Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context!

Before posting here, consult the neutral point of view policy page and the FAQ explainer. Also, make sure to discuss the disagreement at the article's talk page. Fringe theories often involve questions about neutral point of view. These should be discussed at the dedicated noticeboard. You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so. Additional notes: Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments, not on vote count or sheer size of argument. Consensus in previous discussions does not make policy, but you can generally rely on it. The list of articles where users flagged a point-of-view concern is here. This page is not a forum for discussions unrelated to the neutral point of view. We have a separate noticeboard for concerns about original research (material made up by a Wikipedia editor), and another dedicated noticeboard for questions about contextual reliability of a source. Start a new discussion

NAMBLA content on Harry Hay

Sorry for the length and subject matter.

I found the inclusion of NAMBLA content in the lead of Harry Hay surprising, and in looking at the sources used, then a look to see if there were better ones available, I found sourcing lacking. I took the one sentence off the lead and also removed Category:Pedophile activism as both seemed inappropriate. Can you guess where this is going? They were both re-added and the content in the lead expanded. (Here is a copy as of 4 July 2019. I read all the sources I could find and tried to apply NPOV. After a couple rounds of this I gave up and started a survey of all sources on this content.

NAMBLA is widely despised as child molesters by the vast majority of LGBTQ people as well as popular culture. It’s a group for pedophile advocacy. Pedophilia, is a preference for prepubescent children as old as 13. NAMBLA is possibly the most hated group imaginable to many LGBTQ people.

Any connections to NAMBLA automatically taint whoever is connected with them. The vast majority of reliable sources barely mention anything, those that do cite:

1. February 1983, Hay speaks at an event (not NAMBLA’s) and states, “...if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world.” This quote follows Hay’s recounting his own positive sexual experience when he was 14 with an older man (reasoning for his going public in proposed content section); No reliable source for the quote but one good source for the overall speech.
2. June 1986, LA Pride parade bans NAMBLA, Hay wears a sign in protest on his back, one supporting Valerie Terrigno who was also banned, on his front.
3. June 1994, Stonewall 25, and ILGA bans NAMBLA, Hay and 149 others protest the action, about NAMBLA mainly (reasoning in proposed content section) and march in the Spirit of Stonewall alternative parade with 7,000.
4. sometime in 1994, spoke at a NAMBLA event where he suggested changing the group’s name. (I only see one brief mention of this.)

reliable sources found

Click for list of reliable sources on this with any usable content

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

References

Unless other reliable sources support this material and demonstrate it has a significant bearing on his life I don’t see how this should be in the lead. As well I think the category is inappropriate. Am I crazy? Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Feedback

When Hay was was alive, his constant advocacy for NAMBLA and his cruising of boys was common knowledge. Same as with Ginsberg. It's part of what made Hay a controversial figure - someone who was routinely disrupting Pride, getting kicked out of the very orgs he founded (Mattachine Society), etc. I've tried to explain this to Gleeanaon, who clearly wasn't around then, but he takes my suggestion to read the sources as a personal attack. He suggests respected gay journalists like Michael Bronski, who was part of some of the same radical collectives as Hay, are somehow orchestrating a smear campaign. I suggest anyone who wants to comment first read Bronski's article, "The real Harry Hay", all the way to the end, as Bronski points out the the New York Times and other major outlets were already leaving the NAMBLA stuff out of his obits, and immediately trying to reinvent him on death:

Neither of the long and laudatory obits in the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times mentioned his unyielding support for NAMBLA or even his deeply radical credentials and vision. Harry, it turns out, was a grandfatherly figure who had an affair with Grandpa Walton. But it’s important to remember Hay — with all his contradictions, his sometimes crackpot notions, and his radiant, ecstatic, vision of the holiness of being queer — as he lived. For in his death, Harry Hay is becoming everything he would have raged against.

Gleeanon's main project right now is editing National LGBTQ Wall of Honor, and they are the one who added the list of names and are the creator and main editor of the article. Gleeanon honestly didn't seem to any know this about Hay, as he seems to not know much about any of the older community members he's copy and pasting into that list. I've told them the answer is not to rewrite history. But Gleeanon keeps deleting discussions from their talk page and misrepresenting both the sourcing and other people's edits. He has become a Tendentious editor who is wasting our time with his, I'm sorry, ignorance of this topic and, possibly, agenda to whitewash on behalf of this group. If the people working on the memorial didn't want someone this problematic, they should have asked older people, or done their research, rather than trying to whitewash the honorees after the fact. Gleeanon is now focusing rather intensely on this. I have asked if they have COI on this project and they have denied it, but I'm really not sure I believe that given this intense POV push. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. It may be that Bronski had an inside view of what Hay was like, and that Bronski disliked the fact that reliable sources like the New York Times, did not consider these problematic aspects of Hay to be significant aspects of his life. It may be that some people involved in some hall of fame project have failed to consult enough older people about their choice of inclusions. But Wikipedia should reflect what the balance of reliable sources say about it, not the views of individuals with an interest or individuals disgusted or disappointed. MPS1992 (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, editors are permitted by policy to blank content from their own talk page -- especially when the content concerned is several thousand words in length. Blanking such content is generally regarded as an indication that they have read it. Anyway that's a question of editor conduct, not a question of article neutrality which is what this noticeboard covers. MPS1992 (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I have continually asked for reliable sources that verify the “constant advocacy for NAMBLA” and pedophilia. There seems to be a massive conspiracy except one lone, but respected LGBTQ journalist. Perhaps that should be also shoehorned into the lead? One of the world’s best known pioneering gay rights advocates whose had dozens of obituaries, articles, interviews, books, and documentaries about him all fail to mention this despite Wikipedia even advertising it, possibly for years. Perhaps because they saw was is plainly evident, a lack of evidence despite NAMBLA themselves posting every scrap of pro-pedophile material they can. I look forward to more people looking into this. Gleeanon409 (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy? There is/was no conspiracy. This has been common knowledge for decades. The sources support this common knowledge. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed -- but the sources do not seem to regard it as significant in the individual's biography. MPS1992 (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

MPS, it's not just Bronski, it's the Gay press in general who wanted this known about him, because he was continually raising a stink about it and people were having to kick him out of groups and events. It's in the Advocate[1], and his own group, the Radical Faeries have it on their tribute page to him:[2]. This isn't righting great wrongs, it's keeping history accurate against a POV push from a relatively new, revisionist editor. NAMBLA is ugly. Of course people would rather not see it. But those who supported and promoted the pedophile group should be kept accountable. Go look at the article, not this user's misrepresentations. I think there is a misunderstanding here about what WP:NPOV is. We write in a neutral voice. It doesn't mean we hide awful things about people to make them sound nicer. Yeah, it's hard to write neutrally about a pedophile group. So we just state the facts. But we don't bury the facts when he, after Allen Ginsberg, was probably the group's most famous advocate in the gay community. Yeah, it's gross. But it happened. So we document it. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. I guess you really are saying that the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times were "revisionist" as well, and therefore we shouldn't consider them reliable on this topic, but instead we should only consider reliable the views of people that Hay knew personally and had had disagreements with? MPS1992 (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Or, let us look at it a different way. There are three questions. First, should Hay's protesting the exclusion of NAMBLA from events be mentioned in the article? (I would say yes.) Second, should it be mentioned in the lede of the article? And third, if it should be mentioned in the lede of the article, how should it be mentioned there? MPS1992 (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

They were incomplete. As their obits of subcultural figures have often been. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Those sources are already included in the seven(!) total(!) to be found, this one is a collection of obits with only one even touching on this content, the very sole one you helpfully quoted at length despite it already being posted above. These scraps were then woven into a grand story. It certainly feels “undue”. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

References in the article include Hay's official bio, which was fine with Gleeanon until he realized it sourced all this, with this photo:[3], where Hay wore the sign, "NAMBLA walks with me" in LA Pride. As I said on talk: I really didn't want to link to them, but here's - https://www. nambla. org/hay2002.html NAMBLA's index on their Harry Hay materials. This page has - https://www. nambla. org/sanfrancisco1984.html photos of Harry Hay speaking on a NAMBLA panel in 1984, in San Francisco, under their banner. And again in 1986 in Los Angeles (no photo). Ick. The link is not live because, understandably, the site is on the blacklist. So the the url has spaces. You will have to copy and paste, and take out the spaces, to see it. Ick again. Gleeanon thinks all this is a conspiracy. But it's in Hay's official bio, which was written by some of his most ardent supporters. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

None of that proves anything but that he made invited speeches at some of their conferences, helpfully they provide their version of the transcripts which show ... no advocacy for the group or even anything beyond Hay recounting his own positive gay sex experiences as a kid. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Trying to destroy Pride because they wouldn't let NAMBLA march is not being an advocate? Helping them re-brand in order to get more members, sitting under the banner for photos while the group was sending out newsletters with photos of smiling seven year olds with the caption, "Smiles mean consent." Wow. You are really reaching here. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Original research inventing narratives not supported by reliable or even NAMBLA’s own sources isn’t helpful. Zero evidence Hay had control of how his photo was used, that he was helping recruit, or even destroy Pride. All interesting ideas that I’m sure will be spun into gold by right wing bloggers. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

OK folks, I think we need some outside input here, if anyone is willing? That's what this noticeboard is for. MPS1992 (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm quite bemused by all this discussion about whether Hay was a ardent supporter of NAMBLA. He was. Anyone who is old enough, was contemporaneous in his communities while he was alive, knows it to be true. As a co-founder of the Mattachine Society, people saw him as an elder statesman in the 1970s-90s. Gay people listened when he had opinions. Many vociferously disagreed with him on supporting NAMBLA. There were a significant number of Gay/Lesbian newspapers and newsletters during that time period. Hay did interviews with them and articles were written about him. Those papers, often with very good journalists writing for them, could be used as contemporaneous reliable sources. Unfortunately, only a fraction of them are available online. They would be secondary sources on this issue. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 23:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

If you are aware of any reliable sources, they are welcome. I just added one that was wedge into the lead just hours ago which ironically proves how weak the sourcing remains. As to your point, it seems like the only thing that we can reliably verify up to now, is that he defended their right to be in two Pride parades where they had been banned, and the reasons. Arguably this might have caused a furor at the time, although I’m not seeing any evidence of that either, but don’t we have to rely on verification through reliable sources? What we have after searching is listed at the top. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

"I also would like to say at this point that it seems to me that in the gay community the people who should be running interference for NAMBLA are the parents and friends of gays. Because if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world. And they would be welcoming this, and welcoming the opportunity for young gay kids to have the kind of experience that they would need." He is advocating for children to be in sexual relationships with adults. He gave this speech in 1983 at NYU and it is archived on the NAMBLA website as well as here . On the Back to Stonewall site it also states,"These events overshadowed Hay’s previous legacy so much that today he is all but forgotten and purposely left out of many LGBT historical writings." Indigenous girl (talk) 14:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The first quote you cite is already included in the first sections of this report, sourced only to NAMBLA itself, everyone has pulled it from them.

On the surface, the “On the Back to Stonewall“ site looks great but the Hay content seems to be word for word copying from an older version of Wikipedia’s Hay page. Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I am aware that the quote has been previously linked to however I thought it best that it was out in the open. Please help me try and understand, are you insinuating that the speech at the forum, hosted by the Gay Academic Union at NYU in 1983, given by Hay, is not accurately presented? Are you insinuating that Back To Stonewall is made up of revisionists and that Will Kohler doesn't know what he's talking about? Indigenous girl (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The quote was already out in the open, it’s point #1, in bold of this report.

That speech is only known from NAMBLA’s posting their transcript. It has to be presented that way. Additionally it’s not about NAMBLA so you have to use original research to say it is. It’s also not about pedophilia, Hay was the 14-year old and the man he had sex with thought he was an adult.

I’m saying ”Back To Stonewall” didn’t even use their own words for the NAMBLA content, they used Wikipedia’s Hay article as gospel, but as is evident here, all the NAMBLA content is generally unverified and he presents zero sources or even credit to Wikipedia. I have no problem publishing true content that is verifiably sourced, but we are currently publishing unverified, and possibly unverifiable claims. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually the GSU collection at USC contains the entire transcript of his speech. He specifically mentions NAMBLA in the context of his speech and urges allies to advocate for sex with 13, 14 and 15 year old children because, "it's what they need more than anything else in the world.". Indigenous girl (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Indigenous girl:, or @CorbieVreccan:, who added it to the article here, can you share how you verified this? Any link that others can use?

I do accept the NAMBLA-posted transcript does mention the group in the summary of the speech. I still think it’s borderline original research and has to be used NPOV. His speech is a testamonial of Hay’s own positive experience as a 14-year old having gay sex with an older man, based on his own experience he thinks that parents and friends of gays “should be running interference for NAMBLA”. Only presenting this material NPOV without original interpretation is acceptable. He also does not specifically advocate for sex with teens, but says a relationship which, I think requires original research to infer he meant romance or sex rather or additionally to anything else. Gleeanon409 (talk) 06:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you serious? In one sentence he advocates defending NAMBLA and in the next he speaks positively about relationships between young teenagers and older men. How could you possibly read that in a way that isn't about sexual relationships? All of your comments in this thread give the impression of increasing desperate denialism. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. I maintain that Wikipedia should report facts that are actually verified in reliable sources. All this NAMBLA content is dependent on supposedly well-known information which few to none reliable sources documented. Compare that to the mamouth volume about this is the lead and article. Any reader would falsely believe this was central to his life. Yet the vast majority of reliable sources make no mention of it. Those that do make very little mention of it. Yet the article lead? It’s a fourth of the content. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Notes before closing

In closing, I think the discussion here has reached consensus that this is reliably sourced as a prominent and recurring issue in Harry Hay's political work. As Gleeanon409's initial presentation did not include all the sources, mentioned "sources" that are not in the article, and simply dismissed all sources that discuss this part of Hay's life as "unreliable", I am including a list here of the actual sources that cite this well-known, unfortunate fact about Harry Hay. As others have said, NPOV means we write neutrally about the facts of someone's life, without censorship. This was a well-known fact of Hay's life.

Reliable Sources:

• The Advocate (LGBT magazine) <ref name="Advocate1994">{{cite magazine|last=Weir|first=John|title=Mad About the Boys|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=KmMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA37|date=23 August 1994|magazine=[[The Advocate (LGBT magazine)|The Advocate]]|page=37|issn=0001-8996}}</ref>
• Michael Bronski for The Phoenix <ref name= rhh>{{cite news|url=http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/02511115.htm|archiveurl= https://web.archive.org/web/20120302214758/http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/02511115.htm |archivedate=2012-03-02|title=The real Harry Hay|date=2002-11-07|accessdate=2008-11-16|first=Michael|last=Bronski|authorlink=Michael Bronski|newspaper=[[The Phoenix (newspaper)|The Phoenix]]|quote=He was, at times, a serious political embarrassment, as when he consistently advocated the inclusion of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) in gay-pride parades.|dead-url=no}}</ref>
• MIT Press <ref name=NonasLeVay>{{cite book|author1=Simon LeVay|author2=Elisabeth Nonas|title=City of Friends: A Portrait of the Gay and Lesbian Community in America|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=cl-4yFFql8gC&pg=PA181&dq=Harry+Hay+NAMBLA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjb4enV94XjAhVnTt8KHWyVCHUQ6AEITTAH#v=onepage&q=Harry%20Hay%20NAMBLA&f=false|year=1997 |publisher=MIT Press|isbn=978-0262621137|page=181|quote=Although some prominent gay leaders such as Harry Hay have supported NAMBLA's right to participate in gay rights marches, the link between NAMBLA and the mainstream gay rights movement has always been tenuous.}}</ref>
• Stuart Timmons, Hay's Official Biographer: scan of photo plate <ref name="LAPridePhoto">{{cite web|url=https://www.wthrockmorton.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Harryhaysignnambla2.jpg|title=Photos by Sandy Dwyer |last=Timmons |first=Stuart|date=1990|work=The Trouble with Harry Hay: Founder of the Modern Gay Movement|accessdate=2010-06-24|quote=The sign Harry tried to wear in the 1986 L.A. Gay Pride Parade}}</ref>
• <ref name=Spectator>{{Cite news | last = Lord | first = Jeffrey | title = When Nancy Met Harry | work = The American Spectator | date = 2006-10-05 | url = http://spectator.org/archives/2006/10/05/when-nancy-met-harry | accessdate = 2009-04-14 | deadurl = yes | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20090329000719/http://spectator.org/archives/2006/10/05/when-nancy-met-harry | archivedate = 2009-03-29 | quote=Said Harry: "Because if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world."}}</ref> Gleeanon wants to exclude this because it's "conservative". WP does not exclude sources on the basis of being liberal or conservative, and the text is the same as in the full speech below. This is included because it is an online text.
• Hay himself <ref name=LGAUfullspeech>[Box 2/folder 21] Lesbian and Gay Academic Union Records, Coll2011-041, ONE National Gay & Lesbian Archives, USC Libraries, University of Southern California</ref>
• Timmons again {{sfn|Timmons|1990|p=310}} {{sfn|Timmons|1990|p=295}} - Official biographer
• Vern Bullough <ref name=Bullough>{{cite book|author=Vern L. Bullough|authorlink=Vern Bullough|title=Before Stonewall: Activists for Gay and Lesbian Rights in Historical Context |publisher=Psychology Press |year=2002 |isbn=978-1560231936|page=74}}</ref> In Before Stonewall, biographer Vern L. Bullough writes, "Getting him to agree to simply wear a sign [supporting NAMBLA] rather than carry a banner took considerable negotiation by the parade organizers, who wanted to distance the gay and lesbian movement from pedophilia, yet wanted Harry to participate."
• Yale University Press / Hay again / GCN again: Hay, Harry, "Focusing on NAMBLA Obscures the Issues", Gay Community News, Fall 1994, pp. 16, 18. As cited in {{cite book |title=Moral Panic: Changing Concepts of the Child Molester in Modern America|year=2004|last=Jenkins |first=Philip |publisher=Yale University Press|page=275|isbn=978-0300109634}} Hay writes on the issue for Gay Community paper of record.
• Hay's spiritual group: Obituary on Radical Fairy site, reproduces Bronski obituary.
• Obviously, as the NAMBLA site is blacklisted, we are not going to link to their website pages, but they have Hay's speeches, and photos of him speaking in front of their banner on their panels. These speeches and photos are in other publications that are not currently available online, but they are well-known in the community. It is inappropriate for Gleeanon409 to cast aspersions on older editors who remember these things and suggest this material is fabricated. This material is linked via broken URL's on article talk.

There are more mentions out there online, and a ton more in print, but these are the ones in the article at the moment. To include this material is in no way an endorsement of Hay's views. It is certainly not an endorsement of NAMBLA. Whenever someone invokes "trying to right great wrongs" when it's something like pedophile advocacy (dear gods...) I wonder if they think we have no responsibility as editors here at all. Hay made quite the ruckus trying to keep NAMBLA from being shunned when he was alive, so it's only fair that it stays in his article now. What's there right now is NPOV and minimal, all things considered. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 00:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Of course I remain dubious of these statements, and how “NPOV” and “minimally” the content is presented but first I’ll look at these sources to see which ones aren’t already listed at top, and include and assess what information should be added. It will take me a little while to do all this. When I’m ready I’ll post here again with a summary. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The Advocate article was already listed by me in the reliable sources section; so is the Bronski obit with it’s quote; so is the superfluous Timmons photo; so is the problematic Jeffrey Lord article; so is the Vern Bullough book; so is the Gay Community News; so is the link to the Radical Faeries.
I’ve added the Simon LeVay book; and the LGAU archive box.
I see little value in adding any more credibility to NAMBLA by acknowledging their online content, we can hold our collective noses and use the Spectator article that got it from them. His other two times as speaker both were Hay talking about his own positive experiences with gay sex when he was young. We already have the context for the quote to cover that, and it’s all primary sourced. Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

So we basically haven’t moved much to allay my initial concerns.
There remains zero reliable sourcing to support “Hay was an active supporter [of NAMBLA]”, you may know it to be true but no reliable source has backed it up.
Also it’s deceptive to state Hay “protested the group being banned from Pride parades” when we only have evidence for two; 1986 LA Pride, and 1994 Stonewall parades.
It’s also POV to state he spoke “about helping the group strategize a name change to help with their public image” implying he was doing something not implicated in his speech, a neutral take would be more along the lines of what I tried, he thought boy lover had negative connotations just like homosexual did in the 1950’s.
Wikipedia is broadcasting worldwide these deceptions. I can’t see how any content on NAMBLA should be wedged into the lead, and the utter lack of coverage in reliable sources presented so far suggests it should be trimmed to a NPOV minimum in the article.
Additionally there remains zero evidence to prop up the “Pedophile advocacy” category being included. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of POV, what you are calling "gay sex when he was young" was sex between an adult man and a 14 year old boy. Then Hay went on to speak at a handful of events that we have documented to plead with the gay community to endorse adults having sex with kids as young as 13, saying this would be the best thing adult gay people could do for gay kids. This is horrible. This is why he got kicked out of Pride parades and shunned by those who cared about kids. You are minimimizing criminal activity, this man's advocacy for criminal activity, and the way he tried to implicate normal gay people in criminal activity. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

He “pleaded” for gay men to have sex with teens? Or did he mean mentoring them? I don’t think we can say without evidence so instead, again to be NPOV, we likely should just report neutrally what the sources support, “relationships”, and leave the leap of guilt for the reader to decide. And that “series of events”, looks to be a total of three, and it was NAMBLA that kicked out of parades, and not even NAMBLA advocated for breaking any laws. Please dial down the hysteria and actually let the reliable sources dictate what is verified instead of your own memories. Your personal facts might be the gospel truth but they don’t belong in an encyclopedia. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

As both Red Rock Canyon:[4] and Mark Ironie:[5] have noted, watching you increasingly attempt to minimize the damage done by NAMBLA, it's really hard to believe you're serious at this point. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Nowhere was this more evident than in Hay’s persistent support of NAMBLA’s right to march in gay-pride parades. In 1994, he refused to march with the official parade commemorating the Stonewall riots in New York because it refused NAMBLA a place in the event. Instead, he joined a competing march, dubbed The Spirit of Stonewall, which included NAMBLA as well as many of the original Gay Liberation Front members. A source specifically states that he "persistently" protested NAMBLA's exclusion from these marches. Including that is not deceptive; it's accurately following the sources. Your personal research about which marches he protested cannot be used to counter that statement.

Harry Hay... suggests to a crowded room at the recent NAMBLA meeting that a name change might help. Maybe this isn't "strategizing", but the source does say that he offered them advice on how to improve their image. This is not "adding credibility to NAMBLA," it's presenting the facts about Harry Hay as recorded in reliable sources. That is, and should be, the sole goal of Wikipedia. Material is not censored because we fear it may lend credence to some disgusting agenda, and biographies are not white-washed because we might prefer to see our heroes presented in a better light. Oh, and even Britannica mentions his support of NAMBLA [6] Hay often waded into contentious debates, notably by advocating for such controversial organizations as the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), a pro-pederasty group.. This isn't some smear cooked up by the right-wing media and Wikipedia.

That being said, I agree that these statements He spoke out in support of relationships between adult men and boys as young as thirteen and helping the group strategize a name change to help with their public image are not well-sourced. They rely on analysis of primary sources and that questionable Spectator article (hard to tell if it's an opinion piece or journalism). It would be better to leave that out of the lead, and just let the quotes speak for themselves in the body of the article. I think that entire final sentence should be cut from the lead, both for issues of sourcing and to avoid lending undue weight to the issue. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Indigenous girl found the full speech about NAMBLA where Hay "urges allies to advocate for sex with 13, 14 and 15 year old children because, 'it's what they need more than anything else in the world.' in the ONE archives of Hay's speeches at USC. So, the sourcing is solid, and it should be included in the body of the article. As long as the rest of the text prior to that is in the lede, as it was before Gleeanon's disruption, I think the specific details about that speech (which he gave multiple times) can be left for further down. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

That's a primary source, and appears to be interpreted as such -- those are the dangers of primary sources. I understand that the topic causes emotions to run riot, but this is, after all, the neutral point of view noticeboard. MPS1992 (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

By the way, @Gleeanon409:, please do not say things like 'it’s deceptive to state Hay “protested the group being banned from Pride parades” when we only have evidence for two' -- no that is not deceptive. If he protested two of them, he protested it on an ongoing basis. Don't be silly. MPS1992 (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, as MPS1992 says, any text of the speech is a primary source, and we are not permitted to analyze primary sources and summarize them. I think it might be acceptable to quote some of the text of the speech in the article, since it's on a topic discussed by other secondary sources, and it's in the subject's own words, but we cannot put in any interpretation of what he's saying absent a secondary source that reports on his speech and what it means. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Right, as the primary source is available for comparison, we are able to see that the secondary sources are quoting Hay accurately. So that means the Spectator, Kohler, and the others cannot be ruled out just because we may not like their views on other issues. That is the sole reason I left the Spectator in - to verify the quote. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Are you guys totally following the idea that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so we should be summarising what secondary sources say, not just confirming that our chosen primary sources are accurate in what they say and what our longstanding appreciation of them is? MPS1992 (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The main function of the primary source is to assuage concerns that the Spectator piece was completely inventing something. Author Jeffrey Lord's opinion of Hay based on that speech would need to be attributed, though. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing this NAMBLA content and presenting it NPOV has been the main problems from the beginning. It remains that we ONLY have the primary source for this quote. Kohler copies Wikipedia word for word, I pointed this out in a previous section, and the Spectator, which is unmistakably an opinion hit piece, acknowledges they got it off NAMBLA’s website. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Indigenous girl may have found that Archive box source but you added it to the article, I asked both of you for anything that other editors could verify the information but nothing yet has come forth. It remain unclear what if anything about Hay’s speech is in there. Please be clear about what that source actually is and how it was confirmed.
And my “disruption” has continued to prove there indeed is glaring NPOV and sourcing issues. I’m glad we’re finally getting some more eyes on the issues, as well as finding any reliable sources. Hopefully the article will improve and all this content will be adjusted with due weight. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@MPS1992: It’s hardly silly, especially with such contested and controversial content, to be precise, NPOV, and encyclopedic when reporting this content, specifically in the number of parades he protested NAMBLA being banned from. There were two, separated by eight years. It’s deceptive not to report the facts as verified. I would say the same thing if there were eight or dozens. Let the facts speak for themselves. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Having more time to look over sources, I can't see an NPOV version of Hay's article not mentioning NAMBLA. Now, I will say that I agree that The Specator should not be cited, or more accurately Jeffrey Lord should not be cited. That's not because he's a conservative, but because he has a documented history of saying utterly ridiculous things about anything he perceives as liberal. He's a political strategist, not an academic or a journalist, and his expertise is trying to make opponents look bad. Aside, I found what I consider two more useful sources that I don't think have been mentioned yet. Hay, Harry (1997). Roscoe, Will (ed.). Radically Gay. Beacon Press. ISBN 9780807070819. seems to me a very good reference for sourcing content on this topic. There are also two contrasting interpretations of Hay's support for NAMBLA in Hubbard, Thomas K.; Verstraete, Beert (2013). Censoring Sex Research: The Debate Over Male Intergenerational Relations. Left Coast Press. ISBN 9781611323399. One of those interpretations was penned by Bruce Rind, who has a well known agenda, but I find he does have a point. Specifically, while searching for sources, it was hard to miss the volume of relatively recent conservative hit pieces that bring up Hay and overstate his support of NAMBLA, even going so far as to say he founded the organization. I will not cite those as they are light years from RS. That is, there really are people trying to posthumously demonize him as advocating for the rights of sexual predators to rape children, and may explain counter-attempts to minimize his involvement with them. Anyway, I found original statements of Hay and other content in Radically to be quite illuminating on Hay's position toward the group (note that although Hay is listed as the author, he is not the literal author of much of the content within). Notably, at times Hay described his support NAMBLA as being a sort of counter-counter-reaction. His belief was that NAMBLA was being excluded from the gay movement to appease conservatives, and therefore the gay community was allowing outsiders/opponents to dictate who could be members of it. He also of course had a very expansive view of "consent" as described here, that included underage males seeking out older men for sexual purposes, as already mentioned. Again, I don't see how an NPOV article avoids mentioning this, but it does have to be done correctly. I would actually avoid using any sources that are just dumbing down the history here to "Hay supported NAMBLA". Those are not useful because they are far more vague than we need to be. The outline of a paragraph or two I think would be npov would go, 1. Hay was controversial for his involvement with nambla. 2. Although not a member, Hay protested in support of Nambla's rights to march, etc. 3. Accurately describe Hay's statements on man-boy relations and exclusion of groups from the movement. It's of course a tricky thing because people see 'nambla', the imagine creepy old men grooming young boys for molestation. I assume that's the goal of some of the writers who bring this up. It's also obvious that although what Hay had in mind was still a crime, it's not that particular scenario. Plenty of people will consider that a distinction without a difference, but they will be basing that opinion on an accurate statements of facts. But anyway, I think this is achievable, inevitable, and necessary. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I very much appreciate your insight and comments on this. It’s exactly what I was hoping would happen here.
No one has suggested that this content shouldn’t be presented in the article. How it’s presented, and wether any mention belongs in the lead is the main concern.
I’ll have a look at these new sources to see how they can add to the understanding of the subject. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I’m having several issues accessing these sources mostly because I’m using Google Books. The site purposely blocks sections of pages so I’m not sure that when I’m searching I’m getting all the content on the subject, as well everything has to be hand copied rather than cut and paste. If anyone has ideas I’m open to them! Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Update (July 6, 2019)

I got feedback on the two books suggested above. Accordingly the Will Roscoe one will likely be used to note facts but not analysis.
While the Hubbard - Verstraete one, is considered of scholarly research and likely can be used to explore Hay’s motivations. I have a copy of the book on its way as I’ve been unable to fully access it online. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for sticking with this. I think some criticisms have been valid and others have been problematic. I hope you will take others' concerns seriously, and I hope that you will recognize their concerns about the historical portrayal of Harry Hay. Equally, I hope they will understand and help in your efforts to portray Hay according to reliable sources. I think you are all trying to achieve the same aim -- more or less. I am from a different cultural milieu, so I can't really claim to understand any of it. MPS1992 (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I’m learning plenty about sex and sexuality researchers including the prejudice and backlash they faced when they approach taboo subjects. Apparently that’s been true from the beginning. I’m almost through the first book, if I have to I’ll track down the other as well. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• I’ve asked for some help at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Pro-research help needed for Harry Hay. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• I’ve also asked for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#Opinion piece? By Harry Hay In ‘94 Gay Community News. Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible content

Hay’s favorite story, of his coming-of-age, “which he repeatedly told to audiences in later years and refered to ironically as his ‘child molestation speech,’ in order to emphasize how sharply different gay life is from heterosexual norms,” recounted his time as an emancipated fourteen-year-old (circa 1926) pursuing sex with a man in his mid-twenties who assumed Hay was of the age of consent. He shared the story “specifically to contradict entrenched stereotypes and to caution against uncritical generalizations so common in reference to pederasty.“ The man gave Hay “tips on how ‘people like us’ should conduct themselves, which ‘inspired Harry almost as vividly as the erotic memory’.”

In 1986, Los Angeles Pride wanted Hay to march, but they had banned NAMBLA, a group synonymous in the U.S. with pro-pedophilia advocacy, and had to negotiate for him to only carry a sign, rather than a larger banner, to protest the action. Hay wanted to do so “because he remembered the pleasure of coming out as a teenager with a man who initiated him to the gay world.” He ended up wearing two posterboard signs; one for Valerie Terrigno, a recently disgraced lesbian politician also banned from the parade, on his front, “Valerie Terrigno walks with me"; and on his back, “NAMBLA walks with me.”

Eight years later, in 1994, Hay was again protesting NAMBLA being banned: ILGA (now ILGBTIA), the-then only group representing gays and lesbians at the United Nations (UN) banned them and two other groups from membership; and Stonewall 25 organizers, producing the 1994 twenty-fifth anniversary of the Stonewall riots, the largest LGBTQ Pride event in the world as of then, banned them and similar groups from its Pride protest march, that purposely changed the route to use First Avenue going past the UN, reflecting the events’ international focus on LGBTQ issues. Hay was among the 150 “activists, scholars, artists, and writers” who signed on to support Spirit Of Stonewall (SOS), an ad hoc group that felt the banned group had free speech, and association rights. Hay delivered “Our Beloved Gay/Lesbian Movement at a Crossroads” speech, concerning the expulsion of NAMBLA, at a SOS press conference, where he stressed three organizing principles from the formation and growth of the LGBTQ movement he used since the early 1950s: we do not censor or exclude one another; if someone identifies as lesbian or gay he accepts them as such; and we cannot allow heterosexuals to dictate who is in our communities—we decide. Hay helped lead the counter-march with almost 7,000 participants.

Comments

If any better sources are forthcoming I’m happy to check them out and add accordingly.

I’m proposing this content be used in the article instead of the current material, after this has been vetted.

Separately, and dependent if any new sources are found, decisions can be made if the category is appropriate, and what, if any, content belongs in the lead. Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this text serves as neutral. Is this intended as the lede? Or into the Later years: 1980-2002 section? It still seems like white-washing. I still have trouble understanding the resistance to the Michael Bronski obit/article. Bronski had been involved in journalism for over 30 years when it was published. The info in it is grounded in decades of gay journalism. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

This would potentially be content for inside the article. The lead content would then be a reflection of what we think belongs in the article itself. As for Bronski, and other sources that only gave a sentence, or less, of content on this I’m following the guidance above, “I would actually avoid using any sources that are just dumbing down the history here to "Hay supported NAMBLA". Those are not useful because they are far more vague than we need to be.” Bronski had one sentence, “He was, at times, a serious political embarrassment, as when he consistently advocated the inclusion of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) in gay-pride parades.” Looking at every reliable source there remains only two parades, eight years apart, so it’s hard to reconcile that with “consistently advocated”. Likewise “He was, at times, a serious political embarrassment”: Bronski was the only source to characterize this way, again we only have two parades; the 1986 one he seemingly was alone in the position, but in 1994 he was one of 150 LGBTQ activists and others that was protesting the group being banned. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe I need to explain some of the editing choices made, if reading through the above sections weren’t clear:
  • The Hay quote, usually misrepresented—especially by right-wing and conservative bloggers—as him advocating for sexual contact with men and young teen boys, is omitted as we only have one primary source, NAMBLA itself.
    • What is included is analysis of why Hay often shared his own story of when he was 14, where that quote was picked from, and had a positive gay sex experience with an older man.
  • No mentions of Hay advocating for the group, or pedophilia by extension, are included as no reliable sources gave any evidence he did this. Of all the sources on Hay, the majority don’t mention this subject area at all. Those that do use only the briefest of mentions with the most credible citing his protesting the banning from two Pride parades: LA in 1986; and Stonewall 25 In 1994.
    • Both parade episodes are included with explanations of why he protested their bans. Tellingly he was one of 150 LGBTQ activists on record for the 1994 protesting.

Given the reliable sources available to now, and I’m happy to look at any others that may add to or change what is known, I think Wikipedia’s present content in the lead, and article is dreadfully sourced, and misrepresents Hay’s connection to this despised group. Additionally including Hay in the category of pedophile advocacy is wholly inaccurate. If Wikipedia is indeed an encyclopedia and not a click-bait tabloid then we should update the article accordingly. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• @MPS1992:, @Red Rock Canyon:, @Someguy1221:, I’d appreciate if you could look at the proposed content to see if the sourcing is reliable, NPOV, etc, and offer any changes, or any other sources. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Gleenanon, what you have done above in your proposed text is simply leave out the WP:RS sources that have the well-documented content that you don't like. Your sanitized version, describing what you believe were and were not Hay's motives, is not an improvement and is not encyclopedic. Additionally, in this discussion you have consistently misrepresented the sources, claiming reliable sources are not reliable simply because you do not like them, or claiming that sources don't exist when they do. When people have pointed this out, you simply ignore the corrections and keep misrepresenting the sources. This is a serious violation of policy and wikiquette. Posting a note up top that people do not need to read the full discussion, only your bits of it, is inappropriate, and by only pinging the people who you think might agree with you, you are treading very close to violating the WP:CANVASSING policy. As a number of people have already told you, reliable sourcing and writing with a neutral tone don't mean "never critical" and "never controversial". The fact Hay supported NAMBLA, spoke on their panels, carried their signs, cruised boys, is what it is. It's sourced. It was his choice. Downplaying what that means, or what NAMBLA is, is really not the answer. As Wikipedians, it is not our place to re-interpret or decide what his statements and actions really meant. We just document it. It's on Hay, not us. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

This entire process was needed because the POV and poorly sourced content was included in the article. Your again inviting me to leave it as is, or otherwise waiving me off isn’t helpful.

If I had found any reliable source that did provide evidence he in any way was an advocate for NAMBLA, or by extension pedophilia, I would be obligated to include it, with due weight. I found none. Nor has anyone else thus far.

I looked, and still welcome, any usable reliable sources that actually provide evidence for your many claims against Hay. Please note, that is not an invitation for you to post a list of sources, like you’ve done in the past, that have been listed already, but are considered primary, unreliable, or too vague to be of any help.

If there is a source you think I’m misquoting, or otherwise misrepresenting, or an equally reliable source that should be used, that we haven’t already included, then please make it known here.

I’ve amended the note at the very top, it was never my intention to mislead. I encourage anyone who’s willing to read the wall of texts to do so. It’s right there. Their conclusions might easily catch something I missed.

I invited the uninvolved people in hopes they could help move the process forward. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• Hello. I am one of the "uninvolved people", also described as "the people who you think might agree with you". I am really tired of this whole dispute, but I do not promise to be coherent while I explain why. It seems to me that this Gleeanon fellow was just fixing a few things, while also being far too excited about fixing things a little too much, and then suddenly he tripped some tripwire whereby people who ever advocated that bad thing, had to be vilified, and anyone trying to prevent that had to be crushed. Well actually my grandfather was in the military, and indeed he found that if you crush something under your boot then it often does not rise up again. He gave me many wise pieces of advice. I have not read every single piece of evidence presented above about what every single reliable source said about every single thing that this Hay fellow said about anything. To do that, it is probably going to take me another few weeks, so I hope you are all very patient people. For the time being, it seems to me that this Gleeanon fellow has some legitimate concerns about the current (original) article, and that some other editors are going slightly apoplectic that he should challenge the existing article. As someone who is not any part of any of either scene, this maybe should be the time that I back off and leave you all to it. But actually I am going to ask you to do two things. (1) actually understand what each of you is saying to the other, and if you can't do that, (2) give me some time until I can finally be bothered to read the above proposal and work out what it's about and whether it's accurate or what. I would much prefer the first option. MPS1992 (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I opened a thread at WP:RSN to address sourcing in the lead’s first sentence, while this content for the article itself moves forward. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
• Update. I just today got a copy of: “Our Beloved Gay/Lesbian Movement at a Crossroads” Hay, Harry. Gay Community News ; Boston Vol.20,Iss.3, (Fall 1994): 16. It’s the full text of his speech detailing why he, and apparently others, objected to ILGA and Stonewall 25, expelling NAMBLA or any other group that identified as gay/lesbian. The pdf is about six pages so it will take a bit of time to digest and hopefully distill into the proposed content.

  I did omit at least one important facet in trying to express his views. He adamantly felt that queer youth worldwide were victimized by being forced into hetero identities dooming them into forms of despair. He felt this was the real molestation they faced.

  He also connects Sen Jesse Helms move to defund the United Nations by discrediting ILGA via the pedophilia groups scandal; with his similar move 30 days later “amended an education bill on its way through the Senate by denying federal funds to any public school district that teaches homosexuality is a positive lifestyle alternative through class work, textbooks, or counseling. This language is so broad that even Project 10, a nationally known counseling program for Gay high school students, would be a key target of the ban.” Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Gibraltar

Gibraltar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Is it neutral to say the following without mentioning the Spanish position:

• Gibraltarians rejected proposals for Spanish sovereignty in a 1967 referendum and, in a 2002 referendum, the idea of shared sovereignty was also rejected.
• Gibraltarians voted overwhelmingly to remain under British sovereignty in the 1967 Gibraltar sovereignty referendum.
• In a referendum held in 2002, Gibraltarians rejected by an overwhelming majority (99%) a proposal of shared sovereignty on which Spain and Britain were said to have reached "broad agreement."

The Spanish position is that the referendums are invalid because the indigenous population had been expelled from Gibraltar and only British subjects resident there were allowed to vote.

In my opinion, the current wording implies that there was no question of the legitimacy of the referendums, while neutrality requires that all major positions be reported.

TFD (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Wait, the indigenous population that was expelled over three hundred years ago? Well, do sources that discuss those referendums mention the Spanish position? These are old enough that there could be proper academic-historical references to work with. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that TFD has got the wrong end of the stick completely here. There is no serious dispute that the referendums accurately reflect the views of the Gibraltarians. And no reader is realistically going to understand the word "Gibraltarians" as including the entire population of Spain, or as including any of the townspeople who left Gibraltar in 1704

(FTR the sources suggest that "expelled" is factually incorrect).

The article does in fact put the Spanish side of the dispute. But we do need to be careful not to allow the dispute to dominate the article. There is already an article at Status of Gibraltar, and we don't need a second. Kahastok talk 20:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources do mention the dispute. For example, "According to Spain, Gibraltar "was converted to a military base and the inhabitants were expelled....[It] rejects the notion that the interests of the inhabitants of Gibraltar are paramount because its interpretation of Article 73 of the UN Charter is that the reference to “the inhabitants of these territories” was to “indigenous populations who had their roots in the territory”, and this does not apply to the present inhabitants of Gibraltar." The author mentions several times that Spain objected to the referendums based on its interpretation of the UN Charter. (Peter Gold (2009) Gibraltar at the United Nations: Caught Between a Treaty, the Charter and the “Fundamentalism” of the Special Committee, Diplomacy & Statecraft, 20:4, 697-715)[7] A source used in the article alao says, "Even before [the 2002 referendum] happened it was dismissed as irrelevant by the British and Spanish governments....Gustavo de Aristegui, Spain's then spokesman on foreign affairs, said the referendum had not been called by "competent authorities" and was "not legally binding". ("Gibraltar", The Guardian 4 Aug 2004))

I am not saying that the Spanish position should be explained in detail, but should be mentioned briefly, that they did not consider the referendums to be legitimate. Your argument is that the Spanish position is "so obviously ridiculous that anyone reading it is going to conclude that the Spanish government is talking out of its hat and dismiss their POV out of hand." Whether or not it is true, it is not based on policy or guidelines.

TFD (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Exactly how many "indigenous" people were expelled in the 1700's as part of the Spanish War of Succession? (Some of them left voluntarily, I imagine, not wanting to stick around while various diseases killed most of the Britishers and most of anyone that shared close quarters with them. Some of them were Jews.) Were not Spain's demands, at the time, mostly connected with denying Jews the right to live in Gibraltar or to be buried in Gibraltar? I can appreciate TFD's view, but "Spain renewed calls for joint Spanish–British control of the peninsula" is already in the article and seems to cover this. MPS1992 (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The Alliance's aim in 1704 was to establish Gibraltar as a beachhead for a wider invasion of Spain. For that to work, one thing they wanted was a supportive local population. Unfortunately, the Alliance commanders lost control of their men, who ran amok through the town. After a few days, most of the townspeople left the town of their own accord as (in modern terms) refugees. I am not aware of any evidence that any of them were actually expelled. Kahastok talk 21:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

That's right. Since 1704, things have changed. MPS1992 (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how many if any people were expelled. It is not our role to evaluate different arguments, merely to ensure "that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." TFD (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The sentence in the lead Gibraltarians rejected proposals for Spanish sovereignty in a 1967 referendum and, in a 2002 referendum, the idea of shared sovereignty was also rejected appears to be a simple statement of fact, independent of either Britain's or Spain's perspective on the matter. There were referendums, and the people of Gibraltar overwhelmingly declared their desire to remain British sovereign territory both times. Perhaps Spain's point of view on the matter should be added to the body of the article, but nothing needs to be added to the lead. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe copy edit slightly to "The residents of Gibraltar rejected proposals..."? That would deal with the Spanish position, don't you think? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion. While the article should not dwell on the dispute it should not come down on one side or another. Calling the residents of Gibraltar the "people of Gibraltar" does that, since the issue of who the people are is disputed. TFD (talk) 01:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that "people of Gibraltar" is a disputed term? I think you're really misunderstanding Spain's position. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find any sources that say Spain claims the "people of Gibraltar" refers to anything different than the residents of Gibraltar. Spain's position in the dispute appears to be that Spain's right to territorial integrity supersedes Gibraltar's right to self-determination. Basically, they don't dispute that the residents of Gibraltar are the people of Gibraltar, they simply believe that those people have no legal say in the matter of Gibraltar's sovereignty. See [8]. NPOV is about fairly representing all significant points of view reported in reliable sources. The POV that the residents of Gibraltar are not "the people of Gibraltar" is not reported in any reliable sources. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

According to Spain, Gibraltar "was converted to a military base and the inhabitants were expelled....[It] rejects the notion that the interests of the inhabitants of Gibraltar are paramount because its interpretation of Article 73 of the UN Charter is that the reference to “the inhabitants of these territories” was to “indigenous populations who had their roots in the territory”, and this does not apply to the present inhabitants of Gibraltar." (Peter Gold (2009) Gibraltar at the United Nations: Caught Between a Treaty, the Charter and the “Fundamentalism” of the Special Committee, Diplomacy & Statecraft, 20:4, 697-715)[9] TFD (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't say they believe the current inhabitants of Gibraltar are not "the people of Gibraltar", it just says they believe the people of Gibraltar have no legitimate interest in the sovereignty dispute, because they don't qualify as "indigenous" under UN law. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

That's a distinction without a difference. TFD (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I guess I'm not sure what you're proposing. Based on this thread and what you wrote on the article talk page, I assumed you wanted to add something along the lines that Spain disputes the referendum because of some idea that the present inhabitants of Gibraltar are not "Gibraltarians" or "the people of Gibraltar". I think that is not at all supported by sources. But maybe I was incorrect. If you just want to include somewhere in the body of the article "Spain holds that these referendums are illegitimate", then I would support that. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 06:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

It is supported by sources, which I have provided. I provided my recommendation above. You keep asking me to repeat what I have already written, which is unproductive. TFD (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

How liberal is Norway towards LGBTQ People and their issues?

Instead of repeating government propaganda about how liberal Norway supposedly is towards LGBTQ people and their issues, why don't you try asking trans males living in Norway how they feel about bureaucratic obstruction of HRT? I know of one trans male who has been waiting for years for official approval of his use of female hormones. He has had to go through psychoanalysis and had to demonstrate his willingness to live as a woman when his body continues to be male. Hormone products are interdicted by customs and people ordering them are charged with infracting the law, which is not specific with regard to the product or substance interdicted. I don't see why Wiki deserves more donations from me when it supports government disinformation about this important subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.90.28 (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I guess we won’t get a donation from you then. Oh well. Blueboar (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello unregistered editor. I'm sorry that Wikipedia's articles about the issues for LGBTQ people in Norway are not comprehensive nor neutral. Many Wikipedia articles are not comprehensive nor neutral, we all have to work on improving them. Incidentally, suggestions of withholding monetary donations tend not to be very effective around here, perhaps partly because volunteer editors like you, me and Blueboar won't see a penny of any such donations. Unfortunately, personal knowledge is not well regarded as a source for Wikipedia articles. It would be great if you could find reliable sources that discuss the problems faced by trans people in Norway. You could then either boldly add such details to the relevant articles, or you could mention the sources on the talk pages of relevant articles and discuss their potential relevance and addition.

There are plenty of reliable sources that discuss worldwide issues of this nature, Pink News is one. If they've never covered issues of this nature in Norway, then you should write to them and tell them about the government disinformation and the cases that you have personal knowledge of. And then maybe they would cover it. And then you could use their coverage as a source for adding material to Wikipedia articles.

And finally, you could also ask for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. MPS1992 (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I encourage the IP editor to register an account, join up at the Wikiproject, and look for WP:RS sourcing that could add some additional perspectives to this issue. I would not necessarily support Pink News as a source, however; it would depend on the issue being covered and the exact article. Their coverage has been uneven on many of these issues. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Psychoanalysis is mostly a hobby for wealthy patients. The IP meant psychological/psychiatric scrutiny. And I find it quite normal, since once they operate the body, it cannot be undone. So the MDs have to be pretty sure that the wish to become transgender is stable and genuine, e.g. not an effect of psychosis or of unrealistic expectations. So the law built checks and balances for becoming transgender. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

POV for The Cambridge Diet

• The Cambridge Diet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am a fully disclosed paid editor representing The Cambridge 1:1 diet on behalf of Lucre PR. I have been trying to get The Cambridge Diet page updated with information from a more up to date source but I have been struggling to make any progress on the page's talk page. Two editors have been changing the article so that it reads like negative advertising copy. I understand that they don't want to see the page turn into an advert but I think they have taken the lede and the piece too far in the opposite direction, resulting in a page which no longer gives a neutral viewpoint. The lede uses language like "guises", "very low calorie fad diet","made from commercial products" and refer to a pre-market version of the diet which presecribed a minimum caloric intake of 330. Would it be possible to get the lede changed to the correct minimum caloric intake and perhaps put the 330 calories in an early history section where it belongs?Essayist1 (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

According to the sources, the Cambridge Diet was invented in the 1970s and has produced multiple variants, for example in the US, the UK and South Africa. During its history, some of these variants have also been known as Cambridge Weight Plan and 1:1 Diet. An encyclopedia article should be covering all of these diets. It is obvious from the sources that the original form of the diet did indeed specify 330 calories a day. The South Africa site shows clearly that the first phase today specifies just three 150-calorie meals a day, and there's nothing "pre-market" about that. In the US, the minimum intake was raised to 800 calories per day following criticism. It's unclear from the sources what the current minimum UK intake is.

It's understandable that a paid editor working for a PR company may find the specifications of the lower calorie intakes embarrassing, and would like to see those removed in favour of mentioning just the USA figure, but we have a duty to readers to accurately summarise what the significant sources say, and I see no evidence that our article doesn't do that. The link to the "more up to date source" above gives an error for me, so I can't comment on whether it's relevant. In any case, the article talk page is the place to present new evidence of potentially useful sources. --RexxS (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

User:RexxS, I fixed the link for you. It's a study paid for by the manufacturer. It also reminds me of a criticism of the manufacturer that I ran across: They cite scientific studies about any/all very-low-calorie diets, and then make claims from those other diets to support their specific products. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

It's an RCT, a primary source, so is not going to be of much use in contradicting secondary sources in the article per WP:MEDPRI, not to mention the obvious CoI implications. --RexxS (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that individual studies are not good sources for articles. Your need to use secondary sources that explain the degree of acceptance of the study. Also, it is obvious that people who reduce their calorie intake to 850 calories per day will lose weight. People who consume no calories will loose even more weight. TFD (talk) 06:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

hi, U:The Four Deuces The funding agencies section of the study at the top of the page also says, "The funders had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report." Nevertheless, if it is secondary sources that explain the degree of the acceptance of the study that you want, this article from the BBC analyses the study and discusses how the NHS are adopting these diets to combat the UK's obesity epidemic. Essayist1 (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

The BBC article is not WP:MEDRS either. Also it's not true that the NHS "are adopting" the Cambridge diet. So why would we want to say that (I can see why a PR company would want us to say it, mind)? Alexbrn (talk) 12:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

It's up to the publisher to decide if the funding presented a problem. Since they apparently did not, it should not be an issue here. But individual studies lack significance for inclusion before the academic community has determined their significance. In this case we should be able to consult a standard medical textbook that has a section on the diet, has considered all the major studies and opinions and the pros and cons. The BBC article, while it does look at the pros and cons, can't be used because it is not considered rs for medical articles. Consider this: would you like your doctor to determine your treatment based on a single study or a BBC article, or would you like them to base your treatment on what they learned in medical school and continuing education? TFD (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to add a note of thanks to all involved. Since this was posted, the number of sources used in the article has more than doubled, and the amount of readable prose has almost doubled. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• Relatedly, Alan Howard (nutritionist) may need a look - this is largely a puff piece built on unsuitable sources (where there are any) and evidently the result of paid/COI editing. However, a happy side effect is that the "Cambridge Diet" coat-rack section contains some useful clues about how the Cambridge Diet article might be expanded ...

NPOV issue with Conservapedia Article

filing editor was forum shopping and pulled a block.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
With Respect to the article on Consevapedia, It is my position that each and every opinion piece used as a reference needs to have a direct attribution without exception in order for the article to completely comply with WP:NPOV. Doing it this way demonstrates how much the article depends on opinion pieces rather than fact, and prevents accusations of Wikipedia being itellectually dishonest in the article. 24.155.244.245 (talk) 01:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC) Note that the IP reported User:Seraphimblade to WP:AIV for vandalism and has raised a case at WP:DRN. Doug Weller talk 07:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC) Our article is based on facts, not Truth™. In the Western world, facts replaced philosophical truth as the determinant of reality about 300-400 years ago. I understand that this is not true everywhere. Guy (Help!) 21:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC) You would have to be more specific. What opinion pieces are being used as a source of facts? TFD (talk) 06:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Seattle is Dying (documentary)

I think the whole article needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Abortion

I would like to note some recent unhelpful behavior at Abortion. Even though the neutrality of the second paragraph has been disputed for two days by now, my placement of Template:POV statement was reverted with the strange rationale "YOU are currently the only editor claiming that presenting all facts is non-neutral point of view", contrary to the established process where the number of disagreeing editors is irrelevant. Could an uninvolved editor have a look and/or possibly reinstate the tag? Brandmeister^talk 23:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Please see the talk page where this subject has been discussed: Talk:Abortion#Safer_than_carrying_a_pregnancy_to_term ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Zomato

Zomato#Controversies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My request is regarding the last paragraph here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zomato#Controversies

There was a recent controversy on 31st July, 2019 when a customer cancelled food order because the delivery boy was a non-Hindu as tweeted by the customer on twitter to which Zomato responded in a tweet as "food has no religion. It is a religion".[10][11]

This move was appreciated not criticized through out the India.[12][13] The Uber Eats, rival food aggregator in India also came in support to this.[14] But a section of Hindutva people started campaigning against this company because it protested against bigotry which includes giving 1 star feedback in Google App Store and maligning it on Wikipedia.[15][16]

Due to which the local police issued a notice against the person for spreading hatred.[17]

At present this incident is presented from a particular point of view only and excluded the actual controversy related to this incident which can be easily found if anyone Googles "zomato controversy jabalpur" on Google India domain.

The sources which I also listed on the article's talk page are:

• Man Cancels Order Over "Non-Hindu Rider". Zomato's Response Kills It
• Food has no religion: tweets Zomato slamming discrimination
• Zomato says food doesn't have religion, wins appreciation on Twitter
• Man cancels order over delivery person's religion, Zomato wins hearts by taking stand
• UberEats Steps In To Support Zomato's "Food Has No Religion...
• Upset Over Uber Eats Supporting Zomato, Angry Bigot Uninstalls Uber Taxi App Instead
• Jabalpur police to Zomato customer: Tweet hate, go to jail
• Zomato delivery boy on Jabalpur customer controversy: I am hurt but what can I do

But the article listed only In July 2019, Zomato faced severe criticism on social media for using halal tag on food items despite claiming on Twitter that "food has no religion" which is biased towards a particular POV. To keep the integrity of Wikipedia, I request any experienced editor to step in and re-write it per guidelines. 12.189.124.50 (talk) 06:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Calala Island

I would like to raise an ongoing concern regarding a private island that has been converted into a luxury holiday destination. Initially something I became involved in at NPP that seems to have wider implications across NPOV, suitability of sourcing and general editing patterns.

Articles involved: Calala Island and also related Pearl Cays, Piracy in the Caribbean, South Caribbean Coast Autonomous Region

Editors involved: KiteWings, RAAS Nicaraguru, LimeCay, myself (Jake Brockman)

Background: The article Calala Island was created by KiteWings back in 2018. At NPP, the article struck me for its tendency to use of marketing language and some facts, such as the name of the island, that seemed inconsistent between various sources. Details are on the article’s talk page and a DRN that had been raised and procedurally closed. (Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 169).

Some core claims that may be suitable for marketing are around the island being part of the "golden age of piracy" and specific notes about the natural environment that can be observed in the island (endangered Hawksbill turtles).

Since then, the article has received further marketing-type edits. Given Calala is a small part of a wider region, the article leans a lot on external sources about the wider region and makes implications about the island, which in some cases is not specifically mentioned. At the same time, articles about the region seem relatively less developed, raising weighting concerns.

Many of the article's sources lean on travel magazines and tabloid mentions given some famous holiday-makers.

In addition, Wikidata has seen changes by user RAAS Nicaraguru (possibly UNAME issues) to make the island name, Calala, more prominent ([18], [19], while the same user renamed articles named “Lime Cay” on Swedish and Cebuano Wikipedia to reflect “Calala Island”. The same user also edited English Wikipedia around similar lines, especially adding “Calala” and some of the environmental claims made in the article about the island (Hawksbill turtle, piracy), see [20], ; plus the removal of mentions of Malaria, which may be helpful to push a point.

At this point I seek wider views on a) article neutrality and encylopedic focus, b) balance between Calala Island and other regional articles, c) editing patterns (SPA/near SPA), and lastly d) suitability of travel magazines or similar for encyclopedic contents. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Islamophobia, Antisemitism, and other religious hate in "racism in X" articles

Prompted by Racism in Poland, where some users are claiming types of antisemitism and islamophobia generally are not racism and should be excluded from the article while the also claiming the main focus of the article should be racism against Poles in Poland - as opposed to racism against minorities in Poland (diff). A number of users have also challenged mainstream academic sources on the topic (e.g. on Jewish ghettos in the middle ages in Poland). The question raised, however, is a general one. Currently - articles such as Racism in the United Kingdom or Racism in the United States cover religious based hate. Sources and organizations coverage hate discourse (e.g. SPLC) do not differentiate between racist and religious hate in terms of their coverage (they do cover the motivations of hate groups - which often are mixed (e.g. both ethnic and religious based, though for some one is dominant) - thus sources on "racism in X", tend to also cover hate discourse that is not strictly racist in the sense of "racial theory". Outside input requested. Icewhiz (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Touchy subject... Looking across Wikipedia, in the article about Race (human categorization), religion is not specifically mentioned. The first line implies that race is a concept of shared physical or social qualities. A religion could be defined as a social quality. The top level article about Racism does not really help as it neither clearly includes nor excludes religion. What strikes me is that what is included in racism is very much subject to definitions at the time and possibly within the society, so the "official" definition for racism may be different in Poland and the US. I'd probably see if official local definitions help. I don't think there will be a cookie cutter definition that will hold for every country. I suspect that even if, say, a UN agency creates a definition, this will likely be challenged or nuanced country-by-country.

As for Poland, this has a special quality. Historically, Poland was under pressure from powers in the East and in the West, occupied many times - the the point where it almost didn't exist at times. Ethnic Poles were essentially oppressed minorities in what is today Poland. That may influence the Polish definition of racism.

Personally, I think mixing racism and religious based hate or bias is a slippery slope that needs to be looked at carefully. Are catholics a race? Are muslims? Hitler based the extermination on his belief in the "jewish race". Calling antisemitism "racism" seems lacking nuanced thinking._pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 20:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

In this particular case, we're talking about anti-semitism of the 13th century Catholic Church. That doesn't really fit in with "racism". It was mostly religious bigotry. If we're talking about modern-era anti-semitism then I think a stronger case can be made for inclusion as that is indeed often racially based. On this specific article though, the matter is somewhat moot, since the sources are really about European-wide anti-semitism of the Catholic Church and are only tangentially related to Poland.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The article about racism in the United Kingdom doesn't state that English crusaders were engaging in racism by patricipating in Crusades.We are debating 13th century religious strife here,not racism, and I am frankly of the opinion that unless strong sources exist that claim this was racism and not religious conflict then this should be removed from article about racism.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

First off, the elephant in the room: pushing antisemitism and Islamophobia out of "racism" will not put them away, just as pushing "complicity" out of "collaboration" will not put that away (yes, that too is an ongoing discussion). I've opined several times, on both pages, that how we organize this material is of secondary importance to including it; however, seeing the lack of enthusiasm to including it in the first place, I suspect these arguments will not subside no matter where we put it.

The correct structure for all such subjects should be "Prejudice in...", with child articles for different kinds of prejudice, as needed. However, until the community commits to modifying all relevant articles to follow this form (at least several dozen articles at the core, with hundreds or thousands more through Wiki-links), the one on Poland should not be an exception.

And now, a source (which I recommend reading in the original):

The word “racism” first came into common usage in the 1930s when a new word was required to describe the theories on which the Nazis based their persecution of the Jews. As is the case with many of the terms historians use, the phenomenon existed before the coinage of the word that we use to describe it. But our understanding of what beliefs and behaviors are to be considered “racist” has been unstable. Somewhere between the view that racism is a peculiar modern idea without much historical precedent and the notion that it is simply a manifestation of the ancient phenomenon of tribalism or xenophobia may lie a working definition that covers more than scientific or biological racism but less than the kind of group prejudice based on culture, religion, or simply a sense of family or kinship.
It is when differences that might otherwise be considered ethnocultural are regarded as innate, indelible, and unchangeable that a racist attitude or ideology can be said to exist. It finds its clearest expression when the kind of ethnic differences that are firmly rooted in language, customs, and kinship are overridden in the name of an imagined collectivity based on pigmentation, as in white supremacy, or on a linguistically based myth of remote descent from a superior race, as in Aryanism. But racism as I conceive it is not merely an attitude or set of beliefs; it also expresses itself in the practices, institutions, and structures that a sense of deep difference justifies or validates. Racism, therefore, is more than theorizing about human differences or thinking badly of a group over which one has no control. It either directly sustains or proposes to establish a racial order, a permanent group hierarchy that is believed to reflect the laws of nature or the decrees of God. Racism in this sense is neither a given of human social existence, a universal “consciousness of kind,” nor simply a modern theory that biology determines history and culture. Like the modern scientific racism that is one expression of it, it has a historical trajectory and is mainly, if not exclusively, a product of the West. But it originated in at least a prototypical form in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries rather than in the eighteenth or nineteenth (as is sometimes maintained) and was originally articulated in the idioms of religion more than in those of natural science.

— Fredrickson, George Marsh (2003). Racism: a short history (5. print ed.). Princeton, NJ: Univ. Press. ISBN 978-0-691-11652-5.

François Robere (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Icewhiz, it may not be semantically correct, but in many countries Islamophobia and antisemitism as seen as racism.Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Do you have sources for that? Islam is a religion - Islamophobia is the fear, hatred of, or prejudice against the Islamic religion or Muslims generally. Semites are a race (antisemitism) a term for an ethnic, cultural or racial group. *Not the same. GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The definition, “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”, was proposed by the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims after a six-month inquiry. But this was rejected as a legal definition by the government, so yes in the UK many (even in parliament) see Islamophobia as a form of racism. Moreover it has been adopted by a number of councils and major political parties.Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

There is historically conflict between religiously and racially distinct groups. Sometimes the conflict is between groups of the same religion but diffent races and sometimes betwen groups of different races but the same religion. Perhaps consider calling intergroup opposition prejudice while appreciating that conflict is commonplace. Jontel (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• Antisemitism is obviously a racist prejudice and should be included. I'm inclined to say that Islamophobia should be as well given its racialized nature (see, for instance, the attacks on Sikhs in the wake of 9/11). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Moreover @François Robere: reorganizing all these articles as "Prejudice in..." would not address this problem, because the sub-articles would still be Sexism in X, Homophobia in X, Racism in X, etc. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
    • That's exactly why it would, but I'm not actually suggesting that we do so. François Robere (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @Roscelese: - much of modern antisemitism is also racial (though in Poland there is a strong religious factor) - however the exclusion arguement of antisemitism here is directed at historic church led antisemitism - e.g. expelling Jews from England and Spain, mass murder during the crusades, placing Jews in ghettos, etc. This was mosrly religious based (though possibly also an ethnic/language issue) - the Church was willing to accept former Jews who baptized and accepted Christ. You make a point an article titles - I don't thing we need a separate "Religious bigotry in X" in addition to "Racism in X" - if we need a different title (not convinced we do) IMHO it should be inclusive and encompass both forms of hate.Icewhiz (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't say that. A perception of ethnicity that's deeper than religious affiliation played a role in many persecutions, for example in the Spanish Inquisition, which mainly targeted conversos. François Robere (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Roscelese-Racial antisemitism and religious antisemitism are both articles on Wikipedia, 13th century religious strife had little to do with racism but more with relgious conflict.There were/are plenty of antisemtites that were content with converts and their antisemtitism was grounded in religious not racist theory.Generally classyfing religious strife in Middle Ages as "racist" is not something widely accepted, for example we don't call Crusades as motivated by racism but by religion.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict)@Icewhiz: as Francois points out there has often been a racial element even to historic "religious" antisemitism. I guess if something is very clearly not racial then it might make sense to leave a specific incident out of the racism article, but antisemitism as a phenomenon in general obviously deserves a section in the racism article and I'd err on the side of including things. @MyMoloboaccount: I know we have articles on both religious and racial antisemitism, but we're talking about articles on "Racism in X country," and there's plenty of scholarship documenting the fact that antisemitism didn't suddenly become racial in the 20th century. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

antisemitism didn't suddenly become racial in the 20th century Sure, it did around 18-19th century. But cerainly in Middle Ages it is far fetched to claim it was based on Darwinism and racial theories.Unless sources attributed religious strife in 13th or 14th century to racist theories then really there is no reason for claiming they were motivated by such thing.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@MyMoloboaccount: Um, I'm not an idiot, so I'm not going to claim that anyone was appealing to Darwin before Darwin was born. I'm saying that there's been a lot of scholarship on racial antisemitism that predates scientific racism; you yourself linked an article that points this out... –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Religious hate is usually tied in with racial hate and should be included. The victims of religious hatred typically have a different ethnicity from the majority. Catholics in Northern Ireland for example are more likely to descend from Irish ancestry, while Protestants are more likely to have Scottish and English ancestry. It wouldn't make sense to have two separate articles about it. TFD (talk) 02:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Often, perhaps, but not always... consider the Thirty years war, which pitted catholic and protestant Germans against each other. That was a purely religious division. Bigotry is ultimately rooted in “us” vs “them”... the definition of “us” and “them” may be based on racial divisions or religious ones... or both... or neither. Blueboar (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I said usually. In the 1500s, 1600s, and 1700s, anti-Catholicism was not race-based, but became increasingly race-based in the English-speaking world as it came to be associated with the Irish and Eastern and Southern Europeans. Anti-Semitism also was in some cases in the Middle Ages based on religion but became more racial particularly with the emigration of Russian Jews to Western Europe. TFD (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Would it be better to just rename the articles "Bigotry in X" instead of "Racism in X"? That would solve the problem elegantly; there's little rational debate that Islamophobia and antisemitism are not forms of bigotry. --Jayron32 16:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • No, of course that solution wouldn't work. Then we'd have to put sexism, homophobia etc. in the article as well, it would be far too large, and we'd only end up replicating the problem we're currently having by the necessity of creating top-level sections for racism, etc. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Attempts to exclude islamophobia and antisemitism from racism articles run into one major stumbling block though. Although along slightly different axes, both of these anti-religious bigotries share an ethnic dimension. In the case of antisemitism, this is straightforward: Judaism is both a religion and an ethnicity. However in the case of Islam it's also relevant. Islam is predominantly a non-white religion. Bigotry toward middle-eastern and central Asian ethnicities is largely inextricably bound into islamophobia, but also anti-black bigotry plays a role in the formation of islamophobia. TL;DR, while antisemitism and islamophobia are not exclusively racism, there is a significant element of racism in both. Simonm223 (talk) 12:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
      • @Simonm223: - in regards to Islamophobia in Poland‎ (an article that might end up on this board - I was motivated to write it after Islamophobia was bowdlerized from the Racism article) - I managed to find academic journals explicitly tying Islamophobia to racism - so I added it back to the Racism article - diff (see also Talk:Racism in Poland#Islamophobia is not racism! where I think there is a sort of consensus (especially if we ignore the IP who is still challenging this) after this source based addition). I suspect most Islamophobia in the Western countries (it may be different in some Asian or African locales - not sure) will have academic sources tying Islamophobia to racism and xenophobia. Icewhiz (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
        • I would concur entirely with your suspicion. Simonm223 (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC

There's a recent RfC on neutrality of abotion's lead. Brandmeister^talk 08:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

False and exaggerated facts of Kashmir, Jammu, leh, ladakh

Kindly correct the neutrality of following pages about Jammu, Kashmir, ladakh and leh. According to UN, OIC, EU and all countries except India consider this region as disputed. There are numerous UN security council resolutions right from 1947 to hold a plebiscite for future of this region. It is a nuclear flash point between three nuclear states China, India and pakistan. Recent political moves of Indian BJP which is an extremist party of fascist hinduvta racial ideology have caused risk of nuclear war.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leh

http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/47

From BBC article: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-16069078

1948 - India raises Kashmir in the UN Security Council, which in Resolution 47 calls for a referendum on the status of the territory. The resolution also calls on Pakistan to withdraw its troops and India to cut its military presence to a minimum. A ceasefire comes into force, but Pakistan refuses to evacuate its troops. Kashmir is for practical purposes partitioned.

1951 - Elections in the Indian-administered state of Jammu and Kashmir back accession to India. India says this makes a referendum unnecessary. The UN and Pakistan say a referendum needs to take into account the views of voters throughout the former princely state.

We do say it is disputed.Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Suicide prevention on suicide methods article

There is a discussion [the Suicide methods] article. There have been numerous attempt to throw in disclaimers and warnings etc on the article and the current discussion relates to a hat note with not the goal of clearing up similarly titled articles but to redirect suicidal readers to a list of anti-suicide hotline numbers to call. If this isn't the right place for this please direct me to a noticeboard that is more appropriate. Shabidoo | Talk 17:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Neal's Yard Remedies page lacks neutrality

I am a fully disclosed COI editor, representing Neal's Yard Remedies. I was hoping someone could take a look at their page as both myself and my client believe the page focusses too much on their direct sales force and their unfortunate 2008 PR blunder. There is also a poorly sourced statement about a civil-suit in California which didn't actually gain any traction. The result of all this is that the page makes them out to be some sort of shady pyramid selling company specialising in selling toxic products to customers, which as anyone who is familiar with the company knows, couldn't be further from the truth. If they were as unscrupulous as the page makes them out to be, John Lewis and M&S wouldn't stock their products and they would have been hauled infront of a parliamentary ccommittee by now.

Would it be possible to update the page so it gives a fair and accurate overview of the company, without the negative advertising copy, please? Essayist1 (talk) 12:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Are you making a career out of paid editing for SCAM interests? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Not seeing any POV issues, we are here to report what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I do think that the health snafus deserve mention, but their weight in the article makes their coverage rather undue for what is - in general - just another smellies company using direct marketing. I think the article could be made more neutral by expanding some of the more mundane business aspects of it (for which, from a quick glance, there seems ample sourcing). Alexbrn (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Interesting one... Indeed, there is a lot out there about the company, but after 10 minutes of searching, I have yet to find something that is not PR-esque or a mundane review of the latest smell. The controversial stuff actually seems to be the only coverage that was "inspired" by someone other than their marketing team. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 16:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

That was my conclusion too, they seem to be notable for being controversial, I just did not take as long to come to that conclusion. I did however find some trivial stuff about their marketing technique bieng similar to Avon's.Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Albert Kesselring featured article review

Issues of NPOV have been raised during the review: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Albert Kesselring/archive1. In the course of the review, the article has been tagged for NPOV: [21]. Additional input would be appreciated; the more recent comments can be found here: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Albert Kesselring/archive1#August 2019 update. --K.e.coffman (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

How to handle popular critics of academic research on Campus sexual assault

Note: This is a long standing dispute that has opened back up again, so I'm asking for external input in advance

There is a dispute at Campus sexual assault that could use some outside input (discussion). To summarize: the article cites a number of conservative commentators (like Christina Hoff Sommers, Stuart Taylor Jr., and KC Johnson) who believe that the survey methods used to study campus sexual assault are systematically over-estimating the prevalence of the phenomenon. None of these people are experts in a relevant academic field, and their criticisms are, at this point, out of step with what peer reviewed research says about the prevalence of CSA. I have argued that their critiques should be given less weight and be placed in a separate "criticism" subsection, but another editor has disagreed with that approach. Any outside input is appreciated. Nblund ^talk 21:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

What role do we give popular critics in the Climate change article? That's another topic where sources show that qualified researchers say one thing, while some talking heads with no expertise whatsoever insist that's not the case. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Myself, I was thinking of evolution in comparison. There is a short section at the bottom about cultural reception, based on academic sources about the cultural reception of evolution - the non-experts are not actually cited. I think this is an appropriate way of handling it. of course that article goes into very little detail, but that's because cultural reception of evolution is several entire articles itself. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To them directly, zero weight is due. This is a sufficiently mature topic area that reliable academic works exist to describe significant viewpoints. Talking heads on news channels with no relevant expertise are essentially the peanut gallery. That some members of the peanut gallery have a large audience does not make their opinions significant, and treating them as such would risk entertaining a false controversy. If there are reliable sources discussing the cultural reception of campus sexual assault research, that may be an appropriate place to describe the criticism, from the viewpoint of those documenting it, not the viewpoint of those making it. Academic sources critiquing the research methods are of course a completely different ballgame. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks both. That's sort of my orientation as well. I do think there's some room to include the moral/political arguments they make about defining sexual assault. But we quote them on stuff like survey response bias and question wording - which is wayyy outside their pay grade. Maybe the evolution 'reception' section is a good model. Nblund ^talk 14:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Nblund has removed several critiques of the current approach that some academics and schools use to measure sexual assault. He/she relies heavily on primary sources that support the maximal views while removing viewpoints that don't, or put the studies in context. S/he even calls the Bureau of Justice Statistics (a federal government agency that analysis crime statistics) dubious [22]. For the record just because something is academic, doesn't mean it's free of POV which is why secondary sources are valuable. Yoffe is a seasoned journalist and is a secondary source. Per WP:RS, this is preferred. Likewise KC Johnson has spent years on this topic. Just because Nblund says he's not relevant is an opinion.Mattnad (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional comment. The current article has only minor changes, but NBLUND recently removed significant content from reliable sources that wasn't talking head-like comments. I suspect they're looking for endorsement here to justify the changes again. Samples:

• Underplaying of the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Crime Victimization Survey reports on sexual assault [23]. This content has been in the article for years - Nblund mischaracterizes what the study shows as a pretext for deletion.
• Deleted a section covering Emily Yoff's article for Slate magazine on the topic [24]. Here's the article that Nblund felt was so poor that it didn't warrant a short paragraph.

I'd like it clear that whatever support Nblund gets, it's not presumed to be blanket permission to remove reliable sources that are germane to the topic.Mattnad (talk) 18:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

We should treat them as fringe views. They are not reliable sources and they are not part of the body of the literature on the topic. If their views have been mentioned in mainstream literature on the topic, then it might justify a mention. It's similar to dissenting views on evolution, climate change, 9/11 and the moon landing. TFD (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Mattnad opinion pieces are not reliable sources. And non-academic sources should not be given equal weight to academic ones. KC Johnson and Emily Yoffe don't have any background in survey methodology, and so we shouldn't be treating them like they do. A brief mention of criticisms might be warranted, but we don't need to quote Yoffe's armchair analysis. I'm not relying on primary sources here, I'm relying mostly on a recent review article which addresses many of the same complaints you're raising here and dismisses them.

Regarding the BJS estimate: yes, I downplayed it. It is an extreme outlier and researchers believe it systematically underestimates sexual violence (see page 562). High quality sources do not reference it as a useful estimate in this context, but the BJS stat is cited repeatedly throughout the article as though it offers a plausible competing estimate of sexual assault prevalence. This is misleading and non-neutral. The general view is that 1 in 5 represents a reasonable average across college campuses, and that the methods favored by researchers like Mary Koss and Bonnie Fisher are better at estimating sexual violence than the methods used by the BJS. This needs to be reflected in the article. Nblund ^talk 18:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The BJS/NCVIS is an outlier in that it's derived from the largest and longest term victimization survey in the country. It's also an outlier in that it's random (as opposed to self selected survey participants), uses a phone survey that permits clarifying questions, and is not ideological. It also asks direct questions that are unambiguous. You've tried to eliminate reliable sources that refer to it as well. That you deleted quantitative findings because they don't suit you is problematic.Mattnad (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Since we have systematic reviews on campus sexual assault data, those must be used to reconcile contradictory primary sources. Cherry picking an outlier primary source to challenge other content in an article is an explicit violation of NPOV, as it is not an editors' job to decide that "this primary source is better than those primary sources". Use the secondary sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Nblund is relying on primary sources and deleting secondary sources like the Yoffe article. The review cited by Nblund is primary source material. It's an academic paper and it's used to justify eliminating major study findings.173.177.138.177 (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I think "review articles" are a classic example of a high-quality secondary source. Moreover, the review explicitly rejects this exact argument, and the authors even mention Christina Hoff Sommers as someone who inappropriately cites the BJS data as "debunking" the mainstream research on sexual assault. They explain why this is misguided in detail, and conclude by quoting the finding from the National Research Council that: it is likely that the NCVS is undercounting rape and sexual assault victimization (p. 4). Nblund ^talk 19:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

You already added a very long section on the critiques of the Federal NCVIS several years ago. That's not new. But what you're arguing is that the Federal Government's measurement must be partly or completely censored because it doesn't get to a huge number? Official government crime surveys that have been in place for decades is not junk science. Authors who cite these statistics are not the equivalent of climate change deniers. You have made efforts to remove not just the many authors, but even the NVIS data. I'd urge this board not to take Nblund's characterizations of opinions he or she doesn't agree with as a given.Mattnad (talk) 08:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

14 sources for a single statement

• Asking for editors' attention to this discussion: Talk:Racism in Poland#Molobo's changes
• The core question regards the Nazi approach towards the Poles: whether they planned a genocide, or had already started one. Scholarly sources, in general, tend to the former.
• One editor has been piling sources in support of the latter - 14 sources on a single statement in the lead,[25] most of which are either PRIMARY or irrelevant (ie. supporting the first statement rather than the second). My very last comment in that thread has a list of (almost) all of them, for your perusal. François Robere (talk) 10:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• See WP:REFBOMB and WP:OVERCITE. Ask for the single best sourcew, and if it doesn't satsify WP:V for our text, then there's a problem. Alexbrn (talk) 11:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• How in general would you deal with an evasive editor like that? He seems to be testing my patience. François Robere (talk) 11:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• Behaviour is another matter, and not for this board. From a quick look there's a problem here that citations which are only in the lede are a warnign sign, since a lede is meant to summarize what is in the article body. However, it seems the statement being supported is not surprising. This topic should be covered in the article body, with decent sources (but not WP:OVERCITEd) and then simply summarized in the lede. Alexbrn (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

TThank you Alexbrn, the Nuremberg Trials concluded that Nazis engaged in genocide of Poles and Jews, and this position is followed by scholars on the subject, in general the conclusions on Nazi atrocities by Nuremberg Trials aren't rejected(although there are aalways minority and revisionist views).Your suggestion to move ssources to main body where this is ddescribed seems like a good one.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The trial records, as noted several times before, are "historical documents" per WP:PRIMARY, and shouldn't be used for historical interpretation.

You have only presented two post-war scholarly sources that support your position, one of which is barely notable (with only one citation by tertiary sources). The rest of your 14-15 sources (16 counting the bibliography list quote) either PRIMARY, do not support that statement, or contradict it. François Robere (talk) 12:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, none of the sources contradict it, and all of them support it. You would have to be more precise on what this contradiction is as I fail to see any, and you didn't elaborate on the subject--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

One can only hope ARBCOM enlightens you, having been made privy to all the facts yet again. In the meanwhile, do stay away from serious discussions. François Robere (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• This can happen when POV-pushers inist that no amount of sourcing is enough to support a statement they don't like. It can also happen when someone is quote-mining to support a position refuted by the vast majority of sources. No idea which it is here. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
• When it comes to the type of historical sources that are ought to be used, the focus should be on parsing what the historiographical consensus amounts to. El_C 23:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@JzG and El C: Not asking you to make a judgment on content, worry not. In general, most sources agree that the Nazis had genocidal intent regarding the Poles, as adequately summarized (by yours truly) here (3rd par.). Most of Molobo's sources state that as well; the problem is he uses those sources to justify a different notion: that the Nazis had already started that genocide. This, in turn, is used to draw parallels with the systematic extermination of other groups, diminishing their tragedy, and for justifying wartime antisemitism (something also addressed by sources). Molobo quite clearly ascribes to this course of action,[26] as he demotes Jews and Roma to "second place" despite them being the Nazis' main targets even by the friendliest of his sources.[27] And then there's the poor sourcing, "cherry picking" and ignoring repeated calls to compromise, all of which are documented in that thread (and elsewhere [28][29][30]).

So - what's next? Trimming to the one best source, as per Alexbrn? AFAICT Molobo only has two secondary RS supporting that statement, only one of which is notable (the other is definitely an RS, but is only cited once by tertiary sources). François Robere (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Messiah ben Joseph (LDS Church)

I hadn't noticed this when I added the subject line, but this is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Messiah ben Joseph (LDS Church) with NPOV and NOR issues cited as the reason. I came here because of this: "Ancient ancestral prophecies concerning the House of Joseph (many of them, according to Latter-day Saints, now 'restored' through Joseph Smith from their lost or 'corrupted' state). center upon what some members and scholars of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in recent decades, have come to view as a messianic figure at the core of those prophecies — an 'anointed one' of Jewish tradition and legend who is variously called 'Messiah ben Joseph' or 'Messiah ben Ephraim'. I took this to the talk page and User:Chauvelin2000 gave what to me is an unsatisfactory explanation, although I admit I'm not sure I understand it. Doug Weller talk 06:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Across all 136 notes and references in that article, there is not a single one that is both A) actually about the topic of the article; and B) a reliable source. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

References