Content deleted Content added
Is there something in policy that says we do not describe people as multiple high quality RS do? |
→List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush: calling McCarthyism a "touching anecdote" is a very interesting claim to make - but one which I find offensive |
||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
:::::::: If multiple high quality RS describe them as such then we do. Is there something in policy that says we do not describe people as RS do? [[User:Jbhunley|Jbh]] ([[User talk:Jbhunley|talk]]) 15:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC) |
:::::::: If multiple high quality RS describe them as such then we do. Is there something in policy that says we do not describe people as RS do? [[User:Jbhunley|Jbh]] ([[User talk:Jbhunley|talk]]) 15:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC) |
||
*'''Speedy Keep''' The article is highly referenced with a plethora of high quality sources which use the term members. The signatories of the two "letters" are grouped together in multiple RS. There is no question of OR. {{u|Collect}} claims the sourcing is bad because of lewrockwell. That source is used for nothing and there is discussion on the talk page to delete it. He does not address the multiple sources from highly respected academic presses like Cambridge University Press, Routledge, Sage, State University of New York Press and Texas A&M University Press. When the "guilty" are "associated" by multiple high quality sources it is not a BLP violation. That is assuming there is even anything to be "guilty of" which I do not concede. As to your aunt's neighbor I am sorry to hear that but such touching anecdotes carry no weight here. They serve only as a rhetorical device to change a rational discussion into an emotional one.</p><p>These very issues are being discussed [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#PNAC_Bush_List at BLPN] and were discussed in the past [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive217#Project_for_the_New_American_Century here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Project_for_the_New_American_Century#Synthetic_table.2C_poorly_sourced here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Project_for_the_New_American_Century#SYNTH here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Project_for_the_New_American_Century#Collect.27s_wholesale_removal_of_long-standing.2C_well-sourced_material here] [[User:Jbhunley|Jbh]] ([[User talk:Jbhunley|talk]]) 15:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC) |
*'''Speedy Keep''' The article is highly referenced with a plethora of high quality sources which use the term members. The signatories of the two "letters" are grouped together in multiple RS. There is no question of OR. {{u|Collect}} claims the sourcing is bad because of lewrockwell. That source is used for nothing and there is discussion on the talk page to delete it. He does not address the multiple sources from highly respected academic presses like Cambridge University Press, Routledge, Sage, State University of New York Press and Texas A&M University Press. When the "guilty" are "associated" by multiple high quality sources it is not a BLP violation. That is assuming there is even anything to be "guilty of" which I do not concede. As to your aunt's neighbor I am sorry to hear that but such touching anecdotes carry no weight here. They serve only as a rhetorical device to change a rational discussion into an emotional one.</p><p>These very issues are being discussed [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#PNAC_Bush_List at BLPN] and were discussed in the past [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive217#Project_for_the_New_American_Century here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Project_for_the_New_American_Century#Synthetic_table.2C_poorly_sourced here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Project_for_the_New_American_Century#SYNTH here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Project_for_the_New_American_Century#Collect.27s_wholesale_removal_of_long-standing.2C_well-sourced_material here] [[User:Jbhunley|Jbh]] ([[User talk:Jbhunley|talk]]) 15:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC) |
||
**Your assertion that I only find lewrockwell to be a problem is incorrect and inapt, and seems more of an ad hom attack on me than a defense of the article. And I note that you only assert "associated with" and not "membership" here -- and in the 50s anyone "'associated' with the CPUSA" was therefore a "communist" which is precisely where I find this sort of SYNTH leads without a doubt. If you find my distaste for McCarthyism to be "emotional" - damn straight it is emotional for anyone who knew people whose lives were destroyed. "Touching anecdote" is not the case here - and I find such dismissiveness of McCarthyism as "touching anecdotes" to be quite offensive. Tell me when someone makes a "touching anecdote" by destroying someone you know that it is just a mere "touching anecdote." By that argument, Hiroshima is a mere "touching anecdote". If one is willing to destroy others, then such people would not give a damn. Cheers. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 15:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:35, 14 March 2015
List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush
- List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is fundamentally flawed. It claims that the individuals listed were "members" of an organization, but only one of them is listed on the organization's website as members of the group's board of directors or as staff members. These individuals signed one of two documents produced by the organization. Describing them as "members" of the organization is WP:OR.
This article exists to make a political point. GabrielF (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delete SYNTH in making a claim that anyone who signs anything at all related to an organization is therefore a "member" of that organization. Uses such wonderful sources as Lewrockwell.com for conspiracy articles making such assertions. Violates WP:BLP by making implications that living persons engaged in a conspiracy. Violates WP:NPOV by failing to include a whit of balancing material about any person. Violates WP:RS by using sources which are clearly not usable for contentious claims about living persons. Uses the classic "guilt by association" fallacy through use of a table "connecting" individuals who are not otherwise "connected." And so on. I believe the proper term here is "POV pushing list making a POINT". To the extent that it intrinsically and deliberately violates multiple policies, it should not be "merged" but should be salted thoroughly. A neighbor of my aunt was caught up in McCarthyism, I see no reason to endorse that same logic today. Collect (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- Question: Did the nominator read the quoted references in the article, which appear to be multiple books from publishers that are usually RS? How is it possible that OR, which is when one does not have such RS, apply? As for the name of the article, AfD is not for changing article names. Also, did the nominator read the discussion at WP:BLPN which appears by consensus to reject Collect's claims? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- Generally when an editor feels the need to add fifteen citations to one sentence, it's a good sign that something controversial is going on. I am not disputing the fact that these individuals signed these two documents, that is well cited. WP:OR comes into play because the list jumps from "this person signed a letter that the organization put together" to "this person is a member of the organization". GabrielF (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- You have not read the sources then? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- I've looked at the sources. Mostly they describe these individuals as signatories.GabrielF (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- You mean as signatories to the principles of the organization? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- So, if an organization publishes an open letter to a politician and gathers signatures from individuals and allied groups, that means that those signatories are "members" of the organization? Can we say that 4Chan is a member of the EFF because it signed its letter on surveillance? There are plenty of letters on, say, FCC policy that are signed by groups on both the left and the right. Organization's frequently use letters as a tool to advance a policy position. That doesn't mean that everyone who signs the letter is a member of the organization, only that they agree with what's in the letter.GabrielF (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- You mean as signatories to the principles of the organization? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- I've looked at the sources. Mostly they describe these individuals as signatories.GabrielF (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- You have not read the sources then? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep The article is highly referenced with a plethora of high quality sources which use the term members. The signatories of the two "letters" are grouped together in multiple RS. There is no question of OR. Collect claims the sourcing is bad because of lewrockwell. That source is used for nothing and there is discussion on the talk page to delete it. He does not address the multiple sources from highly respected academic presses like Cambridge University Press, Routledge, Sage, State University of New York Press and Texas A&M University Press. When the "guilty" are "associated" by multiple high quality sources it is not a BLP violation. That is assuming there is even anything to be "guilty of" which I do not concede. As to your aunt's neighbor I am sorry to hear that but such touching anecdotes carry no weight here. They serve only as a rhetorical device to change a rational discussion into an emotional one.
These very issues are being discussed at BLPN and were discussed in the past here, here, here and here Jbh (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- Your assertion that I only find lewrockwell to be a problem is incorrect and inapt, and seems more of an ad hom attack on me than a defense of the article. And I note that you only assert "associated with" and not "membership" here -- and in the 50s anyone "'associated' with the CPUSA" was therefore a "communist" which is precisely where I find this sort of SYNTH leads without a doubt. If you find my distaste for McCarthyism to be "emotional" - damn straight it is emotional for anyone who knew people whose lives were destroyed. "Touching anecdote" is not the case here - and I find such dismissiveness of McCarthyism as "touching anecdotes" to be quite offensive. Tell me when someone makes a "touching anecdote" by destroying someone you know that it is just a mere "touching anecdote." By that argument, Hiroshima is a mere "touching anecdote". If one is willing to destroy others, then such people would not give a damn. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)