Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the neutral point of view noticeboard
This page is for reporting issues regarding whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.
  • Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion.
  • State the article being discussed; for example, [[article name]].
  • Include diffs to the specific change being proposed; paste text here.
  • Concisely state the problem perceived with the text in question.
  • Keep in mind that neutrality is often dependent upon context.
  • It helps others to respond to questions if you follow this format.
Sections older than 21 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so.

Additional notes:
Search this noticeboard & archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66

Fringe source in WWII bio article[edit]

I would appreciate third party input on the matter. A disagreement arose about a citation currently present in the Ernst Lindemann article; here's the diff.

The publication in question (Range, Clemens (1974). Die Ritterkreuzträger der Kriegsmarine (in German). Stuttgart, Germany: Motorbuch Verlag. ISBN 3-87943-355-0. ) has been described as neo-Nazi in this discussion: User talk:Hawkeye7/Archive 2016#Neo-Nazi publications.

The citations supports the subject's numerical position among all the other recipients, namely that he was 94th:

"Lindemann was the 94th recipient of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross in the Kriegsmarine.Range 1974, p. 116."

I consider the material to be trivial, while the source being used is highly questionable and unsuitable for a Featured Article, which is supposed to represent Wikipedia's very best work. However, I'm unable to convince the other editor. The related discussion can be found here:

I have notified the other editor here: diff.K.e.coffman (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

This individual has tried to label all books published by this house as Neo-Nazi, without offering a shred of evidence the authors are engaged in this kind thing. This latest round is symptomatic of his behaviour. His attacks on the German-related articles, specifically related to World War II, looks like a crusade. I am pleased that a score of other editors have helped rebuff his attempts to project his own views on to these articles. The fact that he will dispute such a small (but not trivial) detail is typical of his unhelpful and destructive "contributions". Dapi89 (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Let's not turn this discussion into personal attacks, shall we? (To report editor behaviour issues, pls see: WP:ANI).
As it happens, some articles on German WWII personnel contain indiscriminate amounts of information; ps see this recent discussion: Talk:Hans-Ulrich Rudel#Intricate details, where sections of the article are described by another editor as meticulous investigations of insignificant details.
In the case of the Lindemann article, such intricate detail is cited to a highly problematic source. I consider this information to be superfluous (along with editor Ian Rose who has commented on Talk), and I'm seeking third party input on the matter. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I see a couple of questions here, one is sourcing, and one is inclusion. A quick glance seems to indicate that the source is a published book, presumably not a self-published book, and probably meets wp:rs criteria. More to the point is whether the statement of receipt the award is wp:sourcable. It looks like a pretty straightforward statement and I don't see it's veracity being contested.

The next question is whether to include it in the article. One might interpret some guidance on this from WP: NPOV but I'm thinking not. So then it comes down to editorial discretion. In that area it is a matter of opinion, and mine is that a sentence on receipt of an award like that is appropriate for an article on that person. North8000 (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Clarification -- the matter of the award presentation is cited to other sources. Range is used to cite that the subject was 94th such recipient in this branch of service. This is is not remarkable as he was neither the 1st nor 4th, for example. I clarified above. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
This is another strand of a larger problem with Coffmann: a very narrow view of what is and isn't notable. Would he care to venture a guess, as to how many captains were awarded the KC for the command of a capital ship in battle? Dapi89 (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
How does this relate to the current discussion on the need for the article to include that the subject was 94th recipient? Please help me understand. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Range, born 1955, is a former Bundeswehr officer turned journalist and well known for his far right political stand. His recent publications have been thrashed by historians for inaccuracy, bias and distortions of historical facts. Rainer Blasius alikened Range's "biographical dictionary" of former Wehrmacht officers in the Bundeswehr to the romancing attitude of Der Landser. [1] I do not think that his very early work was much better.--Assayer (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

"Part of a larger crusade"[edit]

I consider the information on the Rudel article that user K.e.coffman has considered "trivial" to be actually at least as important, if not more so, than the subject's WWII service. So if a recipient of an award was 94th, so what? If he was 10007, so what. As for including whether someone was the 94th or the 93rd, can you tell me why this is NOT relevant? We note that a person graduated 286 in a class of 500, is that any less relevant? This is part of a larger "crusade", I suspect, to discredit a series of articles about military personnel in WWII in Germany. The service of Germans in their country's war is a fact. The award of medals is a fact. This are not alternative facts, regardless of who publishes the information. The "romancing" of WWII German military personnel may itself be questionable, but this does not change the facts about their service. auntieruth (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Since we are back to the topic of who may or may not be campaigning, I would appreciate if editor Auntieruth55 would clarify the exchange below, as it could be perceived as a coordinated action in support of promoting a MilHist article to Featured status:
We who? What was the outcome of this discussion? And did it have any impact on the voting at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Ba–Bm)/archive1. Answers to these questions would be appreciated. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I've notified the editor here: diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
The outcome was that one person got some sleep and played cricket with his kids, and I graded some papers. No one has clarified for me what the outcome of the previous discussion was. I'm still wondering about that and why you are so anxious to discredit these previously approved articles! auntieruth (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I am interested in evidence as to the status of the publishing house and the author; I have not found any though this is sometimes difficult to track down with German publishing houses. I am troubled by a few things--User:Dapi89's accusation of a "crusade", a charge repeated by User:Auntieruth55, whose scare quotes do nothing to alleviate the lack of good faith. And I don't understand a few of the comments in this last section--"So if a recipient of an award was 94th, so what?" doesn't make a lot of sense after it was stated that the information is "at least as important" as the person's service. And that someone graduated 286 in a class of 500, I have never seen that noted in an article, though I grant that I don't MilHist much. Anyway, I've seen K.e.coffman's work, and I have never had a reason to doubt their good intentions; I would appreciate it if you all could drop the "crusade" language, since it only discredits the person using the term. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
The 'so what' I believe is in reference to it being an uncontentious piece of information. The fact he is recipient of the award is not in doubt, Coffman however is saying the sourcing provided is not reliable to state the fact that he was the '94' recipient. Ultimately unless you are the first or last recipient of almost all awards, you are just a link in the chain of winners, so it really is not important if they were 94th, 95th, 105th etc. If the fact of the award is not disputed, I have not seen any evidence above the source is not reliable to say they were the 94th. If they are a right-wing publisher, then you can expect them to have done some research on right-wing figures. Its not beyond the realms of feasibility they might puff up subjects *where there is a benefit in doing so*. I cant see any reason it would be biased or romanticising to say "Subject X was the 94th recipient of award Y" over "Subject X was the recipient of award Y". Where is the motivation? If people are going to argue a source's political stance influences their reliability, you need to actually make a credible argument there is a *reason* for them to publish unreliable material. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't dispute your statement, User:Only in death--and at any rate, the rank is not the most important matter. You are right in that a right-wing outfit can be trusted to do their homework, but that same outfit can also be trusted, probably, to skew the facts whenever appropriate, as I have found in many Nazi and neo-Nazi accounts of German history. The basic statement "person X got a medal", sure, I suppose. But I'm really more interested in the evidence for the supposed POV than the medal. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Drmies should be aware there a quite a number of editors that feel that way. Dapi89 (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Feel free to tell her that, Dapi; no doubt Drmies will tell you that COIN is not the place to address this topic. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Then why did you bring it up? Dapi89 (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I didn't, Dapi89, you did. I'm only saying that those matters are not for here. Now kindly drop the attempt to blackball your opponent. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Drmies: The source (Range) is described above by editor Asssayer: Range, born 1955, is a former Bundeswehr officer turned journalist and well known for his far right political stand. His recent publications have been thrashed by historians for inaccuracy, bias and distortions of historical facts. Rainer Blasius alikened Range's "biographical dictionary" of former Wehrmacht officers in the Bundeswehr to the romancing attitude of Der Landser. [2] I do not think that his very early work was much better. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

  • K.e.coffman, I read that article yesterday or the day before (I think it's linked from the German article on Range?), and it's not enough for me to make such a condemnation that the material would be unreliable, though it's clear that the tone of his writing is indeed ... fishy. A source to use with care, a source whose judgment calls should not be repeated in an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@ Drmies....nah, I didn't. Dapi89 (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

On the one hand: That book by Range, published when he was only 19 years of age, is bad. It's biased to the extreme (Range uses peacock words to describe Lindemann in nearly every sentence: vorbildlich, besonnen, erfolgreich = exemplary, considerate, successful) and it does not contain much information anyway. I cannot imagine that a historian would refer to that work while writing about Lindemann. The same information, that he was the 94th recipient, could easily be referenced with Manfred Dörr (1996), Ritterkreuzträger der Überwasserstreitkräfte, vol. 2, already being used in the article. So, as was pointed out very early on, one question is sourcing, the other inclusion. The first could be resolved quickly, although I am not sure, if there isn't an interest to keep Range as a source anyway. The second touches upon WP:DUE. These kind of articles, i.e. articles dealing with Knight's Cross recipients, are stuffed with small details. Those details lend authenticity to a narrative which actually distracts from the violence of war. The article features a whole chapter on the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, but skips over the fact that Lütjens and Lindemann, following Erich Raeder's order, were responsible for the hopeless final fight and thus for the death of most of their crew. (Holger Afflerbach: "Mit wehender Fahne untergehen". In: VfZ 49 (2001), p. 609.) Sure, that's the usual German military glory stuff of Wikipedia. But if "romancing" is to be critically discussed at some point, it has to include a discussion of how "facts" are selected and how they are presented. Such insight is completely missing with many of the MilHistProject.--Assayer (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
My original statement in the thread was: the material [is] trivial, while the source being used is highly questionable and unsuitable for a Featured Article, which is supposed to represent Wikipedia's very best work.
The larger question is, should Wikipedia promote articles that contain a highly selective set of facts and are largely sourced to, let's say, specialised literature (militaria / phaleristics / WP:QS and / or fringe sources, up to & including neo-Nazi publications)? For a related discussion, please see: Talk:Hans-Ulrich_Rudel#Intricate_details & Talk:Hans-Ulrich Rudel#Sources (with the same editors, actually). Or, for a more humorous take, see:
K.e.coffman (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Once again, scrapping at the bottom of the barrel. Words like "exemplary, considerate, successful" does not make the source biased. They are observations.
And what does Coffmann mean by "selective set of facts"? Are there any "alternative facts"? What does this 'Trumpist' speak mean? Are there conflicting sources?
 ::::I think it is obvious to any passing observer that these two individuals are intent on causing fights over the most trivial matters. K.e.Coffman seems to think that "anti-shipping" (maritime interdiction), "air raids", "sorties" and "missions" are also Nazi euphemisms. Now that is funny. Dapi89 (talk) 08:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Reading this thread was a headache. Everyone, please keep to the point. '94th' is only published in one book, that book is not a reliable source, and so '94' should not be included. There is no reason to discuss triviality or notability of the fact, or predisposition of editors. There is nothing in WP:RS that discusses pulling facts that are probably true from unreliable sources just because the unreliable source is unlikely to fabricate that particular point. WP:RS is clear, the source must be reliable for the fact to be verifiable. "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Does this source have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? If not, strike the 94, and move on. 2604:6000:7B0E:8C00:B91F:4407:3AF6:3B15 (talk) 04:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections[edit]

I am besides myself on the article about Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Another editor added the following[3] which was reverted[4]. Editors on the page are arguing that Trump's response isn't related to the article about the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. I have never seen Wikipedia editors literally arguing that articles about a topic are off-topic. No matter how much I explain that it's not our job as Wikipedia editors to say that reliable sources are wrong, it falls on deaf ears.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections#Ukraine A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The issue is not about RS, it is about Undue. The argument is that this is a throw away line by Donny that has nothing to actually do with Russian interference and thus has not place in that article. No one questions the sources, they question the weight.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
It's not up to Wikipedia editors to decide that WP:Reliable sources are wrong. If numerous reliable sources have reported on this (which they have), it's our duty as Wikipedia editors to report this. AQFK (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
They are not saying they are wrong, they are saying this is irrelevant as it tells us nothing about Russian hacking.Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Of course, you are. Reliable sources have determined that this is relevent. You just admitted that you think it's irrelevant. AQFK (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Trivializing one party's claims or responses in a dispute they are centrally involved in is completely inappropriate for NPOV. UNDUE here would apply to views of those that are in no way involved with any of the claims; we don't want to give excessive weight to voices that aren't central to the matter and that represent fringe views. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
We have one sides response to the accusations of Russian interference, this has nothing to do with that. As the source says (which the suggested text failed to mention) there are some key differences between this event and the Russian interference.Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
In addition if we have this we must also have the DNC's explanation/denial.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
The proposed material is a diversion. It is not a direct response to the serious revelations of possible collusion with an adversary state. It doesn't matter if the material is covered by 10,000 reliable sources; consensus among editors is what determines what goes in an article. Consensus (so far) has concluded that this material is not meaningful and not relevant to the subject of the article.- MrX 16:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Sure, there's no reason to not include the DNC's response to the accusations of collusion with Ukraine, as rebutting to Trump's assertion. But omitting Trump's assertion, being the central figure out this, should be included if has been given that much coverage. --MASEM (t) 16:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Some here seem to be forgetting the basic principle "A source is relevant if I like what it says and irrelevant if I don't". It's in our policy WP:POLICIESIJUSTMADEUPTOWINANARGUMENT... Clearly when the democrats accuse the Trump administration of colluding with the Russians in order to win an election, a direct response by the Trump administration accusing the Democrats of colluding with the Ukrainians in order to win an elections is relevant and has sufficient weight. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Great so Sean Hannity is Donald Trump? As far as I can see that is who the source ascribes this claim to.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, not Twitter. God help us if we start writing articles that essentially say: "That's what you are, but what am I?!" By the way, it's not just Democrats saying that the Trump campaign may have colluded with Russia. Even a casual reading of a few sources makes that abundantly evident. - MrX 17:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
It'd be nice if you went and joined the ongoing discussion on the article talk page before making changes like this. There's a survey up and everything. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Almost all of the oppose comments seem to be rebutting strawmen, e.g. "this is irrelevant as it tells us nothing about Russian hacking"; "there are some key differences between this event and the Russian interference." I explicitly acknowledged key differences between the scale of Ukrainian and Russian influence efforts in my initial comment on the matter, but then no-one has suggested creating a new section on "Ukrainian interference" in the election, and not even Sean Hannity has implied that Russian interference is somehow negated or justified by Ukrainian interference. The White House response was limited to the Trump campaign–Russian meeting, i.e. that there is an obvious and direct parallel between Don Jr. accepting Russian opposition research and the DNC accepting Ukrainian opposition research, which has not been refuted. (As Glenn Greenwald says: "What's the argument as to why that's illegal but not this?") If this content is considered too far removed from Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections to be allowed to stay, then so is the "Meeting with Russian lawyer" section, and probably much of the article focusing on circumstanial ties between Trump associates and Russian nationals.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
See also "Trump Jr. Was Told in Email of Russian Effort to Aid Campaign," The New York Times, July 10, 2017: "The White House press office, however, accused Mrs. Clinton's team of hypocrisy. The office circulated a January 2017 article published in Politico, detailing how officials from the Ukrainian government tried to help the Democratic candidate conduct opposition research on Mr. Trump and some of his aides." If America's paper of record considers this news fit to print, in its article on the Trump Jr. affair, maybe Wikipedia should follow suit.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The story of Russian interference in the election has had massive, daily coverage in RS for some time now. Given the number of ongoing investigations, the story is likely to continue for quite a while. A few days ago, Trump basically said that Hillary did something bad somewhere else. This is actually an old story that was in RS for a brief period of time and faded away so quickly most of us forgot about it. What are the chances that this accusation will stay in the news related to the Russian interference in the 2016 election? If it does, it can be included then. But, even RS look at this as an attempted diversion. And with the massive amount of play this story has and will continue to receive, we can’t include every tit-for-tat. WP:RECENTISM, WP:10YT, WP:DUE. Objective3000 (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Well besides The New York Times, a secondary reliable source - an open supporter of Clinton even - there are others dedicating entire articles just to the response of the White House press secretary and others, such as The Atlantic[5] (the OP mentions others in the tp), or to the DNC's response to it, such as CNN[6]. There's also others criticizing the response but dedicating an article to it, such as WPo[7]. The excuse to white wash away the response on this one-sided BLP violation of an article is "meh, not enough"? You'll have to do better than that. Saturnalia0 (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I didn't read past: an open supporter of Clinton. There is a difference between news pages and editorials. Objective3000 (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

So, we're going to have to include everything Donald Trump and/or Sean Hannity say to try to distract away from the Russian meddling. No matter how far off-topic it is? No matter how implausible? Just because some sources covered (and debunked) it? Where will we find space to write about things that actually happened and that actually involve Russia meddling in the election? This falls under WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. And while Wikipedians may habitually give a lot of coverage to statements that come from the White House, I'm afraid that we're living in a different world for the time being. Geogene (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

No, not everything, just responses notable enough such as this one. And please read the material, no one "debunked" it, some people criticized the response, no one said the accusation was false or denied the Ukrainian story. Saturnalia0 (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Except that this is not notable (more correctly, it is UNDUE) because it got hardly any coverage at all compared to the article's topic. (In fact, to answer your next argument I'm looking for a source now by searching "Democrats Ukraine" and I'm not even able to find any today, and will have to go dig that WaPo piece out of the article's talk page to do so. And what little coverage it did get was primarily negative, or in other words, RS are debunking it as a talking point and distraction[8]. That will be the same tone it will have to get in the article, if it must go in, and so inclusion will only make Trump's defenders look worse. Sorry, it's bunk even if it's DUE. Geogene (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
There have already been numerous sources provided, and your inability to find more is besides the point. Please move on. I don't care what Trump or his supporters will look like, I care about the article including responses to an accusation that made the headlines on every newspaper (the response). If the response was criticized so be it, that is not a reason to censor it. Saturnalia0 (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
The reason I can't find those sources today is because in the last few days they have been utterly buried by thousands of other sources about other aspects of the topic. That can only have happened because it's such a trivial aspect of the subject. Therefore, UNDUE. Just because something you like can, in theory, be reliably sourced if you search hard enough for a handful of news articles does not guarantee inclusion, and I'm afraid that if you think that it does then you profoundly misunderstand a key aspect of the editing process. Geogene (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
You don't need to "look hard enough", it's right there on every headline screaming at your face. Yes, newspapers cover different news different days, who would know! And yes, mainstream media has a well known feud with Trump, so you see more articles about things said against his administration than responses by it (who would know!). The fact that even so it got such ample coverage goes to show. Saturnalia0 (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
mainstream media has a well known feud with Trump. I'm sorry, but that you would state such as fact on the NPOV board suggests that you don't understand the principles behind NPOV. Objective3000 (talk) 00:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
And again, you dismiss every point with "you don't know what you're talking about". I feel like this discussion is moot. I've made my point. Saturnalia0 (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
May I suggest that in future you never put words in quotes that were never spoken? Objective3000 (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I am surprised that no one has suggested the obvious solution... which is to create a stand alone article on the Ukrainian interference in the 2016 United States election. There was obviously enough media coverage for it to pass Notability for a stand alone article. Plus, with a separate topic we get a different evaluation of what is DUE and UNDUE. Blueboar (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
That is a story that came out six months ago and died. Doesn’t pass WP:RECENTISM. Objective3000 (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I think it's important that we don't blindly parrot every instance of finger pointing in Washington. We need to carefully judge how significant a comparison the Ukrainian interference is to the Russian. I made an attempt at doing this, skimming the Politico article, which said that Ukraine's involvement, while straining "diplomatic protocol dictating that governments refrain from engaging in one another’s elections", did not rise to the level of what Russia was doing. Quoting from paragraphs 4-6 of the article: "The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race...But they were far less concerted or centrally directed than Russia’s alleged hacking and dissemination of Democratic emails. Russia’s effort was personally directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin, involved the country’s military and foreign intelligence services, according to U.S. intelligence officials...There’s little evidence of such a top-down effort by Ukraine." I'll leave it to editors with more time and knowledge than I to investigate further. ~Awilley (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Well put. Our job as editors is not all that complex if we simply rely on RS. Takes away any burden on us to perform OR/SYNTH. The Ukraine thingy came up about six months back (if I remember correctly) and died. The Russian thingy has been going on for at least seven months and is daily fodder in RS. An attempt to bring the Ukraine thingy to the forefront in an article on Russian interference in the 2016 elections as a distraction is unlikely to last. If it does, then we can include it. But, it’s four days old. Patience will out. Objective3000 (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Per RECENTISM, we shouldn't have an article anywhere close to the depth of what the current Russia Interference is. We have no idea in the long term how much of this is actually significant, as we're still dealing with accusations and no firm conclusion. If editors are going to chose to be that indepth, then they need to treat all relevant angles with the same in-depth coverage, but per RECENTISM and NOTNEWS, this article is realistically far too much that we as an encyclopedia should be covering. --MASEM (t) 01:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Agree. And I find the public opinion polling egregious. But getting consensus to shrink an article isn't easy. Geogene (talk) 01:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

It does not matter if we discus the key differences between these two incidents here, or even on the talk page of the article. Any text we include in the article must reflect the RS's doubts about the similarities. The suggested text did not do that, but rather only put the fact thew the Trump campaign had made the association. The problem with this (as well as making clear that the DNC have said that there were no official contacts) Is that we then get a paragraph or two over what is a rather lame (failed) deflection. This there is an issue with undue weight here. But until we actually see some suggested text that actually reflects what the RS have said about this I most oppose inclusion of this on principle.Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

This is what I meant by the RECENTISM problem. As soon as you start including every accusation and criticism made towards Trump and/or Russia, to be NPOV for the controversy you need to add Trump and/or Russia's own accusations and criticism, and then the counter-criticism to that. This all creates a huge rabbit trail that is puffing up the article size tremendously. None of this should be called UNDUE or FRINGE, particularly since it can be readily sourced. The other option is to keep the article at the bare bones, stating core facts and enough to establish the importance, and omit all the punditry until the matter is well and fully resolved, at which point as an encyclopedia we can write with 20/20 hindsight on the actual points of opinion that best represent the closed situation to focus us. --MASEM (t) 14:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps editors should wait until/if indictments occur, before bloating up the article-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps editors should refuse to let a Wikipedia article contain accusations against a living person while not allowing that person's direct response into the article. This is a clear violation of WP:NPOV and those who allow it should be ashamed of themselves. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
"Oh, but it is only his view so it must be FRINGE and thus UNDUE to include" will be a response, which is BS. UNDUE/FRINGE should not be applied to those views directly at the center of a controversy, only to those viewpoints that are not directly party to the situation (eg most of the media in this case). --MASEM (t) 19:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Maryam Mirzakhani[edit]

The article has been here some time ago, but there is currently a massive pro-Iranian POV pushing in the article. The pushers want to define the subject as an Iranian mathematician. She has an Iranian nationality, but has not been employed in Iran even a single day. Consensus to define her as Iranian-American mathematician (as a compromise) has been established in the past at the talk page, but the pushers are challenging it and there are too many to get their hand. I gave up and unwatched the article, because to be honest I am tired of these battleground behavior, but someone may want to have a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Christian communism[edit]

This is about [9]. I do not feel like reverting it, but I would like advice from third parties upon whether this is OK. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Bakersfield, California[edit]

It seems to me that this edit creates some balance issues. I don't think it gives a very balanced portrayal of the recent history of the city. Not quite sure what to do about it, though. I am tempted to revert it, but parts of it are probably usable. Looie496 (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Rothenberg Ventures[edit]

Here to see if there's anybody willing to take a look at a COI request posted at Talk:Rothenberg Ventures, about updating the Controversies section to make it easier to follow, and remove extraneous detail. The request is by me, as I've been advising the firm on the article. Another editor has replied to say that controversy / criticism sections aren't great practice, and I don't disagree. However, I think this my proposal is nevertheless an improvement, and more neutral than the current version. If anyone here is willing to have a look and weigh in, I'd appreciate it. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Artists with the most number-ones on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100[edit]

A user is frequently removing the entire mentions of Elvis Presley from this article, despite reliable sources mentioning his 17 hits every time they talk about this list. Discussion is on: Talk:Artists_with_the_most_number-ones_on_the_U.S._Billboard_Hot_100#Systematic_removal_of_Elvis_Presley. Excelse (talk) 05:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

0.999...[edit]

I have concerns over the neutrality at the article 0.999.... I have started an RfC on the matter. Opinions are welcome. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The use of the term "illegal alien"[edit]

I'm sorry if this is the wrong venue, but I'd like to explore the possibility of banning the use of "illegal alien" across Wikipedia unless it's part of quotes. I've noticed that it's a term that editors regularly try to introduce to Wikipedia articles related to immigration (see the edit-warring on this article[10], for instance) whereas other editors try to remove it. While lots federal and state agencies do use the term (some have moved away from it in recent years), the term is rarely, if ever, used by reliable news sources:

  • The Associated Press Style Guide[11] doesn't allow it.
  • The Washington Post style guide: "The Post does not refer to people as “illegal aliens” or “illegals,” per its guidelines."[12]
  • The New York Times style guide doesn't allow it, even describing it as "sinister-sounding".[13]

Is is therefore jarring when Wikipedia uses a term that is (i) widely seen as offensive or sinister, (ii) has not been used by any reliable news outlets in decades, and (iii) has far more suitable (common in reliable sources and non-offensive) substitutes, such as "undocumented immigrant" and even the flawed "illegal immigrant". So, it's not only bad style to use it on Wikipedia but the fact that the term is allowed on Wikipedia leads to lots of needless edit-warring as users try to introduce the offensive term to pages and others try to remove it. I've also started a discussion on the Manual of Style board[14] to get their take on the term. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Whoa Snooganssnoogans is misstating what the text he cites says about the NYTimes "style guide." It is a pretty nuanced directive, What the NYTimes style guide actually says is that writers should “consider alternatives when appropriate to explain the specific circumstances of the person in question or to focus on actions: who crossed the border illegally; who overstayed a visa; who is not authorized to work in this country.” @Snooganssnoogans: to suggest that you immediately strike your untrue assertion that "The New York Times style guide doesn't allow it. What the style guide forbids is the use of "illegal" as a noun, i.e., a phrase like "the illegal worked as a chef."E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, this is embarrassing for you. The source that I linked to says: "Off the table entirely are “illegal,” when used as a noun, and the sinister-sounding “alien.”" Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Do you know what a "noun" is?E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
What on Earth are you on about? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I know there was a discussion of this on a noticeboard, but I can't find it. However, in principle, I agree that we should not use "illegal alien" unless it is a quoted word, if we are describing the meaning of the term, or in cases of historical context where the term was more common (as one might find in older works of fiction, avoiding reversioning of the past). If we are talking about a contemporary issue, even if the sources use "illegal alien", if we can paraphrase that to something less offensive but still accurate, that would be better. --MASEM (t) 00:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what relevance my weigh-in on this will have, but I was intrigued when I heard a United States judicial member once clarify that no one is an "illegal" anything unless they are found guilty in a court of law. Until then, they are merely "undocumented". I found that very interesting. For what it's worth. Maineartists (talk) 00:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Excellent sources. The term is most often used to describe living people that have never been convicted. The term is used as a derogatory label WP:LABEL. There exists perfectly adequate language to express this without such terminology. Yes, we can use it in a properly referenced quote. Objective3000 (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The term should be used where appropriate, as the term is the correct legal definition of a foreign national living without authorization in a country they are not a citizen of. Yes the term is politically charged, but that does not preclude it from being used in a encyclopedic tone. Keeping WP:GEOSCOPE in mind, the term "Alien" is in use outside of the United States where it has fewer negative tones, and in the English speaking world has the same legal standing. As far as sourcing is concerned, the federal government of the United States employs the term ([15] [16]) as do a number of dictionaries ([17] [18] [19].) Like all terms that could induce offense or be used to defame, the term "Illegal Alien" should be used in the proper context to better serve the goals of the encyclopedia. SamHolt6 (talk) 00:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Note that my vote is below.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Illegal alien is the proper legal term. It definitely should be used in any wiki text covering statutes and policies in which it is defined, and possibly elsewhere. There is nothing inherently sinister with either alien (a person who is not a citizen or resident) or illegal (a person who has entered illegally without a proper visa). Just because some PC speech activists are trying to move away from the proper legal term is not a reason we should do so. If at all we should ban non-legal pseudo euphemisms such as undocumented immigrant (which for instance assumes the illegal alien's intent is imiigration and not some other intent).Icewhiz (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
"some PC speech activists" = Virtually every single reliable news source. Seriously. I dare you to find one reliable news outlet that uses "illegal aliens" except in quotes. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Left leaning press has endorsed this - which is what you brought. However US code and regulations are full of the term. Want to hazard a guess as to how many times alien appears in the us tax code, guidelines, and forms? I could see how calling a BLP an illegal alien would be a violation of BLPCRIME prior to conviction. However if we are talking about an unspecified group or alternatively individuals who have been convicted or deported there really should not be a problem to refer to them as such.Icewhiz (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
"Left leaning press has endorsed this" <-- bullshit excuse to dismiss best practice of reliable sources. If you don't like an encyclopedia written on the basis of reliable sources, find a different venue for yourself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
VM, please try to keep this civil. As you know, comments like that serve no purpose other than creating strife and disruption. Cast your vote and leave it at that. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Labeling the NYT, WaPo and AP "left-leaning press" on the NPOV board is, IMHO, an example of irony. Objective3000 (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Despite being leading RSes (and really leading, the first newsorg you would want to cite), NYT and WaPo do have a clear editorial angle. Does not mean they are not reliable (in fact they are highly reliable, and perhaps the most reliable US sources). But reliability does not equate with adopting their style guide which reflects their editorial angle, which unrelated to reliability.Icewhiz (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC) The NYT, as a RS, recognizes that it is perceived as liberal [20].Icewhiz (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The Wall Street Journal, which is about as conservative as the NYT is liberal, doesn't use "illegal alien" either.[21] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The source you provided, which might or might not be a rs for wsj's policy, actually say they prefer to use illegal immigrant. They avoid alien due to possible popular confusion with E.T. In popular news reporting that may be a concern, but in a wiki article actually dealing with a statute that uses the term? Finally I will note that if Wikipedia will blanket avoid the term, it will paint Wikipedia as biased, as avoidance of illegal in this context clearly places a source in a particular camp. Undocumented immigrant is just aas POVish as illegal.Icewhiz (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I cannot imagine the logic behind this statement: Undocumented immigrant is just as POVish as illegal. Objective3000 (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Use of one over the other allows a quite stong statistical inference of the writer's political position.Icewhiz (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Perception is not reality and I’ve never before heard the claim that The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage is politically influenced by the editorial board.
BTW, the NYT states about the author of that piece: "Her opinions and conclusions are her own." That is, it is not RS. Objective3000 (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I will note that this is a frivolous dispute - as any astute reader would note each major news-source has a bias which is usually known. The editorial policy and substance guide are typically what is most affected by the bias as well as "tone" - what sets an RS apart - is that it doesn't (too much) alter facts and attempts to vet them - but that regards reporting - NOT style guides. The author in question works in a pretty significant capacity at the newspaper. But if you really want another source, then this summary of a journal paper (which i could pull as well) - [22] - claims NYT has a liberal leaning bias. And one could find dozens of other RS analysises of the NYT (and WaPo) - probably the most studied paper out there - including in specific topic areas.11:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support As the npr ethics handbook says, "Strive to use words and phrases that accurately deliver information without taking sides on emotional or political issues."[23] When we use the terms "illegal alien" or "illegal immigrant," we are taking a position on the issue. I think there should be a section on "politically loaded language" in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Words that may introduce bias that includes the terms, "homicide bomber" and others. TFD (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Could be an addition to WP:TERRORIST. Objective3000 (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. SamHolt6's position seems perfectly sensible to me, as there will be times where "illegal alien" is the correct term to use. I'd also like to note that this appears to be drifting into avoiding "illegal immigrant" as well which, irrespective of the current culture war going on in the US, is still perfectly acceptable elsewhere.(UKIrelandNZSouth Africa) Bromley86 (talk) 01:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
    • It would be helpful if you would read the links you provide before providing them. The first story in your UK search for example ("Grenfell fire: 'I was too afraid because I'm undocumented'", BBC), doesn't use the word "illegal immigrant", it refers to "undocumented residents." The term "illegal immigrant" redirects to "undocumented residents," which is the preferred term in UK reliable sources. TFD (talk) 02:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Yep, saw that. Perhaps you missed the quote marks? Did you see the second article? "... among 18 suspected illegal immigrants found in a lorry..." Third: "Eighteen suspected illegal immigrants from Iraq..." Forth: "Egypt says the detainees are illegal immigrants..." Fifth: "An illegal immigrant who was caught working..." Etc. Admittedly, I've been out of the UK loop for a couple of years, so things may have changed, but they were always, without question, called "illegal immigrants" rather than "undocumented migrants" in the UK in 2015. From my memory, anyway. Bromley86 (talk) 07:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I support the use of the term provided the context is appropriate. For example, the term should not be used in an article that has content cited to any entity that does not use the term per their manual(s) of style. However, the term still has legal standing, and remains a definition provided by a number of dictionaries. From a legal standpoint, in the United States a 2015 opinion by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ([24]) confirmed that the term has basis in legal documentation. The parlance of our time is changing, and while the term may well fall out of favor (a counter to my 5th Circuit point would be that the term has not been granted a legal opinion by the US Supreme Court), it remains in use. Without doubt the term is politically charged, but that does not preclude it from being used in a encyclopedic tone if the situation (and more importantly, the source cited in the concerning instance) warrants it. The question should always be if or not it is tactful to use the term, or if a better one can be employed to suit the same need. Per my previous posting, like all terms that could induce offense or be used to defame, "Illegal Alien" should be used in the proper context to better serve the goals of the encyclopedia. SamHolt6 (talk) 03:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Dictionaries do not characterize the term illegal alien as disparaging nor offensive. It is a neutral term, used to describe "a foreign national who is living without authorization in a country of which they are not a citizen." Just because very left-leaning media outlets like the New York Times and WaPo don't want to use a term doesn't mean Wikipedia should conform to their preferred terminology. Setting a standard for adopting euphemisms in place of appropriate wording isn't a good direction for the project. Hidden Tempo (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
"Very left-leaning media outlets like the New York Times and WaPo" - HiddenTempo, just please drop this ridiculous nonsense. Your own POV is showing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Play the ball, not the man. You don't have to personally address every single thing a fellow editor says that you disagree with. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Note that creator of this discussion misstated the policy of the New York Times - my fact check posted at top of discussion. I note that an editor above has also misstates the policy of the Wall Street Journal.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
The WSJ policy is to use "illegal immigrant" and, in some cases, "undocumented immigrant". The only mention of "illegal alien" is in the context of a term that prefer "illegal immigrant" over.[25] A quick search shows no mention of "illegal alien" in WSJ language (unless quotes, letters and op-eds) since 2001. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose "illegal alien" and "illegal immigrant" are legally accurate phrases. Unlike newspapers, even the most reliable of which take editorial positions, Wikipedia avows neutrality as a goal. Taking sides in a fraught conversation about whether to call individuals who live in a country without a legal basis for their residence, would be a gross violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and abandonment of our pretense to political neutrality.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support — This is a straightforward application of WP:LABEL. It has become a value-laden term that implies a POV that shouldn't be expressed in the encyclopedia's voice. Exceptions are appropriate for quotations and for legal contexts where the entity involved uses the term. Also, "illegal" in the absence of judicial review may be a BLP violation. To choose (perhaps) politically contentious example, we don't use "statutory rapist" as a generic descriptor of people who have had sex with someone under the age of consent in the absence of a legal finding about that person. Nor do we use "trespasser" for European colonists in the Americas. Instead, we attribute POV.--Carwil (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • All terms in this debate are value laden, the term "undocumented alien" simply supports a different set of values than the term "illegal alien." Wikipedia should not choose sides in a political contest by banning either term.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The use of this term is an active political conversation with pundits and scholars weighing in on both sides, (Cf. Hans A. von Spakovsky, Sorry, but the Accurate Legal Term is 'Illegal Alien' [26].) Wikipedia should not be taking sides by banning politically contested terms.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The "scholar" Hans A. von Spakovsky who doesn't have a PhD, and is most known for making false and unsubstantiated about voter fraud while dabbling in some climate change denial on the side. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Who is to blame for the defeat of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election?[edit]

We seem to have a content dispute issue at James Comey. It's a bit of a journey, but I will sum up the highlights. First, the material in question for reference:

1. Disputed: "His decisions have been regarded by a number of analysts to have likely cost Clinton the election."

Suggested: "Comey's July 5 press conference regarding the controversy, as well as his letter to congress related to the discovery of new Clinton emails, was met with bipartisan criticism."
Reasoning: The "analysts" are two bloggers and three writers from a fashion magazine, and per WP:V, if reliable sources disagree, they must be represented. However, I and other editors prefer the much more neutral suggested material.

2. Disputed: The fifth paragraph of the lead, regarding the dismissal.

Suggested: Either reduce the entire paragraph to one sentence ("On May 5, President Trump dismissed Comey.") or at least include Trump's reasoning, instead of cherry picking those given by his critics/the New York Times/the Washington Post.
Reasoning: The vast trimming is preferred by myself and a few others, as the dismissal is covered extensively later in the article, as well as its own fork. Also, only one point of view is represented and omits perhaps the biggest bombshell report of this saga: him to Comey testified that Trump never asked stop the Russia investigation, refuting tremendous speculation and insinuation of the contrary.

3. Disputed: Using WikiVoice to state the claims by the New York Times as fact: "Trump stated that he fired Comey to "ease" the Russian investigation against him—calling him a "nut job" and "In a private conversation with the Russian government, Trump stated that he "faced great pressure on the Russian investigation. That's [now] taken off"."

Suggested: Adding "reportedly" and/or "According to the New York Times" before stories exclusively reported by the New York Times.
Reasoning: These two stories were reported solely by the NYT, and unverified by any other media outlet. Additionally, the reporting is allegedly based off an anonymous source's anonymous letter read over the telephone. All of these facts are significant, and it's important to note that the source of the two allegations.
  • I was WP:BOLD and overhauled the lead. Reverted by MrX. He expressed his view of my content: "the vast majority of it was bad," and opined that Trump's responses regarding to the dismissal ("he wasn't doing a good job," "he's a showboat and a grandstander") were "dubious," implying that Trump's reasons for the dismissal should be excluded on based on MrX's views of the reasons.
  • After replying that MrX's personal views of Trump's reasons are irrelevant [27], MrX bowed out of the discussion.
  • After further discussion with Cbs527, he agreed with my proposed changes regarding the speculation about why Clinton lost, and shortening the dismissal paragraph in the lead to one sentence. I re-added some of the proposed material[28], but then was quickly reverted by Bbb23, an administrator[29], reasoning that the material is "not neutral and convoluted." I invited Bbb23 to the talk page to discuss his concerns as well as my own concerns with his prior interactions with Volunteer Marek [30] (who had been reverting and tinkering here and there in between all of this back and forth), but Bbb23 chose not to accept my invitation and never appeared on the talk page.
  • TheTimesAreAChanging came to discuss, and after we agreed upon the neutral material, I implemented the material for which mild consensus had been established[31][32]. Volunteer Marek quickly reverts[33] (echoing Bbb23's "convoluted and POV" summary). Volunteer disappears from the article's pages for about three days while I and other editors continue to discuss.
  • JFG, Cbs527, to a lesser extent, TheTimesAreAChanging, and myself reach an agreement, and so I add it to the article[34]. Volunteer arrives about an hour later to revert[35], and complains that using the phrase "reportedly" to describe a report that only one media outlet has been able to verify is "POV." He also accuses me of using this language to somehow "cast doubt" on the reports, although I point out that due to the stellar reputation of the New York Times in the minds of many people, it should only lend credence to its reports.
  • Power~enwiki arrives, agrees that Silver does not deserve special recognition and removes his name from the lead, but has left the speculations of Vanity Fair and Vox in-place. The slight alteration still excludes the opinions of numerous RS and scientists who do not concur with the bloggers/writers. (Note: Clinton herself has blamed Netflix, the DNC, and Macedonian hackers for her loss, and the Comey letter is just one of dozens of excuses floating around in the ether).

Since only a few editors have actively participated and hardly any are returning to continue to the discussion, it seems an RfC wasn't exactly feasible. Thanks for reading - uninvolved third-party input would be greatly appreciated in helping us sort this out on these three issues! Hidden Tempo (talk) 07:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

1>Whilst it may be true that the sources being uses are "The "analysts" are two bloggers and three writers from a fashion magazine" it is not true they are the only people who have said this [[36]].
2> I have no problem with shortening the lead of any article, I would rather they were no more then two paragraphs. It should just say he was fired, leaved the detail for the body.
3>Again, we may be only using one source, but other sources repeat this. But yes we should still not be saying this is a fact. According to media reports should do it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
1. This replaces a concise summary, with a wordy version that dilutes the important information. The important information is that Comey is thought by many to have cost Clinton the election, not that there was criticism. It's fine to also summarize a significant minority view that Comey's press conference did not cost Clinton the election, but let's not confuse readers by avoid the meat of the topic entirely.
2. This is simple: Trump is not a reliable source. The New York Times, Washington Post, and dozens of other sources that have covered this are. Comey's post-firing testimony that Trump never "asked" him to stop the Russia investigation is an straw man that has been amplified and echoed by the far-right media to promote their alternate reality.
3. The "nut job" quote can be omitted as I'm concerned, and I'm not opposed better wording for this material. It's debatable that it needs attribution; I'm not aware of reliable source that have challenged its veracity. Also, the material is reported as accepted fact by other news sources [37][38], so the claim that it is "unverified by any other media outlet" is misleading.- MrX 12:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
How can Trump not be a reliable source as the one in authority to dismiss Comey? We can talk hidden agendas and implied rationales behind the dismissal, but if Trump said he let Comey go due to X in official statements, that's a fact. Mind you, then all the non-official stances that are pulled in (eg relating to the Russia investigation), that throws a lot more bias in the lede. The lede is not the place to get into details of a much larger political issue for a BLP, the last para should definitely be something "Comey was dismissed from his position by President Trump on (date) amid the investigation into potential Russian ties into the 2016 election." Period. The body can spend details on all the speculation. --MASEM (t) 12:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
"How can Trump not be a reliable source as the one in authority to dismiss Comey? " Because he has a well-documented habit of contradicting himself, deflecting, equivocating, and lying. His rambling statements frequently tend to defy comprehension and logic, and this case is no exception. - MrX 13:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
On his opinions, such as the "fake news" thing, sure. But if he says his reasoning for dismissing X, as it is his authority to do so, it is absolutely against our policies to say what is saying is wrong. You can frame it "Trump said that his reasons to dismiss Comey were X", which attributes it appropriate, rather than "Comey was dismissed for X", which frames that as a fact. I'm sure there's a lot more context that Trump's public comments have, but there is zero allowance to say "oh , but Trump lies, so we can ignore these". --MASEM (t) 14:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Surely no has has suggested we say he did not have the right to sack him?Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Masem" Let's not forget that Trump is a primary source. Our obligation is to summarize what is recorded in reliable third-party sources. We are not obligated to treat Trump's statements as factual, or to assign them more veracity or importance than what is reported by reputable news organizations. You seem to conflate his "authority to dismiss federal employees" with truthfulness. - MrX 15:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
The only primary source, and the only "fact", is the letter/paperwork on Comey's dismissal and the reasons stated on that. Anything else, including what Trump has said that is not in that paperwork, is a secondary source. And because this is a controversial firing, his stance has the same valid weight for inclusion as Comey's statements, and the opinions of the media, as long as WP:V can be met (which it obviously can). Obviously, we can't just include Trump's comments, since we know that the dismissal created a media outpouring of complaints. But to ignore Trump's comments (the one that made the dismissal) over others is completely against NPOV in writing about controversial topics. --MASEM (t) 16:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
In this case, opinions of three analysts are cited as evidence that "a number of analysts" hold this opinion. That type of wording is discouraged per "Unsupported attributions". It implies a degree of acceptance which is something that should be cited to secondary sources that report on the various positions. Although Clinton probably lost votes when Comey re-opened the investigation, we do not know if she would have lost anyway. Furthermore, since the vote was close, had any of a number of things been different, she might have won. And it is questionable whether Comey was to blame for reporting that he had found new emails. Clinton should not have kept emails on a private server, they should not have been sent to Weiner's laptop, and she should have told the FBI that they were there or taken a hammer to the hard drive. TFD (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Kind of messy trying to discuss three disputes at once. But:
1. I think Hidden Tempo is too dismissive referring to the sources as two bloggers and a fashion magazine. Nate Silver is certainly more than a blogger; and Vanity Fair is certainly more than a fashion mag. In any case, there are far more RS. I have no problem with "His decisions are viewed by some analysts as having cost Clinton the election" as a substitute.
2. I object to HT’s comment: …by his critics/the New York Times/the Washington Post. The NYT and WaPo are RS. They report news. HT has repeatedly suggested that they are not RS and their user page states that he intends to have their classification as RS re-examined. I agree with MrX’s comments on this.
3. I have said before that we have to be careful with the word anonymous. That incorrectly suggests that there is one source and it is unknown to the NYT, which is ridiculous. The sources are simply unnamed. I have no problem with removing "nut job". I also have no problem with attribution. Although Trump is not a RS for why he did something, his claims as to why in a response are allowed by NPOV. Objective3000 (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Lol I agree, but hey, there's three pieces of material in contention here so there wasn't much of a choice.
  • 1. Nate Silver has already been taken out so that point is mute (although he is just a blogger, celebrity blogger or not). Your suggestion still keeps the POV in place, and ignores many other RS and scientific studies who do not support this claim. WP:V is not satisfied by this proposal.
  • 2. That's not the crux of the issue. The point is that the NYT and WaPo (high 80%'s negative Trump coverage) do not get to determine what goes in the leads of Wikipedia. There are many other reasons for the dismissal given, but it seems that the one-sentence proposal regarding the dismissal is emerging as the preferred edit on this board, regardless. It's simply excessive given that the dismissal has its own fork.
  • 3. Wait, are you contending that the reasons that Trump gave for firing Comey are not "reliable" because you think so? I'm baffled by that rationale. Trump gave several reasons for Comey's dismissal, and regardless of what you or I think of them, they must be included to avoid POV. Maybe YOU don't think that Trump isn't a RS, but every mainstream RS reported on Trump's reasons given for Comey's ousting.Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
The use of the NYTimes and WaPost in anything relating to Trump needs to be carefully reviewed in that they are not independent sources relative to all the issues in regards to Trump. This is not to say they aren't reliable, and as long as the article is not expressing a writer's opinion, can still be considered an RS, but there's a lot of pieces in both articles that are unfiltered opinion pieces and thus should not be taken as "factual" pieces compared to the other ones, due to their being "dependent" sources. --MASEM (t) 18:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
"The use of the NYTimes and WaPost in anything relating to Trump needs to be carefully reviewed in that they are not independent sources" - nonsense. They are indeed independent and reliable. I have no idea what concept of "independent" you have in mind. But just because some people dislike their reporting does not make them not independent.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: I haven't trusted the Washington Post to have a Neutral POV since the whole incident where they used out of context jokes to write a hit piece on a popular youtuber with the goal of getting him fired in the process (actually partially did get him fired). That's the sort of thing I expect of a tabloid, not one of the most 'highly regarded' news sources. Blindly trusting sources, even very reliable ones, isn't a good idea. Not in politically charged arena's like this one. Didn't the Editorial Board of the New York Times publicly endorse a political candidate in the election for the first time ever [39]? (Spoiler: It wasn't Trump) Any claim that the NYTimes is NPOV when it comes to Trump should be looked at with suspicion. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 18:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
OK so lets try an experiment, quote one passage in the article sources the NYT and lets see if we can find another RS to replace it?Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: I haven't trusted the Washington Post to have a Neutral POV since the whole incident where they used out of context jokes to write a hit piece on a popular youtuber with the goal of getting him fired. Just to clear this up, it was the WSJ that brought up this guy. WaPo and everybody else commented on it after he lost sponsors. Objective3000 (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Didn't the Editorial Board of the New York Times publicly endorse a political candidate in the election for the first time ever . The NYT has been endorsing presidential contenders since Lincoln in 1860. Editorial boards have nothing to do with the news sections. If you have a problem with the NYT, or WaPo, take it to WP:RSN. This is not the proper venue. Objective3000 (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
That used to be the case. Prior to 2000, there was nearly always a proverbial wall between editorial departments and news departments because they didn't want their news reporting to be affected by their op-eds and thus why there was no issue with them endorsing candidates. But of late, many papers, struggling to meet financial ends, have merged the editorial and reporting departments into one. This doesn't necessarily mean all such papers should be considered tainted, but we as editors must be fundamentally aware that past assumptions about how news works don't hold up anymore and can't blindly assume every article from a paper that was considered an RS in the past should be taken as "objective fact" today. --MASEM (t) 19:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Your edit appears to suggest this is true of the NYT. “The board is part of The Times’s editorial department, which is operated separately from The Times’s newsroom, and includes the Letters to the Editor and Op-Ed sections.” [40] Objective3000 (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Quite true, Masem, and let's not forget that while it's true that the NYT has been endorsing presidential candidates since 1860, they haven't endorsed a Republican candidate for about seven decades (Eisenhower). This, coupled with the 87% negative coverage of Trump [41] which some have defended with "Oh, well that's just because he's doing a bunch of negative stuff that I don't agree with," shows that while Wikipedia does in fact consider NYT a reliable source, its agenda must constantly be put into context before just throwing everything it says into articles. Biased sources are permitted to be used, but WP:UNDUE and WP:POV landmines are everywhere when we do this. Surely nobody would argue that the divisions of the NYT have different narratives or directives from the leadership. Anyway, I think #3 is resolved, yes? We're going with one sentence regarding the dismissal in the lead, and properly attributing the NYT for the "nut job" and "that's taken off now" reports? Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
No, it's not true of the NYT. And, your constant attempts to argue that NYT should not be used as an RS belong at RSN, not here or article talk pages. Objective3000 (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
The NYTimes may not have merged their departments yet, but they have just recently eliminated their copydesks that helped to review for objectivity. I have never said NYT shouldn't be an RS, just that blinding accepting "Oh, it's the NYTimes, it must be true" nowadays is problematic. --MASEM (t) 19:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
And you read that critical article in the NYT.:) Pretty objective of them. Objective3000 (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── What's "not true" of the NYT, O-3000? The 87% number? The seven decades without endorsing a Republican? Actually, let's just stay on topic, don't worry about clarifying, and nobody's arguing that NYT shouldn't be used as a RS (I think you misunderstood my edit). I think we're good on #2 and #3, and just need to settle on the language from #1 now. Edit conflict: Thank you, Masem. You made the point much more concisely than I could. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

SO use the source I provided.Slatersteven (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
For the "nut job" and "that's taken off now" reports? Every source that mentions those two stories uses the phrase "According to the Ne York Times" or a variation thereof. No other RS was able to independently verify the NYT stories - they are taking them at their word that the anonymous source actually read the letter over the telephone, and that letter contained the information which the New York Times is reporting. So it would be awkward to say "According to a CNN report that cites a New York Times report, Trump called Comey a 'nut job.'" I think this one is pretty much resolved. Volunteer Marek I believe is the only user voicing objection to the word "reportedly" or "According to a New York Times report." Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
HT, you have used this 87% number numerous times out of context. The report that provides that number is long and detailed. Stating that it is proof of bias is not helpful. Objective3000 (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
We're not talking about the Harvard media study anymore - please stay on topic. If you have a problem with Harvard's findings on the behavior of the mainstream media, we can discuss on my talk page after this is all resolved. As you noted earlier, these issues are complicated enough without trying to steer the discussion into about something else. Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
You have a habit of making a spurious claim, and then when there is a response, lecturing the responder with comments suggesting they are off-topic and trying to steer the discussion. Further, you have a habit of misstating what others have said, I have not suggested that I have any problems with Harvard's findings on the behavior of the mainstream media. In fact, you are continuing what you just called off-topic by suggesting that Harvard had any finding on the behavior of mainstream media. This is not productive. Objective3000 (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
What's not productive is you not dropping the stick, and only hanging around here to argue instead of advance the NPOV discussion on points 1, 2, and 3. Stop trying to turn the discussion into your own private battleground and accept that not everyone shares your opinions on whatever point you're trying to make. Again, if you want to debate whether 87% negative coverage seems about right for a fair, balanced, non-partisan newspaper, I'm more than happy to do that with you after this is resolved. Until then, please drop the stick. Thanks. Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Find a mirror. Objective3000 (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I thought we were only undecided on issue 1?Slatersteven (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
That's what I thought too, but I wasn't really sure because the NYT isn't a source for the "It's Comey's fault that Clinton lost" material. What do you think about my NPOV replacement? "Comey's July 5 press conference regarding the controversy, as well as his letter to congress related to the discovery of new Clinton emails, was met with bipartisan criticism."
Why do we need to remove what the criticism was?Slatersteven (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Because it's extremely POV, and is the POV of only three sources (1 blogger from 538, 3 writers from a left-leaning fashion magazine, and 1 writer from a left-leaning blog). The solution is to either include the opposing view (from conservative-leaning and non-partisan sources) that the idea that Clinton has Comey's letter to blame for her loss is ludicrous and is not backed by the polling data, or to simply state the facts as neutral as possible: "The presser and letter was met with bipartisan criticism." Insinuating that it's Comey's fault that Clinton lost in the lead of his BLP (based on what a couple people think) is egregiously POV and inappropriate. This speculation is already placed later in the article, anyway, which also needs to be balanced with the widely held opposing view supported by numerous RS (per WP:V). Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── [[42]],[[43]],[[44]],[[45]],[[46]],[[47]] now to be fair most of these are about Comeys response to the claim. none the less the claim is there. I am really going to have to spam link here?08:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there's any disagreement that there's enough sourcing to suggest the media considered Comey's actions to be part of the reason Clinton lost. I do question if the subtlies of the logic of how he impacted the election by a number of analysts is sufficient for the lede. Right now we have His role in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, particularly with regard to his public communications, was highly controversial.[7] His decisions have been regarded by a number of analysts to have likely cost Clinton the election. The leap of logic from one statement to the next, if I am a reader with no knowledge of what happened involving Comey makes me wonder how the second sentence relates to the first. The first sentence is fine, but unless you can summarize everything that he did in one additional sentence before the second, it's too much for the lede (Body, it's fine). --MASEM (t) 13:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
The lead quickly summarizes the body. I don’t see a need for logical progressions between sentences. The first sentence points to the fact that his role was controversial (with pretty much everybody at one point or another). The second sentence talks to a possible effect. The body provides connections. Objective3000 (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
The second sentence shouldn't be there in the first place, so that would eliminate the need to try to connect them. The first sentence is fine - the language is neutral and lead-worthy. But when you start cramming a select group of people's (Democrats) wild theories as to the effect of his actions? That's when the POV problems come into play, and that has no place in the lead of a biography of a man's life. The actual poll numbers and a scientific survey/polling study examining this exact subject do not support the views of the bloggers cited[48], further undermining the views of the bloggers. There was a statistically insignificant dip in Clinton's poll numbers by election day. Voters in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania knew all about Clinton's struggles with her secret private server long before they had even heard of James Comey. It wasn't the letter. Hidden Tempo (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
This is just your opinion. And where do you get the claim that all the cited people are Democrats? Objective3000 (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, O-3000. That's why we are here. To discuss our opinions on the material in question. However, the findings of AAPOR is not an opinion - it's science, and the science says that Comey's letter did not "cost" Clinton a thing. I'm not going to get into it with you yet again about who's a Democrat and who isn't, but if you can find any stories written by those bloggers favorable to Republicans/Trump, you can post them on my talk page when you're ready. Or links to any Republicans at all echoing the assertion that Comey's letter is the reason why Clinton lost (or Netflix, or Macedonian hackers for that matter). Hidden Tempo (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
No, we are not here to discuss our opinions about why an event occurred. We use RS. Our opinions are irrelevant. Science most certainly does not say the letter didn’t cost Clinton the election. This is SYNTH. You are the one that continues to label sources as biased or Democrat. I haven’t a clue as to the parties, if any, of any of these people. Against, these are assumptions of yours. Objective3000 (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Ah, bit of a misunderstanding here. Perhaps that was partially my fault. I was stating that we are here to discuss our opinions regarding the material, not our opinions on why Clinton lost. You'll find that I said the exact same thing in my first point of the breakdown above. Anyway, did you read the study? The exact phrase the experts used was "The evidence for a meaningful effect on the election from the FBI letter is mixed at best." Real tough road for anyone who wants to argue what Vanity Fair and Vox are arguing despite the science. You may not have a clue about these people's party affiliation, but I do. This comes from extensive research of this topic. No Republican has said anything remotely close to what these bloggers are saying. It's a DNC/Clinton talking point, and has no business being in the lead. And that's why there is only one user (you) arguing that it should be. Hidden Tempo (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
You repeatedly, in many articles, talk about bias in respected sources and label sources as Democratic that you don’t like. I have no interest in any of this. The concept that we should rate, and disparage sources in this manner revolts me. If you don’t think a source is RS, take it to RSN and stop arguing this on article talk pages. Objective3000 (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Your concerns and false claims are noted. If the opinions that you don't agree with "revolt" you, perhaps you should excuse yourself from this discussion, as it appears that the number of users who side with you on this issue has dwindled to 0. I think this section could benefit from a division into three partitions to help keep the disputes separate, as we keep getting sidetracked with these silly side-debates. This noticeboard has nothing to do with the respectability of the sources - it's about the content of the article, based on disputes #1, #2, and #3. Let's keep it there. Hidden Tempo (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
There you go again. You repeatedly disparage sources, and then when someone responds, you demand that they are off-topic and often suggest that they go away. Apparently, no one is allowed to respond to your claims. Objective3000 (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
The lede should not be so focused on current events, per WP:RECENTISM. It should mention in broad context that he played a role in the 2016 elections, and it should definitely mentioned he was dismissed by Trump amid the Russian involvement investigation. Those are key facts to his career. But speculation and hypothesis should be avoided, given that these are parts of his career and not the only thing he was known form. The body can get into all the complexities of that, but you don't have the space to balance that neutrally in the lede. --MASEM (t) 14:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Recentism says that we should focus on the long-term, historical view. Whether he likes it or not, his controversial actions regarding the election, and Clinton in particular, are what brought him into the public eye and are likely to be how he is known years from now. Objective3000 (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
"likely to be how", that's why RECENTISM exists. You're guessing, it's a good educated guess and I wouldn't disagree with that possibility, but it is speculation. That's why we need to wait for the dust to settle (which likely won't be until Trump has been out of office for several years) to understand how to present such. I don't think his connection to the 2016 election will disappear, so that first sentence is completely fine, but the speculation around it should be avoided in the lede for now. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, in writing the lead for a BLP, we are always speculating about what that person will be known for in historical terms. As I posted earlier, I’m OK with softening this to: "His decisions are viewed by some analysts as having cost Clinton the election". This isn’t breaking news, which RECENTISM mostly talks to. Objective3000 (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, there is some speculation to guess what a BLP will be known for, but we should be using a lot more common sense to what those will be, keeping neutrality and BLP in mind. I think it's fair to address Comey's connection to the 2016 election, even though it will take years of analysts to come to a consensus to what happened, that will not change the fact Comey's name was significant during the pre-election period. But exactly what his part ended up being will take that time, and to that end, highlighting that he may have cost Clinton the election is much more speculative, and should be omitted from the lede, even if there are a fair number of sources that state that. RECENTISM is not just about near-term, its about taking the long-term view on topics, and right now, pretty much anything to do with the 2016 election is going to be in flux for years, so we need to be a lot more careful. Again, this is all just about putting in speculation (him costing Clinton the election) in the brief lede without enough room to give content; this is all fine in the body where you can give attribution and any necessary/appropriate counterpoints. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, we should not speculate on the effects of Comey’s actions. And we are not. We are including speculations by analysts, and stating them as such. Objective3000 (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
But where's the other speculations, the counterpoint, the responses? Whether he was responsible or not is a complex issue, one that will be encyclopedic material as time passes, and should be included in his article in the body. But because it is that complex, it should not be highlighted in the lede until a consensus of analysts (not journalists, and certainly not only ~a year out - it's going to take a lot of work) have made that determination. That's why this is RECENTISM, just because journalists and some analysts have pointed the figure at him for the loss , that doesn't make it true yet, so it should be seen as a contentious statement that is not proper to include in the lede, given that he is known for several other things too. It would be a different question if the only thing Comey was notable for was this role in the election, that might be a reason to include it, but that's absolutely not the case. --MASEM (t) 15:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
The sentence I proposed says some analysts see an effect; which is why his actions were seen as controversial. If there were no effect, there wouldn’t be a controversy. Comey himself stated in Congressional testimony that the idea he swayed the election made him somewhat nauseous. I can see combining the sentences, perhaps saying that his actions were controversial as they may have swayed the election. I don’t see ignoring what he is known for by the public at large. Objective3000 (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
We have to be really careful, particularly with BLP, of trying to identify "what he is known for by the public at large". The court of public opinion is very fickle. Consider, say, OJ Simpson. How much of the public think of him as an athlete rather than a (paroled) convict? Not many. The public wants to focus on the negative, that is human nature. That's where we have to be careful of that and avoid getting far too much into what the public thinks when summarizing for the lede. Back to Comey, I would certainly not see a problem saying that his role was controversial in the election, for the lede. That's fair and factual enough, and entices the reader to read further to learn more. My issue is that if you only include the stance about his having affected the election without describing the other opinions (even by implicitly saying "some analysts" and not "all analysts"), that's biasing the lede on something that is not yet resolved. --MASEM (t) 16:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
And that's really what #1 boils down to. The initial sentence says that his "role [in the election]...particularly with regard to his public communications, was highly controversial." His July 5 presser AND the letter was controversial, and both actions were met with bipartisan criticism. Who knows whether or not those two things affected the election? The opinions are pretty much torn down party lines, although Democrats have come out and dismissed the notion that Clinton can safely blame her loss on the letter, but no Republican has echoed this sentiment. The opinion of 3-5 writers is given undue weight, and I see no reason not to simply say "The decisions were met with bipartisan criticism" and be done with it. Hidden Tempo (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
OJ occurred to me also. Certainly his BLP before his legal difficulties would have correctly focused on his sports career. RECENTISM is a relative term, but usually talks to very recent events (STOP THE PRESSES). Mao’s supposed response to Kissinger about the French Revolution suggested he thought a couple centuries was too recent. There is a middle ground. We can say: “having possibly cost Clinton the election”. This is brief, is what the controversy is about, and leaves discussion of various analysts for the body. In any case, there aren’t enough folk in this discussion to arrive at a consensus, rendering its continuation somewhat pointless. Objective3000 (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
No, that proposal is only marginally better and still gives far too much weight held by a very small group of individuals, which has already been refuted by the AAPOR. A far less preferable (and neutral) compromise would be to mention that some think that Clinton can blame her loss on the letter, and then state that most analysts reject this notion and a scientific study found that there is "mixed evidence at best" to support the theory. But again, this is far less preferable than simply inserting a neutral statement without trying to force a particular viewpoint down the reader's throat. Hidden Tempo (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
neutral. Sorry, but that’s hilarious. Objective3000 (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────In regards to abandoning the noticeboard, sure, we could all go have a formal content dispute but those are drawn out and usually more complex so I think we'd all like to avoid that. I'm confused that those who dispute the NPOV revisions don't seem to want to defend their position, but have no problem adding the page to their Watchlist and immediately reverting anything they don't like. Everybody wants to go the party, but nobody wants to clean up. And no need to apologize to me. I'm not bothered by the opinions of others and am certainly not "revolted" by them. Yes, neutral. Did you want to give your reasons why the phrase "Comey's July 5 press conference regarding the controversy, as well as his letter to congress related to the discovery of new Clinton emails, was met with bipartisan criticism." is not neutral, or did you just want to say stuff and see how people react? Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

That isn’t even slightly close to what you said. And I haven't the faintest concept what you mean by your aspersions about editors reverting without commenting. This is pointless. Objective3000 (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
It's a fact, not an aspersion. The reverting editors are not participating. I'm sorry you found this discussion pointless, but I thank you for your contributions here and wish you the best. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Masem - this is my first time bringing an issue to this board. How do resolutions work, here? It seems #3 at least has been resolved (attribute NYT-only stories to the NYT), so do we just go ahead and put in the edits, or is there some sort of formal closure with the result of each issue? Hidden Tempo (talk) 14:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

There's no formal "An admin will close and make a decision" process here, but given the page in question likely falls under discretionary sanctions, you might want to alert that talk page that you plan to go ahead and implement #3 pointing back to this - they can participate here if they see a problem with that, for example. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Easy. Donald Trump. You are welcome. -Roxy the dog. bark 13:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Even easier... The voters Blueboar (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

This is pretty much Hidden Tempo vs. the world, which means that after a certain point it becomes just one editor refusing to WP:DROPTHESTICK and wasting everyone else's time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Not really. Most have agreed on the revisions proposed by #3, in large part on #2, and #1 is currently being worked out. Instead of treating this as an "editor vs. editor" battleground situation, wouldn't it be better to collaborate constructively and reach a compromise? Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Ummm, no. Where do you see "most have agreed on the revision proposed by #3"? Where do you see "in large part on #2"? All I see is people telling you no. And you turn that around and try to claim that there's agreement here. Yeah, agreement that your proposals are not good. How in the hell do you turn that around into "most have agreed on the revision proposed"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

After thinking a while, I think "cost Clinton the election" is flawed. The relevant detail is that Comey's behavior regarding Anthony Weiner sexting scandals was front-page news the week before the election, we should be able to say that in the lede without speculating as to whether that being in the news influenced the election results. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

But the jury is still out if this really affected Clinton's election chances. I would say that from a neutral stance we can call Comey's actions leading up to the 2016 election, which including his reaction to the Clinton email server stuff and reopening the Weiner scandals (both "highlights", to speak, of his career), were controversial and may have influenced the election. (note: not "cost Clinton the election"). I see no problem alluding to his actions affecting the vote, but I think in the lede it is far too much to say that he may have cost Clinton the election. In the body, you have the room to cover that in depth. --MASEM (t) 21:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

"Cause" is meaningless in this context. The logic that translates "If XXX didn't happen, then YYY wouldn't have happened" into "XXX caused YYY" is flawed, even if the first part is known to be accurate. By that measure, each of 100's of items could be considered to be "the cause" of "YYY". Articles should have information, not uninformative subjective characterizations. North8000 (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks North8000. Agreed. Also, as an FYI, the lead has been tweaked a few times regarding this material, most recently by myself.[49] As far as I know, there has only been one scientific study that examined the possibility of Comey's letter affecting Clinton's chances of winning, and it found "mixed evidence at best" that this is the case. There's also articles from NYT and elsewhere discussing that the Comey letter had no effect, so this view is really not widely held (not lead-worthy). This is how the disputed section currently reads:

His role in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, particularly with regard to his public communications, was highly controversial. His decisions are viewed by some journalists as having possibly cost Clinton the election. An AAPOR study found that there is "at best mixed evidence to suggest that the FBI announcement tipped the scales of the race."

Note that I also changed "analysts" to "journalists," as it more accurately reflects the job functions of writers at Vanity Fair and Vox. I'm still in favor of removing the last two sentences in favor of a generic "July 5 press conference and letter to Congress after discovering new Clinton emails were met with bipartisan criticism" line.Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Volunteer, instead of deciding what should or shouldn't go into the article and then just reinstating your preferred version, wouldn't it be more productive (and efficient) to just participate here? You should explain to everyone here why you should unilaterally decide (against consensus) that New York Times-only stories should not be attributed as such, why you believe the AAPOR study that found Comey's letter did not cost Clinton the election should be excluded from the lead, and why you believe that the dismissal section should be expanded with this run-on sentence: "Comey's experience as FBI Director under President Trump, his termination, and his public comments since leaving office are part of ongoing controversies surrounding the Trump administration and are part of a widening investigation by U.S. special counsel Robert Mueller into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and possible connections between the Trump Campaign and the Government of Russia." These drive-by reverts followed by your disappearance is counter-productive. Hidden Tempo (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
HiddenTempo, wouldn't it be more productive for you to stop claiming false consensus and leave the article alone for the time being until you actually get some people to agree with you? And by that I don't mean "let me pretend people agree with me" as you try to do above, but actually agree. If you stop messing with the article against consensus, then I won't have to restore the previous version.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
There is absolutely no consensus for any of this. Who can say what that "this" might be? Maybe not anybody or nobody. SPECIFICO talk 15:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Well Volunteer, I believe you're paraphrasing what I just told you: leave the article alone for the time being until you get people on your side. I have garnered ample support for removing POV material from the article, unlike your expansion of the dismissal section of the lead. This is the unofficial tally right now on board with the NPOV fixes:

  • 1. Masem, North8000, Cbs527, JFG
  • 2. Slatersteven, Masem, TFD, Cbs527, JFG
  • 3. Slatersteven, Objective3000, Masem, InsertCleverPhraseHere, TheTimesAreAChanging

In contrast, you have Objective3000 and possibly MrX, and one of those users lists "Trump isn't reliable" as his reasoning for censoring his reasons. The support for your version is virtually non-existent. Specifico is just philosophizing about consensus in a general sense, and hasn’t really backed anybody’s material. So as you can see, it is you who needs consensus for your preferred version. However, if you intend to keep reverting every 24 hours as you just indicated you “have to” do, we can just take this up the ladder. Although as I stated before, I’d rather just handle this here with a compromise rather than bogged down in a content dispute. Those can be quite drawn-out and messy, as you know from your previous content disputes. Hidden Tempo (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Re #1. Cbs527 said they were fine with the sentence as is, as long as the "likely" was changed to "possibly". Which it has been and that's what the article says. See, *that* is a compromise. What you're trying to do is impose your own preferred version on the article and then have the chutzpah to call that a "compromise". Likewise Masem seems to favor "may have influenced the election", whereas your proposal tries to remove any indication that it may have influenced the election. North8000 has made one off-hand comment. JFG hasn't commented in this discussion, the only comment they made in the talk page discussion [50] is that they hope editors can edit the article in a "dispassionate" way.
So yeah, you're making shit up and pretending that you have consensus when you have nothing of the kind. Again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree with VM’s revert. And HT, remove my handle from your tally of support. I support the current, compromise text. Objective3000 (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Cbs527 supports reducing the “dismissal” paragraph, in contrast to your desire to add an enormous run-on sentence. Yes, I did have the chutzpah to compromise to leave the sentence about “Vanity Fair thinks it’s Comey’s fault that Clinton lost” ‘’if’’ we added the AAPOR scientific study proving this isn’t the case. If you had been participating in the discussion, you would know that the word “likely” wasn’t the primary issue, and thus wouldn’t find yourself lost in the subject matter. Masem seems to favor all three proposals, but I am pinging him in case he wants to back your version instead. North8000 made a comment in support of #1, not your POV version. JFG commented his view that “nobody” (which includes Vanity Fair and Vox) can say for certain what cost Clinton the election. That’s support, but pinging him as well in case he wants to clarify. So no, it doesn’t appear that I’m “making shit up,” now does it, Volunteer? I will again remind you to keep your focus on the material, not the editor. And no, O-3000, I will do no such thing. If you want to strike your edit of support for #3, you are more than welcome to do so. If you are willing to switch sides out of spite, I am willing to strike your name after you strike your support. It would be disingenuous to do otherwise. VM, you didn’t answer – is it your intention to revert every 24 hours until you get your way? Or are you ready to sit down and discuss? Hidden Tempo (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Except (as stated more then once) it is not only Vanity fair that has said this.Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Sure, Hillary Clinton has stated this as well, but that's not the point. The point is that if you're going to put speculations about what may or may not have caused Clinton to lose the election in the lead of James Comey's biography, per WP:V and WP:RS, the AAPOR study and the views of other journalists must be included. Otherwise, you end up with POV material and that's why we're here. Because Volunteer Marek thinks he "has to" keep reverting until he gets his way, and his way is to put his views in the article to the exclusion of all others. Not acceptable. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
If you are willing to switch sides out of spite. I’ve had enough of HT’s constant casting of aspersions. This has to stop. In no way, shape or form am I doing anything out of spite. A compromise was suggested and made and I supported and support that compromise. But apparently, HT gets to !vote for me. Objective3000 (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
An aspersion is an attack on your reputation or integrity. Nobody attacked you, O-3000. These constant cries of supposed policy violations are tedious and disruptive. Nobody's "!voting for you." You are not a victim. You asked me to edit the tally after people already replied and I am politely declining. End of story. You have made your views known, and I thank you for your input. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
The hell you didn’t. I have never made a decision out of spite. And VM has not reverted every 24 hours. You include some snide remark in post after post. Objective3000 (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Do I really have to post those sources all over again just to be told "but none is disputing that". This needs to be closed now.Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

You posted one source backing the "it's Comey's fault Clinton lost" false claim, and it was from Business Insider. The discussion isn't ready to be closed since Volunteer hasn't yet responded whether or not he intends to continue reverting to POV material every 24 hours because he thinks he "has to." I support all three suggestions by JFG below, or similar variations thereof, as do many others. VM's version has one supporter: O-3000. We can close if VM agrees to stop reverting without discussion, and agree to implement JFG's NPOV proposals below. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Stuff me with green apples, he wants more...[51], [52], [53].Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
This is obsolete. Civil discussion on the talk page is being ignored. The text talked about in these three items has been modified according to compromises struck on that page. In falsely claiming that only I support VM’s revert, HT is completely ignoring the changed text or the editors on that page. One stated they will not come to this discussion as it is too tangled. It’s also uncivil. So uncivil, that HT claims to !vote for me. This should be closed and discussion taken back to the talk page, where actual changes have been agreed upon and implemented in a civil, collaborative manner without constant personal attacks. Objective3000 (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
The discussion is not obsolete - it's bringing about change, little by little. Again, nobody's "falsely claiming" anything, ignoring any editors, "uncivil(ly)" claiming to !vote for you (as I just told you above), or personally attacking you. That's quite a list of accusations, and if you feel you have a problem with an editor, you know exactly which board to go to with your grievances. Otherwise, please stop trying to cram every WP policy into every edit you make. Play the ball, not the man. Content, not the editor. Going forward, this is where the discussion is taking place, not the talk page. Two discussion pages would only further complicate an already complex content dispute. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Isn't irony ironic? Objective3000 (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM. Please stop trying to disrupt the NPOV Noticeboard discussion (3rd request I believe). Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Yet another false accusation. I have never in my decade here attempted to disrupt any discussion. Objective3000 (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I will say that I think the lede is still too non-neutral, as editors are trying to push a lot into the lede and affecting the tone of the article, which is a problem; we should not be trying to predispose the reader to assume Comey is "bad". The material is all appropriate for the body of the article - I'm not questioning the validity of what has been said, and it's all sourced. That's not an issue, but in the lede, over everything else Comey's done, there is a great deal of effort by editors involved to make his actions seem very bad, where at this point, we're only using opinions of journalists to determine this; we need the space afforded by the body to get into those necessary details that can't be spelled out in the lede. Again, I believe we're justified in saying that his actions pre-election could have influenced the election, but its too far in the lede to say that he cost Clinton the election. Similarly, for his dismissal, it should be said that he had been dismissed by Trump for (brief summary of Trump's reasons), and indicate that many political analysts and journalists felt he was dismissed in relation to issues around the Russian interference. But we don't need quotes or much more than that in the lede. --MASEM (t) 18:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
As I said, this is obsolete. For example, the article does not state that Comey cost Clinton the election. These discussions can be difficult enough without the added complexity of concurrent discussion on two pages. Objective3000 (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
"His decisions are viewed by some analysts as having possibly cost Clinton the election" in the current lede. --MASEM (t) 19:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
A truism with two added qualifiers. And, unfortunately, what he'll most likely be known for in addition to being fired. Yes, we don't know that. We don't know anything about the future. But, that sentence has been turned around from the original. Objective3000 (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not saying it is a false statement, but it is one stance out of several. It's pushing the reader to accept one side's views of his actions. It even can be fixed just be toning it down to say "may have influenced the 2016 election", rather than "may have cost Clinton the election". In the body, you have the room to elaborate, you do not have that in the lede, and its not appropriate to pick and choose views here. --MASEM (t) 19:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Fine with me. Suggest it at the talk page where discussion has been productive. Objective3000 (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
See above for my response regarding this. I left a message at the talk page indicating that all discussion regarding this dispute is currently taking place here. We don't want to confuse involved editors or scatter input on the same topic across multiple pages. Anyway, Masem is right. "May have influenced" is better, and I'll add that the AAPOR scientific study showing that there is "mixed evidence at best" to suggest this should also be included. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

It not a vote but lets see who at least agrees with the OP.

We should include option 1[edit]

  • Yes, although the suggested text looks a bit unclear. We need to distinguish the July and October events. I would say this:

Comey's press conference about Hillary Clinton's emails on July 5 was welcomed by both campaigns, as Clinton partisans felt vindicated that there was no significant case to pursue, and Trump supporters focused on Comey's comments about her being "extremely careless" with handling confidential information. In October 2016, Comey's announcements about re-opening the investigation and closing it again a few days later were met with bipartisan criticism, with many commenters arguing that he unduly interfered with the election process.

JFG talk 17:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

We should include option 2[edit]

  • Yes, shortest version. Or if we want some balanced exposé of motives, perhaps:

Trump dismissed Comey citing his handling of the Hillary Clinton investigation, while Trump's critics pointed out he may want to curtail the FBI investigation about Russian interference and potential links with his campaign.

JFG talk 17:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

We should include option 3[edit]

  • Yes, attribute statements to the New York Times when other sources refer back to them. — JFG talk 17:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

At least we can see if there is consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, no we cannot, because WP does not determine "consensus" with a vote. It's just another round of goalpost-shifting, ,a tale signifying nothing. SPECIFICO talk 18:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
What I meant is we can see who has actually agreed to what, which is a point of dispute here.Slatersteven (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

But this really has run it's course now ans is serving no purpose. Should be closed with no consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Nope, not yet. As I said, if VM agrees to stop reverting with no discussion, and agrees with the majority opinion that all three NPOV fixes should be implemented, I'm fine with closing. Until that happens, the debate will continue. Slater, I appreciate you helping out here, but we don't need any more editors trying to unilaterally declare when it is or isn't time to close my noticeboard post. Nobody is forcing you to edit this topic. If you are bored of the consensus-building process, there are literally millions of other pages where you could be spending your time instead. Please respect the process. Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I am not "reverting without discussion". Stop lying about me. And others. How about you stop trying to railroad your version of the article through over others objections? And no, the freakin' debate will NOT continue. You don't get to waste other people's time, insult them, misrepresent them, weasel what they say and continuously harangue them until you think you can win by wearing others out. You've been told that your edits have no consensus. Various people have already wasted a lot of their time repeatedly trying to explain to you why. You haven't stopped. You haven't listened. Just like before, when you got topic banned for exactly the same behavior. This is stupid and needs to end.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Listen, Volunteer, I pride myself on refraining from ad hominem attacks and focusing on content, but you're not going to call me a liar. You made a series of reversions[54][55][56][57] any time someone makes an edit you don't like, and then just disappear half the time. You only come to discuss when I drag you to the talk page with pings and verbally shine a light on the changes you're making without explanation. In regards to your belief that you get to close Noticeboard discussions, you're very much mistaken if that's how you think the process works. And please stop throwing stones from within your glass house. You've literally been brought before ANI and AE dozens of times[58][59] to defend your incivility, edit warring, countless 3RR complaints, and various other infractions. I really hope you will keep your edits on the content from this point on. Thanks. That being said, I'm asking for a third time: is it your intention to revert every 24 hours if you see something you don't like? Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Well I will put it like this.
I have no idea now what you think you have consensus for, as such I am not willing to have my name put to it. There is no consensus and if no one now replied to you anymore in this thread that does not mean consensus has been achieved. As such I will not be replying to you anymore, as this is now over with no consensus possible given the shifting nature of this thread.Slatersteven (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, this is silly. We have one editor with a long history of constant attacks trying to force his will, suggesting people that disagree with their edits have malevolent motives, suggesting editors that disagree should leave, making constant snarky responses, misstating what other editors have said, making false statements about other editors’ actions, and TBANed from the same articles previously for the exact same behavior. All but one other editor left the discussion until HT hit multiple editors’ talk pages to bring them back. This board is designed to look for additional input into an NPOV discussion. The attempt has failed. There are plenty of editors on the article talk page. Meanwhile, discussion on the article talk page has been civil and productive. (Surprise, civility is more productive.) Someone uninvolved needs to close this so that we don’t have concurrent discussions as this is a distraction that will never be accepted on the article talk page, and is therefore a pointless timedrain on volunteer editors. Objective3000 (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Lotta falsehoods in there Objective3000, so I'm going to briefly refute them one by one so you don't derail the discussion any further.
  • "suggesting people that disagree with their edits have malevolent motives"/"suggesting editors that disagree should leave" I never said that. I assume everyone involved in the discussion is here to improve the encyclopedia, and opened this noticeboard dispute to invite editors who I disagree with to participate. Very strange accusation, given the circumstances.
  • "making constant snarky responses" I've tried to remain as civil as possible, and given the circumstances, I think I've done a pretty good job. Sorry you disagree.
  • "misstating what other editors have said"/"making false statements about other editors’ actions" WP:AGF. You misunderstood several of my edits, such as above when you thought that I said we're here to express our opinions on Clinton's loss, rather than our opinions on the suggested material. It happens, but please AGF.
  • "TBANed from the same articles previously for the exact same behavior" No, I got a tban for soapboxing and allegedly misstating what an article said about Clinton. What is this, the 7th time you've tried to shame me for a punitive action? Please move on from this tired attack route.
  • "until HT hit multiple editors’ talk pages to bring them back" Yeah, that's kind of what you're supposed to do on noticeboards. From above: "You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {subst:NPOVN-notice} to do so." Just following the rules.
And no diffs for any of these claims and accusations, of course. Now, in regards to your third demand to close this noticeboard section, I've already stated what would be required to settle the content dispute. However, this thing has gotten so long and polluted with personal attacks and aspersions, I'm willing to start a clean slate with a formal content dispute. Also, since it seems Volunteer is the only editor left who has stated his intention to keep reverting stuff because he feel he "has to," I think this may be most easily and quickly settled through formal mediation. Hidden Tempo (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what's going on here. I support any proposal to close this thread, and to start a new one on the talk page. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, this isn't going anywhere productive. — JFG talk 08:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Bias re: Linda Sarsour[edit]

Hello, I am looking for some diverse opinions on this page. Based on my reading of the page, it seems very defensive. Here's what I said in the talk page: "I think this article needs some of its content from the section on controversy moved to a new section called criticism, with additional details. This person has been criticized by many notable public figures, including Sam Harris and Courtney Love. Additionally, the tone of the whole article seems very defensive, and it needs a review by a senior editor. On the talk page, too, at least two editors seem to have personal connections with this person who are refusing to consider or are outright twisting criticism by others."

My comment on the two editors was based purely on my reading of the talk page, where multiple people have raised similar issues. The article appears to be guarded to make sure no negative perception of its subject is formed (for instance, every time potentially damaging fact is mentioned, it instantly follows with an explanation, as if this was a newspaper).

When I raised my objection, one of the two editors I mention attacked me and threatened me with sanctions and sent me a notice. This seems like a misuse of their privilege, because I am clearly not interested in vandalism. I have made many substantial contributions to various wiki pages. So an input from another disinterested editor on the whole situation is appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icantevennnnn (talkcontribs) 08:53, 25 July 2017) (UTC)

We do not generally have criticisms sections. Also I have to ask why Courtney Loves opinion of her is even worthy of inclusion. I dislike just random criticism by celebrities. Also we do have to put both sides of any dispute.Slatersteven (talk) 07:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
The above editor has now repeatedly and falsely accused me of having a conflict of interest ("personal connections") without a single shred of evidence — this is clearly prohibited behavior, as they are casting aspersions on other editors without evidence. I'll be opening an Arbitration Enforcement request now. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Slatersteven, Courtney Love is a very notable feminist, which is a theme that is relevant in this context. Sam Harris is a highly followed public intellectual who is known for his criticism of Islamic ideology, which is another theme relevant here. There is also Jake Tapper, who has also criticized her for her "ugly sentiments" : http://www.thedailybeast.com/linda-sarsour-echoes-donald-trump-smears-cnns-jake-tapper if all this seems irrelevant, then I wonder what would be consider relevant. I originally began to contribute to wikipedia because I thought it was a neutral place. This incident has really shaken my faith in this system and if no effective response appears from senior members, I will stop contributing altogether.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Icantevennnnn (talkcontribs) 09:59, 25 July 2017) (UTC)

Is Ms love a notable feminist, or a celebrity who expresses feminist view points? Also what is it you want to add?Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
It would make it easier if we concentrated on one thing at a time.Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Sharia law[edit]

No we cannot call her a sharia law advocate, we might be able to say "she has been called a sharia law advocate".Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I would agree with this. Although I would like to note what does she have to do to be called sharia law advocate.Icantevennnnn (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


She has been called a Sharia Law advocate, so it should be mentioned in general, not just something on Ayaan has accused her of. The following references call her Sharia defender or pro-Sharia law-- [1][2][3]The article currently mentions Ayaan Harsi Ali calling her a "sharia defender" based on an NY times article but doesn't mention that very same reference which adds "As to the accusations that Sarsour is a defender of Sharia law, the fact-checking website Snopes looked into the claims last week and found that Sarsour has indeed posted messages on Twitter that seem to take a defensive stance about Sharia law. Snopes’ calls to Sarsour seeking clarification have not been returned." Icantevennnnn (talk) 12:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Note that Sarsour's page was created in 2016 and was pretty thin [60], before the Women's March. Not much more than local coverage (the NYTmes article is the local section) and the sole claim is that she chaired a non-bluelinked, local group. Article at that point might easily have been deleted. Sarsour sprang to notability as an "organizer" of the 2017 Women's March. Leaving aside the fact that the question of who merits being called an "organizer" of that march if a controversial question in its own right, this was her first moment of fame, and, as with all of her subsequent news cycle appearances, the coverage centered she was or was not in favor of shaaria and terrorism, and on whether she was or was not anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, anti-LGBT, and anti-feminism. there was a lot of coverage [61], and do note (I was involved in editing the Women's march article last winter) that other members of the "organizing committee" that she was part of are not blue-linked. Controversy over her stand on thse issues pretty much constitutes her notability, generating articles that defend or accuse her on each of these issue (I may have missed an issue or two, there is, for example, some controversy within the Muslim community regarding her authenticity as a spokesperson for Islam or Muslim Americans.) Given this reality, I suggest not only that it is reasonable for the article to have sections on Views, where her articulate positions have garnered significant coverage, (much as we do with politicians,) but also that despite my general disparagement of "controversies" sections, when an individual is, in fact, notable primarily for repeatedly saying stuff on twitter and elsewhere that generates nationwide coverage it seems to be reasonable to cover them in a "controversy" section. ping me if you have a better proposal.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
@E.M.Gregory: The article does actually have a "controversies" section, because you're right, in this case it's a relatively neutral way of covering the issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Anti-Israeli[edit]

We need ore then one source, we have to establish this is a noteworthy controversy,and I do not think that just saying "throw rocks at cars" is important enough to include. I would rather then was rather more then name calling.Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Israel National News calls her anti-Israel [4] She has also been accused, by a Democratic New York State Assemblyman, of saying that throwing rocks at cars in Israel is a good thing [5] This has also been said by a third party: "Sarsour once praised Arab stone-throwers in Judea and Samaria, calling their attacks 'The definition of courage'. She also expressed her disgust for Zionism, calling it 'creepy', and dismissed anti-Semitism, saying it doesn’t 'exactly compare' with Islamophobia."[6] More on this: "This April, Sarsour drew further criticism after she shared the stage with Rasmea Odeh, the terrorist bomber responsible for the murder of two Jews in a 1970 supermarket bombing. During the April 2nd event in Chicago with Odeh, Sarsour praised the terrorist, saying she was 'honored and privileged to be here in this space, and honored to be on this stage with Rasmea.'"[7] Courtney Love, in addition to an internationally known celebrity, has been called "a third wave feminist icon" in this book [8] and this book [9] So does it count when Ms Love says Ms Sarsour is "a vile disgrace to women" and "anti-American' and 'anti-Semite' and a 'fraud'. I leave it up to others to decide.

She has also expressed opinion that Zionism and feminism are incompatible. Sarsour said to The Nation, “It just doesn’t make any sense for someone to say, ‘Is there room for people who support the state of Israel and do not criticize it in the movement?’ [10][11] This issue drew so much criticism that noted female actress Mayim Bialik of The Big Bang Theory show, who is Jewish, wrote a whole post about it.[12]Icantevennnnn (talk) 12:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it is best to discus individual issues on the articles talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I am moving different themes on their own separate headings. Icantevennnnn (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

On the general issue, we cannot have one sides articles. So just as we cannot put her views without criticism of them wee cannot have criticism without putting her version of the controversy. Thus if we just have people saying nasty things about her, to which she has not responded, it is not a controversy and so we cannot have it in the article as it violates a number of polices (such as BLP, undue and NPOV).12:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)

I think I have said everything I wanted to say. I have also provided sources. So if this isn't satisfactory, I don't think what is. A few people have been very enthusiastic on this page when it comes to defending her against controversy, I will see if they do the same in this case. I have nothing more to add.Icantevennnnn (talk) 12:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Courtney Love's opinion should be excluded entirely, there's a big difference between "feminist icon" and being an expert, for an expert opinion. This simply isnt the way our WP:RS and WP:NPOV policies work, (see also WP:COATRACK - I think I saw that the above editor has made about 154 edits? I would suggest reading these policies in more detail, especially WP:RS Seraphim System (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

References