→"BLP... UNDUE... NPOV etc": comment per ani |
|||
Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
This kind of "unwanted endorsement" reminds of the discussion when David Duke supported Ilhan Omar (discussed at [[Talk:Ilhan Omar/Archive 6#Support from white supremacists section]]). Since this is, in a way, very negative information and something that the BLP subject can't affect, I would be opposed to adding it based on mediocre sources like Buzzfeed News. Furthermore, per the sources in this article, The Daily Stormer engages in trolling, so you need to be quite careful about connecting their more or less trollish comments to other BLPs. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo|talk]]) 17:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC) |
This kind of "unwanted endorsement" reminds of the discussion when David Duke supported Ilhan Omar (discussed at [[Talk:Ilhan Omar/Archive 6#Support from white supremacists section]]). Since this is, in a way, very negative information and something that the BLP subject can't affect, I would be opposed to adding it based on mediocre sources like Buzzfeed News. Furthermore, per the sources in this article, The Daily Stormer engages in trolling, so you need to be quite careful about connecting their more or less trollish comments to other BLPs. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo|talk]]) 17:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC) |
||
For the record, no consensus was reached to support any of the allegations made here, some of which were quickly shown as factually incorrect before the matter was taken to ANI, others being incendiary and maligning my character, or to support an effort to ban me for a single edit among the many thousands I’ve made. I’m pretty sure that, as an admin, Ad Orientem knows the right thing to do here now. The only question is whether he will demonstrate a modicum of courage and integrity to do it. |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=966787041&oldid=966784104&title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#POV_Editing_at_The_Daily_Stormer POV Editing at The Daily Stormer] |
|||
{{tq2|Soibangla hasn't done anything wrong by making a bold but well-sourced edit, and the only red flag I see is Ad Orientem escalating to AN/I for a reasonable, appropriately sourced edit without checking the source's reliability...The community has determined that BuzzFeed News is a reliable source. You don’t get to selectively disregard that consensus simply because you personally don’t like the source or its content. '''Soiblanga did everything right here''' - he made an edit accurately conveying the content of a reliable source and, when you reverted him, he went to the talk page and calmly discussed it. Threatening him with a block or topic ban is really out of line. User:MastCell}} [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 17:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:31, 10 July 2020
![]() | The Daily Stormer has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 2, 2015. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer encourages Internet trolling by its "Troll Army"? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Opening description not supported by referenced sources
The opening sentence of this article currently reads "The Daily Stormer is an American far-right neo-Nazi, white supremacist, and Holocaust denial commentary and message board website that advocates for the genocide of Jews.[1][2][3][4]" The first four references are news articles, all very openly highly critical of the daily stormer and it's creator, and despite that none of them contain any quotes or direct claims of genocide advocacy. Many may think this a miner discrepancy but I disagree. I think there is a very big difference between a message board whose members discuss violence as a method of achieving a goal that doesn't necessarily involve killing anyone vs a message board whose editorials advocate killing off as many members of a race/ethnicity as possible.
I think describing an articles subject as something presumably far worse than what the subject appears to actually be, and in the opening sentence, is a clear POV violation. It's also dishonest, whether or not intentionally. Darkestaxe (talk) 03:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- Those newspapers are all considered to be wp:reliable sourcesm and we report what reliable sources say. That's not PoV, that's merely SOP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
"BLP... UNDUE... NPOV etc"
Ad Orientem, please explain how each of those apply to this edit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Daily_Stormer&diff=966749153&oldid=966747834
soibangla (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- I was in the process of posting a formal caution on your talk page. But I will leave it here since you have opened this discussion. Please do not post quotes from fringe personages that have received scant attention in reliable secondary sources in a manner that is transparently intended to defame a prominent living person. This violates BLP, UNDUE and NPOV. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ad Orientem, BuzzfeedNews is a RS. It is a direct quote from an individual who is confirming observations made by others, albeit in far more direct terms, such that it doesn't fall under Godwin's Law. It may be a disturbing quote for some, but there is no defamation made or intended here, and this is not Carlson's BLP. soibangla (talk) 00:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- soibangla first off the cited source is an op-ed piece that is intended as an attack on Carlson. It is not a story in a mainstream news outlet. Further Buzzfeed has been the subject of numerous discussions at WP:RSN with deep concerns found about it, though it has not yet been officially deprecated. Secondly, something that negative would need coverage from multiple reliable secondary sources. Third, it is intended both there and in your edit to paint Carlson as an ally of these odious people. Lastly, BLP does not apply just to articles about a person. It applies to the entire project including even talk page discussions. I am not sure which I find more disturbing, your naked attempt to associate Carlson with these people, or your apparent failure to understand some of the most important policies and guidelines in the project. That you don't grasp how egregious that edit was is causing me to question whether you should be editing sensitive/hot button topics like this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ad Orientem I don't see that it's an opinion piece, in the byline or the URL.
Further Buzzfeed has been the subject of numerous discussions
Note on RSN that Buzzfeed and Buzzfeednews have split.to paint Carlson as an ally of these odious people
But this is not what Carlson is saying, he is passive here, it's what someone else is saying about him. I would like you to explain to mesome of the most important policies and guidelines
I have violated, when innumerable other characterizations have been made about innumerable other individuals in innumerable articles, but this particular one is deemed to cross the line.causing me to question whether you should be editing sensitive/hot button topics like this
is really quite a remark. soibangla (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)- I think this needs to handled at ANI. I am going to open the discussion directly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ad Orientem I look forward to reading it. soibangla (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- I think this needs to handled at ANI. I am going to open the discussion directly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ad Orientem I don't see that it's an opinion piece, in the byline or the URL.
- soibangla first off the cited source is an op-ed piece that is intended as an attack on Carlson. It is not a story in a mainstream news outlet. Further Buzzfeed has been the subject of numerous discussions at WP:RSN with deep concerns found about it, though it has not yet been officially deprecated. Secondly, something that negative would need coverage from multiple reliable secondary sources. Third, it is intended both there and in your edit to paint Carlson as an ally of these odious people. Lastly, BLP does not apply just to articles about a person. It applies to the entire project including even talk page discussions. I am not sure which I find more disturbing, your naked attempt to associate Carlson with these people, or your apparent failure to understand some of the most important policies and guidelines in the project. That you don't grasp how egregious that edit was is causing me to question whether you should be editing sensitive/hot button topics like this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ad Orientem, BuzzfeedNews is a RS. It is a direct quote from an individual who is confirming observations made by others, albeit in far more direct terms, such that it doesn't fall under Godwin's Law. It may be a disturbing quote for some, but there is no defamation made or intended here, and this is not Carlson's BLP. soibangla (talk) 00:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
This kind of "unwanted endorsement" reminds of the discussion when David Duke supported Ilhan Omar (discussed at Talk:Ilhan Omar/Archive 6#Support from white supremacists section). Since this is, in a way, very negative information and something that the BLP subject can't affect, I would be opposed to adding it based on mediocre sources like Buzzfeed News. Furthermore, per the sources in this article, The Daily Stormer engages in trolling, so you need to be quite careful about connecting their more or less trollish comments to other BLPs. --Pudeo (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
For the record, no consensus was reached to support any of the allegations made here, some of which were quickly shown as factually incorrect before the matter was taken to ANI, others being incendiary and maligning my character, or to support an effort to ban me for a single edit among the many thousands I’ve made. I’m pretty sure that, as an admin, Ad Orientem knows the right thing to do here now. The only question is whether he will demonstrate a modicum of courage and integrity to do it.
POV Editing at The Daily Stormer
Soibangla hasn't done anything wrong by making a bold but well-sourced edit, and the only red flag I see is Ad Orientem escalating to AN/I for a reasonable, appropriately sourced edit without checking the source's reliability...The community has determined that BuzzFeed News is a reliable source. You don’t get to selectively disregard that consensus simply because you personally don’t like the source or its content. Soiblanga did everything right here - he made an edit accurately conveying the content of a reliable source and, when you reverted him, he went to the talk page and calmly discussed it. Threatening him with a block or topic ban is really out of line. User:MastCell