User talk:Jimbo Wales

"Roundup" (Monsanto/Bayer's top selling herbicide) has no Wikipedia page?!

Hi Jimmy, I alerted you back in 2013 that Wikipedia has a Monsanto problem. I notice Nassim Taleb has also made note of this problem and tried to alert you in a tweet.

The editors who have been left in charge of Monsanto related articles (those who did not get banned during ArbCom or since then) have decided that the number one leading herbicide on the planet, "Roundup", should not have a page in your encyclopedia. It was deleted when the suite of related articles were taken over by one editor in 2012 (detailed in my 2013 diatribe). The main ingredient, Glyphosate, has been passed off as synonymous with Roundup since then, with readers being directed to that page instead.

As you have probably heard, Roundup was just found to have caused a man's cancer. There are upwards of 5,000 more cases waiting in the wings. During discovery, Monsanto's own internal emails showed that they knew their product was dangerous, and that there was a clear distinction between the main ingredient, and the formulated product (due to synergistic effect). In the case it was revealed that Roundup is more toxic than Glyphosate alone, and these court cases target the formulated product.

This court case was so impactful it knocked 11% off of Bayer's stock. Bayer came out in defense saying "Glyphosate does not cause cancer". Well, it was Roundup that was found guilty. The important part of this for you, is that Wikipedia is essentially not impartial on this since the site has been supporting the defense: that "Glyphosate" and Roundup are interchangeable terms. This is anti-science at best.

I argued this point on the Glyphosate talk page a few nights ago after noticing this huge Monsanto news hadn't been covered on WP besides one line on a Monsanto offshoot page, "legal cases". The one article chosen as a source was entitled "Glyphosate does not cause cancer". During my few hours of editing on August 15, someone popped up out of nowhere and literally created a new page: Glyphosate-based herbicides, which was apparently supposed to end the debate. Your editors do not seem to think "Roundup" deserves to have its page reinstated. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. petrarchan47คุก 18:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

They are not Jimbo's editors, they are individuals. And consensus dictates what gets and doesn't get an article. The question you might want to ask is: Is "RoundUp" notable because it is "RoundUp" or because it is a glyphosate-based herbicide? I strongly suspect the latter. Regards SoWhy 18:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Right, and we were in the middle of a discussion aimed at getting a consensus to reinstate the Roundup article. Our conversation was cut off at the knee when the new page was created. Here is what I was saying on the talk page:

Why is Roundup notable by itself:

"Plaintiffs claim that Monsanto “knew or should have known that Roundup is more toxic than glyphosate alone” but continued to advertise the product as safe. In a 2002 e-mail, Monsanto product–safety strategist William Heydens wrote to Donna Farmer, one of the company’s leading toxicologists: “What I’ve been hearing from you is that this continues to be the case with these studies—glyphosate is OK but the formulated product (and thus the surfactant) does the damage.” The Nation

HuffPost: Brent Wisner, a lawyer for Johnson, in a statement said jurors for the first time had seen internal company documents “proving that Monsanto has known for decades that glyphosate and specifically Roundup could cause cancer.”

"What keeps Monsanto healthy is Roundup, a chemical herbicide developed more than two decades ago. It is the best-selling agricultural chemical product ever, with $2.8 billion in sales last year; it outsells other chemicals five to one." NYT petrarchan47คุก 19:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is pretty clear that targeting roundup is a way of targeting "Monsatan" in the hopes of destroying the organic industry's no. 1 bogeyman. But roundup is not a separate subject from glyphosate. Guy (Help!) 13:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not quite clear what you want, other than to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS caused by Monsanto/Bayer. Having an article on Glyphosate-based herbicides seems to be an improvement. I think that the content on Roundup Ready soybeans at Genetically modified soybean could probably be split to its own article as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

On what do you base this accusation that I am here to right wrongs, other than POV on an encyclopedia? petrarchan47คุก 19:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

At first glance, the articles don't seem complete or unbiased. Notably, the March Against Monsanto article includes some more or less WP:OR (by which I mean, original synthesis with weak linkage, or some would say "WP:COATRACK") material about how GMOs on the market are not known to be toxic -- as GMOs. The argument I am familiar with regarding Monsanto GMOs is that Roundup Ready crops are designed to be sprayed with huge amounts of RoundUp. It is the potential for food or environmental contamination with that product which is the source of concern. this page and some of the pages it links give evidence that MAM does use those arguments. It is perhaps worth perusing some articles linked from this review of recent news about glyphosate being found in various foods, such as breakfast cereals. (note that the results leading to those articles, from EWG, were obtained with different standards than those recommended by the industry as described at the MAM article) Now I'm not going to solve this entire issue forever here, but I am going to say that if our articles on the pesticide, the crop designed to be sprayed with a huge amount of it, and the protest against the crop and company all fail to even mention the key issues that people who have heard the story know about, and they do include the same boilerplate, probably word for word, about the safety of GMOs, then there's something rotten here. This isn't WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS but WP:MAKEWRONGSGOAWAYLIKETHEYNEVEREVENHAPPENED. Wnt (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The Glyphosate being found in breakfast cereals news was well covered in media, but was not added to Wikipedia. The boilerplate "GMOs are safe" paragraph that is indeed plastered to every GMO-related article on WP is rotten to the core. It enjoys it's own novel rule: the paragraph cannot be changed at all, unless the proposed change has been through an RfC. petrarchan47คุก 09:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I stopped editing because of astroturf on roundup-related articles. 107.77.165.8 (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

if the product its self is notable for having received non-trivial coverage after having been embroiled in a scandal it may deserve an article or a section within an article on the type of pesticide to which it belongs. Probably best to continue this discussion on either the talk pages of the concerned editors or on the talk pages of the most closely related articles. The related policies I can see here are N|notability and Fork/Spin off articles if there’s a parent article on the chemical but a sufficient bulk of source material on the actual product. The manufacturer in this case is also a parent article which could debatably absorb the subject you want to add as an article because if there were a legal scandal it makes sense hat the complaints would be made against the manufacturer, thus conferring notability to the company, more than the productEdaham (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I rarely comment here, but I think it's worth looking at what the community, collectively, has decided about such content, as opposed to the individual opinions of a few self-selected editors, particularly because the community has spent a lot of time and effort on this. I would point out, in particular, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms, as well as the determinations by ArbCom to (1) enact discretionary sanctions in this topic area, and (2) specifically determine that it is disruptive and a violation of WP:NPA to claim without evidence that other editors are editing on behalf of GMO companies. There is ongoing discussion about page content regarding the recent court verdict at Talk:Glyphosate and Talk:Glyphosate-based herbicides. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Imo, there should be an article about and titled Roundup (herbicide) just like there should be an article titled Earth, as opposed to it being only included in Planet and Milky Way. The fact that there is no such article already makes it ok for that fact to be discussed here, I think. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

These things are matters of editorial judgment. After all, we don't have a page about each and every Pokémon. Interested editors should feel free to comment at the article talk pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure what purpose is served discussing this here. I would however recommend that interested editors read the related talk pages (Talk:Glyphosate and Talk:Glyphosate-based herbicides) where there is ongoing discussion on how to present this information as Petra is completely misrepresenting the situation. No one was trying to hide the court case. As for RoundUp there was a consensus to create a RoundUp article, but valid concerns that this will lead to a POV fork were raised. A new editor to this area decided to make Glyphosate-based herbicides as a way to mitigate the POV fork concerns and despite a few bumps at the moment there is consensus that this is a step in the right direction. We need new good faith editors in this area willing to add content and accusing them of off-wiki communication or other bad faith efforts are not going to improve the coverage of this topic. AIRcorn (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The article is under discretionary sanctions by default, due to the subject. Two of the most vocal advocates here are, I believe, well known partisans in the anti-Monsanto/GMO campaign on-wiki. Guy (Help!) 18:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Please be careful about casting aspersions, Guy. You know what the rulings were after the GMO ArbCom. If it was found that I was biased, that would have turned up in the case. It did not. My work was seen as non-problematic by everyone but you and tryp, who both thought I should be banned from all editing of WP forever. You are the outliers. petrarchan47คุก 19:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, the text version that I proposed in WP:GMORFC was strongly endorsed and selected by the community, so I'm not that much of an outlier. Also, although ArbCom chose not to sanction many editors in the case itself, a significant number of named parties were subsequently topic-banned at WP:AE under the discretionary sanctions. And given the diff shown just above by Aircorn, I hardly think that Guy is the one casting aspersions. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that was the point I was making. This is an area under DS, so putting your head above the parapet like that, especially when you're already a known face, is a Bad Idea. Guy (Help!) 18:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Need glyphosate-controversies page

In cases of intense legal battles, public protests, or TV shows instantly cancelled (etc.), the best solution has been to create a separate page, for each area of controversies, to accumlate details (into the separate page) about lawsuits, boycotts, defamation or criminal trials, etc. Then in each related page, related to the topic controversies, merely link to the separate controversies page, without repeating detailed claims or cites or insult-title source pages spammed into "20" other pages. Otherwise, an wp:NPOV neutral description page of the product(s) or TV show(s) can become overwhelmed as wp:Coat-racks with numerous paragraphs about several lawsuits which take years (or decades) to resolve the judgments or refute the false insults. In similar separations of product names as redirects into broader articles, or a separate controversies page, then the edit-war chaos has been reduced by 10-50x less, as if the product-name article had been a madness-magnet for edit-wars to wp:Grandstand intense opinions into the topic article. Instead, by redirecting names, or linking, to a broader or controversies page, then the effective reduction in edit-wars or spam, for over 10 years, has been almost like technological magic. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:47/12:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

No, we need fewer idiots trying to crowbar anti-GMO "Monsatan" bullshit into the news and into our articles. Guy (Help!) 13:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Guy, I'd like to know what effect you think the recent court judgement and the emails in evidence admitting that Roundup's surfactants were known sysergistic carcinogens should have on the longstanding discretionary sanctions. 64.164.193.129 (talk) 05:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Courts don't decide science. The impact of surfactants is changing a very tiny risk to a merely tiny risk, in the end years of diligent digging by the anti-Monsanto lobby has failed to provide any compelling evidence of actual harm to anyone. Guy (Help!) 15:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

"Mike DeVito, acting chief of the National Toxicology Program Laboratory, told the Guardian the agency’s work is ongoing but its early findings are clear on one key point. “We see the formulations are much more toxic. The formulations were killing the cells. The glyphosate really didn’t do it,” DeVito said." Guardian petrarchan47คุก 09:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

...and if anyone can show me a WP:MEDRS compliant source that shows any compelling evidence of actual harm to anyone, I will be glad to make sure that it gets put into the appropriate article, or into a new article. I would hate to lose those sweet monthly paychecks from the pesticide lobby and the farmers union, but there are still plenty of other evil corporations willing to bribe Wikipedia editors... --Guy Macon (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

With regard to Monsanto, MEDRS has to be looked at with intense discrimination when you consider that the company has been ghostwriting and manufacturing its own science, as well as working too closely with the EPA. The recent case was won by what was revealed in Monsanto's own internal emails.

• "During Dawayne Johnson's trial, the judge ordered Monsanto to provide internal documents, memos and emails indicating that the company long knew that Roundup could potentially cause cancer. The documents show that Monsanto's hired scientific adviser warned its testing of glyphosate was inadequate, since the other chemical ingredients in Roundup were not included."DW

• "Above all, the Monsanto papers show that the experts were very aware of a fact that is often lost in the public debate: In addition to glyphosate, herbicides like Roundup contain other dangerous chemicals that are necessary to enable the active ingredient to penetrate hard plant walls, among other things. These ingredients are often more harmful than the active ingredient on its own."Der Spiegel

• "...The Monsanto experts came to a similar conclusion. "Glyphosate is OK, but the formulated product causes the damage," Monsanto researcher Heydens wrote to Donna Farmer. Monsanto did nothing to warn the public. Instead, the company continued its massive lobbying campaign and did everything conceivable to discredit researchers whose work was not in Monsanto's interest."Der Spiegel

• "Mr. Partridge [Bayer] doesn’t say Roundup doesn’t cause cancer; he says glyphosate. And he does that intentionally, because he knows that glyphosate is different than Roundup. Now, glyphosate is part of Roundup, but Roundup is a combined product of glyphosate plus a bunch of other chemicals that make glyphosate significantly more potent. And one of the things that the jury is really focused on, this jury in our case, was that there’s a synergistic effect of the glyphosate and the other chemicals. And the simple fact is, Monsanto has never tested the carcinogenicity of the combined product. And this omission is glaring, and it’s intentional. In fact, we have internal documents that say, “We do not want to look at this issue because we’re afraid of what we’re going to see.” And the jury heard all this, and they rejected this idea that it’s a safe product, that it doesn’t cause cancer. And they said not only does it cause cancer, but that Monsanto acted with malice in doing so." - Brent Wisner, lead council in Roundup cancer case.

But none of this has been added to the encyclopedia. petrarchan47คุก 09:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I won't weigh in on anything of substance regarding whether Roundup causes cancer or not. I do have a strongly held view, privately, but it is not relevant here. I will say that it does seem likely to me that a reasonable case can be made for separate pages. One of the only reasons I would be reluctant to see that is that a separate page for "Roundup" versus "glyphosate" is likely to lead to the "Roundup" article being a battleground WP:COATRACK that fails to inform readers of the full context. That is, of course, a valid conversation for people to have - on the talk page of the article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Purely as information about what exists as of now, we do have two separate pages: Glyphosate, which focuses on the compound, and Glyphosate-based herbicides. The latter is about RoundUp along with the 700+ other products that have compositions that are very similar to that of RoundUp (and RoundUp redirects to there, while Roundup is a disambiguation page). And again, I encourage editors to discuss this at the corresponding article talk pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I also feel like this can easily be covered on the Glyphosate-based herbicides page (as Tryptofish says, RoundUp redirects there), and the discussion should take place on that page's talk page. Much of what the OP is asking for is already covered there, and any omissions can be discussed at the talk page whether they have WP:WEIGHT for inclusion. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Let me remind you that this thread began the night the "Glyphosate based herbicides" article went live. It was created without any discussion or participation in the ongoing, live conversation about the need for the Roundup page. The first time this editor spoke up was to announce this new article. It seems very underhanded and to hear its creation being used now as a way to say that Wikipedia really doesn't need a page for Roundup leaves me feeling uneasy. I cannot believe I am the only editor who has a problem with the way this is playing out. petrarchan47คุก 08:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Science: How Do You Assess if a Chemical Causes Cancer? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Case was Ranger Pro not Roundup

Another issue was the Johnson cancer case being really about Monsanto Ranger Pro,[1] as an industrial-strength herbicide (weed killer) but not really the typical Roundup. So inquiring minds want to know strength difference of Ranger Pro versus typical Roundup, and that could be a separate page, perhaps as a relatively rare product name, in various sources, but not likely to incite wp:Battleground disputes. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

It does seem quite relevant, yes, to identify the exact product. I don't know if that means a separate page is warranted or not - I have no immediate opinion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Great reason for a page on glyphosate based herbicides rather than forking every single variant. Guy (Help!) 17:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

According to the sources that are cited at the page currently, the lawsuit was about both RoundUp and Ranger Pro, each used by the plaintiff at different times. Again, it's probably more useful to discuss this at the article talk page rather than here. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

An article on a highly notable proprietary product is the norm in Wikipedia

An article on a highly notable proprietary product is the norm in Wikipedia. We have a Tide (brand) article even though we have a laundry detergent article. We have a Ford Mustang article even though we have a Car article. Ad infinitum, including specific products that are 100 times less wp:notable then Roundup. This is even more striking with Roundup, where there is an immense amount of coverage and happenings specific to Roundup. In fact, I think that the wp:notability of Roundup is probably an order of magnitude greater than that of its chemical categorization Glyphosate-based herbicides which does have an article and is where folks are saying to cover Roundup. North8000 (talk) 22:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

See WP:PAGEDECIDE, especially the first two bullet points. Add to that the fact that there are many trade names that even Monsanto sells Glyphosphate based herbicides by, and there is good reason not to have a standalone article. There are other good reasons not to do so, such as the likelihood that such a standalone article would become a WP:COATRACK for POV warriors, and a WP:CONTENTFORK of material at Glyphosate-based herbicides. Advantages to a standalone article would be covering the history of the brand name, but this is again partially covered over at Glyphosate-based herbicides, and confused by Monsanto's multiple trade names. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think those particular examples are on-point, but in any event there are other examples worth considering. Robimycin, a brand name of Erythromycin is a redirect, as is Erymax. As far as I can tell, the majority of drug brand names redirect to the formal scientific/chemical name. In the realm of agricultural chemicals, consider the growth regulator Alar also Kylar, both of which redirect to Daminozide.

Here's why I don't find your examples compelling.... Tide is to a laundry detergent as Round-up is to a herbicide. No one is suggesting that we redirect Round-up to herbicide. Similarly, a Ford Mustang is to a car as Round-up is to a herbicide.

The key is that in almost all similar cases, we redirect the brand name to the chemical name. It would therefore take an extra argument to show why this case should be different.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Jimbo is correct. A better analogy than cars or detergent would be pharmaceuticals. Consider Lipitor with $125 billion in sales, which redirects to Atorvastatin. Similarly, Viagra redirects to Sildenafil. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Here's the sort of argument that I might find plausible (I'm not putting this forward, just chewing on the question a bit). If, as some allege, Round-up is somehow different in a material way (due to its particular formulation in terms of surfactants and whatnot) from other formulations then a separate page might be warranted. For example, if Round-Up contained, in addition to the glyphosate, a healthy dose of some aflatoxin, while no other brands on the market did, then given the cancer worries (aflatoxins are notoriously carcinogenic) a separate article might be warranted. The issue is that, as far as I can tell, the idea that Round-Up is particularly more carcinogenic than other similar products is not something shown in reliable sources.

As it stands, for me, no matter what one's personal views might be on whether glyphosate causes cancer, a single page makes the most sense. If it is a carcinogen according to reliable sources, then that article should say so. If it is not (or not likely to be, which is the way science is likely to phrase it), then the article should say so. Or, as is really likely the case here, there are competing claims on both sides, then the article should document the whole ball of wax. A separate article doesn't hinge on the question of whether it is a carcinogen.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

This might be what you're looking for New Evidence About the Dangers of Monsanto’s Roundup - it goes into the dangers of some of the known additives. petrarchan47คุก 09:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, the problem of a one-page topic, in a major controversy, is seeing an alleged-cancer debate masquerading as an herbicide, while the "real" issue might be Roundup can be used to kill even stubborn weeds (such as invasive spiderwort?) by repeated applications, perhaps 3x over 3 weeks, with the emphasis on herbicide not alleged-carcinogen (which should be moved to a controversies page). It would be like page "lawnmower" obsessed with 5-per-million users suffered hearing loss because they claim earmuffs should have been warned on mower box and cover of mower manual, while others claim need for Spanish-language on all manual covers due to frequent Hispanic landscaping services; and so nevermind what lawnmowers mow. Or an article about private email servers, routinely purged of 500 messages per month, plus replaced with 2 newer computers each year (reformat-wiping the prior servers), as instead overshadowed with obsessive speculation of what Saturday night were 30,000 emails "deleted" and was TheOneServer^TM wiped that same Saturday night while other people were asleep(!!!), versus the actual monthly purging emails for 4 years on multiple servers. Hence, WP should separate speculative sensational debates (onto a separate page) to better explain an herbicide sprayed to control invasive species of plants. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

We probably cover many consumer goods under popular brand names because the brands became so pervasive to a wide demographic, unlike more niche industrial/chemical products. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not involved at those articles. I was exploring this here for a few reasons. One is avoiding bias; knitted into many of the posts is a concern that the article doesn't exist because an influential amount of the involved editors don't like Roundup or Monsanto. I don't know whether or not this is true / has been a balance-tipper, but we should make sure that that isn't happening. The second is structural, we often fail to realize that articles are often significantly about a term or a real world item as seen though the lens of a term, rather than just the physical entity (in this case the chemical substance) itself. Or in this case, it's also about a brand name, trademark, cultural phenomena, political controversy, symbol, departments or divisions of a company, and an immensely wp:notable one at that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

By way of understanding how the long-term dispute over this content evolved, it's actually not the case that "influential" editors dislike Monsanto and are trying to cut down on our coverage of it. In contrast, there have been editors who dislike Monsanto and want to add coverage intended to make Monsanto look bad. In response, other editors (probably regarded inaccurately as "influential" by the anti-Monsanto POV-pushers, as typically happens when editors with an agenda bump up against the larger editing community), have sought to avoid POV violations, and one manifestation of that dispute is the suggestion at the beginning of this discussion that a dedicated RoundUp page be created, opposed by other editors on the grounds that it would be a "RoundUp is bad and Monsanto is evil" POV-fork. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight on who wants it and who doesn't. I've not been involved there. That sounds sad. An environment where such a briefly and neutrally titled article is likely to become a bash fast. North8000 (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, my suggestion was to have Jimmy and the rest of the group consider the fact that Wikipedia has no page for Roundup. I have not suggested one be created, I have suggested the Roundup page that used to exist (conflict-free, I might add), which was deleted without community discussion, be reinstated. There was never a reason to delete it in the first place, and as I have shown, redirecting "Roundup" to "Glyphosate" and treating them as synonymous is anti-science. I told you this a year ago - the two are not the same. There should be no reason to argue against reinstating the Roundup article if editors are here to help inform readers rather than to hide information. Your suggestion that the addition of 'negative' information about Monsanto or any of their products is a bad thing, regardless of its prominence in RS, proves well my original point. Editing with the goal of protecting Monsanto is antithetical to building a NPOV encyclopedia and in a sane world, should be grounds for a topic ban. petrarchan47คุก 08:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I think your intention was actually to end-run round agreement elsewhere that it is adequately covered in glyphosate-based herbicides. Jimmy only rarely expresses an opinion on what the title and focus of a particular article should be. Guy (Help!) 08:39, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Roundup had its own article until 2012 when it was unceremoniously deleted, for no reason, and contrary to science, redirected to "Glyphosate" where it remained until just the other night, when I made the case that they are not synonymous. The new "Glyphosate based herbicides" popped up right in the middle of an ongoing conversation without allowing for any input from the community. As an administrator I would expect you to take issue with both of these (successful) attempts to circumvent the normal process of discussion/gaining consensus. petrarchan47คุก 10:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

This Liberal Carried an American Flag to Protest Fascism in Portland. Antifa Cracked His Head Open.

"Welch was one of hundreds of progressive Portlanders who had turned out to oppose the right-wing rally held at the Tom McCall Waterfront Park."

"With pride he clutched his U.S. flag as he moved among the crowd of like-thinking demonstrators."

"Soon a group of black-clad anti-fascist protesters, also known as antifa, demanded he lose the flag, calling it a fascist symbol. Welch refused, and a tug-of-war ensued."

"It ended with Welch taking a club to the back of the head, lying on the ground in a pool of his own blood."

Source: The Oregonian [2][3]

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

At the 2017 rally (Aug. 15, 2017) in Charlottesville, VA with Antifa,[4] a man carrying a Confederate battle flag was nearly dragged down a cement staircase backward, by a woman quietly clutching the battle flag (behind his back), at the protest over a statue of Robert E. Lee, who worked for years to end the U.S. Civil War as an "honorable peace" to end the national devastation on both sides, despite the recent notorious burning of Atlanta mills, homes or railroads, South Carolina, and North Carolina, where a woman witnessed the burning of Carolina towns or plantations and was sickened to see the hated U.S. flag raised above the statehouse amid the burning countryside. I don't know how WP can handle these cases of people upset about someone with a flag. Perhaps a page named "Flags used at notorious events" could document and compare these issues so that more readers can see how people, on all sides, can feel hostility about flags. Maybe start with a source which mentions various flags, and then cite related sources. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

All very interesting, Guy and Wiki77, as sad tales of our troubled times. But what is the Wikipedia connection?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

There is a somewhat roundabout connection in that we still accept the Southern Poverty Law Center as a reliable source for claims that some group is a hate group or that some town contains a hate group despite them being fine with Antifa.

• What Happens When Your Town Lands on the Hate Map
• How Did Maajid Nawaz End Up on a List of 'Anti-Muslim Extremists'?
• Has a Civil Rights Stalwart Lost Its Way?
• Southern Poverty Law Center Gets Creative to Label 'Hate Groups'
• ‘Essentially a Fraud’
• A Demagogic Bully

--Guy Macon (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

" roundabout connection" <-- that's not a "roundabout connection", that's an "idiotic non-sequitur". The hell does SPLC have to do with anything that happened at the Portland rally?Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Have you ever explained how Antifa is organized racialism or racism or interested in inherent-characteristic? Aren't there organizations or experts that deal with anarchists or anarcho-terrorists or anti-fascists or communists -- SPLC is not for everything you don't like -- or go to ADL, or someone else for your Antifa fix, SPLC is not some all-encompassing leviathan. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what I do and don't like. The SPLC is not a reliable source for labeling anyone or anything a hate group. For the real hate groups, there are plenty of sources, and we should use them instead of the SPLC. If the SPLC is the only source, (Examples: Gurnee, Illinois[5] and Amana, Iowa [6][7]) then Wikipedia should not repeat the claim from the SPLC because it is an unreliable source. Reliable sources don't list a town as containing a hate group based upon nothing but a message on a Nazi website by a user called "concerned troll", and reliable sources don't stick to their story despite a total lack of any evidence that it is true. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Gurnee, Illinois? Amana, Iowa? Neither article mentions anything about the SPLC or Antifa - you posted here about Antifa because we don't mention the SPLC in our articles, having nothing to do with Antifa? That's all non-sequitur. As to reliable sources in Wikipedia, we note in our policies and guidelines that reliable sources are sometimes mistaken, it does not make them broadly not WP:RS, just not used where they are mistaken. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that SPLC is "fine with" Antifa, other than fans of fascism beating up on them for not succumbing to the fallacy of false equivalence? SPLC made an error with Nawaz, and have admitted it. Being fallible is part of human nature. Accepting when you have mad a mistake is a sign of reliability, not the opposite - it's only in TrumpWorld™ where anyone is infallible and their pronouncements automatically render contradictory facts "fake news". Guy (Help!) 16:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

43 people died in the Italian Ponte Morandi collapse after antifa protestors removed all the flags from the bridge. Gamaliel (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

What? as they say at Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Didn't you know that flags are the only thing that prevents most bridges from collapsing?[8] --Guy Macon (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Isn't there some sort of blog that this irrelevant rambling could be posted on, rather than it clogging up Jimbo's talk page? By the way, we have somewhere to discuss reliable sources, which surprisingly is called the reliable sources noticeboard. Black Kite (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

  Nooo, really?!?! (SCNR ) SoWhy 13:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstand the purpose of appealing to Jimbo. What would you do if you found that there was a consensus to violate one of Wikipedia's core policies?

The fact that the SPLC is not a reliable source for "hate group" labels is easily demonstrated:

• September 26, 2016: On the neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer a user with the screen name "Concerned Troll" posted "The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub was a success!". This is the only evidence that the SPLC has ever provided backing up their claim that the hate group actually exists.

• August 23, 2017: In the face of mounting criticism in the nationwide press, the SPLC stands by their claim, still refuses to provide any evidence that any group named "The Daily Stormer Book Club" actually exists other that the post by Concerned Troll in The Daily Stomer.

• August 28, 2017: The SPLC now says that the The Daily Stormer Book Club is a "statewide" group, still refuses to provide any evidence that the group actually exists.

• Multiple reporters from the Iowa City Press-Citizen and other Iowa newspapers and news TV shows have searched and searched for any evidence that The Daily Stormer Book Club has ever had a meeting in Amana or anywhere else in Iowa. Despoite repeated requests, the SPLC refuses to provide evidence backing up their claim and refuses to retract their new "statewide" claim.

The fact that there is a consensus to consider the SPLC a reliable source for "hate group" labels is also easily demonstrated:

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 22#Southern Poverty Law Center
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 26#Southern Poverty Law Center
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 48#Southern Poverty Law Center (again) & Rousas John Rushdoony
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 127#Is an SPLC intelligence report a reliable source for information about the men's rights movement?
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 128#Southern Poverty Law Center
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 130#Southern Poverty Law Center
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 208#Southern Poverty Law Center on Debbie Schlussel's Anti-Muslim stance
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 230#Southern Poverty Law Center As Source For Labeling Someone a White Supremacist
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 245#Southern Poverty Law Center
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#SPLC: not a reliable source

So we have a consensus that violates on of Wikipedia's core values -- exactly the kind of thing that is properly discussed on Jimbo's talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

It sounds more like you're displeased with WP:CONSENSUS. SPLC is reliable. It fits the criteria outlined at WP:RS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• So, what you are saying is that when an otherwise reliable source makes a single mistake, regardless of how much other demonstratedly reliable work they have done, that Wikipedia policy demands that we permanently remove them from consideration as a reliable source? Can you show me where in Wikipedia's core values this is written? Because I have never heard of it before. Even if we concede that the SPLC was mistaken about that one single "hate group" (and I'm not saying they were mistaken, I'm just conceding that point so that we don't have to debate it for the time being) how does that make them unreliable? Because Wikipedia consensus is that they are reliable. I don't see how you've established, as yet, that they are not. If we take your notion that the single example of a single mislabeled group as enough to throw them out as a source, then under that standard, there is likely no such thing as a reliable source. Which means we're screwed, because we now can't use anything. --Jayron32 15:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• One mistake? Have you been paying attention? It's mistake after mistake. Not only errors of commission (listing places, people and organizations as hate groups when they clearly are not) but also errors of omission (pointedly refusing to list some well-known hate groups), with strong evidence that the decision to list or not to list is based upon agreement/disagreement with political positions that have nothing to do with hate. And the word "mistake" isn't quite right. This is purposeful. Reliable sources retract mistakes. They don't double down and stand by their claims while refusing to provide any evidence when legitimate reporters ask for it. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• So you say. How do we know that you are right and everyone else is wrong. That's the rub here. You don't get to be right because you say so. By what standard are we to decide if your assessment of these situations is correct? --Jayron32 16:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• "mounting criticism in the nationwide press" = a couple articles in Breitbart and some Iowa papers. Gamaliel (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Not our call. SPLC is widely cited as an authority on hate groups, we merely reflect that real-world view. Guy (Help!) 15:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, to parse Guy Macon's argument to what it really is behind all the inflammatory rhetoric and hyperbole it's simple the claim that "SPLC is not reliable because they don't list Antifa as a hate group". Now, that's a pretty illogical argument on its face. What determines reliability is what an organization DOES (fact check, editorial control, etc.) not what it DOES NOT do (it doesn't write about something I want it to write about). But, even if that isn't obvious (which I think it ought to be to anyone who's been around long enough to have actually read WP:RS) there's also... well, the explanation itself provided by SPLC. Quick answer is that the SPLC doesn't list Antifa as a hate group for the same reason they don't list various violent right wing "Patriot" groups as hate groups, as long as those groups' violence is motivated by just anti-government ideology and not by racial or other forms of prejudice. Propensity for violence alone doesn't satisfy the criteria for "hate group". This argument is sort of like claiming that the New York Times is not a reliable sources because they don't cover stories about Pokemon and Minecraft.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

And yet pretty much everyone who hears about that neo-nazi group that has a newsletter documenting every crime committed by a jew and ignoring all crime committed by non-jews -- even if a jew and a non-jew partner up and commit a crime together -- sees the problem with that. Nobody says "hey, they don't have to list crimes by non-jews They also don't write about Pokemon and Minecraft". --Guy Macon (talk) 02:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

To be fair the NY Times does cover Pokemon and Minecraft. PackMecEng (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

yes, i actually know that but was wondering if anyone'd noticeVolunteer Marek (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Besides, "antifa" isn't a group, so how could you list it? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, on that point, it certainly is a group. It doesn't meet the definition of a hate group, but it clearly is a group. That is a collection of people with a shared ideology and symbolism, and a means to coordinate. That doesn't mean that it is a hate group, mind you, but unless you're working from a no true Scotsman definition of group, it's a group. --Jayron32 16:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The assault was carried out by Black bloc anarchists which represent a small minority of "antifa" and other demonstators. Indeed the SPLC has mentioned violence by them. ('The masked, black-clad “anti-fascists” led chants to interrupt the rallies and began scuffling with the red-hatted objects of their protest.'[9]) These anarchists are not however a "group," but individuals who come together at demonstrations. (See Who's Afraid of the Black Blocs?: Anarchy in Action around the World, pp. 1-2.[10])

Jayron, probably better to say that the SPLC only classifies organized groups. Anti-fascist demonstrators do not have a shared ideology and symbolism or any other than ad hoc communication.

TFD (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Some do and some don't. Antifa is a group. Whether a) this specific event was done by Antifa the group or b) This specific event was done by unorganized anti-facist activists are different questions. Not all anti-facist demonstrators are part of Antifa. --Jayron32 16:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

My point is more that (for the sake of argument) liberals can't be a hate group. The Democratic National Committee can, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

If you mean a philosophy can't be a hate group, but an organization can be, I agree with you. I trust that you aren't claiming that left-leaning groups can't be classified as hate groups. But that's not what I think you mean.--Jayron32 17:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

No. You could certainly claim the "Cascadia Antifa Defense Association" (or whatever) as a hate group, if they fit the description - I'm just arguing that "antifa", as I understand it, isn't organized enough to point to any one grouping and say "they are a hate group". All you can do is point at the black-masked folks in the street and yell "ANTIFA!", whether it actually applies or not. It's about as useful as pointing at them and yelling "ANARCHISTS!" --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd say its a grey area, though I can understand your point there. The Antifa movement is more organized than just a label for far-left violent groups, but it's less than a formal organization. Various Antifa groups do coordinate under the Antifa label, they are not all fully independent with no association. There is not a hard, bright line distinction between "is an group" and "is not a group", and Antifa lies within the space covered by that fuzzy line. I'd say you've made a good argument for why they might not be considered a "group", though I could see other valid arguments for classifying them as a "group". Regardless, its a side discussion here, AFAIK, neither Antifa (as a movement, or whatever you want to call it), nor any of the groups that affiliate with it, meet the express "hate group" definition as put out by SPLC. --Jayron32 18:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Broadly, it appears to come down to disagreement with the SPLC about how they define hate group: should their focus be on immutable characteristics and civil rights, and on balancing religious pluralism with civil rights, or something else (like Antifa political violence) - an editor, as a libertarian, or a religious-moralist, or a law-and-orderist, or some other contradictory POV, may well disagree with the SPLC, or want to tell the SPLC what to do, but that's not relevant to writing the encyclopedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Per Hate group, "The SPLC's definition of a "hate group" includes any group with beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people—particularly when the characteristics being maligned are immutable." Which is to say, a group is a hate group when they attack an "immutable" characteristic of another group of people (skin color, ethnic origin, gender identity, sexual orientation, etc.) and not merely because the group is violent, even violent against another group, where the target characteristic is not immutable (political affiliation, choices they make, ideologies they follow). That does NOT mean that not being classified as such by the SPLC means that said group is otherwise perfectly OK (for any given definition of OK). That doesn't mean that Antifa (for example, which keeps coming up) is somehow entirely benign and without fault, it just means that they don't meet the SPLC definition of a hate group. --Jayron32 17:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, but note there also seems to be blur in this and these discussions between 'hate grouping' and other issues which the SPLC may speak about, that might be called, things like 'islamophobia', or something-else like, 'immigrant-dehumanization.' All parties that disagree with its 'hate groupings', or that something is 'islamaphobia', or 'immigrant dehumanization' may well take issue with the SPLC, and even join together as the enemy of my enemy, etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Not having a reputation for fact checking is a problem. Refusing to publish corrections is a problem. Relying on an anonymous post to a neo-nazi website as your only evidence is a problem. This isn't a disagreement with the SPLC about how they define a hate group. If the First Iowa Stormer Bookclub actually existed we would most likely all agree that it was a hate group based upon the relationship with The Daily Stormer, which everyone agrees is a hate group. But one prerequisite to being a hate group is that the group has to actually exist. This one doesn't. And yet the SPLC insists that it not only exists, but that it is a statewide group. Again, this is solely based upon an anonymous post to a neo-nazi website by someone posting as "concerned troll".

And least anyone think that this is an isolated incident, the SPLC falsely labeled Ayaan Hirsi Ali as an "anti-Muslim extremist". Her crime? Criticizing female genital mutilation, which she herself was subjected to before fleeing Somalia.

Still think that the SPLC is a reliable source? Read Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Op-Ed in the New York Times, then come back and try to justify the way the SPLC treated her. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Does the SPLC make mistakes? Do they sometimes do the wrong thing? No one here has argued that they don't. No one is disputing a single thing you are bringing up. We're all saying "yes, we know those have happened". The question then becomes "do those things substantively affect the reliability of the SPLC". That's a judgement call of the community. There is no way to come up with any objective measure. The community may or may not decide that these are substantive problems with the SPLC. You are free to express your opinion on the matter, and you have done so. However, the problem is that because you have an opinion, you behave as though people with a different opinion don't count. That's not how consensus works. Your feelings on the matter do not make your consensus of one the only voice that matters. --Jayron32 18:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

" This isn't a disagreement with the SPLC about how they define a hate group" - Dude. Read the title of this sub section which YOU created. I don't understand how you can pretend now that you didn't say what you said when it's right there in big ol' bold letters.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

And this part: "Her crime? Criticizing female genital mutilation, which she herself was subjected to before fleeing Somalia."? Not in the source. You made that shit up. If you want to be taken seriously, which, you know, probably too late for that, you might start with... not making shit up. SPLC most certainly did NOT list Ayaan Hirsi Ali as an "extremist" because she criticized female genital mutilation. Oh well, I'll just say it. Stop lying.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

You shouldn't call someone a liar when the facts are on his side. It makes you look like a foolish person who doesn't check his facts.

From the SPLC:

"In 2015, Hirsi Ali spoke at ACT for America’s national conference. As part of its ongoing efforts to vilify Muslims and their faith, ACT and other anti-Muslim groups often try to paint the practice of FGM as being intrinsically part of Islam despite it being a cultural issue whose origins predate Islam and whose victims have included women of Christian, Jewish, Muslim, animist and other traditional religious backgrounds. Nevertheless voices from the anti-Muslim hate movement continue to push the false narrative that FGM is practice unique and intrinsic to Islam."[11]

And before you claim that the SPLC isn't attacking Hirsi Ali because she speaks out against FGM but rather because she falsely links it to Islam , read our article on Religious views on female genital mutilation, and especially the scholarly citations that article uses. That article says "FGM is practiced predominantly within certain Muslim societies", "FGM was introduced in Southeast Asia by the spread of Shafi'i version of Islamic jurisprudence, which considers it obligatory", "FGM is found mostly within and adjacent to Muslim communities", and "The Maliki, Hanafi and Hanbali schools of Islamic jurisprudence view [FGM] as makrama for women ("noble", as opposed to obligatory). For the Shafi'i school it is obligatory (wājib)." (Note that our article on Shafi‘i says that it is predominantly found in Somalia, among other countries where it is predominant.) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Again this is blurring of various issues, but in an environment where all RS are acknowledged to be regularly mistaken, your critique is diffuse, as I recall there was a recent correction by the SPLC. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Really? You have evidence that they admit that "The Daily Stormer Book Club" doesn't exist? Please cite your source. Or are you referring to the "correction" that only happened after Maajid Nawaz sued them and they settled by paying him US$3.375 million? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

What? Where is "The Daily Stormer Book Club" discussed on Wikipedia. But if it's existence ever came-up on Wikipedia, Wikipedia would relate the evidence of its existence and evidence of its non-existence per V/NPOV/OR. We would not rely on what you like and don't like, nor on editorializing (eg. something is not state-wide just because it is placed with a state). As for correction, indeed, publishers of work that back what they say with their money, try to be correct and make correction when they are not correct. That's true of all RS. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I can't find the section of our reliable sources policy which disqualifies sources from being used in articles based on your moral outrage. Gamaliel (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Faux News has made many more UNCORRECTED errors than SPLC. If any banning for distribution of bad info is going on, Fox first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• What Guy Macon left out, inexplicably, is that Skip Bayless, on ESPN, spoke really disrespectfully about Nick Saban, and even claimed that Jim Harbaugh is a better coach. AND YET WE CONTINUE TO CITE ESPN. (PS I'm not linking Nick Saban per WP:OVERLINK.) Drmies (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

You're obviously trying to provoke me into making a BLP violation with some creative wikilinking for your mention of that person so you have an excuse to block me before 11/24 rolls (no not that kind of roll) around. Volunteer Marek 22:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Trust me, Volunteer "War Eagle" Marek, I'll find an excuse to block you. And if you touch Nick Saban, ima get the entire ArbCom to come down on you: I got tapes of our secret meetings in Courcelles' hot tub, so they better do what I ask. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• The blind support on this wikipedia for SPLC and antifa, both of which imo are as bad as the people they attack is simply a reflection of this wikipedia's general political leaning. This project should imo stop hiding behind NPOV and CONSENSUS and make an honest declaration so that readers are aware of its political leaning. Govindaharihari (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't support antifa, I broadly support the SPLC, but I don't "blindly" support either. The thing you seem to be forgetting is that anti-fascist is what you are supposed to be. There was this whole war and everything. Bigotry against bigots is a considerably less pressing problem than bigotry against women, non-whites, the LGBT community, Muslims and all the other targets of the asshole alt-right. The fascists want the return of the total dominance of white men over society. Antifa want no more fascists. These two are not equal. So before you climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider Man, first check that it's not on fire. Guy (Help!) 07:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

We're all antifascists here, if you weren't aware. The issue is that they attack people who are not fascists – such as another antifascist demonstrator –, and if we're being liberal for a moment, that they attack anyone at all. Violence begets violence. With that whole war and everything, last I checked, the flag of the United States was flown in the fight against fascism, not for it. I'm tossing up whether to respond to that parroted last sentence (of the original)... hmm, sure: you've left out the alt-right's biggest and most reviled (by them) target, the Jewish people. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not convinced that everybody on Wikipedia is anti-fascist. We have a significant minority who support racist autocrats, for example. But I think you may be falling for another point of false equivalence. Fascists deliberately target minorities. Antifa has indeed attacked a few people who were not fascists, but the case in point looks a lot like mistaken identity. Turning up with an American flag to a fascist rally does sort of suggest you might be down with the whole fascist thing, after all. Not that I defend it. I do not advocate violence other than as part of a righteous war/revolution and even then I'm ambivalent about it. The point is about the aims of the groups. Antifa is a group that opposes fascism, and which has some members who are violent idiots. The alt-right is a movement that is driven by fear and hatred of anyone other than straight Christian white men - the single most privileged group in America. Treating them as equivalent, and specifically labelling SPLC as unreliable because it criticises the alt-right while not calling Antifa a hate group, is white privilege, whataboutism and false equivalence.

It is possible for apparent whataboutism to be a valid critique. Tommy Robinson fulminates against "Muslim grooming gangs", a significant but restricted problem, but has said absolutely nothing, as far as I can see, about the Catholic church's decades-long practice of protecting child rapists. If you're looking for religions that sexually abuse children, Islam is nowhere near the top of the list. His attacks on "Muslim grooming gangs" are transparently racially motivated, and "what about the Catholics" is an entirely valid rebuttal. Guy (Help!) 08:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I had meant in this thread. I've encountered a couple of those fascists that reside on Wikipedia. I wasn't planning on getting intot the SPLC, but: [S]pecifically labelling SPLC as unreliable because it criticises the alt-right - Maajid Nawaz, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Sam Harris are alt-right? A Muslim, an ex-Muslim, and a Jew walk into a white supremacist's bar. They don't walk out. I suspect that has a bigger impact on SPLC criticism than, say, Richard Spencer or Jared Taylor, the very popular prominent figures within mainstream politics that they are (yes, they have their following, it's a small one). Mr rnddude (talk) 08:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Abuso

Quero denunciar o abuso de um sysop na WP-PT por bloqueio no meu IP sem qualquer motivo. 179.154.60.118 (talk) 03:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Ver meu IP na wp-pt para ver que não fiz nada para ser bloqueado. 179.154.60.118 (talk) 03:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Jimbo and the English-language wikipedia community are unlikely to be able to help you with issues on the Portuguese Wikipedia. (Jimbo e a comunidade wikipedia em inglês provavelmente não poderão ajudá-lo com questões sobre a Wikipédia em português.) power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Power~enwiki, posso comer vidro, não me fere. Drmies (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

New diff still comparing paragraphs when moved

Just FYI. Over the past few weeks, I have confirmed the new "weave-diff" is doing well in comparing the text, between revisions, even when paragraphs have been moved over 20 paragraphs up/down. For example, in a recent edit of page "Roman Ruins of Milreu", I moved 3 "File:" images lower down the page while also resizing each image from "235px" (to the user-preference "upright=1.2"), and the diff highlighted each "235px" as having been changed: (diff: [12]). The 3 images were each moved to different locations, but the diff correctly compared each image-link where it was moved and noted "upright=1.2" was the new text. Now, this extremely difficult weave-diff pairing, of moved paragraphs, still has some limitations, and I had to leave a blank line after the 4th paragraph, in order for each of the 3 moved image-link paragraphs to correctly match the original 3 image-links above the 4th paragraph in the section. However, for limited movement of a few paragraphs, the "diff" operation is quite amazing to compare paragraphs, for altered text, when moved far across a page. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Auto-translate better with "no longer" instead of "not"

Just FYI. As noted in years discussing Google Translate, the pesky word "not" keeps getting omitted in various auto-translations of pages. To circumvent the problem, I successfully reworded text with "no longer" (instead of basic "not"), and the auto-translate worked in Esperanto version, "eo:Bill Gates" to translate with "no longer" into the Esperanto sentence, and back into English:

"Microsoft anoncis, ke Gates ne plu partoprenus aktive en la ĉiutaga laboro de la kompanio"

to get auto-translation:

"Microsoft announced that Gates would no longer participate actively in the company's daily work"

where the phrase "no longer" is not lost in translation as would the word "not". -Wikid77 (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

OMG this isn't going to lead to another horrific repetition of this, is it? --JBL (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)