing. Blueboar (talk) 11:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • An absolutely (pretentiously) objective voice would continue to use "climate change" and "global warming"; a realist would use "climate crisis", which is the conclusion all sources point to. However, we're not allowed to draw conclusions, so we must follow others':
And so, in the very least, we should allow regular use of "climate crisis" by editors. François Robere (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
"All sources" - every single blessed one - is untrue. For example, IPCC's last special report does not use that framing NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
I didn't say "framing", I said "conclusion", and the IPCC's latest lists some pretty catastrophic ones. François Robere (talk) 13:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Also, Google Scholar has some 20,500 results for the term.[8] François Robere (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_on_discussion_pages#Google_test, WP:Editorializing, and WP:No original research. I am 100% in agreement we should report on the content in the IPCC report. Making the step from what the science says to this adjective would require editorial choice, which we should be very slow to do. in addition, although the googletest is dubious, a slightly more meaningful test of this sort would be limited to the professional climate literature, maybe at Google Scholar. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
You really didn't read what I wrote, did you?... François Robere (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Oops! Not that carefully. Its a rare ed who goes straight to google scholar doing the googletest and I assumed and read too quickly. Sorry! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Google Scholar from 2015 onward has about 8k results for "climate crisis" and 500k for "climate change". 2k for "global heating" and 95k for "global warming". Clearly, there's a winner in both races by the scholarly lit. --Masem (t) 15:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
A couple comments:
  • Kudos on the use of Google scholar rather than simply all of Google
  • That said, "climate Change" generates 2.55 million hits, so roughly 120 for every "Climate Crisis" hit
  • Not all articles are supportive of the notion that the current rime should be described as a climate crisis, one of the links was discussing the Triassic Period, not today, one was using the term in the context of arguing that it didn't apply, etc. To be sure, only a minority of those I sampled, but let's not make the simplifying assumption that Google Scholar has 20,500 entries in support the usage for today.
  • I naively thought Google Scholar returned, well, scholarly articles. When did that describe the Rolling Stone?
  • My experience with Google searches is that the quality drops off after a few pages. I haven't tried the same thing with this search, but it should be done before using this as a metric.S Philbrick(Talk) 00:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • There's no doubt it's a crisis, but the term "climate crisis" is dangerously close to framing at this point. I think it is more sensible to stick with climate change, but to describe individual elements (such as the crisis in the Amazon rainforest) as such. That gives less scope for denialists to claim alarmism and discount the facts, apart from anything else. Guy (Help!) 13:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Unless there is meant to be a precision difference in the terms, these scream "sensationalizing" terms to make people sit up and take notice. Because these are issues related to science, we should stay with the reliable scientific sources, which are "climate change" and "global warming". --Masem (t) 14:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: There's an issue of norms here: "hard" scientists are trained to make narrow, well-defined observations, and are often wary of (and ill-equipped for) the media aspects of their work. It is unlikely you'll find frequent use of the word "crisis" among climatologists - in fact, some of them may even object to it for fear of "scaring off the public" (I suggest listening to this interview with David Wallace-Wells, author of The Uninhabitable Earth). You're more likely to see this use by social scientists, who deal with the human aspects of this crisis; indeed, a cursory look at the leading results of the relevant GS query shows just that: ethics, media, public administration, economy, political science, psychology, and human geography. François Robere (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
The reason why many hard scientists are hesitant to use the word "crisis" is the same as the reason why we should not rush to use the word in Wikipedia's voice: they see their job as to present facts, and they fear that the use of a loaded term that has not (yet) become standard will diminish their credibility as scientists, especially among the readers who need to be convinced of the urgency of the issue. They believe that strong language is not as effective as strong facts in educating the public. The same goes for Wikipedia. NightHeron (talk) 11:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
No-no, that is certainly not the case,[10][11][12] and you'd be hard-pressed to find a serious academic who still believes that. To quote Marcus Du Sautoy, Prof. of Mathematics and Simonyi Prof. for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford:

We have the data. We understand the science. So, it still amazes me that there are people who are not convinced that we are facing a climate crisis. Research published in Nature has revealed that the power of storytelling is as key to scientific communication as much as presenting the numbers. It is important therefore for scientists to tap into these skills if we want to engage everyone in the debate.[13]

François Robere (talk) 11:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Dr Sautoy's quoted opinion may be eloquent, and there may be an increasing buzz to go that road, and we might do so eventually. But Wikipedia follows, it doesn't lead. As Masem points out above, to the extent we can measure by recent googlescholar searching, the trend is just beginning NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, it does seem to be increasing exponentially, so in about 3 years it should overtake the other terms. That being said, the question isn't about an obligatory style guide like the Guardian's, but about whether we can use that term. I think we can: we have a list of 235 media outlets and organizations that have committed to the term (officially or in practice), in addition to the UN Secretary General, some parliaments and cities, and senior climate scientists like Hans Joachim Schellnhuber and Irwin Redlener. This is more than enough to say "yes, we can use that term if we see fit." François Robere (talk) 14:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
@François Robere: Your response to me contradicts what you say in your comment. I wrote that "many hard scientists...believe that strong language is not as effective as strong facts in educating the public," and you responded "No-no, that is certainly not the case, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a serious academic who still believes that." But just before you wrote "It is unlikely you'll find frequent use of the word `crisis' among climatologists - in fact, some of them may even object to it for fear of `scaring off the public.'" What we are debating here is not whether or not there's a climate crisis, but rather whether or not the term "climate crisis" is at this point in time a standard, NPOV-compliant term. NightHeron (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't see a contradiction there, but agree about the latter. François Robere (talk) 14:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Stick with the less alarmist, more scientific descriptions, climate change etc. Wikipedia shouldn't be a locomotive for change but rather the caboose of change. Springee (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Razom[edit]

This rather sorry article has some potential sources listed at the foot, but I don't understand the geopolitics enough to weed out polemic from news. Anyone here feel like taking pity on it? Guy (Help!) 13:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Classical liberalism category and Dave Rubin[edit]

There's a dispute over at Talk:Dave Rubin over whether or not the category "classical liberal" can be applied to his article. Several sources describe him as applying this categorization to himself, but few reliable sources actually use the term to describe him in their own voice (he's commonly described as a libertarian). Outside input would be appreciated. (discussion here)

Broadening a bit: I recently removed this category from several contemporary political figures (ex: Charles Koch, Allen West, Christina Hoff Sommers) who are usually described as conservative or libertarian. Clearly it applies to people like John Locke (although he's not in the category) but I'd be open to input on whether it is appropriate from some contemporary political figures. Nblund talk 01:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Unless RS explicitly refer to someone as a 'classical liberal', then we should not describe them that way or categorize them that way. In recent years, there has been a fad among various conservatives to claim the term 'classical liberal' in order to connect themselves to various past thinkers or to claim some kind of neutrality and objectivity when they spend all their time reciting conservative talking points and dunking on liberals. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
These liberals you say are being dunked upon, are they social liberals? Keynesians? Neoliberals? Liberation theologians? By conservatives do you mean social conservatives? Religious fundamentalists? Laissez-faire economics types? Non-interventionists? Bonapartistes? I'm afraid you really need to better define your labels.
Several RS have mentioned this trend towards reviving the "classical liberal" label, some have even mentioned the fact that people buy T-shirts from Rubin's online store with the phrase "classical liberal" written on them in big letters. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 02:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Ignoring your desire to start a NOTFORUM debate about politics and jumping into the second paragraph: the sources in question generally say these are "self-descriptions", as opposed to descriptions by the RS. In a lot of these sources, the RS suggest these individuals are just conservatives or libertarians who are misappropriating the term for their own ends. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
As I've said elsewhere, these ad hoc lists of people classified by political positions violate the GDPR and in my opinion are ill-advised. From a legal perspective, it's no biggie, since US politicians are not protected by European privacy rights. Other servers are in Amsterdam though, and similar categories pertain to European citizens. It might be good to reflect on general policies concerning generating these "on the fly" categorizations without any opt-in/opt-out possibilities, as the current system is quite likely not compliant with EU privacy laws. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 02:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 ??? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I believe I linked to the text in the original discussion, but here it is again so you can read it without your glasses on:

Processing of personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, or trade union membership, and the processing of genetic data, biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person, data concerning health or data concerning a natural person’s sex life or sexual orientation shall be prohibited. source

Here it would be no big deal, again, because he's broadcast his political opinions by selling T-shirts. But as a general rule, adding living people to categories (like for example Category:Neoliberals) should be done with caution, not only for these reasons, but also for those TFD mentions below. People like Paglia & Peterson would surely be annoyed to find themselves categorized as such, should the MSM ever finally get that new & improved label-making software added to their word-processing systems. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 19:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
While Rubin is a a classical liberal under some definitions of the term, compared with John Locke he is insignificant and should be excluded. Categories are navigation devices. Pity the reader who is wants to know more about classical liberalism and finds a list of hundreds or thousands or possibly tens of thousands of biographies about people who could be described as classical liberals. TFD (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The problem is that there are two meanings of classical liberal. There's the academic meaning, and there's the informal meaning as used by the cult of Peterson, which is synonymous with misogynist asshat. Rubin is the latter kind. We shouldn't collude in the intentional appropriation of labels to obscure obnoxious views. Guy (Help!) 08:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry, the "misogynist asshat" is unneeded. Enough people have acknowledged the term in this modern application to use it. Those who attack Rubin et al seem to be attacking their (mis)understanding of the subject rather than the subject itself. That said, I think the navigation category argument against had merit even though I don't fully agree. While I initially it opposed removal I'm less included to do so now but with additional sources that could be subject to change. Springee (talk) 11:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Unneeded or not, the misogynist asshat is one of a number prominent in public debate. Guy (help!) 16:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh god. This debate, where ultra conservatives try to somehow align themselves with Locke, in a conception of Locke surely inspired by a 10-minute YouTube video's worth of his philosophy. I've yet to see anything to say that it isn't a terribly misapplied piece of anachronistic obscurantism. GMGtalk 17:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Map of United Nations member states[edit]

There is a dispute on United Nations with the map File:United Nations Members (green–grey scheme).svg shown in the infobox. In it, Taiwan and Kosovo are coloured on the basis that they appear to be part of some UN member state on UN's maps. This claim is not sourced. Even if it is true, taking the UN's position without basing on reliable sources violates WP:NOTPROMO. The vast majority of such maps treat Taiwan independently.[1] Doing otherwise violates WP:UNDUE. The map should be switched to this one, but User:Wadaad repeatedly refused to follow WP policies. Ythlev (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "r/MapPorn". reddit. Retrieved 3 September 2019.
  • @Ythlev: I'm afraid if you want to get a serious discussion going, you're probably going to have to start with better sources than a link to reddit. GMGtalk 11:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    What's wrong with Reddit? I can throw a bunch of "better sources" if you like.[1][2] It is absolutely not hard to demonstrate my point. Ythlev (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Taiwan approves same-sex marriage in first for Asia". cbc.ca. Retrieved 3 September 2019.
  2. ^ "The retreat of global democracy stopped in 2018". The Economist. 8 January 2019. Retrieved 3 September 2019.
  • The map is sourced.[14] Secondly, Taiwan falls under China according to the UN.[15] Mind you China has a permanent veto on the UN Security Council, a vital component of the UN. Lastly, your proposed map[16] violates the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Somalia as Somaliland is not recognized by any country (literally zero) while Somalia is a UN member-state.[17] Your map strongly violates WP:ADVOCACY and hence should not be included and the status-quo should remain. Wadaad (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ythlev: So your saying that the UN's own information on it's own membership is not reliable? Why wouldn't it be? --Jayron32 11:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    This link that this user keeps citing makes absolutely no reference to Taiwan. Even if UN does consider Taiwan part of China, it is only one viewpoint. Is it the majority viewpoint according to WP:WEIGHT? Ythlev (talk) 12:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    But...on an article about the UN, isn't the UN's opinion the only one that really matters? I mean, opinions may differ about whether Taiwan should be an independent member state. But it's kindof hard to have an opinion on whether they currently are. You can have an opinion about whether Karachi should be the capital of Pakistan, but Pakistan says the capital is Islamabad, and that's pretty much the end of the discussion. GMGtalk 13:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    Regardless of your feelings regarding Taiwan's independence, it is treated, by the UN, as a part of China. And that map reflects this. It would violate WP:NPOV to say otherwise. Simonm223 (talk) 14:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    But...on an article about the UN, isn't the UN's opinion the only one that really matters? Says who? What policy says only the subject's opinion matters on its article? WP:NPOV:

    All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

    Ythlev (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    Yeah, but it's difficult to see how, on the subject of UN member states, a thing that the UN decides by definition, there are any "significant views" other than the views of the UN.
Besides, you appear to be arguing from entirely hypothetical sources. The two you've provided regarding Taiwan don't have anything to do with the United Nations. The map you prefer seems to just throw around autonomous regions and disputed territories willy nilly, with no indication why these are being chosen out of scores of territorial disputes, and dozens of autonomous regions. Northern Cyprus is only recognized by one country. Somaliland isn't recognized by anyone. Transnistria is only recognized by other places struggling for recognition. So you are making the argument of "fairness and proportionality", when what you seem to have done is pick winners and losers in a random selection of conflicts, many of which are clearly not winning the "fair and proportional" debate. When a state has negligible or no international recognition, these do not constitute "significant views" that we must take into account on broad global subjects. Part of recognizing significant views is disregarding insignificant ones. Each of these areas have their own article, and interested readers can go there for additional information. GMGtalk 17:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps a reasonable way to resolve this would be to make a minor adjustment in the caption to the map to make it absolutely clear that it's the UN's map (without assuming that the reader will look at the source reference) rather than a map that everyone would necessarily agree with. Just change "Map of the current UN member states..." to "The UN's map of its current member states..." There's already a discussion of alternative opinions on Taiwan in the section on criticisms of the UN, so I don't think anything else is needed in order to ensure NPOV on this issue. NightHeron (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Except it isn't the UN map. The map was created by a Commons user. It describes exactly what it is: UN member states. The status of Taiwan may be in dispute in other contexts, but it is not in dispute that the UN considers it to be under the jurisdiction of the PRC. --Jayron32 18:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
@Jayron32: My apologies, I saw the citation to the UN and erroneously thought it was for the map. Now I see that the citation is just for the information that was used by whomever constructed the map. If the UN doesn't itself publish a map of this sort, don't we have a problem of OR and SYNTH, since the coloring of countries (such as Taiwan) is based on an interpretation of UN policy by an unnamed person? There are many other countries and regions besides Taiwan that have a complicated history of disputes and shifting boundaries, and the map clearly gives a simplified picture of that history as it relates to UN membership. If the source of the map is not the UN but an unknown person, don't we have RS and SYNTH issues? NightHeron (talk) 00:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
it is not in dispute that the UN considers it to be under the jurisdiction of the PRC. I dispute this. There is no source for this. Ythlev (talk) 00:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I think you might be well served to read WP:RGW. It is not the place of the encyclopedia to take a position on the question of the claimed territories of any state. The United Nations recognizes the PRC as the government of China, and does not recognize Taiwan's independence. This may have realpolitik reasons (such as China's permanent security council veto backed by a nuclear arsenal) but that's the de facto reality. To treat it otherwise violates WP:NPOV. Simonm223 (talk) 11:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well, you can dispute anything you want. However, your individual dispute does not mean that the world at large is in dispute over the matter. The UN is not confused by its own resolutions and statements on the matter, however, as noted here, which states among other things "The General Assembly...decides to restore all its rights to the People's Republic of China and to recognize [it] as the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations." Also, a clarifying statement on from the UN is made here which notes "regarding the Taiwan Province of China, the Secretary-General follows the General Assembly’s guidance incorporated in resolution 2758...The General Assembly decided to recognize the representatives of the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations. Hence, instruments received from the Taiwan Province of China will not be accepted by the Secretary-General in his capacity as depositary" Other UN documents consistently refer to Taiwan as the "Taiwan Province of China" and not as a sovereign state on its own, and do so unambiguously. Please note that my saying this does not mean that I agree with the UN on this matter (and me saying THAT does not mean that I don't. I hold no meaningful opinion on the issue, not that my opinion means anything) and saying all of THAT also does not mean that the matter of Taiwan's sovereignty is undisputed, but on the very narrow and specific issue of what the United Nations recognizes, the UN clearly, unambiguously, and repeatedly since 1971 has recognized the island of Taiwan as being under the Jurisdiction of the PRC. --Jayron32 12:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
@Simonm223: @Jayron32: Other UN documents consistently refer to Taiwan as the "Taiwan Province of China". So your interpretation of this view is solely based on how the UN refers to Taiwan? Has the UN stated what territories are part of "Taiwan Province of China"? Does it include Kinmen?
Even if so, the point remains that colouring the map based on this view violates WP:UNDUE: Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. Colouring Taiwan independently is the majority view in sources. Ythlev (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Not if the map is specifically showing what the UN considers to be the status of Taiwan. This issue with this map is not what the majority view of Taiwan's status is. Only what the UN's view of Taiwan's status is. For other maps showing other views, they may serve to be colored differently. For the map of what the UN considers, this one is correct.--Jayron32 04:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── You still don't get it do you? I'm not arguing it's correctness. This is about how information is represented in the article. The UN considers every piece of land part of it? Fine. That can be easily stated with one sentence or a paragraph. This map, if it has any value, can still be in the article, but it is the main map. The main map should be the mainstream view, which is that Taiwan, Kosovo etc have different statuses and are coloured independently. Such a map as the main map only mislead readers, especially when the footnote is not expanded. Ythlev (talk) 05:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jayron32: @GreenMeansGo: By the way, File:ICAO.png colours Taiwan independently. Almost every map does. Ythlev (talk) 05:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

That's because the ICAO considers Taiwan to be independent This isn't complicated. --Jayron32 18:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Source? ICAO is an agency of the UN and it considers Taiwan independent but not the UN itself? Ythlev (talk) 12:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The map that illustrates the lead in United Nations is the same one as in Member states of the United Nations, where it is sourced directly to the UN. However, it is too small to see any detail, and so is of questionable value. The footnote gives a qualifying statement, and there are qualifying statements in the original source about the map not implying endorsement of any party in certain disputes. The second map in United Nations, as User:Jayron32 pointed out, is not a UN map; rather, it was composed by someone who is not cited. It also is too small to show any detail, and, moreover, does not include any of the qualifying statements that are in the first map or in the UN source for the first map. I don't really see any reason not to remove both maps on the grounds that neither one is likely to be helpful to the reader, neither one contributes to the article's accuracy, and the second one violates WP:SYNTH. NightHeron (talk) 12:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why. We have maps all over Wikipedia created by Wikipedia users based on data from reliable sources. The maps can be clicked to zoom in for greater detail, as do all maps. This isn't a novel synthesis issue if the map is created from reliable sources, just as text is supposed to be created from reliable sources. The maps are fine, and other than your mis-use of WP:SYNTH, every single map everywhere on Wikipedia is similar to this one in all of the other points you make. --Jayron32 12:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about all those other maps, just about the two on United Nations. Take the first one, which illustrates the lead. Yes, when you click on it, it gets bigger. But even the bigger version is not informative. Everything is green, except for a few tiny white portions that are unlabeled. Most seem to be lakes, but some might be non-member countries. Not very helpful to the reader. The reason why the second map appears to be OR or SYNTH is that the person who composed the map did not include the caveats that the UN includes in its map, and so it implicitly invites the reader to draw conclusions from the map about the UN's stand on certain disputed areas. The UN itself seems not to want readers to over-interpret its maps in that way. So by including the map without caveats, Wikipedia is deviating from the source and imposing its own interpretation. In addition, as I said before, the map is a historical map that simplifies history. If the UN chose to do that (that is, publish this map), then fine. But the decision to present a simplified version of the history of UN membership was not the UN's decision or the decision of some other RS, but rather the decision of a Wikipedia editor. NightHeron (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
@Jayron32: Please compare the historical map about UN membership to the cited source, which is the UN's year-by-year list of admissions of countries to the UN. The list has many footnotes explaining complicated cases. For example, in 1973 both the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic (two different countries at the time) were admitted, and in 1990 following reunification of Germany they merged into a single member state. There are other complicated cases, as well (two different Yemens were admitted in 1947 and 1967, and they later merged into a single member state). In contrast, the map misrepresents the source by over-simplifying and introducing glaring inaccuracies. It portrays Germany as a united country that joined the UN between 1960 and 1989. A map-maker and a Wikipedia editor may have felt that this simplification/distortion was acceptable in order to have a visual representation. WP:SYNTH tells us "do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source," such as that a unified Germany joined the UN between 1960-1989. Presumably the UN would not be likely to publish such a map because they wouldn't want readers to have diminished confidence in the factual accuracy and reliability of UN documents. For the same reason, shouldn't the map be removed from Wikipedia? Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 12:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
The map doesn't display dates of membership. Only the current status. Former states that no longer exist aren't relevant for this map. It doesn't show that information at all, and isn't trying to, so your point is entirely worthless here.--Jayron32 04:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Please don't use insulting language like "worthless" (WP:CIV: "Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment"). I think we might not be talking about the same map. Of the three maps in the article, I've been raising objections to the first (for being unhelpful to readers) and the third (for being inaccurate and misrepresenting the source). The latter map has the countries color-coded according to dates of membership. It shows a map of Germany as it currently exists being admitted in 1960-1989. It's a historical map that inaccurately represents the information contained in the source. NightHeron (talk) 11:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Just tacking on here for good measure. If you are using third party source to create maps for articles, please please please include the source on the file description on Commons (I have now added this). This map is currently used on 22 different projects, and there's nothing to otherwise indicate to a Danish editor that the original citation for the map is on the English Wikipedia, as opposed to 21 other places. GMGtalk 12:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment - Sorry for this long, rambling attempt at weighing in on the situation, but I'm disappointed with how this entire dispute at the talk page has been handled thus far. I'll be honest in saying that I can't be certain that either Ythlev or Wadaad are approaching this without any biases (in fact I'd suspect that this is an issue of clashing perspectives above all else). Despite how my comments at Talk:United Nations overall leaned more in favor of Ythlev's position than Wadaad's position, I must note that I do not support the exact version as proposed by Ythlev for one glaring issue that I should've noticed sooner: it includes Donetsk and Luhansk. I'm not going to articulate any of my own personal thoughts regarding the status of those entities because this is not the place to have that discussion. The key issue is that it defies the consensus at the Limited recognition article. There are exactly 10 non-member states for which it would be accurate to give the title "de facto independent state with limited international recognition." The consensus is that Donetsk and Luhansk don't belong on that list. See [[File:Limited recognition.png]] for the current consensus on this matter.
Our goal should be to provide as much relevant information as possible without going against the consensuses which regard de facto states. I do think it's relevant that Taiwan is a former member of the United Nations, and I think it's preferable to not simply leave Western Sahara et al as empty or gray, as doing so already displays it in a separate color, so we might as well give an informative key so the readers can know why it's displayed separately. With all of that said, I condemn the comments from Wadaad that suggested that entities can be "too small and irrelevant" to put on the map, and I do not approve of Ythlev's version either. In short, it does look like a feud between WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:ILIKEIT.
I think a lot of the arguments I'm seeing need to be cut out. If you'd like to suggest that it should simply be a map of the United Nations member states and their legally recognized land claims, then that's fine, but in doing so please be consistent. Wadaad changed [[File:United Nations Members (green–grey scheme).svg]] to list Morocco's borders and the SADR's borders separately, but every other state with limited recognition (including Palestine which is an observer and including Taiwan which was once a member) is not displayed as such. Including 1 but not the other 9 is just as problematic as including all 10 plus Donetsk and Luhansk. Just operate based on the existing consensus so we don't get bogged down by side arguments; if you want to change the consensus, do it at Limited recognition, not here or at Talk:United Nations. The "sides" of the disagreement should either be to display none of the non-member states or to display all of the non-member states, not to display some but not all, not to go too far and display ones which aren't even agreed to count as de facto states.
Lastly, to editors other than Wadaad and Ythlev: Yes, Taiwan is a de-facto independent state with limited international recognition. That's not a matter of whether or not it "should" be. This isn't about whether or not it is independent, this is about whether or not it should be displayed on the map. With all due respect to GMG, cut it out with the comparisons to whether or not a city should replace Islamabad as the capital of Pakistan. We already know which countries are and are not states with limited recognition. This has been settled already after years of RS-based discussions at Talk:List of states with limited recognition, and this isn't the place to change that. This is a highly contentious issue that needs to be handled delicately, and the arguments I'm seeing are deeply troubling because they veer off into unrelated arguments that would take us back to square one by having to argue about what countries even are de facto independent states.
Best wishes,  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 21:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Side-comment I hope that my ramblings above didn't come off as too harsh or too offensive to anyone. It's probably very visible that I found this entire mess to be very frustrating, but my intent isn't to burn bridges here.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 22:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Does the UN consider Taiwan to be a non-member independent state or does it consider the Taiwanese land to be part of the PRC, another UN member state? --Jayron32 18:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
The status quo version does not display all borders only as the United Nations recognizes them. I fully accept that the United Nations regards Taiwan as presently being under the sovereignty of the PRC, a current member of the United Nations, and I believe that it's a perfectly legitimate argument that we should simply display all borders only as the United Nations recognizes them, but I am critical of the fact that this argument has been used as a rationale for maintaining the status quo of the map, not to provide a new version of it. All versions of the green-gray scheme (both the original 2016 version & Wadaad's new version) display Western Sahara separate from the rest of the world by presenting it in gray. Whether the previous version, which displayed the whole of the Western Sahara region as being subject to a territorial dispute, or the new version by Wadaad, which displays the de facto borders of the SADR. By displaying it in gray, we are already making a distinction between it and the UN member states. I'm simply suggesting two things: 1) that we be consistent by displaying the other de facto states in the same color as we already display the SADR, and 2) that we provide a color key so the readers can see why we already display them separately.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 21:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
The United Nations does not recognize Taiwan in the same way that it recognizes Western Sahara, so that is a bad analogy. Most relevant here, is that the United Nations, in This resolution, which AFAICT has never been revoked or superceded, recognizes the right of the people of Western Sahara to "self-determination and independence" (their words) in a way that it does not for Taiwan. According to the UN's own recognition, Western Sahara is basically an occupied-but-should-be-independent state, while Taiwan is an integral part of the PRC. Please try again. --Jayron32 16:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Vanilla Wizard: So minus Donetsk and Luhansk and it's fine? Ythlev (talk) 12:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ythlev: In my opinion, yes. Minus those two polities, it's fine by my own assessment.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 17:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

AV1[edit]

I have been trying to wrestle this article down to something supported by third party sources. There is a small community of fans co-ordinating on social media because they prefer the version with the full HOWTO based almost exclusively on press releases and self-sourcing. I tried helping them via Twitter, but the indications there are that they aren't interested in anything less than a full technical manual, and aren't really that interested in finding secondary sources. I need to walk away before I lose my temper with them. Guy (help!) 20:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Guy, thanks for knowing when to walk away. There are so many ways for you to be useful, and it's not good to have you stuck in a frustrating situation.
I wonder whether this might be best solved via transwiki. A full HOWTO manual would likely be welcome at b:Wikibooks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Very likely, and do please suggest it to them. Guy (help!) 16:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Father of somali music[edit]

On Music of Somalia article as well as other articles related to Somali music, editor MustafaO is attempting to include that artist Abdi Sinimo is known as "father of Somali music", they have a single source supporting this statement [18], and the source does not even state the exact wording they are using (source states "father of modern Somali song"), the only other academic source they've provided is a primary source interview. In contrast, the vast majority of published reliable sources state the artist known as "father of Somali music" is Abdullahi Qarshe, I have included numerous reputable sources e.g.[19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28] ...etc etc, but they continue to edit war across multiple pages. I have tried to explain that inclusion of Sinimo is undue and that most reputable sources give Qarshe the title to no avail. They do not even accept their own source that they've cited which states that "The Somali people and others regard you [as in Abdullahi Qarshe, not Sinimo] as the “Father of Somali Music[29]. Any opinions would be appreciated. Regards --Kzl55 (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


Abdullahi Qarshe himself confirms that Balwo was started by Abdi Sinimo.
Mohamed Rashid Sheikh Hassan (Interviewer): "So what followed?"
Abdullahi Qarshe: "I arrived in Hargeisa and stayed with a family friend called Mahmud Abdi Arale. Abdi Sinimo’s belwo was already making an impact on the urban population. However, there were only a few musicians and they were either Arabs or Indians inspired by the new Somali genre of the belwo. There were two main characters: Ina Beenaale, an
Indian, and Abdo Yusuf, a Yemeni. They played basic instruments, the most important being the violin. They invited me to join them, so I did, but I was not yet really proficient in playing. We tried to create softer lyrics than classical Somali poetry and accompany it with music. In the beginning, it was not easy, and our band consisted of a mixture of
clapping, the tambourine, and drumming."
In the same interview Abdullahi Qarshe confirms that he considered Abdi Sinimo to be the "Father of Somali Music:
Mohamed Rashid Sheikh Hassan (Interviewer):
"The Somali people and others regard you as the “Father of Somali Music.” Is this how you see yourself?"
Abdullahi Qarshe:
"No. There was always music: for weddings, lullabies, watering animals, working, dancing (shurbo), night dancing (sacab habeenkii la tumo), exorcism (saar). All these existed, so one can only say that there were no musical instruments to accompany them. One cannot say, therefore, that I am the “Father of Somali Music.” Even modern music was in the air at the time of Abdi Sinimo, who is widely regarded as the genius who formulated and organized it into the belwo and thus took well deserved credit and honor for it. Perhaps, I am the first Somali to set Somali songs to the music of the lute (kaman)."


Source: [30] (Bear in mind the user Kzl55 keeps removing this sourced edit unjustifiably) which amounts to vandalism.
It would be important to make note of the fact that the Balwo genre was, in fact, in existence before Qarshe and was founded by Abdi Sinimo. A fact that cannot be dismissed.
Also this user Kzl55 continuously is removing sourced, accredited and referenced work in the Abdullahi Qarshe, Abdi Sinimo and Balwo pages. There are many sources that also claim Abdi Sinimo to be the 'Father of Somali Music', such as [Horn of Africa. Horn of Africa Journal. 1997. p. 160. Thus crowning him as the uncontested father of the modern Somali song by penning the Balwo]. There are many other sources that make the same claim. What is extremely concerning is the fact that he constantly vandalises these pages with unwarranted removals of these sourced, accredited and referenced works.
MustafaO (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
All you have provided is a single source, and it does not even state that Sinimo was "father of Somali music", instead it claims he was "father of the modern Somali song". As such inclusion of Sinimo is undue since vast majority of reputable published sources (see above) clearly state that Qarshe was father of Somali music. Even the other source you use which is a primary source interview of Qarshe, also states that Somali people consider Qarshe to be father of Somali music. --Kzl55 (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
The same argument can also be said when you provided a single source claiming that Qarshe pioneered the Balwo genres versus the vast majority of reputable and accredited published sources that clearly state that it was Abdi Sinimo who pioneered and founded the Balwo and subsequent heelo genres. Yet you insisted on forcefully adding that one erroneous citation despite the fact that it went against scholarly consensus on this issue.
There are over 10 different sources and accredited references that make no mention of Qarshe as having had any involvement whatsoever in the development and pioneering of the Balwo and follow up heelo genres, whereas it is attributed solely to Abdi Sinimo. These sources are as follows:
[31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39] and [40].
There is no issue in Qarshe being considered the 'Father of Somali Music', no editor, including myself, ever removed that title from him. However, the title is not exclusive and can be given to more than one person depending on the context. Abdi Sinimo was the pioneer of the genre. Qarshe later put to the flute the singing styles of those who came before him. Hence there being sources that claim Abdi Sinimo with the title.
MustafaO (talk) 23:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Please stay on topic, you are making the discussion hard to follow. The issue at hand is the title of "father of Somali music" that you've been pushing and edit warring over, so far you have presented a single source supporting that statement, and that source does not even match your wording (source states "father of modern Somali song"). In contrast, the vast majority of reputable published sources clearly state that artist Qarshe is the one known as "father of Somali music" (numerous citations above). As such presenting another artist with the title is WP:UNDUE per Wikipedia guidelines. It has nothing to do with exclusivity, and more to do with what majority of published reputable sources state. And according to sources we have, describing Sinimo as such is simply undue. This is very straightforward and does not require all this back and forth, nor all the edit warring. Also, going forward please keep the discussion here, we seem to be having the same discussion across multiple talk pages. --Kzl55 (talk) 10:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
The wording was already edited to align to the published work. The work was already edited to: 'Father of modern Somali song', yet you removed that aswell. You keep removing published and referenced work which amounts to edit warring and vandalism. It is unjustifiable that you keep on doing so, considering the fact that it is a published work, so therefore cannot ever be deduced as being WP:UNDUE. The title doesn't need to be exclusively championed to one individual as these titles are subjective and these published works reflect that. But it seems that you insist on removing edited work unjustifiably.
MustafaO (talk) 12:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
We are in the neutrality noticeboard, your inclusion is clearly WP:UNDUE for the reasons explained above. Changing a few words does not make much difference, the meaning of the sentence you are attempting to include does not change. You are not disputing the fact that the vast majority of sources attribute the name "Father of Somali music" to Qarshe, and yet you've been edit warring to attribute the title to Sinimo. Now a single statement from one source is clearly undue per WP guidelines. You clearly disagree. I suggest we stop it here and let other editors weigh in. --Kzl55 (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
The titles reflect two completely different things. The titles reflect completely different realities. Abdi Sinimo established the lyrical genre so therefore he is the uncontested 'Father of the Modern Somali Song'. This is very different from Qarshe, who is described as the 'Father of Somali Music'. I don't see where there needs to be a removal of a published work as the titles imply two completely different histories in the tradition of Somali Music. I've read the Wikipedia guidelines and there is no contradiction because the titles are completely different. Let us allow other editors to give their own opinions.
MustafaO (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Earlier in this very page you were arguing he is "father of Somali music", you are contradicting yourself. Pivoting to this new wording does not change the fact that it is still undue, particularly given that the vast majority of published reputable sources (upwards of 10 linked above) state that Qarshe was "father of Somali music". On Wikipedia, exceptional claims require exceptional sources (read: multiple high-quality sources) per WP:REDFLAG. There is no need to further obfuscate the issue by long text walls, I suggest we wait for other editors. Also please justify your text when you reply per WP convention. --Kzl55 (talk) 13:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
There is no contradiction. Firstly, because Qarshe himself acknowledged (see:[41]), that he considered Abdi Sinimo to have been more deserving as he quoted him DIRECTLY when faced with the question regarding if he is the 'Father of Somali Music'. The argument was to show there is no exclusivity with these titles. When you made a mention of the wordings and used it as an issue, I chose to edit the title to clearly reflect the wording of the published work and you still committed an act of vandalism by removing the source and altering the article. I have no qualms about waiting for other editors to weigh in.
MustafaO (talk) 13:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Please justify your text to make it easier to follow by editors. We dont need to hear why you've abandoned "father of Somali music" and now pivoting to another title, you have failed to provide more than a single source for your chosen title. Inclusion thus is still undue, please reread my post above, on Wikipedia exceptional claims require exceptional sources, minority views are not usually included in Wikipedia articles precisely because inclusion would breach WP:N and WP:BALANCE. Now that you've abandoned both original title you attempted to include, as well as your claim of there being "many sources that also claim Abdi Sinimo to be the 'Father of Somali Music'", please perform a self-revert on all the articles you've been edit warring on. --Kzl55 (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion is NOT WP:UNDUE because this is not an issue of a minority view versus a majority view. The titles are completely different and are reflective of different realities hence why I edited the title to reflect the sourced content. I dont understand how you can make an allegation such as me 'abandoning both the original title and there being many sources that claim Abdi Sinimo is the Father of Somali Music'... And at the same time you say: 'We dont need to hear why you've abandoned "father of Somali music" and now pivoting to another title'. So in fact you were never interested in having a discussion because had you read my comments you would have realised that I sourced more than two comments in which there is reasonable argument to give him such a title... However I edited the title to remove any ambiguity and further stop any act of vandalism on your part. Unfortunately you did not take heed. Having said that, the titles 'Father of Somali Music' is very different to 'Father of the Modern Somali Song'. A fact that you continuously attempt at distorting by injecting the majority versus minority view which is unsubstantial, simmply because there is NO contradiction. The titles are different. Didn't you say you would allow the editrs to weigh in? Why are you continuing to fuel the debate and then claim to withdraw at the same time? MustafaO (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Please keep it brief, continuing to post repetitive walls of text is not helpful. The titles are the same, you made one claim, and once you realised it was not correct you pivoted to change a few words. And it IS a minority view, given that you have provided a single source supporting your statement, contrary to your statement of there being "many sources" supporting it, you've entirely abandoned that argument and are now getting into the realm of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. This is not helpful. I will await other editors to weigh in. --Kzl55 (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The fact remains that the inclusion isn't WP:UNDUE, here are TWO sources that can be used to make the argument for keeping the title of 'Father of Somali Music', (see:[42]) and (see:[43]). The only reason why I am repeating myself CONSTANTLY is because of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Interesting you've leveled that at me when the reality is that I've mentioned on so many occasions (please refer to the discussion on this page) as to the reasons as to WHY I edited the title despite it being valid to use. I mentioned clearly and many times why I edited it. At this point I would just be repeating myself. The titles that were given to both Abdullahi Qarshe and Abdi Sinimo are different now. So it's irrelevant to continue making the minority versus majority argument since the tiles denote two completely different meanings. You continue to say you will wait for the other editors to comment, yet you keep interjecting. This certainly is not helpful. The articles do not need continuous and disruptive acts of vandalism. MustafaO (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Earlier in the thread you stated: "I've read the Wikipedia guidelines and there is no contradiction because the titles are completely different", you can not use a single source to support two "completely different titles". You have a single source supporting each statement, and your second source (the interview) clearly states that Somalis, as well as others, consider Qarshe to be "father of Somali music". In contrast to your single source statements I have presented over 10 published reliable sources stating Qarshe is "father of Somali music", this ends the discussing on WP:UNDUE. Inclusion of minority views is very problematic, and as stated previously, for exceptional claims, you must present exceptional sources, this is WP guidelines. You do not have that, there is no need to go any further. --Kzl55 (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not having a single source supporting each statement is completely irrelevant to the point being that it is vandalism for you to remove the sourced content since the titles denote TWO completely different meanings. The titles 'Father of Somali Music' and 'Father of the Modern Somali Song' are two different titles. This is why it cannot be seen as being contradictory as this is NOT a case of inclusion of minority views. The titles, live I've said many times, are different. Inclusion therefore, is not WP:UNDUE. I literally quoted more than one source, so to keep repeating a fabrication is unwarranted. The sources do not contradict each other and there is no exclusivity as this issue is more likely than not, subjective. It doesn't warrant continued vandalism and unwarranted removals on your part. MustafaO (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Its not vandalism to remove minority views supported by a single source. This is what WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE are all about. Wikipedia articles are never based on minority views. As stated, you've only provided a single source per statement (one of them actually stating that Somali people and others consider Qarshe as father of Somali music), that right there should end the discussion. --Kzl55 (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

It is vandalism, simply because it is NOT a minority view that you are removing. It is a published and referenced work which confers a title ('Father of Modern Somali Song) completely DIFFERENT to the title you claim it is contradicting ('Father of Somali Music'). The whole premise of your argument rests on the point that the source I quoted is a minority conflicting with more referenced works. The FACT is, that's absolutely NOT the case because the the titles in the articles (as currently stands) are completely different regarding the respective individuals involved, Abdi Sinimo and Abdullahi Qarshe. Therefore it can never be considered as being WP:UNDUE. MustafaO (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

It is a minority view if you have one single source supporting it. Please read WP:WEIGHT. And it will most certainly be WP:UNDUE if both were present within the same text, your argument for the titles being different wont work. You are simply pivoting from edit warring to include the first, to now edit warring to include the second, they are interchangeable, and the wording is near the same. Remember, you were arguing for "father of Somali music" just a few hours ago. And even if they were not, it would still be undue inclusion, and exceptional claims require exceptional sources, you have failed to provide that. --Kzl55 (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The reason why it is NOT WP:UNDUE is because the differences in the titles reflect TWO completely different realities. So recycling the same argument over and over is now redundant. Here are examples that prove these titles are not variations in any way. They are not merely different wordings. The sources itself explain clearly WHY the titles were given.

1. One source says: 'Thus crowning him as the uncontested father of the modern Somali song by penning the Balwo.' Horn of Africa Journal. 1997. p. 160. There is a correlation between penning and creating the genre and the title 'Father of the Modern Somali Song'. This is CLEAR from the source.

2. Another source states the reason as to why many consider Qarshe to be the 'Father of Somali Music' is when he said: 'Perhaps, I am the first Somali to set Somali songs to the music of the lute (kaman)' Source: Interview with the late Abdullahi Qarshe (1994) [44]. So the inclusion is NOT WP:UNDUE in any way.

So the majority views versus minority is redundant as you can see here, the titles were given to reflect two completely different realities.

This whole section of your argument: And even if they were not, it would still be undue inclusion'Bold text' is arguing on the premise that there the titles are the same or a variant of the same original title, which it isn't. Refer to: (Horn of Africa Journal. 1997. p. 160 [45] and Interview with the late Abdullahi Qarshe (1994) [46] to see the reasons why the titles reflect different meanings as the sources leave very little room to argue otherwise. MustafaO (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

You are now just regurgitating the same text in an attempt to obfuscate the discussion. What is your argument? That Sinimo is "father of modern Somali song"? Well, you've only provided a single source for that. As such inclusion of such exceptional claim is clearly undue. --Kzl55 (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Why is that argument clearly WP:UNDUE? It doesn't contradict any claim that Qarshe is the 'Father of Somali Music'. So I do not understand why you keep pushing the same argument and obfuscating the discussion.


1. The first source was (see:[47]), Qarshe considered Abdi Sinimo to have been more deserving as he quoted him DIRECTLY when faced with the question regarding if he is the 'Father of Somali Music'... This was the one of the sources that I used to make the earlier argument.

2. The second was (see: [48]). Where an argument to dub him with the title can easily be validated per the editing regulations by Wikipedia.

I explained the reason as to WHY I edited the title to 'Father of Modern Somali Song' for two main reasons: a. To stop your unwarranted removal and vandalism on the page. b. To align the title exactly to the worded source. MustafaO (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

It is clearly undue because the claim of Sinimo being "father of modern Somali song" is only supported by a single source, it is an exceptional claim not backed by exceptional sources. And adding such an exceptional claim that is not backed by exceptional main-stream sources will be giving it undue weight. Wikipedia does not include minority views, unless on articles related to the subject of minority views. This is not going anywhere, this will be my last response here until another editor weighs in. --Kzl55 (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


There are over 10 different sources (see: [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57] and [58]) stating that Abdi Sinimo penned and pioneered the Balwo, which was the exact reason as to why the source you constantly remove makes that claim that he is the Father of the modern Somali Song: 'Thus crowning him as the uncontested father of the modern Somali song by penning the Balwo.' Horn of Africa Journal. 1997. p. 160. Refer to: [59]. I await the other editors to comment, especially those who are independent from the issue at hand. The sources are all correlated. MustafaO (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

You need to stay on topic, look at the title of this discussion, I have explained to you numerous times now that we are discussing the "father of modern Somali music" title, and not a single one of the links you have posted supports that. This is clear filibuster attempt. --Kzl55 (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

As a Somali, I have personally never heard of this individual (Abdi Sinimo). I am with Kzl55 that the statement father of Somali music is a bit excessive. Wadaad (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Summary of argument[edit]

On Music of Somalia article as well as other articles related to Somali music, editor MustafaO first attempted to include that artist Abdi Sinimo is known as "father of Somali music" (e.g.[60], [61]). They have provided one single source supporting this statement [62] (the source actually states "father of modern Somali song", not "father of Somali music"). In contrast, the vast majority of published reliable sources state the artist known as "father of Somali music" is Abdullahi Qarshe e.g.[63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72] (...etc etc). At this stage MustaphaO abandoned their original claim of Abdi Sinimo being "father of Somali music", and instead opted to pivot to use the wording: "father of modern Somali song", seeing as the only source they have provided uses this wording. I have tried to explain that inclusion of Sinimo is undue and that the vast majority of reputable sources give Qarshe the title. I have cited both WP:UNDUE, explaining that inclusion of Sinimo, using a single source, gives undue importance and weight and goes against neutrality guidelines by promotion of minority views. I have also cited WP:EXCEPTIONAL in relation to the fact that exceptional statements require exceptional sourcing numerous times in the discussion(s), and yet the editor continues to edit war against all evidence. They do not seem to even accept their own source that they've cited previously which confirms that "The Somali people and others regard you [as in Abdullahi Qarshe, not Sinimo] as the “Father of Somali Music[73]. Any opinions would be appreciated. Regards --Kzl55 (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


Is that your own made up summary? It's very interesting that you attempt to distort the reality of the discussion to suit your agenda. However, I can easily give my own explanation without having to distort the facts. I will clearly outline my contribution.

The user (Kzl55), attempted many times to remove a sourced content from the articles Balwo, Abdullahi Qarshe and Abdi Sinimo. His main contention was that Abdullahi Qarshe was unanimously agreed upon that he was the 'Father of Somali Music' therefore the title is exclusive to him and nobody else warrants having the same title. After that I posted more than one published work that makes the case that Abdi Sinimo also can hold the same title. The source is here (see: Qarshe himself acknowledged (see:[74]) that he considered Abdi Sinimo to have been more deserving of the title as he quoted Sinimo DIRECTLY when faced with the question regarding if he is the 'Father of Somali Music'. Another source that I used to make the claim was the Horn of Africa, Journal, Vol. 15 (see here: [75]) which per Wikipedia regulations, can make the exact same case. After constant vandalism and unwarranted removals by the user (Kzl55), I edited the title to reflect the sourced edit, which was 'Father of the Modern Somali Song', which was different to the title of 'Father of Somali Music' . The primary reason why I made this edit was to stop the unwarranted edit warring and removals by this user (Kzl55). However, he continues to barrage the pages with removals unjustifiably although the titles are different and not the same. There are over 10 different sources (see: [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84] and [85]) that confirm why this title was conferred upon Sinimo. Please read: 'Thus crowning him as the uncontested father of the modern Somali song by penning the Balwo.' Horn of Africa Journal. 1997. p. 160. Refer to: [86]. Despite this he continuously vandalised the paged with the removals citing the titles are the same, where I made the argument that it isn't the same. The argument I made was when I said: "The sources itself explain clearly WHY the titles were given.

1. One source says: 'Thus crowning him as the uncontested father of the modern Somali song by penning the Balwo.' Horn of Africa Journal. 1997. p. 160 (see: [[87]). There is a correlation between penning and creating the genre and the title 'Father of the Modern Somali Song'. This is CLEAR from the source.

2. Another source states the reason as to why many consider Qarshe to be the 'Father of Somali Music' is when he said: 'Perhaps, I am the first Somali to set Somali songs to the music of the lute (kaman)' Source: Interview with the late Abdullahi Qarshe (1994) [88]. So the inclusion is NOT WP:UNDUE in any way."

This is the summary of the dispute. I would hope that the matter is resolved and fixed ad that the vandalism doesn't continue further by this user. MustafaO (talk) 23:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Would be best to restore the articles in question as there is quite the stretch of the source here.--Moxy 🍁 23:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Issue resolved by editors, please close. Regards --Kzl55 (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Walter Kuhn[edit]

MyMoloboaccount insists on emphasizing that the German historian Walter Kuhn was a Nazi and just generally a bad guy and a hack scholar. This is although I have found numerous sources, including by holocaust scholars Debórah Dwork and Robert Jan van Pelt, which refer to Kuhn as an excellent scholar (see here) and the fact that Kuhn continued working and publishing until 1983. MyMolobaccount's focus on Kuhn's maps as propaganda appears to have been caused by this discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard, in which I was able to show that Kuhn's maps are still being cited in RS in the 2010s.

MyMoloboaccount has created entire sections in the article just to tell us how bad Kuhn is in the title before anyone even reads it (i.e. [89]. When I tried to move this information to the appropriate "Appraisals and Criticism" section [90] he simply restored it. At one point the entire Second World War section was a series of highly charged titles, (compare before and after my edit here [91]). Most recently he added that Kuhn was a Nazi to the lead [92], in his edit summary claiming it had been removed from the lead when in fact the fact that Kuhn joined the NSDAP in 1940 is cited in the lead currently. He has insisted on adding the word Nazi to various other parts of the article, see [93], and has added WP:UNDUE criticism of Kuhn's scholarship to the lead [94].

I have tried to be fair in my assessment of Kuhn, adding most of the information now found in the article about his prewar politics and his involvement as an advisor to the Nazi resettlement program of German minorities during the war. Where criticism of Kuhn has been made, I have added it (see, e.g., my edits [95] [96]). MyMoloboaccount does not appear interested in any nuance on the issue. Often if I am able to check the source he used (sometimes he cites in such a way that this is impossible), I discover that the criticisms of Kuhn that he cites include Kuhn in a list of names and thus do not deal with Kuhn specifically at all, or that MyMoloboaccount has included a critical comment about Kuhn while leaving out a favorable one in the same work. I have only gotten him to use the talk page twice (one time he just went there to say he was undoing an edit I had made), despite having posted there numerous times about various issues.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Kuhn was an infamous Nazi who advocated superiority of German culture and was involved in planning ethnic cleansing of Jews and Poles(euphemistically named “resettlement” above).Like many Nazis he continued to work in post-war Germany.
There is absolutely no reason to remove his Nazi and nationalistic views from the article.And Kuhn is quite pointed out as working with SS on ethnic cleansing in Poland.
The user above unfortunately tries to show Kuhn as some respectable “scholar”, while sources are clear that he was a Nazi involved with ethnic cleansing.
Also,even sources and authors used by user above often mention his connection to Nazis and nationalism-something omitted in above statement, other sources praising him in some cases are former Nazis themselves.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
That is blatant POV. One of Kuhn's articles was republished in English in 2017 [97]. Or look at the numbers of recent citations for his main works [98], [99], [100], [101]. The scholars included in these citations include Poles, Germans, English-speakers. While there are justifable criticisms of Kuhn's work, you can't just dismiss him as a Nazi.
And I am not talking about "removing" the things he said or did in support of Nazism. I'm talking about portraying them in a neutral fashion. Kuhn is not "infamous". Only specialists know who he is. He was not a very important figure for the Nazis. He was not in the SS. He advised on the resettlement of Germans, but he was never directly involved in ethnically cleansing Poles beyond having written an academic position paper that had no impact.
And I'm curious how Debórah Dwork or Robert Jan van Pelt can be considered Nazis.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The question here is WP:DUE weight. The article should devote some space to personal details, some space for pre-war work, some space for post-war work (35+ years as an academic), and some space for the war (and whatever pre-war Nazi involvement). How much is DUE here? I would guesstimate (and this depends on extent of coverage in 3rd party coverage) at 20%-35% of the article - in the lead as well - devoted to role in Nazi period.Icewhiz (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
    To determine DUE weight - in RSes with full profiles on Kuhn - how much is devoted to the Nazi period?Icewhiz (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
The most balanced profile of Kuhn I've seen is by Wilhelm Fielitz in the Handbuch der voelkischen Wissenschaften which covers his whole life. It offers slightly more than a page to Kuhn before the war, less than a page to during, and probably a whole page to after (the preview isn't showing the middle of the three pages unfortunately). Unsurprisingly, favorable or mostly favorable profiles tend to leave out what he did in the war and just focus on before and after (Angermann, Rhode, Weczerka). I'll note that only Rhode of those three is a former Nazi. At least two articles in the bibliography deal specifically with the problems of Kuhn's work pre-war and during the war (Pinwinkler, Michelsen "Von Breslau nach Hamburg", which only covers Kuhn on two pages though). Otherwise scholarship that mentions Kuhn (Burleigh's Germany Turns East, Haar's Historiker im Nationalsozialismus) mentions him mostly in passing, sometimes with more, sometimes with less, biographical information, but generally not much (if anything) post-war. What I'd consider to be a more balanced portrayal of Kuhn before and during the war (though still largely made in passing) is in Chu's The German Minority in Interwar Poland. He gets mentioned on a single page of a number of books, but these tend to rely on Burleigh, I would say. Most negative citations on Kuhn are from work by Haar, Michelsen, and Burleigh, and don't discuss him in any depth. I'm still waiting on a few sources on that, however. MyMoloboaccount cites prodominently Polish sources and I have found decyphering what those sources are very difficult. I'm currently waiting on what I expect to be a negative scholarly assessment of Kuhn's postwar work by Marek Cetwiński (ironically Kuhn tore apart Cetwinski's dissertation in a review ten years before Cetwinski wrote that).--Ermenrich (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Do the Polish language sources cover just the war - or a fuller bio? Fielitz would indicate around 30% to war. Icewhiz (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
I'll be able to speak for Cetwinski soon, assuming Interlibrary loan actually finds the article. The other Polish sources appear just to be one-line pointed barbs aimed at Kuhn/at Kuhn and like twenty other German scholars at the same time, as far as I can tell. But as I've said, I've found it difficult to locate the Polish sources in most cases due to the way that they've been cited. In one case (that I've since removed), Kuhn was cited in the lead as having "anti-Polish prejudices" when the Polish article said something like "Kuhn, despite his anti-Polish prejudices, judged x to be a useful guide" ([102]), so you can see why I'm suspicious of the way that these sources are being used. Like compare this that MyMoloboaccount recently added: Zygmunt Szultka writes that Kuhn made unbelievable errors in his work such as estimating growth of German population in Pomerania to be 10% per year in the time period of 1200-1300, which according to Szultka aren't even worthy of debate<ref>Kaszubi na Pomorzu Zachodnim na przestrzeni wieków Zygmunt Szultka Pomerania 49 page 29 October 2015<ref>. The article is actually from 1994, for one thing [103].--Ermenrich (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
The monthly (2015) reprints the book (1994). Xx236 (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Aha, thank you. No less a scholar than Robert Bartlett (historian) disagrees with Szultka though. I quote: One of the most exacting scholars to deal with the subject [of the size of the German colonist population], Walter Kuhn (The Making of Europe, p. 144).--Ermenrich (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd like to point out that MyMoloboaccount has started making similar edits to other figures who worked before and after WWII [104], [105], and has started a new article of the same sort in his sandbox [106].--Ermenrich (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Demshuk supports Molobo in "The Lost German East: Forced Migration and the Politics of Memory, 1945-1970". His critical opinion isn't quoted in the Wiki page.Xx236 (talk) 12:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Actually it is. See criticism and appraisals.--Ermenrich (talk)
No such section in Walter Kuhn.Xx236 (talk) 12:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
See Walter Kuhn#Scholarly appraisals and reception#Retrospective reviews. Demshuk is quoted in the second paragraph.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
The quoted phrase doesn't summarize about one page of the text.Xx236 (talk) 12:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
He's also cited at the end of the first paragraph in Walter Kuhn#Postwar career in West Germany. Or what specific information is it you are referring to? If you mean his takedown of Kuhn's pre-war work, we already have quite a bit of that in the article. See Walter Kuhn#Scholarly appraisals and reception#Pre-war work. I don't know what adding Demshuk's criticisms, which differ in little from anyone elses, would add to the article.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Wrong summary "the loss of his pre-war work" - should be "war".Xx236 (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for catching that. Will fix.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
When we are dealing with Nazis like Kuhn or Conze(whose articles btw I have either created or edited years ago) that were motivators and ideologists behind Nazi ethnic cleansing and genocide, the main information will unsuprisingly concern their Nazi activities, mainly the ethnic cleaning and genocide they were involved it.Such actions are obviously of highest importance and can't be removed from articles based on personal likes and dislikes of editors.Ermenrich himself admitted that Kuhn's Nazi past is described by authors, and the main source of information on this Nazi comes from Haar and Burleigh who discuss him in depth.Ermenrich has now admitted that he has omitted parts where Kuhn's Nazi activites have been discused[107].--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
As I've said, I have no interest in removing anything about Kuhn's Nazi activities. It is a question of WP:WEIGHT. Kuhn was a recognized scholar in his field after the war, even if you can find some people who have criticized his work. I can find more who don't, and they aren't, as you suggest, all Nazis or rightwingers. Robert Bartlett (historian), Debórah Dwork, and Robert Jan van Pelt are just a few of the ones in English who recognize him as an expert on the Ostsiedlung and are not at all critical of his scholarly work. I'm sure there are plenty of criticisms that can be made of his postwar work, but it needs to be kept in mind that it continues to be used and cited in the field of medieval history and that Kuhn remains recognized as an expert. You can't simply reduce him to a Nazi.
And that diff doesn't prove anything - Pinwinkler is cited in several places in the article, including the lead. See also here: Alexander Pinwinkler writes that Kuhn's career benefitted greatly from the Nazi's taking of power in 1933., and His naming to this post was somewhat controversial, as Kuhn was not seen as a representative folklorist and had not written a habilitation;[22] according to Alexander Pinwinkler and Ingo Haar, Kuhn achieving the professorship was mostly the work of nationally influential pro-Nazi historians Albert Brackmann and Hermann Aubin rather than the faculty in Breslau itself. And those are just where his name is mentioned. If you have some specific thing you want added from him, why don't you suggest it.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Actually Pinwinkler writes a bit more than that, for example that Kuhn was close in this thinking to the idea of racially pure state Nazis envisioned"neherte er sich der nationalsozialistischen Utopie eines ethnisch abgrenzbaren und rassisch homogenenStaates an, der die „Volksgemeinschaft“ als Dogma uber den Einzelnen stellte Any reason why this was omitted?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Can you say how it's different than any of the other criticism in the section Walter Kuhn#Scholarly appraisals and reception#Pre-war work. It's already pretty clear that there's a lot of racist stuff in there from that section. Is there some reason you think the way Pinwinkler states it is important? I'd support adding Pinwinkler if we remove one of the Polish scholars I can't verify and who is not actually discussing Kuhn more than in passing.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Falsification in the article[edit]

I found falsification of the source in the article The current article stated that Kuhn "promoting the issue of the German minority as a major concern for scholars in Germany." This was sourced to Ingo Haar, I checked the source and in it Haar cearly writes it was coordination of secret activities by revisionist groups within Poland on behalf of Third Reich.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

What is with you and unfounded accusations? Please see Talk:Walter Kuhn#I found falsification of the source in the article where I quote the book.
Believe it or not, I don't hate Poland or love Kuhn or whatever you think. I just want a neutral article.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

And let me quote this book too Walter Kuhn fungierte dabei neben Kurt Luck, AlfredLattermann und Viktor Kauder als Kontaktmann zwischen Hans Steinacher auf der einen und Otto Ulitz auf der anderen Seite. Ulitz war der Lieter des "Deutschen Volksbundes" in Kattowitz, der die geheime revisionpolitik der Reichsregierung in Polen koordinierte--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

To quote myself: Dude, you need to actually read the article. What you've changed the text to be about is already covered here: Kuhn also secretly worked for German foreign intelligence to verify the population numbers on the German minority in Poland given by the Polish government.[14 (Haar, p. 272)]. You can add that he was coordinating there, this section was about something different as you can see from the quotes I've given..--Ermenrich (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I would add: to say that I didn't include something mentioned on a single page of a multi-page citation is a falsification is definitely a failure to WP:assume good faith. Please try to discuss things neutrally and rationally.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I have read both the article and Ingo Haar. Ingo Haar mentions cooperation with Nazi intelligence in seperate paragraph below the one I mentioned. The work with pro-Nazi German minority organizations in pre-war Poland is in a seperate paragraph and has a completely different meaning from what was put in the article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 06:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Actually that's at the end of the same paragraph first paragraph. The information you want added is in the middle of that paragraph, the information I has added is in the following paragraphs in Haar.--Ermenrich (talk)

Which sources say what[edit]

Somewhat inspired by my post to Icewhiz above, I thought I would make a list of what sources actually say what about Kuhn, to help anyone judging this. I'm happy for any corrections Molobo or anyone else might have for particular details:

Sources dealing with Kuhn specifically

  • Angermann, Norbert. "Walter Kuhn". Die ostdeutsche Bibliographie.. Norbert Angermann has nothing but praise for Kuhn, omits the second world war (appears to have been written in the early 2000s, as there's a reference to Michelsen (see below).
  • Fielitz, Wilhelm (2008). "Walter Kuhn". In Haar, Ingo; Fahlbusch, Michael (eds.). Handbuch der völkischen Wissenschaften : Personen, Institutionen, Forschungsprogramme, Stiftungen. Munich: K.G. Saur. pp. 387–390. ISBN 9783598117787.. Wilhelm Fielitz is mostly negative, but does not discuss any criticism of Kuhn's postwar work, which was not on exactly the same subject as his pre-war work.
  • Michelsen, Jakob (2003). "Von Breslau nach Hamburg: Ostforscher am Historischen Seminar der Universität Hamburg nach 1945". In Hering, Rainer; Nicolaysen, Rainer (eds.). Lebendige Sozialgeschichte: Gedenkschrift für Peter Borowsky. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. pp. 659–681. ISBN 3-531-13717-4.. Michelsen mentions Kuhn on two pages, very negative, does not criticize postwar work.
  • Pinwinkler, Alexander (2009). "Walter Kuhn (1903-1983) und der Bielitzer „Wandervogel e. V.". Historisch-volkskundliche „Sprachinselforschung" zwischen nationalistischem Pathos und politischer Indienstnahme". Zeitschrift für Volkskunde. 105: 29–52.. Pinwinkler is extremely negative about Kuhn, but does not actually discuss his postwar work. He does discuss how Kuhn reacted to criticisms of his prewar work in the postwar period however.
  • Rhode, Gotthold (1983). "Walter Kuhn (1903-1983): Ein Leben für die Sprachinselforschung und die Siedlungsforschung". Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas. N.F. 31 (4): 629–632. JSTOR 41046753.. Rhode is extremely positive about Kuhn, leaves out the war. Molobo dismisses him because he was a member of the Nazi Party.
  • Weber, Matthias; Hahn, Hans Hennig; Dröge, Kurt (1999). "Ostmitteleuropaforschung statt "deutsche Ostforschung"". Einblicke: Das Forschungsmagazin der Universität Oldenburg. 30.. They say Kuhn's pre-war work was apt to be used for imperialist schemes.
  • Weczerka, Hugo (2001). "Walter Kuhn (1903-1983): Eine biographische Würdigung". In Kessler, Wolfgang (ed.). Fünfzig Jahre Forschung zur Geschichte der Deutschen in Polen : die Historisch-Landeskundliche Kommission für Posen und das Deutschtum in Polen und die Kommission für die Geschichte der Deutschen in Polen 1950-2000. Herne: Stiftung Martin-Opitz-Bibliothek. pp. 75–82.. Weczerka is positive about Kuhn, but mentions that there are problems with some of Kuhn's pre-war and postwar work, and that he faces a lot of criticism from Poland. However, Weczerka nevertheless says that even in Poland he was treated as an important scholarly.
  • I'm currently waiting on articles by Michael Cetwinski and Gerard Labuda. Labuda is supposedly critical but also has a lot of praise, Cetwinski will be negative.

Books that discuss Kuhn

  • Burleigh, Michael (1988). Germany turns eastwards : a study of Ostforschung in the Third Reich. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521351200.. Michael Burleigh mentions Kuhn in various places. He focuses on his pre-war work, but does mention that Kuhn got a job (noting that some "more brown" people had an easier time) and that Kuhn frames the Teutonic Order in the terms of the Cold War. According to Pinwinkler, Burleigh started the trend of more critical reactions to Kuhn (cited in article lead).
  • Chu, Winson (2012). The German minority in interwar Poland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781107008304.. Kuhn is discussed in various places, only pre-war and during the war. Notes his disagreements with other Nazis about the Volhynian Germans.
  • Demshuk, Andrew (2012). The lost German East : forced migration and the politics of memory, 1945-1970. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781107020733.. Highly critical of both Kuhn's pre-war and post-war work, mentions Kuhn on two pages.
  • Haar, Ingo (2000). Historiker im Nationalsozialismus : deutsche Geschichtswissenschaft und der "Volkstumskampf" im Osten. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ISBN 352535942X.. Ingo Haar only discusses Kuhn as a figure of the war and prewar, mentioning him in various places.
  • Mühle, Eduard (2005). Für Volk und deutschen Osten. Der Historiker Hermann Aubin und die deutsche Ostforschung. Düsseldorf: Droste. ISBN 377001619X.. Muehle mentions Kuhn in various places, only pre-war and during the war.

Authors that mention Kuhn once or in passing

  • Burleigh, Michael (1992). "Scholarship, State and Nation, 1918-45". In Breuilly, John (ed.). The State oF Germany: The National Idea in the Making, Unmaking and Remaking of a Modern Nation-State. London and New York: Longman. pp. 128–140. ISBN 0-582-07864-4.. Mentions Kuhn once as having moved Germans into villages from which Poles had previously been ethnically cleansed (he actually says removed or some such thing)
  • Chrobak, Dariusz (2010). "Das Phänomen der Sprachinsel. Geschichte der ehemaligen deutschen Sprachinseln in Oberschlesien und Galizien". Studia Śląskie. 69.. Calls Kuhn a "pioneer" with his prewar work.
  • Dwork, Debórah; van Pelt, Robert Jan (1996). Auschwitz, 1270 to the present. New York: Norton. ISBN 0393039331.. Debórah Dwork and Robert Jan van Pelt praise Kuhn extremely highly, but note that he doesn't address the Holocaust in his histories of the area around Auschwitz (this is taken to be representative of German scholars in general).
  • Haar, Ingo (2005). "German Ostforschung and Anti-Semitism". In Haar, Ingo; Fahlbusch, Michael (eds.). German Scholars and Ethnic Cleansing. New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books. pp. 1–27. ISBN 1-57181-435-3.. Mentions Kuhn having supported annexations of Polish land by Nazi Germany.
  • Kalinke, Heinke (2015). "Sprachinselforschung". Online-Lexikon zur Kultur und Geschichte der Deutschen im östlichen Europa. Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg und Bundesinstitut für Kultur und Geschichte der Deutschen im östlichen Europa (BKGE).. Kuhn is mentioned as having founded Sprachinselforschung.
  • Lübke, Christian (2017). "Germany's Growth to the East: from the Polabian Marches to Germania Slavica". In Loud, Graham A.; Staub, Martial (eds.). The making of medieval history. Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK: York Medieval Press. pp. 167–184. ISBN 1903153700.. Mention that Kuhn's pre-war rhetoric was similar to Nazi rhetoric.
  • Molobo recently added this by Stefan Guth (but that could be the editor, haven't checked yet) which says that Kuhn "remained true" to his principles from the 30s in his postwar work.

Polish sources that appear to be negative, in no particular order, added by Molobo.

  • Rodowód Piastów śląskich: Piastowie wrocławscy, legnicko-brzescy, świdniccy, ziębiccy, głogowscy, żagańscy, oleśniccy, opolscy, cieszyńscy i oświęcimscy Kazimierz Jasiński Wydawnictwo Avalon, 2007, page 15
  • Ideologia i poznanie: społeczne funkcje mediewistyki śląskiej po 1945 roku Marek Cetwiński Wyższa Szkoła Pedagogiczna w Częstochowie, 1993, page 24
  • Polityka Republiki Federalnej Niemiec wobec polskiej ludności rodzimej na Ṡląsku w latach 1949-1990/91 Michał Lis Wydawnictwo Instytutu Śląskiego w Opolu, 1992 page 20
  • Kartografia historyczna Ślaka XVIII-XX wieku page 102 Dariusz Przybytek Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, 2002
  • Kaszubi na Pomorzu Zachodnim na przestrzeni wieków Zygmunt Szultka Pomerania 49 page 29 October 2015
  • I have not been able to check most of these sources, and they are often cited incorrectly. When I can find them they have only snippet view in google.

I've left out the contemporary recensions of Kuhn's work (see Walter Kuhn#Scholarly appraisals and reception#Post-war work#Contemporary reviews). None of them simply dismiss Kuhn, but some criticize a nationalist bent.

I could add some more positive assessments of Kuhn (e.g. Robert Bartlett (historian), The Making of Europe p. 144) but that would just continue this arms race to find mentions of Kuhn. I think the numbers of citations Kuhn's books and the fact that an article of his was reprinted in English in 2017 speak for themselves, honestly: see [108], [109], [110], [111], [112]).

I will leave whoever is reading this to come to their own conclusions.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

On the off chance that anyone actually does come to look into this rather daunting issue, here are a few more citations of Kuhn in modern books (almost all from after 2000, but a few earlier) on Google books, so you can see for yourself how specialists in medieval history treat him: [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126]. Anyone looking at these citations in English (and a few in German) will see clearly that Kuhn is not dismissed as a Nazi by modern scholars. I could keep extending this list ad infinitum.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
It's more than enough. The sources speak for themselves. François Robere (talk) 10:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

RfC at Andy Ngo[edit]

There is a request for comment currently active at Talk:Andy_Ngo#RfC:_Do_sources_support_calling_Ngo's_statements_on_the_hammer_attack_"false"? Andy Ngo that may be of interest to users of this noticeboard. Simonm223 (talk) 12:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Parental alienation[edit]

Parental alienation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This caught my eye because it makes a bunch of what look like medical claims without any WP:MEDRS-compliant sources to back them up, but upon closer examination began to suspect a POV problem:

  1. There appears to be several editors editing the page who pretty much edit nothing else.
  2. There is a large motivation to insert bias into the article by those who are currently accusing others of PA or being accused of same.
  3. The lead says things like "It is a distinctive form of psychological abuse and family violence" and only way down in the history do you discover that Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders considered and rejected PA as a diagnosis.
  4. Some of the sources are pretty clearly advocacy books pushing a particular POV instead of scientific papers on a psychological topic.
  5. The article really seems to cover only one of the following possibilities:
    • Evil parent unfairly alienates child against good parent.
    • Good parent alienates child against evil parent, and rightly so.
    • No actual alienation, but one parent falsely accuses the other of alienation.
    • Both parents are evil and both are alienating the child against the other parent.

So, does is this article in its present state NPOV, or not? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 09:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  1. This does not sound like an actual disorder. Psychiatric disorders are usually associated with long term distress, or an inability to perform in "normal" situations. They're usually generalized ("I'm not only afraid of this spider, I'm afraid of all spiders"), and result from a combination of factors (cognitive, emotional, experiential or neurological). This doesn't tick any of these boxes except, perhaps, stretching the definition of a "normal situation".
  2. 25 out of the article's 107 sources are either by Baker (15 + 2 "further reading") or Bernet (10 + 1 FT), which is much higher than the more typical 3-5 sources. One author (Lorandos) associated with for-benefit firm PsychLaw has 4 references cited an overall 15 times (one of which was published on the firm's website). The fact a therapist builds their career on a particular theory is not in itself alarming or unique (Baker seems to have done that as well), but the fact that that particular theory isn't well established is.
  3. The lack of DSM inclusion, and the fact the ICD only gives it as a reference to QE52.0 Caregiver-child relationship problem[127] - a subsection of Ch. 24 Factors influencing health status or contact with health services[128] (which also includes QD50 Poverty and QE20 Lack of physical exercise) - suggests this isn't a disorder in the clinical sense.
  4. I would support re-writing the article per either of your suggestions at Talk:Parental alienation#View from an outsider, but I think the first step should be going through the sources and filtering out the questionable ones according to the usual sourcing standards, just so we can get an idea of whether the subject falls more into the realm of legal arguments or WP:MEDRS. François Robere (talk) 12:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Good advice. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Battle of the Teutoburg Forest[edit]

I am having problem with statement "Contemporary and modern historians have generally regarded Arminius' victory over Varus as "Rome's greatest defeat", in article Battle of the Teutoburg Forest. Only source for this statement is Adrian Murdoch and his book Rome's Greatest Defeat.

In my thinking there are 2 problems with that statement:

1) Only Adrian Murdoch is behind that statement (not contemporary and modern historians).

Other historians are for example writing for example:"To understand what took place in 202 at Zama—not the name of the actual locality of the engagement, but the label most easily recognized—and the reasons why the records of the event were presented in the manner in which they have been preserved, it is necessary to go back to 216, the year of the greatest defeat in the history of Roman military power, the battle of Cannae. - Yozan D. Mosig and Imene Belhassen:Revision and Reconstruction of the Battles of Cannae and Zama page 25 University of Nebraska at Kearney. It is clear that different historians are having different opinion about greatest roman defeat.

2) We need to avoid words great, greatest etc in articles Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch Analitikos (talk) 08:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

This seems easy enough to solve. Figure out 1) is Adrian Murdoch a person whose opinion is notable (sounds like an author of popular books with that title); 2) if he is, attribute the "great defeat" to him. I'll inform Wikiproject classical Greece and Rome, since they might know about this author.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
If it is an opinon stated to be "widely held among historians" write "it is widely considered to be _____ among historians". Otherwise just state it is this persons personal opinion. I don't see this as being a big problem to solve.★Trekker (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I think it would be fine to say something like, "Adrian Murdoch calls the battle 'Rome's greatest defeat', because...", but there are several other candidates for that title that come to mind for me, and I suspect lots of classical scholars apart from Adrian Murdoch. The Battle of the Allia left Rome completely undefended, and led to the Gauls entering and sacking the city itself, an event not repeated for eight hundred years. The Battle of the Caudine Forks was a total defeat (if barely a battle) in that an entire Roman army was captured without a fight, and forced to go under the yoke, in the most complete humiliation suffered by any Roman force. Perhaps the least convincing of the group, however. The Battle of Cannae would live in Roman history as the most terribly destructive battle to Roman morale, perhaps eclipsing the Battle of the Allia due to its scale and the reputation of Hannibal, with which even Brennus couldn't compete. The Battle of Carrhae was a complete humiliation that forestalled Roman ambitions in the east for decades, and hastened Rome's plunge into civil war; indeed, had Crassus been less than totally defeated, the Civil War might have been forestalled or prevented, and the course of Roman history changed to an extent that a different outcome in the preceding three probably would not have seen. At the Battle of Edessa, an entire Roman army was captured along with the emperor Valerian, who died in captivity. And then we have the Battle of Adrianople (perhaps Ironic that "Adrian" Murdoch didn't consider this), in which the Roman army was slaughtered by the Goths, and the emperor Valens slain, on Roman territory. It's true that Teutoburg Forest was a significant defeat that halted Roman ambitions in Germany, but many other battles helped to determine the course of various campaigns; most unsuccessful campaigns ended following a disastrous defeat (just as successful ones usually followed decisive victories). As long as it's clear that it's just one (or a few) historians who call it this, and we're not lending that claim the "Wikipedia stamp of approval", I think it can be left in the article. P Aculeius (talk) 14:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Thought this might be worth adding: there is a tendency in Germany at least to downplay the importance of the Battle of the Teutoberg forest due to the shameless way it was exploited and glorified by German nationalists for hundreds of years (go visit the battlefield in Germany and they barely tell you why it's important in the museum). You could probably find a number of scholars to counter Adrian Reich who say that battle wasn't all that important at all, and, in fact, I would highly suggest that this perspective be added to the article--Ermenrich (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
The last sentence of the lede should be corrected. There are way too many citations, which should be included in the text, and the "greatest defeat" thing is probably the publisher's marketing strategist that went too far. I suggest: "Contemporary and modern historians have generally regarded Arminius' victory over Varus as one of the most important defeats in the history of Rome. It stopped its expansion in northern Europe and fixed the Empire's northern border on the Rhine and Danube until its fall, 450 years later." T8612 (talk) 23:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

There's also the problem that a number of other battles could be considered as "the worst defeat suffered by the Romans". As P Aculeius notes above, the Battle of the Cremera & the Battle of the Allia were considered such notable defeats by the Romans that they marked the anniversary of both battles as unlucky (nefastus). The Battle of Cannae is believed to have occasioned the worst total loss of life in combat prior to the meat-grinder battles of WW I. And then there is the Battle of Adrianople in 378, considered by Ammianus Marcellinus & others as the day of the army of the Western Roman Empire effectively died. (Ammianus also mentions two other battles as disastrous defeats, at least one of which is not listed here, but I don't have his work as hand as I type this.) At best, the Battle of Teutoberger Wald would be ranked as one of the worst defeats; I would leave it to a more weighty authority than Adrian Murdock to pick which of these was the worst. -- llywrch (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I think a "one of" solution is best - it is I suppose the worst defeat of the 1st century/early imperial period, but extra sources would be best for that formulation. Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The source from Adrian Murdoch was added by me four years ago.[129] Murdoch is a historian and member of the Royal Historical Society.[130] My initial edit was later substantially changed by Malik047.[131] I agree with the suggestion of Johnbod to change it to "one of". A search on Google Books indicates that the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest was indeed one of the worst defeats suffered by the Roman army. Krakkos (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate discussion[edit]

This same issue is being discussed both here and at Talk:Battle of the Teutoburg Forest#Greatest defeat is POV simultaneously. Participants and arguments vary between them unnecessarily. As this appears primarily as a typical article content dispute, should the discussion here be moved to article talk? --A D Monroe III(talk) 15:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes, I don't think it ever needed to be brought here, probably a link to the discussion on the article talk at Wikiproject Classical Greece and Rome or maybe Wikiproject Military History would have been enough.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

POV issue on article[edit]

The article Machiavellianism (politics) has several NPOV mistakes within it. First, the article describes the concept as a "trope" while there are certainly scholars that disagree, then it states that:

"Though in discussions of Machiavelli's thought "Machiavellian" and "Machiavellianism" may be used in reasoned critiques (note the use of the word "reasoned"), in general usage the terms more often occur in political polemic.(should this be in wikipedia's voice?)"

Also, not mentioning that the article is a shameless and subpar content fork of the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre (a page frequented by the editor), the editor is also placing a "in use" tag to monopolize the article to quell dissent. Also on the article's talkpage, the editor says this:

(on a page speaking about Machiavelli's evil reputation):

"But we do need one on the - to various degrees - caricature version of it that was used as a term of abuse for several centuries after his death"

His use of the word "caricature" ignores other big scholars (such as Mansfield, Strauss, Hulliung, etc.) that have wholly different views on the subject. In the AfD, the editor admits the lack of neutrality:

"This should be a neutral article on what was never a neutral subject at all - SuperWikiLover223 needs to be able to tell the difference" (see entire AfD for context)

No WP policy would accept this excuse.SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 20:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

This is the latest episode in SuperWikiLover223's hysterical campaigns here. He has already today tried and failed to get the article deleted, having previously supported its creation after his split with Machiavellianism scale in pschology. He has been highly obstructive, edit-warring and hampering my attempts to refocus the article by many removals of referenced material, ignoring the "in use" template. He needs to back off, calm down, and come back in a few days to see what he makes of the article then. He also needs to think more carefully about many of his spray-gun arguments. Johnbod (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
All you did was insult me Johnbod, you have addressed not one of the issues I brought up.SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
My comments at the Afd are a good starting point, plus other in the earlier discussions on talk. You've been posting in so many places I can't spend all day responding (also ANI now!) ... Johnbod (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

What is the limit of ABOUTSELF?[edit]

I would like to raise a question that has come up at the Andy Ngo article. Part of the discussion centers around how people describe the subject's political views. We have a number of sources that state Ngo's beliefs are ___. We have at least two sources that are interviews with the subject where Ngo either responds to the claims of others or describes, in approximately one sentence, his own view of the subject.

First question, if 3rd party sources are describing the subject's political views, is it reasonable to include the subject's own claims as to their political views even if those claims are only from interviews rather than widely covered in RS articles (WP:ABOUTSELF related)? If yes, when does this change from a reasonable "aboutself" to self unduly promotional/self serving?

Second question, at what point is a source no longer reliable for an ABOUTSELF claim? My understanding is that in general an interview with the subject can be considered a reliable representation of what they said during that interview. The interview becomes a RS for specific statements made by the subject and thus could be used for ABOUTSELF material.

These are edits I'm interested in reviewing in this context [[132]]. But I would like to have an idea in general as I've seen this sort of thing come up several times though typically in the form of a company/organization's response to accusations made/published in a news story. For instance, a news article comes out questioning a company's actions. Is it reasonable to state the company replied and link to the reply on the company's website etc. Springee (talk) 01:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Generally speaking, a person's own explanation of his or her political beliefs is presumptively a reliable source for the fact that he or she holds those beliefs, irrespective of the medium. You don't need to wait for a reliable third-party source to report what was said in the interview. What constitutes undue self-promotion has to be determined by context: are the subject's political beliefs relevant to the article? Does the manner in which they're expressed suggest undeserved praise, or simply rebut the statements of others? Remember, you can summarize relevant portions of what the subject said, without quoting portions you believe might be self-promoting.
I think that the source would be considered reliable for the fact that the subject said it, so long as there's no substantial doubt as to the authenticity of the interview, or the subject's mental state at the time it was given. These concerns would usually have to be raised by some reliable third-party source, unless the subject himself disavows them. Note that this is different from the statements made in the interview being contradicted by the subject's prior or subsequent statements or actions. It's possible for someone's beliefs to change over time, or for the subject to lie or misrepresent those beliefs. If there's substantial evidence that one of these is the case, then that should also appear in the article.
The fact that a company replies to allegations in the news is relevant, as is the substance of that reply, but it would be better to summarize the company's position than to simply link to the company's statement, which could leave readers with either the impression that we don't credit what the company says, or that we consider its statement sufficiently good to make summarizing it unnecessary. Either way, it suggests to the reader that our viewpoint isn't truly neutral, which is why it would be better to describe the company's reply. P Aculeius (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I do find it interesting that wikipedia editors seem to have no problem deferring to a subject’s expressions of self-identity when it comes to issues such as religious identity or gender identity, but when it comes to political self-identity... we have more difficulty accepting the subject’s self expression. Blueboar (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
This is entirely reasonable. There's no real reason why someone would lie about being Christian, but every reason for them to lie about being a racist, say. There are very few bigots who openly acknowledge their bigotry and most engage in all manner of special pleading to explain wy they are not a bigot really, despite all the bigoted things they say and do. Hence we limit ABOUTSELF where it is robustly contradicted by independent sources. Guy (help!) 20:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree with the view that we generally should allow ABOUTSELF to provide things like their own political beliefs or their opinion of the beliefs etc so long as other RS's broached the subject. I think my views align well with P Aculeius here.
  • Non-controversial, basic claims can be stated in Wiki voice absent any reason to question the claim, "Smith was born [date] in [location].[aboutself citation]
  • Claims disputed by others but that are closely related to the article/article section are reasonable for inclusion and should be be attributed. "Smith says she is a life long Democrat [aboutself citation] but [sources] say her support is motivated by self interest and has donated to both Democratic and GOP campaigns." In this case it is relevant to the subject that what they say about themselves doesn't align with evidence presented by other sources.
  • Response to accusations should be generally OK but with some caution. For example, Smith is accused of being in the pocket of big oil for objecting to a bill aimed at cutting green house emissions. Several RS's say Smith is a GW denier and the article lists several examples where RS's say Smith's actions harmed attempts to curb GW. Smith publishes a reply explaining her position and/or the problems with the accusations made against her. The Wiki article can summarize Smith's response with attribution to Smith and a link to the reply. I do not think this is unreasonable as often the initial claim gets RS coverage but frequently the follow up often does not.
I think in only rare cases would we outright refuse to allow any form of ABOUTSELF reply if reliable aboutself material exists. For example, a terrorist group might publish a manifesto justifying a crime. This is a case where I think unduely self serving is an issue. Another obvious example would be if the material is simply unrelated to any content raised by RSs. So if Smith is notable for her political activities we wouldn't discuss her views on cooking or her upcoming healthy living cook book as this would be self serving (promoting the book) and not related to any of the topics raised by RSs. As a general rule I think we do readers a disservice by trying to keep things like responses to criticism and relevant, self identification type claims out of articles. Wikipedia should simply present the evidence in a neutral fashion and let the readers decide for themselves. Springee (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The issue with using WP:ABOUTSELF for Ngo's claims about his political position is that they aren't non-controversial by any stretch of the imagination. Ngo was recently recorded collaborating with far-right groups to gain access in exchange for favorable writing. His claims on Joe Rogan's show that he's center-right could represent one of three possibilities:
  1. A sincere failure to understand the tenets of centrism.
  2. A deliberate mis-characterization of his views to shift the Overton Window.
  3. An american political climate so skewed that hanging out with Patriot Prayer is now considered normal behaviour for a centrist.
Furthermore, as addressed at length at article talk, the "but I'm a liberal" defense is an established tactic of far-right figures to deliberately shift the Overton Window. Now Ngo is variously described by multiple reliable sources as falling within the right wing, with some sources calling him "conservative", some calling him "right-wing" and some calling him "far right". Considering that, his claims to centrism seem unfounded at best. And as such, they're [dubious ]. Simonm223 (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I would note that WP:ABOUTSELF item 1 is probably the bar that it fails to pass as his claims to the political center could be seen as unduly self-serving. Simonm223 (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
It is very strange to have a section about his poltical views but then refuse to include a statement about his view of his political views. Per interviews we had in the article Ngo once said he was center and once said center right. I don't see that there is any controversy over the fact that "he claims to be...". This seems like it treads on NOTCENSORED. Is our intent to inform the readers and let them decide or to protect them from facts that we fear will confuse them? Yes, sources dispute the veracity of his claim but not that he made it. No one claims "Ngo said he is center" isn't true. It's just that many RSs don't agree that he is center. I don't think you have done a reasonable job of explaining why it is unduly self serving to publish that he claims to be center/center right. You could claim it's self serving as he doesn't want to be seen as an extremist but that isn't unduly self serving. In reading through WP_Talk:V and here it seems "unduly" has been reserved for things such as links to fund raising or product promotion. Example, BMW says the new 330 engine has 300hp (not unduly) vs BMW says the engine sets a new standard in smoothness, response and efficiency (unduly). I haven't found a case where people agreed that it was unduly self promotional to say "I think I'm a centrist" when other sources say you are right or left wing. If we say Ngo says he is center-right [sources] and others say he is [far-right] [source] then the readers can decide. Let's give our readers some credit here and let them decide if they agree or not. Springee (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
As Simonm223 has pointed out, there is a history and pattern of right-wing and extreme-right-wing individuals trying to misrepresent themselves or their groups in order to shift the Overton Window and make themselves seem more acceptable. Case in point, the marketing gimmickry of having someone like Matt Schlapp call Marine Le Pen a "classical liberal"[133], a title on which Wikipedia has a wonderfully out-of-date-sourced article on the term while missing entirely the modern usage [134].
To give a concrete Wikipedia example: Carl Benjamin aka "Sargon of Akkad" likes to call himself a "classical liberal". Nowhere in his article is this mentioned because his claim is utterly self-serving and devoid of honesty. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
So in those cases how are the readers hurt or worse off if the article says, "Benjamin refers to himself as a classical liberal[cite]. Journalist have called him X, Y, Z [cites]"? Are the readers better or worse informed? Springee (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
This is an area where I have seen the FRINGE approach used appropriately. If the bulk of the media reporting on this person have labeled him X (X likely being a more extreme position), but the person considers themselves Y (more centralist/normative), then the statement from the person is included but treated as a FRINGE view. In the above case that would mean you flip the statement around : "Journalists have called Benjamin X, but he considers himself a Y." Gives less weight to the FRINGE view. But that's again, when the bulk of the media shares that. More often, I have seen people cherry pick from three or four sources out of hundreds to say a person is X, which is not making that person's insight a FRINGE view. --Masem (t) 15:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree with that. In the article in question the original statement was in that form (RS's say ... but BLP says...). My concern is when we refuse to allow BLP (or organization in some instances) to offer their own take. I just can't see how that makes for a better article. Springee (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
If you can't see how making sure we're not repeating abject nonsense or deliberate falsehoods makes for a better article, then maybe there are larger issues with your editing? 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
WP:FOC Springee (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Ridiculous response. You're the one insisting you "can't see how that makes for a better article" so I will ask you plainly, @Springee: how does including abject nonsense or deliberate falsehoods improve an article in any way? There's a reason WP:ABOUTSELF specifically disallows unduly self-serving claims.6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
First, it isn't unduly self serving. His reply was in response to those saying he is "far-right" etc. Second, the subject's own POV on the topic offers more information to the reader. The only reason to censor that material, and censoring is what you are suggesting, is to "protect" readers from the material. Wikipedia isn't supposed to vilify or vindicate a subject, rather the purpose is to present the facts. Springee (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
That is not an accurate portrayal of the interview in virtually any regard, and you are way off base in trying to suggest that anyone is trying to "vilify" Ngo by presenting the facts as observed by WP:Reliable Sources. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
The wording "4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity" could also be read in regard to the question of whether Ngo is authentically representing his political position, given that outside observers classify him so differently. Maybe that point should be clarified in policy as to if it means that, or merely the question of whether the interview or statement truly happened, though. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
That isn't a reasonable reading of #4 in this case. No one has questioned the authenticity of the quote. They have questioned if the quote is true but not that Ngo said it. However, I would support asking these questions at the WP:V talk page to clarify that point. Springee (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
While I disagree strongly with Springee about whether item 1 of ABOUTSELF applies, there's no doubt that Ngo made that statement on Rogan; and that is what #4 is about. Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I posted a question about the intent of ABOUTSELF exception #1 (the one containing no unduly self serving) on the WP:V talk page here [[135]]. I've posted this as an open ended question not linked to this discussion but I mention it here since as clarification there could impact the discussion here. Springee (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • In the broadest terms possible, if you have to ask the question whether something is covered by ABOUTSELF, then it's almost certainly not covered by ABOUTSELF. Everything else is going to be determined by context, and there will be situations where ABOUTSELF cannot apply to what would normally be the must mundane personal details. (Everyone please wish Dolly Parton a happy 27th birthday. May 2020 be as happy as 2019 was.) GMGtalk 14:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
See, this is a case where I think it's obvious that ABOUTSELF would apply. Springee (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Ngo's entire career has been based around writing attack pieces about figures on the left, falling back on a rhetorical crutch of the reasonable figure at the center. As such, when the majority of sources do not call him center-right, it is unduly self-serving to Ngo for us to give credence to his claims that he's a centrist. And considering his recent, recorded, involvement with the far-right group Patriot Prayer it's also something of an extraordinary claim. As I said above, either Ngo is being dishonest, he's laughably naive to the spectrum of politics outside his echo chamber, or the Overton Window in the United States has shifted so far to the right that hanging out with a group that has been widely described as far-right extremists (Patriot Prayer) is now something we can expect of centrists. In which case, Wikipedia, as a neutral and international source, should be treating pretty much any statement regarding political orientation from the United States as being deeply suspect. Simonm223 (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
If I'm reading this right, part of the RS coverage of Ngo is the fact that he is seemingly duplicity, correct? (I mean, I commented on the bus/hammer thing recently). Even in that case, highlighting his opinion on his political POV to what the media calls him seems a valid point to include, because that's part of his overall notability facets, that he misrepresents where he sits on the political scale. Its not unduly self-serving as long as that is used in context of what the media states, it actually fills out the picture more about how to understand Ngo. --Masem (t) 15:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
That is the opposite of how his self-description of his political orientation has historically been used on his page. Simonm223 (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The material in question was stable and only recently removed. Springee (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think any of the sources have accused him of duplicity in his self portrayal of his political views. In most cases the source simply says he is a ____ journalist (or similar). They don't mention his view nor dive into why they feel their description is actually correct. Springee (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Except for we have a whole RfC on his duplicity and your position on that is rather controversial to say the least. And that's excluding all these sources that call him a grifter, troll or provocateur. Simonm223 (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Simon is correct here. If you have to have a lengthy (good faith) debate about whether the information is controversial, then the information is ipso facto controversial. This kindof thing happens all the time. For example, we regularly use ABOUTSELF content to support birth dates, up until there is serious question raised about whether the person is manipulating their birth date for self-serving reasons, which is not uncommon for at least female celebrities in the western world, obsessed with youthfulness as we tend to be. GMGtalk 16:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
There is a catch, Simonm223, I believe is referring to my comments as to if we should call Ngo a journalist, writer, right-wing writer, etc. Also, I largely disagree that if others are saying "Ngo's politics are X" that we should censor Ngo's own statements on the subject. Simonm223, alludes to my concern that a number of the sources are clearly unsympathetic to the general view expressed by Ngo and are often assuming the worst when assigning motives to his actions. That's not a great way to build a really neutral article. It's also apparent those views aren't universal. Either way, we get back to my unanswered question, how does this hurt the reader/article? Springee (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I think you might want to consider that part of the reason so many disparate sources are hostile toward Ngo isn't part of some grand leftist conspiracy to smear the man; it's just that's how he's generally seen. Simonm223 (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I think there is a difference between the tone of a number of these articles, even the ones that aren't flattering of Ngo. Your claim of "grand leftist conspiracy" is a poor summary of my position. If that is what you read out of my words we have had a clear failure to communicate. Springee (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Here is how you get to what you want, since at least two of those sources (media matters and second Rolling Stone) support it. The Media Matters article has this critical line Many mainstream media outlets simply identified Ngo as an “independent journalist” or a “conservative journalist,” lending legitimacy to his narrative while ignoring his long record of credibility issues. So what you should be doing in the article to combine all this is to say something like: Many journalists and analysts call Ngo as far-right troll or provacateur for these reasons. These sources have said that Ngo tries to appear legitimate by appearing more centralist with his reporting; Ngo called himself "center-right" on the Joe Rogan show in July 2019, and his writings have some outlets calling him a "conservative journalist". As a result, his writings tend to try to make the views and actions of the far-right seem more acceptable. or something along those lines. Put the political facet in a broader section about Views or Controversy or something like that. You can get to the points that are being made if you don't try to separate the politics from his writings. Boom, you have his stance (so that we're neutral on that facet) but in context that many do not believe it and that it has been used to dupe some sources. --Masem (t) 16:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
This is probably a good way forward. It's better than just restoring the removed content (which had been stable in the article) Springee (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I would definitely say that if third-party RSes have started on the questions of a person's political views, that this has been deemed appropriate to include in the article on that person in the first place, and the person has stated (ideally in an RS, but even if in an BLPSPS) that they actually hold a contrary view specifically in response to the RSes, it is reasonable to include a brief attributable statement to contrast what the RSes have said. This is not "unduly" (the key word at play) because it is being added in specific response to what others have said about that person, and not an unsolicited statement of their view, and balances the NPOV around a BLP. The only exceptions that would be made for this are general biographical elements, which is self-identity of sexual orientation, gender identity, and faith/religion, where unsoliciated statements by the BLP can be used without being unduly. --Masem (t) 15:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The problem with your response (I'm guessing you have not reviewed the actual source before) is that Ngo's claims are not situated in that way and are not "specifically in response to the RSes", @Masem: but most of the time rather are self-serving, in that they are Ngo attempting to describe himself as "center" or "center-right" to legitimize the slant he places on his journalism. And the Rogan transcript is even more clearly not a qualifying response, the answer was prompted by Rogan[136] asking "If people feel like right-wing people are being attacked and I don't think you're even right wing are you? I mean what are what we just what would if you had a gun to your head or a mace to your face what would you, would you say you're a centrist?" 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
If we are talking about the Joe Rogan statement he made, given that was made in July 2019 which after his major "coverage" in the media from the May + June events, it is reasonable, knowing Joe Rogan's format, that the the question was asked in response to how the rest of the media was covering Ngo. If that statement was in 2016, before he really was a figure in the news, that would be unsolicated. But in the midst of the 2019 events? Clearly the question was selected in response to the media's portrayal of him, and thus his statement was not solicited and thus reasonable to include. (Perhaps "solicited" is the wrong word here, but key is that there was a reasonable driving factor that Ngo stated what his political position was due to external events about him.) --Masem (t) 15:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
To add, this is not stating that we have to treat Ngo's statement as fact or even non-FRINGE-y. Must still be attributed, and still be given less UNDUE weight than the main sources that put him at conservative/alt-right. --Masem (t) 15:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The fundamental problem is still that Ngo attempts to describe himself as "center" or "center-right" to legitimize the slant he places on his journalism. It's self-serving in the same way that Fox News, undeniably right-wing and well documented to have been created for the purposes of right-wing advocacy[137], used the disingenuous slogans "fair and balanced" and "we report. you decide". The Rogan quote is the same way - not only is the answer prompted by the host, but the context is in attempting to establish Ngo as somehow uninvolved and an innocent victim, framing him as a "centrist" reporting on "far left militancy" (term used about a minute later) rather than - oh I don't know - someone who we have now found out embeds himself with violent groups like Patriot Prayer in return for giving them favorable coverage? That's what makes it unduly self-serving, by far. It's not just "he calls himself a centrist or center-right, but every news organization that's analyzed it places him firmly conservative/right-wing if not extreme right", but that he uses his own claim of being "center" to move the Overton Window and paint his targets as being "far left" while trying to paint the groups he embeds with as closer to center. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
You have ascribed a motive to the discrepancy between various RS's (not all would disagree with Ngo's self assessment BTW) and Ngo's own statements. If you want to imply the motive is deception you would need a source. Currently we have no evidence he doesn't believe his view. Springee (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
This (I had a reply, but this is more succinct). 6Years' analysis is on the money, but it is OR on a BLP, which is 100% not allowed. --Masem (t) 15:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
You're getting it backwards. This is not something I would write into the article, that would indeed be impermissible WP:OR. It is the analysis as to why Ngo's statements violate clause 1 of WP:ABOUTSELF in being self-serving and therefore under policy cannot be included either. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
It's fair to put in that light to consider the statement self-serving but I don't know if I would use that to say it was unduly self-service, given that we are talking about a person that is the subject of negative media coverage and that we have NPOV as policy. We're supposed to be impartial on BLPs, and so trying to ascribe motive to why he said that while he was in the middle of all this negative media coverage (even if that seems a spot on analysis) to determine whether to include or not is not really appropriate. Attribution as has been done here keeps Wikiepdia out of trying to decide if he is being honest or not here. --Masem (t) 15:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@Masem: Given the first sentence, what would it take for you to agree that something was unduly self-serving? Where do you put the goalposts? We have a situation where the interviewee is being directly prompted for the "correct" answer for the audience, but the prompting was chopped off the front of the quotation that was added to the article here on Wikipedia. Not exactly neutral in that sense either, is it? 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I pointed out elsewhere in this that if that interview was taken alone and no other context, it would be unduly self-serving, but in context of the events from May onward that Ngo has been involved with, the question was clearly prompted from what external media was saying about Ngo, so the question and his reply are not unduly in this case - there's a good reason it was asked, even if we are considering the answer to be dubious as to fit what the audience for the Joe Rogan show would be. Is there a clear goal-line here? No, so each case has to be considered by consensus, but there is reasonable allowance for cases like this. --Masem (t) 23:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
That seems to be a Catch-22. Because on the one hand, if he were stating it under an "alone and no other context" situation, you say it would be INadmissible (but he'd have no standing reason to be self-serving), but the very circumstances that make it highly suspect and self-serving you then claim make it admissible. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Let me put this in another context. There was a running candidate (name I forget) that had come up on the boards because editors wanted to include her political positions which (prior to a point) were not be reported on by any RSes, nor anyone discussed her political positions. To include her positions from her own writings or comments would be unduly self-serving because no one talked about it, thus they are "unsolicited" (I wish there was a better word but I hope the meaning I'm trying to get across is recognized with that). It would be the same with Ngo if this same interview was years earlier, where he might have just barely been notable and without any controversy around him, it would be unduly at that point. But now that he is a figure embroiled in a controversy around how he presented himself/his writings to a certain audience, and we have sources that have a made a point about his political position, it is now fully acceptable (and sorta required by BLP) to include, with attribution and with reasonable due weight (a sentence, not a paragraph) relative to the press coverage.
Another issue I'm readily between the lines here is a point I've stressed on other boards: WP articles on BLPs embroiled in controversies should not be seen as scarlet letters or walls of shame. As editors, we should not be trying to figure out Ngo's motives, but report as neutrally as possible as presented by the sources. I recognize there is little love of Ngo here on WP (for completely fair purposes), but that does not give us any reason to throw proper BLP adherence to the side. Ngo is not going to have a whitewashed article, it is clear that he is disliked by the press, but we still can stay impartial and just report the facts, which in a case like this, is letting Ngo explain his stance, even if the media strongly disbelieves that. --Masem (t) 04:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
But you still haven't addressed the Catch-22 problem. If he were "just barely notable and without any controversy", you claim it would be undue, but it would also be unnecessary and meaningless because his political positions would be essentially irrelevant. But when he has the MOST incentive to falsely portray his position in a self-serving way, suddenly it's not undue? That's amazingly backwards. As JzG stated, "Hence we limit ABOUTSELF where it is robustly contradicted by independent sources", i.e. where there is every incentive for the subject to falsely portray themselves. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 04:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
We as editors cannot care if Ngo was in a position to be dubious about reporting his political view, only that he stated something about his political view in the midst of controversy around his political view. We can let the sources talk about the duplicity, but we can't be doing that as editors -when we do, we lose impartiality. As to "robustly contradicted" here, there are not that many sources that are sufficiently about Ngo to be considered that "robustly". That is, I talked about when someone's own self-statement can be taken as FRINGE, and that's when nearly all the sources about the person state one thing against what the person says. You definitely have a few here for Ngo, but not enough to apply FRINGE. --Masem (t) 04:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
See my frustration lies in that the same group of editors who has most vehemently pushed to include Ngo's self-reported political persuasion are the ones who have most aggressively pushed to avoid the article reporting on his duplicity. My concern is that, in this climate, what you're asking us to do is effectively impossible; the editors who believe we must report Ngo's beliefs have also claimed that the sources that call him a huckster, provocateur and propagandist don't count. Simonm223 (talk) 11:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
@Masem: you keep trying to flip the argument and it's starting to seem like you're not even listening. When you argue "We can let the sources talk about the duplicity, but we can't be doing that as editors -when we do, we lose impartiality. ", you are trying to make a claim about inclusion. But the criteria for WP:ABOUTSELF are clear that the self-serving statement should NOT be included. Let the WP:RSs talk about his position and place his position in the political spectrum appropriately, and leave the "unduly self-serving" (Point 1 of WP:ABOUTSELF) item out of the article, especially as it's not in a WP:RS to begin with. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Ok, look here's some examples of what I'm talking about. In this dif, Springee argues against the use of the Daily Beast and Mother Jones as sources. Both are critical of Ngo. [138]. In this edit, Springee strangely calls sources critical of Ngo "reactionary" and argues against inclusion in favour of more anodyne mentions in Washington Post and the New York Times [139] in this dif, Springee calls Vice and Huffington Post tabloids to argue against inclusion [140]. So this is the challenge we've been facing in specific. Springee, and a small group of editors who hold negative POVs on antifascists, have vigorously fought the inclusion of any source that says anything critical of Ngo. This is on top of explicit resistance to inclusion of anything calling a statement by Ngo false at this RfC. So while I'm trying very hard to assume good faith about Springee's requests on multiple noticeboards, they have not provided a complete picture. If we could easily situate Ngo's comments in context, this wouldn't be an issue. But Springee has been instrumental in keeping any context off the page that might make Ngo seem anything other than an heroic truth-teller. Simonm223 (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Please stick to the topic at hand. Taking snippets of my arguments here may misrepresent my arguments. Springee (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
This is entirely relevant to your discussion, because my concern that I'm expressing to Masem is that while I certainly recognize and respect his position, what he's recommending as a course of action has been actively blocked. By you. In the difs I presented, in which you argued against the use of any source that spoke unkindly of Ngo. Simonm223 (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
That is not the argument I made. I did not say we should not use sources that "spoke unkindly of Ngo". If you wish to debate that point, please do it at the article talk page. Springee (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
This is directly relevant to this question. Masem has proposed a solution. Before I agree to it I need some assurance that the solution is workable. And your resistance to the use of these sources is the principal impediment to implementing this solution. So please answer the question. Are you going to keep calling sources critical of Ngo tabloids? Simonm223 (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────"May misrepresent"? This is getting ridiculous. No, Simonm223 did not misrepresent your arguments at any point here, Springee. And he is especially correct that you have filibustered and blockaded against any source that says something you don't like. It's very revealing that you use phrasing like "the duplicity POV" to describe accurate coverage with WP:Reliable Sources. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

This is a rather circular argument. The other side is those who want to keep Ngo's ABOUTSELF out are those who are pushing the hardest to promote the duplicity POV. Springee (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I understand where you are coming from but I believe I'm arguing from the NPOV side here. That it, I agree with the assessment that from the view of what Ngo's trying to do with that comment from the Rogan show is clearly self-servicing and knowing his duplicity, likely unduly self-serving. But, from NPOV, we try to cover all sides of a controversy, though without creating a false balance. Moreso when a BLP is at the center of a controversy (as Ngo) is. A statement from that BLP that directly applies to the controversy that refutes or counters statements made about them is in no such way unduly in that context, from the standpoint of WP's neutrality and impartiality. To put that in a different context, lets say there is another person charged with some behavior from the past (something out of #metoo); those allegations will get wide coverage as we've seen, and nearly always either the person admits to them, or they refute them. The logic that is being used here is that a person's refuting those allegations is "unduly" self-serving because it is clearly trying to present themselves as innocent. But we would 100% include the person's statement because it is a BLP and we are expected to be neutral and impartial - in that context, the statement is not "unduly self-serving" because it is standard practice for editing Wikipedia and not something we are going out of our way to include to better serve that individual. That's the context here - it's not whether or not the statement is excessively supportive of the person, but whether it is excessive within context of its use in the WP article. That's why I've stressed we cannot be looking to Ngo's motives here to decide if the statement should be include, only the context, which in this case is in the middle of a controversy around Ngo. --Masem (t) 13:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
So then I'd ask this question of Springee: are they going to continue to resist the inclusion of sources that are critical of Ngo? Because for us to do that, we need to be able to make use of Vice, Jacobin, the Daily Dot, the Huffington Post, etc. without spending weeks on article talk discussing whether they're tabloids. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • There is a similar situation happening at Talk:Richard Stallman#Marvin Minsky and pedophilia where what someone says is Stallman's position is allowed, but Stallman himself denying it is claimed to be not allowed Quote: "Putting Stallman's defense of himself directly from his blog is, now that I've read it, a clear violation of WP:BLPSELFPUB because it is transparently self-serving." Didn't we go through this with Hillary Clinton, with some editors claiming that we can include what others say about her email server but we can't include her response to the accusations? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
That's where I think we need clarity on the word "unduly" in ABOUTSELF, and why I suggested something along the lines of that when a self-made statement is in response to something ("solicited" but maybe not the best word) that is directly about their person, that does not make their self-statement statement "unduly". We definitely do not want unwarranted promotion or the like. We also must consider how outing one's sexual preferrences or gender identity may be seen as self-serving to some, but we include those without question. There is a proper limit, but it is nuanced. --Masem (t) 15:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think there is any dispute about what Ngo's political views are, but which term is most appropriate. Sara Diamond explains that from the 1950s these views were described as extreme right or radical right, but the propents called themselves conservative. She uses the term right-wing.[141] I think first it is important that the article correctly convey to the reader what Ngo's ideology is. I believe that the term right-wing does that, since the term is normally used to describe people to the right of the mainstream Right (Bush/McCain/Romney Republicans, Cameron/May conservatives, Merkel Christian Democrats), who are more often referred to as center-right. Conservative is misleading because it is usually used as a synonym for center-right.
And no, we don't use someone's self-description, because reliable secondary sources don't. Vladimir Putin is not called a conservative, Silvio Berlusconi is not called a liberal and Tony Blair is not called a democratic socialist in their articles. And Bernie Sanders article says he "is a self-described democratic socialist," before quoting a number of unnoteworthy op-eds saying he isn't.
TFD (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Putin: Putin has promoted explicitly conservative policies in social, cultural and political matters, both at home and abroad. Putin has attacked globalism and neo-liberalism and is identified by scholars with Russian conservatism.
Berlusconi: Berlusconi defines himself as moderate,[165] liberal, and a free trader,[166] but he is often accused of being a populist and a conservative.
Blair: Blair rarely applies such labels to himself, but he promised before the 1997 election that New Labour would govern "from the radical centre", and according to one lifelong Labour Party member, has always described himself as a social democrat.[111] However, at least one left-wing commentator has said that Blair is to the right of centre.
Note that we are very clear that these are self-identified labels, not in Wikivoice. That's the correct way to do that. --Masem (t) 19:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Well said. I think the same principle is the answer on the Stallman page. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Most people are quite bad at describing their own ideologies. Its not like describing your date or birth. Even if we see Ngo as trustworthy on this topic (and that's questionable) he may not have given a whole lot of thought to his self-description in that interview. At best, it might be acceptable to say something along the lines of "person X describes themselves as BLANK", but even then, editors should be careful to avoid cherry-picking. In nearly all cases, characterizations that show up in reliable secondary sources should be given more weight, and we should avoid elaborating too much when a person's self description are potentially misleading, incoherent, or fringe-y. If a self-description is notable enough for the lead, it will probably be picked up by an RS. Nblund talk 20:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I completely agree with Masem’s take on all of this. Well argued. Blueboar (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
They are reliable for what they claim (I.E. "Bert Terrible has said he is a seven day wonder"), not for it being true. Many people are not honest about their politics.Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)