Talk:Cenk Uygur

Template:Vital article Template:BLP noticeboard

Cenk currently has 8 titles

Folks, Mr. Uygur is starting to have more titles than English Royalty. broadcaster, lawyer, businessman, columnist, journalist, activist, political commentator and politician For reference, virtually all articles involving top tier individuals, restricts it to 2-4 titles. 2601:982:4200:8C80:D75:2363:51E0:B32C (talk) 01:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Sanders retracts support.

I'm not certain about it. But, I believe Sanders has retracted his support of Uygur, today. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Info about earlier conservative views

There are a few paragraphs about this in the article but their location seems confusing within the larger article. In most entries, a chronology is followed - the info about the earlier stances/views/papers seems like it should come first, before the deep dive into his current views, etc. 2601:282:1300:296:6C24:312E:38A0:57E1 (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2019

At the end of the page, Bernie Sanders rescinded his endorsement because Uygur did not accept any endorsements, not because of the old blog posts. KRed221 (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 16:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2019

Congressional candidacy Main article: 2020 California's 25th congressional district special election In mid-November 2019, Uygur filed to run for Congress in California's 25th district, a seat recently vacated by the resignation of Katie Hill, an office also being pursued by Democratic Assemblywoman Christy Smith and former Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos.[90][91][92] Uygur is running in two primary elections on March 3: the special election primary to fill the vacant seat through January 2021 and the Democratic primary for the next full term (decided in the 2020 November election). Bernie Sanders initially endorsed Uygur but then retracted at the request of Uygur after reports came out that showed Uygur criticizing religion and protesting disciplinary action against students who made sexist comments.[93] Δημοκρατία (talk) 02:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2019

Under:

== Congressional candidacy ==

Bernie Sanders initially endorsed Uygur but then retracted at the request of Uygur FULL STOP, The rest of this sentence has no bearing on the first part of the sentence, it should be deleted. after reports came out that showed Uygur criticizing religion and protesting disciplinary action against students who made sexist comments. Δημοκρατία (talk) 02:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It appears to be supported by the source and gives somewhat of an explanation. Please demonstrate a consensus for this change before requesting it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

References

LA Times, biased against progressives.

The LA Times source concerning Sanders endorsement retraction is unreliable, per it's being corporate-bias. Uygur has renounced his views on the topic of sex, years ago. GoodDay (talk) 03:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Nothing is wrong with using critical sources, and the Los Angeles Times is at least not bigot.
Actually I think that using Jezebel in #Congressional candidacy would help: Ignoring their clickbait title the article offers a good summary of the withdrawn Bernie Sanders endorsement.^[1] Caveat, to overrule WP:RS/P that requires attribution and a rough consensus here. Not mentioning this incident at all is dangerously near to WP:UNDUE. –84.46.52.173 (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: In an edit summary you asked what do secondary sources say about his campaign? That's why I consider Jezebel quoting the LA Times (or directly LA Times, not checked) as interesting, they are clearly critical, i.e., help to avoid that this BLP degenerates into a fanzine, and offer a "correct" (= I see no lie) summary of the Sanders endorsement incident currently not covered in #Congressional candidacy, annoying "some supporters" (not weasels) of Sanders in Rising-YouTube comments. If folks agree that not mentioning this is UNDUE, but dare not overrule RS/P for Jezebel, they could find a video on this channel for a friendly (instead of critical) reference. –84.46.53.116 (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Last name/ethnic origin?

Is he, as his name suggests, actually descended from ethnic Uyghurs? (Majority Muslim group from Central Asia/Western China, with a substantial diaspora in modern Turkey.) —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 21:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Cenk has said on the show that his father’s side chose the name Uygur in honour of the cultural and political achievements of the Uyghurs of late antiquity (see:Uyghur Khaganate). This happened in 1934 when the state made Turkish citizens have surnames (see: Surname Law (Turkey)). Cenk also said some time back that he has some distant Kurdish origins from his mother's side. Both of his parents are natives of Kilis, a town with a mainly ethnic Turkish population that is close to areas compactly populated by Arabs (to its south) and Kurds (to its east).Resnjari (talk) 06:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

"progressive"??

Is that a code word for a far-left, anti-american, self hating snow flake??

Please stop using such biased terms to describe people. You are either a conservative, liberal or socialist.

62.226.64.171 (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Political Views edit

Regarding sourcing in the political views section, Wikipedia's guidelines on biographies of a living person state to "[n]ever use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. Refer to WP:BLPSPS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cacash refund (talk • contribs) 01:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

This reply is partly based on what you said at BLPN as well [2]. While I agree with you that someone's self-published material can be used as sources for their views, we have to be careful with such material since they are effectively WP:primary sources, it's easy wander into interpretation or misuse territory.

More importantly, if we are using self published sources to establish someone's views, the question of 'why?' generally arises. If the person's views on the matter are a significant part of their life story, it seems likely they will be covered in reliable secondary sources. We can use perhaps use self published sources to help flesh out details covered in secondary sources to a limited extent. But it's very difficult to make editorial judgments about what to cover if we have no secondary sources helping us establish which of their views are significant, especially for someone who operates in the opinion-journalism sphere and therefore has published a lot which will cover their views.

It's IMO incredibly easy for editor bias to come into play in the selection of what views to publish with no such guidance. How do we know Cenk Uygur's views on say "net neutrality" are more important than his views on whether cats are better than dogs? Or being less facetious, what to do about the dominance of big tech companies, the problems with modern media funding and the money made from big tech companies especially Google coming in part from the work of the media? (For the record, I have no idea if he has published anything on his views on cats and dogs, or the other stuff.)

So if a substantial part of someone's views only comes from self published sources [3], it seems quite likely we are publishing stuff which is an insignificant part of their life story and therefore is WP:UNDUE. Ultimately if no one else thought it matters, we shouldn't either.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

For starters I suggest to add a {{primary|section}} to the #Political views, his vies are widely discussed by RS, let them decide what is or isn't interesting. Personal picks by Cacash refund or others are fine, primary sources are fine, but each item has to be based on independent sources. Background, I'm interested in the other article in Category:Air America people. –84.46.52.173 (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Valid points made. I've done some digging and figure I can cite each political view with a secondary source, mostly television and various videos of public appearances. Then the self-published sources can stand as further evidence that he actually holds these views. I'll start working on it soon. Cacash refund (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. My major concern is that the self sourced list of views reads as a campaign page. But if others are covering his views than relevance and undue become less of an issue. Slywriter (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Though I am not sure whether the citations added by a second user are sufficient. They appear to all be sourcing through the Young Turks network of sites/shows/channels. Slywriter (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the cites are inappropriate uses of primary sources, the content should be removed. The political views section seems like a political campaign list rather than an encyclopedia article. As stated by others, if they were important enough to be included, then they should be covered by independent reliable sources per WP:DUE. Right now, the page seems more like promotion of the subject's views. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The guy has been spouting his political views on line, virtually daily since 2002. If anybody has their political views well documented, its him. Yes, they are sourced to him and the "network" he owns, but we are talking about his political positions. Where can they be sourced other than originating from his own mouth? Trackinfo (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

As with almost all information on Wikipedia, it should be sourced to independent reliable sources. As you said, he has many views he has expressed in his shows, and we as editors should be guided by reliable sources to determine which are significant enough to include in a biographical article on him. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

In this particular case we are talking about Cenk Uygur's political views. Where else will you hear them than out of his own mouth? He says them on TYT, a "network" he owns. They are self sourced. If he said them to a newspaper, it still came out of his mouth and the newspaper is only being a stenographer. No difference. Any further interpretation of what he said is someone else's opinion, in communication terms that is a distortion of what his views are. He said it. Him saying it is available to be seen on on TYT for hours on end. There is little need for clarification or interpretation. Trackinfo (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

You can review the prior comments here for why that's not how it works, and see WP:PSTS and WP:SPS for additional information. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I adjusted the citations to almost completely remove TYT videos and now reference things such as C-Span, Politicon, Real Clear Politics and Oxford Union, and removed the bullet points that I only had TYT videos citing. Is this not enough to remove the primary sources tag? Cacash refund (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the "political views" section, almost half of the citations are still to Uygur's videos/website, and the vast majority of the rest are interviews or videos of Uygur speaking. Those are still all primary sources, which is why I restoring the section tag. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think I'm understanding this. So what we're saying here is that for a section on the opinions of a living person, we are treating that person's own words as less reliable than a second party's interpretation of his words? These videos are published by secondary sources, even if they are of him speaking. What about a newspaper article or profile in a magazine: would they need to have no quotes from Uygur himself to be considered reliable? And if so, why would that make them more reliable? The only way the references could be further removed from Uygur is if they didn't have his words in them at all, meaning it would truly be a section about other people's interpretation of his political views and thus the section would be improperly named.

Have a look at Rush Limbaugh's Views section on his page, where a great many references are to his personal website. Should there be a tag on that section as well? I'm not trying to be confrontational, I just want to make sure the tag is being properly applied. Cacash refund (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The original research policy and its subsection WP:PSTS probably give a better explanation than I could. An important reason stated in the conversation above is also that secondary source reporting is important to show that the information is significant enough to include per WP:DUE. A reliable secondary source that includes quotes from Uygur means that an author has selected which quotes and views by Uygur are important and has been allowed to publish them by their publication's editors. Those are vitally important aspects of Wikipedia's content policies for reliable information. Many biographies for politicians and others involved in politics are poorly written with an inappropriate reliance on primary sources, but that is not a good reason to expand the errors to more pages. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to add a couple more thoughts to the discussion. WP:OR states: The phrase 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. I don't think WP:OR applies to this discussion because every source used is a published source and is reliable with respect to the topic (Uygur's political views), even if they are primary sources. WP:OR is intended to prevent unverifiable material from being added to Wikipedia. This material is verifiable, the videos show Cenk Uygur's words coming out of his own mouth. Therefore WP:OR is not applicable.

I also want to post a quote from WP:PSTS: Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages. I think the part about judgment and common sense is being lost in this discussion. Ultimately we are talking about whether anything is unverifiable or undue in the Cenk Uygur Political Views section. Common sense tells me primary sources are appropriate here, because all we are trying to do is prove he actually holds the views we say he holds. Cacash refund (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

You continue to ignore the fact that your interpretation of policy would allow anything and everything a person has said to be included on Wikipedia. Reliable sources determine what is appropriate to include, not your personal preferences. You also need to read those whole policies, and not pick and choose which lines suit you while ignoring the rest. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with Wallyfromdilbert here. If a political reporter from a reliable publication not affiliated with Uygur and his groups summarizes his political views, then that is an acceptable for use as a reference. But is a Wikipedia editor rummages through his various policy statements, picking and choosing which of his opinions are "relevant" or "important" to include, then that selection process is a form of original research, and violates WP:DUE. Reliable, secondary sources get to make those choices, not Wikipedia editors. Common sense is not the determining factor. Following Wikipedia policies and guidelines is essential, especially with biographies of political candidates, which must be neutral and policy compliant. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Cacash refund:

I understand that his views are well documented but the fact that someone has views isn't necessarily encyclopedic. More importantly, if no one else is writing an article or book about them, then we are lacking secondary sources to attribute them to. This may seem unreasonable to you but what makes someone noteworthy is others talking about them, not them talking about themselves.

I removed a good chunk of the material originally because it lacked any relevance to someone reading about him. It was an out of context list of positions that were more appropriate for a campaign page.

You may also want to review WP: Advocacy , WP:COI , and WP:SPA to see if any of those policies apply.

Slywriter (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

So the Real Clear Politics piece, the Oxford Union debate, the Politicon 2017 debate, and the C-Span interviews don't count for anything? They don't give any weight to the encyclopedic relevance of his views? Suppose every TYT citation was taken out, would the section be clean then? Or does it have to be a newspaper quoting Uygur for it to be clean? Cacash refund (talk) 08:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

The Real Clear Politics pieces may be relevant because it shows at least some editorial discretion, but it is pretty much a primary source just like the other sources you reference, which are simply interviews or speeches. None of these are significantly different than the sources published by Uygur, which are both primary sources and self-published. Independent reliable sources that analyze and discuss his views are the most appropriate, although books and journal articles are preferable to newspapers. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I reverted the complete removal of this section by Cacash refund. Then I tried to solve his problem by adding multiple edits using reliable sources to establish Uygur's political positions. I included a sourced quote from the Antelope Valley Press, a newspaper from the 25th district and a Bernie Sanders quote from Fox News. Yes I do not normally regard Fox as reliable, but because of hacks voting at the reliable sources noticeboard, they are considered reliable. I had also added content sourced to the Hollywood Reporter-I may have updated that out but the HR article provides additional reliable sourcing for the same stuff that comes out of Uygur's mouth regarding his positions, which seems to be an illogical requirement as I expressed above. Within minutes Wallyfromdilbert removed the sourced content I added, along with the sources. I also added content from the Simi Valley Acorn another local paper and Mediaite that was left in. I add sources that are not primary and they get deleted along with their content. Aquillion then added the primary source tag. Is this fixed or what? Trackinfo (talk) 04:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I removed two quotes that had no encyclopedic value, and reordered the section to chronological order [4]. Check your facts, and realize that this is not a campaign page for the political candidate you like. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

That is your opinion to achieve the aforementioned predetermined result. The Sanders quote, sourced to Fox News exactly explains Uygur's key political positions as seen by his faction's leading figure and presidential candidate. What better source to enumerate those political positions? That is what we are talking about here and you keep dismissing. The AV Press, a reliable source, quotes Uygur directly about what he considers his key issue. Again, a reliable source putting all the above controversy into words. Not only did you make the quotes disappear, you also disappeared the sources. Trackinfo (talk) 06:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Independent reliable sources that analyze and discuss his views are the most appropriate, not editors picking and choosing promotional quotes from political figures and the article subject. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 07:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

wallyfromdilbert, I find it interesting that although the material I just removed was completely sourced from op-eds written by Uygur with no independent reliable sources whatsoever, you didn’t find it inappropriate enough to remove and instead chose to leave it in during your reordering of the section. I removed it because according to your interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines its sources are entirely insufficient and therefore it has no encyclopedic value.

I agree with the criticisms Slywriter puts forth and am trying my best to comply with the guidelines, but you appear to have a double standard in your editing. Cacash refund (talk) 11:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I removed promotional quotes. I did not remove any views for being sourced to primary sources. However, you have now removed only the material about his previous conservative views. That is clearly biased, and I have restored that material. You cannot only remove his conservative views. The other alternative is to remove all the material about his political views that are sourced to primary sources. I support that alternative, but I was trying to avoid simply removing all the material you put in about his liberal views. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Primary

Timeout, TYT as "independent" on this BLP makes no sense for me, please add {{primary|section}} at the top of #Political views while folks figure out which of these perfectly ordinary progressive views have to be enumerated on this BLP. –84.46.52.210 (talk) 07:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

thanks, missing {{BLP noticeboard}} added here, because a 2nd editor answered there. –84.46.52.190 (talk) 07:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Trackinfo: You and others here addressed the issue—the section is obviously much better than it was four days ago—please just remove the "primary" tag, it did its job and can go. Likewise please remove the BLP/N info tag from this talk page when the BLP/N section will be archived in a few days, I'll probably forget to fix that, because it wasn't "my" BLP/N entry.(unlike an almost identical case discussed in Talk:Kim Iversen#Political views, meanwhile also resolved.) –84.46.53.221 (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

 – by Trackinfo et al., thanks. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I reverted the wholesale deletion of the Political section. Please delete sections & sources that violate policies with some discretion. Do not delete entire sections with the promise of replacing it with better content unless there are BLP or copyright violations. Sound good? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure, Cacash refund has now explored various radical solutions, further experiments will be progressive. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 08:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Liz, why? If wallyfromdilbert is correct, there are only primary sources in the section which means the whole section violates WP:DUE. Why is it preferable to keep poorly sourced material that violates the guidelines? Cacash refund (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Pings + mentions require a fresh signature, recently learned + done here: 84.46.53.221 (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Cacash refund, I have never said the section had only primary sources, and you apparently did not look into them individually when wholesale blanking the section. Please avoid making statements about me that are incorrect. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@wallyfromdilbert Which references are to secondary sources then? You tell me, because every time I think I have it right there's another comment telling me I don't. Looking at the "political views" section, almost half of the citations are still to Uygur's videos/website, and the vast majority of the rest are interviews or videos of Uygur speaking. Those are still all primary sources, which is why I restoring the section tag. That was your quote from 9 January. My mistake, it's true you didn't say "only" so I apologize for misrepresenting what you said. What I meant to say is, according to you, the section is almost completely sourced from primary sources. The only thing that's changed since then is the last paragraph that Trackinfo added.

If most of the sources are still primary, why have we decided to both refrain from removing the section and proceed with removing the primary tag? This doesn't seem like the right decision. Cacash refund (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I posted an independent reliable source supporting every point of his political positions. Several of those sources were removed from the article along with supporting direct quotes. Before any of you go removing sections or even make claims that these are not referenced by reliable sources, go back and pull from the sources I already posted. Trackinfo (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Cacash refund: The secondary sources that I see in that section are: [5] [6] [7]. I think [8] also has its lead paragraphs count as a secondary source (before the interview starts), and similarly with [9]. Please note that I have not looked at those sources carefully regarding reliability or bias. Also, primary sources are not entirely bad. They can be used for supplementing other sources and some of them, such as some interviews, show enough editorial discretion by the publisher to be useful. I would support removing the entire "political views" section if some of the more relevant and well-sourced information was pulled out and put into other sections. I would also support keeping the information with the "primary sources" tag until it can be more properly sourced, especially since the section is no longer overtly promotional. While I favor the former more, I would imagine that people who have put more time into editing the article and creating the content would prefer to latter, and so I am fine with either. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

wallyfromdilbert you are getting ridiculous. You removed a whole, important section, based on the existence of primary sources, instead or removing the problematic sources. You removed content sourced to Bloomberg News, C-SPAN, RealClearPolitics and my subsequent source of NBC News. Are you claiming those are primary sources too. I don't think you were thinking when you blindly deleted NBC and I will restore that. I will continue adding sourced content to restore all the stuff you just blindly deleted. Trackinfo (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Interviews and speeches are primary sources, even if they are not self published. I also didn't remove either the Bloomberg or the Real Clear Politics sources. You may want to be more careful when editing. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

As you continue to remove content sourced to reliable sources, please, for the first time, explain how under your standards, any subject of any article is allowed to state their political views? Trackinfo (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Content should rely on secondary sources. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

You have repeatedly not answered the question. This subject's opinions, any subject's opinions are only going to come out of their own mouth. I have added numerous, reliable sources reporting exactly that information relative to this subject, many including direct quotes and you have deliberately blanked that information. Trackinfo (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not rely on what a person has said about themselves to determine what is relevant for an encyclopedia article about them. Several people have explained that, both on this page and on BLPN. Go write a blog or work on his campaign if you want to promote his views. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I have nothing to do with Uygur or virtually any of the many subjects I have contributed to wikipedia on. I have far more wikipedia experience than you. I know policies backwards and forward. What I am known for is providing sources when others can't seen to find them. You are inventing different standards in order to blank this section of this particular article. The best way to support a person's opinion is to quote them. You have the opposite standard, if they ever said it, we can't trust it. Somebody else needs to express their opinion. Even when I have supplied reporters rewriting Uygur's comments, you blank them. Beyond ridiculous, this is bordering on disciplinary. Trackinfo (talk) 04:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Trackinfo, please provide a diff of where I have removed material sourced to a reporter in a news article. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Example 1 source He says his platform will include support for Medicare for All, the Green New Deal and tougher gun control measures. Reporter: Peter Kiefer The other source in that edit was an NBC News interview of Uygur by Dylan Ratigan from 2010, transcribed, where he explains how he thinks the Bush tax cuts caused the 2008 crash and asks "can we try something that worked?" referring to historical tax rates during both pre-depression and strong economic periods. Example 2 in response to challenging questions from Alex Graf Uygur responded And by the way, while we’re doing it, create millions of new, higher-paying jobs in renewable energy and in infrastructure. These are not unfiltered rants on TYT, these quotes are controlled by the reporters. The original objection was to statements sourced to TYT, which Uygur owns and controls the editorial content. Your objections then were understandable. I found these sources to back up existing statements of his political positions. In other words, you only had a weak objection to the content already, simply based on Uygur's control of the sources. That was solved. So you have gone over and above the call to still remove the content. And at no point have you ever addressed how, under the artificial restrictions you are enforcing, any reporter could possibly conjure the political positions or opinions of a political candidate or pundit without listening to what that subject says. The source has to originate the information it reports with the subject. Trackinfo (talk) 09:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

You picking and choosing what quotes should be included from interviews is not appropriate. We rely on secondary sources. You don't seem to understand that concept. Also, "self-published source" and "primary source" are two different limitations, which you also seem to not understand. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 13:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

What you do not understand and fail to address is the impossible conditions you are imposing here of reporting any subject's political positions without using that subject's expressions of their opinions. We can fight over what quotes are appropriate later. You are simply blanking content. Trackinfo (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Multiple editors have removed the primary-sourced content. Secondary sources are not an "impossible condition" as several of his political views are already included in the article with appropriate sourcing. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

You are correct. You are not the only problematic editor. There is an apparent move afoot to keep Uygur's political positions secret. Trackinfo (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:AGF. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Have faith. Believe facts.Trackinfo (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The relevant sections here are: (1) "Primary" does not mean "bad": WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, which specifically says that primary sources *can* be used especially for direct quotations, (2) "Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves": WP:ABOUTSELF, which says that "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves", and (3) WP:BLPSELFPUB, which says that "There are living persons who publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source..." Wally is ignoring Wikipedia's decided policies. Bueller 007 (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Bueller 007, none of that addresses WP:DUE or any of the other arguments made on this talk page or at BLPN by multiple editors. I would encourage you to post at the open thread there, but considering that you have simply followed me because of a previous dispute, where you also refused to participate in any BLPN discussion, I doubt you will do that. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Uygur's primary claim to notability is his role as a political commentator, from Sirius to MSNBC to Current all under his own TYT banner. TYT's leadership in youtube content distribution clearly makes him and his views pertinent to this article. If you look at comparable political commentators' articles, say Tucker Carlson, there are large sections detailing their political views. My contention continues that the actions by the crowd of editors above to squelch that listing of Uygur's political views is artificial and contrived through wikilawyering. Trackinfo (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Stop with WP:ASPERSIONS against other editors or go to WP:ANI with evidence. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Spammy categories

Independent + Democrat is weird, please pick only one of these categories. California + New Jersey lawyer might be possible (IANAL and also not from the US), but should be justified by something in the article: The lawyer in the lede does not count, it is not backed by anything in the body and un-sourced. California + New Jersey radio personality in addition to American talk radio hosts + American television talk show hosts is also excessive. The complete page is excessively spammy. –84.46.52.210 (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Some days later, I found the archived Diskord source in the body supporting lawyer, ending up in two categories. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Not more excessively spammy, the switch from Independent to Democrat in the Infobox only has to reflect a sourced statement in the body, could somebody please fix this? A {{edit semiprotected}} only to get a {{fact}} in the Infobox could be really excessive. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Political Views Section

Unsure of why an Admin reverted as cacash was correct that little of the material is secondary sourced and any portion that is secondary sourced is already mentioned elsewhere. So to avoid further issues, is any part of the political views section salvageable?? Slywriter (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The announcement on Twitter of an announcement is pointless, the last two paragraphs with their primary references can be removed. The image and maybe two other references can be moved to #Congressional candidacy. That would leave only three paragraphs for further checking. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

FFRF nit

The FFRF award already has a primary {{cite web}} reference, adding a second primary source on this site as bare URL is unnecessary, just wikilink to Freedom From Religion Foundation#Emperor Has No Clothes Award instead of Freedom From Religion Foundation.

For the American Humanist Association award the primary "bare URL" reference can be replaced by {{cite web|url=https://thehumanist.com/magazine/november-december-2012/features/it-cant-all-be-true |title=It Can’t All Be True |date=October 18, 2012 |work=Cenk Uygur, Humanist Media Award |publisher=[[American Humanist Association]] |accessdate=January 13, 2020}}.

Bare URL references are ugly, with {{cite web}} you can get nice effects, e.g., you can add a short quote=… for a highlight in the source. An additional independent reliable source would be better, but the wikilinked article already shows that this is no nonsense. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 07:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

As outlined above, please (1) remove the unnecessary 2nd primary FFRF bare URL source, (2) add the suggested section to the FFRF wikilink, and (3) replace the bare URL for AHA by the suggested AHA {{cite web}}. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)