Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions
Gandydancer (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 704: | Line 704: | ||
:Thanks a lot for the feedback--I really do want to make an article that is the best we can do considering that sources can sometimes be difficult to find no matter what side of a subject one may be on. About the sources, I did look at all of them and found only two that I thought were acceptable, the two news sources. I felt that the blog was not good for any info but I also felt that the primary source was not very helpful and the opinion piece would not be good for much either. Since you feel that the opinion piece and the primary source would be acceptable to use I will ask our source feedback editors for advice. Also, would you please take a look at the refs that you feel are acceptable and suggest additions to the article that would make it less biased? Thanks. [[User:Gandydancer|Gandydancer]] ([[User talk:Gandydancer|talk]]) 16:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC) |
:Thanks a lot for the feedback--I really do want to make an article that is the best we can do considering that sources can sometimes be difficult to find no matter what side of a subject one may be on. About the sources, I did look at all of them and found only two that I thought were acceptable, the two news sources. I felt that the blog was not good for any info but I also felt that the primary source was not very helpful and the opinion piece would not be good for much either. Since you feel that the opinion piece and the primary source would be acceptable to use I will ask our source feedback editors for advice. Also, would you please take a look at the refs that you feel are acceptable and suggest additions to the article that would make it less biased? Thanks. [[User:Gandydancer|Gandydancer]] ([[User talk:Gandydancer|talk]]) 16:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC) |
||
I'd also point out that the current one-sided presentation makes it likely that thoughtful readers will ignore the entire article. For me, the lack of balance casts suspicion onto the entire presentation and makes me suspect (yes) an non-neutral point of view on the part of most of its editors. [[Special:Contributions/214.10.6.24|214.10.6.24]] ([[User talk:214.10.6.24|talk]]) 22:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== [[María de los Ángeles Pineda Villa]] == |
== [[María de los Ángeles Pineda Villa]] == |
Revision as of 22:09, 13 November 2016
This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors. Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared. |
Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context! | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Can I please have some help at Shooting of James Boyd?
This case is also at the OR noticeboard, but no outside editors have commented yet and the other editor keeps editing in the OR. This is really becoming more a matter of behavior than lack of knowledge of WP policy, as I originally assumed. I have already spent way more time on this than I had and today I gotta be elsewhere today so I'll have to do the fleshing out and diffs later, and I guess I am supposed to close the other discussion (?) However I'll leave it up while I am gone, for reference, for now, as the two issues described there are among the of several problems faced by the article. The sort of very angry line-by-line refutation of the smallest details you see there is another. Almost every attempt to discuss has gone off into the weeds. A few of the current concerns, which may require attention today:
- repeated reinsertion of, essentially, an OR refutation of the prosecutor's opening statement. These are studies the editor went out and found on his own.
- possible outing of another editor, @Activist, and stark refusal to delete the material from his page, because, he says, he wants to prove how ignorant that editor is.[1][2][3]
- Needless to say we don't see that editor on the page any more very much at all.
- he likes the word ignorant and uses it a lot [4]
- editor has said he knows he is right and primary sources are acceptable if used carefully. "Careful use of primary sources" in this case is, per that editor, a courtroom exhibit briefly seen on a YouTube video. I am inclined to believe the video is genuine and there is such an exhibit but the sources do not use terminology he wants in the article; his contention is that the accuracy of the terminology is obvious from the exhibit.
- editor has said he doesn't care what I or any other editor say about this.
- there was some sort of rant about BS yesterday, which, as best I can determine, refers to a prosecution witness' testimony.
- editor has said he has "inside sources"
- there are COI discussions open re the city of Albuquerque
- editor makes wild and unfounded accusations
- editor makes remarks about other editors. All the time, non-stop, and assumes bad faith.
- editor, when asked directly if he has a contract with the city of albuquerque, editor replies that he is not a city employee Elinruby (talk) 17:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Extended content, meta-discussion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
discussion of mud-slinging editing style
|
---|
I found that very hard to read and I actually mostly know what he is talking about. I am itching to slap a hatnote on that mess but I think someone else should do that if in fact it is appropriate. One of the things I need help with is keeping my temper. Another is trying to explain NPOV to Beanyandcecil, because he is sure not listening to me, and I have been working on this for more that a week full-time, and come on, that is ridiculous. He has said he doesn't care what I or anyone else thinks of his OR, because he is sure he is right. Perhaps he will listen to several of you. Whatever you do though, do not attempt to explain anything inline as he will inline-answer your explanation to tell you how wrong you are and ping you for each inline alleged refutation. Let's attempt a different format. I have promised diffs on the issues in the weeds and am late on that. But I feel a need to address, as one uninterrupted train of thought, the most recent astonishing pronouncement from Beanyandcecil. Perhaps he should ask the Kari Brandenburg about his certitude that APD does not engage in retaliation. I'll pursue my own privacy issue through the proper channel, but the important point here is that Beanyandcecil is dismissing safety concerns about which he has no information whatsoever. I will not be bullied into exacerbating them, nor will I be bullied into letting Beanyandcecil distort the account of this homicide on Wikipedia. I feel also the need to point out (and should not feel this need imho) that I have had a global account for almost five years, although I created this username in 2007. Before that I had some IP edits, almost all of the copywriting variety. I came to Wikipedia through the Open Education Repository. As noted in my user profile, my background is computer networking and internet security. I have more than 19,100 contributions on 18 projects. I usually translate and currently am working on articles about trade theory (en->fr), the appeals process in French law (fr->en) and Mexican proto-punk(es->en). Not only do I seriously have other things to do than be schooled on What is Wikipedia -- much less privacy on the internet, omg -- by Beanyandcecil, I get very few complaints about my ability to communicate ;) let alone my mental stability, forsooth. I can of course make a mistake like anyone else, but my work is autopatrolled on Wikimedia Commons and I have had an IP block exemption on English Wikipedia, so there have been a couple of findings already that on the whole I try to do the right thing and often actually do. I have been profoundly involved as a 3rd party mediator in big messy disputes both here at NPOV and at the RS noticeboard and on talk pages. Articles like Ugg boot, Leopold II of Belgium. Recently I extensively contributed to Panama Papers. I am somewhat familiar with BLP policy ;) Before that, Stop Online Piracy Act (remember the day they turned off Wikipedia?). Yeah, I've heard of NPOV. No blocks, ever, not even any administrative contact not initiated by me, I don't think. And ;) someone who just now broke 500 edits this month wants to explain to me that Wikipedia has an NPOV policy. Because I letting my emotions govern my edits. Or something. Bah. Back to diffs, sorry about the delay there. ~~
|
List of non-neutral statements (non-exhaustive)
The following list is the heart of the NPOV concerns. The insults, insinuations of bias, incompetence, wild assumptions based on his life experience, and OR make the problem more difficult to address, as does the editor's habit of copying everything said to him on the talk page and arguing with it inline. Swear to God, I really tried hard not to bite the newbies -- it's one of my own pet peeves -- but if the newbie just assumes he knows better then what is an editor supposed to do?
talk page
- when another editor said his edits 'seem to me as if they're written by defense counsel for the shooters.' Beanyandcecil says he takes that as a compliment.[5]
- Yes, that's true. It means that my edits are on point, well written, accurately address the statements they're aimed at and that they are concise and succinct. Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- I am not going to guess what the other editor meant, but I find it entirely consistent with your statement the day before yesterday that you do not think you have to include the prosecution side of the case. ALL of your edits have a single direction --- minimizing the actions of the officers and blaming a shooting victim for his own death. You repeatedly, and at this point I would have to say shamelessly, misrepresent the content of your sources and distort the events to make it appear that Boyd was an imminent threat to public safety. You've done it below in this very section. And then you post a wall of legalistic nit-picks that discourage other editors from the discussion Elinruby (talk) 11:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, that's true. It means that my edits are on point, well written, accurately address the statements they're aimed at and that they are concise and succinct. Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- when another editor mentions "the shortcomings of the ABQ police force and LEO in general in dealing with the mentally ill" Beanyandcecil replies "nonsense! LE deals with the mentally ill thousands, perhaps millions of times a day in the US."
- note: In the case of Albuquerque at least, the US Department of Justice disagrees.[1]
- ^ "DOJ Report on APD". KRQE.
- While the DOJ found the APD wanting in dealing with the mentally ill, Activist impugned all of law enforcement with his addition of
... and LEO in general ...
As I said, that's "nonsense. LE deals with the mentally ill thousands perhaps millions of times a day in the US." It's quite rare that we hear of these thousands or millions of contact because nothing of this magnitude occurs. They're simply dealt with as best as the system allows. It's not the fault of LE that legislators have decided to empty out the mental institutions where these people used to get medical assistance. And there is nothing in the DOJ report that address how APD dealt with Boyd in this instance. It's an obvious case of guilt by association. 'If there was a problem with other officers on APD, there must be a problem with these officers as well.' Yep, nonsense. Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- While the DOJ found the APD wanting in dealing with the mentally ill, Activist impugned all of law enforcement with his addition of
article
- unsourced "clarification", as he calls it in edit summary, that Boyd "threatened one of the officers"[6]
- I don't find any reference in the diff that Elinruby posted. There is such a reference in the NEXT edit though so perhaps that's what's being referred to. It's well documented AND sourced that when the Open Space officers first made contact with Boyd, he produced not one, BUT TWO knives and threatened the officers. There's links that I've supplied to several news stories that support it.[7] There's even a witness statement from the original caller to the police department that he heard Boyd threaten to kill the officers if they tried to touch him. IN FACT there are TWO citations for the statement that follow it in the diff. Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- argh I am pretty sure I have had this same conversation with you about six times, but you have to not only provide citations, they have to back up what you say. But maybe where I've seen those before was your relentless campaign to make the pocket knife seem dangerous, which they didn't substantiate either. I don't have time to watch those videos again right now. Since you've started editing the page again and I've said I'll respond I'll look when I do that. Elinruby (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- I don't find any reference in the diff that Elinruby posted. There is such a reference in the NEXT edit though so perhaps that's what's being referred to. It's well documented AND sourced that when the Open Space officers first made contact with Boyd, he produced not one, BUT TWO knives and threatened the officers. There's links that I've supplied to several news stories that support it.[7] There's even a witness statement from the original caller to the police department that he heard Boyd threaten to kill the officers if they tried to touch him. IN FACT there are TWO citations for the statement that follow it in the diff. Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- changes "and the dog tore at his leg" to "the police dog was again sent to bite him.", which certainly minimizes the gore and leaves open the question of whether the dog actually did bite.[8]
- this is the problem with video. I'd say "tore at his leg" is a very subdued summary of that sequence. It would probably be more factual to say the dog took his leg and shook it like a terrier shakes a rat. which has nothing to do with the fact that Boyd bled to death, of course. Of course not. As for the diff, welcome to my world. I'll verify the ones where you say you can't find what I am talking about. I am encouraged that you are actually looking at sources now :) As for serves no purpose -- if we want a factual account of what happened then this should include everything that happened. Whether we WP:DONTLIKEIT or not. This was DEFINITELY not the bite and hold situation you are implying in a genteel manner might possibly have happened.Elinruby (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it does minimize the gore which serves no purpose other than to inflame the emotions of the readers. And again, Elinruby's diff has no connection to what is discussed in the preceding paragraph. Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- removes "One of the officers responsible for the shooting" next to an officer's name - this one might be justifiable as BLP as this was before the verdict and "responsible" is a legal term. Except that a) not even Sandy disputes that Sandy shot him and b) the edit summary says he is "Correcting errors. Cleaning up language" which is.... kind of misleading. It makes it sound like typos or english that he is correcting. Elinruby (talk) 11:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- No police officers were
responsible for the shooting.
The responsibility for what happened in this incident lies with Boyd. Had the officers been convicted of murder, it would be appropriate to use that language. At the time the trial was not over andresponsibility
had not been determined, therefore it's inappropriate to use the language that was used before my edit. And now that the jury has voted 9 to 3 for acquittal. It's even more inappropriate to use that reference. Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)- Boyd magicked the bullets out of the gun and into his back, yeah I know. The officers just happened to be there and had nothing to do with the matter. Come on. Their own testimony says that they shot him and they shot him on purpose. I'm not married to "responsible" if you feel it implies legal responsibility, but in an article with this many moving parts it would be well to somehow indicate that this particular officer, the one we are talking about there in that sentence, was one of the ones who pulled a trigger. Elinruby (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- No police officers were
- changed "He threatened police officers who came near him" to "He threatened to kill any police officer who came near him." This is described in the edit summary as a "minor correction". Leaves reference saying Boyd threatened 19 times to kill police officers. Nothing there about "any" or for that matter "near him", but I am not sure at the moment where the latter came from.[9]Elinruby (talk) 12:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Boyd did threaten to kill any officer who came near him. [10][11] Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- um one of your references is your own edit to the article and the other one doesn't support your statement. The closest it comes is a defence attorney asking a witness whether Boyd threatened the officers. Nothing there about "any". The witness was 100 yards away and had initiated the situation by calling 911, so self-justification can't be ruled out. The witness does agree but your statement is considerably stronger. May I point out that the crisis intervention officer was not threatened, even though the defense theory is that he was too close to Boyd and therefore in danger? And that *you* said this was irrelevant, just the other day, and moved it out of the lede? Elinruby (talk) 11:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Boyd did threaten to kill any officer who came near him. [10][11] Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
remarks about editors to justify previous remarks about editors
|
---|
Since this is going to be another hat note, fine, since apparently you are not going to reconsider and ::cough:: re-read the page, let's go there. At one point I thought you might actually be capable fo discussion. I am going to try AGAIN. Anyone can post a wall of accusations, you know. that drew my response which appears just below. Removing the context of my comments is something that Elinruby does with great frequency, and here, she does it again. This came up when she was again on a rant about how I've kept "personal information" about Activist. I have not, the information he posted contains no personal information.
Nonetheless, Elinruby wrote this,
If Elinruby has some evidence of officers killing Wikipedia editors that post things they might not like, have her present it here.
Otherwise it's nothing but obsessive ramblings. Equating the filing of charges against a DA to prevent or in response to a filing of charges against some police officers is one thing.
The stalking and killing of a Wikipedia editor for posting information that they may not like is quite another.
This is BEYOND absurd.
But this is the sort of thing that happens when people let their emotions run away."}}
But she so often misquotes me, when a simple search would reveal the truth and the reality, she's getting closer to it, simply by refusing to verify such claims before she makes them. Here is what I ACTUALLY wrote on this, It's clear from what I wrote that I was referring to ANOTHER DOJ report, one conducted where I live. But it's really irrelevant to this shooting incident. The DOJ report did not examine the incident discussed in the Article. It occurred after the DOJ had completed their investigation. They only referred to it by mentioning a comment made by the Chief. My point back then was that each incident of this nature, officer involved shootings, need to be investigated on their own, to determine if it was justified or not. They should not automatically be classified according to a DOJ report, or any other.
He should read the DoJ report. I can confidently say that it does not say that APD has any history of retaliation against WP editors. Such an investigation is only useful to show general tendencies and what happened in the incidents that were actually investigated. Any such report should NOT be used to judge all officers, all shooting incidents or anything other than incidents that were actually investigated.
But some will do it anyway, painting anyone who wears a police uniform with the same brush. The report IS quite useful for inflaming the emotions of a few. Beanyandcecil ([[User talk:Beanyandcecil|talk]]) 04:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Removing the context of my comments is something that Elinruby does with great frequency,
This came up when she was again on a rant
about how I've kept "personal information" about Activist. I have not, the information he posted contains no personal information.
If Elinruby has some evidence of officers killing Wikipedia editors that post things they might not like, have her present it here.
Otherwise it's nothing but obsessive ramblings. Equating the filing of charges against a DA to prevent or in response to a filing of charges against some police officers is one thing.
But this is the sort of thing that happens when people let their emotions run away."
So I'll give Elinruby another ten Pinocchios for her claim that I
It should be clear from what I wrote that I was referring to ANOTHER DOJ report, one conducted where I live. But this DOJ report done on APD is really irrelevant to this shooting incident. The DOJ report did not examine the incident discussed in the Article. It occurred after the DOJ had completed their investigation. They only referred to it by mentioning a comment made by the Chief. My point back then was that each incident of this nature, officer involved shoyotings, or other UOF, should be investigated on their own situation and facts, to determine if it was justified or not. They should not automatically be classified according to a DOJ report, or any other.
The DOJ report did not address this shooting so it's irrelevant to this discussion.
I can confidently say that it does not say that APD has any history of retaliation against WP editors.
But some will do it anyway, painting anyone who wears a police uniform with the same brush.
|
list of wild and unfounded accusations against various people (incomplete)
|
---|
|
list of OR statements inserted on behalf of defense
- Per WP, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views." Emphasis added. Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- In these LE shooting situations, a public that is not educated, trained or experienced in such matters will hold various opinions based on their general opinion of LE and how much they think they understand tactical LE situations. Usually the latter is based on what they've seen on TV and in the movies and it's completely unrealistic and not based on what actually happens to people in these situations, their abilities, their reactions, their emotional responses and more. Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- It's easy to sit in the safety and comfort of one's living room watching calmly as a situation unfolds on your computer screen with hours, days and weeks to second−guess what a police officer did. It's quite something else to be there and doing it. As the US Supreme Court said in Graham v. Connor "The 'reasonableness' of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight ... and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation." Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- When members of the public, serving on the jury at the trial in this case, learned ALL the pertinent facts of this case, including the tactics used by LE, mindset and thought processes of the officers involved they voted 9-3 for acquittal. Activist and Elinruby think they know what happened, but they lack vital information that only sitting through the trial, or having a LE background in this material brings. Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
talk page
- "mental patients mental patients are highly resistant to pain"[26]
- "I've also had them change from quiet and mild to murderous, without an obvious trigger and without any warning. They are unpredictable and can be set off by many triggers without one even realizing that they've set them off, until it's too late."[27]
- I think that this was part of a semi−long discussion with Activist about the shooting, as opposed to talking about the Article about the shooting. And so I was drawing on my 30 years of experience in these matter to try to get him to understand how a LEO thinks during these situations. But I can't find either statement in Elinruby's links, so I don't really know. Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- "argues that K-9 handler said "Phooey"" in response to suggestion on talk page (never added to article for RS reasons) that Perez says "Booyah" [28]; this is stated as fact although it is unsourced and does not match the audio. Elinruby (talk)
- I'm wondering, how come it's NOT OK to bring up the allegation that an officer said "Fooey" to his dog, but it's perfectly OK to bring up the allegation that another officer said "Booyah?" Why is one OK and the other forms part of the basis of a complaint against an editor? And as if that unfounded allegation was not enough, Elinruby says, in trying to paint an officer with her broad brush, "There is a story about Perez's birthday; have you heard about that?" spreading a hint about a completely unfounded and unsourced rumor. It should be noted that I asked about that "party" but Elinruby never provided the information that was requested. Wiki requires that editors communicate with one another to reach a consensus on editing, but Activist refuses to do so, and by refusing to answer over 50 questions that I've asked, so does Elinruby. Do I need to start my own complaint here? Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- NOBODY said it was "not ok". This is happening on the talk page where we discuss things. Or try to. The reason I bring it up here is that goes with the single-mindedness of your edits. In this exchange I was trying to explain to Beany that he could not simply dismiss things by saying that they do not represent good police practice. APD, according to the DoJ, cannot be described as employing good police practice. The "Booyah" comment was never in the article and won't be unless it's very very very well sourced. And maybe not then, because as it is, the video shown to the jury captions the comment as "(unintelligible)". I believe, but cannot substantiate at the moment, that the caption originally said "Booyah" and was removed in response to defense objections. If it were possible to adequately source this it might substantiate the cowboy mentality that was the center of the DoJ report. However, I might even myself agree that it's inflammatory and open to doubt; I'd have to look into it, but it's irrelevant unless I come across a source. BLP would certainly apply in spades to any such edit. But that does not mean that we get to invent our own versions and state them as fact, either. As for the Perez birthday comment, I said nothing about a party and I did not follow up because the allegation is even more inflammatory and I don't want to feed it, above and beyond BLP. I should probably explain that as a former long-time resident I have been following the case on my social media networks, which include a number of Albuquerque politicians and reporters. I have not seen this suggestion made anywhere that I'd consider using as a source and even if the reason for this is circled wagons, it's not something that should be repeated without careful verification. I don't think I believe it, either, which is even more reason. But there are definitely people in town who do. K? Also, this is not a complaint. It is a desperate appeal for help in explaining Wikipedia policy to you.Elinruby (talk) 11:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- I'm wondering, how come it's NOT OK to bring up the allegation that an officer said "Fooey" to his dog, but it's perfectly OK to bring up the allegation that another officer said "Booyah?" Why is one OK and the other forms part of the basis of a complaint against an editor? And as if that unfounded allegation was not enough, Elinruby says, in trying to paint an officer with her broad brush, "There is a story about Perez's birthday; have you heard about that?" spreading a hint about a completely unfounded and unsourced rumor. It should be noted that I asked about that "party" but Elinruby never provided the information that was requested. Wiki requires that editors communicate with one another to reach a consensus on editing, but Activist refuses to do so, and by refusing to answer over 50 questions that I've asked, so does Elinruby. Do I need to start my own complaint here? Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- "I suggest that you take a look at this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyJWbvk-KY4 It's from the highly anti−LEO site, PINAC (Photography Is Not A Crime) and shows one of their contributors, Charlie Grapski at the area where this incident occurred. At 1:04 on the video the camera zooms in on the sign that's posted at the entrance to the area. The sign is entitled "City of Albuquerque, Open Space Regulations. One of the activities that is prohibited is "camping and fires." Down at the bottom of that sign is this, "city and county ordinances. state statues, and federal laws governing resource protection public conduct and safety apply and violations are punishable by fine and imprisonment." [added emphasis is mine]." -- to another editor, implies that illegal camping is an arrestable offense based on a video he himself says is not neutral. (AFAIK "illegal camping" is a violation of a city ordinance; I provided a link to the city webpage where the rule appears). Elinruby (talk) 09:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Another place where the leaving out of context, changes the meaning of what's quoted. This goes back to a comment from Activist,
"There was testimony last week from an officer who had supervisory authority on the scene who ventured that he I can't remember his name, but he appeared tall, thin, very short hair and light brown skin"
The material quoted above was part of my reply to show that there is a sign at the base of the trail, leading to the area in which Boyd was camped that CLEARLY STATED, that "camping and fires" are prohibited and that "violations are punishable by fine and imprisonment." The fact that this video is not neutral, it's by a group that is anti−police, should be a clue, to Elinruby and Activist, that the officer who wasn'tsure whether there were grounds at all for Boyd to be charged.
that there were, AT LEAST misdemeanor charges. How anyone on the scene could miss a briefing that Boyd committed an aggravated assault with deadly weapons on the first two officers who approached him, is inconceivable. LE personnel approaching were briefed and it was a topic of conversation on the radio repeatedly. Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Another place where the leaving out of context, changes the meaning of what's quoted. This goes back to a comment from Activist,
- "He certainly lacks the necessary knowledge to be a peace officer. He didn't even recognize that a felony had been committed, much less the misdemeanor (probably) of the camping violation." - in reference to CIT officer Mikal Monette[29]
- See above. It appears that Monette was so focused on his duties as a negotiator, that he completely lost sight of his duties and responsibilities as a police officer. Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- "It's not necessary that he use the word "Taser." It's not that it's the "police version" it's that it's a reasonable conclusion to come to"[30] - in response to me, about repeatedly adding the word "taser" to a quote because he thinks this is what the officer meant. He be may right about what the officer *meant* but a quote is supposed to be what someone *said* Elinruby (talk) 09:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC) edia.org/wiki/?diff=742580643] to emphasize it might be dangerous
- There are several sources that say in the transcript of the conversation between the two officers (Ware and Sandy) "unintelligible" just before the word "shotgun." There are several sources that say that they hear the word "Taser" where others do not. Since several sources claim that the word there is "Taser" it's appropriate to put it into the article. AT THE SAME TIME there should be a statement that this interpretation is disputed by some and what they think the statement should be. But Elinruby does not want this. Conveniently she left off the rest of what I said. Here's the full statement (leaving off a non-pertinent comment at the end of it). "It's not necessary that he use the word "Taser." It's not that it's the "police version" it's that it's a reasonable conclusion to come to after listening to the conversation between the officers and reading the transcript of it I've located several sources that support that Sandy was talking about a Taser shotgun, not a standard shotgun." (I've now placed emphasis to show the necessary context that Elinruby has removed). Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- But in any case, at the time that Sandy made this statement, he was handling his Taser shotgun, and Ware, with whom he was speaking is "ADAMANT" that Sandy said "Taser." Even if that was not enough, Ware, looking for clarification with his friend, asks for his meaning. Here's a transcript from Ware's dash cam where this discussion between the officers occurs. I've placed the emphasis in this transcription. Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Sandy: What do they have you guys doing here?
- Ware: I don’t know. The guy asked for state police.
- Sandy: Who asked?
- Ware: I don’t know.
- Sandy: For this f***ing lunatic? I’m going to shoot him in the penis with a (unintelligible) shotgun here in a second.
- Ware: You got uh less-lethal?
- Sandy: I got…
- Ware: The Taser shotgun?
- Sandy: Yeah. Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
article
- Unsourced description of knife [31]
- Unsourced? I placed this immediately after the description of the knife. (Formatting removed to show the details of the link that was placed). "cite news |url=http://abqjournal.com/372844/news/video-camper-turning-away.html |title=Video: Camper turning from officers when shot |author=Dan McKay|publisher=Albuquerque Journal| date=March 22, 2014| accessdate=August 24, 2015| at=0:15-1:37 in second embedded video, titled Foothills Shooting News Conference" Looks like a source to me. I included the time on the video where the pertinent act occurs. Elinruby several times has quoted testimony from the same court TV without giving the time, on an hours−long video, where the statements alleged to be on the video, actually appears. Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Unsourced addition to text:"Sandy then threw a flash-bang grenade toward Boyd, but it landed in a rocky area to Boyd's right. A police dog was released to bite Boyd but he was distracted by the flight and explosion of the flash-bang. A Taser shotgun was fired at Boyd, but it did not appear to have any effect. Boyd dropped the bags he had picked up, and retrieved the knives from his pockets, with one knife in each hand he assumed a squared off stance. Officers then ordered Boyd drop the two knives several times, but he did not comply." this and a similar edit are together described as "Corrections, Deleted material to move to new section, Deleted redundancies, General clean up"[32]
- These are observations that any educated person can make without specialized knowledge from watching the video that has been linked in the Article since long before I came along. It IS sourced in the "External Links" section as [33] Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- I am quite well-educated thank you, and I have no idea about weapons terminology, as you have quite disparagingly remarked in another context. I have no problem with the description if you can produce an instance of someone else using it, and it should someone who is not the defendant if you want to say it in the voice of wikipedia. If want to say at some point, not in the lede, that Sandy or some other involved policeman described it in this way then that would also be fine. Assuming you provide a reference.Elinruby (talk) 11:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- These are observations that any educated person can make without specialized knowledge from watching the video that has been linked in the Article since long before I came along. It IS sourced in the "External Links" section as [33] Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- in the same "cleanup edit" adds unsourced remark that "Because of the danger presented by the knives, one officer fired three bean bag rounds at Boyd."
- I made this addition based on my experience in LE and what I thought was obvious.
I did not provide a source for it and it was inappropriate. Mea Culpa. As I go through the video of testimony from the trial, I have no doubt that there will be testimony that provides such a statement. When I find that, I'll replace the statement, providing a link to the video AND the time on the video that it occurs. Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Alright, perhaps. If it supports the statement. But my major point is that this is not correcting the english or a minor detail like whether Boyd picked up a knapsack, a duffel bag or a cloth shopping bag, to give an example of something we have actually seen. It's a wholesale substitution of a different account of events, one which supports something that seems obvious to you, that it's totally fine to shoot a person who as police arrived was doing no more than being homeless and crazy in an isolated area at the foot of a mountain. Elinruby (talk) 11:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- still in the same edit described as "cleanup" adds " The dog grabbed one of the stuff sacks and brought it to his handler who had advanced his position towards Boyd, accompanied by two of his back-up officers. Boyd took a step towards the officers and stopped. The canine handler tried to get his dog to drop the stuff sack and redirect onto Boyd. While he was distracted doing this, he was about 8'-10' from Boyd, and was looking down at his dog. Officers Sandy and Perez thought that he presented an imminent deadly threat to the dog handler and together they fired a total of six shots. Three bullets hit Boyd — one in the back and one in each arm. He was turning an instant before they started firing and he fell to the ground, face down, still holding onto both of his knives.[1] After he fell to the ground Boyd said "Please don't hurt me. I can't move." There is nothing at think link but a video.
- As Elinruby says,
There is ... a video.
Any educated person can watch that video and make the same observations that I described. It does not take any specialized knowledge. Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- As Elinruby says,
dismissive statements made on the basis of assumptions, now with new personal attacks
|
---|
"But I doubt that any of those topics bring out anywhere near the emotions that does the killing of someone by the police, particularly these days. And so, while I've not looked at your other edits, I doubt that there is as much confrontation over the topic as there, quite naturally is, over this one."
|
I'll pick up the NPOV list with more diffs a bit later today but I think people get the idea. Meanwhile all editing has stopped on the actual article. Elinruby (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Malleus Maleficarum
This page is in clear violation of the rule of Neutral Point of View and thus Manual of Style. User Asterixf2 (talk), presumably of WikiProject Feminism, has made over 230 edits to this page under the guise of "major expansion," when it was really an ocean of bias and biased sources.[2] On no less than four occasions, the topic of bias has been brought up on the talk page and promptly refused or ignored.[3][4][5][6][7][Note 1]
In addition, though I (Vami_IV) have thus far warranted it unnessacery to do to apply to the Edit Warring noticeboard, Asterixf2 has on at least occasion reverted thousands of bytes of constructive material, most notably added by Ryn78, complete with more credible sources no less. I feel insulted that I have to do this, but it is obvious to me that this editor is not editing in good faith. It is, however, funny to me that Asterixf2 has done this while informing others that he has reverted their edits, telling them not to do it again, and then cites "Wikipedia is not censorship.[8]
References
Citations
- ^ Chelo Rivera. "Video: APD releases HelmetCam footage of shooting". KRQE NEWS 13. KRQE NEWS 13. Retrieved 4 October 2016.
- ^ The summary openly declares the book "misogynistic"
- ^ Talk:Malleus Maleficarum#On Bias
- ^ Talk:Malleus Maleficarum#Removed External Link
- ^ Talk:Malleus Maleficarum#Recent attempts to undo the longstanding consensus
- ^ Talk:Malleus Maleficarum#Changes, comparison
- ^ Talk:Malleus Maleficarum#Request for proper sourcing of Behringer, Wolfgang. "Malleus Maleficarum"
- ^ User talk:Ryn78#Malleus Maleficarum
Notes
- ^ And this is only from a Ctrl+F search of the talk page for the word "Bias." I have not invested time into fully reading the talk page
Discussion
- WikiProject Feminism wasn't involved. --Asterixf2 (talk) 12:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- This section was added by User:Vami IV and not signed [37]. It was created immediately after I have filed to ANI a related case [38]. --Asterixf2 (talk) 12:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- I have added 7th citation. :) Apparently 6 is not enough to be convincing. --Asterixf2 (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- I too have cited sources. At the time, I was unable to sign because of time constraints. Class had began and it was highly imperative that I departed the computer I was using ASAP. I would also like to say that I had no idea there was an ANI claim filed as I had just arrived at the school, saw Asterixf2 was up to his old tricks again, and filed this complaint. --Vami IV (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC) Dues Vult!
- PS. link to previous revision (current was changed by reintroduction of the content that has been previously discussed). Therefore the revision with the 7 citiations I was talking about and the one that was current at the time of this complaint is here: Malleus Maleficarum, previous revision with last edit by Asterixf2
- The "of WikiProject Feminism" bit smells of a rather gross failure of WP:AGF, as if feminists or members of the feminism WikiProject aren't allowed to edit here or something (then again, OP is a Gamergater who likes to refers to people he thinks might be feminists as "cretins"). Vami IV has taken issue with labeling a book that says that women are weak servants of Satan as misogynistic and is only riding on the coattails of Ryn78's complaints regarding other issues. Ryn78 left in the word misogynistic as well and made no complaints about that particular point on the talk page -- so it is disingenuous to pretend that he shares Vami IV's complaints. Again, this is a book that says that women should be targeted for superstitious persecution on the assumption that they are naturally evil. Complaining about calling this work misogynistic is like complaining that article on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion article calls that book antisemitic.
- Move to close. Were this ANI, I would push to topic ban Vami IV from gender related topics. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- This has already been addressed. I am finished here and look like to forget about this. --Vami IV (talk) 02:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC) Non Nobus
AfD of possible relevance
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RightNetwork.
Comment please.
jps (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
There is a content dispute about classifying the Luhansk People's Republic (LPR) as a terrorist organization, and a few other related issues. LPR is one of the three regions that recently broke away from Ukraine, with assistance and/or intervention from the Russian Federation. The Ukrainian government classifies LPR as a terrorist organization, but AFAIK no other state actor follows the suit: neither EU nor USA list LPR as a terrorist organization. The main issue is about including a link to the "List of designated terrorist organizations" in the "see also" section. I feel that having a "See also: terrorists" entry would be heavily biased, and is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV.
Please comment in the talk section.
- Diff link to the content dispute: diff
- The relevant section on the talk page: Talk:Luhansk_People's_Republic
Thanks,
Heptor talk 19:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, this is biased.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- The discussion is not here, but at the relevant talk page. Note, also, that you're simply stating your opinion (i.e., you are !voting and ignoring what reliable sources say on the subject. Heptor's 'reading' of NPOV is incorrect. Added to that, the user is edit warring reliably sourced content out and tossing Category:Ukrainian irredentism into the mix without comprehending that the WP:BURDEN is on him/her to provide sources for such categories, as well as overturning multiple reliable sources. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- With regards to Category:Ukrainian irredentism — the version supported by Iryna linked to Category:Irredentism, I updated to a more specific category. This is not the most important point however, this category does not need to be there. Heptor talk 07:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- The category that applies is Category:Russian irredentism, not Ukrainian irredentism. Please provide WP:RS for "Ukrainian irredentism" as you've been asked to do. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- With regards to Category:Ukrainian irredentism — the version supported by Iryna linked to Category:Irredentism, I updated to a more specific category. This is not the most important point however, this category does not need to be there. Heptor talk 07:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- The discussion is not here, but at the relevant talk page. Note, also, that you're simply stating your opinion (i.e., you are !voting and ignoring what reliable sources say on the subject. Heptor's 'reading' of NPOV is incorrect. Added to that, the user is edit warring reliably sourced content out and tossing Category:Ukrainian irredentism into the mix without comprehending that the WP:BURDEN is on him/her to provide sources for such categories, as well as overturning multiple reliable sources. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Luhansk is named at List of designated terrorist organizations, and the designation is part of Luhansk's own lede. No part of it implies anything more than that Ukraine made the designation. You're making a chicken out of a feather. Rhoark (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- The bar for being listed on the List of designated terrorist organizations is incredibly low (for instance, after overthrowing the democratically elected government of Egypt and its largest political party, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Egyptian military-backed government outlawed the MB and declared it a terrorist organization). If that's really the issue, there would need to be a larger community-wide RfC about the scope of the list (if there hasn't been one already). -Darouet (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- How is adding the "Ukrainian irredentism" category to the article a problem to do with the list of organisations designated as being terrorist? Also, what 'bar' (other than POV and OR) should be applied to such a list? It's a list of contemporary groups designated as being terrorist according to reliable sources. Are you suggesting that it be proscribed in accordance with WP:CRYSTAL-balling? Whatever RS have to say on the issue at a later date is not our concern or function. Per Rhoark, a mountain is being made out of a molehill. The fact that the editor who posted this thread has been edit warring the article on WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT grounds and declaring it WP:NPOV is just that: s/he doesn't like it and has focussed their energies on this article alone. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- I wasn't commenting on either Russian or Ukrainian territorial claims, but on the "List of designated terrorist organizations." As Rhoark points out being placed on the list has nothing to do with labeling from "reliable sources," but instead by governments, which could be very unreliable. -Darouet (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- I think that the lead (that is, the lead for "List of designated terrorist organizations") covers that list's scope adequately. It's fine within its own proscriptions/parameters. As to whether it's useful, that's another kettle of fish. I suspect myself to be a bit of a deletionist, but I can't see any strong arguments for not having the list, and I don't see that there's a problem with stating that the Ukrainian government regards them (and the DPR) as terrorist groups, and that it's wikilinked. The fact that this is the Ukrainian government's position is fully attributed within the LPR article, and given that it is on what is still understood to be its sovereign territory, there is nothing UNDUE about a cursory mention. It is where the war is still taking place. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- I do actually believe that it's due for the lead, but does look WP:POINTy as a line on its own. The Donetsk People's Republic lead does a better job of integrating the Ukrainian government's position. It might be more fitting to integrate it into the previous paragraph with the date the declaration was made. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The position of the Ukrainian government should of course be mentioned in the article. The problems with the current edition are that 1) The mention in the See Also section reads like "see also: terrorists" and it appears to categorize LPR as a terrorist organization in the Wikipedia's voice, 2) The position of the Ukrainian Government is aggrandized by being presented as the position of "Ukraine". The "terrorist" classification is controversial in Ukraine, so this presentation is not representative of the facts and goes beyond what is stated in the sources. Here is the diff link in question. Heptor talk 15:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Your interpretation as the position of the Ukrainian government being "aggrandized" ( [sic]) is your own POV reading. The sentence reads as,
"Ukraine classifies the Republic as a terrorist organisation."
How on earth can that be construed as "it appear to categorize LPR... in Wikipedia's voice..."? You're also misrepresenting the series of edits in question, being initiated by you No.1 here, No.2 here, No.3 here, and No.4 here, followed by a number of reverts back to that version by you. Where are your WP:RS for the "classification is controversial in Ukraine"? It's a statement of the government's position, not a treatise on whether everyone in Ukraine agrees, or political discourse on the position. The point of WP:TITLE is to stick to the subject according to reliable sources, not turn it into a personal essay. Honestly, it's time to drop the stick, Heptor. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Without comment on other issues raised, List of designated terrorist groups doesn't belong in the "See also" section of the article. For one thing, it's already linked in the lead. Per MOS WP:ALSO, "As a general rule, the 'See also' section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." It's also pointy and almost certainly undue. -Darouet (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I noted your removal (and already thanked you for it). I'd overlooked it during the back and forth reverting, and should have removed it per MOS:SEEALSO. Thanks for catching it, Darouet. (I will, however, note that it's not unusual for duplicate wikilinks to appear in high traffic articles that attract multitudes of inexperienced users/IPs. I'd have to go through hundreds of edits to establish that it wasn't AGF, in which case it was not intended to be POINTy.) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Without comment on other issues raised, List of designated terrorist groups doesn't belong in the "See also" section of the article. For one thing, it's already linked in the lead. Per MOS WP:ALSO, "As a general rule, the 'See also' section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." It's also pointy and almost certainly undue. -Darouet (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Few things escape your "eagle" / (harpy) eyes :) Sorry can't be of more help now! Thanks for working on the article. -Darouet (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Not a problem, Darouet. I think that the lead could do with a little reconfiguration as it's conflating the Novorossiya Project with what the LPR has become, and should only allude to it briefly as does the DPR article's lead. I'll try to make some adjustments in the next few days. Whether I start an edit war remains to be seen. The 'Evil Empire' shtick is a big thing there are a lot of editors reticent to let go of. Wish me luck! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Few things escape your "eagle" / (harpy) eyes :) Sorry can't be of more help now! Thanks for working on the article. -Darouet (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
This is one of the more one sided articles dealing with a contentious subject matter that I have come across. There is virtually no discussion of the "other side's" view of things and the narrative is grossly slanted. I have attached a POV tag and opened a discussion of the issues on the talk page which has resulted in accusations of "drive by tagging", "disruptive editing" and inferences of politically motivated bias in my actions by other editors who have repeatedly removed the tag w/o addressing the glaring bias. The obvious NPOV deficiencies were enough to cause several editors to oppose the nomination of this article to be featured on the main page at WP:ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Without directly addressing the concern here, "equal" coverage is not a requirement for NPOV. Neutral does not mean equal, if "opposing" viewpoints are deemed insignificant or fringe. I'm not saying that is or is not at play here, but in general, objections based on a lack of "equality" of viewpoints is insufficient to charge that an article is biased. Instead, it should be shown that the article does not reflect the balance of viewpoints as presented in mainstream, well-respected, reliable sources. We attempt to match reliable source coverage, not introduce "balance" by presenting a particular viewpoint as equal in representation, where it isn't. Instead of claiming that one "side" is not "equal enough", we should instead present sources which show the difference in viewpoint. You may be correct (or maybe not, I have no idea), but instead of seeking balance we should seek representative of source material. --Jayron32 17:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Jayron32 Thanks for your comment. For the record I think you may have misread my concerns. I am not asking for equality in the article. The very nature of the subject (i.e. "protests") all but guarantees that such is not possible. What I am asking for, and respectfully suggest needs to be present in the article in order to comply with NPOV, is an acknowledgement that there is another side and that they have claims of their own. Currently that effectively does not exist. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Do you have reliable, third-party sources that present that side? --Jayron32 18:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- I listed several in the discussion on the talk page. A couple are affiliated sources but I believe can be considered as reliable for the purposes of giving their view of the dispute. I am looking for more as time permits, but am currently not at home so my online activities are somewhat restricted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Do you have reliable, third-party sources that present that side? --Jayron32 18:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Jayron32 Thanks for your comment. For the record I think you may have misread my concerns. I am not asking for equality in the article. The very nature of the subject (i.e. "protests") all but guarantees that such is not possible. What I am asking for, and respectfully suggest needs to be present in the article in order to comply with NPOV, is an acknowledgement that there is another side and that they have claims of their own. Currently that effectively does not exist. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Regarding the article Ad Orientem said, "And we don't use Wikipedia as a soap box or platform for posting thinly disguised op-ed pieces, which bluntly is what this looks like." As the principle editor of this article I do feel offended to read this estimatation of the article. Never the less, I have looked at the sources that this editor has provided to defend his suggestions and can find nothing to support his position. Certainly I hope to keep the article non-biased, and if any editors can find information to present a more truthful article, I would be very pleased, indeed. Gandydancer (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Gandydancer I regret that statement which I believe unjustifiably impugned the motives of other editors, whatever my concerns about NPOV. I can only plead that I was rather provoked by various accusations being leveled in my direction at the time. That's an explanation, not an excuse. I apologize. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Oh well, it's easy enough to slap a tag on an article. I accept the editor's apology but I can not accept the fact that this editor has not done any follow-up. Without intending to do so, I would guess, but this sort of thing always inserts a sliver of doubt in our readers, IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- After being accused of disruptive editing, drive by tagging and politically motivated editing I took the hint and moved on. Over time I have learned the futility of fighting battles that are just not winnable. But this sort of thing is very discouraging and for some of our readers, the doubt is a lot more than a sliver. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- Oh well, it's easy enough to slap a tag on an article. I accept the editor's apology but I can not accept the fact that this editor has not done any follow-up. Without intending to do so, I would guess, but this sort of thing always inserts a sliver of doubt in our readers, IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- Gandydancer I regret that statement which I believe unjustifiably impugned the motives of other editors, whatever my concerns about NPOV. I can only plead that I was rather provoked by various accusations being leveled in my direction at the time. That's an explanation, not an excuse. I apologize. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Regarding the article Ad Orientem said, "And we don't use Wikipedia as a soap box or platform for posting thinly disguised op-ed pieces, which bluntly is what this looks like." As the principle editor of this article I do feel offended to read this estimatation of the article. Never the less, I have looked at the sources that this editor has provided to defend his suggestions and can find nothing to support his position. Certainly I hope to keep the article non-biased, and if any editors can find information to present a more truthful article, I would be very pleased, indeed. Gandydancer (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- I can only say again that I have done my best to present a balanced article. I have been unable to find well-sourced copy that would be appropriate that presents other POVs. I have included the police reaction where appropriate. To call the article "grossly slanted" and now say that it is bringing about "more than a sliver" of suspect about its accuracy and yet not be willing to help to bring the article to what you feel would be acceptable is not fair to my Wikipedia reputation, IMO. This has been a very unpleasant experience for me. Gandydancer (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- On the latter point I think we can agree. Overtime I've come to accept that some things about Wikipedia are what they are and it's not worth getting an ulcer over. I just try to help out where I can and I have better things to do with my time than get into pissing contests of this sort. I've seen too many editors leave the project over frustration with what they saw as its political bias. Last year I came very close to going down that road myself. After I was told on the talk page that questioning the balance in the coverage was evidence of not recognizing the right of people to protest, well like I said above, I took the hint. The article has long since been removed from my watch list. Which is what I am about to do with this page as well. I appreciate your work. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, take your ball and go home. Gandydancer (talk) 23:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- On the latter point I think we can agree. Overtime I've come to accept that some things about Wikipedia are what they are and it's not worth getting an ulcer over. I just try to help out where I can and I have better things to do with my time than get into pissing contests of this sort. I've seen too many editors leave the project over frustration with what they saw as its political bias. Last year I came very close to going down that road myself. After I was told on the talk page that questioning the balance in the coverage was evidence of not recognizing the right of people to protest, well like I said above, I took the hint. The article has long since been removed from my watch list. Which is what I am about to do with this page as well. I appreciate your work. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- I can only say again that I have done my best to present a balanced article. I have been unable to find well-sourced copy that would be appropriate that presents other POVs. I have included the police reaction where appropriate. To call the article "grossly slanted" and now say that it is bringing about "more than a sliver" of suspect about its accuracy and yet not be willing to help to bring the article to what you feel would be acceptable is not fair to my Wikipedia reputation, IMO. This has been a very unpleasant experience for me. Gandydancer (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
@Gandydancer: I don't know if that's the right attitude. I think the article is well written, but when I read it, I am struck by the absence of any explanations by authorities, by the LLC responsible for building... and I write this as someone who is overwhelmingly sympathetic to the protests. It's not just for "balance," it's because any informed reader would expect to learn what police, or construction crews contend for their part. Ad Orientem provided a number of good refs (one's a blog but the others aren't) that could be used to make sure readers have access to statements from "the other side." -Darouet (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for the feedback--I really do want to make an article that is the best we can do considering that sources can sometimes be difficult to find no matter what side of a subject one may be on. About the sources, I did look at all of them and found only two that I thought were acceptable, the two news sources. I felt that the blog was not good for any info but I also felt that the primary source was not very helpful and the opinion piece would not be good for much either. Since you feel that the opinion piece and the primary source would be acceptable to use I will ask our source feedback editors for advice. Also, would you please take a look at the refs that you feel are acceptable and suggest additions to the article that would make it less biased? Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd also point out that the current one-sided presentation makes it likely that thoughtful readers will ignore the entire article. For me, the lack of balance casts suspicion onto the entire presentation and makes me suspect (yes) an non-neutral point of view on the part of most of its editors. 214.10.6.24 (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
This article has many problems. I am unable to speak Spanish.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mayor-43-students-speaks_us_562d28afe4b0ec0a3894c62c
http://www.insightcrime.org/news-analysis/iachr-report-on-iguala-mexico-massacre-offers-no-closure
(((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 12:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Abd-ru-shin
This is about [39]: should it be stated like fact or should it be attributed as "there are authors who contend that..."? As the reliable sources make clear, Abd-ru-shin himself claimed to be the Messiah in a book (In the Light of Truth a.k.a. the Grail Message) and later hid this claim from the public, in the subsequent editions of that book.
At [40] Abd-ru-shin complained that the newspapers called him the Messiah of the Tyrol and the Prophet of Vomperberg. Why would newspapers do that? Because they had read the Conclusion from the Grail Message! Later was the Conclusion removed from it. But not because he thought he no longer was the Messiah. What could his adepts do, then? Stoutly deny it and secretly recognize it. The genie is out of the bottle: once print-published means that it became a public secret.
Jiddu Krishnamurti has publicly denied that he is the Messiah, but there is no such denial from Abd-ru-shin. I have mentioned six reliable sources which basically confirm my claim. The WP:SPA editor who has watered down the verifiable information provided no reliable source in support of his/her view, i.e. that such fact would be debatable. As far as I can see on EBSCO and JSTOR, there is no academic source which denies that Abd-ru-shin claimed that he was the Messiah. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
SPLC
In a recent article "A Journalist's Manual: Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists", the SPLC profiled a number of people, including Maajid Nawaz, the founder of the Quilliam Foundation and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Dutch legislator. Nawaz replied in an article, "I’m A Muslim Reformer. Why Am I Being Smeared as an ‘Anti-Muslim Extremist’?" Several journalists wrote editorials in their support.
An editor added this to the Southern Poverty Law Center#Controversy over hate group and extremist listings. I created a section explaining the SPLC article, along with the criticisms it had attracted.[41] This was reverted back. The link to the SPLC article and their reasons for profiling these two people was removed.
The SPLC profiles hundreds of organizations and individuals, all of whom are unhappy with the attention. While I do not think all of them should be mentioned in the article, I believe we should mention what claims against them were made by the SPLC before providing criticism. I would appreciate if other editors could look at this article.
TFD (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- I do agree that if criticism of the SPLC is going to appear by people who've been profiled, that some aspect of the SPLC profiles should be presented. In practice both sides should receive very brief attention since the scope of the SPLC is large, and so is the article.
- Regarding your edit, I would suggest that the specific mention of the lap dance, while perhaps affecting our own opinions, is over the top for an encyclopedia article on the SLPC. -Darouet (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
The Young Turks and the Armenian genocide
Just a heads-up: there appears to be some serious POV-pushing going on our The Young Turks article trying to compare them to the historical Young Turks who committed the Armenian genocide. This connection is apparently quite commonly made by conspiracy-theorist alt-righters, but I sincerely doubt any reliable sources make the connection,[42] and our article itself relies on sources that have nothing to do with the progressive media organization. This appears to be the same kind of conspiracy-theorist revisionist bullshit that says that the Nazis were communist liberals and Charles Darwin was more responsible for the Holocaust than traditional Christian antisemitism. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Hamas and EU litigation, length of section in Lede
There's currently a disagreement on the Hamas page over how much detail to go into with regard to the ongoing legal process around Hamas' terrorist designation by the EU. The discussion is wrapped around ideas of how to make the section as neutral as possible.
There are currently two versions being considered:
Version A: "Hamas, its military wing, together with several charities it runs, has been designated as a terrorist organization by Israel (1989), the United States (1996), Canada (2002), the European Union (2001/2003), Japan (2006) Egypt (2015), and was outlawed in Jordan (1999).[49] It is not regarded as a terrorist organization by Iran, Russia, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, China, and Brazil. Hamas appealed the EU blacklisting in 2008, and the European court found the earlier determination flawed. (2014). The European Council appealed the decision,.[50] and in 2016 its Advocate General advised that due to procedural errors, it should be dropped from the terror blacklist, unless proper and sufficient legal evidence to warrant its inclusion were forthcoming. It is a point of debate in political and academic circles over whether or not to classify Hamas as a terrorist group.[51]"
Version B: "Hamas, its military wing, together with several charities it runs, has been designated as a terrorist organization by Israel (1989), the United States (1996), Canada (2002), the European Union (2001/2003), Japan (2006) Egypt (2015), and was outlawed in Jordan (1999).[49] It is not regarded as a terrorist organization by Iran, Russia, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, China, and Brazil. The EU's designation is currently awaiting a final court decision after the judgement was successfully appealed by Hamas on procedural grounds.[50] It is a point of debate in political and academic circles over whether or not to classify Hamas as a terrorist group.[51]"
I thought the issue had been resolved in the previous discussion, as out of the four who opined, there appeared to be a consensus for shortening it. These were the four opinions:
- Masem: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=744735605&oldid=744734960 "Trying to explain the EU delisting is getting a bit too much in the weeds (I would leave it out until it's officially removed)
- Me: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=744856411&oldid=744836539 "I fully agree with Masem's suggestion"
- Darouet: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=745020217&oldid=745011937 "If we are going to list the EU's designation in the lead, we also need to note subsequent developments. I still believe those two sentences about the EU process could be shortened, but they definitely need to be there somehow."
- Nishidani: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=745011669&oldid=744926545 "The EU appeal is critical for Hamas's own perspective: it succeeded in a court challenge to the 'Western consensus' and that court judgement will, if acted on, affect the designation of 28 countries. Hamas's legal POV cannot obviously be ignored: if it is, we are saying the US to China axis are relevant, the subject itself has no political relevance, unlike them."
To me, this seems like a clear consensus in favor of providing a brief summary in the lede and going into detail in the body paragraphs. In version A, 44% of the paragraph is comprised of details of a legal appeal process, which is unrelated to the rest of the paragraph (describing which countries do or do not label Hamas as a terrorist group). To me, this is Undue. Any feedback would be appreciated. Drsmoo (talk) 05:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- We had a stable lead para, till Drsmoo started to object:
Hamas, its military wing, together with several charities it runs, has been designated by several governments as a terrorist organization. Others regard this designation as problematic. Israel outlawed Hamas in 1989, followed by the United States in 1996 and Canada in 2002. The European Union defined the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades as a terrorist organization in 2001, and put Hamas in its list of terrorist organizations in 2003 but such a designation was successfully challenged by Hamas in the courts in 2014 on technical grounds. The judgment was appealed. In 2016 an EU legal advisor recommended that Hamas be removed from the list due to procedural errors. The final decision is not thought likely to effect individual government lists.[49][50] An Egyptian court ruled Hamas was a terrorist organization in 2015. Japan froze Hamas assets according to its legislation on terrorist entities in 2006. Australia and the United Kingdom have designated the military wing of Hamas as a terrorist organization. The organization is also banned in Jordan. It is not regarded as a terrorist organization by Iran, Russia, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, China, and Brazil (185 words, 1164 characters.)
- Drsmoo after a long talk page stand off brought it to the NPOV board and a a long discussion ensued involving external input from User:Masem, User:Hijiri88; User:Darouet and User:The Four Deuces. Drsmoo's interpretation of that open ended argument is a caricature. The input was far more nuanced than he allows, but I doubt anyone has the patience to read the thread.
- As a result of the varied input I boiled the above text down to the following:
(B) Hamas, its military wing, together with several charities it runs, has been designated as a terrorist organization by Israel (1989), the United States (1996), Canada (2002), the European Union (2001/2003), Japan (2006) Egypt (2015), and was outlawed in Jordan (1999). It is not regarded as a terrorist organization by Iran, Russia, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, China, and Brazil. Hamas appealed the EU blacklisting in 2008, and the European court found the earlier determination flawed. (2014). The European Council appealed the decision, and in 2016 its Advocate General advised that due to procedural errors, it should be dropped from the terror blacklist, unless proper and sufficient legal evidence to warrant its inclusion were forthcoming. It is a point of debate in political and academic circles over whether or not to classify Hamas as a terrorist group. 118 words, 785 char7acters
- Darouet commented:'Nishidani, whatever Drsmoo's issue, I think your proposal is fine, but I think you should shorten it/I regard the summary sentences proposed by Masem, Drsmoo and Nishidani as all more or less equivalent.
- Drsmoo insisted there was too much detail about the EU and Hamas. Convinced he had a mandate from User:Masem, he excised most of the above and edited in
Hamas, its military wing, together with several charities it runs, has been designated as a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States, Canada, the European Union, and Japan and was outlawed in Jordan.[49] The EU decision is currently under appeal.[50] It is not regarded as a terrorist organization by Iran, Russia, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, China, and Brazil. It is a point of debate in political and academic circles over whether or not to classify Hamas as a terrorist group. 82 words, 495 characters.
- While doing this he also removed several sources in the lead discussing this, rather than putting them down into the relevant section this para summarizes. I.e. a lot of work just disappears w2ith his editing. He hasn't done any actual constructive article building.
- Result. When (A) with its 79 words re the EU was challenged by Drsmoo, I provided (B) which pared those words down to 55. Drsmoo refused any yielding of ground. Worse, he boiled down the 55 words (the compromise) to a mere 7, a 90% reduction of the original text for which there is no mandate in that discussion.
I.e. (C) The EU decision is currently under appeal
- This is totally misleading, indeed meaningless when not false. (a) The EU decision is not currently under appeal. (b)Hamas appealed it in 2008 and (c) won a judgement in its favour in 2014 which (d) the EU appealed, and appears to have lost (2016). In fact nothing is currently under appeal. All we know is that the EU's special counsel has said the grounds for appealing the European Court's judgement in favour of Hamas are not valid. In essence, Drsmoo has failed to read the sources, distorted them, in what looks like POV pushing. He has refused any reasonable compromise, and, in his (C) version essentially erased any comprehensible statement about the legal clash between Hamas, the EU, and the EU court proceedings. The POV consists in boiling down a nuanced para on the various positions regarding Hamas's classification into a list that says (a) the major Western are unanimous it is terrorist (b) the usual alignment of anti- and non-Western countries disagree. Hamas is unhappy with the EU.
- That is not NPOV. Whatever we think about it, Hamas's legal battle on this key issue is very important, and can't be buried under a big-power naming game, as if outside views of Hamas are more important than its own actions in seeking legal redress for being branded (nothing but a) terrorist (organization ).Nishidani (talk) 13:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Currently the appeal is still open (and thus, still 'under appeal' until it is closed with a final decision.) However the opinion posted in September heavily indicates Hamas will indeed be removed as per the 2014 judgement (a failure of the appeal). But the appeal will not be finished until a judgement is posted or an order (in this case likely just a judgement to uphold the previous order). Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Drsmoo wrote:'The EU decision is currently under appeal,' which is false, since it says Hamas is still appealing the 2003 EU decision. It won a verdict in its favour for a procedural flaw: all the 2003 evidence, which formed the basis for the EU classification, was clipped from the internet without any input from the intelligence or political specialists in any EU country. I.e. it was not based on any institutional verification or legal process. Drsmoo confused the Hamas appeal (upheld in 2014) with the EU appeal against the EU court verdict, opened in 2014 in the wake of that judgement. The late 2014 EU appeal was judged as flawed by the EU's own special legal counsel this year. So, while technically, that appeal is 'open', it can't, according to the EU's own legal authorities, proceed in the terms originally given. It too is flawed. It would have to be reformulated, I think she implied, in her full judgment, which effectively means:'you fucked up, guys'. Work out something else. They can't therefore proceed with the 2014 appeal in the original terms. Whatever, Drsmoo's simplification totally confused the issue, and that is why extreme excisionism is dangerous. Readers should be given a minimal right to know what happened between 2003 and 2016 in terms of this decision, which will influence 28 nations' approach to Hamas.Nishidani (talk) 14:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to say but Nishidani's post is literally just factually incorrect, there was no "long talk page stand off", there were 5 posts made within half an hour, and I opened the NPOV discussion after 3 minutes. [43] Nishidani just literally made that up. And this discussion is about the specific section dealing with the EU designation, not the rest of the lede which has already been settled. The EU decision is currently under appeal, that's the wording used in the court as well, and is factually correct. With that said, in the interest of consensus, I reworded it to "The EU designation is currently awaiting a final court decision after the judgement was successfully appealed by Hamas on procedural grounds." However, Nishidani immediately reverted this as well. Which makes it curious why he's focusing on the semantics of "under appeal" when that doesn't appear to be the issue. With regard to the text above, there was a clear consensus for reducing the amount of detail in the lede about this one minor point. For some reason, Nishidani decided that consensus no longer mattered since he had already "compromised" and thus the discussion must be over even though there were still points of contention. I waited roughly a month for him (the only editor disagreeing with shortening the section) to respond before making the edit, which Nishidani then immediately reverted. As an aside nothing was "excised", I have no objection to Nishidani moving the info to the body, where it should have been to begin with. The lede is not supposed to contain unique information, and is supposed to provide a brief, high-level summary. Another curious observation is that while making the edit, Nishidani merged the paragraph with the paragraph above it, which doesn't share any content, effectively limiting the visibility of the whole section. I initially thought this was a mistake, but then he did it again so it appears to have been deliberate. Drsmoo (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Oh for Chrissake! I can't keep in my memory all the bullshit expended for a month on just a few words in one article.
- Let's cut to the chase: You wrote:
- 'The EU decision is currently under appeal.'
- Your edit here gives us this text
Hamas, its military wing, together with several charities it runs, has been designated as a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States, Canada, the European Union, and Japan and was outlawed in Jordan.[49] The EU decision is currently under appeal.[50]
- Which EU decision does this refer to? Come on, man, clarify, for once. Nishidani (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- That's not what we're talking about, why didn't you post my most recent edit, which you instantly reverted? Version B ("The EU's designation is currently awaiting a final court decision after the judgement was successfully appealed by Hamas on procedural grounds.") is what I edited, Version A is what you reverted it to. I had already changed it in the interest of consensus. It's about substance, not semantics, there is a consensus to reduce or remove that section and you have just disruptively refused to accept it. You're also not addressing why you merged the two paragraphs. Drsmoo (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- You are referring to this second edit.[The EU decision is currently awaiting a final court decision after the judgement was successfully appealed by Hamas on procedural grounds.]
- Hamas did not make an appeal on procedural grounds. Drsmoo confused earlier Hamas, the EU and the EU court, and here he confused Hamas and the EU court. It was the EU court that dismissed the case on procedural grounds, and Hamas did not make its case against the procedures used to draw up the blacklist.
- This whole farce persists because, as in both the edits above, you keep emending the text without studying the relevant documentation. These issues are elementary: one reads, cosnstrues, and then paraphrases closely. If an editor can't manage that, then dialogue with someone you disagree with, can't help but being a nightmare. Nishidani (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- I feel like you two are spinning your wheels, and honestly, it seems pretty difficult to concisely describe the EU situation without prejudicing text in some small way. What about, "An EU court found the EU's earlier designation flawed, but its decision has been appealed by the European Council." ? That would leave a third clause implied but unstated - that the designation is being litigated. I'm sure Masem has other things to do but maybe they'd agree to step in as a third opinion and help you both resolve this on the article talk page. You might also consider SMcCandlish who I think tends to be neutral on these nationalism questions. -Darouet (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Alternatively, just leave out of the EU designation issue from the lede because it is rather complex to explain neutrally in a few short words, and better to leave the fuller explanation to the body. This keeps the neutrality of the lede (you're still listing countries with active statements about the nature of Hamas and whether they are or are not a terrorist organization) without trying to thread the needle this discussion is proving to be. --MASEM (t) 18:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Masem. That would mean that simply because one editor, who has not contributed to the construction of the article, dropped in and protested about 185 words, which were then whittled down to 115, then 85, then 7, gets to have everything removed. Surely, that's just chucking the baby out with the bathwater? I can't see why this issue seems intractable. Getting it right is simply a matter of drafting, and balancing Israel's talking points (which dominate 80s of the article) with Hamas's POV, which is not much in evidence. Nishidani (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Aside from the fact that this discussion right now is contributing to the construction of the article, and aside from the fact that that's irrelevant in any case, the Hamas article is in my top 10 most contributed in Wikipedia. Why would you just falsely claim I haven't contributed? Drsmoo (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Masem. That would mean that simply because one editor, who has not contributed to the construction of the article, dropped in and protested about 185 words, which were then whittled down to 115, then 85, then 7, gets to have everything removed. Surely, that's just chucking the baby out with the bathwater? I can't see why this issue seems intractable. Getting it right is simply a matter of drafting, and balancing Israel's talking points (which dominate 80s of the article) with Hamas's POV, which is not much in evidence. Nishidani (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Have you guys reread the whole paragraph recently. We have nugatory things one of which has no development whatsoever in the body of the text.Gilad Shalit's kidnapping is highlighted: a huge thing for Israelis, certainly but something that eaves Palestinians indifferent since several thousand are held in detention by methods Palestinians call in Arabic 'kidnapping'. They regard Shalit's kidnapping as tit-for-tat for the use of administrative detention by Israel. Again 'tunnels' is an Israeli talking point, so it is highlighted in the lead, no balance (tunnels were originally dug to get round Israel's economic blockade, so severe at one point not even tampons, or nutmeg, or cinnamon, or potato chips could be imported. What so hard about understanding a simple sentence:
- Alternatively, just leave out of the EU designation issue from the lede because it is rather complex to explain neutrally in a few short words, and better to leave the fuller explanation to the body. This keeps the neutrality of the lede (you're still listing countries with active statements about the nature of Hamas and whether they are or are not a terrorist organization) without trying to thread the needle this discussion is proving to be. --MASEM (t) 18:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- You are referring to this second edit.[The EU decision is currently awaiting a final court decision after the judgement was successfully appealed by Hamas on procedural grounds.]
- That's not what we're talking about, why didn't you post my most recent edit, which you instantly reverted? Version B ("The EU's designation is currently awaiting a final court decision after the judgement was successfully appealed by Hamas on procedural grounds.") is what I edited, Version A is what you reverted it to. I had already changed it in the interest of consensus. It's about substance, not semantics, there is a consensus to reduce or remove that section and you have just disruptively refused to accept it. You're also not addressing why you merged the two paragraphs. Drsmoo (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to say but Nishidani's post is literally just factually incorrect, there was no "long talk page stand off", there were 5 posts made within half an hour, and I opened the NPOV discussion after 3 minutes. [43] Nishidani just literally made that up. And this discussion is about the specific section dealing with the EU designation, not the rest of the lede which has already been settled. The EU decision is currently under appeal, that's the wording used in the court as well, and is factually correct. With that said, in the interest of consensus, I reworded it to "The EU designation is currently awaiting a final court decision after the judgement was successfully appealed by Hamas on procedural grounds." However, Nishidani immediately reverted this as well. Which makes it curious why he's focusing on the semantics of "under appeal" when that doesn't appear to be the issue. With regard to the text above, there was a clear consensus for reducing the amount of detail in the lede about this one minor point. For some reason, Nishidani decided that consensus no longer mattered since he had already "compromised" and thus the discussion must be over even though there were still points of contention. I waited roughly a month for him (the only editor disagreeing with shortening the section) to respond before making the edit, which Nishidani then immediately reverted. As an aside nothing was "excised", I have no objection to Nishidani moving the info to the body, where it should have been to begin with. The lede is not supposed to contain unique information, and is supposed to provide a brief, high-level summary. Another curious observation is that while making the edit, Nishidani merged the paragraph with the paragraph above it, which doesn't share any content, effectively limiting the visibility of the whole section. I initially thought this was a mistake, but then he did it again so it appears to have been deliberate. Drsmoo (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Drsmoo wrote:'The EU decision is currently under appeal,' which is false, since it says Hamas is still appealing the 2003 EU decision. It won a verdict in its favour for a procedural flaw: all the 2003 evidence, which formed the basis for the EU classification, was clipped from the internet without any input from the intelligence or political specialists in any EU country. I.e. it was not based on any institutional verification or legal process. Drsmoo confused the Hamas appeal (upheld in 2014) with the EU appeal against the EU court verdict, opened in 2014 in the wake of that judgement. The late 2014 EU appeal was judged as flawed by the EU's own special legal counsel this year. So, while technically, that appeal is 'open', it can't, according to the EU's own legal authorities, proceed in the terms originally given. It too is flawed. It would have to be reformulated, I think she implied, in her full judgment, which effectively means:'you fucked up, guys'. Work out something else. They can't therefore proceed with the 2014 appeal in the original terms. Whatever, Drsmoo's simplification totally confused the issue, and that is why extreme excisionism is dangerous. Readers should be given a minimal right to know what happened between 2003 and 2016 in terms of this decision, which will influence 28 nations' approach to Hamas.Nishidani (talk) 14:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hamas successfully appealed the EU blacklisting when the European court judged the earlier determination flawed. The European Council appealed this 2014 verdict. In 2016 the Advocate General advised that due to procedural errors, it should be dropped from the terror blacklist, unless proper and sufficient legal evidence to warrant its inclusion were forthcoming.
- The bolded part is not in many news sources, but it's in the actual source. Newspapers reported this as a Hamas victory, which it wasn't. The text is more nuanced that copycat hacks allow. I have twice shown that Drsmoo screwed up his paraphrasing. Is there anyone who can show the above is neither correct in all details or concise? Nishidani (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX Your personal political opinions are irrelevant to this discussion and have no place on Wikipedia. http://www.euronews.com/2014/12/17/european-court-orders-removal-of-hamas-from-eu-terror-list-on-procedural-grounds Nothing you just wrote is inconsistent with "The EU designation is currently awaiting a final court decision after the judgement was successfully appealed by Hamas on procedural grounds." though if you have an alternative one-sentence summary please share it, as once again consensus is established for eliminating or shortening that section. I am fine with both Darouet and Masem's suggestions. Drsmoo (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Those are not soapbox opinions. I checked 20 articles against the court documents, and most were just repeating a simplistic meme, that got Hamas off the hook, whereas the Advocate General's words are nuanced. To repeat, editing competently meaning understanding the subject, not hairsplitting. I've been writing 2 articles a day over the last month, and just coping with this silly nonsense has wasted my time enough. Everybody knows that Nishidani is the only editor in the I/P area with a POV, all the others, mostly reverters, are here purely for 'encyclopedic purposes'.Nishidani (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- For the third time, Drsmoo. Please try and focus on content. Now you cite refers to 2014, as if it were the last word, as per Darouet's proposal. In Sept 2016 An advocate general at the European Court of Justice, whose advice is usually followed by judges, recommended that they reject an appeal by the Council of EU member states against the lower General Court's decisions in late 2014 to remove both movements from the sanctions list due to flawed procedures
- In other words, we can say the EU appealed (keeping the article updated to 2014) but absolutely must keep mum on the provisory result of the appeal in 2016. This is selective highlighting and repression of evidence per the desired POv outcome. Both 2014 and 2014 translate simply: The EU court ruled it was procedurally flawed. The EU appealed, and in 2016, its advocate general recommended the EU appeal be rejected. What wrong with adding those updated 9 words? Why this insistence that we must not mention that simple datum re the appeal process two months ago? Yeah, WP:RECENTISM., etc. any policy excuse for not being laconically comprehensive and up to date Nishidani (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Those are not soapbox opinions. I checked 20 articles against the court documents, and most were just repeating a simplistic meme, that got Hamas off the hook, whereas the Advocate General's words are nuanced. To repeat, editing competently meaning understanding the subject, not hairsplitting. I've been writing 2 articles a day over the last month, and just coping with this silly nonsense has wasted my time enough. Everybody knows that Nishidani is the only editor in the I/P area with a POV, all the others, mostly reverters, are here purely for 'encyclopedic purposes'.Nishidani (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX Your personal political opinions are irrelevant to this discussion and have no place on Wikipedia. http://www.euronews.com/2014/12/17/european-court-orders-removal-of-hamas-from-eu-terror-list-on-procedural-grounds Nothing you just wrote is inconsistent with "The EU designation is currently awaiting a final court decision after the judgement was successfully appealed by Hamas on procedural grounds." though if you have an alternative one-sentence summary please share it, as once again consensus is established for eliminating or shortening that section. I am fine with both Darouet and Masem's suggestions. Drsmoo (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- If you believed that you would have removed Shalit from the lead. It has no place except as a line or two in the main text, since there is no expansion there, and no expansion is necessary. You attack me. Well, yeah. I do get pissed off, because I work my fucking butt off creating articles, rewriting them, everyday for 10 years, and find, if it's the I/P area, lazy editors just picking, naggling, hairsplitting and kibitzing on minutiae in order to screw the other POV. You say Hamas is one of the 10 articles you've devoted most of your time to. Well here's the record of what you do.
- 22 edits in 7 years, all save one consisting in reverting out material.
- This is my record: 117 edits in under 2 years, rewriting mostly the first three sections, adding dozens of academic sources, and meeting now basic wikipedia criteria for article construction. Most of the sourcing down to note 160 is mine. This has an absurd amount of fucking useless trash sourcing. Al-Qaeda was a major threat and a globally murderous terrorist group: it is covered on wiki in 369 notes in a neat cogent oand orderly exposition. We have so much reduplication and POV yelling on this article that this tiny enclave power that has no impact on the world, gets 550 notes. It's a disgrace and will remain so as long as editors who don't do anything serious on Wikipedia keep nagging and splitting hairs to bog down any concentrated effort to improve the article.Nishidani (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- The only person making attacks here is you. This discussion is about the EU phrasing in the lede. If you'd like to have another discussion, feel free to start one. Drsmoo (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- This is about NPOV in the lead. I am asking editors why they find mention of the EU problematical, when it is a serious issue, whereas they don't look over the lead and note that Gilad Shalit is given a sentence that does not synthesize anything in the body of the text? There are several POV issues with the lead, and the one that gets people's knickers in a twist concerns a putative excess amount of information (a sentence) about the legality of an important terrorist designation. MNishidani (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- The only person making attacks here is you. This discussion is about the EU phrasing in the lede. If you'd like to have another discussion, feel free to start one. Drsmoo (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
@Masem: I think simply removing the EU designation "issue", but keeping the EU designation, is problematic because the issue reflects well-known EU ambivalence towards the IP conflict more generally. -Darouet (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- I'm happy to go with your proposal. Drsmoo (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Darouet, I meant that mention of the EU status either way (the past assignment, and the current legal issues) should be removed, so the lede shouldn't mentioned EU in this manner at all. It's far too complicated (as demonstrated by the arguments above) to simplify among all other aspects of Hamas. Again, my original point way back was that all that should be stated for the lede is something like "Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by several countries, while others do not. Whether to classify Hamas as a terrorist organization or not is a point of contention among political analysts and academics." That gets in and out in the most neutral and balanced way possible, and leaves you plenty of room in the body to go into all the nuances, such as EU's current stance, that require more room and sourcing to present accurately and neutrally. --MASEM (t) 23:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- I fail to follow. There is no complication whatsoever in any of the one/two line formulations which manage to cover the EU court case succinctly without margins for confusing the reader. No editor here has yet, to my recall, ever noted where the various one-two liner summaries I have offered are inaccurate. Give me concrete grounds for showing the inadequacy of any one or two line summation above, and I'll better understand your point, which, at the moment, is, for me, a vague and repeated opinion.Nishidani (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
In 2008 Hamas challenged the blacklisting. When the European Court of Justice found in its favour (2014), the EU appealed the decision. In 2016, an advisory opinion confirmed the court’s judgement. A final ECJ verdict is due by the end of 2016. (46 words)
- I should add that I find this NPOV issue completely bizarre because this little snippet on legality is being challenged while a paragraph and a half preceding it, running to 168 words, outlines almost verbatim the official Israeli government POV on Hamas, without one word balancing the account.
In 2006, Hamas used an underground cross-border tunnel to capture the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, holding him captive until 2011, when he was released in exchange for 1,027 Palestinian prisoners.[45] Since then, Hamas has continued building a network of internal and cross-border tunnels,[46] which are used to store and deploy weapons, shield militants, and facilitate cross-border attacks. Destroying the tunnels was a primary objective of Israeli forces in the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict . . .The military wing of Hamas has launched attacks against Israeli civilians and soldiers, often justifying them as retaliatory, in particular for assassinations of the upper echelon of their leadership.[24] Tactics have included suicide bombings, and since 2001, rocket attacks.[25][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] Hamas's rocket arsenal, though mainly consisting of short-range homemade Qassam rockets,[33] also includes long-range weapons that have reached major Israeli cities including Tel Aviv and Haifa.[34][35] The attacks on civilians have been condemned as war crimes and crimes against humanity by human rights groups such as Human Rights Watch
- To any experienced eye that is an impeccable summation of the official Israeli description of Hamas, and I have not touched it. It is due, but, lacking the counter POV, in violation of our obligation for descriptive neutrality. I would be easy to write up a mirror reply from the Hamas supporter or anti-Zionist Jewish American perspective (I am neither) which would invert the equation: Israel had waged 3 wars on Hamas, in which 60-70% of casualties have been civilians, and conducted numerous targeted assassinations of Hamas leaders and militants; has statistically initiated more attacks on Gaza than its adversaries; has imposed a stringent economic blockade on the population protested by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the UN etc as a violation of the Geneva conventions; dropped 20,000 tons of bombs on infrastructure in the Gaza Strip as opposed to the 40 tons of explosive launched against Israel via mortars and rockets, 99% of which landed in the southern desert, in 2014, etc.etc.etc. I have ignored tampering with the lead there because I prefer writing the article. But as it stands, the above paragraph and a half are without any POV counterpoint, which should influence one's judgement on what the lead is doing.Nishidani (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Ignoring the coatrack, no your suggestion is not ok because using that would still cause the one idea to be over a third of the whole paragraph (36%). It is a minor detail, and the paragraph should just simply state which countries do and do not consider Hamas a terrorist organization, with possibly a brief note about ongoing litigation in the EU. I'm fine with both Darouet and Masem's proposals. I've just made the edit going with Darouet's proposal. There is a clear consensus to shorten it, now over two noticeboards. Drsmoo (talk) 23:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Input sought for a GAR re POV & use of sources
Hi, posting re Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Joachim_Helbig/1.
The discussion has been extensive, but with few !votes. The dialog has most recently centered on what sources should or should not be acceptable. It can be found in section "1.6 Wrapping Up", or a via a direct link to Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Joachim_Helbig/1#Wrapping_up.
Interested editors are invited to share an opinion, or to cast an !vote. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)