This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
Malik, I have waited for IronDome's input, but it looks like he may have lost interest in this issue. I would like to resume my edits to this article, but I don't want to go appear to be breaking my pledge to wait for third party input. Your suggestions? Gulbenk (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Gulbenk. If Irondome is too busy or has lost interest, we can ask for a third opinion at WP:3O. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Gulbenk, lets start from the top. A brief over-view of your ideas for improvement, and I know we covered aspects of this but maybe a few days out may have further clarified some angles. Major problems in order of priority and proposed edits would be really useful. Lets see if Malik can come back with some viewpoints then and I will add my 2p, and hopefully we can all come out of this with new ideas and an improved article if that is possible, as i'm sure it is. I think we should remember the most important participant who can't comment, the reader. Lets do right by them. Simon Irondome (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- Suggestions for article improvement. First, the present article is actually two separate articles cobbled together. One is the history of racial discrimination in juror selection in the United States. That article is supported by a significant number of references to legislative action and court decisions. One can construct that stand-alone article in a straight forward linear timeline. The second article purports to demonstrate the racial bias in the deliberations of all-white juries. It references the fact that there is a perception of bias, and then through inference attempts to validate that perception by listing select racially charged (race salience) cases. The references attached to those cases only confirm that the cases are real, not that racial bias by an all-white jury was the specific reason for the verdict. In fact, there is research which supports the argument that all-white juries are less likely to consider race when involved in "race salience" cases. That can be found here: [1]. If there is a article to be made of the subject, it should be separate from the article on racial discrimination in juror selection. An article about bias in all-white and all-black juries would be a great deal more complex than the simple article on discrimination in juror selection. Many of the findings, supported by studies conducted by a number of researchers involved in this field, are counter-intuitive... and in conflict with the unsupported assertions (and inferences) made in the current article. Gulbenk (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Sources
Look guy, I have these other sources. Are any reliable enough...
DailyCaller RealClearPolitics TheAtlantic Los Angeles Times information%20liberation
Ghoul flesh talk 05:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you think these links "prove", Ghoul flesh, but with the exception of The Daily Caller (probably not a reliable source for facts, maybe a reliable source for opinion; see WP:RSOPINION), they're straight news accounts of the riot—nothing about white people being singled out for attack by the rioters. (The last link didn't work for me.) — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
That unreliably sourced video
Just so you know, someone else is aggressively posting Ghoul flesh's unreliably sourced video on the 2016 Milwaukee riots article. I'm gonna need all the help I can get to combat it. Parsley Man (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Parsley Man. I see you've met my "friend" Kellyzzz05. Kelly is a passionate new editor who had not been warned about WP:3RR or even WP:NPOV. I see that Kelly laid off after being warned. Hopefully Kelly will read and learn, or they will soon find themselves perma-blocked. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, I became aware of the problem after I reviewed his/her edit history. Hopefully this user got the message. Parsley Man (talk) 02:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- It appears Ghoul flesh may be at it again. I reverted his edit and discussed it on the talk page, but I'm going to need all the help I can get if he resists. Parsley Man (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oh grow up. I opened it for discussion on the talk page before I made the edit. I decided to do it because no-one was opposing, I even linked my talk page post in my edit summary. So thanks for reporting this to your boyfriend anyway. Ghoul flesh talk 22:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't know it was being discussed until you mentioned there was a section on it via edit summary, okay? Parsley Man (talk) 00:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 August 2016
- News and notes: Focus on India—WikiConference produces new apps; state government adopts free licenses
- Special report: Engaging diverse communities to profile women of Antarctica
- In the media: The ugly, the bad, the playful, and the promising
- Featured content: Simply the best ... from the last two weeks
- Traffic report: Olympic views
- Technology report: User script report (January–July 2016, part 2)
- Arbitration report: The Michael Hardy case
Your take on WP:Synthesis and terminology
Hey, Malik Shabazz. I just saw that you made this edit, and I was reminded that you are often involved in WP:Original research matters, including those at the Gray rape article. Considering this, would you mind commenting in the Talk:Slut-shaming#RfC: Is it WP:Synthesis to use sources that do not identify the topic as slut-shaming to make claims about slut-shaming? discussion? The discussion really needs more opinions, especially from those familiar with the WP:Original research policy. If you do weigh in and, to better align with WP:Canvass, think it is best to state there in the RfC that I asked if you would weigh in, then please do. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Flyer22 Reborn. Done. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. The main two other editors I wanted to ask about this are EvergreenFir and SummerPhDv2.0. EvergreenFir understands sociology well and deals with original research matters as much as we do, and SummerPhDv2.0, who also deals with original research matters often, has had opinions that differ from mine when it comes to application of that policy; see, for example, this discussion. So I think that getting as many opinions on this as possible, especially from those who cite that policy often and have a good grasp on it, is important. Although, in this particular case, I don't fully agree with your view, I think it helps a lot, especially since you touched on the "proceeding with caution" aspect. I want to also note that I don't have a problem with sources in the article not using the word slut-shaming if the sources are used appropriately and if there are other reliable sources referring to the aspect as slut-shaming. After all, the WP:Original research policy notes that "By 'exists', the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- FYI: I will not be commenting on this discussion. I am fairly careful to avoid Wikipedia topics the intersect with my work. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. The main two other editors I wanted to ask about this are EvergreenFir and SummerPhDv2.0. EvergreenFir understands sociology well and deals with original research matters as much as we do, and SummerPhDv2.0, who also deals with original research matters often, has had opinions that differ from mine when it comes to application of that policy; see, for example, this discussion. So I think that getting as many opinions on this as possible, especially from those who cite that policy often and have a good grasp on it, is important. Although, in this particular case, I don't fully agree with your view, I think it helps a lot, especially since you touched on the "proceeding with caution" aspect. I want to also note that I don't have a problem with sources in the article not using the word slut-shaming if the sources are used appropriately and if there are other reliable sources referring to the aspect as slut-shaming. After all, the WP:Original research policy notes that "By 'exists', the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)