User talk:BullRangifer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

Editor banned from this talk page

Johnvr4 is banned from this talk page. The aggression and personal attacks are too much. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Convenience links:

Message for IPs

If you are an IP and need to contact me, you can leave comments on this subpage. Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

How Wikipedia is misused to censor real world information

Censorship in the real world isn't just about images or pornography, but often about suppression of political POV (think China, North Korea, USA, and Iran), and that's the type we are seeing here. It's extremely unwikipedian and undemocratic. In this instance it is an extension of the Koch brothers' well known fetish for secrecy, in which they use shadow groups and dark money to carry out their political activities. Since Fox News is on their side, mainstream coverage is limited, because they are successful at hiding and manipulating any coverage of their activities. Therefore any reliable sources from the opposing side (usually activists) are fair game (per WP:PARITY) and should be used here. (Why PARITY? Because when mainstream sources fail to deal with a subject, we must use other sources. The same thing which applies to pseudoscience applies here.) If we don't do this, their abuses extend to Wikipedia, and their real world political activities, much of which they seek to hide, are not covered at all. Arzel and others continually harp about our need to cover their charitable activities, but we already mention that and their charity balls and support of the arts. It's minimal and mostly directed at things which benefit other wealthy. Big deal. Their political activities do exist and need coverage. They learned long ago that democracy (one vote per man) does not work in their favor, so they are all about using their money to subvert it, and some editors wittingly or unwittingly aid them. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Charlotte's Web (cannabis) article created 01-01-2014

I have had this on the back burner for a while, but have decided to go public now. There are many more sources below which can be used. They all mention "Charlotte's Web". To comply with WP:MEDRS, no direct medical claims are made, only documentation that such claims are made. Although the focus is on the CW strain, Charlotte Figi, the Stanley brothers, Sanjay Gupta, and CNN, are directly incidental to the story and must be mentioned. Other subjects that are relevant are how CW has spurred marijuana exiles. Other children than Charlotte Figi are potential subjects. I'm sure there are many other possibilities for article development.

Basic Citation template: {{Citation |last= |first= |year= |title= |publisher= |publication-place= |page= |url= |accessdate= }}

I welcome further development of the article by other editors. Don't hesitate to nominate this article for WP:DYK wink. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

More links about CW

  • This research is mentioned here:
Some other links

The cannabis vs. marijuana discussion

Talk:Cannabis (drug)#Requested move to "Marijuana"

You've presented helpful arguments on both sides of the issue. On the whole, your remarks seem to indicate you favor the move but you haven't actually weighed in officially with a !vote. Are you still trying to consider the evidence and come to a decision? Don't mean to pry. Just curious. Fwiw, I thought a lot of your remarks were very good. Regards, Msnicki (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm still weighing the evidence. I think you make a good case. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Student editing / Charlotte's Web (cannabis)

I saved a copy (read it and weep-- this is the quality we get from the education program, that Colin wrote about): [2] Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow! Weeping big time. That's one big mass of unsourced OR, and many violations of MEDRS and NPOV. The focus of that is totally different from the focus at Charlotte's Web (cannabis) (CW). I'm not even sure there is any of that which I could use. (Keep it anyway.) It would become a huge coatrack for cannabidiol, and that is not my intention. My content comes only from sources which mention Charlotte's Web, and where their other comments are made in the context of CW. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Yep, that article is gone (I save a copy in my userspace as an example of why the education program is a problem :) The prob is, Bull, you're really talking about one show, but readers will see advocacy for cannabidiol treatment of epilepsy. There's a problem, still. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Let's discuss that at the article's talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

BR, I'm not ignoring your article talk posts-- got halfway through my morning work and realized I had forgotten an appointment, so dashed out, researched from my phone while in waiting room, came back to update article to newer sources, and will respond to your posts after evening activities. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

No problemo. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Controversy at Chiropractic again

Hey BR, you were previously involved with helping to achieve consensus at chiropractic, with regard to the use of the term 'profession' in the lede Recent_controversial_edits_-_profession_vs._approach. Editors are trying to remove this verified fact again; care to give your 2 cents? The new discussion is here. Thanks Puhlaa (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll take a look. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest BR! Also, I mentioned you at the edit-warring noticeboard - called you a "critic of chiropractic" - please feel free to correct me if I am mistaken there.Puhlaa (talk) 03:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
You are more correct than you may have realized. You are correct in restoring the consensus version. Just be careful about getting close to 4rr. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback BR; I definitely need to pay better attention to # of reverts in future. Best regards, Puhlaa (talk) 04:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I have already been put in a negative spotlight at 3RR and have agreed to cease with reverts until discussion is complete at the talk page. As such, I don't know how to deal with QG and his/her decision to disregard everything that has been said at the talk page and still remove the "profession" from the lede at chiropractic with this edit. Subsequent edits have now hidden QGs edit, but I noticed that while Bobraynor has reverted a pro-chiropractic edit, he did not bother to also revert QG for their anti-chiropractic edit. Any advice on how to effectively battle with behaviour like this? I clearly cannot revert QG; there is no pattern of edit-warring from QG yet for this specific issue that I can use to report him/her at ANI; there is a growing # of these editors that are clearly displaying a POV that they want expressed in the lede; and many rational/reasonable/helpful editors avoid such a controversial article. Advice is welcome! Puhlaa (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


Context: This is about Talk:Chemtrail conspiracy theory. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Please, really this is not appreciated or productive. It is becoming a distraction and a disruption. I'd like an apology and public retraction and a truce. This is becoming an argument that is not good for the community. I'm not especially good with intricate guidelines, policies, and nuances of administrative or bureaucratic process editing. I am good with facts and details. What exactly is your concern with my sourcing? I don't not care to edit about the stupid beliefs. I do wish to edit about how the topic is defined. Public psyche etc. kernel of truth. nothing more. There has to be some common consensus here between skeptics. I see we do have some common interests. ThanksJohnvr4 (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I can tell that you are obviously upset, but your language is too convoluted and filled with spelling and grammatical errors (especially at the article's talk page) for me to understand all of it. What is your mother tongue? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
English, but I can barely type. Dude, I asked for a truce but the responses you've provided have not really calmed me much. Your questions indicate you couldn't ID a reliable source if it was handed right too you (it was). You had a chance to respond and back up your offensive and unfounded comment about me with even one specific example or back down. Instead you pressed on, and I have to call you out.Johnvr4 (talk) 13:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I've publicly responded to your comment and have called you a liar, you left me little choice.Johnvr4 (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
That was a really bad idea. I suggest that you apologize immediately, and review WP:NPA. Regardless of what you think of another editor's edits, name-calling (a personal attack) won't go well. -- Scray (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. Johnvr4, a difference of opinion is a totally different matter than a lie. Even an untruth is not the same as a lie. It's a matter of motive. For you to violate NPA to such a degree doesn't help your case at all. I have lots of things on my plate in real life, so don't interpret a lack of response in ANY manner at all. Sometimes, when editors get as unreasonable as you are, I just walk away. It's not worth it.
I rarely ban anyone from my talk page, but I'm going to do that to you. Don't post here again. People who are as aggressive and unreasonable as you are not welcome here. Use the article's talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

AM and Obamacare

From UK, I would like to know whether or not Obamacare covers anything which is within the term Alternative medicine as used in that article, and my first point of reference would be Wikipedia, but I have seen nothing there. A websearch has not been helpful. May be I have missed something. Is there any citable source you know of? Qexigator (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I haven't really thought about it, but chiropractic comes to mind. I suspect it would be covered, since, IIRC, it's already covered under Medicare laws. Try these searches for chiropractic "Affordable Care Act" and chiropractic Obamacare. You can try similar searches. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks- it seems that particular groups such as chiropractors are informing themselves and others about their position. If US editors are not wishing to add something in the articles, others had best leave it alone, without comment. It occurred to me that it could have a bearing on the persistence of the "definition" question (Reddit etc), which continues to lack useful input when invited. Qexigator (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

why won't you let anything positive be said in the Jenny McCarthy article?

When a journalist as eminent as Barbara Walters showers Jenny McCarthy with praise, that's note worthy yet it seems the pro-vaccine advocacy groups are monitoring this article, making sure nothing positive gets reported because they want her to be a pariah. I'm as pro-vaccine as anyone, but I don't like wikipedia being used for smear campaigns and this kind of POV pushing and bullying. Wikipedia must meet the highest standards of journalistic integrity and that means giving equal weight to all notable content, not cherry picking to push an agenda. Historyhorror (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

(1) AGF; (2) There are other reasons for why that content has been rejected in its current format. I have my reasons, but I don't know the reasons of the others who have reverted this. Please take this to the article's talk page and discuss it there. I would advise that you not start with an accusatory tone which violates the AGF and NPA policies. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I apologize for sounding accusatory, I just assumed from your long edit history as an opponent of alternative medicine, you were some kind of advocacy type. But since you're actually an objective editor who is interested in building consensus, rather than just reverting the edit, can you please go back and improve the edit. Than you so much for your help and good faith Historyhorror (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Apology accepted. My basic reason for reverting is that it doesn't belong in the lead. Our rules for article format dictate that the lead mentions nothing which is not already in the body of the article. If that content has a logical place in the body, that might be okay, but it still wouldn't deserve mention in the lead. It's far too promotional, and the context makes it even less usable. Because of the instant controversy created by McCarthy's appointment to the position, Walters was in a defensive position, so hyperbole and praise were the order of the day. A laudatory statement about McCarthy's outstanding performance as a Playboy model would likewise be ignored, even though she was indeed one of the greatest! She's still a very beautiful and vivacious woman. Basically we're rather cautious about including too much praise of anyone. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Cannabis (drug)

I have replied to your questions here with sources. If you would like more sources please just let me know because getting it right is why we are here All the best -- Moxy (talk) 03:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll check it out. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


Hi, Brangifer. The reason I didn't revert Jenny McCarthy was that I wanted to take an adminning, not an editing, role at the article. Adminning — issuing warnings, perhaps in the future blocks, or protecting — seemed more urgently needed, and it's not supposed to be mixed with editing. This is the principle of WP:INVOLVED. I was rather hoping somebody else would revert. I quite understand that you didn't want to, but there are always other people. At least the Wikipedia principle assumes that there are... though it's only really true for high-profile articles with many eyes on them. Thanks for trying to keep the article NPOV. Bishonen | talk 13:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC).

That makes perfect sense. It appears that a push is on to whitewash the article of criticism, even removing properly sourced content en masse. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
For doing good work in difficult areas! Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 11:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Chiropractic treatment techniques for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chiropractic treatment techniques is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiropractic treatment techniques until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arzel closure

According to RFC/U closing instructions, the most uncontroversial way to close an RFC/U is by agreement of the certifiers and the subject. "WP:RfC/Us which are closed by agreement require a motion to close; this motion should be visible on the talk page of the RfC/U. Here, other participants can either express their support or opposition to closing at this time. Closure by agreement may or may not include a summary of the dispute or agreement." I have set up a space for you three to discuss the summary and closure of this RFC/U. Please see here. Thanks.--v/r - TP 00:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

TP, I have made a statement, but Arzel's response reveals a total lack of understanding of the problem, hence I'm calling for a topic ban. Editors are allowed to be imperfect and make mistakes, but a negative learning curve is an incurable problem, so such editors need to be curtailed to ensure the safety of this project. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Alright, but be aware that RFC/U's cannot "Impose/enforce involuntary sanctions, blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures;" You'll have to get Arzel to agree to it or move on to AN.--v/r - TP 18:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I'll let the one who started the RfC or someone else do that. If others don't see a problem, then there isn't much hope for protecting the project. The damage being done by someone whose main activity is deletion of properly sourced content is problematic. If sysops can't deal with that, there isn't much hope that I can. I do have a life outside Wikipedia. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Sysops can't settle content disputes and neither can Arbcom. Your only options are to gain a consensus at AN or seek MedCab help. Unless you can gain a agreement of behavioral problems at the RFC/U and then Arbcom can handle that.--v/r - TP 18:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I understand, but that is far too complicated. I just don't have the energy or time to pursue this. Let the raging bull keep plowing through articles and deleting properly sourced content. Maybe if they irritate enough other people something will happen. This is the type of time sink which makes Wikipedia less enjoyable to edit. I thought there were available sanctions in this topic area allowing any sysop to singlehandedly stop Arzel, but I guess that's not going to happen. I know that editors like Arthur Rubin (a sysop) have been topic banned for less egregious behavior in this topic area, but Arzel is allowed free reign. Keep in mind that I don't normally edit these articles much at all. I just noticed that very blatant removal of all properly sourced critical content was occurring at a very rapid rate, with that being Arzel's sole activity. That's not good behavior, and it's not backed by policy. Arzel still refuses to accept that we use biased sources here. If we don't, NPOV cannot exist. Opposing POV are needed to provide that balance, and Arzel deletes them. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, I mean, you say that this is a time sink and makes Wikipedia less enjoyable, but there are other areas of Wikipedia. I'm working on the Admiral Clarey Bridge. Have you considered finding something other than politics to edit? You might find it more enjoyable.--v/r - TP 19:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
You may have missed it, but I just indicated that I don't normally edit political topics. It's very occasional. My watchlist currently states: "You have 9,114 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)." That means that all kinds of subjects and editors pop up on my radar, and I noticed that Arzel's pattern was very disturbing, akin to a hit and run vandalism account, but this was a constant and consistent pattern. That's why I finally made any comments and endorsed the RfC. I'll support the efforts of good faith editors to stop this type of activity. It's totally inappropriate.
Normally such actions are reverted on sight as clear and blatant POV vandalism, and not even treated as a content dispute. I haven't followed Arzel's activities since I endorsed the RfC, but before that it was a constant, single minded, activity. It was Arzel's only activity, with few exceptions.
Arzel's activities reminded me of the paid whitewashing done by the PR firm hired by the Koch brothers which was exposed in the media and then an SPI dealt with them here. The sock farm was very large, and Arzel's activities fit that pattern. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment on lyme controversy talk page

I put comments on the talk page, and I believe you are an excellent editor. So I would appreciate your guidance. I feel bitten again. There was a consensus discussion. I was given a fair opportunity to raise legitimate issues. I conceded the point. Then something happened that had nothing to do with the consensus. Perhaps this was a mistake. Perhaps the outcome was something I should have predicted. But I believe the issues I raised turned out to be true, that the intent of the consensus was different than the question. I believed you when you told me not to worry, and then I was surprised to discover that the intent was to start over with the article. I intend to be a good editor, and I took the consensus process as a legitimate way to take days or weeks to bring RS facts to help editors make good decisions. I am left to feel that the process is more aggressive than objective. Thanks for your insights and help.Bob the goodwin (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I have replied at the talk page. Part of what went wrong here is that the Lyme "wars" article was created in the first place. That should not have happened. It would never have survived an WP:AFD. Since it did contain some stuff that might be worth saving, I figured it was time to create that fork article, and then work on merging that content into it. We start with the existing content from the section in the main article, and then merge the newer content into that. That's still the idea, so start working on that. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I did not understand the canvassing rules. I don't seem to understand the culture. Please keep advising me. I am trying super hard to learn, and keep getting surprised. I still do not think you did what we agreed to, but apparently there is a culture which has different rules than are explicit. Bob the goodwin (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. There are indeed many written and unwritten rules and customs here, and it's very confusing to newbies. I suggest that you concentrate on proposing a few sentences or a paragraph (to begin with), including sourcing, which might be added to the article. Also suggest where it should belong. Then we can work on it and see if it's good. If so, then you can add it and we'll all defend it against attempts to delete it. Do this in a separate thread on the talk page just for that purpose. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


To avoid any edit conflicts, we should discuss any disagreements here. :) I apologize if you think I'm going at you in any negative way whatsoever. FaceOffTournament (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Since your insistence caused me to doubt, I accepted your revision (but corrected a stray quote mark you left), but you didn't notice that. Read the edit summary. I have since fixed it (again). I'm American, and have lived in Europe for many years, so I admit I do get confused and caught between British and American rules. After investigating Wikipedia's stance on this particular matter, I see that it settles on a compromise which is not the American rule. I have started a thread seeking others' opinions. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Surrender, not resistance

This reflects very poorly on you. "admit you don't have a clue about how Wikipedia works", " I haven't seen an iota of indication that you're willing to learn", "reaction to the topic ban has been very counterproductive", "We need to see surrender, not resistance"....

Maybe I just have more experience at WP:FTN than you do, but what I'm seeing is an editor who was responsive to discussing the merits of his edits and the sources he was using, and who really held up quite well under a barrage of people who were reminding him he was a moron. He was too smart to continue edit-warring, persistent enough to not leave, and in the absence of any mentoring the topic ban was going to be pretty much inevitable. When it happened, he agreed to a two-week editing break and mentoring, which is just about the most productive response that I've seen come out of a topic ban.

Your response has been much less productive. We don't demand that newbies admit they don't have a clue. We don't ask for surrender, just cessation of disruption.

I expect he really got on your nerves at homeopathy. That happens; I get it. I also expect that you're a good enough editor that a simple request to put down the stick will be sufficient.

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm irritated at him and said it like it is. What I wrote is accurate. It's frustrating to see that after all that's happened, he still doesn't get it and still thinks everyone else is wrong. That's unfortunate. It's also frustrating to see some other editors supporting him and enabling him in such delusional thinking. He doesn't need any sympathy from anyone. Such enabling doesn't help. Otherwise you do have a point. I'll back off and see where this goes. I'm hoping for the best. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2014

Please comment on Talk:Water fluoridation controversy

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Water fluoridation controversy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Response at MarydaleEd's talk page

Just in case MarydaleEd (talk · contribs)'s talk page is not on your WP:Watchlist, and you want to respond, I'm letting you know MarydaleEd has recently replied. I'm not responding there again on the matter, considering that I don't have to validate myself to anyone at this site, and certainly not my knowledge of anatomical and sexual topics (many at this site already know that I am well educated in those fields anyway). Similar to what you stated at MarydaleEd's talk page, I don't need the grief from editors who carry themselves the way that MarydaleEd does. In that latest reply, you will see that MarydaleEd has again claimed that I was wrong about assuming what article was being alluded to with regard to my "stated plans," despite the fact that, like I stated before, "we were discussing the Virginia E. Johnson article" and MarydaleEd even stated "earlier this month in the history of that article." MarydaleEd has once again referred to me as a teenager, and has stated that "[f]urther research of this editor revealed she'd had several problems with other editors resulting in warnings, which served only to further justify my assessment of her and the situation." Sigh. What warnings are those? As you know, just about every regular Wikipedian has warned another Wikipedian at one point or another, and warnings issued to me usually are not justified. Nor is it usually considered acceptable to template an experienced Wikipedian, which is why the WP:Don't template the regulars essay exists, is widely practiced and cited on Wikipedia. Do I warn a lot of editors? Yes, I do, usually WP:Newbies while using WP:Huggle or WP:STiki.

Anyway... MarydaleEd, if you are reading this, and you don't want to interact with me, then I suggest you don't edit in the fields that I edit in (anatomy, sexology, psychology, and other scientific fields). Otherwise... Flyer22 (talk) 02:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I think I'll just leave this alone and let it just die out. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Smart. I have a feeling that MarydaleEd would have bitched you out as well. And teenager? While I certainly look young, there is nothing teenage or otherwise childish about my age or knowledge. But, yes, this is another one of those times where the person making the wrong claims gets the last word on their talk page. As we both know, WP:Drop the stick has advice on that. So does WP:The Last Word. Flyer22 (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2014


Have you noticed that Thargar is going through articles removing this as a source? Dougweller (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I often go through and fix bad sources. MMfA is no different. Could have approached me about it if there was an issue, Doug. Thargor Orlando (talk)
No, I hadn't noticed. Is this an Arzel type of situation? Do we need to take this to Arbitration and seek a topic ban or total ban yet? It's unfortunate when such sources are deleted. I guess removal of Fox News as a source would be the equivalent, since they are an extension of the GOP. We certainly wouldn't want any sources documenting a POV at Wikipedia! By all means, hide any controversy and only present one side. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
The opposite of MMfA is Newsbusters, but at least you acknowledge that MMfA is simply the propoganda arm of the DNC. Arzel (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) In general, if we find that a source poses particularly serious problems, to the extent that we should not trust it by default, then it's quite reasonable to search for that source and remove content which depends on it. I've certainly done this before with Global Research, and a couple of publishing houses which systematically published copyvio, and with particularly fringey alt-med sites, and so on. Some sources are pretty much a red flag for neutrality problems. However, I don't hold any opinion on whether MediaMatters is that bad - that's for you guys to argue over. :-) bobrayner (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Without looking through any diffs, and just remembering the history of such deletion attempts, I suspect that these sources are being deleted because they are not neutral. Is that correct? -- Brangifer (talk) 02:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
In this case, yes. If a source strongly pushes a certain perspective which disagrees with the mainstream, then problematic editors who want to push that perspective will tend to cite that source because they can't find mainstream sources which support the content that they add, so citations of that source become a warning sign for problematic content. We can all agree that there's a line beyond which content is not neutral, but we can't always agree on where that line is - that's our bigger problem! bobrayner (talk) 03:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand you completely, but sources don't have to be neutral, and they are allowed to push a POV that is not the mainstream POV. Such sources are essential to fulfilling our NPOV duty to cover significant sides of a controversy, controversial POV, etc.. Mainstream sources often shy away from taking sides, so they are often useless for documenting the sides, and it's our job to find the sources which express those sides. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
It's also about their basic reliability as a source, though, as they're not terribly accurate when it comes to their criticisms (a common issue when it comes to these highly partisan sources). When it comes to criticisms, too often it's just the equivalent of linking to an attack site from a criticism that isn't noted, leading itself to a lot of dumb coatracking. Neutrality is only one part of it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
That cuts both ways, as opinions are not the same as facts, and we document opinions. When in doubt, we attribute them. If something is undoubtedly, factually, incorrect, then that's another matter, but the source itself isn't the issue then. We don't delete all uses of the source because they made a mistake. We sometimes don't even use sources like the New York Times or Time magazine because they literally "got it wrong". Those situations aren't matters of opinion, and we are then allowed to use editorial judgment to simply use other sources or not touch the issue at all. We don't leave them out because we disagree with their opinion, or because their opinion isn't mainstream or is controversial. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
We document some opinions, yes. Not every one. Some discretion makes sense, and using sites like MMfA and Newsbusters when the opinions exist solely within their universe and nowhere else isn't sensible or logical, and using opinion sites to document facts should be a significant no-no. "When in doubt, leave it out" seems a lot more sensible when you're building an encyclopedia. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
We'll just have to agree to disagree, since I think your characterization of MMfA is wrong on both counts. Their opinions are supported widely, and they are usually factual. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
We can "agree to disagree," but the evidence isn't really on your side on it. After all, we could say the same about Rush Limbaugh, as an extreme example, and we're not going to put every one of his opinions in each article, right? It's really a common sense question. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
It's a matter of doing this on a case-by-case basis, not a sitewide ban on using the source. If it's factually wrong, then of course we wouldn't use it. If it's an opinion you don't like, well, that's not a policy-based reason for not using it. I subscribe to it and don't recall anything factually incorrect at the moment. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)